June 21, 2022, at 12:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Items 2.1 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

2022-06-21 SR - Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program - Full

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)        the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)         MTE Consultants BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design, and construction administration of Assignment A, Foster Avenue from Oxford Street to Edinburgh Street, in the total amount of $290,236.32, including contingency, excluding HST;

ii)        Spriet Associates BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design, and construction administration of Assignment B, Platts Lane from Oxford Street to Cherryhill Place, in the total amount of $415,712.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

iii)        Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, detailed design, and construction administration of Assignment C, Regent Street from Maitland Street to Colborne Street and Fraser Avenue from Regent Street to Huron Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $478,167.58, including contingency, excluding HST;

iv)        GM BluePlan Engineering Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Assignment D, Leonard Street from Burdick Place to Second Street and Second Street from South of Leonard Avenue to North of Pottersburg Creek reconstruction, in the total amount of $294,074.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

v)         AECOM Canada Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Assignment E, York Street from Clarence Street to Colborne Street reconstruction, in the total amount of $498,875.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

b)        the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-A05)

Motion Passed

2.4   Updates: Blue Box Transition and Next Steps

2022-06-21 SR - Updates Blue Box Transition

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the Blue Box transition process:

a)        the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, being “A by-law to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to respond to requests for proposals, negotiate and enter into any new service agreements or amending existing City of London service agreements with any Producer Responsibility Organization(s) registered with the Resource Productivity Recovery Authority, and/or their designate”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022;

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee with the outcome of negotiations and any executed contract(s) that occur with registered Producer Responsibility Organizations and/or their designate pursuant to clause a) above;

c)        the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and/or their designate BE DIRECTED to enter into discussions with the Producer Responsibility Organization responsible for London and area and/or their designate, on their potential interest in using any of the City of London’s recycling related infrastructure and assets in particular the City-owned Material Recovery Facility during the transition phase (July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2025) and post-transition phase (2026 and beyond) for operational efficiency purposes, economic opportunities, job creation opportunities, and how costs associated with existing capital and new capital investment would be paid, leased and/or shared; and,

d)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee with the next steps for City of London’s Blue Box related infrastructure and assets in particular the City-owned Material Recovery pursuant to clause c) above. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed

2.2   Participation in Canadian Home Builders’ Association Project - Towards Cost-Effective Net-Zero Energy Ready Residential Renovations

2022-06-21 SR - CHBA Net Zero Renovations - Full

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 5, 2022, to authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Canadian Home Builders’ Association and The Corporation of the City of London and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. (2022-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   Updates: Green Bin Program Implementation 

2022-06-21 SR - Updates Green Bin Implementation

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. van Holst

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the Green Bin Program Implementation updates BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Participation in Provincial Cargo E-bike Pilot

2022-06-21 SR - Cargo E-bike Pilot Participation

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the City of London’s potential participation in the Province of Ontario’s Cargo E-bike pilot program:

a)        the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to advise the Province of Ontario that the City of London will be participating in both the commercial and personal components of the Cargo E-bike Pilot Program;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to update relevant municipal by-laws to incorporate cargo e-bikes for personal use and to bring back the proposed by-law amendments to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee; and,

d)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to develop a commercial use cargo e-bike pilot program, including licencing, permitting and by-law amendments and bring back a staff report related to this matter to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot

2022-06-21 SR - E-scooter Pilot Participation

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated June 21, 2022, related to the City of London’s participation in the Province of Ontario’s electric kick-style e-scooter pilot:

a)        the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to advise the Province of Ontario that the City of London will be participating in the personal e-scooter portion of the Provincial pilot, subject to approval of Municipal Council, and will not be participating in the e-scooter share program; it being noted that the Provincial pilot ends December 2024;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to update relevant municipal by-laws to incorporate e-scooters for personal use and bring back a staff report of proposed by-law amendments to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider suggestions from the communications and comments from the delegations heard by the Civic Works Committee, with respect to the Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot, as they prepare the appropriate by-law amendments;

d)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to monitor other municipalities involved with the Provincial e-scooter share program for the purpose of obtaining details pertinent to such plans as the Climate Emergency Action Plan, Mobility Master Plan, and The London Plan; and,

e)        the delegations heard by the Civic Works Committee and communications, with respect to the Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the communications from the following individuals, with respect to this matter, were received:

  • V. Lubrano III; and,

  • S. Elford. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Voting Record:

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the request for delegation status from the following individuals BE APPROVED:

  • D. Lepofsky;

  • C. Schafer;

  • A. Husain; and,

  • T. Nolan;

it being noted that W. Antle withdrew their request for delegation status as per the attached communication.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the delegations heard by the Civic Works Committee and communications, with respect to the Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. van Holst

That part c) BE AMENDED by adding the following, “the Civic Administration be directed to consider suggestions from the communications and comments from the delegations heard by the Civic Works Committee, with respect to the Participation in Provincial E-scooter Pilot, as they prepare the appropriate by-law amendments”.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

CWC DEFERRED MATTERS as at June 13, 2022

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at June 13, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The meeting adjourned at 2:25 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (2 hours, 37 minutes)

It will draw. I know, maybe I should. Okay. I’m just working on this.

Good afternoon. This is the ninth meeting, the Civic Works Committee. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication ports for Council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request to make a request for any city service. Please contact accessibility at London dot CA or 519 661 2489 extension to 425 to make a request specific to this meeting.

Please contact CWC at London dot CA. I will ask committee members to turn on your video feed for a moment just for we could verify quorum for this meeting. I’d seen Councillor Van Merbergen already just for committee members and the public’s information. Mayor Holder is not with us today and I have Councillor Fai.

Mel are in chambers with me and also from staff. Kelly. Share is not here today and Jay Stanford is in her stead with us today. I’m also going to acknowledge that today is indigenous solidarity day.

If you have an opportunity. Please take in some events and we recognize the traditional lands on which we gather today. I will look to committee for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none.

Our consent items today. We have 2.1 through the 2.4 looking to see if any committee members would like anything pulled separate serve animals. Yes, ma’am chair. Perhaps we could talk about 2.2 and 2.3.

Those pulled for a separate vote. Um, or just or just chatting about them today. Well, am I, it might. It might turn out to be more than a 5 minute conversation, depending on the answers to some questions, but okay, it’s fine.

We could pull those. Okay, so we’ll pull 2.2 and 2.3 for Councillor Van Holst. So I’m looking for a mover and a seconder of 2.1 and 2.4 moved by Councillor Van Merbergen seconded by Councillor Helmer looking for questions and comments for 2.1 and 2.4. I’m not seeing any.

I’m calling the question in the e-scribe closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0. 2.2 participation in Canadian home builders association project towards cost efficient net zero energy ready residential renovations. Mr.

Stanford is with us today to answer any questions on this. Councillor Van Holst, did you want to ask some questions first? Please proceed. Sure.

Thank you very much. Madam chair and through you to our staff. Just wanted to ask a couple questions to get a sense of. Our overall investment in this project.

So I noticed that we’re going to have a conference here in London or a training session. And I wonder if that was for the London area alone, or it was for. More national project because this is taking place across a number of cities across Canada. Mr.

Stanford. Sure. Much of the program is still being defined. But what is what we know of an example, such you highlighted is one where that is to focus on the local home builders association, the renovators that are local, but also to bring in the expertise from the other communities that are involved in this project.

So it’s actually going to be accomplishing both. And as the project moves forward. This is one of the advantages is the learnings are to be shared from one province to the next. And it is these through these local sessions that these opportunities will probably be highlighted the most.

It doesn’t mean that those will be the only opportunities. And in many cases here we’re also looking at regional opportunities around London too. Council examples. Thank you very much.

So let my neck. I come back to that. My next question is that there’s a $15,000 financial commitment that we have. But what, what are the non financial commitments that that London’s making.

Are we, is this, are we providing venues and other things for this. Thank you. To the chair. Those are those are examples of what we’ll be providing.

The major one here is in kind staff time. And that will come from sort of two main areas. And on the call here today is Mr Jamie skimming who’s quite involved in this project. There will be time from folks dealing with the climate change aspects of the work here.

But more importantly, the commitment from our folks in the building division area and taking their expertise and offering that up. And at the same time, learning as they go. This will help them apply the knowledge here as builders begin to implement more of these innovations with respect to higher levels of energy efficiency. In homes that are not only in existence, but also new builds into the future.

Thanks. Well, I love the idea of innovation. Are, are we going to be sending people to other communities as well? Is that another expense?

Just getting back to the idea of a conference. I think it’s great. I thought, wow, London’s going to get to host it, but it seems like these are going to occur in the other cities. Well, and we’re going to be sending, sending people to those.

That’s, that’s an additional expense. If I may through the chair, right now with the, the popularity of online, it is so much easier now to, to, to learn from other communities, other renovators online to reduce those kinds of costs. So at this point, no, those are not meant to be the big budget items that we’re looking at. The city’s $15,000 is to explore and push activities here locally for the benefit of our local renovators.

The benefit of the local community. And also as we begin to really highlight the needs of additional home energy efficiency to match your budgets. And as we talked about during the climate emergency action plan, getting down to that household level of what people can truly afford to do and what they need to look forward to in the future and what financing programs are available and what type of grant programs may also be available. Councilor.

Thank you very much. So that gives me much better idea of the scope of this. Can you tell me, is there a particular new technology that we might be investigating through, throughout this. I mean, there’s, there’s some very well established strategies for reducing.

Energy loss and, and emissions in homes, but what kind of new things might we be seeing, or do we know that yet. Okay. Madam chair, if I may, Mr. Skimming has had probably the most recent conversation.

So I’m going to ask. If he can come on screen and offer up any insights he might have from those most recent conversations. Thank you. Welcome, Mr.

Skimming. Please proceed. Thank you. Through the chair for Councilor van holst based on work that we have done in the past with the London Home Builders Association and natural resources Canada on retrofitting existing homes.

We’re probably looking at a mix of what we call building envelope issues that’s essentially insulation and traffic proofing, including the idea of exterior cladding, as opposed to work that’s done in the interior of the house. There’s also going to be a mix very likely anything to do with space heating. Probably be looking at solutions that reduce the reliance on natural gas use, or are kind of used my very much like hybrid home heating, basically uses a combination of electric space heat with gas backup, but I know we’ve done some work in this area in the past. So we kind of have an idea of what we think will be coming forward.

Thank you. Councilor Madam chair, those are my those are my questions about this item. Thank you. Happy to move it.

