London RTMP 45 Day Public Review Period Public Consultation Summary Table

Transcription

1 Date Submitter Name (Category) See Below London RTMP 45 Day Public Review Period Comment Summary Date / Response Actions / Commitments The following tabulation is intended to summarize comments during the 45-day public review period, up to September 18, 2017, and responses to the comments received Whenever I m on Dundas the buses running there make a huge racket are these the same buses? On N. MacDonald responds: The bus rapid transit vehicle fleet specifications for the have not yet been defined. However, the vehicle cost estimate in the business case was increased to cover the potential purchase of electric buses so if they go that route, it would certainly be quieter [In a phone call with N. MacDonald]: The Rapid Transit buses are expected to include: an articulated design so they can hold more passengers, low-floors for improved accessibility, and bike racks to encourage cycling connections. The vehicles will be climate controlled for comfort, and will be modern looking with comfortable seats and large windows. Comment received. Unhappy that her local bus routes were reduced. Attended the meeting at Budweiser Gardens and also was at a public meeting at the Library. Doesn t think there was adequate consultation until after the corridors were all but final and thinks the current corridors won t get people out of their cars because the network is not sufficiently improved. Raised concerns about some proposed limitation to Drive Thru restaurants along the rapid transit corridors I am writing to you to urge you to please vote against the rapid transit system that you were planning to put through Richmond Street. I have been a salon owner for 26 years and the one and only time I have had trouble keeping my business afloat is when Richmond Street was widened. The construction only lasted for approximately eight months and in that eight months I had my water shut off at no notice Hydro shut off On N. MacDonald ed: On May 16th, Council selected the bus rapid transit corridors and the City is finalizing the Rapid Transit Master planning process. More detailed meetings are planned throughout 2017 as the study moves forward and the preferred corridors are designed to minimize impacts. 1

2 with no notice and found myself working Sundays to fit clients in so I didn't lose them after cancelling appointments last minute. I can only see that this construction lasting quite a bit longer will only devastate my business. My salon is north of Saint James where the road will now be two lanes but I also feel sorry for the people running small businesses right on Richmond row because the foot traffic will now mostly be underground there for their walk by customers will no longer exist. It just doesn't make sense to put rapid transit down Richmond row when once the construction is over there will not be a Richmond row. I feel that Richmond row is now our downtown and done Dundas no longer is so please save the downtown [letter sent to Councillor van Holst] The rapid transit, and train service will go well with Stanley street bridge issue, if they link it together as a one way idea. I did a written blue print and drawing lately for Stanley Street, but I neglected to answer one important thing. When I mentioned taking Stanley street out rather than having a divided street, it is important that we make sure there is a parking lot affect for those living on Stanley Street. Near Stanley Street there are buildings not being used, and need work near the turn off near Wharncliffe Rd and Stanley Street. These buildings could be tore down, and a local parking lot, free of charge put there. As far as I am concerned London Ontario has way too many routes. Some of the routes could be taken out. The other bridge going off Spring Bank Rd near the park could be taken out as well. The traffic going down Spring Bank Rd can turn off to Stanley from the Wortley Bridge. Like I demonstrated in my last writing to the city, there could be a overpass created coming off Spring Bank highway to the Wortley Bridge connecting with the road above that is already built on the hill, in right lane coming from Wharncliffe Rd. This will be part of our ongoing community consultation. Detailed plans have not yet been developed (this will be completed in the next phase of the project) and so impacts on each individual property and access are not yet fully known. The City is committed to ensuring that our consultations take into account the considerations of Londoners. As the next phase of the project commences, this will become an ongoing conversation with impacted property owners and community stakeholders. We hope you stay engaged throughout the process. Thank you again for your engagement on this important, city-building initiative. On , J. Ramsay responds: Council approved the Rapid Transit Master Plan in July Approval of the RTMP confirmed the BRT Network and its corridors. The conceptual level design of the RTMP will be refined through the next phase of the study. The comments and feedback received during the 45-day Public Review Period will help guide the preliminary engineering design and help us deliver the best Bus Rapid Transit network for London. The next study phase is referred to as pre-planning activities. This phase includes developing a preliminary engineering design, conducting public and stakeholder consultation, identifying impacts and related mitigation measures. We encourage you to pass along your ideas and concerns by at shift@london.ca. The west rapid transit corridor is from Wonderland Road, along Oxford Street West to Wharncliffe Road; south on Wharncliffe to Riverside Drive, then across the river on the Queens Avenue bridge to Ridout Street. I have forwarded your comments and City forwarded comments to the Wharncliffe Rd EA team. Added to the mailing list. 2

3 The road built above, could be going from Wharncliffe Rd to the Bridge as a one way. On the other side of Bridge a road going down could be built going off the bridge to Spring Bank Rd, to go towards Hamilton Rd, beside the river. I checked it out, there is enough mom. suggestions regarding Stanley Street and Wharncliffe Road south of the river to Ted Koza, the City s contact for that project. You can read more about the Wharncliffe study here: ges/wharncliffe-road-south.aspx. The Other turn off is already built coming off Stanley Street and a Bus Route is going down it. That can stay the same, it goes towards Wharncliffe Rd, and Spring Bank Rd. The City also desired to expand Wharncliffe Rd and they still can by taking it over the underground Train Affect, but not expanded from riverside to Spring Bank Rd, only past the Spring Bank Rd and up towards Exeter Rd can be expanded as a result. If you decide you would like to expand from Riverside and Wharncliffe Rd past Stanley Street, then taking Stanley Street out would be a great idea. That corner has a cross walk area for the Children going to school near bye. That turn off on Stanley is very dangerous. Expanding would only then take a small part of this ladies property as a result. I would hope that you could make a plan and agreement with her concerning this. The Railway on Stanley Street and Wharncliffe Rd need to be fixed yes, and I believe if you were to take the Railway bridge over the highway going outward towards the middle past the house towards Spring bank Rd, this would work, or take the train underground from Spring Bank and Wharncliffe Rd up towards the other bridge off of Wortley Bridge, and then take it up over the water as it already is doing and take it as usual to the terminal Train Station. Only some of the back part of the house land on Stanley Street would have to be used if any at all On J. Ramsay ed: Thank you for your voice message requesting information on how to access hard copies of the Rapid Transit Master Plan (RTMP) for review. Ms. Scherr forwarded your Monday to my attention as well. 3

4 Subject to Council s approval of the Rapid Transit Master Plan this evening, Phase 1 & 2 of the EA process will conclude with a mandatory public review period for the approved Master Plan, to provide the public with an opportunity to access the Master Plan and comment on the Bus Rapid Transit Network. The Master Plan Notice of Completion will be published in the Londoner advertising a public review period starting August 3rd and running until September 18th. The full RTMP is already available online at the website. For those that prefer to view the document in person, hard copies will be available by the start of the public review period at City Hall, the downtown LTC Office, Central Library as well as each of the 14 neighbourhood library branches However I would like to have a hard copy for my study and review. This is a time consuming effort and computer or library access to view doesn't work to my benefit. As a note to this date I have always been able to obtain hard copies. Appreciate you help. Thank you for your interest in this project. I encourage you to remain engaged in the Shift project moving forward. On J. Ramsay responds: I can understand your preference to review a hard copy of the report and appreciate your interest in the project. If you wish to have your own personal copy of the report, one could be prepared but we would need to invoice you for printing costs. As you can appreciate, the RTMP including appendices is a very large document and printing costs would be substantial. I would encourage you to visit one of LPL branches, starting August 3, in order to skim a hard copy RTMP to focus on areas of interest that you can print to review in greater detail at home. 4

5 Per my below I reached out to better understand the impact for RTS, but never received a response to my . Hoping to hear back, as the impact of RTS on my home will dictate some decisions I need to make in the next little while. I live in the vicinity of Wellington and Whetter. [ sent ] I had a quick question regarding the need to expand Wellington Road for the RTS south of the Thames. Looking to understand along what stretch properties will need to be purchased? Also, when would the purchase occur? If these details are not known today, when will they be known? Just looking to understand if I will be impacted, or when I might have an idea whether I will be impacted I have tried two different formats but am still unable to remove a LARGE black square on the left side of my screen( only on this ) that prohibits me from reading the screen...any suggestions A BRT system in Arlington, Virginia, USA has these LCD transit displays that show the bus arrivals and other transit option nearby like bikeshare, and messages from the transit agency. The Shift stations should have LCD transit displays like it - On B. Hollingworth responds: The Rapid Transit corridor designs presented in the Rapid Transit Master Plan are conceptual and in the next phase of the study we will develop and evaluate alternative designs to minimize property impacts. The designs are presented in Appendix J of the Rapid Transit Master Plan. The report and plans are available in all public libraries, but I have attached a copy of the concept design for your area to make it easy for you if you are able to view it. To be clear, there is a lot of work to do before we can say for certain which properties will be affected and the timing for implementation of the corridor changes. If your property is impacted, there is a formal process that will be followed as outlined on page 28 of the attached FAQ document. If you would like to discuss your property concerns please let us know and a meeting will be arranged. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for alerting us to the issue, which has been resolved. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for your great suggestion. LCD displays are definitely being considered for the stations. The concept for Rapid Transit includes modern vehicles, state-of-the-art stations, electronic fare collection systems, and smart technologies such as real-time traveller information. This combination of elements makes the Rapid Transit system easier to access, quicker to get where you re going, and more enjoyable along the way. More information can be found in Section 4.3 Transit and Transportation Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 5

6 [cc d Councillor Squire] I'm afraid this master plan is too technical and detailed and full of multiple alternatives for a normal person with a full-time job to be able to read it carefully and understand it. If I've understood correctly what I've heard from various sources the preferred plan includes a Bus Rapid Transit corridor North of Richmond Street, running through the university and proceeding to Masonville. As a homeowner in the neighborhood and someone who takes the bus (I don't drive) I strongly oppose this plan. First of all, the reduction of traffic lanes on Richmond will drive cars and worse still buses onto neighbouring streets, and will degrade the neighbourhood, which already has to contend with the expansionist desires of St. Joseph's Hospital and real estate moguls wanting to build high rises. I have already endured endless construction and noise from the hospital over the past 27 years and don't want even more. Secondly the university's refusal to allow more than 8 buses an hour through its campus, and what I understand is the reduction of bus transit to a single BRT route, will significantly CUT the capacity of the already overloaded bus system going to the university. SIXTEEN buses an hour during term time (the 6, 13 and 106) will be replaced by 8. The excellent 90 Express service will be dropped. The 1 and 21 will become feeder buses, and passengers from these buses will have to pile in to a bus that will already be full before it reaches Oxford Street. If this is indeed the city's plan, then instead of expanding ridership, you'll be reducing it by offering one third of the present capacity, with no hope of anyone wanting to take the bus north of Oxford even being able to get into bus (whether to get to the university or to Masonville). Thirdly, and on the other hand, the present system (6, 13, 106, 90, + 1 and 21) would work perfectly well if you simply added a few more Strategies in the RTMP. These concepts will be developed as part of the preliminary engineering design as the study progresses. On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for taking the time to review the Rapid Transit Master Plan. You are correct, the rapid transit network approved by Council includes Richmond Street from downtown to University Drive continuing through Western s campus. The City is continuing discussions with Western University on the campus design and operations. Here s a link to the approved network map: The design of Richmond Street between Grosvenor Street and University Drive is yet to be decided. Options to consider include converting two existing lanes for transit, or widening Richmond to build two new lanes for transit. The decision will consider impacts of the two options, including: Widening by 2 lanes will have some property impacts, reduce driveways and parking, and the removal of some trees. Converting 2 existing lanes will result in increased congestion for general traffic, and require a shift in travel patterns. As the study progress in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis and consultation with Londoners to help guide this decision. If we simply add more regular buses to the road as you have suggested, those buses would still be mixed with regular traffic and experience delays from congestion. As you noted, buses tend to arrive in bunches when operating in lanes with general 6

7 buses and didn't have all the above buses coming at the same time, but asked the LTC to space them. Taxpayers would also not be on the hook for huge sums of money. This scheme seems to want to spend a lot of money on two phantasms: 1. seeming "modern" -- one must always update and fix what isn't broken so as to seem like Toronto, which we aren't. 2. getting money from the province. To get this money, we will unnecessarily have to spend even more money of our own. traffic. By providing lanes that are dedicated to transit, Rapid Transit passengers will experience shorter travel times, with more frequent, reliable and comfortable service. It is important to remember that Rapid Transit does not replace the current LTC bus system. In fact, strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. Transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. You can read more about the work LTC has started on this integration here: grationframework.pdf To your last point, the combined investments of $500 million from all governments will lead to over $724 million in benefits from reduced travel times, reduced auto-operating costs, safety benefits and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Putting off investment in transit means more money will be required for road expansion. Deferring rapid transit means that some $290 million of road expansion projects will be required over the next 20 years This city council is wrecking our city. The only one with common sense is Councillor Squires. Why our city should be ruined mostly by Thank you for your interest in this project. I encourage you to remain engaged in the Shift project in the coming months. Comment received. 7

8 students who will leave the city after graduation. Let s hope our next mayor will have common sense & vote this thing out Thank you for your message. Please note that I no longer frequently check this address.\ Please use [ cc d to Councillor Squire] It has been my experience that you have ignored public opposition to this plan from beginning to end. I m not sure what is to be gained by soliciting more public comment. 1. A plan that seems to be designed to move students quickly to bars or malls will not benefit the vast majority of Londoners. 2. Service will be decreased for people who currently use the proposed routes. We will have to walk several blocks instead of half a block in my own case, because the buses will no longer stop at every intersection. This is devastating for seniors and people with mobility issues. 3. I will continue to use a car because of the decrease in service. 4. Shift London and City Council seem to be determined to destroy the quality of life in some neighbourhoods by diverting traffic off of main roads and into quiet residential areas. 5. This plan will ensure that low income Londoners will continue to struggle to find meaningful employment because London Transit seems to have no plans to get them to locations with well-paying jobs. 6. Our only hope to put a stop to this nonsense seems to be to delay implementation until we can elect a council that has enough sense and experience to resist municipal bureaucrats who don't seem to care what voters really want. Comment received. On J. Ramsay responds: Rapid Transit will offer Londoners a new transportation choice that will help shape London's future. Rapid Transit fits with other established plans including the London Plan to support transit-oriented development along the Rapid Transit corridors and create a vibrant street-level experience for pedestrians. Rapid Transit will influence how pedestrians, cyclists, cars and trucks move in all parts of the city. An improved, faster, reliable transit service will attract more transit riders as residential and commercial buildings develop along the corridors. It sounds like you are concerned about who will use Rapid Transit, transit service levels, serving Londoners with mobility issues, and traffic diversion to side streets. While it is true that Western and Fanshawe students make up one of the largest percentages of transit ridership, university and college students also contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy every year. In addition to serving these two major institutions and other schools, the Rapid Transit corridors approved by Council serve: University Hospital, St. Joseph s Hospital, Richmond Row, future development at the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands, Western Fair, Victoria Hospital, and the Parkwood Institute. Also, Rapid Transit will connect these major destinations to Downtown. Rapid Transit does not replace the current LTC bus system. In fact, strengthening local transit service to Mailing list updated with new . Added to the mailing list. 8

9 work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. You can read more about the work LTC has started on this integration here: Framework.pdf LTC s specialized Paratransit services will continue during and after the implementation of Rapid Transit. In addition, Rapid Transit vehicles will be accessible, and station areas and platforms will be designed and built to meet accessibility standards. For more information on LTC s specialized services, please visit The City is also planning improvements on parallel arterial roads to accommodate general traffic, rather than having this traffic divert onto local neighbourhood streets that are not designed to handle high traffic volumes. As the study progress in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis for the approved Rapid Transit corridors to understand the impacts and develop mitigation strategies. Thank you and I encourage you to remain engaged in the Shift project in the coming months There is a problem with Shift London s website in the mobile format. The Menu Bar, remains open and hides part of the contents (including the documents links). This has been a problem for a couple of weeks now. When try to close the menu bar, it opens a Please note, this is on behalf of the Shift Rapid Transit Office and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the ward councillor who has been copied for information purposes. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for alerting us to the issue, which has been resolved. 9

10 white area. Attached are two screen shots of the problem. A Request for a Desktop Version, gives the same version. I am hoping to read the latest document. I am in favour of Shift I'm afraid I don't hold much hope that Council will listen to the community but if I don't try than I have no right to complain. I have been against this proposal in all its forms. Let me explain why. I have been a daily rider of our LTC and have raised many issues with it. If I look at what SHIFT proposes, it offers no improvement. For example, SHIFT does nothing to improve hours of use or areas covered. In fact it provides less. Many of us work shifts, some of which start at 7am or earlier. For some it can be impossible to arrive on time with the LTC and SHIFT offers no improvement. If I work at the new retail areas on Wonderland South and do not own a vehicle, what public transit options do I have? The extent of road closures and Iength of them has not been announced. Are Londoners prepared for this? It is wrong to keep this secret. What will it cost to ride? The current system offers Express buses. These are not used even close to what was expected. London is simply not designed where people need to travel across the City. The rare individual complains that it takes forever. Still, Shift does nothing to address this. London needs to stop comparing ourselves to other Cities and create a positive identity of our own. We want a caring City, not cold and uncaring like this current Council us. We need to focus on our people, who provide us with our strength. Let s take care of our own. Let other municipalities want to be the vibrant and caring community we can be if only political be put aside As I have said in all my other communiques, I was all in favour of a rapid rail transit as it would be elevated (in my understanding of RT) over traffic and train traffic issues. With neither overpasses or On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for your comments concerning London s Rapid Transit Master Plan. The Shift Business Case assumes 18 hours per day for Rapid Transit, which could provide for start times earlier than 7 AM. Service plans are being refined and we have heard several comments on the desire for earlier start times and later end times. Note that London Transit Commission conducts an annual service plan process, which will be integrated with Rapid Transit. The conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. If you have suggestions for LTC s Service Plan please ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call With regard to road closures, the Rapid Transit Master Plan sets out the Rapid Transit corridors. The next step is to develop a preliminary engineering design. The extent of road closures and duration of them will determined during detailed design prior to construction. Detailed design is scheduled to begin in Transit fares are anticipated to be the same for both conventional bus service and rapid transit. This fare structure was used in the Business Case to estimate future revenues. Exact fares will not be determined until the system is ready to operate. On B. Hollingworth responds: Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 10

11 underpasses at tracks we only have a very expensive upgrade of our current system. Tracks on Richmond St. ensure we do not have a rapid transit at all. This a complete and total waste of taxes and years (minimum 10) to work. One place says 2034 or 17 yrs. If you cannot do better than this plan both money and time it should be scrapped. It is definitely not a rapid anything except a rapid decision to spend our taxes. By the time it is finished it will be obsolete with current developing technology. Upgrade our current system and start times to allow people working at 7 AM to catch a bus to go to work and also at 11PM and you might have a break even system. As it is it just a money pit. Did anyone even think of talking to the cities (most have been a failure from my own research) that already have them or did they just say we're going to do it? Thank you for your comments concerning London s Rapid Transit Master Plan. Many cities across North America have, and continue to build Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems similar to what is being proposed for London, and yes, we have talked to and/or been involved in various aspects of those systems. The reference to 2034 is the year for which ridership forecasts are presented. The system itself will be fully complete by 2027 or sooner. The decision to pursue BRT has been made, so the task at hand now it to make sure it is designed to maximize benefits for Londoners. Your comments such as those on the start and end times are valid and will be taken into account. The only successes are laid out differently and have a completely different environment structure. Case in point for lack of research was the Smart meters the Liberals foisted on us and increased all costs by 2 or 3 times. Smart meters were/are outlawed in most states that had them. Governments do not have to do research obviously. Ontario's are from California where they were outlawed as a money pit for consumers. The current powers at be are very fortunate it is not an election year as no-one who supports this would ever be elected. I have not found anyone who is favour of this farce except the city and since they have the final word we will be getting the shaft and they will get the gold. It will never pay for itself in its current form both time-wise and obstacles in the way Why is it called..rapid Transit? [sent two follow up s on ] On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for your s dated August 3 and 5,

12 Bus Rapid Transit, or Rapid Transit for short, is a common term used across North America for systems similar to what is being proposed for London. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) means a public transit system designed to improve capacity and reliability using: roadways or lanes that are dedicated to transit, transit priority at intersections, and other features to reduce loading and unloading time at stations Can you please confirm that the Rapid Transit plans DO NOT include any widening of Wharncliffe Road North between Riverside and Oxford I would be very interested in reading this but it will not display properly on my ipad. Half the main text is covered by the menu I truly believe the city needs to have a referendum on this proposal. If you really want to hear from everyone (not just those who have the time to participate in forums or construct editorial pieces), a referendum is the only way to hear the will of the people. We are dealing with major dollars here and not a lot of people are on board I have commented on this before in that this plan will not work. London has major traffic problems as it is and taking away lanes for dedicated bus routes will substantially increase the gridlock. With the growth of the city, the number of cars is going to increase faster and will certainly not decrease because there is going to be a bus route. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for your question concerning London s Rapid Transit Master Plan. Under the current plan rapid transit will run in mixed traffic between Riverside Drive and south of Oxford. There may be some widening at intersections and stop locations. This will be further defined in the next phase of the study. Between Charles and Granville there are no stations or widening proposed. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for alerting us to the issue, which has been resolved. Comment received. On B. Hollingworth responds: We would note that in several areas, the plan proposes to maintain the same number of lanes for regular traffic as today (i.e. Wellington South, Oxford East, Highbury, Oxford West). However, Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 12

13 The only two ways we can have a rapid transit system now are: 1. Underground subway system (which is of course horrendously expensive) or 2. An elevated mono rail system on poles. there are also places were there will need to be trade-offs. One such location is Richmond Street between Central Ave and University Drive. In this area, other parallel roads are already planned for improvements to accommodate future north-south traffic. These include: Widening Western Road As/Pages/Western-Road-Widenining- Environmental-Assesmnet.aspx [Attached a 10 page document to the , originally submitted April 12, 2017 to council with 43 questions not listed here] [cc d Councillor Squire] Grade separating Adelaide Street from the CP Rail crossing As/Pages/Adelaide-Street-and-Canadian- Pacific-Railway-Grade-Separation-.aspx You are correct that a subway system is very expensive to implement. For monorail technology, in order to get the full benefit of the, the system, including each station, has to be elevated. This does not work well in existing urban areas, especially when there are property requirements outside of the existing road right-of-way. Additionally, the noise impacts of trains running overhead prove to be an issue. Elevated routes would require property at each station location, with elevators and stairs to provide access to stations above the ground. Elevated routes are also more expensive to construct and maintain than surface routes. The more cost-effective approach of using existing road right-of-way, which are municipally-owned, was a founding direction for the Shift Rapid Transit Master Plan. On , J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for your ongoing interest in the Rapid Transit Initiative. It is clear you have invested a lot 13

14 I'm happy for you that the majority of the current council has approved this plan, but I have my doubts that it will get implemented, funded or approved by other levels of government before the next election (either locally, provincially or federally). The commitment by other levels to date show their lack of confidence in the plan. It needs to be changed. The challenge with this plan is that it addresses a single audience (students) and two clients (Western and Fanshawe). As a result, the route designs really only reflect the potential needs of these stakeholders. If anything happens to this base of riders, the entire business case for the BRT fails. Londoners have voiced their opposition to this plan and the current council has chosen to ignore these concerns. Therefore, we'll likely have new leadership that will most likely recklessly dismantle all of your hard work. I've previously circulated a number of ideas to council and shift@london.ca. They have been ignored (except by Councillor Squire), but I've attached my proposals and suggestions again for your records. The general suggestion is that we need to create a vision of what London and southwest Ontario will look like 20 or 30 years from now. We need to think of London as an important transportation 'hub' for this entire region. This 'long view' starts with choosing an appropriate location for a station to accommodate High Speed Rail, certainly the most important proposed investment for this entire region. The first question is 'where to put a station'. Placing an 'inter-modal' station downtown would prove to be an error as many inhabitants would be forced to wait minutes or more at the dozen or so railway crossings as a 300 kph train starts up or comes to a stop several times per day. That's just basic physics. Also, City planners have suggested that efforts have been made in the past to negotiate or talk to the railway companies about moving track from the middle of the city to a more logical location, such as along the 401. I have yet to receive any history on this, despite repeated requests, so I'm going to repeat my recommendation that of thought and effort into assembling your ideas and suggestions for the project. First off, I d like to point out that both the provincial and federal governments have indicated a willingness to commit funds to improve transit across Ontario. London was mentioned in the 2017 provincial budget 12 times, including a mention about increasing the gas tax fund for local transit priorities (page 155) as well as a specific mention of our rapid transit project (page 159). The City continues to work with other levels of government to secure funding for the Rapid Transit network approved by Council in July. You can check out the 2017 provincial budget at the following link: 017/budget2017.pdf BRT provides mobility choices for all Londoners While it is true that Western and Fanshawe students make up one of the largest percentages of transit ridership, in addition to serving these two major institutions and other schools, the Rapid Transit corridors approved by Council serve: University Hospital, St. Joseph s Hospital, Richmond Row, future development at the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands, Western Fair, Victoria Hospital, and the Parkwood Institute. Also, Rapid Transit will connect these major destinations to Downtown. Rapid Transit will offer all Londoners a new transportation choice that will help shape London's future. Rapid Transit fits with other established plans including the London Plan to support transit-oriented development along the Rapid Transit corridors and create a vibrant street-level experience for pedestrians. An improved, faster, reliable transit service will attract more transit riders 14

