3.10 Network Assessment and Business Case

Transcription

1 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN 3.10 Network Assessment and Business Case The network alternatives were assessed using the multi-disciplinary list of criteria and measures detailed in Exhibit 3.4, covering the following categories: Economic Development and City Building; Community Building and Revitalization; Transportation Capacity and Mobility; Ease of Implementation and Operational Viability; and, Natural Environment and Climate Change. To compare the economic impacts of the four network alternatives, a business case was developed in parallel with this RTMP. The Business Case follows the architecture and process developed by Metrolinx as presented in the Business Case Development Manual (August 2015). The Business Case is provided in Appendix F. For all network alternatives, RT was evaluated based on mixed traffic operations on Wharncliffe Road between Oxford Street and Riverside Drive, due to existing heritage and natural constraints. All network alternatives also include mixed traffic operations on Wellington Street under the existing CN Rail corridor. As described in Section 3.2.2, the four defined network alternatives were compared to the Business as Usual scenario. The network alternatives evaluated were: Alternative 1: Business as Usual (BAU) Alternative 2: Base BRT Network Alternative 3: Full BRT Network Alternative 4: Hybrid BRT/LRT Network Alternative 5: Full LRT Network Using the evaluation criteria identified in Section 3.2.2, the alternative solutions to the problem were evaluated using a net effects comparative analysis. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, including business as usual, were considered and ranked from most to least preferred, using the symbols shown in the legend below. Exhibit 3.52 to Exhibit 3.56 detail the evaluation of each alternative, based on the analysis completed. The combined rankings were used to identify the preliminary preferred network alternative. The results of this evaluation are summarized in Exhibit 3.57 and discussed below. Exhibit 3.52: Evaluation of Network Alternatives Economic Development and City Building Criteria / Measures Capital and Operating Costs Capital Costs Operating Costs Economic Effects Effects on adjacent commercial uses Effects on adjacent residential uses Alternative BAU n/a n/a Base BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT NOTES Full BRT provides the highest value for the investment. LRT has higher capital cost. LRT operating costs may be less than BRT per passengerkm travelled. Hybrid has high investment cost for MSF with less ability to increase revenues. LRT provides greatest property value uplift and development. Full BRT supports growth objectives and is adaptable to future conditions. Legend RATING Least Preferred Most Preferred Effects on economic development 3-57

2 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.53: Evaluation of Network Alternatives Community Building and Revitalization Exhibit 3.54: Evaluation of Network Alternatives Transportation Capacity and Mobility Criteria / Measures Alternative BAU Base BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT NOTES Criteria / Measures Alternative BAU Base BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT NOTES Community Building and Revitalization Higher order transit is expected to support Transportation Capacity and Mobility Supports growth management development and intensification. Network capacity Full LRT provides objectives Supports appropriate intensification Connectivity to neighbourhoods and business areas Public Space and Heritage LRT is expected to attract more intense development levels than BRT. Dedicated lanes imply greater permanence to attract development. Full, Hybrid and LRT provide Transit ridership relative to capacity Travel time of auto and transit Transit service Support active transportation Pedestrian the greatest carrying capacity and highest quality transit service, followed by Hybrid. Full BRT provides appropriate capacity relative to forecasted demand and a reliable service with primarily dedicated transit lanes. Public space and amenities Pedestrian amenities Cultural heritage impacts equal opportunity to improve public spaces and pedestrian amenities. Cultural heritage impacts will be minimized through design. mobility Cyclist mobility Safety of all corridor users Impact to existing transportation network n/a Base BRT maintains more accesses with more corridors in mixed traffic operations. 3-58

3 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.55: Evaluation of Network Alternatives Ease of Implementation and Operational Viability Exhibit 3.56: Evaluation of Network Alternatives Natural Environment and Climate Change Criteria / Measures Alternative BAU Base BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT NOTES Criteria / Measures Alternative Base BAU BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT NOTES Ease of Imple- Natural mentation and Operational n/a Environment Viability Ability to stage implementation Ease of construction Property impacts n/a n/a n/a Hybrid and LRT would require property for new maintenance and storage facility, and traction power substations. Full BRT, Hybrid and LRT includes major infrastructure which is not included in Base BRT. Base BRT requires least property. Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Climate change adaptation Water quality Natural heritage features and areas Electric LRT vehicles emit no direct greenhouse gas emissions. BRT emissions depend on fuel type (diesel, hybrid, electric). Full BRT, Hybrid and Full LRT promote densification and resiliency to climate change. Base BRT does not include structure improvements Environmental regulations which minimizes construction around watercourses. Environmental policies 3-59

4 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.57: Overall Ranking of Network Alternatives Full BRT Preliminary Preferred Alternative Base BRT Criteria / Measures Capital and Operating Costs Economic Effects Community Building and Revitalization Public Space and Heritage Transportation Capacity and Mobility Ease of Implementation and Operational Viability Natural Environment Alternative BAU n/a n/a Base BRT Full BRT Hybrid Full LRT NOTES Full BRT is best suited to forecasted ridership, and provides a high quality of transit service and reliability through major infrastructure. Full BRT supports growth objectives defined in approved plans and policies, provides the highest value for investment and is adaptable to future conditions. The evaluation shows Full BRT as the technically preferred network alternative primarily due to the following factors: Full BRT includes infrastructure improvements to provide a high quality of transit service and reliability, while generally maintaining existing general traffic capacity; Higher order transit, with dedicated lanes, attracts greater development and intensification along corridors, supporting the growth objectives of the City; Research and observed experience throughout Canada demonstrates that the introduction of high quality RT has an impact on property values, observed through increased interest and demand for land and uplift in land value. This is the case for Full BRT, as experienced recently in York Region; While LRT provides the greatest carrying capacity and highest quality transit service, Full BRT offers more appropriate capacity relative to forecasted demand and a reliable service with primarily dedicated transit lanes, at a substantially lower capital cost; and The Base BRT network provides a significant improvement over the Business as Usual scenario, with a lower capital cost than Full BRT. However, the existing operational constraints at rail and river crossings are not addressed. The Base BRT network does not provide a network that will attract riders and does not fully support the growth objectives of The London Plan. Hybrid BRT/LRT The Hybrid BRT/LRT option would provide LRT on the North + East Corridor and BRT on the South + West Corridor. This option ranks second to the Full BRT network. The Hybrid alternative provides a number of the benefits of Full LRT for the North and East Corridors which have higher projected ridership. The Hybrid alternative offers some cost savings by using BRT for the South and West Corridors which have relatively lower projected ridership. Other key advantages include: Additional Assessment Value: Research and observed experience throughout Canada demonstrates that the introduction of high quality RT has an impact on property values. This is the case for both BRT (as experienced OVERALL For the remaining criteria, each of the alternatives have generally the same alignment within the existing road corridors, and as such are expected to have similar effects. in York Region) and LRT (as experienced in Calgary, Edmonton and now Waterloo Region). Although difficult to make direct comparisons, it is generally accepted that there is a greater uplift potential for LRT. The east corridor could potentially see a significant increase in property values and associated assessment value as a result of LRT, given current vacancy rates and the planned 3-60

5 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN re-development of the provincial lands on Highbury Avenue. Avoiding Future Costs to Convert from BRT to LRT: In the case of the north and east corridors, there would be significant challenges in converting from BRT to LRT once the RT system is in place. For example, converting the proposed Richmond Street tunnel to rail in the future would require the re-routing of all future BRT buses to Western Road. The impacts of such disruptions would be compounded in the future when background congestion will be higher. However, there are significant disadvantages, including increased capital and operating costs compared to ridership demand, the provision of a costly maintenance and storage facility, additional property impacts, and the cost to operate and maintain a small fleet of light rail vehicles. Ultimately LRT provides an excess of capacity, given projected ridership for London. Full LRT Like the Hybrid option, Full LRT ranks high for economic effects and community building and revitalization along the RT corridors. However, the forecasted ridership demand does not require Full LRT service on all four corridors, and the balance between cost and benefit is of critical importance. Business as Usual This option does not address the problem and opportunity statement, and is not consistent with other City plans and policies Preliminary Preferred Network Alternative The Full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Network was the preliminary preferred alternative. This solution provides approximately 22.5 km of dedicated median transit lanes and 1.5 km of transit operating in mixed traffic to minimize property requirements and road and bridge widenings. The Full BRT Network includes 34 RT stations, traffic signal priority measures for transit, and local intersection improvements. The preliminary preferred solution is illustrated in Exhibit The Full BRT Network would include major capital investments, including a new two-lane transit-only tunnel on Richmond Street under the CPR corridor, an underground station at Richmond Street and Oxford Street, and structural improvements and potential widening of the Western Road bridge over Medway Creek, the Wellington (Clark s) bridge over the Thames River, Queens Avenue bridge over the North Thames River, and the Highbury Avenue bridge over the CPR rail corridor. Local transit routes would be reorganized to be compatible with the Full BRT Network. The preferred RT technology is articulated (18 m, 60 ft) buses. Diesel or diesel-electric hybrid buses may be used on opening day, and the City is considering a shift to fully electric buses in the future. Exhibit 3.58: Preliminary Preferred Network Alternative Full BRT 3-61

