Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation

Phase 3 Summary Report

RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT

Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report

DRAFT

October 2015



DRAFT – October 2015 2

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................3

Background ..................................................................................................................................................3

Purpose of Report ........................................................................................................................................3

2. CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................4

Communication and Promotional Tactics ....................................................................................................4

Consultation Resources ...............................................................................................................................6

Consultation Activities .................................................................................................................................7

3. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK ......................................................................................................9

Results of the Potential Station Location Evaluation................................................................................ 10

Potential Corridors .................................................................................................................................... 12

4. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP ............................................................................................................ 15

5. NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix A – June 9 SAG Meeting Minutes

Appendix B – Public Comments




1. INTRODUCTION

Background

The City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) are conducting the Relief Line Project Assessment to identify a preferred alignment and station locations for a new subway line connecting downtown to the Bloor-Danforth Subway east of the Don River, between Broadview and Coxwell Stations.

The Project Assessment process is divided into four phases:

1A. Setting the stage / Opportunity and Rationale 2. Long List of Options 3. Short List of Options 4. Recommended Option

Purpose of Report

This report summarizes the communications and consultation activities that were used, as well as the feedback from stakeholders and the public that were received as a result of those activities, during the first consultation period within Phase 3 of the RLPA. The first consultation period considered the results of the potential station area evaluation (completed in Phase 2) and potential Relief Line corridors. The second part of Phase 3 is anticipated to take place in September, 2015, and will consider an evaluation of the potential corridors as well as potential alignments within the preferred corridor(s).

This report combines the comments received at the public and stakeholder meetings, through an online survey, and directly through correspondence. It will form part of the public record, and all public input will be considered as the study proceeds.

The communication and consultation activities used within Phase 3 of the Project Assessment:

Provided updates on the Relief Line study, reviewing the need and rationale for the Relief Line as well as the project assessment and process;

Presented a synopsis of work completed to date (background studies, existing and future conditions, evaluation criteria, analysis of station locations, proposed corridors, etc.); and

Solicited input on the results of the station location evaluation and four potential corridors.

Communication materials were designed to:

Present information clearly, and in formats that are engaging and accessible to a variety of audiences;

Continue building relationships with key stakeholders and the community; and

Demonstrate transparency, accountability and a spirit of collaboration throughout the project assessment and process.




The public meeting included interactive

elements that were mirrored online.

2. CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW

The City has committed to engaging the public in a way that is transparent, collaborative, inclusive and authentic. The City wants to make it easy for the public to get involved and invites feedback at every stage of the process – in person and online. Phase 1A of the study engaged the public in the Spring of 2014 on the development of the Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan that are guiding the study. Phases 1B and 2 were combined in the winter of 2015, and focused on the Problem Statement, Rationale for the Project and a “long list” of potential station area options, and the development of evaluation criteria.

This report relates to Phase 3 which focused on the results of the potential station area evaluation and the development of four potential corridors based on those results. The public will be further engaged in Phase 4, to identify a preferred corridor and preferred alignment with station locations. All of this work is anticipated to be completed during the winter of 2016.

The process is governed by the City Council approved Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan. For Phase 3, key activities included:

eight public meetings across the city (which focused on four major transit planning initiatives underway);

online engagement; and

meetings with stakeholders.

Aiming to lower barriers to participation, all in-person consultation was mirrored online through the project website. Public information and education was extensive, with detailed information provided on the project, process, study area, evaluation criteria, results of the station location evaluation and four potential corridors.

Feedback on the four potential corridors and the results of the potential station area evaluation was received through a sticker-dot exercise, in writing at the public meetings and through an online survey. Comments were also received by email, phone and mail.

Communication and Promotional Tactics

As part of the public consultation plan for the RLPA, a number of activities were carried out to notify and promote the project, provide up-to-date information, seek input on the current phase of the study and answer the public questions.




Project Website

The project website (www.reliefline.ca) has formed the foundation of the communications and consultation program. The website mirrored face-to-face consultations at public events, with all material displayed and presented posted online as well as background reports and public notices. For Phase 3 of the study, the website hosted an online survey to solicit feedback on the potential corridors and the results of potential station area evaluations including connections to the downtown and Bloor-Danforth subway line.

Newspapers (print and online);

Media advertising, newspapers both print and online, public notices, invitations and media coverage were used to notify the public about consultation meetings and inform the public about the status of the RLPA study.

Media Date

Traditional Newspaper Advertisements

Metro News (commuter daily) May 29

24 Hours (commuter daily) May 29

Beach-Riverdale Mirror (local weekly) June 4

East York Mirror (local weekly) June 4

Etobicoke Guardian (local weekly) June 4

Sing Tao (Chinese language weekly) June 4

Senthamarai (Tamil language weekly) June 4

Uthayan (Tamil language weekly) June 4

Scarborough Mirror (local weekly) June 11

Media Releases

City of Toronto, Metrolinx and the TTC hosting joint transit information sessions

June 10

Toronto seeks input into important transit planning decisions June 22

Councillors

18 Councillors provided with wording to distribute to constituents via e-blast or blog post

Various dates

TTC System

One-stop Screens June 12-25

2500 postcard fliers distributed at Bloor-Yonge and Scarborough Centre

Stations

June 24-25

Project Email Lists

Relief Line Project Assessment June 8 & 19

http://www.reliefline.ca/




Media Date

Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessment June 8 & 19

Social Media

@CityPlanTO – various messages Started on June 12

Various Facebook Groups Started on June 10

Stakeholders

Over 200 stakeholder groups, agencies and community leaders asked to promote consultation

June 1

Fliers

1600 fliers distributed to businesses along Danforth Ave June 1

Over 200 schools asked to distribute fliers June 1

All Toronto Libraries, Community Centres and other public buildings such as Civic Centres asked to post flier

June 1

Existing Networks and Mailing Lists;

An email contact list was developed during Phase 1A and Phase 1B/2 consultations. Additional email contacts were collected during the public open houses. The project team also utilised existing emailing lists from the Councillors. These email contact lists were used to invite the public to take part in the open houses.

Online Engagement (social media);

Facebook: The Relief Line is already a topic of discussion for multiple Facebook groups and the City actively interacted with those existing networks via Facebook.

Twitter: The City did not create a dedicated Twitter handle (user name / account) instead, broadcast key messages and answer questions via existing City handles including @CityPlanTO and @GetInvolvedTO. A project-specific hashtag was developed to coordinate conversations on Twitter; #reliefline.

The City has established a Relief Line Project Assessment email list. The public can subscribe and unsubscribe to this list by visiting the project web page. The City will communicate news about the study approximately monthly. Updates will include key information about the progress of related TTC and Metrolinx work, and how the City is collaborating with these agencies. Some feedback was received by email and is included in this report.

Consultation Resources

The following tools were utilised both at in-person public meetings and were available online.

Discussion Boards

Overview Presentation




Stakeholder Advisory Group members

participated in a table mapping exercise

Public Meeting Panels and Four Corridor Maps

Feedback Comment Form

Consultation Activities

Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting

On June 9, 2015 at the Metropolitan United Church, City consultants and experts presented a recap of the study to date, results of the evaluation of potential station locations, and four potential corridors. Members had the opportunity to discuss and provide feedback on the potential corridors and station locations through a small group table mapping exercise. Meeting minutes are included in this report in Appendix A.

Public Meetings

Eight public meetings were held across the city focused on coordinated transit planning initiatives currently underway. The four projects presented included GO Regional Express Rail/SmartTrack Background Study, SmartTrack Eglinton West Feasibility Study, Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessment and Relief Line Project Assessment. Three of the eight public meetings were held in the Relief Line study area.

Date Location

June 13, 2015 Burnhamthorpe Collegiate Institute - 500 The West Mall

June 15, 2015 Estonian House - 958 Broadview Avenue

June 17,2015 Spring Garden Baptist Church - 112 Spring Garden Avenue

June 18, 2015 Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School - 99 Humber Boulevard South

June 20, 2015 Hyatt Regency Hotel, Regency Ballroom - 370 King Street West

June 22, 2015 Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute - 2239 Lawrence Avenue East

June 24, 2015 Scarborough Civic Centre - 150 Borough Drive

June 25, 2015 Riverdale Collegiate Institute - 1094 Gerrard Street East

Each of the public open houses included the following activities and materials:

o Evaluation Discussion Boards

Discussion boards provided detailed information on ‘What We Heard During the March Consultations’, station location evaluation results, results of the evaluation criteria mapped in colour codes on three separate boards for Downtown Stations, West and East of the Don, and Connection to Danforth Subway. These boards asked meeting participants to participate in a sticker-dot exercise on whether they agreed with the results of the evaluation (yes/no) and to provide comments on why or why not.




o Open House Displays

Open house displays available at the public meetings focused on each of the four transit planning initiatives named above and the public was given the opportunity to freely explore each of the projects. Subject matter experts were also present to engage in one-on-one and small group discussions and answer questions.

o Presentation

The meetings opened with an overview presentation on each of the key transit studies. The portion of the presentation that focused on the Relief Line provided an overview of the study process and status, key feedback received during March consultations, an explanation of the evaluation results of the potential stations and an explanation of the proposed corridors for public consideration.

o Questions of Clarification

Following the presentation there was an opportunity for the public to ask questions about the coordinated transit planning initiatives and the Relief Line study process. Notes summarizing the questions and answers at each meeting are provided at reliefline.ca.

o Potential Corridors Feedback

The public provided feedback on the potential corridors by participating in a sticker-dot exercise and by providing comments on table-sized maps or individual worksheets. The final cumulative total of the sticker-dot exercise following the 8 public meetings is depicted below. These questions were mirrored online using a survey embedded in the project website.




o Station Locations Feedback

The public provided feedback on the station locations by providing comments on table-sized maps, display panels, or individual worksheets and via online comments. These questions were mirrored online using a survey embedded in the project website.

3. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK

Many comments and questions were received during Phase 3 of the RLPA through the various consultation tools and activities demonstrating a great deal of community and stakeholder interest in the Relief Line Project Assessment study. In reviewing this feedback, there was general agreement with the results of the potential station location evaluation and there is a strong interest in a route that connects to the Danforth subway line at Pape Avenue (Corridor B and D). A detailed summary of participant feedback is provided below.




Results of the Potential Station Location Evaluation

A total of 45 potential station areas were identified and sorted into the following geographical categories:

Potential Downtown Connections

Potential Danforth Connections

Potential Connections East and West of the Don River

The results of the potential station location evaluation were presented and participants were asked whether

they agree with the findings and why or why not. Overall, majority of participants indicated agreement with

the findings for each of the geographical categories.

With respect to the Downtown potential station areas:

There is support for both King and Queen as potential stations connecting to the Yonge line, however it was noted that both stations are currently overcrowded.

There was no consensus on whether there should be a connection to Union station; there are concerns with existing congestion at Union.

There was support for a station along Bay St with a tunnel connection an existing station(s) on the Yonge-University line.

Consideration of future west subway expansion is a priority.

Increasing points of access to stations at street level is important. o A station at Bay Street with entrances/exits to the east and west sides, to the street and

connections within the underground , and to other subway stations was suggested.

With respect to the Danforth potential station areas:

There was general consensus that a station at Pape is preferred as it accommodates future northern transit expansion and access to the Greenwood TTC yard, has a large catchment area of riders, and accommodates a potential station at Gerrard Square.

There was interest in a station connection further east on the Danforth (e.g. Donlands).

With respect to potential stations east and west of the Don Valley:

Stations with connections to existing and future transit lines were supported in order to create an integrated network.

There was support for stations serving Gerrard Square, Regent Park, St. Lawrence Market, the Distillery District, West Don Lands, the Unilever site and the Portlands.

There was support for stations that serve new and future residential and commercial developments.

Comments that were in disagreement with the results of the potential station area evaluation are provided in the tables below and organized by geographic area. Responses from the study team are included beside each comment to indicate how they have been considered in the study.




Evaluation Results

Comment Study Team Response

Potential Downtown Stations A connection at King Station should be shown to have higher potential (in comparison to Queen Station) as it is closer to the financial district and Union Station. The King Street corridor would also better service the West Don Lands and Unilever site while relieving the overcrowded King streetcar.

In the Preliminary evaluations, King and Queen street stations both performed well. Public feedback reflected this as well: Queen Street was preferred station at Yonge and King Street was preferred at University. Further analysis will be carried out on potential alignments and conclusions shared for public comment.

The downtown stations should be equidistant between Union Station and the Bloor line; the potential stations located further north should be weighted higher than the potential stations located further south.

Potential station areas, corridors and alignments are identified using a number of criteria and will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation to determine the best route and stations.

Alignment along Wellington is preferred in order to allow streetcar routes to continue operating during construction.

This is included as an important consideration in the evaluation of stations. Mitigation strategies will be developed in coopration with TTC and Transportation Services to address all construction impacts to traffic.

The results of the potential station area evaluation should have included PATH connections and the rectangular platform sizes of existing and potential stations.

This level of detail will be provided when potential alignments and their stations are being considered during the next study phase.

Potential Danforth Stations

A connection at Broadview is not supported because:

it is too close to the Yonge line to provide adequate relief

construction may cause disruption to the critical streetcar service along Broadview.

Initial technical work indicates that both Broadview and Pape Stations would provide desired diversion from the Line 1 south of Bloor Street. A final evaluation of potential corridors will be informed by detailed travel demand modelling that will estimate how many people would use the Relief Line in each corridor.

This is included as an important consideration in the evaluation of stations. Mitigation strategies will be developed in cooperation with TTC and Transportation Services to address all construction impacts to traffic.

A connection further east on the Danforth line should be considered:

as it has better potential for reducing traffic congestion and would create a more integrated transit network that will support long-term development.

Donlands is currently underused and there is potential for growth and development around the station. Donlands also provides a more direct future connection to Thorncliffe Park.

The evaluation showed that the development potential around Donlands Station is less than around Pape Station. There are also significant barriers to developing the Relief Line south of Donlands Station. Stations further east, including Coxwell, do not allow for a future northern extension to serve Thorncliffe Park. The primary goal of the Relief Line is to provide maximum relief at Yonge-Bloor interchange station, therefore there are better opportunities to capture more




Evaluation Results

Comment Study Team Response Broadview and Pape stations are already too

congested.

It would benefit more people and the subway is already full at Coxwell

passengers at Pape and Broadview.

Potential Stations East and West of the Don Valley

There may be more opportunities for station areas east of the railway line.

45 potential station areas were considered and included five potential stations east of the rail corridor. These 5 generally did not perform as well as stations nearer to and west of the corridor. Connecting to Line 2 east of Donlands precludes the opportunity to extend the Relief Line north to serve Thorncliffe Park in the future.

Specific station locations should only be determined after a preferred corridor is selected.

Potential station locations were considered first to specifically address the anchor points in downtown and along Danforth. We also evaluated key activity nodes which might be appropriate station locations. This process ensures that this transit investment is positively contributing to the development of the city by providing transit service to appropriate locations. Once potential alignments are developed, station locations will be adjusted.

A station at Dundas St. and Sumach St. is too far north to be compatible with the potential corridors.

This station is located within Corridor A.

Neighbourhoods will become congested if stations are added to established residential areas.

There is no intent to change policies in the OP that protect the character of stable neighbourhoods. The evaluation of potential station areas generally shows these potential station areas as not performing as well as potential stations in areas that are currently undergoing change.

There should be more station areas with high potential in Riverdale/Leslieville

Potential station areas in these neighbourhoods tend to have less potential due to lower existing and projected population and employment densities and less development potential due to Heritage Conservation Districts and less land designated for intensification.

Potential Corridors

Four potential corridors were identified and displayed on maps at the public and stakeholder meetings as well as online in the feedback survey. Participants were asked to indicate their preference for each corridor on a scale of one to five, with one indicating low preference for the corridor and five indicating high




preference for the corridor. Most participants had a preference for Corridors B and D, and least preferred Corridors A and C. The results are shown in Appendix B.

The significant comments on each of the potential corridors are provided in the tables below and organized by potential corridor. Responses from the study team are included beside each comment to indicate how they have been considered in the study.

Evaluation Results

Comment Study Team Response

Corridor A – Broadview to Queen/Richmond Corridor A would have the shortest route and therefore the lowest cost.

Rough estimates have been used and will be refined as the alignment options are developed. Barriers to construction, property requirements and environmental mitigation strategies are examples elements that could cost more.

There are environmental concerns with a route constructed close to the Don Valley.

The natural environment is an important consideration in the evaluation of corridors. City staff have been reviewing the corridors with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to understand the environmental concerns and mitigation strategies that would be appropriate.

Broadview is already well serviced by streetcar routes and therefore the relief line would be redundant.

The purpose of the Relief Line is to divert as many riders from Line 1 as possible. The Relief Line would divert significantly more riders than the 504 Streetcar due to its speed and frequency. There are no intentions to change surface routes at this time.

Corridor A does not provide a connection to SmartTrack. Lack of regional transit connectivity is a concern.

This is an important consideration in the evaluation of the potential corridors.

Corridor B – Pape to Queen/Richmond

Alignment along Queen Street better serves tourist destinations (Eaton Centre, City Hall, Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, etc.) while still being close to the financial district.

All types of destinations served will be considered in the potential corridor evaluation.

Corridor B provides greater social equity benefits (access to Regent Park) of the two Pape alignment corridors.

Service to Neighbourhood Improvement Areas is an important consideration in the evaluation of potential corridors.

Corridor B is more equidistant between Bloor and Union, and accommodates future northern transit expansion.

Destinations served will be considered in the potential corridor evaluation.

Corridor B is further from the lake and may have technical benefits in terms of tunnel construction.

Constructability is an important consideration in the evaluation of potential alignments.




Evaluation Results

Comment Study Team Response Corridor B would serve more areas that are visited outside of the peak commuting time (e.g. Eaton’s Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital) compared to Corridor D.


Corridor C – Broadview to King/Wellington

There are environmental concerns with a route constructed close to the Don Valley.

The natural environment is an important consideration in the evaluation of potential corridors. City staff have been reviewing the corridors with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to understand the environmental concerns and mitigation strategies that would be appropriate.

Broadview is already well serviced by streetcar routes and therefore the relief line would be redundant.

The purpose of the Relief Line is to divert as many riders from Line 1 as possible. The Relief Line would divert significantly more riders than the 504 Streetcar due to its speed and frequency. There are no intentions to change surface routes at this time.

Corridor C is shorter and would provide a more direct link to the downtown core; however the areas it serves would be limited.

The evaluation of potential corridors will use a wide range of measures to determine the preferred corridor.

Corridor C enables future transit expansion to areas in need further west including Liberty Village.

Future phases of the Relief Line will be An important consideration in the evaluation of potential corridors.

Corridor C is too close to the Yonge line and would only draw ridership from the east side of Broadview Station.

All potential corridors will be modelled to help us understand how each would impact the transit network.

Corridor D – Pape to King/Wellington via Queen Street

Corridor D adds service to areas of the city that are currently not served by transit and has potential for connecting to existing and future transit lines (e.g. SmartTrack Waterfront East LRT).

How each alignment would improve access to transit, including connectivity between services, will be carefully considered.

Corridor D has the potential for stations serving future development and intensification areas (e.g. Unilever site, Portlands, West Don Lands, waterfront).

Development potential and opportunities to support the city's growth strategy are an important consideration in the comparison of corridors.

Corridor D has potential for future west expansion to high density development areas (e.g. Liberty Village, CityPlace).

Both the King and Queen corridors have the potential to extend west, but more detailed technical analysis will inform the evaluation of corridors

Corridor D connects to the highest employment density in the downtown core, providing the most relief during peak commuting hours.

Further technical work will consider which is the optimal downtown corridor – employment density will be a strong factor in this work




Evaluation Results

Comment Study Team Response Corridor D provides access to key destinations such as St. Lawrence Market, Distillery District, and George Brown College.


Additional Comments

Additional comments and suggestions for the Relief Line corridor and station location analysis include:

There was strong support for timely completion of the Relief Line Project.

The Relief Line needs to support long-term growth of the city and consider future planning and development needs. The route should also be considered in the context of a regional and integrated transit network.

Minimizing disruption to existing streetcar service during construction is an important consideration. It is suggested that construction under Queen and King Street be avoided.

It was suggested that the Relief Line incorporate express service to the downtown core with decreased travel time during peak hours.

Concern was expressed for increased property values/rents in close proximity to the potential stations. The social cost in terms of impacts to affordable housing in Regent Park should be considered.

There was concern for the impacts of the Relief Line on existing residential areas (e.g. noise, congestion, pollution, property values).

The terminus of the Relief Line should be aligned to allow for expansion West and further South to serve destinations such as Rogers Centre and the Island Airport pedestrian access before turning North to relieve Line 2.Please see a full list of all verbatim comments received in Appendix B.

4. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP

The Relief Line Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) is made up of local community leaders (residents, business and institutions) as well as issue experts. A SAG meeting was held on June 9, 2015 in the Metropolitan United Church Community Room. 24 participants attended.

At the meeting, the project team gave a presentation summarizing the work to date, the results of the potential station area evaluation and the four potential corridors. After the presentation, there was a chance for participants to ask questions.

Participants were then divided into small groups to discuss their preferred corridor, and potential alignments within that corridor. Groups were given large scale maps of the study area, as well as tools to help them draw potential alignments – these included scale curve radii and station boxes, radii to show the catchment area of stations, etc.

See Appendix A for the detailed SAG Meeting Minutes.




5. NEXT STEPS

The consultation period for Phase 4 is anticipated to take place in November 2015. This consultation period will focus on:

1. Analysis and evaluation of the potential corridors, including the identification of a preferred corridor 2. Identification of potential alignments and station concepts

The preferred corridor will have the highest potential to address the full range of project objectives and city-building criteria. The potential alignments and their stations will be further evaluated to identify a recommended alignment.

RELIEF LINE Potential Station Areas Summary of Preliminary Evaluation Results

RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Phase 3 Summary Report

Appendix A: June 9 SAG Meeting Minutes

Relief Line Project Assessment Phase 3 Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)

Meeting #2

Tuesday, June 9, 2015 | 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm Metropolitan United Church |56 Queen St. East

Meeting Summary - DRAFT

Participants Craig Nichol Advisory Committee on Accessible Transit Carlos Benzecyi Bloor-East Neighbourhood Association Linda Brett Bloor-East Neighbourhood Association Briar de Lange Bloor-Yorkville BIA Amin Ali City Youth Council of Toronto Cameron MacLeod CodeRedTO Ole Calderone Corktown Residents and Business Association Stephen Wickens Danforth East Community Association Berni Campbell Degrassi/Wardell Neighbourhood Group Lana MacInnes Degrassi/Wardell Neighbourhood Group Evan M. Weinberg Financial District BIA Bennet MacNeil First Gulf Keith Viera Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association Nicole Beayni Greater Toronto Civic Action Alliance Marcus Bowman Metrolinx Gilles Durot The Pocket Nic de Salaberry Ryerson University Al Smith St. Lawrence Market Neighbourhood BIA Laurie Naylor St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Marion Wingson St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Jessica Mustachi Toronto Women's City Alliance Karl Junkin Transport Action Ontario Mario Silva Toronto District School Board Suhail Barot TTC Riders Ryan Kichler Yonge-Dundas Square Taylor Raths Yonge-Dundas Square

Project Staff Tim Läspä Director, Transportation Planning Paul Millett Chief Project Engineer, Engineering, Construction and Expansion

Section, TTC Stella Gustavson Program Manager, Transit Implementation Unit

1

David Cooper Transit Implementation Unit Michael Hain Transit Implementation Unit Charissa Iogna Transit Implementation Unit Kate Kusiak Transit Implementation Unit Mike Logan Transit Implementation Unit Hans Riekko Transit Implementation Unit

Project Consultant Team Natalia Banoub Argyle Communications Jim Faught LURA Consulting Andrew O'Connor HDR Inc. Nick Shaw HDR Inc. Brodie Vissers LURA Consulting Leah Winter LURA Consulting Mary Zajac Argyle Communications

Also Invited (Meeting minutes will be circulated) 519 Church Street Community Centre BILD GTA Cabbagetown South Residents' Association Cadillac Fairview Church of the Holy Trinity Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer

Associations in Toronto Danforth Mosaic BIA Distillery Historic District Downtown Yonge BIA Eastview Community Centre Evergreen Garden District Residents' Association George Brown College Gerrard East Community Organization Gerrard India Bazaar BIA Gerrard Square Greek Community of Toronto GreekTown on the Danforth BIA

Kempton Howard Community Association Leslieville BIA Ministry of the Environment and Climate

Change Oxford Properties Pembina Institute Regent Park Community Health Centre Riverside District BIA Social Planning Toronto South Riverdale Community Health Centre The Danforth BIA Toronto Association of Business Improvement

Areas Toronto Catholic District School Board Toronto Centre for Active Transportation Toronto Region Board of Trade Urban Land Institute - Toronto Woodgreen Community Services Yonge-Bloor-Bay Business Association

1. Agenda Review, Opening Remarks and Introduction

Stella Gustavson, Program Manager, Transportation Planning, City of Toronto welcomed participants to the second Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting for the Relief Line Project Assessment. The purpose of the meeting was to report on the results of the potential station area evaluation and seek input on potential corridors. Mike Logan, Senior Transportation Planner, provided an overview of the meeting agenda and facilitated a round of introductions. David Cooper, Senior Transportation Planner, provided an overview of transit planning initiatives and a recap of the study to date. Andrew O’Connor, HDR Inc., presented the results of the potential station area evaluation and potential corridors. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions of clarification as well as provide feedback through a

2

small group discussion and mapping exercise. Approximately 24 participants attended the meeting representing a variety of stakeholder groups.

