REGION OF WATERLOO PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Transportation Planning TO: Chair Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee DATE: March 4, 2008 FILE CODE: D10-20/RT SUBJECT: RAPID TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION, PHASE 2, STEP 2 - RANKING OF PRELIMINARY ROUTE, STATION, AND TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDATION: For information. SUMMARY: The Region of Waterloo is currently completing an Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) for the development of a rapid transit system. Phase 1 of the EA was approved by Regional Council in July 2006, and determined that the Rapid Transit Initiative is the preferred transportation strategy for Waterloo Region because it best achieves the goals of the Regional Growth Management Strategy and conforms with the objectives of the Provincial Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Phase 2 of the EA is now underway. Phase 2 consists of a three-step process that will help Regional Council and the community select the rapid transit technology, routes and station locations that will best meet the Region s future transportation needs and land-use objectives. The first step of Phase 2 evaluated and screened 10 rapid transit technologies and their associated route designs and resulted in Regional Council approving Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT), operating both on and off road as the short list of technologies for further evaluation. In Step 2, a series of six public consultation centres (three formal and three informal) were held to share information on the ranking of route alternatives within each of the seven study area segments and to obtain public input on the rankings. The purpose of this report is to provide Regional Council with a summary of the public comments received during Step 2 of Phase 2 of the EA. Approximately 1,350 people attended the public consultation centres held on January 10 (Cambridge), January 12 (Your Kitchener Market), January 13 (Cambridge Centre Mall), January 15 (Kitchener), January 17 (Waterloo), and January 19 (Conestoga Mall). Attendees had the opportunity to review information on the rankings and process as well as talk with Regional staff and members of the consultant team working on the Rapid Transit EA. Comments were collected using a formal comment sheet that the public could submit immediately at one of the public consultation centres, or by mail, e-mail, fax, or through the project website. The majority of public comments received indicate general support for the top ranked route alternatives, a strong preference for light rail transit (LRT) technology over bus rapid transit (BRT) technology, and the importance of servicing core areas and areas of high employment, commercial, retail and institutional land-uses. A map of route options within each of the seven segments is included for reference in Appendix A. A summary of comments related to the rankings is attached in Appendix B. Staff response to comments is attached as Appendix C. 455025 Page 1 of 36
REPORT: Waterloo Region is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada. With a population of more than 500,000, and expected growth to 729,000 within the next 25 years, the Region is planning now for the challenges and opportunities associated with rapid population and employment growth. In 2003, Region of Waterloo Council unanimously adopted the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS), a long-term strategic framework that identifies where, when and how future residential and employment growth will be accommodated. The RGMS sets out strong and innovative goals for managing growth in urban areas and townships of the Region. It also identifies rapid transit as a key element that will help shape the future growth of the community. A rapid transit system has the potential to encourage a more compact urban form, complement pedestrianfriendly urban design, support street-level development around stations, reduce the growth of traffic congestion and associated air quality concerns and bring many other benefits to our community. Rapid transit is also a significant part of the Province s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Plan designates the core areas of the Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo as Urban Growth Centres (UGCs), where much of the anticipated future population and employment growth will be directed. It also calls for the development of a rapid transit system to connect the UGCs to the larger provincial transportation network, and recommends that priority funding be given to infrastructure projects that support an integrated regional transportation system for the movement of people and goods throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Region of Waterloo is currently carrying out an Individual Environmental Assessment for the development of a rapid transit system. Environmental Assessment Process The Region of Waterloo Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment is a three-phase process that will help Regional Council and the community select the rapid transit technology, routes and station locations that will best meet the Region s future transportation needs and land-use objectives. The EA is being conducted according to the Terms of Reference approved by the Ontario Minister of the Environment in July 2005: Phase 1: The evaluation and selection of a preferred transportation system strategy (The Rapid Transit Initiative was selected as the Preferred Transportation Strategy at the July 12, 2006 Regional Council meeting). Phase 2: Evaluation of alternative route designs and rapid transit technologies, and the identification of a preferred rapid transit system including station locations and route selection. Phase 3: Preliminary design of the recommended rapid transit system. The Rapid Transit EA involves ongoing and extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders throughout each phase of the study. Status of the Environmental Assessment Process Phase 1 of the EA, approved by Regional Council in July 2006, determined that the Rapid Transit Initiative is the preferred transportation strategy for Waterloo Region rather than expanding the road network alone or improving conventional transit. Phase 2 of the EA is now well underway to select the best rapid transit technology, route and station locations for the future Rapid Transit system. The first step of Phase 2 commenced in 455025 Page 2 of 36