Thank you. Councilor van holst had moved it. Is there a seconder. Seconded by Councilor Halmer looking for their further questions or comments from committee, saying none, calling the question.

Okay. Thank you. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0.

You item 2.3 being an update for the green bin program implementation. Mr Stanford, could I just ask you to give a brief overview of this one is we’ve been fighting and staff has been fighting so hard behind the scenes, trying to make things work and looks like hope is come to meet reality. Thank you, Madam chair. Over the last year, since we were we were before you when we purchased collection vehicles.

We had hoped that we would actually have better news by now about the schedule of when those vehicles would arrive in London. And in fact, what we have is a partial information. And we can confirm now that we will have vehicles about half of them that are required about 13 in by April of 2023. Unfortunately, working closely with the vehicle manufacturer, they are not able at this point in time to identify when the next 13 vehicles will be produced in 2023.

That is something we will not know until September of this year. It is the nature of how the building schedule for the vehicle manufacturers works. They have to line up so many different resources. Obviously parts equipment, labor, and right now with supply chain issues.

Well, not only in Ontario, Canada, around the world. These are items that have become extremely difficult. So as, as we were preparing our report, we went right down to the 11th hour to see if we could get any additional news we were not able to. So what you have before you today is our best information on perhaps the most key piece to the program is when the vehicles will arrive.

What we are suggesting now, based on the information we have in hand, is that we have to push the entire program into 2023. And because people are so interested on when a start date might be based on current information, we have some comfort that we’re looking at a July start of next year. And Madam Chair and members of CWC that that is subject to change if we get further information this fall that things are getting worse, not better. Assuming that we have the same information as we do today, roll out would begin in July, and go over a several a few month period right into October of 2023.

So that is the best information we have at this point in time. From a staff perspective, working with our fleet folks are purchasing folks. This is the word. It’s the best we can do, but it is what we, it’s the cards that we have been dealt with working closely with the manufacturer who wants to serve us as best as possible.

We’re all rolling in the same direction. It is just going to take more time, Madam Chair. Thank you, looking to committee for a mover and a seconder and then questions. Councillor Fai from alarm, seconded by Councillor van Holst.

And Councillor van Holst, did you want to start the speakers list as well? Did you have questions? Yes, I can do that. Well, it’s unfortunate that we’ve got these delays and that they, they might become worse.

However, if we do start out the program with, with half the vehicles. What would that, what would that program look like? Would we be doing half the city or would we be picking up the green bins half as often. So, perhaps staff can provide some details about that.

Mr Stanford. Thank you. And through the chair, we have determined it actually would not be possible to start with half the vehicles. This is why we are not able to recommend at this point.

And April startup, we believe that we will need at least about 75% of the vehicles road ready here in London. And that is why we believe July is an appropriate start date. Therefore, what we would be doing is actually phasing the city in over a three to four month period. At that point, of course, as members of the committee know, we’re also changing the entire city from a six day pickup cycle to a five day pickup cycle.

And what I mean that green bin would be picked up on a weekly basis recycling would be moving to a weekly basis and garbage would be moving to an every two week basis. And this has been now done through many, many municipalities Ontario and, and, and the bugs of that system have been worked out. So that is what we will be implementing here in London. To do half the city with the current service and half the city with the new service would be extremely problematic.

This is why we have to have the majority of the vehicles in place. And that is why July has been fit is a target date. So it would not be a 50 50 split. Thank you.

A follow up. Councilor Dan host. Thank you Madam chair. It seems like my internet may be able to slow.

I’m hearing Mr Stanford fine. So, I guess my next question then. Let me move on to the idea of our mixed waste. So we were going to do a pilot for a multi residential buildings on mixed waste.

And how, how is that going or proceeding. Mr Stanford, through the chair. Right now, there are no available mixed waste processing facilities in Ontario. That would be that would be available for London.

The last one closed its doors about a year and a half to two years ago. We have been in conversation with others that may be interested, but there is nothing moving in the forefront anywhere in Ontario at this point in time. What we have suggested in our report is that with the money that has been established for the pilot project. It was approximately $500,000 that our report coming forward in the fall with layout opportunities to offer a different kind of program.

It would be not quite obviously would not be a curbside green bin program for multi residential sector, but it would be an opportunity for a number of apartment buildings to take part in a program where they would take the food scraps that are generated and bring them down to a central location, somewhere on the property that would then be picked up on a weekly basis. So that is one of the ideas that other communities have put in place that we’re now currently looking at. We have not given up hope on a mixed waste processing facility being established somewhere in Ontario, just all the municipalities that we’re pursuing that have all come to a halt right now except for one. The region to Durham continues to pursue, but it is only for opportunities within their border.

Councilor. Thank you. So, I think you’ve picked a good strategy as an alternative, so that having that, that location where people can put in, put in those green bin and food waste items will be, will be, I think, appropriate. So, have we, have we decided yet what kinds of things would be in the green bin.

So, there was the idea of pet waste and diapers, etc. Those kinds of issues has that been worked out. Yeah. Through the chair.

There is really one main item that still remains, and that is what to do with pet waste. Because of the delay with the collection vehicles, we have been unable to go to the marketplace to determine how the green bin material will be processed. Now that we’ve reached this point in time where we’ve got better information on when trucks will be available, we can go to the marketplace. It is that it is from the marketplace that we believe will get the final information on pet waste.

It’ll be in the form of whether there’ll be an incremental cost associated with processing pet waste. That information will be available and back to civic works for a final decision on that item. That will be in the fall of this year. So that’s the one remaining item, all the other items such as food scraps, soiled paper, that has already been decided upon.

Those are very common items are to be collected. The other item that is outstanding, not ready from a composting perspective. Madam chair, but it is the item associated with diapers and other sanitary products will have similar information available in the fall. On what municipalities have achieved with those programs in the way of other opportunities, if any, that have been provided to their community counselor.

Thank you. Well, thinking about the delays. I suppose there’s opportunities to see some new technologies. I believe in the fall there’s going to be a green tech expo happening in London.

And I hope that we’ll see some options come forward that might be a value to us. If somebody’s got a good mixed waste option, I hope they’ll come and and show off their their wares. In terms of other questions about this, Madam chair, perhaps my colleagues have some. I may ask another question or two.

Thank you. And just for committee’s information, we did have a public liaison committee meeting of the W 12 a landfill. Last week, and those residents were also made aware of the delays to this change in waste management. Looking to committee to see if there’s any other questions or comments at this time.

Anybody else, counselor, counselor, anybody. Last call. If you have more questions, Councilor Van Halst, though it’s been moved and seconded already. So that’s been done.

Hey, Councilor. I’m happy to vote on the item. Perfect calling the question closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. That concludes our four consent items before us today. Scheduled items. We have none items for direction.

We have two. Four point one participation in provincial cargo E bike pilot. Mr. Stanford, could you give a brief introduction to this one and then we’ll turn it over to committee for questions and direction.

Thank you, Madam chair. This is a project that started with the provincial government. They released what was referred to as a pilot project and provided some information to municipalities that may wish to consider implementing either personal E cargo bikes or commercial E cargo bikes. So we looked at the opportunity.

It was part of an engagement process here in London back in 2021. And essentially when we’re talking about these E cargo bikes. We’re talking about bikes that are electric, but also the cargo component is something that is quite large. It is a unit that is over 55 kilograms in weight.

I think it’s actually easier if I could turn to the committee’s attention on page 51. There’s just a few examples of what these type of E cargo bikes look like. These would actually function very similar to bicycles in the city of London. And from the pilot project perspective, once again, to reiterate, there’s those two choices.

There are ones that can be owned from a personal perspective. And staff are suggesting that this is something that should be considered here in London and that appropriate bylaw amendments be made. We’re also recommending that a commercial program be established, one that involves licensing for the commercial E cargo bikes, one or two municipalities. I believe it’s Ottawa and Toronto are already engaged in this.

They have established programs. So we have an opportunity to learn from their experience as we have so far, as well as maybe a doc, some of the materials that they’ve already put in place when it comes to licensing. We look at these systems as potentially some, some additional very powerful choices for moving cargo in some very small areas of London. When I say small, very potentially confined areas like the downtown area, all these village area, but also in some pockets around where the ability to move cargo for commercial purposes would be ideally done in a sort of a non greenhouse gas generating opportunity.

So from a staff perspective, we would like to support both programs moving forward and bring back to you subject to Committee and Council approval, the relevant municipal bylaw changes, and what our program would look like. This would go in place for a couple years and be part of the overall Ontario provincial project. Meaning that there would be a period of time before the provincial government made a final decision on its recommendations on how these would move forward in London, but would be part of the information base. Thank you.

Thank you. The staff recommendation is a through D, looking to see if anyone committee is interested in moving the staff recommendation. Okay, so looking to Committee, if no one counts or animals. Thank you very much.

I’m not sure that I’m interested in having London participate in the pilot. I’m satisfied that there are other larger communities trying to do this. And then of course that we will have to wait until the province makes a decision so it seems to me like we could be wasting time and energy duplicating what other communities are doing. We can ask about, about the, the e-bikes themselves I see that they can be very large.

And even if they did fit in a bike lane those that are that can be four meters long. Can they get around corners, such as the ones where at bridges and hail where we’ve where we’ve put in small medians to to protect regular cyclists. Like these things would get stuck and create some, some problems so I see some difficulties that we might experience with bikes that are four feet wide and 12 feet long. So, what can staff give us an idea of some downsides of these things I recognize that an electric bike will have no emissions.

However, we also have to avoid the other problems that they might pose as well. Mr Stanford a response please. Through the chair, there definitely are some downsides and that is one of the reasons for actually conducting a pilot project and being part in participating would be to be how these can be overcome. In case of a very large cargo e-bike, as you’ve identified some bike lanes might not be able to accommodate that, but of course they are permitted to be traveling along with other motor vehicles.

So, these, some of the restrictions would not be as difficult as one might think. Parking considerations will be very important, and of course not walking sidewalks, a variety of those things, things that actually are in place right now. When it comes to delivery vehicles would have to be structured specifically for this type of program. So we see that, yes, there are some barriers, but we do believe that the barriers can be overcome.

We also believe the overall uptake in London would be light in the beginning. Other communities are anticipating in the way of 20 to 40 units moving around. And it’s Ottawa and Toronto that are currently participating in London. I don’t wish to guess right now on how many would be above that size.

