LAWRENCE EAST Stouffville Corridor

RER New Stations Initial Business Case LAWRENCE EAST Stouffville Corridor

July 2016

Draft Draft: v1.2 Metrolinx Client ref: 150400

RER New Stations Initial Business Case LAWRENCE EAST

Draft

Prepared by: Prepared for: Urban Strategies Inc. Metrolinx 197 Spadina Avenue, Suite 600 97 Front Street West Toronto, ON Canada M5T 2C8 Toronto, ON M5J 1E6

RER New Stations Initial Business Case June 2016

Note to the reader: The Initial Business Case (IBC) represents a primary input into the evaluation and recommendation of New Stations. Final recommendation of new station site selection considers, in addition to the four cases of the IBC, network fit, and other strategic considerations including priorities of the various levels of government. Network fit addresses system-wide issues and impact on the overall performance of the rail corridor. IBC results do not represent the final recommendations of the GO RER New Stations Evaluation process. IBC results inform the process outlined in the GO RER New Stations Summary and Ranking Report, which is to be posted in the near future. For more information visit: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/newstations/ The final list of recommended stations is included in the June 28, 2016 GO Regional Express Rail Update report to Metrolinx Board of Directors.

97 Front Street West 97, rue Front Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E6 Toronto (Ontario) M5J 1E6

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Executive Summary

This Initial Business Case (IBC) examines the potential for a new GO station, Lawrence East, along the GO Stouffville line. The station is conceived as a single island platform accessible from both sides of the rail corridor via pedestrian tunnels. Direct platform access from the Lawrence Avenue East road overpass would also be provided via stairs and elevators. This station would occupy the site of the existing Lawrence East Scarborough RT [SRT] station planned for removal, and would serve an industrial neighbourhood now experiencing some new high-density residential development.

Key findings of this IBC for Lawrence East include:

 Strategic Case: Despite having the potential to replace transit service for residents that would be lost with the removal of the SRT, the station could result in a net ridership loss on the Stouffville line (of approximately 500 daily riders) as some passengers are deterred by increased travel times. While municipal policy targets the station area for growth, employment densities, population densities, and real estate market demand in the immediate area are all predicted to remain low. However, there is an opportunity to work with Toronto and landowners to encourage comprehensive and aggressive transit- oriented development. The station area density is supportive of regional rail service but not express rail service.

 Financial Case: The construction and operation of the new station at Lawrence East would generate a negative net present value (NPV) of –$78.5 million over a 60-year time horizon. This negative NPV combines capital expenditures and recurring station and train operating costs, estimated at $45.8 million, as well as a loss in fare revenue of $32.7 million resulting from lost ridership.

 Economic Case: The new station will attract some new riders to the GO network, but these gains may be offset by a loss in upstream riders (deterred by the time required to stop at a new station) and an overall increase in travel time, as well as behavioural changes resulting in increased private automobile use. Lawrence East’s transportation user and environmental impacts amount to a net cost of $325.6 million over the station’s 60-year evaluation period, with capital and operating costs for the new station estimated at an additional $41.8 million. This yields an overall loss of –$367.4 million in Net Present Value.

 Deliverability and Operations: Station construction would be moderately complex, requiring the removal of existing SRT infrastructure and approximately 900 metres (m) of track realignment. Some private property acquisitions would also be required. Future facility expansion may be possible with additional property acquisition. The station concept would require significant modification if a third (express) track was planned for this section of the rail corridor.

The assessment of Lawrence East’s potential concludes that the station performs moderately well in the Deliverability and Operations Case, marginally in the Strategic Case, and poorly in the Financial and Economic Cases. Lawrence East would be complex to construct in the context of SRT infrastructure and may result in a loss of GO ridership, a negative net present value, and broader societal costs arising from increased automobile use. A table summarizing key metrics from each of the four cases follows. A legend is contained in Appendix D.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Table ES-1: Results of Initial Business Case Analysis for Lawrence East

Criterion Summary Policy Alignment Supportive

Development Potential and Intensification Neutral Real Estate Market Demand Not Supportive Natural Environment Neutral Operational System Neutral Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Not Supportive StrategicCase Station Access Supportive Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Neutral Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) –12.8

Fare Revenue (A) –$32.7 Total Costs (B) $45.8 Capital Costs $22.7 Operating Costs (C) $22.6 Net Present Value (A-B) –$78.5 Financial Case Revenue to Cost Ratio (A/B) all-loss Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) all-loss Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person-Hours) –37.6 Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) –181.7 Benefits –$325.6

Costs $41.8 Net Present Value –$367.4 Benefit-Cost Ratio all-loss Transportation User Impacts –$325.1 Travel Time Savings –$268.5

Economic Case Vehicle Operating Cost Savings –$39.4 Decongestion on Road Network –$13.0 Safety Impacts –$4.2 Environmental Impacts –$0.5

Constructability Neutral Stakeholder Impacts Supportive Room for Growth Neutral Approvals/Permits Required Supportive

Operating Impacts Neutral Deliverability & OperationsCase Other Key Risks and Impacts Supportive (Impacts over a 60-year period. Millions of 2015 $ Present Value, unless otherwise noted)

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Table of Contents

Executive Summary page 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Report Scope and Purpose ...... 1 1.3 Site Options and Scenarios Analyzed ...... 2 2. Cluster Screening ...... 5 2.1 Methodology ...... 5 3. Station Context and Concept Plan ...... 6 3.1 Station Location ...... 6 3.2 Current Land Uses in Area ...... 6 3.3 Surrounding Transportation Infrastructure...... 7 3.4 Concept Plan Rationale ...... 7 4. Strategic Case ...... 10 4.1 Strategic Case Summary ...... 10 4.2 Approach ...... 10 4.3 Rationale for a New Station ...... 11 4.3.1 Problem Statement ...... 11 4.3.2 Drivers for Change ...... 11 4.3.3 Station Objectives ...... 12 4.3.4 Constraints and Interdependencies ...... 12 4.3.5 Stakeholders ...... 13 4.4 Policy, Land Use and Development ...... 14 4.4.1 Policy Alignment ...... 14 4.4.2 Development Potential and Intensification ...... 15 4.4.3 Real Estate Market Demand ...... 18 4.4.4 Natural Environment ...... 19 4.5 Network, Connectivity, and Accessibility ...... 19 4.5.1 Operational System ...... 19 4.5.2 Connectivity and Ridership Drivers ...... 20 4.5.3 Station Access ...... 23 4.5.4 Social Inclusivity and Accessibility ...... 23 4.6 Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 25 5. Financial Case ...... 26 5.1 Financial Case Summary...... 26 5.2 Approach ...... 26 5.3 Financial Criteria ...... 27 5.3.1 Capital Costs ...... 27 5.3.2 Station Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 27 5.3.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs ...... 28

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

5.3.4 Incremental Fare Revenues ...... 28 5.3.5 Revenues from Other Sources ...... 29 5.3.6 Net Present Value ...... 29 5.3.7 Lifecycle Revenue to Cost Ratio ...... 29 5.3.8 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio ...... 30 5.4 Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 30 6. Economic Case ...... 31 6.1 Economic Case Summary ...... 31 6.2 Approach ...... 31 6.3 Economic Criteria ...... 32 6.3.1 Project Costs ...... 32 6.3.1.1 Capital Costs ...... 32 6.3.1.2 Station Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ...... 32 6.3.1.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs ...... 32 6.3.2 Transportation User Impacts ...... 32 6.3.2.1 Travel Time Savings ...... 33 6.3.2.2 Change in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKTs) ...... 33 6.3.2.3 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings...... 34 6.3.2.4 Decongestion Impacts on Road Network ...... 34 6.3.2.5 Safety Impacts ...... 34 6.3.3 Environmental Impacts ...... 35 6.3.3.1 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts ...... 35 6.3.4 Benefit Cost Analysis Results ...... 35 6.3.4.1 Net Present Value (NPV) ...... 35 6.3.4.2 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) ...... 35 6.3.5 Economic Development Impacts ...... 35 6.3.5.1 Wider Economic Benefits ...... 35 6.3.5.2 Economic Impacts ...... 36 6.3.5.3 Income / Distributional Impacts ...... 36 6.3.5.4 Property and Land Value Changes ...... 36 6.4 Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 37 7. Deliverability and Operations Case ...... 38 7.1 Deliverability and Operations Case Summary ...... 38 7.2 Approach ...... 38 7.3 Deliverability and Operations Criteria ...... 38 7.3.1 Constructability ...... 38 7.3.2 Stakeholder Impacts ...... 39 7.3.3 Room for Growth ...... 40 7.3.4 Approvals/Permits Required ...... 41 7.3.5 Operating Impacts ...... 42 7.3.6 Other Key Risks and Impacts ...... 42 7.4 Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 42 8. Conclusions and Findings ...... 43 Appendix A: Financial and Economic Case Baseline Assumptions ...... 44 Appendix B: Travel Time Savings Analysis ...... 45 Appendix C: Land Value Uplift Analysis ...... 49 Appendix D: Criteria Ranges ...... 54

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Station in wider GO Rail network context...... 2 Figure 1-2: Lawrence East Station Context Map ...... 1 Figure 3-1: Lawrence East Station Concept Plan...... 8 Figure 3-2: Lawrence East Station Property Requirements ...... 9 Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use ...... 16 Figure 4-2: Current Development Applications and Potential Soft Sites ...... 17 Figure 4-3: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Transit Network ...... 21 Figure 4-4: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Active Transportation Infrastructure ...... 22

List of Tables

Table 4-1: Strategic Case Summary Results ...... 10 Table 5-1: Financial Case Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value) ...... 26 Table 5-2: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period) ...... 28 Table 5-3: Additional Ridership and Fare Revenue (60-Year Period) ...... 29 Table 5-4: Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 30 Table 6-1: Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value) ...... 31 Table 6-2: Travel Time Impacts (60-Year Period) ...... 33 Table 6-3: Changes in Auto Distances Traveled (60-Year Period) ...... 34 Table 6-4: Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios ...... 37 Table 7-1: Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Results ...... 38

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Recent provincial planning and policy initiatives call for significant operational changes in GO rail services in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Regional Express Rail (RER) program will bring more train trips to every GO rail corridor, including increased weekday rush-hour and non-rush hour periods, evenings and weekends, and electric trains running every 15 minutes or better, all day and in both directions, within the most heavily travelled sections of the network. To address considerations emerging from the RER program, the City of Toronto’s SmartTrack plan and other transit initiatives, Metrolinx initiated an examination of potential new station locations across the seven existing GO rail corridors. New stations should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, financial (affordability), economic, and operational and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base of users.

An initial identification of over 120 potential station sites was narrowed to 56 through a high-level evaluation of transport connectivity, planning and land use and technical feasibility. The 56 potential locations were then evaluated against 38 criteria and nine key criteria, yielding 24 sites on corridors that are subject to major infrastructure investment as part of the RER programme, to be examined in more detail using an Initial Business Case (IBC) evaluation.

This IBC addresses the Lawrence East station, located on the Stouffville GO line in the City of Toronto at Lawrence Avenue East. The proposed station would replace the existing Scarborough RT (SRT) station, with its platform extending approximately 120 metres north and 195 metres south of Lawrence Avenue. The site is surrounded by a variety of land uses and densities, including an industrial district to the north, a recent townhouse development to the southwest, and a high-density three-tower apartment complex to the southeast.

Lawrence East is also identified as a SmartTrack station. According to City of Toronto’s “SmartTrack Stations Preliminary Assessment” (October 2015), a station at Lawrence East would have the potential to support mixed-use development on Lawrence Avenue and replace transit access lost with the removal of the Scarborough RT. The station is not part of a larger cluster; it is being evaluated on its own.

1.2 Report Scope and Purpose

The scope of this Initial Business Case Report is to develop a high-level justification of the effectiveness of a proposed new station at Lawrence East. This report provides an initial overview of how the potential station could contribute toward meeting both Metrolinx’s and local objectives (the Strategic Case), the financial and economic performance of the station (the Financial and Economic Cases), and deliverability and operational considerations (the Deliverability and Operations Case). This IBC looks at how a single new station might perform when added to the existing GO network; combinations of potential new stations have not been reviewed at this stage.

The findings of this report will be compared against the findings of IBCs for other new stations to determine the relative performance of station options across the network. Outcomes of that comparison will support recommendations on which stations should be developed in the near term.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 1-1: Station in wider GO Rail network context

Potential station Existing GO stations Planned GO stations

1.3 Site Options and Scenarios Analyzed

The Lawrence East station location has been the subject of previous station studies, including an initial 120+ site evaluation that selected sites based on considerations such as station spacing, key transit connections, and municipal and regional transportation priorities. Based on its performance in the 120+ site analysis, Lawrence East was then studied in more detail as part of Metrolinx’s 50+ station location analysis in summer 2015.

The Scenario options considered in the study are described in the following table, with a rationale provided where options were not considered for Lawrence East. The implications of the Scenarios on each of the four cases are considered at the conclusion of the case sections in this report, as appropriate.

