Peterborough Rail Study Final Report PO #1138 Volume 1 February 2010

Home , CN Kingston Subdivision, Donald Cousens Parkway, Galt Subdivision, Kawartha Lakes Railway, Leaside station, North Toronto station

Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report PO #1138 Volume 1 February 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Metrolinx Suite 900 20 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5J 2N8 Canada

Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report PO #1138

February 2010

Hatch Mott MacDonald 2800 Speakman Drive Mississauga, Ontario L5K 2R7 Canada Tel: 905 855 2010 Fax: 905 855 2607 Pat.O'[email protected] Patrick O'Connor, P. Eng.

260555/0/R1

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report PO #1138

Issue and Revision Record

Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description

R0 12/01/10 HMM/ IBI DG PAO’C 100% Submission R1 05/02/10 HMM/IBI DG PAO’C Final Release

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authorization of Hatch Mott MacDonald being obtained. Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm their agreement to indemnify Hatch Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether through contract or tort, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Hatch Mott MacDonald and used by Hatch Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.

PR260555/0/R1

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

List of Contents and Appendices Page

Volume 1

Executive Summary ...... 5

1 Project Overview ...... 9 1.1 Introduction ...... 9 1.2 Policy Context ...... 10 1.2.1 2008 Federal Budget & Building Canada Fund ...... 10 1.2.2 Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ...... 11 1.2.3 Metrolinx and The Big Move ...... 11 1.2.4 GO 2020 GO Transit Strategic Plan ...... 12 1.2.5 City of Peterborough Central Area Master Plan ...... 13 1.2.6 Central Pickering Development Plan ...... 14 1.2.7 Pickering Airport Lands ...... 14 1.2.8 Previous Peterborough Rail Studies ...... 15

2 Project Execution ...... 16 2.1 Project plan of work ...... 16 2.2 Reference Data ...... 16 2.3 Train Schedule Modeling ...... 16 2.4 Demand Forecast Modelling ...... 17 2.5 Development and Depiction of Service Options ...... 17 2.6 Engineering and Estimating ...... 18

3 Description of Existing Rail Corridors and Rail Traffic ...... 19 3.1 The Havelock Subdivision ...... 19 3.2 CP Toronto (Agincourt) Freight Yard ...... 20 3.3 The Belleville Subdivision ...... 20 3.4 The Don Branch ...... 20 3.5 The Uxbridge Subdivision ...... 20 3.6 The North Toronto Subdivision ...... 21

4 Assessment of Market Potential ...... 28 4.1 Transportation Demand Trends ...... 28 4.2 Existing Travel Context ...... 33 4.3 Tourism Demand ...... 36

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 1

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

4.3.1 Niagara Falls Excursion Train ...... 36 4.4 Future Growth and Travel Demand...... 37 4.4.1 Land Use, Population & Employment ...... 37 4.4.2 Future Travel Demand ...... 42 4.5 Future Transportation System Performance ...... 45

5 Peterborough Rail Service Concepts ...... 49 5.1 Role & Function ...... 49 5.2 Routing and Terminus Options ...... 49 5.3 Basic Routes – Main Features ...... 50 5.3.1 Route A – Havelock Subdivision to Belleville Subdivision (North Side of Toronto Yard) ...... 50 5.3.2 Route B – Havelock Subdivision to Belleville Subdivision (New Connection East of Toronto Yard) ...... 50 5.3.3 Route C – Using New Connection to Uxbridge Subdivision ...... 51 5.3.4 Comparison of Basic Routes ...... 52 5.4 Station Identification ...... 57 5.4.1 Station Assessment ...... 58 5.4.2 Proposed Stations ...... 61 5.4.3 Potential Rapid Transit Connections ...... 63 5.5 Operating Concept Scenarios ...... 65 5.5.1 Service Level Scenarios ...... 65 5.5.2 Running Speed and Station Dwell Times ...... 65 5.5.3 Prototype Schedules ...... 65 5.5.4 Train Service Schedules ...... 67

6 Detailed Ridership Forecasts ...... 72 6.1 Scenario Results ...... 72 6.2 Ridership at Horizon Years ...... 73 6.3 Access and Egress Modes ...... 74 6.4 Diversion from GO Rail Services ...... 76 6.5 Summerhill Station Assessment ...... 78 6.6 Land Use Projection Sensitivity ...... 80 6.7 Weekend Demand ...... 81

7 Vehicle Technology Options ...... 83 7.1 Vehicle Safety Regulations ...... 83 7.2 Vehicle Options ...... 83 7.2.1 Conventional Commuter Train ...... 83 7.2.2 Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) ...... 85

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 2

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

7.3 Discussion of Vehicle Options ...... 88

8 Discussion of Required Additional Railway Infrastructure ...... 89 8.1 Havelock Subdivision ...... 89 8.1.1 Havelock Subdivision Estimated Capital Costs ...... 92 8.2 Toronto Yard Bypass Alternatives and Belleville Subdivision ...... 93 8.2.1 Route A – North Yard Option ...... 94 8.2.2 Route B – Havelock/Belleville Connecting Track Option ...... 96 8.2.3 Route C – Havelock/Uxbridge Connecting Track ...... 97 8.2.4 Toronto Yard Bypass Alternatives and Belleville Subdivision Capital Cost Estimates ...... 98 8.3 Access to Summerhill and Union Station Terminus Options ...... 100 8.3.1 North Toronto Subdivision ...... 100 8.3.2 Don Branch...... 100 8.3.3 Access to Summerhill and Union Station Terminus Options - Capital Cost Estimates ...... 101

9 New Stations and Layover Infrastructure ...... 102 9.1.1 Peterborough Downtown Station (Mile 118.0 Havelock Subdivision) ...... 102 9.1.2 Peterborough Harper Road Station (Mile 120.3 Havelock Subdivision) ...... 102 9.1.3 Pontypool Station (Mile 139.3 Havelock Subdivision) ...... 102 9.1.4 Myrtle Station (Mile 157.3 Havelock Subdivision) ...... 102 9.1.5 Claremont Station (Mile 166.1 Havelock Subdivision) ...... 103 9.1.6 Locust Hill Station (Mile 173.8 Havelock Subdivision) ...... 103 9.1.7 Steeles Station (Mile 177.5 Havelock Subdivision) ...... 103 9.1.8 Agincourt (Brimley) (Mile 198.6 Belleville Subdivision) ...... 104 9.2 Toronto Terminals ...... 115 9.2.1 Toronto Union Station ...... 115 9.2.2 North Toronto Station (Summerhill) ...... 116 9.3 Additional or Upgrade of Signal Systems ...... 117 9.4 Siding Requirements ...... 118

10 Incremental Service Initiation Schedule ...... 119 10.1 The Peterborough Rail Study ...... 119 10.2 Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Assessment ...... 119 10.3 Detailed Engineering and Contract Document Preparation ...... 120 10.4 Construction ...... 120 10.5 Basic Service ...... 120 10.6 Enhanced Service ...... 121 10.7 All Day Service ...... 121

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 3

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ...... 122 11.1 Basis for Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ...... 122 11.2 Capital Costs ...... 126 11.3 Gross Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 126 11.4 Route A, Union Station, Zero Impact...... 127 11.5 Route A, Union Station, Minimal Impact ...... 128 11.6 Route A, Summerhill Station, Zero Impact ...... 129 11.7 Route A, Summerhill, Minimal Impact ...... 130 11.8 Route B, Union Station, Zero Impact ...... 131 11.9 Route B, Union Station, Minimal Impact ...... 132 11.10 Route B, Summerhill Station, Zero Impact ...... 133 11.11 Route B, Summerhill, Minimal Impact ...... 134 11.12 Route C, Union Station, Zero Impact ...... 135 11.13 Route C, Summerhill Station, Zero Impact ...... 136

Volume 2

List of Appendices

Appendix A Project Plan of Work

Appendix B Previous Studies

Appendix C Document Register

Appendix D Train Performance Modeling Criteria

Appendix E Additional Technical Background -GGH Model

Appendix F Estimating Worksheets

Volume 3

Project Drawings

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 4

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Executive Summary

In March 2008, the Federal and Provincial governments agreed to undertake a joint study for the potential reinstatement of passenger rail service between Toronto and Peterborough. The study was led by Metrolinx, the regional transportation authority for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and was overseen by a Steering Committee composed of senior officials from Metrolinx, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Transport Canada. The purpose of the study was to provide an assessment of the market potential and ridership demand, vehicle technology options, potential station locations, required infrastructure improvements, as well as to develop rough order of magnitude capital and operating cost estimates for feasible route alternatives and an implementation plan for the proposed service.

The distance by rail from Peterborough to downtown Toronto is approximately 120 kilometres in length. The existing corridor consists of a number of separate railway subdivisions, the majority of which are owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), including:

- The Havelock Subdivision - approximately 100 km from Peterborough to CP’s Toronto Yard in Scarborough (Agincourt); - The Toronto Yard - CP main rail freight yard in the Greater Toronto Area; - The Belleville and North Toronto Subdivisions through mid-town Toronto; and - The Don Branch (recently purchased from CP by Metrolinx) connecting the Belleville/North Toronto subdivisions with the Union Station Rail Corridor.

In May 2009, following a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, Metrolinx awarded a contract to Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) to provide overall project management and engineering consulting services. To investigate the market potential, HMM sub-contracted IBI Group (IBI) to assess the market potential and develop ridership projections for the proposed service.

Using recent population, employment and travel data, IBI undertook extensive travel demand modelling to develop ridership forecasts for three horizon years, including the proposed start-up date of 2016, and for the years 2021 and 2031. Concurrent with the ridership study, HMM conducted train movement simulations to develop potential train schedules. Based on these schedules, ridership modelling was carried out by IBI to determine ridership sensitivities to differing levels of service. While the ridership projections and train movement simulations were being developed, the Study Team gathered base information from CP and other sources on the relevant rights-of-way over which the proposed service would operate. In addition, site inspections were carried out to verify the data provided and to acquire first hand understanding of the condition of the railway infrastructure.

Early in the study process, the Study Team met with CP representatives to review the project and get input on CP’s requirements. While the railway was generally receptive to the notion of reinstating the passenger service to Peterborough, CP staff reinforced that the movement of freight is the railway’s core business, and that CP’s support for the project would be contingent on it not unduly impacting freight rail operations. During subsequent discussions, the CP staff indicated that for a limited number of trains per day, the railway may entertain the idea of joint occupation of freight and passenger trains on a limited

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 5

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report portion of CP’s existing tracks if it could be demonstrated that the joint occupancy would not impact their operations. They also indicated that the joint occupancy must be kept to the minimum length required to clear a physical restriction.

A key implementation issue identified during the early phases of work was the difficulty involved in routing trains to and from Peterborough past CP’s Toronto Yard in Agincourt. Since the facility was opened in the 1960’s, adjacent industrial, commercial and residential developments have hemmed in the yard, severely restricting opportunities to construct new tracks to bypass the yard. The potential for the proposed passenger rail service to interfere with yard operations or freight movements on CP’s main line (the Belleville Subdivision) was of particular concern to the railway.

In an effort to develop a workable solution, the study team developed “Zero Impact” (no joint occupancy through grade separations) and “Minimal Impact” (limited joint occupancy on CP tracks) sub-options for each of the three alternative routes considered in the study, which include:

1. Route A - passing through the north side of the yard; 2. Route B - a new connecting track to the east of the yard and then along the south side of the yard, and; 3. Routes C - avoiding the yard entirely by building a new connecting track between the Havelock Subdivision with the GO Transit’s Uxbridge Subdivision (the line used for GO Transit’s Stouffville service) just north of Markham.

In addition, the study team evaluated the potential impacts on project costs and ridership associated with locating the Toronto terminus at either Union Station or Summerhill on Yonge Street (south of the intersection with St. Clair Avenue). The Summerhill option was included in the study in acknowledgement of the limited available capacity at Union Station during peak periods.

In general, Routes A, B were found to have the shortest travel times, but involve substantial capital investments to permit trains to pass through the Toronto Yard. Travel times for Route C are approximately 10 minutes longer, but issues at the Toronto Yard would be completely avoided. Under the Union Station terminus option, Route C would also avoid the need to add track capacity to the Belleville Subdivision and upgrade the Don Branch, as the existing Uxbridge and Kingston Subdivisions would be utilized to access the Union Station Rail Corridor. As a result, the Route C Union Station option has the lowest capital costs of all the route alternatives. Route C does bypass two proposed stations in fast growing urban areas on the western portion of the line at Steeles Avenue and Agincourt (Brimley Road). However, it is possible that if GO Transit were to operate the Peterborough service, using Route C could allow for some form of integration with service on GO’s Stouffville line. The two bypassed stations fall within the catchment area of the existing Milliken and Agincourt GO Stations, which could potentially provide alternative access points for these riders.

The majority of current (2006) AM peak period trips to downtown Toronto along the corridor are work trips, with the exception of the Peterborough (City and County) where trip purpose split evenly between work and non-work. While no specific type of passenger train service was presupposed for the study, based on the results of the travel demand and ridership analyses it was determined that a commuter rail

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 6

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report type of service would be the most appropriate. The study evaluated three potential service levels, including:

1. Basic Service – two trains departing Peterborough in the morning and returning in the evening; 2. Enhanced Service – the Basic Service plus two additional trains departing Locust Hill in the morning and returning in the evening; and 3. All-Day Service to Locust Hill – Basic Service plus half-hourly service all day long in both directions between Locust Hill and Toronto.

Based on the ridership forecasts of approximately 1,900 total boardings per weekday for both directions, it was determined that Basic Service would be sufficient to meet ridership projections for the early years of the train service beginning in 2016. Assuming a ramp up to the Enhanced Service beginning in 2021, total (two-way) weekday ridership is projected to increase to 3,700 boardings by 2021 and to 4,160 by 2031. These service level assumptions form the basis of the operating cost estimates presented in this report. Based on ridership projections for the analysis period to 2031, all-day and weekend services were found to be unjustifiable.

The ridership projections cited above assume the use of Union Station as the Toronto terminus. Terminating service at the Summerhill Station in Toronto was found to decrease projected ridership by approximately 40 percent. This decrease is due to the extra travel time and cost imposed on passengers traveling to downtown Toronto, who would be required to transfer to the Yonge Subway line.

From the ridership analysis it was determined that eight stations would best promote ridership on the line (not including the Toronto terminus station). These include stations at George Street in downtown Peterborough, Harper Road in Peterborough, Pontypool, Myrtle, Claremont, Locust Hill, Steeles Avenue, and Brimley Road in Agincourt. These stations could be served regardless of whether Union Station or Summerhill is used as the Toronto terminus (although Route C would not serve the last two stations). Layover facilities for parking trains overnight are proposed for Harper Road initially, and also at Locust Hill after 2021 with the ramp up to Enhanced Service.

The Study Team also conducted a review of potential vehicle technologies that could be used for the service. Based on Transport Canada’s current crash worthiness regulations, there are a limited number of options available as the train would have to operate in mixed traffic conditions with other freight and passenger trains on certain portions of the route. The most likely options would be either Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) or standard locomotive-hauled commuter rail equipment. Given the capacity limitations of shorter DMU trains, for the purposes of the developing fleet operating and capital cost estimates, it was assumed that a six car train with a diesel-electric locomotive would be used for the service. The proposed bi-level cars, which would be similar to equipment currently in use by GO Transit and many other North American commuter rail operators, have a seating capacity of 150 passengers and a total train capacity of 900 seated passengers. It is acknowledged that vehicle technology options could be revisited in more detail in future project phases (e.g., preliminary design/engineering) should the project proceed.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 7

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Capital and operating costs were generated for all of the main routing options and sub-options. Capital costs include major upgrades to track, bridges and related infrastructure along the corridor, improvements at road crossings, building new stations and layover facilities, and locomotive and fleet acquisition costs. The estimated capital costs for the initiation of basic service by 2016 range from approximately $541 million for the Route C to Union Station option to a high of almost $1.5 billion for the Route B to Summerhill - Zero Impact option. Total lifecycle capital costs, assuming the proposed ramp-up to Enhanced Service after 2021, range from approximately $627 million (Route C to Union Station) to just under $1.6 billion (Route B to Summerhill-Zero Impact). All of the Route A and B Zero Impact sub- options would involve significant costs for grade separations in the vicinity of the Toronto Yard (tunnels, flyovers and flyunders), and the resultant capital costs estimates for these options are significantly higher than for the comparable Minimal Impact sub-options.

Estimated average gross annual operating and maintenance (O & M) costs are in the order of $21-25 million per year for the initial years of service for the Basic Service scenario, increasing to between $43- 44 million annually after 2021 assuming the ramp up to Enhanced Service levels.

While the mandate for this study was to determine the requirements to restore passenger rail service to Peterborough, the proposed infrastructure upgrades on the Havelock Subdivision would also benefit CP‘s freight operations, which could potentially yield positive economic impacts for communities along the line. With the proposed track upgrades, the maximum operating speed for freight trains would be increased dramatically from the current 10 mile per hour limit to 40 miles per hour. As a result, both existing and potential new freight customers along the Havelock Subdivision would benefit from faster and more reliable travel times along the corridor. Given the current deteriorated state of the Havelock Subdivision, significant upgrades will likely be required in the short term if the line is to remain viable for rail freight services, regardless of whether passenger service is restored to Peterborough.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 8

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 1 Project Overview

1.1 Introduction

In March 2008, the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario agreed to conduct a joint study to evaluate the requirements for re-introducing passenger rail service between downtown Toronto and Peterborough along the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)’s Havelock Subdivision. The Havelock Subdivision, which extends between Havelock, Ontario and CP’s Toronto Yard in Agincourt Ontario, is operated by a CPR “Internal Short Line Railway” known as the Kawartha Lakes Railway (KLR). The Study has been led by Metrolinx, the regional transportation authority for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, under the direction of a Steering Committee co-chaired by the Government of Canada, represented by Transport Canada, and the Province of Ontario, represented by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Metrolinx. The purpose of this study is to develop an up-to-date market assessment of potential ridership, a detailed expansion implementation strategy (including capital and operating cost estimates), a phasing schedule, and an operating budget for the provision of passenger rail services between Toronto and Peterborough. The corridor being examined in this study is shown below in Exhibit 1.1. The study is intended to provide the basis for the next phases of the project (e.g., preliminary design/engineering, environmental assessment).

Exhibit 1-1: Peterborough Rail Corridor

Source: Canadian Railway Atlas, The Railway Association of Canada, 1999

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 9

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report There is currently no passenger rail service to the Peterborough area. The most recent passenger service along the KLR was operated by VIA Rail Canada (VIA) between Havelock and Toronto (through Peterborough) with one round trip daily using Budd Rail Diesel Cars (RDCs). This route was discontinued as part of service cuts in 1990 as VIA’s mandate was refocused on serving the longer distance intercity travel market. Since that time the line has been used for limited freight traffic only, and has not been maintained to a standard that would support passenger service.

For the purposes of this study, no assumptions have been made regarding the potential operator for the proposed passenger rail service. Subject to decisions by the provincial and federal governments, it is possible that the service could be provided by either GO Transit, VIA Rail Canada, or a third-party operator.

1.2 Policy Context

A number of policy statements relating to transportation and land use within the study area, as well as studies of the Peterborough Rail Corridor and related projects that would affect it, have been completed over the last two decades. Outlined below are the most relevant, more recent transportation policies documented in plans and publications by the various levels of government with influence on the planning solution for the Peterborough Rail Corridor.

1.2.1 2008 Federal Budget & Building Canada Fund

The 2008 Federal Budget announced the creation of the $500 million Public Transit Capital Trust 2008, including an allocation of $195 million for Ontario. Passenger rail service to Peterborough was identified as a priority project for the Federal Government. On March 27, 2008, the Premier and the Prime Minister announced that a joint Federal-Provincial study would be undertaken for a passenger rail link between Peterborough and downtown Toronto. In June 2008, the Ontario Minister of Transportation requested that Metrolinx take the lead on the joint Peterborough Rail Study.

Schedule D of the Canada-Ontario Building Canada Plan Framework Agreement, signed by the Province and the Federal Government on July 24, 2008, makes specific reference to the Peterborough passenger rail project, as follows:

Canada and Ontario agree to review the findings and conclusion of this study. The identified project will be jointly funded by Canada and Ontario, with each equally sharing in all eligible capital costs, net of funding from municipal or private sector contributions, up to a maximum of $150 million each, subject to the successful completion of a federal and provincial due diligence review of the project, securing any funding approvals that may be required respectively by the federal and provincial Treasury Boards, all applicable environmental assessments, and the signing of a contribution agreement that will detail the project elements, schedule, capital and operating costs, and funding parameters, to the mutual satisfaction of Canada and Ontario.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 10

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 1.2.2 Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), developed under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, is a framework for implementing the Government of Ontario’s vision to better manage growth in the region. The Growth Plan provides a framework for development of a number of policies in the areas of managing growth, general intensification, growth centres, major transit station areas and intensification corridors, employment lands, designated greenfield areas, settlement area boundary expansions, and rural areas.

Population and employment forecasts presented in the plan illustrate that Peterborough City and County can expect population growth of 15% and employment growth of 13% from 2001 to 2031 while Durham Region to the south of a large part of the rail corridor can expect population growth of 81% and employment growth of 84%. Durham Region is the third fastest growing region in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) over that span, after Halton and York Regions. The Peterborough Rail Corridor connects the two Urban Growth Centres of Downtown Toronto and Downtown Peterborough, as well as the proposed new airport in North Pickering. One important initiative in the Growth Plan that will have a major impact on the potential success of a new Peterborough rail service is the creation of the Greenbelt which protects environmentally sensitive lands and prime farming areas from further development. Approximately 55% of the length of the Peterborough Rail Corridor passes through the Greenbelt which will limit the growth potential surrounding many of the proposed stations.

1.2.3 Metrolinx and The Big Move

In 2006 the Province of Ontario created the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, later renamed Metrolinx in December 2007. The primary responsibility of the new organization is to provide leadership in the planning, financing and development of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s (GTHA) multi- modal transportation network and to conform to the objectives and vision set out in the Province’s GGH Growth Plan.

On November 28, 2008, the Metrolinx Board of Directors approved the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), entitled The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The Big Move recommends the construction of over 1,200 km of rapid transit over the next 25 years – more than triple what exists now – so that over 80 per cent of residents in the GTHA region will live within two kilometres of the regional rapid transit network.

