Metrolinx USRC East Enhancements Project Community Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Summary Tuesday, March 6, 2018 Offices, 20 Bay Street, 6th Floor, Executive Boardroom 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

MEETING SUMMARY

Approximately 25 people attended Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting #3* on Tuesday March 6, 2018 at Metrolinx’s 20 Bay Street offices, including CAC members, Metrolinx, and City of staff (see Attachment A for the Participant List). The purpose of the meeting was to provide the CAC with an overview of Metrolinx’s track expansion plans, including Track E(0) and related underpasses; bridge extensions; retaining walls, relocation of Cherry Street Tower; and safety requirements (see Attachment B for the meeting agenda).

Peter Zuk, Metrolinx Chief Capital Officer, welcomed participants to the CAC meeting and Nicole Swerhun (Swerhun Facilitation) explained the role of the facilitation team and asked all participants to introduce themselves.

Following introductions, James Hartley (Metrolinx, Manager, Environmental Programs and Assessments) delivered an overview presentation, which was broken into three parts. Between each part, participants had the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback to the Metrolinx team.

Casey Craig and Nicole Swerhun from the third-party facilitation team, Swerhun Facilitation, wrote this meeting summary. It is intended to reflect the main points shared by participants during the meeting and is not a verbatim transcript. The meeting summary is structured to reflect the main areas of discussion, including:

 Track Expansion and E0;  Bridges and Teamways;  Rail Safety;  Receptor Based Noise and Vibration Assessment; and  Next Steps.

A draft of this summary was subject to participant review before being finalized.

Attachments include: Participant List (Attachment A); Meeting Agenda (Attachment B); Presentation Slide Deck (Attachment C); and message with follow-up questions/requests received from LARA, Caroline Co-op, and Cathedral Court (Attachment D – included with their permission).

*Note that all CAC meetings will now be numbered sequentially rather than having the meeting number system interrupted to differentiate between full CAC meetings and CAC Technical Briefings. The topics covered at each CAC meeting will continue to be communicated well in advance to give CAC members the opportunity to prioritize those topics that most align with their interests.

Meeting #3 Summary Page 1 of 9 Facilitation Team’s Overview of the Meeting

There were CAC members who appreciated the information Metrolinx presented on track expansion and infrastructure impacts, and at the same time indicated that more detail/information is required to address key issues. For example, there are CAC members who said that the rationale for Track E(0) was not persuasive, and that more information on the plans for bridge extensions and potential underpasses (teamways) is needed, including clarity regarding the coordination between Metrolinx, the City of Toronto, and Waterfront Toronto.

One CAC member made a point of thanking Metrolinx for its recent efforts to move the idling trains near residents, and noted that the actions taken have improved their lives. Another member passed on thanks to Peter Zuk (Metrolinx Chief Capital Officer) for taking the time to connect with CAC members in the community, outside of CAC meetings, to gain firsthand experience of the community’s issues and challenges.

Welcome and Remarks

Peter Zuk welcomed participants to CAC Meeting #2, noting that this is, in fact, the third official time the group is meeting [CAC Meeting #1: January 9, 2018; CAC Technical Briefing on Noise and Vibration: February 13, 2018]. Peter let CAC members know that since the last CAC meeting he had met with some members of the CAC who live adjacent to the USRC East, which allowed him to better understand existing conditions and challenges. Peter acknowledged that Metrolinx has made commitments to this CAC and he’s committed to seeing them fulfilled. He encouraged CAC members to bring forward any cases where they think commitments are not being met (so they can receive attention), as well as any new suggestions they would like to see Metrolinx consider.

Nicole Swerhun (Swerhun Facilitation) facilitated a round of introductions and reviewed the agenda. She noted that, to date, three sets of questions for Metrolinx have been shared by the CAC. Responses from Metrolinx have been provided to the first two sets of questions (those submitted at CAC Meeting #1 by LARA, and an additional 40 questions submitted concurrently/subsequently), and these have been emailed to all CAC members. A third set of answers to additional questions submitted by Longboat Area Residents’ Association (LARA) following the February 13th Technical Briefing on Noise and Vibration is forthcoming.

Summary of the Discussion

This report captures the main points made by Metrolinx in the overview presentation, and summarizes CAC member feedback and questions by topic area. Responses from Metrolinx and the project team, where provided, are noted in italics.

Meeting #3 Summary Page 2 of 9 Track Expansion and E0

The presentation included a contextual overview of growth and transit planning in the region. Over the next 35 years, the regional is expected to grow by nearly nine million residents. Metrolinx is planning to increase GO Transit service (Regional Express Rail), moving from a commuter service to a regional rapid transit option with up to 15 minute service in many areas of the network. Metrolinx said that for those living near and adjacent to the corridor, this means transforming the current system into something that can serve your transit needs and benefit you in ways that it may not today.