6 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Feedback Received The preliminary preferred alternative was presented to the public at PIC 4 on February 23, 2017 (Appendix A). During and following PIC 4, a number of comments and concerns were raised on the downtown routing options and north corridor routings along with their associated impacts. As a result of these comments and concerns, further information was brought to the RTIWG on March 9th, 2017, including two Technical Briefings on the Downtown and north corridor. The RTIWG motioned that Civic Administration review alternative route options in the downtown including an east-west corridor and a north-south corridor. The RTIWG also directed Civic Administration to review alternatives to the proposed Richmond Street tunnel. On April 4th, 2017, London Council approved the motion from the RTIWG s March 9th, 2017 meeting to review alternative route options. On April 18th, 2017, London Council requested additional information on options to mitigate potential impacts during construction, means to maintain access for businesses during construction and opportunities to provide for RT through mixed traffic on King Street. In response to Council s request for additional information, the Rapid Transit North Corridor and Downtown Alternatives Technical Memo was prepared detailing and evaluating the North Corridor and Downtown route alternatives. The following sections discuss the alternatives considered North Corridor Based on feedback from the RTIWG, Council direction and considering comments received on the preferred network, the following alternatives were identified for further analysis and evaluation: Option 1b Downtown to Fanshawe Park Road via Riverside Drive, Wharncliffe Road and Western Road (as discussed in Section 3.5.1). Option 1d Richmond Street Corridor with at-grade crossing of CP Rail tracks (Similar to Option 1c, as discussed in Section 3.5.1, but without the tunnel). Option 1e Richmond Street Corridor with combined road and RT underpass (Similar to Option 1c, as discussed in Section 3.5.1, but with a shorter, combined road and transit tunnel between Pall Mall Street and Oxford Street). Each of these alternatives were compared to the preliminary preferred alternative of Option 1c - Downtown to Masonville via Richmond Street, then University Drive, and then Western Road with transit tunnel on Richmond Street (as discussed in Section 3.5.1). All four options are illustrated in Exhibit Exhibit 3.59: New North Corridor Routing Alternatives 3-62

7 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Description of New Alternatives Option 1b Downtown to Fanshawe Park Road via Riverside Drive, Wharncliffe Road and Western Road Under this alternative, both north-east and southwest RT vehicles would follow an alignment across the Queens Avenue Bridge and Riverside Drive to Wharncliffe Road. Between Riverside Drive and Oxford Street, Wharncliffe Road would be widened to accommodate median RT lanes and one lane of regular traffic in each direction. This differs from the preliminary preferred south-west corridor where RT would run primarily in mixed traffic. However, given that this corridor will need to accommodate both the south-west and north-east RT routes, dedicated lanes are recommended due to the more than tripling of the number of buses per hour. Effective headways for the combined routes would be one bus every 3 minutes in each direction. North of Oxford Street, Wharncliffe Road and Western Road is planned to be widened to four lanes north to Platts Lane. The potential alternative would modify this planned widening to provide for median RT lanes plus one lane in each direction for regular traffic. Widening to accommodate four lanes for regular traffic plus RT is not considered feasible due to major property impacts. North of Platts Lane, the roadway would be widened to four lanes for general traffic and two median RT lanes. Option 1c - Downtown to Masonville via Richmond Street, then University Drive, and then Western Road with transit tunnel on Richmond Street This alternative starts in Downtown London and terminates at the University Drive gates on Richmond Street. The alignment of this alternative follows Clarence Street starting at King Street. Along Clarence Street the alternative would have a two-way transitway with one-way northbound traffic on Clarence Street from King Street to Queens Avenue. On-street parking would also be eliminated along this section. Clarence Street from Queens Avenue to Dufferin Avenue would permit two-way traffic as well as the two-way transitway in the centre of the street. Clarence Street north of Dufferin Avenue to Angel Street would accommodate southbound traffic only along with the two-way transitway. Stations would be provided at Queens Avenue and Angel Street along this portion of the alignment. North of Angel Street, Clarence Street would be closed to traffic and the RT lanes would begin to descend into the RT tunnel. The tunnel would commence at Central Avenue and would continue completely underground until St James Street. For this portion from Central Avenue to St James Street the surface condition on Richmond would be very similar if not identical to today allowing on-street parking where it exists and four lanes of vehicular traffic (two in each direction) as seen back to grade just before Grosvenor Street. This portion of Richmond Street from St James to Grosvenor would also include two lanes in each direction for traffic. At Grosvenor Street, a station would also be provided. North of Grosvenor Street the concept reduces the total number of lanes along Richmond Street to four: two centre running lanes for RT and two for traffic (one in each direction on either side of RT). This may need to be increased to four lanes for traffic as the study progresses, but this would mean significant property impacts north of Huron Street. At the University Drive gate, the RT lanes would turn onto the campus. Exhibit 3.60: Richmond Street Tunnel APPROXIMATE AREA AVAILABLE FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND OTHER UTILITIES 2.8 SIDEWALK 3.30 THROUGH LANE 3.30 THROUGH LANE C L RICHMOND STREET THROUGH LANE C L RAPID TRANSIT THROUGH LANE SIDEWALK APPROXIMATE AREA AVAILABLE FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND OTHER UTILITIES in Exhibit An underground station located at Oxford Street would be included in order to provide connections to the heavily used Oxford Street bus services. At St James Street, a ramp in the centre of Richmond Street would commence to bring the RT vehicles RAPID TRANSIT TUNNEL TYPICAL SECTION RICHMOND STREET 3-63

8 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Option 1d Richmond Street Corridor with at-grade crossing of CP Rail tracks This concept was developed as an alternative to constructing a RT tunnel on Richmond Street. It would follow the same alignment as the preliminary preferred alternative (1c) from Clarence Street northward along Richmond Street. Dedicated lanes for RT would be created by re-allocating space from existing road lanes. The corridor would consist of median RT lanes plus one lane in each direction for regular traffic. Widening would be required for dedicated left turn lanes and stations. Unlike the preliminary preferred alternative which includes widening to accommodate four lanes for regular traffic from St. James Street (north tunnel portal) to Grosvenor Street, two traffic lanes (one in each direction) would be maintained on Richmond Street from Clarence northward. This is due to the fact the additional widening would be redundant given Richmond Street south of Oxford would be one lane in each direction. Option 1e Richmond Street Corridor with combined road and RT underpass This concept was also developed as an alternative to constructing a RT tunnel on Richmond Street. It would follow the same alignment as the preliminary preferred alternative (1c) from Clarence Street northward along Richmond Street. North of Angel Street RT would continue at grade with a station located at Central Avenue (instead of Angel Street). North of Central Avenue the two centre lanes of Richmond Street would be captured by RT leaving one lane in each direction for general traffic. Starting at John Street the alignment of Richmond Street would need to shift either to the west or the east to permit the construction of the underpass. From John Street to Oxford Street one side of Richmond Street would need to be completely demolished for the underpass construction because of the required width for the underpass. This option would also include: Sidewalks on both sides on the surface fronting the adjoining properties Service lanes on the surface on both sides permitting fire access to the adjoining properties which would need to be a minimum of 5m to permit fire truck access Four lanes beneath the railway underpass two for traffic and two for RT Exhibit 3.61: Richmond Street Grade Separated Crossing The underpass would begin to descend at Pall Along Richmond Row one side of Richmond Street Mall Street and would return to grade just south would be completely demolished between John of Oxford Street. North of Oxford Street the Street and Oxford Street, as illustrated in Exhibit alignment of Richmond Street would shift back Due to the scale of the disruption to adjoining onto the existing centre line to return to the existing properties, this alternative is considered to have roadway alignment just south of Sydenham Street. very significant impacts. North of Sydenham Street, Richmond Street would have two centre-running RT lanes with one lane of traffic in each direction. This would continue to Grosvenor where a station would be located. The roadway configurations would remain the same as the preferred alternative (1c) in both the northern and southern extremities in this alternative. 3-64

9 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Capital Costs High level capital costs were developed for the new alternatives using the same unit cost assumptions as the preliminary preferred alternative. Costs include preliminary order of magnitude estimates for property. It should be noted that the analysis of property compensation cost estimates are based on a preliminary analysis of the corridors, extraordinary assumptions, and will require further detailed and independent consultation and analysis once the preferred corridor is selected. A breakdown of the costs by alternative is shown in Exhibit These costs include an allocation of the total project contingencies as a percentage of the segment costs. Costs for vehicles, maintenance facilities and the potential Quick Start project are excluded. As a reference, the total system cost for the preliminary preferred alternative (including vehicles, contingencies and quick start project) is $560 million in 2016 dollars. The most significant differences between the alternatives relate to the grade separation of the CP Rail tracks. The Richmond Street tunnel represents a major cost component. Initial costing for the RTMP and Business Case estimated the cost of the tunnel at $90 to 100 million, plus a contingency of 50%, resulting in a potential cost of approximately $135 million. This estimate was based on very conceptual level designs for the tunnel. Exhibit 3.62: Estimated Capital Costs for Each Alternative Segment 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Wharncliffe Road (Riverside to Oxford)* $ Wharncliffe/Western (Oxford to Lambton) $ Western Road (Lambton to Fanshawe Park) $56 $56 $56 $56 Clarence/Richmond (King to Central) - $10 $10 $10 Richmond/University (Central to Western Road) - $192 $45-55 $ Total corridor cost $ $258 $ $ Notes: *Costs for new segments and alternatives are shown as ranges ** Incremental cost over south-west corridor cost due to additional widening to accommodate both south-west and north-east routes Given the high level of uncertainty and risks associated with the tunnel, a more detailed costing was developed during this refinement evaluation than would normally be completed during a Master related to major civil works such as tunnels. This work led to a refined cost assessment of the tunnel at approximately $170 million, excluding contingencies. As greater design information is For the Wharncliffe-Western alternative (1b), there would be some savings by avoiding the tunnel, but additional costs would be incurred for property acquisition. Plan. The intent of advancing this work was to available to support the new estimate, a reduced Capital cost for the combined Richmond Street add detail to the estimates for costs that were that contingency allocation of 30% is appropriate, underpass (alternative 1e) reflects the shorter were previously included in the contingency of the resulting in a potential cost of approximately $220 length of excavation compared to the tunnel previous high-level estimate. This analysis involved million. option, but significant property costs. As more advanced engineering work, including There is a high level of uncertainty for this cost discussed under property impacts below, this analyses of underground utility re-routing, until design options are developed and detailed alternative would require some commercial fire, life, safety requirements, ventilation plans, engineering work completed, this includes properties between John Street and Oxford Street. maintenance of rail traffic during construction, mitigation measures for major underground Similarly, the Richmond Street at-grade alternative temporary shoring and design requirements for utilities, fire, life, safety requirements and soil (1d) would require some properties in order to the station at Oxford Street. Updated costing conditions. It is also imperative to note that major accommodate left turn lanes and stations through also takes into account the recent impact of the construction projects in the Greater Toronto Area Richmond Row. implementation of infrastructure funding programs have had the impact of increasing material and and the number of major construction projects in labour prices in recent years, especially related to the Greater Toronto Area that have had the impact major civil works such as tunnels. of increasing material and labour prices, especially 3-65

