Client Project Team

Project Manager Bill Dawson, TTC

Project Team Trevor Pitman, TTC Paul Millett, TTC Mike Wehkind, City of Toronto Vince Alfano, City of Toronto

HDR Project Team

Principal Tyrone Gan, P.Eng - HDR

Project Manager Tyrone Gan, P.Eng - HDR

Technical Team Karen Freund, P.Eng, PMP, LEED AP,HDR Jonathan Chai, P.Eng HDR Conor Adami, EIT, HDR Carl Wong P.Eng, HDR Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies Craig Lametti, Urban Strategies Peter Norman, Altus Group

Quality Control Karen Freund, LEED AP, P.Eng - HDR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES) is to assess future rapid transit needs based on anticipated growth in Toronto in accordance with the City’s Official Plan, and to identify and assess potential rapid transit improvements into and within the downtown area of Toronto.

A. Problem Statement

Transit serving the downtown core is reaching the limits of its practical capacity today, and, with the GTAH continuing to grow and develop, the need for improvements to existing transit service is clear. Both Metrolinx (in the Regional Transportation Plan) the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) have identified a number of potential infrastructure, operational and policy improvements to provide additional transit capacity into, and within Downtown Toronto. However, recent studies have identified the need to look at additional opportunities to enhance rapid transit, particularly into the downtown area.

Within the downtown core, the existing population of 71,000 is projected to increase by 83% to 130,000 by 2031. During the same period, employment is expected to grow from the current 315,000 to 404,000 (28% increase) by 2031. In addition, the City’s plans call for significant growth in areas immediately adjacent to the downtown core, notably in the Waterfront and the “shoulder” areas east and west of the downtown. Significant growth is also forecast in the remainder of the City and in the Greater Toronto Area. This is expected to further increase demand coming into and out of the Downtown Core. In total, future transit demand into the downtown core is expected to increase by 55% from 155,000 to 236,000 morning peak period trips.

To illustrate existing and future 2031 transit capacity deficiencies, forecasts of hourly ridership have been compared to estimated hourly passenger capacity for all transit lines inbound to the downtown core. Table A-1 summarizes existing demand, capacity and deficiencies for rapid transit lines inbound to the downtown core. The Volume/Capacity ratio (V/C) is a ratio of transit demand to transit capacity. A V/C ratio around 1.00 indicates that the transit facility is at capacity. A V/C ratio less than 1.00 indicates demand is less than capacity, while a V/C ratio higher than 1.00 represents a situation where transit demand exceeds capacity.

September 2012 i

Table A-1: Existing Inbound Peak Hour Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies

Inbound Inbound Capacity Demand V/C Deficiency (Observed)

AM from NORTH University Subway 26,000 19,300 0.74 0 Yonge Subway 26,000 28,400 1.09 2,400 Barrie-Bradford GO 3,200 3,800 1.19 600 Richmond Hill GO 3,200 2,900 0.91 0 Stouffville GO 3,200 4,100 1.28 900 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 26,000 21,800 0.84 0 Georgetown GO 6,400 4,700 0.73 0 Milton GO 7,700 7,600 0.99 0 Lakeshore West GO 9,600 13,000 1.35 3,400 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 26,000 25,900 1.00 0 Lakeshore East GO 9,600 12,100 1.26 2,500 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 61,600 58,500 0.95 3,900 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 23,700 25,300 1.07 3,400 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 9,600 12,100 1.26 2,500 TOTAL Inbound 94,900 95,900 1.01 9,800 Source: TTC and GO count data PHF of 0.55 applied to TTC routes and 0.67 to GO Routes where required

As illustrated in the above table, significant inbound transit capacity deficiencies exist today, particularly on the Yonge Subway and on many GO rail lines. Streetcar routes (not shown above) east and west of the downtown are similarly constrained.

To address these deficiencies, and to manage growth, the TTC is implementing a range of capacity improvements to the existing rapid transit network over the next several years and this expanded capacity is a critical element in ensuring the continued health and vitality of the downtown area. In addition, there are also significant planned improvements to GO Rail services consistent with Metrolinx’s Regional Transportation Plan. The project team and Metrolinx staff jointly developed a “2031 Reference Network” reflecting the committed and planned rapid transit improvements expected to be implemented by 2031.

Even with the currently-planned GO and TTC improvements, the Yonge Subway line and much of the GO Rail network will be at, or over, capacity for trips into the Downtown Toronto area during the peak periods in 2031. The most serious capacity issues are related to long- and medium-distance trips from the east and north, as illustrated in Table A-2.

September 2012 ii

Table A-2: 2031 Inbound Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies Inbound Inbound Capacity Demand V/C (2031 Deficiency (2031 (2031 Reference) (2031 Reference) Reference) Reference) AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 25,100 0.66 0 Yonge Subway 38,000 35,800 0.94 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,500 1.17 1,100 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,500 0.54 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 8,500 1.34 2,100 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 20,100 0.61 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,000 1.15 1,400 Milton GO 11,500 12,000 1.04 500 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,900 0.72 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 31,400 0.95 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 21,200 1.47 6,800 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 93,600 79,500 0.85 3,200 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 40,300 36,900 0.92 1,900 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 14,400 21,200 1.47 6,800 TOTAL Inbound (Excl. BD) 148,300 137,600 0.93 11,900 Source: 2031 City of Toronto and TTC GTA/Madituc Model PHF of 0.55 applied to TTC routes and 2031 GO routes

A more detailed discussion on capacity related issues for the rapid transit network follows.

The Yonge Subway will be approaching capacity – Assuming a significant increase in the Yonge Subway capacity with the implementation of Toronto Rocket Cars and Automatic Train Control (ATC) signalling systems, the Yonge Subway Line will still be approaching capacity. Capacity will continue to be constrained south of Bloor-Yonge Station. There will be little spare capacity on the Yonge Subway to accommodate further increases in transit ridership beyond the projections shown in Table A-2. In addition, if transit passengers are unable to ride the Barrie-Bradford and Stouffville GO lines because of inadequate future capacity, some of these riders will want to divert to the Yonge-University Subway line, adding further demand to the line and exacerbating its potential capacity problems.

There is an EA approved extension of the Yonge Subway from Finch Avenue to Highway 7 currently in the Metrolinx Move Ontario 2020 plan. Even with the planned improvements, projected demands on the Yonge subway associated with the Yonge Extension scenario will result in ridership exceeding the capacity of the Yonge Subway line.

Some GO lines will have insufficient capacity – Many of the GO Rail lines to the downtown will be at capacity, even with improvements currently planned by Metrolinx.

September 2012 iii

From the north, passenger demand is forecast to exceed the capacities of the Barrie-Bradford and Stouffville GO lines. Ridership on the Lakeshore East GO line is estimated to significantly exceed the future capacity of the line. Although the analysis indicates the Georgetown and Milton GO lines will be over capacity, some of their ridership can be accommodated by the Lakeshore West GO line which will have spare capacity.

Bloor-Yonge Station has limited capacity for passenger transfers – Bloor-Yonge station is currently a key transfer point in the subway network. Today, virtually all demand from the east and significant demand from the west on the Bloor-Danforth line destined to the Downtown Core transfers at Bloor-Yonge station, resulting in very large transfer volumes at this station. The situation is exacerbated by full trains on the Yonge Subway resulting in increased dwell times on the station platforms. With the currently-planned rapid transit network and services, by 2031 the critical passenger transfers movements at Bloor-Yonge Station are expected to increase by 45% and will require substantial improvements to be made at Bloor-Yonge Station to increase passenger capacity.

TTC Union Station and other downtown subway stations – Although the TTC is implementing improvements to Union (subway) Station, the significant growth in passenger flows at this and other downtown subway stations (such as King Station) may near or exceed station capacities in the future during peak periods.

Deteriorating quality of surface transit services – Surface services can provide adequate capacity to accommodate the forecast demand from the “shoulder” areas adjacent to the downtown only if the current quality of service provided on surface routes in mixed traffic can be maintained and improved.

Attaining higher self-containment – It should be noted that higher self containment in the downtown area – that is, where a greater proportion of jobs in the downtown area are filled by downtown residents, could result in a reduction of long-distance commute trips destined for the downtown. Therefore policies that result in higher self-containment would help to decrease the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown.

To address the key issues identified in the Problem Statement, two types of alternative solutions were identified: 1. Policy options that would help to minimise the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown while achieving the City’s planning objectives related to City-building and sustainable transportation. 2. Capital investments that would increase rapid transit capacity into the downtown from the east and north that also: . Provide rapid transit services to the developing areas adjacent to the downtown and . Provide opportunities for transit-oriented redevelopment.

While the planning policies can assist in addressing the issues identified in the Problem Statement, significant deficiencies in transit capacity will ultimately require capital investment for transit infrastructure improvements.

September 2012 iv

B. Assessment of Policy Alternatives

Planning policies aimed at addressing the Problem Statement issues were identified by the project team. Many (if not all) of these policies are already articulated in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan. The policy alternatives considered in this study were grouped under four broad categories: 1. Land Use and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategies 2. Parking Policies 3. Multi-modal Strategies 4. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Measures.

The alternatives were assessed based on a wide range of criteria both related to downtown transit capacity and achieving broader transportation and land use objectives. Chapter 4 summarizes the initiatives identified as being the most effective, overall, in helping to address downtown transit capacity issues along with the relevant Official Plan reference and, where applicable, suggestions to strengthen the Official Plan.

It is recommended that the update of the City’s Official Plan, which is being undertaken by City staff, strengthen these provisions of the plan. In addition, the City of Toronto and the TTC, in their ongoing planning activities should work towards achieving meaningful progress in implementing these initiatives. Two current projects, in particular, could help to implement a number of the identified initiatives notably: 1. The Downtown Transportation Operations Study 2. TTC’s implementation of the new streetcars

C. Assessment of Infrastructure Alternatives

In this study, rapid transit infrastructure alternatives were considered along two primary corridors: a “downtown relief” corridor creating a new travel option for passengers on the Bloor-Danforth subway line to travel into the downtown (DRL); and a rapid transit alternative along the Lakeshore rail corridor providing more rapid transit capacity into the downtown from south Scarborough and south Etobicoke.. In each case the alternatives are envisioned as high-capacity grade-separated rapid transit facilities operating as part of the TTC system with current TTC fares.

Although GO Transit service improvements could also, potentially, address the issues described in the Problem Statement, in particular for additional transit capacity from the north, they were not assessed in detail as part of this study. Improvements to GO Rail corridors to the north (Stouffville, Richmond Hill and Barrie) were discussed with Metrolinx/GO staff but a detailed analysis of these options was determined to be beyond the scope of the current TTC/City study. There may be options to improve rapid transit capacity into the downtown on these corridors but these options require further study by Metrolinx/GO in conjunction with their on-going plans for upgrading these lines.

September 2012 v

The effect of each of the infrastructure alternatives assessed in the DRTES study was compared to both the 2031 Reference Network as well and the Reference Network + Yonge Subway Extension (from Finch to the Richmond Hill Centre).

Four phases of the DRL infrastructure alternative, involving a grade separated transit services (e.g. subway), were considered to serve the downtown area:  DRL 1 – East via King St (St. Andrew to Pape)  DRL 2A –East and West along King St (Dundas West to Pape)  DRL 2B – East with Extension to Eglinton (St. Andrew to Don Mills and Eglinton)  DRL 3 – East and West with Extension to Eglinton (Dundas West to Don Mills and Eglinton).

NOTE: Although the alignments shown on these DRL exhibits reflects a King St. alignment, and example DRL station locations, the specific alignment and station locations will be assessed and determined during future phases of this project.

Two Lakeshore Rapid Transit alternatives were considered involving rapid transit type services parallel to the Lakeshore GO corridor:  Lakeshore RT East  Lakeshore RT East and West.

Each of these options is illustrated in the following exhibits.

Exhibit B-1: DRL 1 – East via King St

September 2012 vi

Exhibit B-2: DRL 2A –East and West along King St

Legend GO Rail Subway Station YUS Subway GO Rail Connection DRL Modeled Station DRL East + Extension to Eglinton BD Subway Subway to Subway Connection DRL Modeled Alignment Downtown Relief Line Existing DRL Proposed Corridor Toronto LRT Planned / Potential via King Street

Flemingdon Park

Thorncliffe Park

Cosburn

Pape

Gerrard

Queen East

Union

Exhibit B-3: DRL 2B - East with Extension to Eglinton

September 2012 vii

Exhibit B-4: East and West with Extension to Eglinton

Exhibit B-5: Lakeshore RT East

September 2012 viii

Exhibit B-6: Lakeshore RT East and West

September 2012 ix

All six infrastructure options present significant benefits which have been assessed along with estimates of the capital costs required to construct the lines, and their complexity of implementation. A cost and benefits screening process was undertaken to compare the alternatives, and this screening process is summarized in Table C-5.

Considering the growth plans of the City of Toronto, future transit demands, and the needs of the rapid transit network in the downtown area, the DRL options stand out as preferable to the options involving rapid transit on the Lakeshore East and West GO lines, for the following reasons: Relief to the Yonge Subway Line Relief to Bloor-Yonge Station Network flexibility for the TTC subway network Improved service to the downtown shoulder areas

In addition the DRL options with an extension to Eglinton Avenue East provide a north-south rapid transit corridor between the Bloor Subway line and Eglinton Avenue, which can be extended further north on the Don Mills corridor.

Identification of a preferred DRL alignment will require further study by the TTC and City of Toronto.

September 2012 x

Table C-5: Infrastructure Alternative Screening Summary

September 2012 xi

D. Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The City, TTC and Metrolinx continue to work jointly to plan for new and/or improved grade-separated rapid transit services into the downtown from the east and the north that will help achieve the City’s, and Metrolinx’s, planning objectives of intensification and the evolution of a more compact urban form. To support this recommendation the following actions are identified: . TTC proceed with evaluating and detailing DRL alignments, technology, station locations and level of service. . Metrolinx continue to identify the DRL as a high priority project. . City of Toronto protect for the DRL in the City’s 2012 Official Plan Update. . Metrolinx / GO Transit be encouraged to identify and assess GO Rapid Transit (Express) Service alternatives along the Lakeshore corridor and the North-South corridors (e.g. Barrie line, Richmond Hill line, Stouffville line) that will help alleviate the anticipated future capacity constraints.

Recommendation 2: Do not proceed with the Yonge Subway Extension in advance of the provision of additional rapid transit capacity into the downtown. The decisions regarding the Yonge Subway Extension be made in conjunction with the additional rapid transit improvements (such as the DRL) necessary to ensure transit service into the downtown is sufficient to meet the demand from within Toronto and the rest of the GTAH region.

Recommendation 3: TTC and the City of Toronto undertake the studies and actions needed to protect for a possible future expansion of Bloor-Yonge station and develop a plan for improvements that will be needed in the future.

Recommendation 4: City of Toronto continue to study means of reducing congestion in the downtown area via the optimization of existing infrastructure in its ongoing “Downtown Transportation Operations Study.” This should provide a framework for implementing various transportation improvements. The benefits of a DRL should be noted here with significant improvements to quality of transportation service in addition to intensification opportunities.

Recommendation 5: Maintain, and where possible enhance policies in the City’s Official Plan that will help to minimise the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown while achieving the City’s planning objectives related to City-building and sustainable transportation. Specifically, it is recommended that the City continue to: . Implement policies that support transit-oriented redevelopment. . Implement policies that encourage high self-containment in the downtown. . Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies such as staggered hours, compressed work weeks, work from home / tele-work, incentivizing off-peak travel etc.

Recommendation 6: TTC conduct further investigation into the future demands and transfers expected at subway stations in the downtown and identify those stations that should be given priority in TTC’s station modernization program. King Station in particular will see high passenger demand and operational issues regardless of the presence of a DRL.