2. Questions of Clarification

A summary of the Question and Answer period following the presentation is provided below. Questions are noted with Q, responses are noted by A, and comments are noted by C. Answers were provided by Stella Gustavson, Tim Läspä (Director, Transportation Planning, City of Toronto) and Paul Millett (Chief Project Engineer, Engineering, Construction and Expansion Section, TTC).

Questions of Clarification on Station Locations:

Q. What was the methodology used for defining the station area? A. We used a 500 m radius to define existing and future population and employment. A station could

impact a larger area; we take that into consideration in different ways for different criteria.

Q. At the last SAG meeting we talked about potential routing further north near Dundas and Gerrard which could serve important destinations such as Ryerson and the Eaton’s Centre. Why are you only proposing options that are further south?

A. The study area has been focused on the southern part of the downtown core near the financial district which is the centre of highest employment density. The intention is to provide the greatest relief function, and part of that is to build the Relief Line closest to the destination of most riders. The centre of employment density and trip generation is in the area from Queen to Union.

Q. Is it the intention to take Bloor/Danforth riders and bring them downtown via another corridor? Broadview station during peak hours is very crowded. Putting another line there would be confusing. The relief is needed east of Broadview.

A. Ridership modelling is still being finalized. The modelling results will be a significant factor in determining the preferred corridor.

C. Routing at Broadview station would also provide relief to the surface streetcar network.

Q. One of the concerns in my community is that you can’t get on the trains in the morning at Woodbine and Coxwell. Broadview is too far west to provide significant relief. Why was the Donlands area not further considered?

A. As shown in the evaluation tables, Donlands has some issues. We want to restrict construction to existing rights-of-way as much as possible to avoid impacts to private property. Donlands Ave. ends at Danforth in a "T" intersection so there would be property impacts south of Danforth as the tunnel realigns onto a public right-of-way. There is also landfill in the Donlands area. When doing tunnel boring we have to be cautious of geotechnical constraints and the potential for gases originating from the landfill.

Q. Has the evaluation framework been updated since the Feeling Congested exercise in the Official Plan update? There were never any follow up meetings to discuss how the public input was considered. I am concerned that the evaluation framework was used as a starting point because there are a lot issues with the framework itself, especially with respect to Social Equity.

3

A. The evaluation framework was developed through the Official Plan review process and it is not within the scope of the Relief Line project to revisit it. The evaluation criteria presented and consulted on in Phase 2 were developed specifically for this project based on a broad array of technical considerations and stakeholder input, using the Feeling Congested framework as a starting place. Social and gender equity issues are addressed very broadly, not just within the "social equity" set of criteria. The evaluation criteria developed for the Relief Line Project Assessment are considered final for this project.

Questions of Clarification on Potential Corridors: Q. You mentioned corridor A is the shortest route. What are the distances of the potential

corridors? A. The corridor areas are quite broad. Depending on the alignment that is identified, the distances

would vary. The following distances were provided after the meeting

Corridor Approximate Length (from Danforth Terminus to University Avenue)

A 4.6 – 5.1 km B 5.7 – 6.6 km C 5.5 km D 5.8 – 6.6 km

Q. Some of the potential corridors overlap with the Queen Street and King Street streetcar

network. Is the implication that streetcars will be eliminated as a result of a new line? A. There is no intent to eliminate any streetcar service as part of the Relief Line project. C. The overlap with existing streetcar routes has not been framed as an advantage or

disadvantage in the routing evaluation. It seems redundant to overlap the Relief Line with existing streetcar routes, but it could be an opportunity to somewhat reduce the need for service on some streetcar lines and deploy some of the streetcars to other lines that are in need across the city.

Q. Are the network impacts during and after construction considered in this corridor selection

process? A. In the assessment we have considered the potential for impacts to surface transit and traffic

during construction. Depending on the construction methods that are most appropriate, as well as the preferred alignment that is identified, there may be more or less impact at street level.

Q. There are some proposed projects that would be competing for the same ridership. How do you

protect the service for the users who are already there? A. Network impacts will continue to be incorporated and we will be providing more detail in the next

phase of the project as the modelling results become available. In terms of the network, we will be looking at how the corridors impact other lines and proposed projects and how service areas could overlap.

4

Q. How do these corridors relate to the debate about the Gardiner East? We don’t know the result of the decision yet, but the decision could result in significant new developments and potential for construction overlap.

A. The evaluation did take into account the impact of future transit lines and improvements, but we did not look at how the Relief Line may impact use on the Gardiner. From a strategic perspective, there is a potential for changing modal split. That is being considered at a broad and strategic level in the Gardiner study.

Q. If the Gardiner East is replaced and there is more development along the existing corridor, which potential corridor would best serve those new developments?

A. While the corridors that connect to King/Wellington would probably be better than the ones that connect to Queen/Richmond, there is a difference between corridors and alignments. At this stage, we are introducing corridors which are broad bands connecting the Danforth to downtown. Within each corridor, the potential for the various potential alignments and stations to serve existing and future development opportunities will need to be considered.

3. Facilitated Small Group Discussion and Mapping Exercise

Participants engaged in small group facilitated discussions on the potential corridors. Each group was asked to come to a consensus on a preferred corridor. Participants were then given large maps of the preferred corridor and invited to discuss and illustrate possible alignments and station locations within that corridor. A summary of key feedback by participants is provided below:

Preferred Corridors: • Overall, most groups had preference for either Corridor B (Pape to Queen/Richmond) or

Corridor D (Pape to King/Wellington via Queen Street). Both of these corridors include a station at Pape/Danforth which facilitates a potential northern expansion and provides an efficient link with the public right-of-way.

• One group table showed a preference for Corridor A (Broadview to Queen/Richmond) and onetable showed a preference for Corridor C (Broadview to King/Wellington).

Preferred Stations: • Some participants were in support of having two downtown stations that connect to both the

Yonge and University lines while others felt that one centrally located downtown station withmultiple access points would be sufficient.

• There was consistent support for a station at Gerrard Square, providing a connection toSmartTrack, streetcar, and future development opportunities.

• There was consistent support for stations at Sherbourne and Cherry/Sumach.• There was some support for a station at the Unilever site.

Top Considerations in Corridor Discussions: • Providing greatest relief to the transit network• Access to employment areas• Connections to other transit routes• Train operations (speed, curve radius)• Access to key destinations

5

• Serving areas with development potential

Additional Feedback from Small Group Discussion on Potential Corridors and Potential Stations:

Corridor A: • Alignment on Adelaide was suggested to provide better access to both the financial

employment district and destinations further north. • Adelaide alignment would also reduce impacts to existing surface transit.• Stations on Adelaide at both Yonge and University were suggested.• A station at Sherbourne/Adelaide was suggested, serving George Brown College and St.

Lawrence Market.• A station near Sumach/Richmond was suggested.• A station at Sumach/Dundas was suggested to serve the Regent Park community.• An elevated crossing over the Don River was suggested.

Corridor B: • A station on Queen at Bay (or between Bay and Yonge) was suggested, with underground

connections to the Yonge and University lines. • Alignment along Queen was preferred to increase access to destinations further north (Ryerson,

Eaton’s Centre, hospital, City Hall) while still providing access to the King employment areas. • A station at Sherbourne/Queen was suggested which would serve George Brown College.• A station near Regent Park was suggested (near Parliament or Sumach).• A station at the Unilever site was suggested, in addition to extension of the Broadview streetcar

to the site, to create an interconnected transit hub.• A station at Queen/Broadview was suggested providing connection to the Queen and Broadview

streetcars.• There was consistent support for a station at Gerrard Square due to potential connection to

Smart Track.

Corridor C: • A station at Bay/Wellington was suggested to provide access to key destinations such as Union

Station, UPX, the financial district, Rogers Centre, etc. • Alignment of corridor C has the potential to serve future development south of Front St. and

along the waterfront. • Stations at Queen/Broadview, Front/Cherry, and Front/Sherbourne were suggested.• A station at Broadview/Gerrard would allow streetcar connection opportunities to Ryerson,

hospitals, Gerrard Square, etc.

Corridor D: • A station between Yonge and Bay on King was suggested.• A station between Yonge and Bay on Wellington was suggested.• A station between University and John was suggested.• A station at King/Sherbourne was supported. It was suggested that the station be located

between King and Front, providing pedestrian access from both King and Front.• A station at Front/Cherry was supported, providing better access to the Distillery District.

6

• A station at the Unilever site was supported to connect with future employment anddevelopment opportunities, however there were concerns with flooding. Shifting the station toEastern Ave was also suggested.

• Some participants showed support for a station at Queen/Carlaw while others showed supportfor Queen/Pape.

• A station at Gerrard Square was supported due to potential connection to Smart Track.

4. Wrap Up and Next Steps

The potential corridors presented at the meeting will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria. SAG and public feedback obtained during the upcoming eight public meetings will inform the evaluation process. Once a preferred corridor is determined, the project team will be identifying potential alignments for public review comment in the fall of 2015.

7

RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 1B/2 Summary Report

RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Phase 3 Summary Report

Appendix B: Public Comments

Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation

1

Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas

Disagreement I appreciate that Queen St. appears to be the most favourable route due to its proximity to St. Michael's Hospital, offices at Yonge and Queen, Hudson's Bay, The Eaton Centre, City Hall and the Sheraton Centre. However, I am concerned it is too far from the heart of the Financial District and Union Station. The King Streetcar also has higher ridership than the Queen Streetcar. There must be stations that connect to the Yonge and University portions Line 1. Maybe placing a station between Bay and Yonge would eliminate the need for stations in both places.

King Online survey In the Preliminary evaluations, King and Queen street stations both performed well. Public feedback reflected this as well: Queen Street was preferred station at Yonge and King Street was preferred at University. Further analysis will be carried outon potential alignments and conclusions shared for public comment.

Why is a connection at King Station not shown to have as much potential as Queen Station? King St. is a popular streetcar route and the relief line could better service the West Don Lands and Unilever site if it were to run along King St.

King Online survey

The study indicates that the Osgoode-Queen alignment has the highest potential. I'm leaning towards that alignment as my preferred route. However, I believe the King streetcar has higher ridership, and a St. Andrew-King alignment would therefore do more in relieving congestion.

Queen or King Online survey

I believe the analysis unfairly deprecates Richmond/Adelaide as corridors even though they provide a practical alternative for King/Queen, c.f. the Bloor Danforth running north of its namesake roads. If downtown is the destination, then Bloor-Yonge style transfers at line intersections aren't really necessary -- people won't be heading back north, so a walking transfer like at Spadina could work.

Adelaide/Richmond Online Survey Richmond is included in the Queen St Corridor and Adelaide is included in the King Corridor. Potential alignments will consider these routes.

I believe the survey results unfairly deprecate the value of using Adelaide/Richmond as a downtown corridor and that these options should still be considered even if not ideal.

Adelaide/Richmond Online Survey

I think the Wellington route makes more sense, as I have seen what chaos it causes building a subway on roads above - Eglinton - and want the streetcar to keep working in the meantime.

Wellington Online survey This is included as an important consideration in the evaluation of stations. Mitigation strategies will be developed in cooperation with TTC and Transportation Services to address all construction impacts to traffic.

The more equidistant the relief line is between Union and the Bloor line, the better, so the furthest north stations should be weighted more than the further south ones.

Equal distance between Bloor and Union

Online survey Potential station areas, corridors and alignments are identified using a number of criteria and will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation to determine the best route and

Connecting to the YUS line closer to the middle between Union and the BD line would make for a better network.

Equal distance between Bloor and Union

Online survey


2


stations.

The analysis doesn't appear to capture that 1. all locations along Bay and Yonge interface with the PATH which provides connections into the core and 2. the graphic do not show the limits of the subway stations on Yonge and University (nor the reach that a DRL platform will have to service either Bay and Yonge (with a single station). A circle was probably not the appropriate shape. A series of rectangles (the size of a subway platform) may result in different conclusions.

Presentation of analysis results

Online survey This level of detail will be provided when potential alignments and their stations are being considered during the next phase of study.

Stations are actually long rectangles, not circles, so it makes only partial sense to use circles to evaluate locations.

Presentation of analysis results

Public Meeting Display

Circles represent station areas, which will include station boxes, entrances and other station components.

I think most of the pros and cons have been adequately assessed Agreement with evaluation results

Online Survey Noted

Except connecting to Union could be very difficult. Union Online survey Noted Connectivity with Union Station is key Union Online Survey Noted Avoiding Union station is a good idea Union Online Survey Noted Connection into Union would cause too much traffic going through that area and most city commuters head

out of the immediate area. Union Online Survey Noted

Proximity to Union Station would be beneficial to help relieve pressure on this hub. Union Online Survey Noted Union Station is the best station for the new line to connect because it's the most direct interchange for GO

train and buses to the subway. Union Online Survey Noted

Union Station connection is important, critical. Union Public Meeting Display

Noted

The alignment should connect to Union station or be as close as possible to maximize connections to VIA rail, GO train and UP express. Also think about the avenues that would be created from density.

Union Online Survey Noted

Lots of trains being east/west of Union so need to connect north of Union Union Public Meeting Display

Noted

I think the downtown portion should cross as far north of Union as possible. The employment area will expand north of the current high density area we know now.

Union Mail, Handed In Noted

A Relief Line station under Wellington between Bay and Yonge would connect with King Station, so there are three dots on the map but effectively one interchange stations.

Wellington Public Meeting Display

Noted

I would encourage the use of Wellington for the corridor and station, with entrances at Bay and York (and the platform box between). Further, I prefer keeping the downtown stations disconnected from existing Yonge-University stations. This would minimise disruption to existing services during construction, allow the PATH to do the work of pedestrian connectivity, and ensure service is resilient to any disruptions or crises that may affect Line 1. I'd suggest a station named "Exchange" at Wellington and Bay/York, and a "Market" station at Front and Jarvis/Church. Ideally, in future the LRTs that serve the waterfront could be extended north from Union to meet Exchange Station. The terminus of phase 1 should be aligned to allow for expansion West and

Wellington Online Survey Noted


3

Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas further South to serve destinations such as Rogers Centre and the Island Airport pedestrian access before turning North to relieve Line 2. Stop asking questions and get shovels into the ground! Deadly full subways in the AM. King/Wellington are best.

King/Wellington Online Survey Noted

Greater demand at King/Wellington than Queen and for service west (Liberty Village). King/Wellington Public Meeting Display

Noted

Queen St. is not a better destination than King St. Much more employment and connectivity on King/Wellington.

King/Wellington Public Meeting Display

Noted

I think that the King street alignment would the preferred option. As stated in the evaluation it has the highest employment density and the King 504 streetcar is the busiest surface route on the TTC. Also it provides for future expansion West into Liberty village - another high employment area. King street East is also intensifying as an employment area as companies have recently located there as well as the intensifying residential construction. City Hall, St. Michael's hospital and the Eaton centre are already well served by subway. City Hall is within walking distance of two stations (Osgoode and Queen) and St. Michael's hospital is 1 block east of Yonge - a station would not be located at Victoria street with a Queen street alignment anyway. In all three cases (City Hall, St. Mike's and Eaton centre, a transfer would be required from a King/Yonge interchange. Regent Park would be much better served by an improved 505 Dundas streetcar rather a Queen street subway alignment because of higher population density and community amenities along and north of Dundas street. Crowding at King/Yonge speaks to the greater demand for transit at that location. An interchange there would ease crowding at Union station. The King street alignment would best serve the Distillery, St. Lawrence market, George Brown College as well.

King Online Survey Noted

I think King is a happy midway point that makes getting to the lake quick by foot and reaching north of Queen is not a big deal. Queen is almost too far north to make walking to the lake easy for everyone. Also getting people off the King car would be helpful.


A connection through King Street is best for stops through West Donlands, Distillery, St. Lawrence and for future expansion westward through CityPlace and Liberty Village.


King and Yonge would appear to be a highest potential station. King Online Survey Noted King corridor seems to serve more employment/residential (better option than Queen). King Public Meeting

Display Noted

there is more development planned along king st than queen st and the king streetcar is only going to get busier compared to queen


I think the downtown destination might be better at King. It's an easy walk to Union or Queen from there, and fully underground and accessible if necessary.


I prefer this – I think a relief line would be best on King Street – amongst the taller buildings of the financial district – and eventually lead to Liberty Village – who really needs it. I do not prefer building a subway on Queen Street – Queen Street is so cultural and organic –the construction process would destroy the businesses that are there. Riding the Queen streetcar is a great experience that allows riders to see the street culture of a great street – travelling underground would lose that experience.


For the connection with the Yonge line, consideration needs to be given to the access to existing sites, and then look at the potential to connect to other sites in the future. King St, rather than Queen St., seems to have more potential.



4

Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas A line that serves Queen or King/Wellington is ideal. King/Wellington,

Queen Public Meeting Display

Noted

Alignment along King or Queen would be ideal, both access major hubs, whether being jobs or tourist attractions.

King, Queen Online survey Noted

Queen good location King good location Union Station ideal but agree it's congested King, Queen, Union Online Survey Noted It seems like a King interchange downtown makes the most sense for direct connection to downtown

buildings (PATH), but isn't there already an interchange station partially built (roughed in) at Queen & Yonge? That could save money. Either one is great.

King, Queen Online Survey Noted

King Station is already overcrowded. Queen would be much better. Queen also provides more from a social justice perspective by providing great access for people located in the downtown east around queen. St. Michael’s hospital and the Eaton center are very high volume destinations for residents. Queen street would provide very needed relief for the Queen car in the downtown areas.

Queen Online survey Noted

I think queen area makes sense to allow reasonable distance for walking from the subway from either front (line 1), queen (relief line), or Bloor (line 2).

Queen Online Survey Noted

Queen St. is correct option. King is too close to Union. Queen Public Meeting Display

Noted

I think Queen is the better choice based on the results and the fact that it is not as gentrified as King east of Yonge so building a subway here can help change that

Queen Online Survey Noted

Why does everything have to go to Union Station? – Have you actually stood and watched the mass of humanity rushing between Union Station and the downtown core in the morning – For God’s sake; do it right and run the downtown relief line along Queen Street! – It will provide better service for those that work somewhere other than south of King Street – In fact, it will provide a second option for those traveling to King and Bay – Those that need to get to Union Station will still be able to get there via the existing Yonge and Spadina/University lines – For those that work north of King Street, a Queen Street subway will result in a more efficient (and far less crowded and stressful trip)

Queen Online Survey/Email

Noted

I would prefer a line that would provide more connectivity between the area around the Distillery District to the Queen/Yonge node. By linking to Queen/Yonge, all passengers can still connect to Union in 2 more stops if they transfer; this way, City Hall, Eaton Centre, Ryerson and the hospital and government related jobs in the area north of Queen/Yonge can be well serviced

Queen

Online Survey Noted

I like the idea of Queen/Richmond crossing. Queen/Richmond Public Meeting Display

Noted

The Bay/King and Bay/Queen seem most appropriate as Bay St. stations. I suggest that consideration be given to both of these stations having east and west entrances, such that the east entrances link relatively closely to the Yonge/Queen and Yonge/King stations of the Yonge Street line. Indeed, if the Queen Street route is chosen for the Yonge/University link, I suggest considering no station on Bay and ensuring there is a west end exit from the Yonge/Queen station that directs patrons to Bay Street (not a long walk - or distance to travel in a wheelchair assuming that the funds are spent on an essential elevator and accessible exit and entrance)

Bay/King, Bay/Queen

Online Survey Noted

I think the Line 1 transfer should be at Queen over King -I also like the idea of 1 single station at bay with walking connections to The Yonge Line and University Line. This would logically save a ton of money.

Bay/Queen Online Survey Noted

Prefer to add a new station and to locate it on Bay Street with a tunnel link to an existing station similar to the Spadina station (linking line one and two). Bay/King with a tunnel link to King station or at Bay/Wellington

Bay/King, Bay/Wellington

Online Survey Noted


5


with a tunnel under Bay to Union subway station. I would prefer the Bay/Wellington location because Wellington is not served by surface public transit and it can be extended further west with a potential station at John and Wellington serving the Entertainment district, Rogers Centre and Metro Hall. There is potential intensification and new development nearby on the Metro Convention Centre site and on a deck over the railway corridor. This location would also align up with stations at Front/Sherbourne (St Lawrence Market) and at Front/Cherry(Distillery District, Pan Am Athletes village, East Bayfront and the Portlands)

Wellington is best (by far) to me. I would turn Bay & Wellington into a massive interchange to the south-end of the King Station box/platforms, and a Bay/PATH connection to Union for transit interchange! West of there is up to you, but can there be a track connection to St. Andrew on University to swap transit between lines??

Bay/Wellington Mail, Handed In Noted

I think a logical route west of the Don River would be for trains to run under Richmond (westbound) and Adelaide (eastbound), therefore stations can service Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, and King Sts equally, increasing points of access from street level.

Richmond/Adelaide Online survey Noted

Having an alignment running under Richmond St (westbound) and Adelaide (eastbound) would allow for the stations west of The Don service Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, and King Sts equally providing multiple access points at street level.

Richmond/Adelaide Online Survey Noted

Is there a possibility of partially using the Adelaide corridor to avoid some of the issues of contributing to pedestrian congestion along King? => I think it is important that the west end of the initial phase leave the possibility of future extension along King Street toward Liberty Village area - we need to get back to incremental expansion and this could be an important future incremental expansion This might also provide a connection to streetcars from the Queensway line to bring people downtown faster and create more potential to increase ridership on that dedicated LRT corridor from the Lakeshore / Mimico area.

Adelaide, future western transit expansion

Online Survey Noted

Need to serve condos and businesses at south of Richmond Connection south of Richmond

Mail, Handed In Noted

The relief line should terminate at the Yonge Street station rather than extending to University: a couple of transfers are preferable to spending millions on a Yonge-University connection, especially one so near Union station.

Connection to Yonge

Online Survey Noted

Sirs/Madams Having attended the June 15th meeting at Estonia House, I seemed to be getting mixed messages re the potential future western extension of the relief line; namely it was stated that the need for the western extension was questionable, but the evaluations of the various options included references to it. Regardless, it seems more reasonable to terminate this relief line at selected Yonge St. Station, rather than extending it to the University Ave section. If / when the Western relief line is built, it should terminate at University Ave. Having a Queen - Osborne connection with a station at City Hall might be convenient for Councillors, but would give the Rob Fords of Toronto added ammunition to denounce the relief line as really being built for the 'downtown elites', rather than for East-enders and, hopefully in the near future, citizens in Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks.

Connection to Yonge

Online Survey Noted

The potential for extending the line and placement under high employment density areas are both important and should definitely influence station choice.

Future transit expansion, employment density

Online Survey Noted

Whatever is easy to extend west should be considered. Future transit expansion


Noted


6

Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas University potential not relevant until you look at west end relief. Future transit

expansion Public Meeting Display

Noted

Consider connecting to the Yonge-University line at Queen and St. Andrew, to allow for extension west along King street to better serve Liberty village.

Future western transit expansion

Online Survey Noted

Relief I think is a key word so let me try with this: Most potential to receive Yonge use a subway line from Don Mills Station to St. Andrew for offloading some Yonge riders. A shorter approach from Pape Station on the east side of Don river to St Andrew would I believe relief Yonge and Danforth line at Yonge Bloor. Also U from Danforth subway through downtown and back up to Bloor Street also from the Kennedy Station where there is a Go station would I think also help for relief as we need to think Golden Horseshoe area as one area into the heart and out of Toronto. There is a penalty for doing nothing over the years and when it comes to funding there is history where major projects like St. Lawrence seaway was funded by the Bank of Canada with no interest. This still exists in the Bank of Canada Charter.

Maximum relief Online Survey Noted

My primary concern about the Relief line is that we place the connection to the YUS line at the point that does the most good. That where ever it is put it draws the maximum number of people off of the eastern part of the BD line.


I have not enough knowledge or experience with the issue to offer a meaningful judgement – Experts opinion should prevail

Expertise required Mail, Handed In Noted

Having a station at King/Bay or Queen/Bay poses a potential security threat. King/Bay has the Toronto Stock Exchange and First Canadian Place. Queen/Bay has City Hall and Old City Hall.

Security concerns along Bay


Noted

Queen's Park and College stations also have a large amount of traffic, and can be hectic especially during rush hour times.

College Online Survey Noted

Is ridership on Queen & King streetcar, heavy east or west of Yonge? Streetcar Ridership Mail, Handed In The number of people entering downtown on the King and Queen Streetcar corridors is approximately the same from the east (at Jarvis/Church) and the west (at Spadina) during the AM peak period

Perhaps the best way to decide between the Queen and King corridors is to plot out viable routes for each, taking into account right-of-way, and note which routes would best hit the critical station areas. I believe that 90 degree turns should be avoided if possible.