Metrolinx provided information about a number of topics related to the need for track expansion to support Regional Express Rail (RER), including: Metrolinx’ Customer and Safety Charter commitments to being on time and providing safe service; an explanation of how trains move along a track and how signaling impact train movement and vice versa; and how and where trains turn around on tracks, and how long it takes a train to do so.

Of particular importance to CAC members was the rational for Track E(0). The following three slides were presented by Metrolinx to illustrate why Track E(0) is crucial for GO RER and SmartTrack (see Attachment C for full presentation slide deck):

Meeting #3 Summary Page 3 of 9

CAC Member Feedback

Several CAC members said that the information presented by Metrolinx did not provide a clear rationale for the need for track E0, given a number of other options raised by CAC members and concerns.

CAC members shared the following ideas for Metrolinx to consider, in order to avoid having to build E0, including:

1. Interlining and Richmond Hill lines. CAC members suggested that this could potentially eliminate the need for E0, and that Metrolinx should study this option. In response, Metrolinx representatives indicated that they had not studied the potential for interlining (which some CAC members said they found surprising), however they said they will need to study it.

Metrolinx representatives explained that interlining Barrie and Richmond Hill rail service would likely not alleviate the need for the E0 track for the following reasons:

 The Barrie corridor will be running electrified service that requires electrification infrastructure. Since the Richmond Hill corridor is partly owned by CN, Metrolinx cannot electrify the Richmond Hill corridor.  The Richmond Hill corridor is only one track. To run two-way rail service on the Richmond Hill corridor, an additional track will be needed.  Richmond Hill trains move from the Bloomington layover down to every 30 minutes during the morning rush, and head up to the Bloomington layover every 30 minutes during the evening rush. The 30 minute intervals are a service frequency restriction on the corridor. Running two-way service is not possible within 30 min service.  Significant infrastructure improvements on the Richmond Hill Corridor will be needed before it could be interlined. This includes rail-rail grade separations, additional of a second track, lifting tracks out of the flood plain, and straightening curves among others. There is no funding or current plan to build this infrastructure.

Meeting #3 Summary Page 4 of 9 2. Investigate the potential for hydrail service to allow for interlining. This would provide an electrified service that eliminates the need for the cumbersome overhead catenary system proposed through the electrification work. In response, Metrolinx representatives indicated that:

 The Hydrail Feasibility study showed that hydrail is feasible, though it is unclear whether hydrail is feasible on the scale Metrolinx requires to move people across the region. To test this premise, Metrolinx recently awarded a contract for bi-level EMU and hydrogen locomotives.

 Metrolinx is looking at whether bidders could include hydrail in their proposals when the RFP is released to the market, as early as fall 2018. Hydrail could well be a portion of the services Metrolinx delivers as part of RER.

3. Use one of tracks E1-E8 to turn around the Barrie train instead of building E0. In response, Metrolinx indicated that with 15 minute or better service on the , Metrolinx will not be able to have trains frequently switching tracks. This would create a capacity intensive counter-flow conflict between trains because of track limitations, which we can’t have.

4. Leave trains at the platforms and perform the brake test and turn around procedures (which, in part, make up the rationale for building E0) at the same time as customers exit the train. Metrolinx replied that this could be done with today’s service levels, but in the future with increased service, this would block access for subsequent incoming trains, and will lead to regular, frequent delays.

5. Study whether it would be feasible to tunnel and put the platforms underground. In response, Metrolinx indicated that they had investigated this option, however tunneling would be very expensive. The benefit would have to outweigh cost and increase disruption compared to building above ground.

6. Create a network of transit hubs instead of the hub and spoke situation at Union, which is not going to be sustainable. For example, explore the potential of a secondary station at the Unilever site/East Harbour station. The Barrie line could go as far as Unilever and then wouldn’t need E0. In response, Metrolinx representatives said that with the required rail service increases being planned, track E0 is essential to ensure that trains can reliably meet there schedule. Rail simulations have demonstrated that without E0 there would be an unacceptable number of rail conflicts leading to significant delays and inability to deliver the RER program. They cannot offer comfort that E0 may not be needed in light of these other options; the reality is that the additional track is required in the context of increased service. Metrolinx can investigate how to improve the service itself and reduce impact on the community.

