The 'R' stands for Reliable

If you haven't checked your mailbox since Friday, make sure you do so before the weekend finishes. You will find a pamphlet outlining some open houses coming up over the next week to learn more about the options being considered for London's bus rapid transit (BRT) system.

Back of the brochure delivered to households this past Friday.

On a personal note, I had the pleasant surprise to discover comments that I had made at a public information meeting in December about the need for rapid transit appear on the back of the pamphlet! Seeing this inspired me to further explain the importance of implementing this method of mass transit, and I'll use our household as an example.

Our family has one car for two working adults, and we have a child in daycare. My wife takes London Transit to and from work most of the time and drops our daughter off in the morning, and I drive to and from work most of the time and pick our daughter up in the afternoon. While both of our workplaces are near a bus route, transfers downtown create long waits and only worsens during rush-hour traffic.  

It normally takes my wife 50 to 60 minutes to get home on a roughly 10 km journey, when it shouldn't be more than a 30-minute bus trip; however, heavier traffic and a meandering bus route through neighbourhoods double her commute home. She finishes work at five o'clock, but would have to leave work a few minutes early to catch a bus and get home by quarter to six, and typically has to wait 20 minutes after work to catch her bus to get home shortly after six. My commute of about 6.5 km would take 30 minutes by bus (it's typically 12 to 15 minutes by car), but I would either arrive at work 20 minutes early or 5 minutes late; on the way home (I finish at four o'clock), I would leave 5 minutes early or have to wait 20 minutes for a bus, getting home at about ten to five.

Map of where people reported to live, work, and go to school at the December 2017 public information centre for Shift.

We both have the goal of getting to and from work without the use of a single-occupied vehicle, and having dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit (therefore making the system "rapid") will ensure that schedules remain punctual and reliable. People who want to take public transit only really ask for comfort and reliability: the major problem that has plagued London's transit system for decades has been unreliable schedules -- a bus that arrives early and leaves early at transfer points, for example, so in essence doesn't arrive at all -- and is a deciding factor for people to drive their car instead of using public transit, myself included. Not being assured that I would be home in time to pick up our daughter from daycare is a huge reason why I still drive to and from work.

Having the backbone of the system in rapid/reliable transit will speed up commute times and increase the efficiency of the feeder routes that cover the rest of the city.  Since the rapid lines will be every 5 minutes (during peak hours) or 10 minutes and feeders being no more than double the rapid line, people will be able to get around much quicker and with minimal transfer times.

Getting home earlier from work would allow us to spend more quality time as a family, and in my wife's case would give her about three more hours at home in a normal week. A more reliable transit system will allow us to continue as a single-vehicle family; otherwise, we would have to explore adding to London's congestion with a second vehicle, while also greatly increasing our household expenditures. We are only one family: multiply our situation by thousands, and the impact of having better transit will easily help young families reduce their need for a second vehicle -- not to mention empty-nesters who want to downsize, single folks who would rather not own (or perhaps can't afford) a vehicle, and a multitude of other family situations where reducing vehicle use is beneficial for them both financially and socially.

When we consider moving forward with the BRT, we already know that it will:

• improve our local economy by getting more people to more places quicker and easier;
• be better for the environment by reducing the number of single-occupied vehicles and directing higher-density development along transit routes; and
• enhance our social lives by giving us more time with the people we love. 

It's a sustainable solution that we can't pass up.

Keeping PACE with our energy use

During this term of council, I have been proud to serve on London’s Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE). The committee provides input, advice, and makes recommendations to City Council on environmental matters affecting London.

Aside from firsthand experience with how thing get done at City Hall, serving on the committee has given me a chance to discuss exciting new ideas for improving our city’s environmental performance with smart and committed fellow citizens. One of these proposals I think is so promising that I have included it in my platform: a Property Assessment for Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Here’s how it works: property owners make energy improvements to their homes or buildings. This may include installing high-efficiency furnaces and water heaters, new windows and doors or other air sealing measures, renewable heat sources such as solar and geothermal, and more. Rather than paying the cost of these improvements up front, property owners would pay for them over several years in instalments added to their property tax assessment.