Among the nine priority actions presented in The Big Move, two key actions with relevance to this study are: 1) to develop a regional rapid transit network that operates seamlessly across the GTHA and, 2) to create a system of connected mobility hubs at key intersections in the regional rapid transit network. These mobility hubs will provide travelers with access to the system, support high density development, and demonstrate excellence in customer service.

The Big Move identified regional rail service on the CP Crosstown corridor and the CP Havelock subdivision to Locust Hill as priority projects in the 15-year plan. In addition, the remainder of the

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 11

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Peterborough Rail Corridor has been highlighted as a possible future extension of the regional rail system. The Big Move 25 year plan for the eastern part of the GTHA is shown below in Exhibit 1-2.

Exhibit 1-2: Metrolinx 25 Year Plan

1.2.4 GO 2020 GO Transit Strategic Plan

The GO 2020 Strategic Plan that was approved by the GO Transit Board of Directors in December 2008 included many proposed improvements to GO Rail service that would have a direct impact on the study corridor (See Exhibit 1-3). In particular, the plan includes the East Markham Line, providing service to Locust Hill on the CPR Havelock Subdivision, and the Seaton Line on the CPR Belleville Subdivision, within the proposed capital program to the year 2020. Both the East Markham and Seaton lines are identified as having peak period service every 30 minutes with all-day bus service as warranted in the off- peak period. The capital program includes track improvements, stations and rerouting of freight trains, and both new services using the North Toronto Subdivision to Summerhill. The Strategic Plan also identifies the possible extension of service by bus or rail to Peterborough as demand warrants. On September 5, 2009, GO Transit inaugurated a new bus service between Peterborough and the Oshawa GO Station on the Lakeshore East corridor.

Additional planned service improvements that would impact demand for a Peterborough rail service include improvements to both the Stouffville and Lakeshore East corridors. The Stouffville line is

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 12

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report planned to have peak service to and from Mount Joy every 15 minutes with selected trips extending to Lincolnville and Uxbridge. Reverse peak service is planned to be introduced every 30 minutes, and all- day service will be provided twice hourly to Mont Joy with bus service to Stouffville and Uxbridge.

Exhibit 1-3: GO 2020 Strategic Plan

1.2.5 City of Peterborough Central Area Master Plan

In May 2009, the City of Peterborough completed the Central Area Master Plan (CAMP) to complement the Commercial Land Use policies of the City of Peterborough Official Plan. The Central Area Master Plan identifies a series of specific planning strategies that will assist the Central Area to achieve its full potential within the 2020 planning horizon in accordance with the designation of Downtown Peterborough as an Urban Growth Centre under Places to Grow. The major strategies of the Master Plan include:

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 13

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report  Confirming the priority functions of the Central Area and strengthening retail function. This includes the creation of a public square, the promotion of a “downtown first” philosophy for public investment in cultural and entertainment facilities and the promotion of downtown for expanded academic activities for Trent University and Sir Sanford Fleming College;  Promoting quality of life in the central area through neighbourhood planning;  Encouraging new residential development in the Central Area;  Fostering improved pedestrian connectivity in the Central Area;  Improving municipal infrastructure in the Central Area;  Promoting economic development; and  Strategies promoting sound planning practices and quality development through site and building design guidelines, residential intensifications study and streetscape design guidelines.

1.2.6 Central Pickering Development Plan

In May 2006, the Province of Ontario released the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) covering the provincially-owned Seaton lands in Durham Region. The CPDP will guide the creation of an extensive natural heritage system, a dedicated agricultural preserve, and substantial new residential and employment areas that are planned to accommodate approximately 70,000 residents and 35,000 jobs. A key objective of the plan is to create a sustainable, transit-supportive community. As the Peterborough Rail Corridor passes north of the CPDP area, passenger rail service along this corridor could potentially service this new community as well as a potential future Pickering Airport.

1.2.7 Pickering Airport Lands

In 2004, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) prepared a draft plan for the development of a new airport on the Pickering Airport Lands. The plan was completed under direction from Transport Canada to determine whether it should proceed with a regional/reliever airport on the Pickering Lands. The GTAA planning work was advanced based on four key assumptions:  The recognition of physical constraints at Buttonville and Oshawa airports and the need to plan for their eventual replacement;  The need for long term airport capacity, given that Toronto Pearson could reach its capacity within the next 20 years;  The need for a regional/reliever airport to the East of Toronto Pearson that complements Hamilton Airport to the west; and  The opportunity for strong economic development support to the eastern region of the Greater Toronto Area.

The Pickering lands, shown below in Exhibit 1-4, are located 50 km northeast of downtown Toronto, and consist of 7,350 hectares owned by the federal government. The development of the Pickering lands would have significant impacts on the Peterborough Rail corridor as the Havelock subdivision crosses

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 14

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report through the middle of the lands between the proposed Locust Hill and Claremont stations. The result of the plan was a proposed facility that would begin primarily as a general aviation airport with the ability to be expanded into a regional/reliever airport if required. The timing of such a facility will be contingent on demand and the state of the region’s airport system.

Exhibit 1-4: 2032 Proposed Pickering Airport Site Layout

1.2.8 Previous Peterborough Rail Studies

Since VIA’s Havelock service was cancelled in 1990, a number of studies have been undertaken to assess the potential for re-introducing rail service to Peterborough. Two of the more recent studies include an assessment undertaken by the IBI Group in 1997, and the “GO Transit Service Extension to Peterborough Feasibility Study Phase 2 – Rail Service Final Report” completed for GO Transit in 2007. A summary of the findings for each of these reports are included in Appendix B.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 15

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 2 Project Execution

To substantiate the ridership, a "transportation needs" assessment was carried out. This was followed by other sub-studies and conceptual designs culminating in this final report. Included in the report are the ridership forecasts for 2016, 2021 and 2031, a description of the associated rail service and related rail network as well as estimates of capital and operating costs. Comments on constructability and environmental issues are also included.

2.1 Project plan of work

A project plan of work along with the associated schedule was developed early on in the project. Once approved by Metrolinx and the Steering Committee, it formed the basis and timeline for the execution of the work. A copy of the approved Project Plan of work in included in Appendix A.

2.2 Reference Data

At the beginning of the study and throughout the work the project team gathered background information from various sources. This included input from government agencies, local municipalities, as well as CP and GO Transit. A document registry has been maintained of all reference material used in the report including its source and date received. This document register is included herewith in Appendix C.

Existing and potential market data include; the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS), Canada Census data, GO rail counts, auto counts and Growth Plan projections. Data from the Peterborough Area and Highway 7 Corridor Travel Pattern Survey completed in 2008 for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation was also used to assess the tourism market within the corridor.

2.3 Train Schedule Modeling

Prototype schedules were developed based upon each of the optional route configurations. Although no assumption is made in this study regarding the potential operator of the service, standard GO Transit factors and operating characteristics have been applied. The scheduling model was based on the determination of expected minimum running times for each route, plus the standard factors applied by GO Transit for station stops, operating schedule allowances (4%) and reserve for temporary speed restrictions (4%). The algorithm used to determine the minimum running times was based upon acceleration and deceleration rates typical of existing GO train operations and the existing maximum speeds for each track segment. For segments where track improvements were identified to improve the overall train performance the anticipated speeds consistent with the improvements were used.

Appendix D provides the train performance modeling criteria and the resultant output sheets by route.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 16

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 2.4 Demand Forecast Modelling

A comprehensive, state-of-the-art travel demand forecasting model has been developed for the GGH area in Southern Ontario. The GGH Travel Demand Model forecasts passenger and freight demand on the transportation network for the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This model directly links with the Province’s Growth Plan to assess options and policies that support the Growth Plan. This model is calibrated with the 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) data and successfully validated as a valuable multi- modal transportation forecasting tool for evaluation of alternatives for major infrastructure planning and environmental assessment studies.

The GGH Travel Demand Model system follows the standard four-stage modelling approach which remains the standard regional forecasting modelling approach world-wide. The four stages are:

1) Generation, which determines the number of trip origins and destination by zone;

2) Distribution, which determines the origin-destination (O-D) flows of trips from zone to zone given the number of trips generated;

3) Mode Choice, which splits these O-D flows by mode of travel; and

4) Route Assignment, which determines the paths used by the modal O-D flows through the road and transit networks.

Additional technical background on the GGH Travel Demand Model, its sensitivity and network assumptions are included in Appendix E.

The ridership projections generated by the GGH model for this corridor enabled incremental train service designs to be developed and the identification of station locations. A range of service level options were initially explored and screened to a list of preferred alternatives for more detailed analysis and design. The service design options considered station locations, service frequency (peak only, all day, weekend), speed, park-and-ride, transit connections, service strategies and implications on other transportation facilities (e.g. diversions from other modes or services, impacts at and of the Union and Summerhill stations). The preferred service alternatives were then further refined to three service levels projected out to the 2031 horizon year. Included in the service designs are the options for both the Union Station or Summerhill as the Toronto terminus station.

2.5 Development and Depiction of Service Options

Subsequent to the ridership and train schedule modeling, various service designs on the selected railway corridors were developed. Required upgrades or track infrastructure additions were then identified for each service design.

Included in these service designs were the options for locating the Toronto terminus adjacent to the TTC’s Summerhill subway station on CP’s North Toronto Subdivision, or using the Don Branch (now owned by GO Transit) to access Union Station.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 17

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 2.6 Engineering and Estimating

Once the draft service design was prepared, various route options were reviewed with Canadian Pacific. The railway representatives were very helpful and forthcoming regarding the project. While supportive, CP must ensure that the proposed passenger service does not unduly impact existing and future freight operations in the GTA. Particular areas of concern are how the service will integrate with freight operations in the vicinity of Toronto Yard (Agincourt) and along the Belleville Subdivision/North Toronto Subdivision right-of-way. Recognizing some of the conceptual designs to mitigate passenger/freight conflicts would be extremely expensive, CP agreed to a two-principle approach to the engineering and estimating portion of the project. The first design principle would be to strive for a ‘Zero Impact” on the railway’s operations, i.e, from the eastern limits of Toronto Yard to the terminus of the passenger service. Track infrastructure would be constructed to provide the passenger service with an independent route. The fall back or second design principle was to have a ‘Minimum Impact” on the railway’s operations, i.e., the passenger service could share a common route with freight operations over a limited length of track where space or other engineering restrictions made the “Zero Impact” option unreasonably expensive.

Using this philosophy, the design team proceeded to identify alignment options to meet the various service designs for the two possible Toronto terminuses. Each option was individually estimated to assist in compiling a total cost and to compare alternatives. These designs are conceptual and no approval has been granted by CP for any to proceed. Further analysis and design of each option is required before a preferred alternative can be selected.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 18

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

3 Description of Existing Rail Corridors and Rail Traffic

The rail corridor from Toronto and Peterborough involves a number of rail subdivisions of varying ownership and rail traffic. The following sections describe the rail subdivisions and other major rail areas that may be used to provide the Peterborough rail service.

3.1 The Havelock Subdivision

The line is operated by a CPR “Internal Short Line Railway” known as the Kawartha Lakes Railway. The railway operates between Havelock, Ontario and CP’s Toronto Yard located near the intersection of McCowan Road and Sheppard Avenue East in Agincourt, Ontario. The line extends a total of 90.8 miles1 between terminals. The former Peterborough station is located at Mile 118.0 near the intersection of George Street North and Dalhousie Street. The station is currently used as the office of the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, as well as a Driver and Vehicle License Issuing office, and has limited parking.

The line is operated as a Class III main line permitting freight trains to operate at speeds of up to 30 miles per hour. Given that no passenger trains currently operate on this line, rules for their operation are not currently mentioned in the current CPR Timetable. Class III track does however permit the operation of passenger trains at speeds up to 60 miles per hour. Due to limited freight traffic on this line the railway has reduced capital expenditures and the entire subdivision is currently under a 10 mile per hour slow order. Based on discussions with CP staff and field observations made by the project team a substantial track upgrade program would be required to bring the subdivision back up to unrestricted Class III specifications. A depiction of the line is shown in Exhibit 3-1.

The Havelock Subdivision is currently being used solely for freight traffic. The railway’s primary customers are General Electric, Quaker Oats, Canada Malt, Canwell Lumber, Trent Timber Treating Ltd and Unimin Corporation. All of these clients are located either in Peterborough or towards the eastern end of the line.

The railway currently operates a single train three times a week. These trains are currently operated during the day but CP staff have stated that they could, if necessary, be operated during the night as they have been in the past.

Due to the condition of the line, trains are operated at 10 miles per hour. As a result a single one way trip between Havelock and the Toronto Yard, a distance of about 85 miles, can take in excess of 10 hours.

1 All railway calculations still use Imperial measurements for operating timetables and plans. For ease of analysis and cross reference to source data this analysis has been conducted in Imperial distances and speeds and will show the metric equivalent in parenthesis where appropriate.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 19

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 3.2 CP Toronto (Agincourt) Freight Yard

The Havelock Subdivision terminates at the Toronto Yard located at 2025 McCowan Road. The yard is CP’s primary Greater Toronto Area (GTA) freight yard. The Peterborough train will need to bypass this yard to reach either Union Station or Summerhill. The yard presents a major constraint on the potential establishment of passenger rail service in the Peterborough Corridor because CP’s freight operations utilize the full extent of this yard and all tracks within it. There is also very limited space on the perimeter to add additional tracks to bypass this area because of the adjacent industrial and residential developments that have been built in close to the property line of the yard. Any at-grade bypass tracks would require significant property acquisition. Significant capital works including grade separations may be required to provide passenger rail service to Peterborough. The yard location is depicted on Exhibit 3.2.

3.3 The Belleville Subdivision

The Belleville Subdivision is one of CP’s busiest corridors in its system. The track is generally rated as Class IV for most of its length. This classification allows freight movements at up to 60 miles per hour. This section of track carries an average of 40 to 50 freight trains per day. The subdivision starts at Smith Falls, Ontario and terminates 206.3 miles to the west at Leaside Station where it connects to the North Toronto Subdivision.

This line is predominantly single tracked until it arrives at the Toronto Yard at mile 197.0 From there westward it is a two track corridor up to its connection to the North Toronto Subdivision at Leaside Station at Mile 206.3. CP staff have stated that to protect their freight operations they cannot allow any additional traffic on their existing lines, the railway may be open to allowing additional tracks to be added within the corridor to accommodate proposed passenger rail services. A depiction of the line is shown in Exhibit 3-3.

3.4 The Don Branch

The Don Branch was recently acquired by GO Transit from CPR. While under previous CP ownership it formed the westernmost part of the Belleville Subdivision. The line begins at Leaside at Mile 206.3 and continues southward along the Don Valley to connect to the Union Station Rail Corridor at Mile 209.5 and terminates at Union Station at Mile 211.5. This line has not been used for many years and will require a substantial maintenance/upgrade program to be able to operate passenger trains at practical train speeds. A depiction of the line is shown in Exhibit 3-4.

3.5 The Uxbridge Subdivision

This line was purchased by GO Transit from CN in 2009. GO operates its trains over the section of track between Stouffville, Mile 40.3, to its terminus and junction to the CN Kingston Subdivision in Scarborough at Mile 61.0. The line is generally Class III with passenger speeds set at 50 mph. GO Transit currently operates 10 peak period trains a day (five trains during each a.m. and p.m. peak period). A depiction of the line is shown in Exhibit 3-5.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 20

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

3.6 The North Toronto Subdivision

The North Toronto Subdivision is a short section of main line trackage that connects the Belleville Subdivision to the Galt Subdivision. The line which runs east/west through the middle of Toronto is the backbone for CP’s freight operations in Ontario. Like the Belleville and Galt Subdivisions, the North Toronto is rated as Class IV trackage allowing freight operations at up to 60 miles per hour. One of the options being examined in this study is to have a new passenger station located at Summerhill where the North Toronto Subdivision crosses Yonge Street, with potential linkage to the TTC’s Yonge subway line. Due to the critical importance of this corridor for CP’s freight operations, CP staff have indicated that any new passenger service within the corridor cannot interfere with their operations. As such, any passenger service would likely have to be on a new dedicated track. A depiction of the line is shown in Exhibit 3-6.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 21

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

4 Assessment of Market Potential

To better understand the travel demand in this corridor, the current travel trends, travel context and forecasted travel future market potential along the rail corridor between Toronto and Peterborough were assessed.

4.1 Transportation Demand Trends

Trip data from the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) is used to examine characteristics and trends in travel demand in the Eastern GGH and along the study corridor. The TTS survey has been performed every 5 years, corresponding to Census years, since 1986. Trip data for the Peterborough Area has been collected since 1996, which is the base year for the travel trend analysis in this section. The trend analysis begins by looking at larger overall regional scale trends in the GGH, and uses this context to look in more detail within the study corridor itself.

Exhibit 4-1 shows where the major trip growth has occurred in the decade from 1996 to 2006 in the East GGH Region, and highlights some of the important interchanges. The years from 1996 to 2006 were characterized by rapid growth and a continued shift towards the suburbanization of the Greater Toronto Area as population and employment growth in the regions continued to greatly outpace that in Toronto. In general, the fastest growing interchanges are between the Regions of York, Durham and Peel with Toronto-based movements growing at a much slower rate. The largest growth was seen in trips based in York Region which grew by 51% over the 10 year period, followed by the Peel and Durham Regions which had trip growth of 40% and 27% respectively. Trips from Peterborough have grown at a slower pace, increasing by 8% over the 10 year span. This growth was found almost exclusively within Peterborough and between Peterborough, Kawartha Lakes and Durham Region, as the total trips to the farther away destinations of Toronto, York and Peel have fallen over the 10 year period.

To more closely examine growth in the Peterborough Rail Corridor, Exhibit 4-2 breaks down the total daily trips into trips with an origin or destination in downtown Toronto, and all other trips in the corridor to show how trips are distributed within the corridor. For this analysis, the corridor is defined as any of the primary regions that would be served by a potential rail service, shown as the coloured regions in Exhibit 4-3. Total trips in the corridor have increased by 40% over the 10 year period and transit mode shares have increased for both the downtown Toronto oriented trips and for the other corridor trips. The overall growth in other corridor trips (95%) outpaced the growth in downtown Toronto trips (11%) which resulted in only a one percent overall increase in corridor mode share due to the decreased overall prominence of the transit-friendly downtown Toronto trips.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 28

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-1: East GGH Daily Travel Trends (1996-2006) A. 1996

Destination Origin Toronto Durham York Peel P-borough K. Lakes Total Toronto 3,950,700 94,500 317,700 279,600 2,100 2,300 4,646,900 Durham 94,800 701,600 24,000 5,700 4,400 8,700 839,200 York 317,000 24,300 732,300 38,000 800 1,500 1,113,900 Peel 281,000 5,900 38,100 1,146,000 700 400 1,472,100 Peterborough 2,300 4,200 600 700 223,800 7,000 238,600 K. Lakes 2,600 8,600 1,600 300 7,000 90,200 110,300 Total 4,648,400 839,100 1,114,300 1,470,300 238,800 110,100 8,421,000 B. 2006

Destination Origin Toronto Durham York Peel P-borough K. Lakes Total Toronto 4,155,700 111,200 410,800 303,100 1,700 2,000 4,984,500 Durham 111,500 896,000 34,900 8,700 6,000 10,800 1,067,900 York 411,000 34,900 1,172,100 64,800 800 2,000 1,685,600 Peel 305,800 8,500 65,000 1,681,700 700 500 2,062,200 Peterborough 1,700 5,800 700 600 240,700 8,000 257,500 K. Lakes 2,200 10,400 1,800 600 8,000 96,500 119,500 Total 4,987,900 1,066,800 1,685,300 2,059,500 257,900 119,800 10,177,200 C. 1996 – 2006 Growth

Destination Origin Toronto Durham York Peel P-borough K. Lakes Total 205,000 16,700 93,100 23,500 -400 -300 337,600 Toronto (5%) (18%) (29%) (8%) (-19%) (-13%) (7%) 16,700 194,400 10,900 3,000 1,600 2,100 228,700 Durham (18%) (28%) (45%) (53%) (36%) (24%) (27%) 94,000 10,600 439,800 26,800 0 500 571,700 York (30%) (44%) (60%) (71%) (0%) (33%) (51%) 24,800 2,600 26,900 535,700 0 100 590,100 Peel (9%) (44%) (71%) (47%) (0%) (25%) (40%) -600 1,600 100 -100 16,900 1,000 18,900 Peterborough (-26%) (38%) (17%) (-14%) (8%) (14%) (8%) -400 1,800 200 300 1,000 6,300 9,200 K. Lakes (-15%) (21%) (13%) (100%) (14%) (7%) (8%) 339,500 227,700 571,000 589,200 19,100 9,700 1,756,200 Total (7%) (27%) (51%) (40%) (8%) (9%) (21%)

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 29

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 4-2: Peterborough Rail Corridor Daily Travel Trends (1996- 2006)

Trip Interchange Total Trips Transit Trips Mode Split

1996 Downtown Toronto Origins & Destinations 37,800 18,870 50% Other Corridor Trips 19,900 790 4% Total Trips 57,700 19,660 34% 2006 Downtown Toronto Origins & Destinations 42,070 25,880 62% Other Corridor Trips 38,750 2,450 6% Total Trips 80,820 28,330 35% 1996 – 2006 Growth 4,270 7,010 12% Downtown Toronto Origins & Destinations (11%) (37%) (23%) 18,850 1,660 2% Other Corridor Trips (95%) (210%) (59%) 23,120 8,670 1% Total Trips (40%) (44%) (3%)

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 30

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-3: Analysis Regions

Morning peak period travel flows in the corridor are shown in Exhibit 4-4. These flows are divided based on the regions shown above in Exhibit 4-3 to show more detail on travel in the corridor. Similar to daily travel, total flows to downtown Toronto have increased by 13% between 1996 and 2006, with travel from North Durham and South East Markham seeing much higher growth. However, unlike total trips, eastbound travel within the corridor has seen a greater increase than westbound (towards Toronto) trips.

