PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

Transcription

1 NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY Appendix A Public Consultation Process December 1, 2014 Appendix A PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_ _dgg.docx A.1

2 Table of Contents 1.0 Summary City of Calgary NC LRT Public Consultation Summary 2.0 Overview of Communication and Engagement Plan 3.0 Community Advisory Group 4.0 Public Consultation Events Public Consultation Events Supporting Communication Activities 7.0 Conclusion 1.0 Summary From June 2013 to October 2014, eight open houses and two workshops were held in communities adjacent in North Central Calgary. A total of 1,535 participants viewed information in person or online, spoke with project team or undertook activities at workshop. A total of 958 feedback forms were received. Overall, there was a preference for the Centre Street alignment with a tunnel in the southernmost segment connecting to downtown and a wide road layout throughout the line. The project s Community Advisory Group (CAG), comprised of residents and business owners, preferred the narrow option south of McKnight Boulevard to minimize disruption to land owners, tenants, and businesses. The project Steering Committee (directors and managers with The City) also endorse the narrow option to support The City s land use and transportation goals. The following table summarizes the stated preferences of each group involved in the process. Segment Width Available Today (metres) Community Advisory Group Downtown to 24 Ave. 22 Narrow or tunnel General Public Tunnel Steering Committee Narrow or tunnel 24 Ave. to 32 Ave. 22 Narrow Wide Narrow 32 Ave. to 40 Ave. 20 Narrow Wide Narrow 40 Ave. to McKnight Blvd. McKnight Blvd. to 64 Ave. 64 Ave. to Beddington Blvd. Beddington Blvd to Beddington Tr 27 Narrow Wide Narrow 30 Wide Wide Wide 36 Wide Wide Wide 22 Wide Wide Wide Harvest Hills Blvd.** 45 N/A N/A N/A ** Alignment approved and land set aside for future LRT when communities were first planned. Wide option (30 metres) will fit within the existing road width. 1

3 Public engagement prior to 2013 In May 2011, through a series of open houses Calgary Transit asked Calgarians if they supported revisiting the North Central LRT alignment. Council, the public and The City Administration agreed that the approved alignment along Nose Creek fell short of reaching City-wide goals. In 2012, Council directed the Administration to review a more central route for the NC LRT, and to make a recommendation on the best possible transit service for north central Calgary. In March 2013, The City engaged Stantec to develop a Concept Plan for the NC LRT. Stantec and The City ( the project team ) are working together to study alternative alignments within the corridor and to engage the public in the planning process Public Engagement Events Three open houses and one workshop were held during June and July A total of 675 people attended the open houses, with 60 people participating in the workshop. A total of 428 feedback forms were received at the events and online. The events aimed to inform the public about the project, obtain input on criteria for choosing a route option, and solicit public feedback on the three proposed alignments: Centre Street North, Edmonton Trail, and Nose Creek. The top criteria for choosing a route option noted by participants included: 1. Moves the most people/capacity 2. Construction impact on the community 3. Travel time savings to downtown 4. Ability to meet future demand 5. Impact on environment Public feedback on the three proposed alignments focused on Centre Street and Nose Creek alignments. Distance from existing neighbourhoods was noted as the most common reason both for and against both options. Other alignment considerations included: Minimizing community impacts now and in the future Connections with community centers and other areas of The City Encouraging walking and cycling Accessibility for all users Affordability 2014 Public Engagement Events the various options. A total of 405 feedback forms and comment cards were received at events and online. Information was also provided for the road layout after construction of the LRT. Three options were provided: Wide: LRT and two driving lanes in each direction (requires 30 metre width). Wide with parking: LRT, one driving lane, and one parking lane in each direction (requires 28 metre width). Narrow: LRT and one driving lane in each direction (requires 20 metre width). Tunnel provided as an option only for the southern segment into downtown: LRT is underground in a tunnel, with two driving lanes in each direction on the surface (requires 20 metre width). Feedback on design considerations focused on community integration and impacts, including: Proximity of the LRT line to existing neighbourhoods for increased accessibility/ridership Affordability Accessibility for all community members Connections with other routes in the city Walkability of the streetscape and street design A final series of three open houses took place in October 2014 with 272 people attending the events. Information included a summary of the process undertaken since June 2013 and information on the recommended alignment of Centre Street. A total of 125 feedback forms and comment cards were received at the October 2014 open houses. Feedback included: Expressions of support for an underground option, in whole or in part, despite the increased cost Support for the recommended alignment and choice of low floor LRT Continued interest in other routes (Edmonton Trail), river crossing (new bridge) or wider/narrower alignment Concerns about the impact on communities surrounding Centre Street including increased nonresident parking and vehicular traffic, as well as reduced pedestrian safety Concerns over increased congestion for vehicular traffic on Centre Street Three public engagement events were held in April, to identify the public s preferences relating to the two alignment options (Centre Street North and Edmonton Trail Northeast). The project team held two open house events (455 people) and one workshop (73 people). Nose Creek was not presented as an option as it was the lowest scoring alternative in the high level multiple accounts evaluation undertaken by the project team as part of the project. During the three events, over 528 people actively participated in group discussions about alignment preferences, pedestrian access, traffic impacts, community/land acquisition impacts and relative costs of 2