We have heard interest from a couple businesses that would like to explore this. There are some right now with smaller units that are working effectively in London. So it is a bit of a once again, it’s participating to move this forward based on the guidelines that have been brought to our attention by the provincial government. And from a staff perspective, we believe from a climate emergency action plan perspective, a mobility master plan perspective.

This would be something good to go forward now. And again, of course, subject to committee and council’s decisions on these. Thank you. I will recognize councilor van Holst again, and I have to our speakers list and councilor helmer will be after councilor van Holst.

Thank you very much. So the next question I’ve got, Madam chair, through you is about the weight. So the maximum weight of these bikes is 55 kilograms. Or sorry, that’s, these are bikes that have a weight of more than 55 kilograms.

What’s the, what’s the maximum weight and of the bike itself. And is there a maximum to the load it can be carrying, because that that momentum may present a risk as well to staff. Thank you, Madam chair. I’m not sure.

And if a maximum weight has been established. I, if I may Madam chair, Miss Allison Miller is on the call as well. And she has been very involved in this particular program. She may have some insight on if there’s a maximum weight on any of these units.

But just to clarify, these are for units that are 55 kilograms or more from a weight perspective without cargo. Hello, if you’re with us. You have comments to provide. Thanks Jay and through you, Madam chair.

There isn’t a maximum weight established, but just based on what the cities of Ottawa and Toronto are doing their pilots for the commercial side of the cargo bikes are looking at cargo bikes that are over 120 kilograms. They can get quite large. I guess the advantage is that for for those companies using them, they’re using smaller vehicles then then motor motorized trucks, often for moving smaller, smaller amounts. Thank you.

And how fast do we expect these vehicles to be moving. Mr Stanford, the through the chair, the provincial government has identified not any faster than 32 kilometers per hour. That is from their particular guideline. Should the city of London wish to have something different?

That would be something that we would discuss with legal services as a bylaw amendments were prepared. Okay, well, I guess I see two challenges there. One is the speed of the bikes. Were they to travel in the bike lane being too fast.

And then the corollary would be traveling in a regular traffic lane. I think I would just move a that we receive the report for information. Councillor Hummer. And if anyone else from committee or visiting counselors as we do have Councillor Hummer and Councillor Lewis and Councillor Hill, you’re here today as well.

If you have questions, please just raise your virtual hand and I will add you to the speakers list. I’m going to move the full staff recommendation. I think it’s a good idea to allow for the cargo e-bikes and to see how they work here in our city. I certainly heard London described by many people over the years as a great test market for lots of great ideas.

You know, we’re not a huge city like Toronto, we’re one of the fastest growing cities in Ontario. And I think if cargo e-bikes can work well in doing deliveries here in London, they probably can do the same in many different kinds of communities. We’ve got some examples already in London of businesses making use of this cheaper and more environmentally friendly way of delivering goods I think about on move organics for example they’ve been doing this for a long time, with a relatively small cargo bike that moves groceries around to people. Local organic food delivered in a very cost effective environment, environmentally friendly way and I think we should be encouraging that kind of innovation in our city and certainly not getting in the way of it by refusing to allow.

That’s sort of thing to happen or to participate in a pilot like the province has offered. The pilot is scheduled to run until 2026 so just sort of waiting and seeing is actually waiting for quite a long time. And I’d like to see us move ahead at the cost or minimal. I think the opportunity is positive one.

Why not go for it. So I’ll move the staff recommendation. Hopefully it’s a tremendous success here in London and other municipalities can learn from our pilot. Okay, that was a mover and I see.

Councilor Feithmiller has his hand up with a second. And when it comes time, I will have the clerk separate a out separately from the rest as that was Councilor Vanholz interest earlier to allow committee to vote as they wish. Next on my speaker’s list, I have Councilor van Merberg again. Thank you chair.

My question or one of my questions revolves around the issue of insurance will is the province specifying what is required for insurance on these vehicles as has already been discussed. They can be relatively large. And there could very well be the odd accident here and there and that raises the specter of liability and insurance. So will requirements be decided by the municipality in this case, London, or is this provincially dictated to us.

I’ll ask that staff question to Mr Stanford and also if there’s a difference in insurance per personal versus commercial use if you just specified that as well. Thank you and through the chair. A very good question. We do not have that answer right now that’ll be something that we will further explore.

It would be part of our licensing program with determining what requirements are necessary, if any. Or as the personal E cargo bikes. That would be, I believe the responsibility of the individual, as it would be right now if they were purchasing their own general E bike. So this would be information that we would bring back forward as part of item D on your recommendation, our report back dealing with my law amendments and the licensing program.

Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Because I do think going forward. This is going to be an important aspect.

And then I wanted to clarify the length of time of this pilot. I thought I read 2024. And then I also thought I read 2026. Could I get that clarified how what the fiery is on this.

Mr Stanford through the chair. There are actually two different dates because one deals with the scooter program, which goes to the end of 2024. The E by cargo program goes into 2026. Okay, so thank you.

Thank you. So, just to follow up on that, given the length of time, if for whatever hypothetical reason we find things are going south. Can we bail from this pilot project or are we committed for the full term. Staff.

Through the chair, the provincial government has assigned this as a municipal responsibility to further the bylaw so it would be entirely up to municipal council. We would have to be very clear though with any potential company bringing a unit in on the potential downside of what you’ve just suggested to make sure that an investment which could be in the order of. It could be around $10,000. So that it’ll be part of the consideration that will have to be weighed.

But yes, we are. We would be prepared to exit on council’s direction. Councilor Van Hall, Van Merberg and. Okay, so we can we can solidly say then.

We have the authority to cancel at any time. It’s not dictated by the province to finish the term say to 2026. Just to confirm. That was a yes, Mr Stanford for clarification through the chair that that is correct that it is a call.

Okay. Thank you. That’s it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome, Councilor, and please proceed. Thank you chair. I just wanted to leave some comments on this idea.

Or this project, this project. I was recently in Morocco in Casablanca and it’s, it’s a large city. It’s about the same size as London, but has around, I’d say 4 million people. They use this service and it works really well.

They have, they don’t have dedicated areas for these types of bikes, but they, it’s shared with other types of bikes and it works well. And I don’t know it’s it’s fully integrated and it’s a success story in my mind. Everything works very well together. So I wouldn’t worry about different speeds.

I feel like everybody kind of fits together. You make room for those people when it’s there, you’ll make room for them. Thanks. Thank you, looking to committee or visiting counselors.

Thank you chair and through you, I have a couple of questions for staff. And first up, I want to thank my colleagues for some of their questions because I know this has been here a few times. And this is the first time I’ve been through this conversation. So, so I do appreciate some of the background as we’ve been going through this.

One of my questions is around the actual infrastructure and the rules for mobility, how it works. And as someone who’s a pedestrian downtown, who does a lot of walking. I see and I’ll use Colburn as a really good example. There is hesitation for people taking the bus, trying to figure out when they can cross a bike path when they can’t cross a bike path.

Who has that right of way. And as I look at this program, now we’re looking at theoretically putting commercial type vehicles into those lanes. And, and I guess, I guess my question is, as we move forward, our situations like that going to be looked at. So that we at least need to, whether we need to paint information or educate people better on who has the right of way in these spaces that we’re going to be using.

So that when a bus pulls up, who’s waiting, who’s going and so on and so forth. So that, that really is my question around the education piece and around the actual infrastructure. Do we look at modifying it in a way so that there is no question. When, when things like that happen.

Do you want to move forward? Through the chair. A very important question. We are actually dealing with this right now as part of our community engagement with the mobility master plan.

Because these are the kinds of items that people are raising as the city tries to find improved opportunities for people to move around the city, the city that, for example, have less impact on climate change. I think that more and more of these questions need to be answered. So right now I wish I could, I could say that I’ve got a four page brochure that has all those answers. We do not, but we are starting to hear these same questions more and more.

So this is something that we are turning our minds to. We had a good discussion not too long ago about the bike lanes, and the buses and how people get off the bus and where there’s a potential conflict. These questions are underway and more and more information is being produced in the mobility master plan is allowing us to have more and more conversations on that matter as well as we build in towards the new, the new plan for the city. Council, thank you for that.

And I guess just one more question on that. Again, as someone who walks the TVP on a regular basis. I see that in the report here, the vehicles themselves, the TVP will be something that in essence will be off limits for these vehicles. I think, well, I think that looks good on paper.

I think practicality tells us that the TVP is one of our real gems in the city, but it also is something that gets us from point A to point B at times very, very quickly. Is there any thought process as we look at the TVP and as the city grows and as the city changes, almost creating a two lane system on the TVP so that we have a lane there for cyclists for e bikes for e scooters, but a dedicated pedestrian space so that people can function harmoniously in that space. Through the chair. Again, this is a very key item as part of the mobility master plan, because we know people like to go the shortest route between A and B for the most part.

The idea of twinning the Thames Valley Parkway has come up time and time again. Some areas of the TVP do represent opportunities for a twinning other areas unfortunately do not. So some thinking has gone into this more thinking will be as part of the mobility master plan. There’s also emerging tool is that any type of changes in the TVP of course go through many, many different types of approvals, given the nature of what we’re dealing with, as well as the cost point associated with that.

So these are kinds of these are items that we don’t have answers today, but we’ll be and are being considered as part of the mobility master plan. We help people move around more quickly. And what are the areas that need to be protected and kept as is all key parts follow up. No, I’m good.

Thank you. Thank you for those answers. Thank you. Councilor Van Holst.

Madam chair, I appreciate Councilor Hameu’s comments that she’s seen this work just fine. I would hope that would be the case here in London too. I think a big issue in terms of all of these types of vehicles with respect to pedestrians is it’s just courtesy if we could. One is for courteous drivers and I’m not sure we have a reputation for that, but that would solve a lot.

And if we were looking on for other vehicles and and certainly pedestrians and trying to be as courteous as possible that will go a long way to making these kinds of things work. I want to ask about the, the staff investment and time in coming up with this and I think that was really my objection is that we’ve got other communities looking at looking at a pilot and working off the bugs. We need to be doing this too, because I know we’ve got, we’ve got a big budget crunch coming up with inflation, and so having us work on many things at the same time is not the direction that we may want to go. However, this could turn out to be something like the, the food trucks where we were worried they would, there would be too many of them but as would suggest that it’s, it’s probably a small number that would be on the streets.