10 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Impacts to Businesses during Construction Based on the City of London 2013 State of the Downtown report (latest report available), there were 711 businesses in downtown London. Retail and service industries represent the largest share of the downtown businesses, with 140 retail establishments and 132 eating establishments respectively 8. For the purpose of categorizing the impacts along the potential downtown east-west RT corridor alternatives businesses fronting onto the following streets are analyzed: Queens Avenue between Wellington Street and Ridout Street North Clarence Street between Queens Avenue and King Street Wellington Street between Queens Avenue and King Street King Street between Wellington Street and Ridout Street North As part of the RTMP, an inventory of businesses fronting these corridors was undertaken. Based on the field surveys, which should be considered approximate, there are 120 businesses fronting the alternate routes on Queens, Clarence, Wellington and King. The majority are retail and services with some office and larger scale malls along the routes. It should be noted that large office towers and Malls, such as One London Place and Citi 8 Planning-Development/downtown/Pages/ DowntownBackgroundStudies.aspx Plaza, are listed as one business. The impact of construction on downtown businesses will depend on the level of disruption as well as the nature of businesses. The level of disruption would depend on factors such as duration of construction, the extent of road closures and restrictions on access. Since a detailed construction phasing plan is not part of the RTMP, the construction duration that is assumed in this study should be considered preliminary and approximate. Certain types of businesses will be more affected by construction than others. For example, the impact of construction on office uses is less likely severe than that on retail uses, since office uses are generally less dependent on customer visits. Similarly, retail uses that cater to specific purposes, e.g., a special item of clothing, are less likely affected by construction than retail uses that meet daily/local needs, e.g., milk, fruit, etc. The different types of businesses in Downtown London were categorized using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes, which are described in Exhibit Exhibit 3.63: Business Types in Downtown London Business Category Notes Food Store Retail Supermarkets, Convenience Stores, Specialty Food Furniture/Home Furnishings/Electronics, Building and Outdoor Supply Stores, Pharmacies and Personal Care Non-Food Store Retail Stores, Clothing and Accessories Stores, Other General Merchandise Stores Service (Entertainment/Food/Drinking) Entertainment, Food services and drinking places includes Consumer services rentals, Selected office administrative services (i.e. employment services, business Services (Other) service centres, collection agencies, credit bureaus, travel agents), Health care services, Personal and household goods repair and maintenance, and Personal care services Office Private Sector Professional/Business office Office Public/Not for Profit Government/Heritage/Institutional/Community Others Mall, Department Stores These business categories were then assessed according to their tolerance toward business interruptions, typical of downtown transportation projects including: Lack/Removal of street parking; Road closures; Signage and visibility issues; Noise and vibration; and, Sidewalk closures. The types of businesses and the assumed sensitivity to construction disruptions are detailed in Exhibit

11 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.64: Assumed Sensitivities for Various Business Types Business Type Office Public/Not for Profit Office Private Sector Services (Other) Non-Food Store Retail Food Store Retail Service (Entertainment/Food/Drinking) Based on the business inventory undertaken in April 2017, there are approximately 145 businesses located along Richmond Street between Central Avenue and Oxford Street: Low and medium-low tolerance: 28% Medium tolerance: 39% Medium-high or high tolerance: 33% Of the four alternatives evaluated, the Richmond Street corridor with the tunnel (Option 1c) would have the longest duration of construction. The Richmond Street at grade alternative (1d) would require a shorter construction period, but there would still be impacts. As there are fewer businesses along Wharncliffe Road, this alternative (1b) would have the least short term construction impacts on businesses Effects on Adjacent Commercial Uses (Post Implementation) The implementation of RT will have both positive and negative effects on businesses in the longer Level of Tolerance for Construction Interruptions High Medium-High Medium Medium Medium-Low Low term. RT will improve access to businesses for existing and new transit users. It will also facilitate intensification in the corridors, which in turn increases the customer base. However, changes to the road corridors will eliminate on-street parking in some areas and change traffic patterns. On Richmond Street, the tunnel alternative (1c) maintains the current number of traffic lanes between Central and Grosvenor and also maintains on-street parking where currently permitted. The Richmond Street at-grade alternative (1d) would eliminate approximately 16 on-street parking spaces. Assuming median transit, there would be changes to access with vehicles needing to utilize signalized intersections to access businesses opposite the median lanes via a U-turn movement. It would also have property impacts on six commercial buildings on Richmond Street. The Wharncliffe-Western option (1b) would impact businesses located at Oxford Street and Wharncliffe Road and would require property from at least 12 commercial properties, some of which may require full property acquisitions. For the Richmond Street combined underpass to accommodate both RT routings. alternative (1e), the impacts on commercial uses These impacts should be considered indicative would be significant. The underpass would as they are based on preliminary concept require the demolition of properties on one side of designs. More detailed design alternatives for the Richmond Street from Pall Mall Street to Oxford preferred corridor will be developed as part of Street. the next phase of the project, the Transit Project Effects on Property Assessment Process. Of the three alternatives, the Wharncliffe-Western The construction of RT lanes and stations would alternative (1b) is likely to have the most significant require road widening in some areas. Exhibit 3.65 requirements for additional property. The summarizes the number of sites where additional Richmond Street combined underpass alternative property may be required along each corridor. For (1e) would also have very significant property this comparison, only the portions of the corridors impacts, specifically for Richmond Row, and that are different are included (i.e. Western Road would require the acquisition of some major north of Lambton Drive is not included). It is also commercial properties depending on which side of noted that the Wharncliffe-Western alternative the road is widened. includes additional widening south of Oxford Street Exhibit 3.65: Potential Property Impacts Segment 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Number of properties where PARTIAL property may be required Number of properties where FULL property may be required Note: All figures indicative subject to development of design alternatives and mitigation measures 3-67

12 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Effects on Access The proposed configuration for RT along the north-south corridors is referred to as centrerunning RT. Placing RT in the centre or median of roadways provides a very high quality level of service for transit. The major benefits of this configuration are as follows: Placing transit lanes to left of general purpose travel lanes improves enforcement and including vehicles reversing thereby increasing safety and speed. However, centre-running RT does have some direct impacts on local access and intersection management, notably: The centre-running lanes will have a median or other measure to stop any traffic from crossing it except at signalized intersections, this means all unsignalized intersections and Impacts along Richmond Street with Transit Tunnel (Option 1c) The specific impacts along Richmond Street with the transit tunnel (Option 1c) are as follows: From Central to St James Street there would be little to no impacts to property access and local road access along this segment. From north of St James Street to University Drive all driveway access along Richmond Left-turns and U-turns would be provided at most signalized intersections along this segment (St James Street, Oxford Street and Pall Mall Street) but the southbound left turn would be prohibited at Central Avenue. Unsignalized local streets would become right-in/right-out (Hyman Street, John Street, Mill Street, Piccadilly Street, Sydenham Street). respect of the RT lanes thereby ensuring a high levels of reliability and speed for the system. Centre-running lanes do not have any traffic crossing the RT corridor except at signalized intersections where conflicts are managed by driveways along the corridor will be right-in/ right-out without the ability to make left-turns in or out. In order to access these side streets and properties, U-Turns will be permitted at most signalized intersections. The adjacent road network could also be used for access. Street would become right-in / right-out, however it should be noted that the segment from Grosvenor Street to Cheapside Street has almost no driveways onto Richmond Street. Left-turns and U-turns would be provided at Impacts along Richmond Street with Combined Transit-Vehicle Underpass (Option 1e) The impacts of the combined transit-vehicle underpass would include all the impacts of the transit tunnel (Option 1c), in addition to the following supplement impacts: the traffic signals thereby improving reliability Left-turns at signalized intersections parallel all signalized intersections along this segment From Central Avenue to St James Street and safety. to RT will require dedicated left-turn lanes (Grosvenor Street, Cheapside Street, Victoria all driveway access along Richmond Street Centre-running transit lanes have low to no risk of vehicles parking, double parking or making deliveries from these lanes again increasing system reliability. and will have exclusive left-turn phases for left-turns and U-turns. This is necessary for safety considerations due to the fact buses approach from a driver s blind-spot. Street, Huron Street and University Drive). Unsignalized local streets will become right-in/ right-out (College Avenue, Cromwell Street, Bridport Street, Sherwood Avenue, Regent would become right-in / right-out, however almost no driveways exist south of Oxford Street. Left-turns and U-turns would be provided Having transit lanes in the centre of roadways reduces the impact of snow clearing operations on the lanes and allows for the system to be more robust during snow fall Street, Broughdale Avenue). Impacts along Richmond Street At-Grade (Option 1d) The impacts of the Richmond Street At-Grade at most signalized intersections along this segment (St James Street, Oxford Street and Pall Mall Street) but the southbound left turn would be prohibited at Central Avenue. events. option (1d) would include all the impacts Unsignalized local streets will become right- Centre-running systems also have little impact on street-cleaning and garbage and recycling pick-up operations. Centre-running lanes do not conflict with driveways and therefore there are no risks with manoeuvers coming in and out of driveways, enumerated for the transit tunnel (option 1c), in addition to the following supplemental impacts: From Central Avenue to St James Street all driveway access along Richmond Street would become right-in / right-out, however almost no driveways exist south of Oxford Street. in/right-out (Hyman Street, John Street, Sydenham Street). Mill Street and Piccadilly would become rightin/right-out at a new service road running along the service adjacent to the underpass. 3-68