7. Wait to build E0 until Metrolinx knows it’s needed. Work within the constraints today (e.g. shift the switch to west of Parliament) and wait until more information is available and other issues (many of which have already been identified) are addressed. In response, Metrolinx indicated that computerized train simulation modelling has identified some areas of conflict points and constraints, including the conflict between the Barrie and Richmond Hill trains, requiring the Barrie trains to turnaround outside the station. There were a series of choices and trade-offs in deciding to build E0, which Metrolinx has, and will provide to the group.

Meeting #3 Summary Page 5 of 9 CAC members asked the following questions during the discussion about track expansion and the need for Track E0:

 Does Metrolinx really need this additional E0 track given new technology? In this environment, yes. Each track has scheduled trains on the line. With 15 minute or better service, the signal system limits the headway (how close trains can get to each other), and Metrolinx would not be able to fit additional trains into this headway. Requiring trains to switch to a new track to accommodate increased service would reduce the flow of trains across multiple lines.

 Have you looked at other countries for best practices in handling increased service? USRC trackage has evolved since the 20s when it was primarily used for freight and long- distance passenger service. Metrolinx has looked to UK station operations and redevelopment (in London, Birmingham, and Leeds for example), and Germany for efficiency and modernization best practices.

 Has Metrolinx considered what the impact of the province’s high speed rail (HSR) and ’s high frequency rail proposals might mean for E0? Metrolinx is aware of both initiatives; Metrolinx recently met with Via Rail, and knows that it has recently received some federal funding to advance their program. Via Rail expressed interest in remaining at Union Station now and into the future. We have ongoing discussions with the province on their HSR initiative, and we are looking at integrating services between HSR and GO RER where possible.

This discussion regarding E0 wrapped up with acknowledgement among CAC members and Metrolinx that a tension remains regarding the rationale for E0, and that there’s a need for Metrolinx to comprehensively explain the rationale for E0.

CAC members representing the local community believe that the new track E0 will have a significant negative impact on them, particularly since some of the trains will be diesel because the will not be electrified for some time (based on a long list of challenges raised). CAC members raised a number of suggested alternatives for Metrolinx to consider.

At the same time, the main rationale provided by Metrolinx for E0 related to the fact that it’s required to accommodate the Barrie and Richmond Hill lines. This rationale was difficult for many to accept since the Richmond Hill line has comparatively infrequent service (for now), and given the challenges identified with increased service, will likely not have a significant increase in service for some time (though there is an understanding that in the long term, the Richmond Hill line’s challenges will be addressed and it may be more heavily used than currently anticipated).

Based on the slides presented by Metrolinx to the CAC, and based on the discussion that unfolded, CAC members are looking for a clearer explanation of the thinking behind Metrolinx’s conclusion that E0 is essential. Metrolinx will provide more information at upcoming CAC meetings.

Meeting #3 Summary Page 6 of 9 Bridges and Teamways

Metrolinx presented its commitment to working with the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto to study, evaluate and prioritize potential future new connection(s) under the rail corridor, possibly in the form of new teamway structures, with considerations to:

1. Minimize or avoid impact on the existing bridge structure; 2. Minimize impact on adjacent property; and 3. Ensure appropriate integration with City right of ways can be achieved.

Metrolinx indicated that discussions are underway between Metrolinx, the City of Toronto, and Waterfront Toronto regarding strengthening connections through the rail berm. During the CAC discussions it emerged that there are different expectations regarding how Metrolinx would be supporting the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto in achieving their connectivity goals (i.e. whether the feasibility of the teamways would be studied by the City and Waterfront Toronto, with support from Metrolinx; or whether Metrolinx would lead this work as part of the USRC East EA, in collaboration with the City and Waterfront Toronto).

CAC Member Feedback:

 “Minimize or avoid impact on the existing bridge structure” was flagged as unacceptable by a CAC member, who reiterated that the structures are not consistent with modern, efficient, and safe connections between the city and the waterfront. There is an opportunity to address some of the negative impact the rail corridor has historically had on the area, which will intensify with track expansion.  A separate public realm specific meeting would be helpful with members of Metrolinx, Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto in attendance to discuss these topics with the CAC. It is not helpful to hear that discussions are ongoing and that consultation will happen sometime in the future when we’re already meeting as an organized group now.  Metrolinx has asked its heritage consultants to provide clarification on what can be modified under the existing legislation that identifies the bridges as having provincial heritage significance.  CAC members would like to see the documents that identify the bridges as having provincial heritage significance, as well as the answers on what can be modified.  Given that the City has responsibility for the roads under the bridges, it was suggested that cycle tracks be added to the bridge renderings.

This discussion concluded with a commitment from Metrolinx to hold a special CAC meeting dedicated to discussing the bridges/teamways and public realm. This meeting will be scheduled for the last week of March, 2018.