Scenario Options Description

 RER Network based on RER IBC Scenario 5.1 infrastructure and service levels  No new stations Base Case Scenario (Do Nothing)  No fare integration (existing fare policies)  2031 ridership grown by line from 2013 population and employment

(table continued on next page)

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Scenario Options Description

 RER Network based on RER IBC Scenario 5.1 infrastructure and service levels  One new station with 1.8-minute schedule impact  All trains stop at new station Scenario Option 1 (One New  SRT is removed and the Scarborough subway alignment does not use the SRT Station) corridor in this location  No fare integration (existing fare policies)  2031 ridership grown by line from 2013 population and employment Scenario Option 2A/B (Combined  Addition of 3rd track to Stouffville corridor Track Infrastructure and Service  Express trains by-pass the station using 3rd track Concept Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time  Option not considered for this IBC – dwell time assumed to be typical Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2D (Fare  TTC fare at new station Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and  Option not considered for this IBC – anticipated growth and real estate market Land Use Sensitivity) demand are not significantly above average for the corridor

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 1-2: Lawrence East Station Context Map

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

2. Cluster Screening

2.1 Methodology

Clusters of potential site options have been identified where the catchment area of individual sites of interest may overlap. In some cases, certain site options can be dropped early prior to detailed consideration in the IBC. Because this site option is the only one being assessed in this IBC, a cluster screening was not performed as part of this IBC.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

3. Station Context and Concept Plan

3.1 Station Location

The Lawrence East station is located between medium- and high-density neighbourhoods, at the southern edge of an employment district that runs north to Ellesmere Road and beyond. The site is adjacent to a mix of industrial, office, and residential uses with a range of densities, as well as several parcels of vacant land. The surrounding Dorset Park area is predominantly low-rise, with a cluster of mid- and high-rise buildings east of the station site.

While concentrated commercial and retail uses exist along nearby arterial roads including Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue, much of the surrounding area has been dedicated to transportation infrastructure and utility uses, including the Gatineau Hydro Corridor 400 metres south of the site. Wide streets and large separations between uses and destinations result in an unfriendly pedestrian environment in the station’s vicinity.

The location for Lawrence East was selected to provide a direct connection with existing local transit services on Lawrence Avenue East, as well as to serve existing employment areas and emerging mixed-use corridors designated in Toronto’s Official Plan.

3.2 Current Land Uses in Area

The site’s surroundings are characterized as follows:

 To the north: The Scarborough RT and Stouffville GO corridors continue north of the site. On both sides of the rail corridor, lands predominantly contain large industrial buildings, surface parking, and vacant lots. The area is characterized by large blocks and infrequent intersections. Three hundred metres north of the site, running northwest-southeast, is West Highland Creek, an identified Natural Heritage Feature in Toronto’s Official Plan.

 To the east: Immediately east of the rail corridor is a bus loop and surface parking lot serving the existing SRT station. Three hundred metres east of the station site, at the intersection of Lawrence and Midland Avenues, is Centennial College’s Midland Campus, which houses the College’s Employment Services office and provides career services to the wider Scarborough community. North of Lawrence Avenue, lands to the east contain 1- and 2-storey industrial and office buildings, including several large distribution centres. South of Lawrence Avenue, lands to the east contain three 16-storey apartment towers (c. 1978) surrounded by large amounts of green space (including Arsandco Park), surface parking, and vacant land.

 To the south: Lands south of the station primarily contain residential uses, including a medium-sized townhouse complex (c. 2005) immediately southwest of the site. South of the townhouses are vacant, unpaved parcels bordering the Gatineau Hydro Corridor, as well as a related electrical substation. Further south, lands contain detached residential neighbourhoods and supporting uses such as schools and parks.

 To the west: Immediately west is a bus loop serving the existing SRT station. Northwest of the site are police and paramedic facilities surrounded by surface parking lots. Further west, north of Lawrence Avenue, lands

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

contain 1- and 2-storey industrial and office buildings. West of Kennedy Road are the established Dorset Park and McGregor Park residential neighbourhoods. The area is served by a variety of supporting uses and amenities along Lawrence Avenue, including local schools, parks, and suburban-style retail development. The area is low-density and more suited to automobile users than pedestrians.

3.3 Surrounding Transportation Infrastructure

The Lawrence East station would be located on the CN/GO Uxbridge Subdivision. At the site, the GO rail corridor consists of a single track, with one additional GO track planned to be installed to the east side of the corridor as part of the RER program. West of the existing GO track are two parallel Scarborough RT tracks, currently planned for removal.

Lawrence Avenue East consists of six traffic lanes, and passes over the rail corridor on a bridge. Service roads provide access to adjacent properties as well as the existing Scarborough RT station beneath the bridge.

Local streets around the station site form an irregular pattern of large blocks. There are no cycling lanes and few trails in the area, with no direct cycling connections to the station site. Most streets in the area have sidewalks. Following the removal of the SRT, TTC bus route # 54 would serve the station location.

3.4 Concept Plan Rationale

Figure 3-1 shows the proposed concept plan developed for a station at Lawrence East. It includes a single centre platform, two station buildings, two platform access points, and Passenger Pick-Up and Drop Off (PPUDO) and surface parking facilities. The station’s conceptual design is predicated on the removal of the existing SRT station facilities and track. The rail track and station platform have been aligned to allow the platform to be as straight as possible, given the constraints of the rail corridor.

The potential new station is contextually similar to the nearby Kennedy GO station. Lawrence East’s design and construction would be constrained by adjacent infrastructure and requires additional vertical transfers to connect to other transit services. In these respects, delivery of the station would resemble that of the planned Caledonia station, as well as TTC subway stations such as Glencairn and Lawrence West.

The station’s two entrances (east and west) are linked by a pedestrian tunnel beneath the rail corridor and central platform. This permits a cross-corridor pedestrian connection to be maintained after the existing SRT pedestrian tunnel is removed.

The placement of the station’s entrances and accessible mini-platform allow an improved, more direct transfer to be made between Lawrence Avenue TTC bus services and the proposed GO station. Access would be facilitated from atop the Lawrence Avenue road bridge overpass down to the station’s central platform via new elevators/stairs. TTC bus stops currently located east and west of the road bridge footings would be relocated onto the bridge itself. No lay-bys would be provided. The mini-platform is positioned directly between the two sets of elevators/stairs, minimizing travel distances for passengers with mobility needs. All station entrances would be accessible.

Both ground-level station buildings (east and west) are positioned so as to be highly visible for drivers approaching the station from either direction along Lawrence Avenue. The combination of these repositioned ground-level station buildings and the bridge-top access structures will significantly improve the station’s overall visibility for users.

The SRT station’s existing levels of surface parking would be maintained in the new station, and not expanded. A moderate PPUDO facility, accommodating 30 cars, is proposed for the west side of the rail corridor.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 3-1: Lawrence East Station Concept Plan

NOTE: conceptual design to be used for IBC evaluation purposes only. It illustrates one potential alternative that may be feasible on this site. The preferred station layout should be determined in consultation with internal and external Metrolinx stakeholders including municipalities. Station location and layout is subject to further feasibility analysis, environmental assessment, and design development.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 3-2: Lawrence East Station Property Requirements

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

4. Strategic Case

4.1 Strategic Case Summary

The Strategic Case for Lawrence East concludes that, while supported by regional and local policy, the station’s introduction may cause a net loss in GO ridership on the Stouffville line as riders are deterred by the time required to stop at the new station. The station would have the potential to replace transit access lost with the planned removal of a Scarborough RT station at the same location, in an area with below-average incomes and one Neighbourhood Improvement Area nearby. The station’s surrounding area is targeted for growth and intensification in Toronto’s Official Plan, but while there are a number of redevelopment opportunities nearby, the area is poorly situated relative to current and future office, industrial, residential, and retail demand. With limited potential to relieve congestion at existing GO stations, the delay associated with the new station could result in a net ridership loss and an overall marginal strategic performance for Lawrence East.

Table 4-1: Strategic Case Summary Results

Strategic Case Summary Lawrence East Policy Alignment Generally supported by all provincial, regional, local policy Development Potential and Intensification Insufficient densities and moderate development activity Real Estate Market Demand Low current demand is predicted to remain low Within 800 m of Natural Heritage System (West Highland Creek Natural Environment and Gatineau Hydro Corridor) Within 2.1 km of nearest existing station; limited duplication Operational System expected Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Poor connectivity, and 490 daily GO riders lost Supports access by walking, cycling, local transit, PPUDO, and Station Access limited parking Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Moderate potential to serve low-income/disadvantaged residents

4.2 Approach

The Strategic Case sets out the rationale for adding this station; it makes the case for change at a policy and long- term planning level. It sets out the problem statement defining the station rationale, explains the objectives that are to be achieved, and outlines constraints or interdependencies that should be considered with this station. The strategic policy context and the fit with wider public policy objectives are also explained. Other key criteria include relationship to market demand, social and environmental impacts, network connectivity, and ridership.

One of the key determinants of a station’s overall performance at the IBC stage are the forecasted boardings and alightings at the station relative to the through (or “upstream”) passengers who could be delayed by the new station. Several metrics including time savings, new ridership, new revenue, impact on vehicle kilometres travelled (VKTs),

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

and impact on emissions are dependent on these forecasts. The ridership forecasts in this IBC are based on the RER Scenario 5 service concept, including relevant vehicle technology.1

To address the sensitivity of this assessment to ridership forecasts, several scenarios are considered (where appropriate/applicable). These scenarios include the consideration of whether a modified service concept for the station or potential land use/development near the station may affect the station’s performance. The sensitivity of the station’s performance to broader changes to the RER Scenario 5 service concept has not been considered in the scope of this IBC.

4.3 Rationale for a New Station 4.3.1 Problem Statement

The purpose of this IBC is to assess in detail the Lawrence East GO RER station location in Toronto. A potential new station should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, affordability, economic, and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base of users on opening day. A new station at Lawrence East should also help to replace transit service lost with the planned removal of the Scarborough RT, particularly for residents in nearby Neighbourhood Improvement Areas. Potential challenges in the planning of a new station at Lawrence East include the timing of the station’s implementation relative to that of the Scarborough Subway Extension and the planned removal of the Scarborough RT.

A station that adequately addresses these statements may be recommended for more detailed design, and further business case analysis. 4.3.2 Drivers for Change

Several external and internal regional drivers for change exist for potential new GO stations across the network.

 Recent investments in new transit infrastructure, including GO RER, new light rail, bus rapid transit lines, and subway infrastructure are increasing the capacity of the transit network and providing new rapid transit options for more trips within all parts of the GTHA.  Congestion on roads and highways throughout the GTHA, which is expected to worsen as the region continues to grow and as opportunities for road and highway expansion are increasingly limited, particularly within core areas of the region.  Demographic changes and shifts within the region, including a younger generation that has a higher tendency to live in core areas and use a car less frequently, aging “baby boomers” who may not be able to drive as much as they used to, and a low-income population that is moving further from the core into car- dependent areas due to high housing prices and rents in the core.  The increased peak and off-peak capacity provided by the GO RER program should be matched with increased ridership so that the program’s benefits can be realized. This increase in ridership will require an expansion of the travel market for the GO network from peak-period 905-to-Union travel to include more off- peak, contra-peak, and non-Union travel, including increased travel within Toronto and between the 905 and suburban and downtown “shoulder” areas of Toronto.

1 Ridership forecasts are derived from the GO New Stations Benefits Spreadsheet (v3.3, May 2016).

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

 Lawrence East is identified as a SmartTrack station. The City of Toronto’s “SmartTrack Stations Preliminary Assessment” (October 2015) gives Lawrence East a preliminary assessment score of “Medium,” based on criteria such as connectivity, reduction in travel times, social equity, and support of planned growth.  Planned redevelopment of the formerly industrial Unilever site and Port Lands has the potential to drive significant ridership growth on the Stouffville line, with new employees commuting to these areas by GO train.  More locally, a station at Lawrence East would replace transit access lost with the removal of the Scarborough RT, which currently serves the area. It would have the potential to support new mixed-use development, most notably in the areas northeast and southwest of the station location that are designated Mixed Use Areas in Toronto’s Official Plan. This section of Lawrence Avenue is also designated as an Avenue, making the site an appropriate location for future growth and development.  With the removal of the SRT, Lawrence East’s proximity to the Ionview and Eglinton East Neighbourhood Improvement Areas would help to maintain transit access to disadvantaged residents. The station would also serve as an important transfer point for downtown-destined riders of existing frequent Lawrence Avenue bus services, halving a trip that currently takes approximately 55–65 minutes by bus/SRT and subway.

4.3.3 Station Objectives

The implementation of a new station should meet the following objectives:

 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  Support seamless transfers between the new station and Lawrence Avenue bus services  Improve station visibility and profile along Lawrence Avenue  Support passenger pick-up and drop-off for customers arriving by car 4.3.4 Constraints and Interdependencies

The strategic, economic, financial, and operational performance of this new station is affected by a number of constraints and interdependencies with other initiatives, including:

 GO Electrification: Infrastructure to permit the operation of electrified trains on the GO network, necessary to permit planned 15-minute service on many GO corridors2. Efficiencies in capital costs and construction impacts may be achieved by coordinating the planning, design, and construction of a new station with that of any necessary electrification infrastructure in the station area.  Effects of other new stations on the ridership potential at this station: The additional travel time caused by the additional stops may decrease ridership between this station and other existing stations, while the additional potential origin-destination pairs served by this station and other new stations may increase station ridership.  Scarborough-Markham Railway Expansion: Upgrades to 17 kilometres of the Stouffville GO line, from Unionville to St. Clair Avenue East, planned to begin in 2016. Infrastructure improvements include the installation of an additional track, station renovations and expansions, and preparation for the electrification of the GO network.