In 1996, transit held a 63% share in morning trips to downtown Toronto; this share increased to 71% in 2006. The highest transit mode shares are observed for Agincourt-Downtown Toronto, growing from 65% in 1996 to 74% in 2006. In addition, transit trips from Agincourt to downtown Toronto represent about 60% of the total downtown Toronto flows in the study corridor. These high-transit shares are expected given the high auto congestion in this area and the availability of direct connections to the TTC and GO Transit.

Although it appears that transit carries more than one third of trips from Peterborough and North Durham to downtown Toronto, caution on the numbers is required given the small sample size of trips that have been surveyed for Toronto-Peterborough travel. The TTS survey represents a 5% sample, meaning that each surveyed respondent is expanded to represent approximately 20 total people. This means that in

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 31

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report practical terms, the 60 and 80 transit trips recorded in 1996 and 2006 respectively represent an increase from three to four surveyed respondents who made a trip from Peterborough to downtown Toronto. This is clearly not an adequate sample size to have confidence in the mode shares reported from Peterborough.

Transit trips within the corridor in the morning peak period are far less and represent a smaller mode share than those into downtown Toronto. No transit trips are reported in the westbound direction in 2006, while the mode shares in the eastbound direction have increased from 6% to 19% over the 10-year period. South-East Markham to downtown Toronto had the highest growth in mode share, and while North Durham has seen a significant increase in total transit trips, there was also an overall growth in trips resulting in only small increase in transit mode share. Trips on GO Rail represent about 8% of the 6,550 transit trips into downtown in 1996, and 12% of the 8,280 transit trips in 2006. This indicates that although non-GO rail transit continues to dominate the market, there is an increasing trend in commuter rail trips from the corridor to downtown Toronto.

Exhibit 4-4: 1996 & 2006 AM Peak Period Total Trips and Transit Mode Shares

1996 Transit Trip Interchange Total Trips Mode Split Trips Downtown Toronto Destinations Peterborough - Downtown Toronto 150 60 40% North Durham- Downtown Toronto 150 60 40% South East Markham - Downtown 680 360 53% Agincourt - Downtown 9,390 6,080 65% Sub-total 10,360 6,550 63% Other Destinations Peterborough - Rest of Toronto 1,480 20 1% North Durham - Rest of Toronto 1,110 260 23% Within Corridor (Westbound) 430 0 0% Within Corridor (Eastbound) 800 50 6% Sub-total 3,820 330 9% Total Corridor Trips 14,180 6,880 49%

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 32

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 2006 Transit Trip Interchange Total Trips Mode Split Trips Downtown Toronto Destinations Peterborough - Downtown Toronto 230 80 35% North Durham - Downtown Toronto 500 230 46% South East Markham - Downtown 1,440 960 67% Agincourt - Downtown 9,500 7,020 74% Sub-total 11,660 8,280 71% Other Destinations Peterborough - Rest of Toronto 180 0 0% North Durham - Rest of Toronto 1,200 20 2% Within Corridor (Westbound) 2,330 0 0% Within Corridor (Eastbound) 2,150 400 19% Sub-total 5,860 420 7% Total Corridor Trips 17,520 8,700 50%

1996 – 2006 Growth Transit Trip Interchange Total Trips Mode Split Trips Downtown Toronto Destinations Peterborough - Downtown Toronto 80 20 -5% North Durham - Downtown Toronto 350 170 6% South East Markham - Downtown 760 600 14% Agincourt - Downtown 110 940 9% Sub-total 1,300 1,730 8% Other Destinations Peterborough - Rest of Toronto -250 0 0% North Durham - Rest of Toronto 400 -30 -5% Other Corridor Trips(Westbound) 850 -20 -1% Other Corridor Trips (Eastbound ) 1,040 140 -5% Sub-total 2,040 90 -1% Total Corridor Trips 3,340 1,820 1%

4.2 Existing Travel Context

Exhibit 4-5 (Total Trips) and Exhibit 4-6 (Transit Trips) illustrates the existing cross-regional (2006) travel flows headed into Toronto in terms of total trips and transit trips. The flows are split into three separate corridors: 1) trips originating in regions bounding the Peterborough Rail Corridor, 2) trips from the southern part of Durham Region that are part of the Lakeshore East GO corridor, and 3) trips from York Region to Downtown Toronto. Trip destinations are split into trips headed to Downtown Toronto and those headed elsewhere within Toronto.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 33

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report To be able to show flows that are considered cross-regional, flows that are crossing only one boundary are not included as they are not flows that would typically be served by a passenger rail service. For example trips between Agincourt and the Rest of Toronto are not shown because this is not a market for the Peterborough Rail Corridor. Exhibit 4-5 and Exhibit 4-6 show that in 2006, the travel markets in the East GGH are dominated by travel in the south of Durham and that relatively few trips are being made from within the Peterborough Corridor itself outside of Agincourt. The transit markets between South Durham Region and Downtown Toronto as well as Agincourt to Downtown Toronto are very strong with high mode shares. In comparison, the exhibits show that transit is not able to adequately serve the large number of cross-regional trips that are headed to the rest of Toronto. Exhibit 4-5: 2006 AM Peak Period Cross-Regional Travel Flows, Toronto- Bound Total Trips

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 34

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-6: 2006 AM Peak Period Cross-Regional Travel Flows, Toronto- Bound Transit Trips

An additional important consideration in looking at the existing travel markets is the proportion of work trips since work trips are the primary and most consistent market for a passenger rail service. Exhibit 4-7 shows the work/non-work split for all a.m. peak period trips to downtown Toronto. The proportion of commuter traffic is high for North Durham, Southeast Markham and Agincourt trips, with a lower proportion of work trips originating in Peterborough. Peterborough is outside of the traditional Toronto commutershed, which could account for this lower proportion. However, the overall numbers are small and may be skewed by the small sample size.

Exhibit 4-7: 2006 AM Peak Trips to Downtown Toronto – Trip Purpose

Non-Work Work Trip Trip Origin Work Trips Trips % Peterborough 110 120 48% North Durham 430 70 86% Southeast Markham 1080 340 76% Agincourt 7320 2180 77%

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 35

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 4.3 Tourism Demand

A simple process is used to identify the weekend and off-peak market that exists between Peterborough and Toronto. The process uses data obtained in the Peterborough Area and Highway 7 Corridor Travel Pattern Survey, completed in 2008 for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, to provide an estimate of the existing travel between Peterborough and Toronto on a typical summer weekend. The purpose of the survey was to better understand travel patterns on the Highway 7 Corridor in the Peterborough Area. The inferred weekend demand is shown below in Exhibit 4-8.

Exhibit 4-8: Inferred Weekend Trips between Toronto and Peterborough

Trip Interchange Weekend Trips Toronto – Peterborough City 2,400 Toronto – Peterborough County 4,500 Peterborough City - Toronto 2,900 Peterborough County - Toronto 3,400

The total weekend trips are made up of travel for a wide variety of purposes serving a range of markets. In order to have a stronger understanding of the tourist and weekend markets, additional research and data would have to be acquired on these markets including tourism in Peterborough City and County, Peterborough-based tourists in Toronto, the potential for bicycle tourists and student markets. Without this information, the estimates prepared give a reasonable approximation of the weekend demand between Toronto and Peterborough.

4.3.1 Niagara Falls Excursion Train

As an independent check on the estimated demand, preliminary ridership numbers from the newly initiated Niagara Falls weekend GO service are used.

On June 27, 2009, GO Transit introduced a weekend and holiday “Niagara Falls Excursion Train” running between Toronto Union Station and Niagara Falls train station, with intermediate stops at St. Catharines, Burlington, Oakville and Port Credit. The service was introduced with the intention of both encouraging tourism and to relieve tourism-related congestion on the QEW.

The service operates four daily trains in each direction: two in the morning, two in the evening. The total end-to-end travel time is approximately two hours and covers approximately the same distance as would a rail link between Toronto and Peterborough. As of August 14, 2009, the link has seen an average daily ridership of 1,473. As the Niagara region is generally considered to be one of Canada’s premier tourist destinations, this number can be considered an “upper bound” for ridership on a weekend rail service to Peterborough.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 36

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 4.4 Future Growth and Travel Demand This section examines future land use assumptions, provides a description of the travel demand forecasting approach and assumptions and presents the implications of future growth on travel in the Study Corridor. Comparisons to the present are made either using 2006 TTS Data, or when model results are necessary, using the 2001 base year GGH Model.

4.4.1 Land Use, Population & Employment

As introduced in Section 1.2, the Growth Plan is based on the premise of encouraging more compact, mixed-use development while controlling greenfield developments to contain urban sprawl. The Growth Plan specifies that at least 40% of new development should be concentrated within existing urban areas, preferably in Urban Growth Centres and activity corridors, and that the development of designated Greenfield areas is controlled to minimum density standards. New development is restricted within the Greenbelt to protect environmentally sensitive areas and prime farming lands. Under the plan, the GGH is projected to grow to a total population of 11.5 million people by the year 2031 while employment is projected to reach a total of 5.56 million jobs over the same time period. Exhibit 4-9 shows the projected population and employment growth in the eastern portion of the GGH. The eastern GGH is projected to grow by 1.47 million people from 2006 to 2031, accounting for almost half of the total GGH-wide population growth. Durham Region in particular is one of the fastest growing regions in the GGH, and is expected to add 380,000 people over the 25 year period. York Region is projected to be the fastest growing employment centre, almost doubling its total employment to reach 780,000 jobs in 2031. The Peterborough area is showing comparatively smaller growth and is expected to grow by 8% in population and 11% in employment over the same 25 year span. Exhibit 4-10 and Exhibit 4-10 present more detail on how the population and employment growth will occur within the study corridor. The exhibits show that majority of growth is concentrated in the southern parts of Durham region.

Exhibit 4-9: 2006 and 2031 East-GGH Population and Employment Growth Population Employment Municipality 2006 2031 Growth 2006 2031 Growth Total 2,610,000 3,080,000 470,000 1,400,000 1,640,000 240,000 Toronto GTHA % ( 59% ) ( 52% ) ( 32% ) ( 66% ) ( 57% ) ( 32% ) Total 580,000 960,000 380,000 200,000 350,000 150,000 Durham GTHA % ( 13% ) (16% ) (26% ) ( 9% ) ( 12% ) (20% ) Total 930,000 1,500,000 570,000 430,000 780,000 350,000 York GTHA % ( 21% ) ( 25% ) (39% ) ( 20% ) ( 27% ) ( 46% ) Total 138,000 149,000 11,000 54,000 60,000 6,000 Peterborough1 GTHA % ( 3% ) ( 3% ) ( 1% ) ( 3% ) ( 2% ) ( 1% ) Total 84,000 96,000 12,000 27,000 33,000 6,000 Northumberland GTHA % ( 2% ) ( 2% ) (1% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) Total 77,000 100,000 23,000 23,000 27,000 4,000 Kawartha Lakes GTHA % ( 2% ) ( 2% ) ( 2% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) 4,419,000 5,885,000 1,466,000 2,134,000 2,890,000 756,000 TOTAL (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

1 Includes the City of Peterborough and Peterborough County

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 37

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-10: 2006 & 2031 Corridor Population

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 38

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-11: 2006 & 2031 Corridor Employment

At present, the Growth Plan only provides 2031 population and employment control totals for upper- or single-tier municipalities. The Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI) is currently in the process of detailing the plan in terms of geographic distribution of population and employment.

For strategic transportation modelling and for the purposes of this study, the 2031 population and employment growth was allocated to the approximately 3,100 traffic zones comprising the GGH. The specific land use allocation was determined using a methodology which reflects Growth Plan principles, targets and guidelines as shown below in Exhibit 4-12.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 39

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-12: East GGH Growth Plan Land Use Allocation

The Peterborough Rail Corridor existing (2001) and future (2031) urban density are shown in Exhibit 4-13 and 4-14, based on the allocation of population and jobs to traffic zones as discussed above. The density is based on gross density but excluding areas where development is prohibited (e.g. wetlands, woodlands, etc.). The plots indicate the increasing scale of developed areas along parts of the corridor between 2001 and 2031. Because the corridor passes through the greenbelt, there is no density growth seen directly in that area. However the large growth seen in Durham Region to the south of the corridor can be seen to be stretching north towards the rail corridor opening up potential new travel markets.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 40

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-13: 2006 Urban Density

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 41

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-14: 2031 Urban Density

4.4.2 Future Travel Demand

Exhibit 4-15 shows the a.m. peak period trip trends from 2006 to 2031 for major trip interchanges using the Peterborough Rail Corridor assuming a base case with no Peterborough Rail service in place. Based on GGH model projections, significant trip making growth is forecasted in the corridor with total trip making projected to increase by 54% from 17,520 trips in 2006 to 26,950 trips in 2031. Because transit developments do not keep pace in the base case, transit use is expected to grow at a slower rate of 29%, with the overall transit mode share falling from 50% to 42%. Travel in the corridor will continue to be dominated by trips serving downtown Toronto, which account for 67% of trips in the corridor in 2006, but this portion is expected to fall to 49% in 2031 as non-downtown oriented trips take on more prominence. Trips from Peterborough to downtown Toronto are expected to hold steady over the 25 year period with the 8% population growth in Peterborough being offset by significantly worse traffic congestion making travel between the two cities more difficult in the peak period.

The fastest growing trip market is trips that are not destined to downtown Toronto, including eastbound trips and westbound trips destined to Markham, Durham Region or other locations in Toronto. Total trips between these areas are expected to more than double by 2031. Due to the more dispersed land use patterns found in these destinations, this trip market is projected to have a low transit mode split of 11%

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 42

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report in 2031. In general, the prevalent transit usage patterns are projected to remain consistent from 2006 to 2031 with strong transit usage for radial trips to and from Toronto (Downtown Toronto in particular).

Exhibit 4-16 and Exhibit 4-17 present graphically the trip growth within the corridor for total trips and transit trips respectively. The exhibits show that under a base scenario, trip growth (both total and transit) is heavily concentrated in southern Durham region, feeding into Toronto. This represents the largest potential new transit market in the corridor. As the road network is already nearing capacity in 2006, the result is that the majority of trip growth in the corridor is in transit trips.

Exhibit 4-15: 2006 & 2031 AM Peak Period Total Trips and Transit Mode Shares

A. 2006 Transit Trip Interchange Total Trips Mode Split Trips Downtown Toronto Destinations Peterborough - Downtown Toronto 230 80 35% North Durham- Downtown Toronto 500 230 46% South East Markham - Downtown 1,440 960 67% Agincourt - Downtown 9,500 7,020 74% Sub-total 11,660 8,280 71% Other Destinations Peterborough - Rest of Toronto 180 0 0% North Durham - Rest of Toronto 1,200 20 2% Within Corridor (Westbound) 2,330 0 0% Within Corridor (Eastbound) 2,150 400 19% Sub-total 5,860 420 7% Total Corridor Trips 17,520 8,700 50%

B. 2031 Transit Trip Interchange Total Trips Mode Split Trips Downtown Toronto Destinations Peterborough - Downtown Toronto 220 20 9% North Durham - Downtown Toronto 1,400 960 69% South East Markham - Downtown 2,860 1,880 66% Agincourt - Downtown 8,850 6,910 78% Sub-total 13,320 9,770 73% Other Destinations Peterborough - Rest of Toronto 560 0 0% North Durham - Rest of Toronto 2,620 50 2% Within Corridor (Westbound) 5,600 270 5% Within Corridor (Eastbound) 4,840 1,170 24% Sub-total 13,620 1,490 11% Total Corridor Trips 26,950 11,250 42%

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 43

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report C. 2006 – 2031 Growth Transit Trip Interchange Total Trips Mode Split Trips Downtown Toronto Destinations Peterborough - Downtown Toronto -10 -60 -26% North Durham - Downtown Toronto 900 730 23% South East Markham - Downtown 1,420 920 -1% Agincourt - Downtown -650 -110 4% Sub-total 1,660 1,490 2% Other Destinations Peterborough - Rest of Toronto 380 0 0% North Durham - Rest of Toronto 1,420 30 0% Other Corridor Trips(Westbound) 3,270 270 5% Other Corridor Trips (Eastbound ) 2,690 770 6% Sub-total 7,760 1,070 4% Total Corridor Trips 9,430 2,550 -8%

Exhibit 4-16: 2006 - 2031 AM Peak Period Growth in Corridor Total Trips

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 44

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-17: 2006 - 2031 AM Peak Period Growth in Corridor Transit Trips

4.5 Future Transportation System Performance

From 2001 to 2031, even with the prescribed roadway widenings and other transportation network improvements, travel demand growth is projected to significantly outstrip transportation supply. In the Peterborough Corridor, travel demand is projected to increase by 52% in terms of total vehicle-kilometres traveled while transportation supply in terms of total lane-kilometres is only projected to increase by 10%. This imbalance will lead to increased traffic congestion throughout the GTHA and, in particular, within the Highway 401 corridor through Durham region feeding into Toronto. This increased congestion can be seen in Exhibit 4-19 and Exhibit 4-20, which highlights roadways with volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios in excess of 0.95 in the morning peak hour in 2001 and 2031. A v/c ratio in excess of 0.95 is indicative of intense traffic congestion with significant travel time delays and queuing. Congestion in 2001 is already quite significant in the peak hour, but will worsen considerably by 2031, spreading to almost all major arterials and highways in the corridor, indicating that traffic is at or near gridlock. In 2031, both Highway 401 and 407 will be congested from the east end of Oshawa into Toronto, along with most of the major east-west arterials in Durham region.

As a further example of the worsening roadway congestion, Exhibit 4-18 compares auto travel times between major origins and destinations in the corridor from 2001 to 2031. The travel time from

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 45

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Peterborough to Downtown Toronto increases by 24% from 163 minutes in 2001 to 202 minutes in 2031, while similarly the travel time from Agincourt to Downtown Toronto increases by 17% from 61 minutes in 2001 to 72 minutes in 2006 showing the severe congestion within the City of Toronto itself. In addition to the traditional rush hour flows, travel times in the reverse (eastbound) direction also increase with the trip from Downtown Toronto to Peterborough increasing by 19% from 83 minutes to 99 minutes.

Exhibit 4-18: 2001 & 2031 Auto Travel Times for Major Interchanges.

2001 2031 % Trip Interchange Auto Time Auto Time Change (min) (min) Peterborough - Downtown Toronto 163 202 24% Downtown Toronto - Peterborough 83 99 19% Agincourt - Downtown Toronto 61 72 17% Downtown Toronto - Agincourt 23 26 11% Locust Hill - Agincourt 33 40 20% Agincourt - Locust Hill 24 26 10% Peterborough - Locust Hill 77 94 23% Locust Hill - Peterborough 70 74 6%

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 46

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-19: 2001 Road Congestion

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 47

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report Exhibit 4-20: 2031 Road Congestion

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 48

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 5 Peterborough Rail Service Concepts

5.1 Role & Function

As discussed previously, the continuing development of the East GGH will further increase both travel to Downtown Toronto and suburb-to-suburb cross-regional travel demand. The Peterborough Rail corridor aims to serve the trip growth expected between North Durham, Kawartha Lakes, Peterborough and downtown Toronto. The role and function of the Peterborough passenger rail service is to:  Provide a new transit spine in the East GGH making use of an underutilized existing rail right-of- way;  Serve the longer-distance regional and inter-regional trips between major activity centres within and adjacent to the corridor;  Integrate with the road network by providing stations that offer park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride facilities for intermodal transfers;  Support land use policies and plans for the corridor, including development of the Downtown Peterborough Urban Growth Centre, as identified in the Growth Plan;  Influence travel patterns in a more sustainable direction in the corridor through improved access to high-order transit services; and

5.2 Routing and Terminus Options

Three basic alternative routes were considered, with each being sub-divided according to the terminus station. In addition to Union Station, a potential new terminus station adjacent to the TTC’s Summerhill subway station on Yonge Street at Mile 2.20 on the CP North Toronto Subdivision was evaluated. This station will be referred to as “Summerhill Station” for the purposes of this report,

The major differentiation between each of the three basic routes involves the routing around CP’s Toronto Yard, located at the junction of the Havelock and Belleville Subs, and the routing to the terminus station.

The possible alternative routes are based upon combinations of the following:

 Basic Route;

 Terminus Station; and

 Requirements for a grade separation to cross the CP Belleville Subdivision between McCowan Road and Leaside.

The options are described for trains originating in Peterborough and heading into Toronto. Reverse routing would apply for trains from Toronto to Peterborough.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 49

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report 5.3 Basic Routes – Main Features

5.3.1 Route A – Havelock Subdivision to Belleville Subdivision (North Side of Toronto Yard)

This routing would use the CP Havelock Subdivision from Peterborough to CP’s Toronto Yard in Agincourt, where it would then follow the north side of the yard on the former Havelock Subdivision main track between Tapscott Road (Mile 178.89) and Mile 180.0. At Mile 180.0 a new switch would be installed leading to a new track that would parallel the Havelock Subdivision on the north side of Toronto Yard to meet, but not connect to, the Belleville Subdivision at McCowan Road. The new track would then continue to parallel the Belleville Subdivision to Leaside. The configuration approaching Leaside would then depend upon whether the terminus is Union Station or Summerhill, as follows. See Exhibit 5-1.

(i) Union Station

To access Union Station, trains would cross over the Belleville Subdivision east of Leaside and follow the Don Branch down the Don Valley for 3.2 miles to connect with the Union Station Rail Corridor, and then an additional 2.0 miles into Union Station.

(ii) Summerhill

To access the Summerhill terminus, trains would continue on a new dedicated third main track an additional 2.20 miles on the North Toronto to Summerhill Station. This track would be located on the north side of the corridor.

(iii) Potential for Grade Separation to Allow Cross Over Movements

The corridor between Toronto Yard and Summerhill is an extremely busy and vital section in CP’s rail network, and there is the potential for traffic conflicts and disruption to both passenger and freight train operations. Should Union Station be chosen as the Toronto terminus, a grade separated crossing of the Belleville Subdivision may be required to allow trains to cross from the north side of the corridor to the south between McCowan Road and Leaside to access the Don Branch. The most likely configuration of such a grade separation would be a “fly under” with trains travelling under the CP main tracks to reach the south side of the corridor.

As the route distance and anticipated transit time differences between at-grade and grade-separated routing is very minor, they have been noted only, but not quantified for the purposes of this study.

