DOCSLIB.ORG

Benefits Case

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Benefits Case DURHAM- SCARBOROUGH BUS RAPID TRANSIT BeNefits Case June 2010 Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Benefits Case Final Report June 2010 Prepared for: Prepared by: Metrolinx Steer Davies Gleave 20 Bay Street, Suite 901 970 - 355 Burrard Street Toronto ON M5J 2N8 Vancouver, BC V6C 2G8 In Association with: Economic Development Research Group Metropolitan Knowledge International Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Benefits Case CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 1 PART A PROJECT RATIONALE ........................................................................... 1 Report Structure........................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Rationale............................................................................................................................................ 2 Context and Need ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Overview............................................................................................................................................ 9 Background.................................................................................................................................................... 9 Opportunities and Issues............................................................................................................................. 13 Local Transit Services................................................................................................................................13 GO Transit ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Scarborough – Durham Connection.......................................................................................................... 14 University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College.................................................. 14 PART B OPTIONS.............................................................................................. 16 Project Options ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Base Case ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Options ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 Option 1: Full BRT...................................................................................................................................... 17 Option 2: BRT- Partial Exclusivity within Durham and Toronto ......................................................... 22 Option 3: BRT – Partial Exclusivity within Durham............................................................................... 26 Summary of Options..................................................................................................................................... 29 PART C ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 30 Evaluation Framework................................................................................................................................. 30 Transportation User Benefits..................................................................................................................... 30 Travel Time Savings................................................................................................................................... 31 Automobile Operating Cost Savings ........................................................................................................ 31 Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Benefits Case Safety Benefits ........................................................................................................................................... 32 Qualitative Transportation Benefits ....................................................................................................... 32 Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Financial Account ......................................................................................................................................... 33 Ridership and Revenues ............................................................................................................................ 33 Capital and Operating Costs..................................................................................................................... 34 Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 35 Comparing Benefits and Costs ................................................................................................................... 35 Environmental Impacts................................................................................................................................36 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................................ 36 Economic Development Impacts ............................................................................................................... 37 Temporary Economic Impacts During Construction.............................................................................. 37 Long-term Economic Impacts................................................................................................................... 38 Land Value Changes................................................................................................................................... 39 Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Social Community Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 41 Land Use Shaping ....................................................................................................................................... 42 Road Network ............................................................................................................................................. 42 Construction................................................................................................................................................ 43 Sensitivity Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 43 Summary of Results...................................