2 Details on GO Electrification are available in the GO Electrification Study Final Report (December 2010).

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

 Scarborough Subway Extension: The extension of the Bloor-Danforth Subway to Scarborough Civic Centre was approved by Toronto City Council in 2013. The recommended alignment follows McCowan Road, two kilometres east of the station site, with one stop at Scarborough Centre. However, in March 2016, City Council directed staff to explore the potential of an above-ground route that would use parts of the Stouffville corridor. The existing Lawrence SRT stop will be removed, and the subway extension is expected to be complete and operational by 2023.  Adjacent development projects: With ample vacant land, the area surrounding the Lawrence East station site offers significant short-term development potential. Current development projects (active and/or proposed) may influence the design and planning of the station, including: o 1380 Midland Avenue, 2525–2545 Lawrence Avenue East, and 201–211 and 200 Prudential Drive (southeast of rail corridor): An application to build nine residential and mixed-use buildings on four vacant properties along Prudential Drive, ranging in height from eight to 27 storeys, and to include 1,752 dwelling units, 9,039 square metres (sq. m) of office space, and 3,381 sq. m of commercial space. o Within a wider 800 m radius of the station site, a total of two development applications within the last three years comprise a planned 1,892 residential units and 12,420 sq. m non-residential GFA (including the development identified above).  Adjacent soft sites: The development of adjacent “soft sites” may influence the design and planning of the station in the medium or long term, including: o 2450, 2470, and 2480 Lawrence Avenue East: The three adjoining properties located directly northeast of the station location currently contain 1- to 2-storey industrial and commercial uses. Given their size (approximately 13 acres in total) and proximity to the site, these properties represent a major opportunity for intensification and for providing or improving access to the station. o 1 Nantucket Boulevard and 2410–2444 Lawrence Avenue East: These six contiguous properties, totalling approximately nine acres, are located northwest of the site, adjacent to the rail corridor. Currently, these lands contain several industrial and commercial uses, along with emergency services facilities. Whether redeveloped together or independently, these properties offer significant opportunities for intensification adjacent to the station, as well as the potential to provide or improve station access. o 2272–2380 Lawrence Avenue East and 975–1191 Kennedy Road: In the vicinity of the station site, many of the smaller commercial and retail sites on both sides of Lawrence Avenue East and Kennedy Road have the potential to intensify over time. o Within a wider 800 m radius of the station site, there are a total of 33.98 hectares (ha) of soft sites (see Figure 4-2). 4.3.5 Stakeholders

There are a range of stakeholders that might or will be affected by the development of a new station at Lawrence East. These include:  Metrolinx Operations and Capital Projects Group  Municipalities: City of Toronto  Elected Officials: Toronto City Councillor (Ward 37); Member of Provincial Parliament; Member of Parliament  Transit agencies: Toronto Transit Commission  Owners, developers, and residents of adjacent properties  Business Improvement Areas: e.g. Kennedy Road BIA, Wexford Heights BIA  Residents’, Ratepayers’, and Neighbourhood Associations: e.g. Dorset Park Neighbourhood Association, Midland Park Community Association

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

 Travelers (transit, road and active transportation users)

4.4 Policy, Land Use and Development

The following criteria examine how the new station conforms to provincial, regional, and local planning policy for land use and transportation. This section also discusses the station’s fit or potential impact to the surrounding neighbourhoods and potential future development. 4.4.1 Policy Alignment

Policy Hierarchy Specific Policy Overview and Conformity A new station at this location would support transportation policies in Provincial the Provincial Policy Statement by improving access to the Policy Statement transportation network and supporting connectivity across the region. Regional A new station at Lawrence East would support strategies and goals Provincial Land- Transportation Plan outlined in The Big Move Regional Transportation Plan and within Use and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe [GPGGH], as it Transportation Growth Plan for the would enhance transit access for residents and workers in the area, Policy Greater Golden and improve transit service in an area where future growth and Horseshoe intensification is anticipated. Increased service at this station would support policy objectives of the Other Yonge Relief Network Study by helping to alleviate congestion on studies/initiatives the TTC Yonge Subway. The proposed station site for Lawrence East is situated below the existing Lawrence Avenue East overpass, and would replace the Scarborough RT station currently located on the site. The station is immediately adjacent to lands designated as Avenues and Employment Districts in Toronto’s Official Plan, which encourages high-quality transit service in these areas. In addition, Avenues such as Lawrence Avenue are expected to accommodate significant population and employment growth, and enhanced service at this Regional/Local location would improve transit access for this growing cluster of Land-Use and City of Toronto residents and workers. Transportation Official Plan The Official Plan provides further land-use designations for the Policy areas adjacent to the station site, including Mixed-Use Areas, Employment Areas, and Apartment Neighbourhoods. These areas currently support high residential and employment densities and are targeted for continued residential and employment growth. The station site is within 800 m of features forming part of Toronto’s Natural Heritage System, as designated in the Official Plan. Given its proximity to these features, station development must ensure that natural features are preserved and enhanced. The station site is in proximity to the Ionview and Eglinton East Local City-Building Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Improvement Areas. As priority investment sites Initiatives Improvement Areas within the city, these neighbourhoods would benefit from transit service improvements.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

4.4.2 Development Potential and Intensification

There are 6,944 residents and 8,490 daytime jobs located within 800 m of the station site. The local population is projected to grow to 7,995 by 2026, and daytime employment to 9,282.3 Projections are not available for years beyond 2026. These equate to current and projected population-and-job densities of 77 people and jobs per hectare (P+J/ha) and 86 P+J/ha, respectively, neither of which would be transit-supportive, according to Metrolinx’s density guidelines for express rail stations (150–300 P+J/ha).4

There were two development applications in the last three years within 800 m of the station. These applications represented a total of 1,892 residential units and 12,420 sq. m of non-residential GFA. There are also more than 33 ha of land within 800 m with the potential for redevelopment over time, which could also add to the area’s density.

Figure 4-2 shows identified “soft sites” within 800 m of the station site. Each soft site has been categorized by its land use designation in Toronto’s Official Plan, resulting in the following table of lands with potential to redevelop over time:

Land use designation Total area of soft sites within 800 m Regeneration Areas 0.00 ha Employment Areas 10.15 ha Mixed Use Areas 23.83 ha Residential Areas 0.00 ha Parks 0.00 ha

Appropriate floor space index (FSI) precedents, including built and proposed developments, have been used to determine potential gross floor area (GFA) yields for these soft sites over time:

Type of use Total area of soft sites within 800 m Office/Employment 44,615 sq. m Retail/Commercial 31,967 sq. m Residential 819,610 sq. m

If all of the building space within these development applications and all of the development potential within these soft sites were to be realized, the station’s catchment area would be expected to increase by:

 1,972 jobs  16,293 people

Given historic demand trends, the catchment area is expected to accommodate approximately 5–10% of the above- mentioned potential employment growth, and 5–10% of potential population growth, by 2031.

3 Pitney Bowes/Magnify Maps 4 Transit-supportive density of an “Express Rail” mobility hub, Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Metrolinx, September 2011

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 4-2: Current Development Applications and Potential Soft Sites

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

4.4.3 Real Estate Market Demand

Relationship to Current Market Demand

The station is not well-situated relative to current office and industrial employment market demand. There are only approximately 4,460 sq. m of office space in the catchment area, with very limited new office completions over the past five years. The closest office submarket is the Scarborough Town Centre (fully 3.4 kilometres (km) distant), which has 455,200 sq. m of office inventory, but which has seen very limited new office completions over the past ten years; absorption in this submarket has averaged a nominal 2,600 sq. m per annum over the past five years. Average Class A office market rents (at $147.89 per sq. m) are insufficient to warrant new office construction. The catchment area’s industrial employment market is equally poor with 157,900 sq. m of industrial employment space, but virtually no new supply added over the past five years. The broader Scarborough industrial market is weak, having lost an average of 34,800 sq. m of industrial space occupancy per annum over the past five years.

The station is similarly not well-situated relative to residential condominium demand. There are very few condominium units actively being marketed in the catchment area, nor have there been any sales for five years. (Sales/marketing data for single detached, semi-detached, townhouses, etc. are not available.) The broader Scarborough South condominium market, with most activity occurring near Kingston Road, has modest demand, with approximately 1,600 actively marketed condominium units, of which approximately 600 are unsold; absorption has averaged a modest 276 units per annum, representing a full 25-month supply. Average condominium prices (at $4,811 per sq. m) are insufficient for new economic condominium construction.

While there are approximately 24,500 sq. m of retail shopping centre space within the catchment area, very little new retail shopping centre space has been developed over the past five years.

Relationship to Future Market Demand

The station is not well-situated relative to like future employment market demand. There are approximately 9,000 sq. m of office/industrial employment density currently subject to development applications, the vast majority of which is likely industrial space. This nominal amount of applied for employment development indicates weak future employment market demand. While soft sites have the theoretical potential to generate approximately 44,600 sq. m of employment demand, historic and current demand patterns indicate that only a small proportion of the space will likely be developed over the next 15 years.

The station is not well-situated relative to likely future residential demand. As discussed in Section 4.4.2, development applications represent approximately 1,900 units, and soft sites offer the potential for a further 818,000 sq. m of residential development density. However, historic and current residential demand trends have not indicated a market for that degree of density, and a station at Lawrence East is not anticipated to reverse this entrenched market trend. However, there is an opportunity to work with Toronto and landowners to encourage comprehensive and aggressive transit-oriented development.

The station is not well-situated relative to likely future retail demand. There are approximately 3,350 sq. m of retail development applications as well as 32,000 sq. m of soft site retail development potential within the catchment area. However, new retail shopping centre development within the catchment area has (over the past five years) been limited. Future residential development within the catchment area will not likely generate substantial retail demand. However, retail space typically has a larger trade area than the 800 m radius studied here, so some retail development is theoretically possible.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

4.4.4 Natural Environment

The station site is within 800 m of Toronto’s Natural Heritage System, namely West Highland Creek and the Gatineau Hydro Corridor southeast of the site, which are also Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Regulated Areas and part of the Highland Creek Regulatory Flood Plain. As per Ontario Regulation 166/06, development of and interference with regulated wetlands, shorelines, watercourses, and areas subject to flooding may be restricted. It is not near any Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest.

Rail traffic along the GO Stouffville corridor is and will continue to be a source of noise and vibration impacts for adjacent properties. With the increase in train traffic associated with the proposed RER program, it is anticipated that noise and vibration impacts will also increase. In addition, train deceleration and acceleration associated with new service to Lawrence East would be expected to result in further noise and air-quality impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors. However, the station will be located in an area of existing heavy rail traffic associated with the Scarborough RT, so the station’s incremental impact is expected to be marginal. Potential noise impacts associated with the new station will require further evaluation through an Environmental Assessment study in accordance with MOE, City of Toronto, and GO Transit noise regulations.

The new Lawrence East station is proposed to be situated entirely within an existing rail corridor. This poses contamination-related concerns typical of rail facilities. Construction of station elements (such as the platform and pedestrian tunnels) would likely require excavation and removal of potentially contaminated materials including contaminated rail ballast, bedding and fill material associated with the use of slag, coal cinders, and ash. Excess soil will require waste classification in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Regulatory requirements in place at the time of construction, as well as excess materials management guidelines and specifications, would have to be used when developing an excess materials management plan in accordance with MOE standards, Ontario Regulation 153/04, and Ontario Provincial Standard Specification 180 (General Specification for the Management of Excess Materials).

4.5 Network, Connectivity, and Accessibility

The following criteria examine how the new station will connect and interact with existing and committed transit and active transportation networks and surrounding land uses. They also describe the general ridership potential for the new station. 4.5.1 Operational System

The new Lawrence East station would be located 2.10 km north of Kennedy GO and 4.20 km south of Agincourt. Another potential new station on the same line, Ellesmere, would be located 1.88 km to the north of Lawrence East. The distance gap between the existing stations is 6.30 km.

While a station at Lawrence East would have some potential to address access constraints at adjacent stations (because there is high demand for parking at Agincourt, and Kennedy GO currently lacks parking and PPUDO facilities), only limited parking would be provided at the new station.

There would be minimal overlap of the new station’s catchment area with that of Kennedy. An indirect alternate route to downtown would be possible via TTC bus and subway lines. However, there would be little direct duplication.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

4.5.2 Connectivity and Ridership Drivers

Ridership forecasts indicate that Lawrence East would attract an estimated 495 new passenger trips in the AM peak period in the 2031 scenario, or approximately 1,405 new trips per day. The station would serve predominantly as an origin station (rather than a destination station), with virtually no passengers expected to alight at the station in the AM peak period. Additionally, an estimated 60 existing GO rail passengers would be expected to use the new station, instead of their current station, to enter the GO rail system during the AM peak period (175 passengers daily).

While the introduction of this station would have the potential to attract a number of new riders to the system, it would also result in an additional delay for a significant number of existing riders destined to Union Station and beyond. An estimated 5% increase in overall travel time would be experienced by upstream riders as a result of trains stopping at Lawrence East. Any delay is expected to deter some existing upstream riders, in this case, resulting in a loss of approximately 665 passengers is anticipated in the AM peak period, or almost 1,895 riders per day, in the 2031 scenario.

