APPENDIX A – RESPONSES TO COUNCIL’s COMMENTS (ATNP)

Comment ID#	Section	Page	Mayor and Council Comment	Staff Response
ST1	General Comment		Good report. I particularly liked the data, visuals and comparison with other communities. Thank you for adding Colwood's draft ATP. It is interesting to see that our transit ridership took a hit from 2016 likely due to Covid. It will be interesting to see how the new rapid service will affect that and what we could do to promote the message of increased service. My own perspective in reducing vehicle lanes for larger bike lanes is that I would like to support it on principle but where there is already stressed traffic such as Helmcken and Admirals I have a real challenge. The traffic issue is currently significant and is growing as we add new density as well as the growth of our municipal Neighbours. We have a major employer with CFB Esquimalt and I do not see traffic going away. By reducing the lanes we also slow bus traffic. My point is that any action we do may well affect other things negatively.	While a desktop traffic study was conducted for the priority projects to determine general feasibility, the Town acknowledges that further detailed analysis will be required to inform Council of impacts and suitable alternative options. This would be provided at start of the detail design stage of the project
ST2	General Comment		I like the notion of an ATP Coordinator but I do not think we could justify the ongoing operational cost but I would offer it as a topic for discussion of perhaps a shared position with Langford and Colwood or perhaps under the umbrella of West Shore Parks and Rec?	The Town acknowledges the operational budget challenges regarding an ATP coordinator. This only impacts expectations of project delivery, especially for the short term priorities
ST3	General Comment		It would be most helpful to me to rank the proposed actions with a rating for risk and completing ATP Networks. I would like to support making it safe as a priority such as current lights and cross walks then build towards greater connectedness. We are all aware of some of the horrific deaths and accidents in Saanich recently where pedestrians have been struck with vehicles and it is clear that drivers are increasingly paying less attention. For me safety is paramount.	The town can prioritize projects in this manner to supplement future budget deliberations if it is the wish of Council. It should be noted that the ATNP does not bind the town to follow the recommended prioritization. Council will have the ability to make adjustments or require further information from staff to make the executive decision as mentioned above.
ST4	General Comment		I have been reviewing a few models for Active Transportation and I had sat on a working group at CFB Esquimalt years ago while we were advocating cycling and walking to work. It really boosted our program when we posted our time to travel to and from work. This was before the E&N Trail was built. It would be good to get data initially in our current state for transit to compare with any changes we make. This could be annexed to the study later but needs to be set as a goal. For instance, two of the main destinations are Eagle Creek and Thriftys. How long does it currently take to reach those points from different areas of town? Increase a risk rating as well on how safe people feel and then we could have KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) on the value of a project.	The town can obtain transit data from BC Transit regarding trip times, for future reporting, if it is the wish of Council.
DB1	General Comment		Raised curbs between vehicle traffic and bike/Pedestrian traffic. A good example where this would be ideal is the stretch on Watkiss Way from Stoneridge to Eagle Ridge shopping centre. Preferably on both sides of the road with a priority on the View Royal side. Perhaps Saanich would cost share a raised curb on the Saanich side. Asphalt although shorter life span would be less expensive than concrete. This stretch already has paved bike lanes on both sides and wide shoulders. A raised curb would alleviate the safety concerns of heavy traffic on Watkiss interfering with cycle and foot traffic. This stretch will become very busy when all of the Erskine Lane developments are completed. I would suggest similar usage of raised sidewalks on other roads where they are narrow and heavily trafficked by vehicles.	The Town can consider this should Council wish to bring this forward as part of budget deliberations
DB2	General Comment		Use if rumble strips on sections of road where speed bumps are not practical to slow down drivers.	Rumble strips are not currently included as a traffic calming amenity in the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy, and are not a traditional traffic calming measure. Staff recommend utilizing other options for traffic calming
DB3	General Comment		40 km speed limits on secondary roads in View Royal.	Per Map 9 of the Baseline Conditions Report, most residential roads are signed at 30km/hr and there are only a few outlier residential streets that are defaulted at 50km/hr. There are currently many ways municipalities in Greater Victoria are lowering posted speeds. Staff can present these options to Council in the future for direction.
DB4	General Comment		Pedestrian activated crosswalks in high traffic areas I.e. Galloping Goose crossings especially on Atkins Road (there is one close to Six Mile already).	Noted for future detail design
AM1	General Comment	ii	Not clear what engagement has taken place with Songhees Nation.	(Action by Staff) Engagement with First Nations has and continues to take place beyond the ATNP, and has been a formal approach. Previous engagement with First Nations indicated a need to help the First Nations with resources, as they do not currently have the on-hand resources to accommodate all engagement referrals that comes to them. As one of the proposed critical corridor projects is Admirals Road, First Nations input will be actively sought during the detailed design for that project and it is recommended to provide/contribute supporting resources for the First Nations to ensure that they are being meaningfully engaged.
JR1	Executive Summary – Short Term Projects: walking / rolling and cycling	iv	again, plan should focus on four networks: Walk, bike, transit, trails With a plan for each, then we can build the priority list to address all aspects.	Per the ATNP, the network and its prioritization was developed using a multi-faceted approach to capture the public interest in meeting the needs of residents and visitors. This included a transportation needs assessment that incorporated a spatial analysis including proximity to schools, bus stops, parks, trails, and future growth. That said, the future network is identified in the ATNP and Council has the ability to reprioritize or request more information in the future as part of budget and project deliberations.
JR2	General Comment	v	GENERAL: I really like the 2022 Baseline Conditions Report. An excellent analysis that detailed the FOUR Networks: cycling, walking, transit and trails in a balanced approach. This draft does not accomplish this, in fact, it has a distinct "heavy lean" in favour of cycling. This inequality must be recognized and addressed before any adoption is considered. And trails is NOT just two two regional CRD trails. More on all later.	The three priority projects and 9 of the 10 other short term priority projects include improvements for walking. That said, Council can direct staff to present alternative designs as part of the future detail design phase of the projects involving pedestrian and transit improvements. Assuming that the comment pertains to the Town’s parks and trails identified in the Parks Master Plan, while the transportation needs assessment considers proximity and connectivity to parks and trails in the prioritization of projects, the narrative of local parks trail improvements is better referred in the Parks Master Plan. Council can consider making changes to the Parks Master Plan with respect to the Town’s Parks and Trails if it is their wish
JR3	Executive Summary – Short Term Priority Projects	v	strongly opposed to the muli-use pathway approach in any of the situations. I have not seen this in ANY other ATP. The report only gives concept, no details of width, pedestrian safety / comfort, no discussions of risk for collisions with vehicles who must watch for speeding ebikes in both directions. Keep with regional conventional uni-direction on both sides of street and separate sidewalks. Conflict, cost, discomfort, risk of injury and litigation.	The Colwood, Central Saanich, and North Saanich Active Transportation Plans include recommendations for MUP’s. The View Royal draft ATNP also includes some design details for MUP’s. Staff will provide the needed information and could provide alternative options to Council for their review and deliberation as part of the detail design phase of projects
JR4	Executive Summary – Implementation Strategy	v	what is the total cost of intersection consultant reviews and estimated fix? What is the consultant cost for all the other recommended reviews? What is the costs of implementing a 10 year sidewalk implementation plan? The transit plan? The municipal trails plan (new and upgrade of existing)?	Intersection / signal improvements were included in the costing for the three critical corridor projects. Cost estimates were not done for the major and minor intersection reviews as those are recommended to be included in the technical studies as indicated.
