DOCSLIB.ORG

Union Station

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Waterfront Design Review Panel March 20, 2019 Transit Reset: Union Station – Queens Quay Link Study For Information March 20, 2019 Transit Reset: Union Station – Queens Quay Link Study Proponent: City of Toronto 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 Streetcar/St 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 Queens Quay Station 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 Bay Street 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 construconstruction 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) Criterion Streetcar 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 Streetcar APM User experience Preliminary preferred - Transportation Preliminary preferred - Construction impact - Preliminary preferred Capital costs No preliminary preferred Overall Preliminary preferred - Preliminarytreetcar Preliminary DDRDRARAFTRAFRAAFTpreferredFT 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 Yonge Street • 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.
Recommended publications
  • PATH Underground Walkway

    PATH Underground Walkway

    PATH Marker Signs ranging from Index T V free-standing outdoor A I The Fairmont Royal York Hotel VIA Rail Canada H-19 pylons to door decals Adelaide Place G-12 InterContinental Toronto Centre H-18 Victory Building (80 Richmond 1 Adelaide East N-12 Hotel D-19 The Hudson’s Bay Company L-10 St. West) I-10 identify entrances 11 Adelaide West L-12 The Lanes I-11 W to the walkway. 105 Adelaide West I-13 K The Ritz-Carlton Hotel C-16 WaterPark Place J-22 130 Adelaide West H-12 1 King West M-15 Thomson Building J-10 95 Wellington West H-16 Air Canada Centre J-20 4 King West M-14 Toronto Coach Terminal J-5 100 Wellington West (Canadian In many elevators there is Allen Lambert Galleria 11 King West M-15 Toronto-Dominion Bank Pavilion Pacific Tower) H-16 a small PATH logo (Brookfield Place) L-17 130 King West H-14 J-14 200 Wellington West C-16 Atrium on Bay L-5 145 King West F-14 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower mounted beside the Aura M-2 200 King West E-14 I-16 Y button for the floor 225 King West C-14 Toronto-Dominion Centre J-15 Yonge-Dundas Square N-6 B King Subway Station N-14 TD Canada Trust Tower K-18 Yonge Richmond Centre N-10 leading to the walkway. Bank of Nova Scotia K-13 TD North Tower I-14 100 Yonge M-13 Bay Adelaide Centre K-12 L TD South Tower I-16 104 Yonge M-13 Bay East Teamway K-19 25 Lower Simcoe E-20 TD West Tower (100 Wellington 110 Yonge M-12 Next Destination 10-20 Bay J-22 West) H-16 444 Yonge M-2 PATH directional signs tell 220 Bay J-16 M 25 York H-19 390 Bay (Munich Re Centre) Maple Leaf Square H-20 U 150 York G-12 you which building you’re You are in: J-10 MetroCentre B-14 Union Station J-18 York Centre (16 York St.) G-20 in and the next building Hudson’s Bay Company 777 Bay K-1 Metro Hall B-15 Union Subway Station J-18 York East Teamway H-19 Bay Wellington Tower K-16 Metro Toronto Convention Centre you’ll be entering.
  • Minutes Queens Quay Construction Liaison Committee Meeting #12 Summary Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:00Pm – 2:30Pm Waterfront Toronto – 20 Bay Street

    Minutes Queens Quay Construction Liaison Committee Meeting #12 Summary Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:00Pm – 2:30Pm Waterfront Toronto – 20 Bay Street