When balanced against the estimated new ridership that the station would generate, an expected net loss of approximately 170 new AM peak riders (490 daily) is anticipated to result from the introduction of a station at Lawrence East.

A new station at Lawrence East would require that existing access points for the SRT station be moved to a new location on the Lawrence Avenue overpass, allowing proposed vertical transfer facilities to provide a connection to the RER station below. Further study is required to determine the impact of the station on local transit ridership. Given that the Scarborough RT is planned for removal, a new GO station at the site will not connect to any other higher-order transit modes.

There are five local destinations within 800 m of the station site. In addition, the station would serve five destinations of city-wide significance, and a further two regional destinations with the potential to attract riders from across the GO network. A full list of destinations follows:

Retail/Commercial 4. Jack Goodlad Community Centre 1. Kennedy Road BIA 5. McGregor Park Community Centre 2. Midland Lawrence Plaza 3. White Shield Plaza Place of Worship 1. Jesus Ministries International Community/Park 2. Midland Park Baptist Church 1. Arsandco Park 3. Jame Abu Bakr Siddique Masjid 2. Bendale Business and Technical Institute 4. Bethel Church of God 3. Centennial College Midland Campus

While most streets in the area have sidewalks, there are no cycling lanes and few trails in the area. There are currently no direct cycling connections to the station site, and the nearest connection to a multi-use trail is 900 m from the station.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 4-3: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Transit Network

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Figure 4-4: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Active Transportation Infrastructure

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

4.5.3 Station Access

Lawrence East’s conceptual design supports access by walking, cycling, local transit, PPUDO, and limited parking. Two GO bicycle parking shelters are proposed to accommodate riders anticipated to access the station by bicycle. Direct connection could be made to TTC bus route # 54 every seven minutes, requiring only a vertical transfer from the rail platform to the bus shelter. While the surrounding environment is not pedestrian-friendly, walk-up ridership is facilitated by sidewalks along most streets connecting to the station. The station is approximately 400 m from both Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue, and 225 m (or, as proposed, one vertical transfer) from Lawrence Avenue East. 4.5.4 Social Inclusivity and Accessibility

Disadvantaged Residents Served

The nearest Neighbourhood Improvement Area is Ionview, 0.5 kilometres to the south. Key income statistics for city wards5 within 800 m of the station site are also provided in the following table:

Ward 37 800 m City of Scarborough catchment Toronto Centre area average Average household income (2010) $65,749 $87,038 Median household income (2011)6 $52,803 Households spending >30% of income on shelter 33.4% 36.6% % population in low-income households 20.1% 19.3%

Household incomes in the surrounding area are significantly below average, although distance (a 15-minute walk along Kennedy Road), the Stouffville/SRT rail corridor, and the nearby Hydro corridor all pose barriers to residents in the nearest Neighbourhood Improvement Area. Lawrence East would therefore have moderate potential to serve low-income and disadvantaged residents in the area.

Accessibility Index

In order to assess the potential Lawrence East site, the Accessibility Model was used to test the area before and after the potential station is placed on the network. There are two key metrics produced by this model. The first is the Access to Transit (ATT) output which is a rating of the level of transit service available. This index is based on walking distance to transit stops as well as the waiting time at the said transit stop. The second output used is the Accessibility Index (AI) which represents the level of transit service, with higher AIs representing more frequent, nearby transit service.

The station’s surrounding area has a low Accessibility Index (AI) compared to other locations under consideration in other GO RER IBCs. If a new station at Lawrence East were to be built, the AI would be anticipated to increase from 23 to 25, an increase of 7%. However, the planned removal of the SRT may reduce the area’s baseline AI, resulting in a more significant increase in AI were Lawrence East to be built. With the addition of the station, the ATT would increase from 6.6 to 6.7, a 2% increase.

5 City of Toronto 2011 Ward Profiles 6 Metrolinx memo (April 29, 2016): “DRAFT - New Stations and Access to Transit”

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

In terms of accessibility to landmarks and destinations, there are 12 destinations within 800 m of the station site (see Section 4.5.2 for details).

Aesthetic Impacts

The aesthetic of the station area would not change significantly if Lawrence East were to be built. The most significant visual change would be the construction of new station access facilities (elevators and covered stairs) to provide pedestrian and bus passenger access down to the station platform from the Lawrence Avenue bridge. As shown in the station’s conceptual design (Section 3.4), the station would replace the existing Scarborough RT station building (west of the rail corridor) with a new plaza and PPUDO facility beneath Lawrence Avenue East. There would minimal changes to the existing SRT infrastructure east of the rail corridor (i.e., surface parking lots). The station will neither remove barriers nor create new ones, although a new crash wall is proposed behind the townhouse development on Jenkinson Way that may have adverse aesthetic impacts on townhouse residents.

Safety Impacts

In the station’s conceptual design, the single central platform will be accessed by elevators, stairs, and tunnels, the latter potentially resulting in safety concerns particularly if not well-lit or adequately monitored. The platform itself will be set back from nearby streets and somewhat concealed behind existing walls and fences, limiting the amount of natural surveillance possible.

Community/Cultural Impacts

There are no designated heritage properties within 800 m of the station site. However, there are six community facilities within 800 m of the station site:

 McGregor Park Community Centre  Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute  Bendale Business and Technical Institute  Centennial College (Midland Campus)  Dorset Park Public School  Jack Goodlad Community Centre

None of these community facilities directly abut the rail corridor or are near enough to the station site to be directly affected.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

4.6 Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Implications for the Strategic Case under the various sensitivity scenarios are discussed in the following table:

Scenario Options Description

 Option 1 for the station assumes that any future express trains on the Stouffville line stop at the station  If the service concept was modified such that express trains on the Stouffville line bypass the new station, negative impacts to riders using the station (inability to use express trains) would likely be outweighed by the time savings for riders not Scenario Option 2A/B (Combined using the station; as a result, the impacts of the station on travel time savings, Track Infrastructure and Service VKTs, emissions, and new revenue may be improved Concept Sensitivity)  The inclusion of a third track would allow express trains to bypass the station and would require an alternative station concept, likely featuring two side platforms on the outside tracks – as a result, the station may not connect directly to Lawrence and the ease of transfer with local transit would be significantly reduced  Further ridership modelling is required to quantify the impacts of the two potential service concepts Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time  Option not considered for this IBC – dwell time assumed to be typical Sensitivity)  TTC fare at the new station may increase the ridership (boardings and alightings) at the station and could increase the positive impacts of the station on travel time savings, VKTs, and emissions; however, the net impact to new revenue may be Scenario Option 2D (Fare negative and requires further study Sensitivity)  The station’s long-term effect on the sociodemographic make-up of the surrounding area will depend to some extent on factors including the fare structure used. Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and  Option not considered for this IBC – anticipated growth and real estate market Land Use Sensitivity) demand are not significantly above average for the corridor

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

5. Financial Case

5.1 Financial Case Summary

The Financial Case for Lawrence East reveals that the construction and operation of the new station would generate a negative net present value (NPV) of –$78.5 million over a 60-year time horizon. The negative NPV combines the capital expenditure and the recurring station and train operating costs, combined estimated at $45.8 million, as well as a loss in fare revenue of $32.7 million resulting from lost ridership. These results imply a revenue-to-cost ratio and operating cost recovery ratio that results in a revenue loss against total project costs and total operating costs. Table 5-1 summarizes the key results of the Financial Case.

Table 5-1: Financial Case Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value)

Lawrence Financial Case Summary Results (Millions of 2015$, PV) East Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) -12.8 Fare Revenue (A) -$32.7 Total Costs (B) $45.8 Capital Costs $23.2 Operating Costs (C) $22.6 Net Present Value (A-B) -$78.5 Revenue to Cost Ratio (A/B) all-loss Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) all-loss

A legend is contained in Appendix D.

5.2 Approach

The Financial Case compares the incremental capital expenditure, operating and maintenance costs and fare revenues for the new station relative to the base case scenario (i.e. without the new station). The assessment is based on 2031 ridership estimates grown by corridor from 2013 levels and assumes that demand will grow at the same rate as the demand in the corridor.

The dollar figures for the 60-year evaluation period from the potential construction start date (2022) through to the end of 2081 are in nominal dollars (i.e. the dollar figure expected to be paid or received expressed in the year of the payment). Nominal dollars are calculated assuming an annual inflation rate of 2%. The annual costs and revenues are discounted back to a single value using a nominal discount rate of 5.5%. Once discounted, the total costs are compared against the incremental fare revenues to derive the net present value for the financial case as well as the lifecycle revenue to cost ratio and the operating cost recovery ratio.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

The Financial Case is developed on the basis of conventional public sector funding of the capital investment undertaken by Metrolinx. Potential partnership opportunities to reduce Metrolinx’s capital investment will be explored in future phases of work. Appendix A summarizes all the financial baseline assumptions and data sources.

5.3 Financial Criteria

The financial criteria consist of the financial implications of constructing and operating the proposed new station in terms of lifecycle costs and revenues for Metrolinx. Costs include the capital expenditure as well as incremental station and train operating costs. Incremental revenues may include fare revenue, advertising, and proceeds from disposal of assets. However, at this stage, the assessment only considers the additional fare revenues for GO. The dollar figures below are in present value (PV) terms, unless otherwise indicated. 5.3.1 Capital Costs

Capital costs include both direct and non-direct costs incurred to construct the station. Direct costs relate to the actual construction of the infrastructure; non-direct costs cover all related costs such as those related to risk/contingency, design and project management. Major refurbishments over the 60-year life cycle also form part of the station’s capital costs.

Based on the station concept presented in Figure 3-1, the order-of-magnitude station cost includes property acquisition, a 50% contingency allowance, and a 15% allowance for engineering, construction administration, and management.

The station would be constructed largely within the GO Stouffville corridor. However, in order to provide a straight platform, the GO Stouffville tracks would have to be realigned, and the existing Scarborough RT infrastructure removed. The proposed realignment would extend approximately 300 m past the ends of the passenger platform, resulting in a total of approximately 915 m of relocated track.

Other major cost items associated with the construction of Lawrence East include:

 A passenger services building  Four elevators/stairs  Lawrence Avenue entrance structures to connect bus services to the station platforms  New platform with three shelters  New roadway and pedestrian environment enhancements

This cost estimate includes refurbishment costs for key project elements at varying intervals, including station amenities (platform, shelters, elevators, etc.), railway modifications, site and access provisions (roadworks, sidewalks, parking facilities, etc.) and structures.

Over the 60-year lifespan of the project, capital costs amount to an estimated total of approximately $23.2M ($2015, discounted). 5.3.2 Station Operating and Maintenance Costs

The annual operating and maintenance costs consist of labour and station and ticketing machine operating and maintenance costs. They are estimated by comparing the total system operating and maintenance costs with and

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

without the new station using the RER Model Second Generation. The station operating and maintenance costs are assumed to grow at a nominal rate of 2.05% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter.

For this Financial Analysis, the additional station operating costs associated with Lawrence East are anticipated to be $0.62M for the first year of operation (2024), or $9.9M ($2015, discounted) over the lifecycle of the station. 5.3.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs

The incremental train operating costs consist primarily of crew costs, operations administration and management and wayside power. They are also estimated using the RER Model Second Generation. The assessment assumes that the train operating costs fluctuate at annual nominal rates varying between –2.8% and 2.8% until 2044 and remain constant thereafter.

The introduction of a Lawrence East station to the GO Stouffville line is expected to impose a 1.8-minute delay per train serving the station. This time is due to train deceleration, dwell time to serve passengers, and acceleration to return to operating speed. For this Financial Analysis, the additional train operating costs associated with stopping at Lawrence East are anticipated to be $0.76M in the first year of operation (2024), or $12.7M ($2015, discounted) over the 60-year lifecycle of the station.

Table 5-2: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value, 60-Year Period)

Lawrence Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (Millions of 2015 $, PV) East Capital Costs $23.2 Subtotal - Capital Cost Elements $21.0 Property Allowance $0.1 Professional Services (15%) $2.1 Station Operating Costs $9.9 Train Operating Costs $12.7 Total Costs $45.8

5.3.4 Incremental Fare Revenues

The ridership impacts are based on 2031 ridership estimates and projected using an annual ridership growth rate assumption of 4.0% until 2044 and no ridership growth thereafter. Average fares per category of riders were applied to the annual ridership estimates to derive the change in fare revenues.

summarizes the change in ridership and in fare revenues over a 60-year period.

As discussed, ridership forecasts for Lawrence East station indicate that the estimated uptake of new riders at the station would not offset the loss of riders due to the additional trip time associated with stopping at the station. The net loss in ridership is significant, and its impacts greater when considered from a revenue perspective. New riders would be paying a lower fare to Union Station than those lost, amplifying the effects of the loss. This net ridership loss would result in an overall net revenue loss of approximately $32.7M ($2015, discounted) over the 60-year lifecycle of the station.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Table 5-3: Additional Ridership and Fare Revenue (60-Year Period)

Lawrence Additional Riders and Fare Revenue East Total Additional GO Ridership (Millions) –12.8 New Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 36.8 New Through Riders Alighting at Station 0.0 Change in Upstream Boardings –49.6 Total Additional GO Fare Revenues (Millions of 2015 $, PV) –$32.7 5.3.5 Revenues from Other Sources

Revenue from Land Value Capture (LVC)

Given the station’s conceptual design (see Section 3.4), lands owned and/or to be purchased by Metrolinx will contain no significant parcels that could potentially be redeveloped in the short- or long-term. The station is also poorly situated relative to current and probable future residential, office, retail, or industrial demand. The station therefore offers little potential revenue for Metrolinx in the form of land value capture, i.e., the ability to generate revenues from station land disposition, lease, or joint development.