5.3.2 Route B – Havelock Subdivision to Belleville Subdivision (New Connection East of Toronto Yard)

This routing would use the CP Havelock Subdivision from Peterborough to a point east of CP’s Toronto Yard at Mile 176.32. At this point a new connection (The Havelock/Belleville Connection) would be built to extend 2.36 miles southwards to connect to the Belleville Subdivision at Mile 194.71. From this point,

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 50

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report trains would run along the existing Belleville Subdivision (south of Toronto Yard) to McCowan Road. Between McCowan Road and Leaside, an additional new track would be added to the Belleville Subdivision. The configuration approaching Leaside would depend upon whether the Toronto terminus is Union Station or Summerhill. See Exhibit 5-2.

(i) Union Station

Trains to Union Station would continue on the Belleville Subdivision at Leaside and then follow the Don Branch down the Don Valley for 3.2 miles to connect with the Union Station Rail Corridor and then an additional 2.0 miles into Union Station.

(ii) Summerhill

Trains to Summerhill would cross over onto a new third main track on the North Toronto Subdivision and travel an additional 2.20 miles to Summerhill Station.

Potential for Grade Separation to Allow Cross Over Movements

The corridor between Toronto Yard and Summerhill is an extremely busy and vital section in CP’s rail network, and there is the potential for traffic conflicts and disruption to both passenger and freight train operations. Should Summerhill be chosen as the Toronto terminus, a grade separated crossing of the Belleville Subdivision may be required to allow trains to cross from the south side of the corridor to the north between McCowan Road and Leaside to access the North Toronto Subdivision. The most likely configuration of such a grade separation would be a “fly under” with trains travelling under the CP main tracks to reach the north side of the corridor.

5.3.3 Route C – Using New Connection to Uxbridge Subdivision

This routing would use the CP Havelock Subdivision from Peterborough to a point between the 7th and 8th concession southwest of Claremont. At this location a new connection would be built to connect the CP Havelock Subdivision with the GO Uxbridge Subdivision. The connection would run for approximately 4.9 miles in a generally east-west orientation approximately ¼ mile north of and parallel to Major MacKenzie Drive. The connection to the GO Uxbridge Subdivision would be just north of Major MacKenzie Drive at Mile 49.95.

After connecting to the Uxbridge Subdivision trains would follow the existing routing through Markham to a point approaching where the CP Belleville Subdivision crosses above the Uxbridge Subdivision. At this point, two options arise depending on which Toronto terminus is selected. See Exhibit 5-3.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 51

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report (i) Union Station

If Union Station is selected as the Toronto terminus, trains would continue on the Uxbridge Subdivision to the junction with CN’s Kingston Subdivision in Scarborough, and then along the Kingston Subdivision for 6.84 miles to the Union Station Rail Corridor, and then a further 1.4 miles to Union Station.

(ii) Summerhill

If Summerhill is selected as the Toronto terminus, a new connection would need to be built in the north- west quadrant of the intersection of the Uxbridge Subdivision and the Belleville Subdivision to allow trains to continue westward on the Belleville Subdivision. Once on the Belleville Subdivision, trains would continue west to Leaside. At Leaside, trains would follow the North Toronto Subdivision to the Summerhill Station at Yonge Street (mileage 2.20).

Route C avoids the issues at the Toronto Yard and, as a result, has the lowest capital costs of all the options. However, it also bypasses two proposed stations in fast growing areas on the western portion of the line at Steeles Avenue and Agincourt. It is possible that if GO Transit were to operate the Peterborough service, using Route C could allow some form of integration with service on GO’s Stouffville line.

Exhibit 5-4 below outlines the development of the routing options, and the route option designations that will be carried through the remainder of the report. Exhibit 5-1 to 5-3 provide a graphical representation of each option, while Exhibits 11-12 to 11-21 (in Capital Cost and Cash Flows) show a schematic representation of each sub-option.

5.3.4 Comparison of Basic Routes

For comparative purposes, Exhibit 5-4, 5-5 and 5-6 compare the terminals, travel distances and travel times with each of the route options outlined in Section 5.3.1 to 5.3.3.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 52

February 5, 2010

Route-C Exhibit 5-3

To YSummerhill o n g e S t New Havelock/Uxbridge Connecting Track

New Yonge St. Station

To Union Station

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 5-4: Route Matrix Used to Develop Option Designations

Continuation to Terminus Grade Option Designation Separation Basic Routes Union Station (US) Summerhill Station (SH) Possibly Minimal Impact Zero Impact Required?

A North Side of Via Don Branch Yes A-US-1 A-US-2 Toronto Yard Via North Toronto Sub No A-SH-1-

B New Connection East Via Don Branch No B-US-1 of Toronto Yard Via North Toronto Sub Yes B-SH-1 B-SH-2

C New Connection to Via Uxbridge Sub to No C-US-1 Uxbridge Subdivision Scarborough, then Kingston Sub

Via potential new Uxbridge- No C-SH-1 Belleville connecting track, Belleville Sub to Leaside, then North Toronto Sub

Denotes an option for which schedules have been calculated.

Denotes an option for which schedules have not been created. Distances will be almost identical to the corresponding “At Grade” option and time differences are expected to be inconsequential at this level of review.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 56

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study

Exhibit 5-5: Comparison of Mileages for Identified Options

Mileage Summary by Option Route Option Union Station Summerhill Station

A-US-1 B-US-1 C-US-1 A-SH-1 B-SH-1 C-SH-1 Route A – North Side of Toronto Yard 76.49 73.49 Route B – New Connection East of Toronto Yard 78.08 75.08 Route C – New Connection to Uxbridge Sub. 81.24 76.96

The resulting travel times are shown in Exhibit 5-6 below:

Exhibit 5-6: Travel Time to Toronto By Station and Route

Terminus and Route Options Boarding Station Union Station Summerhill A-US-1 B-US-1 C-US-1 A-SH-1 B-SH-1 C-SH-1 Peterborough - George St. 1:59 2:02 2:09 1:53 1:56 2:01 Peterborough - Harper Rd. 1:38 1:41 1:48 1:32 1:35 1:39 Pontypool 1:32 1:35 1:42 1:26 1:29 1:33 Myrtle 0:57 1:00 1:07 0:51 0:54 0:58 Claremont 0:45 0:48 0:55 0:39 0:42 0:46 Locust Hill 0:35 0:38 0:29 0:32 Locust Hill North 0:47 0:38 Markham 0:39 0:30 Steeles East 0:32 0:26 Steeles 0:29 0:23 Agincourt Brimley 0:22 0:22 0:16 0:16

5.4 Station Identification

In order to identify the preferred station locations for the detailed ridership analysis, this section provides an overview of the station identification process and results. The goal of this analysis was to provide a screening of potential station locations to identify the preferred stations using a two step process. First a list of potential stations was generated that considered all potential locations along the corridor. These potential stations were screened based on a range of criteria including potential for interregional transit connections, market size and station spacing.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 57

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study

5.4.1 Station Assessment

In order to identify optimal stations for the proposed service, a preliminary list of stations was compiled that included stations served by the former VIA rail service as well as other potential station locations identified in previous feasibility studies. The corridor was also examined for additional locations based on population and employment concentrations. However, it was concluded that the list made up of previously identified stations was inclusive and comprehensive in determining the most suitable locations. The former VIA stations and stations identified in previous studies are shown in Exhibit 5-7.

Exhibit 5-7: List of Stations

Stations VIA Service 1997 Study 2007 Study Havelock  Norwood  Indian River  Peterborough   * Harper Road  *  Cavan  Manvers  Pontypool    Burketon  Myrtle    Dagmar  Claremont    Locust Hill    Steeles Avenue / Box Grove  Agincourt   Leaside  Union    *Only one station was recommended for Peterborough in the 1997 study

VIA service between Union Station and Havelock served 13 station stops before its discontinuation in 1990, and there was an additional station at Leaside that was discontinued in 1983. Only three stops, Toronto, Peterborough and Havelock, were full stops with the remaining stops being upon request only.

The 1997 Feasibility Study (see Appendix B) described the location and existing development status at of the old VIA stations as part of the assessment of potential stations in the proposed service at the time of the study. The 1997 report noted that the majority of the old VIA stations had been physically removed. For this current station assessment, the locations of the old VIA stations were, to the extent possible, visually reviewed using online mapping resources. This confirmed that station buildings or platforms do not exist between Leaside and Pontypool.

The 1997 study reduced the number of stations to eight stations. Stations east of Peterborough were not included in the analysis. The study included a potential station near Steeles Avenue and Highway 7 that would serve new and existing developments and provide connections to TTC. In addition, the 1997 study considered two possible locations in Peterborough, one in downtown Peterborough and the other just

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 58

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study south of downtown at Harper Road. The 2007 Feasibility Study considered a reduced number of six stations for the proposed service between Peterborough and Toronto. Approximate station locations were assumed, although station layouts were provided with a Harper Road station being preferred for Peterborough.

All potential stations between Peterborough and downtown Toronto were evaluated with regards to:  Transit service near the station and potential for intermodal connections and transfers to other modes; and  Land use attributes and the potential for future growth and development.

The results of this evaluation are shown below in Exhibit 5-8 for the terminal stations at either Summerhill or Union Stations.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 59

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 5-8: Station Evaluation Matrix (Summerhill Terminus)

Potential Station Location

Objective Peter- Peter- borough borough Cavan Manvers Pontypool Burketon Myrtle Dagmar Claremont Locust Hill Steeles Agincourt Leaside George St Harper Rd TRANSPORTATION (Objective: Improve Integration with Regional and Local Transit Network) Potential Transfer / Intermodal Connections

Sheppard LRT Eglinton LRT Subway / LRT ------(future) (future)

GO Stouffville Pickering Line Local, Bus, Peterborough Peterborough VIVA TTC Bus Route ------Airport TTC Bus: TTC Interregional Rail Transit Transit (potential) 53 (Potential) Route 85 Route 21 LAND USE (Objective: Improve Accessbility to Existing / Planned Urban Centres) Potential to Improve Accessibility, and to Foster and Support a more Compact Structure Ridership Accessibility (Adj. development within 3.0 km of 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 2006 2031 proposed station) Population 36,000 42,000 35,000 41,000 800 850 700 550 550 550 750 750 1100 850 750 750 750 750 4,700 20,500 85,000 82,000 113,000 152,000 120,000 134,000

Employment 24,000 28,000 25,000 28,000 465 270 85 75 70 75 290 205 375 310 320 215 180 190 1,400 9,700 27,000 34,000 58,000 84,000 79,00 54,000

Proximity to Growth Areas

Immediately Adjacent High Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium High Medium

Auto access potential Medium High Low Low Low Low Medium Low Medium High High High High

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 60

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

5.4.2 Proposed Stations

Based on the analysis in Exhibit 5-8, eight stations (not including the Toronto terminus) have been selected for the detailed ridership analyses of the proposed Peterborough service based on serving key market areas and providing effective travel times along the corridor. The ridership implications for the two Toronto terminus station options are addressed separately in Section 6.5. For the purposes of this study, approximate locations are provided to describe population and employment catchment areas and to assess the relative demand of the different stations. Preliminary conceptual station layouts are provided in Section 9 of this report. Should the project proceed, it is anticipated that station locations will be further refined in subsequent stages of work (e.g., preliminary design/engineering and environmental assessment stages).

Peterborough – George Street

The George Street Station in downtown Peterborough will be the eastern terminus of the service. It directly serves the Downtown Peterborough Urban Growth Centre and surrounding areas within the City of Peterborough. The George Street station would likely function as a secondary Peterborough station, primarily serving riders accessing the station by walking and local transit do to the limited space available for parking at the site. The inclusion of a station at this location is consistent with the directions of the Growth Plan, which calls for Urban Growth Centres to be connected by higher order transit services, and would serve to reinforce the City of Peterborough’s Central Area Master Plan.

The previous VIA service to Peterborough Station was located at the intersection of the railway and George Street, south of Dalhousie Street. The former train station is currently occupied by the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce and a Driver and Vehicle License Issuing office. The Peterborough Transit bus terminal is located about 1 km north of this site, and local bus service is provided along George Street.

Peterborough – Harper Road

The Harper Road Station will serve as the primary auto access point for passengers from the Peterborough area. The proposed station location has the benefit of having sufficient land available for park and ride and kiss and ride facilities, and is conveniently located just north of Highway 7/115 and the Parkway. The overnight train layover facility will also be located at the Harper Road location, adjacent to the station site.

Pontypool

The Pontypool Station, 30 km west of downtown Peterborough, serves the local community of Pontypool and the surrounding areas of Peterborough County and the City of Kawartha Lakes. The assumed station

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 61

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report location is the same as the previous VIA station, just east of Highway 35 on Pontypool Road near the centre of the community.

Myrtle

Approximately 30 km west of the Pontypool station, the Myrtle station serves the small communities of Myrtle Station and Brooklin, which are within the limits of the Town of Whitby. The station also provides access to the residents of the Town of Port Perry to the north and other surrounding areas, with convenient access along Highway 7/12 and Regional Road 5. With significant growth projected for Durham Region, this station will eventually serve residents in the north end of Whitby and Oshawa as the urban boundaries expand northwards. The station location is assumed to be the previous VIA station location, in the Myrtle Station community east of the intersection of the rail line and Highway 7/12.

Claremont

The Claremont Station serves the community of Claremont within the City of Pickering. The station location, about 15 km west of Myrtle station, is the same as the previous VIA station located north of the village between Old Brock Road and Brock Road. It is anticipated that this station could also serve the future Central Pickering/Seaton community as it develops in the coming years, as described in Section 1.2.6.

Locust Hill

Locust Hill, approximately 12 km to the west of Claremont, is a small community on the eastern limit of the Town of Markham, west of the York-Durham line. This station serves the local community of Locust Hill and the fast-growing developments around the east Markham and Cornell area, as well as future developments in the Central/Pickering/Seaton area. Ridership potential in this area is high as the Town of Markham continues to grow towards the east and is only 20 km from Union Station. However, the station is located within the Greenbelt and Rouge River lands which would restrict development immediately adjacent to the station.

The station would be located on the same site as the previous VIA station, just north of Highway 7 between the Donald Cousens Parkway and the York-Durham Line. This would provide convenient access to and from the centre of Markham and Highway 407

Under Route Option C, as the community of Locust Hill would not be directly served with the diversion of trains to the Uxbridge Subdivision, a new Station referred to as Locust Hill North has been identified as an alternative station location. The Locust Hill North Station would be located at on the east side of the York-Durham line a short distance north of Major Mackenzie Drive.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 62

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Steeles Avenue

Steeles Avenue is located about halfway between Locust Hill and Agincourt. Although development in the area immediately surrounding the rail crossing is sparse and includes a number of golf courses, a station at or near Steeles Avenue would serve developments in South Markham, Milliken and around Rouge Valley and would provide connections to TTC services on Steeles Ave.

Previous VIA service did not include a station at Steeles Avenue. The 1997 Peterborough Rail Feasibility Study discussed the inclusion in this area, with preference of location at Steeles Avenue over an alternative at Box Grove, just north of Steeles Avenue and south of the 407 ETR. For this analysis, the station is located where the rail line crosses Steeles Avenue.

Under Route Option B an alternate location for the Steeles Station had to be found. For the purposes of the study the Design Team chose a location on the new Havelock/Belleville connecting track located at the intersection of 9th Line and Steeles Avenue East.

Agincourt (Brimley)

The Agincourt area has experienced substantial growth in past decades and continues to be a high- ridership market. The recommended location for new Peterborough line station is on Brimley Road just north of Sheppard Avenue. Linking this new station with the existing Agincourt GO station for the Stouffville line, which is located on Sheppard Avenue approximately 1.3 km west of Brimley Road, is likely not feasible. However, a station at Agincourt for the Peterborough service would provide potential transfers to other transit lines such as the Scarborough RT and the future Sheppard East LRT line. The station also has convenient access to Highway 401 via Brimley Road.

For this analysis, the station is located at the old site of the VIA station near the intersection of the rail line with Brimley Road.

5.4.3 Potential Rapid Transit Connections

The assessment of stations for the proposed Peterborough service also included a review of future transportation projects to assess both development potential as well as opportunities to make further cross-regional transit connections.

Proposed Transit City Light Rail Transit (LRT) Lines

The Sheppard East LRT will provide rapid transit service along Sheppard Avenue across Scarborough from Don Mills Station, where it will connect with the Sheppard Subway and the future Finch LRT, to the eastern terminus at Meadowvale Road. The LRT line would intersect with the Peterborough line between Midland Avenue and Brimley Road, with currently planned stops at the existing Agincourt GO station (on the Stouffville line), Midland Avenue and Brimley Road. As previously noted, the Peterborough service

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 63

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report would greatly benefit from a major connection point at the Agincourt (Brimley) station and the Sheppard East LRT line.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT will provide rapid transit service along Eglinton Avenue between Pearson International Airport and Kennedy Station on the Bloor-Danforth subway line. The Peterborough rail line crosses Eglinton Avenue just west of Don Mills Road. Two planned stops are located near the Peterborough rail line: Brentcliffe and Don Mills. The Peterborough rail line crosses Eglinton Avenue between these two proposed stations – about 800m from each proposed station. LRT station locations are not finalized and could potentially provide a connection between the Peterborough service and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The old Leaside Station served by VIA before 1983 was located about 8 km south of Eglinton Avenue, where the Peterborough line crosses Millwood Road. However, this station was discontinued and removed after 1983.

The Don Mills LRT is being studied along Don Mills Road, potentially extending south from Highway 7 in York Region to the Bloor-Danforth subway. The Peterborough rail line crosses Don Mills Road about 500 m north of the Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue intersection, which is where a LRT connection/transfer point between the two LRT lines is planned. The former Leaside Station location adjacent to Millwood Road would also be relatively close to the proposed LRT station at Millwood Road and Overlea Boulevard.

A station at or near Eglinton Avenue and Don Mills Road is not considered for the proposed Peterborough service because the area is relatively close to Union Station and would increase travel times to the majority of riders. Significant infrastructure would be required to connect to the transfer point, as the Peterborough line intersects Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue at different points away from the proposed LRT connection site.

VIVA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service

The Locust Hill station is located near Highway 7 and would serve the Markham area market, with potential for connection to VIVA service from this station. Current VIVA service only extends as far as the Markham-Stouffville Hospital, which is approximately 2.4 km from the rail intersection with Highway 7. VIVA service is planned to extend along Highway 7 to Donald Cousens Parkway and a major bus terminal (CornellStation) near Reesor Road, which will be approximately 1 km west of the Peterborough rail line and the proposed Locust Hill Station. Future service east Donald Cousens Parkway is not planned, but could be evaluated with the inclusion of a Locust Hill rail station.

407 Transitway

Another potential future connection to the proposed Locust Hill Station location is the 407 Transitway. The 407 Transitway BRT study area extends 23 km along Highway 407 from east of Highway 400 to Kennedy Road in Markham. The Peterborough rail line intersection Highway 407 (and Highway 7) is approximately 6.4 km east of Kennedy Road.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 64

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

5.5 Operating Concept Scenarios

This section provides a description of the operating scenarios that were tested as part of the detailed ridership analysis.

5.5.1 Service Level Scenarios

Three scenarios covering a range of service levels were tested for the 2031 horizon year to provide upper and lower bounds on Peterborough rail service demand, as summarized below. 1. Base Scenario. The first scenario has two trains operating in the peak period from/to Peterborough. Service will only be provided during the morning and afternoon peaks and in the peak direction only.

2. Enhanced Peak Markham/Locust Hill Service. The second scenario builds on the base scenario and adds two additional trains originating in Locust Hill in the morning and terminating at Locust Hill in the evening.

3. All-day Service to Markham/Locust Hill. The third scenario has all-day service operating on 30 minute intervals to/from the Markham/Locust Hill area with two peak period trains originating/terminating in Peterborough.

NOTE: Alternate Toronto termini of Union Station and Summerhill were evaluated as part of each scenario.

5.5.2 Running Speed and Station Dwell Times

It was assumed that the current condition of the rail infrastructure on the Havelock Subdivision and the Don Branch would be upgraded to 60 mph (96.6 km/h) and 50 mph (80.5 km/h), respectively. Speeds on the other route segments within Toronto are generally assumed to operate at speeds consistent with existing speed restrictions on those corridors.

In addition, a station stop time (dwell time), normally from 30 seconds to a minute, was assigned to each station to allow passengers to board and/or alight.

The scheduling analysis allowed for the necessary time required to accelerate and decelerate for each speed zone change or station stop.

Appendix D outlines the specific times and details of each option reviewed.

5.5.3 Prototype Schedules

For each scenario, prototype schedules were developed as shown in Exhibit 5-9. The resultant travel times to Toronto are outlined in Exhibit 5-9 below.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 65

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 5-9: Prototype Schedules to Union Station/Summerhill (hh:mm)

Prototype Schedules Station By Terminus and Route Options A-SH-1 A-US-1 B-SH-1 B-US-1 C-SH-1 C-US-1 Peterborough George St 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Peterborough Harper Rd 0:21 0:21 0:21 0:21 0:21 0:21 Pontypool 0:27 0:27 0:27 0:27 0:27 0:27 Myrtle 1:02 1:02 1:02 1:02 1:02 1:02 Claremont 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 Locust Hill 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 Locust Hill North 1:22 1:22 Markham 1:30 1:30 Steeles East 1:30 1:30 Steeles 1:30 1:30 Agincourt Brimley 1:37 1:37 1:40 1:40 Summerhill 1:53 1:56 2:01 Union Station 1:59 2:02 2:09 Route Miles 73.49 76.49 75.08 78.08 76.96 81.24

Exhibit 5-10: Travel Time to Union Station/Summerhill (hh:mm)

Travel Time to Toronto By Station and Route Terminus and Route Options Boarding Station Union Station Summerhill A-US-1 B-US-1 C-US-1 A-SH-1 B-SH-1 C-SH-1 Perterborough - George St. 1:59 2:02 2:09 1:53 1:56 2:01 Peterborough - Harper Rd. 1:38 1:41 1:48 1:32 1:35 1:40 Pontypool 1:32 1:35 1:42 1:26 1:29 1:34 Myrtle 0:57 1:00 1:07 0:51 0:54 0:59 Claremont 0:45 0:48 0:55 0:39 0:42 0:47 Locust Hill 0:35 0:38 0:29 0:32 Locust Hill North 0:47 0:39 Markham 0:39 0:31 Steeles East 0:32 0:26 Steeles 0:29 0:23 Agincourt Brimley 0:22 0:22 0:16 0:16

As shown in Exhibit 5-9 above, the travel times for Route A are marginally better than those for Route B, and considerably better than those for Route C.