What is it going to take for us to prepare the bylaws and, and, and also administer the, the licensing, Mr Stanford, through the chair, from a budget perspective, we believe that the majority of this, if not all can be done in house, following the models that have been created in Toronto and Ottawa. We don’t believe our situation will be very different than those two municipalities. So it is really just one of time, and this is why in our report we’ve indicated that we will come back with a program. We have not indicated a date at this point, it’ll likely be into the fall.

The councilors raised a very good point, we do carefully pick and choose what projects we wish to work on, and by bringing to your attention. And there are some that we indicate that it’s, it’s going to require more staff time than necessary. And it’s in some cases it’s something that we can’t work on right now. It’s an interesting part of what the province has done here by setting up a pilot project.

It has brought forward the opportunity for municipalities to say no, provided that some do say yes. So in this case here, the opportunity and we believe it’s something that can help our business sector, especially in some of the downtown areas, where mobility is a challenge, and that this actually could be something that is good for business. We, we rate all that carefully as part of our selection here and, and felt this was one, a good one to move forward on a number of accounts. Is there a follow up.

Yes, thank you, regarding the timing of receiving it. If we get a policy in the, in the fall. When do you see rolling out the program or are actually doing the licensing. I, I would hesitate to, to experiment with these kinds of things in the winter.

I think spring might be a good time to, to start, but there might be some, some other challenges that we have in with snow, because certainly these aren’t going to be well, they’re not going to be four wheel drive, because they’ve only got three wheels. So maybe a staff could just comment on when on that might be. Mr Stanford, through the chair, very good advice on timing. We were looking at a program for spring of 2023 provided that we can get all the information together and have any unanswered questions, answer.

So that is our plan would be for spring implementation. We would over the winter reach out to a number of groups that have expressed interest in this particular mode to gauge what would be required for them to have something in place for next summer, or maybe it even takes a little longer than that to make that kind of a business decision. Can you satisfy. Yeah, one more question if I may, Madam chair.

So, Councilor Hummer has described one kind of business that would, would make, has made use of this. You described, and through you, Madam chair, Mr Stanford, he was suggesting that they’ve been in contact with us, some other businesses. Can you give us a sense of what those businesses might be. And how we could expect to see this program exploited in the future.

Mr Stanford, through the chair, what we’ve learned from, for example, through the city of Toronto, of course, is a couple of their companies that have signed up. One being, I think it’s pure later, of course, they have operations in many cities around the world. And those are the kinds of opportunities where someone exploring this work in Toronto or Ottawa would be, we would reach out to them to indicate that London also has this particular opportunity, because they would actually already have this experience with different types of the E cargo bike arrangements. Locally, as Councilor Hummer pointed out, on the on the move organics is already doing something like this.

We’re aware of one of the bicycle shops already having a mobile maintenance vehicle. And we’ve heard from a couple other bike shops that might also explore that opportunity of moving tools around to where services are required. So it does represent, I would say, a very small way in the business opportunities. At the same time, it creates that form for others to explore on what could be done in a very environmentally friendly way, very similar to a people get out of the gate with car share, bike share, all these kinds of systems, begin by the city setting the stage, and welcoming these kinds of opportunities.

We have a place here, staff believe this is one that would be good to work on because the uptake will be small to start off with, but actually that might be very advantageous because you can work out the bunks together. Thank you. And if I may Madam chair, you can leave those all together. I think I’ve, I’ve been convinced that this might be a good thing to, to experiment with.

And I do like. And I would ask, though, just as one final clarification, this is different than people who have an e bike with the trailer. So we see that often in the city to somebody who’s got a bike or, or an e bike and a trailer behind it that that’s that is not this kind of program. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you chair. I mean, when you take a step back and look at this, especially when you see the report with the photos, it’s almost like you’re looking back in time, about 150 years ago or so, when of course commerce was conducted like this. And then we look at ice cream bicycles that I believe are still on the roads, like the old Dickey D’s and other such purveyors of frozen treats that the kids love.

I mean, they were, they’ve got to be at least 60 70 years that they’ve been on the streets. And as I mentioned, they may still be on the streets. How are they govern now, like, for example, these ice cream bicycles. What, what governs them and what’s the difference between what they’re doing and what we’re planning other than this small electric motor, I believe.

Mr Stanford, any comments on the ice cream history in London and where it’s at now and light sensing of what they’re doing now. And through the chair, I am actually officially stumped because I do not know, I will see if Ms Miller might have that answer if not, it will be an answer we will get you. Okay, no, no, that’s fine. It just seems to beg the question because they look like this.

They’re cargo bikes, and they just happen to carry ice cream, and they’ve been doing it for decades. So I’m just, I’m just curious how, how they’re governed. I don’t believe there’s anyone from business licensing, but it might very well be as we do with hot dog vendors. I, unfortunately, I just don’t have that answer.

So that’s fine. Thank you. Now I’m picturing an electric cargo dog vendor card for street meat going around the city. And I was at a food truck or a cargo bike.

No further speakers, and obviously it’s past lunch time for me calling the question, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero for that. Our second item under items for direction is 4.2. This is a participation in provincial e-scooter project pilot.

We are going my recommendation on how to handle this one today is Mr Stanford’s going to give a brief two minute presentation on what is before us today. And then there are several five people have actually requested delegation status in front of the CWC today. One of them’s not here. So at that point, I would look to committee to see if you’d allow those four people who are with us here today and are ready to make their comments to us.

After Jay’s had his opportunity to speak. So Jay, please proceed with your brief introduction of what’s before us today gets on the same page and then we’ll hear from the public as committee decides. Thank you Madam chair. So your report item 4.2.

This highlights once again at provincial government pilot project that was launched in January of 2020. And it was a five year pilot so essentially it goes till December 2024 and like the E cargo. It opens up two opportunities, one for municipality to consider personal e scooters, something that actually is available for purchase right now in London and across Ontario and very much another locations. The other project opportunity is one referred to as e scooter share.

And so essentially that is a operating system where you scooters are brought into municipality under a sharing arrangement. Very similar to what other communities have done with bike share systems. So in conversation and a report back to CWC and I believe it was early 2021. We had a potential opportunity and one or both these opportunities and brought them to the community.

And in fact, our research involved a number of different points of information. We learned from municipalities both in 2021 and 2022. We’ve reviewed information submitted to us by vendors of these scooter systems. We reviewed a number of online sources as well as information provided to us by members of the community and other municipalities.

In those municipalities, including community groups and other representatives from organizations. We heard from several of our city advisory committees on this matter, as well as we ran the engagement process or get involved website, all in 2021. What’s before you today are, it’s both parts of this project for the personally scooters we looked at three opportunities, allowing them, basically, as is, including updating the bylaws, allowing personally scooters with additional restrictions. Plus, of course, updating the bylaws, or do not take part in the provincial project, which is an opportunity.

We looked at these three and as our report indicates, city staff are recommending that we actually proceed in the pilot project for a two to two and a half year period, looking at the personal scooters with appropriate bylaw put in place. As we looked at other municipalities engaged with the personally scooters we noted Ottawa Hamilton Windsor York region Brampton and Mississauga, all involved in this particular project, and the region of Waterloo looking at joining the pilot project. July 1 of this year. We also noted though that Toronto city of Toronto, after conducting a fair bit of research chose not to be involved in either of the opportunities through the pilot project, the personal scooters, or the scooter share system with respect to the scooter share system.

We also looked at three opportunities, full participation in the in the pilot project subject to of course bringing a vendor on board with a certain amount of vehicle or a certain amount of e scooters, and we were suggesting in the order of about 250. Similarly, we looking at one with more restrictions, same type, bringing in a scooter share system vendor, but having additional restrictions on where these could be operated. And then the final option was do not join the provincial pilot, but basically follow the community’s very closely on the work that they have been proceeding with, and a key part of this once again is also to learn from the mobility master plan and a climate emergency action plan perspective. So in the case of the e scooter share system, we’re recommending not to proceed and to follow the other municipalities very, very closely, including a municipality such as Toronto has chosen not to implement these types of systems the e scooter share system.

But I’m sure just to summarize very quickly, we are saying yes to the personally scooter system, and staff are recommending against joining the e scooter share system from a pilot project perspective. And I’m happy to answer any questions on this now and like you look forward to hearing from the delegations. I’d like to come to see if you’re fine to proceed with the four delegations that are before us today, before I read out, which for it would be in and which order. Hey, I have a mover and a second or mover and second or he’d only do one.

The answer five malar is moving to receive the delegations. Councilor van holst is seconding calling the question on simply receiving the four delegations that are with us today. Sir van holst your hand is risen. Do you okay.

I’m sorry, I’m not in chair, I don’t see my hand, am I stuck or good, though, losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So we will receive our delegations today. There are four with us today for each of our delegates coming with us today.

You have five minutes. And you can make your comments, or say what questions you would have, those staff will not answer you directly and then committee will finish debating this after we’ve heard what you’ve had to say. And thank you for joining us today. In order that they will appear before us is D Loprovsky, D.

Shafer, A, Hussein, and T. Nolan. So D Loprovsky with accessibility for Ontario’s with Disability Act Alliance. Thank you for being with us today.

And you have five minutes and please proceed when you’re ready. Okay, can you just confirm that you can hear me. Okay. We can hear you perfectly.

Thank you so much. Well, fantastic. Thank you so much for allowing us to speak. We are a coalition of people with disabilities from around Ontario that advocates for accessibility for people with disabilities.

We strongly commend your staff recommendation, not to proceed with rental e scooters. However, we respectfully disagree with the recommendation that you legalize the use of what they call personal e scooters, what I will call personally owned e scooters. And we say this for the following reasons. First, an e scooter, whether whoever owns it presents twin serious dangers to vulnerable people with disabilities to vulnerable seniors, small children and others, proven in city after city.

First, the silent menace of an unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured, unhelmeted, e scooter riding racing upwards of 20 kilometers an hour silently coming out of nowhere presents a serious danger of personal injuries or even worse. We have sent you a brief that lists 25 articles from around the world just giving you some examples of the horrible injuries. They cause, and remember, they’re silent. So a blind person like me, or if you are cited, you, if the e scooters coming from behind, you won’t know they’re there until it’s in my case impossible to get out of the way and in your case, possibly pretty hard to get out of the way.

So that’s the first serious danger to safety. We didn’t hear the word safety, but it should be the first word that you consider. The second problem is that when left strewn on the sidewalks, as they are in city after city where they are and they present an accessibility barrier, a tripping hazard for blind people and insurmountable impediment for people in real church. Now, to the credit of the city staff, they, unlike the staff in Brampton or Ottawa, but very much like the staff in Toronto acknowledge and recognize that these e scooters present an accessibility and safety concern.

