The TTC : Let’s Get the Engineering on Track! Full Report

July 23, 2013

THE VOICE OF ’S ENGINEERS

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let’s Get the Engineering on Track!

Executive Summary

As the voice of the engineering profession across the province, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) has long supported the development of new and enhanced transit infrastructure, not only as a means of creating employment opportunities for engineers but also as a vital strategic step in enhancing Ontario’s economy and quality of life. In recent years, numerous studies have illustrated the severe negative impacts of traffic congestion in Ontario’s urban centres. OSPE believes the development of a well-designed system in the City of , in particular, will prove critical to the success of the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (GTHA), a region that remains a key economic driver for the province.

In 2006, OSPE was pleased to see the Government of Ontario create , the agency charged with improving the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the GTHA. In 2008, Metrolinx released , a comprehensive, multi-project plan to enhance and revitalize transit in this region. OSPE has observed, however, that this plan has been slow to advance due to ongoing debates over financing mechanisms, optimal modes of transportation and other issues.

Prompted by concerns about expediency in the decision making processes around public transit development in the GTHA, OSPE has undertaken an independent engineering review of studies related to the proposed Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway Relief Line (RL), which has been identified by Metrolinx as one of several Next Wave projects within The Big Move. From its review, OSPE concludes that a TTC subway RL is the vital link for the GTHA, if light rail, rapid bus and subway extension lines are to function effectively and efficiently as a complete system.

This report goes further. Designing and constructing a new subway line is a highly complex, capital- intensive undertaking that must factor in myriad engineering and geotechnical considerations, all of which require input from engineers and other technical experts. Errors in planning or execution could have dire economic consequences.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 1 This report makes several recommendations that must not be overlooked if transit redevelopment in the GTHA is to proceed successfully and deliver maximum value:

 OSPE believes the RL should be prioritized as the first of Metrolinx’s Next Wave projects to receive funding.  All levels of government must work together to implement revenue tools that will provide stable, predictable, long-term funding for all Next Wave projects. No matter which tools are chosen, the funding should be dedicated, permanent and used according to the plan established by Metrolinx.  Commitments must be made now to get the necessary engineering studies underway as soon as possible. Decision makers ought not to wait until every financial and political issue is resolved before initiating these studies, which require a significant up-front investment of time.  Existing studies of infrastructure alternatives, alignment and ridership provide a solid foundation upon which to begin planning for the RL. Work should start immediately on the route selection and the environmental assessment, so that design and construction can begin without delay.  Geotechnical and other immediate investigative actions are critical to determining the most feasible route for the RL, including the positioning of a Don Valley crossing.  Geotechnical and other immediate investigative actions are critical to determining optimal tunnelling and construction methods  Metrolinx and the TTC should provide an open, transparent and detailed consultation process that engages the public on all of the options for the routing of the RL and educates people on the technical reasons why the preferred alignment is chosen.

OSPE is pleased to see Metrolinx taking steps to prioritize the TTC RL. OSPE also emphasizes that technical input – especially engineering expertise – must inform decision-making processes so that the GTHA transit network functions as just that: a network, rather than a set of patched-together systems overseen by individual municipalities across the region.

Recognizing that there are many financial and political issues yet to be resolved, OSPE urges all levels of government and relevant GTHA stakeholders to act now to initiate the engineering and geotechnical studies required for development of the RL – studies that must take place long before shovels can even begin to hit the ground. OSPE believes this is a key step toward getting people and goods moving effectively through Canada’s largest urban centre.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 2 The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let’s Get the Engineering on Track!

Introduction

The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) is the voice of the engineering profession across the province. OSPE advances the professional and economic interests of engineers by advocating with governments, industry and the public. OSPE works to ensure that the input and expertise of engineers is considered when public policy decisions are made.

OSPE has long supported the development of new and enhanced transit infrastructure across the province, not only as a means of creating employment opportunities for engineers but also as a vital strategic step in enhancing Ontario’s economy and quality of life. The provision of a well-designed rapid transit system in the City of Toronto is critical to the success of the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (GTHA), a region that remains a key economic driver for the province.