Travel to Union Station instead of Summerhill requires an additional 3.0 miles for Routes A and B, and 4.28 miles for Route C. Thus, in all instances the trains to Union Station require more schedule time.

As the schedules for Routes A and B are very similar, for simplicity the schedules developed for Route A have been used as the basis of evaluating the impacts of the service level options on passenger demand.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 66

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

The only difference in stations served between Routes A and B is Steeles / Steeles East. On Route A the proposed Steeles Station is closer to the current main population areas of Markham, whereas Steeles East on Route B is located approximately 1.3 km further east.

5.5.4 Train Service Schedules

In examining the Service Level Scenarios, schedules have been prepared for the morning peak only since it is a more congested peak over a three hour time span (06:30 to 09:30 arrivals in Toronto) than the afternoon peak which is spread over four hours (15:30 to 19:30 departures from Toronto).

Potential schedules for the Base and Enhanced Peak Markham/Locust Hill service scenarios are shown in Exhibit 5-11 to 5-16. The schedules have been designed for maximum market attractiveness based on arrival time, and include both the Summerhill and Union Station options for the Toronto terminus.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 67

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

1. Basic Service

Exhibit 5-11: Basic Service Westbound

Based on Route A Station To Summerhill To Union Stn Peterborough George St 6:07 6:47 6:01 6:41 Peterborough Harper Rd 6:28 7:08 6:22 7:02 Pontypool 6:34 7:14 6:28 7:08 Myrtle 7:09 7:49 7:03 7:43 Claremont 7:21 8:01 7:15 7:55 Locust Hill 7:31 8:11 7:25 8:05 Locust Hill North Markham Steeles East Steeles 7:37 8:17 7:31 8:11 Agincourt Brimley 7:44 8:24 7:38 8:18 Summerhill 8:00 8:40 Union Station 8:00 8:40

Exhibit 5-12: Basic Service Eastbound

Based on Route A Station From Summerhill From Union Stn Union Station 17:18 17:58 Summerhill 17:18 17:58 Agincourt Brimley 17:28 18:08 17:35 18:15 Steeles 17:36 18:16 17:42 18:22 Steeles East Markham Locust Hill North Locust Hill 17:42 18:22 17:48 18:28 Claremont 17:52 18:32 17:58 18:38 Myrtle 18:03 18:43 18:10 18:50 Pontypool 18:38 19:18 18:45 19:25 Peterborough Harper Rd 18:49 19:29 18:56 19:36 Peterborough George St 19:10 19:50 19:17 19:57

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 68

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

2. Enhanced Service

Exhibit 5-13: Enhanced Service Westbound to Summerhill

Based on Route A Station To Summerhill Peterborough George St 5:47 6:47 Peterborough Harper Rd 6:08 7:08 Pontypool 6:14 7:14 Myrtle 6:49 7:49 Claremont 7:01 8:01 Locust Hill 7:11 7:41 8:11 8:41 Locust Hill North Markham Steeles East Steeles 7:17 7:47 8:17 8:47 Agincourt Brimley 7:24 7:54 8:24 8:54 Summerhill 7:40 8:10 8:40 9:10 Union Station

Exhibit 5-14: Enhanced Service Westbound to Union Station

Based on Route A Station To Union Station Peterborough George St 5:41 6:41 Peterborough Harper Rd 6:02 7:02 Pontypool 6:08 7:08 Myrtle 6:43 7:43 Claremont 6:55 7:55 Locust Hill 7:05 7:35 8:05 8:35 Locust Hill North Markham Steeles East Steeles 7:11 7:41 8:11 8:41 Agincourt Brimley 7:18 7:48 8:18 8:48 Summerhill Union Station 7:40 8:10 8:40 9:10

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 69

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 5-15: Enhanced Service Eastbound from Summerhill

Based on Route A Station From Summerhill Union Station Summerhill 16:48 17:18 17:48 18:18 Agincourt Brimley 16:58 17:28 17:58 18:28 Steeles 17:06 17:36 18:06 18:36 Steeles East Markham Locust Hill North Locust Hill 17:12 17:42 18:12 18:42 Claremont 17:22 18:22 18:52 Myrtle 17:33 18:33 Pontypool 18:08 19:08 Peterborough Harper Rd 18:19 19:19 Peterborough George St 18:40 19:40

Exhibit 5-16: Enhanced Service Eastbound from Union Station

Based on Route A Station From Union Station Union Station 16:48 17:18 17:48 18:18 Summerhill Agincourt Brimley 17:05 17:35 18:05 18:35 Steeles 17:12 17:42 18:12 18:42 Steeles East Markham Locust Hill North Locust Hill 17:18 17:48 18:18 18:48 Claremont 17:28 18:28 Myrtle 17:40 18:40 Pontypool 18:15 19:15 Peterborough Harper Rd 18:26 19:26 Peterborough George St 18:47 19:47

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 70

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

3. All-day Service to Markham/Locust Hill Service

The a.m. peak period, peak direction schedule for the all-day service to Markham/Locust Hill scenario is the same as Scenario 2. Half-hourly service would continue throughout the day in both directions between Markham/Locust Hill and the Toronto terminus station.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 71

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

6 Detailed Ridership Forecasts

The detailed ridership forecasts have been prepared using the GGH Model to investigate the scenarios specified in Section 5.5. The ridership forecasts obtained from the GGH Model are based on the application of current travel behaviour characteristics to the future land use scenario as outlined by the Growth Plan as well as the expected future level-of-service conditions within the Peterborough Rail Corridor. This represents the first time that a comprehensive model with a mode split component that is sensitive to level of service has been used to study the Peterborough Rail Corridor.

6.1 Scenario Results

Forecasts have been prepared for each of the three service level scenarios described in Section 5.5 for the 2031 horizon year. The resulting range of ridership forecasts are presented in Exhibit 6-1 as both daily and a.m. peak period riders. Exhibit 6-2 breaks down the boardings and alightings by Station and Service Level Scenario for the 2031 a.m. peak period. In general, the stations with the largest ridership demands are within Scarborough and Markham. Peterborough and Claremont stations have the lowest demand. Due to its proximity to Highway 35/115, Pontypool station attracts many of the Peterborough area riders. The split between Pontypool and Peterborough Stations is quite sensitive to congestion and differences in access time, meaning that it is likely with minor changes many of the riders using Pontypool Station could easily switch to the Peterborough Harper Road Station depending on road conditions and the fare levels.

Exhibit 6-1: 2031 Peterborough Rail Detailed Ridership Forecasts, A.M. Peak Period and Daily

Scenario A.M. Peak Period Daily 1. Base 1,520 3,040 2. Enhanced 2,080 4,160 3. Enhanced – All Day 2,220 5,550

In examining the differences between scenario boardings, it is apparent that there is not a large degree of level of service sensitivity between scenarios. In general, the longer trips from the eastern section of the corridor have less sensitivity to level of service as they represent a new trip market for commuter rail and there are fewer parallel options. The trips from Markham and Scarborough are much more competitive, particularly with the Stouffville GO line, meaning that drops in level of service on the Peterborough line results in many passengers shifting back to the Stouffville line. This difference between new riders and those shifted from parallel transit services will be discussed in more detail in Section 6.3. In looking at the alighting station, over 95% of trips end at Union Station for all scenarios, with the remaining passengers alighting at Agincourt (Brimley).

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 72

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 6-2: 2031 Peterborough Rail Forecast Boardings & Alightings, A.M. Peak Period

Base Scenario Enhanced Scenario All Day Scenario Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Peterborough George St. 60 0 60 0 60 0 Peterborough Harper Rd 190 0 190 0 190 0 Pontypool 260 0 260 0 260 0 Myrtle 240 0 240 0 240 0 Claremont 180 0 180 0 180 0 Locust Hill 230 0 340 0 380 0 Steeles 270 0 450 0 500 0 Agincourt Brimley 90 50 360 60 410 70 Union 0 1,470 0 2,020 0 2,150 Total 1,520 1,520 2,080 2,080 2,220 2,220

The All Day Service Scenario results in 140 additional peak period riders compared to the Enhanced scenario which has identical peak period service levels. This is due to the added attractiveness of the Peterborough line compared to competing services. While no more peak period service is being provided, there is more consistent daily service which results in more people choosing the Peterborough line. The All Day Scenario results in approximately 1400 additional daily riders compared to the Enhanced Scenario, which implies less than 150 passengers per train with 30 minute service in the off-peak.

6.2 Ridership at Horizon Years

The Base and Enhanced Scenarios were modelled in more detail to obtain ridership growth estimates for the estimated 2016 start-up year along with 2021 and 2031 horizon years. Exhibit 6-3 shows the a.m. peak period boardings and alightings by station for the two scenarios for each of the horizon years. Overall the ridership is forecasted to grow by 34% from 2016-2021 under the Enhanced Scenario reflecting that people will begin to alter their travel patterns and live-work patterns due to the presence of the new service. Ridership grows another 12% from 2021 to 2031 in the Enhanced Scenario which is in line with population growth as the new travel patterns have become well ingrained. There is a total increase of 51% from opening to the ultimate 2031 levels. Due to the relatively lower population growth levels in the Greater Peterborough and Kawartha Lakes areas, as forecasted in the Growth Plan, ridership levels are much more stable at the George St, and Harper Rd stations while larger growth occurs at the stations closer to Toronto. Base Scenario ridership stays approximately 30% below the Enhanced Scenario projections at each Horizon year, and under a phased implementation with the Enhanced service entering operation between the years 2021 and 2031, ridership would grow by 120% between 2016 and 2031 from 950 to 2,080 passengers.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 73

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 6-3: A.M. Peak Period Boardings & Alightings by Horizon Year

A. Base Scenario

2016 2021 2031 Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Peterborough George St. 50 0 60 0 60 0 Peterborough Harper Rd 140 0 180 0 190 0 Pontypool 130 0 240 0 260 0 Myrtle 110 0 200 0 240 0 Claremont 80 0 150 0 180 0 Locust Hill 160 0 200 0 230 0 Steeles 210 0 230 0 270 0 Agincourt Brimley 70 30 80 40 90 50 Union 0 920 0 1,300 0 1,470 Total 950 950 1,340 1,340 1,520 1,520

B. Enhanced Scenario

2016 2021 2031 Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Peterborough George St. 50 0 60 0 60 0 Peterborough Harper Rd 140 0 180 0 190 0 Pontypool 130 0 240 0 260 0 Myrtle 110 0 200 0 240 0 Claremont 80 0 150 0 180 0 Locust Hill 200 0 290 0 340 0 Steeles 340 0 390 0 450 0 Agincourt Brimley 330 30 340 50 360 60 Union 0 1,350 0 1,800 0 2,020 Total 1,380 1,380 1,850 1,850 2,080 2,080

6.3 Access and Egress Modes

The Peterborough line would be accessible by local transit at most stations, park-and-ride, and by walking/bicycling. Exhibit 6-4 presents the estimated proportions of trips by access mode in the 2031 morning peak period for Scenario 2. The demand from park and ride services accounts for the large majority (91%) of total demand in the 2031 a.m. peak period. Peterborough George Street Station is the only station that does not have the majority of passengers arriving by automobile, with 50% of passengers arriving by local transit, while both Agincourt (Brimley) and Union Station have passengers transferring to local transit when alighting. While the demand is low, many of the passengers alighting at Agincourt

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 74

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

(Brimley) station are transferring to the Sheppard LRT line, opening up a new cross-regional transit connection for non-downtown Toronto oriented trips. Similar cross-regional connections would be opened up in East Markham, including the Cornell area and the Markham-Stouffville Hospital, if the VIVA Highway 7 service were to be extended to Locust Hill as planned in The Big Move.

Exhibit 6-4: 2031 Access Mode by Station for Enhanced Scenario

Park-and-Ride Walk/Transit Station No. % No. % Peterborough George St. 30 50% 30 50% Peterborough Harper Rd. 160 85% 30 15% Pontypool 250 94% 10 4% Myrtle 230 92% 10 4% Claremont 170 94% 10 6% Locust Hill 320 94% 20 6% Steeles 410 91% 40 9% Agincourt Brimley 330 92% 30 8% Total 1,900 91% 180 9%

Exhibit 6-5: 2031 Egress Mode by Station for Enhanced Scenario

Transit Walk Station No. % No. % Agincourt (Brimley) 60 100% 0 0% Union 400 20% 1620 80% Total 460 22% 1620 78%

Exhibit 6-4 shows the park and ride markets for each of the stations. The Peterborough Harper Road Station is capturing the majority of Peterborough area riders while Pontypool is forecasted to capture many of the Peterborough County riders originating west of the City of Peterborough. Myrtle is drawing riders from the Port Perry area as well as from the northern parts of Whitby and Oshawa, while Claremont Station is drawing from north Pickering as well as the Uxbridge area. The last three stations have much smaller catchment areas because of the competition from the Stouffville line to the north and the Lakeshore East line to the South. The Agincourt passengers shown in Exhibit 6-6 include all passengers using Agincourt Station for both the Peterborough and Stouffville lines.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 75

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 6-6: 2031 Park and Ride Trip Origins by Station, Enhanced Scenario

Note: Agincourt origins include both Stouffville and Peterborough corridor passengers.

6.4 Diversion from GO Rail Services

One of the most important considerations when trying to estimate the impact of a new transit service is the total new transit riders that have been induced. There are currently well developed commuter rail markets in the eastern Greater Toronto Area being served by the Stouffville line and the Lakeshore East line and with the implementation of a new Peterborough rail service there would likely be some diversion from both of these existing GO lines. Diversion from the Stouffville line is expected to be much larger than the Lakeshore line because of the relative proximity of the corridors as well as the similarities in level of service between the Stouffville and Peterborough rail services.

In order to establish the relative magnitudes of new and diverted riders, the Enhanced Scenario model was compared to a base case with no Peterborough Service. Exhibit 6-7 compares the Stouffville line ridership for the two scenarios. In the Stouffville corridor, the station catchments that are impacted by the Peterborough service stretches from Stouffville to Agincourt stations. In total, the Stouffville line decreases by 1,130 riders in the a.m. peak period with the introduction of a Peterborough rail service. The

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 76

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report impacts are seen at all stations, with the largest proportional drops being at both the far north end (Stouffville and Mount Joy stations) and south end (Milliken and Agincourt stations) of the Stouffville line corridor where the alignment is geographically closest to the Peterborough rail corridor.

Exhibit 6-7: 2031 AM Peak Period Stouffville Line Diversion, Enhanced Scenario

No Peterborough Service Enhanced Scenario Difference Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Stouffville 1,120 - 970 - -150 - Mount Joy 1,060 0 860 0 -200 0 Markham 1,420 0 1,250 0 -170 0 Centennial 880 0 860 0 -20 0 Unionville 1,170 50 1,240 50 70 0 Milliken 1,230 40 790 30 -440 -10 Agincourt 290 210 70 170 -220 -40 Kennedy 90 20 90 20 0 0 Union - 6,940 - 5,860 - -1,080 TOTAL 7,260 7,260 6,130 6,130 -1,130 -1,130

Exhibit 6-8 compares the Lakeshore East line ridership for the two scenarios. The Lakeshore East line does not see the same level of diversion as the Stouffville line because there is a larger geographic separation between the corridors and because of the large level of service difference between the two services with (all day frequent two direction service being operated in the Lakeshore East corridor). Due to of the high level of service, the Lakeshore East line attracts passengers a large distance away from the stations. However, the introduction of a Peterborough service does divert some riders from the Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, and Oshawa stations in Durham Region. Most of the diverted trips are from northern Whitby and Oshawa and are likely using the Myrtle Station instead. In total, the Lakeshore East line decreases by 370 riders in the a.m. peak period with the introduction of a Peterborough rail service.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 77

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 6-8: 2031 AM Peak Period Lakeshore East Line Ridership Diversion, Enhanced Scenario

No Peterborough Service Enhanced Scenario Difference Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Oshawa East 9,110 0 9,010 0 -100 0 Oshawa 5,730 0 5,650 0 -80 0 Whitby 9,440 10 9,270 0 -170 -10 Ajax 7,370 100 7,320 100 -50 0 Pickering 8,210 850 8,150 830 -60 -20 Rouge Hill 820 210 880 210 60 0 Guildwood 1,240 60 1,130 60 -110 0 Eglinton 1,010 590 1,040 560 30 -30 Scarborough 580 240 610 240 30 0 Danforth 20 2,670 20 2,660 0 -10 Union 0 33,070 0 32,770 0 -300 TOTAL 37,800 37,800 37,430 37,430 -370 -370

Exhibit 6-9 summarizes the diverted and new trips for the Enhanced Scenario. Of the 2,080 peak period boardings, 72% are diverted from other GO services. The proportion of new riders varies over different parts of the corridor. Of the 1,320 riders that board from Clarington to Agincourt stations at the West end of the corridor, it is estimated that 85% will be diverted riders from the Stouffville line. At the eastern end of the corridor, 50% of the trips from Peterborough, Pontypool and Myrtle stations are diverted from the Lakeshore East line.

Exhibit 6-9: 2031 AM Diversion Summary, Enhanced Scenario

Ridership Segment Boardings % of Total Diverted Stouffville Riders 1,130 54% Diverted Lakeshore East Riders 370 18% New Riders 580 28% TOTAL 2,080 100%

6.5 Summerhill Station Assessment

A final key component of the ridership assessment is to determine the estimated ridership impact of terminating the Peterborough Rail service at Summerhill on the CP North Toronto Subdivision as opposed to Union Station. From an operational perspective, this is an attractive option because Union Station is currently overloaded during peak periods, and these capacity constraints are expected to intensify in the future due to planned service expansion and anticipated ridership growth. Diverting a

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 78

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report portion of the planned new services to Summerhill would relieve Union Station while providing cross- regional access to midtown Toronto.

Exhibit 6-10 summarizes the impact of the Summerhill alternative for the Enhanced Scenario. Overall, terminating the Peterborough rail service at Summerhill Station would result in a 40% decrease in ridership. This decrease is mostly due to the extra time and cost needed to take the TTC subway for passengers who are headed to the downtown Toronto that could have otherwise walked from Union Station. Many of the riders that have been diverted from the Stouffville and Lakeshore services under the Enhanced Scenario switch back to those lines based on the lower relative attractiveness of the Summerhill service. The impacts of the Summerhill service are not evenly distributed across all Peterborough line stations. Passengers boarding from Myrtle to Peterborough are much less affected by the change in terminus because they are much more likely to be new riders and the time and distances involved in making the trip mean that the change from Union to Summerhill is relatively minor overall. For the shorter distance trips from the Claremont to Agincourt (Brimley) stations, the relative time and cost impact is more severe, and this combined with the higher competition from the Stouffville line results in a much larger reduction in boardings.

An important consideration in evaluating a Summerhill Station option is the impact of rail-to-subway transfers on Yonge Line subway operations. The Yonge line is projected to be operating at capacity in 2031 and Summerhill Station is located close to the peak point ridership location meaning that there is no spare capacity to accommodate new riders transferring from a Peterborough rail service. While Peterborough transfers are very low relative to the total Yonge line ridership, it will be a challenge to accommodate an additional approximate 1200 passengers that will be transferring to the Yonge line during the peak period, equivalent to 200 passengers six times during the peak period. These riders will likely have to wait for several subways to pass before being able to board.

Exhibit 6-10: 2031 Summerhill Ridership Impact (Enhanced Scenario)

Union Terminus Summerhill Terminus % Difference Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Peterborough George St. 60 0 60 0 0% - Peterborough Harper Rd 190 0 180 0 -5% Pontypool 260 0 230 0 -11% - Myrtle 240 0 220 0 -8% - Claremont 180 0 120 0 -33% - Locust Hill 340 0 190 0 -44% - Steeles 450 0 200 0 -55% - Agincourt Brimley 360 60 50 40 -87% -33% Union/Summerhill 0 2,020 0 1,210 - -40% TOTAL 2,080 2,080 1,250 1,250 -40% -40%

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 79

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

6.6 Land Use Projection Sensitivity

The Growth Plan land use projections set significantly lower growth targets for Peterborough City and County than other GGH regions, with Greater Peterborough expected to grow by only 8% between 2006 and 2031 to a population of 149,000. Other regions in the East GGH are expecting much higher growth ranging from 14% in Northumberland to 30% in Kawartha Lakes and 65% in Durham Region. These population growth rates in Peterborough translate directly into lower ridership growth for the proposed rail service.

Alternative projections developed for the County of Peterborough in September 20082 identify the Growth Plan targets as being generally too low, and provide new low, reference and high growth scenarios to 2031 for the Greater Peterborough Area of approximately 140,000, 157,000 and 179,000 respectively. To illustrate the sensitivity to differing land use projections, the Enhanced Scenario was tested using the high growth population projection. The results of the high growth scenario are shown below in Exhibit 6-11. The 20% larger population in Greater Peterborough translates into a 17% increase in a.m. peak period boardings at the George Street station, a 21 % increase at the Harper Road station, and a 12% increase at the Pontypool station. In total, under the high growth scenario an additional 80 peak period riders would be attracted to the service, representing an overall ridership increase of 4%.