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURES Figure 1 DurhAm region transit – potential Long-term Higher Order Transit corridors 3 Figure 2 DRT Ridership Levels 4 Figure 3 Highway 2 Corridor in Durham Region 5 Figure 4 Highway 2 – Ellesmere Corridor Regional Context 7 Figure 5 Urban Growth Centre - Pickering 10 Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Benefits Case Figure 6 Urban Growth Centre - Oshawa 11 Figure 7 Urban Growth Centre - Scarborough 12 Figure 8 Full BRT Cross-Section (illustrative) 17 Figure 9 Full BRT Cross-Section (illustrative) 23 Figure 10 Mixed Traffic BRT Cross-Section (illustrative) 23 TABLES Table 1 Option 1 Stops 19 Table 2 Option 1 – BRT Average Speeds and Travel times 20 Table 3 Option 1 Operating PLan 21 Table 4 Option 2 – BRT Average Speeds and Travel times 25 Table 5 Option 3 – BRT Average Speeds and Travel times 27 Table 6 Summary of Options 29 Table 7 Incremental Transportation User Benefits 33 Table 8 Passenger Forecasts (AM Peak Hour Load by direction, maximum) 33 Table 9 Capital and Operating Costs ($ Million) 35 Table 10 Incremental Costs and Revenues 35 Table 11 Comparison Benefits and Costs 36 Table 12 Reduction In CO2 Emissions 37 Table 13 Employment And Income Impacts During Construction 38 Table 14 Employment and income Impacts (2031) 39 Table 15 Property Value Uplift Factors 40 Table 16 Economic Development Impacts 41 Table 17 Discount Rate Sensitivity Analysis 44 Table 18 MAE Summary 46 Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Benefits Case Executive Summary In 2006 the Province of Ontario created the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, renamed to Metrolinx in December 2007. The primary responsibilities of the new organisation are 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 Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) Growth Plan. Building on the Province’s $11.5 billion MoveOntario 2020 funding commitment for rapid transit expansion in the GTHA, Metrolinx developed the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to improve mobility throughout the GTHA
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City of Toronto Submission EGI Toronto
    ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.15, Schedule 8, and in particular, S.90.(1) and S.97 thereof; AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Enbridge Gas Inc. for an Order granting leave to construct natural gas pipelines in the City of Toronto. CITY OF TORONTO SUBMISSIONS ON JURISDICTION (delivered January 8, 2021) The City of Toronto (the "City") delivers these submissions in response to the following questions posed by the Ontario Energy Board ("OEB"): a) Does the OEB have the jurisdiction to determine cost responsibility for the Proposed Pipeline, including any allocation of costs to Waterfront Toronto? If the answer to this question is “yes”, what steps, if any, should the OEB take to address this situation? b) If the answer is “no”, what steps can the OEB take to ensure that the costs of the Proposed Pipeline are not unfairly shifted to ratepayers and that the OEB is able to meet its statutory objectives which include protecting the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of gas service (OEB Act, s.2)? Overview of the City of Toronto's Submissions 1. The OEB has jurisdiction to determine cost responsibility for the Proposed Pipeline but only insofar as it may determine that it is appropriate to allocate the costs to ratepayers through the exercise of its rate setting function or decide that the costs must be borne by Enbridge shareholders. 2. In this case, the OEB's jurisdiction to set "just and reasonable rates" does not permit it to order Waterfront Toronto to pay costs Enbridge estimates will be incurred to build the Proposed Pipeline because: (a) Waterfront Toronto is not liable to pay rates since it is not purchasing gas or its transmission, distribution, or storage from Enbridge; and P a g e | 2 (b) no other statute or contract provides a legal basis to find that Enbridge is entitled to be indemnified by Waterfront Toronto for the anticipated costs of the Proposed Pipeline.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward City Charters in Canada
    Journal of Law and Social Policy Volume 34 Toronto v Ontario: Implications for Canadian Local Democracy Guest Editors: Alexandra Flynn & Mariana Article 8 Valverde 2021 Toward City Charters in Canada John Sewell Chartercitytoronto.ca Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp Part of the Law Commons Citation Information Sewell, John. "Toward City Charters in Canada." Journal of Law and Social Policy 34. (2021): 134-164. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp/vol34/iss1/8 This Voices and Perspectives is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Social Policy by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Sewell: Toward City Charters in Canada Toward City Charters in Canada JOHN SEWELL FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, there has been discussion about how cities in Canada can gain more authority and the freedom, powers, and resources necessary to govern their own affairs. The problem goes back to the time of Confederation in 1867, when eighty per cent of Canadians lived in rural areas. Powerful provinces were needed to unite the large, sparsely populated countryside, to pool resources, and to provide good government. Toronto had already become a city in 1834 with a democratically elected government, but its 50,000 people were only around three per cent of Ontario’s 1.6 million. Confederation negotiations did not even consider the idea of conferring governmental power to Toronto or other municipalities, dividing it instead solely between the soon-to-be provinces and the new central government.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit Service Breaks Ground in Mississauga
    No. H0xx/10 For release August 20, 2010 BUS RAPID TRANSIT SERVICE BREAKS GROUND IN MISSISSAUGA MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO — Bob Dechert, Member of Parliament, Mississauga-Erindale, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s Transportation Minister, Her Worship Hazel McCallion, Mayor of Mississauga and Gary McNeil, GO Transit Managing Director participated in a groundbreaking ceremony today to mark the start of construction of the Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. This project, which is expected to be completed in spring 2013, will improve local and inter-regional bus operations across the City of Mississauga. It involves constructing an 11-kilometre east-west busway across the City of Mississauga between Winston Churchill Boulevard and Renforth Drive in the City of Toronto and a total of 12 stations along the route with related commuter facilities. “Investments in public transit creates jobs and boosts the Canadian economy,” said MP Dechert. “This rapid transit system will provide commuters in Mississauga with a more efficient transit option, while cutting commute times and taking more cars off the road.” “This is great news for Mississauga residents,” said Ontario Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne. “When the new bus rapid transit line is finished, more commuters will be able to leave their cars at home and take public transit. Investing in public transit is part of the McGuinty government’s Open Ontario plan. Better public transit means a better quality of life for Ontario families.” (TBC) “We are doing everything we can to make Mississauga a transit-oriented city and show our commitment to ensure we meet the needs of residents and businesses,” said Mayor Hazel McCallion.