Meeting #3 Summary Page 7 of 9 Rail Safety

Metrolinx provided a brief overview of the railway safety legislation and regulations that Metrolinx follows and complies with, and committed to next steps.

CAC Member Feedback:

 CAC members expressed concern that new residential development are bringing residents very close to the rail corridor despite noise, vibration, and air quality issues that exist today, and asked whether Metrolinx has been supportive of this practice. Metrolinx indicated that there are guidelines for development next to the rail corridor. Residential elements are required to be 30 m from the rail. Metrolinx operations will meet the safety standards required, regardless of how close a development comes to the track.  There was surprise that residential developments were being approved immediately adjacent to the corridor, and particularly the Ribbon Building.

Note (1) added after the meeting: Metrolinx staff investigated the Ribbon Building referred to in the meeting as an example of a development that is allowing residential components within 30 m of the track. This is a commercial development with a crash wall on the corridor face. The developer once contemplated residential on the top but Metrolinx told them it was too close. There is no residential component within 30 m.

Note (2) added after the meeting: A CAC member clarified that there is a residential tower immediately adjacent to the rail corridor at the western end of the Ribbon Building, and that concerns remain regarding the impacts that the rail corridor could have on the residents living on the south side of the buildings. The following link provides additional materials regarding what is proposed at 31 Parliament, which according to the architectural plans, would have amenity spaces and balconies immediately adjacent to the rail corridor: http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?actio n=init&folderRsn=3988249&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false

Receptor Based Noise and Vibration Assessment

Metrolinx provided an update to the CAC on the Noise and Vibration Assessment, noting that the work would take place the coming weekend (Mar 10/11), however the work would be moving forward without the stabilizer and spiker because it had a failure and is not available. Two options were considered for handing this unforeseen challenge: the first was to halt the noise and vibration assessment and reschedule all activities; the second was to continue with the noise and vibration assessment with the equipment that has been secured, and reschedule the stabilizer and spiker assessment piece. Metrolinx decided to go with the second option to make progress on the noise and vibration assessment and to get at least some of the data required to inform the investigation of mitigation options.

CAC Member Feedback:

 It was noted that CAC members might be sceptical that the noisiest machines are suddenly not available until just before the testing. There was concern that it could be perceived that the machine is being fixed to become less noisy before the assessment. CAC members requested to know what exactly is wrong with the machine and whether any additional stabilizers would be available to replace the faulty equipment for the test. Metrolinx agreed to share the incident report on the stabilizer’s mechanical issue and to share information on

Meeting #3 Summary Page 8 of 9 whether any other stabilizers are available for replacement (though it’s possible they are all in use along the corridor). Metrolinx will continue with the noise and vibration study and do more, if needed, to demonstrate openness, honesty, and transparency. Notes added after the meeting:

 Metrolinx followed up with the community after the meeting to further explain reasons why the stabilizer and spiker equipment would not be available for testing on March 10 & 11. The following update was provided: The Metrolinx team has been working with its maintenance provider to acquire equipment for testing (Metrolinx does not own equipment). Unfortunately, the stabilizer was inoperable due to a mechanical issue that involves a failed rear-drive axle that requires replacement, and the track spiker had been scheduled to work on a vital maintenance program. Currently the maintenance provider has only one track spiker in service for this area of the corridor, all other spikers with this provider are undergoing seasonal maintenance activities across the rail network to ensure safety and efficiency of rail service. However, the team will provide a single head, hydraulic spiker for the testing in the interim.

 As a result of this change, Metrolinx is working with AECOM to schedule a follow-up date to test the remaining equipment (Stabilizer and Track spiker) in the rail corridor. The team will work with the maintenance department to advise on when both pieces of equipment will be available, and a date will be circulated to the volunteers taking part in the study to confirm. Additional testing is expected to take a couple of hours at each receptor location, all within one day.

CAC Member Suggestions:

CAC members provided the following suggestions for Metrolinx to consider:

 Consider video recording the noise and vibration assessment process and sharing this on the website. Many community members would appreciate seeing what this entails.  Consider committing to using only Tier 4 trains on the Richmond Hill line since Tier 4 trains are cleaner than Tier 3 trains. Note added after the meeting: Metrolinx confirmed that in the future RER scenario, Richmond Hill corridor trains will be Tier 4 diesel locomotives.  Consider providing GO Infographics for the projected level of service.  Provide presentation slides to CAC members ahead of time, if possible.  Consider 2.5 hours CAC meetings instead of 2 hours; some said 2 hours is sufficient.  Include more detail on the Cherry Street Tower relocation, including access and use as a functional space, in the next meeting.