That’s why they’re recommending against the rental option. However, and here’s where we respectfully disagree with them. And the fact is, a silent e scooter racing it you with 20 kilometers an hour presents the same danger to your health, no matter who owns it, whether it’s owned by the rider, or a buddy who lends it to them, or one of the e scooter rental companies like you’re about to hear from these deputations. They are just as dangerous.

They present these dangers. So the same reasoning that leads city staff to say no to rental e scooters should lead to saying no to owned e scooters. And let me just add, you talked in the last item of an insurance. Nothing requires insurance over these.

And from what Toronto City staff reported a year ago at least as of then, there is no insurance. So the victim is on their own when it comes to the injuries and losses, except, you know, my time’s running out, but let me just add a couple of really quick points for you. The fact of the matter is that when the main argument that the city staff seems to make is people are writing them now, or some people are the ones that they own privately you heard you can buy them. But the important fact needs to be added.

They may be sold locally, but it’s illegal to ride them in any city in a public place, unless you pass up by a lot of permitted. In other words, the people who, who are right in man wanted. They’re breaking the law, they’re acting illegally. And we say the solution to that is not reward illegality, but enforce the law.

And frankly, if you reward illegality, all you’re going to do is promote more of these to be sold. And I just want to remind you as well. These are not regulated. There’s no regulation over the design of them.

There’s no safety inspection over them. So proliferating them, which is what would happen if you pass the recommendation that staff recommends will create more danger for us. That’s why your accessibility advisory committee, as well as the one in Toronto, in Ottawa, in Hamilton, I’ve all said, no to recommended, no to e scooters, no matter who owns them. So let me conclude by saying I’d welcome your questions.

If you do want to go ahead, despite our recommendation, our brief says that there are strict restrictions on them, you should be imposing, which the provincial ballot regulation does not itself impose, but which you can. And if you’re a thinking of going any further before taking any further steps, we would ask you to do what Toronto did, which is to direct your staff to fully investigate the consequences for people with disabilities and report back whether the bylaw to allow even privately owned ones can be protected from these twin dangers. And if it can’t, then you shouldn’t proceed. Toronto city staff were directed that way by their city council.

They did that research. They came back and said these present these dangers and they said there is no effective solution found anywhere, and that the city would have financial exposure. That’s why the city of Toronto unanimously said no. So should you.

Thanks for. Thank you, Mr. Loproski. I am just for, you know, in the public and committee knows in our added package was the Alliance brief on e scooters on page 98.

It is in your package for all to view as they have a chance. Our next delegation status goes to see Shafer with bird Canada. Please proceed. Mr.

Shafer, you have five minutes. Chair, before you start the time, are you going to share my presentation deck or do I need to do that via zoom. You can just speak to it. It has been shared with us for anyone online.

It is starting on page 111 of your added agenda. Sure. Do I, though, share it via your screen. Okay, so I will speak to it and assume that counselors can are watching it as I go page by page.

Yes, and people who are online have full access to the added agenda as well and they can find it there and it will be publicly available after the meeting as well. Okay, so I’ll start now if that’s okay. Share. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, counselors. My name is Chris Shafer and I’m vice president of government affairs at bird Canada on page one of presentation deck you’ll see an attached helmet to the shared scooter. It’s unlocked and locked via the smartphone app.

You’ll also see the license plate on the scooter. It’s a unique identifier number allows us to hold riders accountable page to bird Canada is a shared my mobility company with operations across Canada. In Ontario, Hamilton and Brampton or in the RFP stage for shared scooter program Windsor we’re in our second year Ottawa third year Durham region Oshawa region have approved shared scooters both Kitchener and Oshawa committees. The council actually approved it this week as well we bird rides the US company we borrow their hardware and software operate in over 350 cities globally bird Canada, our evolution as page three of our mobility offering we’re in our fourth generation of bird scooter and bird bike which is a pedal assist e bike some cities, we offer both products and page for bird scooter this is a robust scooter this is not something you buy off shelf we manufacture iterate and test in in house.

It comes with a variety of technologies such as dynamic stability control steering and anti tip over technology. I want to talk to you briefly about some things you get with a shared scooter program that you do not get with approving personally owned e scooters in your city. First item is geofencing, we can all our government all our scooters shared scooters come with speed governors so the municipality can set the maximum speed, our scooters will never go faster, we can then draw geofences think of them as invisible barriers or bubbles around certain things as a scooter slow down from the maximum speed to lower speed slow down and come to a complete stop. And we can prevent parking in certain areas of the city so in Ottawa parliament hill, for example, is a no ride, no part zone.

Again, something we can do with a shared program you can’t do with personally owned scooters. We have anti sidewalk detection technology for sidewalks in your city that have a history of bicycle riding. To apply this technology the scooter would melt the sidewalk in less than a second it would slow down and come to a complete stop to discourage sidewalk riding. We do that via advanced vehicle location systems and sensor fusion micro chips in our newest scooters.

And briefly about parking strategies to keep sidewalks clear we have a lock to e scooters think of it like a bicycle lock on a shared scooter it’s locked unlocked via the app, the rider would lock it to permitted municipal infrastructure at the end of a ride such as a bike rack or other infrastructure. They are then required to take a photo of where they’ve locked the scooter so we can hold the rider accountable. We can also do virtual docs in in a city which the rider get to their destination wave their smartphone and open the bird app wave the smartphone at the end of the day. It would locate them whether they’re inside a visible virtual dock if they are right ends, if not the app gives them instructions about where to park properly within that virtual dock.

We follow all of that with robust rider education in person at events, educating the public. We follow that up with in app tutorials videos quizzes safety message safe street patrols of uniform staff patrolling our operating zone daily. They are issuing warnings fines and suspensions to riders. We can also create preferred parking areas in app that we then incentivize riders through discounts on future trips to use that key infrastructure to park properly.

We have a safety program at no direct costs to municipalities. My last minute I want to touch on some safety features that you get with a shared program that you do not get with personally owned scooters. First one is big inner mode. It’s softens the acceleration of the first rides and reduces the maximum speed a city could mandate that we provide that for the X number of first trips, and it’s always an option to toggle on and off helmet selfies.

The selfie would determine through AI whether the rider has their own helmet or the one that’s attached to the scooter on their head. If it is the scooter unlocks for a ride safe start. This could be in the party district for students at Western for example. If they can pass the capture style test via the app the scooter unlocks if not it does not unlock ID verification we verify the age.

If it’s appropriate the scooter unlocks if not it does not unlock community mode allows riders and non riders to report things to us directly. Lastly, there’s my last few seconds that he scooters are too quiet is a concern. We can mandate noise emission while in service so as the scooters being rented it’s emitting a noise so it’s warning people of its presence. There’s a number of items as you can see in my last page that outlines some of the concerns in our response to them as an industry.

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to any questions you might have. Thank you for being with us today. And once again for everyone the slide deck is in our package and available online and we don’t take direct questions right now as we’re at committee and we’re receiving another delegation after you. Our next delegation a saying cash you’re welcome to come back on screen as I did see you earlier and when you’re ready you do have five minutes.

Can you hear me? Yeah we can hear you perfectly. I don’t know if my screen is on it. It is not but it’s your choice if you wanted on or not and you’re just coming on like perfect you’re there now and we can hear you perfectly as well.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. I welcome the opportunity to to speak with you today. I want to, I’ve forwarded you my, my written response and, and I will speak to that briefly, but I want to start by granting staff on the recommendations that they have submitted.

Namely, the not to approve the, the right share program. Mr Pasky has clearly provided you with a great deal of detailed information on the challenges we will face here in London. And it is no different than those faced by others communities, whether they are here in Canada or abroad. What I want to do is to bring the issue home right to London so that you can understand what we, what could potentially happen should the privately owned electric scooter be permitted for use here.

The question one has to ask is who will be using these items, these devices will there be children who will be out there riding along with their parents, will it be seniors who will want to take these devices to church to do the groceries. It’s unlikely that it will be those individuals, it’ll be our youth and young adults, they’re the ones who the thrill seekers, they’re the ones that will want to experience the speed and such of these devices, and they will use them to to get those, those thrills, whether it is privately owned or commercially owned, it’ll be those youth and young adults that will be using these devices. The speed at which these for these scooters travel is immense and can be composed danger to those of us on the sidewalks, while the previous speaker has mentioned that the right shirt scooters have geo tagging on them so that they can, they’re not permitted in certain zones or they’re not permitted in sidewalks. None of that is working, equipment, it is all under the experimental stage and it’s still being reviewed and tested.

City of Ottawa has a lot of experience with this, and they’re not happy with what the results are being given to them. Likewise, the sound emitting noise, it is not allowed enough for for the city of Ottawa pedestrians to hear, and no doubt the same will be experienced here in London, especially down Richmond Street, Wellington Road, or any of our major arteries. Staff recommends that publicly owned scooters be used in residential streets, and not on sidewalks. Within our residential areas, we use various calming measures to control the speed of traffic.

One of those is speed bumps. Can you imagine a school writing down a street coming to a speed bump and trying to negotiate over it. The small wheels, the short wheelbase, just will not make it go over that space over that speed bump and people will experience falls and injuries and who knows what else. It will force individuals to write these devices on our sidewalks, and therefore still remain a menace to pedestrians.

We have already heard that we don’t want that the Thames Valley Parkway is a is a lovely piece of pathways within our city of London, introducing and allowing e-scooters, or even banning them from them will not necessarily discourage people from going out there because they will go out there. We’re writing under licensed units right now so what will be the difference if they write them on the parkways. Will these e-scooters be written downtown for sure there will be our youth and young adults will take them to go wherever they want to go, and they’ll come into our downtown core. And once they see Dundas place that clear stretch of asphalt that’s been laid out there so smooth and fine, they will test use that as a drag strip.

And while we may want to sit back and say no that will never happen. I can guarantee that it will happen. There will be folks out there who will want to test this, the speed at which these things can go, and the end result will be that visitors to downtown will eventually decide it’s not the safe place to go. And it will discourage others to come and it will have a tremendous negative impact upon our businesses down there who have already been struggling and do not need any more discouragements to have people not come into the core.