Technical feasibility of routes

Online Survey Noted

Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas Disagreement The stations on Line 2 are already too close together; constructing the interchange where there is not an

existing station would require a new station and make the ride even slower for most commuters, not to mention the extra expense.

Connection to existing station

Online Survey A walking or pedestrian connection would be required from the existing Line 2 to a new


7

Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas

station on the Relief Line.

I am extremely disappointed that a spot further east in the Danforth line was not shortlisted. The heavy volumes of users start much further east of Pape. Pape is only a problem because the subways are already full at Coxwell. Broadview is the worst option. The users in this location are already practically downtown. Broadview is not visionary. Broadview is not long-term. Broadview provides almost no development potential and doesn't integrate with the GO or SmartTrack. Only options that integrate with other lines should be selected. It is critical to benefit the whole grid, not just a corridor. An integrated grid will get more people out of cars. The further east the option, the higher number of people will leave their cars at home; and it will increase the number of people who consider bicycling to the station. The further east, the more people will benefit.

Station further east

Online Survey The evaluation showed that the development potential around Donlands Station is less than around Pape Station. There are also significant barriers to developing the Relief Line south of Donlands Station. Stations further east, including Coxwell, do not allow for a future northern extension to serve Thorncliffe Park.

I think the Danforth Line connection should be as far east as possible. Broadview is only half populated as the line would follow the DVP. Increased density will happen throughout the east neighbourhoods, especially after the relief line is built so we might as well put it there the centre of a full target area.

Station farthest east

Mail, Handed In

Stations further east (Greenwood/Coxwell) would be great as it is a half way point to Kennedy. Station further east

Online Survey

Broadview just seems too close to the final downtown destinations to provide the flexibility that this line is meant to.


Online Survey

The further east along the line, the better. There's no point in running a line down Broadview when it's so close to the Yonge Line. The people who are at Broadview Station already have it easy enough. What is the goal? 1. Yes, to help with the congestion, but it should also be: 2. To make the commute faster/ easier for those further away from the Yonge line.


Online Survey

By considering Coxwell, there is more potential in connecting the city to the Beaches and the Beaches to the city. By extending the potential subway line as farthest east as possible there is more potential in reducing traffic and congestion from areas that have less transit connectivity.

Station further east: Coxwell

Online Survey

I believe that the relief line should extend as far east as possible for two main reasons: 1) Those are the areas that have lower-income households and they are the main users of transit. By having a stop at Broadview or Pape, all that we will accomplish is to drive up the property values for people who need transit the least. 2) The reduction in commute times is amplified the further east that the relief line is placed.


Online Survey

Pape & Danforth is far too congested already and NOT a good choice for an interchange station. Donlands Station is a better choice / better sounding name for the station, i.e. "Don Lands" - Donlands Station is currently underused and there is potential for growth around that station, unlike Pape Station which is already vastly congested - Donlands Avenue has a direct route to Thorncliffe Park. (ps: your map is incorrect. Jones Avenue does not extend above Danforth Avenue.)

Donlands Online Survey

For the eastern arm of the line, Donlands is physically the best station to start the alignment downtown as well as for its future extension towards Scarborough due to its location as an intersection in the Toronto grid, thus providing roughly even spacing between stations in terms of diagonal point to point.


Greatest number of stations, serving the most number of transit customers. I would start this corridor even further east, possibly at Donlands or Greenwood (Access to Greenwood Yards, growing population density along the Danforth East corridor)


Should include a Donlands destination corridor given potential to connect/utilize current yard for new line. Donlands Online Survey


8


Broadview station is a busy station but that is due the fact that it is currently the largest bus terminal (versus Pape and Donlands) and as such, TTC directs most of its service to this location. Same can be said for Pape versus Donlands (when Pape was under construction and buses went to Donlands, it was a busy station). Donlands has the advantage that the yard is to the south which avoids the massive impact and cost associated with a Wye connection from the DRL to one of the other lines. It also has the benefit that a northern extension in the future to Thorncliffe Park is due north and affects very few houses north of O'Connor


The ‘experience’ criteria undervalues the benefit enjoyed by those west of the first Danforth connection. I think Coxwell would be better for more.

Coxwell Public Meeting Display

The primary goal of the Relief Line is to provide maximum relief at the Yonge-Bloor interchange station, therefore there are better opportunities to capture more passengers at Pape and Broadview stations.

Broadview is a good station for Relief interchange. Lots of mid-high density development potential, more relief, more affordable

Broadview Online Survey Noted

follow the Don River / do not invade residential pockets - Broadview travels both north and south - Pape is far too congested already


I think the less disturbance to eastern neighbourhoods should be considered. There is considerably more space available at Broadview. Read my rating for more on that end.


Pape station would be the most logical choice in the instance of future expansion potential to continue northward via Don Mills Rd.

Pape Online Survey Noted

Pape station more ideal in consideration of the fact of a future expansion North. Pape Online Survey Noted I think it makes sense to put the relief line intersection with line 2 as far east as possible (Pape) to support

ongoing development in the east danforth area. Pape Online Survey Noted

I think Pape is the better choice based on the results Pape Online Survey Noted A connection at Pape Station would attract riders coming from the East and provide service to

neighbourhoods currently lacking. Broadview has a streetcar route and would not allow for optimal service to the Financial District, West Don Lands and Unilever sites.


It should go through Pape station and up Don Mills Road to lessen the number of people going over to the Yonge-University line.


Pape makes the most sense. Broadview is too far west, and tunnelling under Broadview would seriously disrupt the critical streetcar lines


Pape would get people off Line 2 more easily Pape Online Survey Noted Pape Station makes the most sense for an interchange, being far enough from Yonge to provide a time-saving

alternative and serve new destinations, but close enough to allow for many transferring passengers to have boarded.


Broadview is already a very busy station. To make it worse would be silly. It's also a bit too close to the Yonge line and entirely inaccessible on its western boundary thanks to the Don. Pape is ripe for a build-up and using Pape would move the line further east increasing its catchment.



9

Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas Pape is definitely the ideal Station option for both North and South Route options and will allow for

connection with RER at Gerrard and through major development area on Carlaw. Pape Online Survey Noted

Yes Pape and Danforth Station ideal Pape Online Survey Noted I'm less familiar with this part of the route, but Pape has always been seen as the natural choice for where the

connection should be ... not too far east or west. Pape Online Survey Noted

I support the Pape alternative in order to move the line further east. Pape Online Survey Noted Prefer to locate the station at Pape because it would enable a future northern extension along an Avenue

designation towards Thorncliffe Park. The station would also line up with a station at Pape/Gerrard (Smart Track)


Go Pape - and then follow the Metrolinx recommendation and build up the Science Centre (Don Mills and Eglinton) and then to Fairview Mall ( Don Mills and Sheppard) - it would be easier for me to go to work with no car.


A line running NS on Broadview has a much smaller catchment area than one running along Pape. As well, future expansion northwards across the Don Valley will require a longer structure using a Broadview line than a Pape line.


Pape or somewhere east of Pape so more relief on existing subway. Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

Pape (x2) Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

I have always felt Pape was the best option on the Danforth. Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

Pape is probably a better interceptor of east end Danforth line users. Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

Broadview crowded now with buses and streetcars. Pape is the best option. Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

Pape is an ideal location, but it's a small station. Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

Pape is better, more opportunity to advance north of Gerrard Square and connect to Portlands and Unilever. Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

Broadview is ridiculous. It's too far east to be useful for most people east of the Don. Pape's more central location will shorten the distance to the subway for many more people.

Pape Public Meeting Display

Noted

Gerrard Square Pape Station

Pape Mail, Handed In Noted

But Pape makes much more sense to me than Broadview Pape Mail, Handed In Noted However, Broadview does not work (to me) as a route. Too close to valley, too late for easterners to consider

switching trains. Pape is far superior. Pape Mail, Handed In Noted

Pape is Best Pape Mail, Handed In Noted Pape Pape Mail, Handed In Noted -I think the Line 2 transfer should be at Pape over Broadview Pape Online Survey Noted This route serves, not only the Business District traffic, but also the nighttime entertainment traveller. Toronto

needs 24/7 service to reduce car usage... not just daytime workers. A connection at Pape Stn would make it Pape Online Survey Noted


10


rival the Spadina and St. George interchanges and would relieve Yonge-Bloor Stn which is especially badly designed for switching large volumes of passengers (pedestrians cross paths in every direction with almost no option to redirect any pedestrian traffic.

im less concerned about the King or queen spot, but I feel strongly that Broadview will not service all the people that the relief line is supposed to reach Pape is the better option


Broadview and Pape were the two possible connection points on the Bloor line. My preference is Papa since it will help to relieve congestion earlier on the westbound leg.


The Pape station seems more desirable than the Broadview station as we already have overcrowding in morning rush hour starting at Pape. Patrons at Pape, Chester and Broadview already have to wait occasionally at times for more than one train to be able to access eastbound between 7:30 and 9:00 AM. This will only get worse over time and the extension of the Bloor/Danforth line when it opens will make it even more overcrowded. The best option by far is to provide the option for downtown-bound patrons to leave at Pape, thus easing Pape, Chester and Broadview. In addition, given how urgent it is to provide this relief to the already disastrous over-crowding at Yonge/Bloor, I suggest that there be a dual system along the relief line, with one of the lines providing for express service to Yonge/King (or Queen) and St. Andrew/Bay (or Osgoode). This express service would have greater drawing power than the regular service line the significantly given decreased travel time. It may be that in the first decade or so, this express would only be needed during rush hours, but it provides opportunity for further relief outside of rush hours in future if needed. It also could be used as parking for the new multi-car trains overnight.

Pape, express service to downtown core

Online Survey Noted

Possibility for extension under right of ways is helpful, but I do worry about Pape Station's ability to handle increased traffic. Also, additional costs to alter or expand Pape Station so shortly after funds were spent to renovate station appears wasteful.

Pape, extension under right of way

Online Survey Noted

Besides the narrow view of this study, we need to look at the bigger picture. Where will this line extend in the future, where will it connect? The Relief Line must go to Eglinton. Without this context, we are studying options in the dark. From Broadview, it doesn't work well. Only from Pape or Donlands a further extension is possible, through Thorncliffe.

Pape or Donlands, future transit expansion

Online Survey Noted

Pape or Donlands! Broadview would require subway through Riverdale Park. Pape or Donlands Public Meeting Display

Noted

Eventual routes to the north of the Danforth are an important consideration for taking traffic away from Yonge & Bloor station.

Future transit expansion

Online Survey Noted

The station along the BD line should be selected on the basis that a connection to Eglinton (and even beyond that to Sheppard) will definitely be required for a useful network and relief. To not go north of BD means not providing any relief to the Yonge line at all. What were the transit planners thinking?


Online Survey Noted

for relief we need to think destinations like from Don Mills Station to St Andrew as one leg, another shorter version Pape Station to St. Andrew and an underground U from the Danforth subway through downtown and back up to Bloor line for yet even a shorter version...also the Kennedy station which also has a GO station to Union should be studied also.


I think we need to also consider what the southern route will be and which station would best satisfy that as well. For instance, it seems to me that Broadview might be tricky because the street goes East, but I know little of this, so it is irrelevant.

Technical considerations

Online Survey Noted

Where do people on Yonge Line get off most south of Bloor? What stations? The further north of Danforth you Current ridership Mail, Handed In Dundas is the busiest


11


go, will there be more relief on all Yonge? How many years before connecting to #4 Sheppard Line? - Go Lines are long distance destinations - Smart Tracks is ½ & ½ - Broadview & Pape Stations renovated, others will too, soon

station between Union and Bloor, with King Station being next. View online: www.ttc.ca/PDF/ Transit_Planning/ Subway_ridership _2014.pdf Metrolinx has identified a northern extension to Sheppard but would require further study to determine timing, alignments and stations.

Comment Theme Source Response Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley Disagreement Station Density is too low No location

specified Mail, Handed In Noted

Could be more opportunity east of the railway line Station areas east of rail line

Mail, Handed In The five potential stations east of the rail corridor generally did not perform as well as stations nearer to and west of the corridor. Connecting to Line 2 east of Donlands precludes the opportunity to extend the Relief Line north to serve Thorncliffe Park in the future.

This is the most confusing part, in that if you're asking about subway route, pinning the start and the end will naturally make station location will make the stations in this section dependent upon the route, not the other way around. Holy turd spheres that's a lot of circles with 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, or fully filled green balls. It has the feel of 'we have to cover everything so no one can critique us for anything' indecisiveness. Quite honestly, specific station locations should be dependent upon the route, not having them co-equal concerns. As it seems Pape / Broadview and King / Queen are pinned as start and end points, and there are only 4

Study process Online Survey Noted


12

Comment Theme Source Response Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley

routes, once that is figured then and only then should talking about where stations could be put along that line. I know it may be cheaper to ask about both at the same time, so you don't have to go through two rounds of public consultation, but this is like trying to determine which should go first, the cart or the horse at the same time as determining which is the cart and which is the horse. Dundas and Sumach station is too far north to be useful for the corridors contemplated. Dundas and Shuter Online Survey This station is located

within Corridor A. In all of Riverdale and Leslieville there is only one good spot for a station? Time to change the criteria. Evaluation criteria,

stations to serve Riverdale/ Leslieville


Potential station areas in these neighbourhoods tend to have less potential due to • lower existing and

projected population and employment densities

• less development potential due to Heritage Conservation Districts and,

• less land designated for intensification.

These policies are identified in the City's Official Plan.

2 stations west of the Don River. Align the station box of Sherbourne west of the intersection so that it reaches closer to George Street, thus better acting as a St. Lawrence Market stop as well (imagine west-end of platform being stairs up to that short one-block walk to the market itself)

St. Lawrence Market


Please have a stop at the St. Lawrence Market. Also, the east side needs excellent transfers with the Carlton and Queen cars.

St. Lawrence Market, streetcar connections

Online Survey Noted

To me, these stations are best when chosen to build a better city, with new transit oriented development that does not severely impact existing neighbourhoods. Stations should be few and curves generous to maintain high speed service. They should also provide relief to congested streetcar routes. Stations at St. Lawrence Market, the Distillery District, new neighbourhoods West and East of the Don River, and at a single RER/SmartTrack interchange would be helpful.

St. Lawrence Market, Distillery District, East/West Don Lands, SmartTrack/RER connection, streetcar connections

Online Survey Noted


13

Comment Theme Source Response Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley I think running closer to Cherry, Distillery, Unilever would also facilitate more under accessible living working

space Cherry, Distillery District, Unilever

Online Survey Noted

Great opportunity to bring transit to the centre of Regent Park and open all the incredible new amenities up to the larger community via transit - cricket field, new pool, skating rink etc.

Regent Park Online Survey Noted

Believe a station needs to be added in the Regent Park area, as well as the Sherbourne area, to support growth and development, as well as equity, in the downtown east.

Regent Park, Sherbourne

Online Survey Noted

Good thinking out of the box with Regent Park Regent Park Mail, Handed In Noted A station serving George Brown or somewhere thereabouts could be good, but I don't think St. Lawrence is in

need of a stop or the Distillery, either. George Brown Online Survey Noted

River/Oak Streets is a good location for a station. River/Oak Online Survey Noted Given the number of current and planned development projects in the Downtown East/Lower Parliament

and Waterfront locales, any relief line proposals should meet at least some of the transportation shortfalls that currently exist in this area.

Downtown east and waterfront development

Online Survey Noted

A station in the centre of the West Don Lands further south east of Cherry and Front would likely be in close proximity to more commuter than other options considered.

West Don Lands Online Survey Noted

The stations on the West Don Lands/Distillery District area, and Sherbourne/St. Lawrence are the ones with the most potential, I hope they end up being chosen.

West Don Lands, Distillery District, St. Lawrence Market

Online Survey Noted

With all the development in the West Don Lands, there needs to be additional lines to service this area. There are already too many people waiting at Queen and River to board an already-jammed-packed 501 streetcar. Once the Canary District condos take occupancy and the new Riverside Square condo is built east of the river, that area will be completely overwhelmed. It is all young professionals moving in here who depend on TTC as their main mode of transportation. 501 is by far the busiest. The 505 and 504 are busy, but manageable at current levels of ridership. On the AVERAGE winter day, I have to wait for at least one or two completely full 501 streetcars to pass before there is one with room for me. More 502 rush hour streetcars might help if there is no relief line in this area. I also want to mention that this "station area evaluation" is not the easiest to understand, and I am a university-educated professional. Hopefully this doesn't hinder the quality of feedback you receive.

West Don Lands Online Survey Noted

Important that consideration be given to the future housing and commercial development in the east and west Donlands in selecting station(s) on either side of the Don River.

Future development in east/west Don Lands

Online Survey Noted

Unilever King Cherry

Unilever, King/Cherry


Need to serve Pan Am, Distillery, and create development along Portlands area Avoid parks and do not disrupt established communities

West Don Lands, Portlands, Distillery District


The relief line MUST run as far south as possible to serve future development in the west don lands, future development in the Portlands and into the proposed development off lake shore in sunlight park. The distillery district deserves service, especially as a tourist destination. Ultimately, future developments are going to push south towards the lake and these areas need to be serviced with subway, especially if they are

West Don Lands, Portlands, Distillery District

Online Survey Noted


14


going to be large scale developments as expected. Going through the Portlands under Commissioners Drive should be considered. This is where the maximum

development potential exists. The current evaluation is too timid and not forward looking enough. The City is underestimating the need for central employment lands in the future

Portlands, employment areas

Online Survey Noted

Either of these is fine but I think we need to provide support to the new developments in the south. And provide better access to the Portlands

Portlands, serve new development

Online Survey Noted

Providing a connection to the future Port Lands development is important. Portlands Online Survey Noted Still consider the Portlands an alignment. Portlands Public Meeting

Display Noted

Seems to me that the Unilever site station should be green based on the huge redevelopment which the city should foster (not just consider). With Broadview extending south, this will be the station for the east Portlands. Build for the future!

Unilever/Portlands Public Meeting Display

Noted

Servicing the Unilever and Portlands area is very important in so far as managing future growth of the city. To not have them serviced would be short sighted. Subways are long term projects that require vision. We once built for a great future as in the Harrison filtration plant and the Bloor Viaduct. I think a subway should be built with the same mindset. Cost savings and a lack of future vision would be a waste of opportunity. Don't think small.

Unilever/Portlands Online Survey Noted

Are we sure the Unilever lands will be important once developed? It would be sad not to have a station there if indeed it does work, there is a lot of potential; but if it doesn't, it would be a major (or mayor) boondoggle and embarrassment. Please evaluate this thoroughly before reaching a decision.

Unilever Online Survey Noted

Make sure the Relief Line hits future development sites like Gerrard Square and the First Gulf site. Hitting the Port Lands would be even better, but probably unrealistic.

Gerrard Square, Unilever/Portlands

Online Survey Noted

A station at Queen/Broadview nicely intercepts 501 and 504 streetcar riders. Queen/Broadview Public Meeting Display

Noted

All corridors should consider a Broadview / Queen station as this can provide an important transfer point from DRL to King and Queen (and Broadview) Streetcars.

Queen/Broadview Online Survey Noted

Avoid Queen St & Degrassi St Opposition to Queen/Degrassi


I do not think Queen Degrassi is a viable station location. I was told at the last public meeting that although it still is orange on the report, that it is no longer being considered.

Opposition to Queen/Degrassi

Online Survey Noted

Favour a station at Degrassi and Queen Queen/Degrassi Online Survey Noted Would like to see a station at Queen and Carlaw Queen/Carlaw Online Survey Noted Please do build a subway at queen/Carlaw My son's school is right there (Morse St.). The disruption would be

catastrophic. Thank you Queen/Carlaw Online Survey Noted

Connections from Gerrard and Queen Streetcars to subway in east end, could help us get to work faster. Streetcar connections

Online Survey Noted

Stops on Carlaw south of Gerrard are preferable to stops on Pape as Pape is a more quiet residential street than Carlaw in this area

Carlaw/Gerrard Online Survey Noted

Gerrard Square is a must. Gerrard Square Public Meeting Display

Noted

Gerrard/Pape to Dundas/Sumach To Queen/Richmond alignment seems most logical as it would service the Gerrard Square, Online Survey Noted


15


Gerrard Square and newly-developed Carlaw/Dundas area, and New Regent Park Developments maximizing ridership in those areas

Carlaw/Dundas, Regent Park

Gerrard Corridor looks like the best. Gerrard corridor Online Survey Noted Yes Pape and Gerrard ideal Broadway and Queen good too Unilever hard to determine as current area does

not support any density Gerrard Square, Queen/Broadview

Online Survey Noted

A station at Gerrard, Queen, Eastern and Cherry would be nice. Gerrard, Eastern Ave, Cherry


Noted

I favour Pape/Queen, link to Cherry streetcar and new Gerrard Square as practical. Gerrard Square, Pape/Queen, Cherry streetcar


Noted

I think it is REALLY important to connect the Relief Line to the GO/RER lines. This is poorly handled now between TTC & GO. For example, plan for a relief line/Go station at Gerrard square and in the middle of the Don Valley; also connect the Danforth Line to the GO line in the Don Valley

Gerrard Square, SmartTrack connection


I hope you have factored the possible SRC tunnel and SmartTrack into station and corridor selection. SmartTrack connection


Noted

Having the relief extend into the beaches would be very helpful in reducing traffic on Queen street. Also, creating a hub at Main Street given the existing GO station would go a long way in creating a truly integrated system.

Beaches, Main Street GO station

Online Survey Locating the Relief Line in these areas would preclude a possible extension to the north. Perhaps a line running along Queen to Coxwell Station could connect the Leslieville and Beaches

neighbourhoods in connecting key activity areas. Leslieville, Beaches Online Survey

I think it makes sense for the relief line to run east of the Don river to support development in the East Don Lands.

East of Don River Online Survey Noted

I am answering no as not sure of the complex variables presented and so using a generally statement on relief from Don Mills station to St. Andrew an also shorter version Pape Station to St. Andrew and the Underground U from Danforth line through downtown and back up to Bloor line also maybe Kennedy Station as it also has Go station with its stops along to Union.


In downtown east, and near-downtown east, the 2 stations that a straight line would allow would be Parliament/Queen (501, 502, Parliament bus) and Broadview between Gerrard and Dundas (506, 505, 504).

Queen/Parliament, Broadview between Gerrard and Dundas

Online Survey Noted

Whatever route is finally decided upon, working with the communities must begin immediately to pave the way for development around the new station areas. Rezoning should be in place prior to any construction on the relief line.

Community involvement


Below grade is less hazardous. Technical considerations


Noted

Do you generally agree with the results of the evaluations? Downtown Danforth East & West of Don Valley

Yes 80 76 69


16

No 6 8 13

Comments on Potential Corridors

17

Comment Theme Source Response Prefer an alignment that is further from SmartTrack route. Corridor A Online Survey Noted Corridor A is the shortest one, it contributes to Regent Park Revitalization and it touches principal high density areas such as Queen, St. Michaels. People working on King can also take this line and walk south to their jobs. Other corridors distribute people to Union and King which are already very crowded stations.

Corridor A Online Survey Noted

-Broadview is a better intercept station than Pape. -There is more development potential along Queen and Broadview than along King and Pape -There is more opportunity to interline with abandoned Don Branch to get to Thorncliffe -There is City-owned CALC campus, which can be a major development -River Street is seeing major development proposals, much larger than anything near Pape


Queen street requires a subway, as current congestion is overwhelming. So many people using the Yonge line get off at queen to go to the Eaton Centre. Thus I rated the King subway plans lower. I took affordability into question, and the less money it costs to build, the quicker the relief line will be built. Since congestion is already so high, the sooner we get a new line, the better. I rated the least expensive option the highest for this reason. Connecting to Broadway station makes the most sense due to the large amount of bus and streetcar connections available. As someone who has lived close to Pape, we really don't need a subway that connects to that station.


Having the line go up either Pape or Broadview makes a lot of sense, but possibly pushing the connecting the line across Queen street is more reasonable. There is already a streetcar that goes from Broadview to King, the 504. There is no connection from Broadview to Queen.


Corridor A is the only one that considers a crossing of the Don River upstream from the Queen/King area. The old river valley in the Queen/King area is so deep and filled with loose silts and organics so that the construction of a crossing in that area will be prohibitively expensive and may create access problems for any stations located anywhere near. The Pape connection to the Danforth Line is my preferred location, but there should be a related corridor that permits consideration of a Don River crossing further north.


Corridor A is faster, more affordable, easier to construct, provides more relief, and more development potential. Corridor A Online Survey Noted Corridor A is too close to Yonge line. Corridor A Public Meeting

Display Noted

2 km is not too close to Yonge Corridor A Public Meeting Display

Noted

Corridor A - Nice coverage for Regent Park Corridor A Public Meeting Display

Noted

Broadview is well served already it needs relief yes, as it is over-crowded But there are fewer good potential stations along this route

Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted

This does allow service to Regent Park (a positive) but this does not outweigh the advantages of the Pape terminus over Broadview.


Broadview is already well served by the 504 King car downtown. While there is some development possible at the corner of Danforth & Broadview – there has already been a lot of high rise apartments built in the area. Broadview subway station is much too crowded & a relief line at Pape should alleviate this.