September 2006 with the evaluation and screening of 10 rapid transit technologies and their associated route designs. In February 2007, following extensive public consultation, Regional Council approved Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT), operating both on and off road as the short list of technologies for further evaluation. The second step of Phase 2 began in March 2007 with a public workshop to help identify the list of route and station location alternatives that would be evaluated for both BRT and LRT. The Rapid Transit Project Team has completed this evaluation and has ranked each option within each of the seven segments of the study area. The intent of Step 2 is to determine the route and station options with the greatest benefits (reurbanization potential, ridership, environmental protection, ability to serve concentrations of employment, etc.) and lowest potential impacts on a segment by segment. It is important to note that the outcome of this step does not necessarily eliminate any alternative (combining a technology with a route) in any of the seven segments. Rather, it provides a priority ranking of the various alternatives that will be used together with input from the public to assemble complete rapid transit systems covering the entire study area. These systems will be evaluated in the Step 3 of Phase 2 of the EA. Phase 2, Step 2 Evaluation Process and Results In consultation with the Area Municipalities and the public, the Region finalized the list of routes and station locations in each of the seven segments of the Study Area and conducted an indepth evaluation of route, station and technology alternatives based on 21 criteria approved in the Terms of Reference by the Ontario Minister of the Environment in July 2005. These criteria are grouped in four categories: Transportation; Social and Cultural Environment; Natural Environment; and Economic Impact The results of the evaluation demonstrate how each route and technology alternative perform against the other alternatives in the same segment in each of the four broad categories. This evaluation generated over 5,000 individual pieces of data using different units of measurement, such as costs, ridership, and greenhouse gas emissions, for example. In order to compare these different forms of measurement, the Region s Rapid Transit Project Team developed a scoring process. This process assigned a score between one and five to the results for each of the 21 criteria based on how well a route and technology alternative performed compared to the other options within the same segment of the Study Area. Those scores were then used to determine the category ranking and the overall ranking for each alternative within its segment. It is important to note that this ranking does not eliminate any of these route and technology alternatives from further consideration during the next step of the Environmental Assessment Process. In Phase 2, Step 3, the Region s Project Team must consider the advantages and disadvantages of all the alternatives including how well the route alignment might function and how the route alternatives in one segment will connect to those in the adjacent segment - in order to find the best combination of routes and station locations that make up an overall rapid transit system for Waterloo Region. 455025 Page 3 of 36
Public Consultation The Rapid Transit Project Team presented the details of the technical analysis, including the ranking of each route option within each segment of the study area at a series of three public consultation centres held on January 10, 15 and 17, 2008. The PCCs were held on weekdays from 2:00 to 8:00 P.M. in three locations: Thursday, January 10, 2008, The United Kingdom Club, 35 International Village Drive (off of Dunbar Road), Cambridge Tuesday, January 15, 2008, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, 54 Queen St. N., Kitchener Thursday, January 17, 2008, First United Church, 16 William St., Waterloo Additional displays were set up on weekends at the following locations: Saturday, January 12, 2008, Your Kitchener Market, 300 King Street East (at Cedar Street), Kitchener (7:00 A.M. 2:00 P.M.) Sunday, January 13, 2008, Cambridge Centre Mall, 355 Hespeler Road, Cambridge (12:00 noon 5:00 P.M.) Saturday, January 19 th, Conestoga Mall, 550 King Street North, Waterloo (10 a.m. 5 p.m.) The PCC and display dates were widely advertised throughout our community using local media, road signs and a newsletter that was delivered to every household and business in the Region. Summary of Public Input Approximately 1350 people attended the six public consultation centres offered. Attendees reviewed display boards and printed materials containing summaries of the ranking with accompanying maps. Attendees were also given the opportunity to talk one on one with Regional staff and members of the Rapid Transit consultant team. Through January 31, 2008 approximately 113 comment sheets were received. A map of route options within each of the seven segments is included for reference in Appendix A. A summary of comments related to the rankings is attached in Appendix B. Staff response to comments is attached as Appendix C. Responses indicated that 70 percent of respondents agreed with the rankings of the route alternatives in each segment, while 11 percent indicated they did not know, and 19 percent did not agree. Respondents also provided comments and preferences of the top ranked alternatives by segment: Segment 1: The preferred routes were 1-4 LRT, King Street (ranked first) and 1-6 LRT, King- University-Railway (ranked second). Comments included: LRT was preferred for speed, low noise impact and low emissions; Important to ensure stations at Grand River Hospital, University of Waterloo, and Wilfrid Laurier University; System needs to link to King Street in Uptown Waterloo for positive impacts on business/retail; and High ridership potential- serves residential, commercial, and institutional. Concerns included: Ridership demand for Northfield/Parkside; Noise, vibration and safety through the Mary-Allen neighbourhood; and Effect system may have on the character and walkability of King Street in Uptown. Segment 2: The preferred route was 2-2 LRT, King-Charles (ranked first). Comments included: LRT preferred for speed, low noise impact and low emissions; LRT on King Street would have great benefits for businesses along the corridor; and Important for stations to be located at Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, and King/Victoria (with consideration of moving VIA station for future connectivity). Concerns included: Ensure stations are located at Grand River Hospital and Kitchener Market. 455025 Page 4 of 36