JR5	General Comment – images in document	1	The plan images primarily show regional trails, cycling, and even an image that is NOT in View Royal. No pedestrians, not transit buses, no dirt /gravel municipal trails. Unintentional to be certain, but one feels a bias	Photo can be changed as requested
JR6	Introduction	2	This introduction is more vision... the baseline report states our neighbourhoods are not entirely walkable, safe... that are all bike friendly.	ATNP’s are aspirational and vision based in nature: it identifies gaps and needs and allows the Town the flexibility to consider options at the detail design stage
JR7	Introduction	2	The image of cyclists on a the E&N, a regional trail we have no control over, and on land that will soon belong to Esquimalt First Nations.	Photo can be changed as requested
JR8	What is Active Transportation (definition of atnp including walking cycling rolling…)	3	The noteworthy Saanich Active Transportation Plan (recommend reading!) has FOUR... mode alternatives to the car, and its in our Climate Action Strategy for GHG reduction, and focus for safe, convenient, accessible, enjoyable and connects our town within and without: Cycling, Walking, Transit and municipal trails. ALL deserve separate sections, balancec focus and improvement strategies in this plan.	The definition presented was provided for context and was taken from the BC Active Transportation Design Guide, a document often reference in Greater Victoria.
JR9	What is active transportation – Nacto Definition	3	"many existing BICYCLE facilities.... BIAS! Existing TRANSIT facilities are also missing or inadequate. Pedestrians also need safe facilities like crosswalks, safe corners, disabled accessible. The young going to school also need crossing guards.	The definition presented was provided for context and was taken from the National Association of City Transportation Officials, a document often referenced in Greater Victoria.
JR10	Plan Process Phase 1	5	Baseline Conditions is well done. It had a number of important "areas of improvement" recommendations that are not in this plan. SOME examples: 1) reduce car speeds from 50-30k on neighbourhood streets. 2) separate bike and other users on regional trails. 3) list of safety regional trail improvements to pass onto CRD (THEIR corridor). 3) 6.4 barriers to walking in View Royal 4) Page 69... Channelized left turns BUILT for commuter CARS to drive through View Royal... cycling and pedestrian safety and comfort AAA challenges. 5) promote WALKROLLMAP link on all town social media	The draft ATNP includes several recommendations that would address barriers to walking including the items listed in the comments. (Action/Decision Required of Council) If it is the wish of Council to: Reduce car speeds from 50-30km/hr on neigbourhood streets (also considering the response to DB3): • Then the draft ATNP can be revised to include a recommendation in the supportive policies / programs about speed limit reductions (we can recommend that the Town set a default speed limit of 30 km/h on all local roads but only if the provincial pilot gets approved for this, which Saanich is leading). List safety improvements for regional trails to pass onto the CRD • Then the draft ATNP can be revised to include high-level direction in the supportive policies / programs about the Town playing more of a support role to encourage the CRD to widen the regional trails within the Town boundary where volumes are high. Promote the WalkRollMap link in all town social media • Then the draft ATNP can be revised to recommend that various social media platforms can be leveraged to promote websites such as WalkRollMap and BikeMaps
JR11	Plan Process Phase 2	5	Do it all or nothing at all. Limiting "tours" for just one network *cycling" and not pedestrians, transit, trails in parks is unfair, imbalanced and discourteous. No amount of on-line opportunities justifies this. The Feb 19 Walk-on Victoria was simple, no cost, effective and inclusive AND limited. I regret not doing one for those brave transit users	Staff presented the project’s public engagement strategy to Council at the June 7, 2022 Regular Council Meeting, which included all engagement events for their review, and was received for information.
JR12	Plan Process Phase 3	5	Analysis and solutions in the plan are not fairly equitable to the four networks	The priority and short term projects predominantly show upgrades to improve all active modes of transportation
JR13	Section 2 – Community Profile page image	6	This "share the trail" sign in Portage Park highlights confusion for park users... which is dog on leash / off leash... which trails are on bikes allowed or not? Leads to conflicts. Time to widen and paint a line on paved surface?	Staff appreciate this detailed observation, a separate initiative could be brought forward regarding accessibility within Portage Park if it is the wish of Council.
JR14	Transportation Mode Share	9	"work with neighbouring municipalities"... Missed neighbouring First Nations! 1) Both First Nations must have complete buy in with the ONE sided cycling / walking proposed design for Admirals. 2) Saanich and Esquimalt input on the Admirals design that is inconsistent, confusing, and likely hazardous for users travelling through our small section of Admirals 3) Saanich for the coordination of Burnside 4) Colwood to finally address the inaccessibility, safety and discomfort for cycling and walking to Westshore Parks and Rec 5) Langford to get a safety and comfort separated pedestrian lane on GGT where TWO regional trails and all the bikes converge into ONE.	See response to AM1. The Town has and will continue an open dialogue with all neighbours that may be impacted by the upgrades as part of detail design
JR15	Transportation Mode Share – Mode Share Trends	11	LOW transit mode! This plan needs a strategy to address this failing.. 1) ensure seamless connections between transit, pedestrian, and cycling networks 2) do not make transit users "pay" for cycling improvements 3) lobby for 15min or less improvement bus scheduling frequency on our routes 4) add bus #40 in 2024 5) include a bus shelter install plan for all stops, adequate sizing, lighting, accessible, as part of this report even if we have to build our own AGAIN 6) further to #1 ...fill sidewalk gaps and pedestrian crossings on all bus routes as top priority.	The Town will continue its regular discussions with BC Transit and other stakeholders for upgrades that are intended to improve access to bus stops. This includes bus stop installation planning which is also included in the 2023 budget. Should it be the wish of Council, bus scheduling can be referred to BC Transit
JR16	Equity	18	Yes, the Conditions Report has good analysis of equity / inequity in the four networks. For instance the need for separate pedestrian lane on regional trails. Please add Saanich action item: promote and support CRD widening trails for pedestrians and lighting. Please add Conditions report recommendations for transit. EG, sidewalks, crossings and bike lanes are top priority along all bus routes. moe later...	Received for detail design considerations
JR17	Equity	18	The Conditions Report lists many improvements within View Royal... including those for roads, regional trails that are not ours to fix. Plan recommendations should be to 'work with partners, recommend improvements, lobby for action". EXAMPLE: ALL improvements to and on the Helmcken Overpass should NOT be $2m cost to View Royal. INSTEAD "VR will work with MOTH etc to provide and more convenient walking and cycling facilities on bridges, underpasses and overpasses. " And respect transit users in this section. Revise table 10 so $2m goes towards sidewalks, transit and bike lanes within our jurisdiction. SAME... dont spend $1 m for bi-directional multi-use path on ONE side of Six Mile Road.	Upgrades to MoTI roads are identified in the report as a means to identify barriers and show needs. The funding of the project can be deliberated as part of future budgeting deliberations.