September 2012 xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... i 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.1.1 Chronology of Rapid Transit Planning for Downtown Toronto ...... 1 1.1.2 City of Toronto Official Plan ...... 5 1.1.3 Regional Transportation Studies and Plans ...... 5 1.1.4 Direction of Toronto City Council ...... 8 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 8 1.2.1 2031 Reference Network...... 9 1.2.2 Demand for Travel into the Downtown Core of Toronto ...... 10 1.2.3 Forecast Growth in Transit Demand ...... 12 1.2.4 Transit Capacity and Expected Deficiencies...... 14 1.2.5 Conclusion ...... 28 2. Alternatives Identification ...... 30 2.1 Objectives ...... 30 2.2 Policy Alternatives ...... 30 2.2.1 Land Use and TOD Strategies...... 30 2.2.2 Parking Policies ...... 31 2.2.3 Multi-modal Strategies ...... 31 2.2.4 Travel Demand Management Measures...... 31 2.3 Infrastructure Alternatives ...... 31 2.3.1 DRL Alternatives ...... 32 2.3.2 Lakeshore Rapid Transit Alternatives ...... 39 2.3.3 Lakeshore Rapid Transit Service Technology Assessment ...... 43 3. Assessment of Policy Alternatives ...... 45 3.1 Development of Assessment Criteria / Framework ...... 45 3.2 Policy Alternatives Assessment ...... 45 4. Assessment of Infrastructure Alternatives ...... 51 4.1 Infrastructure Alternative Modelling Results ...... 51 4.1.1 DRL Option 1 ...... 51 4.1.2 DRL Option 2A ...... 56 4.1.3 DRL Option 2B ...... 61 4.1.4 DRL Option 3 ...... 66 4.1.5 Lakeshore Rapid Transit East ...... 71 4.1.6 Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full Option ...... 75 4.2 Impact on Union Station ...... 80 4.3 Development of Assessment Criteria / Framework ...... 84 4.4 Infrastructure Alternatives Assessment ...... 84 5. Recommendations and Next Steps ...... 89

September 2012 i

Appendices A. Infrastructure Alternative Cost Estimates

Tables Table 1-1: GO versus TTC trips to Downtown Core, AM Peak Period - split by Region of Origin, 2006 and 2031...... 14 Table 1-2: Ontario Growth Plan Population and Employment Targets ...... 15 Table 1-3: Existing GO Train Capacity Assumptions ...... 16 Table 1-4: 2031 GO Train Capacity Assumptions (2031 Reference Network)...... 16 Table 1-5: Streetcar Capacity Assumptions ...... 18 Table 1-6: Existing Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 19 Table 1-7: 2031 Reference Network Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 20 Table 1-8: 2031 Reference Network with Yonge Subway Extension - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 21 Table 1-9: High Self Containment Land Use - Scenario Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 28 Table 2-1: DRL Option 1 Assumptions ...... 33 Table 2-2: DRL Option 2A Assumptions ...... 34 Table 2-3: DRL Option 2B Assumptions ...... 36 Table 2-4: DRL Option 3 Assumptions ...... 38 Table 2-5: Lakeshore Rapid Transit Assumptions ...... 41 Table 3-1: Policy Alternatives Analysis Table ...... 46 Table 3-2: Policy Alternatives Summary Evaluation Table ...... 49 Table 3-3: Policy Alternative Recommendations ...... 50 Table 4-1: DRL Option 1 - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 55 Table 4-4-2: DRL Option 1 – Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 56 Table 4-3: DRL Option 2A - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 60 Table 4-4: DRL Option 2A - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 61 Table 4-5: DRL Option 2B - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 65 Table 4-4-6: DRL Option 2B - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 66 Table 4-7: DRL Option 3 - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 70 Table 4-8: DRL Option 3 - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 71 Table 4-9: Enhanced Lakeshore RT East Scenario - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 74

September 2012 ii

Table 4-10: Enhanced Lakeshore RT East Scenario - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 75 Table 4-11: Enhanced Lakeshore RT Full Scenario - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 79 Table 4-12: Enhanced Lakeshore RT Full Scenario - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour ...... 80 Table 4-13: Infrastructure Alternative Analysis Table ...... 85 Table 4-14: Infrastructure Alternative Summary Evaluation Table ...... 87

Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: Toronto Rapid Transit System Scheme 1910 ...... 2 Exhibit 1-2: Toronto Subway Plan 1973 ...... 3 Exhibit 1-3: Downtown Rapid Transit Study 1985 ...... 4 Exhibit 1-4: Union Station 2031 Study –Option 4B ...... 7 Exhibit 1-5: Union Station 2031 Study –Option 6B ...... 7 Exhibit 1-6: 2031 Reference Network ...... 10 Exhibit 1-7: DRTES Study Areas ...... 11 Exhibit 1-8: Transit travel mode of trips to Downtown Core, 2006 TTS AM Peak Period ... 12 Exhibit 1-9: Transit travel mode of trips to Downtown Core, 2031 AM Peak Period ...... 13 Exhibit 1-10: Potential Subway Capacity Improvements ...... 17 Exhibit 1-11: Bloor-Yonge Transfers ...... 23 Exhibit 1-12: 2001 & 2031 Downtown Station Boardings ...... 24 Exhibit 1-13: 2001 & 2031 Downtown Station Alightings ...... 25 Exhibit 2-1: DRL Option 1 Potential Corridor and Stations ...... 33 Exhibit 2-2: DRL Option 2A Potential Corridor and Stations ...... 35 Exhibit 2-3: DRL Option 2B Potential Corridor and Stations ...... 37 Exhibit 2-4: DRL Option 3 Potential Corridor and Stations ...... 39 Exhibit 2-5: Lakeshore Rapid Transit East Alignment and Stations ...... 42 Exhibit 2-6: Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full Alignment and Stations...... 43 Exhibit 2-7: Lakeshore RT Conceptual Plan ...... 44 Exhibit 4-1: DRL Option 1 Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE ...... 52 Exhibit 4-2: DRL Option 1 Station Boardings and Alightings ...... 53 Exhibit 4-3: DRL Option 1 Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers ...... 54 Exhibit 4-4: DRL Option 2A Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE ...... 57 Exhibit 4-5: DRL Option 2A Station Boardings and Alightings to be updated ...... 58 Exhibit 4-6: DRL Option 2A Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers ...... 59 Exhibit 4-7: DRL Option 2B Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE ...... 62 Exhibit 4-8: DRL Option 2B Station Boardings and Alightings ...... 63 Exhibit 4-9: DRL Option 2B Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers ...... 64 Exhibit 4-10: DRL Option 3 Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE ...... 67 Exhibit 4-11: DRL Option 3 Station Boardings and Alightings ...... 68 Exhibit 4-12: DRL Option 3 Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers ...... 69 Exhibit 4-13: Lakeshore RT East Service Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE . 72 Exhibit 4-14: Impact of Lakeshore RT East Service on Bloor-Yonge Station ...... 73 Exhibit 4-15: Lakeshore RT Full Service Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE .. 77

September 2012 iii

Exhibit 4-16: Impact of Lakeshore RT Full Service on Bloor-Yonge Station ...... 78 Exhibit 4-17: Passenger Demand at TTC Union Station for Various Infrastructure Alternatives ...... 82 Exhibit 4-18: Passenger Demand at GO Union Station for Various Infrastructure Alternatives ...... 83

September 2012 iv

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES) is to assess future rapid transit needs based on anticipated growth in Toronto in accordance with the City’s Official Plan, and to identify and assess potential rapid transit improvements into and within the downtown area of Toronto.

Downtown Toronto is the economic, social, and cultural heart of the Greater Toronto Area and its health and vitality depends largely upon the ability to provide efficient and accessible transportation of both people and goods between the downtown and the rest of the GTAH.

The movement of people in particular is supported by an extensive transit network consisting of three main transit service types: 1. Commuter rail service provided by GO Transit 2. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway system 3. A network of surface streetcar and bus routes provided by both GO Transit and the TTC.

Each of these services is reaching the limits of its practical capacity today, and with the GTAH continuing to grow and develop, the need for improvements to existing transit service is clear. Metrolinx’s Regional Transportation Plan has set forth a number of potential improvements and the City of Toronto and TTC have also identified measures. However, these and other recent studies have identified the need to look at additional opportunities to enhance rapid transit, particularly into the downtown area.

This report describes the process undertaken, and results of, the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES). The DRTES assesses the need for additional rapid transit capacity to serve the downtown core, and evaluates alternative strategies to address the need. The alternative strategies considered include a new grade separated (e.g. subway) Downtown Relief Line (DRL) corridor, expanded Rapid Transit capacity along the Lakeshore corridor, integrated fares and other policy initiatives to increase ridership and/or improve transit accessibility to and from Downtown Toronto.

1.1 Background

Downtown rapid transit expansion has always been an issue for the City. The following sub- sections provide a history of discussions pertaining to a downtown rapid transit line, as well as a review of the City of Toronto Official Plan, regional transportation studies and plans influencing the needs, and finally the more recent direction of Toronto Council.

1.1.1 Chronology of Rapid Transit Planning for Downtown Toronto Various plans to serve Downtown Toronto with rapid transit have existed for over 100 years. As early as 1910 a concept for a rapid transit system for the City was drawn up and is illustrated in Exhibit 1-1. This plan also proposed a roughly U-shaped subway that would connect to the Bloor-Danforth at Dovercourt to the west and at Broadview to the east – this alignment is very similar to the Downtown Relief Line options still talked about today.

September 2012 1

Exhibit 1-1: Toronto Rapid Transit System Scheme 1910

Just a year later in 1911, the Department of Railways and Bridges of the City of Toronto Engineers Office proposed an underground streetcar line on Queen Street through the downtown. However, this concept was not taken forward. The idea was revisited again in 1944 as part of the TTC’s plan “Rapid Transit for Toronto”, which called for a Yonge Subway and a streetcar Queen Street subway. These plans were approved, with Yonge Subway taking priority and being completed by 1954. A rough-in station under the Yonge Subway Queen Station was built, but unfortunately the Queen route never materialized, particularly due to the competing financial and operational demands associated with the Bloor-Danforth subway (construction in the 1960’s). Much discussion followed including the idea to eliminate the east-west streetcar routes and build the Queen Street Subway. This resulted in the 1973 Subway Plan show in Exhibit 1-2.

September 2012 2

Exhibit 1-2: Toronto Subway Plan 1973

However, a citizen’s group in support of streetcars lobbied to retain the streetcar lines in favour of a new subway, and in 1975 the Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Plan Review issued in its final report “Choices for the Future” a recommendation to cancel Queen Street subway plans in favour of subway expansion further north to serve the growing suburbs.

This resulted in the extension of the Spadina Line from St. George to Wilson and extensions of the Bloor-Danforth line in the east and west.

The Accelerated Rapid Transit Study in 1982 considered and reviewed potential transit improvements including a rapid transit Relief line from Union Station to the Danforth (close to the Greenwood Yard). A feasibility study was conducted on the Relief line including a westerly extension through Exhibition Place with options to extend north-westerly to the Bloor-Danforth line.

In 1985, the Downtown Rapid Transit Study was initiated in response to significant growth in downtown employment levels. In the early 1980’s peak point ridership on the Yonge Line reached about 30,000 passengers per hour, approaching the practical capacity of the subway at the time. There was significant concern that downtown employment demand would eventually exceed the capacity of the subway system. The Downtown Relief Line concept was revisited, this time with the southern alignment along Front Street. The proposed route is depicted in Exhibit 1-3.

September 2012 3

Exhibit 1-3: Downtown Rapid Transit Study 1985

Following the DRT study, the Network 2011 study, which was conducted in the same year concluded that the DRT line could be deferred to the second priority after the Sheppard Subway since “the expected economic short-term growth in ridership in the downtown core could be handled by interim measures in the mid 1990s”. When the recession of the early 1990’s followed, the peak point demand of 30,000 dropped to a low of 20,000 per hour in 1996-97.

In the 2002 Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES), the issue was revisited. This study looked at a number of options to increase the capacity of the Yonge subway including: . Modifying signal system to reduce headways. . Replacing existing signal system with modern technology to significantly reduce headways. . Adding a third platform at Bloor-Yonge to reduce bottlenecks from excessive train dwell times. . Constructing a new subway line into the downtown core (DRL), specifically to allow B-D subway riders from the east to transfer to another line into the downtown prior to Bloor-Yonge. . Providing interim express bus services into the downtown core to defer major infrastructure costs. . Looping of Yonge and Spadina subway lines to operate continuous loop lines, eliminating the need to turn trains around at terminal stations – a constraint on achievable headway.

September 2012 4

This report concluded that, with the implementation of a new signalling system (ATO/ATC), looping of Yonge and Spadina lines at Steeles Avenue was not required. This could be pushed back as the next step in expansion of the subway system, perhaps further north at Highway 7. The conclusions of this study contributed to the Spadina and Yonge subway extension Environmental Studies.

1.1.2 City of Toronto Official Plan The City of Toronto Official Plan, most recently approved in 2002, strongly promotes increasing transit use for existing residents and for new growth. Further to that, no new major roads will be constructed within the City and all future growth in travel will be accommodated on non-auto modes.

With respect to the downtown core, the Official Plan discusses the following: . Improving TTC and GO Transit access . Refurbishment of Union Station . Surface transit priority . Improved pedestrian and cycling environment . Expansion of the PATH system.

It further notes that the City’s focus is on implementing transit services in exclusive rights of way in higher order transit corridors. These higher order transit corridors are to be prioritized such that the city is ready when funding becomes available and Environmental Review Processes are completed. The 2002 Official Plan does not include higher order transit along the Downtown Relief Line (DRL) alignment. The City will soon be embarking on an exercise to update the 2002 Official Plan (to be published in 2012).

1.1.3 Regional Transportation Studies and Plans The GO 2020 Plan is a strategic plan for expansion of GO Transit’s Rail and Bus system and is consistent with the Provincial Growth Plan and the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Some of the highlights of this plan include: . Two way all day GO train service . Commuter rail service extensions to more distant urban growth centres as appropriate . 15-20 minute commuter rail peak period service on all existing lines . Consideration for new GO Train service to Bolton, Seaton, East Markham, and Yonge / Summerhill.

The Move Ontario 2020 initiative was announced in 2007, and includes a commitment of $11.5 billion (or $17.5 billion with Federal participation) to finance rapid transit improvements in the GTAH. The DRL is identified as one of the projects which could receive some of this funding, particularly to improve transit accessibility in the downtown core and to alleviate congestion on the Yonge subway line south of Bloor.

In September 2008, Metrolinx released The Big Move, a draft Regional Transportation Plan for the GTAH. This plan also included the DRL, which was identified as being required in the 15-25 year timeframe.

September 2012 5

The RTP assumed frequent service on GO lines which would likely require electrification on some or all GO lines. To support this, Metrolinx conducted the GO Electrification Study completed in December 2010. It provided a comprehensive look at future GO operations on all seven existing GO lines using electrification versus enhanced diesel technologies. The reference (or base) case developed by Metrolinx and used in the Electrification study was adopted by the DRTES project team for its own base case transit network (this is discussed in more detail in Section 1.2.1).

Given the proposed GO Rail improvements and existing issues with train operations at Union Station today, Metrolinx also conducted the Union Station 2031 Opportunities and Demands Study, which was conducted concurrently with the DRTES and completed in early 2012. The key transportation modelling assumptions and inputs were shared to ensure consistency between the two studies. The findings of the Union Station study are summarized as follows: . GO AM Peak Period inbound demand will double from 2009 to 2031 (72,000 to 140,000) . Recent and planned improvements will be sufficient to handle this inbound growth . GO AM Peak Period outbound demand will grow from 1,000 to 13,000, with serious implications on capacity particularly on trains, in stations on platforms, staircases and passageways creating a situation similar to Bloor-Yonge today. . A number of infrastructure options were considered to alleviate the demand at Union station with two being carried forward for further study: . Option 4B: This option includes a central and east DRL, and a new Bathurst North Yard where Georgetown, Bolton, Barrie GO train service would be short-turned. This option has the potential to offload 52,000 am peak period passengers from Union Station in 2031. . Option 6B: This option includes a new tunnel under the existing Union station for the Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West GO train service. A new station to service passengers alighting in the downtown area would be built east of Union station (perhaps at Yonge St). This option has the potential to offload 59,000 AM peak period passengers from Union Station in 2031.

For each option, Metrolinx is planning to undertake an Engineering Overview Study followed by an Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study (as appropriate).

Both of these options are especially relevant to the DRTES as they would not only serve to offload Union Station but would also address some of the key issues identified in the DRTES Problem Statement, particularly the need to alleviate demand on the Yonge Subway south of Bloor St. and the need to alleviate demand at Bloor-Yonge Station. Option 4B and Option 6B as depicted in the Metrolinx study are illustrated in Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 1-5.

September 2012 6

Exhibit 1-4: Union Station 2031 Study –Option 4B

Exhibit 1-5: Union Station 2031 Study –Option 6B

September 2012 7

1.1.4 Direction of Toronto City Council In January 2009, Toronto City Council requested that Metrolinx prioritize the DRL within its 15 year time frame; and specifically prioritize the DRL in advance of the Yonge Subway Extension in order to accommodate anticipated capacity issues. Council requested that the TTC commence the proper studies to evaluate the merits of the DRL for the purpose of raising its priority for Metrolinx, and also to proceed with the studies necessary to construct the DRL. This DRTES study is the TTC’s response to this direction from Council.

In light of previous work done on rapid transit expansion for Downtown Toronto, the issues facing transit travel to and from the downtown core are identified and quantified in the Problem Statement in the following section while potential improvements to address the issues are assessed later on in this report.

1.2 Problem Statement

The health and vitality of Downtown Toronto is supported by, and depends on, an extensive transit network composed of: . Longer-distance commuter rail services provided by GO Transit. . The TTC subway system serving many medium and shorter-distance passenger trips. . A network of surface streetcar and bus services providing more local travel to, and within, the downtown area.

Each of these transit modes is currently operating close to its maximum capacity at peak times, and congestion on the rapid transit network serving Downtown Toronto is increasing.

There are two primary factors which have affected travel patterns into the downtown area for the past 25 years: 1. A large increase in GO Rail passengers travelling from outside the City of Toronto to the major employment destinations in the downtown area. 2. A large increase in multiple unit residential development both within the downtown area, and immediately adjacent to the downtown, resulting in increased short trip making both by active transportation modes (walking/cycling) and shorter-distance transit trips. The large increase in downtown residential development has also lead to a substantial increase in off-peak direction travel at peak times from home locations in the downtown to employment destinations outside the downtown area.

