STOUFFVILLE CORRIDOR COMMITTEE Meeting # 2 – November 13 2015
James T. Purkis, Executive Vice President, Regional Express Rail Leslie Woo, Chief Planning Officer Judy Pfeifer, Vice President, Strategic Communications Welcome and Introductions
2 Developments since last meeting
June 6 July 24 September 8 UP Express Launch Crosstown Financial Close New Midday GO Train Service
September 19 October 27 November 3 PRESTO rollout on TTC on-track Hurontario LRT New Federal Government Engagement since last meeting
• This committee is one of multiple channels we’re been using to share information and gather feedback • Seven corridor committee meetings held from May 29 – June 19 • Presentations to multiple municipal councils • Technical engagement with municipal staff on GO rail expansion has advanced – Discussions related to new stations analysis – SmartTrack working group meeting regularly • Community-specific local public meetings for some of the first project elements to enter construction / EA – November 3: Construction of second track in Scarborough-Markham (Stouffville line) – November 5-17: 4 meetings, pre-consultation on expanding Barrie line tracks in advance of EA – November 17: TPAP Environmental Assessment for Caledonia Station (Barrie line)
4 Top Topics of Interest in Round 1 of Corridor Committee Meetings
• GO Station Access (Parking, local BAR LSE LSW MIL RH SVL Future update in progress feeder transit, active transportation) • New GO Stations BAR KIT LSW RH SVL More info today • Electrification KIT LSW MIL SVL More info today
• Fare Policy & Integration KIT LSW MIL RH More info today
• Freight Railways (Track use, network planning, dangerous goods) KIT LSW MIL RH Future update in progress
• Transit-Oriented Development KIT LSE LSW RH Future update in progress & Land Use • Road-Rail Crossings BAR LSE SVL Future update in progress
• Corridor-specific issues ALL Rolling updates 5 Agenda
Topic
Judy Pfeifer Welcome & Corridor Capital Update James Purkis
Presentation James Purkis Electrification Discussion All
Presentation Leslie Woo Potential New GO Stations Discussion All
SmartTrack Update Leslie Woo
Presentation Leslie Woo GTHA Fare Integration Discussion All
Community Engagement Update Judy Pfeifer
New Business / Open Q+A All 6 Conclusion Judy Pfeifer Introduction: James T. Purkis
• Executive Vice-President, Regional Express Rail • Recently moved to the Toronto region in 2013 as Vice President, Transit at engineering firm AECOM Canada, and was previously with Alstom Transport managing transit infrastructure projects. • He has worked around the world over the past 30 years in the transportation, mining, and cement industries. He is a professional engineer, and has an MBA.
7 EA & Design Update: Stouffville Corridor • Phase 2 - Double track - Scarborough Junction to Agincourt: - design at 95% completion, with construction planned for winter 2016/17 to winter 2018/19 - includes track and signals, rail structure modifications, noise walls, and preparation for future electrification. • GO station modifications at Agincourt, Milliken, and Unionville: - design at 10% for new 2nd track, new and modified rail platforms with elevators, tunnels, canopies and customer service amenities. - construction at stations targeted to begin spring 2017. • Partnership with City of Toronto and York Region on Steeles Ave grade separation underway • Feasibility/Design/EA study underway for up to 6 other potential grade separations between Scarborough Junction and Unionville • Part 1 of Lincolnville Train Layover expansion in design; target is to construct from 2016-2017 Implementation & Construction Progress: Stouffville Corridor
• Phase 1: Double Track (5 km) between Agincourt and Milliken GO Stations: - mobilization and preparatory work has started, with construction planned for completion in early 2017 - includes noise walls and preparation for future electrification. - community relations engagement underway, including distribution of project update flyers and first community meeting held November 3 • In preparation for future Agincourt station expansion, existing motel on adjacent lot has been purchased and demolished ELECTRIFICATION James T. Purkis Executive Vice President, Regional Express Rail