JR18	Equity	18	Revise Parks Master Plan to include missing piece... trails. New and also address existing hazards. ADD sidewalk into View Royal park, separate from cars.	The Parks Master Plan could be revised if it is the wish of Council.
JR19	Planning and Policy Context – Strategic Plan	19	revise... all trips to work, school, parks, and shopping by walking, cycling and transit.	The 2019-2022 Strategic Plan explicitly states the target being associated with trips to work and school. The 2023-2026 Strategic Plan is still being established by Council.
JR20	Planning and Policy Context	20	Review of VR Transportation Master plan. This is an example of REVERSE engineering where the very old and inadequate 2008 OLD Plan should updated with all the gaps and issues from the 2022 Conditions Rpt	The TMP was reviewed as part of the baseline conditions report. But given the relative age of the document, the recommended projects were informed by the ATNP public engagement process and technical analysis. Best practices and overall transportation trends have changed since 2008 and 2016, especially given the growth in the capital region.
JR21	Planning and Policy Context – Colwood Draft ATNP	21	Esqumalt has bike lanes on BOTH sides of Admirals. Map 9 shows bike collisions at Admirals / Craigflower . Esqiuimalt recommends uni-directional bike facilities ... 1.8m with .6 buffer from vehicle lane. NOT bi-directional. Not munti-use pathways.	See comment JR14. Staff will ensure Council has the information required for design options as part of the detail design phase.
JR22	Planning and Policy Context – Colwood Draft ATNP	21	I note that the Colwood plan did not mention View Royal, nor identify the GAP of accessible sidewalk between Westshore Parks and View Royal in their sidewalk priority project list.	Comment Received
JR23	Planning and Policy Context – Saanich Active Transportation Plan	21	"seamless connection between public transit and pedestrian and cycling networks" Such increases the reach of transit and encourages ridership. Section 5 implementation principles, prioritizing actions, and 15 pages of timeframes, methods and responsibility is useful reality check.	Comment Received
JR24	Planning and Policy Context – BC Transit Esquimalt View Royal Plan	21	GREAT this was identified!! BUILD into plan! Put new #40 how it is a huge regional deliverable (First Nations too!!). PROMOTE increased frequency (46, 49, 53, 24)... how the rapid bus benefits our residents and decreases commuter cars thru View Royal...	Comment Received –the Town has previously written a letter to BC Transit regarding #40 route improvements
JR25	Planning and Policy Context – CRD	22	UPDATE: The mobility hub is now at ATKINS for rapid corridor, not the non-existent town centre.	Comment received. The Town continues to receive updates regarding the Mobility Hub
JR26	Planning Policy Context – CRD EV & E-Bike Infrastructure Planning Guide	23	Town's policy require EV charging for bikes and cars in new builds should be mentioned as infrastructure supporting GHG reductions and ATP	This policy is included in the Town’s Community Climate Action Strategy which the ATNP references.
JR27	Existing Transportation Facilities – Pedestrian Facilities	24	Of the 26 k of existing sidewalks, how much is substandard, too narrow, barriers to accessibility? How ,any km are there in non-existing sidewalk gaps? 50? Be useful to have maps 12, 13 in this plan. AND a new revised map that shows 1) pedestrian improvement priorities (short medium, long ... diff colours). NOT just "ultimate"	Any pedestrian improvements in the ultimate network indicates that the existing infrastructure is substandard to meet Active Transportation needs. The priority, short and long term improvement maps are Maps 7, 8 and 5 respectively. (Action/Decision Required of Council) Should Council wish to include a specific pedestrian improvements map that incorporates the short, mid and long term projects, it is recommended to attach as a staff supplementary report that would be incorporated into the Final ATNP.
JR28	Existing Active Transportation Facilities – non separated sidewalk	25	Yes, Admirals needs widened sidewalks on BOTH sides of road. Excellent opportunity to team up with Songhees to lobby different funding sources and coordinated road improvements at same time.	(Action by Staff) Recommended comment for the Admirals Road Priority Project Section.
JR29	Existing Active Transportation Facilities – Multi-use Pathway	27	multi-use pathways are CRD challenges. Do not replicate congestion, conflict, discomfort and potential liability onto municipal streets that are also challenged / compounded with residential traffic in/out across the pathway	Recommended comment for future design options. The purpose of the ATNP is to provide concepts and options for future Council deliberations. MUPs are one of the facility types in the BC Active Transportation Design Guide that municipalities can consider for their roadways. They can be an effective way to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists and other AT users. They are different from regional trails / MUPs, which generally have much higher volumes due to people using them for both commuting and recreational purposes.