4 2.0 Overview of Communication and Engagement Plan The communication and engagement plan for the NC LRT is a collaborative initiative between the Stantec project team and The City of Calgary that aims to study alternative alignments within the corridor and to engage the public in the planning process. The goals of the communication and engagement plan are to: 1. Build public and stakeholder awareness and understanding about the value of, and need for the NC LRT 2. Inform the public and stakeholders about the alignment options, including the challenges and opportunities posed by different alignments 3. Engage the public and stakeholders so they can provide informed input to the design of the engagement program, and the analysis and selection of a preferred route option. 4. Foster community support for LRT and public transit as a means to improve the livability of communities within The City The plan is broken down into five phases starting in April 2013 with pre-engagement consultations and ending in the fall of 2014 with the development of a recommended alignment. Phase Timeframe Consultation Topics 1. Pre-Engagement Consultations 2. Vision, Opportunities and Challenges April May 2013 May September Community Integration November 2013 February Alignment Options March September Recommended Alignment October November 2014 Design of the engagement program Key issues Information needs and channels Vision and opportunities for LRT Community issues to be addressed in planning LRT Criteria for evaluating alignment options Input on ongoing communication and engagement Community integration and land use Potential issues of noise, aesthetics, crime, safety Challenges and opportunities associated with alignment options Community/location specific issues Selection of preferred alignment by project team Feedback on recommended alignment and design Input on effectiveness of the process 3.0 Community Advisory Group The Community CAG membership included 15 regular members representing North Central communities situated along the alignment options. The CAG members were: The North Central LRT Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) was reestablished in 2013 with members from the 2011 advisory group with additional members added in The name was changed based on feedback from the membership to be Community Advisory Group.The CAG met seven times between May 2013 and October The City of Calgary sent out an invitation for new members via the opt-in list maintained from 2011 engagement and updated in 2013 at the open house events. Participants at the open house events in 2013 were invited to apply if they had an interest in participating. Prospective members applied and were selected by The City based on cross-representation of North Central neighbourhoods. CAG members received information and provided advice during the concept planning phase including input on the public consultation process and the potential effects of the NC LRT route options on North Central communities. Specifically, the role of the CAG included: Providing advice to the project team (consultants and assigned City staff) on how best to communicate and engage citizens. Providing feedback on the results of the engagement process to help ensure that interests have been fairly represented. CAG meetings were held throughout the consultation process in order to get ongoing feedback on alignment and design concepts and the public engagement strategy. Meeting date Meeting location May 8, 2013 Calgary Transit CAG members Councillor Gael MacLeod, Ward 4 Barb Fleet, Ward 4 Executive Assistant July 24, 2013 Calgary Transit CAG members September 18, 2013 Thorncliffe-Greenview CAG members Community Association December 4, 2013 Cardel Place CAG members February 26, 2014 Tuxedo Park Community CAG members Association June 18, 2014 Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Association CAG members Councillor Chu, Ward 4 Assistant to Councillor Chu, October 8, 2014 Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Association Andrew Chin, Ward 4 CAG members Councillor Chu, Ward 4 Assistant to Councillor Chu, Andrew Chin, Ward 4 3