Thanks. Thank you. While the city, while the staff have put together a proposal to put together by law, my report contains a number of items and subject matter that I feel should be included within the bylaw and I hope that they will review that and and continue to work with other stakeholders, the accessibility committee, the transportation committee, western accessibility committee, downtown businesses, school boards, etc, because I’m sure that these writers will want to take these as good as to school and high schools and elementary school so we will experience them everywhere and we will still feel threatened when out there trying to take a walk so there’s a lot there to unpack. And I’m looking forward to working with staff in understanding some of these items and explaining them in more detail with them as I get that opportunity.

Thank you. Thank you for being with us today. Our final delegation today has five minutes as well and it’s T Nolan, T Nolan, whenever you’re ready, you’re welcome to have your camera on or just your audio. Okay, thank you.

My name is Tim Nolan. I live in Hamilton. I’m speaking to you via telephone so regrettably there won’t be any video on this on this presentation. I submitted a written brief.

I hope all of the members of the committee have received that. I’m not so sure there’s a whole lot more I can add to what David and and cash have had to say on the issue of e scooters charity scooters or private. Either way, both are equally bad. I’d love to have the ability to debate Mr.

Shaver from bird Canada on on the validity of the things that he has presented. I’m sure we could with time and opportunity. We could knock a lot of holes in that presentation at the end of the day. There is very little that the city of London would be able to do to enforce any bylaws on the use of privately owned e scooters unless I’m completely off track and misunderstand.

e scooters are not are not regulated under the highway traffic act, which would mean police would be unable to enforce any bylaw respecting privately owned e scooters and I suspect that the city of London doesn’t have plans to hire a whole lack of new bylaw officers to just simply enforce requirements under usage of e scooters alone. So there’s probably not sufficient number of bylaw officers to enforce any bylaws respecting privately owned e scooters. At the end of the day, people will buy what they can buy over the counter in any kind of store. And the manufacturers will just simply distribute what they think the public wants to buy.

And the city of London has, again, likely no ability to govern what the manufacturers put in the stores in the city probably has no ability to govern what the vendors are selling. So, e scooters are problematic, they’re problematic for people with disabilities, they’re problematic for seniors, the problematic for everyday pedestrians, and, and e scooters are a trend, a mode of transportation, they are not just simply for fun. If, if people want to use some kind of device similar to an e scooter for fun, you know, go get yourself a skateboard or go get yourself a stand up scooter without any electric propellant to to the scooters. I’m sure many of the use city counselors probably had scooters when you were youngsters, and you had fun using those, but if you turn them into electric vehicles.

I think you’re just heading for disaster and to be able to control the behavior of people into when they use them and how they use them and where they use them, whether they’re wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet. Your control will just simply disappear, regardless of every effort that you make. So, the best way to deal with these scooters is just to simply prohibit their, their presence on on the streets and the sidewalks of London. So, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I hope you don’t make the same mistake that Hamilton and some other municipalities have made. Here’s your opportunity to do the right thing. So, thank you very much. I’m happy to address any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Nolan for joining us today, and we do not do back and forth with questions in this format, but thank you. We do have your communication in our package for everyone here at committee today can see it as well as the public and then full counsel will see this and has full access to this information as well. This concludes our delegations today as one person had requested it and had to withdraw their request as timing did not work out.

So looking now to committee to see how you would like to proceed. Staff recommendation is divided into four parts so we can certainly discuss it all or in part that is up to committees will and I am at your pleasure. So, just two points, one, I will need a mover and a seconder for what we want to do with staff recommendation and we will also need to deal with it separate of a mover and a seconder to deal with receiving the delegations and all their communications added in otherwise that were before us today. Councillor Feillart.

I’ll move receipt of the delegations and the information supply. Looking for a seconder for the receipt, Councillor Van Holst, I don’t believe there be any questions or comments on just received the delegations that were received and their correspondence they submitted so calling the question. Councillor Helmer. Voting button is just now coming up on.

You need to vote verbally as well and manually that’s that’s fine too. Closing the vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So that leaves us with what to do with the city staff’s recommendation as before us for the participation and provincial e-scooter project.

A is that it’s be received. B that the civic administration be authorized to advise the province that we’re going to participate in personal e-scooter portion of the project that would end on December 2024. That see if it means civic administration be authorized to update any relevant municipal bylaws to incorporate e-scooters for personal use. And D that they’re directed to monitor other municipal municipalities involved with the provincial e-scooter share program for the purpose of obtaining details pertinent to the launch.

Such plans for this climate emergency action plan mobility master plan in the London plan. So looking to committee to see what questions you might have of staff or how you would like to proceed. Or would anyone like to move all recommendations. Mr.

Vanholst, what’s your thoughts? I would start with some questions, Madam Chair. Absolutely. I’ll start my speaker’s list and I’ll start with Councilor Vanholst.

Thank you very much. So, seems our biggest objection is the safety concerns with respect to the people having the site limitations. Mind you, these kinds of things can sneak up on sneak up from behind on anyone and be surprised. It’s similar to bikes and then I suppose the more silent vehicles, which I suppose could be these new cargo e-bikes or EVs.

So there’s going to be there’s going to be a similarity in many of these things. But maybe my first question is going to be how we distinguish these between the non motorized those scooters and and the scooters. So if we do some kind of a pilot program for any scooter, how do staff see them as being different or how they should be treated differently. The electric versus the non electric.

Yeah, Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, at this stage, we were only focusing on the electric fluid. Knowing that there are various kinds of other scooters out there right now.

We can include both as part of our report back on amendments that would be required. We do we do think there is quite a difference between the two. One of them being of course, speed. So our focus once again is to repeat was going to be the kick style these scooters, but we can expand our report back and any bylaw amendments for consideration to include all scooters as well.

Okay, thank you. I’m not sure that that’s necessary. It’s not something I’m necessarily asking. So the let’s talk about the issue about these things being on sidewalks.

Is it. Do we believe that we would prohibit those from functioning on a sidewalk. Through through the chair. Yes, that would be the goal.

They would be prohibited from the sidewalk. We would treat them like in many ways like like a bicycle, noting that bicycles are at certain ages are permitted on sidewalks. So this is where we have to be very, very clear with our information. So it is also important to recognize that they could occur on a sidewalk.

That is just what we have to recognize in a municipality. There are those situations that occur. We can’t prevent them all. We can put in place a reasonable to the best available education and awareness program, but no, there will always be a safety element here.

There is that associated risk that comes with a program of this kind. It exists right now with the scooters that are out there that are unregulated. So essentially what we’re trying to do is to regulate this as best as possible, knowing there are, there would be consequences associated with a bylaw. But we just have to recognize that the ability then forcing a bylaw is a challenge, no doubt about that.

We can’t ignore that. We do believe after we’ve gone through all our information that proceeding with the pilot over the next, essentially, two, two years and a bit. It is worth while in London, as we will have that local information that local knowledge. And that is why we put forward that recommendation.

If I may Madam chair, as we heard a lot of good things today, a lot of very important things, we would do our best to address that as part of bylaw amendments and our report back. So it’s the decision today is to go that next step. It is not to actually permit them in London. It is to go the next step of developing an appropriate bylaw to the satisfaction of civic works and council.

Thank you, Madam chair, perhaps my colleagues have a couple questions. I had one quick question, a resident had reached out and asked if the speed limit signs are posted along the Thames Valley Parkway for all users to be aware of. Madam chair, they are, I believe it’s 20 kilometers per hour. And I realize that Doug McCray is on the call today to if if there’s additional information to share in that regard, I would turn to him as well.

Thank you, Madam chair, and through you, I think from from listening to the speakers, one, one of the areas and I think counselor van, whole sort of touch base on it is our ability to actually hold, hold people to account for their decisions when they’re when they’re on these vehicles. And I think Mr. Stanford did make the point that part of the challenge here is that even though we put bylaws in place for these vehicles, not to be on sidewalks, there’s, there’s also realities that come into into effect here. I guess with that, and this goes back to counselor van mareberg’s question earlier, we have a two year pilot project.

These are personally owned vehicles that if after two years, we we revisit it and say, this is created more problems than we thought it would. The reality is then we have, we have people in London who have personal vehicles who theoretically then will not be able to use them anymore. So I guess my question is around holding those people to account. Do we have the appropriate facilities within the city through bylaw and such should we do this to be holding people to account along the parkway and such if we’re actually going to say that these vehicles cannot be used in those spaces.

Through the chair enforcement, I would be fooling you to say that enforcement is easy, or what level of priority London police services would apply. Those are discussions we’ve had with London police. We’re aware that these are out there right now. And when I say these personal e scooters, they do assist us with respect to enforcing the bylaws for bicycles, and of course with e bikes, but it is not as a high priority compared to other services of course that they do provide.

So moving forward with any new mobility option. These are the items that we clearly have to look at very, very carefully. And as part of any bylaw amendment coming forward, we would answer these questions more fulsome on what it would take it noting that increasing bylaw enforcement or increasing London police services for this would would would not be something that staff would be looking to recommend. There are other larger priorities in this community.

We just if I may have my last comment is these are the growing mobility challenges and opportunities in this community so as we move forward today. So much of this is part of the future as well as we look for these new and affordable opportunities to help people, all people move around in this city. There is no easy answer to a question like that I do apologize that there I don’t have a specific answer follow up. Thank you and thank you for that answer.

So, so I guess with that. Because I don’t disagree with you. I personally don’t feel that someone riding an e scooter on the Thames Valley Parkway is going to be a priority to LPS. So I guess with that and reading the report is is there is there is there theory or is there validity around creating a plan that will exclude these vehicles for being used in certain areas when we really know that the reality is they will be used in those areas.

And if we’re saying out out of the gate that it’s not safe. Are we not contradicting ourselves. Are we trying to do. Are we trying to fit something something round into a square hole.

I guess is what I’m asking. I just feel that program like this is these vehicles are going to be used anywhere people walk cycle and trying to put a bylaw together that would exclude these from those areas to me almost sounds like failing out of the gate. And so I guess those that’s really not a question that’s just a comment. Thank you.

Looking for other speakers on committee. Okay, I will recognize Councilor van Merbergen. And then, as always, non committee members are welcome to chime in and I do see more recognized. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to follow up on Councilor Pfeiff millar with some of his comments. There was the same train of thought that I basically have and have been thinking about.

And that is, we don’t have the resources either way we can’t really enforce any kind of bylaw and we can’t really prohibit the use of something that is becoming more and more popular. So I would venture to say that we’re we’re stuck. We do nothing. They’re still going to be used.

It’s going to be horrible and not a priority in terms of getting the so called prohibited e bikes off the street. On the other hand, if we have some type of regulation, at least some may conform to it. So that’s kind of where I am. What is the advantage.