Least expensive (particularly if using a bridge across Don) Most development potential e.g. CALC campus or along River


Line too short Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted See other Broadview comments Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted Broadview not a good choice – one sided – low development potential – too late to help am peak crowding coming into Bloor/Yonge


Broadview is not going to have as many B-D passengers make the transfer to Relief Line. Serving Queen is not as important to Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted


18

Comment Theme Source Response me as serving King/Well/Front (new towers) & south core. Pape is a better option Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted Corridor needs to be south as possible, Queen already served by streetcars, future north connection easier. Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted Creates redundancy along Queen (501) No future connection to GO at Broadview Limited growth at Broadview & Dundas & no connection at Broadview Queen commercial residential


Far from Union Worse connectivity regionally This seems like a low demand route Not sure I understand this one Queen is low density & it seems like it will stay that way


Broadview is bad. Only draws from one side. Queen is ok but King is better. Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted Not inclusive enough Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted Cheapest and shortest is most likely to actually get built Heavy social equity lens –Regent Park and Moss Park


Route along Broadview is only half a target market Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted No opportunity for transfer with railway/SmartTrack Less east-west breadth, less opportunity to relieve Queen streetcar


I think Pape should be the connection point on the Danforth line Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted This is my least preferred choice Broadview corridor has two streetcar routes


Way to close to Yonge Line Corridor A Mail, Handed In Noted A has *very* little in the way of new connections for what will be a very expensive project. Corridor A Online Survey Noted Corridor A provides a shorter route, more development, lower costs, and allows for use of abandoned and Metrolinx-owned Don Branch corridor


Corridor A has the option to use a low viaduct to cross the valley, instead of a deep bore tunnel. Corridor A Online Survey Noted Connections to Broadview Subway Station make a lot of sense & are best for me. A and C Online Survey Noted Please leave Pape alone! Broadview is a more natural hub point. A and C Online Survey Noted I think that there would be less disruption to neighbourhoods if the relief line went down Broadview. There is all of Riverdale Park to use with a line partly above ground. It might spoil a good toboggan run, but that could even be incorporated creatively. And I think a toboggan run might be less of a loss than the whole swath of houses through Pape Avenue. Broadview is also more fully commercial than Pape and would only attract pedestrians from East, South and North in a fairly open area, while I do not know how well Pape station would accommodate pedestrians from all directions in a much more constrained site.

A and C Online Survey Noted

Corridor A: shortest and least costly option, more likely to actually be started and completed on budget Corridor B: route along Queen does not service west area (liberty village) Corridor C: Broadview station provides connection to streetcar routes while relieving congestion on Yonge line. Corridor D: higher potential impact to neighbourhoods, right-of-way issues and easements. Also seems the most costly and technically challenging.


Love the opportunity to connect Regent Park's amenities to the city. A and C Online Survey Noted Broadview corridor (more businesses) is better than the Pape corridor (mostly residential). Broadview follows the route of the Don River similar to the current Broadview Street car and travels thru China Town and downtown. The Broadview Street car is currently a desirable route except for the fact that it is too slow. If replaced with a Rapid Transit system it will be an improvement on an already preferred route.



19

Comment Theme Source Response Streetcars already serve the Broadview corridor quite efficiently. It makes sense to connect the Relief Line further east, at Pape. Also, I live at Queen and Broadview and there is already heavy traffic congestion during rush hour. I am concerned that construction would leave a heavy toll on the neighbourhood and small businesses in and around East Chinatown.

Corridor B Online Survey Noted

Being a resident of Leslieville, I think the Pape/Queen Corridor would be the best option in terms of access to downtown as well as the Danforth etc. It would serve a broader area and density of residents, businesses etc. The least advantageous route would be the Broadview/King alignment - far fewer residents within walking distance of the stations, and it would serve a smaller geographic area.


I would like to see the line come as far east as is possible (I liked it when a Queen Pape station was on the table - for purely selfish reasons). I would like to see options that have it come even further east.

Corridor B, further east alignment

Online Survey Noted

I personally vote for Option B or D, with my preference being "B". Every time I've ridden the Queen Streetcar it's been out-of-control packed, and also stuck in traffic. Plus I think it's smart for the city to have the line intersect all the highlights like the Eaton Centre, City Hall, Queen West, West Queen West, etc. Queen West is always busy and now with the Ossington area being such a trendy place it's jammed too. I also like it being slightly north. King seems too close to Union, RER, etc. This would benefit both locals and tourists all days of the week, whereas King through the core benefits the Financial District during the week and is a ghost town on weekends. I used to work at Don Mills and Eglinton and riding the Pape bus from Bloor up was a nightmare. Also always packed. So I love the idea of the DRL crossing at Pape and eventually making its way up Pape, across Overlea and up Don Mills until it intersects with...whatever transit line ends up crossing Don Mills. I don't think Broadview works because you can have people from the east of Broadview come to the line, but west of Broadview is mostly just the valley. Whereas on Pape, people can come from both west and east of Pape to catch this line.


If SmartTrack and GO RER systems were built, then Corridor B is the best option due to multiple factors: - Although situated immediately outside the financial district, Queen Station and Osgoode Station is easily accessible to PATH. Furthermore, it does not hurt to walk a block (good for exercising). - Having a King Street alignment would suffer the streetcar routes north of King Street, while making it less attractive with SmartTrack because of their closeness. Having a Queen Street alignment would not only reduce streetcar ridership on Queen, it can also reduce King and Dundas streetcars also (they are roughly 5 minute walk from Queen Street, which universally anyone can walk). - The Downtown Relief Line was originally built on Queen Street, so it is only better to continue where we left off. - Pape station is a major transit stop, and it is much more significant than Broadview because of the 25 Don Mills, which is one of the most heavily used bus routes in the GTA. Having Pape Station as a "terminal" would provide an easier transfer to buses, or any other rapid transit alternatives such as an LRT or an expansion of the DRL.


Believe that the Queen is better than King for connections, for our city, for connections. King/Wellington are very busy already. Corridor B Online Survey Noted Option A: Worst option by far. Doesn't intersect any GO/RER/SmartTrack lines. Broadview corridor means reduced catchment area (since west side is ravine/parkland) and duplicates existing streetcar. Option B: Best option in my opinion. Intersects GO/RER/SmartTrack. Hits developable side at Gerard Square. Goes into centre of downtown, short walking distance from destinations on King/Dundas. Hits many developable sites. Currently, not many deep-foundation buildings that would pose difficulties in tunnelling. Further from lake shore so better geology for tunnelling. Historical proposed route for downtown subway. Option C: Sharp turn from Broadview to King. Not a good connection (if at all) to GO/RER/SmartTrack. Option D: Close second best. King is a good corridor for hitting destinations, but it is too close to the rail corridor and tunnelling will be more expensive because of the deep foundations of buildings/PATH network.


I would prefer to see a corridor that feeds areas not currently well-served by other forms of transit. Union is a major hub, so I prefer a corridor that serves Queen, which is farther from it than King. I prefer Pape because it is further east of the Yonge subway line than Broadview.


The Pape station corridors seem to be the most practical in terms of access to Greenwood Yards and in terms of station access and future station placement. The Pape/Queen corridor provides access for residents of Regent Park which is important to me.


Queen connection corridor seems to provide a "middle" zone for hospitals / Eaton centre etc. while maintaining proximity to Corridor B Online Survey Noted


20

Comment Theme Source Response the denser core. Pape connection seems slightly better as would serve more populations to east and west as opposed to Broadview which is limited to the west by the Don Valley (especially North of Danforth). I think that starting at Pape is preferred as you want the relief line to start a bit more east then Broadview. People living between Pape and Broadview can already easily access downtown. I also feel that Queen is a better destination than King Street, as Queen Street is close to both the financial district, but also all of the tourist destinations (Eaton Centre, City Hall, Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts etc.).


-Pape warrants the station more than Broadview because it is busier -I prefer a Queen alignment over King because it is more central and will service Queen West in the future. Liberty Village can be serviced by Smart Track -we should be using the existing rail corridor to lower costs and avoid tunneling where possible -Option A is my second favorite because it is the cheapest and we could probably use a right of way to extend into Thorncliffe park with phase 2.


I think a station at Pape will reduce the most congestion on the Bloor Danforth line and serve more people compared to a station at Broadview. Similarly, I think going through Queen St. will be useful to more people versus King.


Broadview is too far west - Line 2 is already congested at peak by Pape so eastern connection must at Pape (or Donlands). North, nearer to Queen has benefit of encircling CBD plus more significant non-commuter destinations including Eaton Centre and Queen Street.


I don't think either Broadview alignment will have as good an impact as the Pape alignments. The Danforth crowding begins well before Broadview. The connections to Smart Track and eventually up to the Eglinton LRT would be great from either Pape alignment. I favour the Queen alignment to the south to bring people further up into the city. King would serve the financial district around 9am and 5pm, M-F, but outside those hours it would be better to have a Queen line.


I think it is really important to go along Queen St. because: 1. To go north on Yonge you can still get on with relative ease during the rush hour at King but with much more difficulty at Queen. At Dundas its gets impossible. So Queen is the best option from a personal experience. 2. I also think that it is better to have a subway corridor north of King i.e. closer to Bloor. This provides a better balance than having a corridor at the south edge and north edge of the downtown. 3. Queen line can be accessed more easily by those working in the area between King and Queen and those working north of Queen. The Queen is part of a much larger catchment area. 4. Finally, Pape is better than Broadview because again it draws upon a larger catchment area. (I live just north and east of the Broadview station, but can't be selfish in this instance.)


King line is too far south- more commuters in the Queen area as well as serving Eaton Centre, and closer to Dundas Square and new upcoming condos - Massey, INDX, Pace, Grid, Dundas SQ and others. Also supporting the escalating (tremendous) development in the Regent Park area helping with its social implications / assistance would be beneficial and forward-thinking. The line down from Pape supports a greater (and increasing) density including Gerrard Square.


While the challenges and additional cost of tunnelling beneath the Don Lands, Don River, and Interceptor, make Corridor D less attractive, providing connections to present and future transit services like streetcars, SmartTrack, and RER, and offering relief to Financial District workers, are essential to making the relief line a reality through acquiring buy in by Toronto's residents and City Council.


I prefer the Pape alignment for the North/South section. I don't have a preference for King or Queen, so either street would work.


The idea of relief line is to help out congestion. Corridor A does very little to pick up loads. Corridor C King East is not a destination Corridor D King East is not a destination Corridor B potentially can attract passengers from other lines so for the purpose of a relief line attracts passengers and is in the "best" destination. It is really too bad that West Toronto would be served best by something on King but East of University, Queen East is a better route. There needs to be thought that after University the route should head south to King.


I am looking at connectivity with other transit networks (streetcars, SmartTrack) and coverage of main neighbourhoods and high traffic centres. In this light, proposed route B is the best option in my opinion. Route D is a decent alternative.



21

Comment Theme Source Response I prefer the routes that are going from Pape station because they broaden the area of service and benefit, bringing people east from between Yonge & Pape stations and serving other destinations, instead of just concentrating people along Line 2 towards both Yonge and Broadview (which are fairly close). I prefer the routes going into Queen station because there is already so much service going into/around King station and King & Queen station are fairly close together. This might allow some of the dense employment around King to move a little north, redistributing some of the traffic a little. This could also better ease some of the dense traffic around Union station, instead of adding to it.


Link with smart track important. There is already some alternative stations at queen and Yonge built years ago so costs should be lower.


There needs to be a subway station at city hall. Queen Street was promised a subway a 100 years ago and we ought to deliver, using the existing lower queen platform. If we are going to build a subway beneath King then we might as well connect it to Union Station rather than cut across just one station above. Paper station is better than Broadview as it is located further east and better connects to the busy Don Mills corridor. Don Mills road is a great ROW for a future subway. Plus the connection to SmartTrack is an added bonus


more stations to connect more people; connects regent park; fewer construction issues than D Corridor B Online Survey Noted Pape offers more coverage. Broadview keeps the access to downtown to narrow. Queen seems to provide access to more places. When you continue west later on you could angle south to King St to pick up Liberty Village.


Despite some concerns about proximity to my house with the Pape options they seem, based on the tables provided, to provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. I think it's important that the selected route to the neighbourhood improvement area in Regent Park.


It doesn't make sense to run it along King. Too much overlap with the existing (albeit limited) system given that the Yonge/University stops from King to St. Andrew can service most of the downtown core already. Queen walking southwards could easily still service most of the downtown core, but would open up north of Queen and give a better linkage to the key locations such as City Hall, Queen's Park, Kensington Market, hospitals, etc.


Moving traffic earlier from the Danforth Line at Pape Station makes the most sense. Queen Street is a bigger streetcar route than King and would alleviate more congestion. It also helps to have connections with Eaton Centre and City Hall. It also looks to have less issues with Don Valley River (flooding) and existing sewer systems.


I am in favour of routing the Relief Line along Queen or Richmond Streets as this will keep the route further from Union Station, thereby creating a better alternative to SmartTrack and Go Trains as a means of getting downtown. A Queen/Richmond alignment puts people right into the heart of downtown where they could easily walk to other areas such as Dundas and College Streets. A King/Wellington alignment would discourage this and may put more people back onto the Yonge/University subway line. If the Queen/Richmond alignment does come to fruition, those wishing to get to Union Station/Front Street may still do so on SmartTrack via the potential station connection at Gerrard Square and/or the Unilever site.


I prefer the corridor to connect with Line 2 to be further east (at Pape vs Broadview) so that the catchment can benefit those who live further east. (Less travel time to downtown core) Secondly, I prefer Corridor A and B over C and D to avoid the coal-gasification plant and contaminated lands. To remediate heavily contaminated lands usually costs more and takes longer than expected. Lastly, I prefer the connection with Line 1 to be further north to distribute the passengers north of the core rather than dumping everyone at King or St. Andrew stations. There are many options to travel from Queen to King (e.g. PATH, aboveground) and the distance is short.


I have little faith that Smart Track will go through, as the proposed transit infrastructure projects appears to have many apparent flaws (unnecessary with GO RER, only acts as a commuter service not as usable during off peak hours), thus I consider I don't consider DRL alignments that match up with Smart Track a setback. Additionally, a more ideal alignment would hook up with the Yonge line further north (i.e. Queen) to distance from traffic at Union station, which is already approaching full capacity (likely reached with RER).



22

Comment Theme Source Response Accessing the downtown core along King or Wellington is much too close to Union the only current interchange downtown. Queen Street makes a much more balanced location including providing a better start point for the west extension. Existing construction under Queen Station will help save a bit of money. The route out of Queen has better crossing of Don River area and provides access to large residential area east of the Don. Trying to make this one line all things to all people by looping it south of Lever factory to serve that area is an inefficient way of making the route a long way to achieve a short objective. New public transit to Lever - Beaches area could be by extension of street car along waterfront line Construction access from Don Valley provides efficient tunnel boring northeast and west for lower costs and quicker construction. Can this construction job be readied to utilise the TBMs which come free from the Eglinton boring in a year or so? Gerald Harper


Queen Street is the correct route - Corridor A is okay, except that it does not intersect with the existing Go Train lines east of the DVP - Corridor B is the correct route - Corridors C and D are too far south - The area south of King Street will be more than adequately serviced by existing transit, the proposed SmartTrack, and other improvements to existing Go Train services - A Queen Street line will provide a second option for those traveling to King and Bay - A Queen Street line will also relieve additional pressure from existing Union Station based services


My rating is based on two key criteria. First, we need criss-crossing rapid transit lines that give multiple route options to transit riders (not radial lines all leading to the Union Station area). We should be developing a spider web system like they have in many European cities (such as Barcelona and Madrid, two similar size cities to Toronto). The spider web allows you to go to within walking distance of many different places using rapid transit connections. Our system is focussed on getting to Union Station only. Corridors B and D allow much better connections to Smart Track other than at Union station, giving more options to transit users. I give Corridor B top marks because it goes along Queen Street in the central area, and therefore gives more area (e.g. as far north as Dundas Street) walking distance access to an east/west rapid transit line. The East Bayfront LRT (assuming it does get built) will be an east west connection that will help somewhat from King Street south.


If this is a relief line, it has to get most people to the most frequently visited stations. On Line 1, King Stn and Dundas Stn are by far the most visited two stations during rush hours. So the relief line should get these commuters closest to these two stations. Queen Stn is right in the middle of them, thus a perfect connector. Also, the relief line would be more accessible if it connects to the GO on the east side as well.


Connections to SmartTrack, Greenwood Yard, and Regent Park are most important. And a line with more stops is preferable to a line with fewer stops.


I choose Corridor B. It takes the subway the furthest east on Queen St. We have a streetcar on Queen St that is stuck many times due to accidents, weather, etc. The streetcar does not necessarily follow a schedule and sometimes service gets interrupted due to 'short turns'. The population east of Pape seems to keep growing non-stop due to construction developments. This route will make businesses east of Pape more accessible to customers coming from other areas. This route will contribute to the improvement plan for Regent Park. We need a faster route as we live in a faster world now! Thank you.


Corridor B would divert the most people from choke points Corridor B Online Survey Noted Having the Relief Line extend to Eglinton is essential for providing any sort of relief. Going to Sheppard would be even better. The corridors through Pape would allow for a better extension and would in addition provide better service for the dense population at Thorncliff. And having the east-west corridor run closer to the middle between Union and the BD line would make for a better network.


Purely going on the basis of looking at the maps, it seems like Pape to Queen would have a better impact. Broadview is closer to Yonge/Bloor and the value of switching to the relief line as opposed to just going down the Yonge line diminishes. King seems quite crowded already so that's why I'd prefer Queen/Richmond to be the other end.


Connection to Gerrard Square, a busy mall Potential connection to Smart Track Connects some neighbourhoods with access to the subway lines Still provides downtown district with walking distances to major buildings Could be connected later with other



23

Comment Theme Source Response lines to the missing areas mentioned, e.g. Liberty Village if population grows Unsure of the above or underground considerations of placing the subway lines The corridors (B and D) with Pape station as the Danforth connection make much more sense. Westbound subway riders in rush-hour peak are probably not as likely to divert to the Relief Line at Broadview vs. at Pape. I ranked Corridor B higher than Corridor D because of greater potential social-equity benefits (improved access to Regent Park) from Corridor B.


Increased access for Leslieville/Riverdale as well as regent park Corridor B Online Survey Noted If the TTC retains its long standing model of using the subway stations as hubs for transit (that is there are no 'subway free' bus routes that never connect with a subway station), the most equidistant system, the most 'grid like' would be best. So ... the subway connection furthest east on the East/West line and furthest north on the North/South line, to minimize the distance one would travel to get to the core, most serviced and maintained part of the TTC system, the subways. If folks have objections about walking from Liberty Village up to a yet undetermined subway stop that runs along King street, they need to check their downtown privilege ... having a transit system that runs reliably every few minutes is not within walking distance of most of Toronto (the standard for subways meeting their schedule is in the 90% range while buses lie in the 70% range as I recall).


I prefer the Pape connection to Line 2 since it will move the relief line further east. This I believe will result in better balance of ridership between Line 2 and the DRL. It would also allow potential connection to the Lakeshore GO route. I slightly prefer the Queen corridor to move the alignment northward and be closer to the middle of the area south of Bloor. The study also indicates more potential for Queen station over King station in meeting project objectives. However, I would not be disappointed if the King alignment were chosen as the ridership on the King streetcar and the pedestrian density in the area are very high.


Like Pape because of its connection to Don Mills LRT and access to Gerrard Square and Lakeshore GO/SmartTrack corridor. The western end point should be as far north as possible (Queen or beyond) as there is a lot of transit south of there and employment/office development should be encouraged outside of the central business district.


An interchange station for Smart-track and the relief line at Pape and Gerrard would be ideal. Corridor B Online Survey Noted I like B over D, hoping that D would connect directly to Cherry streetcar. Corridor B Public Meeting

Display Noted

Station at Carlaw/Gerrard/Pape provides redevelopment opportunities at Gerrard Square. Corridor B Public Meeting Display

Noted

Pape better only if will considerable rezone to allow high density. Corridor B Public Meeting Display

Noted

Preferred, but a route along Queen is not as good as one along King Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Good route Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Pape start good but misses Unilever/Queen Broadview Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Pape is best; but prefer that line uses King/Wellington, reaching St Lawrence, Distillery, & Unilever Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Good but it is better to connect to south core Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Corridor needs to be as south as possible, Queen already served by streetcars Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Creates redundancy with 501 Mixed commercial/residential along Pape will not support ridership A lot of NIMBYS on Pape Awkward future connection to GO at Broadview

Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted

Same problem with union However this at least connects to RER I understand Union is not where everyone wants to go but King seems like it is still close enough while also being near the financial district



24

Comment Theme Source Response Queen seems to fail Pape is better Queen is ok


Like the improved access for Regent Park but it's still not a direct connection. While this is better for St. Mike's, the hospital is so close to Queen subway, this doesn't rate as highly for me as Corridor D which I believe serves more future and current riders, once you take waterfront/Unilever development into account.


Really not feasible south of Gerrard until Sherbourne. Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Prefer as far north of Union as possible. Prefer as far east on Danforth as possible. Corridor B Mail, Handed In Noted Serves more east-west trips Serves more neighbourhood/medium distance trips Opportunity to transfer to GO Can double as "Queen streetcar relief line"


I like that this ends at Pape I think a Queen/Richmond corridor provides better complement to SmartTrack than a King line This allows a connection to the Unilever site.


This is my second choice I would end the line at Bay St


Not bad. Could go further east -> Donlands. Pape already too heavy cars & pedestrians traffic


Go with Corridor B. Corridor B Online Survey Noted RE: Broadview vs. Pape: Broadview is not a good alignment because there is a reduced catchment area, since the area to the west is mostly parkland/ravine. It also makes for poor connections to GO/RER/SmartTrack. Plus, the Broadview streetcar already services that area. If we are tunnelling, then we should establish a new transit corridor instead of duplicating an existing one. Pape is much better, and has the added benefit of intercepting Bloor/Danforth traffic further east. RE: Richmond/Queen vs King/Wellington. In general, I would choose Queen over Richmond and King over Wellington. We should not be creating further Bloor-Yonge-style transfers, station boxes should line up to improve the ease of connecting. It is inevitable that service on streetcar lines will be disrupted during station construction, so there is not much benefit to picking an adjacent parallel street. As for King vs. Queen, Queen is more central to downtown destinations and offers more development potential. King is a good corridor, but I think it is too close to the rail corridor.


The Corridor B option is by far the best option. PS-You did a great job of outlining the options and the internet setup was really well done and easy to understand and use. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my feedback. And finally, let’s move forward with this sooner rather than later. Way overdue, not only for folks like me who live in Playter Estates (north Riverdale) but for all those who use the Yonge line as well as those of us who transfer at Bloor Station to the Bloor/Danforth line. Thank you.


Queen Station close to Ryerson, also serves Regent Park Corridor B Public Meeting Display

Noted

Pape station receives a huge influx of passengers with all the bus routes (Don Mills, Thorncliffe, etc.). - It would be better served by a relief line than Broadview station.

B and D Online Survey Noted

I prefer a line that goes as far east as possible, so as to maximize geographic coverage. Corridor D also appears to have the most potential link ups with Smart Track, which should increase people's use of both lines. And Corridor D looks like it has the most potential to deliver people and development to the Portlands.


I think we need to get service to the lower don lands and I feel pushing the line to close to the Yonge and Danforth lines defeats the purpose,


I am opposed to the Broadview alignment, as there is already streetcar service for that corridor, and any subway stations there B and D Online Survey Noted


25

Comment Theme Source Response would not benefit as many riders within walking distance of stations. It also makes the direct connection to Greenwood Yard impossible, which can prove challenging for operations. Stations placed at Pape/Gerrard, and Queen/Carlaw would definitely provide opportunities for new development in the areas, and be much more central to those neighbourhoods than stations along Broadview. As for the choice downtown, King or Queen may not be ideal for the actual tunnels, but perhaps entrances can be placed at one or both of those streets. I'd prefer Wellington, Richmond, or Adelaide, and underground connections to existing Line 1 stations. This would make the construction period less stressful on the existing King and Queen streetcar lines and their riders. Stations along Adelaide or Richmond would also be more central to points of interest in the downtown core, possibly providing a good middle ground between either a King or a Queen alignment, with reasonable walking distance to both. The Relief Line needs to provide access to as many key destinations and development sites as possible, to maximize the amount of transit access available to residents. Gerrard Square and the First Gulf site are key development sites that we should hit if we are forward-looking about this. I don't have a strong preference for either a Queen Street or King Street alignment. Let's not cheap out and make a mistake that we will regret.


Broadview is way too far west, and also, the topography of the land will require the station to be VERY deep underground in order to not be above-ground in Riverdale Park. Pape makes way more sense, given that it's already a big corridor with a big subway station.


I think the connection at Broadview station isn't as good as Pape - no parking. Pape has a bit better parking and I think Gerrard Scare/No Frills needs some good quality development and is ripe for a project like this.


Broadview corridor / King / Queen already well serviced with TTC streetcar and good connectivity to TTC subway. Connection along King / Queen / Richmond / Wellington to Pape creates more new / fast service to downtown by replacing bus connections and services the outer part of Toronto *much* better based on how people come in from the northeast


Only going as far as Broadview seems like a half-measure. There's so much potential for development east of the Don that would be served by a subway curving as far east as possible. I'm agnostic on B vs. D, but the DRL should go to Pape.