The TTC is implementing a range of capacity improvements to the existing rapid transit network over the next several years and this expanded capacity is a critical element in ensuring the continued health and vitality of the downtown area. The DRTES Study focuses on assessing the adequacy of these current plans and the identification of additional needs and opportunities to enhance rapid transit into the downtown.

This Problem Statement describes the results of analysis undertaken to identify and assess the need for rapid transit improvements into, and within, the downtown area of Toronto. The analysis focuses on the magnitude of the deficiencies that would occur.

September 2012 8

1.2.1 2031 Reference Network To put the Problem Statement in context, the probable conditions on the downtown transit network in the future have been forecast assuming a future baseline network scenario. The baseline scenario used for this study is known as the “2031 Reference Network”. It was developed in consultation with Metrolinx and is similar to the reference case in GO’s Electrification Study.

The “2031 Reference Network” includes all planned transit service improvements in the GTAH that have earmarked funding or a high probability to be funded. The 2031 Reference Network includes: . Eglinton-Crosstown LRT (Black Creek Drive to Kennedy Station) . Scarborough Rapid Transit replacement . Sheppard Avenue East LRT (Don Mills Station to Meadowvale Road) . Finch Avenue West LRT (Keele to Humber College) . Waterfront East LRT Routes . Spadina Subway Extension to Highway 7 . GO Service Extensions: . Lakeshore West GO from Hamilton to St. Catharines . Lakeshore East GO from Oshawa to Bowmanville . Georgetown GO from Georgetown to Kitchener . Stouffville GO from Stouffville to Lincolnville . Milton GO from Milton to Cambridge. . York Region Transit Plans: . Viva Yonge Street (Finch Station to Newmarket) . Viva Markham (Finch Station to Markham Centre) . Viva Highway 7 (York-Peel Boundary to Locust Hill in Markham). . Mississauga 403 Transitway (Winston Churchill to Pearson Airport). . Brampton Züm service: . Queen Street (Downtown Brampton to York-Peel Boundary) . Hurontario Street (Downtown Brampton to Port Credit) . Steeles Avenue (Lisgar GO Station to Humber College).

Notes: The Yonge Subway Extension (YSE) is not included in the 2031 Reference Network. However sensitivity testing was conducted to assess the 2031 Reference Network + YSE. The results indicted that the YSE will significantly impact the DRTES Problem Statement issues. As such the DRTES infrastructure alternatives documented in this report are compared to the 2031 Reference Network + YSE.

The 2031 Reference Network is illustrated in Exhibit 1-6.

September 2012 9

Exhibit 1-6: 2031 Reference Network

1.2.2 Demand for Travel into the Downtown Core of Toronto The downtown core of Toronto is characterized by high density employment locations close to downtown subway stations and increasingly-dense residential development in surrounding neighbourhoods. For the purpose of this study the downtown core has been defined as areas generally within 1.5kms of the downtown Subway Station. The Downtown Core area along with other study areas considered in the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES) are shown in Exhibit 1-7.

September 2012 10

DRL Broad PD1 Study Area

Downtown Core

Exhibit 1-7: DRTES Study Areas

Today, over 60% of all morning peak period trips destined for the downtown core of the City of Toronto are made by transit. As shown in Exhibit 1-8, of the 155,000 transit trips entering the downtown area in the morning peak period 56% arrive by subway, 34% by GO Transit and 8% on surface TTC routes. More than 88% of the longer-distance transit trips from Peel, Halton, Hamilton and Durham arrive in the downtown on GO Rail services. Longer distance trips from York Region in the north are more equally split between GO Rail and TTC Subway services.

September 2012 11

York College / Carlton

20,100 Trips 29,100 Trips 55% GO 90% TTC Subway 36,200 Trips 155,900 Trips 85% TTC Subway Inbound to East of Downtown West of Downtown Downtown Core 15,800 Trips 13,400 Trips 8% 69% TTC Subway 69% TTC Subway 30% TTC Surface 31% TTC Surface 34% Durham Peel, Halton and 9,600 Trips Hamilton 56% 95% GO 31,600 Trips TTC Subway 88% GO GO Rail

TTC Streetcar/Bus

Parliament Bathurst

Note: “West of Downtown” includes areas south of rail corridor north of Bloor and west to Source: 2006 TTS Humber River. “East of Downtown” includes areas south of St. Clair Avenue and east to Victoria Park Avenue. “Toronto Northwest” includes remaining Toronto west of Yonge, and “Toronto Northeast” includes remaining Toronto east of Yonge. Exhibit 1-8: Transit travel mode of trips to Downtown Core, 2006 TTS AM Peak Period

Within Toronto there are many longer-distance transit trips being made on TTC services by people who could have a faster, more convenient trip on GO Rail. For example, both Port Credit GO Station in Mississauga and Eglinton GO Station in Toronto are approximately 27 minutes from downtown by GO Rail. In both cases it is a much slower trip to the downtown by local transit/TTC. 85% of the transit passengers from the Port Credit area use GO Rail to reach the downtown but only 35% of the passengers in the Eglinton GO Station area use GO Rail services. Passengers make the choice between GO Rail and local transit/subway modes based on a combination of fare level, ease of access, comparative speeds and frequency of service. Within the City, the relatively high GO fares, limited access and infrequent service make GO Rail less attractive to Toronto residents than similar length trips by passengers from outside Toronto.

1.2.3 Forecast Growth in Transit Demand Within the downtown core, the existing population of 71,000 is projected to increase by 83% to 130,000 by 2031. Similarly employment is expected to grow from the current 315,000 by 28% to 404,000 by 2031. In addition, the City’s plans call for significant growth in areas immediately adjacent to the downtown core, notably in the waterfront and the “shoulder” areas east and west of the downtown. In total Planning District 1 (PD1) is expected to increase in population by 66% and in employment by 41% by 2031.These forecasts are strongly supported by the City of Toronto’s Official Plan which directs future growth in the City to areas well-served by transit and, in particular the downtown growth centre. The balance between population and employment growth in the downtown and the resulting

September 2012 12

degree of “self containment” has historically played an important role in moderating the demand for travel to the area and this is expected to be the case moving forward. Significant growth is also forecast in the remainder of the City and in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area that will further increase demand coming into and out of the Downtown Core. In total future transit demand into the core (assuming that the planned transit improvements are in place) is expected to increase by 55% from 155,000 morning peak period trips to 236,000 peak period trips as illustrated in Exhibit 1-9. An increasing number of these trips are expected to be longer distance trips coming from outside of Toronto and GO Rail is expected to carry an increasing proportion of these trips as shown in Table 1-1.

Exhibit 1-9: Transit travel mode of trips to Downtown Core, 2031 AM Peak Period

September 2012 13

Table 1-1: GO versus TTC trips to Downtown Core, AM Peak Period - split by Region of Origin, 2006 and 2031 2006 2031 Total Rapid Total Rapid Transit GO TTC Transit GO TTC Region 2006 2031 Toronto 97,500 7% 93% 125,000 15% 85% York 20,100 55% 45% 32,000 59% 41% Durham 9,600 95% 5% 23,100 99% 1% Peel, Halton, Hamilton 31,600 88% 12% 57,200 96% 4% Total Inbound Demand 158,900 34% 66% 237,200 49% 51%

1.2.4 Transit Capacity and Expected Deficiencies Future transit demands were forecasted using the City’s GTA Travel Demand model to determine transportation movements based on 2031 projected population and employment land use densities, and a transit network that includes the planned transit infrastructure and service improvements described in Section 1.2.1. Demand projection results were then processed through TTC’s assignment model, MADITUC.

The 2031 land use projections are based on the regional population and employment targets from Ontario’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. These targets are summarized in Table 1-2. Within the City of Toronto, a modified forecast has been developed as the base case for the DRTES which meets the same population target for the City, but increases the employment total from 1.64M to 1.83M. This forecast is based on the City of Toronto’s “Flash Forward” Official Plan land use (for employment) with an additional 200,000 population to meet the Growth Plan target in Table 1-2.

September 2012 14

Table 1-2: Ontario Growth Plan Population and Employment Targets

The assumed transit network for 2031 is based on all planned transit service improvements in the GTAH that have earmarked funding or a high probability to be funded. Details on the transit network assumptions are provided in Section 1.2.1.

Note: The transit mode “average hour” design capacities presented below in terms of persons per hour were estimated with the assistance of Metrolinx and the TTC for GO trains, TTC subways, and TTC streetcars based on actual operating experience. The capacities presented represent realistically-achievable maximum passenger flows over an average hour of operation taking into account surge passenger loads within the hour, uneven passenger loadings along the train and an allowance for service irregularities. Crush loads on individual trains within the average hour are, and will be, greater than the one-hour averages shown below.

1.2.4.1 GO Train Capacity

Hourly capacities for each GO Train line were calculated based on Spring 2009 Cordon Count data received from GO Transit. The data included seated capacities per train for each GO line. Seated capacities range from 136 to 162 depending on the car model. For this capacity analysis, seated capacity is assumed to be the threshold while persons per train-car are assumed to be 160 for simplicity.

Table 1-3 documents the capacity assumptions on each GO Rail line today, while Table 1-4 documents the capacity assumptions for each GO Rail in the 2031 GO Reference Network.

September 2012 15

Table 1-3: Existing GO Train Capacity Assumptions Trains / Persons per Persons per hour GO Line Cars per train Capacity / hour train-car train (Current schedules) Barrie 10 160 1,600 2 3,200 Georgetown 10 160 1,600 4 6,400 Lakeshore E 10 160 1,600 6 9,600 Lakeshore W 10 160 1,600 6 9,600 Milton 12 160 1,920 4 7,680 Richmond Hill 10 160 1,600 2 3,200 Stouffville 10 160 1,600 2 3,200 Total 42,880

Table 1-4: 2031 GO Train Capacity Assumptions (2031 Reference Network) Trains / hour Persons per Persons per Capacity / GO Line Cars per train (Current train-car train hour schedules) Barrie 10 160 1,600 4 6,400 Georgetown 10 160 1,600 6 9,600 Lakeshore E 10 160 1,600 9 14,400 Lakeshore W 10 160 1,600 12 19,200 Milton 12 160 1,920 6 11,520 Richmond Hill 10 160 1,600 3 4,800 Stouffville 10 160 1,600 4 6,400 Total 72,320

1.2.4.2 Subway Capacity

The current Yonge-University subway operation consistently provides an average of 26 trains per hour at peak times and TTC’s design standards call for a design capacity of 1000 passengers per train with the current vehicles (see chapter 1 of: http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/service_improvements_2008.pdf). This results in a design capacity of the current system of 26,000 passengers per hour. Passenger counts indicate that the line carries an average of 28,400 passengers per hour and, at times, carries in the order of approximately 30,000 passengers per hour in the morning peak hour but the service is very congested and prone to reliability irregularities.

The current operation is constrained by an antiquated signaling system that limits the maximum number of trains that can be operated on the line, and passenger congestion at Bloor-Yonge station that results in extended dwell times. There is no opportunity to increase train throughput without changes to these constraints.

The TTC is implementing infrastructure and system upgrades, however, that will result in a significant increase in capacity. These improvements are illustrated in Exhibit 1-10 which will result, eventually in an overall increase of 45% in system capacity.

September 2012 16

Source: TTC Exhibit 1-10: Potential Subway Capacity Improvements

New “Toronto Rocket” trains are being introduced which have 10% greater passenger carrying capacity that the current trains due to their open-gangway design. Plans call for all of the trains on the YUS line to be converted to Toronto Rocket trains by 2015.

The replacement of the YUS line’s 50-year old signaling system with current Automatic Train Control (ATC) technology is planned to be complete by 2016. The new signal system is expected to allow the operation of additional trains on the YUS line. Current operations achieve a train frequency of one train every two minutes twenty seconds. The new signaling system will be capable of increasing this to one train every one minute and forty-five seconds. This will increase the maximum capacity possible on the line by approximately 30%.

In total the two programs currently underway to expand subway capacity will increase capacity by approximately 45% from the current 26,000 passengers per hour to 38,000 passengers per hour. The achievement of this increase in capacity assumes that station capacity and passenger flow limitations, particularly at Bloor-Yonge Station will be resolved through station expansion to allow for the achieved throughput of trains every 1’45” and effective line management procedures are in place to manage random incidents that occur on the line to minimize delays.

In the longer term it may be possible, with the precise stopping capability of ATC operation, to lengthen the trains utilized on the YUS line by 10% while maintaining the physical structure of the existing stations. This is not part of the TTC current plans but could be considered at some future time as another mechanism for increasing the passenger carrying capacity of the line.

September 2012 17

1.2.4.3 Streetcar Capacity

As there are relatively few TTC bus routes operating into the downtown and those routes are relatively infrequent and have limited capacity compared to the streetcar and subway network, TTC bus services were not considered in the transit capacity analysis.

Streetcar capacity includes the assumption that new Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) will be used on all routes serving the Downtown Core in the future. Capacity data was provided by the TTC and is documented in Table 1-5.

Table 1-5: Streetcar Capacity Assumptions Capacity with Capacity with New New cars at 3 Existing cars at cars at current Minute Route current service service frequencies Headways frequencies (pph) (pph) (pph) 511 Bathurst 890 1560 2600 506 Carlton 1180 2080 2600 505 Dundas 810 1420 2600 502 Downtowner 370 650 2600 503 Kingston Rd 370 650 2600 509 Harbourfront 850 1490 2600 504/508 EB King / Lake Shore 2460 3900 2600 504 WB King 1350 1950 2600 501 Queen 1250 1510 2600 510 Spadina 1780 3120 2600

The capacities in the Existing and New cars columns are based on existing (2012) headways The capacity for the new LRVs with 3 minute headway is based on a 130 passengers per vehicle crowding standard

1.2.4.4 Summary

Table 1-6 summarises the existing demand and capacity and deficiencies on rapid transit lines into the downtown today and Table 1-7 shows the capacities and deficiencies that are forecast by 2031. The estimated 2031 transit capacity deficiencies on the Reference Network with the proposed Yonge Subway Extension (YSE) are documented in Table 1-8.

The following subsections provide a discussion of these results for each transit mode along with a discussion of station capacity constraints that can potentially reduce the practical capacity for the YUS subway and GO Rail services.

September 2012 18

Table 1-6: Existing Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency AM from NORTH University Subway 26,000 19,300 0.74 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 26,000 28,400 1.09 2,400 Barrie-Bradford GO 3,200 3,800 1.19 600 Richmond Hill GO 3,200 2,900 0.91 0 Stouffville GO 3,200 4,100 1.28 900 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 26,000 21,800 0.84 0 Georgetown GO 6,400 4,700 0.73 0 Milton GO 7,700 7,600 0.99 0 Lakeshore West GO 9,600 13,000 1.35 3,400 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 26,000 25,900 0.99 0 Lakeshore East GO 9,600 12,100 1.26 2,500 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 61,600 58,500 0.95 0 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 23,700 25,300 1.07 1,600 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 9,600 12,100 1.26 2,500 TOTAL Inbound 94,900 95,900 1.01 1,000 Source: TTC and GO count data PHF of 0.55 applied to TTC routes and 0.67 to GO Routes where required Deficiency calculation based on demand minus capacity

September 2012 19

Table 1-7: 2031 Reference Network Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 25,100 0.66 0 Yonge Subway 38,000 35,800 0.94 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,500 1.17 1,100 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,500 0.52 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 8,600 1.34 2,200 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 20,100 0.61 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,000 1.15 1,400 Milton GO 11,500 12,000 1.04 500 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,900 0.72 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 31,400 0.95 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 21,200 1.47 6,800 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 79,500 0.85 3,300 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 40,300 36,900 0.92 1,900 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 14,400 21,200 1.47 6,800 0.93 TOTAL Inbound 148,300 137,600 12,000 Source: 2031 TTC Madituc Model PHF of 0.55 applied to TTC routes and 2031 GO routes Deficiency calculation based on demand minus capacity Existing subway capacity based on 1000 persons per train, 30 trains per hour GO capacity based on existing schedules, 160 persons per train-car, 10 car trains (12 on Milton) Demand is adjusted for calibration of 2001 model against 2001 cordon counts

September 2012 20

Table 1-8: 2031 Reference Network with Yonge Subway Extension - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 23,500 0.62 0 Yonge Subway 38,000 39,400 1.04 1,400 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,400 1.16 1,000 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,200 0.46 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 8,000 1.25 1,600 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 20,000 0.58 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,000 1.15 1,400 Milton GO 11,500 11,900 1.03 400 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,800 0.72 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 31,000 0.94 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 20,800 1.44 6,400 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 80,500 0.86 4,000 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 40,300 36,700 0.91 1,800 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 14,400 20,800 1.44 6,400 TOTAL Inbound 148,300 138,000 0.93 12,200 Source: 2031 TTC Madituc Model PHF of 0.55 applied to TTC routes and 2031 GO routes Deficiency calculation based on demand minus capacity Existing subway capacity based on 1000 persons per train, 30 trains per hour GO capacity based on existing schedules, 160 persons per train-car, 10 car trains (12 on Milton) Demand is adjusted for calibration of 2001 model against 2001 cordon counts

1.2.4.5 TTC Subway Currently the Yonge Subway line is operating 10% beyond its design capacity south of Bloor at peak times with passengers regularly unable to board sequential trains and significant delays occurring because of overcrowded trains. The University line to the west operates at approximately 75% of capacity at peak times. TTC is increasing the capacity of the Yonge- University subway line by purchasing larger Toronto Rocket trains and implementing Automatic Train Control signaling. These projects are expected to increase the capacity of the Yonge Line by up to 45% by 2031. With the line terminating at Finch as it does today, ridership at the peak point on the line is expected to increase by 25% by 2031with the net result that the line is forecast to be operating close to capacity in 2031. The increase in demand depends on many factors however, including: . Future relationship between downtown employment and residential population . GO Rail expansion . Other rapid transit projects which could add passenger carrying capacity to the downtown and/or encourage more transit travel into the downtown.

