Gerrard/Dundas East-Logan Cluster Screening

RER New Stations Initial Business Case GERRARD / DUNDAS EAST Lakeshore East / Stouffville Corridors July 2016

Draft Draft: v.1.2 Metrolinx Our ref: 60431177 Client ref: 150400

RER New Stations Initial Business Case GERRARD Gerrard/Dundas East-Logan Cluster Screening

Draft

Prepared by: Prepared for: AECOM Metrolinx 300 Water Street 97 Front Street West Whitby, ON Toronto, ON L1N 9J2 M5J 1E6

RER New Stations Initial Business Case June 2016

Note to the reader: The Initial Business Case (IBC) represents a primary input into the evaluation and recommendation of New Stations. Final recommendation of new station site selection considers, in addition to the four cases of the IBC, network fit, and other strategic considerations including priorities of the various levels of government. Network fit addresses system-wide issues and impact on the overall performance of the rail corridor. IBC results do not represent the final recommendations of the GO RER New Stations Evaluation process. IBC results inform the process outlined in the GO RER New Stations Summary and Ranking Report, which is to be posted in the near future. For more information visit: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/newstations/ The final list of recommended stations is included in the June 28, 2016 GO Regional Express Rail Update report to Metrolinx Board of Directors.

97 Front Street West 97, rue Front Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E6 Toronto (Ontario) M5J 1E6

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Executive Summary

Recent provincial planning and policy initiatives call for significant operational changes in GO rail services in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Regional Express Rail (RER) program will bring more train trips to every GO rail corridor, including increased weekday rush-hour and non-rush hour periods, evenings and weekends, and electric trains running every 15 minutes or better, all day and in both directions, within the most heavily travelled sections of the network. In addition to RER, the SmartTrack program was developed by the City of Toronto to promote higher-order transit services and infrastructure improvements on the Kitchener and Stouffville/Lakeshore East rail corridors. To address considerations emerging from the RER program and SmartTrack, Metrolinx initiated an examination of potential new station locations across the seven existing GO rail corridors. New stations should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, financial (affordability), economic, and operational and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base users.

An initial identification of over 120 potential station sites was narrowed to 56 through a high-level evaluation of transport connectivity, planning and land use, and technical feasibility. The 56 potential station locations were then evaluated against 38 criteria, yielding 24 sites on corridors that are subject to major infrastructure investment as part of the RER programme, to be examined in more detail using an initial base case (IBC) evaluation. This report covers the evaluation of two station location options on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors near Gerrard Street in Toronto. The initial business case was applied to “Scenario Option 1”, which represents the addition of a single station to a base case RER service concept with the existing fare structure.

Two potential station locations were initially compared: one near the intersection of Gerrard Street and Carlaw Avenue and another near the intersection of Dundas Street and Logan Avenue. A high-level screening was completed using key criteria from the strategic case, as well as a limited review of financial, economic and deliverability/operations considerations. The scenario of only adding Gerrard station was compared to the scenario of only adding Dundas East-Logan station; adding both stations is not operationally feasible due to the very close spacing of the two options. Though the two stations would perform similarly across many of the criteria, the Gerrard station option would perform better due to having slightly higher ridership, significantly better connections to local transit, improved potential connection with a future Relief Line, closer proximity to a wide mix of land uses, and placement on a designated “Avenue”. The Gerrard station option is expected to have a higher capital cost, potentially resulting in a similar net present value as Dundas East-Logan station, and higher complexity of construction due to its more constrained location. Due to a better strategic rationale, particularly connectivity with other transit services, the Gerrard station was advanced for the full IBC evaluation.

Gerrard station would be located behind several buildings and require the purchase of small lots at the south end of the site and the Riverdale Shopping Centre at the north end. The lots in the south are mostly undeveloped or vacant while the Riverdale Shopping Centre contains a No Frills grocery store and gas station and a few other businesses. The land is currently zoned commercial/residential and does not contain any natural heritage features, designated heritage structures, or areas of natural or scientific interest. On the south side of the station, a large industrial building on the west side of Carlaw Avenue, containing a number of small businesses, would be located directly adjacent to the site.

The potential site concept consists of three platforms that service four tracks. A bus loop and passenger pick-up and drop-off area (PPUDO) would be installed where the Riverdale Shopping Centre is currently located, with the remaining portions of the parcel set aside for future development. There would be platform access at both the north

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

and south ends of the station. The north access would be in the northeast quadrant of the Gerrard and Carlaw intersection and the south access would be on the east side of Logan Avenue approximately 200 m north of Dundas Street. Each access would connect to a pedestrian tunnel serving all platforms. A future 120-metre long underground connection to the proposed Relief Line subway may also be possible from the north pedestrian tunnel to a presumed station under Pape Avenue.

A strategic case evaluation was completed to determine the conformance of this station to long-term policy and planning objectives. This case evaluation determined the following:

 The station would conform to the wider provincial and municipal policy vision (e.g., Growth Plan, Official Plan) of the area;  High residential real estate demand exists in the area;  The projected population and employment density of the immediate area would not meet density guidelines for express rail stations;  Projected net daily boardings on the GO system would increase by 5,704 based on 2031 ridership;  The potential station would be accessible to cycling, walking, transit, and PPUDO; and  The potential station would have high connectivity to existing local transit as well as potential future connectivity to the Relief Line subway.

A financial case evaluation was performed to determine the financial viability of the station using the net present value (NPV), revenue to cost ratio, and operating cost recovery ratio. The case evaluation determined the potential station would generate the following:

 Financial NPV loss of $166.7 million;  Revenue-to-cost ratio of 0.44; and  Operating cost recovery ratio of 2.91.

An economic case evaluation was performed to assess the net economic value to transportation users and society as a whole the potential station generates. Compared to the financial case, the economic case examines the value to society as a whole, not just the direct financial impacts on Metrolinx. This analysis indicated that the station would generate the following:

 Economic NPV loss of $224.6 million;  Benefit-cost ratio of 0.1;  Net travel time savings of -20.9 million person-hours

A deliverability and operations case analysis was undertaken to determine the impacts the station has with respect to construction and corridor operations. This case evaluation assessed the following construction constraints and impacts:

 The site is constrained with respect to footprint and access;  Track geometry is suitable for a new station;  No reductions in track speed are required;  Land acquisition is required for track shifts and station facilities;  Expansion of the nearby Gerrard, Carlaw, and Logan overpasses would be required;  A Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) and standard construction permits would be required; and  Contaminated soil may be present throughout the site and may be a bigger issue at the north end of the site area, which contains a gas station.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

A high-level sensitivity test was also performed to assess the directional impact of a fare integration scenario where GO riders travelling within Toronto pay the TTC fare instead of the higher GO fare and transfers between TTC buses or streetcars and GO are free. This scenario would have two opposing effects on ridership and travel times. First, under the base case scenario (i.e., before introducing the new station), the lower fare is expected to attract more riders to the eight upstream stations on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors within Toronto. Hence, when the new station is introduced, the overall travel time losses due to the delay at the new station would increase relative to Scenario Option 1. Second, more transit riders currently using the streetcar on Gerrard and transferring onto the subway at College to get to or from the Union Station area would switch to GO, because they can realize travel time savings despite the wait time penalty at Gerrard station. Assuming that Pape / Don Mills buses are extended south to Gerrard station, some transit riders using these buses and travelling to or from the Union Station area would switch to GO and save a transfer at Bloor-Yonge. The upstream travel time penalty will divert some additional riders away from the GO rail network and this is likely to offset the increased GO ridership, including those switching from TTC (as a faster route to Union Station) and those switching from other travel modes to the Pape / Don Mills buses, since the latter offers a more attractive access mode to Gerrard station under fare integration. Hence, the net effect on travel time savings and ridership is likely to be negative under fare integration.

A second sensitivity test suggests that the implementation of a station at Gerrard would be difficult if the Lakeshore East / Stouffville corridor is expanded to five tracks from Don Yard to Scarborough Junction. The amount of property acquisition and stakeholder impacts would be even greater than they would be under a four-track scenario. A four- track scenario with Stouffville and Lakeshore East trains on separate tracks may create schedule and operating impacts for Lakeshore East express trains (including VIA), as they would need to share tracks with Lakeshore East local trains stopping at the station. Therefore, a Gerrard station would be most compatible with a four-track corridor that is configured with Lakeshore East / Stouffville local and Lakeshore East express trains on separate tracks. This may create infrastructure requirements or operational challenges at other locations on the corridor to handle crossover train movements. The costs, benefits, and impacts of these operational changes have not been considered in this report.

The initial business case analysis for the potential Gerrard station shows that a station at this location would be in line with overarching provincial and municipal goals with respect to policy and strategic vision. In addition, this station would be in a good location with respect to track geometry. However, both the financial and economic analyses indicate that the station plan, as it stands, has a negative financial value for Metrolinx and would reduce economic wellbeing for society as a whole. The station may also be challenging to construct due to the constrained width of the corridor and likely need for substantial retaining wall installation behind buildings along the corridor.

A summary of these results can be found below in Table ES-1.

iii

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table ES-1: Results of Initial Business Case Analysis

Criteria Summary Policy Alignment Supportive

Development Potential and Intensification Supportive Real Estate Market Demand Supportive Natural Environment Supportive Operational System Supportive

Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Supportive StrategicCase Station Access Supportive Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Neutral Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) 74.4

Fare Revenue (A) $129.5 Total Costs (B) $296.1 Capital Costs $251.7 Operating Costs (C) $44.5 Net Present Value (A-B) -$166.7 Financial Case Revenue to Cost Ratio (A/B) 0.44 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) 2.91 Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person-Hours) -20.9 Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) 433.2 Benefits $26.8

Costs $251.4 Net Present Value -$224.6 Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.1 Transportation User Impacts $25.5 Travel Time Savings -$111.0

Economic Case Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $95.0 Decongestion on Road Network $31.3 Safety Impacts $10.2 Environmental Impacts $1.3

Constructability Supportive Stakeholder Impacts Neutral Room for Growth Not Supportive Approvals/Permits Required Supportive

Operating Impacts Neutral OperationsCase Deliverabilityand Other Key Risks and Impacts Neutral

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table of Contents

Executive Summary page 1. Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Background ...... 8 1.2 Report Scope and Purpose ...... 8 1.3 Site Options and Scenarios Analyzed ...... 9 2. Cluster Screening ...... 11 2.1 Methodology ...... 11 2.2 Gerrard Station ...... 11 2.2.1 Strategic ...... 16 2.2.2 Financial ...... 18 2.2.3 Economic ...... 18 2.2.4 Deliverability and Operations ...... 18 2.3 Dundas East-Logan Station ...... 19 2.3.1 Strategic ...... 22 2.3.2 Financial ...... 23 2.3.3 Economic ...... 24 2.3.4 Deliverability and Operations ...... 24 2.4 Recommendation ...... 25 3. Station Context and Concept Plan ...... 26 4. Strategic Case ...... 32 4.1 Strategic Case Summary ...... 32 4.2 Approach ...... 32 4.3 Rationale for a New Station ...... 33 4.3.1 Problem Statement ...... 33 4.3.2 Drivers for Change ...... 33 4.3.3 Station Objectives ...... 34 4.3.4 Constraints and Interdependencies ...... 34 4.3.5 Stakeholders ...... 35 4.4 Policy, Land Use and Development ...... 35 4.4.1 Policy Alignment ...... 35 4.4.2 Development Potential and Intensification ...... 38 4.4.3 Real Estate Market Demand ...... 44 4.4.4 Natural Environment ...... 44 4.5 Network, Connectivity, and Accessibility ...... 45 4.5.1 Operational System ...... 45 4.5.2 Connectivity and Ridership Drivers ...... 45 4.5.3 Station Access ...... 52 4.5.4 Social Inclusivity and Accessibility ...... 52 4.5.4.1 Social Inclusivity ...... 52

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4.5.4.2 Accessibility Index ...... 52 4.5.4.3 Community/Social Impacts ...... 53 4.6 Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 53 5. Financial Case ...... 56 5.1 Financial Case Summary...... 56 5.2 Approach ...... 56 5.3 Financial Criteria ...... 57 5.3.1 Capital Costs ...... 57 5.3.2 Station Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 57 5.3.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs ...... 57 5.3.4 Incremental Fare Revenues ...... 58 5.3.5 Revenues from Other Sources ...... 58 5.3.6 Net Present Value ...... 59 5.3.7 Lifecycle Revenue to Cost Ratio ...... 59 5.3.8 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio ...... 59 5.4 Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 59 6. Economic Case ...... 61 6.1 Economic Case Summary ...... 61 6.2 Approach ...... 62 6.3 Economic Criteria ...... 62 6.3.1 Project Costs ...... 62 6.3.1.1 Capital Costs ...... 62 6.3.1.2 Station Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 62 6.3.1.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs ...... 63 6.3.2 Transportation User Impacts ...... 63 6.3.2.1 Travel Time Savings ...... 63 6.3.2.2 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled ...... 64 6.3.2.3 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings...... 64 6.3.2.4 Decongestion Impacts on Road Network ...... 64 6.3.2.5 Safety Impacts ...... 64 6.3.3 Environmental Impacts ...... 65 6.3.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 65 6.3.4 Benefit Cost Analysis Results ...... 65 6.3.4.1 Net Present Value ...... 65 6.3.4.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio ...... 65 6.3.5 Economic Development Impacts ...... 65 6.3.5.1 Wider Economic Benefits ...... 65 6.3.5.2 Economic Impacts ...... 66 6.3.5.3 Income / Distributional Impacts ...... 66 6.3.5.4 Property and Land Value Changes ...... 66 6.4 Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 67 7. Deliverability and Operations Case ...... 69 7.1 Deliverability and Operations Case Summary ...... 69 7.2 Approach ...... 70 7.3 Deliverability and Operations Criteria ...... 70 7.3.1 Constructability ...... 70 7.3.2 Stakeholder Impacts ...... 71 7.3.3 Room for Growth ...... 71

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

7.3.4 Approvals/Permits Required ...... 72 7.3.5 Operating Impacts ...... 72 7.3.6 Other Key Risks and Impacts ...... 72 7.4 Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 73 8. Conclusions and Findings ...... 74 Appendix A: Financial and Economic Case Baseline Assumptions ...... 80 Appendix B: Travel Time Savings Analysis ...... 81 Appendix C: Criteria Ranges ...... 81

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Gerrard Station Cluster Context Map ...... 9 Figure 2-1: Site Context around Gerrard Station Option ...... 14 Figure 2-2: Site Context around Dundas East-Logan Station Option ...... 20 Figure 3-1: Gerrard Station Concept Plan ...... 28 Figure 3-2: Gerrard Station Property Requirements...... 30 Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use ...... 40 Figure 4-2: Current Development Applications and Potential Soft Sites ...... 42 Figure 4-3: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Transit Network ...... 48 Figure 4-4: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Active Transportation Infrastructure ...... 50

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Initial Business Case Scenario Options ...... 10 Table 2-1: Summary of Cluster Screening Results ...... 25 Table 4-1: Strategic Case Summary Results ...... 32 Table 4-2: Level of Conformity to Provincial, Regional and Local Land Use/Transportation Policy ...... 36 Table 4-3: AI and ATT Scores With and Without Gerrard Station ...... 53 Table 4-4: Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 54 Table 5-1: Financial Case Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period) ...... 56 Table 5-2: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period) ...... 58 Table 5-3: Additional Ridership and Fare Revenue (60-Year Period) ...... 58 Table 5-4: Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 59 Table 6-1: Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period)) ...... 61 Table 6-2: Travel Time Impacts (60-Year Period) ...... 63 Table 6-3: Changes in Auto Distances Traveled (60-Year Period) ...... 64 Table 6-4: Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 67 Table 7-1: Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Results ...... 69 Table 7-2: Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenario Analysis ...... 73 Table 8-1: Results of Initial Business Case Analysis...... 77

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Recent provincial planning and policy initiatives call for significant operational changes in GO rail services in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Regional Express Rail (RER) program will bring more train trips to every GO rail corridor, including increased weekday rush-hour and non-rush hour periods, evenings and weekends, and electric trains running every 15 minutes or better, all day and in both directions, within the most heavily travelled sections of the network. To address considerations emerging from the RER program, the City of Toronto’s SmartTrack plan and other transit initiatives, Metrolinx initiated an examination of potential new station locations across the seven existing GO rail corridors. New stations should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, financial (affordability), economic, and operational and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base users.

An initial identification of over 120 potential station sites was narrowed to 56 through a high-level evaluation of transport connectivity, planning and land use and technical feasibility. The 56 potential locations were then evaluated against 38 criteria and 9 key criteria, yielding 24 sites on corridors that are subject to major infrastructure investment as part of the RER programme, to be examined in more detail using an initial base case (IBC) evaluation. This phase of the study includes the development of these IBCs to identify the best performing locations across the system and provide recommendations for new stations that would benefit the system within the first 10-year scope of the RER programme.

This IBC Report analyses the Gerrard Cluster, which includes two potential sites: Gerrard, which would be located near the intersection of Gerrard Street East and Carlaw Avenue, and Dundas, located at Logan Avenue and Dundas Street East. This potential station is located near the Riverdale and Leslieville areas of Toronto’s east end. They are stable residential neighbourhoods in Toronto, composed of low and medium density housing. The station area generally contains commercial and residential uses. Gerrard Street is designated as an “Avenue” in the Toronto Official Plan and serves as a local “main street” for the neighbourhood, with both small-scale storefronts and a couple larger shopping centres. The area is currently lower density, but is targeted as an area where more intensive development is possible. The area just south of the rail line between Carlaw Avenue and Logan Avenue is designated as employment land use, where job intensification is to be prioritized. The area is served by both streetcars on Gerrard Street and buses on Carlaw Avenue. This station could also be able to provide direct transfer capabilities to the potential Relief Line subway currently planned under Pape Avenue.

1.2 Report Scope and Purpose

The scope of this Initial Business Case Report is to develop a high-level justification of the effectiveness of the potential new station. This report provides an initial overview of how the new station would contribute toward meeting Metrolinx’s and local objectives (the strategic case), the financial and economic performance of the station (the financial and economic cases), and deliverability and operational considerations (the deliverability and operations case).

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

The findings of this report will be compared against the findings of IBCs for other potential new stations to determine the relative performance of station options across the network, which would support recommendations on which stations should proceed toward nearer-term implementation.

1.3 Site Options and Scenarios Analyzed

Two site options are being considered for this station. One option would be located at the Gerrard Street East and Carlaw Avenue intersection and the other option would be located at the Dundas Street East and Logan Avenue. These potential station sites were evaluated and identified for further analysis during the previous high-level evaluation completed by Metrolinx.

Both of these locations are located along east-west streets serving the nearby areas. The neighbourhoods near the corridor are urban but generally contain lower-density detached and semi-detached housing. There are a number of aging employment/commercial lands along the rail corridor, some of which are retail (such as the Gerrard Square mall) with others being more industrial in nature. The area is not currently served by higher-order transit. The potential Relief Line subway that may run through the area would provide a potential interchange station between GO/RER and the subway. Figure 1-1 illustrates the approximate location of the station options.