13 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN The service lanes running adjacent to the underpass would allow U-turns at the railway tracks. Impacts along Wharncliffe Road/Western Road Corridor (Option 1b) The specific impacts along the Wharncliffe Road/ Western Road Corridor (Option 1b) are as follows: From Riverside Drive to north of Sarnia Road/ Philip Aziz Avenue all driveway access along Wharncliffe Road/Western Road would become right-in / right-out. Left-turns and U-turns would be provided at all signalized intersections along this segment (Riverside Drive, Mt Pleasant Avenue, Barrington Avenue, Blackfriars Street, Oxford Street, McDonald Avenue, Essex Street, Hollywood Crescent, Platt s Lane, Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue). Unsignalized local streets would become right-in/right-out (Kensington Avenue, Rogers Avenue, Moir Street, Lexington Avenue, Paul Street, Empress Avenue, Palmer Street, Saunby Street, Beaufort Street, Cedar Avenue) Growth Management Objectives The Council-approved and Ministry-approved London Plan establishes our City s plan for growth and development in London. Exhibit 3.66 shows an excerpt of the map of Place Types from the London Plan, which establish the permitted range and intensity of uses to those lands where they are applied. The preliminary preferred north-south BRT option, having BRT run along Clarence Street and Richmond Street to the University Gates is well aligned with Place Types that have been applied to permit highly urban land uses primarily the Downtown and RT Corridor Place Types. Exhibit 3.66: Excerpt from Map 1 Place Types (Council-Approved London Plan) 3-69

14 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN These two Place Types allow for a broad range and mix of commercial, residential and office uses. Within significant stretches along this corridor, substantial heights and densities are permitted. In fact, the London Plan applies minimum heights to certain segments of this corridor, to ensure an urban form and intensity of development is achieved through new development. Transitoriented forms of development are encouraged, to support high quality pedestrian environments and densities that support RT ridership and Downtown/ Core Area revitalization. More specifically, there is significant development potential along this corridor for high rise residential and office towers along this corridor within the Downtown Area (Clarence Street from Kent Street to King Street) and the RT Corridor Place Type (particularly along the Richmond Row Main Street segment from Oxford Street to Kent Street). Furthermore, this alignment captures Victoria Park the City s premier gathering place for large events shown in the London Plan as a large green space adjacent to Richmond Street at Central Ave. This north-south option connects the large institutional uses shown in the RT Corridor at intensity of development is appropriate. Substantial opportunity within this segment likely exists at the Western Gates. In comparison, the Western Road/Wharncliffe Road corridor has significantly less opportunity for growth and development as set out in the London Plan. While the RT Corridor Place Type has been applied to the portion of this corridor along Wharncliffe Road, this segment is entirely within the Thames River Floodplain and intensification is not permitted in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement. These lands are correspondingly within the Upper Thames River Conservation Area permit limit, and permits are not supported by the UTRCA for intensification within this area. As noted below, these lands are also within the Blackfriars- Petersville Heritage Conservation District. The Western Road/Wharncliffe Road corridor runs through the BIGS (Beaufort, Irwin, Gunn, Saunby Streets) Secondary Plan area where there is some potential for intensification, with some amount of low-to-mid-rise development. Further north, most of the lands are designated for an Institutional Place Type in the London Plan. It is expected that these lands will be primarily developed for institutional purposes and not mixed use non- Overall, the Richmond Street (Options 1c, 1d, and 1e) corridor provides both the ridership opportunities by way of connecting significant employment and activity generators and the capacity to intensify the corridor and support the transit infrastructure investment. The Western Road/Wharncliffe Road option (1b) provides very little value from this perspective and does not viably connect major employment nodes such as St. Joseph s hospital and Kings College, major urban streets such as Richmond Row, city-wide event spaces such as Victoria Park and significant development opportunities such as those in the Downtown and RT Place Types. It also does very little to encourage Downtown revitalization as it results in a RT system that substantively skirts the northern part of the Downtown and the Richmond Row area Cultural Heritage The City of London places a strong emphasis on protecting cultural heritage resources. Cultural heritage resources include tangible elements such as buildings, monuments, streetscapes, landscapes, books, artifacts and art, and intangible aspects such as folklore, traditions, language, and knowledge. As part of the RTMP, a preliminary review of background information on cultural heritage resources was completed to identify constraints up to 350 m from the preliminary preferred RT corridor (Exhibit 3.67). Cultural heritage resources are protected under the Ontario Heritage Act and can include: Archaeological Resources; Built Heritage Resources; Cultural Heritage Landscapes; Heritage Conservation Districts; Provincially Significant Areas/Easement Properties; and National Historic Sites. Grosvenor Street St. Joseph s Hospital and institutional development. Much of this Institutional the Lawson Health Research Institute which land east of Western Road, south of Platt s cumulatively represent employment of more than Lane, is undevelopable due to the Thames River 6,000 people. It also connects Kings College Floodplain (see Exhibit 3.71). North of Platt s Lane to both the Downtown and, north, to the Transit the Western Road/Wharncliffe Road option (1b) Village at Masonville. Finally, the RT Corridor converges with the Richmond Street option (1c, applied to Richmond Street, north of Huron 1d, 1e) that traverses Western University s campus Street, could support intensification where it can and connects with Western Road northward. be demonstrated that the proposed height and 3-70

15 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.67: Cultural Heritage Features Map The Assessment of impacts of RT on cultural heritage resources, and potential mitigation measures, is an iterative process with the level of assessment increasing as designs are developed. Overall, the goal is to avoid potential impacts. At the RTMP stage, there are a number of key comparators to evaluate corridor options including presence of Heritage Conservation Districts and individual listed and designated heritage properties. Within the corridors being evaluated in this report, there are four Heritage Conservation Districts. Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Downtown Heritage Conservation District West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Two additional Heritage Conservation Districts, Great Talbot and Gibbons Park, have been endorsed by Council but have not been designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, at present. One consideration in comparing the alternatives is the number of listed and designated heritage properties, including those within a Heritage Conservation District, along the corridor options. Exhibit 3.68 provides a summary by corridor. Listed properties are shown in (brackets). It should be noted that construction of RT may not affect any or all of these properties. Exhibit 3.68: Cultural Heritage Properties along the Corridor Segment 1b Wharncliffe 1c Richmond 1d Richmond 1e Richmond Road / Street Street Street Western Road Corridor with Corridor with Combined Transit Tunnel At Grade RT Grade at CPR Separation Number of heritage properties on corridor (excluding Wharncliffe Road North south of Oxford Street West) Number of heritage properties on Wharncliffe Road North (Riverside Drive to Oxford Street West) 27 (50) 1 (3) 27 (50) 27 (50) 94 (0) 94 (0) 94 (0) 94 (0) Heritage designated properties (heritage listed properties) 3-71

16 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN For the Wharncliffe-Western alternative (1b), there would be significantly greater potential for impacts to heritage designated properties in the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District. Because Wharncliffe Road would need to be widened considerably to accommodate dedicated bus lanes (recognizing that bus traffic on this corridor would triple compared with the Richmond Street options [1c, 1d, and 1e] and would no longer be feasible/functional within mixed traffic). If the Richmond Street corridor is utilized, the south-west corridor RT would also utilize Wharncliffe Road North, but the potential impacts on that designated properties would be less given the RT would run in mixed traffic due to the reduced headways and number of transit vehicles. A concern for the Richmond Street alternatives (1c, 1d and 1e) is the proximity to Victoria Park and the archeological significance of this site. The Victoria Park site was home to the British Military Garrison Exhibit 3.69: Potential Cultural Heritage Property Impacts Segment Number of DESIGNATED HERITAGE properties where full property may be required Number of LISTED HERITAGE properties where full property may be required 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road from 1839 to This site represents a very significant historic and archaeological resource and the unexcavated portions of the Victoria Park site have immense cultural heritage value. Excavations for the tunnel portal at Clarence Street and Angel Street have a high potential for impacts. This requires an archaeological assessment to determine the impact and what, if any mitigation measures can be applied. It would not preclude, however, the construction of the tunnel at this location. Exhibit 3.69 combines the data relating to heritage listed and designated property and a conceptual assessment of properties where the full property may be required. It illustrates the impact of the widening on Wharncliffe Road, which would require demolition of many buildings within the Blackfriars-Petersville Heritage Conservation District. The Richmond Street combined underpass alternative would also require several heritage properties depending on which side of the street was widened. 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Note: All figures indicative subject to development of design alternatives and mitigation measures Network Capacity Each of the alternatives under consideration for the north corridor will involve impacts on roadway capacity to varying degrees. Exhibit 3.70 illustrates the changes in the number of lanes between four screenlines (note: a screenline is a line that cuts across multiple streets and includes both Richmond Street and Western/Wharncliffe): Lambton Drive / University Drive Platt s Lane / Grosvenor Street Oxford Street Riverside Drive / Central Avenue Exhibit 3.70 also illustrates the number of lanes provided for northbound traffic, southbound traffic and RT for all four north-south alternatives as well as the existing condition. Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel (Option 1c): This alternative provides reduced overall traffic capacity north of the Platt s Lane / Grosvenor Street screenline where one less lane would be provided for traffic in each direction. However, for the other segments, the overall roadway capacity would be conserved while providing a continuous two lanes for RT. Wharncliffe Road /Western Road (Option 1b): This alternative reallocates the planned widening on Wharncliffe Road/Western Road to RT. Therefore the only traffic capacity reduction would be south of the Oxford Street screenline where one less lane would be provided for traffic in each direction. However north of Oxford Street overall roadway capacity would be comparable to the current capacity while providing two continuous lanes for RT. Richmond Street Corridor with at-grade crossing (Option 1d): This alternative would result in reduced capacity south of the Oxford Street screenline and north of the Platt s Lane / Grosvenor screenline of one lane in each direction. Richmond Street Corridor with combined grade separation (Option 1e): This alternative would result in reduced capacity south of the Oxford Street screenline and north of the Platt s Lane / Grosvenor screenline of one lane in each direction. However there would be the benefit of no additional delays for traffic at the CPR grade crossing at Richmond Street. 3-72