September 2012 21

In particular, the proposed extension of the Yonge Subway line north to Richmond Hill will attract a significant number of additional passengers to the subway line and add approximately 10% to the demand at the peak load point on the line south of Bloor as seen in Table 1-8. It will also aggravate concerns about accommodating long distance trips on the subway rather than on GO Rail services unless there are major additional improvements to GO Rail’s services to the north in advance of the subway extension.

The modelling results described above indicate that the Yonge Subway line, with no extension of the line north of its current terminal at Finch, will approach capacity by 2031. Based on a preliminary analysis (i.e. straight line interpolation of travel demands) it is expected that the extension of the line to Richmond Hill will accelerate the over-capacity situation by approximately five to ten years.

1.2.4.6 Bloor-Yonge Station Capacity Deficiency

Passenger activity at Bloor-Yonge Station is another concern – observed platform crowding today is an issue concerning passenger safety as well as train operations. As shown in Exhibit 1-11, about 23,000 people travel through Bloor-Yonge in the AM peak hour today, with nearly 6,400 passengers transferring from the westbound Bloor-Danforth line to the southbound Yonge line. In total, over 10,700 utilize the southbound platform at Bloor-Yonge station in the AM peak hour.

By 2031, station activity increases to 37,000 passengers, a 60% increase from 2001 levels. Nearly 9,300 passengers are expected to transfer from the westbound Bloor-Danforth line to the southbound Yonge line – a 45% increase from 2001. Meanwhile the transfer volume from the eastbound BD line to the southbound Yonge line will remain approximately the same. Once walk-in traffic is accounted for, overall southbound platform activity increases by 26% from 2001 levels to 13,700.

The significant increase in platform activity will compound existing concerns about the adequacy of Bloor-Yonge Station from a passenger safety perspective. Additionally, the added demand may result in over-extended dwell times which may limit the practical capacity of the YUS subway in spite of the planned ATO/ATC improvements.

As such, the TTC is currently reviewing the adequacy of this station to accommodate future demands in the “Bloor-Yonge Station Capacity Improvement Study.”

September 2012 22

Exhibit 1-11: Bloor-Yonge Transfers

1.2.4.7 Downtown Subway Station Activity

Measuring overall station usage split between boardings and alightings provides an indication of potential congestion points in the subway network and secondly of opportunities to serve the major travel origin and destinations in the Downtown Core.

Exhibit 1-12 and Exhibit 1-13 below were developed based on the TTC’s MADITUC model for 2001 and 2031 GO Reference Network, illustrating both boardings and alightings at YUS subway stations south of the BD line and including St. George and Bloor-Yonge.

September 2012 23

Exhibit 1-12: 2001 & 2031 Downtown Station Boardings

Looking at estimated 2031 boardings, we see that subway boardings at Union Station are expected to grow significantly – likely due to the emphasis on GO improvements that are included in the 2031 GO Reference network and an increased population residing along the Toronto waterfront that will use Union Station as their access point to the YUS subway. Boardings are expected to triple from 5,700 to 17,300.

September 2012 24

Exhibit 1-13: 2001 & 2031 Downtown Station Alightings

Looking at 2031 alightings, we see that passenger demand at King and Union Stations is projected to grow well beyond the already high volumes experienced in 2001. King Station in particular grows from 6,600 in 2001 to 10,800 in 2031, growth of over 60%. Further employment development within the Downtown Core as well as in the east waterfront lands likely contributes to the growth seen here and at Union Station.

The significant growth in passenger flows at downtown subway stations (such as King Station) may exceed station capacities in the future during peak periods.

September 2012 25

1.2.4.8 GO Rail Services and Union Station

GO Rail services are operating at or above maximum capacity (assumed to be 1,000 passengers per car which equates to 100% seated capacity) today on almost all lines into the downtown area with most trains carrying standees when they arrive at Union Station and many trains have standees when they cross the City of Toronto boundaries. GO plans call for increasing service on all of it rail lines by 50% to 100% by 2031 under the “Reference Case”. In addition, as a result of the improvements planned for Union Station and the approach tracks, the capacity of Union station is expected to increase by 100% to 150%.

However, as illustrated in the deficiency tables above, ridership forecasts for 2031 indicate that these improvements will not adequately accommodate the forecast future demand. Services from the east and north, in particular, are forecast to attract significantly more passengers by 2031 than can be accommodated by the planned improvements.

GO has undertaken a study of Union Station capacity which provides a number of possible alternatives to increase the capacity of the station and approach tracks to address the expected over-capacity situation.

1.2.4.9 TTC Streetcar and Surface Network

Twenty percent of all transit trips into the downtown today are accommodated on TTC surface routes and growth is expected in this type of travel as a result of increases in high density development in the “shoulder areas” of the downtown (west of Bathurst and east of Parliament). In particular planned developments in the Regent Park, King/Parliament, Waterfront and King West development areas will increase transit demands. Surface transit services are provided primarily by the TTC’s east-west streetcar network and are currently operating close to their practical capacity in congested mixed traffic conditions.

The TTC is purchasing new Light Rail Vehicles which are 70% larger than the current CLRV vehicle and will provide adequate capacity to accommodate forecasts passenger demands in 2031. The challenge for the surface operation is not one of capacity, but one of quality of service. Current surface operation in congested mixed traffic is inherently slow and unreliable. The forecast demands for surface transit services may not materialise if service quality deteriorates to the point where passengers find the service unacceptable.

1.2.4.10 Downtown Self-Containment

A study from the City of Toronto’s Official Plan work in 2000 entitled “The Future of Downtown Toronto” by Dr. David Nowlan at the University of Toronto examined the historical relationship between Central Area employment, inbound AM commuting trips, and the residential labour force or population within the Central Area. This “nexus” relationship, as it was called, showed that inbound AM commuting trips could be reasonably predicted through equations that describe the relationship. Based on historical City of Toronto Cordon data from 1975 to 1995, every additional resident within the Central Area reduces inbound AM peak period (3 hour) travel demand by 0.8 to 0.9 trips.

September 2012 26

As such, land use planning policy and forecasts play a critical role in determining the need for transit infrastructure improvements.

As part of the DRTES, an analysis was undertaken to assess the reasonableness of population and employment targets. The assessment indicated that downtown population targets are on track to be met, but there does appear to be some risk that employment targets may not be met. Further to that, trends in higher population in the Downtown Core reinforced the need to test a land use scenario with increased population against employment within Downtown Core.

To better-understand the issue and potential impacts, a “high self containment” land use scenario was tested to illustrate a best case from a transportation point of view that minimises travel to and from the downtown. This sensitivity analysis is important because self containment of workers and jobs within the Downtown Core is a strong indicator of AM peak period inbound travel demand, where a higher self containment reduces inbound demand and vice versa. Policy concerning the balance of population and employment within the Downtown Core can potentially play a significant role in determining the future need for transit capacity improvements.

The travel forecasts described above are based on best-estimates of current trends in population and employment in the GTA. They also reflect the City’s Official Plan, Regional plans, and the Province’s “Places to Grow” development strategy. Forecasts of future travel are highly dependent on the assumed pattern of development, however, and results for the downtown area are particularly sensitive to the assumptions used. A fundamental question in planning transportation for the downtown is the degree to which jobs in the downtown are filled by people who live in the downtown. This is a complex issue to forecast. It depends on the extent to which jobs and residential locations are available in the downtown at any point in time. It also is affected by household and behaviour issues related to the degree to which people living downtown work elsewhere and “out-commute”. It is recognised that this has been an important issue affecting travel demand into the downtown for many years, and must be considered in planning for rapid transit services.

The DRTES therefore considered a high self containment scenario in which Employment projections within the Downtown Core and Waterfront area lower than projected in the “FF Plus” scenario outlined in Section 1.2.4. In this scenario, the population and employment totals for the City of Toronto as a whole were preserved with the projected waterfront employment reallocated to other urban centres outside of the DRTES focus area. The results of the deficiency analysis for this high self containment scenario are presented in Table 1-9.

The results of this analysis, presented in Table 1-9, show that even on a best-case basis, capacity problems from both the east and north are still expected. An optimistic “high self containment” scenario reduces, but does not fully resolve the capacity issues identified.

September 2012 27

Table 1-9: High Self Containment Land Use - Scenario Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 23,100 0.61 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 38,000 33,100 0.87 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 6,700 1.05 300 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,200 0.46 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 7,800 1.22 1,400 AM from WEST 0.58 B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 19,300 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 9,600 1.00 0 Milton GO 11,500 10,500 0.91 0 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 12,200 0.64 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 30,600 0.93 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 19,300 1.34 5,900 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 72,900 0.78 1,700 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 40,300 32,300 0.80 0 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 14,400 19,300 1.34 5,900 TOTAL Inbound 148,300 124,500 0.84 7,600

1.2.5 Conclusion Even with the currently-planned GO and TTC improvements in place, the Yonge Subway line and much of the GO Rail network will be nearing or at capacity for trips into the Downtown Toronto area during the peak periods by 2031. The most serious capacity issues are related to long- and medium-distance trips from the east and north.

An extension of the Yonge Subway line to Richmond Hill will aggravate the overcapacity problem on the Yonge Subway.

Bloor-Yonge station is currently a key transfer point in the Subway network. Today, virtually all demand (from the east) on the Bloor-Danforth line destined for the Downtown Core must transfer at Bloor-Yonge station, resulting in very large transfer volumes at this station. The situation is exacerbated by full trains on the Yonge Subway resulting in increased dwell times on the station platforms. Bloor-Yonge Station faces significant constraints today that effectively constrain Yonge subway line capacity due to the need for increased dwell times from crowding on both the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth platforms.

September 2012 28

Surface services can provide adequate capacity to accommodate the forecast demand from the “shoulder” areas adjacent to the downtown only if the quality of service provided on surface routes in mixed traffic can be maintained and improved. Grade-separated rapid transit services to these areas would help achieve the City’s planning objectives of intensification and the evolution of a more compact urban form.

To the extent possible, the City should encourage higher self containment in order to reduce the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown.

It is anticipated that future (2031) ridership demand and transfers will result in YUS subway stations nearing or exceeding capacity during the peak periods.

The focus of future work should be on: 1. Identifying policy options that would help to minimise the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown while achieving the City’s planning objectives related to City-building and sustainable transportation. 2. Identifying investments that will increase rapid transit capacity into the downtown from the east and north that also: . Provide rapid transit services to the developing areas adjacent to the downtown and . Provide opportunities for transit-oriented redevelopment.

September 2012 29

2. ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION

Policy and infrastructure alternatives which address the issues defined in the Problem Statement are identified in this section. The results of the assessment of these alternatives are provided in sections 3 and 4.

2.1 Objectives

To address the needs and challenges identified in the Problem Statement, potential solutions were identified and assessed. Two categories of solutions were identified – policy alternatives and transit service/infrastructure improvements (infrastructure alternatives).

Although these two categories are very much interrelated with one affecting the other, they were assessed and evaluated independently. The DRTES final recommendations include both policy and infrastructure recommendations and should be considered within the context of the vision set forth by the Official Plan.

2.2 Policy Alternatives

Planning policies aimed at addressing the Problem Statement issues were identified by the project team. Many (if not all) of these policies are already articulated in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan. The policy alternatives considered in this study, were grouped under four broad categories: 1. Land Use and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategies 2. Parking Policies 3. Multi-modal Strategies 4. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Measures.

2.2.1 Land Use and TOD Strategies Policies with the potential to address the DRTES Problem Statement specific to land use and TOD strategies include: . Promoting higher levels of employment in the downtown core. . Promoting higher levels of employment in the shoulder areas generally east and west of the downtown core that are not served by the TTC subway system. . Redistributing employment uses to the other four centres (Yonge-Eglinton, North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke Centres). . Introducing linkage policies to tie residential and commercial development targets together. . Achieving higher residential densities within the downtown core. . Achieving higher residential densities within the shoulder areas. . Promoting a complete mix of "daily needs" uses throughout the city to reduce the need for auto and transit trips.

September 2012 30

2.2.2 Parking Policies Policies with the potential to address the DRTES Problem Statements specific to parking policies include: . Introduction of Reduced Parking Standards . Providing additional parking at GO transit sites . Providing additional parking or incentivizing parking at suburban TTC stations.

2.2.3 Multi-modal Strategies Policies with the potential to address the DRTES Problem Statements specific to multi-modal strategies include: . Providing improved cycling infrastructure within the downtown core and shoulder areas. . Implementing pedestrian priority measures within the downtown core. . Initiating educational programs to promote greater travel by walking, biking and transit. . Implementation of Proof of Payment (POP) measures along surface transit routes in the shoulder areas. . Implementing transit priority measures within the shoulder areas. . Wider implementation of U-Pass, Family Pass or other targeted payment measures.

2.2.4 Travel Demand Management Measures Policies with the potential to address the DRTES Problem Statements specific to TDM include: . Shifting peak hour trips through staggered hours, compressed work weeks or flex time. . Encouraging greater work from home or from tele-work hubs outside the downtown core. . Promoting and incentivizing off peak travel through pricing mechanisms such as a zonal fare strategy or smart pass provisions for the downtown core. . Increasing taxes on vehicles and gasoline. . Congestion pricing or road tolls aimed at discouraging auto use. . Reducing Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) use through car-share or car-pool programs.

Each of these policies is then evaluated on its ability to satisfy the Problem Statement requirements. This evaluation is described in Section 3.

2.3 Infrastructure Alternatives

While the planning policies can assist in addressing the issues identified in the Problem Statement, significant deficiencies in transit capacity will ultimately require capital investment for transit infrastructure improvements. Potential infrastructure improvement alternatives were therefore identified and are documented in this section.

The effect of each of the infrastructure alternatives was compared to both the 2031 Reference Network as well and the Reference Network + Yonge Subway Extension (from Finch to the Richmond Hill Centre).

September 2012 31

Initially, a long list of infrastructure and service improvement alternatives was considered, including the following: . TTC Service supply adjustments (station and route capacity). . TTC Service quality adjustments including improved service integration and coordination. . New (longer) subway trains on Bloor-Danforth. . Express tracks at Bloor-Yonge station. . Adding a wye at Bloor-Yonge and inter-lining trains between BD and YUS. . Street car tunnels at Adelaide and Richmond. . Fare strategies. . Downtown Relief Line (DRL) and variations including alternative operating scenarios . Rapid Transit Strategies along Lakeshore.

In the evaluation of the initial long list of alternatives it was felt that, with the exception of the DRL and Lakeshore Rapid Transit alternatives, the above options would not be adequate to address the significant capacity constraints identified in the Problem Statement. Therefore two types of infrastructure alternatives were considered in the DRTES: downtown relief line (DRL) alternatives; and rapid transit alternatives along the Lakeshore rail corridors.

Although GO Transit service improvements could also potentially address the issues described in the Problem Statement, they were not assessed in detail as part of this study. For example, improvements to GO Rail corridors to the north (Stouffville, Richmond Hill and Barrie) were discussed with Metrolinx/GO staff but a detailed analysis of these options was determined to be beyond the scope of the current TTC/City study. There may be options to improve rapid transit capacity into the downtown on these corridors but these options require further study by Metrolinx/GO in conjunction with their on-going plans for upgrading these lines.

2.3.1 DRL Alternatives

Four variations of the DRL were identified for assessment and are presented as follows. NOTE: Although the alignments shown on these DRL exhibits reflects a King St. alignment, and example DRL station locations, the specific alignment and station locations will be assessed and determined during future phases of this project.

2.3.1.1 DRL Option 1 - East via King Street The first DRL alternative, DRL Option 1, includes a new underground transit corridor east of the Downtown, connecting St. Andrew and King Stations via King Street, and Pape Station via Pape Avenue. Key assumptions regarding DRL Option 1 are provided in Table 2-1 and illustrated in Exhibit 2-1.