There are several benefits. By making our homes more energy efficient, we reduce carbon emissions that are contributing to climate change. Property owners who participate save money on utility bills, since they are using less energy.  They money they save goes toward paying the loan back, and what remains left over can be spent in the local economy.

Energy improvements are beneficial, but they can have high upfront costs. A PACE program will put these kinds of improvements within reach for families with a wider range of incomes, allowing them to save money and lower their carbon footprint as well.

Another upside to PACE is that even if a family plans to sell their home within a few years, energy improvements still make sense. The new furnace, windows, or other improvements stay with the home and continue generating savings for the new owner. The cost also stays with the property, and the new owners who are seeing the benefits of a more energy efficient home continue to pay for the improvements on their property tax assessment until they are paid for.

The other part of this win-win-win situation is economic stimulus.  There will be many local jobs created for the vendors and installers of qualifying equipment, which means the money being spent by property owners will go to companies in London to employ workers living in the city.

The City of London is currently investigating the benefits of such a program and how it could be implemented here. An ACE proposal in 2013 was passed by City Council, with staff investigating in 2014 for a planned pilot project in 2015. Several US states have made this kind of program available already. Toronto also approved a pilot program in 2013, which they call the Home Energy Loan Program, or HELP.

I have championed a PACE program at the Advisory Committee on the Environment and will continue to do so on City Council. It makes sense to provide Londoners with easier ways to improve energy efficiency at their homes and businesses, and to create a stable environment for employment in this sector. We can help people save money, create jobs, and make London an environmental leader at all at the same time.

The need to feed

In my last post I talked about London’s thriving biotechnology sector. Now, I’d like to talk about one of London’s other economic strengths, and arguably a more widely recognized one – agriculture and food production.

London is geographically blessed in just about every way that matters to the food supply chain. When it comes to growing and producing food, processing it, distributing it, and finally, consuming it, London has everything it takes to be a hub for fresh, delicious Ontario food.

First, we have the farmland. Although most Londoners live in urban areas, London is actually over 40% rural. As The London Plan reminds us, about 90% of the land London annexed in 1993 is Class 1 agricultural land. Only 0.5% of land in Canada is Class 1 agricultural land, which means our ability to grow high-quality produce is valuable.

London is also well-positioned for food processing and food distribution. Dr. Oetker chose London for its new plant because of our skilled workforce and easy access to key markets (as well as some help from the province). We have the right people for the job. More than 6 000 Londoners are employed in the food and beverage processing sector. We’re also conveniently located on two 400-series highways, close to two of the county’s busiest border crossings, and within a day’s drive of 150 million consumers.

Finally, Londoners have a keen interest in consuming food that is locally grown or locally produced. Londoners flock to food-related festivals whenever given the chance. We have an expanding network of farmers’ markets. We have spots like the Western Fair Farmers’ Market that also acts as a start-up space and incubator for new food businesses. We also have three new craft breweries that have opened in London in the past year.

Londoners know instinctively that growing, processing, distributing, and celebrating food are things we do well. Along with medicine and other biotechnology, this is a sector London’s next council should focus on nurturing. We must also make sure that message gets out far beyond our city boundaries, so that other potential Dr. Oetkers know about our advantages. Let’s show the world all of the delicious things London has to offer!

The science propelling London's future

Bringing jobs to London is one of the topics that comes up most frequently – at debates, in calls and e-mails from residents, and at the door. I've already told you about my plan to boost entrepreneurship in London, and to make it easier for start-ups to get off the ground. Now I'd like to discuss some of London’s economic strengths: knowing what we’re good at will show us where we can expand and intensify.