The further east along the line, the better. There's no point in running a line down Broadview when it's so close to the Yonge Line. The people who are at Broadview Station already have it easy enough. What is the goal? 1. Yes, to help with the congestion, but it should also be: 2. To make the commute faster/ easier for those further away from the Yonge line.


I've reviewed analysis Pape and Broadview are the busiest. Although that’s still a long ride for those on the east end to go to Broadview. Pape station has the scale size and 360 degree proximity to business and residential. Broadview station is a bit on its own (there is nothing to the west of it). I believe Paper bus line is busier and opportunity for greater traffic


Especially if e-w stations are located more southerly, this route connects Line1, Line2, Smart Track, and most Street Cars 501,05,06 to all parts of George Brown College, the St. Lawrence Market/Neighbourhood, Distillery District, Corktown, the vast future Docklands, and Unilever lands. This route would relieve the eastern half of the overloaded 504. It holds the most potential for steering development in those areas around transit (rather than retrofitting transit to development). Build new station under Wellington to connect close as possible to Union and King pedestrians can walk underground between them.


Corridors b and d seem to provide more destination stops as well as serve a broad area. B and D Online Survey Noted Covers a bigger area. Broadview covered well with current streetcar routing that Pape does not have. At Yonge need to get subway as far north as possible as subways becomes more over capacity further south.


I think that having the starting point near Pape instead of Broadview should be a priority. It will service more passengers this way and the streetcar coverage on Broadview is already quite good so the Broadview area residents are at no real disadvantage.


This is the option I prefer most, however I actually think it needs to go further east, and start perhaps at Victoria Park or Warden, which are main bus hubs. This offers options into the downtown core by eliminating the Yonge/Bloor area, while offering access to beaches areas.



26

Comment Theme Source Response The Bloor-Danforth Line is too crowded and needs to have a relief line. Right now the neighbourhoods in the Beach and Leslieville are being built up the most. The Beach area is bottle-necking and needs a better route than the 501 to downtown or Woodbine bus to Woodbine Station. What could/should be a 20 minute trip takes an hour.


I believe that a Relief line starting from Pape has potential because of a possible Northern extension in the future and that commuters coming from East of Pape Station are more likely to transfer there than at Broadview.


A: North/south route overlaps with existing route. B: Well positioned for northern extension, serves the downtown residential strip along Richmond/Adelaide. C: This is already planned to be a streetcar/LRT route. D: Least overlap with existing routes and best options for continued extensions. Also in coming close to the Port Lands this could solve the issue of where the yard for this route can be hosted.


A: Smart Track is not a subway. I will not use it because I have no need for it. B. Queen to Pape a good line. One must think about a future western expansion someday. C: On the Broadview portion of the line, the stations will only reach those living east of them--a 180 degree area of coverage. Pape is better for a 360 degree area of coverage. D: King to Pape reaches the business community for work, and goes to Pape which can be expanded in the future up Don Mills and west toward Roncesvalles St. & north to Dundas West station.


Living in the city centre (Sherbourne/Richmond) all of the options would provide me with a new subway station within two blocks (either at Queen/Sherbourne or King/Sherbourne). From pros/cons it would appear practical that any adopted route have a link to the Greenwood Yards to eliminate the need for another marshaling yard (which may off-set the additional cost). B and D corridors (and particularly the Queen option) would also resolve major issues with that streetcar line which seldom runs on time. King option would have less impact on the King street line where demand is needed in the west, not the east.


I think it's important that any relief line serve areas east of the DVP and south of Danforth - only corridor B and D capture this. B and D Online Survey Noted A Pape/Carlaw route more opportunities for development, particularly at Danforth and Gerrard, and for northward expansion. Queen seems to be a better point for the route to intersect with the YUS, but King may offer more destinations along its length (especially if the route is to be expanded westward). Uncertain of the benefits of serving Unilever site with this line.


Pape hits more stations. Links to SmartTrack line. B and D Online Survey Noted Strongly prefer a Pape alignment for future northern extension as well as GO RER connection in Leslieville. Gave preference to alignments closer to the waterfront as the area is redeveloping and transit service is inadequate. Alignments A and C have very narrow scope, while B and D 'touch all the bases'.


Broadview is not the ideal alternative as population is not as dense at least south of Danforth, and street does not lend to subway. Either King or Queen is a natural for subway. Dense population, street cars are full at rush hour and commercial streets that can benefit from subway. Pape makes sense as it naturally is more commercial larger population and ability to reach locals further east than abroad view. i.e.: Cosburn apartments and area surrounding which is considerably more dense. Also leads nicely North for future expansion to North to O’Conner and up Don Mills.


Downtown connections along Queen or King are both acceptable. Consideration should be based on ease and cost of downtown construction (use of existing Queen subway station?), potential for extension to the west, and number of residents served. Connection at Pape should be favoured over Broadview as I feel it serves the most people (#25 bus from the north) and provides the best alignment for extension north.


Carlaw around Dundas (near Gerrard Square) has a lot of recent development (and still ongoing). Currently there isn't a great way for these people to get downtown or to the subway in general. Compared to the Broadview corridors, the 504 streetcar is available and a pretty quick option to get downtown or to get to the Danforth line. Also, the connection to SmartTrack at Gerrard square is a big bonus.


I feel that the Pape alignment offers many advantages with respect to connections to yards and key destinations that are growing.


A and C line up with Broadview Station which I consider too late for moving the east-west traffic off the Danforth line. With the B and D Online Survey Noted


27

Comment Theme Source Response morning rush hour overcrowding that is already occurring at Pape through Broadview, options B or D that link up with Pape are far, far more attractive. They will also better serve growing communities en-route to downtown. I believe the further the new line covers the better. Only going up Broadview does not spread the north/south portion of the line far enough from the existing north/south lines in my opinion. Service along Queen seems to make more sense in serving communities that could benefit, but I also understand the need to service the financial core with the new line.


Corridors 1 & 3 miss the Lakeshore GO line completely, have smaller catchment areas due to the Don Valley, and have less benefit for future northern expansion.


Options A and C are not ideal from a potential intensification perspective as the lands west side of Broadview have limited development potential. On the other hand Options B and D will have better opportunity for redevelopment (intensification) and a preferable connection point along the Danforth subway. Pape is also a preferable transfer point to transfer riders to the downtown core as it is further east than the Broadview station. The Pape location would ease congestion along the Bloor-Danforth line between Bay and Pape. Also, once someone is at Broadview, it is likely that riders would proceed across the viaduct and on to more westerly locations.


Connecting to GO transit stations have future potential and benefit connecting local and regional transit. B and D Online Survey Noted Broadview - too close to Yonge. Go with Pape. B and D Public Meeting

Display Noted

Serving King is a good idea, also understand need to serve Regent Park. B and D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Additional opportunity for King St. mixed use growth. B and D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Don't build Broadview. It is on the edge of the valley and will only serve communities to its east. The Pape option serves neighbourhoods on both sides while still making it possible to extend to Thorncliffe and Flemington.


Broadview station must be disqualified. The Line 2 subway is already very packed before then (I ride it every day), and there is not enough incentive for riders to switch and avoid the Yonge line and "cut the corner" just 3 stops earlier. At least Pape is 5 stops away and the more diagonal nature of the line will allow for time savings. Plus the development potential along Pape/Carlaw and densification is already happening. Gerrard Square must be developed as its one of the biggest plots of lands in the area.


B/D serve under-serviced neighbourhoods better, make new connections, and reinforces Pape as a key transit hub in the east B and D Noted I live at Pape and Danforth and dislike transferring at Yonge B and D Online Survey Noted I believe Broadview is under-utilized as a key activity area and Corridor C would allow connectivity to the potential gondolas to Evergreen Brickworks. It could be an attractive tourism draw especially with the illumination of the Bloor Street bridge. Options B and D are too far east. Think there would be a negative impact to The Pocket neighbourhood (Jones south of Danforth) if the corridors B and D were connected to the Greenwood Yards. The noise level from the trains is already excessive and a negative impact on life quality. Corridor A appears to negatively impact the Don River and any future development of it as a green space such as a cycling route or Evergreen Brickworks. So, that leaves Corridor C as the best option.

Corridor C Online Survey Noted

I believe Broadview is under-utilized as a key activity area and Corridor C would allow connectivity to the potential gondolas to Evergreen Brickworks. It could be an attractive tourism draw especially with the illumination of the Bloor Street bridge. Options B and D are too far east. think there would be a negative impact to The Pocket neighbourhood (Jones south of Danforth) if the corridors B and D were connected to the Greenwood Yards. The noise level from the trains is already excessive and a negative impact on life quality. Corridor A appears to negatively impact the Don River and any future development of it as a green space such as a cycling route or Evergreen Brickworks. So, that leaves Corridor C as the best option.


Option C provides a viable alternative from Line 2 to DT with close proximity to King St and Union. It also paves the way for reliable service along King to Liberty Village and Dundas W which is desperately needed. Allowing the 504 to be replaced will



28

Comment Theme Source Response ease congestion above ground on this busy roadway. This option may be better served to have stations at Dundas/Broadview and a potential future GO connection south of Queen. It does have redundancy along Broadview from Danforth to Dundas but the distance by comparison is relatively short and there are no stations along it (density is very low) - extending the 505 further east to Pape before turning up is a possibility too. Option A & B creates a long stretch of redundancy along Queen with the 501 which is not beneficial - it is unlikely the 501 would ever be broken into a Neville to Broadview and University to Humber segments. Option B & D running along Pape is possible but the intersections along the path are very low density, with limited/no commercial centres and the residents (from past community meetings) are adamant NIMBYs. Put public transit where it is needed and supported. I would prefer a line that would provide more connectivity between the area around the Distillery District to the Queen/Yonge node. By linking to Queen/Yonge, all passengers can still connect to Union in 2 more stops if they transfer; this way, City Hall, Eaton Centre, Ryerson and the hospital and government related jobs in the area north of Queen/Yonge can be well serviced.


Shortest distance so not to Pape. I prefer King or Front with the dip to where the population is moving over the next 20 years. Corridor C Online Survey Noted Corridor C is too close to Yonge line. Corridor C Public Meeting

Display Noted

As explained in A Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted Appears to have no advantages over "D" Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted Too close to river, does not make a good network Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted Double Broadview service Lack of north availability

Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted

Broadview makes no sense (see A) But WDL King/Wellington does


Broadview is worse than Pape, but at least this serves the core area & Distillery/St Lawrence better Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted Does not connect well enough to smart track Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted Less disruption, easier to construct along Broadview. Relieve busy Broadview station. Need to keep line as south as possible – (see comments from Corridor D)


Future expansion to King W – desperately needed Retire 504 to reduce traffic on King Alternate access to Line 2 from Line 1 Reduce overcrowding at Yonge-Bloor (urgent) Growth at Broadview & Gerrard, Dundas & Queen for residential/commercial


Can replace streetcars which are slow & unreliable Redirect streetcars to Portlands Would be good if it connects to RER @ Unilever Like that it is near Union This could allow some redundancy in case there are delays, Broadview seems better suited for up-zoning than Pape


Broadview is too close to valley. Broadview will only draw from one side. Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted Doesn't serve as many neighbourhoods as Option B + Option D. Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted Alignment down Broadview is useless unless intention is to connect with Regent park. Service is entirely parallel to King car (504)


King is too far south, too close to Union Broadview is only half target market


Too far south Doesn't improve east-west access between waterfront and Bloor



29

Comment Theme Source Response Seems like the worst of all options Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted My third choice Same reason for not choosing Corridor A


Same as "A" further south Corridor C Mail, Handed In Noted C has nowhere near the right person density to make sense by rolling along the Don Valley (where people already use the 504 / 505 streetcar to access the same destinations).

Corridor C Noted

King or Front East are a better alternative than Queen East. There's no reason to go to Queen East unless you live there, but the Distillery District and St. Lawrence Market are destinations in and of themselves. Furthermore, the Financial District is the ultimate destination for people going to work every day, and that's better served with a station on King or Wellington (which could have a connection to Union Station) than Queen.

C and D Online Survey Noted

The King streetcar is Toronto's busiest streetcar line and is often over capacity during rush hour. A Relief Line along King would not only help relieve congestion at Yonge-Bloor, but it would also be best positioned to serve Liberty Village once the Relief Line can be extended west. If the King-Pape corridor is used, then the 504 route could be redirected to Broadview and the future Port Lands development. To resolve congestion on the Queen corridor, the Waterfront West LRT project should be revived, which would guide Etobicoke users directly to Union without using Queen east of Roncesvalles and would also serve Fort York. The 501 could then be shortened so it starts at Roncesvalles instead of Long Branch.

C and D Online Survey Noted

Prefer King St. alignment (waterfront redevelopment) C and D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Corridor C & D C and D Mail, Handed In Noted Pape as a terminus because it will be better suited for northern expansion to Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks, with high population densities of recent immigrants and others who should be assisted in contributing to Toronto employment and creativity. It also serves more of the population east of the Don, collecting people from both east and west of the proposed line, while the Broadview terminus Would primarily collect people only east of the proposed line. Moreover, the connections with the Go station at Pape and gerrard will benefit that ridership and be a major boost to that center of growth. It also better serves the West and East Donlands.

Corridor D Online Survey Noted

A connection near Gerrard Square seems key. The Broadview corridor already has access to several streetcar lines, whereas the Pape corridor only has one. Also, easier expansion north from Pape into the Thorncliff area which is in desperate need of increased transit options.


An alignment close to the Don River would severely limit the accessibility of the stations, limiting the number of people that have easy access. Aligning the north/south portion of the line further east would open up more potential ridership, as well as service the dense residential neighbourhoods along Carlaw between Gerrard and Queen, as well as allow for service to the areas around Queen and Broadview.


Line D may cost more but it adds service to whole new areas of the city. The Queen route is fine - but the King/Wellington option could provide a, much needed, transfer to and from Union. This would be a great convenience for VIA riders as well as easing some GO congestion.


I prefer an alignment that begins further east and terminates further south, which is why I inherently gravitated to Corridors D and B. From an engineering perspective, a gentler turn is probably cheaper to construct and safer to operate which seems to be easiest to construct on Corridor D. Moreover, the point made in the descriptions of the Corridor that a further connection to the west - to Liberty Village - would be best served by a King/St. Andrew terminus shows excellent foresight. That Corridor D also connects to RER/Smart Track is another major selling point.


I think a relief line would be best utilized coming from Pape Station. I believe running a line under Broadview would be too much of an environmental disruption so close to the din valley. Pape also provides the more-favourable point for possible future expansion northwards via Don Mills Rd. It also can service more people east of the Don, South of Danforth with this



30

Comment Theme Source Response alignment with a station at Pape and Gerrard in the Gerrard Square Mall. Corridor D makes better use of the north/south connection as there is more population all around it. Broadview is worse because there is already frequent streetcar service, and only population on the east side. Corridor D also has a better connection at Gerrard Square where there is a huge opportunity to redevelop and also make use of the go trains and the existing streetcar. The area is already seeing a major changeover and a lot of new families are moving in.


I generally rated the Pape corridors higher because I think the Gerard square/smart track stations are important to have an integrated TTC system where if one line goes down there are multiple ways of getting around without it. (It has other advantages too like more relief to the queen/king streetcars by getting passengers off them and on to the relief line earlier.) I also rated the King street alignments higher because of the possible connections with dense areas like the west Donlands, cork town and, in the future, Liberty village. Also with so many businesses moving south of Union, if the relief line is too far north, some passengers may be disinclined to take the relief line, and prefer to take the Yonge line to Union, and we do not want that to happen.


Although Broadview has higher existing ridership than Pape, it is only 3 stations from Bloor- Yonge, does not provide for a transfer with GO Transit, and a future extension would be difficult to align over the Millwood Bridge. King and Queen would both attract high ridership; however King is slightly more favourable due to its proximity to the financial district.


I prefer corridor D for the following reasons: 1.the further south (along Front and Eastern) the better. Eastern Avenue is especially under serviced by TTC at the moment. 2. the further east, connecting at Pape, is better. There is a lot of residential development at the Carlaw/Dundas junction that will demand more transit attention. 3. Pape station is more suitable that Broadview as the link with the relief line.


Corridor D makes more sense because of the potential for connections to other lines. Corridor D Online Survey Noted Corridor D where's the most communities and business areas (current and future) and connects to more transit lines than the other options.


Corridor 4 has the most likelihood of having a station near my house. Corridor D Online Survey Noted Most equitable access and practical route (D) Corridor D Online Survey Noted Makes sense for the corridor to go along King as thats where most people travel to work around the king/bay financial district. Also makes sense to go up to Pape as it connects with Smart Track / Unilever and doesn't have to spoil Broadview park lands


My highest preference is for Corridor D because: -- Pape is a better connection to the Bloor/Danforth line - more potential for northward future expansion (i.e. Thorncliff Park) and will further spur business development along Danforth east of Pape. In contrast, the section of the Danforth between Broadview and Pape is already very well developed. -- King/Wellington alignment - will bring greatest relief to current King streetcar crowding (which at present is worse than Queen streetcar crowding); provides greatest opportunity for in-line stations, reaching more existing residents/businesses; provides an opportunity to integrate transit into future neighbourhood developments planned for Unilver site and east waterfront; also provides opportunity for future western expansion to serve Liberty Village and possibly CityPlace residents My least preferred option is Corridor A because: -- Broadview has less potential for future northern expansion and is only 3 stops east of the Yonge subway line, at this point subway riders who boarded at the easternmost stops have already ridden almost all the way to Yonge -- Least number of inline stops - any future solution should aim to service the maximum number of residents/businesses -- Will provide largest crowding relief to Queen streetcar when King car is known to have more severe crowding -- Will not directly connect to high employment density in financial district


Carlaw/Pape is where most of the higher density development is happening in the east end. Opportunity connect into Greenwood Yard. King/Wellington alignment feeds into center of financial district. Transit is about connecting people to employment. King streetcar currently has higher ridership levels than Queen. Unilever Site is important to connect to as the plan appears to make it a kind of secondary CBD. West Don Lands, Distillery, George Brown College and future Portlands neighborhood will be significant sources of ridership. King/Wellington alignment will better serve East Bayfront area as it



31

Comment Theme Source Response develops. No conflict with SmartTrack, since that is regional service and this would be more local. The two key areas to promote success of this project are, in my view, the Pape Station connection and the King/Wellington region. At least one of these areas should be served with transit. I don't like the connection to Broadview because development there is limited by proximity to the DVP and there are additional challenges for extending the subway north in the future, which seems pretty necessary to me in the long run for serving less affluent areas of the city with rapid transit. I also think that Pape will draw more commuters from the region than Broadview, allowing more multi-modal connections and less strain on existing routes that would otherwise connect them to the subway.. If the SmartTrack line goes through, this will change --- in that case it would better for the subway to go to Broadview so that it does not overlap with the smart-track too much. However, it seems like the smart-track system will not have many stops downtown, so this may turn out not to be true. I like the idea of putting the subway on Queen because it serves City Hall and the Eaton center; however, I am concerned that it is too far from the financial district. I prefer King over Wellington because it seems to me that the area south of King is already booming because of good subway access. I think that more subways in the core financial district will serve an already-captive audience and employment base, whereas having the subway alignment slightly north at King would spread the benefits of rapid transit out more. In my observations in the financial district, people are already arriving at Union Station and walking up as far as King or further to access their workplaces, rather than taking the subway for one station stop. This makes me think that access should be spread out more in the downtown core so that regions north of King can see long-term development benefits. In 50-70 years, the positive effects on development would be greater for a subway line north of King, since the area south of it is already fairly well served.


The Pape corridors are the preferred routes because of the operational affordability of connecting to the Greenwood Yard. The preferred alignment of Pape to King/Wellington promotes development and tourism at the St. Lawrence Market and the Distillery District, which have continued to grow as major attractions for the City. This corridor does not support the attractions at City Hall, the Eaton Centre, nor service St. Michael’s Hospital; however, these locations are already serviced using the Yonge-University line. The ability to service the employment growth at the Unilever lands also supports the Pape to King/Wellington corridor as the preferred long term corridor for the City.


Broadview too close to Yonge to provide much traffic relief from incoming eastbound riders. Starting the RL at Pape also points extension northbound into Flemingdon Park and Thorncliffe Park, two priority areas in dire need of rapid transit. Prefer King over Queen because that avoids a cluster of riders transferring at Queen station onto crowded Line 1 trains to get to King or Union. Closer to the middle of the PATH is better, rather than the northern chunk.


Key destinations cited in Queen alignment evaluation are mostly already well-served by other transit routes and King and Queen streets are a walkable distance. King Street/Wellington alignment better serves the financial core and help relieve Union Station while keeping stations a reasonable walking distance from Union Station as well. Bringing high order transit to Distillery, West Don Lands and connections to eastern waterfront are best served by King/Wellington alignment. Keeping the northern extension affordable via Pape alignment is important. Also, Broadview is already well serviced by streetcar and the Pape alignment will draw users from both directions


The Broadview corridor is already served by street car routes; Pape is not well-served to the south. The King corridor is closer to the Port Lands & nearby developments; downtown, it is closer to the Central Business District. Extension north from Pape offers more ridership & easier choice of alignments; extension west along or south of King serves large areas of new housing.


Pape is more suitable than Broadview for becoming a new hub. Broadview is already quite busy with the two streetcar lines terminating there, and similarly already has good alternative access to downtown by those streetcar lines. King would serve more of the densest downtown employment area than Queen would, and thus would be more help relieving the existing service. When expanded west of downtown, the King alignment also does more good for the dense Liberty Village area than would Queen.


Corridor D connects the most high-density destinations together and provides the most opportunity for high-density Corridor D Online Survey Noted


32

Comment Theme Source Response development (that is already occurring) along the Front St. E and King St. E corridors. It connects the Financial District to Greek Town and provides opportunities for connection to Smart Track and to the future Lake Shore East corridor from Cherry St. In my opinion, this serves the largest number of passengers in the best way, compared to all the other corridors. Corridor C is a close second, providing many connection opportunities west of the Don River but not many possibilities east of the Don. Broadview Station to downtown is well serviced by subway and streetcar, so this is not my preferred route for the DLR. And there is less room for future residential and commercial developments of any significance along this route (assuming that Regent Park will be fully redeveloped by the time the DLR is built) The route from Pape Station is not well served by transit, so it is my preference for the new subway. If the DLR goes down Pape, it will intersect with areas that are currently either being developed (Carlaw between Dundas and Queen) or are begging to be developed (Carlaw/Pape and Gerrard). My preference would be for the subway to go to King/Wellington, not Queen/Richmond because of the role it would play in stimulating development of the Unilever site, the Port Lands, and the eastern waterfront.


I think King start better then Queen, as King is mid-point between Union and Queen and picks up bulk of Financial District. I prefer Pape to Broadview as Pape is south of Don mills Pape is midpoint between Yonge and Coxwell, 5 stops east of Yonge so passengers getting off at Pape could go east or west, whereas Broadview is 3 stops East of Yonge could connect to greenwood Yard,


Of the four options, I am very sure that the Pape-Wellington route is the best one. Note, I said Wellington, not King. Pape will always win over Broadview, and Wellington will always win over Queen or Adelaide or King as best option. How will this get built... tunneling or cut & cover? Cut & cover is cheaper, therefore use Wellington. Broadview does not have the potential local usage as compared to Pape. Is this line meant only for travelling-through transit commuters, or for local residents, too? That is what my friends in the area are asking.


The interchange station on Line 2 must be Pape and not Broadview. B-view is far too close to the Yonge Line and we will run into the same problems as exists today with having the Yonge & University lines so close together. Furthermore I ride the subway everyday on Line 2 during peak rush hour and the trains are packed before we arrive at Broadview. Additionally, the travel time savings to "cut the corner" and avoid Y-B station is marginal at Broadview, whereas Pape is far enough over for the transfer to make sense and make a difference. Finally, although Broadview has a bit more density, the long term neighbourhood growth and development impacts are constrained due to the fact that B-view hugs the Don Valley and there will not be any ridership coming from the west. The Pape station route is excellent because there are large developments happening in Leslieville and along Carlaw which this can serve. Secondly this would likely mean a massive redevelopment of Gerrard Square (which is a no brainer for a station), which is sorely needed and would revitalize the neighbourhood. From a downtown perspective, either King or Queen would work, however given the volume of passengers that use Union Station, and future extensions possible to the Ex and Liberty Village, plus the development of the waterfront and South Core, the line must swing farther south than the original plans in the 1900s.


I much prefer Pape Station as an interchange, over Broadview. (Disclosure: I do not live near either station.) Potential ridership catchment areas for Corridors A and C seem severely limited by the river - even more so for Corridor C, and there appears to be less opportunity to proceed north than there is on Pape. Corridor B serves the Moss Park area (Queen/Sherbourne), which could use economic support and redevelopment, so I see merit in this option. I prefer Corridor D the most, because the connection to the Financial District could alleviate more load on the Yonge Line - a route under Queen could result in people transferring to the Yonge Line to reach Union or the Financial District, whereas from Wellington Street, the Financial District is immediately accessible, and Union is easily within walking distance, without putting direct pressure on the existing subway stations for interchanges. Corridor D also covers the most area away from the current subway system, bringing in riders that are further away from existing lines.


