
To put it in astrological terms the City of London often operates like a black hole. A very large amount of data, analysis and general information is created in its operations but very little escapes into the public domain. A recent controversy surrounding the City’s Mobility Master Plan (MMP) is an example of this black hole functioning.
On the surface the City appeared to be open toward informing the public about its plans for transporting citizens within its jurisdiction through to the year 2050. Billboards were erected through the city announcing that four public information sessions were prepared where Londoners could examine the City’s future plans. In the midst of these arrangements news became reported that one of the City’s advisory committees expressed criticisms about the MMP and how its decisions were generated. The critical report came from the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC). Previous politicians had dissolved several such citizen committees in the past such that the ITCAC was only one of the few left standing. And politicians determined that the ITCAC would also be dissolved in 2025 leaving no official citizen participation.
Why Is Citizen Participation Important?
There are numerous examples where the City of London operates in unaccountable ways that are unhelpful and sometimes dangerous to its citizens. An example is shown in the photos below, taken recently at the road construction taking place along Wellington Road in London.
In recent years the City of London has failed to ensure that road construction projects within its jurisdiction comply with safe practices. While “guidelines” have existed for decades in manuals from various transportation groups the City has recently chosen to ignore them. With respect to roadway markings there are explicit details in existence that explain how these markings need to be created, along with proper signage, to guide vehicles through construction zones. Those procedures are not being followed in London. A number of these problem areas have recently been reported on the Gorski Consulting website. The following photos provide another example for traffic operating westbound on Bradley Ave and travelling through the intersection at Wellington Road.



In scenarios like those shown above collisions occur that are of a sideswiping nature and the threat of major injury is low. But significant costs can be incurred by both drivers from damage to their vehicles. Current mandatory collision reporting thresholds have risen to over $5,000 in total cost so that such an event would be unlikely to be attended by an “independent” police officer who could officially document fault. In reality London City Police are paid by the City of London and their independent assessment of City fault is questionable. Instead fault is determined by insurance companies based on predetermined “Fault Determination Rules” that are based on the geometry at which vehicles collide and not based on the reality of who was actually at fault. The result may be that both drivers could be viewed at fault, their insurance rates will rise but no fault will be placed on the City of London for causing the collision.
The City of London operates a well-equipped Risk Management Department with lawyers whose purpose is to protect the City from liability. Many such Risk Management departments advise city politicians and its staff to hide road safety problems that could bring a claim against the City. In this manner the City comes to prey on innocent citizens of London who are not in a position of financial strength to negotiate with a large Risk Management team. Without independent public scrutiny such operations get out of hand as there is no independent authority to watch over the development of unethical actions. This is just one example as to why citizen participation is extremely important in keeping an eye of City operations. Citizen committees cannot be just puppet structures that rubber stamp every action of the City. These independent committees must be given sufficient information about how City operations take place in order to ensure the proper functioning of municipal government.
Resignation Letter of Vincent Lubrano III
Before the ITCAC could be officially dissolved one of its members, Vincent Lubrano III, decided to write a formal resignation letter effective December 31, 2025 (although this date may have been a typo and possibly was meant to be December 31, 2024). Mr. Lubrano wrote that his resignation was “…in direct protest of the City Council’s decision to dissolve the ITCAC”. He further indicated that he was “…deeply troubled by the process used to eliminate an Advisory Committee, whose primary Term of Reference is to provide advice and guidance on the Mobility issues in this city…”.
It was clear that Lubrano was upset with the process as his comments in his letter continued: “The manner in which it was handled reflects a stunning lack of respect for the significant personal time and effort that ITCAC members invest…” and “…It became clear that Council views this Advisory Committee as a road block to be removed as opposed to a valued resource…” and lastly: “This protest is the only means we have to highlight the inconsistency between the Council’s stated commitment to public input and its actual practices.“
These were harsh words. Without context or a detailed understanding of the goings on between the ITCAC and the City it would be difficult to judge where the truth lies. But from the experience of Gorski Consulting much of what Mr. Lubrano stated is accurate. In 2019 Zygmunt Gorski became a member of two City of London Advisory Committees. It only took a matter of a few meetings to reveal that the City was not interested in independent advice. The City Clerk controlled what agenda items were included in any meeting and if the Clerk did not like a proposed item it was simply excluded. So committee members could not even discuss issues of importance amongst themselves. Gorski resigned within a few months for reasons similar to that expressed by Lubrano.