Segment 3: The preferred routes were 3-2 LRT, Charles-King-Dixon-Shelley-Hydro-Hwy 8 (ranked first), 3-3 LRT, Charles-King-Borden-Courtland-Fairway-King (ranked second), and 3-1 LRT, Charles-King-Dixon-Kingsway-Hwy 8 (ranked fifth). Comments included: LRT was preferred for speed and low environmental impacts; Many felt it was important to keep near King Street; Important to stop at Fairview Mall; and Good for shopping and potential business development. Concerns included: Routes seems indirect- negative impact on travel times; and Consider link to Conestoga College (i.e. express bus). Segment 4: The preferred route was 4-4 LRT, Hwy8-Sportsworld-Railway (ranked third). Comments included: LRT will produce less emissions and is worth the higher capital costs; Good station connections with Sportsworld, Toyota, and Preston Core; Good connection to Highway 401 for commuters; and Serves high employment area. Concerns included: Sportsworld Station unnecessary unless area intensifies; Costs of constructing bridge over Grand River; and BRT uses more gasoline and oil; creates more pollution. Segment 5: The preferred route was 5-1 LRT, Railway (ranked first). Comments included: Existing railway corridor appealing for its low environmental impacts; Cambridge Memorial Hospital is an important station location; Fast, direct route; Good separation from traffic; and Least negative impact on Preston Core. Concerns included: Existing railway corridor appealing for its low environmental impacts; Cambridge Memorial Hospital an important station location; Fast, direct route; Good separation from traffic; and Least negative impact on Preston Core. Concerns included: Capital costs. Segment 6: The preferred route was 6-4 LRT, Eagle-Waterway-Dunbar-Hespeler (ranked first). Comments included: Most direct route; Will alleviate traffic on Hespeler Road and get people out of their cars; Serves major points in Cambridge; LRT offers high reliability and lower operating costs; and Lowest land purchases. Concerns included: Hespeler Road is not dense enough to support LRT stations. Segment 7: The preferred route was 7-7 LRT, Railway-Beverly-Wellington (ranked first). Comments included: Highest ridership potential; Most efficient route; Logical transition into downtown Galt; LRT offers high reliability and lower operating costs; and Lowest land purchase costs. Concerns included: Not enough ridership potential. Additional general comments included that the Region work closely with Grand River Transit to ensure frequent East-West feeder buses to connect outlying areas to the Central Transit Corridor, that the system be configured to facilitate possible future inter-provincial linkages, and that the VIA Rail Station be relocated to the King/Victoria intersection. General concerns included ensuring that the Rapid Transit system not interfere with existing cycling and walking trails, timing and phasing of construction, reasonable service times, negative cultural and environmental impacts, accessibility for those with disabilities, and overall project costs. Comments related to the light rail transit technology were generally positive compared to Bus Rapid Transit technology. Respondents felt that LRT is a fast, quiet and environmentally friendly technology that would be most effective for concentrating and intensifying urban development and provides an attractive image of innovation and technology that supports the progressive image of the Region. Concerns for LRT technology related to higher capital costs, safety issues, noise and vibration in residential neighbourhoods, and negative visual impact of overhead electric wires. Comments related to bus rapid transit technology included that it provides a more flexible and affordable technology that would be most adaptable to future changes with minimal impacts on existing roads. However, respondents also felt that BRT is an ineffective technology to drive land- 455025 Page 5 of 36
use changes and get people out of their cars. Concerns also included that BRT would be less likely to attract private investment and may lead to negative environmental impacts. Next Steps Having received the public s input, the Region s Project Team will finalize the ranking of route and technology alternatives. The team will then develop and assess up to five reasonable complete rapid transit system alternatives as part of Phase 2, Step 3. Route and technology alternatives that were not ranked in the top 5 in Step 2 may be considered in Step 3 in order to develop reasonable system alternatives. The following four criteria groups will be used to assess the system alternatives in Phase 2, Step 3: Route Rankings from Step 2, Rapid Transit System Performance, Overall System Economic Costs, and Overall System Economic Benefits. Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination The Rapid Transit Project Team includes representation from the Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. Consultation with Area Municipal staff and other Stakeholder Groups continues to be a priority at each step of the EA. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN The report supports several objectives of Council s Strategic Focus. These include: Focus Area 1: Environmental Sustainability: Protect and Enhance the Environment. Focus Area 2: Growth Management: Manage and shape growth to ensure a livable, healthy, thriving and sustainable Waterloo Region. Focus Area 5: Infrastructure: Provide high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet current needs and future growth. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of the Rapid Transit EA study is being shared by the Region and Province with 50% of the cost funded by the Province. The Region s share will be funded through the Planning Capital program. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: The Rapid Transit Project Team and Steering Committee includes representatives from Regional Council, the CAO s office, Communications, Community Planning, Finance, Legal, Public Health, Social Services, Transit Development, Transportation and Environmental Services, Transportation Planning and Transit Services. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1 Appendix A: Route and Station Location Alternatives by Segment Attachment #2 Appendix B: Summary of Phase 2, Step 2 Public Input by Segment Attachment #3 Appendix C: Response to Comments, Phase 2, Step 2 PREPARED BY: Becky Schlenvogt, Principal Planner 455025 Page 6 of 36