On of the areas where we are thriving is biotechnology. Many of us are aware that London's hospitals and university, including a medical school, make us a regional centre for healthcare and health research, but there's more to it than that. Aside from healing people and training people to heal, London professionals develop and manufacture medical equipment and treatment devices, practice high-quality sports and exercise medicine, produce medical imaging technology, and provide support and services to biotech start-up companies.

According to the LEDC, the sector employs more than 21 000 in private sector industry, hospitals and research facilities including more than 2 000 researchers. 

We can build on this strength. Let's continue to highlight our city's biotechnology expertise to the world. It will mean more top-tier medical research and products for Canadians, and more career opportunities for Londoners.

The Stiller Centre for Technology Commercialization is a fantastic start. This facility is designed to help start-ups find markets for their biotechnology ventures. It provides lab space, flexible lease arrangements, and shared services for new enterprises in biotech areas like drug development, medical devices and imaging, cellular therapy, and alternative energy.

TechAlliance, the regional innovation centre for London and surrounding areas, offers programs for start-ups in the life sciences (plus digital media, clean technology, and advanced manufacturing) as well.

Large and small, public and private, London is full of biotechnology success stories. Famous examples include Trudell Medical International, developer of innovative aerosol drug delivery devices, the internationally recognized Fowler Kennedy Sports Medicine Centre, and the Canadian Surgical Technologies and Advanced Robotics Centre (CSTAR), which trains surgeons on minimally-invasive procedures.

As we promote this robust sector of our city to the rest of Canada and the world, London will continue to attract top researchers and entrepreneurs. It’s important that we begin seeing ourselves this way as well – as a place where good, exciting, and innovative things happen.

More than just child's play

I've been asked frequently during this campaign about how to get more Londoners working. Previously, I shared my thoughts about supporting small businesses and start-ups so that more people are able to create meaningful work for themselves. Another important way to help is to remove barriers that prevent people from seeking employment.

One of the major barriers for people getting (back) to work is not being able to find affordable childcare. I've seen this happen to London families myself. 

A few years ago, a friend of mine moved back to London with her toddler son. Because she couldn't find work right away and didn't qualify for employment insurance (EI), she had to rely on Ontario Works (OW) while desperately trying to find a job. 

When she decided to further her education by going back to school, she was unable to find daycare for her son: the waiting list would take almost a year before she could be considered. Unable to find work and unable to go to school, she remained on OW despite her best efforts. She eventually landed a low-paying job that paid incrementally more than OW, but was only just enough to cover private childcare while making a few dollars at the end of the day.

After over a year, she had a small amount of savings and enrolled in courses, but still could not obtain a subsidized daycare spot and had to continue the private method. The delay of having to find or afford childcare means she is now years behind where she could have been in her career and finances.

Her story is not an unusual one. London does provide childcare subsidies for qualifying low-income families, but there is currently a wait-list of over 300 children, and that list is expected to grow. Without a subsidized spot, daycare costs between $40 and $60 per day, per child. That’s the reality for most families who use daycare.

Full-day kindergarten is great news for parents in a lot of ways, since it eases some of the challenge of caring for four- and five-year olds; however, it also increases the challenge of caring for younger children. I sat down with a London childcare provider last week. She explained that it takes more resources to care for younger children, since there’s a higher mandated ratio of Early Childhood Educators (ECEs) to children the younger they are. Since kids are in full-time school at a younger age, daycares are increasingly made up of infants and toddlers. Daycares require more staff and have higher operating expenses per child as a result.

Childcare providers receive funding from the province and from municipalities, which provide about 20% of the funding. Provincial funding will decrease by about $2M in 2016, once full-day kindergarten is fully implemented.

While daycare will be caring for fewer children, they will require more staff and have higher expenses per child. More of the existing funding will go to providing the same level of service, which means there will be less funding available for subsidized child care spots. The wait-list for subsidized daycare is expected to grow.

If London really wants to get people working and keep them there, we need to provide childcare options to parents. As your councillor for Ward 6, I will push for a plan to eliminate the childcare subsidy wait-list, so that no one has to say no to a job because they can’t find someone to look after their child.