Figure 1-1: Gerrard Station Cluster Context Map

Potential station Existing GO stations Planned GO stations

One main scenario has been analyzed in this IBC. This scenario (Option 1) consists of adding this station to the planned RER network, which serves as the Base Case against which the station is compared. Five sensitivity scenarios are being considered at this time in the New Stations IBCs; four of these apply to the Gerrard station cluster. Table 1-1 describes the key elements within each scenario option.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 1-1: Initial Business Case Scenario Options

Scenario Options Description

Base Case Scenario (Do Nothing)  RER Network based on RER IBC Scenario 5.1 infrastructure and service levels  No new stations  No fare integration (existing fare policies)  2031 ridership grown from 2013 population and employment using corridor- specific growth factor  Committed (funded) rapid transit projects Scenario Option 1 (One New  RER Network based on RER IBC Scenario 5.1 infrastructure and service levels Station)  One new station with 1.8 minute schedule impact  Express trains skip new station if located on express segment  No fare integration (existing fare policies)  2031 ridership grown from 2013 population and employment using corridor- specific growth factor  Committed (funded) rapid transit projects Scenario Option 2A (Service  All Lakeshore East and Stouffville trains stop at Gerrard station Concept Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2B (Track  Addition of fifth track on Lakeshore East to Scarborough Junction Infrastructure Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time  Add delay at Spadina-Bathurst and other applicable stations: not applicable at Sensitivity) Gerrard cluster Scenario Option 2D (Fare  TTC–GO fare parity at stations in Toronto for trips fully within Toronto, including Sensitivity) free transfers with bus, streetcar, and subway. Could be limited to SmartTrack stations in Toronto (Milliken to Etobicoke North1) or could extend to all GO stations in the city Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and  2031 approved population/employment projections plus major development Land Use Sensitivity) proposals

1 Options C and D of SmartTrack presented at the February 10, 2016 Metrolinx Board of Directors meeting includes a realigned SmartTrack using the Kitchener Line toward Bramalea.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

2. Cluster Screening

2.1 Methodology

Clusters of potential site options have been identified where the catchment area of individual sites of interest may overlap. In some cases, certain site options can be dropped early prior to detailed consideration in the IBC. A high- level comparative analysis of sites has been conducted within this cluster. Certain criteria from the full IBC have been brought forward and considered as part of the cluster screening. These criteria have been selected due to their importance and the potential ability to provide findings that can differentiate between the performance of each site option. These criteria include:

 Strategic Case o Policy Alignment o Development Potential and Intensification o Real Estate Market Demand o Operational System o Connectivity and Ridership Drivers  Financial Case o Affordability / Capital Cost (order-of-magnitude) o Incremental Fare Revenues (Millions of 2015$, Present Value)  Economic Case o Transportation User and Environmental Impacts (Millions of 2015$, Present Value)  Deliverability and Operations Case o Constructability / Ease of Construction and Operation

A station cluster was employed for these two station options because they serve a similar part of the GTHA and have overlapping catchment areas. These station options are generally spaced very close together (i.e., within 1 km). Due to this close spacing, only one station option can be selected from the cluster. Having stations that are too close together (i.e., less than 1.5 km with electric trains) will cause reduction in corridor speeds and reduce the efficiency of the overall rail line.

2.2 Gerrard Station

The first site to be explored is Gerrard, located at the corner of Gerrard Street East and Carlaw Avenue. The surrounding area is mixed with residential, commercial, mixed-use and park area, as shown in Figure 2-1. Areas surrounding the existing rail corridor include a parkette, a three-storey industrial/commercial building, an auto repair shop, townhouses, a strip mall (Riverdale Shopping Centre) with a grocery store (No Frills), a parking lot and single dwelling residential houses.

Transportation infrastructure in the area is moderately diverse. The two main streets, Carlaw Avenue and Gerrard Street East, both have two lanes of traffic in each direction and have sidewalks on both sides of the street. The existing transit lines accessible to the potential site are the 72 and 325 (night) bus routes running north-south on Carlaw Avenue from Pape station and the 506 and 306 (night) streetcar routes running east-west on Gerrard Street

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

East. Existing local transit stops are adjacent to the potential Gerrard site and are within a two-minute walk to the potential station site. There is no existing cycling infrastructure on Gerrard Street East; however, there are plans for a future cycling route on Carlaw Avenue2 and there is an existing bicycle lane on Logan Avenue which turns into an on-street route north of Gerrard Street East and south of Dundas Street East.

2 City of Toronto Bike Plan: Shifting Gears, City of Toronto, June 2001

12 RER New Stations Initial Business Case

Gerrard / Dundas EastLegend

Jones Ave Jones

Figure 2-1:

v A

Pape Ave Pape Site Context around Gerrard Station Option

Broadview Ave Broadview d (! Development Sites

l d i Soft Sites !( M Carlaw Ave Carlaw !( Legend FinchStation

800 m Station Buffer d

R Gerrard Station Land Designations y

d River

e n

n No DesignationStouffville Line e

K Stouffville Line !( Road Network Lakeshore East Line Commercial / Mixed - Use Logan Ave Logan Trail

Richmond Hill Line Institutional

d R

Major Road y e Green Space

Gerrard St E l

r B Minor Road Gerrarld_Carlaw_NEwResidential_Buffer

Walking Trail / LakeShore_East_FinaUtilityl and Multi-Use PathwayRichmondHill-Line Transportation Waterbody / GerrardSoftsites Employment Watercourse Gerrard_DevelopmeGnetrArarerlad_Carlaw_NEw_Buffer !( Dundas St E 800 m Station Buffer LakeShore_East_Final

Finch Ave E RichmondHill-Line GerrardSoftsites 0 0.0750.15 0.L3eKgieGlonemdrraertde_rDsevelopmentArea Different purple for Employment Color

River x d m . e r u t c u r

Stouffville Line t s

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business a r f n

¯ I

g n Case Report Road Network i y c l C

d e n n

Trail a l P

d 0 0.0750.0. 1155 0.3 Kilometers d

n R a Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

g t

Queen St E n i

800 m Station Buffer t n s i x u Finch Station Cluster Initial Business E

\ o d n

a m l d

Case Report i h

Datum: MTM_3Degree M c Datum: MTM_3Degree _

r Apr, 2016 Unknown i Finch Station Cluster Initial Business c h n

i B F \ d e

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client and may t

Case Report a

Commercial/Mixed-Use e r C not be used, reproduced or relied upon by Fthirdigu rparties,e 2: F iexceptnch S asof tagreed Sites and Future \ S I c G

by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental r A \ x n

reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any i l o

Figure 2:E Fmincph lEoxyismtineg nLat nd Use r t liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without e M s \ Datum: MTM_3Degree t This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reApropdurc,e d2 o0r 16 n

AECOM’s express written consent. e

relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by m u

governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and deniesI any lsiabtilitiyt wuhatsoieovern, al c o

to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. D Datum: MTM_3Degree s \ Eastern Ave Apr, 2016 h e n e M m P

Land use designations derived from City of Toronto Zoning Bylaw No. 569-2013. a

Green Space 6 k h 2 i : d 4 e 0 : 4 s a

6 s \ r 1 0 s e 2 / U \

Residential 2 : 1 / C

4 :

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or : n d o i

relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by t v e a c a o governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, S l

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or e p to any pUarty tthialti mtoydif ieas thnis draw iTng rwiathonut AsECpOMo's rextparests iworittenn consent. t a relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by a D M governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. Finch Station

Stoufville_New

Major Roads Minor Roads Trail River/Creek 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Kilometers

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business Case Report

Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

Apr, 2016 Datum: MTM_3Degree

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

2.2.1 Strategic

Policy Alignment

The potential Gerrard site conforms to current provincial, regional and local transportation and land use policy. The potential Gerrard location would provide good connectivity to downtown and other locations along the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors for residents of Riverdale, coinciding with the province’s focus on healthy and connected communities. The connection to the 506 streetcar route on Gerrard Street East aligns with the City of Toronto’s land use designation of Gerrard Street East as an “avenue”, a major transportation corridor. The new station would promote growth in the area, further densifying the mixed use, residential and employment designated areas directly adjacent to the Gerrard location. The station could provide a public square and act as a key focus area for the Gerrard corridor, supporting revitalization of the retail along that section of Gerrard.

Development Potential and Intensification

The existing population and employment density around the potential Gerrard site is 66.2 total population and jobs per hectare (P+J/ha)3. This does not meet the suggested population/employment density around express rail stations of 150 to 300 P+J/ha4, identified in Metrolinx’s Mobility Hub Guidelines. The population and employment density for the area 800 m around Gerrard is forecasted to be 127 P+J/ha in 2031, which would not meet the suggested density for express rail stations, but would represent substantial intensification compared to existing conditions. The Gerrard area is predominately residential with mixed-use buildings lining the street and a large employment area just south of the rail corridor.

There are currently 19 development applications underway in the area and 23 soft sites within an 800 m radius of the station. Soft sites are considered to be parcels with a higher potential to change, such as parking lots and underutilized sites given current zoning and Official Plan designation. There are only a few development applications that are substantial development efforts; these applications are for high-density residential buildings, which are being received well in the area and the market.

If all 23 sites were to be fully developed by 2031, this would add over 30,000 square metres of employment space, over 130,000 square metres of commercial/residential (mixed-use) space and 100 residential units to the Gerrard area. Given the market potential of the area surrounding the Gerrard site, it is expected that the most of the soft sites within the residential land use designation have a high likelihood to be developed by 2031 given the current market demand.

Real Estate Market Demand

The potential Gerrard station will be located in Riverdale, south of the Riverdale Shopping centre and north of Gerrard Square at Gerrard Street East and Carlaw Avenue. Riverdale is an affluent neighbourhood which boasts access to the subway and many commercial shops. To the south of the site are the South Riverdale and Leslieville neighbourhoods which have lagged behind in comparison in terms of pricing and demand, largely due to its proximity to the industrial areas to the south and a history of associated environmental issues. Home prices in the area immediately surrounding Gerrard station currently average $637,000, reflecting the generally weaker housing stock, the impact of the rail corridor, and compatibility issues with older industrial and commercial uses.

3 2015-12-21 Population and Jobs around Stations, Provided by Metrolinx on December 22, 2015 4 Transit supportive density of an “Express Rail” mobility hub, Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines: for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Metrolinx, September 2011

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Despite these issues, home values have increased by 51% over the past 10 years. New high density residential buildings have also proven to be successful just south of the site. Projects along Carlaw Avenue at Dundas Street East and further south have illustrated market acceptance for this area despite its post-industrial character. Given this, the station location is well located relative to current residential real estate demand.

The introduction of the new station may play a significant role in accelerating and increasing this pressure as the amenity of high order transit will drive new demand. In this area, due to the nature of the existing land use development pattern, redevelopment and capture of future market demand will be complex. However, the presence of developable parcels in an urban area presents unique future opportunities for reinvestment. The station is well located in relationship to future demand.

Operational System

The potential Gerrard station would be located on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville rail lines. The closest existing stations would be Union Station, at a distance of 4.2 km and Danforth station, at a distance of 4.4 km from the Gerrard site. The existing distance gap between the closest two GO stations is approximately 8.6 km.

The other potential new stations downstream from the Gerrard site include the Queen-Eastern site at 0.9 km away and the Unilever site at 1.2 km away, which are both closer than the minimum required distance for electric trains, and the Don Yard site at approximately 1.9 km away, which is above the acceptable minimum distance for electric trains. These three locations fall within the Downtown East cluster analysis, which is intended to identify a single preferred location. The potential new stations upstream from the Gerrard site include the Jones site at approximately 1.1 km away, below the required distance for electric trains, the Greenwood site at approximately 1.8 km away and the Coxwell site at approximately 2.5 km away, which are both above the minimum required distance for electric trains.

There are no opportunities to relieve constraints at adjacent GO stations.

Line 2 of the subway is parallel to the Lakeshore East / Stouffville corridor in this area. Pape subway station is about 1.5 km north of the Gerrard site, connected to the area by the 72 Pape bus route. Line 2 provides rapid transit services along Danforth Avenue and connects to Line 1, which passes through Union Station. Gerrard station may provide a faster route for commuters headed towards the Union station area. Other than the northern portion of the Gerrard walk-in catchment area, which may overlap with the southern portion of the Pape station walk-in catchment area, the Gerrard catchment area would not overlap with the catchment area of another GO or rapid transit station.

Connectivity and Ridership Drivers

From Metrolinx’s Travel Time Savings Analysis, Gerrard station is estimated to have 93 boardings in the AM peak period and 266 boardings daily in 20135. In the AM peak period, there are estimated to be 856 alightings from the Lakeshore East and Stouffville lines and 642 alightings from through services from the Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines. Daily, there are estimated to be 2,449 alightings from the Lakeshore East and Stouffville lines and 1,837 alightings from through services from the Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines. The total daily trips for this station would be 4,552 in 2013, which would increase to 8,553 in 2031.

As a result of the potential Gerrard station, there would be a net gain of 3,036 net new boardings in the GO system in 2013 and 5,704 net new boardings daily in 2031.

5 2016-01 Potential RER Stations v2.9, Provided by Metrolinx on February 23, 2016 (included in Appendix B)

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

While there is potential for a connection to the proposed Relief Line subway, currently there are no higher-order transit modes within 800 m of the station site. The 506 Carlton streetcar runs on Gerrard Street East and the 72 Pape bus route runs on Carlaw Avenue. It would be possible for the local bus routes terminating at Pape station to be extended south to the Gerrard site via Pape and Carlaw Avenues, so that some customers could be diverted from Line 2 on the TTC Subway.

The Gerrard site would be near 40 key destinations within 800 m including: one public library, 11 places of worship (Sikh, Islamic, Christian), 13 parks/parkettes, five venues (art galleries), six theatres, two community centres, three medical centres and two office centres. 2.2.2 Financial

The total capital expenditures for Gerrard are estimated at $251.7 million in present value terms.

The potential Gerrard station generates positive transportation user and environmental impacts of $26.8 million in present value terms. 2.2.4 Deliverability and Operations

The track alignment through the Gerrard station area permits the implementation of a station. Lateral shifts to track alignment would be required to accommodate the extra platform width. Though the station would be located on a curve and a vertical gradient, both are within acceptable limits. Track speeds would not need to be lowered to accommodate a station.

Due to the narrow right-of-way through the area, a station with platforms serving four tracks would require extensive modification of the existing embankment. Retaining walls would need to be constructed along several hundred metres of the corridor. Existing overpasses near the station would need to be widened to accommodate the width of the platforms and track area.

A Gerrard station would be a complex station to construct; confined site conditions as well as significant track modifications create an unfavourable construction environment. With respect to confined site conditions, there are several buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site that would be close to the extents of construction. These buildings provide a unique construction constraint where installation of retaining walls as well as site access may become difficult.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

2.3 Dundas East-Logan Station

The second site option to be explored is the Dundas site located at the corner of Dundas Street East and Logan Avenue. The surrounding area is a mix of employment area, neighbourhoods and parks, as shown in Figure 2-2.

There are no mixed-use spaces in the direct vicinity of this location, except to the north on Gerrard Street East. There are currently no local transit routes along Dundas Street East or Logan Avenue. Accessing a local transit route requires a two- to three-minute walk. The accessible local transit routes include:

 the 72 bus route accessed from Carlaw Avenue;  the 506 streetcar route running along Gerrard Street East;  the 505 streetcar accessed from Dundas Street East and Broadview Avenue;  the 504 streetcar route accessed from Broadview Avenue and Dundas Street East; and  the 501/502/503 streetcars accessed at Queen Street East travelling east/west.

Both Logan Avenue and Dundas Street East have sidewalks on both sides, approximately 1.5 m in width.

Existing bicycle infrastructure in the area includes bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East and part of Logan Avenue with some on-street routes. There are plans to expand the bike lanes on Logan Avenue6 as well as a new cycling route on Carlaw Avenue.

6 City of Toronto Bike Plan: Shifting Gears, City of Toronto, June 2001

19 RER New Stations¯ Initial Business Case

Gerrard / Dundas EastLegend

Pape Ave Pape

Broadview Ave Broadview Figure 2-2:

Jones Ave Jones

v A

d Site Context around Dundas East-Logan(! Developme nt Sites

l d i Soft Sites !( M Station Option

!( FinchStation Logan Ave Logan

800 m Station Buffer

y Carlaw Ave Carlaw

d Legend River

e n

n Stouffville Line e K Gerrard St E !( Road Network Dundas East-Logan Land Designations Station Trail

Stouffville Line No Designation

y e

Lakeshore East Line l Commercial / Mixed - Use

r B Richmond Hill Line Institutional Dundas St E Major Road Green Space

Minor Road Residential

Walking Trail / GeUtilityrrarld_ andCarla w_NEw_Buffer !( Multi-Use Pathway Transportation LakeShore_East_Final Waterbody / Employment ve E 0 0.1 0.2 0R.4icKhimloomnedteHrsill-Line Finch A Watercourse GerrardSoftsites 800 m Station Buffer Queen St E 0 0.1 0.2 Leg0eG.n4edrrKairldo_mDevtelrospmentArea Different purple for Employment Color

River x d m . e r u t c u r

Stouffville Line t s

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business a r f n

¯ I

g n Case Report Road Network i y c l C

d e n n

Trail a l P

d 0 0.0750.0. 1155 0.3 Kilometers d

n R a Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

g t n i

800 m Station Buffer t n s i x u Finch Station Cluster Initial Business

Eastern Ave E

\ o d n

a m l d

Case Report i h

M c Datum: MTM_3Degree _

r Apr, 2016 Unknown i Finch Station Cluster Datum:Initial MTM_3DegreeBusiness c h

i B F \ d e t

Case Report a

Commercial/Mixed-Use e This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client and may r C Figure 2: Finch Soft Sites and Future \ S not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed I c G r A \

by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental x n i l o

Figure 2:E Fmincph lEoxyismtineg nLat nd Use r t

reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any e M s \ liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing withoutDat um: MTM_3Degree t This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reApropdurc,e d2 o0r 16 n e

relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by m AECOM’s express written consent. u governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and deniesI any lsiabtilitiyt wuhatsoieovern, al c o

to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. D Datum: MTM_3Degree s \ Apr, 2016 h e n e

Land use designations derived from City of Toronto Zoning Bylaw No. 569-2013. M m P

Green Space 6 k h 2 i : d 4 e 0 : 4 s a

6 s \ r 1 0

!( s e 2 / U \

Residential 2 : 1 / C

4 :

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or : n d o i

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or e p to any pUarty tthialti mtoydif ieas thnis draw iTng rwiathonut AsECpOMo's rextparests iworittenn consent. t a relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by a D M !( governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. Finch Station

Stoufville_New

Major Roads Minor Roads Trail River/Creek 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Kilometers

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business Case Report

Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

Apr, 2016 Datum: MTM_3Degree

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

2.3.1 Strategic

Policy Alignment

The potential Dundas site conforms to current provincial, regional and local transportation and land use policy. The potential new station allows for increased connection for the residents of Riverdale and Leslieville to the Toronto CBD, which is acknowledged in the Toronto Official Plan as a major employment centre. It supports the Regional Transportation Plan’s goal of making liveable and walkable communities where walking and transit are the best, most attractive transportation choice. However, the proximity of the station to a large park and placement within 500 m of the Don Valley River Flood Shed/River Valley Connection may present some development limitations in the area. The station is not along an Avenue or near a Regeneration Area, as defined in the Toronto Official Plan.

Development Potential and Intensification

Current development projects show that the area is growing. The neighbourhood is mainly residential with a population and employment density of 83.1 P+J/ha7. This does not meet the suggested population/employment density around express rail stations of 150 to 300 P+J/ha 8, identified in Metrolinx’s Mobility Hub Guidelines. The population and employment density for the area 800 m around Dundas is forecasted to be 122 P+J/ha in 2031, which would not meet the suggested density for express rail stations, but would represent substantial intensification compared to existing conditions.

There are currently 11 redevelopment projects underway and 33 soft sites within 800 m of the potential Dundas site. The development applications that are in progress are mainly for higher-density residential which shows a slow shifting to higher-density developments and intensification in the area.

If all 33 soft sites were to be fully developed, there would be approximately 700 new residential units, upwards of 150,000 square metres of mixed-use space and over 500,000 square meters of employment space. Given the current market demand, it is estimated that over half of the residential units would be built by 2031 and about half of the mixed-use and employment soft sites could be developed as residential space, as the market currently favours residential units.