I prefer the Pape alignment over Broadview as it would provide better service for more residents (having a more eastern location), and I understand that Pape Station serves a more northern population as well, via bus routes. I prefer the King over



33

Comment Theme Source Response Queen alignment, as I believe that it could better serve areas soon to be re-developed, as well as a recent population now residing closer to the waterfront. The waterfront east of the Don River seems to be a site of huge potential for new community development. I prefer a Pape Relief Line alignment, even though as a homeowner living very close to Pape Avenue, I would expect significant inconvenience for several years during construction. As an architect, I expect the TTC to carry out extensive engineering studies, and work closely with homeowners; many houses in this neighbourhood are around a hundred years old and built on brick (not concrete block or poured concrete) foundations that are nowhere near up to current standards. These houses will probably not stand up well to vibration either during construction or during regular future subway operation. I also expect improved construction management practices to be employed in future TTC construction projects; the re-building of Pape Station was frankly an embarrassment. Connecting from Broadview seems to not help with connecting more people from the east end- Pape is the better choice it will not be much of a relief line - my understanding is Pape is a busier station than Broadview. Pape station was also newly renovated and able to accommodate the relief line. Broadview needs works. I think is a better choice than King station because Queen street has room for redevelopment and improvement versus King is already redeveloped if the subway is supposed to help the city improve and develop, Queen is the better choice Also, the relief line can only work if it is displacing some of the crowding, since Queen is the less busy station it makes sense to move the people there. if they really need to get to King they can take the PATH, walk above ground or take one subway station. But if you connect it to King, it will be very congested. so based on the above corridor B is my choice thanks


Connecting to the Danforth line should be as far east as is affordable to offer most potential rider route options and better serve the eastern end of the city (old Toronto, not the entire east end). With anticipated development of the Portlands, eastern waterfront and ongoing conversion of the old industrial areas east of the DVP to residential and higher tech offices, taking the route as much south as possible will serve these areas best.


Covers the most distance. Corridor D Online Survey Noted St Michaels hospital can be easily accessed from queen subway station. Option D is the furthest easy and southerly options. It is a better option for tourism letting people access our historic distillery district as well as St Lawrence market. The eastern portion of king street is also closer proximity to Dundas, giving residents from regent park another option. Pape station is also home of one of the busiest bus routes, the 25 Don Mills. This would be a great place to extend the subway north, this is a more dense community than north of Broadview.


Corridor D serves the largest area, and has the option to service both Queen Street and King Street in strategic areas. The other options are also good, but if we are to build for the future as well as the present the other options fall short.


Routes up along Broadview (A&C) do not serve major population areas. Route B is better, but that route runs along queen which is already well served by the queen street streetcars. Route D of the 4 routes would appear to be serving more people and would better serve major residential developments along Carlaw avenue.


Broadview Station is already extremely busy and only has the one access door. Trains during rush hour are frequently full when they arrive at Donlands and so northern access point should be as far east as possible. Same rationale applies for the southern access point. By having it at King/Wellington, you will ease congestion at both Queen and Dundas stations as commuters headed home to the east can either head to Yonge/Bloor for transfer to eastbound trains or head south and then east for transfer at King and Pape.


The Pape/King option seems best to me. Expensive, sure, but seems head and shoulders above the others in terms of city-building, growth and development potential, connections to other transit options, and connections to high density, poorly connected areas (assuming the extension to Liberty Village happens sooner rather than later. In addition, one could foresee the eventual removal of the King Streetcar entirely provided the Relief Line more or less travels the entire length of the streetcar line (turning north toward Dundas West station where King ends at Queen and Roncesvalles). My preference for Pape > Broadview is greater than my preference for King > Queen. Broadview is already relatively well-served by transit. It's a higher



34

Comment Theme Source Response income corridor. It's closer and easier to walk/cycle downtown. You also lose some of the "radius of impact" because your stations are close to an underpopulated river valley. I believe Corridor D will provide the most additional service and the most connectivity of any of the options, while also allowing for future connectivity with possible extensions. All of the other options are too close to the current subway and streetcar service.


Pape Station is best place to start for Relief Line as it will generate lots more people from station. It also will allow for extension north to Thorncliffe Park, Flemingdon Park and Eglinton and Don Mills. A great connection to Gerard Square and Riverdale community. A great connection to the port lands, Unilever site and the East and West Dons. This could reduce driving on DVP and Gardiner. Good connection to St Lawrence Market, The Esplanade and Distillery District. Best to end the 1st phase at King and Wellington where the Financial, Theatre and Club Districts are located. Also allows for future expansion to Parkdale, Liberty and Queen West Village and potentially High Park Areas.


Prioritize access to the financial district, walking distance to Downtown attractions and Queen St. shopping, access to the Distillery District, access to Unilever lands, access to Gerrard Square and connection to Pape. Also, future westward expansion would provide more direct access to City Place and Liberty Village.


I prefer a King/Wellington Alignment over Queen/Richmond because of the ability to a) provide simpler and more attractive connections to services through the Waterfront, Port Lands and other new developments along in the Front Street/Lower Don neighbourhoods, b) the ease of extension west beyond the University Line, and c) the more central alignment through the downtown core, which will provide direct relief during the work week, but also during major events in the downtown area (e.g. ACC and the Roger's Centre) and to the entertainment district. However, the social benefits of an alignment further north that provides simple connections to the Regent Park neighbourhood should not be understated. I think that any potential alignment must consider providing higher-order connectivity in this region (perhaps realignment of streetcar services along Parliament to create connections?)


Broadview is too close to the current line. King is walking distance to Union. This will be highly used by people going to work and going out for entertainment.


Better alignment for future extensions west along King and north from Pape. Corridor D Online Survey Noted I think the downtown relief line should start as far east as possible. Corridor D seems to serve more neighbourhoods and has the potential for more stations in development areas.


I prefer corridor 'D' first because King street has the highest employment density. This is both in the financial district as well as King street east where more companies are locating as well as intensifying residential construction. The King 504 is the busiest surface route. This alignment would also serve The Distillery, Corktown, and George Brown College. It could also be extended in the future to Liberty village. Although crowding levels may increase at King/Yonge, this would ease congestion at Union. Regarding access to City Hall, St. Michael's hospital and Eaton centre, all three are already well serviced by subway. City Hall is within walking distance of both Osgoode and Queen stations. St. Michaels's hospital is one block from Queen station, and a station at Victoria street would not be built with a Queen street alignment anyway (too close to Yonge). To access these places with a King alignment would only require a transfer from King/Yonge and travelling one stop North. Regent Park would be better served by an improved Dundas 505 streetcar as there is a higher population density and more community amenities along and north of Dundas street. On the East side, there would be potential for a station at the Unilever site, which would be concurrently developed with the subway over the next 10 years. There is also the potential for a connection to the future waterfront LRT. A connection with GO Transit at Gerard Square could ease congestion at Union station as the final destination of a large number of commuters into Union station is the King street corridor.


Given the advantages and disadvantages of each proposed route, I believe that Corridor D has the fewest cons associated with it. The Financial District and new developments in the West Don Lands are in great need of increased service, and Corridor D is the only option that services these areas while exhibiting the potential to connect to RER or SmartTrack. Additionally, the



35

Comment Theme Source Response routes that make a connection at Broadview station do not service these key areas, provide opportunity for connection to other transit forms, and run along a route already well-serviced by a streetcar and the closer proximity to the Yonge Line. Future connections and service to areas with none or little existing will be essential to creating an integrated, attractive and effective improvement to transit in Toronto. Provides best westward expansion options. Hits landmarks and campuses in downtown east. Provides transit to Unilever site and Leslieville. The transit options which provide no connectivity very little connections east of the Don River are a lost opportunity in my opinion.


Subway needs to cover as much density as possible. Corridor A and C that runs along the DVP does not make sense. It should be as close to union station as possible or connect to union for connections to airport as well as VIA rail. As such, King St alignment is better than Queen St.


multiple connections to other transit lines so critical to success of Singapore, New York, London, etc. transit systems. Let's make sure we do the same in Toronto. Please stop extending the Yonge-Spadina lines and build new lines in the City where the people are and the density is increasing (and will increase even more once we get decent subway service). thanks


The streetcar from King to Broadview is already very good. Option D carries this out further while offering more capacity potential along King St to service all the new development


Corridor D seems to provide the greatest number of links in the downtown core while allowing for a better alignment for a northern extension. A station connection at Broadview would duplicate the streetcar line currently running out of that station. Far better to have the connection at Pape and provide a different transit option for people. Furthermore, the connection into the downtown might work better with the stations near or along King street. King Street being the busiest streetcar line in the network could use some relief from a dedicated subway line. This would also help if there was a western extension out towards Liberty village and beyond.


Option D offers the most opportunity to take passengers off the Yonge line. It also services the new and/or growing communities in the south east downtown best.


Overall Corridor D is my preferred choice. I think the new subway should go along king east given the expansion of the area and the potential connections to Cherry, Unilever and new developments on Lakeshore. Also, most importantly, WHEN the subway is expanded west, King is closer to more high density neighbourhoods that are currently (and will continue to be) transit starved until a subway is built. Queen street connections are okay, but I don't think shopping (Eaton's centre, Queen / Spadina) are really enough of a draw for daily commuters from the east end. The financial district is the hub. I prefer Pape to Broadview for the station on line 2. I think if the purpose is to divert people from the Yonge Line, Broadview is too close to Yonge and already has pretty heavy traffic. Broadview isn't that far away from Pape and if I was living at Broadview, I'd be fine traveling to Pape for a better experience in getting downtown, than the overcrowding at Yonge/Bloor.


King seems better suited for an east-west line, given how busy its street car already is. Corridor D Online Survey Noted I think the DRL will have a stronger impact if it is slightly further east and connects to the Kingston Streetcar Corridor D Online Survey Noted First, this entire Corridor pictures above are hard to see. You may wish to have a zoom ability or enlarge ability because I don't know which is which - I had to go through the main pages about 10 times. I like to get people off of Pape and further into downtown as possible. That would relieve Bloor/Yonge as much as possible.


Broadview Station is too close to Yonge so Pape would be more useful. Corridor D Online Survey Noted A Pape/Front/Wellington alignment would allow access to the financial district, St Lawrence Market, the Unilever site, and maintain a good PATH connection to Union Station. And because of the latter point, you eliminate the need to have 2 additional stops that intersect with the Bloor line & University line respectively (just have one stop in between -- e.g. around Bay & Wellington).


Corridor on King or further South has more potential and would serve the core better in terms of connecting people to jobs. Opportunities to connect to the Unilever site, and potentially to SmartTrack are very important as well.



36

Comment Theme Source Response Corridor D has the least overlap with existing transit services, while still being accessible to many users. A direct connection to the Greenwood yard is beneficial, and the potential to connect more closely with future port lands developments should not be wasted.


I prefer this – I think a relief line would be best on King Street – amongst the taller buildings of the financial district – and eventually lead to Liberty Village – who really needs it. I do not prefer building a subway on Queen Street – Queen Street is so cultural and organic –the construction process would destroy the businesses that are there. Riding the Queen streetcar is a great experience that allows riders to see the street culture of a great street – travelling underground would lose that experience. Regards, Henry


Despite the challenges listed, this seems to offer the best access to existing areas and support of development in other areas. Corridor D Online Survey Noted I chose D as the best suggestion because it seems to be the broadest and allows for the most possible stations. Am seriously hoping that Toronto develops subways more along the lines of NYC, London and Paris - more of a grid. The more stations and more lines will: a) accommodate more users b) assist in diverting people off line 1 should line 1 go down for some reason and c) makes the car more and more a secondary choice for riders. Currently line 1 is too overwhelmed during rush hours (especially if you live below Bloor like I do) and it breaks down too much, causing people to prefer to take their cars.


Corridors B and D touch all the bases while Corridors A and C have very narrow scope. Corridor D in particular services tourist destinations and makes ideal connections to GO RER. In addition it keeps close to the waterfront which is undergoing densification and revitalization, and will need much better transit in the near future.


Pape to king provides the best option for future expansion and growth, and services lower income areas around queen east and future Liberty village. No point building anything that is based solely on what it will do now, as that will add future costs instead.


Corridor D provides the earliest transfer point from the east, high bus volume from the north and east, and connects to highest employment in the core.


I think Pape works best because of the connection to Eglinton via Thorncliffe Park, and Wellington probably works best for a westerly expansion. We need to think about the next stage, even before building the first one. This much needed first stage cannot become another Sheppard stump. This is already decades behind.


Going over to Pape seems to make a lot more sense, for a variety of reasons. I previously preferred a Queen alignment because it seemed more balanced between ridership to the north and south. But having read the information here, I now prefer the King Street option. More stations is a major reasons. And the increasing number of offices, residences and attractions south of the King Corridor – including Liberty Village further west – seem to the point to that corridor. Areas between Wellington and Bloor-Danforth will simply have to be served by improved bus and streetcar service, including more dedicated rights-of-way.


The best route is corridor "D", because it gets into the heart of downtown, to meet Union at walking distance without further congesting it, while also serving line 2 at a happy medium between Yonge and Main, which provides appropriate network spread from the city-wide view.


A connection to Gerrard Square is a must-have and the King/Wellington alignment hits more green dots. Corridor D Online Survey Noted Corridor D is the best choice in the opinion of Our Place Initiative, and the South Etobicoke Transit Action Committee (SETAC.ca), as it: • Opens a new neighbourhood at lower Don Valley for high density development. • Does not wastefully parallel SmartTrack stations. • Has important interchange stations with SmartTrack on Queen East and Gerrard East. Furthermore, downtown stations on King Street are in the centre of the Financial District, but are a short walk from Union Station as well as the Eaton Centre and City Hall on Queen Street.


I like corridor d the best because it seems to reach lots of potential employment lands south of Queen in the east end, as well as Gerrard Square. Heading north from Pape towards Thorncliffe Park makes lots of sense to connect both high density housing as well as the other employment lands in that direction.


All corridors seem well-planned and would be acceptable improvements to Toronto's transportation network. My ultimate preference with respect to Corridor D lies in the fact that it intercepts Bloor-Danforth commuters at an earlier point east of



37

Comment Theme Source Response Broadview and provides a feasible extension north to Don Mills-Eglinton and perhaps even Don-Mills-Sheppard. The potential stations locations at Gerrard Square, Pape/Carlaw and Queen provide a good intercept for streetcars (501/502/506). A connection with the 504 would be nice, but perhaps that can be achieved with a station at King-Sherbourne/King-Yonge. Stations at Bay Street and University providing walkable connections to the Y-U-S subway also would improve connectivity with the existing network. Pape is the best station on the Bloor Danforth Line to start, good for Riverdale community as it is growing. Will help get people to the financial district, theatre and club district fast. Will help ease the crowding on King Street Car. This option has potential for 6 stops to start. Also have better future connections north of Pape stations (Thorncliffe Park, Flemington Park, Don Mills and Eglinton and potentially Don Mills Station at Fairview Mall). Also in the West to Liberty Village, Parkdale Queen West, High Park and the Junction area. This will not disrupt service on the Queen Street Car and will still provide connections to Yonge university line for Eaton’s Centre and City Hall. This will also provide great connections to Smart Track and the GO Transit as well. The East and West Don Land and the Portlands will be well served.


Corridor A: Good access to Regent Park, Eaton’s Centre and City hall but no good for future expansion north or west and limited stations. Lots of disruption on Broadview and Queen will occur. Corridor B: Pape is best station to start on Bloor Danforth Line which will provide future expansion for North. Connection to Eaton Centre and City Hall. Queen Street will be disrupted and no good expansion to west. Might be better if Smart Track comes so that there is connection to it so that they cover the Don Lands and the Portlands. This will cover areas like Queen West but could also duplicate the existing 501 Streetcar. Corridor C. Good for an Express relief line and will get to downtown fast. Not many stations. Can expand West but not North. Will cover the Don Lands and the Portlands but not Eaton Centre. Corridor D. Most expensive but best option. Potential for 6 stations and growth and expansion potential in the North and West are there. Will cover may areas of Downtown and East York and will provide great connections to Streetcars, Smart Track, GO and the subways. Also connection to the Portland and Don Lands are there and connection to the financial, theatre and club district is there. It will missed Eaton’s Centre.


No point going via Broadview. Pape makes way more sense. Also limited value in Queen vs. King. Corridor D Online Survey Noted The Queen Street options will provide access to some existing attractions, however these are already either very well served by transit (e.g. Eaton's Centre has two subway access points) or well (e.g. City Hall is a short walk from the Subway and accessible by street car). The King Street options are preferable as the King Street streetcar can't manage the current demand, not accounting for future demand. A subway is more appropriate to manage this demand. Additionally, the King Street option is closer to the Portlands providing better access for this redeveloping area. Lastly, future extension across King Street is important to serve the existing high density development in areas like Liberty Village and along King Street West which is still densifying. Lastly, of the King options the Broadview option will create more redevelopment opportunity and will have fewer issues associated with the Don River flood limits.


I chose D for three reasons: 1. Going further East serves more people and allows for more connections to regional rail. (Hence B is 2nd) Broadview is already well served by the streetcar. 2. Going right into the financial district will likely have the best impact on PEAK traffic. While D does not serve Eaton Centre etc., the traffic going there is spread out more during the day. 3. Moving west afterwards, King St. definitely has the biggest need for a subway (especially to serve Liberty Village) (Hence Cover A)


Corridor D: -provides relief to overburdened 504 King streetcars -allows for connections to port lands / east waterfront future transit expansion (Waterfront East LRT) -allows for future connections to Liberty Village, City place which are areas that desperately need additional transit capacity -furthest eastern corridor from Yonge line = accesses catchment areas that are distinct from Yonge's catchment areas -provides for multiple connections to SmartTrack/GO RER I voted against any Broadview alignments (A and C) because it has fewer potential for infill stations and fewer "destinations" / trip generators along Broadview. It is too close to the DVP (which doesn't have many trip generating destinations close by).


Pape Stn should be the connecting point on the Bloor line to ease some of the congestion before it reaches Broadview. The Corridor D Online Survey Noted


38

Comment Theme Source Response downtown terminus should be at King St. Looking at Corridor B (Queen St. terminus), there are a number of disadvantages shown. The King St. connection has a number of future possibilities to connect with other areas. I believe this will provide the greatest transportation benefit in terms of number of people served. While it is lower in social benefit, I think this is an imperfect objective - providing a direct subway connection to an area such as Regent Park will likely drive up rents and property values and therefore will create a social cost in terms of affordable housing. The King / Wellington alignment will likely have less affordability impact but will still improve the access to rapid transit, it just won't put it at their doorstep (which may keep housing more affordable). Generally I think the Pape alignment is more logical than Broadview - for the reasons noted in the analysis that Broadview serves a narrower population because of the proximity to the Don Valley.

Corridor D, Regent Park housing affordability

Online Survey Noted

Corridor A's main function would be a relief line with the fewest new stations and as the lowest cost option. Corridor B has more new stations serving more communities and a greater catalyst for development. Corridor C is better than Corridor A because it has more new stations serving communities and transit destinations. Corridor D has the most new stations serving more communities and transit destinations and opening up future development and facilitating intensification.


I would prefer stations located at Front/Sherbourne (St. Lawrence Market) and at Front/Cherry (Distillery District, Pan Am Athletes village, East Bayfront and the Portlands). They would line up with a station at Bay/Wellington with a tunnel to Union subway station. Further east a station at the Unilever development site then at Queen/Carlaw and then at Pape/Gerrard (Smart Track). Finally straight north to Pape with the possibility for a future northern extension along an Avenue designation towards Thorncliffe Park.


Best option is to be far east (Pape) and connect to financial district. Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Pape, south ultimately to Wellington in the core and west to Parkdale via Liberty Village. Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Possible to connect to Regent Park on Pape/King corridor? Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Start digging along Pape and King ASAP Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Stop at King and St. Andrew. Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Connection to Union would be better to serve RER travellers. Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Corridor D is too far south Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Better to serve future west - Liberty Village Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Corridor D is most ideal version. Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Corridor D has great link to north, Gerrard Square, Portlands, Unilever, Esplanade, financial district. Corridor D Public Meeting Display

Noted

Has most potential for north along Pape Can pick up passengers at Carlaw/Gerrard & Queen & Carlaw & service the Distillery District

Corridor D Mail, Handed In Noted

Pape terminus feeds a much larger catchment area (as opposed to Broadview). The conjunction with GO/SmartTrack at Gerrard Square is a unique advantage over Broadview.


Pape and Danforth offer more development possibilities than Broadview & Danforth. If/when the relief line heads further north – hopefully to Don Mills & Eglinton – it makes more sense to use Pape station as the connector. Huge possibilities for



39

Comment Theme Source Response development & a station at Gerrard & Pape or Carlaw. More access needed to the financial district rather than Queen Street. Good route Corridor D Mail, Handed In Noted Combine Pape which takes load from Danforth early enough to be useful & preferable King/Wellington + potential Queen/Broadview or Unilever. Connects + WDL and King Sherbourne (GBC). Most beneficial.


No brainer by far (to me) this is the strongest & most ideal corridor. Corridor D Mail, Handed In Noted Best option - Pape, Unilever, gerrard/Carlaw, south core, distillery Corridor D Mail, Handed In Noted Makes more sense for businesses & condos downtown & development opportunities east of DVP Corridor D Mail, Handed In Noted The corridor serves Gerrard Mall area in need of development. The Richmond Street Stations will serve existing businesses and are close to future developments (Portlands, Waterfront, pan Am site, Distillery Area, ACC, Rogers Centre, George Brown, Queen Quay etc.) and will relieve King and Queen Routes for streetcar riders.


Like C to service King Mixed commercial/residential along Pape does not exist – poor ridership A lot of NIMBYs on Pape


Not sure we need 2 connections to RER Seems like excessive paralleling Also Pape corridor seems less likely to up-zone to allow much higher densities I support Pape somewhat more if it will be significantly up-zoned


Pape is better King Wellington is better


This corridor helps increase access for new waterfront districts. Not just for the West Don lands. If the Gardiner is removed east of Jarvis (still on the table) this option also provides access for the other future development lands near the Unilever site. Prefer King to Queen as so many people travel to and from the financial district for their daily commute, whereas tourists, shoppers more likely to take Queen and have streetcar option. This option also serves the St Lawrence neighbourhood directly as opposed to somewhat improved access in Option B for Regent Park.


Very good development potential, especially with future connections to Portlands Most expensive however will it actually get built?


King is too close to Union Prefer as far east as possible on Danforth


Too far south Duplicates railway line Just shovels people into core


I like that this goes to Pape but I prefer the Queen corridor – too much near (overlap here with SmartTrack. Corridor D Mail, Handed In Noted This is my preferred choice It makes the most sense. I would terminate at Bay St


Has most of green & yellow dots Donlands intersection not very busy


Corridor D King Sherbourne King Cherry Unilever


The decision should not be based on capital costs alone, as long term benefits to the City will come from sound operational visioning. The decision should be based on the long term goals and aspirations of the City and it appears the Pape to



40

Comment Theme Source Response King/Wellington corridor best fits the long term goals of the City. To relieve the traffic on King Station, use the King/Bay intersection or the Wellington/Bay intersection for Corridor D. The stations can be connected underground (just as Line 1 & Line 2 are at Spadina station).


Within the Corridor D option, my most preferred route would be from Wellington/University, east along Wellington and Front Streets, straight out through the West Don Lands, then curving northeast under the railway corridor, turning north at Pape, to Danforth. My preferred stations: Wellington/University, Wellington/Yonge, Front/Sherbourne or Jarvis (St Lawrence Market), Front/Cherry, Queen/DeGrassi (at the railway), Gerrard/Carlaw-Pape, Pape/Danforth.


Corridor 'D' may potentially be the most expensive but it would serve the most people as a Relief Line as well as along the line itself. It would also provide for the most opportunities to serve more locations in the future, both existing and under development.


D is somewhat better than B in that it has better potential for serving the west Donlands community in future. Also, B could allow for eliminating the Bay street station as it is so close to Yonge/Bay with an extra east end exit/entrance almost as convenient for Bay street access from a patron perspective.


Alignment along Pape is good because the TTC currently runs mostly on Carlaw. Alignment would be best to run on Adelaide, King and Wellington as Queen and Richmond are most busy. Disruptions will be there but will be minimum than on Queen and Richmond. This may be more cost but has more revenue potential.


Corridor D has the best alignment and curve will be more smoother. Queen and Richmond Corridor is more busier that King and Wellington so disruption will be more minimal.


The northern route within D is preferred to minimize impact of flood protections needed at the foot of the Don AND less overlap with GO / SmartTrack.


The South Etobicoke Transit Action Committee (SETAC) welcomes and applauds a number of the proposed transit initiatives. Please forward this email to the appropriate projects. The multiple email addresses, uncoordinated webpages, and difficult to find feedback submission fields have made it very difficult to determine where to send out comments. Relief Line Corridor D This is the best choice in our opinion, as it:

• Opens a new neighbourhood at lower Don Valley for high density development. • Does not wastefully parallel SmartTrack stations. • Has important interchange stations with SmartTrack on Queen East and Gerrard East.