September 2012 32

Table 2-1: DRL Option 1 Assumptions Scenario Option 1: DRL East via King Street Headway Assumption 3 minutes Speed Assumption 34 km/h from Pape Station to Sherbourne / King 25 km/h from Sherbourne / King to St Andrew Station Fare Assumption Existing Fare Structure Stations (East to West) Pape Station Gerrard Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & River Street King Street & Sherbourne Street King Station St Andrew Station

Note: Intermodal TTC / GO stations are shown in bold above.

Exhibit 2-1: DRL Option 1 Potential Corridor and Stations

A proposed corridor for DRL Option 1 is presented in Exhibit 2-1. The specific alignment, which is for illustration and modelling purposes only, has been assumed to run roughly along King, Queen and Pape. This alignment is subject to further study and refinement.

September 2012 33

2.3.1.2 DRL Option 2A – East and West along King Street

DRL Option 2A builds upon DRL Option 1, adding a west leg of the DRL from St. Andrew Station, west along King Street and north on Roncesvalles Avenue to Dundas West Station on the Bloor-Danforth line. This option provides an alternative route into the downtown core from both the east and west. Key assumptions for DRL Option 2A are presented in Table 2-2 and illustrated in Exhibit 2-3.

Table 2-2: DRL Option 2A Assumptions Scenario Option 2A: DRL East + West via King Street

Network Reference network + Yonge Extension + Below

Headway Assumption 3 minutes

Speed Assumption 34 km/h from Pape Station to Sherbourne / King 25 km/h from Sherbourne / King to Spadina 34 km/h from Spadina to Dundas West Station Fare Assumption Existing Fare Structure

Stations (East to West) Pape Station Gerrard Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & River Street King Street & Sherbourne Street King Station St Andrew Station King Street & Spadina Avenue King Street & Strachan Avenue Queen Street & Dufferin Street Queen Street & Roncesvalles Avenue High Park Boulevard & Roncesvalles Avenue Dundas West Station

Note: Intermodal TTC/GO stations are shown in bold above.

As with DRL Option 1, the specific alignment, which is for illustration and modelling purposes only, has been assumed to run roughly along Roncesvalles, King, Queen and Pape. This alignment is subject to further study and refinement.

September 2012 34

Exhibit 2-2: DRL Option 2A Potential Corridor and Stations

2.3.1.3 DRL Option 2B – East with Extension to Eglinton

DRL Option 2B also builds upon DRL Option 1, adding an extension between Danforth and Eglinton and thus another viable route into the Downtown from the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT line and providing additional relief to the Yonge Subway, but forgoing the west leg of the DRL. Key assumptions for DRL Option 2B are presented in Table 2-3 and illustrated in Exhibit 2-4.

September 2012 35

Table 2-3: DRL Option 2B Assumptions Scenario Option 2B: DRL East + Eglinton Extension via King Street Network Reference network + Yonge Extension + Below

Headway Assumption 3 minutes

Speed Assumption 34 km/h from Eglinton / Don Mills Station to Parliament / King 25 km/h from Parliament / King to St. Andrew Station Fare Assumption Existing Fare Structure

Stations (East to West) Eglinton Avenue & Don Mills Road Flemingdon Park (Don Mills Road between St. Dennis Drive & Gateway Boulevard) Thorncliffe Park (Thorncliffe Park Boulevard & Overlea Boulevard) Cosburn Avenue & Pape Avenue Pape Station Gerrard Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & River Street King Street & Sherbourne Street King Station St Andrew Station

Note: Intermodal TTC/GO stations are shown in bold above.

September 2012 36

Exhibit 2-3: DRL Option 2B Potential Corridor and Stations

2.3.1.4 DRL Option 3 – East and West with Extension to Eglinton

DRL Option 3 combine Options 2A and 2B and includes both the west leg from St. Andrew to Dundas West and the extension from Pape Station north to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT at the proposed Don Mills Station. This option provides the most comprehensive transit corridor. It serves the most origin-destination pairs, and relieves the Yonge subway demand both south of Bloor-Danforth, and south of Eglinton. Table 2-4 and Exhibit 2-4 summarize and illustrate the key assumptions for this option.

September 2012 37

Table 2-4: DRL Option 3 Assumptions Scenario Option 3: DRL East + West + Eglinton Extension via King Street Network Reference network + Yonge Extension + Below

Headway Assumption 3 minutes

Speed Assumption 34 km/h from Eglinton / Don Mills Station to Parliament / King 25 km/h from Parliament / King to Bathurst / King 34 km/h from Bathurst / King to Dundas West Station Fare Assumption Existing Fare Structure

Stations (East to West) Eglinton Avenue & Don Mills Road Flemingdon Park (Don Mills Road between St. Dennis Drive & Gateway Boulevard) Thorncliffe Park (Thorncliffe Park Boulevard & Overlea Boulevard) Cosburn Avenue & Pape Avenue Pape Station Gerrard Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & Pape Avenue Queen Street & River Street King Street & Sherbourne Street King Station St Andrew Station King Street & Spadina Avenue King Street & Strachan Avenue Queen Street & Dufferin Street Queen Street & Roncesvalles Avenue High Park Boulevard & Roncesvalles Avenue Dundas West Station

Note: Intermodal TTC/GO stations are shown in bold above.

September 2012 38

Exhibit 2-4: DRL Option 3 Potential Corridor and Stations

This option is very similar to the alignment recommended in the 1985 Downtown Relief Line study which proposed the same extension to Eglinton, but had the east-west alignment along Front Street (rather than King).

2.3.2 Lakeshore Rapid Transit Alternatives One of the options considered in Metrolinx’s Union Station 2031 Capacity study, appeared to have significant potential to attract demand away from (i.e. “relieve”) the Yonge-University- Spadina (YUS) subway line. The Lakeshore alternatives considered in the DRTES were based on the Union Station 2031 Capacity Study Option 6B, depicted in Exhibit 1-5. That option assumed more frequent GO Train service along Lakeshore West and East, a tunnel under the existing Union station and a satellite “Union” Station close to Yonge Street to help offload demand at the existing Union Station.

The options that were studied in DRTES, assumed a separate (independent) Lakeshore “subway-like” Rapid Transit service which would operate in parallel to, and supplement, the

September 2012 39

GO Lakeshore West and East commuter rail service as defined in the 2031 Reference Case., Importantly, this option also assumed a TTC fare for the “subway-like” Rapid Transit service in the corridor. The Lakeshore Rapid Transit service would operate only within Toronto between Long Branch Station in the west and Rouge Hill Station in the east. Stations would be spaced closer together than those on the Lakeshore East and West GO Train stations. Two variations of this alternative were considered: 1. Lakeshore Rapid Transit East: Service between the new satellite “Union” Station and Rouge Hill Station, and 2. Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full: Service between the Long Branch Station and Rouge Hill Station.

Details on the Lakeshore Rapid Transit service are provided in Table 2-5 and illustrated in Exhibit 2-5 and Exhibit 2-6.

September 2012 40

Table 2-5: Lakeshore Rapid Transit Assumptions Transit GO Lakeshore East Lakeshore RT East Lakeshore RT Full Service and West

(operated in parallel to the Lakeshore RT options)

Lakeshore Limits: St. Catharines Limits: Long Branch to West to Union satellite “Union” Corridor Peak Hour Headway: Peak Hour Headway: 3- 5 minutes 5 minutes Speed: Diesel 20-115 Speed: 40 km/h km/h Fare: TTC fare Fare: Existing fare structure Lakeshore Limits: Bowmanville to Limits: Satellite “Union” Limits: Satellite “Union” East Union to Rouge Hill to Rouge Hill Corridor Peak Hour Headway: Peak Hour Headway: Peak Hour Headway: 3- 6.7 minutes 3-5 minutes (depending 5 minutes (depending on Speed: Diesel 46-88 on demand) demand) km/h Speed: 40 km/h Speed: 40 km/h Fare: Existing fare Fare: TTC fare Fare: TTC fare structure Stops / Rouge Hill Rouge Hill Rouge Hill New Guildwood Guildwood Guildwood Stations Eglinton Eglinton Eglinton Scarborough Scarborough Scarborough Danforth Warden Warden Exhibition Danforth Danforth Mimico Gerrard Gerrard . Long Branch Cherry Cherry “Satellite” Union Station “Satellite” Union Station A transfer to the RT Exhibition

service will be available Roncesvalles at these stations. Queensway Mimico Kipling Long Branch

September 2012 41

Exhibit 2-5: Lakeshore Rapid Transit East Alignment and Stations

September 2012 42

Exhibit 2-6: Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full Alignment and Stations

2.3.3 Lakeshore Rapid Transit Service Technology Assessment In order to develop high level planning cost estimates for the Lakeshore Rapid Transit options, it was necessary to consider and assess various technology/operational concepts. Two alternative concepts were considered.

Option A: GO Train Shuttle: The most viable option for a Rapid Transit Service along the Lakeshore corridor would be to utilize GO Rail equipment (vehicles and tracks). Additional stations could be provided between existing stations within the Long Branch to Rouge Hill section to reflect a more “short distance, frequent stop, rapid transit” type service. This option assumed that the shuttle service could utilize one of the tracks that are accessed by GO trains that do currently stop at the in-City stations. It was further assumed that one additional track would need to be added to support the continuous operation of the shuttle service during peak periods.

Option B: “Subway like” Service: Another option that was considered was an entirely separate ”subway like” system that would run parallel to the GO Lakeshore corridor but with dedicated/assigned track and new LRV or subway vehicles. This concept was envisioned to have 2 new dedicated tracks running outside the freight/GO tracks. Given the ROW constraints it was assumed that some of the alignment (not including the tunnel under Union Station) would need to be elevated or placed in a tunnel. Exhibit 4-7 below demonstrates the high level assumptions pertaining to sections of the Lakeshore RT option that were assumed to be at grade, elevated or tunnelled.

September 2012 43

Exhibit 2-7: Lakeshore RT Conceptual Plan

These two technology/operational concepts were discussed with GO Transit operations staff who indicated that any shuttle type of service would require two dedicated tracks. Given that the Electrification Reference Case future track layout is constrained by the need to stay within the existing right of way, they would not be able to dedicate two existing track to the proposed shuttle and also support the full potential of GO’s future rail services (2031 and beyond), including increased GO service and other service including VIA rail..However, GO staff did note that variable-type services such as additional express trains and a form of shuttle service would be considered in the upcoming GO operational study.

Conclusion: The GO based shuttle service (Option A) was deemed non-viable however the LRT/subway service in the Lakeshore corridor option (Option B) was deemed to be conceptually viable. This option could be made to operate independent of the GO system and only share common station locations. It was noted that additional right of way would be needed for this option for both at-grade project elements and for supports for any elevated structures including mainline and/or station facilities. Given the demand volume estimates provided by the modelling, for cost estimation purposes it was assumed that subway technology would be used for this option.

It is noted that the Lakeshore Rapid Transit alternatives are conceptual and for the purposes of the DRTES study. The feasibility of such options is subject to further study. It should also be noted that there are potential GO Infrastructure Alternatives that could have similar affects/benefits to the one option assessed as part of the DRTES. Although these opportunities have not been assessed in detail in the DRTES project, it is recommended that they be considered and further assessed by GO/Metrolinx.

September 2012 44

3. ASSESSMENT OF POLICY ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Development of Assessment Criteria / Framework

The policy alternatives or initiatives identified in Section 2.2 were evaluated, initially, on their ability to address the key Problem Statement issues or requirements, and secondly on any additional benefits provided.

The policy alternatives were assessed against the following criteria:

Requirements . Relieves Yonge demand south of Bloor . Relieves demand at Bloor-Yonge Station . Relieves demand at other YUS Stations south of Bloor . Minimizes rapid transit (GO and subway) capacity deficiencies . Minimzes local transit capacity deficiencies . Minimizes congestion at TTC Union Station . Minimizes congestion at GO Union Station.

Additional Benefits . Improves total transit capacity in shoulder areas outside the downtown core . Increases rapid transit (GO and subway) modal share and transit ridership . Increases accessibility to rapid transit (larger catchment area, ease of access) . Supports Waterfront development . Opportunity for intensification / revitalization of shoulder areas and corridors . Discourages inbound SOV automobile travel . Supports the eventual construction of the Downtown Relief Line.

The results of the policy assessment is documented in a detailed assessment table (Table 3-1) and summary table (Table 3-2), and these are presented in the following section.

3.2 Policy Alternatives Assessment

The detailed analysis table describes the assumptions and reasoning that make up the evaluation. This detailed analysis table is provided in Table 3-1.

The results of the policy alternative analysis were summarized by identifying a positive, neutral, or negative relationship with each criterion, symbolized as follows: Positive relationship:  Neutral relationship:  Negative relationship: 

The summary evaluation table is shown in Table 3-2.

September 2012 45

Table 3-1: Policy Alternatives Analysis Table

September 2012 46

September 2012 47

September 2012 48

Table 3-2: Policy Alternatives Summary Evaluation Table

September 2012 49

Of the 22 policy alternatives or initiatives identified and evaluated in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, ten (10) are identified as supporting the DRTES Problem Statement goals. It is recommended that these policies continue to be supported in the Official Plan with the potential to add wording (in the 2012 OP Update) specific to the need for additional rapid transit capacity for the Downtown. Based on the policies carried forward in Table 3-2, Table 3-3 summarizes the Official Plan reference and suggestions to strengthen the OP in support of the DRTES Problem Statement. Table 3-3: Policy Alternative Recommendations Official Plan Policy Alternatives and Initiatives Suggested Official Plan Modifications Reference Land Use and Transit Oriented Development Strategies Redistributing employment uses to the other four "Create a positive climate for economic growth and Section 2.2.2 Policy centres (Yonge-Eglinton, North York, Scarborough, commercial office development" - If possible, 2c and Etobicoke Centres) strengthen language

Introducing linkage policies to tie residential and Section 2.2 Policy Add language specific to linkage policies commercial development targets together 2d

Achieving higher residential densities within the Section 2.2.1, Policy None required downtown core 1b and 4 "Provide full range of housing opportunities for Achieving higher residential densities within the Section 2.2.1 Policy Downtown workers and reduces demand for in-bound shoulder areas 1b commuting" - add language (or new policy) specific to development of shoulder areas Promoting a complete mix of "daily needs" uses Similar to Section throughout the city to reduce the need for auto Add language specific to daily needs uses 2.2 Policy 2d and transit trips Parking Policies None carried forward Multi-modal Strategies 2.2.1 Policy 11 for Providing improved cycling infrastructure within cyclist safety, 2.4 None required the downtown core and shoulder areas Policy 7 for cyclist infrastructure 2.2 Policy 3h throughout city, Implementing transit priority measures within the 2.2.1 Policy 10 None required shoulder areas specific to downtown streets Travel Demand Measures Specific mention of incentives for companies to Shifting peak hour trips through staggered hours, encourage flex time, compressed work weeks, etc., Section 2.4 compressed work weeks or flex time could be added to the OP or a separate TDM document or plan Specific mention of incentives for companies to Encouraging greater work from home or from tele- encourage greater work from home or tele-work hubs Section 2.4 work hubs outside the downtown core could be added to the OP or a separate TDM document or plan Promoting and incentivizing off peak travel Specific mention of incentives for drivers to travel through pricing mechanisms such as a zonal fare Section 2.4 during offpeaks could be added to the OP or a separate strategy or smart pass provisions for the TDM document or plan downtown core

September 2012 50

4. ASSESSMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Infrastructure Alternative Modelling Results

Each of the infrastructure alternatives identified in Section 2.3 of this report was modelled by the City of Toronto and the TTC using the EMME/2 and MADITUC travel demand forecasting models respectively.

The results for each alternative are summarized in the following sections.

4.1.1 DRL Option 1 DRL Option 1, also referred to as DRL East, provides relief to the Yonge Subway Line south of Bloor as it provides an alternate subway option to access the Downtown Core for trips inbound from the east along the Bloor-Danforth Line. The shift in demand from the 2031 Reference Network with the Yonge Subway Extension (YSE) versus the same network with DRL Option 1 is illustrated in Exhibit 4-1.

In the 2031 AM Peak Hour, DRL Option 1 attracts a peak point ridership of 11,700. With the addition of DRL Option 1, peak point ridership on the Yonge Subway south of Bloor is reduced by 4,700 or 12% from 39,400 to 34,700, below the capacity of 38,000. Ridership is also reduced on the University line south of Bloor by 1,000 or 4% because trips from the east that would normally transfer south onto the University line at St. George Station are diverted ont DRL Option 1. Bloor-Danforth peak point demand is reduced by 5,600 passengers, or 18%.

September 2012 51

Exhibit 4-1: DRL Option 1 Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE

2031 AM peak hour modeled station boardings and alightings along DRL Option 1 are also summarized in Exhibit 4-2. The relatively high number of boardings at Gerrard / Pape and Bayview / River stations may be a result of passengers transferring from GO Transit’s Lakeshore East and Richmond Hill services to the DRL to access areas of the downtown that are not within walking distance. This is reflected in the total inbound GO rail demand at Union Station, where there are 3,000 less passengers entering Union Station in this scenario when compared to the Reference Network with the Yonge Subway Extension, about a 5% decrease.