JR30	Existing Active Transportation Facilities – Bicycle Lane	27	Bike lanes maybe all we have to offer with limited road width and still allow emergency vehicles to pass. Helmcken, IH, 6 Mile, and Burnside are comparatively narrow. Remove separated sidewalks and trees to protect bikes? Admirals and Watkiss Way could do like Saanich did with Tillicum... plunk concrete... BOTH sides.	Quick builds are identified in this report and are an option that can be considered for future projects
JR31	Public Engagement	31	Image of just cyclists for public engagement implies a negative message that the other modes did not count.	(Action by Staff) Photo can be changed as requested
JR32	Ideas Fair – high volumes of AT users	32	I was at both. The turnout was less than I had hoped for. Being on the regional trails that is predominately cycling, did have ore cyclists than pedestrians. NO transit users from what I could tell.	Comment Received. See What We Heard Summary #1
JR33	Bikeshops	33	Bike shops.... Specific focus group should not drive the higher priority most costly improvements! From this CONCEPTUAL ideas were incorporated into surveys without objective pros and cons lists. Six Mile was omitted, but Glentana multi-use was in. It set a bias where those who don know the pssible pitfalls will rubberstamp.	See response to comment JR11
JR34	Bikeshops	33	The lack of full, complete and equitable consultation was a matter of budget and time? Ad hoc citizen walkabouts should have been organized with volunteers like Walk on Victoria. The Feb 19 one happened. They pointed out the following: Rudyard needs a sidewalk, So does View Royal Park. The Vickery Roundabout has significant visibility uses with shrubs blocking views of pedestrians wanting to cross. The safety and discomfort every day for pedestrians trying to dash between speeding cars with the Helmcken overpass between bus stop and VGH.... the great worry of what the Island Highway bi directional multiuse proposal is trying to fix, the trees that will be lost, the many conflicts with many teens, many bikes, narrow sections to accommodate the bus stop (dont move it!) ... the impossibility of this path reaching up to the E&N Trail, the need for a Shoreline Traffic light to stop bikes so cars can get out of Shoreline without hitting one, and the probability there is NO room for such a wide trail east of Shoreline to Admirals and MORE conflicts with transit users.	See response to comment JR11
JR35	Cycling Barriers – conflict between users	36	YES, different modes, abilities and speeds on regional trails = CONFLICTS. Pedestrians 2-3 aside, dogs on leashes, strollers, distracted kids and teens, FAST ebikes, spandex crowd of cycling groups, tourists, mobility scooters, bladers, inexperienced cyclists etc. ALL the worse where two regional trails converge into one 2 km trail risking more conflicts in View Royal trails. Imagine different modes, abilities, speeds in different directions next to a busy road!!	Comment received
JR36	Satisfaction with Trail Connections	36	The problem with the Conditions Report is that it JUST considered CRD trails, not municipal trails at all. It is not just about "separation" pedestrians and ROLLING (bikes, scooters, bladers,... those who travel faster than seniors and children)... it is widening and lane painting. ADD to trails: 1) improve / build connections to/from neighbourhoods 2) improve trails so they are accessible and comfortable for AAA 3) coordinate to develop trails in utility rights of ways across private land 4) build amenity infrastructure for all.... water fountains, toilets, ev charging stations for bikes and mobility scooters, misting stations, benches. PROMOTE CRD to use its mapping to augment google maps to GPS locate these amenities for the REGION!!	See Objective #3 and responses to comments JR2, JR10, JR44, JR54. Private land access, while done in the past, should be done with more detail, information and stakeholder engagement to ensure that these accesses are legal, maintainable and safe
JR37	Regional Connections – work with the CRD to widen Regional Trails…	37	please remove "where possible" Prefer Saanich: promote and support CRD widening regional trails for pedestrians and lighting. Like the CRD standard with 4 m cycling and 2 m pedestrian.	(Action/Decision Required of Council) Comment can be changed if it is the wish of Council
JR38	Plan Framework – Image	39	another image that is NOT in View Royal and showing no other ATP user group	Photo can be changed as requested
JR39	Plan Framework	39	did we do an OCP update in 2018?	(Action by Staff) This will be changed
JR40	Vision	39	add transit... buses help make driving the least attractive transportation choice... taxpayers are paying for it, AND electric buses reduce GHGs! Probably go faster in rapid bus lanes and riders can read or sleep. Can't do that on a bike.	The Vision was developed through public engagement responses per What We Heard Summary #2. However, bus stops can be included in the vision where AT connections to various destinations is discussed.
JR41	Vision	39	Transit point 2... Rapid bus along TCH and "Casino Blvd" and #40 on Admirals aids future OCP density on both edges of town without going through the town. Also enables VR better convenience / access to Westshore Rec and future arts Centre.	The Vision is designed to be broad: an executive level vision allowing specific items such as this comment to be included within its umbrella
JR42	Objective 1: Ready Set Roll Program	39	CRD recommended conditions for school travel program includes crossing guards. Please include this safety in this plan.	The Ready Step Roll Program recommends many options to improve active school travel. Staff will present findings to Council whom will have the ability to comment on crossing guards as this program progresses. The Town is currently partnered with Eagle View Elementary under this program. (Action/Decision Required of Council) Should Council wish to advocate for school crossing guards in the ATNP then they may do so if they wish.
JR43	Objective 2: Bus Stops	40	bus stop facilities: adequate size and width for wet / sun coverage for accessible wheelchairs, lighting, infrastructure for digital info if one cannot reach info signs.	Comment received and will be considered as part of future engagement with stakeholders such as BC Transit.
JR44	Objective 3: Regional Trails	40	municipal trails as well for AAA	(Action by Staff) See response to comment JR2. While the BC Active Transportation guide does not include parks trails (thus there is little direction on what AAA standards means for parks trails), this ATNP does take into account the importance of providing access to trails. Should it be Councils wish to consider upgrading such trails to AAA then additional information should be presented to Council on what this means and what impacts they may present
JR45	Future Active Transportation Network – Network Analysis: Prioritization Criteria	42	add column for Transit Network criteria	The transportation needs assessment included proximity to bus stops as one of the criterial (and already incidental to the Pedestrian Network Column). However, staff acknowledge that the transit network is a living and evolving plan under the purview of BC Transit. The Town will continue to regularly engage with BC Transit regarding their year to year priorities and will update continue to update Council for direction.
JR46	Future Active Transportation Network – Network Analysis: Cycling Network Criteria – facilities on high activity cycling corridors	42	facilities on high pedestrian corridors too	This comment is already included and incidental to the pedestrian network column (connections to schools, near future land growth, connections to bus stops, parks, trails)
JR47	Ultimate Network – Pedestrian Network	43	why is "rolling" part of pedestrian?? Bicycles roll, Define and clarify ... separate mobility devices for seniors from skateboards and rollerblades	(Action by Staff) Rolling refers to those who skateboard or scooter. It could also refer to those who use a wheelchair. This can be made clearer in the ATNP
JR48	Ultimate Network – Map 5	43	MAP 5 is the ultimate. Other municipalities have applied evaluation criteria to show the short, medium and long range implementation	See Section 5.1 of the ATNP for the transportation needs analysis evaluation criteria used to create the ultimate network maps. Evaluation then honed through public engagement and further technical analysis based on the above noted criteria to determine the 1-10 year projects, which are further broken down into priority, short and ultimate (long term inclusive) timelines - see implementation strategy. It Recent ATNP’s have excluded a time horizon for ultimate (long term vision) due to the how much community needs and Active Transportation designs change in 10 years. However, Council has the ability to bring forward longer term projects into the short term as part of budget and project deliberations.