ITCAC Report of December 16, 2024
One can look at the report of the ITCAC from December 16, 2024 to examine if its complaints were valid. It would appear that the City of London created a team that was responsible for generating the MMP and the ITCAC was interacting with this team by providing independent comments and advice. The ITCAC report demonstrated repeated instances where the MMP team provided minimal for no details about how it developed its plans. This was essentially a black hole not allowing information to escape about how the City was operating.
A consulting firm called Arcadis was mentioned as being part of the MMP team. Arcadis advertises itself as a global firm, operating in over 30 countries with over 36,000 employees. It reports to hold an office in London on Oxford Street near Beaverbrook Ave. The role of Arcadis in the MMP team was not made clear, not even by Mr. Lubrano or the ITCAC. And it is possible that they actually know very little about the involvement of Arcadis. The City of London appears not to have provided any public information about Arcadis and if any studies or data have been generated by the firm.
In part the ITCAC complaints about the MMP team process can be encapsulated by the following segment of the ITCAC report:
“On reviewing the reports and presentations from the MMP team, various factual errors, contradictions, and gaps have been noted. This casts doubt on the thoroughness and competence of any analysis that has not been shared with ITCAC or the public. If we cannot trust the analysis without expert review, how can we trust the resulting recommendations? Council is dependent on competent, well-reasoned, evidence-based recommendations from expert and experienced staff and consultants. A very strong case must be made to counter any tendency towards decision-making based on misinformation, emotion, partisan ideology, beliefs based only on personal anecdotal experience, populist politics, etc.“
Again, much like Mr. Lubrano’s resignation letter, these words of the ITCAC represent strong criticisms. There is particular mention of “… decision-making based on misinformation, emotion, partisan ideology, beliefs based only on personal anecdotal experience, populist politics” which seems unusual. It is not clear, and it may not be possible to know what circumstances generated these comments.
Mobility Master Plan Drop-In Public Meetings
Some understanding of the City’s operations can be gained from examining what was reported to the public during its information meetings about the MMP. Gorski Consulting attended one of those meeting and the following was observed.
The attended meeting took place in a large room surrounded by numerous billboards positioned around the room’s perimeter and visitors were encouraged to walk around and view each board. The boards appeared to be grouped into areas reflecting the segments of the MMP. So boards located closest to the entrance door displayed general information about transportation systems in London. Other boards contained more specific information about mass transit, cycling networks and pedestrian issues. Members of City staff stood at various points associated with their areas of expertise.
One of the first boards showed the general philosophy of expected changes in the modes of transportation in the City. The content of this board is shown below.

The displayed data showed that the City was expecting to shift the modes of transportation from personal use vehicles to greater involvement of “walking cycling and transit”. With respect to these categories the billboard showed that in 2019 “walking cycling and transit” represented 23% of the City’s transportation and this was expected to increase to 32.5% by the year 2050, or slightly less than a 10% increase.
It was obvious from viewing the billboard that the categories of “walking cycling and transit” were all grouped together so that there was no information about the current levels of each individually. It would seem reasonable that the City was able to calculate these individual items otherwise they could not report the total of 23%. But it is not clear why they did not itemize these important modes separately. Again, it reflects the general process of the City’s providing only minimal information to the public.
While discussing the mode change with one of the City’s staff it was revealed that there was no specific plan that has been developed as to how the City intended to create the mode shift that they reported. Specifically with mass transit the City official stated that they operated on the basis of “if you build it they will come”. Meaning that, if the quality and quantity of mass transit is increased then ridership will naturally increase. These are very general beliefs without any specifics.
Another billboard was entitled Road Safety, as shown below. This was focused on London City Police data from the year 2023. The data contained in this billboard is misleading.

In general police data is known to be incomplete. While collisions where fatalities occur are likely to be fully reported, other categories such as injury-producing collisions and property damage collisions are less complete. This has been known throughout the history of collision reporting but in recent years the thresholds at which collisions are required to be reported have risen.