15 the City negotiate a deal with CN/CP, remove rails from London and rebuild them along the 401. As an FYI, the federal government has committed to paying as much as 50% of the cost of relocating rails, mainly to avoid rail disasters (such as the 'fortunate' one in Strathroy recently) and create more efficient, safe shipping corridors. The province might also fund part of this effort. Once we have agreement on the location for a station that would serve not just London, but communities like St Thomas, Strathroy, Woodstock, Lucan, Stratford and so on, it's important for the City to create a 'work back' schedule: 1. Relocate rails 2. Build a new station 3. Connect the station with downtown with a Wellington-based rapid transit system 4. Create an 'Assessment Group' that would identify lands that would be subject to work on these corridors, including expropriation, thereby preventing any development without adjustments approval from the City) 5. Build other north-south corridors that serve ALL Londonders 6. Use existing downtown rail systems to implement an east-west LRT system that integrates the airport with the core 7. Continue to serve and connect communities via smaller routes using smaller buses People have asked me why I've put so much energy into this when council and city planners seem to have their minds made up on the current proposal. My answer is that I care about the future of this city and, as a taxpayer, I know that the proposed plan will push an excessive burden to property and other taxes that Londoners can't afford. Thank you for your time and opportunity to present my views. As part of the public participation process, I strongly recommend that you have an online resource, social media tools, survey or Q&A section that people can use. The purpose would be to help focus the feedback that's provided and improve your data collection. as residential and commercial buildings develop along the corridors. Rapid transit must work together with local services to form an integrated network that will influence how pedestrians, cyclists, cars and trucks move across all parts of the city. High Speed Rail Coordination The City will work with the Province on the high speed rail study. Staff presented a report to Council on July 17, 2017, available for your review here: HighSpeedRail.pdf CN/CP Rail Lines Re-routing CN and CP rail lines has been considered and discussed with the railway companies. In June 2017, City staff again reached out to CN and CP regarding the potential to relocate or combine tracks. CN noted that locating CN, CP and VIA on a single corridor would be an extremely complex and expensive endeavor that would require significant infrastructure upgrades and investments. CP stated that relocating CP s infrastructure would be an extremely challenging proposition the operational complexity involved in such a proposal would be enormous and costly. Their responses are included in Appendix A-D of the Rapid Transit Master Plan (pages 88 and 89 at this link: ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_AppA-AtoA-F.pdf? Ongoing Public Participation 15

16 Comments and feedback received during the 45- day Public Review Period will help guide the preliminary engineering design and help us deliver a quality Bus Rapid Transit network for London, but the consultation doesn t end there. The preplanning activities of the next study phase include further public and stakeholder consultation. Your suggestions for ongoing public participation are duly noted. We are working to build our Rapid Transit Implementation Office incorporating inhouse communications specialists dedicated to supporting an inclusive engagement process that builds trust and accountability for the Shift Rapid Transit process within the community. Staff are working to bring forward a Communications and Consultation plan for the balance of the EA process later this month presenting a number of strategies for Consistent, positive engagement. We thank you for the detailed list of questions provided and will work to consider each as the project proceeds. I encourage you to follow the link below to the latest version of the Frequently Asked Questions document on our website, posted in July 2017, and remain engaged in the Shift project in the coming months [sent two s on the same day] Further to the Council motion in their May 16th meeting to initiate discussions with CN and CP through the Canada Transportation Agency, can you provide an update on what has taken place so far? Please note, this is on behalf of the Shift Rapid Transit Office and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the ward councillor who has been copied for information purposes. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for your two s sent on August 4,

17 I am supportive of the overall strategy of the Rapid Transit Master Plan, with the following comments on clarifications, communications, and measures for future-proofing. 1. On streets with dedicated BRT lanes, can you clarify whether there will also be standard buses using these routes, and if so whether they will be sharing the BRT lanes or the regular traffic lanes? If there will be standard buses in the remaining regular traffic lanes, I am concerned that this is something that has not been well communicated to the public at this point. 2. I am concerned with impacts associated with widening the traveled portion of the existing road allowances to accommodate fixed BRT lanes, particularly on the Richmond Street north route. Can you illustrate the difference in roadway width at some typical points and estimate the total number of trees that would require removal? I think it would be worthwhile to stake this out along the route and mark the trees for removal, so this is clear to everyone. 3. While I consider the communication efforts to date by the City and the consulting team to be commendable, the numerous aspects of the plan are difficult to appreciate, particularly the fixed lanes. Would it be possible to conduct a real-world test to show how the system would work, such as the 'pop-up BRT' initiative that Everett MA did with positive results? This could allay some fears that opponents have raised and confirm your projected travel time improvements. 4. I strongly support the proposal of a 'Quick Start' phase along the Richmond Street north BRT route, based on using technology to increase bus travel times in mixed traffic with minimal physical changes. Frankly, I think this could be the paradigm for the whole system. Will this phase be evaluated as a baseline in comparing the expected benefit of dedicated BRT lanes on this and other routes? Once fixed BRT lanes are in place, what is the method of evaluating their actual benefits compared to this baseline? 5. The plan mentions making provisions for future LRT service. Although the Smart Moves Transportation Master Plan discounted LRT as a viable option for London now or in the future, I appreciate the wisdom of enabling the proposed system to adapt to possible Consultation has taken place with CN and CP. You can find the letters in Appendix A-D of the Rapid Transit Master Plan. 1. The London Transit Commission Transit Network Rapid Transit Integration Framework ( onframework.pdf) states the following on page 8: a. Within the downtown area, LTC bus routes are permitted to operate on exclusive RT lanes, however, they will only be permitted to stop at designated RT stations. b. 2. Outside of the downtown area, LTC buses will be encouraged to connect to a RT station to allow passengers to complete their trip on RT. c. 3. On six-lane roadways that include an exclusive RT lane, LTC buses are permitted in the mixed traffic lane to provide a more local service while RT vehicles would operate in a dedicated right-of-way. This allows greater stop spacing for RT and allows better access to transit stops using a local parallel LTC route. d. 4. On four-lane roadways that include an exclusive RT lane outside of the downtown, local LTC buses are permitted to use short sections of the RT corridors where no other roadway option exists. When this occurs, the assumption is that local LTC buses will not be permitted to stop to pick-up/drop off 17

18 future scenarios, as long as this does not have serious impacts on the current system. Can you identify the elements and incremental costs associated with making provision for future LRT service? 6. In keeping with the future-proofing strategy of preparing for LRT service, what is the plan for addressing the potential impacts of Self- Driving Vehicles? Some authorities anticipate that SDV's will eventually make conventional transit systems obsolete, particularly those of London's scale. What provisions have been made for decommissioning the fixed BRT routes and removing the stations if these become underutilized and prohibitively costly to operate? Thanks for the opportunity of sharing these comments. I look forward to your responses. passengers on the four lane RT corridor, except at a designated RT station. 2. As we move into the next stage of the study, the pre-transit Project Assessment Process, preliminary engineering designs of the Rapid Transit corridors will be developed and evaluated. This includes analyzing the impacts of the corridors on the surrounding environment and developing mitigation measures. The public will have an opportunity to comment of the corridor designs at a planned Public Information Centre. You will be notified when this takes place. The next stage will include presentation of the visuals that you have suggested. 3. Your suggestion has been noted. 4. We are glad you support Quick start on Richmond Street north. In addition to technology (transit signal priority, real time bus tracking, etc.) the Quick Start concept may also include some signature stations where we know we can minimize throw-way costs. Benchmarking will also be recommended. 5. There are two main elements that future provision for LRT affects. One is geometry (vertical and horizontal). This comes into play in couple of locations where we have allowed for a minimum 25 m turning radius for the RT lanes. The other is utilities. Generally LRT requires a higher level of care in moving underground utilities out of the RT lanes and station areas. However, in making decisions for the BRT corridors, this will be a site by site decision process. 18

19 I would like to see the business case on how reducing parking and vehicle lanes on Richmond is going to attract more Londoners to bring their business downtown. How is a dedicated bus lane on Richmond is going to positively impact our businesses? If the Fast Train to T.O. happens then this dedicated lane will benefit via rail and T.O. commuters. What construction will be involved in creating this dedicated lane? Why is it going to take 5 years? How is this new system going to motivate drivers to leave their car at home? We have an election coming up, all of this seems to be a waste of time and tax payers money. 6. Our view on self-driving vehicles is that they will not replace the need for rapid transit. If AV s become commonplace, there will still be some level of congestion and thus the need for higher capacity transit corridors. Ideally, AV s would be used to feed the RT corridors. On B. Hollingworth responds: Evidence from other municipalities that have Rapid Transit proves that there will be greater opportunity for businesses with increased pedestrian activity and net positive land value uplift in commercial areas around Rapid Transit stations and corridors. There are trade-offs for these benefits. There will be changes to accesses, on-street parking and loading in some areas. The overall goal is to minimize the impacts of these changes, both during construction and once the system is up and running. It is anticipated that the entire BRT Network would take about 7 or 8 years to construct. This would be done in stages, and timing of construction on other roads will be considered when planning the rapid transit construction. A construction staging plan will be developed during detailed design of the Rapid Transit corridors. While it is true that Londoners love their cars, we have heard clearly that Londoners also want choice. That is what Rapid Transit will provide the choice of taking the car or taking Bus Rapid Transit to get to work or to connect with their community. Shift is an important step forward to provide families, consumers and employers the transportation choices that they want. Londoners who wish to remain using their cars will also see benefits from Rapid Transit. Rapid Transit will encourage our City to grow inwards and upwards, protecting our agricultural lands and green space. Encouraging 19

20 [cc d Councillor Morgan] Thanks for sending me the Master Plan. I did check it out - almost all of it. It unfortunately has convinced me that the plan, while well written and seemingly comprehensive, is very flawed. It doesn't address the future dynamics of the city or population very well. For instance, it would be most surprising if the population rises as much as anticipated. Most of the transit is used by students and just 7 months of the year - is it realistic to have buses every minutes when there are few passengers? Many stops are 1Km apart - will people, particularly the elderly and disabled, be willing to walk 500 metres to a bus when they now are used to one on every intersection? Richmond Street in particular will become a horrible bottleneck with just one lane in each direction - unfortunately the alternatives, Wellington and Talbot are poor ones because of the train tracks. With no left turns allowed from homes or businesses over the bus lanes and a direction to turn right onto the road and then make a U-turn at the nest intersection to travel left will cause terrible traffic conditions. Other concerns arise from the lack of costing expropriation of property to widen roads and intersections where necessary. And of the course the current lack of UWO's co-operation in the campus routing. Well, those are just some of my thoughts. Added to this is the sadness that treed medians in the downtown area will be lost returning the area to an urban wasteland. I am pretty convinced by the report that the expenditure of half a billion dollars to save a few minutes for some passengers while disrupting most of the population will be poorly received. And I don't believe that development charges will come near to paying the amounts projected. Already developers are saying the area is over- more Londoners to take transit will reduce future demand on our road network, carrying more people in fewer vehicles On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for taking the time to review the Rapid Transit Master Plan. It sounds like your main concerns are population growth, who will use rapid transit, Richmond Street traffic flow, property costs and street trees. Population Growth As a growing City, London has a unique opportunity over the next 20 years to shape how and where the City develops. The population and employment projections used to forecast future transit needs are consistent with The London Plan. The rapid transit corridors approved by Council in July 2017 will support appropriate growth, encourage active transportation, and provide more choice to Londoners. Who will use Rapid Transit While it is true that Western and Fanshawe students make up one of the largest percentages of transit ridership, university and college students also contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy every year. In addition to serving these two major institutions and other schools, the Rapid Transit corridors approved by Council serve: University Hospital, St. Joseph s Hospital, Richmond Row, future development at the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands, Western Fair, Victoria Hospital, and the Parkwood Institute. Also, Rapid Transit will connect these major destinations to Downtown. 20

21 saturated with apartments. It takes years to get one building under way, let alone dozens. It seems the next election will be about transit and those supporting it whole-heartily might be finding re-election difficult. It all needs a BIG rethink. Rapid Transit does not replace the current LTC bus system. In fact, strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. Transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. You can read more about the work LTC has started on this integration here: Framework.pdf Richmond Street The design of Richmond Street between Grosvenor Street and University Drive is yet to be decided. Options to consider include converting two existing lanes for transit, or widening Richmond to build two new lanes for transit. The decision will consider impacts of the two options, including: Widening by 2 lanes will have some property impacts, reduce driveways and parking, and the removal of some trees. Converting 2 existing lanes will result in increased congestion for general traffic, and require a shift in travel patterns. As the study progress in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis and consultation with Londoners to help us make this decision. 21

22 Property Costs I can confirm the business case includes consideration of property acquisition for the BRT Network. Trees and Streetscape Alternative streetscape concepts will be developed that consider planting areas, active transportation, and potential sustainability features to explore during detailed design. A strategy for planted medians identified in the RTMP concept design will be developed. Concepts will be developed through a Complete Streets lens and strive to maximize space for pedestrians and plantings. Over the summer we conducted additional field work along the Rapid Transit corridors. As the preliminary engineering design is developed, we will look for ways to replace trees lost, in keeping with the Urban Forest Strategy: ent/trees- Forests/Documents/London%20Urban%20Forestry %20Strategy%20Final.pdf How are you planning to avoid buses bunching up when they will be stopped by a train at level crossings (Richmond Street). Sometimes blocking traffic for 20min or more. On B. Hollingworth responds: To mitigate the delays from the at-grade crossing of the CP rail corridor on Richmond Street, the City increased the transit vehicle fleet and made modifications to the operating plan. These changes were included in the Business Case and Rapid Transit Master Plan approved by Council in July In the next study phase, design alternatives can be developed and evaluated to mitigate other potential impacts of an at-grade solution such as property, traffic, and parking, both during construction and after implementation. A review of curb-running 22

23 [sent two s on the same day] versus centre-running rapid transit lanes, intersection turning lane requirements, station locations, platform lengths, parking, access implications and cross-section elements will be refined and finalized through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). See response Has any Councillor taken a bus or driven to the 'approved' areas? The only way Rapid Transit becomes RAPID is, if the lights are in sync. Rush hour will downshift rush to crawl. Plus the driving in London can shut even the best laid plans. Who s ego is on the line? I would like to express my dismay at this whole process. It seems that public input was limited to preordained choices on routes and NOT on whether this BRT plan should even be executed. As a tax payer I think this is a waste of my money. It does nothing for car traffic flow. In fact it impedes it and nothing for the under serviced routes in London. It will cause huge noise, air pollution and traffic disruption in the 10 years of construction. We need to make this an election issue and not fast track it under the public's nose. Let's face it this is the U.N. agenda 21 in action. Rolled out across north America. A cash cow for the corporations involved and a drain on the tax payers and their children. I oppose it and will vote against all who support it Master Plan could use some rethinking. Where are delivery vehicles going to unload on Richmond St. if the curb lanes become dedicated RT lanes? Why build a Clarence St. overpass when there is already an existing tunnel under the rail lines at the VIA Station? Has thought been given to the increased traffic that will be diverted onto Talbot St. once the Richmond dedicated RT lanes come into effect and the 38 storey condo development at Talbot and Dufferin is built? If you are concerned about urban sprawl, why not encourage developers to do something in the section of SOHO bounded by Wellington, Richmond, Horton and the River? Why were developers allowed to destroy a peaceful section of Talbot St. and construct a 30 storey building quite out of proportion to the surrounding structures, especially when there are areas of King and York Sts. which are crying out for redevelopment? Why isn't the Western RT line directed Comment received. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank-you for your two s sent on August 6 and 12, Concerning your comments on the Rapid Transit Master Plan: The next study phase will develop design solutions for traffic, loading zones, parking, accessible parking, and other issues. More detailed meetings with stakeholder and the public are planned as the 23

24 down Stanley and York Sts. instead of the Riverside jog to King St. line? Walking one more block to Dundas shouldn't be a big deal especially when there is an alternative for less abled individuals -- the Oxford crosstown route which would connect to the Richmond RT and Dundas St.? next study phase moves forward and the Rapid Transit corridors are designed to minimize impacts. For Richmond Street, the current concept designs are based on rapid transit in the centre of the roadway, with the curb lanes for regular vehicles. Loading would need to take place in designated loading bays (next to the curb lane), offstreet, or on a side street. Note that we will be evaluating several design options and impacts to parking and loading will be a key criteria. With respect to development, the Official Plan governs what developers can and cannot do, and decisions on specific developments are outside of the scope of the rapid transit plan [ sent to the CFO of the City] With respect to routing options, numerous options were evaluated as documented in the Master Plan. The routes were approved by Council on at its meeting on July 25, [see response to comment received ] This is sent to clarify some issues; as a lay person, to the financial costs of the Shift as approved on July 25th, Further to the staff report on July 25th and documents made available for 45 day review I would like to see a precise costing analysis. Example: Costing of business case is $500 million City capped share 130. City contingency (part of $500 million) 129. Prov. and Fed. funds ( ) 370. Costs not included: Adelaide Street overpass / Wharncliffe, Oxford $85. million UWO 15 conditions ( could come out of contingency) 24

25 Identify costs allocated to road changes (separate lanes etc.) or to each stop on BRT which in case of north and east numbers 17 in or out of above budget? What costs are not included? Such as garage for BRT; purchase of properties; loss of current ridership impact; costs to Dundas and King Street station; loss of business on Dundas Street, changes to Wellington underpass. Also, Council recently changed some rules on development charges. In downtown area development charges were waived and bonuses could be added if developer included. Mixed housing in same building. This was changed so that mixed housing could be applied somewhere else and credit used for downtown building. My understanding is when developer charges waived tax payers pick up tab. At a meeting last week for Richmond Row there was an indication that developers would pay the development charges and then be given a grant over a number of year as reimbursement. Is it possible to create a summary sheet showing all the costs and where allocated or not? Please advise and if discussion would help my number is Left message with B. Hollingworth on with question about RTMP Notice of Completion, specifically the 4 th bullet point describing the south corridor and potential park-and-ride facility near Exeter Road. On M. Parkhill left a voic asking individual to call back and discuss. On M. Parkhill left a voic providing Toronto and London phone numbers to call back. Added to the mailing list I am forwarding this to you; noting no response to last and the decision approved by Council on July 25, This is now a decided matter and as Kelly confirmed routings are final. Given this I can only conclude UWO has been decided. Just as a note of interest Kings College has a special service between their campus and UWO and BRT doesn't address that. I have started to examine the documents (difficult without hard copy) but see nothing that identifies negative impact on the auto users being affected or [response to comment received ] On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for your continuing interest on our Rapid Transit initiative, and your s dated August 7, 8 and 23. I will try to respond to your key questions, and encourage you to also review the Frequently 25

26 possible increases in accidents and travel time. There is no comparison of impact on current users who will result in having poorer service. Examples LTC currently provides service to the airport (not recognized) and has 10 minute express service from Masonville to downtown or to White Oaks. There should be an analysis that shows the time from leaving home to destination by vehicle verses transit (report indicates bus take 2x as long as auto?). Would you clarify why the report indicates transit must compete with the automobile statement? Is London Transit to provide to all 17 stations in north east route on cross roads identified and meet every second bus as a minimum? Will feeder buses be allowed on same roads and special BRT lanes for transfers etc.? Doesn't the lack of detail analysis put greater pressure on all the assumptions made? Why is there a 45 day period and what is purpose if no changes are to be made? [ sent to K. Scherr] I send this to you as further follow up for answers on questions raised. UWO and left turns by eliminating separated lanes and feeder buses using BRT lanes and same roads. Is copies of final report available for public? [ sent to K. Scherr] I appreciate the opportunity to discuss concerns with BRT and related issues with you on June 7, I indicated input given has not met with responses to questions raised or options suggested. Your presence has indicated a fresh look at what is happening given the significant change with tunnel. When looking at downtown there is a natural routing using Richmond St. (instead of Clarence); King St., Wellington and Queens Ave. and Talbot. Note that Dundas street bridge is now in play. The concern of separated lanes with curbs etc. has been changed so that roads will be painted and no curbs so traffic will be able to turn left. You also mentioned that feeder buses will also be able to use same roads Asked Questions on our website: Please note, the Rapid Transit Implementation Office has recently moved to new space at the Central Library. If you have additional questions and comments to drop off or ask in person, you are welcome to visit us. We are located immediately to the right of the main library entrance off Dundas Street. Project Costs On page 25 of the Business Case, you ll see that the capital cost estimate includes: infrastructure (including road widening and stations), maintenance facility, detailed engineering design, and the purchase of additional transit vehicles. You can also review the forecasted annual operating costs on page 24. Transit ridership is forecasted to increase over time, and the rapid transit service will attract more riders through frequent and reliable service. This is illustrated on page 29 of the Business Case. You are correct, the Adelaide Street grade separation and Wharncliffe Road improvements are separate infrastructure projects; they are not counted as part of the Rapid Transit project. Western University City senior management met again with Western University in August. It was a positive discussion and we have made plans to continue working together with Western through the next phase of the study to refine the route and station designs through campus. Development Charges Development Charge incentive programs are separate initiatives from the Rapid Transit Project. To answer your question, there was a recent change to the Residential DC Grant 26

27 and lanes as BRT. This was the first time I heard about these changes. The issue of Dundas Flex St. decision removes this road from transit; not withstanding I don't believe outcome will be successful. Given the above I believe using the routes indicated Dundas St. east of Wellington could be used in mixed traffic and downtown loop could be Queens and King saving the need to use Clarence St.. Given the road design it is possible to design for use of Richmond to Horton in future. London Transit was designed to serve the public: where they wanted to go. While BRT is designed to make people go where they are told. It is wrong to design nodes and then tell LTC they have to serve them. Decision should include full examination. Current system 70% of customers take one bus to reach destination. It seems reasonable to show how this will make it better. IBI on record of saving 50 seconds or 2'5-4.0 in theory from Brian Hollingsworth. The UWO conditions have not been addressed and you indicated City is preparing a response. The UWO plan has been (since 2015) to remove buses from the main campus and make Western Road the heart of campus. This should be public; no secret / in-camera negotiations. I gave you historical perspective on UWO behaviour with city hall. The indication of public / private agreement based on having 4 fixed routes (P3) has been somewhat reduced because of tunnel removal. Note presentation to Implementation Working Group in December by consultant. As noted several members of this committee didn't even know of P3 discussion or process for public input even though Civic Committee and Council approved without discussion. Would it be possible to get update of projects inside and outside London Plan and impact of changes on plan? In raising the issue of Wonderland Road Community Land Use (June 6, 2017) it was because of staff recommendation to change which Program. Effective January 1, 2018, developers will pay 100% of the residential development charges when they receive their building permit, and then receive grants back over a number of years until the full value of the development charges paid have be reimbursed, rather than receive the credit in full when the building permit is issued. Check out the following link ifyou are interested in learning more about the City s Development Charges By-law and upcoming 2019 DC Background Study. ment-financing/pages/2019-development-charges- Study.aspx Impacts to auto users and transit travel times: Rapid Transit will help reduce auto dependency which will help benefit other road users (drivers) that continue to drive as their primary mode of transportation. For the business case, we estimated network-wide time savings achieved by shifting more travellers to transit. Rapid Transit will not replace local LTC service. Building rapid transit infrastructure will strengthen transit service across the network. LTC routes and schedules will be modified to work with the new BRT system. The London Transit Commission has started this work, and will continue to plan for integration with rapid transit. ework.pdf). Yes, the recommendation is for LTC routes that connect to Rapid Transit stations provide a service not more than double the Rapid Transit service. Meaning if a rapid transit bus comes every 5 minutes, the local bus service will provide a bus every 10 minutes. The London Plan: 27

28 appeared to be political. As indicated this was under John Fleming area and you had no knowledge or part in process. I believe at start of conversation a concern about role of staff and Councillors was expressed. There needs to be clear guidelines as to roles and citizen engagement. Sorry to wander; look forward to the major changes which appear on the horizon. Integration is the winner if no artificial divides. You can review proposed text and map changes here: Dundas Street and buses in mixed traffic: Operating transit in lanes with general traffic, referred to as mixed traffic operations, reduces the effectiveness and reliability of rapid transit. Every effort will be made to limit the amount of mixed traffic operation for the Rapid Transit network. We are very aware of planned land use changes along the Rapid Transit corridors, and will coordinate the preliminary engineering design with these plans as appropriate. Regarding the 45-day review period: The Rapid Transit Master Plan was conducted in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. Allowing for review of the Rapid Transit Master Plan is a mandatory point of contact in the process. Typically a 30-day period is provided, which we extended recognizing the busy summer months. The comments and questions collected during the 45-day review period will be used to shape the next steps in the study, which include identifying and evaluating alternative design solutions, conducting additional technical studies including environmental impacts and mitigation, and developing the preliminary engineering design. The technical studies completed to date are appended to the Rapid Transit Master Plan. It sounds like you are most interested in: Appendix B Travel Demand Forecasts Appendix C Subject Lands Status Report (natural environment) Appendix D1 Cultural Heritage Constraints 28

29 I think it would really help if you could indicate, on your maps, the directions the buses are planned to take on the current 'one way streets in the downtown area Further to the Notice of Study Completion Rapid Transit Initiative Master Plan, issued August 3, 2017, please comment on the following questions: 1. Will additional lanes be constructed to accommodate Rapid Transit? or 2. Will private vehicle lanes be eliminated to accommodate Rapid Transit? Appendix D2 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Appendix K Traffic Analysis I hope this answers most of your rapid transit questions, and that you will continue to remain engaged in following the project. Thank you again for your interest and I encourage to remain engaged in the project in the coming months. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for your comment. We will take your suggestion under consideration going forward. As shown on the concept plans for the Downtown, rapid transit buses will travel the same direction as traffic on King Street and Queens Avenue. The concept plan can accessed via the following link, or under the Master Plan section of on ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_AppJ_Downtown.pdf? On B. Hollingworth responds: For most of the Rapid Transit network, there will be dedicated transit lanes separated from general traffic. How these lanes will be accommodated vary throughout the Rapid Transit network. Attached is an excerpt from the Rapid Transit Master Plan (Exhibits 5.2 and 5.3) detailing the number of travel lanes and the conversion of travel lanes for Bus Rapid Transit for each Rapid Transit corridor. You may also wish to look at the concept design plans which can be accessed from the Shift website or at public libraries. On the shift website, the concepts are in Appendix J (scroll down to bottom of page for the link). Added to the mailing list. 29