Next Steps

The Metrolinx team will coordinate a special topic meeting on bridges/teamways/public realm, which will include representatives from Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto. The group will aim to meeting the week of March 26th. Note added after the meeting: A new CAC meeting has been added on Thursday, March 29th, form 6:30 – 8:30 pm to discuss public realm. This meeting will be held at the Cherry Street YMCA.

Metrolinx also explained that they are scoping the work or the structural analysis commitment and will come back to the CAC with more information when it becomes available.

Meeting #3 Summary Page 9 of 9 Attachment A: Participant List

The following lists contains the participants who attended the USRC East Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2 on March 6, 2018.

Community Advisory Committee: Name Affiliation Jonathan Callegher Caroline Co-op Marty Burke Cathedral Court Co-op Chris Drew Cycle Toronto Michelle Ackerman Dundee Kilmer Michael Brewer Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association Ben Bull Longboat Area Residents Association Eric Forhan St. Lawrence Market BIA Suzanna Kavanagh St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Cindy Wilkey West Don Lands Committee Peter Lovering Councillor Troisi's Office

Metrolinx Staff: Capital Projects Name Affiliation Peter Zuk Chief Capital Officer Grant Bailie Director, USRC Infrastructure Mike Bogias Manager, Union Station Rail Corridor Infrastructure

Operations Name Affiliation Rob Andrews Senior Manager, Rail Operations

Environmental Assessment Team Name Affiliation Jason Ryan Director, Environmental Programs and Assessments James Hartley Manager, Environmental Programs and Assessments

Planning and Development Team Name Affiliation Trevor Anderson Program Sponsor (A), Union Station

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment A - 1 Communications Name Affiliation Rawle Agard Manager, Communications & Stakeholder Relations, Communications & Public Affairs Ryah Kazman Community Relations & Issues Specialist, RER, Capital Projects Group Jody Robinson Community Relations & Issues Specialist, RER, Capital Projects Group (observer)

Design Excellence Name Affiliation John Potter Senior Advisory, Program Design Excellence

Resources: Name Affiliation Shalin Yeboah Major Capital Infrastructure, City of Toronto David Brutto Transportation Planning, City of Toronto

Facilitation Team: Name Affiliation Nicole Swerhun Swerhun Facilitation Casey Craig Swerhun Facilitation

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment A - 2 Attachment B: Agenda

Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East CAC Meeting #2 – Overview of Metrolinx Track Expansion Tuesday, March 6, 2018 Metrolinx Offices 20 Bay Street, 6th Floor, Executive Boardroom 6:30 – 8:30 pm

PROPOSED AGENDA

6:30 pm Introductions & Agenda Review Nicole Swerhun, Swerhun Facilitation

6:35 pm Metrolinx Commitment to this Community Peter Zuk, Chief Capital Officer, Metrolinx

6:40 Overview of Track Expansion Plans EA Team, Capital Projects Team, Operations Team

6:40 – 7:10 Part 1. Service and Track Expansion (including E0)

7:10 – 7:40 Part 2. Other Infrastructure Required (underpasses, bridge extensions, retaining walls, relocation of Cherry Street Tower)

7:40 – 8:10 Part 3. Safety

Approximately 30 minutes is planned for each of the three parts of the discussion, including time for Metrolinx’s presentation, as well as facilitated questions, responses, and discussion

8:10 Update on Noise and Vibration Assessment

8:25 Next Steps

8:30 pm Adjourn

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment B - 1 Attachment C: Presentation Slide Deck

Please see the following pages for Metrolinx’s CAC #2 presentation slide deck. Note that this slide deck was emailed to all CAC members on March 7th, and the slides are included here (in their very small size – 6 slides per page) for ease of reference only. For detailed reference, please view the full-size version of the slides previously distributed.

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 1

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 2

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 3

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 4

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 5

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 6

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 7

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment C - 8 Attachment D: Post-Meeting Follow-Up Questions from LARA, Caroline Co-op, & Cathedral Court

LARA, Caroline Co-op, and Cathedral Court sent the message below on Friday, March 9, 2018 with follow-up questions/requests regarding the March 6th CAC meeting. It is included here with their permission.

------

Hi Nicole,

Below is a summary on #3 CAC mtg as viewed by LARA, Caroline Co-op & Cathedral Court communities.

I have highlighted follow-up questions/request that we would like Metrolinx to address. Would you kindly send them to Metrolinx.