The above data is of greater concern with respect to cyclist collisions. Here the City has reported that only 70 persons were injured in 2023 when riding a bicycle. The City ought to have known that this information is greatly in error. This information is taken from police reported data which is greatly incomplete – something the City would be well aware of. Recent research reported several times on this Gorski Consulting website taken from hospital emergency department data shows that only about 8% of incidents of cyclist visits to emergency departments are reported in police data. So the police know nothing about the 92% of cyclist injury incidents that actually occur. By reporting the police data in the manner that they have the City of London has greatly misinformed its citizens about an important safety issue.
While the MMP is reported to be in its infancy there are additional concerns about its proposed actions at selected safety problems such as the area of Hamilton Road between Maitland Street and Highbury Ave. A billboard shown at the public meeting indicated that changes were being proposed in the near future along this roadway. What those changes are is not clear. When asked about those changes a City staff member could only hypothesize that they might include a reduction in the four lanes of traffic to just two lanes and then new cycling lanes would be installed. Although there is public information that 3 fatal cyclist collisions occurred along this stretch of Hamilton Road in the past 5 years no further information about cyclist collisions was available. When asked if the City was conducting any additional investigations with respect to cyclists on Hamilton Road it was reported that no such activity was taking place. The City staff member confirmed that cameras located at important intersections in the City are able to gather information about traffic volumes, characteristics and patterns. But it was unknown if any such studies were being conducted along Hamilton Road. The data from these permanent locations is likely analysed but it is unknown who does that analysis. It is unlikely that the ITCAC is informed of the results of such analysis.
The City staff member was also asked about their portable “Scout” camera installations which could be deployed to study certain safety-problem locations in the City. The City staff member confirmed the existence of these portable units and that the collected data is taken off-site to a private firm where it is analysed. But the staff member was unaware of any such installations being placed on Hamilton Road.
Summary
As expressed in the City of London ITCAC and in the resignation letter of Vincent Lubrano III the City of London is involved in a secretive, black hole proceeding where little information is being released to the citizens of London about the details of the Mobility Master Plan (MMP). It appears that the City is hiring private firms that conduct a variety of analyses that are not being shared in the public domain. When the City’s advisory committees complain about this process they are being shut down as is the case with the ITCAC.
Over the years a member of the City’s council who has been particularly vocal about shutting down advisory committees has been the Deputy Mayor, Shawn Lewis. In 2019 he was instrumental in attacking a report from the Cycling Advisory Committee, a group of unpaid, citizen volunteers. That committee presented information and ideas that were counter to Lewis’ vision. Instead of accepting that an opposing view is essential to the proper functioning of municipal government he instead went on to attack the committee. As reported by London’s CTV News in a article of February 22, 2019: “The City’s Deputy Mayor, Shawn Lewis appears to have led the charge in removing citizen advisory committees altogether.”
And again in an October 24, 2019 CTV News article: “At Tuesday evening’s meeting, Lewis stated that the advisory committees are there to “advise” and not to direct council. The comment prompted mixed reaction on Twitter…” and further: “The role of advisory committees is to advise us on the stuff we’re working on. It’s not to reinvent the wheel; it’s not to call to question the decisions we’ve made.”
And finally in an October 27, 2919 CTV News article: “Lewis said he wants to see advisory committees reviewed for overlap and effectiveness, saying the cycling group has gone “rogue.”
Through Lewis’ efforts the Cycling Advisory Committee was disbanded by the City. And the various volunteers from several committees transferred into a newly-formed Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC) which is now also being disbanded.
Lewis has previously complained that interaction with citizen advisory committees costs a considerable amount of time of City staff and this is wasted time. This is a strange viewpoint. In a society labelled as “democratic” the information about important issues is released to the public which becomes informed, leading to informed opinions expressed by a wide spectrum of the populace. When politicians view this transfer of information as a waste of time, and a needless expense, it is a disturbing development. Dictatorships are highly effective in directing how matters will be dealt with but the problem with such a system is that it only reflects the needs of the dictator, not those of the people as a whole.
You must be logged in to post a comment.