APPROVED BY: Rob Horne, Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services 455025 Page 7 of 36
455025 Page 8 of 36
455025 Page 9 of 36
455025 Page 10 of 36
455025 Page 11 of 36
455025 Page 12 of 36
455025 Page 13 of 36
455025 Page 14 of 36
APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF PHASE 2, STEP 2 PUBLIC INPUT BY SEGMENT Phase 2, Step 2 Preliminary Routes and Station Locations Public Consultation Centres January 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 2008 This summary of public input is intended to provide an overview of the responses and other comments provided by the public in relation to the Phase 2, Step 2 Public Consultation Centre as they were relayed in response to the questions posed. Responses have been organized in order to provide a sense of the major themes common in the feedback. Question 1 Overall, do you support the results of the Phase 2, Step 2 ranking? Of the 113 comment forms received, 81 of those who answered: 70% supported, 19% did not support, and 11% were undecided. Overall, do you support the results of the Phase 2, Step 2 ranking? 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes No Undecided Overall, do you support the results of the Phase 2, Step 2 ranking? Yes 57 70% No 15 19% Undecided 9 11% Total 81 100% Question 2 455025 Page 15 of 36
Segment Rankings: Please let us know what you think about the route alternatives identified for each segment in the Study Area. SEGMENT 1- Uptown to North Waterloo Do you agree with the Top Ranked Alternatives? 77 responded: o Yes 53% o No 31% o Undecided 16% 100% The top ranked routes for Segment 1 were 1-4 LRT (King Street) and 1-6 LRT (King- University-Railway): o LRT preferred for speed, low noise impact and low emissions. o Important to have stations at the Grand River Hospital, University of Waterloo, and Wilfrid Laurier University o System needs to link to King Street in Uptown Waterloo for positive impacts on business/retail o High ridership potential- serves residential, commercial, and institutional Concerns for Segment 1: o Expect low ridership demand for Northfield/Parkside o Noise, vibration and safety through the Mary-Allen neighbourhood o Effect route may have on the character and walkability of King Street in Uptown. Segment 1 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1-4 LRT 1-6 LRT 1-1 LRT 1-4 BRT 1-6 BRT Top Ranked Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred Segment 1 Top Ranked Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred 1-4 LRT 69% 31% 1-6 LRT 67% 33% 1-1 LRT 51% 49% 455025 Page 16 of 36
1-4 BRT 33% 67% 1-6 BRT 29% 71% SEGMENT 2- Uptown Waterloo to Downtown Kitchener Do you agree with the Top Ranked Alternatives? 72 responded: o Yes 71% o No 7% o Undecided 22% 100% The top ranked route for Segment 2 was 2-2 LRT (King-Charles): o LRT preferred for speed, low noise impact and low emissions o LRT on King Street would have great benefits for businesses along the corridor o Important for stations to be located at Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, and King/Victoria (with consideration of moving VIA station for future connectivity) Concerns for Segment 2: o Ensure stations are located at the Grand River Hospital and Kitchener Market Segment 2 100% 80% 60% 40% % Preferred % Not Preferred 20% 0% 2-2 LRT 2-2 BRT 2-6 LRT 2-1 LRT 2-3 LRT Top Ranked Route Alternatives Segment 2 Top Ranked Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred 2-2 LRT 94% 6% 2-2 BRT 59% 41% 2-6 LRT 40% 60% 2-1 LRT 41% 59% 2-3 LRT 30% 70% 455025 Page 17 of 36
SEGMENT 3- Downtown Kitchener to South Kitchener Do you agree with the Top Ranked Alternatives? 70 responded: o Yes 44% o No 29% o Undecided 27% 100% The top ranked routes for Segment 3 were 3-2 LRT (Charles-King-Dixon-Shelley- Hydro-Hwy 8), 3-3 LRT (Charles-King-Borden-Courtland-Fairway-King) and 3-1 LRT (Charles-King-Dixon-Kingsway-Hwy 8): o LRT preferred for speed and low environmental impacts o Many felt it was important to keep the route near King Street o Important to stop at Fairview Mall o Good for shopping and potential business development Concerns for Segment 3: o Routes seem indirect- negative impact on travel times o Consider link to Conestoga College (i.e. express bus) Segment 3 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3-2 LRT 3-3 LRT 3-2 BRT 3-4 LRT 3-1 LRT Top Ranked Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred Segment 3 Preferred Route Alternative % Preferred % Not Preferred 3-2 LRT 56% 44% 3-3 LRT 56% 44% 3-2 BRT 38% 62% 3-4 LRT 50% 50% 3-1 LRT 68% 32% 455025 Page 18 of 36
455025 Page 19 of 36
SEGMENT 4- South Kitchener to Cambridge (Preston) Do you agree with the Top Ranked Alternatives? 63 responded: o Yes 29% o No 33% o Undecided 38% 100% The top ranked route for Segment 4 was 4-4 LRT (Hwy8-Sportsworld-Railway): o LRT produces less emissions and is worth the higher capital costs o Good station connections with Sportsworld, Toyota, and Preston Core o Good connection to Highway 401 for commuters o Serves high employment area Concerns for Segment 4: o Sportsworld Station unnecessary unless area intensifies o Costs of constructing bridge over Grand River o BRT uses more gasoline and oil; creates more pollution Segment 4 100% 80% 60% 40% % Preferred % Not Preferred 20% 0% 4-4 BRT 4-6 BRT 4-4 LRT 4-6 LRT 4-3 LRT Top Ranked Route Alternatives Segment 4 Preferred Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred 4-4 BRT 39% 61% 4-6 BRT 36% 64% 4-4 LRT 78% 22% 4-6 LRT 50% 50% 4-3 LRT 74% 26% 455025 Page 20 of 36
SEGMENT 5- Preston Towne Centre to the Delta Do you agree with the Top Ranked Alternatives? 62 responded: o Yes 45% o No 18% o Undecided 37% 100% The top ranked route for Segment 5 was 5-1 LRT (Railway): o Existing railway corridor appealing for its low environmental impacts o Cambridge Memorial Hospital is an important station location o Fast, direct route o Good separation from traffic o Least negative impact on Preston Core Concerns for Segment 5: o Capital costs *NOTE: Several comments for Segment 5 indicated the respondent was too unfamiliar with the area to comment Segment 5 100% 80% 60% 40% % Preferred % Not Preferred 20% 0% 5-1 LRT 5-2 LRT 5-5 LRT 5-4 LRT Top Ranked Route Alternatives Segment 5 Top Ranked Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred 5-1 LRT 87% 13% 5-2 LRT 63% 38% 5-5 LRT 54% 46% 5-4 LRT 27% 73% 455025 Page 21 of 36