September 2012 52

Exhibit 4-2: DRL Option 1 Station Boardings and Alightings

September 2012 53

Inbound in the AM there are 9,400 boardings at Pape Station likely transferring from the B-D line and headed inbound to the Downtown Core. Other DRL stations experience lower boardings ranging from 1,300 to 2,200. The vast majority are destined to the downtown core with more than 6,000 alightings at both King and St. Andrew Stations. In the east shoulder areas at Sherbourne and Bayview-River Station, there are significant alightings as well with 4,500 and 3,100 respectively.

The impact of DRL Option 1 on Bloor-Yonge Station transfers is illustrated in Exhibit 4-3.

Exhibit 4-3: DRL Option 1 Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers

In Exhibit 4-3, transfer demand at Bloor-Yonge is compared relative to 2001 levels to get a sense of the platform congestion (i.e. we have a point of reference). Looking at westbound to southbound transfers, demand for this movement grows more than 40% to over 9,000 passengers per hour in the 2031 network with the YSE. With the DRL Option 1, demand for this movement is reduced by 3,400 passengers, or more than 60%, which results in a demand that is lower than 2001 levels. DRL Option 1 also reduces eastbound to southbound transfers by about 200, for a total reduction in southbound platform demand of 3,600 when compared to the YSE scenario.

September 2012 54

The impact of DRL Option 1 on demand at Bloor-Yonge station is significant, but with or without the DRL further study on future demand at Bloor-Yonge station is needed to ensure the safe and efficient movement of passengers through this key station in the TTC subway network.

Detailed peak point capacity, demand, volume to capacity ratio and deficiency tables are provided in Table 4-1 for rapid transit (subway and GO) and in Table 4-4-2 for surface transit (TTC streetcar or bus).

As noted previously, with DRL Option 1, peak point Yonge Subway demand is reduced by 4,700 and brings the V/C ratio below 1 south of Bloor. Longer distance GO Rail trips remain over capacity on the Barrie, Stouffville, Georgetown, Milton, and Lakeshore East lines.

Table 4-1: DRL Option 1 - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 22,500 0.59 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 38,000 34,700 0.91 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,500 1.17 1,100 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,300 0.46 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 7,900 1.23 1,500 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 20,100 0.61 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,100 1.15 1,500 Milton GO 11,500 12,100 1.05 600 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,700 0.71 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 25,400 0.77 0 Downtown Relief Line (East of Sherbourne) 22,000 11,700 0.53 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 20,300 1.41 5,900 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 74,900 0.80 0 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 40,300 36,900 0.92 3,400 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 36,400 32,000 0.88 4,400 TOTAL Inbound 170,300 143,800 0.84 7,800

Looking at surface transit, even with the planned streetcar improvements (new LRVs and 3 minute headways) capacity deficiencies occur along King Street from the west as the inbound EB demand exceeds the maximum streetcar capacity of 2,600 per hour. However, the Queen Streetcar has spare capacity. Given the proximity between the two routes, it may be possible that that users assigned to King services in the model may actually use Queen instead. The King Streetcar from the east would supplement the DRL to serve local demand

September 2012 55

with service headways of about 9 minutes or less. The DRL would, however, provide much more reliable service than surface streetcar service to the eastern shoulder area of the downtown and therefore would be much more likely to achieve high transit mode splits than surface streetcars in mixed traffic.

Table 4-4-2: DRL Option 1 – Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour Maximum V/C With Inbound Inbound Practical Maximum Demand Deficiency Capacity Service AM from NORTH Bathurst Streetcar 2,600 1,300 0.50 0 Spadina Streetcar 2,600 1,000 0.38 0 AM from WEST College / Carlton Streetcar EB 2,600 1,600 0.62 0 Dundas Streetcar EB 2,600 700 0.27 0 Queen Streetcar EB 2,600 1,900 0.73 0 King Streetcar EB 2,600 2,700 1.04 100 AM from EAST College / Carlton Streetcar WB 2,600 1,600 0.62 0 Dundas Streetcar WB 2,600 500 0.19 0 Queen Streetcar WB 2,600 1,200 0.46 0 King Streetcar WB 1,000 800 0.50 0 Waterfront East LRT WB 4,700 3,400 0.72 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 4,600 2,300 0.50 0 TOTAL from WEST 9,200 6,900 0.75 100 TOTAL from EAST 12,600 7,500 0.60 0 TOTAL Inbound 26,500 16,700 0.63 100

4.1.2 DRL Option 2A DRL Option 2A adds a west leg to the DRL East, connecting St. Andrew Station to Dundas West Station on the B-D Line. The impact of DRL Option 2A compared with 2031 Reference Network with the Yonge Subway Extension is illustrated in Exhibit 4-4.

September 2012 56

Exhibit 4-4: DRL Option 2A Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE

The addition of the west leg of the DRL increases the peak point on the DRL East from 11,700 as seen in Exhibit 4-1, to 13,600. The DRL West peak point is lower than DRL East at 12,900. The peak point demand on the Yonge Subway does not decrease significantly from DRL Option 1, with 4,800 less passengers on the Yonge subway south of Bloor with DRL Option 2A compared to 4,700 less passengers in DRL Option 1 when both options are compared to the Reference Case with the Yonge Subway Extension. The University subway peak point demand decreases significantly, however, with 4,000 less passengers with the western extension when compared to the base network with the Yonge Subway Extension. Some demand on Milton and Lakeshore West GO lines is also relieved. Generally the addition of DRL Option 2A does not significantly affect peak point demand on the Yonge Subway, but has a strong impact on the University Subway.

Boardings and alightings for DRL Option 2A are presented in Exhibit 4-5 and provide a good indicator of where DRL users are coming from and destined to. St. Andrew and King Station in particular have a high number of peak hour alighting passengers, with 9,100 at St. Andrew Station and 10,700 at King Station. Boardings from the eastern leg of the DRL are roughly the same as shown for the first option, while there is a high number of boardings (5,300) at Queen and Dufferin.

As with DRL Option 1, there appears to be a high number of transfers from GO Transit’s Lakeshore East and Richmond Hill services at Gerrard/Pape and Bayview/River stations. However, there is an additional reduction in passenger alightings from GO Rail services at Union Station due to the western leg. Specifically, there appears to be a high number of

September 2012 57

transfers at Dundas West, Roncesvalles and Queen/Dufferin stations from GO Transit’s Georgetown, Lakeshore West and Milton services respectively. Overall there are 10,000 less passengers alighting from GO Rail services at Union Station with both the eastern and western legs of the DRL, representing a 15% reduction in passenger activity at Union Station. Significantly relieving Union Station demands is an added benefit of this DRL option.

Exhibit 4-5: DRL Option 2A Station Boardings and Alightings to be updated

The impact of DRL Option 2A on Bloor-Yonge Station transfer volumes is illustrated in Exhibit 4-6.

September 2012 58

Exhibit 4-6: DRL Option 2A Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers

With DRL Option 2A there is a general decrease from all directions approaching Bloor- Yonge Station. The same decrease from DRL Option 1 of about 3,400 westbound to southbound transfers is seen here, while a large decrease in transfers is noted from eastbound to southbound from about 4,200 to 2,800 or an overall reduction of 1,400 passengers. Thus, a total of 4,800 riders are removed from the southbound Yonge platform with the addition of DRL Option 2A. This reduction in transfer demand could play a vital role in determining the need for improvements at this station.

Detailed capacity, peak point demand, volume to capacity ratio and deficiency tables are presented in Table 4-3 for TTC subway and GO rail and in Table 4-4 for TTC surface routes.

Overall the V/C ratios and deficiencies noted for DRL Option 2A in Table 4-3 do not differ too significantly from those seen for DRL Option 1 in Table 4-1. The total inbound V/C ratio does decrease from 0.84 to 0.80 however due to DRL Option 2A’s ability to offload slightly the demand on Milton GO and Lakeshore West GO. Although Option 2A relieved the University line and Bloor-Danforth line west of Yonge of a significant amount of demand, there will be sufficient capacity on these subway lines in 2031 without the DRL and as such

September 2012 59

the benefits of Option 2A appear to be limited until it becomes clear that these two subway lines reach the critical capacity point.

On the surface routes, V/C ratios are all under 1. King Streetcar service WB from the east, similar to DRL Option 1 requires roughly 9 minute service for local demand even with the presence of the DRL. The minimum 15 minute service interval is sufficient for local service on King Street EB. Similar to DRL Option 1, DRL Option2A would provide much more reliable service than surface streetcar service to both the eastern and western shoulder areas of the downtown and therefore would be much more likely to achieve high transit mode splits than surface streetcars in mixed traffic.

Table 4-3: DRL Option 2A - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 19,500 0.51 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 38,000 34,600 0.91 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,500 1.17 1,100 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,300 0.48 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 7,900 1.23 1,500 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 15,900 0.48 0 Downtown Relief Line (West of Spadina) 22,000 12,900 0.59 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,000 1.15 1,400 Milton GO 11,500 11,200 0.97 0 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,000 0.68 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 24,700 0.75 0 Downtown Relief Line (East of Sherbourne) 22,000 13,600 0.62 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 20,200 1.40 5,800 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 71,800 0.77 2,600 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 62,300 48,100 0.77 1,400 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 36,400 33,800 0.93 5,800 TOTAL Inbound 192,300 153,700 0.80 9,800

September 2012 60

Table 4-4: DRL Option 2A - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH Bathurst Streetcar 2,600 1,200 0.46 0 Spadina Streetcar 2,600 600 0.23 0 AM from WEST College / Carlton Streetcar EB 2,600 1,300 0.50 0 Dundas Streetcar EB 2,600 500 0.19 0 Queen Streetcar EB 2,600 1,300 0.50 0 King Streetcar EB 500 100 0.20 0 AM from EAST College / Carlton Streetcar WB 2,600 1,500 0.58 0 Dundas Streetcar WB 2,600 500 0.19 0 Queen Streetcar WB 2,600 1,100 0.42 0 King Streetcar WB 1,000 800 0.80 0 Waterfront East LRT WB 4,700 3,500 0.74 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 4,600 1,800 0.39 0 TOTAL from WEST 7,400 3,200 0.35 0 TOTAL from EAST 12,600 7,400 0.59 0 TOTAL Inbound 24,600 12,400 0.50 0

4.1.3 DRL Option 2B As mentioned previously, DRL Option 2B extends Option 1 north to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Line in lieu of the western relief line between St. Andrew Station and Dundas West Station. This option has a stronger impact on the Yonge Subway line shifting 5,400 trips away from Yonge subway as opposed to 4,800 in Option 2A.

Looking at the critical capacity points such as the Yonge Subway south of Bloor and Bloor- Yonge Station, Option 2B is an improvement over Option 1. Demand shift due to DRL Option 2B versus the 2031 Reference Case with the YSE is illustrated in Exhibit 4-7.

September 2012 61

Exhibit 4-7: DRL Option 2B Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE

Boardings and alightings for DRL Option 2B are presented in Exhibit 4-8 and provide a good indicator of where DRL users are coming from and destined to. St. Andrew and King Station in particular see very high alightings at about 7,000 each in the peak hour. These numbers are significantly less than the 10,000 noted in DRL Option 2A, and as such station platform and passenger circulation issues at these stations could be easier to manage under Option 2B. As expected, given the “downtown-centric” nature of AM travel patterns, a higher number of boardings than alightings takes place north of the Bloor-Danforth line while alightings are higher than boardings south of the B-D line.

Transfer volumes at Bloor-Yonge Station with Option 2B are illustrated in Exhibit 4-9.

September 2012 62

Exhibit 4-8: DRL Option 2B Station Boardings and Alightings

September 2012 63

Exhibit 4-9: DRL Option 2B Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers

With DRL Option 2B there is a significant decrease in transfers from the westbound B-D line to southbound Yonge line – a reduction of about 3,800 persons in the AM peak hour. This is slightly higher than the reduction of 3,500 for the same movement in DRL Option 1 and 2A. Eastbound to southbound transfers as expected to not decrease by much. In total, Option 2A reduces total southbound platform activity volume by 4,800 passengers in the AM peak hour while 2B reduces transfer volumes by 4,200 passengers.

For transit routes inbound to the downtown, transit demands versus estimated capacities are summarized in Table 4-5 for rapid transit and in Table 4-4-6 for surface transit.

The overall inbound V/C for DRL Option 2B is the same as DRL Option 1 with the extra capacity east of downtown. Without the western leg of the DRL, the overall V/C for this DRL option is higher than DRL Option 2A. In terms of deficiencies, DRL Option 2B reduces deficiencies compared to DRL Option 1 but is more deficient than Option 2A which has the ability to relieve demand on the GO lines approaching from the west.

Surface transit V/C and deficiencies are similar to DRL Option 1. The EB King streetcar west of downtown is over capacity (assuming 3 minute headways), again as with DRL Option 1, the Queen Streetcar has spare capacity and it may be possible that that users

September 2012 64

assigned to King services in the model may actually use Queen instead. Meanwhile, the WB King streetcar serving local trips east of downtown will require 7.5 minute headways to meet demand.

Table 4-5: DRL Option 2B - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 22,000 0.58 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 38,000 34,000 0.89 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,400 1.16 1,000 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,300 0.48 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 7,900 1.23 1,500 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 20,200 0.61 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,100 1.16 1,500 Milton GO 11,500 12,000 1.04 500 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,600 0.71 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 25,000 0.76 0 Downtown Relief Line (East of Sherbourne) 22,000 12,900 0.59 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 20,300 1.41 5,900 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 73,600 0.79 2,500 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 40,300 36,700 0.91 2,000 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 36,400 33,200 0.91 5,900 TOTAL Inbound 170,300 143,500 0.84 10,400

September 2012 65

Table 4-4-6: DRL Option 2B - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH Bathurst Streetcar 2,600 1,300 0.50 0 Spadina Streetcar 2,600 1,000 0.38 0 AM from WEST College / Carlton Streetcar EB 2,600 1,500 0.58 0 Dundas Streetcar EB 2,600 700 0.27 0 Queen Streetcar EB 2,600 1,800 0.69 0 King Streetcar EB 2,600 2,700 1.04 100 AM from EAST College / Carlton Streetcar WB 2,600 1,600 0.62 0 Dundas Streetcar WB 2,600 500 0.19 0 Queen Streetcar WB 2,600 1,300 0.50 0 King Streetcar WB 1,000 900 0.90 0 72 Pape Bus 4,700 3,400 0.72 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 4,600 2,300 0.50 0 TOTAL from WEST 9,200 6,700 0.73 100 TOTAL from EAST 12,600 7,700 0.61 0 TOTAL Inbound 26,400 16,700 0.63 100

4.1.4 DRL Option 3 DRL Option 3 combines DRL Option 2A and 2B and includes both the western leg from St. Andrew Station and Dundas West and the extension north of the Bloor-Danforth Line up to the Eglinton Crosstown line from Pape Station to Don Mills Station at Eglinton. This alignment serves the most origins and destinations but also requires the most infrastructure and is certainly the most costly. The impact of DRL Option 3 on peak point ridership is illustrated in Exhibit 4-10.

Station boardings and alightings on DRL Option 3 are presented in Exhibit 4-11. The 10,300 boardings at Pape Station from DRL Option 2 (Exhibit 4-5) drop to 9,900 with the addition of stations to the north. About 500 to 1,300 boardings in the peak hour are estimated for stations between ECLRT and the BD line, but alightings are very low since there are few employment land uses along the corridor, except at Eglinton and Danforth.

At Don Mills and Eglinton, there are approximately 1,700 boardings in the peak hour due to transfers from the 25 Don Mills bus and the ECLRT. Interestingly there are more alightings (1,900) than boardings at this interchange due high employment land use at the intersection and transfers the Don Mills bus services and the ECLRT.

September 2012 66

Other boarding and alighting patterns at other stations are very similar to those seen for DRL Option 2. The impacts to GO services entering Union Station are also similar to those experienced under DRL Option 2.

Don Mills-Eglinton

Richmond Hill GO +100 (+5%) ESCRT WB ESCRT EB -6,300700 (- 14%)(15%) Barrie / +100(+2%) Thorncliffe Park Bradford GO +100 (+1%) BD Subway WB Cosburn Yonge Subway -7,000 (-23%) -6,300 (-15%) Stouffville GO University -100 (-1%) Subway Lakeshore East GO -4,500 (-18%) -400 (-2%) Dundas West Pape

Georgetown GO 0 BD Subway EB DRL West DRL East Milton GO -4,000 (-20%) -700High (-6%) Park Blvd 13,000 14,900 Gerrard

Roncesvalles Queen East

Lakeshore West GO Union Legend -700 (-5%) GO Rail Subway Station YUS Subway GO Rail Connection BD Subway Subway to Subway Connection Downtown Relief Line Existing Toronto LRT Planned / Potential

Exhibit 4-10: DRL Option 3 Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE

September 2012 67

Exhibit 4-11: DRL Option 3 Station Boardings and Alightings

September 2012 68

Impact to Bloor-Yonge station is illustrated in Exhibit 4-12. General impact is similar to DRL Option 2 except slightly higher decreases are seen in transfer volumes at the station. Total transfers from eastbound to southbound decrease by about 3,900 versus 3,500. Compared to DRL Option 2, there is relatively no difference in the westbound to southbound transfer movement (reduction of 1,400). Thus, DRL Option 3 removes a total of 5,300 riders from the platforms at Bloor-Yonge Station.