Real Estate Market Demand

The potential Dundas East-Logan station is located on Dundas Street East and Logan Avenue in South Riverdale / Leslieville which has lower property values than the average of Toronto due to its proximity to existing industrial areas to the south and a history of associated environmental issues. Projects along Carlaw Avenue at Dundas Street East and further south have illustrated market acceptance for this area despite its post-industrial character. However, retail and other employment uses have not seen the same level of market interest and demand. Given this, the station location is well located relative to current residential real estate demand.

Former industrial properties and retail uses will come under pressure for residential intensification. The introduction of a new station could play a significant role in accelerating and increasing this pressure as the amenity of higher- order transit will drive significant new demand. This could manifest itself in strengthening the current retail or underpinning a mixed-use development. The presence of large developable parcels in an urban area presents

7 2015-12-21 Population and Jobs around Stations 8 Transit supportive density of an “Express Rail” mobility hub, Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines: for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Metrolinx, September 2011

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

unique future opportunities for reinvestment. The potential Dundas East-Logan station is well located in relationship to future demand.

Operational System

The potential Dundas East-Logan station would be located on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville rail lines. The closest existing stations would be Union Station, at a distance of 4.0 km and Danforth station, at a distance of 4.6 km from the Dundas site. The existing distance gap between the closest two GO train stations is approximately 8.6 km.

The potential new stations downstream from the Dundas site include the Queen-Eastern site at 0.7 km away and the Unilever site at 1.0 km away, which are both under the minimum required distance for electric trains, and the Don Yard site at approximately 1.7 km away, which is above the acceptable minimum distance for electric trains. The potential new stations upstream from the Dundas site includes: the Jones site at approximately 1.3 km away, which is under the minimum required distance for electric trains, the Greenwood site at approximately 2.0 km away and the Coxwell site at approximately 2.7 km away, which are both above the minimum required distance for electric trains.

There are no opportunities to relieve constraints at adjacent GO stations and a Dundas East-Logan station would not overlap the catchment area of other rapid transit services.

Connectivity and Ridership Drivers

From Metrolinx’s Travel Time Savings Analysis, Dundas East-Logan station is estimated to have 93 boardings in the AM peak period and 266 boardings daily in 20139. In the AM peak period, there are estimated to be 732 alightings from the Lakeshore East and Stouffville lines and 549 alightings from through services from the Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines. Daily, there are estimated to be 2,094 alightings from the Lakeshore East and Stouffville lines and 1,571 alightings from through services from the Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines. The total daily trips for this station would be 3,931 in 2013, which would increase to 7,386 in 2031.

As a result of the potential Dundas East-Logan station, there would be a net gain of 2,415 net new boardings in the GO system in 2013 and 4,537 net new boardings daily in 2031.

There are currently no existing higher-order transit modes within 800 m of the station site. The proposed Relief Line subway may run along Pape Avenue approximately 400 m to the east and south; however, the closest station would likely be further away. There are streetcar routes on Queen Street East (501 Queen) and Gerrard Street East (506 Carlton) and the 72 Pape bus route on Carlaw Avenue; however, there are no local transit routes on Dundas Street East or Logan Avenue. It may be possible to extend the bus routes that currently terminate at Pape station to connect to this new station so that some customers could be diverted from Line 2 on the TTC Subway.

The Dundas East-Logan station would be near 50 key destinations including two public libraries, 15 places of workshop (Sikh, Islamic, Christian), 12 parks/parkettes, six venues (art galleries and a concert hall), six theatres, three community/recreation centres, four medical centres, and two office centres within 800 m of the potential site. 2.3.2 Financial

The total capital expenditures for Dundas are estimated to be at least $180 million in present value terms. Since a detailed concept plan has not been produced for Dundas, this cost has been estimated from the Gerrard capital cost. It is expected that a Dundas East-Logan station would be less expensive than a Gerrard station due to the potential

9 2016-01 Potential RER Stations v2.9, Provided by Metrolinx on February 23, 2016 (included in Appendix B)

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

for less bridge expansion (which may be able to be limited to Dundas and Logan) and less constrained environment for construction.

The potential Dundas East-Logan station may attract 59.2 million additional passenger-trips to the GO network over the evaluation period. These riders would generate additional fare revenues of $102.3 million in present value terms over a 60-year horizon time (2022-2081). 2.3.3 Economic

The potential Dundas East-Logan station would generate negative transportation user and environmental impacts which translate into an economic loss of $8.1 million in present value terms. 2.3.4 Deliverability and Operations

The track alignment through the Dundas East-Logan station area would not preclude the implementation of a station. Lateral shifts to track alignment would be required to accommodate the extra platform width. Though the station would be located on a curve and a vertical gradient, both are within acceptable limits. Track speeds would not need to be lowered to accommodate a station.

A Dundas East-Logan station would be a difficult station to construct due to the narrow right-of-way, though there would likely not be any buildings immediately against the rail corridor that would further confine the area.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

2.4 Recommendation

Table 2-1 below summarizes the results from the Gerrard Cluster screening process. As shown in the table, the two sites perform similarly for many criteria. Gerrard is expected to have a higher capital cost and higher complexity of construction than Dundas. However, the potential Gerrard site slightly outperforms the potential Dundas site, primarily because of the higher station ridership, which also provides greater fare revenues and economic benefits, and better connectivity with existing and planned transit. As a result, the Gerrard station has moved forward for a more complete analysis in this IBC report.

Table 2-1: Summary of Cluster Screening Results

Criterion Gerrard Station Dundas East-Logan Station

Conforms well with provincial Conforms well with provincial and Policy Alignment policy, moderately with local local policy policy Density would be less than Density would be less than preferred near a rail station; preferred near a rail station; Development Potential and Intensification medium-high development medium-high development potential potential High market demand for High market demand for Real Estate Market Demand residential in area residential in area Spaced 4+ km from existing GO Spaced 4+ km from existing GO stations; spacing to Unilever, stations; spacing to Unilever, Operational System Queen-Eastern, Jones potential Queen-Eastern, Jones potential stations less than minimum stations less than minimum distance distance 8,553 daily trips and 5,704 net 7,386 daily trips and 4,537 net new GO boardings in 2031; new GO boardings in 2031; could Connectivity and Ridership Drivers connects to east-west and north- connect to local transit to/from south local transit and potential north only; no connection to future future rapid transit rapid transit Capital Cost (Millions of 2015$, Present Value, $251.7 $180+ order-of-magnitude) Additional Fare Revenues (Millions of 2015 $, $129.5 $102.3 Present Value) Economic Benefits (Millions of 2015 $, Present $26.8 -$8.1 Value) Track geometry permits station to Track geometry permits station to Constructability / Ease of Construction and be implemented; station be implemented; station Operations construction would be moderately construction would be complex difficult OVERALL PERFORMANCE More Preferred Less Preferred

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

3. Station Context and Concept Plan

Figure 3-1 shows the developed concept plan proposed for Gerrard station, which includes two side platforms and one centre platform, a public plaza, a main station building off Carlaw Avenue, two pedestrian tunnels connecting to four station access points, a bus loop, a passenger pick-up and drop-off area (PPUDO), bicycle parking, and three sites for future development. The main point of access for transit in this station location would be in the northeast quadrant of the Gerrard Street and Carlaw Avenue intersection. The Riverdale Shopping Centre, containing a No Frills grocery store, would be removed to make room for the main station entrance, bus loop, and PPUDO, with both entrance and exit from Carlaw Avenue.

The bus loop would extend east off Carlaw Avenue, just to the north of the main station entrance. This bus loop would be utilized for the 81 Thorncliffe Park, 25 Don Mills, 72 Pape, and 185 Don Mills Rocket bus routes; the 25, 81, and 185 would be extended south from Pape station to terminate here, providing connectivity to the dense Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park neighbourhoods. Layover space and a way for buses to turn around near the station would also be required. A PPUDO would be provided adjacent to the bus loop. A future 120-metre long underground connection to the planned Downtown Relief Line, assumed under Pape Avenue, has also been outlined to run parallel to Gerrard Street from the north pedestrian tunnel. There would be no streetcar loop for the 506 Carlton streetcar route running on Gerrard Street due to space constraints; the on-street stops are within 50 m and would have direct access to the station. An enclosed connection to the streetcar may be able to be provided in the future if an underground streetcar stop is provided under the Gerrard and Pape intersection as part of the Relief Line station.

The concept plan for Gerrard station is designed to optimize transfers from transit and from active transportation. In this urban setting, the local transit provided is frequent, and local users of this station are assumed to be able to walk, bus/streetcar, and bike easily to this new station. The 506 Carlton streetcar route has a volume of approximately 15 cars per hour per direction during the morning peak period. The pedestrian tunnels would provide direct access from the neighbourhoods located to the west of Logan Avenue and east of Carlaw Avenue. They would also provide access to neighbourhoods in the north via Gerrard Street. Bicycle parking would be placed near both station entrances. There is currently a bike lane along Logan Avenue and a future bike lane is expected to run along Carlaw Avenue. A multi-use pathway would provide pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to both access points from both Logan Avenue and Gerrard Street. Parking is not included as the station is in an urban setting. The area to the south of the corridor has many employment lands within a five-minute walk of the station. This station would be accessible to the surrounding neighbourhoods and it is expected that, under the current fare structure, over 80% 10 of the customers would access via walking or cycling.

The rail corridor currently runs on an embankment and crosses over Dundas Street, Logan Avenue, Carlaw Avenue, and Gerrard Street. The Gerrard and Carlaw overpasses would have to be widened in order to accommodate the platforms and realigned tracks, the Logan overpass would need some widening, and the Dundas overpass would need little or no widening. To reduce land acquisition, retaining walls could replace the embankment from Logan Avenue to north of Gerrard Street.

A Gerrard station design alternative considered platforms beginning north of Gerrard Street, stretching east of Pape Avenue, and straddling Pape Avenue. The advantages of this easterly option are that it would increase station spacing with a potential station within the Downtown East cluster further south and provide a more direct connection

10 Travel Time Savings Analysis, 2016-01 Potential RER Stations v2.9, Metrolinx (included in Appendix B)

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

to a potential Relief Line subway on Pape Avenue. Two configurations were investigated: two island platforms or two side platforms with an island platform.

The investigation found that the corridor is narrow north of Gerrard, particularly east of Pape adjacent to Gerrard Square. Due to the high-rise residential building north of the corridor and east of Pape, the corridor would not be able to be expanded northward. The corridor could only be expanded to the southeast, which means eliminating the access lane behind Gerrard Square connecting the parking garage and some loading areas. Though the Gerrard Square building may be avoided, cutting off parking and loading access would be a major impact on the mall. An island-island configuration would be narrower but would still have major impacts. Though Gerrard Square could be redeveloped long-term, it would be expensive to build a station before any redevelopment. Locating the station any further east and closer to Pape Avenue also would need to avoid the planned redevelopment of 354 Pape Avenue, immediately south of the rail corridor and west of Pape Avenue, as this development may become a new constraint on expanding the corridor toward the south.

Depending on the track assignment from Don Yard through the station to Scarborough Junction, it is likely that a smaller station serving only two tracks could be provided with minimal or no property acquisition. If the corridor is arranged with Tracks 1 and 2 (to the north) for the two directions of Stouffville trains and Tracks 3 and 4 (to the south) for the two directions of Lakeshore East trains, then an island platform serving one of the two lines could be placed. This would limit service to the one line, resulting in lower service frequency than if both lines were served. If the corridor is arranged with Tracks 1 and 4 as local Stouffville and Lakeshore East and Tracks 2 and 3 as express Lakeshore East, then two side platforms serving Tracks 1 and 4 should be able to be provided (potentially requiring narrow strip(s) of land alongside the corridor). This configuration would maintain the higher service frequency provided by two lines but precludes the ability for express trains to stop if the service concept changes in the future. However, since the arrangement of the corridor between Don Yard and Scarborough Junction has not yet been decided, the eastern station option has been set aside in favour of a station placement south of Gerrard.

It is recognized that the 120-metre-long pedestrian tunnel between Gerrard station and a Relief Line station under Pape Avenue is longer than preferred and that a shorter connection would increase the attractiveness of the combined station as an interchange station. As stated above, the location of Gerrard station is constrained by narrow corridor width near and east of Pape Avenue and limited ability to expand the corridor due to the high-rise residential building northeast of the Pape Avenue pedestrian bridge, the Gerrard Square mall, and the planned redevelopment of 354 Pape Avenue. An improved connection could be provided if the station were shifted to straddle Pape Avenue and the rail corridor were expanded south in conjunction with redevelopment of the mall and modifications to the redevelopment of 354 Pape Avenue. Alternately, the station could be shifted without redevelopment of the mall if two side platforms were provided, serving Tracks 1 and 4 only.

Figure 3-2 shows existing Metrolinx property in the station area and property that would need to be acquired for the station.

27 Figure 3-1: LOGAN AVE Logan Rail Overpass Gerrard Station Concept Plan Stairs connecting Legend grade change Sites required for Station Facilities 506 Future Development Multi-use Path FIRST AVE Metrolinx Owned Land linking Entrances Street Car stop Bus Stop Future development

DICKENS ST Bike Lane Pedestrian Connection

New / Improved Sidewalk Multi-use Path GERRARD ST EAST SIMPSON AVE AVE VICTOR Tunnel Metrolinx Rail Corridor Future TTC Relief Line

Existing Building Station Facility Complex to Remain Carlaw Rail Station Access 506 Overpass Bus Loop Direction Existing Bike Shelter Gerrard-Carlaw Parkette Platform Platform Shelter CARLAW AVE 72 72 PPUDO Bus Terminal Mini Platform Elevator 506 Stairs Gerrard Rail Future Abutments and Retaining Walls Overpass development Proposed Plaza // Landscaped Space Existing Landscape Space

Pedestrian Connection to Gerrard Square at Grade. Possible 100m underground connection to Future Subway Station Future development

BOSTON AVE BOSTON AVE 25,72,81

Bioswale & Stormwater Planned development at Management 354 Pape Avenue Pond Future Pape Transit Station Along Downtown Relief Line Project Existing Pedestrian Bridge DUNDAS ST. EAST ST. DUNDAS LANGLEY AVE BADGEROW AVE BADGEROW

PAPE AVE 0 10 20 50 m

RER New Stations Initial Business Case Gerrard/Dundas East-Logan – Draft

29 Figure 3-2: LOGAN AVE Gerrard Station Property Requirements

Legend

Metrolinx owned land GO Platforms Land to acquire: 17,600 m² FIRST AVE Station Plaza 1,300 sq m DICKENS ST Station Building 160 sq m GERRARD ST EAST SIMPSON AVE AVE VICTOR

Bioswale CARLAW AVE 720 sq m

Bus Terminal 1,700 sq m PPUDO 1000 sq m

BOSTON AVE BOSTON AVE Rail Corridor

Station Building 240 sq m Station Plaza 2,900 sq m BADGEROW AVE BADGEROW DUNDAS ST. EAST ST. DUNDAS LANGLEY AVE

PAPE AVE 0 10 20 50 m

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4. Strategic Case

4.1 Strategic Case Summary

The potential Gerrard station performs well in the Strategic Case. See Table 4-1 below for a graphical summary outlining the performance of the Gerrard site in the Strategic Case.

Table 4-1: Strategic Case Summary Results

Strategic Case Summary Gerrard This station generally conforms to local, regional and provincial policies Policy Alignment around land use and transportation. High potential for residential development and intensification. There are Development Potential and some development sites and many soft sites. Density of 127 P+J/ha in 2031 Intensification would be less than the suggested density near an express rail station, though the area would be urban and medium-high density. The station would be well located for future market demand and potential Real Estate Market Demand development, especially in the residential market. Natural Environment There are no major environmental issues associated with this station. There are no opportunities to relieve constraints at adjacent GO stations. Operational System Close to potential new Queen-Eastern, Unilever, or Jones stations. Excellent connectivity to local transit. Little duplication with other existing rapid transit. Ridership based on 2013 demand would be 266 daily boardings and 4,286 daily alightings. Net daily boardings to the overall GO system would be 3,036 Connectivity and Ridership Drivers in 2013 and 5,704 in 2031. Potential to connect to proposed Relief Line subway. Close to many key destinations. The station would be accessible by walking, cycling, local transit and PPUDO/taxi. A bus loop would minimize walking distances for transfers Station Access to/from buses and streetcar stops would be located near the station entrance. No parking would be provided as it would be an urban station. No Neighbourhood Improvement Area within 800 m. Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Access to Transit Score: 8.2/10 (+4%) Accessibility Index: 50/60 (+17%)

4.2 Approach

The Strategic Case sets out the rationale for adding this station; it makes the case for change at a policy and long- term planning level. It sets out the problem statement defining the station rationale, explains the objectives that are to be achieved, and outlines constraints or interdependencies that must be considered with this station. The strategic policy context and the fit with wider public policy objectives are also explained. Other key criteria include relationship to market demand, social and environmental impacts, network connectivity, and ridership.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4.3 Rationale for a New Station

The following criterion explores reasoning for implementing a new station; this includes key concepts such as the problem statement, station specific objectives and potential constraints. 4.3.1 Problem Statement

The potential new station should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, affordability, economic, and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base of users on opening day. Related issues specific to the Gerrard station area include:

 Facilitating local city-building / land use change aspirations in a sustainable and efficient manner.  Supporting improved network connectivity and local transit crowding relief, particularly on Line 2 of the subway.

Stations that affirm this statement may be recommended for more detailed design, and further business case analysis. 4.3.2 Drivers for Change

Several external and internal regional drivers for change exist for potential new stations across the network and in the Gerrard area.

 Recent investments in new transit infrastructure, including GO RER, new light rail and bus rapid transit lines (e.g., Eglinton, Hurontario, VIVA), and subway infrastructure (e.g., Line 1 extension, new signals), are increasing the capacity of the transit network and providing new rapid transit options for more trips within all parts of the GTHA.  Congestion on roads and highways throughout the GTHA, which is expected to worsen as the region continues to grow and as opportunities for road and highway expansion are increasingly limited, particularly within core areas of the region.  Demographic changes and shifts within the region, including a younger generation that has a higher tendency to live in core areas and use a car less frequently, aging “baby boomers” who may not be able to drive as much as they used to, and a low-income population that is moving further from the core into car- dependent areas due to high housing prices and rents in the core.  The increased peak and off-peak capacity provided by the GO RER program should be matched with increased ridership so that the program’s benefits can be realized. This increase in ridership will require an expansion of the travel market for the GO network from peak-period 905-to-Union travel to include more off- peak, contra-peak, and non-Union travel, including increased travel within Toronto and between the 905 and suburban and downtown “shoulder” areas of Toronto.  Gerrard Street East has been identified by the Toronto Official Plan as an “avenue”. Other areas near this corridor have been designated as Mixed-Use.  The proposed Relief Line subway would cross the Lakeshore East / Stouffville corridor at Gerrard, providing an interchange opportunity between regional and local rapid transit.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4.3.3 Station Objectives

The implementation of a new station should meet the following objectives:

 Improve service and add riders.  Minimize impact on trip time for existing customers.  Maintain appropriate station spacing for the vehicle technology.  Support existing regional and municipal plans.  Consider the different roles and needs of each location and adapt to the urban or suburban context.