Maybe we could hear from from Mr Stanford what the advantage of going forward with this personal e bike program. What’s the advantage to London knowing that I either way we just don’t have the resources to staff. Thank you, Chair, probably that the main advantage is we noted in our report, and it’s been highlighted today they’re they’re out there right now. So we’re taking a legal program, per se, putting some rules around it and allowing us to launch an education and promotion campaign.

And in that way we are, in our opinion as staff, we’re moving forward in an interesting dilemma. The other way would be to launch an information campaign to describe that they’re illegal and should not be permitted. I just, we’re caught as staffed as well on the step to go forward. We’re suggesting, though, that putting some time and effort into appropriate by law amendments and coming back, including additional thoughts on what is what we’ve heard today from the delegation.

And what we’ve actually earned over the course of this summer as well from the municipalities that are engaged. We provide a more fulsome report and appropriate by law amendments to further address what has been raised today. I’m admitting I don’t have all these answers. We are, we are torn a staff.

It is, it is, it is somewhat unusual what’s occurring here, but we’re likely to see more of this not less than going into the future. Okay, no, I appreciate that. Thanks very much. I’m just thinking further to what you’ve stated from what we’ve heard, because I think we’re all sensitive to the situation with those who are physically challenged and have various disabilities.

There’s been a lot of good suggestions. I think of what cash, cash who’s saying has put in his written submission, his list of things that should be looked at in the bylaws. Can we just leave that with you or would it be more productive. If I moved an amendment that they be included for consideration to Mr Stanford, through the chair, putting that as a as an amendment to item C, just to highlight some of that would be, I believe, very appropriate and also recognize the work that the delegations have done today.

Okay, then I’ll do that I’ll move an amendment that these suggestions that were given to us. They’re considered as for for the development of the bylaws coming back, or worse to that effect if that’s helpful. Just for clarification, Councilor Vamereberg and just caches or all the delegation stuff to be sent to staff. I think, I think, I think the, any of the ideas that came forward from the delegations be considered, including cash.

There’s some wording up on that and we’ll advise in a moment, but just for clarification that nothing has been put on the floor yet as in a 3D hasn’t been moved yet. Okay, so I’ve been advised that we can do the amendment to see, even though C’s not moved yet. So, Councilor Vamereberg has moved his wording for C to amend it to include the questions put forward by the delegations that we received today, then we’re going to do a seconder for that. The clerk is just finishing wording the wordsmithing.

Councilor Van Hulse, I believe you’re seconding. Councilor, if you just verbalize it, you’re frozen on the screen at the moment. Yeah, I’ll be just second. Okay, thank you.

That came through clear. The clerk is going to read out what she has, and then we’ll look for Councilor Vamereberg’s approval and we’ll go from there. So, the motion is that civic administration be directed to consider suggestions from the delegation heard by the Civic Works Committee and the communications received with respect to the participation in the provincial. Boarder pilot as civic administration prepares the appropriate bylaw amendments.

Yeah, no, that’s fine. And our seconder is good with that. Just verifying before we get too far down this path, Michael’s perfect. I see your hand up.

Yes, that’s fine. Looking for any questions or comments on the amended word in for C, calling the question closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay.

Councilor Vamereberg and did that conclude your questions as I believe I had Councillor. Yes, thank you very much. Okay. So, Councilor Lewis, please proceed.

And if anyone else would like on the speakers list, please indicate so. Perfect. And then just a reminder when we get done questions and comments, we will need to move a through D as you see. Councilor Lewis, please proceed.

Thank you chair for recognizing me as a guest at your committee. It’s always appreciated. And I’ve been following along the debate here. I’m going to apologize if I missed this earlier.

I did hit my mute and step out of the room for a minute. I want to talk to the media about problems that we’re having with aggressive drivers. And here we are talking about another situation with vehicles that are causing concern for people’s safety in the community. So, through you to Mr Stanford.

And if I missed this if I’m being redundant, I apologize for that. But then right now these vehicles don’t need to be licensed and I heard one of the delegations point out that they don’t actually need insurance as well. And so I feel like the municipality is perhaps working on a problem that really is provincial in nature in terms of the lack of regulation for these around the province. Mr Stanford through the chair, do you know where things might be in terms of whether through AMO or through big city mayors or anything like that efforts are in terms of lobbying the province to put some provincial standards in place that would require licensing and insurance to staff.

Be able to dialogue with the provincial government both matters that are before committee today. What we’ve been advised is that the provincial government has has really indicated we want municipalities to to get involved, contact and work directly with other municipalities as part of the pilot project. And that that is actually what we are doing right now. We are collectively working together through an association such as AMO.

That is not something that is underway at this point in time. I do believe though that that is a very appropriate step to take as we get closer to the end of the pilot project. And that for example, when we hear differences of opinion and bylaws between city of Toronto in the city of Ottawa, that is very, very worthwhile. And it is incumbent upon us to learn both what’s going on in both those locations.

So that is kind of the angle that we’ve been taking to date. We’re working with sort of parent organizations like an AMO, or like a regional public works, Commissioners Association of Ontario. I bet it’s something that we’re quite prepared to do as we move forward. And one final comment.

It is, it is, it was the provincial decision without consultation to go in this particular direction a couple of years ago. And it is really up to municipalities to choose the level of engagement, if any. And that is what we’re, why we’re here today. Thank you for that response, Mr.

Stanford. I do appreciate it. And I think it underscores some work that we’ll have to do as council and perhaps with some direction through to our staff as well to to perhaps start to address this. I’m really concerned that we’re right now moving towards legalizing something where there’s no insurance requirement and where an accident does happen.

The liability for injury or property damage from a collision is going to rest solely on the person impacted and, and what the municipality can’t require insurance. I’m also concerned that we’ve got our bylaw that is really going to be completely dependent on voluntary compliance and, and we see that with things like our fire works by law. And we have, you know, frankly, what I would say is a little level of compliance. And there’s not a whole lot we’ve heard from staff on that one that, you know, enforcement is challenging and completely understandable that is.

I see this as being a similar situation. Those who voluntarily comply with the bylaws rates, those who don’t. Our enforcement options are for all practical purposes, almost zero, not completely, but, you know, by the time we respond to a complaint, it’s likely the source of the complaint has long since left the area and there will be little we can do to follow up. I see that happening in one of the parks in my, or right now where we’re getting complaints about some dirt bikes being ridden through our paths.

And these aren’t electric. These are gasoline powered vehicles. And by the time that that we take any action, of course, the folks who have done it are long gone and those who are often intimidated by their behavior on, on the pathways are left with without any source of, of, of recourse really other than to offer a statement to LPS, but there, there’s not, you know, we all know that LPS is resources are stretched into. So I just wanted to share that comment.

I’m not, I’m not excited about moving forward with it right now. I’m not sure that the bylaws going to be all that effective in terms of compliance and safety, but I do appreciate the work that’s gone into it. I recognize these are on our roads already. And so we’re at least trying to put some rules in place around them.

And that’s important. That should happen. I need to continue to listen and I’ll give this more consideration before council, but I do think that certainly one of the things that we need to do as municipality is is also beyond the province about province wide regulations. So I appreciate the work you and your team have put in Mr Stanford, but I actually think that this municipality by municipality approach is not the way to approach this I think province itself needs to bring in some rules that are consistent across Ontario.

So that’s more of a comment than anything else, but I just wanted to share that process with folks. Thank you. Councilor Benholst. Thank you, Madam chair.

And again, I will say that the solution to these kinds of problems may just be education in terms of, and I bring it up again courtesy. Were we to instruct people on how to be curious, how to be aware of the other people sharing the infrastructure. We may do much better than trying to create these these hard and fast rules were that where we may not see compliance. And I’m thinking right now, just about safe from on street, which is, I can look at through my through my window.

There’s a street with sidewalks on both sides and cars parked on on both sides. I think that there’s going to be young people using these things as a mode of transportation and I think that’s that’s mostly what it is for people. It’s thrill seeking. I think you’re more likely to see them at the, at the skateboard parks, although someone will get something like this and try to go quickly, but usually the reason they’re, I suspect they’re going to be using this is for, for transportation.

I’m going to get some more faster than just walking. And I’m going to choose this thing instead of a bike. And now I’m going to be driving it or maybe my child or a youth is going to be driving it down this particular street. I’m going to have the choice of riding in the middle of the road between the two sets of park cars on either side, or taking taking a sidewalk.

And although we’re concerned about bikes and, and these kinds of vehicles on a sidewalk. Most of the time, I look at a sidewalk. Nobody is on it. And I drive around most of the time, maybe the exception of right downtown.

There’s nobody on, on a local sidewalk. So people will think people will have that choice. Am I going to be safer, driving down the road where I might get hit by a door opening from a car or cars moving between between the vehicles. They may be more comfortable in the sidewalks.

They may be more comfortable on the on Thames Valley Parkway. So I guess we’re going to see these things just because they’re, they’re available. And the enforcement is going to be difficult. There’s going to be people riding them on, on the sidewalks, alongside of somebody with a non electric scooter, those things are driven on there as well.

So it’s hard to see. We’re talking about, and I just say it again, enforcement has its priorities. And personally, I think people would rather see our police trying to prevent people from robbing houses, then, then chasing scooters on the, on the Thames Valley Parkway. So, it just came up.

I don’t know if we’re going to be. And again, I say this, where there’s a duplication of efforts in terms of us trying to come up with policies or looking at other other cities to come up with these policies. So there’s, there’s efforts putting into this. Again, I think that in terms of safety.

What we’ve heard is that we’ve that there’s a preference that we don’t move forward with legalizing them. And just, just, just hope that fewer people purchase and make use of this, this method of transportation. So that gets brings me to the kind of question that I’ve got now for staff. Madam chair, is that the shared program seems to have a lot more technology that can mitigate some of the challenges.

And so it’s, it’s interesting there if if we have a share program, then people are less likely to own one themselves. These, these shared programs are available. And then, and they have their own, as I said, ways of making things safer motion on the sidewalks by limiting the speeds. So, I’m wondering then, if staff thinks that we would see less personal vehicles if we had a share program, and then there are comments on the presentation that was made because there certainly seems to be some advantages to that, to that at the very least to that technology.

So, if I could get some comments on the technology for limiting speeds for geo fencing, et cetera. Thank you. And through the chair, city staff have looked at a number of these e-scooter systems, and the level of technology that is in use does vary by vendor. What you heard today in the presentation was a vendor that has a lot of over the years has introduced a lot of advanced technology to support it system to make it safer.