Exhibit 4-12: DRL Option 3 Impact to Bloor-Yonge Station Transfers

Detailed capacity, peak point inbound demand, V/C ratio and deficiencies for DRL Option 3 are presented in Table 4-7 and Table 4-8 for rapid transit and surface transit.

September 2012 69

Table 4-7: DRL Option 3 - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 19,000 0.50 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 38,000 33,100 0.87 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,500 1.17 1,100 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,300 0.48 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 7,900 1.23 1,500 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 16,000 0.48 0 Downtown Relief Line (West of Spadina) 22,000 13,000 0.59 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,000 1.15 1,400 Milton GO 11,500 11,200 0.97 0 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,100 0.68 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 24,000 0.73 0 Downtown Relief Line (East of Sherbourne) 22,000 14,900 0.68 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 20,400 1.42 6,000 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 69,800 0.75 2,600 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 62,300 48,300 0.78 1,400 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 36,400 35,300 0.97 6,000 TOTAL Inbound 192,300 153,400 0.80 10,000

September 2012 70

Table 4-8: DRL Option 3 - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Deficienc Demand y AM from NORTH Bathurst Streetcar 2,600 1,200 0.46 0 Spadina Streetcar 2,600 700 0.27 0 AM from WEST College / Carlton Streetcar EB 2,600 1,300 0.50 0 Dundas Streetcar EB 2,600 500 0.19 0 Queen Streetcar EB 2,600 1,100 0.42 0 King Streetcar EB 500 100 0.20 0 AM from EAST College / Carlton Streetcar WB 2,600 1,500 0.58 0 Dundas Streetcar WB 2,600 400 0.15 0 Queen Streetcar WB 2,600 1,100 0.42 0 King Streetcar WB 1,000 900 0.90 0 Waterfront East LRT WB 4,700 3,500 0.74 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 4,600 1,900 0.41 0 TOTAL from WEST 7,400 3,000 0.41 0 TOTAL from EAST 12,600 7,400 0.59 0 TOTAL Inbound 24,600 12,300 0.50 0

Similar to DRL Option 2, the total inbound V/C ratio is 0.80. Yonge subway demand south of Bloor decreases significantly with a V/C ratio of 0.87. Local King Streetcar demand from the east requires 7.5 minute service which is approaching capacity with a V/C ratio of 0.90.

4.1.5 Lakeshore Rapid Transit East As described in Section 2.3.2 the Lakeshore Rapid Transit East option consists of a “subway- like” Rapid Transit service which would operate parallel to the GO Lakeshore East commuter rail service supplementing and enhancing service, as defined in the 2031 Reference Case. It is assumed that a TTC fare would apply to this service. The Lakeshore Rapid Transit East service would operate only within Toronto between a new underground “satellite Union” station (located to the east of Union Station at approximately Front St. and Yonge St.), and Rouge Hill Station to the east. A new tunnel would be built between the satellite “Union” station and east-side of the Don River. New stations would provide reduced station spacing (compared to stations along the GO Lakeshore East Rail service). The tunnel and new satellite Union station would assist in offloading passengers and trains from the existing Union Station. For modelling purposes, the Lakeshore RT assumed subway speeds and station spacing, 5 minute headways (although if it were to be implemented headways would be adjusted to meet the demand), and TTC fare, as described in Section 2.3.2.

September 2012 71

The absolute and percentage impacts on the 2031 Reference Network with the Yonge Subway extension are presented in Exhibit 4-13: . As illustrated, peak point Yonge Subway volumes south of Bloor decrease from 39,400 (2031 Ref + Yonge subway extension) to 36,800 – a decrease of 2,600 or 6.6% (compared to a 10% decrease in demand on Yonge subway south of Bloor associated with DRL Option 1). The demand along the Bloor- Danforth Subway east of Sherbourne is reduced by 20%, while the demand on the University Subway south of St. George is reduced by 6%.

Lakeshore East GO Rail corridor, which is only relieved slightly by the DRL options, has its peak point demand reduced by more than 30% (from 20,800 to 14,400). This is significant in that it reduces the v/c ratio from 1.43 to 1.00 along the Lakeshore East GO corridor.

Impacts to Bloor-Yonge Station are illustrated in Exhibit 4-14. Again as with the DRL options there is an overall positive impact (i.e. a decrease) to transfer volumes at the station. Westbound to southbound transfers decrease by 2,600, while eastbound to southbound transfers remain the same, for a total of 2,600 transfers removed from the southbound platform in the AM peak hour. This is similar to the impact of DRL Option 1.

Exhibit 4-13: Lakeshore RT East Service Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE

September 2012 72

Exhibit 4-14: Impact of Lakeshore RT East Service on Bloor-Yonge Station

September 2012 73

Table 4-9: Enhanced Lakeshore RT East Scenario - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 22,100 0.59 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 38,000 36,800 0.97 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,400 1.16 1,000 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,200 0.46 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 7,900 1.23 1,500 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 19,700 0.60 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 10,900 1.14 1,300 Milton GO 11,500 11,900 1.03 400 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 13,800 0.72 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 25,100 0.76 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 14,400 1.00 0 12,000- 1 Lakeshore East RT 20,000 13,900 0.70 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 76,400 0.82 2,500 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 40,300 36,600 0.91 1.700 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 34,400 28,300 0.82 0 TOTAL Inbound 158,300 141,300 0.89 4,200

1 Lakeshore RT capacity would be adjusted according to demand.

September 2012 74

Table 4-10: Enhanced Lakeshore RT East Scenario - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH Bathurst Streetcar 2,600 1,200 0.46 0 Spadina Streetcar 2,600 1,100 0.42 0 AM from WEST College / Carlton Streetcar EB 2,600 1,700 0.65 0 Dundas Streetcar EB 2,600 700 0.27 0 Queen Streetcar EB 2,600 1,900 0.73 0 King Streetcar EB 2,600 2,500 0.96 0 AM from EAST College / Carlton Streetcar WB 2,600 1,500 0.58 0 Dundas Streetcar WB 2,600 600 0.23 0 Queen Streetcar WB 2,600 1,100 0.42 0 King Streetcar WB 2,600 1,400 0.54 0 Waterfront East LRT 4,700 3,100 0.66 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 4,600 2,300 0.50 0 TOTAL from WEST 9,200 6,800 0.74 0 TOTAL from EAST 13,900 7,700 0.55 0 TOTAL Inbound 27,700 16,800 0.61 0

4.1.6 Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full Option The Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full option is similar to the Lakeshore Rapid Transit East option described above, but it extends west past Union Station to Long Branch station. It consists of a “subway-like” Rapid Transit service which would operate in parallel to, and supplement, the GO Lakeshore East and GO Lakeshore West commuter rail services as defined in the 2031 Reference Case. It is assumed that a TTC fare would apply to this service. The Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full service would operate only within Toronto between Long Branch Station to the west and Rouge Hill Station in the east. The new tunnel would be extended west to approximately Bathurst or Spadina (Total tunnel length ~4.5km). Additional new stations would provide reduced station spacing.

To allow for easy comparison to DRL options, we assume subway-like technology and a tunnel under Front Street and Satellite Union Station (at Yonge St. and Front St.) for the new Lakeshore RT service, which would assist in offloading passengers and trains from the existing Union Station. For modelling purposes, the Lakeshore RT would have subway speeds and station

September 2012 75 spacings, 5 minute headways (although if it were to be implemented headways would be adjusted to meet the demand), and TTC fare, as described in Section 2.3.2.

The absolute and percentage based impact on the 2031 Reference Network with the Yonge Subway extension is presented in Exhibit 4-15. With the Lakeshore RT, peak point Yonge Subway volumes south of Bloor are decreased by 2,700. This decrease, along with other demand reductions on other transit routes, is very similar to those experienced with the Lakeshore Rapid Transit East option. In addition to the benefits associated with the Lakeshore Rapid transit East Option, this option provides the additional benefits of: Reducing the peak point demand on Lakeshore GO West from 13,800 to 11,900 (v/c from 0.72 to 0.62) Reducing the peak point demand on B-D Subway west of Bathurst from 20,000 to 18,800 (v/c from 0.57 to 0.55).

However, as shown by the peak point v/c ratios, the addition of a western leg to the Lakeshore RT does not significantly address any capacity deficiencies described in the Problem Statement.

Impacts to Bloor-Yonge Station are illustrated in Exhibit 4-16. Again as with the DRL options there is an overall positive impact (i.e. a decrease) to transfer volumes at the station. Westbound to southbound transfers decrease by 2,700, while eastbound to southbound transfers decrease by 300, for a total of 3,000 transfers removed from the southbound platform in the AM peak hour. This is similar to the impact of DRL Option 1.

Overall the Lakeshore Rapid Transit Full option does appear to be viable with similar impacts as the Lakeshore Rapid Transit East options. However, in the context of a 2031 horizon year, there are no significant additional benefits from a transit capacity perspective associated with extending the rapid transit service west of Union, as compared to the Lakeshore Rapid Transit East option.

September 2012 76

Exhibit 4-15: Lakeshore RT Full Service Demand Shift versus 2031 Reference with YSE

September 2012 77

Exhibit 4-16: Impact of Lakeshore RT Full Service on Bloor-Yonge Station

September 2012 78

Table 4-11: Enhanced Lakeshore RT Full Scenario - Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH University Subway 38,000 22,300 0.59 0 Yonge Subway (South of Bloor) 38,000 36,700 0.97 0 Barrie-Bradford GO 6,400 7,400 1.16 1,000 Richmond Hill GO 4,800 2,200 0.46 0 Stouffville GO 6,400 8,000 1.25 1,600 AM from WEST B-D Subway (west of Bathurst) 33,000 18,800 0.57 0 Georgetown GO 9,600 11,200 1.17 1,600 Milton GO 11,500 11,400 0.99 0 Lakeshore West GO 19,200 11,900 0.62 0 2 Lakeshore West RT 12,000- 20,000 3,800 0.19 0 AM from EAST B-D Subway (east of Sherbourne) 33,000 24,900 0.75 0 Lakeshore East GO 14,400 14,700 1.02 300 Lakeshore East RT 12,000- 20,0002 14,600 0.73 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH (South of Bloor) 93,600 76,600 0.82 2,600 TOTAL from WEST (Excluding BD) 60,300 38,300 0.64 1,600 TOTAL from EAST (Excluding BD) 34,400 29,300 0.85 300 TOTAL Inbound 188,300 144,200 0.76 4,500

2 Lakeshore RT capacity would be adjusted according to demand.

September 2012 79

Table 4-12: Enhanced Lakeshore RT Full Scenario - Surface Transit Capacity Deficiencies, Inbound Travel to Downtown Core, AM Peak Hour

Inbound Inbound Capacity V/C Demand Deficiency

AM from NORTH Bathurst Streetcar 2,600 1,200 0.46 0 Spadina Streetcar 2,600 1,000 0.38 0 AM from WEST College / Carlton Streetcar EB 2,300 1,400 0.54 0 Dundas Streetcar EB 2,600 600 0.23 0 Queen Streetcar EB 2600 1,200 0.46 0 King Streetcar EB 2,600 2,300 0.88 0 AM from EAST College / Carlton Streetcar WB 2,600 1,500 0.58 0 Dundas Streetcar WB 2,600 500 0.19 0 Queen Streetcar WB 2,600 1,100 0.42 0 King Streetcar WB 2,600 1,600 0.62 0 72 Pape Bus 4,700 3,100 0.66 0 TOTALS TOTAL from NORTH 4,600 2,200 0.48 0 TOTAL from WEST 9,200 5,500 0.60 0 TOTAL from EAST 13,900 7,800 0.56 0 TOTAL Inbound 27,700 15,500 0.56 0

4.2 Impact on Union Station With the concern over train operations and passenger demand at Union Station, the demands from a passenger perspective at both TTC Union Station and GO Union Station, were considered for each of the scenarios. Any infrastructure alternative recommended in this study should not negatively impact or aggravate the existing station issues. Exhibit 4-17 illustrates inbound passenger demand at TTC Union station for each scenario while Exhibit 4-18 illustrates inbound passenger demand from GO Rail lines in each scenario.

At TTC’s Union Subway station, generally, boardings tend to be higher than alightings since transfers from GO rail trips to the TTC occur here. Additionally this reflects continued residential development along the waterfront area in the vicinity of Union Station. In comparing the reference case against the reference +Yonge Subway extension (YSE) case, there is no significant change to Union Station volumes. DRL Option 3 results are provided as the best option in terms of trips diverted from TTC Union station. This option is able to reduce TTC Union Station total passengers from about 27,000 in the reference case to about 22,000 with DRL Option 3. Even so, this represents a doubling of passenger demand from 2001 which the TTC has planned for with the additional platform currently under

September 2012 80

construction. In the Lakeshore Rapid Transit scenarios, total boardings and alightings at TTC Union Station exceed 30,000. However the new tunnel under Union Station and construction of a new “Satellite Union” Station would alleviate the demand at the GO Union Station. A related issue however, is the transfer of passengers to the TTC subway – King Station may be able to handle a significant portion of these volumes if the distance between the new “Satellite Union” and King Station is close enough. These conclusions will be subject to a more detailed study of the passenger demand at Union Station should any of these infrastructure alternatives require it.

In Exhibit 4-18, inbound GO Rail demand is plotted for the same scenarios, by GO Rail line. Similar to the TTC Union demands, there is an increase in total alightings by about 2.5 times from 2001 to 2031 Reference, and 2031 Reference + YSE (29,000 to 70,000). DRL Option 3, by capturing more demand on the subway, reduces total Union Station GO alightings to 67,000. Both the Lakeshore RT Full and East scenarios provide similar results, reducing existing Union Station GO alightings to about 60,000 in the AM peak hour with the assumption that Lakeshore RT riders alight at the “Satellite” Union Station.

September 2012 81

Exhibit 4-17: Passenger Demand at TTC Union Station for Various Infrastructure Alternatives

September 2012

82

Exhibit 4-18: Passenger Demand at GO Union Station for Various Infrastructure Alternatives

September 2012

83

4.3 Development of Assessment Criteria / Framework

Similar to the policy alternatives, the infrastructure alternatives were evaluated initially on their ability to address the key Problem Statement issues or requirements, and secondly on any additional benefits provided. Further, the infrastructure alternatives were also assessed on construction feasibility.

While the list of requirements remain the same for both policy and infrastructure alternatives, the additional benefits for the infrastructure alternatives have been modified from the policy alternatives to provide more relevant assessment criteria. The various criteria are as follows, with modified criteria in bold.

Requirements: . Relieves Yonge demand south of Bloor . Relieves demand at Bloor-Yonge Station . Relieves demand at other YUS Stations south of Bloor . Minimize rapid transit (GO and subway) capacity deficiencies . Minimize local transit capacity deficiencies . Minimizes congestion at TTC Union Station . Minimizes congestion at GO Union Station. Additional Benefits: . Improves total transit capacity in shoulder areas outside the downtown core . Increases rapid transit (GO + TTC) modal share and transit ridership . Improves flexibility in subway operations . Minimizes passenger transfers at Yonge-Eglinton Station . Increases accessibility to rapid transit (larger catchment area) . Supports Waterfront development through improved rapid transit accessibility . Opportunity for intensification / revitalization of shoulder areas and corridors . Provides a significant alternative to inbound automobile travel. Construction Feasibility . Risk complexity . Cost

Each infrastructure alternative was assessed and the detailed and summary results of the infrastructure assessment are provided in the following subsections.

4.4 Infrastructure Alternatives Assessment

The infrastructure alternative analysis table is provided in Table 4-13 while the summary evaluation table is in Table 4-14. Details of the cost estimates in this table provided in Appendix A: Infrastructure Alternative Cost Estimates.

September 2012 84

Table 4-13: Infrastructure Alternative Analysis Table

September 2012

85

September 2012

86

Table 4-14: Infrastructure Alternative Summary Evaluation Table

September 2012

87

The analysis and evaluation presented in Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 allows for a side-by- side comparison of each of the infrastructure alternatives. While all six infrastructure options present significant benefits and generally, the largest benefits occur with more infrastructure, the complexity and the costs of construction must be weighed to determine the option that provides the best value.

While all options reduce demand on the Yonge subway south of Bloor station to below capacity, the Lakeshore RT options produce demands that are approaching capacity leaving little room for growth beyond the 2031 horizon year. Transfers at Bloor-Yonge station are also reduced when compared to the Reference Case with the Yonge Subway Extension, however all four DRL options provide greater impacts. Furthermore, the Lakeshore RT options generate considerable transfer volumes at the TTC Union Station. Given the construction costs and complexity are similar to any of the DRL options, it may be surmised that neither Lakeshore RT option generates the same value as the DRL options.

During the study, it was determined that there is enough capacity in the west to support the projected demands, specifically on the University subway line south of St. George Station. Therefore serving demand in the west is not as critical as serving demand in the east. The tables above confirm this, where we see that the impact of DRL Option 2A on the Yonge Subway is minimal when compared to DRL Option 1. However DRL Option 1 still projects a high volume on the Yonge Subway which provides less room for growth when compared to the options that extend north to Eglinton Avenue (Options 2B and 3).