In 2006, OSPE was pleased to see the Government of Ontario create Metrolinx, the agency charged with coordinating and integrating of all modes of transportation in the GTHA. In 2008, Metrolinx released The Big Move, a comprehensive, multi-project plan to enhance and revitalize transit in this region. OSPE has observed, however, that this plan has been slow to advance due to ongoing debates over financing mechanisms, optimal modes of transit and other issues.

Prompted by concerns about expediency in the decision making processes, OSPE has undertaken an independent engineering review of studies related to the proposed Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway Relief Line (RL). OSPE concludes that the RL is the vital link for light rail, rapid bus and subway extension lines to function effectively and efficiently as a complete system.

OSPE views the RL as the most urgently needed of all the Next Wave transit projects planned for the region. Announced in 2012, the Next Wave refers to the second phase of Metrolinx Big Move transit projects, which includes the RL. In June 2013 Metrolinx issued a request for bidders to undertake a preliminary study to develop the preferred scope of the RL. OSPE considers this a welcome development.

Designing and constructing a new subway line is a highly complex, capital-intensive undertaking. Errors in planning or execution could have dire economic consequences. Proper implementation of transit projects must factor in myriad engineering and geotechnical considerations, all of which demand input from engineers and other technical experts. At the same time, delaying these processes will also cost the province dearly in lost productivity. OSPE urges governments and

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 3 stakeholders to take immediate steps to get the necessary engineering studies underway in order to ensure that the RL can be implemented Metrolinx Next Wave expediently. Projects:

. Context TTC Subway Relief Line

Metrolinx has identified several Next Wave transit projects on the Brampton basis of business case analysis and the requirements of GTHA Rapid Transit municipalities. Metrolinx’s June 2013 call for qualified bidders to study the RL is a clear indication that the RL is a high priority relative Bus Rapid Transit to other Next Wave projects.

Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid While OSPE recognizes that transit infrastructure carries significant Transit funding requirements, approvals to commence plans for new projects are needed immediately. Without them, an already congested GTHA GO Rail Expansion transit system will become increasingly overburdened. This report sets aside the debate on which funding mechanisms should be implemented. Other studies have explored the subject of funding. 1 Electrification of GO and Rather, this report emphasizes that many stakeholders, including

OSPE, agree that Metrolinx must keep up the funding momentum for the Next Wave projects. GO Lakeshore Express Rail Service – Phase 1 OSPE has always urged governments and policy makers to view spending on public infrastructure as an investment rather than simply Hamilton Rapid Transit a big-ticket expense. A recent study published by the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO) shows that potential Hurontario-Main Light Rail employment and other economic benefits of investment in Transit engineering construction projects in Ontario is considerable. For example, a $12-billion investment in infrastructure development is Yonge North Subway Extension estimated to return $38.4-billion to the provincial economy.2 The RL is, therefore, a valuable investment for the GTHA.

1 See Toronto Region Board of Trade, A Green Light to Moving the Toronto Region: Paying for Public Transportation Expansion (2013), http://www.bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/TransportationCampaign/DiscussionPaper_AGreenLight_M arch18_2013.pdf; Ontario Chamber of Commerce, The $2 Billion Question: GTHA Business Opinion on Funding the Big Move (2013), http://occ.on.ca/assets/The-2Billion-Question_online.pdf; Hugh Mackenzie, Toronto’s $2.5 Billion Question: GTA and Hamilton Public Transit Expansion Revenue Options, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (May 2013), http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Ontario%20Office/2013/05/Torontos_2 andHalf_Billion_Dollar_Question.pdf. 2 Murtaza Haider et al., Investing in Ontario’s Infrastructure for Economic Growth and Prosperity, (2013): http://www.rccao.com/news/files/MainRCCAOMay2013ReportonInfrastructure.pdf.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 4 Completing the RL will address costly congestion on the Yonge Subway Line. It will also allow Metrolinx to extend the subway into York Region to handle increased ridership from future LRT expansions at Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton. In addition, Metrolinx is proposing transit expansion projects that will increase the number of riders on the entire TTC network. Several of these Metrolinx Next Wave projects will benefit if the RL is completed or underway. (See appendices B and C for ridership capacity and projection details.)