4.3.4 Constraints and Interdependencies

The strategic, economic, financial, and operational performance of this new station is affected by a number of constraints and interdependencies with other initiatives, including:

 The inclusion of other new stations will affect the ridership potential at this station. The additional travel time caused by the additional stops may decrease ridership between this station and other existing stations, while the additional potential origin-destination pairs served by this station and other new stations may increase station ridership.  Some trains (VIA, freight, potentially express GO trains) will need to run through the station without stopping  Diversion from local transit routes should be minimized.  If the station serves diesel trains, additional time is needed for acceleration and braking and the travel time impact on through riders is greater  There are a number of other transportation and land use planning studies underway that may be affected by the placement of a new station at the Gerrard site. Likewise, the findings and recommendations that arise from these studies may affect the options evaluation and overall business case for this study. These studies include: o Regional Express Rail program development (including infrastructure, new station, and service planning) o SmartTrack program development and integration with the overall RER program o Regional Fare Integration Strategy o Regional Transportation Plan Update o Relief Line Network Study o Relief Line Environmental Assessment

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4.3.5 Stakeholders

There are a number of stakeholders that need to be engaged as the planning of a new station continues, including:

 Metrolinx Operations and Capital Projects Group  City of Toronto  Toronto Transit Commission  Canadian Pacific / Canadian National  Elected Officials: Toronto City Councillor, Member of Provincial Parliament, Member of Parliament  Toronto and Region Conservation Authority  Residents and ratepayer associations  Nearby employers and BIAs  Affected and adjacent property owners  Travelers (transit and road users)

4.4 Policy, Land Use and Development

The following criteria examine how the new station conforms to provincial, regional and local planning policy for land use and transportation. This section also discusses the station’s fit or potential impact to the surrounding neighbourhoods and potential future development. 4.4.1 Policy Alignment

The potential Gerrard site conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, The Big Move Regional Transportation Plan and to the majority of the Toronto Official Plan (including Feeling Congested). Table 4-2 provides a summary of policies and the level of conformity for the potential Gerrard site.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 4-2: Level of Conformity to Provincial, Regional and Local Land Use/Transportation Policy

Provincial / Regional / Overview of Specific Policy Sections Level of Conformity Local Policy Provincial Policy Section 1.1.3.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be Aligns with Section 1.1.3.2 by supporting active based on: transportation through increased connectivity to Statement (land use) a) densities and a mix of land uses which: 1. support active local neighbourhoods and existing active transportation, 2. are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, transportation networks. exists of may be developed ; Aligns with Section 1.1.3.2 by supporting transit- b) a range of uses opportunities for intensification and supportive land-use patterns. redevelopment in accordance with the criteria in policy 1.1.3.3, Aligns with Section 1.1.3.3 as the potential where this can be accommodated. station falls within designated growth / settlement Section 1.1.3.3 Planning authorities shall identify appropriate area as identified by the province. locations and promote opportunities for intensification and Aligns with Section 1.1.3.3 as the new station redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into provides opportunities to intensify/develop the account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, area, as current density of area is medium and and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and there are many soft sites in the area and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. opportunities for intensification. Provincial Policy Section 1.6.8.3 New development on adjacent lands to existing or Aligns with Section 1.6.8.3 as the new planned corridors and transportation facilities should be compatible development (potential new station) is supportive Statement with, and supportive of, the long-term purposes of the corridor and of the long-term purposes of the corridor. (transportation) should be designed to avoid, mitigate or minimize negative impacts Aligns with Section 1.7.1f as the station will on and from the corridor and transportation facilities. contribute to the multimodal, efficient and Section 1.7.1f Long-term economic prosperity should be supported affordable transportation system that the GTHA by providing for an efficient, cost-effective, reliable multimodal is planning for 2031. transportation system that is integrated with adjacent systems and those of other jurisdictions, and is appropriate to address projected needs to support the movement of goods and people Growth Plan for the Section 2.2.2.1d Population and employment growth will be Aligns with Section 2.2.2.1d as the new station accommodated by reducing dependence on the automobile through brings a new transit mode to the neighbourhood Greater Golden the development of mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian- and encourages transfers via local transit. Horseshoe (land use) friendly urban environments. Aligns with Section 2.2.6.3 as the new station Section 2.2.6.3 The downtown Toronto office core will continue to would provide a direct link to Union Station, be the primary centre for international finance and commerce of the major transportation hub and connection to GGH. Toronto CBD. Section 2.2.6.10 In planning lands for employment, municipalities Aligns with Section 2.2.6.10 as the potential will facilitate the development of transit-supportive, compact built Gerrard station would not have any parking on form and minimize surface parking. site and would encourage more active and transit travel modes to access the station and subsequently the Toronto CBD. Growth Plan for the Section 2.2.5.2 Major transit station areas will be planned and Aligns with Section 2.2.5.2 as the new station designed to provide access from various transportation modes to would support all modes of access. Greater Golden the transit facility, including consideration of pedestrians, bicycle Aligns with Section 3.2.2.1b as the new station Horseshoe parking and commuter pick-up/drop-off areas. will add to the transportation system in the GTHA (transportation) Section 3.2.2.1b The transportation system within GGH will be and will promote a shift from a car-centric planned and managed to offer a balance of transportation choices neighbourhood towards more transit and active that reduces reliance upon any single mode and promotes transit, oriented transportation. cycling and walking Aligns with Section 3.2.3.1 as the new station Section 3.2.3.1 Public transit will be the first priority for would promote transfers via local transit and the transportation infrastructure planning and major transportation station itself would be an investment in public investments. transit. Section 3.2.3.2c All decisions on transit planning and investment Aligns with Section 3.2.3.2c as the location of will be made according to the following criteria: Expanding transit the potential station currently has a mix of service to areas that have achieved or will be planned so as to residential, commercial and mixed-use building achieve, transit-supportive residential and employment densities however currently densities are not yet at desired together with a mix of residential, office and commercial densities for express rail stations. development wherever possible.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 4-2: Level of Conformity to Provincial, Regional and Local Land Use/Transportation Policy (continued)

Provincial / Regional / Overview of Specific Policy Sections Level of Conformity Local Policy Regional Goals and Objectives of the Big Move: Aligns with Section 3.0 A as the new station increases transportation choices in a car centric Transportation Plan Section 3.0 A People will have a wide range of options available to them for getting around regardless of age, means or ability including neighbourhood (rapid regional transit in a (transportation) walking, cycling, public transit and automobiles. location where there previously was none) and it Section 3.0 G Reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. connects to the neighbourhood via local transit, Increase portion of trips taken by transit, walking and cycling. cycling and walking and PPUDO. Improve energy efficiency including increased use of clean vehicles Aligns with Section 3.0 G as the new station will and green technology. utilize electric trains and will increase the modal Section 3.0 J The transportation system will be fully integrated. It share in the neighbourhood as it will provide a will be easy to make a decision on how to get somewhere or ship new level of service of transit to a previously something thanks to seamless integration, accurate and timely underserviced area. information, and prices determined in a transparent manner. Section 3.0 J as the new station will integrate into the existing neighbourhood and active transportation network providing multiple pedestrian access points from major avenues and will provide bicycle parking at all access points. Toronto Official Plan In Map 2 of the Official Plan, Gerrard Street East was identified as Aligns with the Official Plan’s Map 5 as the new a major Avenue. In Map 18 of the Official Plan, area surrounding station would be located on Gerrard Street East. (land use) potential Gerrard station is designated as an employment, mixed Aligns with Chapter 2.1 Policy 1a/b/d/i as the use, parks and neighbourhood new station will connect the neighbourhood Chapter 2.1 Policy 1 Toronto will work with neighbouring between two major regions, will feature fast municipalities, the Province of Ontario and Metrolinx to address frequent and direct service, will utilize and mutual challenges and to develop a framework for dealing with existing transportation corridor, will provide a growth across the GTA which :a) focuses urban growth into a direct connection with Union Station and will pattern of compact centres, mobility hubs, and corridors connected encourage auto users to take rapid regional by a regional transportation system, featuring fast, frequent, direct, transit as well as utilize active and transit modes inter-regional transit service with integrated services and fares; b) to access the station. makes better use of existing urban infrastructure and services; d) Aligns with Chapter 2.2 Policy 4 as the new reduces auto dependency and improves air quality; i) recognizes the station is adjacent to existing transportation importance of Union Station as the major hub in the regional transit corridor and is supportive of the long term system; purpose of the corridor and directly aids in the Chapter 2.2 Policy 4 Require new development on lands adjacent objective of the overall transportation system of to existing or planned transportation corridors and facilities to be the GTHA. compatible with, and supportive of, the long-term purposes of the Aligns with Chapter 3.1.2 Policy 1b as the new corridors and facilities and be designed to avoid, mitigate or station strives to be integrated with the existing minimize negative impacts on and from the transportation corridors neighbourhood and will provide direct access to and facilities. the station building as it will be built right up to Chapter 3.1.2 Policy 1 New development will be located and the existing arterial road. organized to fit with its existing and/or planned context. It will frame and support adjacent streets, parks and open spaces to improve the safety, pedestrian interest and casual views to these spaces from the development by: b) locating main building entrances so that they are clearly visible and directly accessible from the public sidewalk; Toronto Official Plan / Chapter 2.4 Policy 1 Given the health benefits of physical activity, Aligns with Chapter 2.4 Policy 1 as the new active forms of transportation will be encouraged by integrating and station will have access points for active Feeling Congested giving full consideration to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in transportation modes and bicycle parking will be (transportation) the design of all streets, neighbourhoods, major destinations, transit provided thereby connecting the existing active facilities and mobility hubs throughout the City. network to the new station. Chapter 2.4 Policy 19 New transportation terminals will require Aligns with Chapter 2.4 Policy 19 as the new facilities for inter-modal connections including those for: a) taxis; b) station will have a bus bay and a small PPUDO buses; and c) other public transit modes. giving priority to transit users and pick-up/drop- off customers.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4.4.2 Development Potential and Intensification

The existing population and employment density around the potential Gerrard site is 66.2 total population and jobs per hectare (P+J/ha)11. This does not meet the suggested population/employment density around express rail stations of 150 to 300 P+J/ha12, identified in Metrolinx’s Mobility Hub Guidelines. The potential Gerrard station area is residential with mixed-use buildings lining the avenue and a large employment area just south of the rail corridor. There are many older and underutilized areas nearby the potential Gerrard station that could offer redevelopment opportunities if a station were provided. Figure 4-1 shows the existing land uses in the surrounding area of the potential station.

The population and employment density for the area 800 m around Gerrard is forecasted to be 127 P+J/ha in 2031, which would not meet the suggested density for express rail stations, but would represent substantial intensification compared to existing conditions.

There are currently 19 development applications underway in the area and 23 soft sites within an 800 m radius of the station. Soft sites are considered to be parcels with a higher potential to change, such as parking lots and under-utilized sites given current zoning and the Official Plan. There are only a few development applications that are substantial development efforts; these applications are for high density residential buildings, which are being received well in the area and the market. Figure 4-2 below illustrates the identified soft sites and current development applications within 800 m of the potential station.

If all 23 sites were to be fully developed by 2031, this would add over 30,000 m2 of employment space, over 130,000 m2 of commercial/residential (mixed-use) space and 100 residential units to the Gerrard station area. Given the market potential of the area surrounding the Gerrard station area, it is expected that most of the soft sites within the residential land use designation have a high likelihood to be developed by 2031 given the current market demand. This rate of development is likely already captured in the increased population and employment density.

11 2015-12-21 Population and Jobs around Stations, Provided by Metrolinx on December 22, 2015 12 Transit supportive density of an “Express Rail” mobility hub, Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines: for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Metrolinx, September 2011

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

39 RER New Stations Initial Business Case

Gerrard / Dundas EastLegend

Jones Ave Jones

Figure 4-1:

v A

Pape Ave Pape Existing Land Use

Broadview Ave Broadview d (! Development Sites

l d i Soft Sites !( M Carlaw Ave Carlaw !( Legend FinchStation

800 m Station Buffer d

R Gerrard Station Land Designations y

d River

e n

n No DesignationStouffville Line e

K Stouffville Line !( Road Network Lakeshore East Line Commercial / Mixed - Use Logan Ave Logan Trail

Richmond Hill Line Institutional

d R

Major Road y e Green Space

Gerrard St E l

r B Minor Road Gerrarld_Carlaw_NEwResidential_Buffer

Finch Ave E RichmondHill-Line GerrardSoftsites 0 0.0750.15 0.L3eKgieGlonemdrraertde_rDsevelopmentArea Different purple for Employment Color

River x d m . e r u t c u r

Stouffville Line t s

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business a r f n

¯ I

g n Case Report Road Network i y c l C

d e n n

Trail a l P

d 0 0.0750.0. 1155 0.3 Kilometers d

n R a Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

g t

Queen St E n i

800 m Station Buffer t n s i x u Finch Station Cluster Initial Business E

\ o d n

a m l d

Case Report i h

Datum: MTM_3Degree M c Datum: MTM_3Degree _

r Apr, 2016 Unknown i Finch Station Cluster Initial Business c h n

i B F \ d e

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client and may t

Case Report a

Commercial/Mixed-Use e r C not be used, reproduced or relied upon by Fthirdigu rparties,e 2: F iexceptnch S asof tagreed Sites and Future \ S I c G

by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental r A \ x n

reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any i l o

AECOM’s express written consent. e

relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by m u

governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and deniesI any lsiabtilitiyt wuhatsoieovern, al c o

to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. D Datum: MTM_3Degree s \ Eastern Ave Apr, 2016 h e n e M m P

Land use designations derived from City of Toronto Zoning Bylaw No. 569-2013. a

Green Space 6 k h 2 i : d 4 e 0 : 4 s a

6 s \ r 1 0 s e 2 / U \

Residential 2 : 1 / C

4 :

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or : n d o i

Stoufville_New

Major Roads Minor Roads Trail River/Creek 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Kilometers

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business Case Report

Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

Apr, 2016 Datum: MTM_3Degree

RER New Stations Initial Business Case Gerrard/Dundas East-Logan – Draft

41 RER New Stations Initial Business Case

Gerrard / Dundas EastLegend

Figure 4-2:

Jones Ave Jones

e Current Development Applications and

Pape Ave Pape Broadview Ave Broadview d (! Development Sites

n Potential Soft Sites

l d i Soft Sites !( M Carlaw Ave Carlaw !( FinchStation

Legend 800 m Station Buffer

R y

d River

e n

n Stouffville Line e K Gerrard Station !( Road Network 800 m Station Buffer Logan Ave Logan Trail

Stouffville Line

y e

Gerrard St E l

Lakeshore East Line i

r B Gerrarld_Carlaw_NEw_Buffer Richmond Hill Line LakeShore_East_Final Legend ¯ Major Road RichmondHill-Line Minor Road GerrardSoftsites Gerrard_DevelopmeGnetrArarerlad_Carlaw_NEw_Buffer !( Walking Trail / Multi-Use Pathway Dundas St E LakeShore_East_Final Waterbody / Watercourse FinchStation Finch Ave E RichmondHill-Line Development Site GerrardSoftsites 800 m Station Buffer LegeGnedrrard_DevelopmentArea River Soft Site 0 0.0750.15 0.3 Kilometers Different purple for Employment Color Stouffville Line

River x d m .

e Road Network r u t c u r

Stouffville Line t s

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business a r

f Trail n

¯ I

g n Case Report Road Network i y c l C

d e n n

Trail a l P

d 0 0.0750.0. 1155 0.3 Kilometers d

n R a Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

g t

Queen St E n i

800 m Station Buffer t n s i x u Finch Station Cluster Initial Business E

\ o d n

a m l d

Case Report i h

Datum: MTM_3Degree M c Datum: MTM_3Degree _

r Apr, 2016 Unknown i Finch Station Cluster Initial Business c h n

i B F \ d e

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client and may t Major Roads

Case Report a

Commercial/Mixed-Use e r C not be used, reproduced or relied upon by Fthirdigu rparties,e 2: F iexceptnch S asof tagreed Sites and Future \ S I c G

by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental r A

\ Minor Roads x n

reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any i l o

AECOM’s express written consent. e

relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by m u

governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and deniesI any lsiabtilitiyt wuhatsoieovern, al c o

to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. D Datum: MTM_3Degree s \ Eastern Ave Apr, 2016 h e

n River/Creek e M m P

Green Space 6 k h 2 i : d 4 e 0 : 4 s a

6 s \ Soft Sites r 1 0 s e 2 / U \

Residential 2 : 1 / C

4 :

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or : n d o i

l Development Sites

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Kilometers V s _ e t i S t f o S

_ d

Stoufville_New n a l d i M _ c h n i F _ 3 g

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business i F

Major Roads \ d n a l d

Case Report i M _

Minor Roads c h n i F \ d e t a e r C Figure 2: Finch Soft Sites and Future \ S

Trail I c G r A \ x n i l o r t

River/Creek e M s \ Datum: MTM_3Degree t Apr, 2016 n e m u c o

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Kilometers D s \ h e n e M m P

a 2 k h 3 i : d 9 e 3 : 6 s a

6 s \ r 1 0 s e 2 / U \ 4 : 1 /

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business C

4 :

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or : n d o i

relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by t v e a Case Report c a o governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, S l

e p to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. t a a D M

Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

Apr, 2016 Datum: MTM_3Degree

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4.4.3 Real Estate Market Demand

The potential Gerrard station would be located directly south of the Riverdale Shopping Centre and extending south of Gerrard Street. This neighbourhood is located between two different, but equally strong, real estate areas. Riverdale, to the north, is more affluent and influenced by the amenity of the Danforth retail strip and direct subway access. Average home prices in Riverdale are around $1.3 million. To the south are the neighbourhoods of South Riverdale and Leslieville, which have lagged behind in terms of pricing and demand largely due to their proximity to the industrial areas to the south and a history of associated environmental issues. Home prices in the area immediately surrounding the station currently average $637,000, reflecting the generally weaker housing stock, the impact of the rail corridor, and compatibility issues with older industrial and commercial uses. Despite this, home values have increased by 51% over the past 10 years.

New high density residential has also proven to be successful just south of the site. Projects along Carlaw at Dundas and further south have illustrated market acceptance for this area despite its post-industrial character. However, retail and other employment uses have not seen the same level of market interest and demand. The Riverdale Shopping Centre is occupied by relatively weak tenancies and some vacancies. Gerrard Square has fared better due largely in part to the Home Depot assuming a major anchor role in the site. Given this, the station location is well located relative to current residential real estate demand.

Given the powerful residential market influencing this part of the city, it is likely that pressure will continue from the development community to seek underutilized sites for higher-density residential uses. Former industrial properties and retail uses will come under pressure for residential intensification. The introduction of the new station may play a significant role in accelerating and increasing this pressure as the amenity of high-order transit would drive significant new demand. This could manifest itself in strengthening the current retail or underpinning a mixed use development.

In this area, due to the nature of the existing land use development pattern, redevelopment and capture of future market demand will be complex. However, the presence of developable parcels in a highly urban area presents unique future opportunities for reinvestment. Hence, the station is well located in relationship to future demand. 4.4.4 Natural Environment

The majority of the Gerrard site would be built on land already hardscaped (a low-density shopping centre). There may be an opportunity to control stormwater generated on the station site on-site, reducing potential impact on the Don River. The potential station is within 1 km of the Don River flood plain. Some increase in hardscaping would occur, as the rail embankment — currently trees and soil — would be replaced by retaining walls and topped with the rail corridor and platforms.

There would no parks or natural space utilized for this station. Some of the land that would be acquired for the station site could be used to provide the aforementioned stormwater management, such as bioswales, as well as greenspace and landscaping. This landscaping would support a welcoming environment for station users.

Trains are already passing through the station area with all-day service implemented on the Lakeshore East Line. Electrified RER service would have a slight reduction in noise and vibration and a modest improvement in local air quality, compared to Tier 4 Diesel service. With a station, there may be an increase in noise pollution due to the braking and acceleration that would occur at the station.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

There are no areas of natural or scientific interest (ANSI) or natural heritage system (NHS) areas within a 3-km radius of the potential Gerrard station.

4.5 Network, Connectivity, and Accessibility

The following criteria examine how the new station will connect and interact with existing and planned transit and active transportation networks and surrounding land uses. They also describe the general ridership potential for the new station. 4.5.1 Operational System

Gerrard station is estimated to have 93 boardings in the AM peak period and 266 boardings daily in 201313. In the AM peak period, there are estimated to be 856 alightings from the Lakeshore East and Stouffville lines and 642 alightings from through services from the Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines. Daily, there are estimated to be 2,449 alightings from the Lakeshore East and Stouffville lines and 1,837 alightings from through services from the Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines. The total daily trips for this station would be 4,552 in 2013, which would increase to 8,553 in 2031.