Thank you,

Sabina

***

RE: Metrolinx CAC Meeting, March 6th 2018

Attendee List: Nicole to provide

- Refer to Agenda and associated presentation slides for meeting content

- $13.5 billion slated for RER from Fed and provincial budget

- James - E0 Requirement Presentation

o Track usage is constricted by switch blocks. Trains need to be fully separated by switches – i.e. you cannot run >1 train within the same switch block (Switch to switch distance not provided)

o 6 tracks currently. Proposal is to add 3 more – E0 (north), E8 (south), E9 (south)

o No room to reduce width between tracks (Request: Need to confirm if this was affirmed)

o No room to add E0 to south side due to Gardiner development (Request: We need to see the Gardiner plans/measurements to confirm this)

o E0 switch is just east of Cherry. Was due to move further east however this is not viable. Other switch is currently west of Sherbourne.

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment D - 1 § (Request: Need to determine why the current E0 switch procedure (i.e. switch off E0 east of Cherry and switch back to E0 west of Sherbourne) cannot be maintained:

· Trains are diesel and running at a low speed limit so the time/braking impact should be minimal

· There are only 3 lines east of Union (Richmond Hill, Lakeshore east and Stouffville) and will be 8 tracks without E0

· (Question: Does E0 run onto a platform or is switching required off this track into the station?))

o Train turnaround time is 10 minutes. Required to complete brake testing and other procedures

o 12 platforms at Union

o Flexibility is required to handle 15 min service on all lines and manage platform ingress/egress

o E0 is required to assist with Barrie train turnaround. Plan is to run it into Union from Barrie, unload, exit east to park, turnaround and then return to the station for the west/northbound trip

o Questions:

§ Michael Brewer, GWNA: Can the Barrie train/track be integrated with the Richmond line? This would negate the need for a turnaround and allow the train to continue east. MX (Trevor): We have not looked into this. Agreed that it would be a good idea to look at Barrie-Richmond Hill "interlining." (Quote: "If we can interline Richmond Hill with Barrie, that would be great.")

§ Ben (for LARA): Why can the Barrie train not complete the turnaround on the track? MX (Trevor) We need 7 mins to unload, then we send it east to turnaround and come back (Request: We need additional clarification on this. If the total load/unload is 14 minutes then why can’t MX just use the same platform and track to send the Barrie train back west/north? Sending it east to turnaround takes up a USRC east track and burns fuel…)

§ Ben (for LARA): Why is E0 needed for the Barrie turnaround? Won’t there be enough track capacity with 8 tracks? MX (Trevor): Our models showed that E0 was required. Ben: Is it impossible to facilitate the turnaround with just 8 tracks? MX (Trevor): Not necessarily. We can walk you through the modeling if you require.

§ Ben (for LARA): Given the large number of uncertainties with the, 1. Volume along the Richmond Hill line, 2. The possibility of integrating Barrie and Richmond Hill, and,

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment D - 2 3. The Barrie turnaround modelling - can MX consider deferring E0 extension and monitoring the track usage as usage increases? MX: This has not been considered, the flexibility is required (Request: LARA requests a separate E0 review session with Trevor, and other SMEs, to review the modelling and address the additional questions noted here)

o Richmond Hill line may not be able to be electrified. There are many issues including:

§ Poor soil/base quality for catenary

§ Flooding

§ CN owned tracks

§ Lots of curves in the line to impede max speed and catenary installation

o Peter Zuk: Hydrail feasibility study completed. RER RFPs will include request to source related Hydrail infrastructure. Viability is yet to be determined. A hybrid Electric/Hydrail train system may be used.

o Richmond Hill projection is to continue with diesel trains at non RER frequencies

o Michael Brewer, GWNA:

§ Why is MX positioning the RER expansion as a single hub (Union Station) and spoke model? The design incorporates hubs at the Unilever site and also at the East Harbour. Also, TTC plans will impact ridership into Union. How hard are these projected Union station passenger number? MX: That’s correct. TTC/SmartTrack upgrades will also impact the ridership patterns. (Question: We need to get a better understanding of how firm the RER hub-spoke plans are and how finite the passenger numbers are, to assess the +/- in terms of the E0 requirement (i.e. How much is known and how much are we guessing?)

o Jon (Caroline Coop):

§ Use of diesel, and expansion of tracks, especially so close to residences, is not in line with MX’s frequently stated goal to protect the environment. MX needs to look harder at how to replace diesel and reduce impact to residences and neighbourhoods

§ We need to consider possible future uses of E0, i.e. VIA high speed/CN. Once it is built it may be available for all uses and as such, mitigation plans may not meet future impacts