10 Paris. Sydney. London. Oakville.
• Compared to other developed countries, Canada’s national railway network has amongst the smallest proportion that is electrified – Only one electrified passenger railway line in Canada – 30 km in Montreal – Historically less economical to pursue electrification here compared to Europe (or even Australia): diesel available at lower cost, lower train frequencies and longer distances • Global cities with frequent regional rail networks all make use of electric trains • GO’s pending introduction of high-frequency service throughout the network is the game-changer than makes electrification viable in the GTHA 11 Improving your Ride and Improving your Region
• A faster, more attractive service – Electric trains can accelerate faster and stay at top speed for longer, saving time for existing customers and helping attract new customers – By attracting additional riders, frequent electric rail slows the growth in road congestion and reduces greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles • A more efficient, reliable service – Lower operating and maintenance costs mean that for a given amount of operating funding, we can offer more trips with electric service than diesel service • Other supporting benefits: – Modest reductions in train noise as electric trains are typically quieter on average – Reductions in rail greenhouse gas emissions, which form a minor part of the regional emissions total
12 Where we’re electrifying
• All core areas of the GO network where 15-minute- or-better service is planned (5 corridors) • Remaining parts of those GO lines that are 100% Metrolinx-owned end-to-end: – the Barrie line north of Aurora to Allandale Waterfront – the Stouffville line north of Unionville to Lincolnville • UP Express
13 What’s required for electrification HYDRO ONE 230 kV
TRACTION POWER GANTRIES FACILITY Electric Fleet
• Trains could potentially be electric multiple units (EMUs) or electric locomotives pulling conventional coaches; current assumption is a mixed fleet • Request for Information (RFI) issued to leading international rail manufacturers in February 2015 • Objective is to develop a strategy for integrating new electric trains into the current rail fleet • Potential topic for a future update to this group?
15 Electrification Infrastructure
TRACTION POWER SUPPLY - Traction Power Substations RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE TRACTION POWER - Connection to Hydro One’s - Modifications to Maintenance DISTRIBUTION High Voltage Network Facilities - Overhead Contact System (OCS) - Bridge Modifications (clearances, attachments) - Switching and Paralleling Stations - GO Train Stations Modifications - Gantries - Track & Signals - Underground or Overhead Cables -Grounding and bonding
ELECTRIFICATION (GO Owned Corridors) By the numbers
• 262 km of electrified corridor • 6 traction power substations • 9 traction power distribution facilities (switching or paralleling stations) • 67 bridge modifications: – To achieve the vertical clearance of 7.4 metres required for electrified service, and/or – Installation of fencing to protect the overhead contact system
17 How we’ll make the infrastructure a reality
1. Create a new centre of excellence
2. Design of infrastructure on a network-wide basis
3. Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP)
4. Phased construction, testing and commissioning
18 Next Steps to TPAP Completion
AUGUST 2015 NOVEMBER 2015 JAN/FEB 2016 FEB – AUG 2016 SEPTEMBER 2016 DECEMBER 2016
Notice of Commence Carry out Notice of Commencement Completion Baseline Meetings with Public Environmental /Posting of Conditions Meetings Impact of TPAP (120 Municipal days) and Environmental Data Officials Round #1 Assessment/ Project Report Collection Prepare EPR Public Meetings Round #2 for 30 day Review
ONGOING ONLINE CONSULTATION
19 DISCUSSION: ELECTRIFICATION
1. What is it about electrification that you find most compelling? How do we properly make it part of the story about expanding service?
2. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might best engage with local communities on electrification beyond the traditional EA requirements?
3. What do you think will be the biggest obstacles to a constructive conversation about electrification?
20
NEW GO STATIONS Leslie Woo Chief Planning Officer
21 Summary
Recent investments in the transit network in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area provide an opportunity to consider new stations and the expansion of stations on the GO network. In support of this work, we have developed a methodology and are completing an analysis of potential new stations.