JR49	Ultimate Network – Map 6	46	Again ULTIMATE is like pie in sky... evaluate and show short medium and long range implementation	See response to comment JR48 and Priority Projects and Other Short Term Priority Projects identified in the ATNP
JR50	Facility Types – Multi Use Pathway	50	MUPs bidirectional: based on volume, Six Mile, Helmcken, Admirals, Island highway, Watkiss. Based on conflicts = 6 m wide. Based on road width.... Admirals and WW. Based on regional consistency, safety and standardization... ONLY regional trails.	(Action by Staff) MUP widths are not based on volumes per se. The BC Active Transportation Design Guide provides recommended widths based on road class. 4.0m is the widest a MUP needs to be and that’s for an arterial. MUPs do not need to be 6.0m wide, will likely not be considered for Town projects, and thus will be removed from the ATNP to mitigate confusion. The CRD regional trail and lighting project recommends 6.5m for segments of the regional trails that experience the most volume / conflicts. That is not relevant to View Royal’s municipal road context
JR51	Facility Types – Sidewalk – Surface Material	51	Asphalt has lasted on Island Highway for decades... substandard width but material is resilient. For Cost it enables MORE roads to much safer to more residents in a faster rollout. Equitable.	Asphalt has a shorter lifespan than concrete but can certainly be on option for Council to consider for future projects.
JR52	Facility Types – Curb Ramps	58	CURBS and CORNERS in an urban setting. It seems there are much more "hard corners" per intersection in View Royal than in the core municipalities. This is to accommodate the commuter traffic through the community BEFORE the McKenzie Interchange. This seems to be part of curb ramps and protected intersections for pedestrians AND cyclists. The WORST and most dangerous corner is the SW at Admirals and Island Highway. NOW we have McKenzie, time to make it hard corner and protect the cyclists. This will make bike lanes on both sides much safer an no need for the 6m bi directional MURP, and re-directing a $1m to other network priorities.	(Action by Staff) See response to comment JR50. Staff will incorporate curb ramps at detail design stage to best of its ability.
JR53	Universal Design	60	Should one of the principles be for all modes be equitable for all alternate modes, not compromising another... such as bikes and transit?	The seven principles are inclusive to the alternate modes described. The principles are not overly prescriptive to allow municipalities to identify and cater to their values and needs as concepts continue into detail design.
JR54	Universal Design Toolbox	61	The Crohn's and Colitis Canada foundation AND Climate Change have identified another scenario universal design: Amenity Infrastructure so Active Mode users have information where and how close these amenities are: public toilets, drinking fountains, EV charging stations, and seasonal misting stations.	Comment received. Wayfinding is included in this report and the items described in the comments can be incorporated at detail design under future Council deliberation.
JR55	Universal Design Toolbox – Image of Fire Gate at end of Glentana Rd	62	Is it time to remove the gate to permit right outs for Glentana? IF we can allow this for new Portage Park development, why not here? Another example: No safety hand railing for the Quincy Stairs for those that require such aid and comfort.	Engagement with residents recommended as opening up this road could lead to complaints that the Town already receives for Glentana. Quincy is being monitored at an administrative level. Improvements can be made should it be the wish of Council, as a separate action item.
JR56	Proposed Improvements on Admirals Road	67	Strongly opposed to bi-directional cycling AND the MUR pathway! This .5 km RE DESIGN of REGIONAL road shared with 2 First Nations and 2 other municipalities is a WASTE of funds, creates confusion and conflicts, likely rejected by MOTi, RCMP and ICBC. It demands cyclists to switch back and forth, one side to the other on a VERYU busy road. Put the funds into creating a HARD corner at the intersection. CRD is growing fast... there is very little hope that congestion will be mitigated with less cars... less gasoline but more EVs.	(Action/Decision Required of Council) Per response to comment JR50, a 4.0m MUP would be suitable at this location. A 4.0m bi-directional cycling facility could also work here. This is the benefit of an ATNP plan as it allows staff to work with Council in choosing an option at the detail design stage, when more detailed information comes to light. Staff have engaged MoTI regarding this concept and it was not rejected as part of this exercise (any options that would have been outright rejected by MoTI would not have been presented to Council). Staff would continue to engage MoTI to further the design and options if it is the wish of Council to bring this project forward as part of budget deliberations.
JR57	Proposed Improvements on Island Highway	69	Strongly opposed to the IH concept for reasons given earlier. The intent it seems is to remove the merge lane. That and a safety traffic light at Shoreline will make residents rebel and transit service cease to function. The Transportation Master Plan AND a regional assessment must be done first before this ever gets approved, even in principle. There is not 6 m width on this road for unnecessary concept.	See response to comment JR50. The ATNP does not currently comment on any removals such as the merge lane, bike lanes or sidewalk. Staff can keep this note in mind for detail design.
AM2	Proposed Improvements on Island Highway	70	It is not clear how the intersection will be made more safe for the multi-purpose lane - how is the new proposed Island Highway pathway going to connect with the proposed Admirals pathway? Will the right merge from Island Highway to Admirals still exist?	The ATNP is conceptual in nature to identify barriers and needs, as well as to provide design options to consider. Safe connections will be addressed at the detail design phase; this is indicated as an item to look for in future designs in the ATNP
JR58	Improvements on Helmcken Interchange	71	Online survey responses is HIGHLY suspect for all three concepts. The survey did not provide detailed design drawings, no costs, no pros / cons. It sound good until...	See What We Heard Summary #2 regarding the impacts / trade-offs that were presented to survey respondents. The Helmcken Interchange improvements will incorporate additional engagement at the detail design stage of the project to address these comments.
JR59	Improvements on Helmcken Interchange	71	The Helmcken Concept is NOT our jurisdiction, not our responsibility, and not a dime should be spent on it. RE-direct the $2m to the critical needs on our own roads. Do not play around with the bus stops either. I am really surprised that the	This option was in response to comments received from the public as well as a barrier to Active Transportation in the baseline conditions
JR60	Table 8 Short Term Improvements – Project A	73	very significant HAZARD of pedestrians trying to cross to /from VGH, Erskine Lane etc on the NW corner. RECOMMEND issues be addressed to MOTo and that's it. YES, concrete sidewalks on both sides is a immediate improvement needed Absolutely no mid block crossing at Camden! It is SO close to Burnside... NOT mid block at all. Much better to spend the funds creating sidewalk and bike lane along Camden to Galloping Goose.	report. Council has the ability to direct staff whether to proceed with detail design or defer to MoTI. No Action Needed. Council does have the option to delete the mid block crosswalk or considered for future discussion in the long term
JR61	Table 8 Short Term Improvements – Project B	73	WW to Roundabout... add pedestrian push button for divers to see and stop	This is typically reviewed under the pedestrian crossing warrant system. Staff can bring this forward to Council as part of the detail design stage of this project. Council can alternatively request staff to review this under a separate action item.