- Teamways

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment D - 3 o Waterfront Toronto has been working with MX to plan new pedestrian/bike tunnels adjacent to Jarvis bridge and possible Sherbourne

o Locations not finalized

o Question: Cindy (Waterfront): Why can’t we remediate the bridges themselves? They are not pleasant to look at or use and should be remediated directly. MX: Plans are on-going

- Other Points

o Question, Michael Brewer, GWNA: Is MX on board with development exemptions which allow for close track proximity development? There are numerous potential issues relating to residents safety and quality of life. MX (Peter Zuk): Safety laws will be adhered to. MX does not object to these close proximity developments

o The Stabilizer and Spiker machines are broken and will not be used for this weekend noise/vibration test. They will be deployed and tested at another time

§ Question, Jon (Caroline Coop): Residents may be suspicious of this development. The Stabilizer is the noisiest machine. MX does not want to be accused of retro-fixing the equipment to make it quieter before the test or trying to avoid this test altogether. MX: We can assure you the equipment is broken and will be tested in the future

o (Request: LARA requests a 15 min slot in the next CAC meeting to provide an overview of the Longboat neighbourhood to show pictures of Tom Longboat Lane and apprise CAC members of residents’ concerns. To date only 1 CAC member, Peter Zuk, has chosen to tour the neighbourhood and hear concerns from residents directly, from their perspective. It is imperative that key CAC stakeholders understand the nuances of the neighbourhood and the potential impact of MX plans)

· LARA Additional questions/requests:

- Can we get a formal commitment, and proposed timeframe, from the COO to complete, and incorporate, outstanding machines' noise & vibration tests in time for meeting on mitigation options. This meeting should be delayed until these outstanding tests are available.

- In the second CAC mtg Metrolinx EA rep indicated that no crash wall is needed south of Tom Longboat Lane as Metrolinx has tool(s) to prevent crashes & derailments. He never described any such tools. Question: Is PTC (Positive Train Control) the tool MX will utilize? (Positive Train Control (PTC) is an advanced system designed to automatically stop a train before certain accidents occur. In particular, PTC is designed to prevent: Train-to-train collisions. Derailments caused by excessive train speed. Train movements through misaligned track switches.)

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment D - 4 - If PTC is not to be used, why was PTC not the choice? How will MX guarantee safety of quadrupled traffic with trains often moving on the same track in opposite directions?

- RE: Barrie line-Richmond Hill ‘Interlining’: How many other lines does MX have ending at Union and returning? Why has no one looked into streamlining the service and using fewer tracks that way? Who will look into that and report back to us on the scheduling/operational analysis and resulting recommendation?

- What is the cost of building E0? How do you justify the cost for 400 meters of track requiring major reconstructions of bridges, embankments and potentially damaging residential homes with close proximity construction? Richmond Line is currently directly feeding into E1 track; with proper scheduling and streamlining of trains (such as sending Barrie trains all the way to Richmond Hill/Stouffville and vice versa).

- If Barrie trains end up not continuing further east, will they turn around in the Don Yard? We don't want any trains standing/idling near residences? Is Barrie line to be electrified or will it stay dirty diesel?

- When will Metrolinx conduct promised structural integrity assessment of or homes?

- At any time, will piling be used on USRC during construction? If yes, what exact locations? How will pylons (for catenary) be installed?

- What other (than piling) potentially damaging construction activity will be done during construction? What is the expected impact on our homes? Please list in detail, each with expected impact.

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment D - 5 Attachment E: Post-Meeting Follow-Up Questions from LARA

LARA sent the message below on Friday, March 23, 2018 with follow-up questions/requests regarding the March 6th CAC meeting. It is included here with their permission. ------Pg. 3 bottom slide = Is there at dedicated E0 platform to which trains using E0 track will come to? If not, it will not be direct route. Metrolinx stated that E0 track will provide 1 new direct route into Union Station.

Pg. 4 Top slide = This slide lists arguments for E0 track. All these arguments are invalid and can be resolved if Metrolnx combines Richmond Hill line with Barrie Line. Metrolinx claims congestion, increased idling, 2-way all day service & capacity as reasons for E0. All these issues are resolved if Richmond Hill Line is combined and streamlined with Barrie Line.

Pg.5 = pt. 4 - if the trains cannot be switched at Union station in an increased schedule, where will they be switched? Metrolinx has just made commitment to our communities NOT to idle trains in front of the residences. We do not want the trains idle in front of houses.

Pg.5, pt.6 = Metrolinx can investigate how to improve the service itself and reduce [E0 track] impact on the community.