5 The project manager from The City of Calgary acted as the CAG Chair. A representative from Context acted as a third-party facilitator to aid meeting discussions, provide independent advice on group process to the Committee, and to help the Committee structure and provide feedback to The City. CAG membership included members representing North Central communities situated along the alignment options. The CAG members were: David Bird Geoffrey Cohen Jeanette Coombe Kimberley Dominguez Alissa Huybers Jennifer Jessome Kenneth Kong John McDermid 4.0 Public Consultation Events 2013 After a period of planning and preparation, public engagement activities began in June 2013 with three open house events, followed by a July workshop session, and attendance at several community events. During 2013, there were 735 engagement participants and 428 feedback forms received. Details of each event are provided below. 4.1 Open House Events, June 2013 A total of 675 participants from a range of community audiences attended three open house events including: Residents and business owners in the catchment area City councillors Community Advisory Group members Kelly Seminoff Ann Vouri Jon Wong Meeting date Meeting location Attendees June 11, 2013 Ascension of Our Lord School 175 June 12, 2013 Winston Heights Community Association 171 June 13, 2013 Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Association 329 The open house events sought to: 1. Re-engage the community following the 2011 consultations to continue to plan a route alignment for the NC LRT. 2. Inform and educate participants on the scope of the planning study and the technologies being considered. 3. Obtain community/participant interest to be part of the workshops at the end of June. 4. Obtain input from residents and businesses on: a. Community values and priorities for planning LRT in the NC corridor that will be used to develop a community-based vision for LRT. b. Priorities for evaluation between route alignment options in the corridor c. Key issues that need to be addressed in the planning study. 5. Build trust and confidence in The City s commitment to citizen engagement. The events were promoted using roadside signage (Bold Signs) in high traffic areas of the catchment as well as postings to the Calgary Transit website and invitations to existing databases. Databases included people that have participated in previous NC LRT events and those who have expressed interest in transportation projects in The City. The open house events built on consultation activities in Events featured multiple display panels and a video display that explained: The themes and comments heard during 2011 consultations 4

6 Rationale for the project Three route options under review: Centre Street North, Edmonton Trail, and Nose Creek Opportunities / benefits of LRT to the community Possibilities for community integration of the line An overview of LRT technology In addition to display panels that participants could view at their leisure, the event also featured two Transit Stations that asked people questions about their preferences and ideas. Transit Station One featured maps of the alignments and asked people to identify what was important to them when considering LRT in their community. Transit Station Two featured a list of design priorities. Participants were provided with three stickers and were asked to place their stickers next to the three priorities they felt should receive top consideration. Participants were also able to add priorities to the list. 2. Visualize the community s future 3. Comment on vision and evaluation criteria Session one built on the feedback gathered during the June open house events, and focused on confirming that important community assets had been captured. In session two participants visualized their community with LRT in 30 years time. To aid this visualization exercise, participants were given cross-sections of the different alignments along with cut-outs of pedestrians, cars, LRT cars, and bikes and asked to arrange the different elements of the streetscape to fit their ideal vision. Session three provided an opportunity for participants to view and comment on the draft vision statement for the project. Participants were also provided with feedback forms that requested additional information regarding their top criteria for choosing a route option, how they felt about the placement of LRT in their community and important factors to consider when building the LRT line. Participants were provided with feedback forms that requested additional information regarding how they felt about the placement of LRT in their community and important factors to consider when building the LRT line. Feedback forms were also available online via the PlaceSpeak platform, a public engagement website that allows people to provide feedback on the project at a time and place most convenient for them. A supervised kids table was also set up during open house events to provide parents with an opportunity to view the displays without interruption Workshop Event, July 2013 Two workshops were originally scheduled to occur in June, but were cancelled due to the floods. One workshop was rescheduled and completed later in July. The workshop drew a range of participants including those who had attended 2011 consultation events and those who attended the June workshops. Sixty people including representatives from residential neighbourhoods and businesses in the catchment areas, along with City councillors attended. Meeting date Meeting location Attendees July 23, 2013 Thorncliffe-Greenview Community Association 60 sought to: 1. Identify key community assets and design considerations for LRT in the north central corridor. 2. Confirm community vision and evaluation criteria for the North Central LRT. 3. Address community expectations for engagement. 5 The worksho p event 4. Enhance community trust and confidence in The City, the Project Team and the planning process for LRT. The events were promoted at the open house events in June. Invitations to attend were ed directly to those who signed up for the workshop at the open house event and those who opted in to receive project information and updates. The workshop event was broken down into three sessions: 1. Discover community assets