30 I received the Notice of Study completion RTMP, just very concern if it will influence my residence address is below: Pls let me know ASAP I have been reading through the Bus Rapid Transit proposal that was ed to me. I still think that this is a huge waste of tax payer money. The amount of money this will cost and the reducing of lanes of traffic on major arteries around this city is one of the worst ideas that the city has come up with. One of the FAQ questions was about spending the money on the roads instead and part of your answer to that question certainly doesn't justify spending the money to put in the BRT. In your answer you say that "One bus can replace dozens of cars, and so Rapid Transit can move more people much more efficiently". Your answer is assuming that people will actually take the BRT when they go downtown. I know that I won't ever take the BRT and I have talked to several people about this and they are the same as I am. Whenever they go downtown they prefer to drive so they don't have to rely on some form of public transportation to get home which will take twice as long to get home as driving their car. This is something that needs to be put on the ballot in next year's election to see if the taxpayers in the city of London actually want BRT. My feeling is that the only people that really want BRT are the Mayor and City Council. They seem to think that if they get BRT approved and construction started that everyone will remember them for this. I am sure the only thing they will remember them for is how much more we have to pay in taxes municipal, provincial and federal for the next two or three generations to pay off the debt that this has created. They will also remember them when they are driving down the one north or south bound lane on Richmond St and cursing them for putting in the BRT. I have lived in London all my life and love living here but this is something that would seriously make me consider moving outside of the city limits so avoid the increase in taxes and all of the traffic On B. Hollingworth responds: Most of the preferred full Bus Rapid Transit network fits within existing road right-of-way. Localized widening is generally required at station locations and intersections. It looks like your property should not be impacted. Cheapside is proposed to remain as a full movement intersection. Comment received. Added to the mailing list. 30

31 congestion that this is going to cause if it is built. I am sure that I am not alone in my thinking that way either Re the Springbank dam; A watercourse is healthiest when the flow is unimpeded; the current, especially where there are rapids, aerates the water and creates a healthier environment for fish and other aquatic life. Dams are sometimes necessary for flood control purposes, e.g. Fanshawe, but Springbank Dam was never intended for that purpose. I have lived in London since 1967 and from when my Dad was attending University here, and one of my strongest memories of Springbank in the Summer was the stench that emanated from the pond created by the Springbank Dam. Do we really want to go back to that just so more people can boat on the river? As for the Back to the River plan, unless you perfume the water at the Forks, it going to smell just as bad as the impounded water at Springbank if the Dam is put back in service. If you want the river to appear more attractive at the Forks, one solution would be to increase the flow from Fanshawe Dam, although that would mean lowering the level of the lake behind the dam. On another note, if you want visitors to come to the Forks, you need to provide adequate parking--- for families and for people, like my wife and I, who find walking even two blocks, a difficult undertaking. Input from a city resident who lives across the street from that 30 storey monstrosity on Talbot St.--but that's another issue, isn't it? If two traffic lanes are to be removed from Wharncliffe Road North between Riverside and Oxford to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit, the multi-million dollar, tremendously disruptive widening of Wharncliffe Road north of Oxford, including replacing the train overpass, designed to remove a bottleneck to traffic, is pointless. Oxford Street West is a too busy traffic thoroughfare even to consider removing existing traffic lanes to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit. At present, traffic is backed up for blocks along this street at busy times. The result of removing existing lanes would be a gigantic bottleneck for westbound traffic at Wharncliffe and Oxford and a parking lot of cars between Wharncliffe and Wonderland. Why haven t traffic studies been done? Comment received. [sent an additional on ] On B. Hollingworth responds: On Wharncliffe Road between Riverside Drive and south of Oxford Street, the rapid transit buses are planned to operate in mixed traffic. Meaning Wharncliffe will not be widened through this section, and existing lanes will remain. There will be changes to the intersections at Wharncliffe and at Oxford. On Oxford Street between Wharncliffe Road and Wonderland Road, four lanes of general traffic will remain, plus two lanes dedicated to buses. You can review the approved Bus Rapid Transit network map here: Added to the mailing list. 31

32 [sent to Councillors Squire and Hubert] My name is and I have been living in London my entire life. I love London, it s an amazing city, with awesome potential. It has a really small city feel that isn t actually all that small. It appears that recently the traffic here is becoming unbearable. I currently live at and for the most part I walk to work (which is about min to downtown). I have needed to drive to work more over the last few months, and the drive is aggravating and annoying. It can sometimes take just as much time to get to work as it does to walk! Its nuts. That being said; I am someone who has done quite a bit of travelling and I have used public transit all over the place. I can say that Melbourne, Australia has one of the best systems that I have used. It is a combination of rail, street cars, and buses. The light rail is what predominantly drives the system with the buses and street cars acting as feeders to the main routes. Now, I know that Melbourne is a much larger city than London, but I think we can learn a lot from places like this. It also gets rated as the most livable city in the world almost every year. I believe it has been at the top for the last 6 years (including 2017). I have been there 6 times, and I can truly say it s remarkable how easy it is to get around. It also doesn t matter if it is rush hour not, there are never really that many vehicles on the road. I read the article in the LFPress today and I was saddened to see that the counsellors chose the BRT plan. It seems like this is a dated approach to the problem we are facing. From what it looks like, transportation is a really hot topic, and I think that we should be making the stand on how to do things right Not fall in the same pattern that many other cities have fallen into. For example, Kitchener/Waterloo spent heaps of money on upgrading and improving their bus system. They tried to optimize it, A Traffic Analysis was completed and is included as Appendix K in the Rapid Transit Master Plan ( On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments. Your comments on transportation are important. As a growing City, London has a unique opportunity over the next 20 years to shape how and where the City develops. The London Plan ( sets out our vision for the City s future. The Smart Moves 2030: Transportation Master Plan is the guiding document used to determine our transportation needs today and in the future ( Transportation/Transportation- Planning/Pages/Smart-Moves-2030-Transportation- Plan.aspx). Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) were evaluated in the Rapid Transit Master Plan (see Section 3.10): ndon/pages/149/attachments/original/ /l ondonrtmp_chapter3.10to3.14.pdf? ). This analysis found that a Bus Rapid Transit network provides appropriate capacity relative to forecasted demand and a reliable service with primarily dedicated transit lanes. BRT also provides the highest value for the investment, supports the City s growth objectives and is adaptable to future conditions. In May 2016, Council approved Bus Rapid Transit for London: ( Added to the mailing list. 32

33 they tried to make it better, but nothing really helped. What have they done now? They are moving to light rail. Another massive project and a massive amount of money. In the end, the rail will be a massive success, they are in almost every city they are present. The problem that I, and many others that I have spoken with, is that buses are not sexy. They do not have the appeal to a commuter. Buses have this negative association to them that is not easily shaken. I can honestly say if you told me I had to take a bus to work, I would shudder. Ask me if I could take a train to work - 100%. I am building a new house out in and it would be absolutely incredible to get on a train at West 5 and train into the downtown (or close to it, say Oxford and Richmond), then be able to walk to work (CARPROOF), it would awesome. I have spoke to many people regarding this and they all seem to say the same things I wish that I could voice my opinion on Light Rail vs BRT, or they say things like Buses are not sexy, I don t want to take a bus. I know I m just one voice, but I think that there needs to be a real long hard think about what we should be doing in the city to make it better. I m not sure what I can do, so I reach out to you to ask. How can we (the people of London) voice our opinion about transportation in our city? The Rapid Transit buses will be modern and accessible, including low floors and large windows. The vehicle cost estimate in the business case was increased to cover the potential purchase of electric buses. As the rapid transit study moves into the next phase, I hope you will follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, check our website for updates ( and come out to community meetings we are planning for later in the fall. Input from Londoners will guide the preliminary engineering design and help us to deliver a quality Bus Rapid Transit network for London. Please note, this is on behalf of the Shift Rapid Transit Office and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the ward councillor who has been copied for information purposes. I would love to chat more about this! Please let me know what I need to do to ensure that we are being heard! I ed you on July 25 requesting Synchro reports backing up the level of service summaries in Appendix K of the Rapid Transit Master Plan. I have not heard back from you though I understand you were out of town for a while. Since the summaries were made public, I assume the supporting reports are also in the public domain. As I noted in my earlier , a single overall level of service for an intersection can be misleading, particularly if there are multiple turning movements. I should also note that the summaries did not make it clear that average delays for On E. Soldo responds: The Synchro files are not for public release. All the information required is in the Master Plan appendix. Added to the mailing list. 33

34 level of service E, for example, range from 55 to 80 seconds and that level of service F includes any delay greater than 80 seconds. I would appreciate your prompt response since I would like to be in a position to contribute to the dialogue on SHIFT before the deadline I have been following this issue closely. Not normally involved, my thoughts are to look at movement with the pieces of the puzzle we already have in place, roads and intersections. That being said, have a look at the internet for serious ideas. One was in the LONDON FREE PRESS I think Friday Aug , called, diverging diamond intersection/interchange. With the high level of education and creativity that is at city hall, this should a no brainer On attempting to understand the Rapid Transit Plan my feedback is: It is no longer a "rapid" transit plan unless the railway tracks on Richmond St. are dealt with. I strongly favour building just an underpass on Richmond St. at the CP tracks like the underpass on Wellington Rd. at the CN tracks. If we are going to do such a huge project, it should be the right, functional project that does not negate its name. While I can understand the placement of the BRT to transport students who, by their numbers are the main users, nowhere can I find a comprehensive public transportation plan for the rest of the city population. I see no plan of how the bus system would feed into this BRT and thus encourage people to support the idea and then to use it. The plan does not address basic lacks of London's public transportation system, that every route feeds into downtown and requires an enormous amount of time to make a long trip. How does a person get from the southeast end to the southwest end of the citye.g. along Dearness Ave or Southdale Rd. without having to go downtown? How does that person get from the southeast end to the northeast end- again they have to go downtown. With the above points in mind, I was disappointed in the recently proposed plan to widen Wonderland Rd., that there is not even a dedicated bus lane that could take people from the southwest end to the northwest end of the city in an efficient way. Comment received. On B. Hollingworth responds: To mitigate the delays from the at-grade crossing of the CP rail corridor on Richmond Street, the City increased the transit vehicle fleet and made modifications to the operating plan. These changes were included in the Business Case and Rapid Transit Master Plan approved by Council in July In the next study phase, design alternatives can be developed and evaluated to mitigate other potential impacts of an at-grade solution such as property, traffic, and parking, both during construction and after implementation. A review of curb-running versus centre-running rapid transit lanes, intersection turning lane requirements, station locations, platform lengths, parking, access implications and cross-section elements will be refined and finalized through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). A Richmond Street underpass at the CN tracks would have very significant property impacts for Richmond Row and would require the acquisition of some major commercial properties depending which side of the road is widened. Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 34

35 If the long range goal in the "London "Plan" is to encourage public transportation and for people to live around transportation hubs, how can they envision doing that if the city has no comprehensive plan? Yes, planners can say that that will all be worked out later, but why should the public be reassured by that promise? Your comments about plans for how the rest of the transit system would work and be designed to maximize benefit for all residents are important. In parallel with the rapid transit plan, LTC has been doing work on this. Two reports are of note: 1) The London Transit Commission Transit Network Rapid Transit Integration Framework ( onframework.pdf). 2) 2015 Route Structure and Service Guideline Review - Guidline.pdf [ ed to J. Ramsay] We received a notice from you about public review. Went to the library and flipped through rather large book, which was not really clear but did see my building is still being removed. I could not find any information on timing. As my business is my livelihood and our location is important to it can you let me know what the proposed timing is for construction on Wellington Road. The city seems to be rushing this process so I fear I may receive little warning. Also once the city confirms that the route is going through my building how much time will I have to find a new location? The latter report recommends significant service level improvements for the entire city. On J. Ramsay responds: I can understand your concerns around the drawings that show impact to your property. The Rapid Transit Master Plan is just one step in the process towards building rapid transit. Detailed plans have not yet been developed and so impacts on each individual property and access are not yet fully known. The City is committed to ensuring that our consultations take into account the considerations of Londoners. Our next task is to review potential impacts along the approved Rapid Transit corridors, including impacts to private property such as your building. We will develop alternative designs to minimize or avoid property take, but in some cases property impacts will occur. In the meantime, note that we expect the entire BRT Network will take about 7 or 8 years to 35

36 construct. This would be done in stages, and timing of construction on other roads will be considered when planning the rapid transit construction. There is a preliminary phasing plan for this construction in the Rapid Transit Master Plan; the map is in the Executive Summary (page 11 of 14 of the PDF: ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_ExecutiveSummary.pdf? ) Our current plan includes constructing the Wellington corridor between 2023 and The potential construction phasing is described in more detail in Chapter 9 of the RTMP: ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_Chapters9to11.pdf? Note that the construction staging plan may change as we work on the preliminary engineering design during TPAP, and will be refined during detailed design of the Rapid Transit corridors in , before any construction begins. You can review Frequently Asked Questions regarding property affected by a public works project on the SHIFT website: see page ages/111/attachments/original/ /shiftfa Q pdf? Council Policy Chapter 20 Property provides more information, available at: 36

37 I have just taken a cursory look at the Shift Master Plan. Perhaps those involved in this publication which I assume includes City Staff and Members of Council might have been wise to consider that there are those of us who are strong on the full aspects of what this plan is supposed to portray. Might I suggest that consideration be given to producing a condescend version of the plan showing the salient points so that those of us are seniors may be able to read it and perhaps fully understand it. In my opinion this a very far reaching project which in the end I feel show no absolute total benefit to the taxpayers of London except a very large amount of debt which will very likely take us into the next century to pay off and even then it may not be paid off. I note that there are proposals to widen several roads in and around the city to accommodate the BRT and one of the roads in question is Wonderland Road South and North. Perhaps if the traffic signals were synchronized properly then the congestion that occurs on Wonderland Road might be eased and thus nullify the need to widen it a very expensive cost the people of London. I also note in the plan that there are various mentions of Rapid Transit Plans in other cities both in Canada, the USA and other parts of the globe. It is obvious to me that the needs of other centres are totally different from those of London and to some extent those cities lend themselves to natural flow of a rapid transit system. One other issue that feel I should point out is the fact that nowhere in the plan did I see any mention of collisions and major injury accidents that could happen involving the BRT. Hopefully, the above information and links will help to answer your questions, but if you would like to meet to review your specific property, please let me know. On B. Hollingworth responds: There is an Executive Summary at the front of the Rapid Transit Master Plan that summarizes the document. You can find it here: Click on the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY link to access it. Smart Moves (2013) the City s 2030 Transportation Master Plan identified widening Wonderland Road in support of future Rapid Transit corridors. The City continually monitors and updates signal timing plans to manage traffic congestion. Traffic signals are timed to move the most number of vehicles through an intersection and along a corridor in the most safe and efficient manner. I d also like to point out that London s population and employment are forecasted to grow substantially over the next 20 years. The city has made plans to shape that growth, including The London Plan, the SmartMoves 2030 Transportation Master Plan, and now the Rapid Transit Master Plan. London has the unique opportunity to use rapid transit investments to attract growth and development along designated corridors. This investment in transit will provide future Londoners with a better choice between driving or transit. We are considering conducting an independent road safety audit of the preliminary engineering design, or perhaps during the detail design phase. In general, buses operating in dedicated lanes are expected to have fewer collisions than buses operating in mixed traffic lanes. 37

38 I retired from Policing some 23 plus years ago in a major Ontario Municipality and additionally I read new publications from the area that I was born and raised in over in England and from time to time I notice that the local Police spend an inordinate amount of time investigation accidents involving similar transit systems as the one London seems to think it needs. It might behoove those involved in this Master Plan to engage the London Police Service in discussions regarding the handling and reporting of any such incidents that may and probably will occur once and if the system ever gets underway. I look forward to hearing from you regarding my observations and perhaps clarifying some issues that may not be clear to you How many lanes are due to be installed along King St, specifically along the front of her property? 2. How much of her property is to be taken by the lanes? Seeking approximate measurements Appreciate copy of the report and having left you a phone message and spoke to staff last week I am repeating comment made. Given the reconstruction done on Dundas Street east (mostly infrastructure upgrades) I ask that you consider the following; noting decisions on routings have been finalized according to Kelly Scheer. On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for speaking with me yesterday. The insight you provided into the parking needs of your property as well as several of your neighbours along King street is helpful information for our project team to consider in the next phase of the study as we work evaluate and refine RT corridor design options. As discussed, I have included a link to Appendix J: East Corridor Conceptual Design Plates from the Rapid Transit Master Plan available on the website and a screen capture of the corridor design concept in front of your property. I ve also attached a pdf the City s Private Sewer Replacement brochure to provide some background on the City s policy regarding ownership of individual private connections to the public sewer. [see response ] Added to the mailing list. 38

39 Wharncliffe Rd. and Wellington Rd. have stretches which will have mixed traffic. These roads have greater volume than Dundas Street; therefore I ask that you consider doing the same on Dundas. An examination of the King St. and Dundas St. intersection appears to create a major cost to change. Keep in mind the major changes coming at Emco, Kelloggs and McCormack and a proposed apartment development in the area. The current 45 day review is a requirement as part of the environmental assessment. The comments should be on that subject not the routing of the BRT? On that basis has there been evaluation of accident and alternate routing impacts because of removing major traffic off main roads which could have an environmental impact? What impact does the assumptions made on BRT have on environmental impact issues? Has there been a model showing the actual impact on timing compared to present and BRT time noting 10 minute frequency and 5 minute sitting time at stations such as Masonville? Add into the timing because of forcing u-turns at major intersections because of separated lanes? Also, it appears LTC feeder lines may be allowed on BRT lanes or major roads has that impact been factored in? Is the impact of lost ridership a factor on environmental assessment and the travel time because more people will need to use more than one mode to get to destination? Also, there was an sent to J. Fleming and K. Scheer which have not yet been answered? It may be helpful if the specific factors addressed for environment assessment help guide me where to focus in the report which I don't see as part of the business case report [ sent to Councillor Morgan] Today the Callon Deitz people have been surveying our property at and also up and down the street between Windermere and Western Rd on the West side of the street only. They came back several times and took measurements almost up to our house. When my husband asked the Callon Deitz employees the purpose of the survey, they replied that they had no idea and only knew that they were asked to do the survey by the City of London. When pressed for an answer he said it was something to do with the On a response was sent by J. Ramsay to Councillor Morgan s office: Survey consultants were appointed in August During the master plan process, the rapid transit routes were refined and it is now necessary to undertake additional engineering surveys. This additional survey will provide data for newly identified routes such as portions of the downtown couplet and revised routing through the Western Added to the mailing list. 39

40 BRT but that was all he knew. They did not survey the East side which has condos - only the west side with houses. I was first put through to the Geomatics Department and the first person did not have any idea why the survey was being done. He then put me through to Adam Carbone, who should know what it was about (according to this staff member). Adam was not at his desk but he did return my call and told me that he was not sure why it was being done but thought it might have something to do with BRT. Adam passed me on to Ardian Spahiu whose voice mail said he was out of the office until August 21 and today is August 22. I left a message on his voice mail and he did call me back. Ardian told me that it had to do with the BRT and that they were doing it now in case there was a need to "update" this stretch but that there was nothing in the written plans to do so but "hypothetically" they would have the survey done just in case. He said that they would not leave a small gap - Windermere to Western Rd undone just in case as it is very expensive to do a survey. I said that it seemed like a big waste of taxpayer money to do a survey for something that was not needed for the official BRT plan. He said that they were doing the survey for the Western Rd/Richmond street intersection and the Windermere/Richmond St intersection as they would be impacted by the BRT running down Western Rd. I really do not see how the Windermere/Richmond intersection would be impacted as it would be Windermere/Western Rd. going into the University and coming out at the Gates at Richmond St. University campus. The data will also support further investigation of the previously investigated corridors and also serve as the base plan for the ultimate design. Based on the approved corridors, there will not be any rapid transit improvements on Richmond between Windermere and Western. Still, Western and Windermere are only about 650m apart and picking up this last segment of Richmond closes a gap in available survey data and captures the overall network in the area this important leg of the BRT system. Completing this survey work now as part of this extended contract will provide useful context in developing the BRT preliminary engineering design and provides a cost effective opportunity to capture this remaining segment while crews are already mobilized in the area. Our main concern is what "exactly" is the reason for the survey and what is the future plan that would require this survey. The road is 5 lanes right now with sidewalks on both sides. We currently have cars backed up every day on Richmond St N of Western Rd and south of Windermere and the bridge. If bus lanes are added, it would be at a virtual stand still for cars from 7-9:30 am and 3-6 pm daily. As a long time property owner and taxpayer, this lack of transparency by the City of London as to future plans that can impact our future property values, has me very concerned. 40

41 We need some clarity & cooperation to explain this expenditure by the city for the actual purpose of this surveying so we know whether we need to get ready to sell our property earlier than we have planned because land is going to be appropriated by the city for bus lanes or possibly by Western to expand or build more student housing. Either way, we are going to lose money because neither corporation will end up paying us what the property is worth today, so we need to know what is going on so we can make an informed and timely decision on whether to stay or go, since the money at stake will be our retirement fund. Please let us know what you know, or look into the reasoning behind this surveying so we are not caught with our pants down in this game and have a fighting chance to get out while the getting is still good. We are constituents of yours that voted for you in the last election. We now want a small favour from you so as to get a straight answer and cut through the red tape [sent three s on the same day] [first ] Interesting 3rd paragraph. Pts designed to improve passenger numbers and reliability. One item is forgotten, syncing of traffic lights to facilitate movement of buses, extra lanes in London, Ontario will not work, no room width wise. Similar to the Wharncliffe Rd Stanley, Horton. Lots of room on the west side. Witnessed the backup yesterday, Saturday! That has to be rectified. It s been like this for 40 years. Yes, we are severely behind in creativeness. [second ] Much is being written about why your plan is focused on schools only. With the cost of IMPARK at local hospitals, I rather take a bus, but your plan has no hospitals drop off areas, that are close! Hospital people need to be delivered to the front door We have no room for dedicated because of the design of your areas in question. Sync the lights first..or As previous: perform a pilot project on areas in question. Don t waste your & my money on idea that may not work in this city. On B. Hollingworth responds: Addressing your comment on traffic signals, the City continually monitors and updates signal timing plans to manage traffic congestion. Traffic signals are timed to move the most number of vehicles through an intersection and along a corridor in the most safe and efficient manner. As you suggest, this will be critically important in the rapid transit corridors. Provisions have been made in the cost estimate for advanced traffic signals and other technologies. 41

42 Our city thinking appears 30 years behind the times. [third ] I want to see the routes RTC is only as good as the traffic allows. Route them to hospitals & UWO/Fanshawe. If you planning rush hour routes, London Transit has day trippers to cover that. During the day, not required Despite what general public tells you, you WILL do it anyway. [see response ] Dundas corridor - Convert vacant commercial/industrial spaces. Missed opportunity for a transit hub was McCormick's/Kellogg's spaces. Options remain at Dundas & Hale and Dundas & Adelaide The best way to integrate Rapid Transit stations within existing neighbourhoods is not to. London needs Frequent Transit, not Rapid Transit. When a person just misses their bus, waiting 15 minutes for the next bus is better than waiting 30 minutes for the next bus. ALL ROUTES should run every 15 minutes, just like the #15 Westmount route does. Putting more buses on London roads will reduce the amount of personal vehicles on London roads. Only with Bus Frequent Transit, will London be able to achieve Bus Rapid Transit. Comment received. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for your comments regarding increasing bus frequency. We agree that bus frequency is a key element of high quality transit. Currently it is planned that the north and east rapid transit corridors will operate with buses running every five minutes in each direction and the south and west corridors running every 10 minutes. We would note that if we add more regular buses to busy roads that are going to get busier, those buses would still be mixed with regular traffic and experience delays from congestion. By providing lanes that are dedicated to transit, Rapid Transit passengers will experience shorter travel times, with more frequent, reliable and comfortable service. Transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 42

43 In parallel with the rapid transit plan, LTC has been doing work on this. Two reports are of note: 1) The London Transit Commission Transit Network Rapid Transit Integration Framework ( tionframework.pdf). 2) 2015 Route Structure and Service Guideline Review - Guidline.pdf The second report recommends significant service level improvements for the entire city On J. Ramsay ed in response to a Letter to the Editor published in the London Free Press ( Thank you for your interest in London s bus rapid transit project, and for taking the time to provide your input, including your concerns about service to LHSC s UH and Victoria campuses. I would like to begin by reiterating that we are still at a very early stage of this project, and the recent Rapid Transit Master Plan approval has only confirmed the BRT network and its corridors. Conceptual level findings in the Master Plan will be refined through the next phase of the study. Details such as station location, and how stations will be integrated with the LTC network to optimize transit service will also be refined through later phases of the study, following a thorough assessment of potential impacts, and consultation with stakeholders. We are currently looking for the public s feedback on local issues to consider along the established Rapid Transit corridors and how to best integrate Added to the mailing list. 43