LARA: Metrolinx is aware that LARA & Caroline communities will not find reduction in impact associated with E0 track until Metrolinx provides noise reducing window upgrades and noise wall separating diesel- exhaust rail traffic from our houses.

Pg.7 LARA strongly objects to the use of teamways for any of Parliament, Sherbourne, Cherry & Jarvis Bridges. These 2 bridge underpasses are the only connection to lake shore and they need to be safe and inviting extension of our neighbourhood. Metrolinx should note the Bay teamway as a scary example of how not to address and build urban underpasses.

Pg.9 = vacuum truck was also excluded from the test on March 10-11 and it should be included in the follow-up test, as per initial commitment by Metrolinx.

Pg. 18, slide ‘RETAINING WALLS NEEDED – INITIAL DRAFT RENDERING’ pictures mature trees of height that covers the height of trains and nice bench. Is Metrolinx committing to planting mature trees and installing this bench in the very same location? If not, the picture is not realistic and misleading.

Pg. 19, slide LANDSCAPING STRATEGY. Metrolinx is ignoring residents’ past requests in term of embankment. Residents communicated before to Metrolinx that we do NOT want shrubs, so, please, stop pushing them on us. We want mature trees and a noise wall covered with wines to create a pleasing visual, mitigation and air-pollution-reducing, barrier between dirty diesel exhaust and our windows. Existing ecotones on west side of Tom Longboat Lane are result of Metrolinx’ failed landscaping job 9 years ago should not be listed as a guideline of any sorts. It merely represents a failed promise that Metrolinx made to the residents before they clear-cut that section of embankment. Embankment has to have built-in drainage to prevent flooding of the Lane and our residences. Here is, again, our wish list for the embankment:

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment E - 1 2.5 Crash/Noise Wall specifications: 2.5.1 Crash wall is required unless PTC (Positive Train Control) is in place to ensure residents’ safety. Crash wall is to be anchored into embankment during re-building phase of embankment when grading is being changed.

2.5.2 Noise wall to be built directly on top of the crash wall, with a total wall height of a minimum of 18 feet (or 6 meters)

2.5.3 Use material that will allow easy-to-grow vines to prosper, and cover the wall

2.5.4 Crash+noise wall will be a continuous wall from Parliament Bridge to Lower Sherbourne Bridge (remove north access to tracks on south-west of Tom Longboat Lane and it is redundant to already existing, and much more convenient and wider south access in the same location. There is also additional access at Distillery District. Continued crash/noise wall will also serve Metrolinx as a satisfactory trespassing deterrent.

4.0 Embankment Design

4.1 Ground retaining wall (on Tom Longboat Lane)

4.1.2 The height of retaining wall (from ground-up) should not exceed 6 feet

4.1.3 The top of the retaining wall should have a black see-through fence (chain-link or bars), in order to allow pedestrians to see the embankment trees

4.1.4 The retaining wall should be red brick and capped with light gray ledge on which black bar, or chain-link fence, will sit.

4.1.5 No soil on the ground in front of retaining wall (it will get overgrown by weeds)

4.1.6 A contract for next 20 years of maintenance must be in place for all aspects of the retaining wall, embankment & landscaping.

4.2 Embankment Landscaping & Crash/Noise Wall:

4.2.2 Embankment must have built-in and functioning, drainage system, which should be maintained indefinitely. Any future water damages stemming from flooding of Tom Longboat Lane must be 100% covered by Metrolinx (3/4 of the embankment is currently covered with thick 40-year old tree canopy that absorbs a lot of water, preventing Tom Longboat Lane from being flooded. With Metrolinx clear-cutting the embankment, the danger of floods are a potentially serious issue).

4.2.3 Embankment must be landscaped with mature trees at an equivalent height to the current canopy, to create a continuous thick canopy from Lower Sherbourne Bridge to Parliament Bridge (note that current analysis of tree height limitations due to the embankment gradient and electricity stanchion are not supported by independent research). Crash/noise wall will prevent tree branches to over-head wiring, so height is not an issue with a wall in place.

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment E - 2 4.2.4 The top of the embankment should be seeded with a thick web of easy-to-grow vines to cover crash/noise wall installed on top of the embankment.

4.2.5 Metrolinx should provide LARA residents with a continuity plan for maintenance of the embankment = drainage, landscaping & a regular cleanup of garbage. The current proposal for a 2-year plan is not sufficient.

4.2.6 A contract for next 20 years of maintenance must be in place for all aspects of crash/noise wall, landscaping and drainage.

5.9 There has to be continued maintenance & repair of all city roads used by equipment/machines, including Tom Longboat Lane throughout the construction process.

Attachments – CAC Meeting #3 Attachment E - 3