7 4.4.1 Criteria for decision making Participants were asked to identify their three top priorities for comparing route options and choosing the best one. Results from the feedback forms collected at the open house, workshop and online are represented in the graph below Alignment and design considerations The alignment options presented to open house, workshop and online survey participants were: 1. Centre Street N 2. Edmonton Trail 3. Nose Creek Community feedback regarding alignment considerations included many comments about Centre Street and Nose Creek alignments with some participants noting 4 th Street as an additional alternative route. Specific feedback on alignment options included: 1. Centre Street Alignment In general, there was support for the Centre Street option The most common reason for Centre Street was its proximity to residents and businesses This proximity was thought to create easy access to the line, good service for users, and promote increased transit use Direct linkages with downtown were felt to be a benefit of the Centre Street option Proponents of this route also mentioned the possibility for revitalizing and developing the existing land use in the area, including the potential for transit-oriented development Concerns with the Centre Street option included the amount of disruption to the community and traffic flow during and after construction, with concern over congestion and loss of community feel being mentioned as potential impacts. An underground option was mentioned as a way of mitigating these impacts Additionally, it was felt that the impact on adjacent communities should be minimized if Centre Street was the chosen option Finally, cost was mentioned as a concern, with Centre Street being seen as potentially the highest cost option of the three 2. Edmonton Trail In general, Edmonton Trail was noted as a compromise, second choice, and/or mediocre option in comparison to Centre Street Proponents of this route felt it might involve less cost than Centre Street and that as a budding community, Edmonton Trail may benefit from this development The main concern with the Edmonton Trail option was its distance from people and the potential impact to access this may create The nature of the community today: a hybrid of residential, industrial, and green space was noted as a concern with disruptions to families/the community, potential environmental impacts and desirability of running the line through industrial areas all being noted Traffic impacts of building the line on Edmonton Trail were also noted A hybrid of an Edmonton Trail and Centre Street was noted as a potential alternative by a few participants 6

8 3. Nose Creek Alignment The most common reason against Nose Creek was its distance from existing neighbourhoods This distance caused concern over public accessibility to the line including the need to drive to access the LRT, limited service to residents living south of Beddington Trail, limitations to pedestrian access, and the limited ability to create transit-oriented development in the future The potential environmental impacts were also noted as a significant concern for this route option Proponents for this route option mentioned its distance from existing neighbourhoods as a benefit Reduced impact to existing traffic patterns, reduced construction impacts, and use of existing infrastructure were all mentioned as benefits to building the LRT along this route Environmental impacts Do not disturb natural areas Prioritize green space Build for the future Capacity, future growth, transit-oriented development Redevelop the corridor to increase density and improve the utility of the future LRT line Convenience, construction cost savings, and faster LRT service were also mentioned as benefits to this option Summary of feedback from June 2013 open houses Community feedback on design considerations included minimizing disruption and impact to the community during and after construction; the importance of using LRT to form connections to other areas of the city and to encourage walking and cycling; and making the LRT accessible to general public. Specific comments about design considerations included: Community impact Minimize negative impact on communities (noise, traffic, construction) Use LRT to reduce demand for cars / congestion Create separated cycle tracks Opinions were divided on prioritizing 4 lanes for traffic vs. 2 lanes of traffic with street level improvements (landscaping, lighting etc.) Connections Cross streets on major east-west corridors are very important Access to community centres such as schools and libraries as well as to businesses are important Connections for walking and cycling / station spacing optimized for multi-modal trips Community access Build it close to where people live and work Accessible for all types of people Efficient, fast, clean, comfortable, safe, reliable In addition to alignment and design considerations participants in the 2013 events and surveys were asked to provide their feedback on their current transit choices and the value they see in the development of the NC LRT line. The questions asked of respondents and their answers are summarized on the following page. Timing Desire for completion in very near future rather than in 2030 Minimize disruption to existing vehicle users Both during construction and operation Underground was considered an option if maintaining 4 lanes of traffic is a priority Cost Good value for money 7