This is an overview of: – The role of new stations and their impact on the network – The criteria used to identify 120+ potential locations and to focus on the 50+ sites which are moving to the second stage of analysis
The next stage of analysis will lead to a short list of stations that will be determined following municipal and public engagement, and will include business case assessments
22 Stations and the GO Rail network
Barrie • The GO Rail regional network consists of 7 lines with 63 stations (and 7 underway) linking with 12 local transit networks. • Stations are where GO, local transit services York and communities intersect. Durham Brampton GO Planned/ Guelph Corridor In progress Richmond Hill Bloomington
Toronto Lakeshore West Confederation Milton Mississauga Barrie Caledonia Kitchener Oakville Barrie Downsview Park Hamilton Burlington Richmond Hill Gormley Transit Networks Kitchener Mount Dennis 23 Lakeshore West West Harbour New Stations: Advantages and Impacts
New stations need to balance service frequency, expansion and cost. They can: Advantages Impacts • Expand service area, schedule and • Increase travel time on corridor destinations • Cause delay to, and contribute to the • Attract new customers potential loss of upstream riders • Improve access for customers • Increase capital costs • Improve integration with other • Increase operating, maintenance and transportation modes energy costs • Be a potential catalyst for development • Facilitate urban sprawl in remote locations
24 New Stations Objectives
The objectives of new stations are to:
– Improve service and add riders – Minimize impact on trip time for existing customers – Maintain appropriate station spacing for the vehicle technology – Support existing regional and municipal plans – Consider the different roles and needs of each location, adapt to urban and suburban context
25 Stage 1: Identified an initial list of sites
We started with a system-wide analysis that looked at: • Site and network considerations such as: – station spacing – key transit connections and intersections • Sites identified by Metrolinx, and listed in municipal and public documents Over 120 possible site identified
26 Stage 1. Identified an initial list Network Considerations How far apart do stations need to be?
Locating stations too close together will reduce travel speeds and the benefits of electrification
Larger station spacing means Adding stations mean trains need trains cover distances at to stop and accelerate again, higher speeds slowing travel along the corridor
Max track speed Train speed 27 Stage 1. Identified an initial list Site Considerations Considerations when planning for new stations: Transportation Connectivity • e.g. transport network connectivity
Plans and Land Use • e.g. proximity to urban growth centre • e.g. mix and scale of surrounding development, and potential destinations
Technical Feasibility • e.g. track geometry • e.g. property availability for appropriate station typology 28 Stage 2: Focusing Analysis
How did we move from 120+ locations to 50+ ? • We scored and compared the identified sites based on three categories: – Plans and Land Use – Transportation Connectivity – Technical Feasibility Existing GO stations • Completed March 2015 Review locations GO corridors GO corridor extension Existing transit Future rapid transit
29 Stage 2. Focusing Analysis Stouffville Corridor Stouffville: Stouffville: 24 on initial list of 120+ potential locations 13 on narrowed list of 50+ potential locations advancing for further evaluation Elgin Mills Rd E 14th Av Major MacKenzie Dr E 16th Av Kennedy Rd Finch Av E Hwy 7 14th Av Ellesmere Rd McNicoll Av Finch Av E Lawrence Av E Ellesmere Rd Lawrence Av E Coxwell Av Danforth Rd/Midland Av Cluster Warden/Danforth Greenwood Av Victoria Park Av Jones Av Woodbine Av Coxwell Av Gerrard St E/Carlaw Av Cluster Greenwood Av Dundas St E/Logan Av Jones Av Gerrard St E/Carlaw Av Queen St E/Degrassi Dundas St E/Logan Av Cluster Queen St E DVP-Eastern Eastern Av Cherry St Don Yard Parliament St Cluster 30 Lower Sherbourne St Parliament-Cherry Stage 2. Focusing Analysis Stouffville Corridor - Map