The options that include a western portion of the DRL generate more positive impacts pertaining to the demand at Bloor-Yonge station, and the network wide rapid and surface transit deficiencies, however these positive impacts may not be enough to justify the additional scope and cost associated with western portion.

Every option provides additional benefits such as intensification opportunities, increased rapid transit modal share and improved accessibility to rapid transit. However when balanced with the cost and complexity, there is no option that clearly provides the best value.

September 2012 88

5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

The Problem Statement, as defined in Section 1.2 sets forth the goals of the DRTES study. Recommendations to address the Problem Statement are summarized in the following.

Problem: Even with the currently-planned GO and TTC improvements in place, the Yonge Subway line and much of the GO Rail network will be at capacity for trips into the Downtown Toronto area during the peak periods by 2031. The most serious capacity issues are related to long and medium distance trips from the east and north. Recommendation 1: The City, TTC and Metrolinx continue to work jointly to plan for new and/or improved grade-separated rapid transit services into the downtown from the east and the north that will help achieve the City’s, and Metrolinx’s, planning objectives of intensification and the evolution of a more compact urban form. To support this recommendation the following actions are identified: . TTC proceed with evaluating and detailing DRL alignments, technology, station locations and level of service. . Metrolinx continue to identify the DRL as a high priority project. . City of Toronto protect for the DRL in the City’s 2012 Official Plan Update. . Metrolinx / GO Transit be encouraged to identify and assess GO Rapid Transit (Express) Service alternatives along the Lakeshore corridor and the North-South corridors (e.g. Barrie line, Richmond Hill line, Stouffville line) that will help alleviate the anticipated future capacity constraints.

Problem: An extension of the Yonge Subway line to Richmond Hill will aggravate the overcapacity problem on the Yonge Subway. Recommendation 2: Do not proceed with the Yonge Subway Extension in advance of the provision of additional rapid transit capacity into the downtown. The decisions regarding the Yonge Subway Extension be made in conjunction with the additional rapid transit improvements (such as the DRL) necessary to ensure transit service into the downtown is sufficient to meet the demand from within Toronto and the rest of the GTAH region.

Problem: Bloor-Yonge station is currently a key transfer point in the subway network. Today, most demand (from the east) on the Bloor-Danforth line destined for the Downtown Core must transfer at Bloor-Yonge station, resulting in very large transfer volumes at this station. The situation is exacerbated by full trains on the Yonge Subway resulting in increased dwell times on the station platforms. Bloor-Yonge Station faces significant constraints today that effectively constrain Yonge subway line capacity due to the need for increased dwell times from crowding on both the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth platforms. Recommendation 3: TTC and the City of Toronto undertake the studies and actions needed to protect for a possible future expansion of Bloor-Yonge station and develop a plan for improvements that will be needed in the future.

Problem: Surface services can provide adequate capacity to accommodate the forecast demand from the “shoulder” areas adjacent to the downtown, only if the quality of service provided on surface routes in mixed traffic can be maintained and improved.

September 2012 89

Recommendation 4: City of Toronto continue to study means of reducing congestion in the downtown area via the optimization of existing infrastructure in its ongoing “Downtown Transportation Operations Study.” This should provide a framework for implementing various transportation improvements. The benefits of a DRL should be noted here with significant improvements to quality of transportation service in addition to intensification opportunities.

Problem: To the extent possible, the City should encourage higher self containment in order to reduce the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown. Recommendation 5: Maintain, and where possible enhance policies in the City’s Official Plan that will help to minimise the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown while achieving the City’s planning objectives related to City-building and sustainable transportation. Specifically, it is recommended that the City continue to: . Implement policies that support transit-oriented redevelopment. . Implement policies that encourage high self-containment in the downtown. . Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies such as staggered hours, compressed work weeks, work from home / tele-work, incentivizing off-peak travel etc.

Problem: It is anticipated that future (2031) ridership demand and transfers will result in YUS subway stations nearing or exceeding capacity during the peak periods. Recommendation 6: TTC conduct further investigation into the future demands and transfers expected at subway stations in the downtown and identify those stations that should be given priority in TTC’s station modernization program. King Station in particular will see high passenger demand and operational issues regardless of the presence of a DRL.

September 2012 90 Infrastructure AlternativeInfrastructure Costs Estimates Appendix A:

Appendix A: Infrastructure Alternative Costs Estimates Controls: Estimating Section DRT Cost Summary 2011$ 2/8/2012

DOWNTOWN RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY OPTIONS: DRL-1, DRL-2a, DRL-2b, DRL-3 Rev. Jan. 11, 2012

Order-of-Magnitude Cost Estimates - For Discussion Purposes Only

OPTION DRL-1 (Pape to St. Andrew) OPTION DRL-2a (Pape to Dundas West) OPTION DRL-2b (Eglinton to St. Andrew) OPTION DRL-3 (Eglinton to Dundas West) Alignment Parameters: East/West & Extension to Eglinton via Don Mills, Pape, Queen & East/West & Extension to Eglinton via Don Mills, Pape, Queen, East via Pape, Queen & King East & West via Pape, Queen, King & Roncesvalles King King & Roncesvalles Alignment Length km 6.68 km 13.88 km 12.18 km 19.38 Stations (150m platform) no. 7 (4 line, 3 transfer) no. 13 (9 line, 4 transfer) no. 11 (7 line, 4 transfer) no. 17 (12 line, 5 transfer) Bus Platforms none none none none PPUDO none none none none Car Parking none none none none PED's rough-in only rough-in only rough-in only rough-in only Substations no.3 no. 7 no. 6 no. 10 ATC yes yes yes yes Cross-overs C&C no.1 no. 3 no. 3 no. 4 Storage Tracks C&C none no. 1 no. 1 no. 2 Tail Tracks C&C no. 2 no. 2 no. 2 no. 2 Tail Tracks Fan Room & Equipment none none none none Twin Tunnels full length full length full length full length TBM's (5.4m dia.) no. 2 no. 2 no. 2 no. 4 East & West Wye Connections to B-D at Pape yes (1000 stm) yes (1000 stm) yes (1000 stm) yes (1000 stm) TR Trains no. 0 no. 4 no. 7 no. 12 Maintenance Yard (New or Expansion) & Connection not required storage track for 4 trains storage track for 7 trains new yard for 12 trains, expandable to 25 trains Structures (1500dtm)

No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total 2011 $M Quantity Unit Unit Price Total 2011 $M Quantity Unit Unit Price Total 2011 $M Quantity Unit Unit Price Total 2011 $M

1 Stations & Site Development 7 ea $141.68 $992 13 ea $130.71 $1,699 11 ea $131.04 $1,441 17 ea $125.82 $2,139

2 Running Structures & Special Structures 6.68 km $100.76 $674 13.88 km $101.24 $1,406 12.18 km $105.38 $1,284 19.38 km $99.13 $1,921

3 Utilities 6.68 km $4.85 $32 13.88 km $5.87 $82 12.18 km $6.34 $77 19.38 km $5.32 $103

4 Operating Systems 6.68 km $29.56 $198 13.88 km $31.25 $434 12.18 km $31.99 $390 19.38 km $30.19 $585

5 Maintenance Yard and/or Storage Facilities 0 cars $0.00 $0 24 cars $2.31 $56 42 cars $2.14 $90 72 cars $2.83 $204

Total Raw Construction Cost in 2011$ 6.68 km $283.56 $1,895 13.88 km $264.74 $3,676 12.18 km $269.42 $3,282 19.38 km $255.51 $4,953

6 Engineering & Management 6.68 km $70.89 $474 13.88 km $66.19 $919 12.18 km $67.36 $820 19.38 km $63.88 $1,238

7 Contingency Allowance 6.68 km $106.34 $711 13.88 km $99.28 $1,378 12.18 km $101.04 $1,231 19.38 km $95.82 $1,857

8 Property/Easements Allowance 6.68 km $29.19 $195 13.88 km $27.26 $378 12.18 km $27.74 $338 19.38 km $26.30 $510

9 Revenue Vehicles (TR Cars) 0 cars $0.00 $0 24 cars $3.08 $74 42 cars $3.08 $129 72 cars $3.08 $221

10 HST Rebate (11.76%) 1 LS ($292.54) ($293) 1 LS ($567.34) ($567) 1 LS ($506.51) ($507) 1 LS ($764.46) ($764)

Total Estimated Cost in 2011 M$ 6.68 km $446.22 $2,983 13.88 km $421.92 $5,858 12.18 km $434.57 $5,293 19.38 km $413.50 $8,015

Say $B $3.0 Say $B $5.9 Say $B $5.3 Say $B $8.0

Qualifications/Notes: OME's based on HDR conceptual layouts dated August 23, 2011 & supplemental information; Includes compensation grouting provisions for tunnels; Costs are in 2011$, including HST impact & rebate of 11.24% (1.76% of HST is non-recoverable); Excludes any electrical equipment for PED's rough-in; Figures represent order-of-magnitude construction costs including applicable taxes & contractor indirect costs; Excludes Over Track Exhaust Fans; Stations are assumed cut & cover construction with 152.4m finished platforms; Includes Toronto Hydro and Power Stream equipment charges at substations; Exist. stations that become new transfer stations includes $20M allowance for station modernization elements; Escalators & Elevators are per TTC maximum rise; Excludes any capacity upgrades to exist. stations that become transfer stations; Includes allowance for extra-over costs for direct fixation at special trackwork areas; X-overs are 180m; Stations include 1% of cost of public spaces for artwork; Storage track structures are 180m; Includes 1 - ATC unit per 6 car trainset; Tail Tracks are 192m, 2-single boxes (not 3 track wide structures); Estimate for options is based on full route being constructed, i.e. no allowance for staging or minimal operating segments built; Wye connections assume C&C construction; DRT alignment assumes running under B-D & Y-U-S Subway Options assumes purchase of new TBM's (5.4m dia. ID); Excludes other CWP funded projects such as EA, 2nd Exits, FVU, etc.; Includes allowance for Central Control Facility interface & equipment within existing TCC, (no provisions for new TCC); Includes Toronto Rocket trains per quantity provided by Service Planning; Stations excludes bus platforms, PPUDO & car parking facilities; Includes for new maintenance yard & connection structures (1500 dtm) to mainline; Excludes PEDS, rough-in only; Property allowance is included at 7% of design & construction costs, per project team; Excludes allowances for impacted soil conditions & buoyancy; Alignment parameters above should be considered when reviewing these OME's; OME's are provided for discussion purposes only, not for budget. Includes allowance for ATC subway signal system;

Estimating File 20011-076 Page 1 M:\TTC\5621 TTC Downtown Relief Line\6.0 Report\6.1 iTRANS Reports\6.1.3 Final Report\APPENDICES\DRT Options DRL-1, DRL-2a, DRL-2b, DRL-3 OME's Jan. 11. 2012.xls Controls: Estimating Section DRT Cost Summary 2011$ 2/8/2012

DOWNTOWN RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY LAKESHORE RAPID TRANSIT - OPTIONS Jan. 9, 2012

Order-of-Magnitude Cost Estimates - For Discussion Purposes Only DRAFT

Alignment Parameters: LAKESHORE RT FULL LAKESHORE RT EAST East/West via Existing Go Rail Corridor - From Rouge Hill Go Station to Long East/West via Existing Go Rail Corridor - From Rouge Hill Go Station to Union Branch Go Station Station Technology SUBWAY SUBWAY Alignment Length 43 dt-km 27 dt-km Twin Tunnels 4.3 dt-km 2.6 dt-km Elevated Structures 14.2 dt-km 8.3 dt-km At-Grade Structures 24.5 dt-km 16.1 dt-km Property Requirements 24.5 dt-km 16.1 dt-km Stations (150m centre platforms) no. 15 (11 elev line, 2 elev term, 1 b/g special transfer, 1 b/g line) no. 9 (6 elev line, 1 elev term, 1 b/g special transfer, 1 b/g line) New Grade Separations no. 6 no. 6 Rebuilt Pedestrian Walkways no. 5 no. 3 Road Overpass Rebuilds no. 8 no. 1 Rail Bridge Rebuilds no. 14 no. 9 Bus Platforms none none PPUDO none none Car Parking none none PED's rough-in only rough-in only Substations no. 22 no. 14 ATC yes yes New Transit Control Facility expand existing expand existing Cross-overs Below Grade @ Union Station no. 2 no. 2 Cross-overs At-Grade no. 6 no. 2 Storage Tracks - at grade no. 4 no. 2 Tail Track & Turn-back structures no. 2 - one at each terminal station - elevated no. 1 at terminal station - elevated Tail Tracks Fan Room & Equipment N/A N/A TBM's (5.4m dia.) no. 1 no. 1 TR Trains (includes 15% spares) no. 50 no. 31 Maintenance Yard (New or Expansion) & Connection Structures 25 acres yard for 50 trains & at-grade connection track 17 acres yard for 50 trains & at-grade connection track (1500dtm)

No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total 2011 $M Quantity Unit Unit Price Total 2011 $M

1 Stations & Site Development 15.0 ea $82.20 $1,233 9.0 ea $95.48 $859

2 Running Structures & Special Structures 43.0 km $28.54 $1,227 27.0 km $29.61 $800

3 Grade Separations, Bridges, Retaining Walls & Relocations 38.7 km $14.71 $569 24.4 km $15.81 $386

4 Utilities 43.0 km $3.80 $163 27.0 km $3.88 $105

5 Operating Systems 43.0 km $23.49 $1,010 27.0 km $24.27 $655

6 Maintenance Yard, Storage Facilities 300 cars $1.33 $398 186 cars $1.37 $254

Total Raw Construction Cost in 2011$ 43.00 km $107.00 $4,601 27.00 km $113.28 $3,059

7 Engineering & Management 43.0 km $26.75 $1,150 27.0 km $28.32 $765 25% 25% 8 Contingency Allowance 43.0 km $40.13 $1,725 27.0 km $42.48 $1,147 30% 30% 9 Property/Easements Allowance 24.5 km $11.02 $270 16.1 km $11.66 $188

10 Revenue Vehicles (TR Cars) 300 cars $3.08 $923 186 cars $3.08 $572

11 HST Rebate (11.76%) 1 LS ($710.17) ($710) 1 LS ($472.08) ($472)

Total Estimated Cost in 2011 M$ 43.00 dt-km $185.09 $7,959 27.00 dt-km $194.73 $5,258

Say $B $8.0 Say $B $5.3

Qualifications/Notes: OME's based on HDR conceptual layouts dated December 12, 2011 & supplemental information; Includes compensation grouting provisions in bored tunnels; Costs are in 2011$, including HST impact & rebate of 11.24% (1.76% of HST is non-recoverable); Excludes any electrical equipment for PED's rough-in; Figures represent order-of-magnitude construction costs including applicable taxes & contractor indirect costs; Power rails for at-grade segments are per subway standards, not pantagraph; Subway Stations have 152.4m finished platforms; Excludes station Over-Track Exhaust Fans; Elevated stations are based on SRT design adjusted for 150m platform; Includes Toronto Hydro and Power Stream equipment charges at substations; Elevated running structures exclude emergency exit buildings; Escalators & Elevators are per TTC maximum rise; Elevated running structures only include special trackwork at tail track areas only; Assumes tunnel through all b/g stations & X-Over structures At-Grade stations are 160m box and 150m platform with below grade concourse area; Includes allowance for extra-over costs for direct fixation at special trackwork areas; Below grade stations assumes C&C construction; Stations include 1% of cost of public spaces for artwork; Below grade line stations assumes full concourse level; Includes 1 - ATC unit per 6 car trainset; X-overs are 180m; Estimate for options based on full route being constructed, i.e. no allowance for staging or minimal operating segments built; Storage track structures are 180m all at grade (no elevated storage track structures); Includes Toronto Rocket trains per quantity provided; Tail Tracks are 192m, elevated special structures with turn-back facilities; Includes for new maintenance yard & connection structures (1500 dtm) to mainline; Below grade structures assumes bored tunnels & purchase of new TBM's (5.4m dia. ID); Property allowance is included at 7% of design & construction costs for route lengths indicated per project team; Subway alignment runs on north side of GO rail corridor; Above alignment parameters for options should be considered when reviewing these OME's; Includes allowances for retaining walls & special structures along subway ROW; Includes allowance for ATC subway signal system; Excludes PEDS, rough-in only; Assumes expanding existing Transit Control Facility at Hillcrest; Excludes allowances for impacted soil conditions, buoyancy & complex constructability issues not yet known; Stations excludes bus platforms, PPUDO & car parking facilities; OME's are considered speculative and are provided for discussion purposes only, not for budget. Excludes mods to existing rail QEW underpass west of Queensway station;

Estimating File 20011-076 Page 1 M:\TTC\5621 TTC Downtown Relief Line\6.0 Report\6.1 iTRANS Reports\6.1.3 Final Report\APPENDICES\DRT Lakeshore - Rouge Hill to Long Branch Jan. 2012.xls