Other revenues

The project could potentially generate additional revenue from other sources. The new station provides an opportunity for Metrolinx to increase its advertising, concession, and lease revenues. While ridership will contribute to potential retail sales, this alone will not generally be sufficient to create retail leasing opportunities. Access to other sources of retail traffic and sales (transit, pedestrian, and automotive) are also required. The examination and quantification of retail leasing and associated revenue generation is beyond the scope of this IBC. Broadly speaking (subject to pedestrian accessibility) there is potentially less advertising, concession, and lease revenue-generation potential at this station location than at others. 5.3.6 Net Present Value

The Net Present Value of a station is a representation of the cumulative financial implications of the undertaking, considering the station’s capital costs, refurbishment costs, station and train operating costs, and impacts on fare revenues, over the 60-year lifecycle of the station. The costs are presented in current ($2015) dollars, and take into consideration the influence of inflation on the year in which the costs are expended, or the revenues attained.

The Net Present Value for Lawrence East is approximately –$78.05 (2015, discounted), and is driven largely by the compounding loss of ridership (and ridership growth that would be otherwise achieved) associated with the additional delay imposed by the station, over its lifecycle. The impact of this lost revenue is exacerbated when also considering the costs to construct, maintain, and operate the station infrastructure. 5.3.7 Lifecycle Revenue to Cost Ratio

The net lifecycle revenue-to-cost ratio over the 60-year lifecycle of Lawrence East station indicates that the station will not generate sufficient revenue to offset its construction and maintenance costs.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

5.3.8 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio

The net operating cost recovery ratio over the 60-year lifecycle of Lawrence East station indicates that the station will not generate sufficient revenue to offset its operation costs.

5.4 Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Implications for the Financial Case under the various sensitivity scenarios are discussed in the following table.

Table 5-4: Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Scenario Options Description

 Option 1 for the station assumes that any future express trains on the Stouffville line stop at the station  If the service concept was modified such that express trains on the Stouffville line stop at the new station, negative impacts to riders using the station (inability to use express trains) would likely be outweighed by the time savings for riders not Scenario Option 2A/B (Combined using the station; as a result, net new revenue and net present value of the Track Infrastructure and Service station may increase Concept Sensitivity)  The inclusion of a third track would allow express trains to bypass the station and would require an alternative station concept which may differ significantly in capital costs required  Further ridership modelling is required to quantify the impacts of the two potential service concepts Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time  Option not considered for this IBC – dwell time assumed to be typical Sensitivity)  TTC fare at the new station may increase the ridership (boardings and alightings) Scenario Option 2D (Fare at the station; however, the net impact to new revenue may be negative and Sensitivity) requires further study Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and  Option not considered for this IBC – anticipated growth and real estate market Land Use Sensitivity) demand are not significantly above average for the corridor

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

6. Economic Case

6.1 Economic Case Summary

The Economic Case for Lawrence East indicates that travel-time delays for existing upstream GO riders (due to an additional stop at the new station) will outweigh time savings for new riders. These time penalties will cause some existing riders to shift away from GO to other transportation modes. When these delays and behavioural changes are considered, the station will result in a net increase in travel time, as well as a net increase in automobile use, compared to not building a new station at Lawrence East. Increased automobile use will also result in additional vehicle operating costs, deteriorating safety outcomes, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Lawrence East’s transportation user and environmental impacts therefore amount to a net cost of $325.6 million over the station’s 60-year evaluation period. Capital and operating costs for the new station are estimated at $41.8 million, resulting in a net loss of $367.4 million. The cost-benefit ratio indicates an overall disbenefit from the project from an economic perspective which means that for every dollar spent on the new station, there is a reduction of benefits compared to the base case for transportation users and society. In addition to these monetized impacts, the Economic Case provides a high-level qualitative assessment of the productivity gains, local real estate development, economic development opportunities (in terms of job creation and additional value added), and distributional impacts associated with the new station. Table 6-1 summarizes the key results of the Economic Case.

Table 6-1: Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, Present Value)

Lawrence Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (Millions of 2015 $, PV) East Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person-Hours) –37.6 Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) –181.7 Benefits –$325.6 Costs $41.8 Net Present Value –$367.4 Benefit-Cost Ratio all-loss Transportation User Impacts –$325.1 Travel Time Savings –$268.5 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings –$39.4 Decongestion on Road Network –$13.0 Safety Impacts –$4.2 Environmental Impacts –$0.5

6.2 Approach

The Economic Case highlights the overall value generated by the proposed station option(s). The benefit-cost analysis undertaken as part of the Economic Case documents and quantifies the project costs for the GTHA and

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Ontario, the transportation user impacts and the environmental outcomes which can be monetized and included in a cost-benefit analysis. The Economic Case does not consider incremental fare revenues because while they represent out-of-pocket costs to the users, they also represent a revenue gain to the transit operator, therefore offsetting each other overall. In other words, the GTHA is no better or worse off overall as a result of the change in fare revenue. All costs and benefits are stated in 2015 dollars. Once monetized and discounted, the economic and environmental impacts are compared to the capital and operating costs to derive the net present value and the benefit-cost ratio for the new station. The dollar figures below are in present value terms, using a real discount rate of 3.5% per year. Appendix A summarizes the economic case baseline assumptions.

6.3 Economic Criteria

The economic criteria examined in the cost-benefit assessment include the project costs, the transportation user impacts and the environmental impacts. In addition to the monetized impacts, the Economic Case considers the economic development impacts associated with the new station. These are assessed qualitatively. 6.3.1 Project Costs

6.3.1.1 Capital Costs

The project costs are based on the same cost estimates used in the Financial Case (see 0) but discounted using a real discount rate of 3.5%. Also, the economic assessment does not take into account land and property acquisition fees, which are considered a transfer between economic agents, as in the case of fare revenues.

Based on the station concept presented in Figure 3-1, the order-of-magnitude station cost includes a 50% contingency allowance and a 15% allowance for engineering, construction administration, and management. Over the 60-year lifespan of the project, the combined costs amount to an estimated total of approximately $19.6M ($2015, discounted).

6.3.1.2 Station Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

For this Economic Analysis, the additional station operating costs associated with a proposed station at Lawrence East are anticipated to be $0.52M in the first year of operation (2024), or $9.7M ($2015, discounted) over the 60- year lifecycle of the station. 6.3.1.3 Incremental Train Operating Costs

Lawrence East, serving the GO Stouffville line, is expected to impose a 1.8-minute delay per train serving the station. This time is due to train deceleration, dwell time to serve passengers, and acceleration to return to operating speed. For this Economic Analysis, the additional train operating costs associated with Lawrence East are anticipated to be $0.64M in the first year of operation, or $12.5M ($2015, discounted) over the 60-year lifecycle of the station. 6.3.2 Transportation User Impacts

The transportation user impacts consist of the travel time impacts, auto operating cost savings, decongestion impacts on the road network and road safety outcomes resulting from the new station. These benefits are monetized, discounted and incorporated into the benefit-cost analysis, as shown in Table 6-1 above.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

6.3.2.1 Travel Time Savings

The travel time impacts are based on the same modelling process used to assess the change in ridership described above. The impacts are monetized using a value of time of $16.71 per hour which is assumed to rise at a real growth rate of 1.6% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter. Table 6-2 presents the travel time impacts by category of riders expressed in millions of passenger-hours and the total monetized travel time impacts over the time horizon.

Lawrence East is expected to cause an increased net travel time for new and existing passengers on the GO Stouffville line. The station is anticipated to act as an origin for new passengers, and travel-time savings for these passengers is estimated to be on the order 15 minutes for those within walking distance of the station, and five minutes for those traveling from further afield. While passengers alighting at the station are anticipated to be negligible compared to those boarding, those who did alight at Lawrence East would be expected to benefit from similar travel-time savings, approximately 15 minutes per passenger. For the 2031 horizon year, the cumulative passenger travel-time savings associated with the station are estimated to be 4,000 minutes per day.

However, passengers on the Stouffville line destined to stations beyond Lawrence East would experience a delay as a result of the new station. It is anticipated that service to Lawrence East would result in an additional 1.8 minutes of delay per passenger; for the 2031 horizon year used in this analysis, cumulative passenger delays associated with the new station are estimated to be 91,000 minutes per day.

Over the 60-year lifecycle of the station, the cumulative net total travel-time losses are estimated to be 37.6M hours. When a time value of $16.71/hour is applied, the net travel-time losses result in a total monetized transit user travel- time loss of $268.5M ($2015, discounted).

Table 6-2: Travel Time Impacts (60-Year Period)

Lawrence Travel Time Savings East Total Travel Time Savings (Millions of Passenger-Hours) –37.6 Upstream Users –39.1 Existing Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 0.3 New Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 1.3 Existing Through Riders 0.0 New Through Riders 0.0 Total Travel Time Savings (Millions of 2015$, PV) –$268.5

6.3.2.2 Change in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKTs)

Behavioural changes may result from expected time savings or penalties generated by the new station. For upstream users, the time penalty might encourage a modal switch towards auto use, resulting in additional VKTs. On the other hand, a portion of new users boarding or alighting at the new station might be switching from automobiles, resulting in VKT savings.

The introduction of a Lawrence East station is anticipated to have a significant impact on personal automobile use. The station is expected to attract approximately 1,400 new passengers daily (as of 2031), and ridership forecasts assume that 20% of these riders will have diverted to GO rail service from an automobile. Further, it is estimated that passengers’ current auto trips are, on average, approximately 23.5 km in length prior to transferring to GO service.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

However, it is estimated that approximately 1,895 daily passengers would be lost (as of 2031) as a result of the delays associated with a new Lawrence East station. Of these, ridership forecasts again assume that 20% would be diverted to automobiles, with an average trip length of 36 km per passenger.

The resulting net increase in VKTs is anticipated to be 181.7M vehicle-km over the lifecycle of the station.

Table 6-3: Changes in Auto Distances Traveled (60-Year Period)

Reduction in Auto Distances Traveled (Millions of VKTs) Lawrence East Upstream Users –352.6 Boarding or Alighting at New Station 170.9 Alighting Through 0.0 Total VKT Savings –181.7

6.3.2.3 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

Vehicle operating costs consist of out-of-pocket costs borne by individuals driving their vehicle. They are estimated by applying a value of 63 cents per unit change in VKTs. The unit cost is assumed to rise at a real growth rate of 0.7% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter.

Application of the above-noted unit average vehicle operating cost suggests that the introduction of a Lawrence East station would result in a net increase in vehicle operating costs of $39.4M ($2015, discounted) over the lifecycle of the station.

6.3.2.4 Decongestion Impacts on Road Network

The decongestion impacts are estimated by applying a value of 16.7 cents per unit change in VKTs. The assessment also assumes this value rises at a real growth rate of 1.6% until 2044.

Application of the above-noted unit average road decongestion cost suggests that the introduction of a Lawrence East station would result in a net increase of $13.0M in road congestion costs over the lifecycle of the station.

6.3.2.5 Safety Impacts

Automobile use carries a higher risk of death or injury than transit use. Consequently, any reduction in auto usage will result in a safety benefit. The safety benefits are monetized by applying a value of 8 cents to the change in VKTs to account for the accidents and collisions resulting from the changes in vehicle kilometres driven.

Application of the above-noted unit safety benefit cost suggests that the introduction of a Lawrence East station would result in a net increase of $4.2M in safety-related costs over the lifecycle of the station.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

6.3.3 Environmental Impacts

6.3.3.1 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts

Encouraging transit use results in lower emissions of greenhouse gases. The emission of greenhouse gases has an environmental cost associated with it, and the mode shift generated by the new station has a benefit that can be monetised. The change in greenhouse gases results from a reduction in auto vehicle-kilometres travelled from the mode shift away from auto use. The environmental impacts are monetized by applying a unit value of 1 cent per VKT saved. These benefits do not take into account the additional GHG emissions resulting from the additional train acceleration and deceleration at the new station.

Application of the above-noted unit GHG emission cost savings suggests that the introduction of a Lawrence East station would result in a net increase of $0.5M in GHG emission costs ($2015, discounted) over the lifecycle of the station. 6.3.4 Benefit Cost Analysis Results

6.3.4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

The Net Present Value for Lawrence East is anticipated to be –$367.4M, driven largely by the compounding loss of ridership (and ridership growth that would be otherwise achieved) associated with the additional delay imposed by the station, over its lifecycle. The impact of this lost revenue is exacerbated when also considering the costs to construct, maintain, and operate the station infrastructure. 6.3.4.2 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

The BCR is calculated by dividing total discounted benefits by total discounted costs (capital and operating). A ratio lower than 1 indicates that benefits do not cover costs over the lifecycle and that the option under consideration is destroying economic value. A ratio higher than 1 indicates that benefits exceed costs over the project’s lifecycle and that the option under consideration is creating economic value.