SEGMENT 6- Hespeler Road Area Do you agree with the Top Ranked Alternatives? 60 responded: o Yes 52% o No 12% o Undecided 37% 100% The top ranked route for Segment 6 was 6-4 LRT (Eagle-Waterway-Dunbar-Hespeler): o Most direct route o Will alleviate traffic congestion on Hespeler Road and get people out of their cars o Serves major points in Cambridge o LRT offers high reliability and lower operating costs o Lowest land purchases Concerns for Segment 6: o Hespeler Road not dense enough for LRT stations *NOTE: Several comments for Segment 6 indicated the respondent was too unfamiliar with the area to comment Segment 6 100% 80% 60% 40% % Preferred % Not Preferred 20% 0% 6-4 LRT 6-5 LRT 6-1 BRT 6-4 BRT 6-3 LRT 6-5 BRT Top Ranked Route Alternatives Segment 6 Top Ranked Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred 6-4 LRT 89% 11% 6-5 LRT 64% 36% 6-1 BRT 38% 62% 6-4 BRT 44% 56% 6-3 LRT 46% 54% 6-5 BRT 13% 88% 455025 Page 22 of 36
SEGMENT 7- The Delta to South Cambridge Do you agree with the Top Ranked Alternatives? 55 responded: o Yes 56% o No 7% o Undecided 36% 100% The top ranked route for Segment 7 was 7-7 LRT (Railway-Beverly-Wellington): o Highest ridership potential o Most efficient route o Logical transition into downtown Galt o LRT offers high reliability and lower operating costs o Lowest land purchase costs Concerns for Segment 7: o Not enough ridership potential *NOTE: Several comments for Segment 7 indicated the respondent was too unfamiliar with the area to comment Segment 7 100% 80% 60% 40% % Preferred % Not Preferred 20% 0% 7-7 LRT 7-4 LRT 7-7 BRT 7-3 LRT 7-2 BRT Top Ranked Route Alternatives Segment 7 Top Ranked Route Alternatives % Preferred % Not Preferred 7-7 LRT 89% 11% 7-4 LRT 82% 18% 7-7 BRT 36% 64% 7-3 LRT 42% 58% 7-2 BRT 31% 69% 455025 Page 23 of 36
Question 3 Was the format and content of the information presented at this Public Consultation Centre informative and useful to you? Please feel free to provide feedback. General Comments: o Staff very friendly, helpful and informative o Interesting to talk to representatives from the Region, the consulting firms and GRT o Having detailed study area information available in-advance online would be beneficial o Well organized and presented information o Video was informative and entertaining o Maps showing the sections were clearly exhibited o Station area location maps were useful for determining distance from my house General Concerns: o Difficult to decipher routes displayed on panels o There was a lot of information, it was slightly overwhelming o Larger venues with guided tours/presentations would be helpful. Space felt congested around displays o Display material awkward to read in crowd, written material very helpful o A lecture format with questions would be helpful o Extremely complex for an informal, drop-in session o Difficult to determine which stations corresponded with the different route alternatives o Confused about the combination of the Rapid Transit Evaluation and the GRT Business Plan Update Question 4 How would you like to be kept informed about the progress of the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment? Respondents indicated the would most prefer to be updated on the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment by personal email, the website and the Rapid Transit Newsletter How Do you want to be Kept Informed? Email 50 37% Website 24 18% Direct Mail/Newsletter 23 17% Media Ads 10 7% News Stories 24 18% Other 4 3% Total Responses 135 100% How Do you want to be Kept Informed? 3% 17% Email Website 38% Direct Mail/Newsletter 8% Media Ads News Stories Other 17% 17% 455025 Page 24 of 36
Question 5 How did you hear about this Public Consultation Centre? Respondents indicated they heard about the various PCC meetings via personal email, new stories and the Rapid Transit Newsletter. How Did You Hear About the PCC? Email 31 22% Newsletter 28 20% Road Sign 8 6% Sidewalk Sign 13 9% Website 13 9% News Stories 29 21% Other 18 13% Total Responses 140 100% How Did You Hear About the PCC? 12% 24% Email New sletter Road Sign 20% Sidew alk Sign Website 20% New s Stories 9% Other 9% 6% Question 6 Other Comments: General Comments: o The Region needs to work closely with GRT to ensure frequent East-West feeder buses to connect outlying areas to the central transit corridor o Configure the rapid transit system and stations in a manner that will allow for future expansion and linkages to inter-provincial transit to other metropolitan areas (i.e. Guelph, London, Brantford, Hamilton, the GTA) o The VIA Rail station be relocated to the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street to allow connection to the Region s possible Rapid Transit location. Also, for possible future GO Train services o Emphasis must be placed on connecting suburbs to transit o Core areas would be greatly stimulated with Rapid Transit Comments on LRT Technology o More beneficial and worthwhile investment o Quiet and fast technology o Low or no emissions- positive environmental impacts o More attractive image of innovation and technology, also overcomes negative stigma associated with bus-based transit o More effective in concentrating and intensifying urban development, as well as discouraging personal car use o Provides the wow factor that encourages ridership; captures people s imaginations and has a social prestige o May seem futuristic, but now is the time to move forward with it o Safety issues related to pedestrians and children and the speed of train technology o Train will divide Waterloo Park o Costly due to rail installation and electric wire installation 455025 Page 25 of 36