17 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.70: Lane Configurations Transit Ridership Natural Heritage Features Sceenline Existing Condition 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Total Richmond Wharncliffe-Western Total Richmond Wharncliffe-Western Total Richmond Wharncliffe-Western Total Richmond Wharncliffe-Western Total Richmond Wharncliffe-Western Lambton Dr/University Dr Northbound Southbound RT Platt s Lane/Grosvenor St Northbound Southbound RT Oxford St Northbound Southbound RT Riverside Dr/Central Ave For the Richmond Street with a tunnel alternative (1c), peak hour ridership in the north corridor (all routes) is estimated at 1,800-1,900 passengers per hour in For the Wharncliffe-Western alternative (1b), total peak point transit ridership in the corridor is forecast to drop by at least 5%. In addition, the distribution of ridership between RT and local routes would be affected with ridership on the RT corridor being lower for the Wharncliffe Road/Western Road alternative (note that at the time of this report a review of the optimal local transit routes for the Wharncliffe Road/Western Road alternative [1b] had not been completed). The Wharncliffe Road/Western Road alternative (1b) would be more aligned with post-secondary student travel patterns, and by-pass major destinations including Richmond Row, St. Joseph s Hospital and King s University College. Because the Richmond Street corridor includes a greater mix of uses, it has a higher potential for ridership throughout the day and evenings and is less impacted by the seasonal variations due to Western University. On a system wide basis, the differences between the alternatives are less pronounced. A key differentiator if using Richmond Street for the north corridor is the grade-separation at the CPR (i.e., RT tunnel (1c) and underpass (1e)) which provide a higher level of reliability for transit users vs. the at-grade crossing (1d), as the impacts due to train crossings are eliminated. As part of the RTMP, natural heritage features of significance that were within 300m of the preliminary preferred RT corridor were identified through a Subject Lands Status Report. The types of features reviewed include: Vegetation Wildlife (Birds, Herptofauna, and Mammals and General Wildlife) Aquatic Habitat The review identified Species at Risk and Species of Conservation Concern, as well as significant and sensitive areas including: Designated Areas Significant Wetlands Significant Valleylands Significant Woodlands Wildlife Habitat The assessment of impacts of RT on natural heritage features, and potential mitigation measures, is an iterative process with the level of assessment increasing as designs are developed. Overall, the goal is to avoid impacts. The majority of the corridors fall within developed urban areas, and the potential interactions with natural heritage features are limited. However, seven locations along the preferred routes have been identified that overlap with natural heritage features identified in the City of London Official Plan (2006). Exhibit 3.71 illustrates the natural 3-73

18 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN heritage features. These sites were the primary focus of the Subject Lands Status Report: Site 1: Woodlands Along Oxford Street West and tributary of the Thames at Oxford Street West Site 2: North Thames Crossing on Riverside Drive and Queen s Avenue Site 3A: Crossing of Medway Creek on Western Road; Site 3B: Woodlands Along Western Road Site 4: North Thames Crossing on University Drive Site 5: Thames Crossing on Wellington Road Site 6: Westminster Ponds East of Wellington Road Of the seven Sites identified, Sites 2, 3a, 3b, and 4 could potentially be impacted by one of the three alternatives for the north corridor. It should be noted that at the time the Subject Lands Status Report was completed, the alternative to have the north corridor run along Wharncliffe Road/Western Road (1b) was not assessed. Though some of this corridor was covered by the overlap with the West Corridor, the portion along Wharncliffe Road/ Western Road north of Oxford Street West and south of Elgin Drive was not assessed in detail. Of the three alternatives, the Western Road/ Wharncliffe Road (1b) corridor has one less site that could potentially be impacted, as it does not cross the North Thames River on University Drive. Exhibit 3.71: Natural Heritage Features Business Case Implications Concurrent with the development of the RTMP, a Business Case was prepared to evaluate broad network and technology options. The Business Case served as the basis for the recommended city-wide RT alternative comprised of BRT. The Business Case model was re-run to provide a high level indication of the potential implications of new alternatives for the north corridor. Note that a range is shown for the new alternatives as less detail went into the development of costs and benefits than for the Richmond Transit Tunnel alternative. The final preferred alternative will have a fully updated Business Case. As shown in Exhibit 3.72, based on preliminary analysis, the new alternatives would have a benefit cost ratio in the same range as the preliminary preferred alternative. For the Richmond At-Grade alternative (1d), the lower capital costs would be off-set somewhat by reduced travel time savings for transit users and higher operating costs for transit. It is also important to note that the potential for land use uplift, which is not included in the base benefit-cost ratios, would be less for the Wharncliffe Road/Western Road corridor. 3-74

19 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.72: Cost-Benefit Ratio Exhibit 3.73: North Corridor Refined Network Assessment Segment 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Criteria 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road Economic Development and City Building Capital Costs $ million (in 2016$) total corridor cost 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR $258 million (in 2016$) total corridor cost 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT $ million (in 2016$) total corridor cost 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation $ million (in 2016$) total corridor cost Benefit Cost Ratio * Note: * Excludes wider economic benefits Refined Network Assessment North Corridor The new alternatives for the North Corridor were evaluated using the methodology and network assessment criteria described in Section To reflect the public feedback received at public meetings held with various stakeholders in April, and the Public Participation Meeting held May 3, 2017, an additional category was added to this evaluation: Project Team Assessment of Public Feedback. Each segment was evaluated by criterion relative to one another, and ranked from most to least preferred, using the symbols shown in the legend below. Exhibit 3.73 details the evaluation of the North Corridor alternatives, based on the analysis completed. The results of Exhibit 3.73 are summarized Exhibit 3.74, and the final preferred option was selected based on the overall evaluation. Operating Costs Construction impacts (Impacts to Businesses during Construction) Relatively small difference between options in operating costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Shorter construction duration compared to tunnel and underpass. Avoids construction for transit on Richmond. Impacts to businesses around Wharncliffe/Oxford and Wharncliffe/Riverside. Additional on-going operating, maintenance and lifecycle costs for tunnel, but reduced costs due to train delays and reduced fleet requirements. Longest construction duration to implement 900m tunnel and associated underground station. Construction on Richmond impacts approximately 145 businesses, including approximately 40 that have low tolerance for construction disruption. Additional operating costs to mitigate delays due to rail crossing, including labour cost and vehicle fleet. Shorter construction duration compared to tunnel and underpass. Construction on Richmond impacts approximately 145 businesses, including approximately 40 that have low tolerance for construction disruption. Relatively small difference between options in operating costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Medium construction duration compared to other options. Construction on Richmond impacts approximately 145 businesses, including approximately 40 that have low tolerance for construction disruption. Legend Least Preferred Most Preferred RATING 3-75

20 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Criteria 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Criteria 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Effects on adjacent commercial uses (post-implementation) Maintains existing on-street parking and loading access on Richmond Row. Restricts unsignalized intersections and driveways on Wharncliffe/Western to right-in/right-out, assuming median transit lanes, from Riverside to Fanshawe Park Road (and Richmond St). Impact to 12 commercial properties around Wharncliffe/Oxford. Does not increase visibility of Richmond Row businesses to transit riders with RT on Wharncliffe/ Western. Maintains existing on-street parking and access on Richmond Row. Restricts unsignalized intersections and driveways on Richmond to right-in/ right-out, assuming median transit lanes, from St. James to University, and on Western/Richmond from Lambton to Fanshawe Park Road. No impact to commercial buildings. Does not increase visibility of Richmond Row businesses to transit riders with RT underground. Reduction of 16 onstreet parking spaces on Richmond Row. Restricts unsignalized intersections and driveways on Richmond to right-in/ right-out, assuming median transit lanes, from Central to University, and on Western/ Richmond from Lambton to Fanshawe Park Road. Impact to 6 commercial buildings on Richmond. Increases visibility of Richmond Row businesses to transit riders with RT at-grade. Removal of all on-street parking on Richmond Row along the underpass. Restricts unsignalized intersections and driveways on Richmond to right-in/ right-out, using service road, from Pall Mall to Oxford. Restricts unsignalized intersections and driveways on Richmond to right-in/ right-out, assuming median transit lanes, from St. James to University, and on Western/Richmond from Lambton to Fanshawe Park Road. Impact to all properties on either the east or west side of Richmond (approximately 16-18). Community Building and Revitalization Cultural heritage impacts Anticipated impact to 24 heritage designated properties in the Blackfriars/ Petersville Heritage Conservation District because Wharncliffe must be widened to accommodate dedicated transit lanes to operate both the North and West corridors. Archaeological potential along Western Road around Platt s Lane requires additional assessment. No anticipated impact to heritage designated properties. Treatment of Richmond Street between University Drive and Grosvenor Street to be determined, with consideration of property and heritage designations, compared to transit and traffic operations. Significant potential for archaeological resources around Victoria Park requires additional assessment for tunnel construction. Anticipated impact to 1 heritage designated property and 1 listed heritage property. Treatment of Richmond Street between University Drive and Grosvenor Street to be determined, with consideration of property and heritage designations, compared to transit and traffic operations. Surface treatment reduces potential for impact to archaeological resources around Victoria Park. Anticipated impact to 1 heritage designated property and 2 to 7 listed heritage properties. Treatment of Richmond Street between University Drive and Grosvenor Street to be determined, with consideration of property and heritage designations, compared to transit and traffic operations. Significant potential for archaeological resources around Victoria Park requires additional assessment for underpass construction. Some increase to visibility of Richmond Row businesses to transit riders with RT at-grade until underpass; but reduces visibility from transit and general traffic in underpass. Supports growth management objectives Significantly less opportunity for growth and development per London Plan; Wharncliffe has limited growth potential due to floodplain and heritage district. Serves the greatest existing and future population and employment, serves the most potential trip generators including Richmond Row, Victoria Park, St. Joseph s Hospital, King s College, and Western University. Serves the greatest existing and future population and employment, serves the most potential trip generators including Richmond Row, Victoria Park, St. Joseph s Hospital, King s College, and Western University. Serves the greatest existing and future population and employment, serves the most potential trip generators including Richmond Row, Victoria Park, St. Joseph s Hospital, King s College, and Western University. Effects on adjacent residential uses Impacts to residential properties and frontages on Wharncliffe/Western from Riverside Drive to Sarnia Road. Access changes as listed in row above. Impacts to residential frontages north of Oxford. Access changes as listed in row above. Impacts to residential frontages north of Oxford. Access changes as listed in row above. Impacts to residential frontages north of Oxford. Access changes as listed in row above. Consistent with other City policies and plans Not consistent with London Plan, Smart Moves. Consistent with London ON Bikes. Consistent with London Plan, Smart Moves, London ON Bikes. Consistent with London Plan, Smart Moves, London ON Bikes. Consistent with London Plan, Smart Moves, London ON Bikes. Effects on economic development No discernable difference. No discernable difference. No discernable difference. No discernable difference. 3-76