9 Responses to feedback forms June 2013 open houses How do you travel most often in your community? Bus-only lanes improved transit experience. How often do you take transit? NC LRT would improve my transit experience. Initial reaction North Central LRT I would use transit more often if NC LRT were available Bus shelters improved transit experience. Did you find this open house helpful in for understanding the NC LRT project? 8

10 5.0 Public Consultation Events 2014 After a period of technical review and evaluations that took into account public input collected during 2013, engagement activities resumed with a workshop session and open house events in April During 2014, there were 800 engagement participants and 530 feedback forms received. Details of the events are provided below. 5.1 Workshop Event, April 2014 Churches Schools Restaurants New and existing residential developments Sports arenas Malls and strip malls Libraries and art centres Event Overview The workshop sought to: 1. Inform and educate participants on the options for Centre Street and Edmonton Trail including: a. Concept A Two Driving Lanes, No Parking Lane b. Concept B One Driving Lane, One Parking Lane c. Concept C One Driving Lane, No Parking d. Concept D Two Driving Lanes, No Parking Change (Underground) 2. Obtain input from residents and businesses on: a. Preference for Concept design options for each segment of both Centre St. and Edmonton Trail. b. Placement preference for each line as a whole. c. Preference for Edmonton Trail vs. Centre Street alignments. d. Key destinations and heritage buildings/buildings of community importance in each segment. e. Community integration and safety concerns. 3. Build confidence in The City s commitment to citizen engagement. Workshop date Location Participants April 23, 2014 Huntington Hills Community Association 73 Participants were invited by and were asked to confirm their registration prior to the event. A range of community audiences attended the workshop that was held on April 23, 2014, including: Those who attended previous workshops Invited community leaders Representatives from key stakeholders (e.g., Transit Camp, Cycling) Community Advisory Group At the start of the workshop, participants were asked to identify key destinations on a map. Destinations noted included: Small businesses The two hour event began with a brief overview of the agenda and the objectives for the evening. Each table discussed a specific segment of an alignment and attendees chose which segment they wished to discuss. Table discussions were facilitated by a project team member. The table discussions were divided into three sections: 1. An introduction to the alignment and segment 2. Discussion of traffic considerations, community integration, and parking considerations within the segment 3. The pros and cons of each option within the segment A representative from each group then reported back to the larger workshop on their group s discussion and outcomes. At the end of the workshop, participants were provided with feedback forms that asked them to rank their segment cross-section design preference, requested additional information about which alignment they preferred and allowed them to provide other comments on important factors to consider for LRT construction and design options Alignment Preference 82% of workshop participants identified Centre Street as their preferred alignment. Participants in the workshop raised concerns that Edmonton Trail, specifically between McKnight Ave. and 64 th Ave., is on the edge of an industrial area; prompting questions from participants such as Why would you put LRT on the least busy street? and If it is too destructive to the community or too costly to go from Edmonton Trail across the river, why consider this option?. At least one participant noted the possibility of joining the Edmonton Trail line to the Centre Street alignment north of 64 th to avoid going through greenspace Segment Preference Workshop participants were asked to fill out a feedback form indicating their preferred option for the segment they discussed at their table. The results below represent the information provided on the feedback forms. Centre Street Segment 1 (Fourth Ave. to 24 th Ave.) 17 respondents 9

