Waterfront Design Review Panel March 20, 2019 Transit Reset: – Link Study For Information March 20, 2019 Transit Reset: Union Station – Queens Quay Link Study Proponent: City of Design Team: ARUP Study Context: The Link Review Stage: For Information

Union Station Streetcar Platform

540 m

Queens Quay

Source: Google Earth Transit Reset: Union Station – Queens Quay Link Study Proponent: City of Toronto Design Team: ARUP Study Context: Waterfront Transit Review Stage: For Information Transit Reset: Union Station – Queens Quay Link Study Proponent: City of Toronto Design Team: ARUP Policy Context Review Stage: For Information

• Crucial to realizing the Waterfront Secondary Plan and Precinct Plans' visions

• Sustainable mobility and sustainable development

• Unlocking potential

• Leveraging investment Transit Reset: Union Station – Queens Quay Link Study Proponent: City of Toronto Design Team: ARUP Goals for Today Review Stage: For Information

1. For the Panel to become informed on the latest design, study findings and conclusions 2. For the Panel to provide comments for consideration as the design evolves Transit Reset: Union Station – Queens Quay Link Study Proponent: City of Toronto Agenda Design Team: ARUP Review Stage: For Information

1. Study Background: Nigel Tahair, City of Toronto (5 minutes) 2. Study Findings: Marc-Paul Gauthier, ARUP (20 minutes) 3. Questions/Comments/Discussion (45 minutes) Transitt Reset: Union Station– Queens QuayLin Link Study DesignD Review Panel DRAFTMarch 20, 2019 Why it’s important…

• The existing streetcar loop is inadequate to serve current ridership needs (to and from the west) • The loop would not function effectively or safely considering future growth and if additional service from the east wasas added.

5 Need for improvement

Existing SB Transit Future projected SB Flow (AM peak) Transit Flow (AM peak)

1,000 4,000-8,0004,00 8,000 F Streetcar StStreetcar/car RAAPM

• Approximately 40% of AMDRAFT peak hour trips are destined to QQ/Bay and the remaining 60% of trips are destined to the wider waterfront • Not including special events and tourism, which is significant

12 Council approved network plan

AFT

6 Project background

• 1990 Union Station streetcar loop opens • 2010 East Bayfront Transit EA:A: TheTh need for the Union-Queensueens Quay Link and Queens Quayy East LRT • 2018 Waterfrontnt Transit Reset Network Plan • 2018 to 2019 UniDRAFTon Queens Quay Link Study

7 Transit Reset Timeline

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 THE LINK STUDY

8 Union to QueensQueen Quay Link AlternativestivesDRAFT

9 The technologies

1. Streetcar 2. Automated People Mover T RAFT

Image credit: Secondarywaltz

10 The technologies

• Streetcar TTC StreetcarStre (Flexity) LengthLe 30m Capacity (standard (st load) 130 FTFPropulsionT Traction power

• APM (Automatedted People Mover)Move Automated People Mover Length 36m Capacity (standard load) 200 DRAFTPropulsion Cable-pulled

11 Screening

• 3 Alternatives initially considered: • Streetcar loop expansion • APM with underground streetcar att Queens QuayQ and Bay • APM with surface streetcartcar connection at QueensQueeFT Quay and Bay RAFAFT

13 Screened Out: APM with surface streetcar along Queens Quay

Non weather protected passenger transfer (worse than existing)

Major transfer volumes Insufficient spacece in the road increasing potential for conflicts way andd to maintain access between pedestrians, cyclists, to properties transit, and traffic at grade RAFA

2018 Google DTAH

14 Guiding design parameters

• No level crossings of streetcar trackss undergroundundergr • Underground connection to Jackack Layton Ferry TerminalT • Ontario Building Code (OBC)(OBC • Accessibility for Ontarians with DDisabilities Act (AODA) • National Fire Protectionrotection AsAssociation (NFPA) 130 • City of Toronto PATHATHDRAFT guidelines

15 Streetcar APM

RA RAFT

Future Bremner LRT connection

38 41 Streetcar APM

RA 39 40 43

Streetcar at Union Station Streetcar at APM Terminal at Union Station APM Terminal at Queens Quay Station Evaluate Alternativeslternati

Key criteria • User experience •Costs • Transportation DRAFT• Constructability

22 User Experience Assessment

DRAFT Travel time to Sherbourne and Queens Quay Travel time to Spadina and Queens Quay Travel time to Bay and Queens Quay User experience: comfort/crowding

Streetcar loop expansion – Union Station APMA terminal – Union Station

24 Transportation Ridership

• Within corridor, APM is preferredreferred • East and West of Bay Street, streetcar is preferredfe • Negligible difference beyondeyond Central WaterfrontW and East Bayfront DRAFT

27 Construction impacts

Criterion Streetcarr APM Risk profile Rail viaductaduc risksks No rail viaduct risks Pedestrian teamwaysTeamways closed andnd Teamways not closed for pedestrians rerouted dueFTF to construction constructionconstru Property impacts141 B Bay basementasemeAFTAF impacts and No significant impacts teamways Bay Street lane impactsS SouthRAF of rail viaduct impacts No significantimpacts Duration estimation 4-5 years 3-4 years OverallDDRDRADRAF - Preliminary preferred

28 Construction management

• Streetcar service along Bay will be suspendedsuspende during tunnel work for both options • Streetcar service along Queensns Quay maym be suspended for some duration of constructiononstruction for bothbo options • Replacement bus service requiredrequire • Phasing to mitigategate impactimpacts to transit to be evaluated in next phases, includingcluding options to minimize downtime for streetcar service along QueensDRAFT Quay

29 Construction management

• Pedestrian access in the corridor will be maintained and may require significant temporary improvements to accommodate anticipated flows • One lane of traffic in each direction will alsoo be mainta maintained • Significant concurrent projectss to be coordinatedcoordinate • Numerous Metrolinxnx projects • Future developmentsnts underu constructionconstruc and planned/proposed • E.g. CIBC Square: 14141DRAFT aand 81/45 Bay Street • Gardiner ramp changes (e.g. removal of Bay Street on-ramp)

30 Class 4 capital cost estimates

• Designs brought to current code (NFPAFPA 130)

CriterionStreetcar APM Capital costs (to Small St.)$ $650650 - $70070 million* $650 - $700 million* Overall No preliminary preferred *subject to refinement DRDDRARAFRARAFT • Operating costs forthcoming

31 Overall evaluation summary

Criterion Streetcartreetcar APM User experiencePreliminary preferredFT - Transportation Preliminary preferred - Construction impact -AFT Preliminary preferred Capital costs No preliminary preferred OverallDDRDRA PreliminaryRAFTRAFRA preferred -

32 Streetcar preferred T

33 Benefits to overall network

• Both options are viable • Both options offer significant improvementsmprovements to movingm people • Construction of both optionsptions is feasible • Streetcar preferredred for the overallovera TTC network DRAFT

34 Completing this study

• Finalize technical analysis and considerider publicpubli feedback • Executive Committee April 9th • City Council April 16th DRAFT

35 Next Steps

• Evaluate potential for new eastern portalortal locationloca west of • Seeking optimization in preferred solutionsoluti • Advance preliminaryary design DRAFT

35 Portal Location EA: Freeland Street Portal Location EA: Freeland Street Portal Location Alternative:

West of Portalal EntraEntrance Yonge Street Portal Location Alternative: West of Yonge Street