    Meeting Minutes Queens Quay Construction Liaison Committee Meeting #12 Summary Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:00pm – 2:30pm Waterfront Toronto – 20 Bay Street Attendance: Kelly Gorman - (250/251,260,270 Queens Quay West) Pina Mallozi – (Waterfront Toronto) Chris Hodgson – (Harbourfront Centre) Luigi Cifa (Eastern Construction) Blair Keetch - (PawsWay) Robert Pasut (Eastern Construction) Carol Jolly – (Waterfront BIA) Curtis Keen (Eastern Construction) Peter Wood – (270 Queens Quay) Levco Wynnyckyj (Eastern Construction) Pam Mazza – (TICA/QCYC) Simon Karam (Waterfront Toronto) Ulla Colgrass (YQNA) James Roche (Waterfront Toronto) Diego Sinagoga (Toronto Transit Commission) Samantha Gileno (Waterfront Toronto) Henry Byres – (City of Toronto BIA Office) Maggie Mu (Toronto Hydro) Vicki Barron – (Waterfront Reg. Trust) Lee Morrison – (PowerLine Plus) Jen Chan – (Councillor Vaughan’s Office) Linda Leonard – (PowerLine Plus) Opening Remarks & Welcome – Samantha Gileno Agenda 1) Project Update Approvals & Permits Construction Tenders Review Completed Construction Activities Eastern Construction/ Waterfront Toronto TTC Demolition Site Services (Storm and Sanitary) Peter Slip Bridge York Street Layby Bell Update Toronto Hydro Update TTC Portal 2) Upcoming Construction Activities Eastern Construction/ Waterfront Toronto TTC Demolition Site Services (Storm and Sanitary) Peter Slip Bridge York Street Layby Bell Update Toronto Hydro Update TTC Portal 3) Traffic Management Update 4) Communication Survey 5) CLC Member Feedback/ Discussion 1) Project Updates: Approvals and Permits (Pina Mallozzi) 1) February 1 – We received our full Construction Permit for the Queens Quay project. 2) Traffic Management Plan 1B3 – Was approved by the City 3) Spadina Loop - Discussion is underway with the TTC regarding methodologies and scheduling for this work Construction Tenders & Construction Activities: (James Roche) Tenders: a.
  • No. 5, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Page 18 Credit: Metrolinx

    No. 5, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Page 18 Credit: Metrolinx

    2020 No. 5, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Page 18 Credit: Metrolinx Top100 Projects 2020 One Man Changes the Face of 2020’s Top 10 Top100 Projects — 2020 f not for one individual, this year’s Top100 may have looked An annual report inserted in familiar. ReNew Canada’s I When this year’s research process began, there was little change within this year’s Top 10, as many of the nation’s January/February 2020 issue megaprojects were still in progress. Significant progress has been made on all of the projects we saw grace the Top 10 in our report last year, but completion dates extend beyond the end of the MANAGING Andrew Macklin 2019 calendar year. EDITOR [email protected] Enter Matt Clark, Metrolinx’s Chief Capital Officer, who took GROUP over the position from Peter Zuk. You see, when Zuk was in charge Todd Latham PUBLISHER of publicly expressing capital budgets, particularly in the context of the GO Expansion project, he had done so by breaking down PUBLISHER Nick Krukowski the $13.5 billion spend by corridor. That breakdown led to the full expansion represented by as many as nine projects in the content ART DIRECTOR AND Donna Endacott SENIORDESIGN of the Top100. Clark does it differently. In the quarterly reports made public ASSOCIATE following Metrolinx board meetings, the capital projects for the Simran Chattha EDITOR GO Expansion are broken down into three allotments (on corridor, off corridor, and early works). The result? Six less GO Expansion CONTENT AND MARKETING Todd Westcott projects in the Top100, but two new projects in our Top 10 MANAGER including a new number one.
  • Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study

    Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study

    Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study Public Meeting #1 Summary Report Metrolinx R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 6990 Creditview Road, Unit 2 Mississauga ON L5N 8R9 CANADA August 2015 300034767.0000 Metrolinx i Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study Public Meeting #1 Summary Report August 2015 Distribution List No. of Hard PDF Email Organization Name Copies 0 Yes Yes Metrolinx Record of Revisions Revision Date Description 0 July 2015 Draft Submission to Metrolinx 1 August 2015 Final Submission to Metrolinx R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Report Prepared By: Ashley Gallaugher Environmental Scientist AG:mp Report Reviewed By: Jennifer Vandermeer, P.Eng. Environmental Assessment Lead Jim Georgas, C.E.T. Transit Manager R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300034767.0000 034767_Caledonia GO Station TPAP EA Public Meeting 1 Summary Report.docx Metrolinx ii Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study Public Meeting #1 Summary Report August 2015 Executive Summary PROJECT Caledonia GO Station, Transit Project Assessment Process Environmental Assessment (EA) Study PROPONENT Metrolinx ACTIVITY Public Meeting #1, Open House Format DATE, TIME & May 26, 2015 LOCATION 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. York Memorial Collegiate 2690 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto, ON, M6M 1T9 PROJECT TEAM Elise Croll, Metrolinx MEMBERS Trevor Anderson, Metrolinx PRESENT Carolina Daza Ortiz, Metrolinx Tania Gautam, Metrolinx Georgina Collymore, Metrolinx Vanessa Anders, Metrolinx Doug Keenie R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) Jim Georgas, Burnside Jennifer Vandermeer, Burnside Debanjan Mookerjea, Burnside • To describe the existing study corridor and opportunities. PURPOSE • To introduce Metrolinx’ transportation goals. • To describe the proposed study and purpose. • To present the proposed infrastructure for the new Caledonia GO Station.
  • Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line

    Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line

    EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively.
  • Presentation 7:20 Questions of Clarification 7:30 Facilitated Open House 8:30 Adjourn

    Presentation 7:20 Questions of Clarification 7:30 Facilitated Open House 8:30 Adjourn

    Waterfront Transit “Reset” Phase 2 Study Public Information & Consultation Meetings September 18 & 26, 2017 Agenda 6:00 Open House 6:30 Agenda Review, Opening Remarks and Introductions 6:40 Study Overview and Presentation 7:20 Questions of Clarification 7:30 Facilitated Open House 8:30 Adjourn 2 Project Study Team • A Partnership of: • The project study team is led by a joint City-TTC- Waterfront Toronto Executive Steering Committee • Metrolinx, City of Mississauga and MiWay have also provided input on relevant aspects of the study 3 What’s the Purpose of this Meeting? • Present the waterfront transit network travel demand considerations to 2041 • Present and gather feedback on options assessment for transit improvements in key areas of the network, including: – Union Station – Queens Quay Connection – Humber Bay Link – Bathurst - Fleet - Lake Shore – Queens Quay Intersection • Report the overall draft findings of the Phase 2 Study, priorities, and draft directions for further study prior to reporting to Executive Committee and Council 4 Study Timeline 5 Phase 1 Recap To view the Phase 1 Report and other background material, please visit the City’s website: www.toronto.ca/waterfronttransit 6 Vision Provide high quality transit that will integrate waterfront communities, jobs, and destinations and link the waterfront to the broader City and regional transportation network Objectives Connect waterfront communities locally and to Downtown with reliable and convenient transit service: • Promote and support residential and employment growth
  • TTC Typography History

    TTC Typography History

    With the exception of Eglinton Station, 11 of the 12 stations of The intention of using Helvetica and Univers is unknown, however The Toronto Subway Font (Designer Unknown) the original Yonge Subway line have been renovated extensively. with the usage of the latter on the design of the Spadina Subway in Based on Futura by Paul Renner (1928) Some stations retained the original typefaces but with tighter 1978, it may have been an internal decision to try and assimilate tracking and subtle differences in weight, while other stations subsequent renovations of existing stations in the aging Yonge and were renovated so poorly there no longer is a sense of simplicity University lines. The TTC avoided the usage of the Toronto Subway seen with the 1954 designs in terms of typographical harmony. font on new subway stations for over two decades. ABCabc RQKS Queen Station, for example, used Helvetica (LT Std 75 Bold) in such The Sheppard Subway in 2002 saw the return of the Toronto Subway an irresponsible manner; it is repulsively inconsistent with all the typeface as it is used for the names of the stations posted on ABCabc RQKS other stations, and due to the renovators preserving the original platfrom level. Helvetica became the primary typeface for all TTC There are subtle differences between the two typefaces, notably the glass tile trim, the font weight itself looks botched and unsuitable. wayfinding signages and informational material system-wide. R, Q, K, and S; most have different terminals, spines, and junctions. ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL BLOOR DANGER DA N GER Danger DO NOT ENTER Do Not Enter Do Not Enter DAVISVILLE ST CL AIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR The specially-designed Toronto Subway that embodied the spirit of modernism and replaced with a brutal mix of Helvetica and YONGE SUBWAY typeface graced the walls of the 12 stations, progress.
  • Waterfront Transit Network Update – Summer 2020 Agenda