Existing GO station Planned GO station Potential location Cluster of alternative sites 31 50+ location list: by corridor Lakeshore East Lakeshore West Barrie Stouffville Kitchener [Parliament-Cherry] Bathurst-Spadina [Bathurst-Spadina] Parliament-Cherry Bathurst-Spadina [Don Yard] Roncesvalles [Liberty Village] Don Yard Liberty Village [DVP-Eastern] Park Lawn* [Queen W-Dufferin] DVP-Eastern Queen W-Dufferin [Queen-Degrassi] Kipling [Dundas W] Queen-Degrassi Dundas W [Dundas-Logan] Winston Churchill Bloor-Davenport Dundas-Logan St. Clair [Gerrard-Carlaw] Maple Grove St. Clair Gerrard-Carlaw Islington* [Jones] Dorval Hwy 7-Concord* Jones Hwy 27-Woodbine [Greenwood] Walkers Line-Cumberland Kirby Greenwood Heritage Rd [Coxwell] Sideroad 15-Bathurst Coxwell Breslau Whites Rd Mulock Lawrence East Lake Ridge Rd Innisfill Ellesmere Finch East 14th Av Richmond Hill Milton Parliament-Cherry [Bathurst-Spadina] Queen East [Liberty Village] Selected sites Dundas East [Queen W-Dufferin] [ ] - location reviewed under Gerrard East [Dundas W] other corridor Don Mills-Bond East Mall *Considered in comparison to Millwood West Mall existing neighboring stations Eglinton Cawthra-Dundas York Mills Trafalgar John-Green 16th Av 32 Stage 3. Evaluating Key criteria • Of the 40 measures, these key criteria differentiate stations from each other and are better predictors of location performance Category Objective Criteria Measure/Metric Strategic/ Connectivity and Ridership Drivers How many trips will start and end at Sum of boardings+ Economic this station? alightings Planning Does the station connect to other Distance to existing and higher order transit modes and planned routes have potential to improve network and/or corridor service? Does the station connect to key Number of nearby destinations? destinations and places of interest Travel Time Savings What are the time savings Ratio for time penalty of associated with the new station? existing riders to minutes saved for new station users Potential for Surrounding Area Land How well situated is the station in High level assessment of Value Uplift relationship to future market market potential demand? 33 Stage 3. Evaluating Key criteria (cont’d)
Category Objective Criteria Measure/Metric Financial/ Affordability What is the cost to construct the Relative expected cost Technical station? Ease of construction Can the required facilities be Degree of site constraint constructed in this location?
34 Next Steps
Stage 4. Municipal and Stage 5. Moving to Shortlist Public Engagement (Winter 2015/16) – Based on public engagement and (Fall 2015) Municipal meetings: continuing analysis – Background on RER and stations
– Gather local knowledge on specific Stage 6. Further Analysis sites (Winter 2015/16) (Winter 2015/16) Public meetings: – Undertake further study including business case assessment on short list – Discussion on methodology, criteria and process, identified locations and clusters Recommend new stations for consideration (Spring 2016) – Based on results of further analysis
35 DISCUSSION: NEW STATIONS
As we launch public engagement on this topic, we expect that there will be 50 very local conversations on the benefits and impacts of each individual station option for those that live near it.
1. How do we ensure there’s also a complete conversation about the benefits and impacts at both the local and the regional level?
36 SMARTTRACK UPDATE Leslie Woo Chief Planning Officer
37 GO Transit in Toronto
• There are already 19 GO stations in Toronto • Better connectivity would mean: • better access for Torontonians • better utilization of public infrastructure investments • more service 38 SmartTrack and the GO Network
The SmartTrack concept proposes specific enhancements to all-day, two-way electrified GO service including:
• Improved access through more stations (10 new stations) • Fare integration • Improved access to employment (link to Airport Corporate Centre and Pearson Airport)
Joint Review Process
Metrolinx is working with the City of Toronto on its ongoing analysis of SmartTrack • City staff submitted a status report to Council in November • A final report and recommendation is due in 2016
40 Engaging the Public Together
Participation and feedback from residents is key to our success. • A series of eight public meetings were jointly hosted in June - Feedback from residents is included in the SmartTrack status report • A second series of public meetings are scheduled in November and December • Public engagement on new stations is planned for 2016
QUESTIONS?