After subtracting the approximately 2% of upstream riders that would be lost due to the additional travel time imposed to serve a new station, there would be a net gain of 3,036 net new boardings in the GO system in 2013 and 5,704 net new boardings daily in 2031.

While there is potential for a connection to the proposed Relief Line subway, currently there are no higher-order transit modes within 250 m of the station site. The 506 Carlton streetcar runs on Gerrard Street East and the 72

13 2016-01 Potential RER Stations v2.9 (Travel Time Savings Evaluation), Provided by Metrolinx on February 23, 2016 (included in Appendix B)

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Pape bus route runs on Carlaw Avenue. It would be possible for some of the local bus routes terminating at Pape station to be extended south to the Gerrard site via Pape and Carlaw Avenues, so that some customers could be diverted from Line 2 on the TTC Subway. There would be five bus bays provided for the existing 72 and the suggested extension of the 25, 81, and 185 bus routes travelling north and south on Carlaw Avenue. Figure 4-3 below shows the existing and suggested transit network in the Gerrard area.

The station would be connected to the surrounding area via walking paths and sidewalks. The main entrance to the station would be in the northeastern quadrant of Gerrard Street and Carlaw Avenue, with accesses to both streets. A future underground connection could be provided to Pape Avenue to connect to a future Relief Line subway station and potential redevelopment of Gerrard Square. A multi-use pathway is suggested to connect Logan Avenue to Carlaw Avenue along the rail corridor, as well as from the main station entrance and bus loop to Pape Avenue. The former pathway would improve pedestrian and cycling connectivity to the south entrance at Logan Avenue and the latter pathway would improve connectivity between the north entrance and the neighbourhood to the northeast. The existing pedestrian bridge across the rail corridor at Pape Avenue may be maintained and provide access to the station. There is an existing bicycle lane on Logan Avenue and Dundas Street East. According to the Toronto Bike Plan, there is a bicycle lane planned for Carlaw Avenue and an extension to the current one on Logan Avenue. Figure 4-4 shows existing, planned, and suggested active transportation infrastructure in the station area.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

47 RER New Stations Initial Business Case

Gerrard / Dundas EastLegend

Jones Ave Jones Figure 4-3: e

v Existing, Planned and Suggested

A Pape Ave Pape

Broadview Ave Broadview d (! Development Sites

n a

l Transit Network d i Soft Sites !( M Carlaw Ave Carlaw !( FinchStation

Legend 800 m Station Buffer

R y

d River e

n Gerrard Station

n ExistingStouf fRouteville Line e K 25 !( 81 Road Network Stouffville Line E

Logan Ave Logan 185 83 ExistingTrail Express Route E 504 Lakeshore East Line 144

505 d

R y

Richmond Hill Line e 506 Gerrard St E l

m Night Route i

306 r Major Road B

Minor Road Planned Route

Walking Trail / 304 Multi-Use Pathway Suggested Route Gerrarld_Carlaw_NEw_Buffer 72 !( Waterbody / Watercourse Dundas St E LakeShore_East_Final 505 TTC Transit Route Finch Ave E RichmondHill-Line Planned/Suggested GerrardSoftsites Transit Route LegeGnedrrard_DevelopmentArea Different purple for Employment Color 325 River x d m .

524 e r u t c u r

Stouffville Line t s a r f n

¯ I

g n Road Network i y c l C

d e n n

Trail a l P

d 501 0 0.0750.0. 1155 0.3 Kilometers d

n R

301 a

g t Queen St E n i

800 m Station Buffer t n 502 s i x u Finch Station Cluster Initial Business E

\ o d n

503 a m l d

Case Report i h

Datum: MTM_3Degree M c

r Unknown i Finch Station Cluster Initial Business c h n

i B F \ d e

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client and may t

Case Report a

Commercial/Mixed-Use e r C not be used, reproduced or relied upon by Fthirdigu rparties,e 2: F iexceptnch S asof tagreed Sites and Future \ S I c G

by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental r A \ x n

reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any i l o

Figure 2:E Fmincph lEoxyismtineg nLat nd Use r t liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without e M s \ Datum: MTM_3Degree t E Apr, 2016 n

AECOM’s express written consent. e m u

Institutional c o

143 D Datum: MTM_3Degree s \ Eastern Ave Apr, 2016 h e n e M m P

Green Space 6 k h 2 i : d 4 e 0 : 4 s a

6 s \ r 1 0 s e 2 / U \

Residential 2 : 1 / C

4 :

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or : n d o i

Stoufville_New

Major Roads Minor Roads Trail River/Creek 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Kilometers

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business Case Report

Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

Apr, 2016 Datum: MTM_3Degree

RER New Stations Initial Business Case Gerrard/Dundas East-Logan – Draft

49 RER New Stations Initial Business Case

Gerrard / Dundas EastLegend

Jones Ave Jones e

v Figure 4-4:

Pape Ave Pape

Broadview Ave Broadview d (! Development Sites

n a

l Existing, Planned, and Suggested Active d i Soft Sites !( M

Carlaw Ave Carlaw Transportation Infrastructure !( FinchStation

800 m Station Buffer

R y

d River

e Legend n

n Stouffville Line

e K !( Road Network Gerrard Station Existing Multi-Use Pathway

Logan Ave Logan Trail

Stouffville Line Existing On-Street Route

y e

Gerrard St E Lakeshore East Line l Existing Bike Lane

r B Richmond Hill Line Planned On-Street, Bike Lane or Cycle Track Major Road Suggested Multi-Use Pathway Minor Road Suggested New Sidewalk Walking Trail Gerrarld_Carlaw_NEw_Buffer !( LakeShore_East_Final Dundas St E Waterbody / Finch Ave E Watercourse RichmondHill-Line GerrardSoftsites LegeGnedrrard_DevelopmentArea Different purple for Employment Color Gerrarld_Carlaw_NEw_Buffer

River x d m . e r u t LakeShore c _East_Final u r

Stouffville Line t s a r f n

¯ I

g Richmo n ndHill Road Network i -Line y c l C

d e n

n GerrardSo Trail a ftsite

l s P

d 0 0.0750.0. 1155 0.3 Kilometers d

n R a

g t

Queen St E n i

800 m Station Buffer t Ger n rard_Dev s elop i mentArea x u Finch Station Cluster Initial Business E

\ o d n

a m l d

Case Report i h

M c

r Unknown i Finch Station Cluster Datum:Initial MTM_3DegreeBusiness c h

i B F \ d e t

Case Report a

by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental x n i l o

Figure 2:E Fmincph lEoxyismtineg nLat nd Use r t

reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any e

M 0 0.0750.15 s \ 0 liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing withoutDat um: MTM_3Degree t .3 Kilome Apr, 2016 n ters e m

AECOM’s express written consent. u Institutional c o D

Datum: MTM_3Degree s \ Eastern Ave Apr, 2016 h e n e M m P

Green Space 6 k h 2 i : Finch Sta d ti 4 on Cluster e In 0 itial Bu : siness 4 s a

6 s \ r 1 Ca 0 se Repo s e rt 2 / U \

Residential 2 : 1 / C

4 :

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or : n d o i

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or e p to any pUarty tthialti mtoydif ieas thnis draw iTng rwiathonut AsECpOMo's rextparests iworittenn consent. t Figure a 2 a : Fi relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by nch Existing Lan D d M Use governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. Finch Station Apr, 2016 Datum: MTM_3Degree

Stoufville_New

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM Major Roads relied upon 's client and may not be used, by third parties, except as agre reproduced or ed by AECOM and its client, as governmental reviewing agenc required by law or for use by ies. AECOM accepts no respon to any party that m sibility, and denies any liability w odifies this drawing without AEC hatsoever, Minor Roads OM's express written consent. Trail River/Creek 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Kilometers

Finch Station Cluster Initial Business Case Report

Figure 2: Finch Existing Land Use

Apr, 2016 Datum: MTM_3Degree

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

4.5.3 Station Access

Gerrard station is supportive of multiple modes of station access. As an urban station, driving to the station is discouraged so no parking is provided, although there would be a PPUDO area near the main station entrance.

The on-site bus loop for local transit service located near the front entrance would provide an attractive transfer point and minimize walking time for transfers. A streetcar loop is not proposed due to space constraints, but the transfer walking time will be less than two minutes between the streetcar stops at the Gerrard and Carlaw intersection and the station entrance.

The local transit services are frequent. The 72 Pape bus route currently has approximately eight buses per hour per direction during peak AM and PM hours. The 25, 81, and 185 bus routes would add approximately 30 more buses during the peak hour if extended to Gerrard station. The 506 Gerrard streetcar route also has approximately eight streetcars per hour per direction during peak AM and PM hours.

Cycling and pedestrian access would be prioritized at this potential new station. Bicycle parking would be accessible from Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, both of which have existing or planned cycling routes. The station would facilitate walk-up ridership due to the direct access from Gerrard Street East, Logan Avenue, Pape Avenue and Carlaw Avenue. Customers coming from Dundas Street East have to walk approximately 200 m to access the Logan Avenue entrance. Pedestrian access points are prioritized at neighbourhood connections. 4.5.4 Social Inclusivity and Accessibility

4.5.4.1 Social Inclusivity

The closest Neighbourhood Improvement Area (NIA) to the potential Gerrard station is the Regent Park NIA, which is approximately 1,200 m away and on the other side of the Don Valley Parkway. Due to the distance, this station would not be accessible for the residents of Regent Park. Therefore, the station would not serve any NIAs. The Gerrard station catchment area falls within Ward 3014. Key income statistics for these wards within the station site are outlined below.

According to 2011 Census data, the average age of the population of Ward 30 (within which the station would be located) is 39 and the average household income is over $80,000, which suggests that most residents are not transit-dependent; however, approximately 30% of the residents have a household income of $40,000 or less per year and the average renter is paying over one-third of their income on housing. The potential Gerrard station would provide faster and more convenient service downtown and make commuting faster and more comfortable.

4.5.4.2 Accessibility Index

In order to assess the potential Gerrard site, the Accessibility Model was used to test the area before and after the potential station is placed on the network. There are two key metrics produced by this model. The first is the Access to Transit (ATT) output which is a rating of the level of transit service available. This index is based on walking distance to transit stops as well as the waiting time at the said transit stop. The second output used is the Accessibility Index (AI) which represents the level of transit service, with higher AIs representing more frequent, nearby transit service.

14 City of Toronto Ward Profiles, 2011 National Household Survey, Ward 30: Toronto-Danforth

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

The model assesses the walking road network, the local transit network of routes and stops with headways, and a defined maximum walk distances to each type of transit (i.e. how far a customer is willing to walk to catch a local bus/streetcar route versus an LRT or subway).

As shown in Table 4-3, according to the Accessibility Model, the accessibility of this station is medium to high. This area starts with a fairly good ATT and AI index due to the high level of walkability and access to local transit in the neighbourhood. The blocks are small and walkable with the residential streets connecting directly to the arterial roads, thus providing direct access to local transit stops in less than a five-minute walk. Due to this, the local transit is well distributed and the addition of the new station would add a key destination to the local network. The station would be integrated well into the existing mixed-use environment making walking to the station a viable alternative for potential customers.

Table 4-3: AI and ATT Scores With and Without Gerrard Station

AI with AI With Change Change ATT with ATT With Change Change Population Median No New New in AI in AI No New New in ATT in ATT in 800m Household Station Station (%) Station Station (%) Catchment Income in 800m (2011) Catchment ($)

43 50 7.2 17% 7.9 8.2 0.3 4% 29,220 $ 64,760

4.5.4.3 Community/Social Impacts

The existing social environment of the Gerrard station area is mostly residential. The Gerrard station area could see an increase in property values, which may displace some residents or businesses and change the character of the neighbourhood due to the proximity to a new rail station. Long-term impacts to the existing community and cultural environment may include an increase in economic productivity for local businesses due to more walking traffic, more local traffic due to the increase in bus services, and redevelopment of underperforming areas, including some of the retail along Gerrard Street. There are only two historical buildings within 800 m of the station — 369 Carlaw Avenue (Toronto Hydroelectric System building, built 1916), and the fire hall at the northwest corner of Gerrard and Carlaw — however, these are not expected to be affected by the station.

4.6 Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios

The Strategic Case considers five sensitivities that test how variations in key assumptions affect the policy basis, land use and market potential, station ridership, connectivity, and accessibility of the station; four of these apply to the Gerrard station cluster. Table 4-4 below considers the sensitivities in relation to the Strategic Case and outlines the potential impacts.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 4-4: Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Strategic Case

Scenario Option 2A All Lakeshore East and A scenario where all trains (including express trains) stop at Gerrard (Service Concept Stouffville trains stop at would have two opposing effects on ridership. First, some additional Sensitivity) Gerrard station upstream riders on the express trains may shift away from GO due to the time penalty, thereby lessening the net increase in ridership. Second, there may be additional new riders attracted due to the additional travel time savings generated by the express trains. However, the number of potential new riders is limited to the number of individuals traveling between the Gerrard catchment area and the GO stations served by the express service during peak periods (i.e. when the express trains are in service). The net change in ridership is uncertain since it is not clear if the loss in upstream riders is more than offset by the increase in users at the station. Scenario Option 2B Addition of fifth track on An additional track on the Lakeshore East line would not impact the (Track Infrastructure Lakeshore East to Strategic Case. The extra width of the corridor may have some Sensitivity) Scarborough Junction negative impact on the development potential of parcels immediately adjacent to the rail line. The natural environment would be impacted as the rail right of way required for this additional track would encroach on existing green space. Scenario Option 2C Add delay at Spadina- Not applicable to a potential Gerrard station. (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Bathurst and other applicable stations Scenario Option 2D TTC–GO fare parity for trips A fare integration scenario where GO riders travelling within Toronto (Fare Sensitivity) within Toronto pay the same fare as TTC and have free transfers between TTC and GO may decrease ridership. The lower fare is expected to attract more riders to the eight upstream stations on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors within Toronto. Implementing Gerrard station would increase the overall travel time penalty on those additional riders, likely offsetting some of the ridership gain from upstream stations. On the other hand, more transit riders currently using the streetcar on Gerrard and transferring onto the subway at College to get to or from the Union Station area would switch to GO, because they could realize travel time savings despite the wait time penalty at Gerrard station. Assuming that Pape / Don Mills buses are extended south to Gerrard station, some transit riders using these buses and travelling to or from the Union Station area would switch to GO and save a transfer at Bloor-Yonge. Additional new riders will also switch from other travel modes to the Pape / Don Mills buses, because the latter offer a more attractive access mode to Gerrard station under fare integration. Further analysis is required to estimate the size of ridership impact generated by fare integration. A co-fare or marginal cost to transfer could be expected to have a smaller impact on ridership since there would be fewer new upstream riders and fewer new riders at Gerrard affected.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Strategic Case

Scenario Option 2E 2031 approved The projected population and employment density in 2031 for the (Horizon and Land Use population/employment Gerrard site is approximately127 P+J/ha, which captures a large Sensitivity) projections plus major increase in density from existing and likely already captures much of development proposals the potential redevelopment in the area. The station may increase the real estate market demand due to the strong real estate market near rapid transit stations. It is not expected that there would be sufficient additional redevelopment to substantially affect ridership at the station.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

5. Financial Case

5.1 Financial Case Summary

A financial case evaluation was performed to assess the financial viability of the Gerrard station option through net present value (NPV), revenue to cost ratio, and operating cost recovery ratio analyses. The results reveal that Gerrard station generates losses of $166.7 million on a net present value basis over a 60-year time horizon (2022- 2081), suggesting it is not viable on a strictly financial basis. The NPV combines additional fare revenues of $129.5 million resulting from the net increase in ridership and the capital expenditure and the recurring station and train operating costs, estimated at $296.1 million. These results imply revenue-to-cost and operating cost recovery ratios of 0.44 and 2.91, respectively. In other words, the additional fare revenues cover close to three times the additional operating costs incurred due to the station and train operations, but only 44% of total costs over the evaluation period. Table 5-1 summarizes the key results of the Financial Case.

Table 5-1: Financial Case Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period)

Financial Case Summary Results (Millions of 2015$, PV) Gerrard Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) 74.4 Fare Revenue (A) $129.5 Total Costs (B) $296.1 Capital Costs $251.7 Operating Costs (C) $44.5 Net Present Value (A-B) -$166.7 Revenue to Cost Ratio (A/B) 0.44 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) 2.91

5.2 Approach

The Financial Case compares the incremental capital expenditures, operating and maintenance costs and fare revenues for the new station relative to the base case scenario (i.e., without the new station). The assessment is based on 2031 ridership estimates grown by corridor from 2013 levels and assumes that demand will grow at the same rate as the demand in the corridor. The dollar figures for the 60-year evaluation period from the potential construction start date (2022) through to the end of 2081 are in nominal dollars (i.e., the dollar figure expected to be paid or received expressed in the year of the payment). Nominal dollars are calculated assuming an annual inflation rate of 2%. The annual costs and revenues are discounted back to a single value using a nominal discount rate of 5.5%. Once discounted, the total costs are compared against the incremental revenues to derive the net present value for the financial case as well as the lifecycle revenue to cost ratio and the operating cost recovery ratio. The Financial Case is developed on the basis of conventional public sector funding of the capital investment undertaken by Metrolinx. Potential partnership opportunities to reduce Metrolinx’s capital investment will be explored in future phases of work. Appendix A summarizes all the financial baseline assumptions and data sources.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

5.3 Financial Criteria

The financial criteria consist of the financial implications of constructing and operating the potential new station in terms of lifecycle costs and revenues for Metrolinx. Costs include capital expenditures as well as incremental station and train operating costs. Incremental revenues may include fare revenue, advertising, and proceeds from disposal of assets. However, at this stage, the assessment only considers the additional fare revenues for GO. The dollar figures below are in present value (PV) terms, unless otherwise indicated. 5.3.1 Capital Costs

The total capital expenditures for Gerrard are estimated at $251.7 million in present value terms. The capital costs capture all the outlays associated with the procurement of the infrastructure including design, construction, project management, land acquisition and a 50% contingency. For Gerrard station, the most important budget item consists of the bridge expansion costs which represent more than 30% of the total capital costs. The construction period is assumed to start in 2022 with service beginning in 2024. The assessment also considers a reinvestment halfway through the evaluation period, in 2053 for the refurbishment, replacement or renovation of track and building components. The reinvestment is equal to 50% of the initial capital expenditure for the track and related components and the site and building components. The cost estimates are based on recent GO station projects completed by consultants and information provided by Metrolinx. The land and property costs are derived from MPAC assessment data and use an average property cost for the area. Table 5-2 summarizes the capital costs by components. 5.3.2 Station Operating and Maintenance Costs

The station operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $20.3 million in present value terms over the 60-year time horizon. The annual operation and maintenance costs consist of labour, and station and ticketing machine operating and maintenance costs. They are estimated by comparing the total system operating and maintenance costs with and without the new station using the RER Model Second Generation. These cost estimates are based on preliminary functional design assumptions consisting of two side platforms, one island platform, six elevators and no parking. The station operating and maintenance costs are assumed to grow at a nominal rate of 2.05% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter. 5.3.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs

Over the period, the new station is expected to incur incremental train operating costs of $24.2 million. The incremental train operating costs consist primarily of crew costs, operations administration and management and wayside power. They are also estimated using the RER Model Second Generation. The assessment assumes that the train operating costs fluctuate at annual nominal rates varying between -2.8% and 2.8 % until 2044 and remain constant thereafter.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 5-2: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period)

Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Millions of 2015 $, PV) Gerrard Capital Costs $251.7 Track and Related Components $157.2 Site/Building Components $50.5 Land/Property Acquisition $44.0 Station Operating Costs $20.3 Train Operating Costs $24.2 Total Costs $296.1 5.3.4 Incremental Fare Revenues

The potential Gerrard station is expected to attract 74.4 million additional passenger-trips to the GO network over the evaluation period. These riders are expected to generate additional fare revenues of $129.5 million in present value terms. The ridership is composed of new riders boarding or alighting at the station. Conversely, a portion of existing upstream riders are expected to switch to other modes of transportation due to the delay caused by stopping at the new station (i.e., 1.8 minute per trip). The loss in fare revenues is included in the net figures stated above. These figures do not, however, include existing GO riders expected to divert from adjacent GO station to board or alight at the new station since existing riders do not generate additional revenues for GO.