44 [ sent to K. Scherr] I received the recent report which Council is looking at, and I understand that it is coming up again tonight. Did I miss something -- I didn't see any solution to the Richmond Street tunnel? I know they did a study of how many trains use that crossing in a day. But I believe that in the wintertime, the CP Railway main line from Winnipeg to Toronto/Montreal (around the north shore of Lake Superior) gets congested because of the severe weather, and more trains may be routed around the southern route via Chicago and our London. Also, they run trains back to back, so that in a half-hour period you could have the crossing blocked for 20 minutes. If they were willing to spend $90 million on a tunnel, then they should be able to buy up properties on St. George street and run the BRT under the CPR by a St. George St. tunnel, and up the eastern fringe of Gibbons Park, with a protective fence, and a shuttle bus straight to the doorstep of St. Joseph s hospital. Council seems to have a rosy dream of moving people out of their cars onto BRT - most of the people that would use BRT to the University are already using the LTC busses (I used to work at UWO, and it wasn t worth driving my car because parking was so expensive). The province has these GO-Trains (they must carry Rapid Transit stations within existing neighbourhoods. So far, we are receiving a clear message from the public that accommodation of patients and their families at hospital sites is a high priority. Please be assured that we are taking this into account in our planning as we move forward. Thank you once again for your feedback, which will help us deliver the best Rapid Transit network for London. If you have any questions or comments about the Rapid Transit Master Plan, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. We appreciate your time and consideration in participating in this important study. On J. Ramsay responds: Kelly forwarded me your to respond on behalf of the Rapid Transit Implementation Office. Thank you for your interest in the Rapid Transit Master Plan. It sounds like you have concerns regarding the operation of the CP rail crossing of Richmond, and the overall need for rapid transit infrastructure. To mitigate the delays from the at-grade crossing of the CP rail corridor on Richmond Street, we increased the transit vehicle fleet and made modifications to the operating plan. These changes were included in the Business Case and Rapid Transit Master Plan approved by Council in July In the next study phase, design alternatives will be developed and evaluated to mitigate other potential impacts of an at-grade solution such as property, traffic, and parking, both during construction and after implementation. A review of curb-running versus centre-running rapid transit lanes, intersection turning lane requirements, station locations, platform lengths, parking, access implications and cross-section elements will be 44

45 about 1000 people per train) running every half hour from Hamilton to Toronto (and more often in rush hour), but the QEW is still jampacked with cars. Taking lanes away from existing roads will increase congestion, not decrease it. I think London is trying to play Big City on a shoehorn budget. Massive expense for insignificant travel time savings Thank-you for your reply. You are the only one to reply. I guess the others don't like a negative review of the system. The problems as I see them are. refined and finalized through the Transit Project Assessment Process. I d also like to point out that London s population and employment are forecasted to grow substantially over the next 20 years. We have made plans to shape and support that growth, including The London Plan, the SmartMoves 2030 Transportation Master Plan, and now the Rapid Transit Master Plan. We have the unique opportunity to use rapid transit investments to attract growth and development along designated corridors. The goal is not to move everyone out of their cars and onto the bus. This investment in transit will provide future Londoners with a better choice between driving and transit. Thank you again, and we encourage you to remain engaged in the project through the next phase of the Study. Comment received. Too long a construction time frame which will severely hamper any vehicular traffic. (Personally I do not and will not go downtown. I go to RBCDominion once a year, as there is nothing I need bad enough to venture there I use King and Queen if I must go) Using King and possibly Queen as RBT routes. This cuts into vehicular travel and parking access. Dundas should be used all the way as there is little parking to be affected and no-one who wants to get access to parking or even travel across town would consider using Dundas. Stop lights and heedless pedestrians are two reasons. To me until the under/overpass problem is solved it will just be a bus enhancement costing too much in time and money. 45

46 Detouring RBT through UWO makes absolutely no sense. Yes they are users, but if I was taking small children shopping and had to take extra time through UWO with cranky tired kids, I would not be riding. Have a terminal on Richmond and let them catch the buses there. The 10 year time frame is way too long and with current technology will be almost outdated by then. Sorry but I do not see any benefits to this and as I said in my other missive no-one I have talked to is for it either in it's current form. Most people's argument is it should go down Dundas and leave the traffic flow streets alone I am writing to request a printed copy of the SHIFT Master Plan or failing that complete PDF version of the plan which I could print with little difficulty. I look forward to hearing from you about my request Just wondering if you have a response to my regarding my concerns with any plans to widen Wharncliffe Rd North at On my way to work this morning I heard that ridership on LTC buses is down from previous years and that they are struggling to increase ridership. Hearing that I would hope that the people that are trying to push through bus rapid transit would have the intelligence to not go forward with this at this time. With the enormous cost of bus rapid transit and the lack of people riding the bus as it is it makes absolutely no sense economically to waste hundreds for millions of dollars on something that most likely will be a white elephant that can't be easily taken away because it isn't successful and it will take generations of London taxpayer dollars to pay for it. On A. Rosebrugh responds: Thanks for your interest in the SHIFT Master Plan. You can come by our temporary office space on Dundas to pick up a hard copy of the full Master Plan. We are in the office from 8:30 4:30 each day. If you happen to see the office closed during lunch hour, we are likely not far away. Should this happen, just text: and we ll pop back to meet you. See response in On B. Hollingworth responds: Transit ridership in London is increasing, not declining. The LTC conventional transit ridership for 2016 increased about 1% over 2015 numbers. You can review all the 2016 ridership numbers in LTC s Annual Report: London s population grew by 4.8% between 2011 and 2016, and projections indicate the City will reach over 450,000 people by

47 If you want to spend that kind of money on improving something in the city you should use it to improve existing roads and finding ways of bringing businesses into London so there are more places for Londoners to work and this would decrease the unemployment rate. I think that the bus rapid transit idea needs to be put on hold until after the next election and it should be added to the election as a referendum item for the citizens of London to vote on then city council and the mayor can that the people of London really don't want bus rapid transit it is really just the mayor and city council that do Thank you kindly for your responding s. I have two requests if I might: first, where on Dundas Street is your temporary office and second, would you be kind enough to set aside a hard copy of the SHIFT plan for me? Unfortunately because of other commitments, I will not be able to get to your office until the week after next [sent to MP, MPPs, Mayor and Council] [ ] Please note the attached letter which is in response to the Councilapproved Shift Rapid Transit Initiative Master Plan. There are infrastructure projects that need funding in London such as the Adelaide Over/Underpass at CPR and correcting the dumping of raw sewage into the Thames River. Cancel Shift, look at it again in 20 years. [attached letter] To many Londoner s, shift means faster service for students. Deferring rapid transit means that some $290 million of road expansion projects will be required over the next 20 years. Rapid Transit will provide Londoners the choice of taking the car or taking transit to get to work or to connect with their community. Londoners who wish to remain using their cars will also see benefits from Rapid Transit. Rapid Transit will also encourage London to grow inwards and upwards, protecting our agricultural lands and green space. Encouraging more Londoners to take transit will reduce future demand on our road network, carrying more people in fewer vehicles. On A. Rosebrugh responds: We are in Citi Plaza, next to the CBC Radio studio, on the right side of the Dundas main entrance doors. We have Wolf Theatre banners hanging outside our exterior windows. We will be sure to set aside a copy for you, and look forward to seeing you next week. On J. Ramsay responds: We appreciate your comments and input on London s Rapid Transit Master Plan as outlined in your letter dated September 4th. One of the foundational goals of The London Plan is to set policy and make investments that help to shape how and where the City developments in order to stay ahead of congestion and other challenges that come with growth. Rapid transit is one of those investments. Rapid transit will indeed connect the city s major nodes including malls, hospitals and key institutions as illustrated on the approved network map ( and Bus 47

48 London taxpayers will be forced to pay $500 million: $130 million in future taxes and $370 million from Federal and Provincial governments. But there is only one tax payer - Londoners. Remember other cities also have their hands out for Fed/Prov dollars, so Londoners are paying regardless of the source. London s population was 366,151 in In 2015 John Fleming wrote Conservative estimates show that London will grow by 80,000 people in the next 20 years. This estimate means London s population may be about 446,151 by Perhaps London should consider Shift in 2035 if, in fact, the population is 446,000. Will $500 million get us to London Airport? Our hospitals? Will we be able to travel from downtown to East London or White Oaks Mall quicker? London s LTC is already efficient. Let s spend say 2.5% of $500 million or $12.5 million to make LTC even more efficient. London dumps raw sewage into the Thames River when there is a heavy rain. In the first three months of 2016, figures reported by the city on its website show London dumped 59,473 cubic metres of raw sewage into the river from its waste water treatment plants and 91,171 cubic metres of partially treated waste. That sewage from so-called bypasses, when heavy rains overwhelm the system was enough to fill about 60 Olympic-sized swimming pools. London s share of the $500 million price tag is $130 million. The source of the $130 million is FUTURE monies to be paid by development in London. The development fund was created so that London could build service infrastructure. Would it not make green sense to use all or part of the $130 million to construct a new downstream wastewater treatment plant and dismantle the floodplain located Greenway raw sewage dumping complex? Rapid Transit has the flexibility to be extended to other nodes such as the London Airport. Rapid transit will provide improved travel times to and between these key destinations, but just as importantly, it will provide a high quality and reliable service that is isolated from the effects of increasing congestion over time. It is important to remember that Rapid Transit does not replace the current LTC bus system. In fact, strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations improving transit throughout the entire City, not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. While we agree that investments are required to mitigate the impacts of wet weather sewer system overflows on the Thames River, the funds identified for this project are specifically earmarked for transit investments and cannot simply be redirected to municipal servicing infrastructure. The Development Charges Act is quite specific on how DCs are collected and what they can be used for. The City cannot collect development charges for transit and then redirect this money to new wastewater facilities. Additionally, the DC Act is based on the principle that growth pays for growth and DCs cannot be applied to solving existing problems not related to new growth. The City of London is presently advancing the Core Area Servicing Strategy (CASS) in conjunction with the Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (PPCP) to identify infrastructure improvements that will mitigate the impacts of wet weather system overflows to the Thames River and its tributaries. In closing, the suggestion of cancelling Shift would be inconsistent with and contrary to the Strategic 48

49 There has been an unprecedented public response to Shift. Shift will devastate our fragile downtown. The Shift experts are getting Londoners to talk about changes to Shift, but Londoners need to come up with an alternative strategy, not fine tuning a bad plan. Cancel Shift, look at it again in 20 years. Not all great Cities have Rapid Transit. London, Windsor, Stratford, Brantford are all great Cities, none have or need a rapid transit system. I urge the Hon Deborah Matthews, MPP, and also Peter Fragiskatos, MP, and Kate Young, MP to ask their governments to NOT fund Shift. There are infrastructure projects that need funding in London now such as the Adelaide Over/Underpass at CPR and correcting the dumping of raw sewage into the Thames River Thank you for replying. I'm sure you have hundreds of replies to make. From what you have said, despite this being the biggest infrastructure endeavor in London history, there are really no details. Nothing. There is absolutely nothing is then to warrant moving any further with this project That's excellent news for me Brian. Plan for the City of London, The London Plan and the Council approved Rapid Transit Master Plan. A significant amount of work and many studies have gone into shaping the plan for rapid transit as it stands today and justify the investment. We look forward to working with you, and all citizens of London, through the next phases of the Environmental Assessment to maximize the value of investments in rapid transit. Comment received. Comment received. I appreciate your response [cc d Councillor Squire] Thank you for replying to me about rapid transit in the Richmond corridor. As a resident of the area I remain very concerned about the impact of this plan on the entire area from downtown to the University, and it still strikes me as an experiment that is all very well in theory but that fails to take account of many practical details. I did note that buses arrive in bunches, but that is not because of On J. Ramsay responds: I can confirm that LTC does not schedule buses to arrive in bunches; in fact, the LTC has a 5-year service plan to address on-time reliability and reducing overcrowding on existing routes, including significant service level improvements for the entire city. If you re interested in learning more, the plan is available here: 49

50 traffic congestion. It is because of the way LTC schedules buses. If the scheduling of these buses were spaced, they would not arrive in bunches except when held up by a train at the CP tracks. A dedicated corridor for buses will not increase the speed of transit, because the buses will still have to stop at traffic lights and will still be periodically held up at the CP tracks. The 90 Express and other Express buses already travel as quickly as any new buses will be able to do in a dedicated corridor. This is to say that the current mix of Express buses and regular buses, with adjustments in schedules, serves the city quite well, and without overturning the area. In addition, as I understand it, the city wants to have just one rapid transit route running up Richmond and through the university, and because the university will only allow 8 buses an hour on this route, the capacity of the total number of buses running on this route will be decreased and not increased. Other routes (such as 1 and 21) will become feeder routes for this main route, and because of the number of students piling into this main route, there will be no space for passengers from the feeder routes to get on by the time the bus reaches Cheapside or Huron Street. The proposed new system will not serve the area as well as the current system. Since a rapid transit service by definition does not stop at every block, people will have to walk farther to catch the bus. For older people and in the winter, when streets can be icy, this is an inconvenience, or worse. The city, as I understand it, will only have rapid transit on Richmond. Cities that have rapid transit buses combine them with a conventional service. This is what we have now with the 90 Express. It is not a good idea to get rid of the conventional service going north and south on Richmond. In addition, handicapped people will have to get to the middle of the road in their wheelchairs in order to board the bus, which, as they have pointed out, is a major inconvenience and/or danger for them, and very difficult in winter. Since two bus lanes with boarding areas will take up more road space than two lanes of traffic, the road will have to be widened on Richmond south of Oxford, unless you ban vehicle and truck traffic While dedicated lanes for buses will not increase the speed the buses will travel, it will increase reliability of service and allow buses to bypass traffic in the general travel lanes. This will reduce the time buses spend waiting to go through busy intersections. This has been proven in many other cities across Canada and in Ontario, including Mississauga, Vaughan, and Winnipeg. Rapid Transit does not replace the LTC bus system. Local bus routes will connect to Rapid Transit and, within the downtown area, LTC bus routes will be permitted to operate on exclusive Rapid Transit (RT) lanes. On six-lane roadways that include exclusive RT lanes, LTC buses may operate in the general traffic lanes to provide a more local service. This allows greater stop spacing for RT and allows better access to transit stops using a local parallel LTC route. In the next study phase, design alternatives will be developed and evaluated for the integration of local bus service within the approved Rapid Transit corridors. We have heard the concerns regarding accessibility, and the Rapid Transit network including station areas and platforms, will be designed to current Accessibility standards. Each rapid transit platform will be located at a traffic signal, and the lights will be timed to accommodate people with varying mobility to cross the street to and from the transit platform. You are correct, Richmond Street south of Oxford Street is narrow, and design options will be developed and evaluated this fall. As noted in my last , we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis and consultation with Londoners to help guide this decision. 50

51 on that segment of Richmond. There is virtually no space to widen the road (not to mention that small businesses along this strip will be destroyed in the process). If you ban vehicle and truck traffic on this segment of Richmond, it will have to go onto the residential side streets, ruining those areas. The amount of money that you say will have to be spent on road widening if we don't have rapid transit (290 million) is less than the amount of money you say will have to be spent on rapid transit (500 million). The 720 million of savings is entirely hypothetical. First, with the introduction of rapid transit as it is currently conceived by the city for the Richmond corridor, I believe that the LTC will experience a loss and not a gain in ridership. Second, I doubt very much that travel times will decrease, and the logic by which that supposed decrease is counted as a monetary benefit is spurious. By that same logic, if I walk to the university and spend 40 minutes doing so, I'm wasting time and thus money. For all these reasons, I still feel that the city must carefully reconsider the practicalities of this rash plan before proceeding with it B. Hollingworth received a telephone inquiry from this property owner who requested further information on the potential impacts to his property. B. Hollingworth outlined the purpose and status of the master plan and noted the proposal for a tunnel has been deferred. He explained the preliminary concept of the at grade option with median lanes, noting other alternatives will be examined as well. He noted that the property access is currently right-in, rightout, with off-street parking, so the impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Owner is supportive of rapid transit to support growth and development. Increasing the critical mass of population and employment in the downtown will be good for business. However, he understands there will be impacts during construction No matter how efficient or sync the signals are, if you get rush hour traffic whether Costco on Wonderland or Stanley/Wharncliffe.. due to volume, no software will help. Finally, regarding the business case framework, we applied standard methods and processes set out for other transit project across Ontario. Some examples of other business cases can be found at: tevaluation/benefitscases/benefits_case_analyses.a spx Thank you for your continued interest in this project. We have added you to the SHIFT mailing list. You can unsubscribe at any time by ing shift@london.ca. Please note, this is on behalf of the Shift Rapid Transit Office and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the ward councillor who has been copied for information purposes. IBI Group will communicate with the property manager and tenant moving forward, and keep property owner on the distribution list. See related s from Kirby Leong. Comment received. Added to the mailing list. 51

52 People are just damn impatient and are always in a hurry to get to the next stop light, BUT they are ahead of you! We travel Wharncliffe because the clog in traffic is always at Westmount mall lights on Wonderland are always out of sync, plus the mall near CTC. Why is the widening being considered? I do not think that the northern route should go through Western. I am concerned that the BRT will be subject to strikes by university workers, and also that it seems that Western is not contributing to the construction necessary for the plan to go ahead (but perhaps I m wrong on that). My recommendation is to have the BRT continue north along Richmond, then perhaps turn left at Windermere, then right on Western Road before joining up with Richmond again [Sent to Councillors, and Andy Oudman from CJBK s Live Drive] The future of public transit... /self-driving-shuttles-tested-downtown-detroit/ / On B. Hollingworth responds: The option of Richmond to Windermere to Western was examined in the Rapid Transit Master Plan (see Section of ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_Chapter3.8to3.9.pdf? ) In summary, we found that the Lambton Drive option will better serve future campus expansion plans, meaning more people and jobs near walking distance of rapid transit. This option will also reduce conflicts between transit and pedestrians/cyclists through the campus centre, and maintain a reasonable transit travel time. This corridor is subject to design review and refinement in the next study phase. On J. Ramsay responds: Thank-you for sharing the news article. In the future, connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) will provide several benefits to the transportation network in London, including safety and operational efficiencies. However, CAVs will not have the person-carrying capacity to replace Rapid Transit. Added to the mailing list. 52

53 The City will remain adaptive to ensure CAVs can be integrated into a complete and multi-modal transportation system, with Rapid Transit as its backbone. We have added you to the SHIFT mailing list. You can unsubscribe at any time by ing shift@london.ca There is a lot in the mix and the memo attached indicates responses are being prepared. As the 15th draws close I will drop off latest input which may overlap previous correspondence. This will be done Wednesday morning at front desk This is of what was left for you this morning. When I just went on line I see your response to some questions. Will examine and get back as still waiting for some responses from others. Brief on London's Rapid Transit Initative Master Plan (July 2017 edition) & Business Case This brief is presented as part of ongoing dialogue noted with public posting for 45 days. A review of the information the term "Rapid Transit' keeps appearing. Without playing on buzz words and examining details of report there is no appearance of any rapid transit moving quickly. On the intercity mode when going from a CN train to rapid transit the term fits. However in London any analysis of implications are none existent even as the possibility links to "Shift". In looking at the guiding principles the actual benefits are not matched by the assumptions and applied formulas to justify the case. Please note, this is on behalf of the Shift Rapid Transit Office and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of council members who has been copied for information purposes. See response On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you again for your thoughts. Please feel free to contact me once you ve had a chance to review my response from yesterday. Our office has tried to coordinate responses where possible. If there are specific questions you ve forwarded on to others in the corporation that you feel haven t been answered, let us know. Historically, City Council in 2010 (environment and transportation committee July 19th) a Councillors' disappointment for failure of 53

54 transit first was told by staff " We just don't deal with this on an ideological basis. These were options we gave the people. You go to the public for consultation and you give them options. You don't tell them what you want" and another Councillor in response to needing 900,000 people to make it work went so far as to say he considers the rail option a distraction. In November 2015 Council put all their eggs in one basket and went for the billion dollar rapid transit. The first real public exposure was on Feb. 23, Today Londoners are being told how to live, work and get around by the case presented. History repeats! The public record will confirm all the discourse and changes because of that decision. However the questions asked below have not been answered to date and appear in the documents provided in July The assumptions that giving people many options means better mobility choices and time savings is not the case! Directing people how to get around; forcing longer rides and less direct service is wrong. Ridership data would suggest if 50% of current riders have no choice but transit they are captive! If 15% have choice are you sure they will stay? Students apparently based on fall 2016 LTC survey represent 35 % of riders; however they are only there 7 months. Service is a priority for activity generators but ignore the riders who use the system 12 months of the year. The spine of the service is forced to go through downtown. If you want to maximize user flexibility the spine approach doesn't work. Fundamentally, there is a difference what London Transit moving ahead was going to do in expanding and improving service based on ridership for the next 25 years. Priority was providing service to meet mobility choices of their customers. Service levels were provided by time of day, day of week and time of year (UWO / Fanshawe in or out). The key time factor was minimizing time to bus stop and travel time to destination most being done by taking one bus! Routing of buses were controlled by designation of roads and keeping walking distance to metres. Today London Transit has several routes not going downtown and even express buses with 10 minute time travel. Shift won't do this! 54

55 On the other hand Shift is designed to direct people to use mobility choices regardless of time it takes such as the last mile theory by walking, biking or taking LTC feeder buses. It is designed to operate on a standard regardless of ridership or timing accessibility. The routes were predetermined to go through downtown. Changes are made because consideration was not made how to meet needs of all Londoners. From an environmentally better plan why was Richmond St. (Central to Horton) eliminated; why would one force Clarence St. restructure to accommodate BRT; why was King, Queens, Wellington not used; why is Dundas St. east of Wellington not used. All of these issues could be resolved by using "Mixed Traffic Model" similar to that on part of Clarence, Wharncliffe and Wellington Rd. south. It is worth repeating these actions are not in the best interests of a better community environment. The myths that don't add value to the discussion: Focus of attention should be on links to Airport, CN Station and Bus Depot! Noting there is no data analysis that would support value for investment! There will be no loss of current passengers from changes. Traffic patterns on "Spine" will be vastly improved. There will not be increased accidents because of dumping current heavy traffic on other roads. School Boards / parents will support removal of service; replaced by public transit. People will in mass switch to riding bikes. People in mass will spend more time getting to and from work to have BRT. Adults and Children will walk more because it is healthy regardless of extra time required. Public transit is capable of competing with the automobile. People will willingly give up the right to choose how they get around. City Council will not allow building beyond inner city zone like exemption to Sifton's in far west. Additional major malls will have no impact on downtown. Masonville 70 million dollar entertainment center won't impact downtown. Multi million dollar Western Fair Board OLG won't impact downtown. 55

56 Turning Dundas St. east into a flex street won't seriously hurt old east village. That all LTC feeder routes will increase ridership on BRT. Overall BRT will provide 10% greater ridership because of improved speed and reliability. Design for future LRT and keep tunnel option open. Most of the dollars being spent is for BRT and not infrastructure. Using development charges; mixed housing credits and bonuses will not cost Londoners money! Major population growth in core rather than outside areas such as northeast, northwest and southwest. Transit trips include all the time from leaving home to destination. All buses go downtown & buses stop at every stop all the time. Transit riders will spend time in village stations before and after using BRT. There is a shortage of parking in downtown London today. There has been discussions with surrounding communities on best way to link Rapid Transit with London and better serve Southwestern Ontario protecting farm land in the process. Full examination of 2016 census to ensure the most recent data influences the changes being put forward. The bottom line is that telling people how they will get around linked with major assumptions in determining benefits is misleading given the data or lack there of as of this date. The decision to proceed ignores the steps of step by step process noting there currently is no intercity transit express buses for the masses; no consideration of Go Transit extended from Kitchener and no assessment of blindly going ahead with intercity Rapid Transit. An easy first step remedy would be to initiate mixed transit on corridors that make more sense (exclude downtown guarantee) and enhance the environmental benefits while saving millions and serving Londoners needs from all of city. Closing this submission I refer to an article from the Globe & Mail. Not withstanding all the attention paid to public transit the car is king because a car goes where the person wants to go in a direct route. Public transit will not lure significant numbers even if price of gas goes up! Environmentally the several hours where less than 10 56

57 people are on a bus the auto with two or more passengers is more fuel efficient per passenger. Submitted further to enquiries to be answered [ ed to J. Ramsay] The submission made has several "myths" which have been determined from comments made by Senior staff, Councillors or Consultants. Your response to Adelaide and Wharncliffe begs the question if not part of "Shift" then why in report? Note Blackfriars was also claimed to be needed for detours during construction is not included either? The UWO had 15 conditions which is more widespread than route through UWO. Scheer earlier indicated a report was coming. This should be public for all of us? Fixing other roads; snow clearance and pre approval of building on flood plain land should be addressed. Limiting of service on campus ignores need and any reference to private service linking KIngs College to UWO affiliates. Development charges were changed to allow developers to exclude mixed housing from downtown and build somewhere else. They would still get credit for downtown building. This creates an account receivable by developer which is paid over time by city of London (tax payers). Mixed traffic doesn't address using more of based on an assumption again about efficient looking at Dundas St.. Issue of parking conflicts with Fleming public statement about creating a flex street in old east London and IBI public response to Councillor average savings will be about 50 seconds (Implementation Working Task Force). LTC is preparing feeders to BRT; therefore why not do a model and show exactly the difference from what is provided for customer verses what it will be like after? The last report of mine should allow assessments of protecting environment by comments acted upon and if myths are wrong show the facts that support them. Use your intersection assessment determined making traffic worse. This is study words not mine. Fleming, Soldo, Scheer and Haywood somewhere in input knows of the several issues raised. If included as input and not addressed where do I go? On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for your submission received September 6 th as well as your follow up s on September 7 th and 10 th. I have tried to answer some of the remaining questions from these submissions not already answered in my previous correspondence with the following points: The funding source for the Adelaide and Wharncliffe projects are separate, and they are undergoing separate environmental assessments. The City needs to track these projects separately, but it will be important to coordinate the timing of construction. The City is continuing discussions with Western University on the campus design and operations. They participated in our Stakeholder sessions last week which included an individual design charette (collaborative design session) to refine the corridor design through campus. The Western campus route is one of the key areas that we are working to develop alternatives for the next PIC. LTC developed a strategy to help guide changes to existing bus routes with the implementation of Rapid Transit, including a map of what the routes might look like in See page 39 of: ramework.pdf. As part of our continuing work to develop a preliminary engineering design, we will review locations for local bus stops and other transit infrastructure along the BRT corridors. 57