21 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Criteria 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Criteria 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Supports appropriate intensification Supports Beaufort, Irwin, Gunn, Saunby Street Secondary Plan potential intensification. Supports greater density, mixed-use development in strategic locations defined in London Plan. Supports greater density, mixed-use development in strategic locations defined in London Plan. Supports greater density, mixed-use development in strategic locations defined in London Plan. Transit ridership relative to capacity Ridership distribution between rapid and local transit would be affected; requires additional analysis. Forecasted peak hour ridership: 1,800-1,900 passengers per hour in Forecasted peak hour ridership: 1,800-1,900 passengers per hour in Forecasted peak hour ridership: 1,800-1,900 passengers per hour in Connectivity to neighbourhoods and business areas Pedestrian amenities Public space and amenities Does not encourage downtown revitalization with no RT in the north part of Downtown and Richmond Row. Compatible with incentives for development along RT corridors and at transit villages and stations. Compatible with incentives for development along RT corridors and at transit villages and stations. Compatible with incentives for development along RT corridors and at transit villages and stations. No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Transportation Capacity and Mobility Travel time of transit Low potential for ridership throughout the day and evenings due to limited uses and few trip generators along the corridor. Approximate travel time savings of 4 to 5 minutes for RT (compared to buses in mixed traffic) from Downtown London to Masonville Mall during peak periods. Ridership accommodated primarily on RT means better ridership to capacity. Greater potential for ridership through the day and evenings due to greater mix of uses and trip generators along the corridor. Approximate travel time savings of 6 to 7 minutes for RT (compared to buses in mixed traffic) from Downtown London to Masonville Mall during peak periods. Ridership accommodated primarily on RT means better ridership to capacity. Greater potential for ridership through the day and evenings due to greater mix of uses and trip generators along the corridor. Approximate travel time savings of 5 to 6 minutes for RT (compared to buses in mixed traffic) from Downtown London to Masonville Mall during peak periods. Ridership accommodated primarily on RT means better ridership to capacity. Greater potential for ridership through the day and evenings due to greater mix of uses and trip generators along the corridor. Approximate travel time savings of 6 to 7 minutes for RT (compared to buses in mixed traffic) from Downtown London to Masonville Mall during peak periods. Network capacity and Impact to existing transportation network Reduced general traffic capacity between Oxford Street and Riverside Drive (1.0 km) compared to existing with reduction of one lane northbound and one lane southbound. CP Grade crossing on Richmond remains. Provides 2 dedicated lanes for RT from downtown to Fanshawe Park Road. Provides cycle facilities consistent with London ON Bikes. Reduced general traffic capacity between Grosvenor Street and University Drive (1.2km) compared to existing with reduction of one lane northbound and one lane southbound. CP Grade crossing on Richmond remains. Provides 2 dedicated lanes for RT from downtown to Fanshawe Park Road. Provides cycle facilities consistent with London ON Bikes. Reduced general traffic capacity between Oxford Street and Riverside Drive (1.0km), and between Grosvenor Street and University Drive (1.2km), with reduction of one lane northbound and one lane southbound. CP Grade crossing on Richmond remains. Provides 2 dedicated lanes for RT from downtown to Fanshawe Park Road. Provides cycle facilities consistent with London ON Bikes. Reduced general traffic capacity between Oxford Street and Riverside Drive (1.0km), and between Grosvenor Street and University Drive (1.2km), with reduction of one lane northbound and one lane southbound. CP Grade crossing on Richmond eliminated. Provides 2 dedicated lanes for RT from downtown to Fanshawe Park Road. Provides cycle facilities consistent with London ON Bikes. Safety of all corridor users Support active transportation Cyclist mobility Pedestrian mobility No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference 3-77

22 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Criteria 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Criteria 1b Wharncliffe Road / Western Road 1c Richmond Street Corridor with Transit Tunnel at CPR 1d Richmond Street Corridor with At Grade RT 1e Richmond Street Combined Grade Separation Ease of Implementation and Operational Viability Natural Environment and Climate Change Ability to stage implementation Slightly less flexible implementation than at-grade option with replacement of CP bridge over Wharncliffe already programmed. Least flexibility to implement RT due to longest construction duration and most complex underground works. Most flexible implementation with limited works underground. Less flexible than at-grade and Wharncliffe/Western options due to complex underground works. Natural heritage features and areas Avoids natural impacts to North Thames River valley by using existing Queens Avenue bridge, also used by the proposed West RT corridor. Minimizes natural environment impacts to North Thames River valley by using existing University Drive bridge. Minimizes natural environment impacts to North Thames River valley by using existing University Drive bridge. Minimizes natural environment impacts to North Thames River valley by using existing University Drive bridge. Ease of construction Complex construction including challenges related to heritage, property acquisition, utilities, floodplain, and traffic management. Most complex construction including challenges related to archaeology, utilities, adjacent existing structures, traffic management, coordination with CP, and construction on University lands. Least complex construction compared to other options. Complex construction including challenges related to property acquisition, utilities, adjacent existing structures, traffic management, coordination with CP, and construction on University lands. Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Climate change adaptation No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Water quality No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Property impacts Subject to development of design alternatives and mitigation measures. 147 partial acquisitions 48 full acquisitions 22 partial acquisitions 4 full acquisitions 26 partial acquisitions 8 full acquisitions 22 partial acquisitions full acquisitions Environmental regulations Environmental policies Public Feedback Project Team Assessment of Public Feedback at Meetings Held April 19, April 25, and May 3, 2017 No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference 3-78

23 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.74: Overall North Corridor Refined Network Assessment Criteria 1b Wharncliffe / Western Road 1c Richmond Street with Tunnel 1d Richmond Street at-grade 1e Richmond Street with Underpass Criteria 1b Wharncliffe / Western Road 1c Richmond Street with Tunnel 1d Richmond Street at-grade 1e Richmond Street with Underpass Capital Costs Travel time of transit Operating Costs Ability to stage implementation Construction impacts (Impacts to Businesses Ease of construction during Construction) Effects on adjacent commercial uses (postimplementation) Property impacts Natural heritage features and areas Effects on adjacent residential uses Overall Technical Summary Cultural heritage impacts Project Team Assessment of Supports growth Public Feedback management objectives Consistent with other City policies and plans Supports appropriate intensification Network capacity and impact to existing transportation network Transit service Transit ridership relative to capacity 3-79

24 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN As a result of the technical evaluation, and An overarching goal of rapid transit is to provide There is merit in deferring the construction In the next study phase, design alternatives can consideration of public and stakeholder input, frequent, reliable, attractive service that connects of the tunnel as London establishes a RT be developed and evaluated to mitigate potential Richmond Street remains the preferred North people and places. Richmond Street with a transit network, re-structures local bus routes to impacts of an at-grade solution such as property, corridor. The main advantages of the Richmond tunnel best achieves that goal and most fully connect with RT, and implements other traffic, and parking, both during construction Street corridor include: supports the objectives of the London Plan, Our planned transportation and transit network and after implementation. A review of curb- Provides direct high-quality transit service with stations at major transit trip generators, including Richmond Row (Oxford Street), Victoria Park, St. Joseph s Hospital, King s University College, Western University campus centre, and University Hospital; Provides approximately 6 to 7 minutes in travel time savings (from Downtown to Fanshawe Park Road) versus transit in mixed traffic; Move Forward: London s Downtown Plan and the desire to protect for future LRT. In summary, the benefits of the proposed transit tunnel (option 1c) are: Best meets the mobility objectives of RT (i.e. reliable service), avoiding unpredictable delays due to train crossings; Reduces transit operating costs and travel time for transit passengers, compared to the existing at-grade crossing; improvements. Deferring the tunnel provides future flexibility as transit vehicle technologies, including automated vehicles, evolve along with London s transit needs. Deferring the tunnel reduces the initial capital cost and construction risks, and avoids on-going operating, maintenance and rehabilitation costs of the tunnel. 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 TPAP process. Best serves transit ridership in the north part of London and northwest parts of Downtown; Avoids the congested intersection of Oxford Street and Richmond Street; The Richmond Street at-grade option has less property and utility impacts to construct. Minimizes cultural heritage impacts to the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District; Provides added benefits to emergency service vehicles (police, fire, ambulance), which can use the tunnel to by-pass queued traffic; and, The overarching goal of RT is to provide frequent, reliable, attractive service that connects people and places. Avoids traffic congestion at Wharncliffe Road Supports the potential future conversion to While Richmond Street with a transit tunnel and Oxford Street West; Light Rail Transit. (option 1c) best achieves that goal, some rapid Avoids the floodplain and the restrictions on future development that are associated with it; and, Serves the most transit trip generators and most existing and future population and employment. However, the Richmond Street at-grade option (1d) also scored very well. There are two primary disadvantages to remaining at-grade at this time: the reliability of rapid transit when a train is present and the removal of two traffic lanes on Richmond Street south of Oxford Street to maintain property take. It is noteworthy to consider, however, that: transit delays can be partly mitigated through an increased transit vehicle fleet and operating modifications and the application of real-time transit information for passengers. As Richmond Street may be reduced to one travel lane in each direction, and the intersection of Oxford Street and Richmond Street presents a point of capacity restriction, additional north-south vehicle capacity Constructing the Richmond Street corridor for downtown is also needed. Improvements on at-grade from Clarence Street to St. James Wharncliffe Road can partly assist in providing an Street does not preclude future construction alternate route, and the planned grade separation of a transit tunnel on Richmond Street to at the Adelaide Street railway crossing should be implement Light Rail Transit. advanced as well. 3-80