The cost-benefit ratio of a new station at Lawrence East, over the 60-year lifecycle of the station indicates an overall disbenefit from the project from an economic perspective, which means that for every dollar spent on the new station, there is a reduction of benefits compared to the base case for transportation users and society. Its negative value results from the net loss in ridership due to the additional time required for trains to serve the station. 6.3.5 Economic Development Impacts

This IBC considers the following economic development impacts: agglomeration economies, project spending, income/distributional impacts, and property and land value changes. These wider economic benefits are almost entirely incremental to the benefits calculated under the transportation impacts above. However, substantial work is needed to quantify these benefits. Hence, they are only assessed qualitatively at this stage.

6.3.5.1 Wider Economic Benefits

The negative transportation user impacts assessed are likely to result in negative wider economic benefits. Agglomeration economies, the main source of wider economic benefits, represent the potential of a new station to bring jobs and economic activity closer together, leading to knowledge spill-overs, improved employer-employee matching, and other impacts that reduce transaction costs and encourage firm growth. These economies arise when a new station results in a reduction in generalized travel costs (i.e. time savings, reduced auto operating costs and

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

any road decongestion benefits which reduce the effective distance between economic activities). In this case, the generalized journey costs increase. Hence, we would expect negative wider economic impacts as a result of the introduction of the proposed station.

Other wider economic benefits include the impact of the station on imperfect competition and increased labour supply. The impact on imperfect competition represents the benefits resulting from increased competition between firms, spurring efficiency, innovation, reduced prices and increased consumer welfare. The increased labour supply refers more specifically to the increased tax revenues from increased labour force participation through improved access to employment resulting from lower travel costs. While further work is needed to quantify these wider economic benefits, they are unlikely to be positive given the negative transportation user impacts.

6.3.5.2 Economic Impacts

The economic impacts show how each dollar spent translates into direct and indirect output, employment and wages in the region. Impacts consist of both the temporary impacts expected to accrue as a result of the capital outlays to construct the new station and recurring annual impacts resulting from the operation of the station and additional train services. Hence, for the new station, the capital expenditure reported above is expected to create increased economic activity during the two-year construction period. In terms of operating expenditure, the impacts are expected to contribute only modestly to the region’s employment, earnings and GDP.

6.3.5.3 Income / Distributional Impacts

Adding a new station to the GO network contributes social/community benefits for different social groups, including the elderly population and lower income households.

The elderly population relies on regional and local transit for access to goods and services to meet their everyday needs in the regional and urban centres (such as medical services). Hence, the new station is expected to provide the elderly with an improved alternative to travelling by car to access services and to support their ability to travel with independence, thereby enhancing their quality of life. The new station could also support the creation of additional housing opportunities for the elderly population, closer to necessary services in the centres, as additional transit oriented development takes place near the station.

The lower income population also has a strong need for mobility choices and is particularly reliant on transit to access jobs, training and education. The new station could thus play a role in providing improved accessibility to key employment centres and enhance overall mobility options for the area. It could also offer additional opportunities for those living close to the station and will reduce the need for low income households to obtain access to a first or second car. Other social groups such as youth and school aged children may also be impacted. Further work is needed to fully assess the distributional impacts at the station.

The median income in the station’s 800-m catchment area is 30% less than that of the GTHA as a whole. Additional details about the station’s proximity to low-income neighbourhoods and designated Neighbourhood Improvement Areas are available in Section 4.5.4. Station accessibility is addressed in Section 3. 6.3.5.4 Property and Land Value Changes

The station’s potential for Metrolinx land value capture is addressed in Section 5.3.5. However, the construction of a new station at Lawrence East also has the potential to affect surrounding property values. This “land value uplift” is the increase in the catchment area’s assessed value base likely to result from the introduction or enhancement of higher order transit. Factors that can affect property value uplift potential (related to the development of higher-order

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

transit) include travel time savings, current assessed property values, economic/market development potential, the extent and nature of developable land, public urban renewal/revitalization plans, private master development plans, the extent and nature of mobility hub plans, the extent and nature of land ownership, and the municipal, regional, and provincial regulatory environment.

Given that the station would be replacing an existing SRT station, limited property value uplift is projected for the lands surrounding Lawrence East, totalling approximately $79M ($2015) by 2031. Almost all of this value uplift will emanate from existing property value uplift, as there is limited demand for new development. Methodological details for this estimate are contained in Appendix C.

6.4 Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Implications for the Economic Case under the various sensitivity scenarios are discussed in the following table.

Table 6-4: Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Scenario Options Description

 Option 1 for the station assumes that any future express trains on the Stouffville line stop at the station  If the service concept was modified such that express trains on the Stouffville line bypass the new station, negative impacts to riders using the station (inability to use express trains) would likely be outweighed by the time savings for riders not Scenario Option 2A/B (Combined using the station; as a result, the impacts of the station on travel time savings, Track Infrastructure and Service VKTs, emissions, and net new revenue may be improved Concept Sensitivity)  Further ridership modelling is required to quantify the impacts of the two potential service concepts  The inclusion of a third track would allow express trains to bypass the station and would require an alternative station concept which may differ in capital costs required; additionally, the station may not connect directly to Lawrence Avenue West and the ease of transfer with local transit would be significantly reduced Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time  Option not considered for this IBC – dwell time assumed to be typical Sensitivity)  TTC fare at the new station may increase the ridership (boardings and alightings) Scenario Option 2D (Fare at the station and could increase the positive impacts of the station on travel time Sensitivity) savings, VKTs, and emissions; however, the net impact to new revenue may be negative and requires further study Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and  Option not considered for this IBC – anticipated growth and real estate market Land Use Sensitivity) demand are not significantly above average for the corridor

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

7. Deliverability and Operations Case

7.1 Deliverability and Operations Case Summary

The Delivery and Operations Case for Lawrence East concludes that the station could be constructed within the existing rail corridor, contingent on the removal of existing Scarborough RT infrastructure, with moderate complexity (i.e., track realignment of approximately 300 m on both approaches to the platform). Limited private property acquisitions will be necessary, and the station’s proximity to residential areas will result in noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors. Traffic disruptions during construction are expected to be minimal. A provincial Environmental Assessment or Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) will be required, and environmental impacts to the nearby West Highland Creek are possible, although these should be able to be mitigated.

Table 7-1: Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Results

Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Lawrence East Requires track realignment, property acquisitions, and Constructability removal of SRT station and infrastructure Stakeholder Impacts Typical impacts expected Room for Growth Limited expansion potential Approvals/Permits Required Only TPAP and normal permits required Operating Impacts No provision for express trains to bypass station Other Key Risks and Impacts None

7.2 Approach

The Deliverability and Operations Case provides evidence of the ease of constructing the station, operating service through the station, and the further steps required before a station can be implemented. This case also outlines the project risks known at this stage, such as disruption during construction and potential operating changes that affect the performance of the station. Except where otherwise specified (see Section 7.3.5), this IBC assumes that all local service trains on the Stouffville line will stop at the new station, and that the overall GO service concept would otherwise be unaffected by the new station.

7.3 Deliverability and Operations Criteria 7.3.1 Constructability

The proposed Lawrence East station could be constructed within the existing rail corridor, but would be contingent on the removal of the existing Scarborough RT system, including the existing Lawrence East SRT station. The GO Stouffville corridor provides sufficient width to accommodate the station and a twinned rail line. However, there is an existing shift in the corridor’s alignment at Lawrence Avenue. As such, a station platform developed at Lawrence

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Avenue within the existing corridor would have to include two curves, introducing issues with platform-train gaps and operator sight lines. The station’s conceptual design therefore proposes the acquisition of private property on the approaches to the proposed station, in order to accommodate track realignment and a straight passenger platform.

The station’s conceptual design includes a proposed track realignment of approximately 300 m on both approaches to the platform, in order to widen the gap between the rail lines and accommodate an island platform. This realignment would use large track radii (700 m as shown on the conceptual design), allowing express trains to maintain speed through the station. Property impacts are expected to be limited to four parcels of land currently owned by the TTC and City of Toronto, now occupied by Scarborough RT facilities including track, station, traction power substation, and PPUDO.

Given that the station is relatively secluded from local roads, it is anticipated that most construction could occur without impacts to traffic operations. Road works associated with the reconstruction of existing parking lots on the east side of the station, as well as construction of a new parking lot on the site of the existing traction power substation (to be removed), could likely be accommodated entirely on-site. Short-term lane closures on Lawrence Avenue East may be required to implement new street-level elevator connections. 7.3.2 Stakeholder Impacts

Implementation of the proposed station would require an Environmental Assessment (EA) to identify the range of environmental impacts associated with the project, mitigation measures needed to address these impacts, and commitments to address issues that would be more appropriately dealt with at later stages of the project. The EA process includes a structured program of stakeholder consultations to assist with identifying impacts. It is difficult to anticipate all site-specific impacts prior to undertaking an EA, but some expected environmental impacts include those associated with:

 Noise and vibration (due to construction and operation of vehicles)  Air quality (relating to vehicle emissions, dust, etc.)  Built heritage (potential presence of heritage stations, buildings, bridges, culverts, landscapes)  Archaeology  Natural heritage (e.g., species at risk, wetlands, in-water works, vegetation)  Traffic and changes to travel patterns as a result of the project (including and relating to disruption during construction, increased train crossings at-grade, etc.)  Socio-economic impacts

Regulatory processes are in place to ensure these impacts are addressed. There are numerous mitigation measures available for addressing impacts; some examples include noise walls, silt fences, dust suppression, and environmental monitoring. The nature of impacts varies with the type of infrastructure and nearby receptors. Property takings are often required, impacting private landowners. Stakeholders may also be affected by disruptions from utility relocations, traffic, noise, and other potential impacts mentioned above.

Corridor work including tracks, signals, and alterations to bridges and structures will also have impacts during both construction and ongoing operations.

Impacts are generally more pronounced in areas where there are sensitive receptors such as residential or institutional areas, natural areas, or areas with heritage resources present. In the case of Lawrence East, nearby residents may be affected, although these residents already experience similar impacts associated with existing rail and Scarborough RT operations.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

There are no designated heritage properties or community facilities (schools, community centres, recreational facilities) immediately adjacent to the station site, although Arsandco Park is immediately east of the rail corridor.

Lawrence East would be located in an urbanized area, and the potential for impacts to significant natural environment features associated with the station is minimal. Any such impacts would be subject to further detailed assessment and consultation with the appropriate agencies (e.g., Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, etc.) during the Transit Project Assessment Process phase of the project. The station is not expected to impact any floodplains or watercourses, Toronto’s Natural Heritage System, nor any Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) or Environmentally Significant Areas.

However, the station would be located approximately 180 m south of the existing West Highland Creek, which crosses under the rail corridor in a culvert. Construction works associated with track realignment have the potential to impact this watercourse. With appropriate construction management techniques (e.g., sediment and erosion control measures to prevent sediment-laden runoff from the construction zone into the watercourse), it is expected that potential impacts can be mitigated.

It is assumed that the existing Lawrence SRT station site would be acquired by Metrolinx and used as a construction staging area. Residents adjacent to the rail corridor would likely be subject to construction noise and dust typical of site redevelopment and roadworks in urban neighbourhoods, mainly associated with the removal of existing station infrastructure and the construction of new surface parking lots.

Rail traffic along the GO Stouffville corridor is and will continue to be a source of noise and vibration impacts for adjacent properties. With the increase in train traffic associated with the proposed RER program, it is anticipated that noise and vibration impacts will also increase. In addition, train deceleration and acceleration associated with new service to Lawrence East could be expected to result in further noise and air-quality impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors, including residential developments east of the rail corridor and south of Lawrence Avenue. However, these residents are currently experiencing similar impacts associated with GO Transit and Scarborough RT operations in the corridor, and as such, the incremental impacts of a new Lawrence East station would be somewhat less than at an entirely new station site. Potential noise impacts associated with the new station will require further evaluation through an Environmental Assessment study in accordance with MOE, City of Toronto, and GO Transit noise protocols.

Lawrence East is proposed to be situated primarily within an existing rail corridor. This poses contamination-related concerns typical of rail facilities. In addition, lands to be acquired on the east side of the GO Stouffville rail corridor are designated as industrial employment lands, which also pose contamination-related concerns. The construction of station elements (such as the platform) would likely require excavation and removal of potentially contaminated materials including contaminated rail ballast, bedding and fill material associated with the use of slag, coal cinders, and ash. Excess soil will require waste classification in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Regulatory requirements in place at the time of construction, as well as excess materials management guidelines and specifications, would have to be used when developing an excess materials management plan in accordance with MOE standards, Ontario Regulation 153/04, and Ontario Provincial Standard Specification 180 (General Specification for the Management of Excess Materials). During typical rail operations, potential risks associated with contamination are limited to spills including diesel, oil, etc. These may result in site contamination within the rail corridor. 7.3.3 Room for Growth

The proposed Lawrence East station would be located in a fairly established and constrained site with limited potential to expand in the future. The station would be situated under the Lawrence Avenue overpass, and between

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

the structure abutments to the east and west. In this section of the rail corridor, there exists a lateral shift resulting in curves at both the north and south ends of the station. While the station concept includes a proposed track realignment within the corridor to accommodate a straight passenger platform, any further platform extension to accommodate longer train sets may require introduction of platform curves or acquisition of additional property. 7.3.4 Approvals/Permits Required

Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP)

The proposed station would require a provincial environmental approval. Ontario Regulation 231/08 (Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings) exempts proponents of all public transit projects from the requirements under Part II of the Ontario Environmental Assessment (EA) Act (EAA), and establishes a process that applicable projects must follow in order to be exempt. Ontario Regulation 231/08 outlines a six-month “Transit Project Assessment Process” (TPAP), which a proponent must follow for certain classes of transit projects including the development of new stations within or adjacent to residential land uses (i.e., this project). The TPAP provides a framework for a focused consultation process so that an assessment of a project’s potential environmental impacts can be completed within six months.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

Under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA, 2012), which came into effect on July 6, 2012, proponents of “designated” projects are required to follow a federal environmental assessment process. A new station at Lawrence East would not meet the definition of a “designated” project under the CEAA, and it is therefore not anticipated that this station would require approval under the CEAA.