. Where Will the Relief Line Go?

As study by the City of Toronto and the TTC, the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES), shows several alternatives for a subway centring on an eastern leg that connects the Danforth Line near to , with potential future extensions to near and connections to Eglinton Avenue.3

Figure 1: Downtown System with a Potential Relief Line

Source: Edward J. Levy, Rapid Transit in Toronto: A Century of Plans, Progress, Politics and Paralysis, web book, 2013, http://levyrapidtransit.ca/

3 Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (2012), http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/DRTES_Final_Report_-_September_2012.pdf. See also Edward J. Levy, P.Eng., “A Case for the Downtown Rapid Transit (“Relief”) Line and a Union-Pearson Rapid Transit Service,” (April 6, 2012), http://spacingtoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/A-CASE-FOR-THE-DOWNTOWN-RAPID-TRANSIT- RELIEF-LINE.pdf.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 5 Let’s Get the Engineering on Track

Case Study: Edmonton While public debate rages on about the right revenue tools to fund North LRT Extension Next Wave projects, OSPE urges that commitments be made now to get the necessary engineering studies underway to ensure that the The 3.3 km Edmonton North LRT much-needed RL will proceed successfully, without undue delay. (NLRT) project, is scheduled for completion at the end of 2013. The NLRT corridor was first identified in a municipal transit Engineering Issue #1: A Lengthy Project Development Process study in 2005. Preliminary engineering did not begin until What seems to be lacking in the debate over the RL is a conversation 2008, and design and about the overwhelming complexity and significant time investment construction commenced the following year. The extension to required long before shovels ever hit the ground. Metrolinx has clear Edmonton’s LRT network is process guidelines that must be followed before construction is expected to be fully operational initiated. by April 2014.

If this was the time-frame for a In the early planning stages of a Big Move project, a Benefits Case 3.3 km, three-station extension Analysis (BCA) is usually conducted. The BCA is an overall evaluation built principally at street-level but of the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits of a with a 700-metre tunnel, how long will design and construction project, along with an assessment of alternative project options with take on a fully underground respect to routing, alignment, technology, stations and more. Metrolinx tunnel (with exterior bridge) executes the BCA in conjunction with municipal governments and more than double this length? relevant municipal transit authorities. A BCA has yet to be initiated for Metrolinx has stated that the RL will take at least 11 years to the RL, although the TTC has conducted extensive studies that are complete, once the project is considered by OSPE as comprehensive as a BCA (see recommendation approved. below).4

An environmental assessment (EA) is required, as part of the second Planning, Design and Engineering (PDE) stage. If a transit project has predictable environmental impacts, it may follow a streamlined six- month EA called the Transit Project Assessment Process. Once the Source: City of Edmonton, EA is approved, the PDE moves into the Design Phase, at which point “North LRT Project History,” up to 30 per cent of the design is completed. Funding arrangements, http://www.edmonton.ca/transp ortation/ets/lrt_projects/north- procurement and method of delivery must also be negotiated. Only lrt-project-history.aspx then does the project finally enter the Final Design and Construction phases – all this assuming there are no political delays.

4 Metrolinx, “Benefits Case Analyses,” http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/benefits_case_analyses.aspx.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 6 There are myriad design factors that must be taken into consideration relating to vehicles, track alignment, signals, communications infrastructure, underground structures and facilities, stations and ancillary facilities, electrical and mechanical systems and much more.5 The current project underway in Edmonton (see sidebar) serves as an example of the complexity involved in actually constructing a new transit line.

Because the TTC has already produced the comprehensive DRTES, which states the RL is needed to relieve existing capacity that is crippling the entire system and preventing expansion, the next steps of the RL project should proceed now. There is enough evidence to support starting the PDE and then preliminary design without conducting a BCA, which can take anywhere from a few months to several years to complete. A lengthy BCA would be an expensive and redundant step at this stage.