The ridership impacts are based on 2031 estimates projected using an annual ridership growth rate assumption of 3.4% until 2044 and no ridership growth thereafter.15 Average fares per category of riders were applied to the annual ridership estimates to derive the change in fare revenues. Table 5-3 summarizes the change in ridership and in fare revenues.

Table 5-3: Additional Ridership and Fare Revenue (60-Year Period)

Additional Riders (Millions) and Fare Revenue (Millions of 2015 $, PV) Gerrard

Total Additional GO Ridership (Millions) 74.4 New Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 66.6 New Through Riders Alighting at Station 45.0 Change in Upstream Boardings -37.2 Total Additional GO Fare Revenues (Millions of 2015 $, PV) $129.5 5.3.5 Revenues from Other Sources

The new station could potentially generate additional revenues from other sources. It provides an opportunity for Metrolinx to increase its advertising, concession, and lease revenues. The footfall at the new station could also translate into commercial opportunities. Other revenues include land sale opportunities for future development on any acquired lands. Gerrard station would require some land acquisition to accommodate the bus loop and PPUDO that could provide future land sale or redevelopment opportunities. The assessment does not quantify these incremental revenues at this stage, although they could contribute to the project’s financial feasibility.

15 2016-01 Potential RER Stations v2.9 (Travel Time Savings Evaluation), Provided by Metrolinx on February 23, 2016 (included in Appendix B)

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

5.3.6 Net Present Value

Over the 60-year evaluation period, Gerrard station generates $129.5 million in additional fare revenues and incurs capital and operating costs estimated at $296.1 million. The net present value is negative, generating a loss of $166.7 million. Hence, the project is not deemed profitable on a financial basis. Table 5-1 summarizes these results. 5.3.7 Lifecycle Revenue to Cost Ratio

The lifecycle revenue to cost ratio is estimated at 0.44. In other words, revenues cover only 44% of the total costs over the analysis period. 5.3.8 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio

The operating cost recovery ratio is estimated at 2.91. Incremental revenues are therefore almost three times higher than incremental station and train operating costs.

5.4 Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios

The Financial Case considers five sensitivities that test how variations in key assumptions affect the net present value of the station; four of these apply to the Gerrard station cluster. Table 5-4 below considers the sensitivities in relation to the Financial Case and outlines the potential impacts.

Table 5-4: Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Financial Case

Scenario Option 2A All Lakeshore East and This scenario would incur additional train operating costs and would (Service Concept Stouffville trains stop at have two opposing effects on ridership. First, some additional Sensitivity) Gerrard station upstream riders on the express trains may shift away from GO due to the time penalty, thereby lessening the net increase in ridership. Second, Gerrard station could attract additional new riders relative to Scenario Option 1 due to the additional travel time savings generated by the express trains. It is not clear whether or not the express train service would lead to a net increase in the number of users at the station. Hence, the overall impact on the NPV for Gerrard is not clear. However, it is unlikely to rise above the breakeven point. Scenario Option 2B Addition of fifth track on The change in configuration would not have any impact on the service (Track Infrastructure Lakeshore East to concept considered under Scenario Option 1. Hence, ridership and Sensitivity) Scarborough Junction fare revenues would not be impacted by a fifth track. However, adding a fifth track would have major impacts on the capital costs for Gerrard due to the requirement for a wider corridor. The addition of a fifth track would require the acquisition of additional land and the demolition of existing buildings. Those additional capital costs would have a negative impact on the NPV, which is already negative.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 5-4: Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios (continued)

Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Financial Case

Scenario Option 2C Add delay at Spadina- Not applicable to a potential Gerrard station. (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Bathurst and other applicable stations Scenario Option 2D TTC–GO fare parity for A fare integration scenario where GO riders travelling within Toronto (Fare Sensitivity) trips within Toronto pay the TTC fare instead of the higher GO fare and have free transfers between TTC and GO would have two opposing effects on ridership. First, under the base case scenario (i.e., before introducing the new station), the lower fare is expected to attract more riders to upstream stations within Toronto. Hence, introducing Gerrard station would increase the overall travel time losses due to the delay at the new station relative to Scenario Option 1. The time penalty will divert some additional riders away from the GO rail network and negatively impact fare revenues.

Second, more transit riders currently using the streetcar on Gerrard and transferring onto the subway at College to get to or from the Union station area would switch to GO, because they can realize travel time savings despite the wait time penalty at Gerrard station. Assuming that Pape / Don Mills buses are extended south to Gerrard station, some transit riders using these buses and travelling to or from the Union station area would switch to GO and save a transfer at Bloor-Yonge. Additional new riders would also switch from other travel modes to the Pape / Don Mills buses, because the latter offers a more attractive access mode to Gerrard station under fare integration.

The loss in upstream riders is expected to more than offset the boardings or alightings for trips beginning or ending near any of the station areas under fare integration. Moreover, additional ridership may entail an increase in operating and maintenance costs (and possibly vehicle capital costs to accommodate the additional riders). Hence, the fare integration scenario is expected to result in a deterioration in the financial feasibility of the station. Scenario Option 2E 2031 approved It is not expected that there would be sufficient additional (Horizon and Land Use population/employment redevelopment to affect ridership at the station. The new Sensitivity) projections plus major developments are not expected to have any impact on the cost side. development proposals Hence, the new developments around Gerrard may lead to a small improvement in the financial case.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

6. Economic Case

6.1 Economic Case Summary

A benefit-cost analysis was performed to examine the project costs, the transportation user impacts and the environmental impacts of Gerrard station for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The results indicate that the potential station leads to an NPV of -$224.6 million with a benefit cost ratio of 0.1, suggesting that the station reduces economic wellbeing over the 60-year time horizon. Alternately, for every dollar spent on the project, transportation users and society as a whole are better off by only $0.10.

The time penalty associated with the additional stop at Gerrard station generates net travel time losses. However, these losses are more than offset by the benefits associated with the reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKTs) realized by new GO riders. The reduction in auto use translates into vehicle operating cost savings, decongestion on the road network, positive safety outcomes and environmental benefits. The overall benefits are thus positive over the evaluation period in present value terms.

In addition to the monetized impacts, the Economic Case also provides a high-level qualitative assessment of the wider economic benefits, the economic development opportunities in terms of job creation and additional value added, the distributional impacts and the local real estate developments associated with the potential station option. Table 6-1 summarizes the key results of the Economic Case.

Table 6-1: Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period))

Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, PV) Gerrard Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person-Hours) -20.9 Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) 433.2 Total Benefits $26.8 Total Costs $251.4 Net Present Value -$224.6 Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.1 Transportation User Impacts $25.5 Travel Time Savings -$111.0 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $95.0 Decongestion on Road Network $31.3 Safety Impacts $10.2 Environmental Impacts $1.3

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

6.2 Approach

The Economic Case highlights the overall value generated by the proposed station option. The benefit-cost analysis undertaken as part of the Economic Case documents and quantifies the project costs for the GTHA and Ontario as a whole, the transportation user impacts, and the environmental outcomes which can be monetized and included in a cost-benefit analysis. The Economic Case does not consider incremental fare revenues because while they represent out-of-pocket costs to the users, they also represent a revenue gain to the transit operator, therefore offsetting each other overall. In other words, the GTHA is no better or worse off overall as a result of the change in fare revenue. All costs and benefits are stated in 2015 dollars. Once monetized and discounted, the economic and environmental impacts are compared to the capital and operating costs to derive the net present value and the benefit-cost ratio for the new station. The dollar figures below are in present value terms, using a real discount rate of 3.5% per year. Appendix A summarizes the economic case baseline assumptions.

6.3 Economic Criteria

The economic criteria examined in the cost-benefit assessment include the project costs, the transportation user impacts and the environmental impacts. In addition to the monetized impacts, the Economic Case considers the economic development impacts associated with the new station. The latter are assessed qualitatively. 6.3.1 Project Costs

The project costs are based on the same cost estimates used in the Financial Case (see Section 5.3) but discounted using a real discount rate of 3.5%.

6.3.1.1 Capital Costs

From an economic perspective, the capital expenditures for Gerrard amount to $207.7 million in present value terms. These costs capture all the outlays associated with the procurement of the infrastructure including design, construction, project management and a 50% contingency. The economic assessment does not take into account land acquisition fees which are considered a transfer between economic agents. The construction period is assumed to start in 2022 with service beginning in 2024. The assessment also considers a reinvestment halfway through the evaluation period, in 2053 for the refurbishment, replacement or renovation of track and building components. The reinvestment is equal to 50% of the initial capital expenditure for the track and related components and the site and building components. The cost estimates are compiled from information on recent GO station projects completed by consultants and information provided by Metrolinx.

6.3.1.2 Station Operating and Maintenance Costs

The station operating costs are estimated at $19.9 million in present value terms over the 60-year time horizon. The annual operation and maintenance costs consist of labour, and station and ticketing machine operating and maintenance costs. They are estimated by comparing the total system operating and maintenance costs with and without the new station using the RER Model Second Generation. These cost estimates are based on preliminary functional design assumptions consisting of two side platforms, one island platform, six elevators and no parking. The station operating and maintenance costs are assumed to grow at a real rate of 0.05% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

6.3.1.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs

The train operating costs are estimated at $23.7 million in present value terms over the period. The incremental train operating costs consist primarily of crew costs, operations administration and management and wayside power. They are also estimated using the RER Model Second Generation. The assessment assumes that the train operating costs fluctuate at annual real rates varying between -0.8% and 0.8 % until 2044 and remain constant thereafter.

Together the capital and operating costs amount to $251.4 million in present value terms. 6.3.2 Transportation User Impacts

The transportation user impacts consist of the travel time impacts, auto operating cost savings, decongestion impacts on the road network and safety benefits resulting from the new station. These benefits are monetized, discounted and incorporated into the benefit-cost analysis, as shown in Table 6-1 above.

6.3.2.1 Travel Time Savings

As a result of Gerrard station, transportation users will sustain travel time losses of 20.9 million passenger-hours over the 60-year time horizon, which represent an economic loss of $111.0 million in present value terms. The travel time losses combine three effects: 1) the travel time penalties for upstream riders due to the additional stop, 2) the travel time savings for new riders boarding at the station and 3) the time savings for new and existing passengers travelling through Union and alighting at the new station, estimated at 35.9 million, 13.6 million and 1.4 million passenger-hours, respectively.

The travel time impacts are based on the same calculation process used to assess the change in ridership. The impacts are monetized using a value of time of $16.71 per hour, which is assumed to rise at a real growth rate of 1.6% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter. Table 6-2 presents the travel time impacts by category of riders expressed in millions of passenger-hours and the total monetized travel time impacts over the time horizon.

Table 6-2: Travel Time Impacts (60-Year Period)

Travel Time Savings Gerrard Total Travel Time Savings (Millions of Passenger-Hours) -20.9 Upstream Users -35.9 Existing Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 0.0 New Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 13.6 Existing Through Riders Alighting at Station16 0.0 New Through Riders Alighting at Station17 1.4 Value of Total Travel Time Savings (Millions of 2015$, PV) -$111.0

16 Includes Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines. 17 Includes Lakeshore West and Kitchener lines.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

6.3.2.2 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled

The positive and negative time savings sustained by transportation users will result in behavioural changes. A portion of new riders boarding or alighting at Gerrard will shift away from auto use, thereby reducing distances driven by car in the GTHA. These reductions more than offset the additional VKTs generated by upstream riders who switch towards auto use due to the time penalty. The net VKT savings are estimated at 433.2 million over the 60- year period.

The results are based on the assumption that 20% of diverted trips will shift to or away from auto. The assessment also assumes new riders will each save 35 km on a daily basis while each former upstream rider will drive an additional 39 km each day. Table 6-3 summarizes the change in VKT per category of riders.

Table 6-3: Changes in Auto Distances Traveled (60-Year Period)

Reduction in Auto Distances Traveled (Millions of VKTs) Gerrard Upstream Users -285.0 Boarding or Alighting at New Station 413.0 Alighting Through 305.3 Total VKT Savings 433.2

The VKT savings translate into vehicle operating cost savings, decongestion impacts on the road network, safety benefits and environmental benefits. These impacts are discussed in the sections below.

6.3.2.3 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

The net reduction in VKTs results in vehicle operating cost savings of close to $95.0 million in present value terms over the time horizon. Vehicle operating costs consist of out-of-pocket costs borne by individuals driving their vehicle. They are estimated by applying a unit cost of 63 cents per VKT. The unit cost is assumed to rise at a real annual growth rate of 0.7% until 2044 and remain constant thereafter.

6.3.2.4 Decongestion Impacts on Road Network

The decongestion impacts on the road network resulting from the reduction in auto usage represent $31.3 million in present value terms over the period. The decongestion impacts are estimated by applying a unit cost of 16.7 cents per VKT. This unit cost rises at a real annual growth rate of 1.6% until 2044 and remains constant thereafter.

6.3.2.5 Safety Impacts

Auto use carries a higher risk of death or injury than transit use. Consequently, the reduction in auto usage will result in safety benefits of $10.2 million in present value terms over the period. The safety benefits are monetized by applying a unit cost of 8 cents per VKT to account for the accidents and collisions resulting from the change in vehicle kilometres driven.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

6.3.3 Environmental Impacts

6.3.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The reduction in auto use results in lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG emissions impose a cost on the environment. Hence, the reduction in VKTs discussed above represents a monetized benefit of $1.3 million over the time horizon. These are monetized by applying a unit cost of 1 cent per VKT. The environmental impacts do not take into account the additional GHG emissions resulting from the additional train acceleration and deceleration at the new station. 6.3.4 Benefit Cost Analysis Results

6.3.4.1 Net Present Value

The overall transportation user benefits and environmental benefits of $26.8 million over the 60-year period combined with capital and operating costs of $251.4 million results in a net impact of -$224.6 million in net present value terms. The negative NPV means that the new station would reduce economic wellbeing over the evaluation period.

6.3.4.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio

The economic feasibility of the new station can also be represented by the benefit-cost ratio of 0.1 for the project relative to the base case. The ratio indicates that for every dollar spent in capital and operations, transportation users and society as a whole will gain $0.10 in transportation and environmental benefits. The BCR is calculated by dividing total discounted benefits by total discounted costs (capital and operating). 6.3.5 Economic Development Impacts

The Economic Case considers the following economic development impacts: wider economic benefits, economic impacts, income and distributional impacts and land value changes. These impacts are not entirely incremental to the appraisal benefits calculated under the transportation user impacts above. However, substantial work is needed to quantify these benefits. Hence, they are only assessed qualitatively at this stage.

6.3.5.1 Wider Economic Benefits

The positive transportation user impacts generated by the potential Gerrard station may result in additional wider economic benefits for the GTHA. Agglomeration economies, the main source of wider economic benefits, represent the potential of the new station to bring jobs and economic activity closer together, leading to knowledge spill-overs, improved employer-employee matching, and other impacts that reduce transaction costs and encourage firm growth. These economies arise from a reduction in generalized travel costs (i.e., time savings, reduced auto operating costs and any road decongestion benefits which reduce the effective distance between economic activities). In this case, the $25.5 million reduction in generalized journey costs is expected to generate positive wider economic benefits.

Other wider economic benefits include the impact of the station on imperfect competition and increased labour supply. The impact on imperfect competition represents the benefits resulting from increased competition between firms, spurring efficiency, innovation, reduced prices and increased consumer welfare. The increased labour supply refers more specifically to the increased tax revenues from increased labour force participation through improved access to employment resulting from lower travel costs. While further work is needed to quantify these wider economic benefits, they are likely to be positive given the positive transportation user impacts.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

6.3.5.2 Economic Impacts

The economic impacts show how each dollar spent translates into direct and indirect output, employment and wages in the region. Impacts consist of both the temporary impacts expected to accrue as a result of the capital outlays to construct the new station and recurring annual impacts resulting from the operation of the station and additional train services. Hence, for the new station, the capital expenditures reported above are expected to create substantial economic activity during the two-year construction period. However, the annual recurring operating expenditures are expected to contribute only modestly to the region’s employment, earnings and GDP.

6.3.5.3 Income / Distributional Impacts

Adding a new station to the GO network could contribute social/community benefits for social groups that are particularly reliant on transit to access jobs, schooling, services or other amenities. Further analysis should be completed as part of the full business case to assess the potential impacts of the new station on lower-income households and other potentially vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. The analysis should seek to determine how these groups are impacted by the change in accessibility arising from the new station, relative to the overall population affected. Also, in addition to considering the distributional impacts in the station catchment area, the analysis should also consider the impacts of the additional time penalty on the generalized journey cost for those vulnerable population groups travelling from upstream.

6.3.5.4 Property and Land Value Changes

Property and land value uplifts are another potential impact resulting from the time and cost savings which accrue to the area’s transportation users. These users will essentially “spend” the accrued time and cost savings on higher property values in the areas that benefit from the increased accessibility. In addition, properties on streets which experience congestion relief as a result of the reduction in VKTs may also benefit from uplifts in property values by virtue of becoming more attractive residential or business locations.

Local planning initiatives are also expected to have a positive impact on property values in proximity to the station area. There are currently 19 development applications underway in the area and 23 soft sites within an 800 m radius of the station and most of the soft sites within the residential land use designation have a high likelihood to be developed by 2031 given the current market demand. This rate of development is likely already captured in the increased population and employment density.

Additional work is needed to quantify the impact of a new station on current and future property and land values in the station catchment areas. The research would consist of identifying a potential range of uplift values associated with new train stations or rail corridors in the literature. It would also require obtaining the land uses and current property value data from the City of Toronto or MPAC, estimating the land/property values of future developments, and the potential land/property value uplift for the three station options by multiplying the percentage value uplift typical for each land use by the total assessment of lands within station areas in each land use category.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

6.4 Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios

The Economic Case considers five sensitivities that test how variations in key assumptions affect the economic NPV of the station; four of these apply to the Gerrard station cluster. Table 6-4 below considers the sensitivities in relation to the Economic Case and outlines the potential impacts.