58 As for your quick following the last Rapid Transit Implementation Working Group meeting. I m glad the presentation helped clarify the upcoming process. Hopefully, you ll tune in for tonight s RTIWG as well. The agenda extends from a consultation and technical work update to the LTC Rapid Transit Integration Framework and next steps for the project So bus passengers are going to have to walk past a lane of traffic to board the bus or is every stop going to have a pedestrian tunnel to the middle of the street? You might as well have opted for light rail if middle of the street running was the way the city was going to go with this. A two or three car light rail train could carry far more passengers than even a flexi bus could accommodate. Yes, I realize light rail was rejected as too expensive, but many progressive Canadian cities are expanding their light rail systems, so they must have found them cost effective once they became operational. I must also disagree with your second last statement, since allowing two large developments on Talbot Street, coupled with elimination of one traffic lane in each direction on Richmond St., is going to have a serious impact on traffic patterns on Talbot and will be a direct negative result of the rapid transit plan. " Outside of the scope "? Why? Trust this finds you both well. Took a look at: Transit.aspx Wanted to get the final rapid transit EA and master plan reports but didn't see them. Could you please provide these documents or up-todate links to these documents whenever you have chance. Related to the above mentioned, can you verify whether or not the City plans to create a signalized access where the McDonalds is at near Oxford and Wonderland? Click here to watch the meeting online, and visit our website to review the presentation. On A. Spahiu responds: RT files are available at website. The Council approved Master Plan and business case can be found at the below web link: The Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) will refine the details of the rapid transit corridors and station locations, there are no further details regarding signalisation at this point, for further information regarding the TPAP process please see 58

59 Are any/all of such that implementing them now and on any normal given day would benefit LTC service and thus create happier ridership today? Is adding more roundabouts, safe bike routes and continued attention to LTC customer service by the wayside for improving traffic in London? Would the LFP want to create an Excel spreadsheet column over the life of this RT public budget (Part III, Section 10, all of the Exhibits) as an ongoing math lesson as an effort to improve our math skills ( 4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHvPvbiZjWAhXq8YMKHZBQB9E QFgg4MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.torontosun.com%2F2017% 2F09%2F06%2Fontario-reviewing-school-curriculum-in-wake-ofpoor-mathresults&usg=AFQjCNHMWpN9ta5F0Hq4UY3B3qR73sI7FQ ) while simultaneously inspiring future public participation (900 respondents as of September 8, 2017; CTV London News) and the importance of wise money handling/attendance/homework to all generations? Thank you for the Shift postcard I picked up at the LPL, a bookmark that served to remind me to offer an opinion online I am concerned that the maps show the routes and roads but do not show the new amalgamations of property. I know the term amalgamate is just take. I have 2 friends and 1 family member that with the first proposal found out that the Rapid Transit was going through their living room or yard and did not even know it until someone saw the drawings at a public meeting and called them. The pictures are pretty but we need more details. the following web link: On B. Hollingworth responds: One of the steps in the study process, as we develop the preliminary engineering design, is to also develop the Quick Start program. We will review the BRT network and identify improvements such as signal and intersection improvements, station areas and bus frequency. These would benefit existing riders achieving your goal of happier riders today. Cycling improvements are planned across London, you can review the cycling master plan on-line at: ages/london-on-bikes.aspx LTC performs annual service reviews to respond to capacity and schedule adherence issues, add service to growing areas of London, accommodate passenger requests and adjust services that do not meet the adopted service standards. You can read more about the changes made in 2017 here: If you d like to be involved in the process for 2018, you can the LTC at ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call On B. Hollingworth responds: I can understand your concerns around the drawings that show impact to the property of your friends and family. The Rapid Transit Master Plan is just one step in the process towards building rapid transit. Detailed plans have not yet been developed and the impacts on each individual property are under review. The City is committed to ensuring that its consultations take into account the considerations of Londoners. Our next task is to review potential impacts along the approved Rapid Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 59

60 It feels like this is going too fast without informing the public of the new amalgamations. These people own their homes/land and as roads have been widening have already lost parts of their land. Why aren t the land/home owners being offered a price for their home or land if it takes over a limited amount of land or goes straight through their home. These people are going to be displaced without compensation for their land and/or home to which they have worked and saved and paid for. This to me is very concerning. Also, I am disabled on a walker and am glad the tunnel was scrapped. It would have made it so much harder having to back track on a sidewalk for blocks as well as it would bankrupt a lot of business if they did not move from the area. That states to me that the tunnel would have damaged more than helped. I am still concerned by the drawings in the new PowerPoint of how the Rapid Transit is going to be on certain roads. I am aware that the streets allow for only the lanes that they have now unless you tear down buildings down town which is another way of defeating the purpose of trying to help the business owners. I feel that this is still not thought out properly and that it is just being thrown together over coffee around a table. 1 ) We need to adjust for current business buildings without the destruction. 2 ) We need to make sure that If the lanes need to be added that land/home owners be compensated. 3 ) We need to make sure that disabled persons are not put into a position of not getting around properly especially down town. 4 ) We need to make sure that the traffic light situation will be allowed to be a longer timing. 5 ) We need to make sure that the pedestrian still comes first. Transit corridors, including impacts to private property such as your building. We will develop alternative designs to minimize or avoid property take, but in some cases property impacts will occur. You can review Frequently Asked Questions regarding property affected by a public works project on the SHIFT website: see page 28 of ages/111/attachments/original/ /shiftfa Q pdf? Council Policy Chapter 20 Property provides more information, available at: We will be contacting all affect property owners in over the next few months. If your friends or family would like to meet sooner to review their specific property, please shift@london.ca and a meeting will be arranged. The Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) will refine the details of the rapid transit corridors and station locations, including intersection design. For further information regarding the TPAP process please see the following web link: Regarding how we communicate about this project, you can review our new plan as presented to council at: ages/160/attachments/original/ /shift_ Communications_Plan_- _Sept_ pdf?

61 6 ) We need to have a different avenue of letting the public know when these meetings are taking place and are taking advise from the public while they are viewing and learning the current situation. Eg Flyers to every door. (Don t say it can t be done, pizza and other fast delivery places do it.) These are some of the issues that I have not seen in this new proposal or PowerPoints [sent to Councillor Cassidy and the Mayor] I thought majority ruled. The majority of people in London don't want BRT, yet for some reason the mayor & most of council want it WHY. Does the folks on council think we are dumb/stupid compared to them, don't they go for what us citizens want & will have to pay for If it goes through it will cost the London taxpayers $ also Provincial & Federal governments (altogether about $1.5b+)Taxes are taxes no matter which pocket it comes out of. Any maps I have seen of the routes, we already have buses on these routes, why not improve the service on these & not disrupt businesses & people If it is to go through, UWO, why should we have to pay for their demands, (approx. $15m if they insist,) then we should drop students the entrances (on our roads) & let them tell students why we are NOT going into UWO Given the decision to go with BRT I find it difficult to prepare a plan that retains possibility of LRT and tunnel. BRT doesn't require any major infrastructure changes. The Richmond Street Municipal Underground changes has nothing to do with BRT. However I would like to suggest something with Quick Start. It should not only apply to north link. On T. Fraser responds: On behalf of Mayor Matt Brown, thank you for taking the time to write to our office regarding your concerns with the bus rapid transit project. I will be sure to share your message with the mayor. Rapid transit will be a massive improvement to our current service with annual revenue service hours to increase by 35% between 2015 and That means more buses where they need to go, more frequent buses and restructuring routes to enhance their effectiveness. As well, the majority of London s share of the funding will come from development charges. This will not affect the tax levy. The majority of the funding will come from the provincial and federal governments, as they are funding projects like this one across the province and country. If we do not implement a rapid transit system, taxpayers could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in road widening costs in the future. See response

62 Reference 14. Quick Start Implementation. Could be implemented on North corridor utilizing buses in mixed traffic etc.. Would minimize throw-away costs and build transit ridership and demonstrate the benefits of rapid transit on a smaller scale. Because major infrastructure is not required I would suggest more of this "Quick Start" can be done' Case: Dundas Street east corridor. Immediate savings of not having to destroy improvements just being made. Recognize what is happening in the next few years with Western Fair Casino, Emco, Kelloggs, McCormack. There is room and options to think outside the box. If using mixed traffic on Dundas Street; noting lower use of traffic west of Quebec and current congestion near Egerton which will only get worse there is flexibility to move slowly and get better results. Start with mixed traffic on Dundas St. from Wellington east to Highbury 2way. Use KIng St. for mixed east bound and Queens for mixed westbound. This saves millions of dollars and better serve the user needs in the foreseeable future. (No closure of Old East Village Dundas St, remember the snake road!). With east route going to Fanshawe college this will reduce those riders from Quebec St. area and force them to take local or o to Oxford St. to take feeder. Does this feeder use same road as Oxford east of Highbury for BRT? How do you link 5 minute service interlined with feeder buses if not mixed service design? If a feeder bus comes from area north and down to BRT then a route could be extended cross Egerton St. giving a link which currently isn't available. This process keeps options open, allows tremendous interaction with major players mentioned earlier noting availability of a lot of open spaces and using their creativity to make something unique based on growth of ridership outcomes. Look forward to feedback. A question on ridership data. If 6000 people currently work at Hospital and Lawsons does data show how many are currently using transit? How much parking is available for staff? Generally is there data that shows the on campus facilities existing residences; capacity of parking lots (present and planned). This kind of data should be available; noting I have not examined user data (present or future). 62

63 Did raise with Kelly Scheer about 2016 census which could have a major impact on trends; any update? Please try to give people notice of upcoming meetings at least 2 weeks in advance I have been following the rapid transit and have some questions. One of my jobs was on the road driving all around and through the city. It is well know the quickest cut through the city was on Richmond Str. Most people use Richmond as a cross town expressway and most vehicles do not stop in the core that are on Richmond Street, this is verifiable from the city website of traffic counts. With the rapid transit it appears the goal of the plan is to build Richmond and Dundas into expressways. Most cities in The Netherlands have made their cores a destination not a bypass. They gave it easy for buses and bike to get through and around the core and make it hard for vehicles. I have searched for the number of vehicles that have the core of as a destination but can't find it, I am not counting the vehicles used by workers or suppliers. A proper solution, and extremely economical, is to only have two inner lanes as vehicle and the two outer from transit. On Dundas removing on street downtown will have no affect on business. There are so few and more often than not cabs illegally park there, trucks load and unload so removing them will be a benefit. With the reconstruction of Wharncliffe it can be the north south expressway and Queens with Iing can be east west. This eliminates millions in land expropriation, saves millions in unnecessary construction costs. In the Netherlands my home city, Utrecht, spent millions in the 50/60s widening roads through the core, filling in canals to make 10 lane expressways and tore down buildings to make parking lots. Then 15 years ago, they woke up. The dug the canals up, reduced roads to 2 lanes, made parking lots into parks and meeting spots. Most all cities in Europe ban diesel cars of certain vintage and are working towards total ban of vehicles in the core. It would take adjustment for everyone. Too much time is being spent on asking what everyone wants, this only causes a never ending problem. Other cities have found solutions. With having only four lanes enforcement is key. Comment received. On B. Hollingworth responds: Many individuals make their way to downtown London for specific purposes, especially for the shopping, restaurants and nightlife that exist in the area. Rapid Transit will encourage this type of destination traffic. Take the example of Richmond Street between Central Ave and University Drive. In order to accommodate pass-through traffic, other parallel roads are already planned for improvements. These include: Widening Western Road As/Pages/Western-Road-Widenining- Environmental-Assesmnet.aspxx Grade separating Adelaide Street from the CP Rail crossing As/Pages/Adelaide-Street-and-Canadian- Pacific-Railway-Grade-Separation-.aspxx The Rapid Transit Master Plan also identifies dedicated cycle facilities along the roadway on Western Road, King Street, and Wellington Road south of Commissioners. These locations will be reviewed and refined in more detail in the next study phase as the rapid transit corridor designs are developed. A review of curb-running versus centre-running rapid transit lanes, station locations, and parking will be refined and finalized through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). Added to the mailing list. 63

64 I really appreciate the time you have taken to review and respond to my comments now and previously, especially considering the volume of input you must have received. Comment received. I think I follow your responses to issue #1 (buses using regular traffic lanes on RT corridors) but this could be an area of significant misunderstanding and controversy if it is not clearly communicated. You have not really addressed issue #6 (provisions for decommissioning the RT system). The notion that SDV riders would change modes to wait for a BRT ride is implausible. You might be interested in the latest forecasts of accelerating changes in personal transportation, especially shared mobility, from McKinsey Where is this presentation going to actually happen? What room, what building? Live streaming is fine, but if I want to ask questions, I want to be able to ask someone immediately (not at some later time). So where is this SHIFT presentation actually going to take place? At the PIC in late 2015 held at the Central Library, I added my name and contact information to the contact list, yet I have not been receiving any correspondence related to this project. Please add me to the list One thing we must keep in mind is there can be no sacrifice of vehicle traffic to implement the rapid bus system. Raised portions of the road are not the way to go. I know why Shift proposed this it is to someday use light rail. That technology is not in the future of London. When rail line are put in you are stuck with the route. Maybe in Toronto a subway is helpful in moving people. We are not Toronto Thank goodness for that. On A. Rosebrugh responds: Thanks for your . This is a closed working group meeting, so there won t be the opportunity for members of the public to attend; however, it is being taped so that the public can follow along. If you would like to ask questions, the best way to do that would be to either send them via to shift@london.ca, phone us at ext. 4925, or come by the Shift office on Dundas to speak with a member of the project team in person. On A. Rosebrugh responds: Thanks for letting us know you haven t been receiving communications from Shift. We will make sure you have been added correctly to the contact list, and that you receive communications from us moving forward. On B. Hollingworth responds: For most of the Rapid Transit network, the dedicated transit lanes will be separated from general traffic by a raised curb. This separation is required to provide safe and efficient transit operations, regardless of future conversion to Light Rail. Added to the mailing list. 64

65 City Council endorsed as a strategic direction the future conversion to light rail transit technology subject to further review and confirmation through a new business case in a motion passed May 26, It is noted that this conversion means beyond the 2034 horizon year of the Rapid Transit Master Plan. In the next study phase, elements that constrain the future conversion to light rail transit will be identified Thanks for the invite..but where...aka: location On A. Rosebrugh responds: Thanks for your . This is a closed working group meeting, so there won t be the opportunity for members of the public to attend; however, it is being taped so that the public can follow along I am in support of this transit strategy. However, I struggle with the Western Road/Richmond Street intersection realignment. This area is notoriously bad with traffic at the moment, would it not be better to have a roundabout for this area instead of a 'T' intersection? This way the out of sync lights of the Western Road/Richmond Street and Richmond/Sunnyside Drive won't affect the flow of traffic. The bus stations can be incorporated with the roundabout, or be positioned at the light of Richmond/Sunnyside As a 4 time daily commuter around the city, before any move forward with rapid transit, more bus lanes need to be created where possible and fewer bus stops to keep the traffic flow going and more bike lanes ( in some cases, unbelievably, there are three bus stops in one block! ) What is going on with leadership on this issue? never mind the restricted access tunnel that wasted so much time and cost If you would like to ask questions or share comments related to the presentation, you can either send them via to shift@london.ca, phone us at ext. 4925, or come by the Shift office on Dundas to speak with a member of the project team in person. On B. Hollingworth responds: The realignment of Western Road and Richmond Street is a big change, but takes advantage of investments the City is making to the south on Western and Wharncliffe. We have identified a roundabout as a possibility, but the space requirements are quite significant. On B. Hollingworth responds: Your suggestion for more bus lanes and fewer stops and is very much in line with the proposed Bus Rapid Transit plan. The Rapid Transit Master Plan also identifies dedicated cycle facilities along the roadway on Western Road, King Street, and Wellington Road Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 65

66 [letter addressed to J. Ramsay] The updated London Rapid Transit Master Plan lacks significant analysis that is required to evaluate this project. Until this additional analysis is provided, it is not possible to adequately evaluate this proposal. The additional data/analysis that is required to allow a full evaluation of this proposal are: Traffic studies are needed to determine the traffic/congestion impacts of the closing of general purpose lanes on Dundas Street, Richmond Street and Wellington Road. The master plan indicates that the level of service will be reduced at numerous intersections along the BRT route, impacting travel by private vehicles on the BRT routes as well as routes that cross BRT routes. The master plan does not calculate the cost of the increased traffic congestion caused by the proposed BRT system. The cost of increased traffic congestion of the BRT proposal should be calculated and included in the projects benefit/cost analysis. The additional time required to travel routes impacted by the BRT system prior to implementation of the system and following the completion of the system, so that the public will understand the impact of the BRT system on their level of mobility. Private vehicle travel for numerous commutes pre- and post-brt should be calculated to provide appropriate information for the public to evaluate the proposal. The economic costs in terms of impacts on London businesses of construction of the BRT system should be calculated. The economic costs of the completed BRT system to London businesses should be calculated as a result of decreased private south of Commissioners. These locations will be reviewed and refined in more detail in the next study phase as the rapid transit corridor designs are developed. On J. Ramsay responds: As presented to committee and council in mid- September, we have a detailed work plan to develop the preliminary engineering design, review and mitigate negative impacts including traffic analysis, and prepare an Environmental Project Report for the approved BRT network. Note that impacts along the downtown and Richmond Row corridors were analysed. We reviewed impacts during construction, impacts with BRT in place, property, access, and parking. Please refer to Rapid Transit Master Plan Section 3.12 for the North Corridor and Section 3.13 for Downtown. We will conduct a similar analysis for Wellington Street in the coming months. The work plan is available at: on/pages/160/attachments/original/ /lon donrt_expandedscopepmp _%28FINAL%29.pdf? Note that travel time impacts were included in the business case analysis, please refer to pages 29 to 31: ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_AppA-I_6of6.pdf? It is important to remember that if we do nothing, traffic volumes will continue to increase, and the travel time and congestion you refer to will worsen as the city continues to grow. The business case considers the future of London without rapid transit, 66

67 vehicle access to their locations, including the impact of longer travel times for customers, vendors and employees. The BRT master plan anticipates significant increases in public transit ridership either without construction of a BRT system or if the system is built. This significant increase in transit ridership differs from the prediction of most transportation experts that future public transit ridership levels are likely to decline as a result of the advent of a shared transportation model, including connected and autonomous vehicles and the advent of Transportation Network Companies, which will compete with public transit for riders. The BRT master plan needs to provide analysis detailing how the advent of shared transportation models will impact use of the BRT system. The BRT master plan is flawed because it largely focuses on two possible options: business as usual or the implementation of the BRT plan. The BRT master plan should be updated to include analysis of at least a third option, which would include optimizing current public transit service and improving traffic flow on critical arterials in London, to improve both transit service and private vehicle access. to the future with rapid transit. Note that the business as usual case does include other planned service increases to public transit service. Adding more buses to congested roadways and intersections will not address the goals and vision set out in The London Plan. Regarding future transit ridership, we know that London is growing and we know that widening roads alone will not serve our city well in the future. By 2030, 25% more cars are expected to be on London roadways. Bus Rapid Transit can move more people more efficiently, comfortably and reliably. In the future, connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) may provide benefits to the transportation network in London, including safety and operational efficiencies. However, CAVs will not have the person-carrying capacity to replace Rapid Transit vehicles. The City will remain adaptive to ensure CAVs can be integrated into a complete and multimodal transportation system, with Rapid Transit as its backbone. Finally, the Rapid Transit Master Plan considered alternative technologies, alternative routes, and all options include LTC s plans for future service growth. The conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. Strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. 67

68 You can read more about the work LTC has started on this integration here: Framework.pdf I can t watch it at that time? To the staff of Shift...do you plan to record a video of this presentation and then make it available on the city s website for viewing at another on demand?? That would be very helpful to many I believe. Thank you again for your interest and I encourage to remain engaged in the project in the coming months. You are welcome to visit our interim Rapid Transit Headquarters at the Central Library if you d like to discuss the project further in person. On A. Rosebrugh responds: Thanks for your . The video will be available as a recording for the public to view after the meeting likely next week. It will be posted to the following page on the City Hall website: Please let me know if we can be of further assistance They will be talking in plain English? On A. Rosebrugh responds: Some comments/concerns: Many of the busses I observe during the day are almost empty; Western Road is extremely busy and sometimes very congested so restricting lanes along that section will be a nightmare; not allowing cars to use the university campus, (yes, I know Western does not want public traffic on their property), will create even more congestion during rush hour, (AM and PM), on Oxford St.; and in the frequently asked question section on your site, you really did not answer the question about the lack of Western and Fanshawe students in the city one third of the year. I also heard on this evening s new that a few million dollars have been added to the cost, (consultation costs?). Thanks for your . If anything comes up in the discussion tomorrow that you would like more explanation or background for, please don t hesitate to contact us at shift@london.ca. We would be happy to help. On B. Hollingworth responds: Rapid transit will be a significant improvement LTC s current service with annual revenue service hours to increase by 35% between 2015 and That means more buses where they need to go, more frequent buses and restructuring routes to enhance their effectiveness. With regard to Western, City senior management met again with Western University in August. It was a positive discussion and they have made plans to 68

69 I have ed Phil Squires a few times about my concerns, (these and others), and have informed him that I believe this project is a very poor use of taxpayers money! Where do I see the map. I have lived in London all me life. I would like to see a pilot project before a lot of cash is thrown into this. And hiring of expensive engineers for a project that may not work. LT has day trippers to handle rush hour crowds and the money makers are the UWO & Fanshawe business. Has thought been given to a PILOT project? [sent to the Mayor and Councillors van Holst and Squire] I have given "eyes on" to the large master plan document submitted to upper level government by the City of London for funding of this project. I did not read it word for word but it looked to me like the original plan that included the tunnel and proposed downtown ring routes. I'm confused as to why we would submit a plan that has continue working together with Western through the next phase of the study to refine the route and station designs through campus. With regard to servicing students, it is important to note that every Western University and Fanshawe College student pays for a bus pass regardless of whether they use it or not. University and college students also contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy every year. You are right to point out that demand will be lower when students are not in session, but this is also the case with the current transit system and LTC is able to make adjustments in service to optimize operating costs. On B. Hollingworth responds: It sounds like you are inquiring about the map of the approved Bus Rapid Transit corridors. You can find it here: A Quick Start service is proposed on the North corridor utilizing buses in mixed traffic, with transit signal priority, localized intersection improvements, and rapid transit station spacing. This concept will be explored in the next study phase. Construction could start in 2019 on the Quick Start section (see the map on page 11 of 14 of ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_ExecutiveSummary.pdf? ). On J. Ramsay responds: The BRT network approved by council in July is shown on our website here: The approved network does not include a tunnel on Richmond Street (buses will operate at street-level), and includes a downtown couplet (westbound 69

70 already been rejected. I do believe we need many improvements to our transit system. Personally I am not in favor of further widening of south Wellington Road, eliminating housing and trees. This will further give a ghetto appearance to a road where people still own residential housing. We just have to look at Wharncliffe and Adelaide streets to see the effects of road widening, sidewalks dangerously close to moving traffic, no trees all the way from Dundas street to Commissioners road. Further if Wellington Road widening goes ahead property south of the bridge at the river will be dangerously close to the thirty five thousand plus vehicles traversing this road daily, many of them super sized transport trucks. I request the environment assessment include the impact of air quality, noise limits and safety for people living so close to the proposed wider road. Further, the risk of vehicles crashing into people's homes. Many of the trees will need to be removed prompting greater noise levels, air pollution and personal and property damage. How will seniors who live on and near Wellington Road get across an even wider road? I own a house and live on Wellington Road and these are my objections and concerns about the plan as it exists. buses will travel on Queens Avenue, while eastbound buses will travel on King Street). This approved BRT network is described in the Rapid Transit Master Plan and is reflected in the Business Case submitted in support of funding requests to other levels of government. Rapid Transit will offer Londoners a new transportation choice that will help shape London's future. Rapid Transit fits with other established plans including the London Plan to support transit-oriented development along the Rapid Transit corridors and create a vibrant street-level experience for pedestrians. Rapid Transit will influence how pedestrians, cyclists, cars and trucks move in all parts of the city. An improved, faster, reliable transit service will attract more transit riders as residential and commercial buildings develop along the corridors. The need for investment in transit in London has been documented in the Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Master Plan ( Transportation/Transportation- Planning/Pages/Smart-Moves-2030-Transportation- Plan.aspx). Deferring rapid transit means that some $290 million of road expansion projects will be required over the next 20 years. I understand your concerns about widening Wellington Road. We have now begun the process of developing design alternatives for the Rapid Transit corridors. As outlined in the Rapid Transit Master Plan Section 8, we intend to develop complete streets to accommodate users of all ages, abilities, and travel modes, and include trees or other plantings where possible. Design 70

71 development is underway, and Londoners will have more opportunities to review the designs. The other issues you have noted, including environmental impacts, noise, air quality, and safety are all being studied, as described in the updated Project Management Plan ( pages/160/attachments/original/ /londo nrt_expandedscopepmp _%28FINAL%29.pdf? ). Information will be available for public review and input as our technical work is advanced. We have added you to the SHIFT mailing list. You can unsubscribe at any time by ing The public has only a short time remaining to review and comment on the BRT plan before council approves the next stage of the process. Please go to Shift.ca and click on the BRT master plan. Here are a number of important points you will find in the plan. The LTC system wide average per trip time saving with BRT vs business as usual, i.e. no BRT, is 4.0 minutes. The time saving with BRT from downtown to Fanshawe is 7.5 minutes (students), to Western is 6.0 minutes(students), to Wonderland Road 3.0 minutes, and to White Oaks Mall 1 minute. This does not sound like a big improvement to me. In fact, why bother with the Wonderland and White Oaks corridors? Seriously, 1 minute time savings? The projected annual transit ridership increase due to BRT is actually quite small. Especially in relation to the price tag. SHIFT's own numbers show an increase in LTC ridership without BRT of 6.0 Please note, this is on behalf of the Shift Rapid Transit Office and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the council members that have been copied for information purposes. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank you for taking the time to review the Business Case and Rapid Transit Master Plan in detail. We would like to respond to your comments on travel time savings, projected transit ridership, student ridership, costs, putting more buses on the road, and turning movements. Travel Time Savings: Approximate travel time savings for Rapid Transit compared to business-as-usual were estimated in the business case. The savings are based on Rapid Transit travel times to existing transit travel time. While these numbers may seem small, consider that saving 3 minutes each way to and from work, 5 days a week, adds up to saving half an hour every week per passenger. Multiplied by the thousands of 71