Engineering Issue #2: Geotechnical Considerations

From an engineering perspective, several considerations must be taken into account in choosing the subway route – all of which need input from engineers and other experts. The crossing of the Don Valley and the alignment in the downtown core are the two major challenges.

The downtown core will prove especially challenging. Below the surface is what is called overburden, consisting of various types of soil and densities, plus loose rocks that may include boulders. Below the overburden is the rock, primarily shale and limestone. The rock is likely where tunnelling for the RL will occur.

Design and construction cannot escape two realities: urban density and geography. Downtown Toronto is densely built-up above ground, which means subterranean construction must contend with myriad utilities, services and tunnels (see Appendix A). Moreover, since the primary aim of building the eastern leg of the RL is to relieve overcapacity of the Yonge Line, any proposed route of the RL must traverse the Don Valley.

Throughout the planning for route options, geotechnical analysis is critical and must be conducted early on in the design process. Soil conditions, water tables, geological structures, topography and geomorphic characteristics must be fully evaluated and understood to determine the best routing and to avoid delays. For example, soil testing analysis on the Yonge-Spadina Line extension revealed the water table to be higher than expected, which has led to delays and added costs.6

5 Metrolinx, “Planning, Design & Engineering,” http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/planningdesignandengineering/planning_desig n_engineering.aspx. 6 Transit Toronto, “A Subway to York University and Beyond,” http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5114.shtml.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 7 The Toronto Downtown Core

Of the hundreds of thousands of riders who utilize TTC subways daily, few would give much thought to how the stations were constructed or why the lines were planned along a particular route. Engineers, however, are keenly aware of the technical and geological complexities that shape this intricate system – factors that must be considered in the planning and construction of a new RL.

There are many utilities, services and pedestrian tunnels to contend with, many of which are deep in the overburden. The two-metre diameter sewer along Simcoe Street, for instance, is close to the rock; the 60-inch horseshoe interceptor sewer along Elizabeth and Scott streets is virtually sitting on the rock.7 Existing TTC subway lines present further obstacles for construction in the overburden.

The more suitable course, then, appears to be tunnelling through the shale and limestone rock. This method usually offers the advantage of lower costs compared with tunnelling in this overburden. In addition, it would be possible to consider mining out the stations in the rock and doing much of the construction underground.

New subway tunnels would have to be driven below existing rock tunnels. However, at least three heating/cooling tunnels have been driven in the rock between Front and Queen Streets: one along York Street, one on Simcoe Street and another on Bay Street just north of north to Grosvenor Street. 8 Another tunnel goes along Wellington Street from Simcoe Street to Bay Street. All appear to be within the top 10 to 15 metres of the rock surface.9

These considerations would cause the rail level to be at a lower elevation. Because the overburden is relatively thin in these areas (approximately 10 to 12 metres), and, as noted above, existing rock tunnels appear to be within the top 10 to 15 metres of the rock surface, the depth should not present a serious problem for riders’ access.

The upper layers of the rock in the downtown area consist of weak shale interbedded with harder but thinner limestone layers. Shale predominates in the upper two to five metres of the rock. Deeper down, the proportion of limestone increases, with shale comprising roughly half of the rock, which

7 City of Toronto, Department of Works Water Pollution Control Division, “Mid-Toronto Interceptor Sewer,” Drawing No. 1269-D-8586; Department of Works Engineering Division, “Simcoe Street Interconnecting Sewer,” Drawing No. 1275-D-13686G; Department of Works Water Supply Division, “48 Inch Watermain on Front Street,” Drawing No. 176M-2.”

8 Mike McNally, “Toronto’s Deep Lake Water Cooling Distribution by Tunnel,” Kevin Loughborough, Enwave District Energy, Canadian Tunnelling Magazine, (2010); MMM records. 9 See Appendix A: Some Existing Tunnels in the Downtown Core.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 8 is layered, the shale content varying between 10 and about 80 per cent. The shale is weak, while the limestone is moderately hard.10

Due to glaciation, the rock has a locked-in, high horizontal compressive stress. Excavation of the rock relieves this stress and causes movement into the excavation, similar to a spring expanding after the load has been removed.11 The effect of the stress release, as well as other conditions, would have to be considered in designing tunnels and stations within the rock.