11 First Preference: Concept D Underground, Two Driving Lanes, No Parking Change (58%) Pros Cons Least impact on pedestrians at street level Does not affect businesses and residents Increased speed of travel Cost Does not correct traffic congestion issues in the area Street level design is not improved Second Preference: Concept C One Driving Lane, No Parking (44%) Pros Cons Safer pedestrian environment Nice landscaping and street design Less effect on businesses and residents No land acquisition required May result in less traffic Centre Street Segment 2 to 7 (24 th Ave. to Beddington Trail) 68 respondents: Segments 2 and 3 21 respondents Segments 2 and 4 15 respondents Segments 3, 4, and 5 22 respondents Segments 5, 6, and 7 10 respondents Lack of parking options may have negative impact on businesses Possible congestion issues First and Second Preference: Concept A Two Driving Lanes, No Parking Lane (41%) The majority of respondents chose Concept A (two driving lanes, no parking) as their first choice for Centre Street Segments 2 to 7. The majority of those who did not choose Concept A as their first option chose it as their second preference. Pros Keeps high traffic volume confined to one street Offers opportunity for transit-oriented development Good for commuter suburbs Nice streetscapes Best opportunity for turning lanes Can convert one driving lane to offpeak parking Cons Focuses on moving cars more than people or transit users May need more barriers Safety of pedestrian crossings High impact on Centre Street residents Edmonton Trail Segment 1 (Eighth Ave. to 24 th Ave.) 19 respondents First Preference: Concept D Two Driving Lanes, No Parking Change (Underground) (58%) Pros Cons Least impact on pedestrians at street level Does not affect businesses and residents Increase speed of travel Cost Does not correct traffic congestion issues in the area Second Preference: Concept C One Driving Lane, No Parking (44%) Pros Cons Design is more pedestrian friendly Least effect on businesses and residents No land acquisition required May result in less traffic Lack of parking options may have negative impact on businesses Possible congestion issues Edmonton Trail Segment 2 to 5 (24 th Ave. to Beaver Dam Rd.) *Note: segment 6 (greenspace) was not discussed. 14 respondents: Segments 2 and 3 7 respondents Segments 3 and 4 6 respondents Segments 4 and 5 1 respondent First Preference: Concept C One Driving Lane, No Parking (43%) Pros Cons Less driving opportunity may force people onto transit Less impact on the community May cause traffic congestion May increase traffic on alternative routes Edmonton Trail is not a good alignment option Second Preference: Concept D Underground, Two Driving Lanes, No Parking Change (33%) This design option was not part of the group discussions as it was not a discrete option for participants. However, many indicated this as a preference on their feedback form. 10

12 5.1.4 Alignment and Design Considerations Participants were asked to make suggestions to ensure public safety and security on the NC LRT line is maintained. Concern centered on pedestrian safety, speed of the trains, and adjacent traffic. Participants suggested that well-designed crossings teamed with attractive streetscapes would facilitate more pedestrians and were a good way to protect pedestrians from traffic. Additionally, security measures in stations, such as cameras, lighting, and an increased police presence were cited as ways to ensure rider safety. Participants were also asked to suggest design elements that could be used to ensure the LRT blends in with the look and feel of North Central communities. Maintaining the line at ground level and reducing barriers separating the street was a popular design consideration. Slowing the speed of trains through more densely populated areas to give the line more of a streetcar feel was mentioned as a way to integrated it within the community. Additionally, landscaping and sidewalk design, inclusion of greenery, and providing community input into public art selections were cited as ways to ensure the LRT design is reflective of the community. 5.2 Open House Events, April 2014 Two open house events were held in April 2014 to seek public input on the route and alignment options for Centre Street and Edmonton Trail Event Overview The April 2014 open house events built on consultation activities in Events featured multiple display panels and a video display that explained: The themes and comments heard during 2011 and 2013 consultations Background of project to date The two route options under review: Centre Street and Edmonton Trail Segment cross-section design options An overview of LRT technology The open houses sought to: 1. Re-engage the community following summer 2013 consultations to continue planning a route alignment for the NC LRT. 2. Obtain input from residents and businesses on: a. Preference for concept design for each segment of both Centre St. and Edmonton Trail. b. Placement preference for each line as a whole. c. Preference for Edmonton Trail vs. Centre Street alignments. d. Community integration and safety concerns. 3. Build confidence in The City s commitment to citizen engagement. Open House date Location Attendees April 29, 2014 Ascension of Our Lord School 120 April 30, 2014 Thornecliffe-Greenview Community Association 335 The events were promoted using roadside signage (Bold Signs) in high traffic areas of the catchment as well as postings to the Calgary Transit website, project PlaceSpeak website, City of Calgary social media (including Twitter and Facebook) and invitations to existing databases. Databases included people that participated in previous NC LRT events and those who have expressed interest in transportation projects in The City. In addition to the display panels, a map of each alignment option was displayed on the floor of the venue. Participants were able to walk along the route of each alignment using the aerial floor maps to get a visual idea of the location and surrounding area. A project team member was available to answer questions and gather feedback for each segment of the alignments. After walking through the alignment displays participants were asked to complete a preference card that identified which cross- section design they preferred for each alignment. Participants were also provided with a feedback form that asked them to comment on which alignment they preferred overall, and key alignment and design considerations they wish to see incorporated in the outcomes. A supervised kids table was also set up during open house events to provide parents with an opportunity to view the displays without interruption. The Open Houses were supplemented with an online survey posing the same questions as the Open House feedback forms. The alignment and segment preferences include feedback from the open house feedback forms as well as respondents to the online survey. There were 125 respondents to the online survey. A range of community audiences attended the open houses that occurred on April 29 and April 30, 2014, including: Residents and business owners in the catchment area City councillors Key interest groups Community Advisory Group Alignment Preference 77% of open house participants preferred the Centre Street alignment. This preference was identified for a variety of reasons including: the alignment s proximity to residential population and businesses, the alignment s direct route to downtown, and the importance of maintaining the greenspace along Edmonton Trail. 11