I don’t believe that is the same for all technology vendors. They’re probably all at different levels of of improvements to their system. This is one reason why city staff are suggesting there that there’s enough of these programs in place to look at the advantages, because these become sort of either city wide or very defined areas high concentration areas where these units are in place. We have very little information to support this right now but our belief is that it does serve a different marketplace.

If a person wishes to buy their own e-scooter, they rate electric e-scooter they range in prices, I believe between 500 and upwards of let’s say 1500 that a person would likely follow through and do that should they need one, and they wouldn’t all of a sudden just start using an e-scooter share system, because of some of the limitations that are put on on where you can actually bring these particular units. So there clearly is a trade-off between two systems. Staff just feel that there’s enough communities exploring these advanced systems that each year there’ll be more advancements that are made. And then after the pilot project is over, the provincial government may make some of these important decisions that then are applied to all municipalities in Ontario.

So we’re only saying no to the e-scooter share system right now because as part of a pilot project, it’s not something that we believe the city of London needs to invest a fair bit of time to be very involved in a program like that. Councilor. Okay, thank you. Well, let’s talk about the transportation and mobility master plans.

We’re, we’re hoping that people take alternative and low emission. Councilor, you’re frozen and chopping internet. Councilor Van Holst, your audio is choppy and frozen and your visual is frozen as well. I don’t know if you want to repeat the question and try turning off your screen.

It might help. Maybe you can come through a little bit clear. Councilor Van Holst is still frozen. So while that resolves, hopefully quickly.

Is there any other questions or comments from committee or visiting counselors as Councilor Van Holst was the last person on my speakers list. Is there anybody on committee while we’re still waiting for the reconnection to happen who would like to have an interest in? Sorry, has Councilor Van Holst left the meeting to reconnect? Okay, so Councilor Van Holst has left the meeting hoping to reconnect.

Looking for other questions or comments, looking for anyone who would like to move something or give direction. Councilor Helmer. I will put the staff recommendation on the floor to see if anyone wants to second. Okay, just for clarification, that’s the entire staff report of A through D.

Hey, Councilor Helmer is moving A through D. Looking to see if there is a second or seconded by Councilor 5-Milar. We can always separate things out if people would like to vote separately on items. Looking to see if there’s a speakers list on this as we are still.

Okay, just one second. Councilor Helmer, I will recognize you first. We’ll just try to get Councilor Van Holst back in here. Councilor Van Holst, can you hear us?

Okay, maybe not. Okay. Councilor Helmer, please proceed. Okay.

I wanted to get the staff recommendation on the floor so we could have a bit more of a focused discussion about the various aspects of the recommendation. I will say, I think there’s some upside to people substituting trips that would be otherwise in motor vehicles with e-scooters, but we look at the research that’s available about what kind of mode shifts actually happen with the scooters. A lot of it is people substituting walking for scooters. So trips that are a bit long to walk and it takes scooters instead, or shifting away from cycling or, in some cases, public transit or taxis or other vehicles for hire, substituting that way.

And so you don’t see dramatic changes in the number of motor vehicles on the road as a result of the introduction of scooters, you to see other modes of transportation shifting towards the scooters. And the reason I say that, and because I think it’s important, you know, all modes of transportation come with risks to other users of the road and sidewalk systems and vehicles are the most dangerous of all them. And, you know, bikes and pedestrians and scooters, they’re all, must, must, must, much more, much less damaging than vehicles are. And so I think we have to keep the relative safety of the various modes in mind.

I am very concerned and I’m glad that the accessibility advisory committee and a number of people have shown up to advocate about the particular challenges of the scooters, because they’re so small and quiet. And it was very common to see them, especially the share versions commercial share versions, sort of littering the sidewalk have been in many European cities where this was the case where the scooters were literally all over the place and pose a real obstacle for me. And I have no challenges, I’m making my way around on the sidewalk, and it was very difficult in some cases. I see the appeal, you know, especially for young people, they’re primarily written by young men, people I think really like them.

And so I do think having some rules about how we’re going to regulate them I’m not keen on outright prohibition as a way of regulating the safety of different modes of transportation. And I think we need to look at what are the reasonable rules, you know, keeping things off the sidewalk that really should not be on the sidewalk, and I’m directing them into the more appropriate areas for travel. I think that that’s the right way to handle it. I think if we worked for prohibition type of approach, we would still have the challenge for enforcing other prohibition.

And I think that’s going to be an issue for whichever mode we, we take, you know, we’re going to a right band, we’re going to regulate personal use. We’re just going to say that there’s no commercial operation so that’s why I’m comfortable with the staff recommendation I think if we keep them off the sidewalks, and we don’t have the commercial operations that are the most likely to end up on the sidewalk because people in those assets directly, they’re just renting them for the trip that they’re taking. I think that is a major difference, you know, in terms of where they end up being stored. It may be in the future that the technological changes and the ability to control where the scooters are how they are parked and although the aspects can actually be dealt with through technological means it sounds like some of the providers to hear from Mr Shafer today.

I’m already far down the road and mitigating some of those issues but I don’t think we’re there yet. And I’m not willing to do the commercial share part at this point. So I think the personal use I think regulating it as part of the provincial pilot is good I’m not totally convinced that it is going to be hugely successful. I’m willing to, to give it a try.

I do think we need to, as Mr Hussain, and also mentioned, you know, to the extent that we can require to encourage a very common sense safety things like making sure there’s some noise that’s coming from the scooters, you know, that’s the kind of thing that can help people who can hear to detect those devices while they’re coming into their proximity so I’m willing to put on the floor doesn’t sound like there’s a lot of enthusiasm for the even the pilot for personal, but put on the floor committee and see how it goes. Thank you. Just for anyone and for committee, a through D has been put on the floor. And I’ll note that part C is the amendment version that committee already approved with the amendment wording from Council very much earlier so it is the updated one before us.

I have no one else on my speakers list. So looking to see if anyone else would like to comment as item A through D is on the floor. Can you hear me all right. Yes, please.

And if it stops working, I’ll let you know. Well, it shouldn’t I’m using a different technology now. So, hopefully this will be fine. And I’ll say my thanks to a counselor, however, I think he covered some of the direction that I’d hope to ask about my, I guess my, my next question then.

He did mention that people are mostly replacing this with with with walking. So we’re trying to speed up a trip instead of instead of using something something different. Well, if we don’t go with the share program. And I think I’m fine with that, with that direction as well.

Again, we’re going to see people using this in various means. I want to ask about the education piece. So often we look at dealing with transportation with the three years of engineering and enforcement and education. And we’re, we’re trying to come up with a strategy now of, of, of bylaws and enforcement but what can be done here in terms of education.

Are, are we able to have a, have a program along this with this where we, we try to get, we try to try to teach people simply how to be, how to be courteous. We’re going to have them traveling along the streets. If we say don’t write on the sidewalk and my street doesn’t have a sidewalk. And so the pedestrians are walking on the street and these electric scooters are going to be traveling along the street.

And so we’re going to have the same challenge for pedestrians as we did on a sidewalk. It’s going to be the exact same situation except maybe there’s a little more room to go around them. But my concern still is that people understand the effects that they may, they may have on pedestrians and the fact that pedestrians may be hard of hearing. They may be having challenges with their site.

So what can we do about that? Because I think that’s, that’s a big, that’s a big key and could really solve most of our problems if people just willingly had more courtesy. Thank you. Mr Stanford, if you please answer about compliance and public information and general courtesy and sharing.

Good to share. Very good items raised and as as noted before the mobility master plan is going to allow us to actually have a two year conversation in this community about mobility for all part of the discussion that has gone on so far has highlighted many of the things that we’ve talked about today. When we say for all, we, we have to take that seriously. We’ve got to make sure that people are aware of each other’s needs requirements to move around the city safely at all hours of the day.

So that conversation is underway right now. And items such as the scooter, the personal these scooters, we would build that conversation into that. We’ve heard on how these may or may not be used in London or how they are being used in London. One of the things that has appealed to staff is when we look at sort of the first mile and last mile associated with public transportation.

When a bus drops off a person half a kilometer away from their final destination at work. The scooter might very well represent that ideal opportunity to leave the bus and then carry on further. These types of situations is incumbent upon us as staff to be raising these opportunities as we have this continued dialogue. So anything coming forward in the way of a bylaw amendment in our program, we will highlight what we can do from an education awareness perspective, knowing that it is part of two broader discussions, the mobility master plan.

If the climate emergency action plan. Thank you, Mr Stanford for those comments, Councilor Van Holst looking to see if you’re close to wrapping up or if it’s just down to your last question. Okay, thank you, Madam chair. So, with respect to those, those two conversations.

We better off allowing the personal use of these so we can actually have people trying out and essentially giving them something to talk about that’s not. That’s not hypothetical, or are we better off simply saying they’re, they’re, they’re not legal, which would be, I guess, the, the default if we were to not approve staff recommendation. Mr Stanford, Madam chair, I think after today’s discussion, staff remain firm where we where we are going into this particular report that moving forward with a regulated personal use scooter program is the best next step for London for the next two to two and a half years. And this will be part of the overall conversation going forward.

And after the two two and a half years when the project is over a final decision can be made by a council at that point in time, along with all the other decisions that will be making on the mobility master plan. Thank you, Councilor Van Holst have you concluded. I think I have except for one last question in return of education and courtesy. Will that be included somehow, or does, does the motion is a motion required for, for that.

Mr Stanford to stop have adequate direction, having heard committees concerns today. I believe we have adequate direction and the notion of be kind be courteous is entering all our programs we’re finding that this is, is the way that the city must move forward. Working with the community and working within the community. Thank you.

Looking for other questions or comments further from committee or visiting counselors as we still have a few online with us. Seeing none and Councilor Van Holst has put down his hands. It’s been moved and seconded and just reminder that the wording and see is the amendment wording as put forward by Councilor Van Merberg and calling the question. I’m not aware of any additional business looking to see if anyone had anything relevant.

Seeing none. There is a deferred matters list before us. I would need a mover and a seconder of the deferred matters list. Seconded by Councilor.

Seconded by Councilor Van Merberg and looking to see if there’s any questions on the deferred matters list. Seeing none, calling the question, let’s think about the motion carries five to zero. If you want to put your screens on, we can do a hand vote for this one. All in favor of adjournment.

Mr. Van Hosta verbal motion carries five to zero. Thank you everyone.