72 million riders from now to This is approximately in line with city percentage population increase projections. With BRT the increase is 8.9 million, so only 2.9 million more riders due to BRT. The percentage increase in ridership attributed to BRT is only 13%. This is over 16 years ( ), so less than 1% increase in ridership per year due to BRT. Looked at another way, 2.9 million is less than 8,000 trips per day, which is less than 4,000 people using BRT per day. Or, less than 1% of London's 458,000 residents in And these are SHIFT's numbers. The public's perception that BRT will primarily benefit Western and Fanshawe students is reinforced by a quick scan of the master plan. 7 out of 10 of the busiest LTC routes addressed in the plan service Western or Fanshawe. References to both schools are prominent throughout the plan. It is very difficult to take them seriously when our Council and Mayor insist the BRT is not focused on these students. Much is made by BRT proponents of the value and efficiency of the plan. Well let's look at some of SHIFT's own numbers to see about that. First, understand that presently London Transit has a revenue cost recovery of about 53%. This means that almost 50% of their total budget is subsidised by the City and the Province. Over the 30 year life of the BRT, BRT additional revenues total $71.7 million, or an average of $2.4 million per year. BRT operating costs will increase each year until 2028, at which point SHIFT states BRT operating costs will hit and continue at $12,886,000 per year. This is BRT only, not including the rest of the LTC budget. So there will be a $10,000,000 increase in the yearly LTC deficit. Does this sound like good value and efficiency? Note that this is totally in addition to the $440 million construction cost. The money to cover this deficit will come from your taxes, increasing the LTC subsidy more and more. But, if you think the above is scandalous, just read on. The BRT Master Plan actually states that there is $724.4 million in benefits against $615.4 million total cost (present value of capital and operating expenditures) over the life of the plan - to How is this possible? Remember the 4.0 minutes of time saving mentioned above? Well, if you multiply that by all the trips over 30 years, that apparently is worth $525.1 million. Well, that's what it would amount people projected to use Rapid Transit to get where they are going. In addition to travel time savings, reliability is very important to transit riders, and the BRT system will improve reliability. The monetization of travel time savings that was applied for London s Business Case is consistent with practices used for other projects across Ontario. Projected Transit Ridership: We do not concur with your contextualization of the ridership forecasts. Firstly, the system ridership with BRT is projected to grow by more than 2% per year whereas population will grow by just over 1% per year. Also, you cannot take just the incremental ridership and say that these are the only people that benefit. The BRT plan is about building a better transit system for all users, existing and new. Student Ridership: At present, 40 per cent of LTC customers are between the ages of 18 and 24. The gender split between riders is 57 per cent female and 43 per cent male. One of the goals of the rapid transit plan is to make transit more attractive for a broader range of users by connecting major destinations including downtown, hospitals and other major employers. Keep in mind; however, that postsecondary institutions are also major employers and contribute to London s economy. A 2015 study by KPMG found that Western s annual economic impact was 3.6 billion in London. We should not diminish the value of providing good transit for students the future workforce. Costs: All transit systems operate with subsidies. Some people prefer the term investment. Compare the costs of transit to driving. On average, people 72

73 to if everyone was paid $16.71 per hour for sitting on the bus! This is presented by SHIFT in all seriousness, including the hourly rate! Does this mean every rider will start work 4 minutes early and get extra pay? If not, what does the $525 million measure? It is not disclosed in the report. How does this $525.1 million get presented as some kind of monetary offset to the cost of the project? Creative consulting I guess. There is another $199.4 million in non tangible benefits for things like vehicle operating cost savings, road user savings, safety savings, GHG emission savings, and health savings (for walking, saving of $37.4 million). So, you see, we actually make money by building the BRT! Let's look at the cost vs return question another way. The report presents the construction cost plus operating cost to 2050 at $619 million. The report states that additional fare revenue of BRT over that time is $71 million. This results in a loss, an ultimate direct cost to taxpayers, of $548 million. Yet SHIFT says that with the $724 million in made up intangible benefits above, taxpayers are $110 million ahead with BRT. You decide which math adds up. If the consulting companies can present the above as The Business Case, and our council endorses it wholeheartedly, what must this say about the quality of the remainder of the plan? You should take 15 minutes to look at the document online, or at a library, to see for yourself. This plan is all about our council's vision of a utopian London without cars, and everyone commuting on bicycles in the snow. The Business Case is full of vague terms like 'place making' and 'city building', plus a virtual guarantee that London will become a tech hub because of BRT, because Millennials will flock to London. spend about $8,000 per year on operating and ownership costs per automobile. Multiply that by the number of vehicles in London (about 235,000) and the annual cost are in the billions. More Buses on the Road: If we simply add more regular buses to the road, those buses would still be mixed with regular traffic and experience delays from congestion. By providing lanes that are dedicated to transit, Rapid Transit passengers will experience shorter travel times, with more frequent, reliable and comfortable service. Bus Rapid Transit vehicles are larger and modern and can carry more passengers than a regular bus. Turning Movements: You are correct, only unsignalized intersections and driveways will be converted to right-in/right-out, while signalized intersections will maintain fullmoves access. This is a typical approach used for many BRT systems in North America. Vehicles attempting to cross at unsignalized intersections will have a short distance added, as shown in the below figure. It is very interesting that the BRT Master Plan includes the valuation of nebulous benefits as a case to support the plan, but does not mention any other resulting costs such as business interruptions and closures, traffic disruption during 10 years of construction, litigation, and so on. Convenient to quantify non tangible benefits, yet totally ignore other real costs that should be added to the total cost. If SHIFT can add the supposed value of time saved for BRT riders, then it should also add the cost of time lost to motorists and LTC 73

74 riders during 10 years of construction delays, and all those GHG emissions resulting from the delays. Here some additional costs that are disclosed, real money costs, but not included in the $440 million price tag, or in the future operating costs. Wharncliffe/ Western Road widening and Adelaide CP rail crossing grade separation $85 million; and $100 million for bicycle lanes. Yes, $100 million for bicycle infrastructure. And way at the bottom of the report is disclosed the need to create a whole new City Hall Department of Rapid Transit. No cost disclosed. It seems that London Transit can't do the job. And this cost will be in addition to the $10 million annual deficit noted above for BRT operations. Lack of Vision The statement that the BRT plan is being written by consultants who have a preconceived or ulterior motive is unfounded. Rapid transit has been identified as a strategic priority for the City since enshrined in the 2013 Smart Moves Transportation Master Plan. Rapid Transit is a cornerstone of the London Plan to act as a catalyst to realize the growth of the City, in a form that promotes livable and sustainable communities. Regarding London Transit, nowhere does SHIFT mention that London has arguably the best bus system in Ontario. This is in terms of total ridership, per capita ridership, and operating efficiency. You can check this out online by searching for LTC Annual Report. And while I mention above a 50% subsidy from the city and province, this is the lowest subsidy rate among 16 Ontario municipalities with population of over 100,000. Rather than replacing part of the LTC system, maybe we should be expanding the current system. Much is made in the report, and by a certain Free Press reporter, that London is the largest city in Ontario without rapid transit. On its own, this factoid has no relevance to the discussion. Maybe by various other measures this is actually the best possible position to be in. There is no reference whether rapid transit has improved or caused deterioration in the quality of life in these other cities. And especially no comment in the Business Case section on cost/benefit of existing Rapid Transit installations vs our own LTC. Are the proponents trying to instil a rapid transit inferiority complex on the populous? Why keep hammering that point? Perhaps they don't have anything else to say! The report states more than once that the Adelaide/CP crossing is a vital and necessary element of the BRT Master Plan. It is required to take vehicle traffic off Richmond Street so the new buses can keep on schedule. It seems like a fair question to ask that if the Adelaide Street fix was done as a stand alone project, how much congestion would be relieved on Richmond? Maybe this would be enough to 74

75 eliminate the need for the BRT on that corridor. Just add additional buses to improve capacity. Did you know that left turns out of a driveway or side street will be prohibited on the entire BRT route? You will have to turn right, then make a U turn at the next major lighted intersection. Why are all SHIFT commute time comparisons done during the 4-5:00 PM window? This time period is the busiest period on the proposed BRT routes. And it is a big spike in ridership and traffic volume. Why not present an average, or range of times of day for the reader to refer to. The 4 minute average time saving is calculated from this 4-5 PM window. Perhaps there is no time saving at all at 10:00 AM, or 9:30 PM. This is not discussed. The report mentions a number of times that estimated land value increase of $90 million due to development near BRT stations and Transit Villages. This land is already owned so this will benefit existing owners only, likely major developers. On the other hand there is no comment on decreased values of businesses because of decreased access of customers because of BRT dedicated lanes, loss of parking, and distance to the BRT stop. Stops are between 500 meters and 1 kilometre apart. The BRT Master Plan was written by consultants who have written other Master Plans for other cities and other levels of government. You can be sure they are key presenters and sponsors at AMO and other professional conferences frequented by our elected officials and senior city administrators. There is a difference between getting help to solve a problem, and hiring a consultant when you don't have a vision of your own. This is not a London plan. This is a Queens Park endorsed plan to ensnare local governments into the centralized vision for Ontario. What is good for Toronto must be good for you! These Consultants managed the public consultations referred to in the report, and you can be sure they know how to phrase every question to get the response they need. The Master Plan is very short on hard facts and very long on wishful outcomes far in the future. The plan does not address the problems 75

76 associated with BRT driving motorists into residential neighbourhoods, nor the problem of the level railway crossing on Richmond Street. The average Londoner who will not use BRT will foot the entire cost, and the additional few thousand who use the BRT will get a free ride. Call your Councillor and the Mayor and tell them to abandon this plan [cc d Councillor Squire, in response to Letter to the Director of the EA Approvals Branch at MOECC] I believe the strongest part of your presentation to both the city and the provincial should be the environmental damage done to your neighbourhood. I d leave in your existing comments but believe the focus should be increased traffic on side streets, lack of access to parks, removal of historic trees and homes etc. What do the rest of you folks think? With the recent approval of the BRT I would like to comment that it has serious flaws. Prime example is that is has not addressed the transit issues on Wonderland Road North or South, between Gainsborough to Commissioners, nor Adelaide Street North between Cheapside and Fanshawe, nor Highbury Avenue between Hale Street and Hamilton Road. I do believe there is a need to improve the ability to travel around the city, however it is not with the present BRT proposal. Five hundred Million dollars can put a lot of buses on our present roads and move the tax paying citizens of London more efficiently than the out of town students we are trying to satisfy We Londoners want Express routes on main corridors. Not rocket science. Full length of Commissioners rd. Full length of Oxford st. Full length of Richmond st. Full length of Wellington rd. Comment received. On B. Hollingworth responds: Rapid transit routes have been selected based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, ridership potential, existing congestion, and alignment with land use policies. Just because the corridors you mention are not identified as rapid transit corridors does not mean they are being ignored. The conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. If you have suggestions for LTC s Service Plan please ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call On B. Hollingworth responds: Rapid transit routes have been selected based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, ridership potential, existing congestion, and alignment with land use policies. Just because the Added to the mailing list. 76

77 Copy of sent to our city councillors this afternoon. I have been following the BRT discussions for quite some time now. I sent s a few months ago outlining my issues with the project. For some unknown reason, I had hoped that councillors would see the light and cancel the project but, to my amazement, it seem to be going full speed ahead. The mayor has publically said that there is a need for hundreds of thousands of dollars, possible in the low millions to be spent on communications which he thinks is a reasonable amount. To me, that is NOT a reasonable amount to be spending. This is my tax money and I do not think it is reasonable. I heard on the news today that construction could start next year. Who thinks that it is a good idea to schedule construction before you even have the money to pay for it? That is what had gotten many people into debt counselling. Could the construction start be pushed ahead so that it comes before the next election? Hmmmm...This BRT project is something that the majority of London residents do not want, the same residents who elected you to represent them. How can you honestly say that you represent the people when you are shoving something down their throats that they don't want? Most people will not use the BRT. Personally, I do not foresee myself ever taking the bus. Subdivisions are springing up further and further away from the city centre. Will they be taking the bus? I believe the London Plan called for buildings to go up instead of out however, it seems like anyone who wants to build up in the downtown core has roadblock after roadblock put in front of them. What is needed is an overhaul of the bus system itself. Busses need to run when the people need them, early morning and later at night. corridors you mention are not all identified as rapid transit corridors does not mean they are being ignored. The conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. This could include additional express routes. If you have suggestions for LTC s Service Plan please ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call On J. Ramsay responds: It sounds like your main questions relate to timing of construction, the need for rapid transit, and current transit hours of service. Before construction can begin, we need to complete the environmental assessment process and develop a detailed design. The Rapid Transit Master Plan executive summary outlines a proposed construction phasing plan starting with a Quick Start in 2019 which would introduce elements of Rapid Transit such as Priority Signal Upgrades or a prototype station. Construction of dedicated BRT lanes is anticipated to start in The phasing plan is on p.11 of 14 of the executive summary. ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_ExecutiveSummary.pdf? The need for Rapid Transit is documented in the Rapid Transit Master Plan, and builds on other plans approved by Council including the London Plan and the Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Master Plan. One of the goals of investing in Rapid Transit is to attract and support transit-oriented development along the Rapid Transit corridors. A more frequent and reliable transit service in dedicated transit lanes will attract more transit riders Added to the mailing list. 77

78 Adelaide St. needs to be fixed so that traffic can move more efficiently. What is not needed is a Bus Rapid Transit. I would like to suggest that you all give your heads a shake and make the correct decision and cancel this total waste of money that no one can afford. as residential and commercial buildings develop along the corridors. If we simply add more regular buses to the road, those buses would still be mixed with regular traffic and experience delays from congestion I have questions and concerns regarding the plan outlined. As a small business owner of 4 locations in London I am interested in hearing more and gaining more knowledge surrounding the potential business results and potential damaging impact to our locations in terms of access, sales and guest counts. Can you please include me on your list of any upcoming discussions. We are very concerned about the plans and if these make sense for our community businesses. Rapid Transit will not replace the current LTC bus system. In fact, strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Transit service is planned to increase to better serve London with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. The proposed operating hours for Rapid Transit are 6:00 am to 12:00 midnight. Adding more operating hours incurs additional cost. The London Transit Commission is looking at extending operating hours for local service to late night/early morning post with the introduction of Rapid Transit. On B. Hollingworth responds: We are committed to moving forward while also working to ensure the potential impacts on businesses are mitigated. The City takes consultation very seriously and will continue to do so as we move to the next phase of the project. Input from residents, businesses, institutions and others is valued and will always be considered. The City is planning additional meetings with key stakeholders to identify and develop solutions to the short-term impacts that construction may have in their neighbourhoods. Added to the mailing list. 78

79 Putting bus lanes on Richmond street will cause extreme frustration for people like me who use Richmond daily. Are university students more important than citizens of our city! I strenuously object to the bus rapid transit plan...i live in the west end of the city and will have no access to the system Meanwhile the roads I choose to travel will be reduced in lanes and the traffic chaotic Thanks for your . Who cares where the money is coming from, it is STILL tax money & we don't want more especially on things we don't need,.why not spend it on the poor, homeless, etc.. We now have a system (regular & express) so, why do we need BRT why not On B. Hollingworth responds: The City is planning improvements on parallel arterial roads to accommodate general traffic. As the study progress in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis for the approved Rapid Transit corridors to understand the impacts and develop mitigation strategies. Western and Fanshawe students make up one of the largest percentages of transit ridership. Every Western University and Fanshawe College student pays for a bus pass regardless of whether they use it or not. University and college students also contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy every year. On , B. Hollingworth responds: The LTC s conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. The City is planning improvements on parallel arterial roads to accommodate general traffic, rather than having this traffic divert onto local neighbourhood streets that are not designed to handle high traffic volumes. As the study progress in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis for the approved Rapid Transit corridors to understand the impacts and develop mitigation strategies. On T. Fraser responds: The provincial and federal governments are currently funding transit systems in other cities. In other words, Londoners are paying for transit in Added to the mailing list. 79

80 improve what we already have the the same routes anyway, then maybe more people would use LTC. Under our democratic system isn't the Mayor & Council supposed to represent us, but the majority of citizens DON'T want BRT, & it's added cost, yet the Mayor & the majority of Council do. WHY The cities you mentioned are larger than us & have a better system than us & BRT maybe beneficial to them BUT not London, as I said before why not improve what we already have. My son lives in Victoria B.C & last year when I visited him I noticed that the main streets D/T have dedicated bus lanes (I'm not sure if this is just during rush-hour or all day) why can't we do the same. You mentioned that Governments are paying for these changes so why not us. As I've also mentioned tax money is taxes whether it's Municipal, Provincial or Federal & it all comes out of our pockets [sent two s on the same day] You mentioned that the Mayor ran on BRT, surely this was not the only thing he ran on. if it was I would suggest you look for another job as I don't think he & some other members of Council will be reelected. Anyway the majority of citizens don't want BRT so why ram it through. Citizens also want more low cost housing, improvements to welfare, etc., so why not do something about these instead of just talking about them. [first ] Please stop the plan. In this economy $500,000,000 is too much to spend for London. I doubt the spending will stop at $500,000,000. [second ] Stop looking for the home run! There are many things that can be done at lower cost. cities like Kitchener-Waterloo, Ottawa and Toronto, instead of their own community. As I have mentioned, rapid transit is an improvement on what we already have by increasing service hours to the tune of 35%. Finally, the mayor ran on a platform of rapid transit, and was elected by the majority of those who voted. On T. Fraser responds: Once again, rapid transit means improving our bus system so that there are more buses that run more frequently. As well, the proposal for rapid transit does include dedicated bus lanes. You are correct that tax money is taxes whether it is municipal, provincial or federal. That is why Londoners are paying for transit systems in other municipalities your provincial and federal taxes are paying for these upgrades in Kitchener, Toronto and Ottawa, among other cities. With your consent, I would be happy to share your message with the Shift team who is answering questions about rapid transit. They may be able to provide you with more information about the project. On B. Hollingworth responds: Thank-you for your two s dated September 15, Providing bus bays requires property and often has impacts to the utilities along our major roads. In addition, busses may have difficulty merging back into traffic. In the next phase of the study, pre- Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), Intersection Control Studies will be completed. They Added to the mailing list. 80

81 If getting around London is the issue, there are a number of things that can be done to facilitate transit: 1) Give buses a turn out at major intersections on all stops on major routes. This way traffic can continue to flow. 2) Increase the use of roundabouts. They have been proven to move significantly more traffic that 4 way stops or stop lights. 3) Widen major arteries before significant housing construction is approved. 4) Coordinate lights to facilitate flow [letter addressed to J. Ramsay] I would like to express my serious concerns with regard to the current BRT proposal. I feel it will be detrimental to my business and the ability of commuters to get around London and their access to our business. I also worry that the potential costs and cost overruns will burden the London taxpayer. I would like to be able to express my concerns about these issues when you have the public hearings. will examine the viability of signals and roundabouts at intersections along the rapid transit corridors. The City continually monitors and updates signal timing plans to manage traffic congestion. Traffic signals are timed to move the most number of vehicles through an intersection and along a corridor in the most safe and efficient manner. On J. Ramsay responds: We are committed to moving forward while also working to ensure the potential impacts on businesses are mitigated. Preliminary engineering designs are currently being developed and impacts on each individual property and access are under review. The City is committed to ensuring that our consultations take into account the considerations of Londoners. As the next phase of the project commences, this will become an ongoing conversation with impacted property owners, businesses and community stakeholders. The City is planning additional meetings with property owners along the approved BRT corridors to identify and develop solutions to potential impacts during construction and in the long term. Broader public meetings will also be held in the coming months. Added to the mailing list No Name Provided Has huge concerns with the traffic on the main roads of Oxford, Wellington and Richmond. Works downtown and taking away two lanes of traffic is their issue. Feels that it not right that we are providing transportation that is subsidised and others will be inconvenienced. If you wish to meet sooner to discuss your specific concerns, please let me know. Comment received [ sent to J. Ramsay] On J. Ramsay responds: Added to the mailing list. 81

82 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I appreciate that city is moving forward with Rapid Transit Master Plan. My comment is that the plan needs to better address current and future needs on Wellington Road to the north to Sunningdale Road and to the south to Westminster Drive. City is already at these boundaries. For example to the south, It would be great to be able to pull into public parking off the 401 and take transit to downtown or London transit passengers to be able to access the Driver Testing Centre, Costo, Forest City Velodrome, St. Thomas Aquinas school and the new Penn Equity Centre, to name a few places. I would ask the Master Plan reviewers to extend the boundary on Wellington Road from Sunningdale Road to Westminster Drive to more realistically reflect current needs also as an opportunity for future growth potential I would just like to ask... why is there such a push to put this BRT system in place when there is more negative objections than positive ones? It makes little or no sense to push for such a complex BRT when there are some less expensive options, that will work better. The approved BRT network will provide turnaround for the rapid transit service at the locations of the Transit Villages identified in The London Plan. The Transit Villages are planned to permit higher densities and a mix of uses to encourage vibrant neighbourhoods where people will live, work and shop. The four Transit Villages connect to the Downtown and each other through the RT network. In addition, rapid transit turnaround locations will connect with the many local bus routes that already connect at these locations. Strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. Having said that, the conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. If you have suggestions for LTC s Service Plan please ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call I agree that it would be great to park near the 401 and take transit downtown. A park-and-ride facility is being considered near the intersection of Wellington Road and Exeter Road. Details of this potential park-and-ride lot are being considered and we will provide more information as our analysis progresses. On B. Hollingworth responds: Rapid Transit will offer Londoners a new transportation choice that will help shape London's future. Rapid Transit fits with other established 82

83 plans including the London Plan to support transit-oriented development along the Rapid Transit corridors and create a vibrant street-level experience for pedestrians. Rapid Transit will influence how pedestrians, cyclists, cars and trucks move in all parts of the city. An improved, faster, reliable transit service will attract more transit riders as residential and commercial buildings develop along the corridors. One of the City s goals is to maintain natural and agricultural lands by concentrating future population growth in existing built-up areas. As the City grows inwards and upwards, we need more space-efficient ways to move people. Widening roads is not an effective solution on its own creating a way to move more people with fewer vehicles is also needed I am not in favor of spending $500M on a BRT system. The money could be put to better use meeting other more urgent needs of our community. Your plan will not increase ridership over that currently experienced by the LTC. It will be of benefit to a small group of mostly non-tax paying individuals in London. It does nothing to encourage the large number of residents who drive downtown to leave their cars at home. Why would anyone drive to a BRT line, park and ride downtown when you can get downtown from many outlying subdivisions in 10 to 20 minutes? Oh, by the way, where would they park their car? Increasing transit ridership will reduce the impact of population growth, providing a greener choice for the Forest City. Rapid Transit also has environmental benefits such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This supports the City s goal of becoming a greener, more sustainable, healthier city something that is beneficial to everyone. On B. Hollingworth responds: One of the City s goals is to maintain natural and agricultural lands by concentrating future population growth in existing built-up areas. As the City grows inwards and upwards, we need more space-efficient ways to move people. Widening roads is not an effective solution on its own creating a way to move more people with fewer vehicles is also needed. Shift isn t just about improving public transit, it is also about sustainable growth, economic development, and community building objectives that benefit all Londoners. Added to the mailing list. 83

84 As I said, I believe we could make better use of the money and thus I am against the project Thank you for your detailed response. While it is true that Londoners love their cars, we have heard clearly that Londoners also want choice. That is what Rapid Transit will provide the choice of taking the car or taking Bus Rapid Transit to get to work or to connect with their community. Shift is an important step forward to provide families, consumers and employers the transportation choices that they want. Comment received. As a reminder, I do not support this plan. Informal consultation with my neighbours and other businesses show very little support for the BRT plan as well, at least in its current format. There are many issues that I've already addressed in my original submission and now that the tunnel has been dropped, the proposed cost should have dropped, but has not. London taxpayers have good reason to be very concerned about this. Also, I would like to be notified at least 2 weeks in advance of any additional consultation opportunities, particularly with respect to traffic diversion and environmental impact studies [ addressed to J. Ramsay] The Shift London BRT Plan requires further and more comprehensive study before it proceeds any further. There is a significant likelihood of a very negative impact on my business, my neighborhood and the city as a whole. The updated BRT plan continues to be an incomplete document. There remain many unanswered questions in regards to an Impact Analysis. To identify but a few of the omissions from the plan, Loss of business analysis pre and post construction/business access Loss of green space due to street widening on Richmond corridor On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for your and list of specific issues that you d like to see addressed. In mid-september, the project team presented committee and council with a detailed work plan to develop the preliminary engineering design, review and mitigate negative impacts including traffic analysis, impacts to parks and green space, and prepare an Environmental Project Report for the approved BRT network. Note that impacts along the downtown and Richmond Row corridors were analysed. We reviewed impacts during construction, impacts with BRT in place, property, access, and parking. Please refer to Rapid Transit Master Plan Section 3.12 for Added to the mailing list. 84