25 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN 3.13 Downtown Exhibit 3.75: Downtown Two-Way on King Based on feedback from the RTIWG, Council direction and considering comments received on the preliminary preferred network, the following alternatives were identified for further analysis and evaluation: King Street / Queens Avenue transit couplet comprised of an eastbound transit lane on King Street and a westbound transit lane on Queens Avenue: from Riverside Drive on Queens Ave Bridge, southbound on Ridout Street, eastbound on King Street and westbound on Queens Avenue, with northbound transition on Wellington Street; and, King Street Two-Way mixed traffic comprised of one lane in each direction shared between transit and general traffic: from Riverside Drive on Kensington Bridge, Ridout Street, and King Street to Wellington Street. Each of these alternatives were compared to the preferred alternative of King Street Two-Way transit comprised of two dedicated transit lanes on King Street: from Riverside Drive on Kensington Bridge, Ridout Street, and King Street to Wellington Street (as discussed in Section 3.9.6). The two-way on King Street routing is illustrated in Exhibit 3.75, and the King Street / Queens Avenue transit couplet is illustrated in Exhibit

26 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.76: Downtown Transit Couplet on King Street / Queens Avenue Capital Costs As a percentage of the overall project costs, the difference in capital costs between the King Street Two-way alternative and the King Queens Couplet are relatively small. The King-Queens Couplet alternative would have a higher cost due to the transition segment on Wellington Street. However, the cost to mitigate impacts on loading and access are likely to be lower Impacts to Businesses during Construction As discussed in more detail under Section , field surveys were undertaken to inventory businesses along the alternative Downtown routes. Businesses were then classified in terms of their tolerance for construction impacts. Generally, food service, entertainment and retail oriented business would be more sensitive to the impacts of construction on retail activities than stable office uses. Based on the business inventory undertaken in April 2017, the number of businesses from each tolerance category was assessed. The findings are summarized in Exhibit Exhibit 3.77: Inventory of Business Types and Assumed Tolerances Two-way on King and Clarence Couplet on Queens and King, and Clarence and Wellington Businesses by Tolerance Category Low and Medium-Low Medium High and Medium-High 7 17 Total Impact Period (approximate)* 1 year 6 months Total Years of Business Impacts Total Years of Business Impacts to Low Tolerance businesses Note: * A number of factors affect duration of construction including phasing (full vs. partial road closure), underground utilities and weather. Durations shown are indicative and intended to account for the potential shorter duration of construction if only one lane of RT is provided on each street. 3-82

27 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Since the King-Queens Couplet alternative would require construction over multiple streets, more businesses are impacted. However, the difference in impacts to low-tolerance businesses is small (62 vs 56). This is because the types of business on Queens Ave and Wellington Street are mostly offices, which are considered to have higher tolerance for interruptions from construction. It is also important to consider the duration and level of impacts from construction. Since the couplet includes RT on one side of the street, instead of two, it will be more feasible to implement a construction phasing strategy that impacts the business on a given section of roadway for a shorter period of time Effects on Adjacent Commercial Uses Parking As of 2014, there were 15,436 parking spaces in downtown London, 711 of which were on-street parking spaces and 14,725 of which are various types of off-street parking supply. Of the off-street supply, 10,952 are available to the public, while the remaining are reserved private spaces 9. Of the total available public supply of parking downtown (10,952 spaces), 6% is on-street parking. The construction of RT in the downtown will require a reallocation of road space, including 9 MMM Group, Downtown London Parking Study 2014 Update, April 2015 parking. The potential number of spaces impacted was estimated based on the current concept plans. Exhibit 3.78 shows existing and estimated future spaces by alternative and the resulting reductions after construction. The limits for this assessment are as follows: Queens Avenue between Wellington Street and Ridout Street North Clarence Street between Queens Avenue and King Street Wellington Street between Queens Avenue and King Street King Street between Wellington Street and Ridout Street North Although the loss of on-street parking is perceived as a negative impact to businesses, once the RT system is operational and construction is complete, businesses along the RT corridor could stand to benefit from improved access, increased pedestrian traffic from increased transit ridership and increased presence of residents in the area as a result of residential intensification around stations. One of the primary objectives of RT is to support the revitalization of London s Downtown. As the downtown becomes a more attractive destination, businesses that are located in the downtown and that locate in the downtown in the future will benefit. Exhibit 3.78: Existing and Estimated Future Parking Spaces Street King Street Two-Way King-Queens Couplet Existing Remaining Reduced Existing Remaining Reduced Clarence Street 30 0* 30* King Street Wellington Street Queens Avenue 61 61** 0** Total Note: * Future parking loss due to north-east corridor ** On-street parking on Queens Avenue would be affected by the planned cycle track project. The King Street Two-way would allow for the cycle track, or retention of on-street parking on Queens Avenue Connectivity to Business Areas Each of the east-west downtown alternatives would provide connectivity to the London Downtown area for transit users. The King Street Two-way alternative would provide a more direct connection to the VIA Station and is more intuitive from a transit user perspective. However, it would have a greater impact on vehicular access and loading for major downtown uses including the Covent Market and Budweiser Gardens Consistency with other City Policies and Plans Our Move Forward: London s Downtown Plan, adopted by Council on April 15, 2015, identifies a number of Strategic Directions including: Make Dundas Street the most exciting place in London and Reconnect with the Thames River. It also identifies ten key transformational projects including the Dundas Place Flex Street and Forks of the Thames improvements (now referred to as Back to the River). In addition, the implementation of cycle tracks on Queens Avenue and Colborne Street in Downtown London is a premier feature of the new cycling master plan that was approved by Council in September Both the King Street Two-way and King-Queens Couplet alternatives accommodate the Dundas Place project from Wellington to Ridout. However, the King-Queen Couplet alternative will require auto traffic to be maintained on the Kensington Bridge, thereby potentially changing the dynamic of the space for the My Dundas Place project and Back to the River initiative. Under this option, a station at Dundas Street and Ridout Street would not be considered, given the changes to the plans for the Kensington Bridge. While it is not expected that this will lead to significant changes to these 3-83

28 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN two projects, the change in traffic type and volume will need to be assessed and addressed through the detailed design processes for these two projects. The King-Queens Couplet alternative also precludes the development of the planned Queens Avenue cycle track Network Capacity and Impact to Existing Transportation Network The transportation network within the downtown is currently comprised of 2 major east-west thoroughfares (York Street and Dundas Street) and the one-way pair of Queens Avenue and King Street. The two RT routing alternatives that are being evaluated will have different implications on the existing road network as shown in Exhibit One of the advantages of the couplet option is that it maintains the balance of traffic lanes on King Street and Queens Avenue. Exhibit 3.79: Implications of Rapid Transit on the Downtown Road Network Impacts on Transit Service Each of the alternatives have different impacts on transit services within the downtown core and offers different advantages to transit operations and transit users. The analysis below focuses only the differences between the two alternatives and does not address the advantages of RT versus existing services. The key advantages of the King two-way alternative include: Single corridor and single station locations are intuitive for transit users; Trip lengths in both directions will be similar making scheduling and operations simpler; Simple connections and transfers along a single corridor; Westbound RT lane on King Street is fully dedicated for RT due to counter-flow design offering a high degree of reliability; and, Local services along King Street can also take advantage of the RT lanes on King Street. Unique advantages of the couplet option are as follows: Local routes benefit from dedicated transit lanes on both King Street and Queens Avenue; and, One-way couplets are more suitable for the coordination of traffic signals and can allow for better signal progression, resulting in travel time improvements along the corridor King Street Mixed Traffic Alternative In reviewing the viability of providing RT routes through mixed traffic on King Street, between Ridout Street North and Richmond Street, there are several considerations that would need to be addressed. BRT is a suite of elements that create a highquality RT experience. As a premium service, it is especially important that BRT service be reliable and that the system meet its schedule as often as possible. The service standard for schedule adherence is often higher for BRT than for conventional service. The proportion of a route that operates in mixed traffic has the largest single impact on route reliability. In terms of the King Street corridor, the re-routing of local LTC service from Dundas Street to King Street will result in increased transit requirements, serving approximately 1 eastbound bus every 1 to 2 minutes during peak hours. When combined with RT, the eastbound lane would be severely impacted if other vehicles would be allowed to utilize the lane as a result of turning at intersections, and vehicles making drop offs. The utilization of the westbound RT lane on the north side of King Street by non-transit vehicles would create operational challenges. Traffic signals would need to take into account two-way RT and oneway vehicle travel, westbound turn lanes would be required to store turning vehicles that are waiting for pedestrians to cross, and vehicles would be forced to wait behind transit vehicles at stations including during layovers. A summary of the advantages and inconveniences are summarized in Exhibit

29 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.80: Advantages and Disadvantages of Dedicated Lanes Dedicated RT Lanes Mixed Traffic Lanes Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Reliable RT service with few conflicts Removal of on-street parking Provision of some onstreet parking Reduced reliability for RT service due to many conflicts Easier entrance and exit from Market parking due to less westbound traffic (transit only) Removal of on-street deliveries Some delivery areas are retained More difficult access to and from Market parking due two- way traffic for all users Travel time savings for RT One-way traffic for nontransit users Two-way traffic for all users Reduced travel time savings for RT No conflicts with local traffic, parking maneuvers, deliveries and other transit Conflicts with local traffic, parking maneuvers and deliveries Left-turn retained at Talbot Left-turns removed at Talbot Wider sidewalks provided for pedestrians Sidewalks same or narrower than existing at many locations No transition of RT mid- segment from dedicated lanes to mixed traffic Potentially complex transition of RT mid-segment from dedicated lanes to mixed traffic probably requires special phase queue-jump Refined Network Assessment Downtown The new alternatives for Downtown were evaluated using the methodology and network assessment criteria described in Section To reflect the public feedback received at public meetings held with various stakeholders in April, and the Public Participation Meeting held May 3, 2017, an additional category was added to this evaluation: Project Team Assessment of Public Feedback. Each segment was evaluated by criterion relative to one another, and ranked from most to least preferred, using the symbols shown in the legend below. Exhibit 3.81 details the evaluation of the North Corridor alternatives, based on the analysis completed. The results of Exhibit 3.81 are summarized Exhibit 3.82, and the final preferred option was selected based on the overall evaluation. Legend RATING Least Preferred Most Preferred 3-85