Although the rock is generally solid and sound, “rubbled” zones have been encountered in downtown Toronto. For example, such zones exist at Scotia Plaza and at , among other locations. In these zones, the rock has been heavily fractured and sheared and can contain shale rubble and clay. These features are usually in the order of four to six metres wide, but the depth can vary from four to five metres to more than 10 metres.

These factors – the locked-in stress and the possibility of encountering rubbled zones – will need considerable time to investigate and analyze. To ensure the stability of the rock dome of a station during construction, a phased excavation might be required.

In considering each possible route, the primary objective of relieving the overcrowded Yonge Line must be borne in mind. Travel demand data suggests that the central business district drives much of the peak hour demand and overcrowding. (See Appendix B).

Looking at travel demand alone, the optimal route appears to be in the area between Queen Street and Front Street. However, the existing tunnel along Front Street (and a future deeper tunnel shortly to be built), together with the added congestion this approach would create at Union Station, virtually eliminate Front Street as an option. Wellington Street to the north already has the Enwave tunnel (see Appendix A), for which expansion plans are already in place. King, Adelaide, Richmond and Queen Streets remain as options.

If new stations can be built in the rock, with almost all of the work done underground, open-cut construction would be limited to the access shafts or drifts that would be needed to connect with existing stations. Although the open cut method was used in the past on some TTC lines, the paralyzing impact of open-cut construction on Canada’s busiest downtown core can easily be visualized. The choice of route would have to consider this disruption, not to mention the added costs and time requirements of working around and re-structuring existing services.

10 W.A. Trow and K.Y. Lo, “Horizontal displacements induced by rock excavation: Scotia Plaza, Toronto, Ontario,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1989, 26(1): 114-121 11 W.A. Trow and K.Y. Lo, “Horizontal displacements induced by rock excavation: Scotia Plaza, Toronto, Ontario,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1989, 26(1): 114-121.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 9 Both the geotechnical work required for stations in rock and the effects of existing services on open cut need many hours of careful analysis and data assembly.

Crossing the Don Valley

The DRTES report shows, diagrammatically, a crossing near the King/Queen Bridge.12 A crossing at this location will likely be expensive. There are busy built-up areas on both sides of the river, including the Athletes’ Village for the Pan-American Games, which is under construction and will be converted to residential housing after the Games are over. The topography of the area would necessitate the line surfacing and then submerging again – an expensive and disruptive solution.

Geotechnical considerations could render a tunnel crossing costly too, since the bedrock in this area has been eroded to a considerable depth. It is overlain by wet sand and approximately 30 metres of loose organic silt and clay, with pockets of peat.

Geotechnical studies must commence immediately to best determine routes and positioning of a Don Valley crossing. OSPE cautions that results of these studies may indicate that a bridge crossing farther north than those being proposed in other studies may be necessary. For example, a bridge crossing where the river flows between high banks may prove to be considerably less expensive than a crossing further south.

. Recommendations

 OSPE believes the RL should be prioritized as the first of Metrolinx’s Next Wave projects to receive funding.  All levels of government must work together to implement revenue tools that will provide stable, predictable, long-term funding for all Next Wave projects. No matter which tools are chosen, the funding should be dedicated, permanent and used according to the plan established by Metrolinx.  Commitments must be made now to get the necessary engineering studies underway as soon as possible. Decision makers ought not to wait until every financial and political issue is resolved before initiating these studies, which require a significant up-front investment of time.  Existing studies of infrastructure alternatives, alignment and ridership provide a solid foundation upon which to begin planning for the RL. Work should start immediately on the route selection and the EA, so that design and construction can begin without delay.  Geotechnical and other immediate investigative actions are critical to determining the most feasible route for the RL, including the positioning of a Don Valley crossing.