o o o o o o o May cause major traffic disruption on King Street Rail creates too much noise and vibration Inflexible to possible future changes Not suitable for Preston Core Will encourage development of high density areas and will slow suburbanization Overhead electrical wires will produce a negative visual impact Supports progressive image Region displays Comments in BRT Technology o Less invasive and more adaptable to future changes o Lower capital and operating costs o Minimal impact on existing roads o More flexible if plans need to change o BRT could use King Street without shutting it down o Bus based system preferred- too early for light rail o Ineffective technology to get people out of their cars o Difficult to justify investing millions of dollars to replace the current bus-based system with essentially another bus-based system o Based in Ottawa experience, generally does not work well o Insufficient to drive change in land use o Less likely to attract private development investment o Produce greenhouse gas emissions o BRT more suitable for the size of Waterloo Region o Necessity of road de-icing (salt) has negative environmental impacts General Concerns: o Important that the new Rapid Transit system not interfere with existing biking and walking trails o Phasing, timing and construction impacts o Investment needs to be well spent o Reasonable service times between trains/buses (i.e. 15-30 minutes) o Negative cultural and environmental impacts o Rapid Transit system will suffer same fate as current transit and be under-utilized o Must be affordable for riders o Long-term construction will negatively affect core areas o Accessibility for those with disabilities o Bridge construction over the Grand River o Not enough evaluation given to cost factors (i.e. maintenance and facilities) o Will Rapid Transit actually be faster then driving? 455025 Page 26 of 36
APPENDIX C RESPONSE TO COMMENTS: PHASE 2, STEP 2 January 2008 Public Consultation Centres As part of the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment (RT EA), Phase 2, Step 2: Evaluation and Ranking of Reasonable Route Section and Technology Alternatives, the public was asked to provide input on the rankings that resulted from an evaluation of the preliminary route and station locations first proposed in March 2007. Three Public Consultation Centres (PCCs) were held, one in each of the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo on January 10, 15, and 17, 2008. In addition, PCC displays were set-up at Conestoga Mall, Your Kitchener Market, and Cambridge Centre Mall on January 12, 13, and 19, respectively. Approximately 1350 people attended these PCCs, and 113 individuals provided comments through e-mail, phone, letters and faxes, resulting in significant public input. Below is a summary of themes brought forward by the public during this public consultation phase and related staff responses. Developing an Inter-regional Transit System: The public continues to show interest in the possibility of building station sites and connections that would allow for the integration of out of town transit services, including VIA, GO, Greyhound, etc. Several comments addressed the possibility of moving the VIA Station to become better integrated with the RT system if it were to run along King Street. While interregional transit systems are beyond the scope of the RT EA, and fall under provincial jurisdiction, providing for intermodal connections with local buses and Greyhound / future GO Transit service is a key consideration in the development of an integrated transportation system. Detailed issues concerning intermodal transit, such as the location of the VIA rail station and the integration of GO Transit, will be considered when finalizing the route and when more detailed system designs are being developed. Ability to Service Suburban Populations/ Feeder Routes & Conventional Transit: Some members of the public questioned whether Rapid Transit would adequately serve the entire Region, as it would be concentrated in the Central Transit Corridor. They also noted that the feeder bus routes and the redesign and improvement of conventional transit is important to ensure better transit service for the entire Region. The ability to serve residential populations, as well as several other destinations such as the Region of Waterloo International Airport and Conestoga College was also noted. Rapid transit in the Central Transit Corridor includes providing fast and efficient bus service to the outlying suburban and inner city areas. Transportation planning staff are currently reviewing GRT services to determine how feeder bus routes will link to rapid transit stations and other commuter services, in order to create an integrated transit solution. Solutions may include improved bus service by means of transit lanes on cross corridors that cross the Central Transit Corridor and serve the outer urban areas, or bus priority at traffic signals to lessen the impact of road congestion. Studies in other communities with rapid transit demonstrate that it benefits everyone, even 455025 Page 27 of 36
those who do not use transit. It can be an important tool for managing land use and future traffic growth. In addition, it helps to slow rapidly growing congestion on roads and negative impacts on air quality, decreases urban sprawl, and provides significant opportunities to encourage and stimulate economic development in urban areas. Impact of Construction on Local Businesses and Construction Phasing: Regional Staff received some comments and questions regarding the impact to businesses and properties along the rapid transit route during and after construction. Members of the public were concerned with the disruption of activities in downtown cores and how on-street parking would be affected in areas of limited right-of-ways. While construction of this project is projected to take three years overall, it will be constructed in phases. Efforts will be made to lessen construction disruption where possible. Regional Staff are currently investigating ways in which to support local business owners during this time and will be contacting local business owners for one-on-one consultation once the system alternatives have been developed. It is a top priority of Regional Staff to minimize any impacts of construction to local business owners and visitors along the route. As detailed street designs have not yet been developed, the impact on on-street parking is not yet known; however, Regional Staff will work with local business owners and City staff to develop parking solutions, should spaces need to be removed or relocated. Service to Elmira: Some members of the public have requested the inclusion of Elmira into the rapid transit system. It is felt that many commuters into the tri-cities come from the rural areas surrounding Elmira and would use a rapid transit system, were one available. Ridership and growth forecasts do not justify extension of the rapid transit system into Elmira; however, GRT is planning to extend regular bus service to Elmira and St. Jacobs, on a trial basis, in September of 2009. This pilot project is a way for GRT to evaluate the benefits of servicing outlying areas of the Region, and