30 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Exhibit 3.81: Downtown Extended Network Assessment Criteria King Street Two-Way Transit King/Queens Couplet King Street Two-Way mixed traffic Economic Development and City Building Capital Costs Relatively small difference between options in capital costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Relatively small difference between options in capital costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Relatively small difference between options in capital costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Criteria King Street Two-Way Transit King/Queens Couplet King Street Two-Way mixed traffic Community Building and Revitalization Public space and amenities Impacts Mitchell A. Baran Park (west side of Thames River) with new transit-only two-lane road between Riverside Drive and Kensington Bridge. Impact to trees along Ridout Street (east side) and King Street (north and south side). No impact to Mitchell A. Baran Park (west side of Thames River). Impact to trees along King Street (south side) and Queens Ave (north side). Removal of trees in the median on Wellington Street between King and Queens. No impact to Mitchell A. Baran Park (west side of Thames River). Impact to trees along Ridout Street (east side) and King Street (north and south side). Operating Costs Construction impacts (Impacts to Businesses during Construction) Relatively small difference between options in operating costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Longer duration construction to implement two transit lanes. Construction on two streets (Ridout and King) results in fewer businesses impacted (93), including 56 Low & Low-Medium tolerance businesses. Relatively small difference between options in operating costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Shorter duration construction to implement one transit lane. Construction on four streets (Ridout, King, Wellington, Queens) results in more businesses impacted (118), including 62 Low & Low-Medium tolerance businesses. Relatively small difference between options in operating costs as a percentage of overall project costs. Longer duration construction to implement two-way traffic on King Street. Construction on two streets (Ridout and King) results in fewer businesses impacted (93), including 56 Low & Low-Medium tolerance businesses. Cultural heritage impacts Consistent with other City policies and plans Design anticipated to fit within existing rights-of-ways with minimal impact to built cultural heritage features and archaeological resources. Compatible with the London Plan, Smart Moves, Dundas Place Flex Street and Back to the River initiative. Design anticipated to fit within existing rights-of-ways with minimal impact to built cultural heritage features and archaeological resources. Compatible with the London Plan, Smart Moves, and Dundas Place Flex Street between Wellington and Ridout. Design anticipated to fit within existing rights-of-ways with minimal impact to built cultural heritage features and archaeological resources. Compatible with the London Plan, Smart Moves, London On Bikes and Dundas Place Flex Street between Wellington and Ridout. Effects on adjacent commercial uses (postimplementation) Reduction of 89 on-street parking spaces on Clarence, King, and Queens. This option allows for the planned Queens Ave cycle-track project, which accounts for 61 of the parking spaces removed. Greater impact to existing onstreet loading operations for major downtown uses. Provides more direct connection between business areas, RT and inter-regional Bus & Train stations from all RT corridors. RT station at Clarence/King is less than 200m from VIA station. Reduction of 77 on-street parking spaces on Clarence, King, and Queens. Less impact to existing on-street loading operations for major downtown uses. Less direct connection between business areas, RT and interregional Bus & Train stations from South and East RT corridors. RT station at Wellington/King is approx. 300m from VIA station. Reduction of 89 on-street parking spaces on Clarence, King, and Queens. This option allows for the planned Queens Ave cycle-track project, which accounts for 61 of the parking spaces removed. Greater impact to existing onstreet loading operations for major downtown uses. Provides more direct connection between business areas, RT and inter-regional Bus & Train stations from all RT corridors. RT station at Clarence/King is less than 200m from VIA station. Supports growth management objectives Requires vehicle traffic on Kensington Bridge, potentially changing the dynamic of the space for the My Dundas Place project and Back to the River initiative. Change would be addressed during detailed design process for these two projects. Eliminated cycle track on Queens Ave proposed in London On Bikes. Requires vehicle traffic on Kensington Bridge, potentially changing the dynamic of the space for the My Dundas Place project and Back to the River initiative. Change would be addressed during detailed design process for these two projects. No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Supports appropriate intensification No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Effects on adjacent residential uses Effects on economic development No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Connectivity to neighbourhoods and business areas No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Pedestrian amenities No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference 3-86

31 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Criteria King Street Two-Way Transit King/Queens Couplet King Street Two-Way mixed traffic Criteria King Street Two-Way Transit King/Queens Couplet King Street Two-Way mixed traffic Transportation Capacity and Mobility Network capacity and Impact to existing transportation network Provides 5 lanes for general traffic, 2 dedicated lanes for RT, and 2 dedicated cycle tracks on Queens. Overall transportation network capacity is similar to the couplet. Provides 6 lanes for general traffic, 2 dedicated lanes for RT combined with local transit, and no dedicated cycle facilities. Overall transportation network capacity is similar to King Street two-way. Provides 7 lanes for general traffic, with RT and local transit mixed with general traffic on King Street, and 2 dedicated cycle tracks on Queens. Overall transportation network capacity is reduced with transit operating entirely in mixed traffic. Cyclist mobility On-street bike lanes on King Street removed. Accommodates two-way cycle track on Queens Avenue. Accommodates cycle facility on Riverside Drive between Wharncliffe Road and Kensington Bridge. On-street bike lane on King Street removed. No accommodation of cycle track on Queens Avenue. No accommodation of cycle facility on Riverside Drive between Wharncliffe Road and Kensington Bridge. On-street bike lanes on King Street removed. Accommodates two-way cycle track on Queens Avenue. Accommodates cycle facility on Riverside Drive between Wharncliffe Road and Kensington Bridge. Transit service Intuitive two-way transit corridor and stations, with Central Transit Hub at King & Clarence. Simple connections and transfers. Simpler transit scheduling and operations. Westbound RT lane on King Street offers greater reliability due to counter-flow design. Local buses will share dedicated transit lane on King Street eastbound with no local stops on King Street, and use Queens Avenue westbound in mixed traffic with local stops. Less intuitive couplet transit corridor, with split station at Talbot. No central transit hub, with transfers between corridors at Queens & Clarence; and King & Wellington. More complex connections and transfers. Slight difference in corridor length (eastbound vs westbound) requires more complex scheduling and operations. Greater interaction with general traffic due to with-flow design. Local buses will share dedicated transit lanes on King Street eastbound, Wellington Street northbound, and Queens Avenue westbound with local stops and bus bays where possible. Intuitive two-way transit corridor and stations, with Central Transit Hub at King & Clarence. Simple connections and transfers. Mixed traffic operations requires more complex scheduling to compensate for traffic congestion. Most interaction with general traffic due to mixed-flow design. Local buses with share general purpose lanes on King Street and/or Queens Ave. Safety of all corridor users Transit ridership relative to capacity Less intuitive operation of King Street and Ridout Street with twoway transit and one-way general traffic. Less conflict points between RT and general traffic with shorter corridors. Intuitive one-way operation on King Street and Queens Avenue. More conflict points between RT and general traffic with additional length of corridors, additional intersections and driveways. Intuitive two-way operation on King Street. More conflict points between RT and general traffic with mixed operations. No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Travel time of transit No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Support active transportation No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Pedestrian mobility No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Ease of Implementation and Operational Viability Ability to stage implementation Less flexible to implement RT due to the reallocation of right-of-way along King Street. More flexible to implement RT due to change to only one-side of King Street and one-side of Queens Avenue. Less flexible to implement RT due to the reallocation of right-of-way along King Street. Ease of construction No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Property impacts No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference 3-87

32 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN Criteria King Street Two-Way Transit King/Queens Couplet King Street Two-Way mixed traffic Natural Environment and Climate Change Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Climate change adaptation No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Water quality No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Natural heritage features and areas Environmental regulations No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Exhibit 3.82: Overall Downtown Refined Network Assessment Criteria King Street Two-Way Transit King/Queens Couplet Construction impacts (Impacts to Businesses during Construction) Effects on adjacent commercial uses (postimplementation) Public space and amenities King Street Two-way Mixed Traffic Environmental policies Public Feedback Project Team Assessment of Public Feedback at Meetings Held April 19, April 25, and May 3, 2017 No discernable difference No discernable difference No discernable difference Consistent with other City policies and plans Network capacity and Impact to existing transportation network Transit service Cyclist mobility Ability to stage implementation Overall Technical Summary Project Team Assessment of Public Feedback 3-88

33 LONDON S RAPID TRANSIT INITIATIVE MASTER PLAN As a result of the technical evaluation and consideration of public and stakeholder input, the King/Queens couplet has emerged as the preferred alternative. While King Street two-way also scored very well, the main advantages of the King/Queens couplet are that it: Reduces construction duration on King Street, reducing potential impacts to businesses; Balances traffic capacities, providing two traffic lanes on both Queen Street and King Street; Allows on-street parking and loading on the north side of King Street; Reduces conflicts with operations, access and loading for Covent Garden Market and Budweiser Gardens; and, Allows local buses to share dedicated transit lanes on King Street eastbound, Wellington Street northbound, and Queens Avenue westbound with local stops and bus bays sharing infrastructure with rapid transit where possible. It should be noted that the recommendation of the King/Queens Couplet as the preferred alternative will have the following impacts: Cycling - An alternative route through the downtown will need to be determined to accommodate east west cycling movements. This can be reviewed through the detailed design of Dundas Place. Our Move Forward, London s Downtown Plan and the Back to the River Initiative identified a vision to enable a more pedestrian-oriented public space along Dundas Street from Ridout to the Thames River and to reduce traffic on the Kensington Bridge. It should be noted these concepts were to be subject to a feasibility review based on an assessment of transportation and environmental impacts. The King/Queens couplet option maintains the use of the Kensington Bridge for two general purpose eastbound vehicle traffic lanes in the current configuration. Through the One River Environmental Assessment, enhancements to Dundas Street at the Forks of the River may be reviewed to integrate more pedestrian and cyclist facilities in conjunction with the roadway. 3-89