12 Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study, p. 35.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 10  Geotechnical and other immediate investigative actions are critical to determining optimal tunnelling and construction methods.  Metrolinx and the TTC should provide an open, transparent and detailed consultation process that engages the public on all of the options for the routing of the RL and educates people on the technical reasons why the preferred alignment is chosen.

. Conclusion

In thinking about the Big Move, government decision makers must think of the big picture. Relief within the Toronto city core means relief for the GTHA transit system as a whole. OSPE is pleased to see Metrolinx taking steps to prioritize the TTC RL. It is imperative that technical input – especially engineering expertise – informs the decision-making process so that the GTHA transit network functions as just that – a network, rather than a set of patched-together systems overseen by individual municipalities across the region. OSPE urges all levels of government and relevant GTHA stakeholders to work together to get the critical RL engineering studies underway. OSPE believes this is a key step toward getting people and goods moving effectively through Canada’s largest urban centre.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 11 Appendix A: Some Existing Tunnels in the Downtown Core

Owner & Tunnel Top of Location References Description Invert (m) Rock (m)

Simcoe at Adelaide Enwave Simcoe tunnel 66.1 MMM records

Peto MacCallum University & King 74.3 borehole 2008-09-18 Enwave Simcoe Simcoe & Front 63.0 MMM records Tunnel 60.0 York & Wellington Enwave York Tunnel MMM records (approx.)

York & Queen Enwave York Tunnel 60.1 MMM records

Bay 65 m. N. of Enwave Bay Tunnel 62.1 MMM records King

Bay at Queen Enwave Bay Tunnel 58.9 MMM records

Wellington W. of Enwave Wellington 61.4 MMM records Simcoe Tunnel Wellington E. of Enwave Wellington 64.2 MMM records Bay Tunnel City of Toronto sewer Wellington at Scott Toronto Sewer 69.0 approx records

Front at Simcoe Toronto Watermain 65.6 MMM records

Hydro One Tunnel Front & Frederick 48.9 MMM records along Front Hydro One Tunnel Front & John 52.8 MMM records along Front Coffey Geotechnics King at Church Below 77.0 borehole 2009-03-20 Front at Union Shaheen & Peaker 70.2 Station borehole 2006-11-02

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 12 Appendix B: Ridership Capacity

OSPE consulted many studies in the course of analyzing the need for the RL. The primary sources were data from TTC, Metrolinx and Edward Levy’s downtown rapid transit study.13 Those sources, as well as reports from Toronto Region Board of Trade (TRBOT) and Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC), typically use baseline data from 2011 and thus extend projections and plans to 2031, a 20-year window of opportunity. Studies assessed indicate that several factors will impact TTC ridership capacity in the coming years:

 Residential population and employment in the downtown core are expected to increase by 83 per cent and 28 per cent, respectively, by 2031 from 2006 levels; these increases translate to 130,000 people residing and 404,000 working in downtown Toronto by 2031.  Public transit projects that are in progress or planned for future waves of the Big Move will add to ridership levels. Extension of the Yonge Line to Richmond Hill is a prime example.  Future transit demand into the downtown by 2031 is expected to increase by 55 per cent to 236,000 daily during morning peak hours.14

An RL is therefore vital to prevent further over capacity issues on the Yonge Line. In its Regional Transit Project Profile of the Yonge North Subway Extension, Metrolinx acknowledges that an RL and other measures to address over capacity will have to be implemented simultaneously with the Yonge North Subway Extension.15

The peak hour capacity deficiency of the Yonge Line going south from Bloor-Yonge Station is currently 2,400 riders. In other words, rider capacity is 26,000, but demand sits at 28,400.16

Due to technological improvements, the peak hour capacity projected for 2031 would be roughly equal to demand, if the Yonge Line extension to Richmond Hill were not built.17