JR62	Table 8 Short Term Improvements – Project C	73	Encourage Saanich to do their sidewalks at same time. Odds are they will only do one side though... do the NORTH side first. Extremely dangerous next to Knockan Hill Park.... you forgot to mention this park!! Major destination in area.	The draft ATNP describes improved connections to trails which includes the trail to Knocken Hill Park. Staff have and will continue to engage the District of Saanich regarding the timing of sidewalks on Burnside Rd as it makes sense to time them together
JR63	Table 8 Short Term Projects – Project D	73	Come on!! If Vickery / St Giles is the connection to the Portage Linear Park, then how dare you omit the hazardous pedestrian safety for local residents!! There is no room for a sidewalk (FIRST priority), let alone a nice to have bike boulevard. Show this on a map please. When I asked Consultant why just cycling and not sidewalk on St Giles, he replied because no one raised the issue. Staff know this has been an ongoing SAFETY concern for residents since summer 2022. TEMPORARY worse case fixes but still no sidewalk. This WAS documented and presented in my 5 page response to staff and consultants feedback of the Conditions Report dated November 29 2022. I included map 12 (existing) and showed 12 needs. ODD... I did not mention Jedburgh, and it is the ONLY sidewalk identified in the projects list. Very concerning.	(Action by Staff) While pedestrian accessibility concerns were not raised by the public throughout the engagement process, staff are aware of previous Council discussions regarding accessibility along St. Giles Street. Such improvements can be incorporated if it is the wish of Council, and can be reviewed as part of future budget deliberations. Staff recommend presenting a report to Council regarding options and impacts as part of that process however. All priorities identified in the ATNP were based on engaging with the public to inform on the level of treatment. Council can certainly include additional infrastructure as part of future project and budget deliberations
JR64	Table 8 Short Term Projects – Project E	74	Six Mile Road... TOTALLY opposed to a Multiuse pathway shared with pedestrians and cyclists on one side. Bi directional would make it FAR worse. No, MOTi would not likely support, since there is no 6m on one side. There are two rail abutements in the way.	See similar response from comments JR59 and JR50
JR65	Table 8 Short Term Projects – Project F	74	Jedburgh would improve.... ATKINS sidewalk from Anya Lane would dramatically improve safety and comfort for mothers with strollers, school kids catching the bus, shopping at the farm, walking up the dangerous hill to the Galloping Goose, fill a gap in the network that has been outstanding since 2008. Atkins at the same time as Jedbrugh! Why not mention of the significant gaps along Watkiss Way? Pedestrians must walk on Galloping Goose or Water Rights of ways because it is so bad. Like Jedburgh there is an elementary school and a residents work at VGH or catch the bus there. AND Erskine Lane will have many residents soon. ADD two new bus shelters there too! Improve connections ot VR elementary... Amend G to include sidewalk on Rudyard on side and widen Stormont sidewalk. Recommendation from FEB 19 Walking Workshop. Workshop also recommends SEPARATION for pedestrians and rolling into /out of View Royal Park.	While public engagement and the needs assessment did not identify Atkins Road or areas of Watkiss Way as a short term priority, it is identified for potential longer term improvements. Council can consider bringing these projects into the nearer term as part of project and budget deliberations. Council could present the extension as described as part of future budget deliberations. Council can consider this as part of future project and budget deliberations
JR66	Table 8 Short Term Projects – Project G	74	install bike lanes on both sides of Chancellor... unidirectional, conventional, safe, Narrow car lanes to 3m ... ample room! NO shared, no bi-directional	AT Plans are non prescriptive with a focus on design options. However, from a high level desktop study, painted bike lanes on both sides can be an option as the road currently has low enough volumes to make this a suitable option. (Action/Decision Required of Council) Staff recommend noting this in a staff commentary report to be attached to the ATNP, for addressing as part of budget and detail design deliberations. However, staff can include this design option into the ATNP if it is the wish of Council.
JR67	Table 8 Short Term Projects – Project H	74	No multi-use, no bi-directional on Glentana. Make car lanes 3m... lots of room for sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides	(Action/Decision Required of Council) See response to comment JR66
JR68	Table 8 Short Term Projects – Project I	74	No multi-use, no bi-directional on TALCOTT. Road is 31-37 m, wide. Room for bike lanes. permit parking just on west side... downhill side. The REAL issue is the vegetation lack of visibility and speeding cyclists. URGE CRD to remove rock and trees.. BIG sign to cyclists to travel at 5k. ADD Erskine Lane NEW multiuse connection to Galloping Goose! This is an immediate urgent fix for the MANY bikes coming there. it must be re-located, wide, lit and lots of warning signage on the trail.	(Action/Decision Required of Council) See response to comment JR66. However, in this case it would be recommended to keep the MUP option. This can be decided at the detail design phase when more detailed information becomes available. Many of the upgrades on Erskine Lane are development driven.
JR69	Table 8 Short Term Projects – Project J	74	ADD to J... Island Highway (wilfert to Westshore Rec) install curb concrete sidewalk to south side to fill gap in pedestrian and rolling users to regional recreation facility. currently is a poor trail surface in the woods with no lighting. OK short term but not addressing accessibility issues.	(Action/Decision Required of Council) The Town can refer this to Colwood if it is the wish of Council.
JR70	Major intersection improvement review	76	Better to spend money on these reviews that to spend $2m on a concept on an overpass that does not belong to us. what is a 'right hook' collision? IF that is cars turning right at the soft corner (lambchop), agree. IF re-design as a "high entry angle" is a hard corner... agree. The same needs t0 be addressed at C and D. Remove channelized right turn lanes in ALL. West - East Commuters now have the TCH, Rapid Transit and Mckenzie Interchange to use.	For future Council deliberation regarding prioritization. Intersection reviews are important as intersections are often the highest conflict points in the roadway.
JR71	Major Intersection Improvements – Intersection A	77	CNIB rep at open house noted the # of seniors at Lions Cove with poor eyesight. The channel right turn is hazardous to them, pedestrians and school kids. There is a new Yield sign there but that suggests for other vehicles. BE Consistent. If removing channel eight turns is good for A and D, do so for C please.	Noted for detail design.
