The bus rapid transit master plan has been approved by city council and endorsed by the Ontario government. At this stage it is difficult to intervene as the project is on an express track.

There are a number of large problems with the BRT plan that no one has bothered highlighting. The problems with the plan result in a $615-million project that will recover only one 10th of its cost over its entire useful life and will benefit only an additional one per cent of Londoners who already are well served by the LTC.

The magnitude of the cost of this project versus the marginal benefits that Shift says will be achieved are so far out of whack that one has to wonder if all of our councillors actually read and comprehended what was presented in the Shift plan.

First, we have to understand Shift’s projected time savings and projected ridership. All of the dollars, costs, ridership, time savings, are directly from the master plan.

The LTC average per trip time saving with BRT versus no BRT, is four minutes. But these time savings were calculated based on a single, one-hour window — the busiest one hour for transit and traffic on the proposed BRT routes every weekday between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.

It is reasonable to speculate there may be no time savings at other times of the day. What is the time saving at 9 a.m.? 2 p.m.? 7 p.m.? You could forgive a person for asking if this is a reasonable or honest basis for one of the main metrics of the plan. Shift has not been very transparent regarding this detail, nor has there been any reporting of this fact. For the remaining 96 per cent of the weekday, we have no idea if there are any time saving for BRT riders.

So, questionable time saving for LTC riders, but likely big delays for motorists.

On to ridership. SHIFT’s own projected annual transit ridership increase due to BRT is quite small, especially in relation to the price tag.

SHIFT’s own numbers show an increase in annual LTC ridership without BRT of six million riders, from 22.4 million to 28.4 million from 2015 to 2035. This is approximately in line with city percentage population increase projections.

With BRT, the increase is 8.9 million riders, from 22.4 million to 31.3 million, so only 2.9 million more riders a year due to BRT by 2035.

The increase in total ridership to 2035 attributed to BRT is only 13 percentage points more than without BRT.

This is over 16 years (2019-2035), so less than a one per cent increase in total ridership a year due to BRT.

Looked at another way, 2.9 million in a year is less than 8,000 trips a day, which is less than 4,000 additional passengers using BRT each day. Or, less than one per cent of London’s projected population of 458,000 in 2035. And this is not achieved until 2035, 17 years from now.

The public perception that BRT primarily will benefit Western University and Fanshawe College students is reinforced by a quick scan of the master plan. Seven out of 10 of the busiest LTC routes addressed in the BRT plan service Western or Fanshawe. References to both schools are prominent throughout the plan.

It is very difficult to take them seriously when our council and mayor insist the BRT is not focused on these students. Or as the Shift senior consultant manager says, “we should not diminish the value of providing good transit for students.”

Of course, students live in London for three or four years, and don’t pay taxes. And have we heard about mass complaints from students on this issue? No.

I have to imagine that most readers are now thinking “Wow, if all these figures are true, we really are not getting much benefit from this $615 million project.”

If the already marginal time saving is not real because of the consultant’s methodology, and the ridership increase is so small, what is the point in spending $615 million building the BRT?

And that is a very good question.

Hector Morrison is a London resident.