Table 6-4: Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Financial Case

Scenario Option 2A All Lakeshore East and This scenario would incur additional train operating costs and would (Service Concept Stouffville trains stop at have two opposing effects on travel times and auto use. First, under Sensitivity) Gerrard station this scenario, all upstream riders going to Union station would sustain the additional time penalty, thereby exacerbating the overall time losses. Furthermore, some upstream riders on the express trains may switch to auto use due to the time penalty, thereby lessening the reduction in VKTs. Second, Gerrard station could attract additional new riders to the GO network relative to Scenario Option 1 due to the additional travel time savings generated by the express trains. The net impact on travel times and auto use is uncertain since it is not clear if the travel time penalties sustained by upstream riders would be more than offset by the travel time savings for riders boarding or alighting at the station. Hence, the overall impact on the net present value and the benefit-cost ratio for Gerrard is not clear. However, it is unlikely to rise above the breakeven point. Scenario Option 2B Addition of fifth track on This scenario would not have any impact on the service concept (Track Infrastructure Lakeshore East to considered under scenario option 1. Hence, transportation users would Sensitivity) Scarborough Junction not be impacted. However, adding a fifth track would have major impacts on the capital costs for Gerrard due to the requirement for a wider corridor. These additional capital costs would have a negative impact on the Economic Case, which already exhibits a negative NPV. Scenario Option 2C Add delay at Spadina- Not applicable to a potential Gerrard station. (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Bathurst and other applicable stations

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 6-4: Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios (continued)

Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Financial Case

Scenario Option 2D (Fare TTC–GO fare parity for A fare integration scenario where GO riders travelling within Toronto Sensitivity) trips within Toronto pay the TTC fare instead of the higher GO fare and have free transfers between TTC and GO would have two opposing effects on ridership. First, under the base case scenario (i.e., before introducing the new station), the lower fare is expected to attract more riders to the eight upstream stations on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors within Toronto. Hence, introducing Gerrard station would increase the overall travel time losses due to the delay at the new station relative to Scenario Option 1. The time penalty will divert some additional riders away from the GO rail network and negatively impact the overall VKT savings. Second, more transit riders currently using the streetcar on Gerrard and transferring onto the subway at College to get to or from the Union Station area will switch to GO, because they can realize travel time savings despite the wait time penalty at Gerrard station. Assuming that Pape / Don Mills buses are extended south to Gerrard station, some transit riders using these buses and travelling to or from the Union station area would switch to GO and save a transfer at Bloor-Yonge. Additional new riders will also switch from other travel modes to the Pape / Don Mills buses, because the latter offer a more attractive access mode to Gerrard station under fare integration, thus contributing to VKT savings. The net effect on transportation user impacts is thus expected to be negative. Moreover, additional ridership is likely to entail an increase in operating and maintenance costs (and possibly vehicle capital costs to accommodate the additional riders). Hence, the economic feasibility for Gerrard station would worsen. Scenario Option 2E 2031 approved It is not expected that there would be sufficient additional (Horizon and Land Use population/employment redevelopment to generate substantial travel time savings and VKT Sensitivity) projections plus major reductions. The new developments are not expected to have any development proposals impact on the cost side either. Hence, the new developments around Gerrard may only lead to a small improvement in the Economic Case.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

7. Deliverability and Operations Case

7.1 Deliverability and Operations Case Summary

The potential site is constrained mainly by its proximity to existing developments. The site at Gerrard Street East and Carlaw Avenue does not have any natural areas of significance or heritage buildings within the area of redevelopment. However, there is one designated heritage building in the vicinity of the site that is not expected to be affected by construction. The surrounding area is a mix of neighbourhood commercial and residential uses with a few high-density residential developments and converted mixed-use spaces. One large lot currently containing a shopping centre with a No Frills grocery store could be purchased for construction, as well as several small pieces of land at the south end of the station platform and along the sides of the corridor. The site is heavily constrained in size and access would be difficult to maintain without significant disruptions to local traffic. A large industrial building, not designated as historic, but noted as being of community interest, is located within a few metres of the potential south side platform; this building could be impacted by construction and operation of the platforms. A summary of the performance of the potential Gerrard station in the Deliverability and Operations Case can be seen below in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1: Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Results

Deliverability and Operations Case Gerrard Summary Track geometry acceptable for a station, no reduction in track speed required, and minimal changes to track geometry would Constructability be required to accommodate platforms. Confined site footprint, possible contaminated soil. Some property acquisition required. Station would be very close to several existing buildings. Construction may be Stakeholder Impacts disturbing to nearby residents and several adjacent houses and businesses. No significant environmental impacts are likely. Area is currently built-up. Station cannot be increased in size Room for Growth without significant demolition and land acquisition. Approvals/Permits Required Only a TPAP would be required. Schedule impacts to express trains may occur if Stouffville trains are on Tracks 1 and 2 and Lakeshore trains are on Operating Impacts Tracks 3 and 4; no major impacts with a local-express configuration. Archaeological discoveries, unforeseen soil or water Other Key Risks and Impacts conditions.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

7.2 Approach

The Deliverability and Operations Case provides evidence of the ease of constructing the station, operating service through the station, and the further steps required before a station can be implemented. This case also outlines the project risks known at this stage, such as disruption during construction and potential operating changes that affect the performance of the station.

7.3 Deliverability and Operations Criteria 7.3.1 Constructability

The proposed track geometry would be within acceptable limits for a station. The station is proposed to be located on curved track that extends between Queen Street East in the south and Jones Avenue in the east. The maximum track curvature at this point is 1o4’50”, which is below the maximum desirable curvature of 1°40’. The superelevation of the track is 2” (50 mm), which meets the desired maximum superelevation criteria while maintaining a maximum unbalance superelevation of 3” for passenger trains. The current track speed of 80 mph for passenger and 60 mph for freight is expected to be maintained. There is a steady gradient through the platform of approximately 0.98%, heading uphill to the northeast. This gradient is considered to be just within the acceptable maximum gradient of 1%, so trains are not expected to have difficulty starting or stopping at the station.

Lateral shifts of all tracks through the platforms will be required to accommodate the island platform between Track 2 and Track 3. Track 1 and Track 2 would require minor shifts as they more or less maintain the existing alignment (Track 1 maintains the 4th Track Preliminary Design alignment). Track 4 would need to be shifted further east by approximately 6.5 m through the platform. The track re-alignment would span a length of approximately 1950 m. The platform arrangement of the station would maintain access to all four tracks on the line.

A total of 17,600 m2 of land would be required to support the development of the station. The majority of this land is contained in a single lot at the north end of the station platform. This land is currently occupied by a No Frills grocery store within the Riverdale Shopping Centre, a No-Frills gas station, and Carlaw Tire and Auto. The land in question would be used to develop a bus loop and PPUDO with associated bioswale and stormwater management pond as well as a station access and facility. Since only a portion of the parcel is needed for station features, there could be two blocks of land set aside for future developments. Land at the south end of the station may also need to be purchased to support the development of a second station access off Logan Avenue. The majority of this land is in the municipal right-of-way, while some of the land is privately owned and currently undeveloped. Depending on the track layout, land may also need to be acquired along the length of the station and demolition work of abutting structures may need to be undertaken. It appears that the station could be configured within the right-of-way in a way that preserves the large industrial/commercial building south of the corridor west of Carlaw Avenue, though its rear driveway would need to be acquired.

Gerrard station would be a complex station to construct due to its proximity with abutting properties and placement on a constrained embankment. With respect to abutting properties, the station would need to be constructed on retaining walls with minimal clearance to nearby buildings, particularly the industrial building on Carlaw Avenue. Construction of these retaining walls would likely have substantial impact on abutting properties. The rail overpasses at Gerrard Street, Carlaw Avenue, and Logan Avenue are not wide enough to accommodate the new platforms; substantial widening of the Gerrard and Carlaw overpasses and lesser widening of the Logan overpass would be required. Major traffic impacts on these streets could occur during station construction. The industrial building on the

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

west side of Carlaw contains two non-designated historic stacks that are widely appreciated in the neighborhood. Care should be given to ensure these stacks are maintained. 7.3.2 Stakeholder Impacts

Gerrard station would be surrounded by medium-density commercial as well as lower-density residential development. Construction of a new station in this location may be disruptive to the residents of the area. Construction noise as well as dust and changes to traffic may all contribute to the disruption. Noise may be particularly disruptive towards the south end of the station as there are approximately 20 townhouses immediately beside the potential station. The large industrial building complex in this area also houses many offices and small businesses that may be disturbed by the noise and vibrations.

Within 500 m of the subject site, there are two schools, Pape Avenue Junior Public School and Eastdale Collegiate Institute. Of these, it is expected that Pape Avenue Junior Public School would experience more of an impact from construction as it is only approximately 100 m from the northern limits of construction. Due to this, noisier work may need to proceed outside of school hours or on school holidays. There are also several places of worship near the site that may be disturbed. Impacts of dust would be more concentrated to neighboring properties immediately adjacent to the site. There should be adequate dust control measures used throughout the construction process to minimize these impacts.

Of note as well, are the overpasses above Logan Avenue, Carlaw Avenue and Gerrard Street East. During widening, there would likely be disruption to traffic below. This would also require the use of a flag person, or possibly police officer, to direct traffic. Streetcars on Gerrard may be impacted at certain stages of construction, requiring replacement buses along the eastern portion of the 506 Carlton line. Specific construction impacts would become more apparent as this business case develops.

It is not expected that there would be construction issues with respect to cultural heritage, heritage buildings, archaeology, or natural heritage features. This being said, a TPAP would still need to be undertaken prior to construction. Since the site has past industrial uses, there is the risk of soil or water contamination. The current facilities present at the northern lot to be acquired as part of the station construction are notable. Two of the land uses on-site, gas station and auto repair shop, are land uses known to have contaminate soils. A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would be required as well as soils remediation before construction can commence; a Phase 1 ESA is the minimum in this case. 7.3.3 Room for Growth

The area surrounding the potential Gerrard station is fully developed with residential and commercial properties. Due to this, there is minor potential for future expansion of this station. With this being said, if desired, the industrial building just south of the station could be demolished to clear space for a future expansion or it could be incorporated into the station itself. The northern portion of the site has room to expand in the future. In the concept plan, two lots are set aside for future development. These lots could be retained with an interim land use until the station demand is high enough to warrant development. The bus loop can also be expanded or replaced with another feature depending on the timing and route of the potential Relief Line or other transit changes in the future.

It is not expected that the station would be able to accommodate a fifth rail track in the future unless extensive demolition work is undertaken. There would be little room to accommodate higher-speed through trains by reducing the curvature of track at this location due to proximity with buildings and the additional expense that would be incurred for realigning a large section of the track.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

7.3.4 Approvals/Permits Required

The potential station as described in this report is included in Schedule 1, Subsection 2 (1) of O.Reg. 231/08: Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings and may proceed under a Transit Project Assessment Process; however, the option remains to proceed under an approved Class Environmental Assessment. As there are no anticipated cultural or natural heritage features on site, there should not be any further requirements for approvals and permits outside of construction permits.

For the development of the new station alone, zoning or official plan amendments are not anticipated. However, the station concept plan sets aside land for the potential of new developments. As the land is currently zoned for commercial/residential, changes to this use would likely require both zoning and official plan amendments depending on the type and size of development that is proposed. As this study develops and the station concept becomes refined, approvals and permits required for construction may change. 7.3.5 Operating Impacts

Development of Gerrard station is not anticipated to have significant operational impacts on either the Lakeshore East or Stouffville Line. Local trains would be able to stop at the station from any track; express trains would be able to pass through as long as there isn’t a local train stopped on the same track. The potential for schedule impacts would depend on the track assignments along the four-track line between Don Yard and Scarborough Junction. If Stouffville and Lakeshore East are separated, with Stouffville trains on Tracks 1 and 2 and Lakeshore East trains on Tracks 3 and 4, then a local train stopping on the Lakeshore tracks may inhibit an express train behind it. Schedules may need to be adjusted to permit for this. In a local/express configuration, with all local trains on Tracks 1 and 4 and express trains on Tracks 2 and 3, express trains would not be impacted by a stopped local train. 7.3.6 Other Key Risks and Impacts

Among the previously mentioned deliverability and operations impacts, consideration must also be given towards site access during construction, unforeseen geotechnical circumstances, and unforeseen natural or cultural heritage conditions. With regard to site access, heavy vehicles including concrete trucks and dump trucks would be accessing the site from a variety of locations due to the compact nature of the site. This would lead to congestion and heavy trucks driving on smaller local roads. As previously stated, depending on the how the track configuration affects the overpasses at Gerrard and Carlaw, a signal person, temporary traffic signals, or police officer may need to be utilized to avoid traffic congestion and safety issues.

With regard to unforeseen geotechnical circumstances, unfavourable soil or water table conditions may be discovered; these conditions may cause the constructability of the station to change drastically. The soil may have poor bearing capacity and require deeper or larger foundations. A high water table may require extensive dewatering throughout the course of construction, increasing costs. These conditions should be investigated further as part of a more advanced business case study and their risk will be present at any site where conditions are unknown.

With regard to natural or cultural heritage conditions, unforeseen archaeological finds as well as species at risk on site can delay construction timeline significantly. If the site is found to be of archaeological significance, there must be proper excavation performed to extract the resources before the station is built. If a species at risk is found on site or found inhabiting the site, there can be delays until the animal leaves the area. Since the site is so narrow and construction would need to be performed close to adjacent buildings, there would be the risk of damaging these buildings through direct contact, foundation settlement, and cracking. A proper pre-construction survey should be undertaken with crack gauges, deflection gauges, and vibration monitors installed to ensure occupants are minimally

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

disturbed and other buildings are not damaged. These key risks and other impacts are subject to change as the business case develops further.

7.4 Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenarios

The deliverability and operations case considers five sensitivities that test how variations in key assumptions affect the constructability, stakeholder impacts, room for growth, and operating impacts of the station; four of these apply to the Gerrard station cluster. Table 7-2 below considers the sensitivities in relation to the Deliverability and Operations Case and outlines the potential impacts.

Table 7-2: Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenario Analysis

Scenario Options Description Description

Scenario Option 2A All Lakeshore East and Stopping all trains at Gerrard station would have minor impact on (Service Concept Stouffville trains stop at deliverability and operational considerations. Sensitivity) Gerrard station Scenario Option 2B Addition of fifth track on The configuration with a fifth track would separate Stouffville trains onto (Track Infrastructure Lakeshore East to Tracks 1 and 2 and Lakeshore East trains onto Tracks 3 and 5. Track 4 Sensitivity) Scarborough Junction would remain available for use by non-GO services such as VIA or for use by express GO trains. The additional track would mean that the additional station serving local trains would not impact the schedules or operations of express trains.

However, significant property acquisition would be required to accommodate a station and the addition of a fifth track. This acquisition would lead to demolition of several additional structures along the rail corridor (including the industrial building on Carlaw Avenue), require further expansion of the three overpasses and the Dundas overpass, and likely require the replacement of the Pape Avenue pedestrian bridge. Even further impacts would occur if all five tracks had platform access. This would lead to a large increase in construction costs, construction complexity, and stakeholder impacts. Scenario Option 2C Add delay at Spadina- Not applicable to the potential Gerrard station (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Bathurst and other applicable stations Scenario Option 2D TTC–GO fare parity for Reducing the cost of fares may lead to an increase in ridership and rider (Fare Sensitivity) trips within Toronto throughput at the station. Unless the increase in ridership is very large, there would likely be little impact on deliverability and operational considerations. Scenario Option 2E 2031 approved Station construction may spur nearby development, leading to (Horizon and Land Use population/employment intensification, some of which may be near the rail corridor. However, the Sensitivity) projections plus major impact on ridership is likely to be modest, as much of this development is development proposals likely captured in the projected density increase in the area. There would likely be little impact on deliverability and operational considerations.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

8. Conclusions and Findings

The Regional Express Rail program calls for increased frequency and two-way service on all GO-owned corridors. To support this vision, this Initial Business Case Report examines the potential for a new station to be developed in the vicinity of Gerrard Street on the Stouffville and Lakeshore East GO Lines. The purpose of this Initial Business Case Report is to determine the viability of the station concept through four lenses: strategic, financial, economic, and deliverability and operations.

Two potential station sites were initially compared: one near the intersection of Gerrard Street and Carlaw Avenue and another near the intersection of Dundas Street and Logan Avenue. A high-level screening of key criteria from the four cases was completed. The scenario of adding only Gerrard station was compared to the scenario of adding only Dundas East-Logan station. Adding both stations is not operationally feasible due to the very close spacing of the two options. Though the two stations would perform similarly across many of the criteria, the Gerrard station option would perform better due to having slightly higher ridership, better connections to local transit, closer proximity to a wide mix of land uses, and placement on a designated “Avenue”. The Gerrard station option is expected to have a higher capital cost, potentially resulting in a similar net present value as Dundas East-Logan station, and higher complexity of construction due to its more constrained location. Due to a better strategic rationale, particularly connectivity with other transit services, Gerrard station was advanced for the full IBC evaluation.

Gerrard station would be located behind several buildings and require the purchase of small lots at the south end of the site and the Riverdale Shopping Centre at the north end. The lots in the south are mostly undeveloped or vacant while the Riverdale Shopping Centre contains a No Frills grocery store, a gas station and a few other businesses. The land is currently zoned commercial/residential and does not contain any natural heritage features, designated heritage structures, or areas of natural or scientific interest. On the south side of the station, a large industrial building on the west side of Carlaw Avenue, containing a number of small businesses, would be located directly adjacent to the site.

The potential site concept consists of three platforms that service four tracks. A bus loop and a PPUDO area would be installed where the Riverdale Shopping Centre is currently located, with the remaining portions of the parcel set aside for future development. There would be platform access at both the north and south ends of the station. The north access would be in the northeast quadrant of the Gerrard and Carlaw intersection and the south access would be on the east side of Logan Avenue approximately 200 m north of Dundas Street. Each access would connect to a pedestrian tunnel serving all platforms. A future 120-metre long underground connection to the proposed Relief Line subway may also be possible from the north pedestrian tunnel to a presumed station under Pape Avenue.

Strategic Case

A strategic case evaluation was completed to determine the conformance of this station to long-term policy and planning objectives. Overall, the station is well located from a strategic point of view. Other findings from the strategic case evaluation include:

 The station plan as it stands fits within the wider policy vision as laid out by the City of Toronto as well as the Province of Ontario.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

 The site is located in an area with high residential real estate demand and little potential for environmental impacts. However, despite a projected increase in density through 2031, the density of the area would not meet density guidelines for express rail stations.  Ridership based on 2013 demand would be 266 daily boardings and 4,286 daily alightings. Net daily boardings at the new station to the overall GO system would be 3,036 in 2013 and 5,704 in 2031.  The station would be accessible by means of walking, cycling, local transit and PPUDO/taxi, though no on- site parking would be developed.  There would be connectivity to the east-west 506 Carlton streetcar route on Gerrard Street and the north- south 72 Pape bus on Carlaw Avenue, with the potential for extending the busy 25, 81, and 185 Don Mills corridor routes south from Pape subway station to Gerrard.

Financial Case

A financial case evaluation was performed to assess the financial viability of the station through net present value (NPV), revenue to cost ratio, and operating cost recovery ratio analyses. The results indicate that the NPV would be negative, suggesting that the project is not deemed profitable on a financial basis. Key findings from the financial case evaluation include:

 Gerrard station would generate an additional 74.4 million passenger trips to the GO network over the study period, creating additional fare revenues for Metrolinx.  The net increase in fare revenues is not enough to cover the capital and operating costs incurred by the station resulting in an NPV loss of $166.7 million.  The additional fare revenues cover close to three times the additional operating costs incurred by the station, but only 44% of the total costs over the evaluation period.

Economic Case

An economic case evaluation was performed to assess the economic attractiveness of Gerrard station to society. This analysis examines project costs, transportation user impacts, and environmental impacts for the area within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. These are all captured in real dollar terms and compared using net present value and benefit cost ratio measures. Key findings from the economic case evaluation include:

 Gerrard station generates negative travel time savings of -20.9 million person-hours over the evaluation period. However, these losses are offset by the vehicle operating cost savings, decongestion on the road network, positive safety outcomes and environmental benefits associated with the net reductions in auto usage. Hence, the overall transportation user impacts are positive over the evaluation period.  The net benefits do not outweigh the capital and operating costs. Hence, Gerrard station would create an NPV loss of $224.6 million with a benefit cost ratio of 0.1. This result means that for every dollar spent on the project, transportation users and society as a whole are better off by only $0.10.