13 Edward J. Levy, P.Eng., “A Case for the Downtown Rapid Transit (“Relief”) Line and a Union-Pearson Rapid Transit Service,” (April 6, 2012), http://spacingtoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/A-CASE-FOR-THE-DOWNTOWN- RAPID-TRANSIT-RELIEF-LINE.pdf; Leslie Woo and Judy Knight, “Union Station 2031 and Related Planning Studies,” Metrolinx, (November 23, 2011), http://metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20111123/November%2023%202011_Presentation_Union%20 Station%202031%20and%20Related%20Planning%20Studies%20-%20FINAL%20(DS).pdf ; Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study. 14 Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study, p.13. 15 Metrolinx, “Next Wave Project: Yonge North Subway Extension.” The DRTES states bluntly, “An extension of the Yonge Subway Line to Richmond Hill will aggravate the overcapacity problem on the Yonge Subway.” See DRTES, p. 28. 16 Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study, p.19. 17 Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study, p. 21.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 13 Environmental assessments and conceptual designs are already completed for the proposed extension of the Yonge Line to Richmond Hill. If the RL is not built, this extension will result in a peak-hour capacity deficiency of 1,400 on the Yonge Line (capacity 38,000, demand 39,400) by 2031.18 This additional loading on the Yonge Line means the extension cannot be constructed unless a RL is built.

By building the RL, the Yonge Line extension can be created without creating a capacity overload. Instead, the peak-hour demand on the Yonge Line south from Bloor-Yonge Station will be reduced from over 39,000 to about 35,000, from a shortfall in capacity of 1,400 to a surplus of over 3,000.19

Most studies used ridership data during peak hour times to focus attention on overcapacity. To highlight the impact the RL would have on easing existing congestion, OSPE examined the effects the RL will have on an overall daily basis. OSPE specifically analyzed total daily usage of stations most affected by the RL. Those stations include all those on the Bloor-Danforth Line from Kennedy in the east to Pape in the Danforth neighbourhood. Pape is the interchange station location proposed by all major studies of the RL (see map) to funnel people downtown on the new line.

These studies recommend that the first phase of the RL should be from Pape or another station to downtown at University Avenue and between Queen and King Streets in the west. Further phases are University Avenue west to connect with a GO station in the Roncesvalles area or from there up to , connecting with the Bloor Line. Another phase would tunnel from Pape Station north to connect with the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Line.

Completing the RL will address existing congestion on the Yonge Line and allow Metrolinx to extend the subway and handle the increased ridership from future LRT expansions at Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton. In addition, Metrolinx is proposing several transit expansion projects that will increase the number of riders on the entire TTC network. Several of these Metrolinx Next Wave projects will benefit if the RL is completed or underway.

18 Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study, p.21. 19 Toronto Transit Commission, Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study, p. 54.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 14 Appendix C: Projections of Ridership at Stations Most Affected by the Proposed RL

Many variables and unforeseen factors affect ridership and projections of transit usage to 2031. OSPE bases its analysis on several assumptions, which we acknowledge may evolve in the coming years:

 OSPE recognizes that, as a rule, the industry assumes one per cent as an annual total daily ridership increase when determining capacity. Based on statistics from 2009 to 2012, annual total daily ridership over the entire TTC subway system will increase by a rate of four per cent per year, including each of the stations analyzed.  We cannot predict, with total accuracy, how many people will use the RL and thus be diverted from continuing on the Bloor-Danforth Line. OSPE assumes 25 – 75 per cent being diverted from all stations from Kennedy to Pape to be realistic.  Regardless of the actual number of people being diverted at Pape Station to the RL, a significant number of riders will no longer be changing trains at the Bloor-Yonge or St. George interchange stations, thus relieve those stations of a significant number of riders.20

Annual tables on total daily subway ridership produced by the TTC show the typical number of customers travelling to and from each station platform on an average weekday. For the stations along the Bloor-Danforth Line most affected by the RL, there were a total of 211,670 customers getting on and off eight specific stations in 2012. These are summarized in Table 1.

The ridership figures for seven stations from Pape to Warden likely consist of local residents, as there are few high-density commercial sites in their respective locales. , however, would include commuters changing trains from Scarborough Rapid Transit to the Bloor- Danforth Line, as well as local residents.