Other approvals required

In order to implement the station, Metrolinx may need to secure additional permits and approvals. The following list of permits and approvals reflects those typical of this type of project in the City of Toronto:

 Planning review (such as Site Plan Approval or equivalencies) for above-grade structures and facilities (through the City of Toronto)  Building permits for the passenger services building, elevator/stair accesses, and pedestrian tunnels  Permit(s) to Take Water (from the Ministry of the Environment), for locations where dewatering exceeds 50,000 litres per day  Stormwater management, in accordance with City of Toronto, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and Ministry of the Environment requirements  Sewer discharge approvals, in accordance with City of Toronto and TRCA requirements  Environmental Compliance Approvals for Air Quality and Noise in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act (through the MOE)  Permits for construction within existing road allowances (through the City of Toronto)  Applicable Ontario Energy Board approvals for utility relocations  City of Toronto Bylaws (including Ravine, Natural Feature Protection, Private Tree, Street Tree, and Parks) are to be complied with, as applicable. Metrolinx must obtain all necessary permits from the City of Toronto for tree protection/removal upon confirmation of the impacts to applicable trees.

The specific requirements for the above-noted permits and approvals would be identified throughout the TPAP phase of the project.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

7.3.5 Operating Impacts

As proposed, the station concept does not provide for express service trains by-passing the station on a separate track. As a result, it is anticipated that all trains (including any future express service) on the Stouffville line will stop at the new station. 7.3.6 Other Key Risks and Impacts

No additional key risks or impacts have been identified for the station (beyond those identified through other criteria elsewhere in this framework).

7.4 Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenarios

Implications for the Deliverability and Operations Case under the various sensitivity scenarios are discussed in the following table:

Scenario Options Description

 Option 1 for the station assumes that any future express trains on the Stouffville line stop at the station Scenario Option 2A/B (Combined  The inclusion of a third track would allow express trains to bypass the station and Track Infrastructure and Service would require an alternative station concept which may differ significantly in Concept Sensitivity) performance in the Deliverability and Operations Case – further detail cannot be provided at this time as the development of an alternative station concept was outside the scope of work for this analysis Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time  Option not considered for this IBC – dwell time assumed to be typical Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2D (Fare  Not anticipated to significantly affect the Delivery and Operations Case Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and  Option not considered for this IBC – anticipated growth and real estate market Land Use Sensitivity) demand are not significantly above average for the corridor

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

8. Conclusions and Findings

As a potential new GO station on the Stouffville line, Lawrence East offers some limited benefits, including the continued provision of higher-order transit to disadvantaged residents following the planned removal of the Lawrence East SRT station. While it would be located in an area of Toronto designated to accommodate growth and intensification, the catchment area’s low employment and population densities and limited real estate market demand may not support RER service at this time. Moreover, the station is predicted to result in a net ridership loss on the GO Stouffville line, increase automobile use by commuters, and yield a negative net present value. Lawrence East would also be complex to construct and/or phase in the context of the SRT. The assessment of Lawrence East’s potential concludes that the station performs moderately well in the Deliverability and Operations Case, marginally in the Strategic Case, and poorly in the Financial, and Economic Cases.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Appendix A: Financial and Economic Case Baseline Assumptions

Model Input Assumptions Metric Source(s)

Project Evaluation Period (Years) 60 Guidance Handbook_Feb2016.xls Year of Cost Estimates 2015 Guidance Handbook_Feb2016.xls Annual inflation rate – General Price Level 2% RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) AECOM estimate based on 5-year average of non- Annual Inflation Rate – Construction Spending 2% residential construction price index in Toronto (Statistics Canada) 250 (peak) RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Annualization Factor (days/year) 300 (off-peak) Business Case Development Handbook (Tier 3) Discount Rate, Nominal (%)7 5.5% RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Construction Period (start and end dates) 2022-2023 RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Discount Rate, Real (%) 3.5% RER Initial Business Case (June 2015) Value of Time ($/hr in 2015$) $16.71 Guidance Handbook_Feb2016.xls Value of Time Annual Growth Rate, Real (%) 1.6% (2015-2044) Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) and capped in 2044 Auto Operating Cost ($/VKT) $0.63 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Auto Operating Cost Growth Rate, Real (%) 0.7% Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Decongestion on Road Network ($/VKT) $0.167 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Decongestion on Road Network Growth Rate, Real 1.6% Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) (%) Accident Reduction Benefit ($/VKT) $0.08 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Costs in CO2e $0.01 Metrolinx Legacy Approach (Benefits cases) ($/VKT) Ridership annual growth rate – Lakeshore W (%) 2.4% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Milton (%) 1.3% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Kitchener (%) 4.6% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Barrie (%) 6.8% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Richmond Hill (%) 2.2% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Stouffville (%) 4.0% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Ridership annual growth rate – Lakeshore E (%) 2.5% to 2044 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 MX Travel Time Savings Spreadsheet Simulation 2031 MX TT Savings Spreadsheet v2.9 Year

7 Financial analysis is typically conducted in nominal currency (i.e. dollars expressed in year or period of spending). The nominal discount rate used should be consistent with the real discount rate used in cost-benefit analysis (see Section 6). The Metrolinx Business Case Handbook (tier 3) suggests the use of a real discount rate (i.e. after the inflation component is removed) of 3.5% for the benefit-cost analysis and an inflation rate of 2% for the financial analysis. Hence, this would imply that the relevant nominal discount rate for financial analysis should be 5.5%.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Appendix B: Travel Time Savings Analysis

Introduction

The analysis of alternative new stations relies upon a consideration of the changes in traveller behaviour that would occur in response to the presence of the proposed new stations. The stations provide new options for both existing GO Rail users and users of other transportation modes (other transit and auto). Existing GO Rail users may also be negatively impacted by the added stop at the new station. Examining travel time savings and delays associated with each new station is therefore the focal point of this analysis.

The new stations can have both positive and negative effects on transit passenger travel times:

 Passengers who use the new stations save travel time. The station access or egress time is lower than it would be without the new station, when access/egress would have been to the next closest station.  Passengers who do not use the new stations can experience a travel delay, due to the extra time required for the train trip to stop at the new station, typically 2-3 min. per station.

As a result of the travel time savings and delays, some travellers may shift their route or mode of transportation. There will be both gains and losses of RER passengers due to these route and mode shifts. Some passengers may be attracted to RER by the new stations and shift from non-GO routes to an RER trip or a combined RER+subway/bus trip. Other passengers may be diverted from RER due to the longer total travel time caused by the new station and shift from an RER trip to a subway/bus trip or a driving trip.

To account for the impacts of these new stations on passengers, it is helpful to categorize the different types of passengers into the five groups shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Segmentation of demand into five groups of passengers that experience a new station differently.

Would ride Would ride Accesses/ GO Rail Effect of new Passenger GO Rail egresses Description without station(s) on Type with new via new new travel time? station(s)? station(s)? station(s)? Existing & unaffected GO Rail riders No Change Group A    (“downstream” or express riders) (no delay or savings) Existing “upstream” GO Rail riders Group B   Delayed  (affected but do not change behaviour) Shift GO Rail access/egress station Group C   Time Savings  (existing but would prefer new station) Attracted to GO Rail (shift route/mode Group D   Time Savings  due to easier access/egress) Diverted from GO Rail (existing, shift Group E   Delayed  route/mode due to delay) Note: “downstream” means locations closer to Union Station than the new station site.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Combining these groups of passengers in different manners helps to understand what happens to overall GO Rail ridership at each new station:

 C + D = Gross riders that access/egress at the new station(s)  D – E = Net new riders on the GO Rail system due to the new station(s)  B, C, D, E: all affected by addition of new stations, and experience either a positive or negative time impact. The impact is different for each group.

The primary drivers of travel time savings benefits and offsetting impacts can be summarized as follows:

 Drivers of Travel Time Savings o High employment or full-time post-secondary institution within 1 km of the station (i.e., surrounding land uses attract AM peak alighting riders). o New boarding riders within 1km of station (i.e., ability to walk to station). o A “through” service stopping at the station after letting most passengers off at Union Station (i.e., very little or no “upstream” existing riders are delayed).  Offsets to Travel Time Savings o High number of “upstream” passengers that are delayed with no express service option to bypass the new station. o High delay at station (e.g., on slower accelerating diesel locomotive-hauled trip). o Presence of an attractive parallel transit service (e.g., TTC subway) that may compete with the new station.

Alighting riders and new boarding riders that are within 1km of a new station are generally the most significant drivers of benefits since these riders are dependent on walking and/or transit for station access/egress. Access/egress by these modes can be quite time consuming and a new station can offer significant time savings relative to the case without the station in place, depending on the geography and configuration of the local area transit network.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Analysis Framework

A spreadsheet analysis framework was developed to provide estimates of travel time savings associated with each new station. The foundation for this analysis is observed 2013 GO Passenger Survey and Cordon Count data that is applied in an incremental manner for each new station. Although travel time savings is the focus of this analysis, the approach also generates estimates of vehicle kilometre reductions, ridership changes, and revenue estimates. An overview of the analysis approach is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Overview of analysis approach

The analysis builds off of observed 2013 data by primarily considering what would happen if each station existed in 2013 along with the RER express/local/through service structure and the speed improvements associated with electrification. New station boardings and alightings are estimated by considering existing ridership patterns and the boarding and alighting markets that each new station may serve in the AM peak. Observed ridership at similar benchmark stations is also examined to support the analysis where applicable. Travel time savings and delays associated with the new station are estimated by considering the access/egress times and the operating parameters of the RER services that serve and pass through each station. Next, annual line level ridership growth rates obtained from the Greater Golden Horseshoe Model (a four-stage regional travel demand model) are used to expand the 2013 metrics to a 2031 level. Finally, a dollar valuation of benefits and a 60-year cash flow analysis is conducted.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Assumptions

Key assumptions that have been applied within this framework are summarized below:

 RER ridership and annual growth rates: Application of line level ridership growth rates obtained from the Greater Golden Horseshoe travel demand model to 2013 metrics. This captures the effects of population/employment growth across the region, the effects of the RER service introduction, and other committed rapid transit projects that are expected to be in place by 2031. This approach assumes that the demand growth at each new station site will be similar to line level demand growth between 2013 and 2031.  Station area development: Major developments that are committed and proceeding close to potential station sites in downtown Toronto are included (The Well at Spadina/Front St. W, Globe & Mail Centre at King E/Berkley, and Corus Quay & George Brown College). New development that is conditional on the presence of a new station is excluded from this analysis. Proposed new development that has the potential to significantly alter land use in the vicinity, but has not been approved is addressed as a sensitivity as part of each case. Development potential and real estate market demand are addressed more broadly in sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 respectively.  Independent analysis of new stations: The new stations are analyzed independently and their riders and benefits are considered separately. For the stations under consideration, this is deemed appropriate since the level of interaction between the new stations is not expected to be very significant; relatively few trips are expected to occur between each of the new stations (i.e. boarding at one new station and alighting at another new station).  Boarding activity by station: Starting assumption is average of two adjacent stations on same line. However, this default is adjusted based on local circumstances and observed ridership data at relevant benchmark stations. Existing riders are separated into two pools: 1) “Existing Near” – Riders within 1km of each station site; and 2) “Existing Far” - Riders who are between new and existing stations. Existing riders who are near new stations are likely to divert from another station, while riders who are further away are split between the new station and competing existing stations.  Delays to upstream passengers: Delays associated with the new station vary depending on the technology (electrified trains are faster than diesel trains – less stopping delay) and line speeds (more delay if new station is where trains would normally be travelling at high speed) for the train services that will serve the station location. Passengers on express services that do not stop at the new station are not delayed.  Time savings per rider: Primarily depends on: 1) boarding vs. alighting activity (all alighting activity egresses by walk/transit which will have a higher time savings); 2) access mode (auto/transit access minutes saved per trip will generally be low but walk access can be higher – default access assumption is based on adjacent station access mode splits); 3) origin/destination point (near or far from new station?); and 4) Existing rider vs. rider who is new to GO.  Alighting activity for stations near downtown core: Two approaches are used: 1) Benchmark (considers existing Exhibition station ridership as a benchmark and adjusts it by considering the number of trains serving the new station and jobs within 1km); 2) Sector-Based (involves dividing the station’s 1km catchment area into approximately 13 sectors with a separate ridership and time savings calculation for each sector). All downtown stations between Lansdowne/Dundas and Gerrard/Pape use the more detailed sector-based approach.  Fares: Assumes today’s transit fare structure.  Services through Union Station: Kitchener/Stouffville “through” service is included, which is important to the attractiveness of “destination” stations within downtown. Although many Kitchener and Stouffville trains are expected to go out of service after Union Station, a partial set of services will operate through Union. As an example, this would allow a passenger boarding at Agincourt to access a potential new station at Liberty Village.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Appendix C: Land Value Uplift Analysis

Cushman & Wakefield Valuation & Advisory [C&W V&A] completed a mid-level analysis (neither order-of-magnitude nor fully detailed) of the potential for property value uplift within the 800-meter catchment areas surrounding the station. The analysis examined the potential impacts of a new station on the existing property tax assessment, as well as on the potential to generate new property tax assessment, in order to estimate potential property value uplift. The analysis does not generate a precise estimate of value uplift potential at each individual station, but rather can be used broadly to compare the relative potential for land value uplift at each station under consideration.