13 5.2.3 Segment Preference Participants were asked to rank their design preferences for: Centre Street segment 1 (Fourth Ave. to 24 th Ave.) and Edmonton Trail segment 1 (Eighth Ave. to 24 th Ave.) Centre Street segments 2-7 (24 th Ave. to Beddington Trail) Edmonton Trail segments 2-6 (24 th Ave. to greenspace) Centre Street & Edmonton Trail, segment 1 Participants preferred the underground option for Segment 1 on Centre Street (54%) and Edmonton Trail (46%) Reasons included: - Minimal impact at street level - Expectation that underground LRT travels at higher speeds - The option with two driving lanes and no parking were noted as second preferences on Centre Street (43%) and Edmonton Trail (39%) Centre Street, segments % of participants preferred having two driving lanes with no parking to minimize traffic disruption 88% of participants supported having one lane of traffic with or without parking as their second choice if Concept A is not selected due to land acquisition costs and/or impact to the local residents and businesses Edmonton Trail, segments 2-6 Workshop participants indicated a preference for Concept C (one driving lanes, no parking lane, requires 20m) while 57% of open house participants noted a preference for Concept A (two driving lanes, no parking, requires 30m) 47% of participants supported having one lane of traffic with or without parking as their second choice if having two lanes of traffic is not preferred due to land acquisition costs and impact to the local residents and businesses Alignment and Design Considerations Participants at the open house were also asked to indicate the top three things The City should consider when selecting the preferred route. Regardless of the participant s preferred route, proximity to residential areas, cost, accessibility, travel time, and impact on traffic were noted by many participants as key considerations when choosing an alignment. Participants felt that the Centre Street alignment was closer to existing residential land uses and will provide more ridership. However, they also stressed the importance of minimizing the impact on traffic. They felt that Centre Street was already very busy and wanted to ensure traffic flow along the corridor was maintained. Cost was a consistent consideration throughout all workshop and open house discussions with participants stressing the importance of choosing an option with low cost but fitting for the neighbourhood context. When asked to suggest three ways the design of the LRT can fit in the context of North Central communities many of the responses were similar regardless of route preference. Many residents stressed the importance of transfer opportunities with other transit routes. Accessibility (including low station platforms) and ensuring the stations are walkable and safe were also high on participants design requests. Participants mentioned that safety measures such as adequate lighting, security cameras, and lower train speed through busier areas should be included within the design. 5.3 Open House Events, October 2014 Three open house events were held in October 2014 to seek feedback from the community on the recommended alignment, and to provide an opportunity for comments on the public engagement process. These open houses were the conclusion of the engagement events for the North Central LRT project Event Overview The open houses sought to: 1. Inform and educate participants on the proposed route. 2. Build confidence in The City s commitment to citizen engagement. The open house events were the summation of consultation activities between April 2013 and October Events featured multiple display panels about the recommended alignment as well as summary information as to how the project team arrived at its recommendation. A video providing an aerial illustration of how LRT could fit along Centre Street was also displayed. The events were promoted using roadside signage (Bold Signs) in high traffic areas of the catchment as well as postings to the Calgary Transit website, City of Calgary social media (including Twitter and Facebook) and invitations to existing databases. Project team member were available to answer questions and explain the recommended option to participants. After walking through the alignment displays and speaking with team members, participants were invited to complete an open feedback form. A supervised kids table was set up during open house events to provide parents with an opportunity to view the displays without interruption. Meeting date Meeting location Attendees October 14, 2014 Wild Rose United Church 95 October 15, 2014 Notre Dame High School 54 October 16, 2014 Huntington Hills Community Association 123 As with previous engagement events, community audiences included: Residents and business owners in the catchment area City councillors 12