Furthermore, downtown stations on King Street are in the centre of the Financial District, but are a short walk from Union Station as well as the Eaton Centre and City Hall on Queen Street.

Corridor D Email Noted

Comments on Relief Line Potential Station Areas: Based on a review of the potential station areas and the detailed evaluations provided by the Relief Line Committee, I recommend the following choices (with Choice 1A as the most preferred and Choice 3 as least preferred): Choice 1A Relief Line runs from Pape Station to King/Bay along the following route:

• Pape Station • Gerrard/Pape – Serves Gerrard Square, connections to Gerrard streetcar • Dundas/Carlaw – connections to Dundas streetcar • Queen/Carlaw – connections to Queen streetcars • Queen/Broadview – connections to Queen & King streetcars, can relieve crowding • King/Cherry – connections to King streetcar to relieve crowding, may also relieve crowding on Queen streetcars

Corridor D, connections to existing streetcar network

Email Noted


41

Comment Theme Source Response • King/Sherbourne – connections to King streetcar to relieve crowding, serves George Brown main campus and King

East/surrounding employment district • King/Bay – connections to King streetcar to relieve crowding, serves major employment/financial district

Choice 1B Note – 1B is less preferred since it has fewer stops and serves fewer residents, however it may have a significantly reduced cost – Relief Line runs from Pape Station to King/Bay along the following route:

• Pape Station • Queen/Broadview – connections to Queen & King streetcars, can relieve crowding • King/Sherbourne – connections to King streetcar to relieve crowding, serves George Brown main campus and King


Choice 2 Relief Line runs from Pape Station to Queen/Yonge or Bay along the following route:

• Pape Station • Gerrard/Broadview – connections to Gerrard & King streetcars, can relieve crowding, serves Bridgepoint Health and

Chinatown East and Riverdale communities • Dundas/Sumach (Regent Park) – connections to Dundas streetcar, can relieve crowding, serves Regent Park and new

community facilities • Queen/Sherbourne (Moss Park) – connections to Queen streetcars, can relieve crowding, serves Moss Park and

associated community facilities • Queen/Bay or Yonge

Choice 3 This route has a focus on incorporating the future planned developments along the waterfront. In this case the Relief Line runs from Pape Station to King/Bay along the following route:

• Pape Station • Dundas/Carlaw – connections to Dundas streetcar • Queen/Carlaw – connections to Queen streetcars • First Gulf/Unilever Site • Front/Cherry – could connect to planned Cherry St streetcar loop, serves West Donlands development sites • King/Sherbourne – connections to King streetcar to relieve crowding, serves George Brown main campus and King


Options B, C, D all have positive qualities. B, C, and D Public Meeting

Display Noted

Based on the results of the evaluation of the station locations and technical analysis we have identified four proposed potential corridors where the Relief Line May travel. Please rate your preference on the scale below.

Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D


42

Based on the results of the evaluation of the station locations and technical analysis we have identified four proposed potential corridors where the Relief Line May travel. Please rate your preference on the scale below.

Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D I don't prefer this – 1 129 32 101 21

2 58 25 65 22 3 43 57 60 33 4 22 70 25 51

I prefer this - 5 17 84 16 143

Additional Comments

43

Comment Theme Source Response Would appreciate building this ASAP, as Line 1 is in big need. Timely completion Online Survey Noted FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GET THIS BUILT. I'M PLEADING WITH YOU, EVERY SENSIBLE PERSON WITH A BRAIN WHO RIDES THE TTC IS PLEADING WITH YOU PLEASE BUILD THIS, It is terrible that money will likely be spent building yet more subway capacity into areas that don't need it before the money is spent on this.

Timely completion Online Survey Noted

I relief line is much needed. The sooner such a line is approved the better. Timely completion Online Survey Noted Speed of decision and execution is key. I leave for work at 7am to Pape station to King, because the traffic is just unreasonable from 7:30 - 9:30. Coming home it’s the same. - Packed trains and arguments are only escalating.


We are decades overdue for more downtown subway lines, the expansion of condos and rise in downtown residents make this project an absolute necessity. Downtown residents who pay city taxes, higher housing prices to reside closer to work shouldn't be spending close to hour commuting by TTC. Our tax dollars shouldn't be used to reduce commute times from the suburb cities.


Glad to see that more official studies are finally going ahead with this much needed piece of infrastructure. Hoping it gets built sooner than later.


Get it built! Timely completion Online Survey Noted Build this as fast as possible!!! We are struggling without this relief line! Timely completion Online Survey Noted Please, please put this plan into action. Just build the relief line. Building transit is vital to providing equity among Toronto's citizens.


Don't have a plebiscite, referendum or vote like in Vancouver. Just Do It. Timely completion Online Survey Noted Kindly contact me to receive a full PowerPoint on how to move an EXTRA 15,000 RIDERS DURING PEAK HOUR, WITHOUT BUILDING A THING. Pan Am Games will fail, since TTC Management refused to study my work, as they were told to do by the TTC Board November 18, 2013. The longer TTC Management fail to do their due diligence on behalf of taxpayers, the longer monies are being wasted. I respectfully request a meeting with your Project Team, to prove my case in person.

Cost-effective solution

Online Survey Noted

Cancel the Scarborough subway extension and replace with transit more appropriate to ridership. This would save billions, allowing easier, ready-made financing of the relief line.


Online Survey Noted

I wish half as much time and energy was spent focusing on increasing efficiencies along existing routes as it was spent on building new ones. We do need new routes. But the current network is poorly managed and maintained, plus there's existing options within the City that may annoy some cars but would cost next to nothing. You could reclaim a North-South street and convert it to rapid bus (preferably LRT) and cycling. No expensive tunneling. The route is already there so you don't have to appropriate any properties. You could just work out issues with existing driveways and go ahead and do it. This City is stuck in non-nonsensical discourses that lead you down the rabbit-hole to wonderland. There are so many faster and cost-effective options if City politicians and staff could get out of their narrow way of thinking. It's kind of embarrassing really.


Online Survey Noted

Chris Upfold, has been told what the answer is for the Relief Line, but he prefers to spend 4 Billion Dollars on the Relief Line, instead of doing a full study of the work of Sharon Yetman of Platform Technology Consultancy, who PROMISES, TO MOVE AN EXTRA 15,000 RIDERS TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE, without building a thing. contact me and I will email you my latest PowerPoint on how to provide 100% Relief, for 4 Billion Dollars LESS MONEY THAN WHAT Mr. Upfold wants to spend. My work gained 10 extra Yonge Line Trains in 2009, and my "unique work" can do it again.


Online Survey Noted

I would, personally, prefer a more costly option upfront to minimize cost (monetary and productivity) spent in the future. Long-term financial analysis

Online Survey Noted

Stop listening to the tax cut idiots. Raise taxes to cover the cost of improving transit, something that hasn't been done for years. That has caused today's problems.

Project funding Email Noted

In order for the CITY to collect "property Taxes", they have demonstrated that they WILL force of SALE your home. Therefore you are hereby notified that my family, do not have funds available to finance your proposal, and maintain the Relief Line in the years to come.

Project funding Email Noted

Additional Comments

44

Comment Theme Source Response Suggestion: Relocate future immigration to settle in our smaller cities and towns throughout Ontario. Do we not need to sort out the financing before we move to specifying locations? Doubt I will ride this in my lifetime. Project funding Online Survey Noted I have a question about your newest project about relief line. Is the TTC fairs go up once it’s all built, because its already ridiculous and costly for adults metro passes.

Cost impacts to riders

Email Noted

I am really hopeful that the Relief Line with get the political and financial support it needs to get going. The fiasco with the Scarborough LRT project must not be allowed to repeat.

Support for project Online Survey Noted

Great to see the project team moving so quickly with feedback on the proposed alignments. Support for project Online Survey Noted Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I believe it is ESSENTIAL that major transit projects, such as this, be part of a COMPREHENSIVE strategy for the entire City. We must stop "piece-mealing" projects and instead look at the big picture. Only then can we use tax dollars wisely and implement the projects in order of priority. I see only notional lip service to where and how the routes would later be extended north of the Danforth and west of Yonge. What future issues will there be, beyond the current study limits, that the selection now, of a preferred route for only part of the ultimate system will entail? Thank you

Comprehensive transit strategy

Online Survey Noted

look to the next 30 years to determine the best alignment. Long-term transit planning

Online Survey Noted

It is vital to see the new line in the longer context of an eventual 3rd cross-town subway, not simply as a means of relieving the crush at Bloor/Yonge & running empty outside weekday peak hours. Lower cost for the first stage should not influence the choice of route, if it makes later extensions less useful or more costly.

Long-term transit planning

Online Survey Noted

I hope you will favour long-term outcomes over short-term outcomes. The alignment of this subway line will have a huge long-term impact on how the core and east-end develops. Designing the line for the city that exists right now would be short-sighted. Although it is called the 'Relief' line, the effects and potential benefits this investment will have development in the next 50 years will be much more significant than the benefits it has on commute times when it opens. We need to optimize the line for long-term growth and success in order to help our city become as financially resilient and as vibrant as possible. We need to be thinking not just about the current hot spots (e.g. Liberty Village, which is already booming without a subway line) but also what might be the next hot spots that could be activated by subway investment. Those developments are what will really make the DRL produce lasting economic value, much more so than serving existing demand. Transit can't be about relieving congestion; it has to be about increasing the potential for economic value creation given the level of congestion we have.

Long-term transit planning

Online Survey Noted

Can you please communicate better to the public that what you are doing (the planning process) is actually important and necessary? I agree that it is, absolutely, but in this political environment, where the term "Downtown" Relief Life is politically charged, and the Prime Minister can "choose" to fund SmartTrack, and the Mayor can choose to push SmartTrack rather than the Relief Line, ALL OF WHICH ignore the planning process you are going through. It is frustrating. You are doing all the hard work of planning for this line, and I appreciate this, but if politicians just ignore it, what's the point? Please communicate that transit REQUIRES this objective de-politicized planning process if we are going to do it right and use our scarce tax dollars wisely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get the word out more about this planning process and fight back against politicians that ignore it!!!!!!!!!!

Objective planning process

Online Survey Noted

At your presentation & (word) finding meeting, many answers are ocean of words in a desert of ideals. Final decision should not be political, but practical with future in mind.

Practical solution, long-term planning

Mailed, Handed In

Noted

Think about what would truly build a world class city. Long-term planning Online Survey Noted Mitigation measures, as well as potential extension options, should be considered at the same time to ensure the preferred corridor is future proofed. For instance, the issue of crowding at King station may require making capacity improvements there.

Network impacts and improvements

Online Survey Noted

I know it's a Relief Line, but don't constrain the considerations and planning to midtown, public transit at rush hour. The impact of a well-planned line will be felt into the suburbs, on traffic flow and all day, every day.

Regional transit planning

Online Survey Noted

It would be much more effective at relieving the Yonge line if it extended north all the way to at least Don Mills and Eglinton. Future northern Online Survey Noted

Additional Comments

45

Comment Theme Source Response transit expansion

-Let's use existing rail corridors and rights of way as much as possible. -Lets also look ahead into easier future extensions: i.e. Use the don valley corridor to service Thorncliffe and Flemingdon park.

Future northern transit expansion, use of rail corridors and rights-of-way

Online Survey Noted

Any possible alignment with GO transit lines and other buses, streetcars along the relief line would be great. If possible it would be helpful if as much thought is put into making it easy to have future expansion (to avoid costly impacts later on).

Connections to existing and future transit

Online Survey Noted

Could be longer to connect with Danforth GO and Main subway stations. Connections to existing and future transit

Online Survey Noted

Look at existing uses (such as Gerrard Square), connections to the Lakeshore GO line and connections to LRT routes. Where would intensification along the route be best accommodated? Where would most transit riders along the route benefit from new stations/connections? I would extend the line west to terminate at the Weston GO corridor so people could transfer to SmartTrack or UP Express there.

Connections to existing and future transit

Online Survey Noted

I suggest connecting in only one location crossing the RER/SmartTrack alignment, to add connectivity to the network without duplicating that function or areas served.

Connection to RER/SmartTrack

Online Survey Noted

More stations improve local travel options and increase the viability of the downtown shoulder areas to support greater employment. Stations at Sherbourne, Cherry and Eastern would be nice, as would a station on Queen St. East and at Gerrard. The study should also consider station locations on the westward extension as well as north all the way to Sheppard/Don-Mills. Regardless of the outcome of SmartTrack, DRL stations that link to new GO Stations is important to improve downtown-suburb journeys. For example as a resident of Riverside who works at Finch/Morningside, I would like to be able to take the GO Train to the Stouffville and/or Guildwood Stations to be able to continue my commute via TTC at a fraction of the time as taking the streetcar/subway/RT/bus.

Support for multiple inline stations, connection to existing and future transit

Online Survey Noted

Please work on a northern extension and also the western branch of the U as soon as possible. Get it done. Future transit expansion

Online Survey Noted

I hope that the planners will think of future line extensions and not just the immediate area covered. The Relief Line can be built in phases starting with eastern downtown, then north on Don Mills, and west along King/Queen.


Online Survey Noted

Are there no western options being presented? Or is this better covered by using the current rail corridor from union to Dundas West as part of the Mayor's fast track project?

Future western transit expansion

Online Survey An extension west of downtown is not part of this phase of study. It will be considered at a future time.

I just would like to go blah blah regarding moving around the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe. Service in areas that need it. What I mean about service is how long it takes to get from point A to B. Winter times especially as its cold out there. Take an example of subway from Wilson to Downsview on the subway takes longer to go from these points then going down to union station and back north. Whatever system you use keep it super simple and improve the service, travel times and try to keep it seamless travel in moving to destinations. Traveling from down town to Kennedy station and getting off to carry on to the destination is not seamless and Kennedy is not really a major destination or get off point to carry not to the next leg of travel. Union Station is, Yonge Bloor is , Yonge Eglinton is, Airport is....Sheppard Yonge is , Yonge Steels is, Sheppard Markham is and etc. Also GTA is expanding think connections seamless to the rest of the Golden Horseshoe, not just Hamilton. Lately I see in articles GTA and Hamilton....how about Golden Horseshoe.

Improved travel times, integrated regional transit network

Email Noted

Additional Comments

46

Comment Theme Source Response I know its a big job but do nothing over the years instead on taking on little by little now is hurting even more. There is a case before the Supreme Court of Canada where by the Bank of Canada has an article that states no interest loans to governments for infrastructure. This is being contested now. In the past major projects like the Seaway canal was funded by Bank of Canada loan with no interest. Why not pressure this to happen again....' Thanks for the opportunity to go blah bah. I picked based on route through areas where density would be welcomed and needed in the future. Also based on the most direct route to the core with few stops thereby keeping areas connected while still providing a strong and needed downtown link.

Direct route with fewer stops

Online Survey Noted

The loudest concern in Scarborough and Etobicoke is that once the line approaches but not yet reaches downtown, it becomes a frequent-stop milk-run line running along King or Queen Street to alleviate streetcar slowness and congestion along one of the 2 streets (in effect, a Queen Street subway). True, any transit project will have to pass through those areas, and serve them, but not to the extent that Scarborough and Etobicoke residents be disserved by a milk-run type service that would clearly be designed mainly for south of Bloor-Danforth residents, with users from and service north of Bloor-Danforth viewed as an add-on.

Fewer stops, integrated transit network

Online Survey Noted

As grid-like as possible please! And try to accommodate as many people as possible! Thanks!! Integrated transit network

Online Survey Noted

I would suggest building the relief line to Spadina in the first stage, rather than terminate at University. (connection to the Spadina Streetcar ROW).

Western connection to Spadina

Online Survey Noted

While many jobs are in the "financial district" today, one would hope that improved transit would encourage job creation/displacement to the areas served by the expansion.

Development of employment areas

Online Survey Noted

Consider the potential for tourism - cycling and greenspace, gondolas to the Evergreen Brickworks, illumination of the Bloor St. Viaduct and even linkage to the Ontario Science Centre.

Tourism potential Online Survey Noted

Substantial underground property easements may be required, depending on selection of alignment. What does this mean for homeowners whose homes may lie along the path? Will the houses be appropriated? Will the tunnels go under the houses?

Impacts on existing residential areas

Online Survey Property impacts are an important consideration in evaluating alternatives. Once a recommended alignment has been approved, homeowners located nearby will be contacted for any property impacts.

I hope you will dig deep enough that lines running under homes will not result in vibrating houses and basements! Impacts on existing residential areas

Online Survey Noted

I live south of Queen on Carlaw (across from the school) I was wondering how my house would be impacted with Corridor B and D. Is there any chance that people would be forced out of their homes? Or would the subway be directly under the houses there? Where would the subway exits be located?


Email We are currently looking for feedback on potential corridors for the Relief Line – corridors are wide bands where the tracks, stations, etc. could be built. Once a preferred

Additional Comments

47

Comment Theme Source Response corridor has been determined, specific alignments will be developed. An alignment is the more precise location of tunnels, stations, entrances, etc. Several options will be developed in the preferred corridor. Once these alignment options have been developed, the property impacts for each option will be determined. The owner of any property affected by the alignments will be notified by direct mail. In the meantime, I encourage you to keep informed by registering for the project mailing list at the bottom of the main page at http://reliefline.ca/, and of course, provide any feedback you have on the potential corridors.

I am opposed to building the relief line underneath Pape Avenue. That is a quiet, residential neighbourhood and my concern is that the relief subway line will increase noise levels.


Email Noted

Please do not destroy the few remaining residential pockets of this city by making congested areas MORE congested with people, traffic and pollution! It is bad enough that the Danforth (Ward 29) is now situated in a direct flight path for planes from Pearson Airport. You will be taking away people's quiet enjoyment of their homes where they have lived for generations and devaluing their properties.


Online Survey Noted

I do not like putting the relief line under Queen or King St completely because these two alignments happen to have the most congested streetcar routes in the city. To have construction on either two of these streets would create disruption for the busiest street car routes thus causing more traffic jams and there is no other place to put these passengers on these routes. Also businesses along those two routes will be severely affected as nobody wants to travel along a route under construction during a traffic jam. We are seeing this on Eglinton Ave

Minimizing disruption during construction

Online Survey Noted

I think you people have done a good job laying out the options. Unfortunately, there was no way to present the information at once for all corridors. Category Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D advantages disadvantages I do think you should have stressed more a discussion which is the purpose of the project - criteria for defining relief.

Format of online consultation information, criteria for defining

Online Survey Noted

Additional Comments

48

Comment Theme Source Response relief

Regarding this online consultation, the separate pages where links were provided in the email did not include the legends showing the meaning of the different coloured dots shown on the map (I made my choice without understanding what these represent). The legends shown on this feedback page are too small to read. Also, the links provided in the email referred to the different corridors by name but the maps shown on this feedback page are too small for those unfamiliar with the TTC line to be able to tell which stations the corridors are linking.

Format of online consultation information

Online Survey Noted

More detailed images would have been better, close ups on the areas where the route would pass through. the images presented here were not zoom-able and hard to read.

Format of online consultation information

Online Survey Noted

Give some feedback as to how much weight the public input was ... like the public wanted model X best but the city wanted model Y best, so we went for model Y ... essentially try to highlight where our feedback is actually used and where it is vetoed by other concerns ... hopefully to eliminate the cynic in me that feels feedback like this is in one ear, out the other, because there are other factors that trump what the public wants.

Consideration of public input, rationale for decision-making

Online Survey Noted

Attn: Mr. Logan, Lura (or any correspondent): I felt the Tuesday session was well-organized, successful, and an enjoyable experience. I presented last, for our table located at the back: the older gent who preferred Corridor B. These comments reinforce a statement made during that presentation: You may recall that our group regarded a claim made for certain corridor options to be: ‘bogus’. The bogus “pro” for those options was: they would service the ‘financial district’ directly. Yet, as you may recall: • Our group measured the walk distance from King-Bay to Union Station today, and found it in the order of 300 metres, through the path; yet, • when we measured the walk distance north to a potential (new) Queen-Bay station, it would be about 300 m also. And, I should have added: 300 metres that could go above or underground, through an already-existing Path. Thus, one must reasonably conclude that: a walk-route ending further north of King-Bay and accessible via The Path, as per Corridor B, no more speaks against the option’s efficacy than might today’s, clearly successful, 300m path-route from King-Bay to Union Station ! Therefore, I would strongly urge, before you move to public consultations next week, that the “pros/cons” statements of the corridor options be reassessed, and adjusted as necessary, so as to not unfairly bias the outcomes of any work sessions. Thank you.

Revise consultation statements

Email Noted

Why not look for a route that doesn't involve tunnelling under the Don River or through a flood plain? Is there a reason why part of the route can't be elevated? As a regular subway rider, I prefer the sections that travel above ground.

Elevated route Online Survey Noted

I'm not a hydrogeological expert but that seems to be one of the high risk areas that need to be thoroughly researched before construction begins. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Thank you for planning this to make Toronto a better city to commute within.

Technical considerations

Online Survey Noted

I prefer straight runs. Technical design Online Survey Noted Build a three-track system for express trains for both initial service and for the extended system (Big-U). Express route

options Online Survey Noted

I personally think that instead of digging another floor onto Pape, you could have Scarborough passengers (who seem to be neglected always) have a train (say every 3rd train) be marked as "RELIEF TRAIN". This would automatically go to the left side of PAPE and take the relief line when it reaches PAPE and thus would cause less congestion for passengers. If need be, have a 3rd platform on Pape which will allow people to cross over easily from other trains and then it would directly head downtown. This would save billions in digging another floor onto Pape station. I'm not an engineer, but this could be done logistically...

Express route options

Online Survey Noted

One thing I have been mulling over is how few passengers are predisposed to take the relief line and how many would still transfer at Yonge onto line 1. It was shocking, actually, how little of the overcrowding the relief line might reduce. I tried to understand why and thought about the great number of people who disembark, for instance, at College station according to


Additional Comments

49

Comment Theme Source Response your research, and how those people would not take the relief line. (I think the reason is that they would need to make two transfers versus one--one onto the relief line at Broadview or Pape and one at Queen or King to go north to College. No one would do this. Even if the alignment is through King and I worked at Queen I wouldn't take the relief line and this is a serious problem.) I thought about how we might nudge them to do so, and had the idea that one could remove the transfer onto the relief line itself. In other words, the relief line could run from Kennedy, or Scarborough town centre, within a inline station stop at Pape/Broadview, to King or Queen. Line 2 (perhaps now just the Bloor line) would run from Pape or Broadview to Kipling. This would make people coming in from the east transfer at Pape/Broadview IF they want to keep going west; otherwise, they would by default take the relief line. I think this would greatly increase the projections of how many passengers would take the relief line, and now my hypothetical passengers would definitely take the relief line, because it would now take them more transfers to avoid the relief line. Additionally, this new line would already be attached to the Greenwood yards and the now Bloor line to the Vincent yards (Although they would need to be expanded I would imagine). Politically, this would help with residents of Scarborough sometimes feeling short changed when it comes to transit, because they could now have a transfer free trip into the financial core. I agree that if one wanted to run the relief line further North this could be a problem, but I feel the ridership projections still suggest the Don Mills LRT should still be an LRT. I bring this suggestion up at this point because alignment may make this ide impossible. I.e. It could be that it might not be possible to curve the existing Bloor-Danforth line south at Pape or Broadview station, but only at the other one. (My best sense of how this would happen is to have the west bound trains from Kennedy station veer off on a new track before Pape/Broadview and then go under the existing platforms, but I have so little understanding of this area it's ridiculous...) I hope I have explained myself clearly, but if not, please email me and I will gladly try to restate my idea in a way that actually makes sense. Trying to understand all this information. So with that I was trying to pick the areas that seem to collect the most use during rush hour and off peak periods with thinking destination nodes like east-west which we need more and north south. Destination with seamless movement from one system to another heading to the core, union station, Yonge Bloor, queen Yonge, Scarborough Town Centre, Thorncliffe, Don Mills and Lawrence etc.


Whatever corridors you pick thinks seamless connections with major destination points. Avoid corridors were you have to get off and get back on numerous times of course allowing for system breakdowns with flexibility where possible. Destination is I think a key mantra. Ending a trip at Kennedy and Eglinton is not a major destination but an inconvenience to get off one corridor and jump onto another corridor to get to your end journey. This is but one example.

Consider major destinations for station areas

Online Survey Noted

Examine key sites that need a subway connection (i.e. City Hall) but don't yet have one. Run the subway below busy surface routes and have stations at busy stops.

Serve key destinations

Online Survey Noted

A relief line should be more than just the shortest possible route. It should also be about city building by serving communities, transit destinations(employment areas, shopping, entertainment) and as a catalyst for intensification and new development. It should not only be evaluated on minimizing cost. Focus on seeing it as an investment into our city's future that will reward us with great dividends if done right.

Serve key destinations and communities

Online Survey Noted

Many of the existing attractions noted function well today with the access they have. Many of the City's growing areas and new features need to be served by the Relief Line. If we focus only on the short term relief to existing areas we'll lose the option of using the Relief Line to also function as a city building tool.