JR72	Major Intersection Improvements – Intersection D	78	Admirals and Island highway.... Island Highway and Helmcken.... BOTH intersections must address the safety of pedestrians and cyclists with HARD corners that includes a separate dedicated right turn lane. Sannich did it with Admirals and Gorge ... and us drivers survived! It will SLOW traffic on Helmcken. and allow residents ni the new 6 story condo to get in and out easier. BOTH are conventional designs and necessary in an urban setting. immediate.	See response to comment JR52
JR73	Minor Intersection Improvements – Intersection F	80	ADD Talcott visibility improvements.... remove the rock and vegetation OR put stops signs for cyclists.	See response to comment JR68
JR74	Minor Intersection Improvements – Intersection G	80	WAIT! There is a FOUR way stop. Sure, don't dismount BUT STOP! This is NOT the town's jurisdiction... it is CRD. We pass on recommendations.	This option was in response to public engagement comments and was indicated as a barrier to Active Transportation in the baseline conditions report. Staff would already pass on these findings to the CRD once the ATNP is finalized, as they are key stakeholders
JR75	Minor Intersection Improvements – Intersection H	81	GGT/ Atkns... like Saanich we make recommendations if its CRD doing the separation on the trail., removing bollards, YES, ride through but add signs for cyclists to slow down, just in case...	Comment received
JR76	Minor Intersection Improvements – Intersection K	82	make recommendations to those who own the road and the trails for their consideration and implantation Ready step roll CRD program includes Crossing Guards... lets recognize and support buy adding to this plan,. AMENITY INFRASTRUCTURE.... NOT just for bikes and parking! Again, public toilets, drinking fountains, EV charging stations, seasonal misting stations... all the things for those not using cars need to know these exist and where. Modern urban settings like Burnaby do this already. As part of the CRD, this is part of the Plan to lobby for.	Staff would continue to engage the CRD whom is a key stakeholder See response to comment JR42. Amenity infrastructure could be considered per response to comment JR54
JR77	Supporting Programs + Policies	84	An important maintenance" add walkrollmap to town website. Since identified on Conditions Rpt many concerns documented. Also add bikemaps.ord. The creator, Ms Karen Laberec was at the Open house! I will ask her to present to Council.	See response to comment JR10. Comments regarding programs are received and can be endorsed should it be the wish of Council in future deliberations.
			Another Program: Create a separate stand along Transportation Advisory Committee. While I saw PREAC members at open house, no CADC members caught my eye. I note that CDAC had little comment to make on the Conditions Report. TWO Walk-On Victoria reps came to the open house! Another program is to build an affiliation towards resolving regional walking /rolling (senior scooters) issues, like dedicated lane on regional trails.	CDAC comments have been received by staff.
JR78	Supporting Programs + Policies	84	An integral part of CRD plan is providing crossing guards. This is a high value improvement supported by SD61, school PAC and View Royal Council. ADD and highlight this safety program as a separate program ... just just limited to annual planning. Thanks	See response to comment JR42
JR79	Staffing for AT Coordination	87	Let's start with Transportation Advisory Committee. Could add active transportation into a job description for a new Climate Action Coordinator position.	See response to comment JR77
JR80	Amenities	88	Amenities are more than bike parking. Amenity Infrastructure is all inclusive for the 4 networks. public toilets, drinking fountains, ev charging stations, seasonal misting stations, benches, pocket destination playgrounds, bus shelters, KEY is regional approach for the 13 ...end to end and no CRD park / trail silos, Digital map is essential.	See response to comment JR54
JR81	Wayfinding	92	WAYFINDING.... ADD smart phones to the "need to do list". IF we dont want to promote terrific apps that exist today (MAPS.ME is amazing for anywhere in Canada.... i am never lost on any trail!) then CRD, Tourism, etc should pool funds and build and maintain our own	See response to comment JR10 regarding endorsement of third party maps
JR82	Cycling Recommended Wayfinding	94	How many signs for all? Would it have universal regional standards for constancy? Cost of installation and maintenance ? Would a regional an smart phone app be more adaptable, efficient, effective ?	These comments would be clarified at the detail design stage which will use guidelines such as the BC Active Transportation Design Guide as a start.
AM3	Maintenance – snow removal	95	Would this increase the cost of our contract for snow removal? Is new equipment required for this?	Maintenance costs could increase if the level of service is expected to increase, or designs result in a change in maintenance operations. As an example, separated / protected bike lanes or pedestrian / multi use paths could result in the need to purchase snow removal equipment. An amount has been estimated in the Esquimalt AT Plan ($250,000 capital cost, unknown operational costs). However, additional research would be required to confirm these amounts for View Royal. Staff agree that additional information can be presented to Council regarding costs, advantages and disadvantages as part of the detailed design narrative.
JR83	Maintenance – snow removal	95	SNOW and concrete plunking like in Saanich. Road snow plows push onto and over concrete, it freezes in the bike lanes. and then what?	See response to comment AM3
JR84	Maintenance	95	We dont sweep the bike lanes when we sweep the streets? Snow removal on sidewalks is as bad as cycling lanes so add maintenance for both. With hard concrete barriers for cycling, maintenance goes way up to remove the snow pushed into the bike lane. We need to know this.	Existing bike lanes within the roadway are swept, cleared of snow and repaired per current contract. See response to comment AM3 regarding potential cost impacts
JR85	Policies and Bylaws	96	like to see Town policy broadened to support and facilitate a range of amenity infrastructure needs in support of active transportation, not just cycling.	A policy can be brought forward as a separate initiative if it is the wish of Council
JR86	Implementation Strategy	99	Nice to see an image showing sidewalks, bike lanes and bus shelter along and n support of transit route.	Comment received
JR87	Table 10 – Short term Project Cost Estimate	100	Class D should be defined... is that +/- 50%?	(Action by Staff) The definition of a Class D estimate, located in Section 6.1, can be further clarified. However, Council should be aware that future costs, especially longer term projects, are expected to fluctuate with market conditions that could be beyond this buffer
JR88	Table 10 – Short term Project Cost Estimate:	100	For comments JR89 to JR99 Council will be able to guide staff on the final design at the detail design stage, when more details are gathered and options honed.
JR89	• 1A	100	Support IF 1) FN consulted with FULL pros/cons, 2) unidirectional bike lanes both sides 3) no multiuse pathway 4) new bus stop at Rexall for #40 route in support of Glentana and Canadian Tire 5) widened sidewalk 6) hard corner at intersection.
JR90	• 1B	100	opposed for many many reasons. Vague concept where bike lanes already exist. FIX the east bound bike lane... take out rock curve, widen lane, re-design with a hard corner intersection so cyclists can safely cycle into Esquimalt and beyond.
JR91	• 1C	100	opposed. Bike lanes exist. NOT our cost. Make recommendations to MOTi with no cost sharing.
JR92	• 1D	100	How does this cost $1m??? ASPHALT widened sidewalk on south side... we do not know what driveways will still exist? NOT separated for now. NO midway crossing unless we want a riot and /or accidents. Better to allocate funds for bike lane and sidewalk (SEPARATED) down to GGT on Camden.	Separated sidewalks and protected bike lanes on both sides of the street are expensive physical amenities for this road corridor. See comments to JR88 regarding recommended next steps.
JR93	• 1F	100	support. Same cost estimate in capital project?	The capital project in the financial plan involves significantly more scope than 1F, hence the reason for the capital project being more expensive. See project summary C-117 for more information.
JR94	• 1G	100	oppose if pedestrian safety issues are not included on St Giles! SIDEWALK needed for walkers and slow moving, wide mobility devices. People have no other means to safely walk to bus or work at VGH.