    Waterfront Transit Network Update – Summer 2020 Agenda

    Waterfront Transit Network Update Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) July 23, 2020 Waterfront Transit Network Update – Summer 2020 Agenda 1. Project Overview 1. Context 2. Background 3. Timeline 2. Portal Selection Study - Summary of findings 3. Network Phasing Study – Upcoming work 4. EA Addenda/TPAP – Upcoming work 5. Preliminary Design and Engineering – Upcoming work Waterfront Transit Network Update – Summer 2020 Context Distillery Loop Union Station Waterfront Transit Network Update – Summer 2020 Background • In April 2019 , City Council endorsed the streetcar loop expansion at Union Station as the preferred option for the Union Queens Quay Link, and directed staff to commence the preliminary design and engineering phase of the extension of light rail transit to the East Bayfront beginning in 2020. • The first part of this work includes feasibility studies to assess: • An alternative portal location for the LRT along Queens Quay between Bay Street and Yonge Street, which may provide overall cost and public realm benefits • Consideration of phasing option(s) that may expedite the east-west streetcar service on Queens Quay to the East Bayfront Waterfront Transit Network Update – Summer 2020 Timeline Last time we met We are here TTC East Preliminary Transit Preliminary Bayfront Design – EBF Waterfront Union Station Project Design and Transit Portal + Transit – Queens Assessment Engineering Class EA Tunnel Reset Quay Link Process Structures Study (TPAP) (PDE) 2010 2011 2018 2019 2020 2020-2021 2020-2021 Study area from Preliminary Council Council approved Refine two Identify phase 1 Complete the Complete PDE Bay to Cherry design and cost directed streetcar loop implementation TPAP process (30% design) three St.
  • GO Transit's Deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

    GO Transit's Deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

    GO Transit’s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan GO Transit’s 2020 Service Plan describes GO’s commitment to customers, existing and new, Success… and challenge: Union Station. to provide a dramatically expanded interregional transit option that integrates fully with the About 95% of GO Train customers travel RTP rapid transit network, and addresses the future travel needs in the Greater Golden to or from Union Station. During the peak Horseshoe. Further analysis during the planning and design of individual services will detail the hour, 45,000 customers use GO Transit’s service outline presented here, and define the appropriate technology, rail corridor improve - seven tracks and six platforms – the most ments, bus priority measures, passenger facilities, fleet growth, operational growth, and other intensive use of a train station in North activities needed to build the service. America. GO Transit has invested in more stairways, passenger waiting areas, This 2020 Service Plan summarizes the frequency and extent of service to be offered on and communications systems to handle major corridors, and is consistent with the infrastructure improvements and technologies the growing traffic through this “mobility included in the Metrolinx RTP and GO Transit’s vision and objectives described above. hub.” The adjacent Union Station GO Bus The plan reflects a significantly more proactive approach to service development than the Terminal provides convenient access to incremental, business-case driven approach that has guided GO’s growth for the past 15 express “train-bus” service between Union years. GO Transit will provide an attractive travel option that will compete successfully with Station and GO stations when trains are not automobile use for peak and off-peak trips between Urban Growth Centres identified in scheduled to run.
  • Union Station 2031 and Related Studies

    Union Station 2031 and Related Studies

    Union Station 2031 and Related Planning Studies Presentation to Board November 23, 2011 Leslie Woo Vice President, Policy, Planning and Innovation Judy Knight Vice President, Capital Infrastructure 1 Outline 1. Background 2. Objectives of concurrent studies A. Metrolinx Union Station 2031: Demands and Opportunities Study B. Metrolinx Union Station and Union Station Rail Corridor Capacity Study C. TTC Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study 3. Overview of each study 4. Key findings 5. Next Steps 2 Background ¾ The Big Move anticipates that: Over the next 25 years, Union Station will see a significant increase of passenger traffic in the morning peak hour as a result of the expansion of the regional rapid transit network Improvements to tracks, platforms, and passenger circulation will be needed to accommodate the new services proposed in the Regional Transportation Plan ¾ Union Station and the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) have limited capacity: Train flow: tracks and mid-day storage Pedestrian flow: platforms and concourse ¾ The need to plan for this growth extends beyond Union Station. Within the downtown core: population is projected to increase over 80% from 71,000 in 2006 to 130,000 in 2031 employment is expected to grow over 25% from 315,000 in 2006 to 400,000 in 2031 downtown core-destined transit demand is expected to increase over 50% from 156,000 peak period trips in 2006 to 236,000 peak period trips The Yonge subway line and much of the downtown TTC network will be at capacity by 2031 ¾ Union Station is expected to reach capacity after the coming 10-year GO expansion plan 3 Status of Three Studies A.
  • Ontario Line Initial Business Case