14 Key interest groups Community Advisory Group members Open House participants were asked to identify where they lived with a pin on a map. The below figure shows that many of the open house participants lived near the alignment options Recommended alignment Participants were invited to share their comments on feedback forms or on blank index cards that could be affixed to the comment wall at each venue. A total of 125 feedback forms and comment cards were received at the October 2014 open houses. Resident Location of Open House Participants, April & October 2014 Feedback forms were unstructured so that participants could share feedback on any aspect of the project. The most common feedback topic was expressions of support for an underground option, in whole or in part, with a number of people noting they preferred the tunneled option despite the increased cost Many people indicated they supported the recommended alignment and choice of low floor LRT, while many other people indicated they preferred another route (Edmonton Trail), river crossing (new bridge) or wider/narrower alignment Some people expressed concerns about the impact on communities surrounding Centre Street including increased non-resident parking and vehicular traffic, as well as reduced pedestrian safety Some people expressed concerns over increased congestion for vehicular traffic on Centre Street Other feedback topics included accessibility, requests for additional community consultation/dissatisfaction with process, extending the line to Airdrie, more focus on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/transition from BRT to LRT, cycling lanes, operational concerns in relation to weather, station locations, and transit-oriented development (TOD) and commendations on a good process. Summary of feedback, October

15 5.4 Community Events Calgary Transit staff attended several community events throughout 2013 and 2014 in an effort to raise awareness of the project and obtain feedback from the public. Meeting date Meeting location Event focus Summer, 2013 Urban Studies class at the University of Calgary Presentation on NC LRT options, criteria analysis and public involvement August, 2013 Chinatown, Centre Street Project awareness and support, public input March, 2014 March, 2014 April, 2014 Urban Studies class at the University of Calgary Tuxedo Park Community Association AGM City of Calgary s Advisory Committee on Accessibility Presentation on NC LRT options, criteria analysis and public involvement Project awareness and support, public input Project awareness and support, public input April, 2014 Supertrain Project awareness and support, promoting upcoming open house and workshop events August, 2014 Chinatown, Centre Street Project awareness and support, public input 6.0 Supporting Communication Activities Event promotion and advertising, including invitations for open houses and workshops were managed by The City of Calgary. 6.1 Surveys Surveys were conducted via feedback forms at the workshops and open houses. Additionally, surveys were available online for two weeks following events on The City s website and on the project discussion platform hosted by PlaceSpeak. 6.2 Website and online engagement The Calgary Transit NC LRT project website ( provided regular project updates and links to consultation and technical reports for public viewing. The site also provided electronic copies of open house display boards and materials to allow those who could not attend events to complete a survey and provide their feedback. The same information was posted on the project discussion platform hosted by PlaceSpeak. Over the course of the project, PlaceSpeak had 3,723 unique page views and 159 people who connected to the topic. 7.0 Conclusion This report provides a summary of the public engagement activities that occurred and the feedback that was gathered between June 2013 and October The feedback and input received from the community during the engagement process helped to shape the route options and are provided for consideration to decision makers along with the project team recommendation. 14

16