______

2 Population Projections, The County of Peterborough, 2006-2036. Lapointe Consulting Inc., September 2008.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 80

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 6-11: 2031 Land Use Sensitivity Test, Enhanced Scenario

Places to Grow High Growth % Difference Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Peterborough George St. 60 0 70 0 17% 0% Peterborough Harper Rd 190 0 230 0 21% 0% Pontypool 260 0 290 0 12% 0% Myrtle 240 0 240 0 0% 0% Claremont 180 0 180 0 0% 0% Locust Hill 340 0 340 0 0% 0% Steeles 450 0 450 0 0% 0% Agincourt Brimley 360 60 360 60 0% 0% Union/Summerhill 0 2,020 0 2,100 0% 4% TOTAL 2,080 2,080 2,160 2,160 4% 4%

6.7 Weekend Demand

Origin-Destination survey data from the Highway 7 Corridor Travel Pattern Study were used to estimate weekend travel between the Toronto and Peterborough areas, as was described in Section 3.4. The total weekend demand is shown in Exhibit 6-12. To estimate the demand for weekend rail service, passenger rail mode shares were derived from the GGH model based on the expected ability of a rail service to meet travellers’ needs. Passenger rail service is most competitive for trips serving the City of Peterborough because of the shorter distances to/from the George Street station. For these trips, the passenger rail mode share was assumed to be 24%. For trips originating from or going to the Greater Peterborough area, due to longer access distances to the station as well as the nature of activities likely to be carried out there (cottages, canoeing, kayaking, camping, etc) the mode share was assumed to be substantially less at 3%. Finally, to account for the growth from 2008 (the survey year) to 2031, a growth rate of 10% is applied based on Growth Plan population and employment growth estimates for the Peterborough area. Estimated ridership numbers in 2031 are shown in Exhibit 6-13.

Exhibit 6-12: Inferred Weekend Trips between Toronto and Peterborough

Trip Interchange Weekend Trips Toronto – Peterborough City 2,400 Toronto – Peterborough County 4,500 Peterborough City - Toronto 2,900 Peterborough County - Toronto 3,400

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 81

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 6-13: Estimated Weekend Ridership between Toronto and Peterborough

Trip Interchange 2008 2031 Trips Trips Toronto – Peterborough City 550 630 Toronto – Peterborough County 150 170 Peterborough City - Toronto 550 630 Peterborough County - Toronto 100 120

Based on the limited ridership forecasted, it is unlikely that a practical service solution could be developed for weekend service.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 82

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

7 Vehicle Technology Options

A key consideration associated with the potential initiation of passenger rail service to Peterborough is to determine the vehicle technology that will be most appropriate for the service. The numbers of riders expected on each train, the frequency of trains and whether the trains will share the tracks with other types of rail service are important factors in determining the type of vehicle to be used.

7.1 Vehicle Safety Regulations

Based on existing North American transportation laws, all railway equipment operated on general interchange trackage must be constructed in compliance with the US Federal Railroad Administrations’ newest 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 238 equipment standards, referred to hereafter as “FRA compliant”.(The FRA is the Federal Railroad Administration in the US. For consistency all North American interchange railways adhere to their regulations.) This standard requires that all equipment be built to a minimum crash worthiness standard. The standard is founded on the premise of two similar freight cars colliding together and resulting in a permissible amount of damage to both car and contents. In the case of passenger rail cars, the effect of the standard is to make the individual cars heavier than would strictly be required for passenger service.

Another part of the crash worthiness standard requires that the floor, or primary structural elements, be centred 4’- 2” above the top of the rail. As a result, passenger cars require high platforms or internal stairs to get from track level to the in-car floor level. Consequently these cars do not easily accommodate wheelchair bound or otherwise handicapped passengers. At the typical low platform stations, special mini-platform adaptations must be made to allow handicapped passengers to access the vehicles.

7.2 Vehicle Options

Two basic vehicle options have been investigated for the Peterborough passenger rail service, including the conventional FRA compliant locomotive-hauled commuter train and Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs). While there is no set definition for these types of services, the following are generally accepted descriptions.

7.2.1 Conventional Commuter Train

Equipment: These types of trains are usually associated with the daily commute of passengers from their homes in a suburban setting to a central business area, typically in a city’s downtown core. In North America, commuter trains are usually 6 to 12 cars long and are pulled or pushed by a diesel or electric locomotive, as illustrated in Exhibit 7-1 below. Typical bi-level commuter cars have a capacity of 150 to 175 passengers, allowing each train to carry between 900 and 2,100 seated passengers per train, and potentially nearly double this amount when standing limits are included. Due to issues such as rising levels of traffic congestion, commuter rail has become an increasingly popular form of public transit throughout North America in recent decades. As

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 83

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

building new, dedicated rail corridors can be cost prohibitive or impossible due to space constraints, commuter trains typically use existing rail corridors owned by freight railways and operate in mixed traffic conditions with freight and inter-city passenger trains. As a result, heavier FRA compliant locomotives and cars are required on most North American commuter rail lines.

Exhibit 7-1: GO Train (Conventional Commuter Rail)

Service: Commuter train services are typically clustered around peak periods at the beginning and end of the work day, including the a.m. peak period from 6:00 to 10:00 in the morning and the p.m. peak period from 4:00 to 8:00 in the evening. Services are typically oriented to serve peak direction trips in each peak period (e.g., from suburbs to downtown in the morning, and the reverse in the evening). Train frequencies and sizes are based on the number of passengers to be moved during these two short periods. The service is characterized by long average trip lengths, wide spacing between stations and higher average speeds than other transit modes. Due to the number of passengers on these trains, platforms and stations are usually large structures able to entrain and detrain many people in a short period of time. In addition to walking, cycling and connections with local transit, park and ride and kiss and ride facilities are provided at suburban stations to allow commuters to access the stations using their personal vehicles.

Control: Since these trains are usually operated on tracks owned and controlled by freight railways the commuter trains are controlled by the same signalling system that controls the freight trains. These signalling systems are designed based on the longest and

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 84

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

heaviest freight trains operating over these sections of track. While this is optimal for the freight operations, a great deal of potential efficiency is lost for the faster, more agile commuter trains.

7.2.2 Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)

Equipment: DMUs are diesel-powered vehicles that are usually self-propelled with a control station for the driver at both ends of the consist. Consists are usually ‘married-sets’ of cars mechanically locked or coupled together. Married-sets are typically two to four cars long with an average rider capacity of 40 to 70 people per car resulting in an average of from 80 to 280 passengers per train. This allows for flexibility of service depending on the number of passengers anticipated for a particular train.

Non-FRA compliant DMUs may operate on dedicated tracks isolated from other trains or highway vehicles, or may be operated on regular rail corridors if they are temporally separated from other rail traffic (e.g., DMU operations during peak periods, with other freight and conventional passenger rail at other times of the day or night). This allows improved accessibility through the use of low floor vehicles and low station platforms. An existing example of the use of non-FRA compliant DMUs in Canada is the current O- Train service in Ottawa, which uses the Bombardier Talent vehicle illustrated in Exhibit 7-2 below

Exhibit 7-2: Bombardier Talent (Non-FRA compliant DMU)

Alternatively, FRA compliant DMUs can operate in mixed traffic conditions with other freight and passenger rail traffic. Historically, one of the most commonly used FRA- compliant DMUs in North America was the Rail Diesel Car (RDC) manufactured by the Budd Company of Philadelphia, shown in Exhibit 7-3 below. RDCs are self-propelled

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 85

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

passenger cars with a capacity of between 40 to 70 passengers per car depending on the particular model. Some recently refurbished cars have achieved seating capacities of over 90 passengers. Each self-propelled car was manufactured separately and could be coupled to others cars and operated from a single control location. While Budd ceased manufacturing these vehicles in 1962, a number of completely refurbished and modernized RDCs are still in use on lighter density commuter lines in certain North American cities (e.g., DART in Dallas, Texas), and are operated by VIA Rail on its Victoria-Courtenay and Sudbury-White River routes. Of note, RDCs were also used by VIA Rail in its former service between Havelock, Peterborough and Toronto, which was discontinued in 1990.

Exhibit 7-3: BC Rail Budd Railcar (RDC)

Currently, the only active North American manufacturer of FRA compliant DMUs is US Railcar (formerly Colorado Railcar), which has been manufacturing modern passenger rail vehicles since 1988. While the original firm ran into financial difficulty in 2007, following a corporate reorganization, the newly renamed firm is once again accepting orders for new equipment. The company’s DMU is shown in Exhibit 7-4 below. Tri-Met in Portland, Oregon, which began operations on its Westside Express Service commuter rail line in January 2009, is the only transportation agency currently operating DMUs manufactured by Colorado Railcar/US Railcar on a permanent basis.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 86

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 7-4: US Railcar (Colorado Railcar) DMU

Service: A key advantage associated with DMUs are their inherent flexibility, and service levels and operating characteristics can vary significantly depending on the requirements of the particular line. In the case of the Peterborough passenger rail service, the service is envisaged to be very similar to that described above for conventional commuter rail (e.g., primarily peak period, peak direction service, wide station spacing and higher speed operations). DMU operating speeds are usually in the order of 60 to 100 kms per hour. Due to the moderate size of DMUs relative to locomotive-hauled trains, station facilities such as platforms and shelters do not need to be as large, which may reduce implementation costs.

Control: Non-FRA compliant DMUs are typically isolated from other freight and passenger rail operations and as such their control systems can be customized to capitalize on the equipments capabilities. However, as the Peterborough passenger service will need to operate on shared tracks with freight rail services, DMUs would be subject to the same rail signalling system as described above for conventional commuter rail.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 87

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 7-5: Key Features – Conventional Commuter Rail vs. DMUs

Description Conventional Commuter Rail DMU

Capacity Per car 150 to 175 Seated 92 Seated

276 @ Crush Loading 180 @ Crush Loading

Length of Train 180 to 360 metres 60 to 120 metres

Estimated Cost per 6-car bi-level consist and one 2-car refurbished RDC Consist locomotive -- $21 million consist – $7 to $9 million

2-car US Railcar DMU consist – $18 to $20 million

Train Control Mixed with freight Fully independent or mixed with freight

Required Right-of- Typically existing freight railway Fully dedicated R-O-W or Way (R-O-W) R-O-W existing freight R-O-W

Average Operating 60-100 Kph 60-100 Kph Speed

7.3 Discussion of Vehicle Options

Based on the preceding review of the most relevant vehicle technologies, the use of either a conventional commuter rail locomotive-hauled consist or FRA-compliant DMUs would be the most feasible options for the Peterborough passenger rail service. The trains will have to operate under mixed rail traffic conditions, particularly at the western end of the line after the point at which the Havelock Subdivision meets CP’s Toronto Yard. Therefore, it would not be feasible to use non-FRA compliant vehicles without cost-prohibitive solutions such as constructing new dedicated tracks. While temporal separation may be possible on the lightly-used Havelock Subdivision and the Don Branch, it would not be achievable on high-traffic sections of the corridor including the Toronto Yard, the Belleville Subdivision, the North Toronto Subdivision (under the Summerhill Station option) or the Union Station Rail Corridor (under the Union Station option).

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 88

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

The relationship between vehicle capacity and projected ridership is another key consideration in determining the most appropriate vehicle technology. Under the Base Scenario described in Section 5.5.4, which would involve two a.m. and p.m. peak period trains originating/terminating in Peterborough, a total of 1,520 morning inbound trips have been forecasted by 2031 (with the same number of return trips in the evening peak period). Two conventional commuter rail trains with six bi-level coaches would provide sufficient seated capacity for approximately 1700 passengers (850 per train) compared with only approximately 368 seated passengers for a two typical two-car DMU consist.

It is possible that the use of DMUs could meet Base Scenario ridership demand in the short-to-medium term, or under the more frequent Enhanced and All-Day (to Locust Hill) scenarios. This could be explored in more detailed in future development phases should the project proceed. For the purposes of developing rough order of magnitude capital and operating cost estimates, it has been assumed that the service would be operated using locomotive-hauled six car bi-level consists similar to the fleet currently in use on the GO Transit rail network. It is assumed that the last cars of the consist would be a “cab car” allowing for push-pull operations. (A “cab car” has a control booth for the operation of the train at the opposite end of the train from the locomotive.)

8 Discussion of Required Additional Railway Infrastructure

As discussed in Section 5 (Rail Service Concepts) of this report, the Peterborough to Toronto passenger service could potentially utilize three main route alternatives (A, B and C). The following sections provide a description of the required infrastructure upgrades and associated capital cost estimates for Routes A, B and C. For ease of comparison, the Peterborough-Toronto rail corridor is divided into the following three main sections:

1. Havelock Subdivision;

2. CP Toronto Yard bypass alternatives and the Belleville Subdivision; and

3. Access from the Belleville Subdivision to the Union Station and Summerhill terminus options.

8.1 Havelock Subdivision

The Havelock Subdivision would be used by Routes A and B between downtown Peterborough (Mile 118) and the vicinity of Toronto Yard (Mile 176.82), and by Route C between downtown Peterborough and the proposed connection with the Uxbridge Subdivision located southwest of Claremont (Mile 170) (See Exhibit 8-1). As described in Section 3, the line is currently only used for limited freight traffic. CP has operates the line as a Class III track, currently under permanent slow order restricting freight operations to 10 miles per hour and passenger speed to 15 miles per hour. This restriction permits the railway to reduce the amount of maintenance required on the line to offset the lower freight revenues.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 89

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 8-1: Routes A, B and C – Havelock Subdivision

Based on the service designs described in Section 5 of this report, which assume a travel time of approximately two hours from Peterborough to Toronto, the line will have to be upgraded to Class III track to allow passenger speeds of 60 miles per hour. This will require that the entire track structure be rebuilt all along the corridor from Peterborough to a point just east of the Toronto Yard, a distance of approximately 59 miles for Routes A and B and 52 miles for Route C. The required upgrades are shown in Exhibit 8-2. New rail, ties and ballast will have to be installed to replace the old substandard material currently in place. At the yard, several options were examined to minimize the impact on CP’s operations. These are discussed in Section 8.2 below.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 90

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 8-2: Havelock Subdivision Upgrades

At approximately 5 locations the track will have to be realigned to reduce the degree of curve (sharpness of the curve) to allow for the required 60 miles per hour average speed. While most of these realignments are relatively minor in nature and require relatively small land purchases in agricultural areas, there is one major realignment at Mile 163.0 between the 4th and 8th Side Lines that will require an offset from the existing track of up to 43 metres. This is also the longest realignment at 0.65 miles (just over one kilometre) and is located within a wetland area, which will likely require environmental mitigation.

The majority of the 61 existing level road crossings will also have to be rebuilt. The crossings were built several decades ago when crossing standards were less restrictive. Current practice now requires that such crossings be brought up to current standards whenever major work in the rail corridor is undertaken. Depending on the level of vehicular traffic on the road the crossing protection can be as simple as cross bucks or as sophisticated as flashing lights with bells and gates. Upgrades to road profiles and approaches will also be required at a number of the level crossings.

Proposed new stations along the Havelock Subdivision include George Street in downtown Peterborough, Harper Road on the south-western edge of Peterborough, Pontypool (near Highway 35), Myrtle (near

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 91

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Highway 7&12), Claremont, Locust Hill (near Highway 7) and Steeles Avenue (except under Route C). More details on the location of each station and conceptual designs are included in Section 9.

A new layover facility will be located at the Harper Road Station in Peterborough. This facility will be used to store the two Peterborough trains overnight. The area will provide security, light maintenance and cleaning as well as electrical hook-up for lighting and heating. Under the Enhanced scenario, a second layover facility would be required at Locust Hill to store the two additional trains.

8.1.1 Havelock Subdivision Estimated Capital Costs

Comparative estimated capital costs for the required infrastructure upgrades on the Havelock Subdivision are summarized in Exhibit 8-3 below for each of the three route options. Details on the capital cost assumptions are included in Section 11.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 92

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 8-3: Havelock Subdivision Capital Cost Comparison

Route A Route B Route C Reference Track Segments: 111A Section Length (Miles): 58.82 58.82 52.0 Section Start/End Mile Markers: Mile 118.0 to 176.82 Mile 118.0 to 176.82 Mile 118.0 to 170.0

Guideway and Track Elements: At Grade Exclusive Right-of-way $ 53,000,000.00 $ 53,000,000.00 $ 48,000,000.00 Aerial Structures $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Underground Cut and Cover $ - $ - $ - Underground Tunnel $ - $ - $ - Track: Ballasted $ 77,000,000.00 $ 77,000,000.00 $ 68,000,000.00 Track: Switches, Turnouts $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Subtotal: $ 135,000,000.00 $ 135,000,000.00 $ 121,000,000.00

Stations: $ 19,000,000.00 $ 19,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00

Support Facilities: Light Maintance Facility $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Layover $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Yard Tracks $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 Subtotal: $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00

Sitework and Special Conditions: Site Utilities/Utility Relocation $ 18,000,000.00 $ 18,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 Site Structures (Retaining and Sound Walls) $ - $ - $ - Subtotal: $ 18,000,000.00 $ 18,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00

Systems: Train Control and Signalling $ 12,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00

ROW, Land, Existing Improvements: Property Acquistion $ 12,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00

Professional Services: Engineering $ 41,000,000.00 $ 41,000,000.00 $ 27,000,000.00

Contingency: $ 141,000,000.00 $ 141,000,000.00 $ 121,000,000.00

Total: $ 384,000,000.00 $ 384,000,000.00 $ 329,000,000.00

Note: These estimates do not include vehicle related costs.

8.2 Toronto Yard Bypass Alternatives and Belleville Subdivision

CP Rail’s Toronto Yard posed many challenges during the study given its importance to the railway as its main freight yard in the GTA. Over the last two decades the yard has become surrounded with industrial

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 93

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report and residential development. The yard is now at a point where it can no longer expand and its operations completely occupy most of the available land within its boundaries.

When asked to provide initial direction, the railway asked the Study Team to seek options that would have “Zero Impact” on the terminal. During subsequent discussions, the CP staff indicated that for a limited number of trains per day, the railway may entertain the idea of joint occupation of freight and passenger trains on a limited portion of CP’s existing tracks if it could be demonstrated that the joint occupancy would not unduly impact freight operations. They also indicated that the joint occupancy must be kept to the minimum length required to clear a physical restriction (e.g., buildings adjacent to the right- of-way that preclude building a bypass track at grade).

As such, Zero and Minimal Impact sub-options were developed for Routes A and B both within the Toronto Yard and along relevant sections of the Belleville Subdivision (CP’s main line). Route C by definition would be a Zero Impact option as it would completely avoid the Toronto Yard altogether by using the proposed connecting track to the Uxbridge Subdivision (GO’s Stouffville line) just north of Markham.

For Routes A and B, the Belleville Subdivision right-of-way would be used to access either of the Toronto termini under study. Route C would use a portion of the Belleville Subdivision (west of the Uxbridge Subdivsion) to access Summerhill, but not under the Union Station terminus option. New dedicated track would be required along the Belleville Subdivision to accommodate Peterborough trains due to the volume of freight traffic on existing tracks, which can exceed 50 trains per day. As the line is grade separated at all road crossings, widening of overpasses and underpasses would be required at approximately 11 locations between the Toronto Yard and Leaside. As with the Toronto Yard, Routes A and B have both Zero and Minimal Impact sub-options, which are related to accessing either Summerhill or Union Station.

8.2.1 Route A – North Yard Option

Route A would facilitate the passage of trains to and from Peterborough through the Toronto Yard via a new track along the northern limit of the yard. Due the location of CP’s auto compound and an industrial facility located directly adjacent to the rail corridor (located north and south of the Finch Avenue overpass, respectively), there is insufficient space for a new at-grade bypass track at the northeast end of the Yard. As a result, both Zero and Minimal Impact sub-options were developed.

The Route A Zero Impact sub-option, illustrated in Exhibit 8-4 would involve a new track branching off of the Havelock Subdivision just west of Tapscott Road (at Mile 178.5) and then descending into a 1320 metre long tunnel that would continue west until it is clear of the industrial building on the south side of Finch Avenue. At that point, the track would then climb back up to grade and run parallel to the northern property line of the yard, where there is sufficient space for an at-grade bypass track. The at-grade bypass track would extend for 1.39 miles to the southwest end of the yard. This routing would be the same for both the Union Station and Summerhill terminus options.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 94

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

The Route A Minimal Impact sub-option, illustrated in Exhibit 8-4 would avoid the significant cost of the tunnel by permitting joint occupancy with CP freight traffic on the northeast approach to yard between Miles 179.32 to 180.3, past the auto compound and industrial facility. From this point, trains would switch onto a new dedicated at-grade track paralleling the northern property line of the yard for 1.48 miles to the southwest end of the yard. Again, this routing would apply to both the Union Station or Summerhill terminus options. While significantly less complicated and costly than the Route A Zero Impact sub-option, the Minimal Impact sub-option would require further discussions and agreement with CP.

After passing along the north side of the Toronto Yard, trains using Route A would reach the Belleville Subdivision on the north side of the right-of-way at Mile 198.69. To access Union Station using the Zero Impact sub-option, trains would be required to cross to the south side of the Belleville Subdivision by way of a grade-separated flyover, then along 1.50 miles of new track to the connection with the Don Branch at Leaside just east of Bayview Avenue (Mile 206.4). Alternatively, under the Minimal Impact sub-option, trains would continue along the north side of the Belleville Subdivision on approximately 8 miles of new dedicated track to Leaside where they would cross the Belleville Subdivision using switches (turnouts) at grade to access the Don Branch. Due to the potential impacts on freight operations in the Belleville Subdivision, the Minimal Impact sub-option would require further discussions and agreement with CP.

To access Summerhill Station, trains using Route A would continue along the north side of the Belleville Subdivision for approximately 8 miles on a new dedicated track to Leaside (Mile 206.4) and then onto the CP’s North Toronto Subdivision to reach Summerhill (see Section 8.6 below). As there is no need to cross to the south side of the corridor, the Route A Summerhill option would have zero impact along the Belleville Subdivision.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 95

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 8-4: Route A – Zero and Minimal Impact Sub-options

8.2.2 Route B – Havelock/Belleville Connecting Track Option

Route B would address Toronto Yard issues by building a new connecting track between the Havelock Subdivision and the Belleville Subdivision to the east of the Toronto Yard. The connection would leave the Havelock Subdivision north-west of the 9th Line and Steeles Avenue East intersection (at Mile 176.82). From there, it would extend southerly for 2.36 miles in a new right-of-way adjacent to Littles Road, and connect to the Belleville Subdivision at the Rouge River crossing (Mile 195.3 on the Belleville Subdivision). Both Zero and Minimal Impact sub-options were developed to address constraints along the Belleville Subdivision as it passes through the south side of the Toronto Yard.