85 Loss of century old trees on selected corridors Traffic congestion and impairment causing neighborhood degradation in Old North and decreased property values No costing for Injurious Affection No costing for terminus parking No costing for core business parking It is my opinion that many of these omissions are due to the fact that the studies are incomplete. Otherwise they would be documented and included in the updated BRT Plan. How can the City of London proceed with this project without complete and abundant knowledge of its fiscal and environmental impact on its citizens and stakeholders? Improved transit and mobility for all of Londoners is an imperative, this plan falls significantly short of that objective, and will probably exacerbate the issue Hi just writing to let you know I have concerns on the current route, design, and effect on my business of the current BRT plan. I have gone back and forth with the consulting group IBI and have been getting mixed answers which I think is pretty scary that they don't know what is going on either. At a price tag of $500 million dollars to be unsure and that is your lead company on the project leaves me little confidence in the cities decision on the project. I feel that the city is rushing into a project with too many unknowns, which is a very poor decision and shows a lack or proper leadership within the city. the North Corridor and Section 3.13 for Downtown. We will conduct a similar analysis for Wellington Street in the coming months. The environmental assessment process will continue by developing and evaluating alternative designs along the approved BRT corridors. We are committed to moving forward while also working to identify and mitigate the potential impacts on businesses. The City is committed to ensuring that our consultations take into account the considerations of Londoners. As the next phase of the project commences, this will become an ongoing conversation with impacted property owners, businesses and community stakeholders. The City is planning additional meetings with property owners along the approved BRT corridors to identify and develop solutions to potential impacts during construction and in the long term. Broader public meetings will also be held in the coming months. We re happy to schedule a meeting with you to discuss your specific concerns. Please let us know. On J. Ramsay responds: The Rapid Transit Master Plan satisfied the first two planning stages of the Environmental Assessment process, for which the objective was to identify the corridors and type of transit technology. With Council s approval of the Rapid Transit Master Plan in July 2017, that part of the plan is set. Next we will develop alternative designs along each corridor to make this system the best we can for London. In mid-september, the project team presented committee and council with a detailed work plan to 85

86 develop the preliminary engineering design, review and mitigate negative impacts, and prepare an Environmental Project Report for the approved BRT network. We are committed to moving forward while also working to identify and mitigate the potential impacts on businesses. The City is committed to ensuring that our consultations take into account the considerations of Londoners. As the next phase of the project commences, this will become an ongoing conversation with impacted property owners, businesses and community stakeholders. The City is planning additional meetings with property owners along the approved BRT corridors to identify and develop solutions to potential impacts during construction and in the long term. Broader public meetings will also be held in the coming months I strongly oppose the BRT Plan. Londoners, as everyone knows, are well engrained in their habits. Stream lined buses that still mean getting on in the suburbs, long rides downtown and transfers across town, are not going to entice new riders. Those who ride the buses will continue to do so. I see Express buses racing down Richmond now, making fewer stops. The buses have priority to merge from Stops into traffic, putting them ahead of waiting cars, as it is. The disruption to traffic flow on the main arteries is not going to be enough to put bodies on the bus. The time savings will be minimal for ridership and driving across the city is still much quicker. Until something is done to eliminate waiting for trains on Richmond, it is a costly, inefficient and temporary fix. Why not wait until CNR gets on board to build an overpass? When construction starts it will be faster for drivers to head over to If you wish to meet sooner to discuss your specific concerns, please let me know. On B. Hollingworth responds: While it is true that Londoners love their cars, we have heard clearly that Londoners also want choice. That is what Rapid Transit will provide the choice of taking the car or taking Bus Rapid Transit to get to work or to connect with their community. Shift is an important step forward to provide families, consumers and employers the transportation choices that they want. Londoners who wish to remain using their cars will also see benefits from Rapid Transit. Rapid Transit will encourage our City to grow inwards and upwards, protecting our agricultural lands and green space. Encouraging more Londoners to take transit will reduce future demand on our road network, carrying more people in fewer vehicles. Added to the mailing list. 86

87 [ addressed to J. Ramsay] Wharncliffe, Talbot, Adelaide or Quebec Streets. The project will simply teach drivers to find alternate routes, and maybe keep them. In turn, Richmond St. businesses will likely be the victims of more City of London 'progress'. I totally object to the West corridor along Oxford Street. We just had years of traffic disruptions to make this road wider and now the plan it to implement lane restrictions for the general public so that buses are given the extra space. As mentioned before, people who live in Oakridge where I live and Byron would not take their cars and park (where?) at the intersection of Oxford & Wonderland and wait for a bus to take them downtown. This is ludicrous. I would suggest you totally disregard this route because of the inconvenience for drivers and added expense. To mitigate the delays from the at-grade crossing of the CP rail corridor on Richmond Street, the City increased the transit vehicle fleet and made modifications to the operating plan. These changes were included in the Business Case and Rapid Transit Master Plan approved by Council in July The City is also planning improvements on parallel arterial roads to accommodate general traffic, rather than having this traffic divert onto local neighbourhood streets that are not designed to handle high traffic volumes. As the study progresses in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis for the approved Rapid Transit corridors to understand the impacts and develop mitigation strategies. On J. Ramsay responds: The Master Plan concept for Oxford Street between Wonderland Road and Wharncliffe Road is to widen the road to add dedicated rapid transit lanes. We are not converting existing traffic lanes to transit lanes on Oxford. You can view this concept in Appendix J of the Rapid Transit Master Plan ( We would encourage Londoners from Oakridge or Byron who wish to use the Bus Rapid Transit service along Oxford to use local transit service and transfer to rapid transit, rather than driving to the system. To support this shift in how people move around the city, LTC conventional service will be increased. LTC routes and schedules will be optimized to work with the new BRT system. The London Transit Commission has started this work, and will continue to plan for integration with rapid transit as an integrated network. 87

88 ework.pdf I've watched our city council in action and are only interest in themselves. Encouraging more Londoners to choose transit will reduce future demand on our road network, carrying more people in fewer vehicles. Comment received. Added to the mailing list. Hopefully Londoners will get smart and vote all the current council and the so called mayor out of office How does someone go about having something added to the ballot in next year's election as a referendum item? There is a huge amount of money that is going to be spent for this and I thing that the taxpayers of the city of London should have a chance to vote on this I believe we should definitely have more consultation on this project. In my opinion, the costs seem to outweigh the benefits. On B. Hollingworth responds: We understand your opinion about a referendum concerning rapid transit. A referendum would not be typical for this type of project. Decisions on rapid transit will continue to be made by Council. On B. Hollingworth responds: Shift has included the largest consultation process the City has ever undertaken, and additional consultation has occurred through The London Plan, Smart Moves, and the City s Strategic Plan. Shift has held meetings with business associations, community associations, and other stakeholders. You can see the list of events so far on our website. More detailed meetings are planned as the next study phase moves forward and the Rapid Transit corridors are designed to minimize impacts. This will be part of our ongoing community consultation. The City is committed to engaging with Londoners to develop solutions that support our businesses and citizens during construction and once the system is operational [cc d the Mayor] On J. Ramsay responds: Added to the mailing list. 88

89 Both the BRT Master Plan and the changes made to London's Transit System during the last two years show that those responsible either do not know our needs or do not care about them. Our Transit System must be designed to meet the needs of habitual users: the poor, the handicapped and the elderly. Prioritising needs of students (neither residents nor tax-payers) is absurd. The present Master Plan, if implemented, will destroy the downtown core. Pedestrianising Dundas between Wellington and Talbot will aggravate the problem of drug-dealing and other unsavoury activities. Forcing traffic from Dundas onto King and Queen will cause congestion, and that in turn will be worsened by the creation of dedicated bus lanes. More serious still, abolishing on street parking in the core will have a disastrous impact on restaurants and businesses, which already suffer from a severe shortage of affordable parking. Much more consultation is certainly required. The manager of a successful Bus Transit System in a European city (NOT in the USA) should be brought in the analyse London's needs. There should of course be a referendum to allow every Londoner to have a say in the city's future. Failing that, the city should wait for the results of the next Municipal Election, which I believe will clearly reflect our very negative opinion of the BRT Master Plan. Through recent surveys, Londoners have identified transit infrastructure and economic development as top priorities for our City. The approved Bus Rapid Transit network identified in the Master Plan was developed by assessing a long list of 13 corridors, which were assessed based on: land use density, growth in people and jobs, major destinations, and existing transit ridership. Our Master Plan provides a strategy for building an RT network that meets the City s economic development, mobility and community building needs. While it is true that Western and Fanshawe students make up one of the largest percentages of transit ridership, university and college students also contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy every year. In addition to serving these two major institutions and other schools, the Rapid Transit corridors approved by Council serve: University Hospital, St. Joseph s Hospital, Richmond Row, future development at the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands, Western Fair, Victoria Hospital, and the Parkwood Institute. Also, Rapid Transit will connect these major destinations to Downtown. Rapid Transit does not replace the current LTC bus system. In fact, strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. LTC s specialized Paratransit services will continue during and after the implementation of Rapid Transit. In addition, Rapid Transit vehicles will be accessible, and station areas and platforms will be designed and built to meet accessibility standards. 89

90 It also sounds like there were changes made to LTC routes in the last two years that you are not happy with. London Transit Commission conducts an annual service plan process. If you have suggestions for LTC s Service Plan please ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call Regarding Dundas Place, that study was developed and approved by Council separately from the Rapid Transit Master Plan. Consultation occurred through the study process, and the resulting plan was approved by Council. Empirical evidence from other municipalities that have Rapid Transit proves that there will be greater opportunity for businesses with increased pedestrian activity and net positive land value uplift in commercial areas around Rapid Transit stations and corridors. There are trade-offs for these benefits. There will be changes to accesses, onstreet parking and loading in some areas. The overall goal is to minimize the impacts of these changes, both during construction and once the system is up and running WE don't need it no one knows what they re doing in arranging it paying for it or to design it It's for 1% of the cities people and school kids scrape it. Thank you and I encourage you to remain engaged in the Shift project in the coming months. On B. Hollingworth responds: We take it from your you are not in favour of rapid transit and have recorded this for the public record. We would point out that rapid transit will serve much more than 1% of the population. Today, about 13% of trips in rush hour are made by transit and with Bus Rapid Transit this is projected to increase to over 15%. At the same time, rapid transit provides capacity for a growing population. Added to the mailing list. 90

91 I am not in support of the rapid bus transit plan as it is. Firstly, I`m not in support of a plan that will require increased property taxes indefinitely. Secondly, I am concerned that the plan to run rapid transit busses up Richmond and Wellington will eventually (and likely quickly) lead to a need to widen those streets. This will be an additional cost (which is not accounted for in the plan) and have a negative effect on the neighborhoods through which they run. There is simply not enough room for what is planned. Thirdly, I also don`t see how the plan would be of greater benefit to the city than simply purchasing newer and more efficient busses. Perhaps some smaller and larger ones that can be deployed on demand basis. On B. Hollingworth responds: While Shift is expected to cost $500 million dollars (in nominal dollars), the cost to London taxpayers is capped at $130 million in 2017 dollars, the majority of which will be paid by development charges in support of growth. A portion would be from the general tax base. The remaining investments will be requested from provincial and federal governments. Consistent with the current system, operating subsidies are large funded from the tax base. Most of the preferred Full Bus Rapid Transit network fits within existing road rights-of-way. Localized widening is generally required at station locations and intersections. Roads that may need to be widened for rapid transit include: Wellington Road south of the Thames River, Oxford Street west of Wharncliffe Road, and Western Road north of Windermere Road. The design will be developed in the next study phase to minimize impacts. Rapid Transit will offer Londoners a new transportation choice that will help shape London's future. Rapid Transit fits with other established plans including the London Plan to support transit-oriented development along the Rapid Transit corridors and create a vibrant street-level experience for pedestrians. Rapid Transit will influence how pedestrians, cyclists, cars and trucks move in all parts of the city. An improved, faster, reliable transit service will attract more transit riders as residential and commercial buildings develop along the corridors. One of the City s goals is to maintain natural and agricultural lands by concentrating future population growth in existing built-up areas. As the City grows inwards and upwards, we need more space-efficient ways to Added to the mailing list. 91

92 [addressed to J. Ramsay] I have great concerns regarding the planned BRT routes. I feel that at the present time BRT is not required in the city of London. The city and LTC should be concentrating on more buses on routes especially at peak hours such as when Western University and Fanshawe are in session, and so the citizens of London who rely on bus transportation can get to and from work. There is not enough service for people working odd shifts and weekends that they often turn down shifts because a cab or Uber is going to cost more than they make an hour. The city should be concentrating on negotiating with CPR rail to move the tracks along side of the CN rail lines. The present routes planned up Richmond St., now that the tunnel is wisely cancelled, are still holding up buses and more importantly emergency vehicles. Spending the money on moving the tracks would help move traffic on both Richmond and Adelaide where it has been a problem for years. The citizens have been asking for this long before the thought of BRT ever was considered. The CPR property could be made into a walking and bike trail where citizens could safely walk and bike. This would also be a trail right across the city. Regarding BRT through UWO. This is going to add to the traffic congestion on Richmond, Western, Windermere, and Oxford due to the fact the university is demanding that the campus be closed to the public. As a taxpayer paying for the university I am greatly opposed to the route running through the university curtailing all public access. Many people who are not students or faculty use the facilities. Taxpayers already maintain the roads and bridges as I understand it so Western should not deny us access. I have been told that there are already shuttles in the university grounds, so access from Richmond or Western Rd. would not be a problem for the students, but the general public do not have this option. If the city wants to improve traffic congestion perhaps they should think of move people. Widening roads is not an effective solution on its own creating a way to move more people with fewer vehicles is also needed. On J. Ramsay responds: I agree with you that longer hours of transit service would help many Londoners. Increasing transit service is part of LTC s 5-year plan ( However, if we simply add more regular buses to the road, those buses would still be mixed with regular traffic and experience delays from congestion. By providing lanes that are dedicated to transit, Rapid Transit passengers will experience shorter travel times, with more frequent, reliable and comfortable service. London Transit Commission conducts an annual service plan process, which will be integrated with Rapid Transit. The conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the rapid transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. If you have suggestions for LTC s Service Plan please ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call Re-routing CN and CP rail lines has been considered and discussed with the railway companies. In June 2017, City staff again reached out to CN and CP regarding the potential to relocate or combine tracks. CN noted that locating CN, CP and VIA on a single corridor would be an extremely complex and expensive endeavor that would require significant infrastructure upgrades and investments. CP stated that relocating CP s infrastructure would be an extremely challenging proposition the 92

93 extending Windermere Rd to join up with Gainsborough and extending Sarnia Rd. and Philip Aziz Ave. across the river to connect with Huron St. There has been traffic back up at 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. along Sarnia Rd to Western Rd. and along Western Rd to Sarnia Rd. for years, especially when the students are back, but now the back up is at all hours of the day. Putting in BRT along Richmond through the university or up Western Rd. is going to add to the back up when residents can no longer access the university. More public input has to be allowed. Alternatives should be considered. I know we must plan for the future, but the need for BRT is not now. operational complexity involved in such a proposal would be enormous and costly. The letters from CN and CP are included in Appendix A-D of the Rapid Transit Master Plan (pages 88 and 89 at this link: ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_AppA-AtoA-F.pdf? City staff are continuing discussions with Western University to refine the corridor design through campus. We will continue to work together with Western and our other educational institutions through the next phase of the study. As presented to committee and council in mid- September, we have a detailed Communications and Consultation Plan to engage more with Londoners. You can review our plan here: ages/160/attachments/original/ /shift_ Communications_Plan_- _Sept_ pdf? We encourage you to participate in some upcoming opportunities for consultation including a Public Workshop on BRT Station Design and Streetscaping in November and our 5th Public Information Centre in December when we will present corridor designs alternatives for public review and feedback. We have added you to the SHIFT mailing list which will provide information on these events as it becomes available. You can unsubscribe at any time by ing shift@london.ca. I hope I have answered some of your questions. There will be more technical analysis in the coming months, including more traffic analysis, as we 93

94 [Addressed to J. Ramsay] For what it's worth, just thought I'd share my thoughts on BRT in London. It stinks. London is already congested enough because of decades of poor management by politicians who are 'in for the term'. Now we have a council who want their legacy to be the ones who brought half a billion to London from the provincial & federal coffers. If this was going towards legitimately streamlining traffic through bridges & other infrastructure I'd be all for it, but it's not. Everything I've read indicates that the 'master plan' is only marginally beneficial for those who ride busses, but a total nightmare for those (the majority) that need to drive & for cyclists. London is congested enough, why would anyone purposefully make it worse? develop and evaluate alternative designs for the approved Bus Rapid Transit corridors. We will share our findings with the public as we continue our work. On J. Ramsay responds: The City is committed to ensuring that our consultations take into account the considerations of all Londoners. Rapid Transit does not replace the current LTC bus system. In fact, strengthening local transit service to work together with Rapid Transit is an important part of the proposed plan. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. The integrated network will improve upon our current service with annual revenue service hours to increase by 35% between 2015 and 2035, when we combine the rapid transit and conventional service plans. That means more buses where they need to go, more frequent buses and restructuring routes to enhance their effectiveness. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. Transit users will experience shorter wait times and travel times and more reliable service. Cyclists will have better access to transit and additional facilities along some of the rapid transit corridors. Pedestrians will enjoy more vibrant and lively spaces along the corridors and around stations. A new Citywide strategy for Intelligent Transportation Systems, required to support implementation of BRT, will also provide improved traffic management for all modes including vehicular traffic. Finally, Rapid Transit will bring about environmental benefits such as air quality improvements and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions something that is beneficial to everyone. 94

95 Putting off investment in transit means more money will be required for road expansion. Deferring rapid transit means that some $290 million of road expansion projects will be required over the next 20 years I'm writing a short note to declare my opposition to the whole B"R"T proposal. I participated in many of the pre-tunnel public forums, read every document, in fact looked further through the Western Univ minutes of Mayor Brown's meeting with them and the requirements and statements that Western made. Which I will remind you (they preferred the Lambton route incorporating more of Western Road) but they stated if the city insisted on running through campus, this is what they wanted (appendix 4 of of their wants). The City is/was prepared to give them all they requested with no idea of costs that are not even in this plan and most costs are for perpetuity. Also the fact that this in no way makes travel "rapid". Stated at the meeting at Wolfe performance hall by the LTC manager, looking at maybe 1-2 minutes faster. This means nothing to a transit user and definitely does not move car users to bus. The fact that the connections to Via station are far away and how do travelers functionally work their luggage through the sidewalks in winter, there is no connection to the airport. These are simple connectivity issues that would actually increase car drivers use of transit when it would connect the bus to other means of transportation in a useful, strategic manner that would make sense for growth. The proposed stations being in the middle of streets, not considering how hard this will be for strollers, kids, seniors, handicapped, blind. Plan states it's been thought of but only really shows in perfect weather scenarios. Currently sidewalks and bus stations are not Thank you for your interest in this project. I encourage you to remain engaged in the Shift project moving forward. On B. Hollingworth responds: City senior management met again with Western University in August. It was a positive discussion and plans were made to continue working together through the next phase of the study to refine the route and station designs through campus. The rapid part of rapid transit in an urban setting comes from two key features: 1) Dedicated lanes which allow transit to by-pass general traffic. Transit won t be waiting in a long line of cars at each intersection. Transit won t have to merge in and out of the curb lane to serve transit passengers; and, 2) Frequent, reliable service that provides freedom to transit passengers, plus re-organized local bus routes to reduce transfer times between local and rapid transit. London Transit Commission conducts an annual service plan process, which will be integrated with rapid transit. The conventional transit service is planned to grow to better serve London, with increased service frequency on routes feeding the Rapid Transit corridors, and expanding service to peripheral areas of the City not currently served by transit. If you have suggestions for LTC s Service 95

96 properly cleared for transit users, how will placing station in the middle of the street be better and cleared properly and fast. We have no money to do better jobs of this. These are a few highlights for opposition, so many more. This city needs so much more and LTC currently is having problems running what they have currently It is quite apparent that the mayor, city councillors & those who City Hall do not really care about London. For the fact that you want to bring businesses to London, by having BRT, you will be ruining businesses, esp on Richmond Row. They will not come back. People will lose jobs. It is costing more continuously. When will it end? Why do you not listen to Londoners instead of having your own agenda. If this goes forward it will destroy London. This will be this mayor & councillors legacy. Oh & Matt Brown, you will definitely not be re-elected! I was able to track down the correspondence with CN and CP, which is predictably dismissive of any major consolidation of infrastructure. Neither makes reference to the potential implications of a new high speed rail line or the recent concerns raised with their rights of way based on contemporary safety standards. A specific question was raised at the Public Participation Meeting about the possibility of relocating the CP yard east of the City, Plan please ltcserviceplan@gmail.com or call We have heard the concerns regarding accessibility, and the rapid transit network including station areas and platforms, will be designed to current accessibility standards. Each rapid transit platform will be located at a traffic signal, and the lights will be timed to accommodate people with varying mobility to cross the street to and from the transit platform. Walkways and station platforms will be cleared to the same or better level as sidewalks and intersections today. On B. Hollingworth responds: We have noted your objections. We take the health of businesses seriously. Evidence from other municipalities that have Rapid Transit has shown that there will be greater opportunity for businesses with increased pedestrian activity and net positive land value uplift in commercial areas around Rapid Transit stations and corridors. Like all transportation infrastructure projects, there are will be short-term impacts through the construction phase. The City is planning additional meetings with key stakeholders across the preferred corridors to identify and develop solutions to mitigate the short-term impacts that construction may have in their neighbourhoods and on their businesses. On B. Hollingworth responds: Moving the CP yard out of the City would certainly help contribute to more efficient train movements through the centre of the City. However, there would need to be an economic benefit to CP for them to consider this, or the City would need to fund the costs. We are continuing to explore options for 96

97 providing them with a more efficient operation while allowing trains to move through the city at a steady speed rather than slowing and stopping. Has this been evaluated? There is also no discussion of cooperation or coordination of schedules with CP Rail to minimize BRT impacts at the Richmond St crossing. Has this been explored? It seems to me that we have a unique opportunity to address these issues, which will only grow more complex with time [sent two s on the same day] [first ] My wife and I object strenuously to the absurdly expensive and ill-conceived London Bus Rapid Plan. Our reasons are fourfold: 1. The plan favours only a small portion of London and Londoners, leaving large areas of the city without any improvements whatsoever in the realm of public transit; 2. The plan will force vehicles that normally use the proposed corridor (Richmond Street) into adjacent neighbourhoods, leading to a deterioration of safety and quiet in those neighbourhoods; 3. Of special concern to me as a faculty member at Western University and someone who has worked extremely hard over the years to enhance the appeal of Western to national and international students, the plan will have a severely detrimental effect on the atmosphere and appeal of the campus -- and, indeed, London; and, finally, 3. The cost of the project is -- and should be recognized -- as prohibitive in the full sense of that word: neither the ministry coordinating with, or forecasting CP movements. Freight railways do not publish or release their schedules, past, present or future. On a non-related note, I attended a presentation the other day by a City of Calgary transportation planner. They are grappling with the same questions as you have raised on AV s. They have produced a nice state of practice report. Transit is discussed on pg The presenter was content that investing in rapid transit still makes sense. /strategy/the-future-of-transportation-in- Calgary.pdf On B. Hollingworth responds: Your objections are noted and recorded. Some notes on your comments: 1. Rapid transit is planned for four corridors that connect a large majority of the activity generators in the City. In parallel, upgrades and service improvements will be made to local services to ensure connectivity across the entire city. LTC s Rapid Transit Integration plan can be found at egrationframework.pdf 2. The City is planning improvements on parallel arterial roads to accommodate general traffic, rather than having this traffic divert onto local neighbourhood streets that are not designed to handle high traffic volumes. As the study progresses in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis for the approved Rapid Transit corridors to understand the impacts and develop mitigation strategies. 97

98 [second ] I have three (3) areas of concern. nor the City of London should allow such a colossal white elephant to proceed. All of the questions highlighted below assume that a foregone conclusion namely, that the plan is going forward which is NOT the way to foster a meaningful consultation! You should be ashamed of your lack of democratic principles, not to mention finesse! Cost: The absolute cost of this plan is extremely high. On a per resident basis, this is the largest project in the city's history. As such the speed we are moving and the approach taken is concerning. For my business if I was to invest the proportional dollars mentioned, I would ensure there is no errors in my forecasts, I would make sure I was going to get a solid ROI and that the business plan could be executed without risk of financial concern later. The amount being spent from what I thought was mentioned by the city will not have a strong ROI (18%). And to get the ROI they hoped it was going to require a fairly significant ridership increase. Consider the UP express in Toronto that had a similar ROI direction and then they had to significantly reduce the fares to get the riders they needed. Lastly the cost of any construction rarely comes in on budget. With the exception of the Harris Park Band Stand, majority of other city projects have come over budget. Consider the Blackfrairs Bridge increase 2 x, imagine if it was only a 10% increase or $50 million, could we even handle this small of an increase? Isn't the city on the hook for this? 3. City senior management met again with Western University in August. It was a positive discussion and we have made plans to continue working together with Western through the next phase of the study to refine the route and station designs through campus. 4. The cost of the project is actually lower than several other rapid transit projects being implemented in Ontario, and was scaled to match the needs and size of London. The Business Case documents the expected benefits and project justification. Your comment is noted. On B. Hollingworth responds: Cost: Regarding the business case methods, we followed standard methods and processes used for other transit projects across Ontario. Some examples of other business cases can be found at: tevaluation/benefitscases/benefits_case_analyses.a spx. The cost estimates for London s plan include a contingency to allow for unknowns and unanticipated costs. Traffic concerns and the potential time saving: The City is planning improvements on parallel arterial roads to accommodate general traffic. As the study progresses in the fall, we will be doing more detailed traffic analysis for the approved Rapid Transit corridors to understand the impacts and develop mitigation strategies. Evidence from other municipalities that have Rapid Transit proves that there will be greater opportunity for businesses with increased pedestrian activity and net positive land value uplift in commercial areas around Rapid Transit stations and corridors. Like all transportation infrastructure projects, there 98