42 GTHA FARE INTEGRATION Leslie Woo Chief Planning Officer
43 A Regional Problem
• A Fragmented Fare Structure: – Reduces transit ridership and revenue by placing transit at a disadvantage against competing options (cross boundary barriers, double fares or transfer policies) – Reduces the number and quality of transit options available to customers – Treats different customers taking similar trips inconsistently – Prompts siloed, inefficient or duplicative local transit services, driving up operating costs • A Pressing Issue: – Current regional rapid transit expansion in the GTHA makes addressing fare integration a pressing issue e.g. High-frequency
44 GO rail, Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension
A Regional Solution Needed
• The Regional Transportation Plan (Strategy #6) and Metrolinx 5-Year Strategy (objective 3) call for need to “Implement an Integrated Transit Fare System”
• The Metrolinx Investment Strategy (2013) responded to public input by recommending that a regional fare integration plan be developed starting in 2014. • Work began in 2014, with Metrolinx bringing all 10 GTHA transit agencies together.
45 Strategy Vision and Goals
Vision Statement Goal 1: Simplicity • The fare strategy will simplify customer experience and agency fare management/operations, attracting travellers to • The GTHA Regional Fare transit services throughout the GTHA. Integration Strategy will increase customer mobility and transit Goal 2: Value ridership while maintaining the financial sustainability of GTHA’s • The fare strategy will reflect the value of the trip transit services. taken, and maintain the financial sustainability of transit services. • This strategy will remove barriers and enable transit to be perceived Goal 3: Consistency and experienced as one network composed of multiple • The fare strategy will create a common fare systems/service providers. structure with consistent definitions and rules across the GTHA.
46 Elements of Fare Integration
The elements of fare integration contribute to an easy fare payment experience. Element What it is Customer Expectation
Payment System for fare collection: Farecard, mobile One method to pay anywhere System device, credit card, etc. Consistent fare structure for multi-agency travel Fare System for determining base fares (e.g.. flat Consistent fare structure throughout region Structure fare, by zone, by distance) and related Fares that are seen to reflect the value (length, transfer policies. quality) of trip taken Concessions Customer types, e.g., child, youth, senior Consistent concession definitions throughout eligible for fare discounts region Products Fare products to reflect customer travel and Products encourage multi-agency travel where volume of use (ticket, pass, volume discount), appropriate and reward frequent transit use. Price Amount paid for travel, with fares for products Consistent price for similar trips throughout and concessions typically derived from the region adult cash fare.
47 Q1: Should the type of service affect the fare?
For any given trip from point A to point B, should the fare… – …always be the same, regardless of whether one takes a fast, traffic-unaffected transit service (like a GO train) or a slower, more traffic-affected service (like a local bus)? OR – …be different depending on the type of service that is used?
48 Q1: Should the type of service affect the fare? London, UK:
London uses three categories: 1. Local (bus, tram) 2. Rapid Transit/Regional Rail (tube, overground, DLR, suburban rail) 3. Specialized airport link (Heathrow Express)
Uniform fare for all Fewer, broader Fare by More, narrower Route-specific service types categories Service Category categories fares
LOW Potential to precisely reflect transit’s speed/reliability HIGH 49 Q1: Should the type of service affect the fare? Today’s GTHA:
The current fragmented GTHA fare structure uses four service categories: 1. Municipal* (bus, streetcar, BRT, subway/RT) 2. Municipal premium express* (TTC 140-series & YRT 300-series buses) 3. Regional (GO rail and GO bus) 4. Specialized airport link (UP Express) * pricing within category varies by service provider
Uniform fare for all Fewer, broader Fare by More, narrower Route-specific service types categories Service Category categories fares
LOW Potential to precisely reflect transit’s speed/reliability HIGH 50 Q2: Should the length of trip matter?
Does one basic fare allow me to travel for an unlimited length until the edge of the transit-served area in my region? OR Do trips between some pairs of places in my region cost more than trips between other pairs of places? …and if so, how exactly does the fare vary?