The Route B Zero Impact sub-option is illustrated in Exhibit 8-5. From the connection to Belleville Subdivision (Mile 195.3), a new parallel, dedicated track would be built along the north side of the existing Belleville Subdivision tracks for approximately 1.63 miles until just east of Markham Road (Mile 196.96). At that point the track would descend into a tunnel of approximately 2,100 metres in length which would allow trains to pass under CP’s multi-modal “Expressway” facility and clear the western end of the yard. The configuration of the tunnel would vary slightly between the Union Station or Summerhill terminus options. For the Union Station option, the tunnel would pass under the Belleville Subdivision to emerge on the south side of the corridor to the west of the yard to allow trains to access the Don Branch to connect to the Union Station Rail Corridor. For the Summerhill option, the tunnel would emerge on the north side of the Belleville Subdivision west of the yard. After emerging from the tunnel, approximately

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 96

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

8.3 miles of new dedicated track would be required along either the north or south sides of the Belleville Subdivision to access Summerhill and Union Station, respectively.

The Route B Minimal Impact sub-option would follow the same routing as with the Zero Impact sub- option, but would remain at grade to avoid the significant cost of tunneling. Joint use of existing tracks would be required on the heavily-used Belleville Subdivision directly south of the yard for approximately 1.6 miles between Markham Road (Mile 196.96) and Brimley Road (Mile 198.58) due to space constraints on both sides of the corridor. West of the yard, 7.82 miles of new dedicated tracks would be built alongside the existing Belleville Subdivision tracks. Trains to Union Station would be required to cross the Belleville Subdivision at grade using switches (turnouts), which would require approval by CP. The potential impacts on the Expressway Facility located on the south side of the yard would likely be a key concern for CP with this sub-option.

Exhibit 8-5: Route B – Zero and Minimal Impact Sub-options

8.2.3 Route C – Havelock/Uxbridge Connecting Track

Route C would avoid Toronto Yard issues entirely by diverting trains via a new connecting track to the Uxbridge Subdivision (GO Stouffville line) avoiding major capital works at the yard. As a result, the capital costs associated with Route C are significantly lower than Routes A and B. One drawback associated with Route C is that it bypasses two proposed stations on the western portion of the line at Steeles Avenue and in Agincourt near Brimley Road. The new greenfield connection track, shown in Exhibit 8-6, would depart the Havelock Subdivision just west of the 28th Sideline south of the 8th Concession (Mile 170). From there, it would travel westward in a new right-of-way north of Markham for

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 97

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

4.91 miles to connect with connect to GO’s Uxbridge Subdivision at Mile 44.97, located just north of the Major MacKenzie Drive crossing. The land along the proposed connection track is currently in agricultural use.

Once on the Uxbridge Subdivision, under the Union Station option trains would parallel the GO Stouffville line service using existing tracks south to the connection with CN’s Kingston Subdivision (GO’s Lakeshore East line) at the Scarborough GO Station. From that point, trains would travel west along the Kingston Subdivision using existing tracks to the Union Station Rail Corridor.

To reach Summerhill station, a connection would be required with the Belleville Subdivision in Agincourt to allow trains to reach Summerhill Station. Infrastructure upgrades for this connection would include a new connecting track from the Uxbridge Subdivision to the Belleville Subdivision south of Sheppard Avenue and east of Kennedy Road (Mile 199.74 of the Belleville Subdivision). Also 6.66 miles of new dedicated track would be required from this point to Leaside where trains would connect to the North Toronto Subdivision to reach Summerhill.

Exhibit 8-6: Route C to Union Station or Summerhill Station

8.2.4 Toronto Yard Bypass Alternatives and Belleville Subdivision Capital Cost Estimates

Exhibit 8-7 below provides comparative estimated capital costs for Routes A, B and C and their respective Zero and Minimum Impact and Toronto terminus sub-options. Details on the capital cost assumptions are included in Section 11.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 98

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 8-7: Toronto Yard and Belleville Subdivision Capital Cost Comparison

Route A Route B Route C Zero Impact Minimal Impact Zero Impact Minimal Impact Zero Impact

Union Station Summerhill Union Station Summerhill Union Station Summerhill Union Station Summerhill Union Station Summerhill

Reference Track Segments: 6, 5C, 4B 6, 5 6B, 5D, 4C 6B, 5B 2,4 2,4 2, 4D, 4E 2, 4D, 5E 3 3,3A, 5E Section Length (Miles): 11.81 11.81 11.99 11.99 13.46 13.46 13.46 13.46 4.91 24.03 Mile 170 (Havelock Mile 170 (Havelock Sub) to Mile 44.97 Section Start/End Mile Markers: Mile 176.82 (Havlock Sub) to 206.40 (Belleville Sub) Mile 176.82 (Havlock Sub) to 206.40 (Belleville Sub) Sub) to Mile 206.4 (Uxbridge Sub) (Belleville Sub)

Guideway and Track Elements: At Grade Exclusive Right-of-way$ 12,000,000.00 $ 13,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 14,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 Aerial Structures$ 195,000,000.00 $ 88,000,000.00 $ 75,000,000.00 $ 88,000,000.00 $ 94,000,000.00 $ 94,000,000.00 $ 94,000,000.00 $ 94,000,000.00 $ 40,000,000.00 $ 99,000,000.00 Underground Cut and Cover$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 38,000,000.00 $ 38,000,000.00 $ 38,000,000.00 $ 38,000,000.00 $ - $ - Underground Tunnel$ 195,000,000.00 $ 195,000,000.00 $ - $ - $ 231,000,000.00 $ 231,000,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Track: Ballasted$ 9,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 13,000,000.00 Track: Switches, Turnouts$ 1,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 Subtotal: $ 412,000,000.00 $ 310,000,000.00 $ 101,000,000.00 $ 115,000,000.00 $ 388,000,000.00 $ 388,000,000.00 $ 155,000,000.00 $ 155,000,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 $ 131,000,000.00

Stations: $ 16,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 9,000,000.00 $ 9,000,000.00

Support Facilities: Light Maintance Facility $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Layover $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sitework and Special Conditions: Site Utilities/Utility Relocation $ 4,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 Site Structures (Retaining and Sound Walls) $ 37,000,000.00 $ 45,000,000.00 $ 41,000,000.00 $ 41,000,000.00 $ 53,000,000.00 $ 53,000,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 $ - $ 51,000,000.00 Subtotal: $ 41,000,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 $ 45,000,000.00 $ 46,000,000.00 $ 57,000,000.00 $ 57,000,000.00 $ 54,000,000.00 $ 54,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 56,000,000.00

Systems: Train Control and Signalling $ 11,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00 $ 11,000,000.00 $ 13,000,000.00 $ 13,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 14,000,000.00

ROW, Land, Existing Improvements: Property Acquistion $ 15,000,000.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 9,000,000.00 $ 28,000,000.00 $ 28,000,000.00 $ 27,000,000.00 $ 27,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 $ 26,000,000.00

Professional Services: Engineering $ 102,000,000.00 $ 79,000,000.00 $ 28,000,000.00 $ 32,000,000.00 $ 100,000,000.00 $ 100,000,000.00 $ 43,000,000.00 $ 43,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 41,000,000.00

Contingency: $ 347,000,000.00 $ 278,000,000.00 $ 123,000,000.00 $ 133,000,000.00 $ 350,000,000.00 $ 350,000,000.00 $ 179,000,000.00 $ 179,000,000.00 $ 55,000,000.00 $ 161,000,000.00

Total: $ 944,000,000.00 $ 756,000,000.00 $ 334,000,000.00 $ 362,000,000.00 $ 952,000,000.00 $ 952,000,000.00 $ 486,000,000.00 $ 486,000,000.00 $ 149,000,000.00 $ 438,000,000.00

Note: These estimates do not include vehicle related costs.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 99

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

8.3 Access to Summerhill and Union Station Terminus Options

8.3.1 North Toronto Subdivision

To access Summerhill Station, Routes A, B and C would all utilize the the North Toronto Subdivision between the end of the Belleville Subdivision at Leaside (east of Bayview Avenue) and the proposed Summerhill Station location at Yonge Street (see Exhibit 8-8). As with the Belleville Subdivision, the main infrastructure requirement along the North Toronto Subdivision would be the construction of 2.2 miles of new dedicated track for Peterborough trains along the north side of the corridor to reach Summerhill Station, and associated widening of the existing 4 grade separated road crossings.

8.3.2 Don Branch

To access Union Station, Routes A and B would utilize the 3.2 mile Don Branch from Leaside to travel south through the Don Valley to the connection with the Union Station Rail Corridor (see Exhibit 8-8). The Don Branch was previously the most westerly portion of CP’s Belleville Subdivision. With very little traffic over the line in the last few years, CP sold the line between Leaside and the Union Station Rail Corridor to Metrolinx (GO Transit) in 2009. As with the Havelock Subdivision, with diminishing rail traffic over the past number of years the railway reduced its maintenance on the line to a minimum. As a result the track is now rated as Class I, with speeds limited to 10 miles per hour for freight and 15 miles per hour for passenger trains. Similar to the Havelock Subdivision, the Don Branch will require the complete replacement of the track structure to bring it up to Class III condition as required by the service design.

Of particular note on the Don Branch, there is a 350 metre long deck plate girder bridge over the Don Valley. The most recent condition survey indicates that a complete deck and walkway replacement is required to bring it up to standard.

Exhibit 8-8: Access to Summerhill or Union Station Terminus Options

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 100

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

8.3.3 Access to Summerhill and Union Station Terminus Options - Capital Cost Estimates

Exhibit 8-9 below provides comparative estimated capital costs for Routes A, B and C for the access routes to the Toronto terminus options. Details on the capital cost assumptions are included in Section 11.

Exhibit 8-9: Toronto Terminus Options Capital Cost Comparison

Union Station Summerhill Category Route A or B Route C Route A, B or C Reference Segment: 7 N/A 8 Segment Length (Miles): 3.2 2.44 Mile 206.40 Mile 206.40 (Belleville Mile 44.97 (Uxbridge Reference Mile Marker (Belleville Sub) to Sub) to Mile 2.44 Sub) to USRC USRC (North Toronto Sub)

Guideway and Track Elements: At Grade Exclusive Right-of-way $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Aerial Structures $ 2,000,000.00 $ 28,000,000.00 Underground Cut and Cover $ - $ - Underground Tunnel $ - $ - Track: Ballasted $ 6,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Track: Switches, Turnouts $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 Subtotal: $ 12,000,000.00 $ 33,000,000.00 Stations: $ - $ -

Support Facilities: Light Maintance Facility $ - $ - Layover $ - $ - Subtotal: $ - $ -

Sitework and Special Conditions: Site Utilities/Utility Relocation $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 Site Structures (Retaining and Sound Walls) $ - $ 5,000,000.00 Subtotal: $ 1,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00

Systems: Train Control and Signalling $ 5,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements: Property Acquistion $ - $ 2,000,000.00

Professional Services: Engineering $ 4,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00

Contingency: $ 13,000,000.00 $ 32,000,000.00

Total: $ 35,000,000.00 $ 86,000,000.00

Note: These estimates do not include vehicle related costs.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 101

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

9 New Stations and Layover Infrastructure

Below is a list and descriptions of the possible station locations and layouts based on the proposed routings.

9.1.1 Peterborough Downtown Station (Mile 118.0 Havelock Subdivision)

The downtown station is currently owned by the City of Peterborough and leased to the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce and the Vehicle Licensing Office. With the expected riders out of this station, it would only require between 20 to 30 parking spots, platform upgrades and shelter. The primary problem at this site is the lack of parking. It may be necessary to remove one or more of the tenants to generate the needed spaces. (See Exhibit 9-1)

9.1.2 Peterborough Harper Road Station (Mile 120.3 Havelock Subdivision)

The City owns land adjacent to the level crossing of Harper Road and the Havelock Subdivision. This land could be used for the new station and parking. The station size would initially be fairly small requiring only 30 to 40 parking stalls. If two or three hectares could be reserved for the new station this would address the needs of the station for several years to come.

A two train layover is proposed for this site. Trains arriving from Toronto in the evening rush- hours will remain at the layover to be cleaned and given light emergency maintenance if required (See Exhibit 9-2).

9.1.3 Pontypool Station (Mile 139.3 Havelock Subdivision)

The Pontypool Station will be the second largest along the proposed Peterborough Rail Service route. It is expected that the 2031 ridership will 370 of whom 100% are expected to park and ride. As a result the station area at that time will have to be 1.6 hectares. The most obvious location would seem to be on the south side of the track between Highway 35 and the John Street level crossing. There is a contiguous parcel of land here large enough to accommodate the station. However, there is an inactive grain elevator on this that has been boarded up and protected, and is in the process of being designated a historic site. It may be possible to integrate the structure into the station, otherwise it may be necessary to look at the smaller parcel of land on the east side of John Street. (See Exhibit 9-3)

9.1.4 Myrtle Station (Mile 157.3 Havelock Subdivision)

The Myrtle Station is expected to service 180 riders a day in 2031, 170 of which are expected to park and ride. Based on that, a 1.2 hectare station site will be required. Based on the current land use around the tracks the most likely site for the new station appears to be at the east end of Station Road. The land being proposed is currently agricultural, although approximately 40% of

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 102

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

that area is currently re-grown woodlands. As part of the project it is likely that Station Road would have to be upgraded from a gravel to paved surface. (See Exhibit 9-4)

9.1.5 Claremont Station (Mile 166.1 Havelock Subdivision)

The Claremont Station is one of the more problematic stations in that there is a long curve on the east side of the Old Brock Road that limits options for station locations. As a result, the most obvious station location is in the north-west quadrant of the level crossing with Old Brock Road. The proposed lot of 1.0 hectares is currently occupied by what appears to be light industry. It is assumed that the current occupant could be relocated at a reasonable cost. (See Exhibit 9-5)

9.1.6 Locust Hill Station (Mile 173.8 Havelock Subdivision)

The Locust Hill Station is located in the north-east quadrant of the Highway 7 level crossing with the Havelock Subdivision. Access to the station is available from Highway 407 using County Road 48 and Highway 7 from the west and County Road 30 and Highway 7 from the east. As with Claremont Station, the most likely station location is a lot currently occupied by light industry. In this case there is an automotive garage and a boat works located within the required 1.7 hectare lot. Based on the 2031 ridership projections for this station, it is expected that the station will handle 340 park-and-ride clients a day. (See Exhibit 9-6)

(i) Locust Hill Station North (Mile 1.64 Havelock/Uxbridge Connection)

This station location will be used on Route C in lue of the Locust Hill Station proposed for Routes A and B. To provide the best road access the station is proposed to be located on the 30th Sideline between Concessions 7 and 8.The station requirements are expected to be the same as those for the Locust Hill Station above. The proposed land is prominently farmland that appears to be under cultivation. (See Exhibit 9-6A)

9.1.7 Steeles Station (Mile 177.5 Havelock Subdivision)

The proposed Steeles Station is located at the intersection of Steeles Avenue East and Staines Road in the north-east quadrant of the level crossing between the Havelock Subdivision and Steeles Avenue East. The proposed station location is located on a 2.1 hectare lot. The lot is currently used for agricultural purposes. (See Exhibit 9-7)

(i) Steeles Avenue East Station (Mile 0.80 Havelock-Belleville Connection)

This station location will be used on Route B in lue of the Steeles Station proposed for Routes A and C. Access to the station is proposed to off of Steeles Avenue East, east of the 9th Line . The station requirements are expected to be the same as those for the Steeles Station above. The proposed land is prominently farmland that appears to be under cultivation. (See Exhibit 9-7A)

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 103

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

9.1.8 Agincourt (Brimley) (Mile 198.6 Belleville Subdivision)

The Agincourt station is proposed to be located where the Belleville Subdivision crosses Brimley Road. This area is built up and may require that the station be located on both sides of the tracks. Given that at this location the routing will differ from one side of the tracks to the other based on the terminus splitting, the station facilities works with either option. (See Exhibit 9-8)

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 104

February 5, 2010

PETERBOROUGH DOWNTOWN STATION PROPOSED LOCATION

EXISTING RAILWAY STATION

PETERBOROUGH DOWNTOWN STATION PROPOSED LOCATION

PROPERTY TO BE AQUIRED 0.41 HECTARES

CPR RIGHT AWAY 0.05 HECTARES

PETERBOROUGH EXHIBIT 9-1 DOWNTOWN STATION HAVELOCK SUB. Mi.118.00

PROPERTYTOBE AQUIRED 1.46 HECTARES 1.46

1.46

CPRRIGHT AWAY 0.88 HECTARES 0.88

MYRTLESTATION EXHIBIT9-4 HAVELOCKSUB.Mi.157.35 CLAREMONTSTATION HAVELOCK166.10SUB.Mi

LOCUSTNORTHHILL STATION PROPOSEDLOCATION

200 280 320

LOCUSTNORTHHILL STATION PROPOSEDLOCATION

PROPERTYTOBE AQUIRED 1.15 HECTARES 1.15

CPRRIGHT AWAY 0.73 HECTARES 0.73 1.15

LOCUSTNORTHHILL STATION HAVELOCKUXBRIDGE / EXHIBIT9-6A CONNECTINGTRACK Mi.1.64 STEELES STATION PROPOSED LOCATION

STEELES STATION PROPOSED LOCATION

CPRRIGHT AWAY 0.30 HECTARES 0.30

2.20

PROPERTYTOBE AQUIRED 2.20 HECTARES 2.20

STEELESAVE.STATION EXHIBIT9-7 HAVELOCKSUB.Mi.177.50 STEELESSTATION OPTION2 PROPOSEDLOCATION

CN YORK SUBDI VI SI ON

STEELESSTATION OPTION2 PROPOSEDLOCATION

PROPERTYTOBE AQUIRED 2.35 RIGHTAWAY 2.35 HECTARES 2.35 0.22 HECTARES 0.22

EXHIBIT9-7A BELLEVILLE

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

9.2 Toronto Terminals

As part of the project the study team were to look at the options of terminating the service at either Toronto’s Union Station or at Yonge Street on CP’s North Toronto Subdivision.

9.2.1 Toronto Union Station

Toronto Union Station is Toronto’s primary commuter and intercity railway terminus. The station is located on Front Street in downtown Toronto and is bounded by York and Bay Streets on the west and east sides respectively.

Exhibit 9-9: Union Station as Viewed from Front Street

The station has 13 platform accessible tracks. The station is used by VIA, Ontario Northland and Amtrak for intercity trains and by GO Transit for commuter trains. In addition, the proposed Union Station-Pearson Airport Air-Rail Link is planned to begin operations out of Union Station by 2015. Questions have arisen over the last few years as to the maximum capacity of the station. The addition of the Peterborough service would further strain the stations capacity. Metrolinx is undertaking a station capacity study to assess the volume of trains that can use the station at this time. Results of the study are expected in 2010.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 115

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

9.2.2 North Toronto Station (Summerhill)

Exhibit 9-10: Summerhill Station circa 1916

The Yonge Street Station is proposed to be located in the general location of the original CP North Toronto Station Exhibit 9-10 above. This station is now better known to Torontonians as the Summerhill Station and that name has been carried in this report. Several previous studies and transportation plans have proposed the reopening of this station for a new “midtown line”. CP opened this station to passenger traffic in June of 1916. Due to changes in the economy, train operations and rider preference, intercity passenger services for Toronto were concentrated at Union Station. As a result the Summerhill Station closed in September of 1931. The station is currently used for retail purposes but remains essentially unchanged. There currently is no direct access from the Summerhill Station to the TTC’s Summerhill subway station, which is located 300 feet north of the railway station.

For the purposes of this report, a simple station has been assumed for Summerhill with a platform on the north side with street level access. Provision for a direct access to the TTC subway system has not been included in the capital cost estimates.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 116

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

9.3 Additional or Upgrade of Signal Systems

Currently the freight traffic operating on the Havelock Subdivision is protected using Occupancy Control System (OCS) and Tabular General Bulletin Orders (TGBO). OCS is a system wherein the Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) may provide, usually by radio, instruction for the movement and protection of trains, engines and maintenance equipment. The instructions are specific as to where, when and how trains are to operate. When there are conflicts between trains the RTC will issue OCS clearances to crews to direct which train is to enter a particular siding to wait for the other train. The employees that are involved with the movements must copy the instructions from the RTC and properly repeat them back to the RTC before approval is given by the RTC to act upon the instructions. OCS has replaced the system formerly referred to as “train orders”. This is the most basic form of train protection and is practical for slow, low volume trackage. There is no trackside automation involved in the OCS system.

Additionally, trains are issued TGBO’s which contain instructions regarding track conditions, speed or other operating restrictions and other information which may affect the safety and movement of a train or engine within limits indicated in the Time Table or specified special instructions. This is one of the most basic forms of train protection and is practical for slow, low volume trackage. There is no trackside automation involved in this train control system.

For the proposed Peterborough passenger service on the Havelock Subdivision, the design team assumed an upgrade to the first level of automatic train control. This system is referred to as the Automatic Block System (ABS). ABS is defined as a series of consecutive blocks which are governed by block signals, cab signals or both in which ABS rules apply. The signals in ABS territory are actuated by a train, engine or a track condition affecting the use of the track.

As shown in Exhibit 9-11 below, the system:

- Prohibits entry into an occupied block (Red Signal)

- Warns that the next block ahead is occupied (Yellow Signal)

- Notifies that there are no restrictions on the block immediately ahead (Green Signal)

Exhibit 9-11: Diagram of 2-block, 3-aspect signalling

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 117

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

9.4 Siding Requirements

Under the Enhanced Service scenario, there will be counter-flow movement requirements for trains returning from the Toronto Terminus to Locust Hill, to create the two later departures from Locust Hill. As a result, one or two passing sidings will be required between the Toronto terminus and the Locust Hill station. To determine the number of sidings and the exact location a detailed operational analysis will be required. The cost of these sidings is considered to be included in the overall contingencies.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 118

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

10 Incremental Service Initiation Schedule

Several distinct project development phases would be required between the formal agreement to proceed with the project by the federal and provincial governments and the service start up date. The schedule outlined in the following sections assumes that a decision to proceed is made in early 2010.

10.1 The Peterborough Rail Study

The Peterborough Rail Study examined the potential ridership and investigated the viability of implementing such a service, as well as developing rough order of magnitude capital and operating cost estimates. This study will be complete by the end of January 2010 after which it will be forwarded to the Federal and Provincial governments for review and consideration.