to try to gauge some ridership numbers. So it is likely that once the rapid transit system becomes operational, bus service will be made available to more and more areas within the Region. Development Potential at Northfield/Parkside and Sportsworld: Several members of the public were concerned with the current level of development at the northern extent of the route. They felt that the land use in the vicinity of a Northfield Drive/Parkside station would not justify sufficient ridership. It is important to note that others were very supportive of a station in this area, as they recognized the growing demand of the R&T park. Others also raised similar comments regarding the proposed Sportsworld station, citing that based on the type of uses in the area, namely large car-oriented big box stores, an RT station was not warranted there. The development potential that exists at Northfield and Parkside is significant and would warrant a rapid transit station. This station is in close proximity to growing areas of employment, and ridership is expected to grow with approximately 3000 additional anticipated employees in the area. A station at Northfield and Parkside would also open up the opportunity for further northern expansion of the route, should ridership in St. Jacobs eventually warrant an additional station. 455025 Page 28 of 36
With respect to Sportsworld, staff is supportive of this potential station because of its connection to Highway 401 and the surrounding development in the area. There is potential for high ridership as the office park in the area develops and the Sportsworld area has ample land available for a possible park-and-ride facility to attract people commuting on Highway 8. Connecting Segment Routes: Upon review of the consultation package and the results of the route rankings, several individuals questioned how routes would be aligned between segments, where they currently did not match up. Namely, people were confused in Segments 5 and 6, where route alternatives appeared to be selfinclusive. While certain routes between segments will line up, others do not. When the system alternatives are compiled using the data, rankings, and public input, some slight route adjustments may be justified to allow the best overall system coverage. When we look at Segments 5 and 6, some routes cannot while others can be combined. The selection of routes and stations will be narrowed down in the next steps of the EA process with the principle aim of assembling the routes that offer the most effective system performance. Routes through Residential Neighbourhoods: Regional Staff were questioned about the ranking of Segment 1 and the alignment of the top ranked route, 1-4 LRT, through the Mary Allen Neighbourhood on the rail right-of-way. Citizens of this area raised numerous concerns, including disruption of community character and history, safety, traffic, and noise. Residents were fearful that they would no longer be able to utilize or cross the rail corridor due to the frequency of RT vehicles. Extensive responses were sent to all those expressing concerns on the possible impacts of rapid transit on existing neighbourhoods. In addition, staff met with local neighbourhood associations that have expressed concerns to discuss the questions that they had raised. Regional Staff assured residents that if a route was selected that could potentially impact a stable neighbourhood, planners would work closely with the neighbourhood to implement appropriate solutions. Regional Staff also discussed the importance of the evaluation process, and that such concerns were important for helping to determine whether top ranked routes are ultimately the best option. Cost: The cost of the Rapid Transit Initiative was again a point of discussion at the PCCs and was mentioned in several individual responses when comparing BRT to LRT options. In addition, questions were asked about the availability of federal and provincial funding. The final costs for rapid transit in Waterloo Region will depend on the rapid transit technology, route and station locations that are chosen in Phase 2 of the Environmental Assessment process. While the initial start-up capital required for LRT is more expensive that BRT, it is expected to generate more ridership and investment within the rapid transit stations. Additionally, operating and maintenance costs per rider are comparable. More detailed cost estimates will be provided in Phase 3. The Federal and Provincial governments provided 50 per cent of the funding to complete the Growth Management Strategy and Transit Initiative Technical Studies and the Environmental Assessment, and remain potential funding partners for the project. Rapid Transit is a significant part of the Province s Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Plan 455025 Page 29 of 36
identifies the need for Rapid Transit in Waterloo Region, and recommends that priority funding be given to infrastructure projects that support an integrated regional transportation network for the movement of people and goods throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Province of Ontario has already committed 2/3 of the funding requirements for the route length from Waterloo to Kitchener. Talks are currently in progress with the federal government to fund 1/3 of the entire project cost. Preferences for LRT or BRT: Several individuals took the opportunity to indicate a preference for one of the technologies, and others only provided comments on one of the technology options. The reasons mentioned in support of LRT included; it is more appealing, accessible, can attract more ridership and investment in development, it is cleaner and communicates permanence and commitment. The reasons mentioned for support of BRT included: flexibility, cost effectiveness, and more justified given the Region s size. In general, Regional Staff found that there was more support for LRT running along the entire route than for a mixed LRT/BRT system or a totally BRT system. Both technologies are still under consideration, and combined with the data collected and evaluation conducted, community feedback is an important element in deciding which technology should be selected. While BRT has lower cost initially, LRT tends to attract greater investments along the rapid transit route, because it is believed to be the more permanent option. While some did express a preference for BRT based on flexibility, i.e. a route can be moved to meet the demand, buses from