Approach

The following bullet points summarize the approach to determining the potential extent of existing assessed value uplift within the station’s catchment area:

 C&W V&A received data on total existing property tax assessment within the station’s catchment area from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

 C&W V&A reviewed a prior study previously completed by C&W V&A on the impacts of higher-order transit on property values (across North America and worldwide). This analysis concluded that higher-order transit results in an average 18% increase in property values.

 Given the more established and mature nature of higher-order and other public transit systems within the City of Toronto, Vaughan, and the GTA (compared to other North American municipalities examined in the aforementioned study), C&W V&A’s preliminary opinion was that the establishment of RER will likely result in a maximum 12% property value uplift (a third less than the average from the aforementioned study). C&W V&A believe that property value uplifts of 10% could occur at some station locations, but not uplifts of 15%.

 The above-mentioned study identified the following causal factors in property value uplift:

o time travel savings (in this case to Union Station) o relative assessed values o economic/market development potential o extent/nature of developable vacant land o public urban renewal/revitalization plans o private master development plans o nature/extent of mobility hub plans o nature/size of land ownership o city/state regulatory environment

 C&W V&A assigned a weighting to each of the above factors, and then scored each station location and catchment area on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 indicating the least impact and 10 indicating the most impact.

 C&W V&A then correlated the overall score to the aforementioned maximum 12% existing property value uplift rate. Stations with lower scores were assigned lower percentages of existing property value uplift. Stations with higher scores were assigned higher percentages of existing property value uplift, to a maximum of 12% for a station that scored 10 out of 10.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

 The scores for each criterion were based upon empirical information where available. Empirical and/or geographic information was available on travel time savings to Union Station, relative assessed values, economic/market development potential, the extent/nature of developable land, and the nature/size of land ownership. Urban planning and market knowledge drove scoring on public urban renewal/revitalization plans, private master development plans, the nature/extent of mobility hub plans, and the city/state regulatory environment.

New development within the catchment area will also result in an increase in the assessed value base for each station’s catchment area. The following bullet points summarize the approach to determining this increase:

 Urban Strategies Inc. estimated the amount of development potential (gross floor area, units) that could theoretically occur within the catchment area, based upon a review of existing development applications and an estimation of development potential on “soft sites” with redevelopment opportunity.

 C&W V&A applied current order-of-magnitude property value benchmarks to each property type (asset class) to determine the magnitude of assessed value increase that might result before consideration of the potential value uplift impacts of RER. For example, if USI identified 9,290 sq. m of residential development potential within a catchment area, C&W V&A multiplied that density by a current residential condominium value benchmark; using this approach, the assumption of a $46.45-per-sq.-m condominium value would result in an assessed value increase of $50 million.

 Given that the establishment of RER will affect both existing and new property values, the resulting total potential assessed value resulting from new development was then multiplied by the property value uplift percentage (ranging from 0% to 12%), as determined during the previous analysis. This results in the potential increase in assessed value of future new development within the catchment area as a result of RER.

 Station catchment areas will likely not achieve full buildout in all asset classes; market demand will constrain development. Accordingly, C&W V&A reduced the total assessed value emanating from new development, to broadly reflect estimated market absorption between 2016 and 2031. For example, if USI identified 9,290 sq. m of residential development potential in a station’s catchment area, but C&W V&A broadly estimated demand of 4,645 sq. m, then only 4,645 sq. m was multiplied by the residential condominium value benchmark.

 Market demand estimates are based on historic and current demand trends. It is likely that RER service will, at some station locations, result in increased market demand. These market demand estimates and associated value uplift projections may therefore be somewhat conservative. Conversely, it is entirely possible that future demand, at some locations and for some land uses, may be less than historically experienced. More detailed analysis of the potential impacts of RER on market demand and value uplift can be completed as part of subsequent, more in-depth RER business case analyses.

The resulting increases in existing and potential future assessed values were then summed to determine the total potential land value uplift under two scenarios:

1. Full build-out by 2031 2. Market demand-based development by 2031

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

The following table summarizes land value uplift scores by station, which were used to determine existing assessed value uplift.

Value Uplift Score Summary by Station (max. 10 score)

Bathurst Bloor St. Clair W. St. Clair W. Hwy Station Name… King West Lawrence Ellesmere Spadina Davenport (Barrie) (Kitchener) 7/Concord

Criterion % Weighting Travel Time Saving to Union Station 15.0% 8 5 6 7 6 7 3 3

Relative Assessed Values 25.0% 4 6 6 7 6 8 9 9 Economic / Market Development Potential 25.0% 9 10 7 1 1 1 1 1

Extent / Nature of Developable Vacant Land 15.0% 5 6 6 10 10 10 9 10 Public Urban Renewal / Revitalization Plans 2.5% 6 4 4 2 2 8 2 2

Private Master Development Plans 2.5% 8 4 6 2 3 7 3 2 Nature / Extent of Mobility Hub Plans 2.5% 1 1 10 1 1 10 1 1

Nature / Size of Land Ownership 10.0% 10 10 10 5 9 7 9 7 City / State Regulatory Environment 2.5% 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3

Weighted Score 100.0% 6.7 6.9 6.7 5.4 5.3 6.3 5.4 5.4

The following table summarizes the overall score for each station and the resulting percentage uplift in existing assessed values.

Value Uplift Percentage Summary

Score Uplift in Existing # Station Name max. 10 Asessments Values

1 Bathurst/Spadina 6.7 9% 2A Liberty Village 6.9 9%

3 Bloor/Davenport* 4.4 6%

4 St. Clair West (Barrie Line) 5.4 7% 5 St. Clair West (Kitchener Line) 5.3 7% 6B Highway 7/Concord 6.3 8% 7 Lawrence 5.4 7% 8 Ellesmere 5.4 7% *score is discounted by 33% due to an existing GO Station within 800m

The following table summarizes the impacts of RER on assessed value based on maximum development potential, stated in $2016.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Impacts of RER on Assessed Values Based Upon Maximum Development Potential ($2016)

2016 2031

Assessed Value of Assessed Value of Uplift In Assessed # Station Name Uplift In Existing Total Assessed New Development New Development Value of New Assessed Values Value Uplift (before uplift) (after uplift) Development

$ millions $ millions $ millions $ millions $ millions 1 Bathurst/Spadina $1,672 $8,731 $9,514 $783 $2,455 2A Liberty Village $722 $2,589 $2,829 $240 $962

3 Bloor/Davenport $215 $3,744 $3,965 $221 $436 4 St. Clair West (Barrie Line) $166 $581 $623 $41 $208 5 St. Clair West (Kitchener Line) $127 $1,126 $1,206 $80 $207 6B Highway 7/Concord $53 $4,543 $4,925 $382 $434 7 Lawrence $80 $5,564 $5,966 $402 $483 8 Ellesmere $84 $1,376 $1,474 $98 $182

The following table summarizes the impacts of RER on assessed values based on market demand, stated in $2016. It is the opinion of C&W V&A that a market demand-based analysis is much more realistic than a theoretically based build-out analysis.

Impacts of RER on Assessed Values Based Upon Market Demand ($2016) 2016 2031 Uplift In Assessed Assessed Uplift In Total Uplift in Existing # Station Name Existing Value of New Value of New Assessed Value Total Assessed Assessed Assessed Values Assessed Development Development of New Value Uplift Value Values (before uplift) (after uplift) Development $ millions % $ millions $ millions $ millions $ millions $ millions 1 Bathurst/Spadina $18,644 9% $1,672 $7,276 $7,928 $652 $2,324 2A Liberty Village $7,808 9% $722 $1,873 $2,046 $173 $895 3 Bloor/Davenport $3,644 6% $215 $1,105 $1,170 $65 $280 4 St. Clair West (Barrie Line) $2,330 7% $166 $471 $504 $34 $200 5 St. Clair West (Kitchener Line) $1,790 7% $127 $599 $642 $43 $170 6B Highway 7/Concord $628 8% $53 $659 $715 $55 $108 7 Lawrence $1,107 7% $80 $0 $0 $0 $80 8 Ellesmere $1,174 7% $84 $0 $0 $0 $84

Conclusions

The above analysis indicates that Spadina is likely to realize a very substantial amount of land value uplift through the implementation of RER. Substantial value uplift is also likely to occur at Liberty Village. Much more limited value uplift is likely to occur at Bloor-Davenport, St. Clair West (Barrie), St. Clair West (Kitchener), and Highway 7- Concord. Very limited value uplift is likely to occur at Lawrence East or at Ellesmere.

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

All of the preceding analyses are high-level and primarily order-of-magnitude. The analyses are driven by a series of assumptions that are subject to interpretation. Even minor changes in assumptions can cumulatively cause substantial changes in results. Accordingly, this methodology does not result in a precise estimate of value uplift potential at each individual station. Rather, it estimates broad, relative differences in potential value uplift levels.

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Appendix D: Criteria Ranges

Business Major Criteria Not Supportive Neutral Supportive Case

Strategic Policy Alignment Does not support most policy Supports most policy Supports all policy

>150 P+J/ha (>30,000 P+J) Development Potential 50–150 P+J/ha Strategic < 50 P+J/ha (<10,000 P+J) OR 50-150 P+J/ha with high and Intensification (10,000-30,000 P+J) development potential Low Existing Demand Low Existing Demand Moderate Existing Demand Real Estate Strategic AND AND AND Market Demand Low Future Demand Moderate Future Demand Significant Future Demand Natural In a sensitive Within 800 m of a sensitive Outside of 800 m of Strategic Environment environmental feature environmental feature environmental feature

Operational < 1.5 km to nearest 1.5–3 km to nearest > 3km to nearest Strategic System existing station existing station existing station

Connectivity and < 0 Net new daily 0–3,000 net new daily > 3,000 net new daily Strategic Ridership Drivers GO boardings GO boardings GO boardings

Strategic Station Access 2/5 modes 3/5 modes 4/5 modes

Social Inclusivity Does not serve NIA Fully serves NIA Fully Serves NIA Strategic and Accessibility AND <3.5% Change in ATT OR >3.5% Change in ATT AND >3.5% Change in ATT Incremental Financial GO Ridership < 0 0 to 40 > 40 (Millions of Trips)

Financial Fare Revenue (A) < $0M $0m to $50M > $50M

Financial Total Costs (B) > $150M $150M to $50M < $50M

Financial Capital Costs > $75M $75M to $25M < $25M

Financial Operating Costs (C) > $35M $35M to $25M < $25M

Financial Net Present Value < –$50M –$50M to $50M > $50M

Revenue to Cost Financial < 0 (all loss) 0 to 1 > 1 Ratio (A/B)

Operating Cost Financial < 0 (all loss) 0 to 2 > 2 Recovery Ratio

RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Lawrence East – draft

Business Major Criteria Not Supportive Neutral Supportive Case Travel Time Savings Economic (Millions of < 0 0 to 10 > 10 Person-Hours) Auto Distances Saved Economic < 0 0 to 250 > 250 (Millions of VKTs)

Economic Benefits < $0M $0M to $100M > $100M

Economic Costs > $125M $125M to $50M < $50M

Economic Net Present Value < –$150M –$150 to $10M > $10M

Economic Benefit-Cost Ratio < 0 (all-loss) 0 to 1 > 1

Transportation Economic < $0M $0M to $50M > $50M User Impacts

Economic Travel Time Savings < $0M $0M to $55M > $55M

Vehicle Operating Economic < $0M $0M to $75M > $75M Cost Savings

Decongestion on Economic < $0M $0M to $30M > $30M Road Network

Economic Safety Impacts < $0M $0M to $10M > $10M

Environmental Economic < $0M $0M to $1M > $1M Impacts Track geometry compatible with Track geometry compatible with Deliverability & Track geometry not Constructability station AND station AND Operations compatible with station Significant site constraints minimal site constraints Significant disruption to Minor to no construction noise, surrounding area during Construction noise and dust in Deliverability & Stakeholder dust, and street closure impacts construction including noise, high density area, possibility of Operations Impacts and minor to no environmental dust, traffic, or environmental environmental impacts impacts impacts No ability for station to grow due Limited ability for station to grow Deliverability & Room for Ability of growth with new track to track constraints and land due to track constraints and land Operations Growth layouts and land acquisition acquisition acquisition TPAP, normal permits, and two Deliverability & Approvals/Permits TPAP, normal permits, and one Only a TPAP and normal other unique permits or Operations Required unique permit or approval construction permits approvals Deliverability & Operating Major operating impacts Moderate operating impacts Minor operating impacts Operations Impacts

Deliverability & Other Key Risks Significant unique situation Minor unique situation No other key risks or impacts Operations and Impacts