JR95	• 1H	100	strongly opposed to one side bidirectional multiuse pathway. How di you fit 6m onto one side when there are two major constraints with bridge abutments? How does this fit into the Roundabout design? How does this tie into Island Highway intersection... take out one left turn lane and prevent left in and out for 6 mile pub? How does impact the bus stops for #53? Impact of trees? Keep it basic, standard... unidirectional bike lanes and sidewalks	See response to comment JR50
JR96	• 1I	100	OPPOSED since this continues to trump every other sidewalk need in the town. ONLY if Atkins, Rudyard, St Giles, Watkiss Way are treated with equality and fairness. NOTE: Nov 29 2022 document feedback details all these sidewalk needs, so cannot claim "not raised".	See response to comments ST3 and JR1
JR97	• 1J	100	OPPSED to multiuse pathway, and especially if bidirectional! Convention and no surprises is good... and prevents conflicts if not 6 m wide. Even so, must consult with ICBC on collision risks as residents back out of driveways onto Chancellor...	See response to comment JR50
JR98	• 1K	100	Glentana needs sidewalk upgrades since 1980s development, and yes bike lanes are worth assessing BUT NOT multi-use pathway!!
JR99	• 1L	100	talcott... opposed to bidirectional multiuse path! a bike lane up hill has meit, like the hard fought bike lane up Erskine Lane. Unidirectional enables residents in the townhouse strata to focus on those coming up the hill, not be broadsided by an fast Ebike commuter coming down to the Goose. Reallocate funds to fix bad sightlines at the Goose.
JR100	Action Plan – Table 11	101	problem with Table 11 is that 1) No transit improvements as identified in Conditons Rpt, 2) bus stops at risk 3) action to reduce speed to 30k in neighbourhoods 4) Sidewalk plan has not identified short, medium long range with objective evaluation criteria 5) municipal trails ... new and improved missing from plan 6) no cost estimates for the eleven consultant reviews / technical studies.	(Action by Staff) The revised ATNP will include some more language on transit
JR101	Funding Opportunities	105	Funding opportunity... consultation and team work with First Nations and other municipalities (east and west) enable and strengthen new and creative options such as Federal government support to First Nations. This would dramatically leverage everyone's reserves for a win-win.	Comment received and staff will continue to engage with our neighbouring stakeholders
JR102	Funding Opportunities – Private Development	105	Include a "sidewalk amenity fee" for every new development and re-development from SFDs to complex high density. This is based on cost per foot concrete curb and sidewalk and property frontage. This must begin imeediately given the province's new large lot imposition on town without appreciation of pedestrian safety infrastructure.	For future Council deliberation
JR103	Next Steps	105	DO NOT use low pedestrian counts as a excuse not to put in dedicated lanes. The repeated refrain "I won't walk on regional trail .... too dangerous, too uncomfortable and stressful. Its like saying we don't need sidewalks on Atkins or Watkiss Way because no body walks there. (how many times have I heard, do we need a light there, has anyone died?)	Comment received. See response to comment ST3
JR104	Next Steps	108	MISC 1 extract and collate all the gaps issues and suggestions about he two regional trails and send to CRD with Council endorsement.	For future Council deliberation
			CRITICAL: reduce speeds (not just at conflict intersections), make stop signs MUCH BIGGER , improve annual maintenance of sightlines, install pedestrian lanes where 2 trails converge into one by 2025.
JR105	Next Steps	108	CRD should install SAFTEY cameras at both ends of the View Royal / Colwood . Langford CONVERGENCE TRAIL (GGT) to observe the # of near misses for cyclists, and others. I count 2x a year and observe the issues.	For future Council deliberation
JR106	Next Steps	108	collect and share with transportation advisory committee the ongoing CRD bike / pedestrian counts, bike issues data from bikemaps.org, and concerns / missing amenities from walkrollmap.org. As well excellent transit survey counts for ridership patterns.	For future Council deliberation
JR107	Next Steps	108	BEFORE council decides on short term list, schedule a mandatory walkabout to see / hear / apply the pros /cons / benefits for all four network modes. Before these evolve into Capital Project budget items.	For future Council deliberation
JR108	Next Steps	108	TRANSIT: request Langord and transit work to improve pedestrian safety for #56 riders goin to Thetis Lake... incredibly dangerous on Phelps Road! The more CRD has safe access via transit, the less Langford needs to drive and park in View Royal.	For future Council deliberation
JR109	Next Steps	108	Both CRD and View Royal amend its parks and trails maps to show bus stops at regional parks like Thetis Lake	For future Council deliberation
JR110	Next Steps	108	Active transportation municipal trails: * Hospital Trail along Water right of way * Nursery Hill / Bryon .... MOTi approval is NOT a barrier or excuse. They allowed McLennan Trail and Chancellor Trail. * Riverside Craigflower Creek bridge has sharp metal raised grid that hurt dogs! Saanich Mt Doug bridge is excellent and does not inflict pain or injury. If it deters dogs, it deters owners. * cost effective, simple small trail signage for Trails from Atkins Interchange up to Edwards Park or Mill; Hill. * improve / repair worn out old trails in Glentana / Aldersmith side of Portage Park now we have the new one installed (which is creating unnecessary conflicts). Amend Parks Master Plan to include trails.	For future Council diliberation
JR111	Next Steps	108	At open house I was told that the important improvement for Erskine Lane to GGT connection was not on the list because it was not raised by residents. Wrong. I identified this in my November 29 5 page list of feedback under "cycling network". Given the 600 bikes that are destined for Erskine new developments it should not wait for #10. Please collaborate and design now with CRD.	If the comment is with respect to the actual connection / addition of improvements to the GGRT connection, then these improvements are currently required to be installed by the nearby developments (9 Erskine, 10 Erskine, 7 Erskine). However, Council can consider accelerating some works through Town funds if that is the wish.
JR112	Next Steps	108	Recommended wording for MOTi Helmcken overpass "View Royal will continue to work with its partners to provide safer and more convenient walking and cycling on bridges, underpasses, and overpasses. This includes ensuring facilities meet current design standards in terms of width, clearance and appropriate railings." The scary part of MOTi and CRD Galloping Goose is the Helmcken tunnel for pedestrians. Shades of Clockwork Orange!	(Action by Staff) This can be accommodated in the ATNP
JR113	Next Steps	108	ULTIMATTE pedestrian map has three new overpasses shown. The Talcott one is a through back to 1997 vision. The cost estimate about $5-10m each?	As per the ATNP and emphasized in the presentation, these overpasses are long term and aspirational in nature, and would require significant engagement and planning. 1997 cost estimates are no longer realistic to today’s market conditions.

APPENDIX A – RESPONSES TO COUNCIL’s COMMENTS (ATNP)

APPENDIX A – RESPONSES TO COUNCIL’S COMMENTS

Document Images