suburban areas can enter the busway without passengers having to transfer, this is not entirely correct as both BRT and LRT are designed to be permanent systems, with fixed infrastructure. Connections to Local Hospitals: Preferred routes were sometimes selected on the basis of service to Grand River and Cambridge Hospitals. Several comments also indicated the importance of including a station at Freeport Hospital. Ridership generated is based on travelers to and from destinations, and hospitals certainly have a large potential to generate ridership, which is why stations at hospitals are located on some of the top ranked routes in their respective segments. The ability to service those who are unable to drive or don t have access to vehicles, such as patients and some hospital visitors, is important, and will be considered objectively when determining the different system alternatives. A station at Freeport hospital is not currently planned, as ridership in the area is not significant enough to warrant a station there; however, Freeport may be serviced with a connector service to the RT line, or at the very least, will have good connection to the RT system through reconfigured local bus routes. Transit Ridership and Ability to Support Rapid Transit: Some concerns were raised regarding the typical transit rider in Waterloo Region, consisting of mainly young people and the elderly who don't have a car available to travel around, and whether Rapid Transit would be warranted with the existing market share. A related comment was received emphasizing that current employment in downtown cores is relatively small (about 15,000 in downtown Kitchener) and that downtown parking charges are low, which favours auto travel. Coupled with the fact that manufacturing jobs have been lost or moved out of the downtown and that employment is much lower than in Calgary (125,000 jobs), there was concern about whether rapid transit would ever be justified here. Similarly, the question of how growth in the number of 455025 Page 30 of 36
people and jobs in Waterloo Region will impact transit ridership along the future rapid transit system was raised. Further, the connection between where growth is proposed and how this differs from existing jobs and residents around the future rapid transit stations was noted. 455025 Page 31 of 36
The Region's Growth Management Strategy and the Provinces Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe place a focus on accommodating new growth within existing built-up areas, especially those that will be served by improved public transit options such as rapid transit. The reurbanization of these areas will have a large impact on the number of uses that will contribute to the overall ridership of the system. In fact, as part of the ridership forecasting completed for the EA, reurbanization potential was a significant factor. It is expected that there will be approximately 20 stations planned along the proposed rapid transit route. Currently, there are approximately 90,000 jobs and 58,000 residents within close proximity (600m) of these stations. As well, there are about 40,000 students attending the two universities who will be attracted to use rapid transit. The impact of the existing development along the Central Transit Corridor (including the student population) can already be seen today through experience with the new ixpress service that has seen a dramatic rise in ridership since its introduction. In the Fall of 2005, there were an average of 66,000 monthly boardings. By Fall of 2007 this had risen to an average of 140,000 monthly boardings an increase of over 100%. Future projections suggest that 135,000 employees and 95,000 residents will live and work within walking distance of our proposed rapid transit stations. These population and employment projections are in line with provincial initiatives for reurbanization and revitalization of our central areas and greater use of alternative modes such as public transport to offset suburban growth and its focus on automobile travel. Further, existing transit share in the central areas of the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo, is already substantial (10-15%) and is forecast to double over time. Planning done through the Region s Transportation Master Plan suggests that the share of weekday travel by transit is anticipated to double over the next 25 years. In addition to positive growth forecasts for transit ridership overall, rapid transit provides additional services and amenities that will encourage new, less traditional, riders to utilize the system. Speed and convenience, along with ease of use, reliability, and new technologies will attract previously car-dependent travelers to public transit. Well-planned downtown development and redevelopment projects, encouraged by visually-pleasing station area designs and the presence of rapid transit, will also promote transit and use of the rapid transit system, both through improved walkability to and from stations and through the creation of mixed-use areas that act as travel origins and destinations. Comparison with Rapid Transit Systems in North America and Abroad: The need to look at other rapid transit systems around the world was reiterated by the public. Comparisons of other systems in terms of their integration with the built form, ticketing systems, station facilities and the types of uses that exist to support ridership were all suggested. For example, in some cases the employment base and ridership potential of cities with successful systems may be different than Waterloo Region. Staff continue to research and analyze various examples of rapid transit systems around the world to identify those characteristics that contributed to it s successful, or in some cases, unsuccessful implementation. The proposed rapid transit system in Waterloo Region is unique on several counts. In Calgary and Edmonton, the light rail system is radial in form (centered around the downtown with lines radiating outward) and ridership is focused on the downtown business district. The proposed system in Waterloo Region is linear, connecting three downtown cores, two universities, numerous shopping centres, industrial areas, office complexes, medical facilities, institutions. Thus, instead of having just one large concentration of employment and flow of passengers to this centre, Waterloo Region s rapid transit line will serve several more dispersed concentrations (including employees, 455025 Page 32 of 36