99 Please consider the assumptions again and make sure you would spend like this for your company, your home etc and if you would hesitate, maybe we should hesitate here and get it right. Once this money is spent we are trapped if it does not work the way the UP express was in TO so they lowered the fares, impacting their assumptions and ROI again. Traffic concerns and the potential time saving: The impact on traffic in my city is going to be significant as everyone knows and has commented on. By reducing the locations where people can turn and by reducing lanes on major streets, it will impact businesses and residents alike. And remember this is to save 5 minutes to get into the core of the city. By the time I park, wait for the bus and then travel to the drop point and then walk from there to my final destination, am I really saving any time at all? With all that considered, will that not mean more citizens will simply opt to drive? Lastly on this point, there is the potential that companies that have invested their life savings to build out a location along one of the routes or even just off one of the routes will be so disrupted they will not be able to survive. The answer from most politicians is we are making it better for the future. I get that, I really do. But consider this business owner is one of your citizens, providing a service to the community and making it better. By ignoring their needs, having them not be able to make a living and eventually have to close up shop or worse go bankrupt, would you want this to be your legacy? are will be short-term impacts through the construction phase. The City is planning additional meetings with key stakeholders across the preferred corridors to identify and develop solutions to mitigate the short-term impacts that construction may have in their neighbourhoods and on their businesses. Flexibility: Currently, one park-and-ride facility is being considered at the south terminus of the Wellington Road corridor. A fee is not being considered at this time. City Size: Currently, London is Canada s largest city that does not have an existing or funded Rapid Transit system. Halifax is smaller and more dispersed and just initiated a study to examine rapid transit similar to what is proposed for London. Some of the cities you mention in the US do have forms of dedicated transit. New Orleans, for example, has a streetcar system that operates in dedicated median lanes (albeit historic and not that fast). It is noteworthy as well that Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa started building their rapid transit systems when they were not much larger than London. Flexibility: I really like the idea of Park and Ride stations in the North and South. That is exceptional planning. I am worried where they will be (not fair to the malls to have them especially at their peak seasons) and that they are free to use. We need to make this easy to get on, otherwise why not just stay in my car for the additional 5 minutes into the downtown. The only other concern I have here is this plan is geared only for the core. There are lots of people that need to get to work in industrial areas that are not properly serviced by the current system. I hope 99

100 that this plan also includes a plan to help them and the companies they want to work at. I know we want to think like a big city. We are one of the largest cities in Canada, yes. But we are only 400,000 people. Might this plan be a little more than we should handle given our size. We are the same size as Arlington Texas, New Orleans, Lousiana and Tulsa Oklahoma, and I have traveled to each of these cities within the last 5 years and do not remember seeing such a plan. I could be wrong or they have implemented it after I was there... but it does make you think given their spread out geography and potentially their greater need I am so against bus rapid transit my blood boils when I think about it. There is no denying we need better BUS service but that is all. Somebody who has a brain needs to design routes that serve all of London and not just the chosen few routes. Fix the bus system and maybe we could even afford to fix the roads that actually need fixing. I m not sure if we even have one good road to travel on in this city. Instead of patching everything FIX the roads properly and forget about BRT. There are so many more important things then BRT. It s time to get into the real world and not this fantasy land our mayor and his councillors seem to be living in [ sent to J. Ramsay] I am disappointed that there has not been more consultation with regards to the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Plan. Just making the Master Plan available for public viewing is not engaging the citizens of London. On B. Hollingworth responds: Part of the Rapid Transit plan includes strengthening the local transit service. Existing bus routes will be integrated to provide connections to Rapid Transit stations. This will help improve transit throughout the entire City not just along the Rapid Transit corridors. As part of the implementation of rapid transit, improvements will be made to the roads and structures along the rapid transit corridors. However, putting off investment in transit means more money will be required for road expansion. Deferring rapid transit means that some $290 million of road expansion projects will be required over the next 20 years. Building dedicated lanes for public transit will allow the City to prioritize the movement of transit, and accommodate and optimize the benefits of future modes, such as driverless technology. On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for your detailed comments. I recall our discussion following the Rapid Transit Implementation Working Group meeting earlier this year and I m happy to respond to your comments regarding the consultation process, construction Added to the mailing list. Added to the mailing list. 100

101 I am registering my objections to the BRT plan as follows: The proposed BRT plan for the City of London will isolate neighbourhoods in the RIchmond Street corridor from the rest of the city and create Ghettos because it will significantly reduce the appeal to live in these desirable locations. In addition there will be both a short term major disruption (?years) during construction and a long term (for ever) disruption when the construction is completed. The significant neighborhood, bounded by University Drive to the North, Richmond St to the East and the Thames River to the West, will have little or no access to the rest of the city except for one street, St. George St leading to Oxford St. This will have a major impact on access to emergency and service vehicles (police, fire, ambulance, garbage, etc.) and if there was a need to evacuate this area the residents would be limited to using one street, St. George St. This is totally unsatisfactory and is a health and safety issue let alone a major inconvenience for those living in this area. In addition, there are smaller neighbourhoods that will also be seriously impacted by the BRT. For those residents who drive and live in the many apartment buildings along Richmond St just south of the Broughdale Bridge, getting into or out of these buildings will be a nightmare. Also, for the residents of Parkdale Ave, Bernard Ave, and Raymond Ave their only access is from Richmond St. Similarly, for the Condo complexes north of Windemere Ave, Richmond Street is their only means of access. Totally unacceptable for these residents. In addition, if you think there is major traffic congestion now, from the intersection of Western Road and Richmond St to Masonville, just think of the chaos that will result in reconstructing these areas. When I attended the council meeting earlier this summer I was not allowed to speak or ask questions but was able to speak with you (Jennie A. Ramsay, P.Eng.) after the meeting and I brought these issues of access to your attention. I was dismayed to learn from you impacts, neighbourhood impacts, access for emergency services and traffic operations. Ongoing Consultation: When we spoke in the summer, our project was at an early stage, but we have been hard at work on the Environmental Assessment process, developing design options along the corridors and gathering additional feedback from Londoners. We will be offering five Public Information Centre (PIC) meeting times the Week of December 11 th to provide Londoner s as much opportunity as possible to weigh in on how Rapid Transit integrates with their neighourhoods. The goals of this next PIC are to: 1) Present alternative design concepts ( options ) along BRT corridors 2) Present assessment and analysis of impacts and benefits for options 3) Seek public s feedback to aid in evaluation of options We have added you to the SHIFT mailing list so that you will receive information about upcoming community engagement opportunities and details for the PIC s. Construction Impacts & Timing: Regarding construction, a preliminary construction phasing plan is provided in the Rapid Transit Master Plan for the approved Bus Rapid Transit network. However, we need to continue the design process and complete the Transit Project Assessment Process to refine the construction plan. Construction could start in 2019 on the Quick Start program introducing elements such as priority signals or a prototype BRT stop to give Londoner s a taste of what Rapid Transit can offer. Construction of dedicated bus rapid transit lanes is then anticipated 101

102 that the planning had not advanced to that point yet. So, how can such a significant plan be approved when all the potential impacts on residents and the environment have not even been considered let alone resolved? What ever happened to the consultation period that was supposed to happen? I don't recall receiving or hearing of any meeting, etc to discuss these items. Just making these documents available in public places is not sufficient. Is this an open and transparent process or are the residents of the City of London being "held for Ransom" by a closed group within City Council? It is unfortunate that the early layout of London's roads did not plan for future expansion and the previous City Councils did not have the foresight or the political will to take advantage of opportunities when they presented themselves. For example, the building of a major ring road around the city or building a bridge to connect Windemere road to Gainsborough Rd. In fact, this bridge can still be built and this would significantly improve the traffic flow around the University and hospital. However, this requires political will for the benefit of the City as a whole. The City needs better planning and better politicians with better foresight for the future development of London. The BRT plan requires serious rethinking or it needs to be scrapped. to start in It is anticipated that the entire BRT Network would take about 7 or 8 years to construct. This would be done in stages, and timing of construction on other roads will be considered when planning the rapid transit construction. Neighbourhood Impacts: We understand the concerns of residents that live near the proposed BRT system, particularly those in established neighbourhoods such as yours. As a growing City, London has a unique opportunity over the next 20 years to shape how and where the City develops. We are currently looking for the public s feedback on local issues to consider along the established Rapid Transit corridors and how to best integrate Rapid Transit stations within existing neighbourhoods. I see that you ve registered for our Stops and Streetscape Public Workshop tonight from 4-8pm at the Central Library. I look forward to see you there. Emergency Access: As part of our efforts to develop and evaluate alternative designs to determine the best solution along each section of the Bus Rapid Transit system, we have been consulting with the Fire Department, Middlesex-London EMS, and London Police Services regarding emergency access along the corridors. Emergency vehicles will be able to make use of the dedicated bus lanes to by-pass general traffic congestion providing the opportunity to reduce critical arrival timelines. We are also connecting our emergency services staff with their counterparts in other BRT municipalities to find key learnings on how to best use the BRT network to their advantage. Traffic Operations: We heard the concerns of residents, in particular those in Old North, in regards traffic diversion to 102

103 side streets in the neighbourhood. To help Londoners understand the impacts of alternations to Richmond North, we are preparing enhanced modelling to simulate the traffic impacts of all Richmond North options as well as existing conditions. The results of this modelling will be available at our PIC s scheduled across the City the week of December 11 th to help Londoners provide their input and feedback on the various alternative for the key corridor of the BRT System. May I suggest checking out the online video of last week s Rapid Transit Implementation Working Group Meeting in which my presentation specifically addressed questions regarding traffic modelling. Here s the link for video of the entire meeting, but if you would like to focus in on the portions pertaining to Richmond North traffic modelling and how traffic will operate under the BRT Options, you can check out the following sections of the video. XhE 15:20-16:50 - Discussion of scope of enhanced traffic modelling 19:40-36:55 - Review of existing conditions vs. Centre-running (opt#1) and Curbsiderunning (opt#2) including questions from the group. Again, we have added you to the SHIFT mailing list so that you will receive information about upcoming community engagement opportunities and details for the PIC s. You can unsubscribe at any time by ing shift@london.ca [Sent to J. Ramsay] On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for your detailed comments. 103

104 RAPID TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Why has London's Rapid Transit Master Plan reached this stage without some serious questions from Council about where we're headed? The simple answer is that Council has been misled and fed what can only be described as misinformation. The plan as published in July, 2017 is based on at least ten questionable premises. MYTH 1: People opposed to the current master plan do not support public transit. On the contrary, most of us who are critical of the plan see it as ultimately destroying efficient and cost-effective public transportation in the City. By any measure, the LTC has operated one of the best transit systems in Canada. The rapid transit plan in its current form would suck resources from conventional transit, leading to an overall deterioration in service. MYTH 2: The current Rapid Transit Master Plan is consistent with City policy. This is not the case. In the spring of 2013, the City adopted the 2030 Transportation Master Plan (Smart Moves). This plan clearly identifies the need for a phased in bus rapid transit system based on a population growth rate of one percent per year, considered reasonable and realistic for London. The 2030 plan recommends a bus based system developed in stages through the use of such measures as priority signals and queue jump lanes. MYTH 3: The Rapid Transit Master Plan is designed for bus rapid transit. In all respects, the proposal for dedicated transit lanes physically separated from traffic lanes is identical to the design for Waterloo Region's LRT system. Bus transit lanes throughout North America and Europe are not physically separated, nor do they need I would like to take this opportunity to respond to each of your points. Before I begin, I would like to reiterate that we are at an early stage of this project. The Rapid Transit Master Plan approval confirms the Bus Rapid Transit network and technology, but there is more work to be done to complete the Environmental Assessment process, develop design alternatives along the corridors, and gather more feedback from Londoners. 1: Rapid Transit will not replace local LTC service. Building rapid transit infrastructure will strengthen transit service across the network. LTC routes and schedules will be modified to work with the new BRT system. Combined transit service is planned to increase by 35% between 2015 and 2035 across the City. The London Transit Commission has started this work, and will continue to plan for integration with rapid transit. ework.pdf. 2: The Smart Moves 2030: Transportation Master Plan was a valuable starting point. However, to advance the project the Rapid Transit Master Plan followed the Master Planning process. The Rapid Transit Master Plan developed and evaluated thirteen different corridor segments, as detailed in Chapter 3 of the report. Various network alternatives were developed and assessed, including Business- As-Usual, Base BRT, Full BRT, a hybrid LRT-BRT system, and Full LRT, as documented in Chapter 3, and specifically Section You may have read about the construction phasing and Quick Start concept in Section 9.5 of the RTMP. As we develop the preliminary engineering design in the coming months, we will also develop the Quick Start program. We will review the BRT 104

105 to be. Is it significant that the word "BUS" has been dropped from the title of the July, 2017 Rapid Transit Master Plan? MYTH 4: Light rail rapid transit systems promote city growth. Numerous studies in North America have demonstrated that light rail systems in and of themselves do not create growth. They are effective tools in managing growth but the growth must be there first. The City's 2030 Transportation Master Plan (Smart Moves) identifies a two percent growth rate and a population of as the threshold at which LRT could be considered for London. The City of London is not close to the threshold population needed to support an LRT system and will not be for several years. MYTH 5: Light Rail is the technology of the future. The basic technology for light rail has been used for over 100 years. It is rapidly being superseded by new technology, such as autonomous vehicles. The City of Helsinki, for example, is field testing a fleet of small autonomous buses. Light rail and street cars will likely be obsolete in 10 to 15 years. MYTH 6: The current design for dedicated bus lanes can easily be converted to light rail. Apart from the technology issue, what is being designed in London is a street car system. True light rail runs on its own right of way, separate from the street right of way. The Waterloo Region's system at least partially qualifies as LRT because it runs for about half of its length along a former rail line. The infrastructure required for overhead electrification will result in further constraints and disruption. The City has failed to appropriately characterize the project. network and identify improvements such as signal and intersection improvements, station areas and bus frequency. 3: One definition of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is: a high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-effective services at metro-level capacities. It does this through the provision of dedicated lanes, with busways and iconic stations typically aligned to the center of the road, off-board fare collection, and fast and frequent operations. Because BRT contains features similar to a light rail or metro system, it is much more reliable, convenient and faster than regular bus services. With the right features, BRT is able to avoid the causes of delay that typically slow regular bus services, like being stuck in traffic and queuing to pay on board. You can review this definition and more at Bus Rapid Transit is consistent with Smart Moves 2030 which identified taking transit to the next level as one of five pillars (Smart Moves) that the vision of the Transportation Master Plan is built on. Rapid Transit is envisioned to form the spine of an integrated, multi-modal transportation network. The four other Smart Moves in the plan aim to support the Rapid Transit vision and encourage new mobility options for Londoners: Rethinking Growth, Actively Managing Transportation Demand, Greater Investment in Walking and Cycling, and a More Strategic Program of Road Network Improvements. 4: The population and employment projections used to forecast future transit needs are consistent with The London Plan. The Bus Rapid Transit corridors approved by Council in July 2017 will support appropriate growth, encourage active transportation, and provide more choice to Londoners. London s 105

106 MYTH 7: Without BRT we will have traffic gridlock downtown. On the contrary, the construction of dedicated transit lanes, thus reducing traffic capacity, and the relocation of mid-block left turns to U- turns at intersections will lead to a high level of congestion in the downtown area. The rapid transit master plan published tables (Appendix K) showing anticipated levels of service at intersections. The tables showed letter designations but did not identify the associated delay and queue lengths. City staff have refused to make these data available. At a signalized intersection, level of service F is based on an average delay to all vehicles passing through the intersection of more than 80 seconds. More to the point, levels of service on each approach are different. While overall,the average delay could be 85 seconds, for example, individual lane delays could be much higher. Traffic back-up could extend for more than a block, thus creating true gridlock. In addition, U-turns are inherently unsafe and should not be recommended under any circumstances. MYTH 8: Dedicated lanes are needed for bus rapid transit in the downtown core. Many cities operate priority bus lanes in their downtown areas. Typical examples are Winnipeg and Ottawa. In Ottawa, the one-way pair of Albert and Slater streets has operated successfully for over 30 years, using the second lane from the curb for buses and the curb lane for parking, interrupted by "bump-outs" for transit stations. With a proposed headway of five minutes between buses in the London system, dedicated lanes would be an inefficient use of scarce street capacity MYTH 9: The rapid transit planning study has followed provincial guidelines for Environmental Assessment (EA) studies. population grew by 4.8% between 2011 and 2016 ( Dwellings.aspx). Projections indicate the City will reach over 450,000 people by : As noted above, the Rapid Transit Master Plan adopted by council identifies Bus Rapid Transit as the preferred technology, and identifies the corridors for rapid transit infrastructure. Lanes dedicated for Bus Rapid Transit can be adapted in future as vehicle technology changes. 6: City Council endorsed as a strategic direction the future conversion to light rail transit technology subject to further review and confirmation through a new business case in a motion passed May 26, It is noted that this conversion is beyond the 2034 horizon year of the Rapid Transit Master Plan and would trigger a separate Environmental Assessment. 7: London is growing and we know that widening roads alone will not serve our city well in the future. By 2030, 25% more cars are expected to be on London roadways. Bus Rapid Transit can move more people more efficiently, comfortably and reliably, including to and around the downtown. The updated Project Management Plan describes the additional traffic impact analysis, noise and vibration assessments, and air quality impact assessment that will be completed for the approved Bus Rapid Transit corridors in the coming months ( pages/160/attachments/original/ /londo nrt_expandedscopepmp _%28FINAL%29.pdf? ). 106

107 The EA process, no matter which analysis path is chosen, requires the proponent to identify and evaluate all reasonable alternatives before deciding on a preferred plan. In this case, once the decision was made to pursue bus rapid transit, no consideration appears to have been given to alternative methods of implementation. At the public open house in February, 2017, the plan with exclusive transit lanes, road widenings and "the tunnel" was presented in its entirety. The public was not given any opportunity to comment on less intrusive measures of implementation. MYTH 10: The benefit to cost ratio for the proposed system is forecast to be When the business case for the original bus rapid transit system, as developed by the London Transit Commission, was put together, according to provincial guidelines, the benefit to cost ratio was 1.8. This business plan, incidentally, received informal approval from the Province. Anyone who believes that the benefits of the system proposed in the recent plan will remain positive need only look at Waterloo Region's experience where costs have sky-rocketed and disruption to local businesses and property owners has been significant. Suggested reading: 1. The North American Light Rail Experience: Insights for Hamilton, McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics,April More Development for Your Transit Dollar, an Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors, ITDP, Ten Principles of Great Transit Planning, ITE Community Forum, March, Please note that the U-turn operations along Rapid Transit corridors will occur at signalized intersections on a fully-protected left-turn phase. 8: Note that in the downtown, specifically on Ridout, King, Queens, Wellington and Clarence, the Bus Rapid Transit lanes will be shared with conventional LTC buses. Given the frequency of buses circulating downtown, dedicated lanes will provide more reliable service than buses operating in mixed traffic lanes. Note that 10 existing LTC routes that currently use Dundas Street are being realigned starting in April 2018, as presented in the staff report to Civic Works on September 26, 2017: 33m45/ PDF 9: As documented in the Rapid Transit Master Plan (Executive Summary page xx, and in more detail in Section 1.2), the Rapid Transit Master Plan aligns with Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environment Assessment (MCEA), an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The Rapid Transit Master Plan process examined the existing and future state of London s transportation system and recommends a preferred Rapid Transit solution based on the evaluation of several alternatives. This process expands on the work completed for London s Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Master Plan, which identified the need for Rapid Transit. The project is planned to advance through the Transit Project Assessment Process (Ontario Regulation 231/08) using the Rapid Transit Master Plan as the basis for project definition. Over the past decade, Rapid Transit has been a central theme to a number of studies in London. The studies have centered on different aspects of Rapid Transit, from growing ridership, shaping land use, 107

108 4. Implementing Houston's First Bus Rapid Transit System, ITE Journal, April, A Method to Analyze Multimodal Conditions on Congested Urban and Suburban Arterials, ITE Journal, April, A New Mobility Transportation Master Plan for London, 2030 Transportation Master Plan, AECOM, January, 2013 the economics, and its role in a multi-modal transportation system. The Rapid Transit Master Plan builds on the findings of these studies, as summarized in Section 1.7 of the report. A municipal infrastructure Master Plan is only subject to approval by the host municipality. In the case of the London Rapid Transit Master Plan, the approval authority rests with City Council. As noted above, the Rapid Transit Master Plan builds on previous studies, including the Smart Moves 2030 Transportation Master Plan, The London Plan, LTC s Long-Term Growth Strategy, among others. 10: Please note that the Bus Rapid Transit system evaluated in the business case analysis completed in 2013 is not the same system adopted by Council in For example, the 2013 study assumed 24 Bus Rapid Transit stations, compared to 35 stations included in the Rapid Transit Master Plan. Also note that costs change over time. The cost estimate has continually been updated throughout the project as the design has been refined and more accurate information become available. Also note that City staff have been in contact with Waterloo Region, York Region, and other municipalities with rapid transit. Further, we are planning to conduct an expert peer review with representatives from other cities with rapid transit to gather their suggestions and feedback from professionals involved in similar Rapid Transit projects. I hope I have answered some of your questions. Technical analysis has been ongoing, including more traffic analysis, as we develop and evaluate alternative designs for the approved Bus Rapid Transit corridors. We will share our findings with the 108

109 [CC d Mayor Matt Brown and Councillor Hopkins] public at our fast approaching Public Information Centres, which we hope you will join us for. Comment received. Once again, I wish to voice my objections to the present BRT plan in the strongest possible terms! Any plan that takes away 4.8 KM of high-volume traffic lanes and makes those lanes "Bus-Only" is a non -starter and unacceptable. The entire BRT plan is transit overkill - it is unaffordable and unsustainable despite the pie-in-the-sky projections of revenue and ridership. We all want IMPROVED transit - and are willing to pay for IMPROVED transit - but we are not willing to pay for a project that glorifies and favors transit at the expense of added congestion and reduced access and safety for traffic! There are ways to vastly improve our existing LTC without disrupting the lives and communities of so many! Yes, it will cost us more - but ANY transit scheme is going to have added cost. I find it amazing - as well as discouraging and frustrating - that City Leadership does not recognize the divisive atmosphere that this transit plan has created throughout the City. The whole key to ANY project of any type is consensus - and I am 100% convinced that if the parameters of ANY plan required improved transit AND improved traffic conditions, there are many people within this community that could design a far less expensive system which would meet the needs of all parties! But no, the thought of free money from the politicos in Ottawa and Toronto has blinded City leadership to all other possibilities! Many wise and experienced individuals in the London area have written incisive commentary - none more incisive than columns by Chip Martin. His latest column, published Sep 16th, summarizes this fiasco appropriately: Rapid-transit scheme will eat up cash rapidly Let's hope that next year's election will bring forward a slate of candidates who understand the need - in fact, the urgency - of an 109

110 improved transit plan that recognizes the needs, finances, and life routines of all Londoners! No BRT for me. Fix the existing system and provide bus service to all the city. I pay a load of tax money and get hardly anything back for it. This city counsel has to be the most inept group we have ever had. The roads are just a bunch of moon craters and driving through the city is a pain in the ass. It makes a new car fell like a shit box. Fix the GD roads and stuff the BRT where the sun does not shine. Stop this stupid plan and get real. Spend OUR MONEY (not the counsel ) on real things that need fixing. This city is becoming an embarrassment and is not a fun place to live anymore [Sent to Councillor Helmer] The more I learn about the brt system being "proposed" ( shoved down our throats) the more concerns I have with it It would seem that for a VERY small improvement in a very small amount of routes that we are going to effectively divide the city into 4 areas that will be more difficult to travel between than they already are. How can we not realize that with the removed lanes & restrictions on crossing from 1 side of the street to another to get into businesses along the route that we will create hardship for commuters & shoppers ( & of course the small businesses as well) not to mention that commute times for the majority of us will be increased if we need to use any of the major arteries that this boondoggle is going to be on That does not even start to address the down time due to major construction that will also go along with this project These issues are just the tip of the iceberg as I see it. The lack of transparency & honesty that has come out of city hall on this has been, as usual, appalling! Comment received. On J. Ramsay responds: Thank you for your . It sounds like you have concerns about traffic congestion and access. Note that unsignalized intersections and driveways will be converted to right-in/right-out, while signalized intersections will maintain full-moves access. This is a typical approach used for many BRT systems in North America. The impact of this change to travel patterns was assessed in the Rapid Transit Master Plan, detailed in Appendix K: ages/149/attachments/original/ /london RTMP_AppK_Traffic.pdf? We are conducting more detailed traffic analysis as part of the Transit Project Assessment Process, as presented to the Rapid Transit Implementation Working Group on September 14: on_working_group_materials Added to mailing list. Added to mailing list. 110

111 To cross or access unsignalized intersections, drivers will have a short distance added, as shown in the attached figure. Note that U-turns will be made from dedicated left-turn lanes with fullyprotected signal phasing (a green arrow). Widening roads is not an effective solution on its own creating a way to move more people with fewer vehicles is also needed. We cannot continue to widen roads to accommodate single occupant vehicle travel as the preferred mode, particularly in the Downtown. One bus can replace dozens of cars, and so Rapid Transit can move more people much more efficiently. Putting off investment in transit means more money will be required for road expansion. Deferring rapid transit means that some $290 million of road expansion projects will be required over the next 20 years. Building dedicated lanes for public transit will allow the City to prioritize the movement of people, and accommodate and optimize the benefits of future modes, such as driverless technology. Traffic impacts, access, and construction will become an ongoing conversation with Londoners. We hope you will stay engaged throughout the process. 111