    [Show full text]
  • Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report
    GTA West Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study Revised Draft Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report GTA West Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study Revised Draft Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report PREFACE The Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report – Draft for Consultation (2009) is one of several interim reports which depicts the study process culminating in the Transportation Development Strategy. The Area Transportation System Problems and Opportunities Report – Draft for Consultation (2009) was first issued in July 2009. The reports purpose was to summarize the process and methodology that was used to identify transportation problems and opportunities, and to document the key findings of this work. In the consultation period following its release, the study team received comments relating to a range of issues, including municipal planning policy, transportation modelling, and planned transportation initiatives within the preliminary study area. The purpose of this revised draft report (December 2010) is to ensure that all comments received have been adequately addressed; where appropriate, the content of the report has been revised accordingly. Appendix C provides a Summary of the Input Received on the draft Problems and Opportunities Report, and details each comment received, the study team’s response, and any changes incorporated into the revised draft report. www.gta-west.com GTA West Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Rationale Report November 2020
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE LOCATION & CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Subject Site ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Surrounding Context .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Community Services and Facilities ........................................................................................................ 6 3.0 PROPOSAL & APPROVALS .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Proposal ................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Required Approvals ............................................................................................................................... 8 4.0 POLICY CONTEXT & PLANNING ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 9 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) ......................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)
    [Show full text]
  • Commission Report Macro
    Form Revised: February 2005 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. MEETING DATE: JUNE 18, 2008 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE SHEPPARD EAST LRT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY ACTION ITEM: x RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Commission: 1. Approve the recommendation of the joint City/TTC Sheppard East LRT Environmental Assessment (EA) study, that a Light Rail Transit (LRT) line be constructed on Sheppard Avenue East, between Don Mills Station and Meadowvale Road, to provide transit service in that corridor, as outlined in this report; 2. Forward this report to the City of Toronto, and request that City Council, at it’s meeting on July 15, 2008, approve the recommendations of the Sheppard East LRT EA study to allow staff to begin detailed design as soon as possible, and be in a position to begin construction of this first Transit City light rail line in 2009; 3. Request that City Council: i) authorise staff to submit the final Environmental Assessment Study report for the 30-day public review period, as required to complete the EA process for this project; ii) advise the Province of Ontario of its approval of this EA study; 4. Note that City Planning is proceeding to amend the Toronto Official Plan so that Sheppard Avenue East, from McCowan Road to Meadowvale Road, is included as a Transit Priority Corridor, in support of this project; 5. Note that City Planning staff have been full participants in the preparation of this environmental assessment. They have reviewed this report, and they concur with its recommendations; and 6. Forward this report to Metrolinx, to confirm previous information that the Sheppard East light rail line is ready to proceed to implementation and, therefore, should be included in Metrolinx’s forthcoming ‘first wave’ funding approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Toronto Transportation Authority)
    AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 AGENDA TITLE: APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 23, 2007 MINUTES METROLINX (GREATER TORONTO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY) BOARD MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD NO. 8 DATE OF MEETING: Friday, November 23, 2007 PLACE OF MEETING: Westin Harbour Castle One Harbour Square, Marine Room Toronto, ON 10:00 a.m. CHAIR: Rob MacIsaac MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Giambrone Roger Anderson Paul Bedford Gary Carr Fred Eisenberger Bill Fisch Norm Kelly Hazel McCallion David Miller Peter Smith STAFF PRESENT: Michael Fenn, CEO Mary Martin, Corporate Secretary Metrolinx Staff Page 1 of 8 AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 AGENDA TITLE: APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: Chair MacIsaac called the meeting to order at 10:05 am. Chair MacIsaac welcomed the municipal partners who joined the meeting to assist with the Quick Wins report. Chair MacIsaac confirmed there was quorum and that the required notice of the meeting as stipulated under the By-Law of the Corporation had been sent. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The Chair requested declarations of potential conflicts of interest and none were declared. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES: RESOLVED: THAT the minutes of the Board meeting of October 26, 2007 be approved. Carried AGENDA REVIEW There were no further additions or changes to the Agenda. CHAIR’S REMARKS: Chair MacIsaac acknowledged the very full agenda before the Board members and the significance of substantive issues, including a second tranche of transit projects and the first green paper in the Regional Transportation Plan. The chair also recognized the representatives from the successful consortium of consulting firms that have combined their talent and expertise for the development of the Regional Transportation Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Master Plan
    A NEW PATH TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN November 2012 Table of Contents page 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Historical Patterns of Growth ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Planning Background and Regional Context.............................................................. 1-2 1.3 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.1 Addressing Future Transportation Needs ....................................................... 1-5 1.3.2 Satisfying Class EA Requirements ................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Study Process ........................................................................................................... 1-7 1.5 Public Engagement ................................................................................................... 1-9 1.5.1 Public Open Houses ...................................................................................... 1-9 1.5.2 Workshop Series .......................................................................................... 1-10 1.5.3 Technical Advisory Committee ..................................................................... 1-10 1.6 Transportation Issues and Challenges ..................................................................... 1-11 2. Vaughan Today – Existing Conditions .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE FALSE PANACEA of CITY CHARTERS? a POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE on the CASE of TORONTO Andrew Sancton
    Volume 9 • Issue 3 • January 2016 THE FALSE PANACEA OF CITY CHARTERS? A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE CASE OF TORONTO Andrew Sancton SUMMARY Toronto is unlike any other city, as its local boosters will not hesitate to point out. That was the basis, after all, of the “charter movement” that demanded special rights for a mega-city that the movement’s backers insisted was so vital that it even warranted a status similar to that of an entire province. Their efforts culminated in the province’s passage in 2006 of the City of Toronto Act, which appeared on its face to grant the metropolis the power it believed it required and merited. In reality, the Ontario government may have actually set Toronto back, leaving it more at the mercy of provincial power than other smaller municipalities. The few additional taxation powers that were granted by the ostensible Toronto “charter” — the City of Toronto Act — are, in reality, still overseen by the province, which retains the right to limit those revenue tools if it considers it “desirable in the provincial interest to do so.” But while Toronto may have been given just a small number of revenue tools, which it has used only sparingly, and the use of those tools is ultimately decided by Queen’s Park, their very existence has given the province licence to sidestep the city’s calls for more funding. The provincial Liberals have, in the past, insisted that Toronto make use of its own taxes before it demands more provincial funds. Meanwhile, the City of Toronto Act did nothing to curtail the power of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project
    9.8 Date: May 25, 2021 Originator’s files: To: Chair and Members of General Committee From: Geoff Wright, P.Eng, MBA, Commissioner of Meeting date: Transportation and Works June 9, 2021 Subject Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project Recommendation 1. That the report to General Committee entitled “Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project” dated May 25, 2021 from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works be received for information. 2. That Phase 1 of the Service Integration Pilot Project recommendations for enhanced cross-boundary travel be received for information. Executive Summary The Ministry of Transportation has convened a Fare and Service Integration (FSI) Provincial-Municipal Table that includes representatives of all transit agencies and aims to improve connections and the customer experience for inter-municipal transit travel. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has engaged a consultant team to develop an agency-driven FSI model to present to the Provincial-Municipal Table in partnership with surrounding transit agencies including MiWay. Currently MiWay, along with several other 905 agencies, are prohibited from providing local service within City of Toronto, resulting in TTC providing duplicate service for their residents. In addition, transit fares are not integrated between the TTC and MiWay. In partnership with the TTC, the Burnhamthorpe Road corridor has been selected for a transit service integration pilot project in the near-term (targeting fall 2021). 9.8 General Committee 2021/05/25 2 Background For decades, transit service integration has been discussed and studied in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Ministry of Transportation’s newly convened Fare and Service Integration (FSI) Provincial-Municipal Table consists of senior representatives from transit systems within the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) and the broader GO Transit service area.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of 40 Cities: a Preliminary Analysis of Equity Impacts of COVID-19 Service Adjustments Across North America July 2020 Mc
    A tale of 40 cities: A preliminary analysis of equity impacts of COVID-19 service adjustments across North America James DeWeese, Leila Hawa, Hanna Demyk, Zane Davey, Anastasia Belikow, and Ahmed El-Geneidy July 2020 McGill University Abstract To cope with COVID-19 confinement measures and precipitous declines in ridership, public transport agencies across North America have made significant adjustments to their services, slashing trip frequency in many areas while increasing it in others. These adjustments, especially service cuts, appear to have disproportionately affected areas where lower income and more- vulnerable groups reside in North American Cities. This paper compares changes in service frequency across 30 U.S. and 10 Canadian cities, linking these changes to average income levels and a vulnerability index. The study highlights the wide range of service outcomes while underscoring the potential for best practices that explicitly account for vertical equity, or social justice, in their impacts when adjusting service levels. Research Question and Data Public transport ridership in North American Cities declined dramatically by the end of March 2020 as governments applied confinement measures in response to COVID-19 pandemic (Hart, 2020; Vijaya, 2020). In an industry that depends heavily on fare-box recovery to pay for operations and sometimes infrastructure loans (Verbich, Badami, & El-Geneidy, 2017), transport agencies faced major financial strains, even as the pandemic magnified their role as a critical public service, ferrying essential, often low-income, workers with limited alternatives to their jobs (Deng, Morissette, & Messacar, 2020). Public transport agencies also faced major operating difficulties due to absenteeism among operators (Hamilton Spectator, 2020) and enhanced cleaning protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Agency Responses to COVID-19: a Review of Challenges and Opportunities for Continued Service Delivery
    Transit Agency Responses to COVID-19: A review of challenges and opportunities for continued service delivery By: Ellen McGowan April 2021 School of Urban and Regional Planning Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Supervisor: Dr. Ajay Agarwal Copyright © Ellen McGowan 2021 Acknowledgements I would first like to acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. Ajay Agarwal, whose expertise was invaluable in formulating the research questions and methodology. Thank you for your support and generosity over the last two years. I would like to thank the Norman D. Wilson Fellowship for funding this research. I would also like to thank my parents and Mark for their endless encouragement. Finally, I could not have completed this report without the support of my friends at SURP. Although our time together was cut short, I’m grateful for all that first year brought us. 2 Executive Summary Background & Context The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has radically impacted public transport ridership and service provision across the country. Since the outbreak of the virus, transit agencies have had to adapt to new and rapidly evolving conditions. Many agencies modified services to reflect lower ridership levels and to ensure the safety of both riders and operators. These changes in service were guided by public health agencies, as well as major transit associations like the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) and International Association of Public Transport (UITP). Other agencies implemented precautionary measures like rear door boarding, temporary fare suspension, and reduced capacity limits to enable the safe continuity of operations. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, transit agencies are having to strike a balance between providing enough transportation options for essential travel and reducing service offerings to match the declining overall demand for mobility services.
    [Show full text]