The Bloor-Yonge interchange station includes all riders coming from both directions on the Yonge Line and the Bloor-Danforth Line. There is no way of telling the origin and destination of riders. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate quantitatively that over 200,000 customers are generated from the eight stations that would be most affected by the RL and to use this number as a baseline to project the number of people who would potentially be diverted from the Bloor-Danforth Line by the RL.

20 Toronto Transit Commission, “TTC Transit Planning,” http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Transit_Planning/index.jsp.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 15 Table 1: Daily Station Ridership Usage to and from Stations most Affected by Proposed RL21

Station Usage 2011-2012

Pape 25,620 Donlands 10,980 Coxwell 16,670 Woodbine 13,270 Main Street 22,650 Victoria Park 26,690 Warden 29,610 Kennedy 66,180 Total 211,670

Bloor-Yonge on 203,620 Danforth Line Bloor-Yonge on 212,550 Yonge Line Total 416,170

Using the assumption that ridership will increase by four per cent per year at each subway station, and that it will take at least 10 years for the RL to be completed, OSPE projects that by 2023 ridership will increase in the eight stations from 2012 figures of 211,670 on an average day to 325,856 by the time the line could be complete. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

21 Toronto Transit Commission, “Subway ridership, 2011-2012,” http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Subway%20ridership%202011-2012.pdf.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 16 Figure 2: Projection of Ridership at Eight Stations to/from Pape to Kennedy, 2012 - 2023

Current Rate of 4% Per Year Kennedy to Pape Per Day 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 Current Rate based on Actual 2012 Ridership 100,000 50,000

-

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2012

Assuming the RL will not be functional until 2023, Table 2 illustrates the number of riders per day who would be diverted from 2023 to 2031, based on a four per cent increase per year.

Table 2: Projections of Ridership Generated at Eight Stations to/from Pape to Kennedy, 2023 - 2031 with the RL Completed

Current Rate based on Actual 2012 With 25% With 50% With 75% Year Ridership Diversion Diversion Diversion 2023 325,856 244,392 162,928 81,464 2024 338,890 254,168 169,445 84,723 2025 352,446 264,334 176,223 88,111 2026 366,544 274,908 183,272 91,636 2027 381,205 285,904 190,603 95,301 2028 396,454 297,340 198,227 99,113 2029 412,312 309,234 206,156 103,078 2030 428,804 321,603 214,402 107,201 2031 445,956 334,467 222,978 111,489

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 17 Graphically, using 2023, 2027 and 2031 projections, the ridership numbers using the Bloor- Danforth Line after being diverted on the RL are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Total Projected Ridership with Diversions in Eight Stations to/from Pape to Kennedy, 2023 - 2031

Diversion Rates 2023, 2027, 2031 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 2023 250,000 2012 Levels 200,000 2027 150,000 2031 100,000 50,000

RidershipKennedyPape/dayto/from - Current Rate 25% 50% 75% No DRL Diversion Diversion Diversion

Note that the approximate levels of ridership equal to the figure from 2012 indicates that between 30 and 50 per cent diversion rates are needed to maintain numbers equal to those from that year.

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 18 Acknowledgements

OSPE is grateful to the following individuals who provided input and assistance in drafting this report:

John Bush, Vice President, Heavy Civil Division, EllisDon Paul Millett, P.Eng., Chief Project Manager, Toronto Transit Commission Anthony Pagnanelli, P. Eng., Acting Executive Director, Technical Services, City of Toronto Ed Jetten P.Eng., Manager, Contract Administration, Partner, MMM Group Limited Stephen Cheng, P.Eng., Assistant Manager, Geotechnical Division, exp Services Inc.

OSPE Transit Sub-Group members:

William Lardner, P.Eng. Greg Cook, P.Eng. Scott Hubbard, P. Eng. Edward Poon, P.Eng. David Marsland, P.Eng. Chris Drew Rick Baldasti, P.Eng. David Kirkland, P.Eng. Lee Weissling, PhD (OSPE) Kristian Kennedy, M.Sc. (OSPE)

The TTC Subway Relief Line: Let's Get the Engineering on Track! 19