10.2 Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Assessment

After reviewing the information provided in the Peterborough Rail Study, the Federal and Provincial governments will determine if the project should go forward. Should the project receive approval to proceed, the next step would be to initiate the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment (EA) phase. The Peterborough Rail Study investigated the potential passenger rail service at a fairly high level and includes some broad assumptions to arrive at its conclusions and cost estimates. In this phase of the project, an in depth review of these assumptions and background material will be conducted.

Preliminary engineering (to a 30% level of engineering/design) will be carried out to ensure that all of the major design issues are addressed. In this phase, CP Rail, and third parties such as road authorities, utilities, town councils and others will be contacted to confirm and investigate project related needs and concerns. These needs and concerns will then be evaluated and addressed where required in the preliminary design.

During the preliminary engineering phase of the work, background environmental data is gathered to develop an inventory of environmental features of interest. As the project is developed by the design team, the environmental concerns will be addressed and the design will accommodate these concerns where necessary.

Following the completion of the preliminary design and the inventory of environmental features affected by the project, an EA report is then presented to the required provincial and federal government ministries and agencies with jurisdiction, and to the public, for review, comments and approval. Based on approximate timeline estimations, the preliminary engineering phase, including obtaining required EA approvals for the project, could be completed by the third quarter (Q3) of 2011.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 119

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

10.3 Detailed Engineering and Contract Document Preparation

Detailed engineering would begin following completion of the preliminary engineering and EA phase. In this phase of the work the design is fully developed to describe the project sufficiently for its construction. All issues identified and or dictated by the approving agencies are then incorporated into the detailed design and in accordance with engineering best practices. At the end of detailed design, all drawings and specifications will be available for inclusion into contract packages(s). As well, a project estimate will be developed to an accuracy of plus or minus 20%.

Assuming that the detailed design estimate is approved and no further design changes are required, the completed drawings and specifications are then incorporated into the contract package(s). Calls for tenders will be publicized to invite quotations from competent contractors.

For the purposes of timeline estimation in this report, it is assumed that the detailed engineering for this project will take approximately 12 months following preliminary engineering and an environmental assessment. Therefore, the call for tenders will occur in Q2 2012.

It is anticipated that property acquisition will take 12 months following project EA approvals, with an expected completion date in Q3 2012.

10.4 Construction

Ideally, construction should not proceed prior to the acquisition of all required property. Taking this milestone into account, tenders could be issued in Q2 2012 with expected contract award by Q3 2012. Site work would then be in a position to commence by the beginning of Q4 2012. Based on the magnitude of the contract and the number of specialized skills required along with the need to phase the work to protect ongoing freight operations, it is anticipated that construction of civil works will require approximately 24 months to complete followed by another 24 months of track work and signalling. As a result, the line would not be available for commissioning until Q2 2016.

Commissioning and testing will likely require an additional three months to be completed. During that time test trains would be operated at full track speed to ensure that all signalling, level crossing warning devices and interfaces with existing train control systems are operating properly and in a safe manner.

Based on the above estimated timeline, the first revenue service train could be expected to run in Q3 2016 based on a 3 months of commissioning.

10.5 Basic Service

Based on ridership forecasts presented in Section 6, it is anticipated that there will be approximately 1,900 average weekday riders using the service (morning and evening peak hours) in the start up year (2016). It is proposed that a basic level of service be provided in the initial years of service, with two peak direction

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 120

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report trains originating/terminating in Peterborough during the morning and evening peak periods, respectively. See Exhibit 5-11 and 5-12 for prototype schedules for the basic level of service.

10.6 Enhanced Service

A ramp up in service to the enhanced service level was assumed for the 2021 horizon year with the initiation of two additional trains originating/terminating in Locust Hill in the am and pm peak periods, respectively. Based on the ridership projections provided in Section 6, average weekday ridership by 2021 would increase to 3,700 passengers under the enhanced service scenario, compared with only 2,680 passengers under the basic service level. Exhibits 5-13 to 5-16 depict prototype schedules for the enhanced service.

In the 2031 horizon year, average weekday ridership is forecasted to increased to approximately 4,160 passengers under the enhanced service scenario. To incrementally expand service, the two Locust Hill trains could potentially be cycled back for an additional trip if the ridership demand should warrant it. In this case however, a passing siding would be required for the Locust Hill trains to meet the Peterborough trains.

10.7 All Day Service

Based on the 2031 ridership forecasts, providing all-day, two-way service every 30 minutes between Toronto and Locust Hill would attract approximately 5,550 average weekday riders. As this is only 1,390 projected riders more than under the enhanced scenario, and would involve substantially higher operating costs, it is unlikely that such a service would be economically viable within the foreseeable future.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 121

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

11.1 Basis for Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

The cost mandate for this study was Rough Order-of Magnitude Estimates (ROME). According to the Cost Estimate Classification System guidelines issued by AACE International (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering), this equates to a Class 4 estimate with a level of project definition between 1% and 15% applicable for Concept and Feasibility Studies. This results in an accuracy range of +100/-50%.

All costs are expressed in 2009 Canadian dollars and no escalation factors have been applied to costs to be incurred between 2010 through 2043. Financing costs have not been included in any costs presented in this study.

Capital cost estimates were developed for the three main route options and relevant sub-options outlined in Section 5 (Routes A, B and C). Each route was broken up into various estimating segments to correspond to different junction and tie in locations required on the various railway subdivisions. This combination of segments incorporated the unique characteristics and features of each route. Many of the segments were common to multiple routes allowing for flexibility in compiling route estimate totals. The various routing options and their corresponding estimating segments are reflected in schematics shown in Exhibits 11-11 to 11-20.

Track costs were developed on the basis of installing new, 115 pound rail, number one treated hardwood ties and related other track material (OTM) which is a standard for conventional commuter rail operations. Track costs for the Havelock Subdivision and the Don Branch reflect an upgrade of the existing track material to new and make allowance for ballast undercutting and removal using rail- mounted, undercutter equipment. The remainder of the segment costs were developed on the basis of new track construction situated on new roadbed. Switches consist of either new #20’s for mainline operation at a 45 mile per hour (mph) speeds or #11’s for replacement of existing industrial switches in the mainline. At certain locations on the Havelock Subdivision, an estimating allowance was made for track that had to be realigned with reduced curvatures in order to maintain the 60 mph design speed. Costs were included for a two train layover and light maintenance facility at the Peterborough Harper Station. Costs were also included for a one consist pocket track at Locust Hill and Summerhill Stations.

For the Routes A and B Zero Impact sub-options, costs were developed for flyunders consisting of a 9.75 metre diameter bored tunnel with approaches either side, which would be located in the northeast corner of Toronto Yard for Route A and for the length of the Toronto Yard under the Belleville Subdivision in the case of the Route B. In addition, the costs for the Route A Zero Impact Option to Union Station include a flyover (i.e. an aerial guideway) over the Belleville Subdivision, starting just west of Agincourt (Brimley) Station. The close proximity of road underpasses in the section of the Belleville Subdivision did not allow for practical tunnel approaches.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 122

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Provision was made for upgrading all level crossings on the Havelock Subdivision to automatic crossing protection consisting of bells, lights and, in some cases, gates. Costs were also allowed for single spans immediately adjacent to existing grade separated crossings on the Belleville and North Toronto Subdivisions as required to accommodate a new mainline. For the Route A Minimal Impact sub-option, a cost allowance was included for converting the four lane Tapscott Road at-grade crossing to an overpass.

Costs for retaining toe walls along the Belleville and North Toronto Subdivisions were included given the tight proximity of a number of buildings in the area and the anticipated difficulty in securing the required property for an additional track in the existing, mid-to-high residential density, multi-track corridors.

Station prices are based on average unit cost of $10,000 per parking space for a basic paved parking lot comprised of: two layers of asphalt, granular base, sub-surface drainage, sidewalks, bus turning loops, lighting and Kiss and Ride areas. Platform prices allow for a 183 metre long platform sufficient to accommodate a six car consist. Platform costs also make some provision for basic canopy structures, lighting, asphalt and concrete curbs.

Property prices allowed for in the estimates represent an average of property prices for 3 station locations: Peterborough, Locust Hill and Steeles, based on the Toronto Real Estate Board’s 2007 Greater Toronto Area Industrial Areas and Values.

With regards to train control and signaling systems, it was assumed that the Havelock Sub and the Don Branch will need to be upgraded from the current Occupancy Control System (OCS) (refer to Section 9.3) to an Automatic Block System (ABS). In the case of the Belleville and North Toronto Subs, both of these subdivisions are currently Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) systems. Any new track infrastructure installations on the Belleville and North Toronto Subs will need to be compatible with and rolled into the current CTC system. The train control and signaling systems costs reflected in the study’s estimates reflect these two different system requirements.

Professional services apply to design, procurement and construction activities and include: conceptual (10%) design; preliminary (30%) design; detailed (100%) design; construction administration; commissioning; project management; related specialty services and investigations to support the various stages of design.

Rolling stock costs were developed on the basis of conventional passenger locomotives and compatible commuter rail cars, these were assumed to be the most feasible equipment for the Peterborough passenger rail service. As per Section 7.3, it was assumed that rolling stock will ultimately be comprised of four, six-car/bi-level consists, introduced for service as follows: two consists in 2016; two consists in 2022. On this basis, rolling stock was estimated using the following unit prices:  MP-40 Locomotive: $5,000,000  Bi-level Cab Coach: $3,000,000  Bi-level Trailer Access Coach: $2,600,000  Bi-level Trailer Coach: $2,600,000

Contingency allowances used for the various capital, and operating and maintenance group categories are reflected in Exhibit 11-1. The contingency allowances used are typical for this early phase of project

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 123

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report development. Each category contingency is broken down into two components: scope and estimating. In each case, the contingency percentages make allowance for: pre-concept level of design at this stage; known and unknown variables; category specifics and typical levels of control inherent to each category; various levels of uncertainty with each category. The contingency percentages reflected in Exhibit 11-1 are consistent with those used for the GO 2031 Lakeshore Corridor Electrification Study, October 2008.

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) values extending between the cash flow years of 2010 and 2043 were developed on the basis of a route mile and train mile pro-rate of current GO O&M costs. The O&M cost projections extend out to 2043 in order to capture lifecycle cost elements (e.g., costs for locomotive and fleet mid-life refurbishments etc.). All O&M costs presented in this report are on a gross basis, and do not factor in fare revenues. This reflects the fact that no assumptions have been made in this report regarding the potential operator of the service. Potential fare revenues could vary considerably depending on the fare structure of the operator (e.g., GO Transit, VIA Rail, or a third-party operator).

Regarding cash flow distribution, conceptual design, installation and implementation schedules were prepared for each route. The capital and O&M cash flows were developed and distributed on the basis of these schedules.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 124

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

Exhibit 11-1: Contingency Summary

COMBINED TYPE OF CATEGORY % CATEGORY CONTINGENCY % CAPITAL CONTINGENCIES GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Scope 30% Estimating 30% 60% STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL Scope 30% Estimating 25% 55% SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS Scope 35% Estimating 35% 70% SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS Scope 35% Estimating 35% 70% SYSTEMS Scope 30% Estimating 50% 80% ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS Scope 35% Estimating 50% 85% VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) Scope 20% Estimating 25% 45% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Scope 25% Estimating 20% 45% AVERAGE CAPITAL CONTINGENCY (WEIGHTED BASED ON TOTAL CONTINGENCY COSTS/TOTAL BEFORE CONTINGENCY COSTS ) 58% OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE CONTINGENCIES ROLLING STOCK Scope 20% Estimating 25% 45% STRUCTURES Scope 30% Estimating 35% 65% FACILITIES Scope 50% Estimating 50% 100% WAYSIDE Scope 40% Estimating 20% 60% OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION (OVERHEAD) Scope 20% Estimating 20% 40% TRANSIT & ENERGY & POWER COSTS Scope 20% Estimating 35% 55% AVERAGE O&M CONTINGENCY 48% (WEIGHTED BASED ON TOTAL CONTINGENCY COSTS/TOTAL BEFORE CONTINGENCY COSTS )

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 125

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.2 Capital Costs

The estimated capital costs between 2010 and the anticipated 2016 in service date range from a low of $541 million for the Route C to Union Station option to a high of $1,489 million for the Route B Zero Impact to Summerhill option, including contingencies. This represents the cost to completed required infrastructure upgrades along the entire Peterborough-Toronto corridor to introduce the basic level of service, including trackwork, structures, signalling, construction of new stations and a layover facility in Peterborough, and purchasing two six-car bi-level train sets.

The estimated capital costs from 2017 to 2021 range from a low of $82 million for Route B-SH-1 Zero Impact to a high of $96 million for Route A-US-1 Minimal Impact including contingencies and vehicle costs. These reflect the costs required to ramp up to enhanced service by 2021 with the addition of two additional trains originating/terminating in Locust Hill, including a second layover facility in Locust Hill, parking lot expansions at stations, and the purchase of two additional six-car bi-level train sets.

For the purposes of the estimates it was assumed that a daytime layover site will be available in the Toronto area and that this facility will be tasked with the medium and heavy maintenance of the fleet. Depending on the operator of the service, these functions could potentially be handled at GO’s Willowbrook Maintenance Facility or VIA’s Toronto Maintenance Centre.

A summary of the capital cost estimates for each route option are provided in Exhibits 11-2 to 11-11 below. Detailed estimates and cashflows are provided in Appendix F.

11.3 Gross Operating and Maintenance Costs

O&M costs are assumed to begin in 2016 with the initiation of basic service between Peterborough and Toronto. The total estimated gross O&M costs for the analysis period to 2043 inclusive range from a low of $1,214 million for Route A-SH-1 Minimal Impact to a high of $1,268 million for Route C-US-1 reflecting the differences in total route miles for each option. Again, the O&M cost estimates assume that service ramps up from the basic to enhanced level beginning in 2021. On an annual basis, the average gross O&M costs are in the order of $21-25 million for the basic service level, and $43-44 million for enhanced service. Costs vary slightly between routes, with the Summerhill terminus options being marginally lower due to the shorter route lengths.

A summary of the O&M cost estimates for each route option are provided in Sections 11-2 to 11-11 below. Detailed estimates and cashflows are provided in Appendix F.

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 126

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.4 Route A, Union Station, Zero Impact

Exhibit 11-2 summarizes the costs for the Route A to Union Station Zero Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-12 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-2: Cost of Route A to Union Station – Zero Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $555,000,000 $0 $0 $555,000,000 STATIONS, STOPS, $26,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $35,000,000 TERMINALS, INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 SITEWORK & SPECIAL $59,000,000 $0 $0 $59,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $28,000,000 $0 $0 $28,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $26,000,000 $0 $0 $26,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) $42,000,000 $42,000,00 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $149,857,080 $14,000,000 $0 $164,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $520,000,000 $30,000,000 $0 $550,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,411,000,000 $95,000,000 $0 $1,507,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & MAINTENANCE COSTS $24,000,000 $121,000,000 $1,084,000,000 $1,229,000,000 TOTAL COSTS $1,435,000,000 $216,000,000 $1,084,000,000 $2,735,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 127

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.5 Route A, Union Station, Minimal Impact Exhibit 11-3 summarizes the costs for the Route A to Union Station Minimal Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-13 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-3: Cost of Route A to Union Station – Minimal Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK $244,000,000 $0 $0 $244,000,000 ELEMENTS STATIONS, STOPS, $26,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $35,000,000 TERMINALS, INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $63,000,000 $0 $0 $63,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $28,000,000 $0 $0 $28,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $22,000,000 $0 $0 $22,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $78,000,000 $14,000,000 $0 $92,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $300,000,000 $31,000,000 $0 $331,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $808,000,000 $96,000,000 $0 $904,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $24,000,000 $121,000,000 $1,084,000,000 $1,229,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $832,000,000 $217,000,000 $1,084,000,000 $2,133,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 128

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.6 Route A, Summerhill Station, Zero Impact Exhibit 11-4 summarizes the costs for the Route A to Summerhill Station Minimal Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-14 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-4: Cost of Route A to Summerhill Station – Zero Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK $475,000,000 $0 $0 $475,000,000 ELEMENTS STATIONS, STOPS, $29,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $38,000,000 TERMINALS, INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. $6,000,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000 BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $69,000,000 $0 $0 $69,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $25,000,000 $0 $0 $25,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $25,000,000 $0 $0 $25,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $134,000,000 $7,000,000 $0 $141,000,000 UNALLOCATED $470,000,000 $27,000,000 $0 $497,000,000 CONTINGENCY FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,275,000,000 $85,000,000 $0 $1,360,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $23,000,000 $119,000,000 $1,072,000,000 $1,214,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $1,298,000,000 $204,000,000 $1,072,000,000 $2,574,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 129

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.7 Route A, Summerhill, Minimal Impact Exhibit 11-5 summarizes the costs for the Route A to Summerhill Station Minimal Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-15 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-5: Cost of Route A to Summerhill Station – Minimal Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK $283,000,000 $0 $0 $283,000,000 ELEMENTS STATIONS, STOPS, $29,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $38,000,000 TERMINALS, INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $6,000,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $69,000,000 $0 $0 $69,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $25,000,000 $0 $0 $25,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $22,000,000 $0 $0 $22,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $90,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $96,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $334,000,000 $27,000,000 $0 $361,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $900,000,000 $84,000,000 $0 $984,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $23,000,000 $119,000,000 $1,072,000,000 $1,214,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $923,000,000 $203,000,000 $1,072,000,000 $2,198,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 130

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.8 Route B, Union Station, Zero Impact Exhibit 11-6 summarizes the costs for the Route B to Union Station Zero Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-16 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-6: Cost of Route B to Union Station – Zero Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $533,000,000 $0 $0 $533,000,000 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, $25,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $34,000,000 INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $76,000,000 $0 $0 $76,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $30,000,000 $0 $0 $30,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $39,000,000 $0 $0 $39,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-CAR CONSISTS) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $157,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $163,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $534,000,000 $27,000,000 $0 $561,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,441,000,000 $84,000,000 $0 $1,525,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $24,000,000 $122,000,000 $1,105,000,000 $1,251,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $1,465,000,000 $206,000,000 $1,105,000,000 $2,776,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 131

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.9 Route B, Union Station, Minimal Impact Exhibit 11-7 summarizes the costs for the Route B to Union Station Minimal Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-17 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-7: Cost of Route B to Union Station – Minimal Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $300,000,000 $0 $0 $300,000,000 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, $25,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $34,000,000 INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $72,000,000 $0 $0 $72,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $29,000,000 $0 $0 $29,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $38,000,000 $0 $0 $38,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $100,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $106,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $363,000,000 $26,000,000 $0 $389,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $974,000,000 $83,000,000 $0 $1,057,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $24,000,000 $122,000,000 $1,105,000,000 $1,251,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $998,000,000 $205,000,000 $1,105,000,000 $2,308,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 132

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.10 Route B, Summerhill Station, Zero Impact Exhibit 11-8 summarizes the costs for the Route B to Summerhill Station Zero Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-18 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-8: Cost of Route B to Summerhill – Zero Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $559,000,000 $0 $0 $559,000,000 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, $28,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $37,000,000 INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $6,000,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $76,000,000 $0 $0 $76,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $28,000,000 $0 $0 $28,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $41,000,000 $0 $0 $41,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-CAR CONSISTS) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $158,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $163,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $551,000,000 $26,000,000 $0 $577,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,489,000,000 $82,000,000 $0 $1,571,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $23,000,000 $120,000,000 $1,092,000,000 $1,235,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $1,512,000,000 $202,000,000 $1,092,000,000 $2,806,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 133

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.11 Route B, Summerhill, Minimal Impact Exhibit 11-9 summarizes the costs for the Route B to Summerhill Station Minimal Impact sub-option. See Exhibit 11-19 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-9: Cost of Route B to Summerhill Station – Minimal Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $325,000,000 $0 $0 $325,000,000 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, $27,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $36,000,000 INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $6,000,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $72,000,000 $0 $0 $72,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $26,000,000 $0 $0 $26,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $40,000,000 $0 $0 $40,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (number) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $106,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $112,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $382,000,000 $26,000,000 $0 $408,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,026,000,000 $83,000,000 $0 $1,109,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $23,000,000 $120,000,000 $1,092,000,000 $1,235,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $1,049,000,000 $203,000,000 $1,156,000,000 $2,344,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 134

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.12 Route C, Union Station, Zero Impact Exhibit 11-10 summarizes the costs for the Route C to Union Station sub-option. See Exhibit 11-20 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-10: Cost for Route C to Union Station – Zero Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $168,000,000 $0 $0 $168,000,000 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, $17,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $25,000,000 INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $18,000,000 $0 $0 $18,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $13,000,000 $0 $0 $13,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $30,000,000 $0 $0 $30,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $48,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $56,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $200,000,000 $27,000,000 $0 $227,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $541,000,000 $85,000,000 $0 $626,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $24,000,000 $124,000,000 $1,120,000,000 $1,268,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $565,000,000 $209,000,000 $1,120,000,000 $1,894,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 135

February 5, 2010

In association with IBI Group Metrolinx Peterborough Rail Study Final Report

11.13 Route C, Summerhill Station, Zero Impact Exhibit 11-11 summarizes the costs for the Route C to Summerhill Station sub-option. See Exhibit 11-21 for the corresponding track diagram.

Exhibit 11-11: Cost of Route C to Summerhill Station – Zero Impact

Year 2010-2016 2017-2021 2022-2043 Totals

CAPITAL COSTS GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $281,000,000 $0 $0 $281,000,000 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, $16,000,000 $11,000,000 $0 $27,000,000 INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, $6,000,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000 SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL $76,000,000 $0 $0 $76,000,000 CONDITIONS SYSTEMS $27,000,000 $0 $0 $27,000,000 ROW, LAND, EXISTING $37,000,000 $0 $0 $37,000,000 IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLES (4, 6-car consists) $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $0 $84,000,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $92,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 $101,000,000 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $345,000,000 $29,000,000 $0 $374,000,000 FINANCE CHARGES N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $922,000,000 $91,000,000 $0 $1,013,000,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL & $24,000,000 $121,000,000 $1,115,000,000 $1,260,000,000 MAINTENANCE COSTS TOTAL COSTS $946,000,000 $212,000,000 $1,115,000,000 $2,273,000,000

PR260555/0 Rev. R1, Page 136

February 5, 2010

Exhibit 11-19

Exhibit 11-21 Exhibit