51 Q2: Should the length of trip matter? Spectrum of Options
Fare is determined by zones crossed: A single flat fare applies • Zones may match municipal boundaries or be a custom overlay Fare is determined by a to a trip of any length in • Zones may follow different layouts (e.g. ring, honeycomb, rectangular) pre-set formula using the GTHA • Zones may have variable size distance travelled
Region-wide Fewer, larger More, smaller Measured Flat Fare zones Zones zones distance
LOW Potential to precisely reflect length of trip HIGH 52 Q2: Should the length of a trip matter? Melbourne: (based on zones)
• The main city consists of 2 zones, with 11 more stretching well beyond it out into distant exurbs • Zones overlap • Myki smart card system
Region-wide Fewer, larger More, smaller Measured Flat Fare zones Zones zones distance
LOW Potential to precisely reflect length of trip HIGH 53 Q2: Should the length of a trip matter? London, UK: Hybrid (it depends)
• All transit managed by Transport for London • Oyster smart card system
Buses and trams Rapid transit and are flat across all regional rail use a of Greater London single zone system
Region-wide Fewer, larger More, smaller Measured Flat Fare zones Zones zones distance
LOW Potential to precisely reflect length of trip HIGH 54 Q2: Should the length of a trip matter? Today’s GTHA: Hybrid (but how varies) The current fragmented GTHA fare structure is a Hybrid, with two separate zone structures used by different service categories:
Municipal and municipal Regional service categories premium express service use a finer-grained zone categories use a de facto regional system with fare tables zone system, aligned largely with intended to approximate municipal boundaries measured distance
Region-wide Fewer, larger More, smaller Measured Flat Fare zones Zones zones distance
LOW Potential to precisely reflect length of trip HIGH 55 Fare Structure Types
The combinations of possible responses to service and trip length produce nine reference Fare Structure Types being assessed in Stage One: Consideration of Trip Length Region-wide Zones Measured Travel Time Hybrid Flat Distance Uniform fare for N/A all service types Multiple service Type ervice
Consideration of Consideration S categories
Reference Fare Structure Type
Peak/Off-peak pricing, different transfer policies, and fare capping can be applied to any of these structures. 56 Summary Preliminary Findings
• Fare Structure Types that are not responsive to service and trip length should not be investigated further. This removes uniform fares for all service types, and region-wide flat fares from further consideration.
• Time-based fares are variable and unpredictable and should not be investigated further.
• Flat fares should be considered for local transit services only.
• Measured distance-based fares should be considered for higher order service only.
• Zone-based and Hybrid Fare Structure Types should be retained for more detailed investigation. 57 Summary Findings
Consideration of Trip Length Region-wide Zones Measured Travel Time Hybrid Flat Distance Uniform fare for N/A all service types
Multiple service Type ervice Consideration of Consideration S categories local only hi-order only
Structure Type Retained Structure Type Retained with Conditions Not advancing Next Step: Detailed Analysis of Fare Structure Types • The detailed analysis of the Fare Structure Types will address: – Service categories, including number and which types of service to be included in each – Fare structure for each service category – Zone number and design (for applicable structures) – Price structures – Transfer policies • Consultation with municipalities and other stakeholders and public outreach planned for key decision points
59 DISCUSSION: FARE INTEGRATION
1. In your opinion, what would a successful regional fare system accomplish?
2. What do you expect will be the most contentious aspects when designing a fare structure?
3. Many transit riders in the GTHA live nowhere near a fare boundary and don’t encounter some of the obstacles we’ve outlined. Other GTHA residents predominantly drive. How could we make the case for potentially changing the fare system to them?
60 Upcoming Community Engagement
• Metrolinx will host a series of approximately 20 public information centres (PICs) across the region with information about: – GO rail service expansion – Planned local rail infrastructure changes (ie grade separations) – Electrification – Potential new stations – Fare integration – Legislated review of the Regional Transportation Plan • PICs are tentatively schedule for mid-January to the end of February • We will be sharing information about these meetings with members of the corridor committee in coming weeks 61
NEW BUSINESS / OPEN DISCUSSION
62 THANK YOU
63