    Ontario Line Initial Business Case

    MEMORANDUM To: Metrolinx Board of Directors From: Mathieu Goetzke Chief Planning Officer (A) Date: September 12, 2019 Re: Subway Program – Ontario Line Update Resolution RESOLVED, based on the report prepared by the Chief Planning Officer, entitled “Subway Program – Ontario Line Update” and any further amendments directed by the Board at its meeting on September 12, 2019; THAT the Board endorses the results of the Ontario Line Initial Business Case; AND THAT, the Ontario Line project be advanced to the Preliminary Design stage and further evaluated through a Preliminary Design Business Case. Executive Summary In summer 2018, the government directed MTO to “…lead the development of an implementation strategy for provincial ownership of the TTC subway network and other strategic transit/transportation assets in the City of Toronto.” This commitment has since been reiterated in the 2018 Fall Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review, and in the 2019 Ontario Budget. In the 2019 Ontario Budget, the Province announced its plan to build four subway projects, with a total preliminary cost estimate of $28.5 billion. Ontario Line was one of the priority projects announced, along with the Scarborough Subway Extension, the Yonge Subway Extension and the Eglinton West Extension. The budget also included a renewal of the commitment to upload new subway projects and the existing network from the City of Toronto. The Getting Ontario Moving Act, 2019, which received Royal Assent on June 6, 2019, amended the Metrolinx Act to enable the Province to upload responsibility for new rapid transit projects, including subway projects, from the City of Toronto. A regulation made under this act has designated the Relief Line/Ontario Line, the Yonge Subway Extension, and the Scarborough Subway Extension the sole responsibility of the Province, through Metrolinx.
  • Lower Level / Concourses Food Court / Retail Street Level

    Lower Level / Concourses Food Court / Retail Street Level

    Union Station Map N Front Street Street Level (North to Downtown) Bike Share Sir John A. Macdonald Plaza Down to Down to TTC TTC CN Tower Ramp down to Ramp down to Business Lounge Front St. Promenade Front St. Promenade Metro Toronto Salón Affaires Convention Centre Ripley's Aquarium Union Station Rogers Centre Down to Front St. Down to York Street York Promenade Front St. Bus Terminal West Wing Great Hall Under Construction Street Bay YOU Promenade ARE HERE Down to York Concourse 3 Hall Ramp down Tourist to VIA Sky Walk Information 1 Concourse Centre Tickets Hall Tickets N Lower Level / Concourses Royal Bank Plaza Toronto-Dominion Centre Wheelchair Lift to PATH Front Street Brookfield Place 1 University Ave Down to Up to Up to Down to TTC Promenade Bay St. TTC Citigroup Place 2 Up to Down to 123 Front St. Great 5 6 7 8 9 TTC Hall Ramp up to Front St. Up to (North to Downtown) Front St. York St. Up to Up to Great Hall Front St. Great Hall Up to Promenade Front St. Promenade Down to York Down to Concourse York St. 3 Hall Retail 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 Up to Great Hall Elevator to York St. Promenade Up to Platform 3 and Union Food Court and Bus Terminal Future 1 Ramp up to 1 16 Great Hall - Bay Concourse Hall 0 1 Under Construction 3 , 1 7 - - 17 Down to Union York Street York Covered Walkway Walkway Covered 3 Platforms Covered Walkway Walkway Covered 4 Platforms 18 Street Bay Food Court Platforms 3 -13 19 20 Tickets Platforms 24 -27 Platforms Platforms 24 -27 24 -27 Scotiabank Arena Scotiabank Arena Scotiabank Arena Scotiabank Arena Jack Layton Ferry Terminal Bremner Blvd Bremner Blvd Maple Leaf Square (South to Waterfront) Harbourfront Centre (South to Waterfront) N Food Court / Retail Ramp up to Front St.