Metrolinx USRC East Enhancements Project Community Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Summary Tuesday, March 6, 2018 Metrolinx 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 Toronto 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 Barrie 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 Union Station 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 Barrie line, 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.