Deliverability and Operations Case

A deliverability and operations case analysis was undertaken to assess the impacts the station has with respect to construction and corridor operations. Key findings from the deliverability and operations case include:

 With respect to constructability, the site would have a constrained footprint and minimal clearances to adjacent structures, leading to difficult access and increased impacts on neighbouring businesses. However, the track geometry through the station area is suitable for a new station, as it is within limits for

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

horizontal curvature, vertical gradient, and superelevation. No reductions in track speed would be required. There would need to be lateral shifts to the track to accommodate the centre island platform.  Land acquisition would be required to accommodate a wider rail corridor, despite the construction of retaining walls upstream, through and downstream of the platforms. The expanded corridor would come within a few metres of the large industrial building on Carlaw Avenue.  Substantial expansion of the Gerrard, Carlaw, and Logan overpasses would be required.  While there are not any sensitive land uses directly abutting the site, there is a small residential development that may be impacted by noise and dust throughout construction.  It is expected that a TPAP would be sufficient for the environmental assessment.  Depending on the preliminary site investigation, there may be issues with soil contamination, especially at the Riverdale Shopping Centre where extensive excavation may be required.

Fare Integration Sensitivity

A high-level sensitivity test was performed to assess the directional impact of a fare integration scenario where GO riders travelling within Toronto pay the TTC fare instead of the higher GO fare and transfers between TTC buses or streetcars and GO are free. This scenario would have two opposing effects on ridership and travel times. First, under the base case scenario (i.e., before introducing the new station), the lower fare is expected to attract more riders to the eight upstream stations on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors within Toronto. Hence, when the new station is introduced, the overall travel time losses due to the delay at the new station would increase relative to Scenario Option 1. Second, more transit riders currently using the streetcar on Gerrard and transferring onto the subway at College to get to or from the Union Station area would switch to GO, because they can realize travel time savings despite the wait time penalty at Gerrard station. Assuming that Pape / Don Mills buses are extended south to Gerrard station, some transit riders using these buses and travelling to or from the Union station area would also switch to GO and save a transfer at Bloor-Yonge. The upstream travel time penalty will divert some additional riders away from the GO rail network and this is likely to offset the increased GO ridership, including those switching from TTC (as a faster route to Union Station) and those switching from other travel modes to the Pape / Don Mills buses. Hence, Gerrard station is expected to generate financial and economic losses under the fare integration scenario of a similar order of magnitude to those in Scenario Option 1.

Five-Track Corridor Sensitivity

A second sensitivity test suggests that the implementation of a station at Gerrard would be difficult if the Lakeshore East / Stouffville corridor is expanded to five tracks from Don Yard to Scarborough Junction. The amount of property acquisition and stakeholder impacts would be even greater than they would be under a four-track scenario. A four- track scenario with Stouffville and Lakeshore East trains on separate tracks may create schedule and operating impacts for Lakeshore East express trains (including VIA), as they would need to share tracks with Lakeshore East local trains stopping at the station. Therefore, a Gerrard station would be most compatible with a four-track corridor that is configured with local and express trains on separate tracks. This may create infrastructure requirements or operational challenges at other locations on the corridor to handle crossover train movements. The costs, benefits, and impacts of these operational changes have not been considered in this report.

Conclusion

The initial business case analysis for the potential Gerrard station shows that it would be in line with overarching provincial and municipal goals with respect to policy and strategic vision. In addition, this station would be in a good location with respect to track geometry. However, both the financial and economic analyses indicate that the station plan, as it stands, has a negative financial value for Metrolinx and, more importantly, would reduce economic

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

wellbeing for society as a whole. The station may also be challenging to construct due to the constrained width of the corridor and likely need for substantial retaining wall installations behind buildings along the corridor.

A summary of the results of this Initial Business Case can be found below in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1: Results of Initial Business Case Analysis

Criteria Summary This station has moderate to high conformance to local, Policy Alignment regional and provincial policies around land use and transportation. High potential for residential development and intensification. There are some development sites and many soft sites. Development Potential and Intensification Density of 127 P+J/ha in 2031 would be less than the suggested density near an express rail station, though the area would be urban and medium-high density. The station would be well located for future market demand Real Estate Market Demand and potential development, especially in the residential market. Natural Environment No major environmental issues are associated with this station. There are no opportunities to relieve constraints at adjacent GO stations. Close to potential new Queen-Eastern, Unilever, Operational System or Jones stations. Excellent connectivity to local transit. Little duplication with other existing rapid transit. Ridership based on 2013 demand would be 266 daily boardings and 4,286 daily alightings. Net daily boardings to the

StrategicCase Connectivity and Ridership Drivers overall GO system would be 3,036 in 2013 and 5,704 in 2031. Potential to connect to proposed Relief Line subway. Close to many key destinations.

The station would be accessible by walking, cycling, local transit and PPUDO/taxi. A bus loop would minimize walking Station Access distances for transfers to/from buses and streetcar stops would be located near the station entrance. No parking would be provided as it would be an urban station. No Neighbourhood Improvement Area within 800 m. Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Access to Transit Score: 8.2/10 (+4%) Accessibility Index: 50/60 (+17%) Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of 74.4 Trips) Fare Revenue (A) $129.5 Total Costs (B) $296.1 Capital Costs $251.7 Operating Costs (C) $44.5

Financial Case Net Present Value (A-B) -$166.7 Revenue to Cost Ratio (A/B) 0.44 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) 2.91

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Table 8-1: Results of Initial Business Case Analysis (continued)

Criteria Summary

Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person- -20.9 Hours)

Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) 433.2

Benefits $26.8 Costs $251.4 Net Present Value -$224.6 Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.1 Transportation User Impacts $25.5

Economic Case Travel Time Savings -$111.0 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $95.0 Decongestion on Road Network $31.3 Safety Impacts $10.2 Environmental Impacts $1.3 Track geometry acceptable for a station, no reduction in track speed required, and minimal changes to track geometry would Constructability be required to accommodate platforms. Confined site footprint,

possible contaminated soil. Some property acquisition required. Station would be very close to several existing buildings. Construction may be Stakeholder Impacts disturbing to nearby residents and several adjacent houses and businesses. No significant environmental impacts are likely. Area is currently built-up. Station cannot be increased in size Room for Growth without significant demolition and land acquisition.

Approvals/Permits Required Only a TPAP would be required.

Schedule impacts to express trains may occur if Stouffville trains are on Tracks 1 and 2 and Lakeshore trains are on Operating Impacts

Deliverabilityand Operations Case Tracks 3 and 4; no major impacts with a local-express configuration. Archaeological discoveries, unforeseen soil or water Other Key Risks and Impacts conditions.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Appendix A: Financial and Economic Case Baseline Assumptions

Model Input Assumptions Metric Source(s)

Project Evaluation Period (Years) 60 Guidance Handbook_Feb2016.xls Year of Cost Estimates 2015 Guidance Handbook_Feb2016.xls Annual inflation rate – General Price Level 2% RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) AECOM estimate based on 5-year average of non- Annual Inflation Rate – Construction Spending 2% residential construction price index in Toronto (Statistics Canada) 250 (peak) RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Annualization Factor (days/year) 300 (off-peak) Business Case Development Handbook (Tier 3) Discount Rate, Nominal (%)18 5.5% RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Construction Period (start and end dates) 2022-2023 RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Discount Rate, Real (%) 3.5% RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Value of Time ($/hr in 2015$) $16.71 Guidance Handbook_Feb2016.xls Value of Time Annual Growth Rate, Real (%) 1.6% (2015-2044) Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) and capped in 2044 Auto Operating Cost ($/VKT) $0.63 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Auto Operating Cost Growth Rate, Real (%) 0.7% Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Decongestion on Road Network ($/VKT) $0.167 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Decongestion on Road Network Growth Rate, 1.6% Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Real (%) Accident Reduction Benefit ($/VKT) $0.08 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Costs in $0.01 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) CO2e ($/VKT) Ridership annual growth rate - Lakeshore W (%) 2.4% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Milton (%) 1.3% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Kitchener (%) 4.6% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Barrie (%) 6.8% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate - Richmond Hill (%) 2.2% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Stouffville (%) 4.0% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate - Lakeshore E (%) 2.5% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 MX Travel Time Savings Spreadsheet Simulation 2031 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Year

18 Financial analysis is typically conducted in nominal currency (i.e. dollars expressed in year or period of spending). The nominal discount rate used should be consistent with the real discount rate used in cost-benefit analysis (see Section 6). The Metrolinx Business Case Handbook (tier 3) suggests the use of a real discount rate (i.e. after the inflation component is removed) of 3.5% for the benefit-cost analysis and an inflation rate of 2% for the financial analysis. Hence, this would imply that the relevant nominal discount rate for financial analysis should be 5.5%.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Appendix B: Travel Time Savings Analysis

Introduction

The analysis of alternative new stations relies upon a consideration of the changes in traveller behaviour that would occur in response to the presence of the proposed new stations. The stations provide new options for both existing GO Rail users and users of other transportation modes (other transit and auto). Existing GO Rail users may also be negatively impacted by the added stop at the new station. Examining travel time savings and delays associated with each new station is therefore the focal point of this analysis.

The new stations can have both positive and negative effects on transit passenger travel times:

 Passengers who use the new stations save travel time. The station access or egress time is lower than it would be without the new station, when access/egress would have been to the next closest station.  Passengers who do not use the new stations can experience a travel delay, due to the extra time required for the train trip to stop at the new station, typically 2-3 min. per station.

As a result of the travel time savings and delays, some travellers may shift their route or mode of transportation. There will be both gains and losses of RER passengers due to these route and mode shifts. Some passengers may be attracted to RER by the new stations and shift from non-GO routes to an RER trip or a combined RER+subway/bus trip. Other passengers may be diverted from RER due to the longer total travel time caused by the new station and shift from an RER trip to a subway/bus trip or a driving trip.

To account for the impacts of these new stations on passengers, it is helpful to categorize the different types of passengers into the five groups shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Segmentation of demand into five groups of passengers that experience a new station differently.

Would ride Would ride Accesses/ GO Rail Effect of new Passenger GO Rail egresses Description without station(s) on Type with new via new new travel time? station(s)? station(s)? station(s)? Existing & unaffected GO Rail riders No Change Group A    (“downstream” or express riders) (no delay or savings) Existing “upstream” GO Rail riders Group B   Delayed  (affected but do not change behaviour) Shift GO Rail access/egress station Group C   Time Savings  (existing but would prefer new station) Attracted to GO Rail (shift route/mode Group D   Time Savings  due to easier access/egress) Diverted from GO Rail (existing, shift Group E   Delayed  route/mode due to delay) Note: “downstream” means locations closer to Union Station than the new station site.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Combining these groups of passengers in different manners helps to understand what happens to overall GO Rail ridership at each new station:

 C + D = Gross riders that access/egress at the new station(s)  D – E = Net new riders on the GO Rail system due to the new station(s)  B, C, D, E: all affected by addition of new stations, and experience either a positive or negative time impact. The impact is different for each group.

The primary drivers of travel time savings benefits and offsetting impacts can be summarized as follows:

 Drivers of Travel Time Savings o High employment or full-time post-secondary institution within 1 km of the station (i.e., surrounding land uses attract AM peak alighting riders). o New boarding riders within 1 km of station (i.e., ability to walk to station). o A “through” service stopping at the station after letting most passengers off at Union Station (i.e., very little or no “upstream” existing riders are delayed).  Offsets to Travel Time Savings o High number of “upstream” passengers that are delayed with no express service option to bypass the new station. o High delay at station (e.g., on slower accelerating diesel locomotive-hauled trip). o Presence of an attractive parallel transit service (e.g., TTC subway) that may compete with the new station.

Alighting riders and new boarding riders that are within 1 km of a new station are generally the most significant drivers of benefits since these riders are dependent on walking and/or transit for station access/egress. Access/egress by these modes can be quite time consuming and a new station can offer significant time savings relative to the case without the station in place, depending on the geography and configuration of the local area transit network.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Analysis Framework

A spreadsheet analysis framework was developed by Metrolinx to provide estimates of travel time savings associated with each new station. The foundation for this analysis is observed 2013 GO Passenger Survey and Cordon Count data that is applied in an incremental manner for each new station. Although travel time savings is the focus of this analysis, the approach also generates estimates of vehicle kilometre reductions, ridership changes, and revenue estimates. An overview of the analysis approach is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Overview of analysis approach

The analysis builds off of observed 2013 data by primarily considering what would happen if each station existed in 2013 along with the RER express/local/through service structure and the speed improvements associated with electrification. New station boardings and alightings are estimated by considering existing ridership patterns and the boarding and alighting markets that each new station may serve in the AM peak. Observed ridership at similar benchmark stations is also examined to support the analysis where applicable. Travel time savings and delays associated with the new station are estimated by considering the access/egress times and the operating parameters of the RER services that serve and pass through each station. Next, annual line level ridership growth rates obtained from the Greater Golden Horseshoe Model (a four-stage regional travel demand model) are used to expand the 2013 metrics to a 2031 level. Finally, a dollar valuation of benefits and a 60-year cash flow analysis is conducted.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Assumptions

Key assumptions that have been applied within this framework are summarized below:

 RER ridership and annual growth rates: Application of line level ridership growth rates obtained from the Greater Golden Horseshoe travel demand model to 2013 metrics. This captures the effects of population/employment growth across the region, the effects of the RER service introduction, and other committed rapid transit projects that are expected to be in place by 2031. This approach assumes that the demand growth at each new station site will be similar to line level demand growth between 2013 and 2031.  Station area development: Major developments that are committed and proceeding close to potential station sites in downtown Toronto are included (The Well at Spadina/Front St. W, Globe & Mail Centre at King E/Berkley, and Corus Quay & George Brown College). New development that is conditional on the presence of a new station is excluded from this analysis. Proposed new development that has the potential to significantly alter land use in the vicinity, but has not been approved is addressed as a sensitivity as part of each case. Development potential and real estate market demand are addressed more broadly in sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 respectively.  Independent analysis of new stations: The new stations are analyzed independently and their riders and benefits are considered separately. For the stations under consideration, this is deemed appropriate since the level of interaction between the new stations is not expected to be very significant; relatively few trips are expected to occur between each of the new stations (i.e. boarding at one new station and alighting at another new station).  Boarding activity by station: Starting assumption is average of two adjacent stations on same line. However, this default is adjusted based on local circumstances and observed ridership data at relevant benchmark stations. Existing riders are separated into two pools: 1) “Existing Near” – Riders within 1km of each station site; and 2) “Existing Far” - Riders who are between new and existing stations. Existing riders who are near new stations are likely to divert from another station, while riders who are further away are split between the new station and competing existing stations.  Delays to upstream passengers: Delays associated with the new station vary depending on the technology (electrified trains are faster than diesel trains – less stopping delay) and line speeds (more delay if new station is where trains would normally be travelling at high speed) for the train services that will serve the station location. Passengers on express services that do not stop at the new station are not delayed.  Time savings per rider: Primarily depends on: 1) boarding vs. alighting activity (all alighting activity egresses by walk/transit which will have a higher time savings); 2) access mode (auto/transit access minutes saved per trip will generally be low but walk access can be higher – default access assumption is based on adjacent station access mode splits); 3) origin/destination point (near or far from new station?); and 4) Existing rider vs. rider who is new to GO.  Alighting activity for stations near downtown core: Two approaches are used: 1) Benchmark (considers existing Exhibition station ridership as a benchmark and adjusts it by considering the number of trains serving the new station and jobs within 1 km); 2) Sector-Based (involves dividing the station’s 1km catchment area into approximately 13 sectors with a separate ridership and time savings calculation for each sector). All downtown stations between Lansdowne/Dundas and Gerrard/Pape use the more detailed sector- based approach.  Fares: Assumes today’s transit fare structure.  Services through Union Station: Kitchener/Stouffville “through” service is included, which is important to the attractiveness of “destination” stations within downtown. Although many Kitchener and Stouffville trains are expected to go out of service after Union Station, a partial set of services will operate through Union. As an example, this would allow a passenger boarding at Agincourt to access a potential new station at Liberty Village.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Appendix C: Criteria Ranges

Business Major Criteria Not Supportive Neutral Supportive Case

Strategic Policy Alignment Does not support most policy Supports most policy Supports all policy

>150 P+J/ha (>30,000 P+J) Development Potential 50–150 P+J/ha Strategic < 50 P+J/ha (<10,000 P+J) OR 50-150 P+J/ha with high and Intensification (10,000-30,000 P+J) development potential Low Existing Demand Low Existing Demand Moderate Existing Demand Real Estate Strategic AND AND AND Market Demand Low Future Demand Moderate Future Demand Significant Future Demand Natural In a sensitive Within 800 m of a sensitive Outside of 800 m of Strategic Environment environmental feature environmental feature environmental feature

Operational < 1.5 km to nearest 1.5–3 km to nearest > 3km to nearest Strategic System existing station existing station existing station

Connectivity and < 0 Net new daily 0–3,000 net new daily > 3,000 net new daily Strategic Ridership Drivers GO boardings GO boardings GO boardings

Strategic Station Access 2/5 modes 3/5 modes 4/5 modes

Social Inclusivity Does not serve NIA Fully serves NIA Fully Serves NIA Strategic and Accessibility AND <3.5% Change in ATT OR >3.5% Change in ATT AND >3.5% Change in ATT Incremental Financial GO Ridership < 0 0 to 40 > 40 (Millions of Trips)

Financial Fare Revenue (A) < $0M $0m to $50M > $50M

Financial Total Costs (B) > $150M $150M to $50M < $50M

Financial Capital Costs > $75M $75M to $25M < $25M

Financial Operating Costs (C) > $35M $35M to $25M < $25M

Financial Net Present Value < –$50M –$50M to $50M > $50M

Revenue to Cost Financial < 0 (all-loss) 0 to 1 > 1 Ratio (A/B)

Operating Cost Financial < 0 (all-loss) 0 to 2 > 2 Recovery Ratio

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Gerrard – draft

Business Major Criteria Not Supportive Neutral Supportive Case Travel Time Savings Economic (Millions of < 0 0 to 10 > 10 Person-Hours) Auto Distances Saved Economic < 0 0 to 250 > 250 (Millions of VKTs)

Economic Benefits < $0M $0M to $100M > $100M

Economic Costs > $125M $125M to $50M < $50M

Economic Net Present Value < –$150M –$150 to $10M > $10M

Economic Benefit-Cost Ratio < 0 (all-loss) 0 to 1 > 1

Transportation Economic < $0M $0M to $50M > $50M User Impacts

Economic Travel Time Savings < $0M $0M to $55M > $55M

Vehicle Operating Economic < $0M $0M to $75M > $75M Cost Savings

Decongestion on Economic < $0M $0M to $30M > $30M Road Network

Economic Safety Impacts < $0M $0M to $10M > $10M

Environmental Economic < $0M $0M to $1M > $1M Impacts Track geometry compatible with Track geometry compatible with Deliverability & Track geometry not Constructability station AND station AND Operations compatible with station Significant site constraints minimal site constraints Significant disruption to Minor to no construction noise, surrounding area during Construction noise and dust in Deliverability & Stakeholder dust, and street closure impacts construction including noise, high density area, possibility of Operations Impacts and minor to no environmental dust, traffic, or environmental environmental impacts impacts impacts No ability for station to grow due Limited ability for station to grow Deliverability & Room for Ability of growth with new track to track constraints and land due to track constraints and land Operations Growth layouts and land acquisition acquisition acquisition TPAP, normal permits, and two Deliverability & Approvals/Permits TPAP, normal permits, and one Only a TPAP and normal other unique permits or Operations Required unique permit or approval construction permits approvals Deliverability & Operating Major operating impacts Moderate operating impacts Minor operating impacts Operations Impacts

Deliverability & Other Key Risks Significant unique situation Minor unique situation No other key risks or impacts Operations and Impacts

86 Metrolinx

RER New Stations Initial Business Case Gerrard/Dundas East-Logan – Draft

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

. is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); . represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; . may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; . has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; . must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; . was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and . in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

2017-01-12d_IBC - Gerrard.Docx