Serve future development

Online Survey Noted

Shut the subway down again and watch the streetcar/bus routes from the East End ... that might help! Study surface transit routes

Online Survey Noted

Please look at the report prepared by OSPE. [Ontario Society of Professional Engineers] Consider additional research

Online Survey Noted

Please see some of the above comments; I was unable to cut and paste some that would be better placed here. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts.

Comments provided

Online Survey Noted

I have provided my input during your consultation at Riverdale Collegiate in the form of a leaflet "The DRL Exists" I Comments Online Survey Noted

Additional Comments

50

Comment Theme Source Response am sure you have received it -- but have you heeded it? provided Can there be variations on these options? I think it should go along Queen Street in the central area, but St. Lawrence Market, Distillery District and Liberty Village are all important destinations. Could it go along King Street to Jarvis and back to King Street west of University somewhere? It is silly to call Sherbourne and King a "better connection to the St. Lawrence Market". It is not much closer than King and Union Stations now, and people will be carrying grocery bags. If the route goes along King, you need a stop at Jarvis, not Sherbourne. Also, there should be a north/south bus running along Jarvis or Church. It is shocking that there is nothing between Yonge and Sherbourne - in the heart of the city! Have you seriously reviewed whether Smart Track itself can satisfy the need for relief of the Yonge subway line? Smart Track and the Relief Line are somewhat redundant. My primary criterion is building spider web criss-cross lines. That would be much better served by continuing the subway past Smart Track along Queen. For the Western extension, you need to go along King (even if the central area is along Queen). Again, carrying it on beyond Smart Track and serving the Exhibition/Ontario Place area (and perhaps the Bathurst/Lakeshore condos) and eventually to the huge condo area at Lakeshore and the Humber/Parklawn would be the best route, if Smart Track can satisfy the need for connection to the Bloor Line. Maybe even carry on to the Port Credit GO station, linking to the Mississauga LRT routs and GO. Is development on the Unilever site substantially more beneficial to the city than similar development downtown? If so, connections to the Unilever site make corridors B and D even more compelling. However, unless there are strong benefits of building there rather than downtown, I question why connection to Unilever is important. Of course, any well connected developer will ask the City to pay for transit that will add billions of dollars to the value of their property - that doesn't mean we should. It needs to benefit the city, not just the developer.

Hybrid of Queen and King alignment, future western transit expansion

Online Survey Noted

Four potential options have been provided, I would like to know why double tracking the existing Boor-Danforth route has not been considered. It is clear that the four published options will solve/alleviate the (a) line haul capacity issue between Pape and the Yonge/Bloor interchange stations, (b) the passenger line interchange congestion at the interchange station and (3) the line haul congestion on the Yonge line. Congestion south of Bloor/Yonge. Why not, at least look at a Bloor/Danforth skip stop operation, assuming that every second train heads south through the east leg of the wye (Bay=Museum).? This could be the first step toward a long term vision of Toronto's first "Regional Metro line. From this perspective the current proposal for a one stop intermediate station on the proposed extension between Kennedy-Scarborough Town Centre makes eminent sense because the service would be inter-regional by intended function and therefore an express service in nature. In this regard, I favour the McGowan Road alignment. From this perspective the savings from the provision of more than one station could be put to good use by considering an upgraded SRT to replace the existing service and possibly extending that technology.

Express train service

Online Survey It is not feasible to add tracks while maintaining service and operations.

Relief Line Project Team Comments on Relief Line These comments assume the 'fares' issue is resolved in favour of fares by distance/zone, irrespective of route or service chosen to make a journey, as cost differences between modes affects rider's choices. The obvious downtown route for the Relief Line is under Front/Wellington as far as Spadina, leaving further westward extension for future consideration. There was some discussion of the Relief Line connecting with GO routes truncated to a new GO Spadina station, due to Union Station congestion. However, I do not consider truncating GO lines a reasonable or realistic plan, so no provision should be made for that in drawing up the Relief Line plan. It is critical that existing Queen and King streetcar routes, are undisturbed for the duration of construction; that's an absolute. Pape appears the obvious choice northward toward Danforth, thus not duplicating the existing minor relief function performed by 504 and 505 streetcars. It would be instructive to learn how many riders use the King car now, from Broadview to the financial district, as an alternate to Yonge/Bloor, and how many might use it if it was speeded up by giving it priority along its route. This option could yield ' relief' today. Great care needs to be taken with the Danforth interchange, whether Pape or elsewhere, so that riders are 'incentivized' to

Future western transit expansion, avoid disruption to streetcar routes, Pape, maximum relief, connection to Greenwood year, Unilever

Email Noted

Additional Comments

51

Comment Theme Source Response change trains. The convenience, time, number of steps; the distance, noise, and a hundred other factors, some highly subjective, will bear down on the rider's choice each and every day. Do they switch or stay - today? This entire multi-billion dollar project hinges on switching, and if they do not switch in volumes needed to effect relief at Yonge, billions are wasted and we have another Sheppard line. A similar situation exists with the homeward bound choice of route, where a whole new set of factors influence choice. This choice is 'upfront', it is the choice of starting station. If nothing else, do your homework three times over on this one. To make the new interchange more attractive to switching, consider a track alignment going north on Pape, and which swings east at Pape/Danforth, going under or beside the existing line, so as to provide either a cross platform, or a St George style one flight interchange for the principle flows. The line would then swing north on Donlands instead of Pape. Also at this point, a tunneled connection to the close by Greenwood maintenance yard might be feasible, especially since a connection to the existing system is required somewhere. That you chose to study an extended line beyond Danforth has yielded a surprise, The study of extending the line north on Don Mills identifies significant relief of the Yonge line. However, no consideration was given to faster, improved and re-routed GO Richmond Hill line which might well have drawn many of the same people. Further, an improved GO line (Richmond Hill) may well have negated or delayed the need for extending the Yonge subway line north. In any event, the relief line, if extended, should go via Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park. This work is to study Yonge relief, but precious little attention has been paid to capacity enhancements at stations north of Bloor, where riders have to let several trains pass. While an extended DRL might improve this a little, so might an improved Richmond Hill GO line. A station at or near the Lever site seems appropriate for interchange value as well as likely residential development. Respectfully Submitted Hello. Re comments for the “relief line”. - Relief at Yonge & Bloor should not mean intensification & hindrance at Union Station. - Any bus route(s) can be and will be reconfigured to any relief line location(s); not so easy for rail. - People (passengers as well as pedestrians) will travel by transit and/or foot , from all directions(north, south, east, west) to connect to a or the relief line.. - Waiting will not save any money, to the contrary! - The “short” relief line (N E) has to be done with the “long” relief line (S W) in mind. - Like hwy 4.01 & QEW &hwy 427 & Don Valley Pky. form a “box” surrounding Toronto, mass public - Transit has to have a west & south & east rapid transit line connecting to each other to form a “box”. - Danforth & Pape intersection already very busy with traffic; Danforth & Donlands not so. Please, Please, get going with a FINAL decision, and start digging! Thank you.

Timely completion, integrated transit network, Donlands

Mail Noted

I'm delighted to see plans for a Relief Line are still going ahead. One of the major concerns seems to be that if you run it along Queen, the Don Lands, etc., won't be served. May I make a suggestion? Why not have a spur line coming eastward off of Queen, bending south, while the main line veers north? I know in London England they split lines. Maybe every fourth train or so, going south to serve the Canary District, George Brown, Distillery, etc. There is another point to mention. If that spur could go down into the Port Lands, maybe there could be a big Park-and-Ride so drivers could pull off the DVP and from Scarborough direction and ride this spur into the downtown? That would take a lot of traffic off the roads in central Toronto, I'm sure.

Consider a second line to provide occasional access to areas further south

Email Noted

1 There is an inevitable crisis at the Yonge/Bloor interchange. The build-up of passengers by continually extending the end points of both Yonge and Bloor subways causes congestion at the centre point -Yonge/Bloor. The four stairwells will have passengers standing deadlocked on them.

Alternative route proposal

Email Noted

Additional Comments

52

Comment Theme Source Response 2 There is an inevitable crisis at Union Station as GO transit adds train service. Union Station is the only terminal for GO trains and as GO adds more service there is not enough track nor platform space. For East Toronto, there is an opportunity to relieve both crisis’s, by carrying passengers on a new line so as not to add passengers to the subway or GO services. Initially the concept was an LRT line from Centennial Station Markham along the Go line with a curve onto Queen Street and University. Feedback from this concept, has sparked a more sound proposal, an RT (as in the SRT) train running on the surface from Unionville Station to Midland and then a tunnel from Midland under the Go tracks, surfacing at Queen to cross a bridge at the Don River and then into another tunnel under Queen to University. The additional costs of the new proposal relieve the crush of the two problems listed above. VivaNext benefits because it completes the symmetry of Spadina/Vaughn, Yonge/Richmond Hill with Queen/Markham service. The increase in density in Markham (Birchmount and Highway 7) needs more frequent service. The RT becomes a major north/south axis for Toronto East, providing relief to the Yonge subway line. The curve at Queen Street will relieve the GO transit load at Union Station. This route offers the TTC scheduling flexibility -rush hour, regular and evening schedules. The Sheppard LRT meets this line and buses covering north and north east Scarborough can hub at the Agincourt station. These passengers can get downtown or transfer at Kennedy to go west on the Bloor subway or Eglinton Crosstown LRT. East Scarborough will be well served by the Lawrence and Ellesmere stations where knowledgeable TTC planners know there is a large latent demand. Kennedy bus passengers will also board this RT. The majority of passengers will stay on the RT to get directly downtown, and relieve passenger load on the Bloor line (again averting the Yonge/Bloor crisis). This concept has been vetted by transportation experts. Politicians have an opportunity to ask their constituents to accept the benefits of a comprehensive plan to the shortcomings of a Scarborough subway which only adds to the crisis by pushing passengers to the Yonge and Bloor exchange. I propose a near-diagonal line from Donlands via Union to Dufferin, with stops along the way at Broadview between Gerrard and Dundas, at Parliament/Queen, Union, Spadina/Queen, and Bathurst between College and Dundas. Once this line is open, nearly straight diagonal extensions should built northeastwards to Malvern and northwestwards to Rexdale. The relief line must not be considered in isolation solely as a south of Bloor-Danforth relief-line project, but designed to exploit its full potential as a new travel-pattern altering line and to eventually also serve the outer corners of Toronto, from Malvern to Rexdale. A straight line allows for the shortest travel time and fastest link between points as well as high speed runs (only where stations are spaced more than 1 km apart). Furthermore, to take fullest advantage of this diagonal line in by-passing Toronto's grid, station stops should be placed only at major intersections (e.g., Spadina-Queen, Parliament-Queen) which allow the line to capture maximal passenger flow from 2 major streets. Lines that run along a street capture flows from only from the intersecting street. The most attractive and interesting feature of this diagonal line is that it allows Bloor-Danforth trains to inter-line with this tunnel, i.e, 1 out 3 and during rush hour 1 out 2 Bloor-Danforth trains can use this diagonal to by-pass Bloor-Yonge Station and instead go through Union. Imagine the time savings and commuter convenience! How to attract private investors to a rapid transit project? The first criterion is that the eventual alignment makes money, year after year, to generate returns. Sustainable long-term profitability can only happen when at least 2 conditions are met : 1) lots and lots of people take it, and 2) it out-competes almost all other modes of travel hands down. To satisfy the 1st condition, there is the placement of stations only at major grid intersections to capture maximal passenger flow from 2 directions. Additionally, we should mandate mostly residential high-density real estate development on all residential and commercial lots for a 200-400 metre radius around each station to stack the deck, so to speak, in terms providing passengers for rapid transit use. To satisfy the 2nd condition in terms of competitive advantage, the trains must minimise travel time getting to Union Station, and that can only happen if trains can run at the highest speed possible for reasonably long distances when stations are spaced more than 2 km apart, and to so safely, there has to be minimal or no curves to slow them down along the way (basically straight-ways between stations). As well, by running along a diagonal line that by-passes Toronto's grid, it creates its own new exclusive corridor that no others can duplicate, except helicopters.

Diagonal route proposal, direct route with fewer stops, future transit expansion

Online Survey Noted

If you are only looking at subway connections from the Bloor-Danforth line, then all corridors are much the same. Why not LRT proposal Online Survey Noted

Additional Comments

53

Comment Theme Source Response think outside the subway box? Think LRT. Faster, cheaper. Link to the Eglinton line at Leslie, use the old CPR track that runs south along the west side of the Don River right into Union Station. Gauge is compatible, just need to electrify the thing and possibly dual the track. It would be a very scenic ride too. Unrelated but other ideas to ease congestion: Move the 501 underground (like the Eglinton LRT) between Sherbourne & Bathurst 2nd Platform on Line 2 at Yonge Unrelated comment on other concepts Finish line 4 to Scarborough - allow increased land density along the corridor Retire Line 3 and extend the Eglinton Crosstown to STC Scrap FastTrack Build the Finch LRT beyond Yonge Scrap Sheppard LRT in favour of extending Line 4 (not in my lifetime)

Out of study scope Online Survey Noted

Here is one Scarborough taxpayer’s point of view. I consider taxes a precious resource that should be used in the best interest of the community. The Scarborough Subway extension ridership does not justify the costs of a subway. There is no economic growth prospect that promises to offset the excessive costs of the subway. SmartTrack has not been defined. Smart Track’s capacity and ridership base are not known. How does SmartTrack get from the Scarborough GO station at Midland Avenue to Union Station? The Mayor’s Director of Policy and Chief of Staff insist that SmartTrack and the Scarborough Subway extension will be implemented. The Mayor is committed to spending taxes on an unknown project and a project that is already excessively costly. What is lost is using precious taxes in the best interest of the community. I fail to understand why the Scarborough Town Centre is considered a critical hub. It happens to be the terminal for the poorly implemented SRT. TTC bus routes serving northeast Scarborough are forced to hub there. GO bus transit serving Durham also hubs there. Since the SRT will be eliminated, both TTC and GO bus hubs can easily be re-located. Alternative hub locations for GO bus would be the terminal of the Sheppard LRT or the Kennedy subway station. Instead of SmartTrack and the Scarborough Subway extension, we should consider an RT (as in the SRT) train running on the surface from Unionville Station Markham to the Scarborough Go Station at Midland Avenue and then a tunnel from Midland Avenue under the Go tracks, surfacing at Queen Street to cross a bridge at the Don River and then into another tunnel under Queen St. to University Ave. The passenger load of this route justifies its cost. Most of the TTC bus routes in Scarborough will be shortened because they only have to travel east/west to get to a RT station (Steeles, Finch, Agincourt, Ellesmere and Lawrence). Currently the bus routes are convoluted to go south to Kennedy or the Town Centre. The additional costs of this route relieve the crush of two problems; the congestion at Yonge/Bloor because of the buildup of passengers from continually extending the end points of both Yonge and Bloor subways and the GO Train crisis at Union Station as GO adds more service with insufficient track and platform capacity. This will be the fastest and most convenient route downtown for all of Scarborough and Markham. This is a plan that uses taxes in the best interest of the community. It can be funded with money from the Scarborough Subway extension, Go RER, VivaNext, SmartTrack and the DRL.

Out of study scope Email Noted

If the Front/Wellington corridor is chosen, I would also recommend that the City implement a pilot project along a section of King Street -- for instance, between Bathurst and Parliament -- of Streetcar-only access DURING RUSH HOURS (with exception of delivery trucks, emergency vehicles and cyclists). I know the idea of having no-parking during rush hours on King has been bandied about at City Hall before; my suggestion is just expanding that idea a bit further. I think this would provide some extra connectivity to a nearby relief line, when it's most needed.


Dear Crosstown Planning Study Team, and DRL Study Team Congrats on your award! But before you break out the champagne please consider the impact of the proposed "Missing Link" continental freight bypass on the GTA GO system. (See http://www.mayorcrombie.ca/what-the-missing-link-means-for-the-gta-ontario-and-canada/ ). This long overdue quad-city initiative is to free up the Milton GO corridor exclusively for RER, and continues eastward freeing up CP's "North Toronto Subdivision" -- I call it the Mid-Town Corridor -- also for RER use. This will link fastest growing Markham, (and Agincourt, Don Mills/Leaside) with Midtown subway hubs at Summerhill and Dupont and also Kipling and then will provide a direct link to Mississauga and Streetsville. (see attachment "Defusing Timebombs") The "Missing Link" is the key to unlocking what David Quarmby referred as "Gold mine waiting to be exploited" -- the trove of underutilized railway corridors criss-crossing GTA. But what does this have to do with Eglinton Connects you may ask? Two years ago I pointed out to one of your public consultation the importance for the Crosstown LRT of a hub at LESLIE. (See


Additional Comments

54

Comment Theme Source Response attachment "Crosstown LRT Recommendations". Instead of short turning most Eglinton LRT consists at Brentcliffe as you are planning to do now, you should be doing so just ONE kilometer further EAST at Leslie (at the Eglinton CP rail overpass). This links LRT to RER in the east just as is linked at the Weston hub. Furthermore the LESLIE hub will also serve as Downtown Relief feeder to Union Station. A ready-made southbound rail corridor is also freed up paralleling the DVP as it crosses under the Bloor Viaduct . (See my attachment "The DRL Exists") Eglinton Connects, why tunnel for souped-up streetcars? Why tunnel at all when we have untapped surface rail corridors that could have the same throughput as subways, without the prohibitive $100M/km cost of boring? Missing Link is the biggest bang for the transit buck. Now, finally after 40 years of delay this crucial rail corridor can be envisaged as a viable option by transit planners! Integrated GTA wide transit planners that is. Since RR jurisdiction is federal -- the demand to fund Missing Link should feature prominently in the Transportation and Climate Change programs offered by politicians on OCT 16th. It will take many years before any relief line is operating. Please plan for increased rapid transit between downtown and Danforth and Pape subway stations by adding and making some changes. The need is immediate. There is no major construction required to increase service. Some areas need changes so that there is no stopping or standing at any time. Streetcars should not be crawling in traffic. Why buy more streetcars when they sit in heavy traffic? • Intersection at Broadview / Danforth needs to operate and flow more smoothly. Currently it is common to have 5, 6 and 7 streetcars lined up waiting to cross Danforth. • Change southbound streetcar stop to south side of Danforth/Broadview (currently the stop is across the street from the station and is not a stop at peak times.) • Streetcars need traffic light priority north and southbound. • Streetcars and buses need priority entering and leaving Broadview stn. (currently very congested) • Streetcar and bus drivers will have great observations and suggestions. • Improve priority for 504 left turn at Queen/Broadview. Delays and congestion also impact 501/ 502 Queen routes. • Broadview and Gerrard - move northbound stop to the north side of the intersection. • Add a frequent bus route - Simcoe / Front / Wellington and Eastern north on Carlaw /Pape to Pape Stn.

Out of study scope Email Noted

I would look at detaching the Yonge and University-Spadina lines and instead of the U-shape, have them cross over each other at Union. Have Yonge continue westward towards Spadina and have University-Spadina continue eastwards towards the Don river eventually reaching King St. Service would be much faster


Appendix B - Additional Comments

54


55

From: Mike LoganSent: August‐26‐15 2:20 PMTo: Mille , Paul (paul.mille @ c.ca)Cc: Stella Gustavson; Frankel, Sheldon ([email protected])Subject: OSPE Mee ng

Paul,

Stella and I met up with four representa ves of OSPE yesterday morning for about 45 minutes. The representa ves were:· Lee Weissling (staff)· Mehemed Delibasic (Chair, Infrastructure Task Force)· William Lardner· Sco

OSPE indicated that they are very suppor ve of the Relief Line, and are suppor ve of our comprehensive evalua onframework and approach to decision‐making. They indicated that they felt that constructability and cost were the mostsignificant considera ons in choosing an alignment, par cularly with respect to the Don River crossing and connec on todowntown. We assured them that these are very important considera ons.

OSPE also indicated that they were keen to advocate for the project. We advised that support for the project is welcome,and suggested that they may wish to depute when reports come before TTC Board and Planning & Growth ManagementCommi ee.

Overall, this was a successful mee ng. Stella and I were able to explain the planning process and answer ques ons aboutwhen OSPE's concerns will be addressed and how they might best advocate for the project.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss.Mike

Mike Logan, MCIP RPPSenior Transportation PlannerTransit Implementation Unit | City Planning

416.338.5568100 Queen Street West21st Floor, East Tower

Mike Logan <[email protected]>

Fri 2015-10-23 4:27 PM

To:Kate Kusiak <[email protected]>;

FW: OSPE Meeting - Kate Kusiak https://exchange.toronto.ca/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&Item...

1 of 1 10/23/2015 4:29 PM


56

From: Paul Sent: April‐06‐15 11:37 PM To: [email protected]#032#Relief#032#Line#032#initiative Subject: DRL Study DRL Study Team – I recently came across the online survey for the DRL, and wanted to share my thoughts on the project. While I acknowledge that additional transit relief for the downtown core is an important priority, I believe that it would be worthwhile for the City to work with other levels of government to maximize the use of the existing rail corridors for municipal short‐stop transit and burying/tunneling other rail corridor uses. I believe this approach represents a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, will have less construction impact on downtown neighbourhoods, and would be faster to deliver than a DRL subway program. Rather than allowing the Metrolinx Regional Express Rail (RER), VIA and cargo uses to take priority over the City’s use of the rail corridors for an improved SmartTrack program, short‐stop transit should have priority on at‐grade rail corridors and longer‐haul continuous rail should be buried, rather than vice versa. In short, given the physical location of the existing rail corridors, the focus should be burying the rail uses that are not required to have frequent stops (and hence do not require the construction of complex underground stations), thereby freeing up the existing corridors for an electrified short‐stop municipal transit service. In my opinion, the City should seek to enhance the SmartTrack service to a more frequent (3‐5 minute) service level, allowing it to play the role of the DRL. The existing rail corridors are very well situated to provide rapid transit to many important areas of the City, including within the Study area. Stops on the east side could be established at Union, Jarvis, Cherry, Unilever Lands, Jimmie Simpson Park, Gerrard Square Mall, and Greenwood/Bloor (and on the west side at Bathurst, Liberty Village, Queen/Dufferin, Dundas/College, Dundas/Bloor, Junction, etc.). A few of the highlights and critical elements of my plan are described below. 1. Avoid underground station costs. While subways are often viewed as the ‘optimal’ source of

modern transit, this is because in many cases they are the only means for providing frequent service transit that does not interfere with existing vehicle traffic. In the case of Toronto, we have well‐located rail corridors which do not interface with traffic in much of the downtown area, and which provide a viable route for short‐stop transit service, thereby allowing the City to avoid the most significant expense associated with building subways: station construction costs. I would expect that the vast majority of the construction cost associated with the development of an underground DRL would be connected with the cost of building underground transit stations. Based on station costs of circa $150‐200M each for stations on the Spadina extension, I would expect that construction in more densely populated and physically constrained parts of the City (such as the study area) would likely escalate to 250‐350M each, with complex interchange stations intersecting with the Yonge/University line to be circa $350‐500M. Assuming 2 interchange stations and 6 non‐interchange stations, this would represent circa $2.2‐3.1B in station construction costs alone, which


57

would be greatly in excess of the costs associated with building platforms or small outdoor ‘stations’ in an at‐grade setting as required by an enhanced SmartTrack program. This does not include the ‘costs’ associated with the disruption to economic activity resulting from intense construction activities in dense urban locations (e.g., along Queen, King or Front Streets), traffic impacts, etc. Presumably these cost impacts would measure in the hundreds of millions of lost economic activity. Typical stations are likely to involve 3‐4 years of construction, with significant disruptions to vehicles, streetcars, pedestrians, and cyclists; interchange stations are likely 4‐5 year projects given the complexity of the engineering and construction.

These costs could be avoided significantly if the new transit plan did not contemplate the development of underground stations. An at‐grade DRL on the existing rail corridors would likely require platforms/station boxes which would be significantly cheaper, faster to build, and involve much less disruption to traffic, pedestrians and businesses than underground transit stations. With the rail corridor offering an existing route that services the target area very well, the first attempt should be to maximize the frequent service on this line.

2. Freeing up capacity on the rail corridors. In order to ensure adequate capacity on the rail corridors, governments should work together to develop a plan that involves tunneling the lines that accommodate cargo, VIA and RER into and out of Union Station. These rail uses would only require access to Union Station, making it possible to implement two rail tunnels – one from circa Humber Bay area into Union, and the other from Union towards the east (say to Warden or Birchmount area). While these would be larger diameter tunnels to accommodate cargo and regional rolling stock, presumably the costs associated with constructing two large diameter tunnels would be less than building an underground subway system including all of the required underground stations. Existing stops serviced by GO (e.g., Exhibition Place), would be adequately serviced by the enhanced SmartTrack system I propose.

Given that these users would not require stopping between the Humber area and Union, or east of Union for some distance, it makes most sense to utilize the existing corridors for transit that WILL be required to stop frequently within the core areas of the City.

3. Rail corridor well situated for City Building. a. Provides Yonge Line Relief: As the rail corridors extend out quite far, they provide tools for the

much needed relief of the Yonge subway line by allowing users in the city’s east end an alternative to the Danforth Line to Yonge Line route into downtown.

b. Expands Connections Between Neighbourhoods: As referenced above, the primary rail corridor already passes thru many neighbourhoods in Toronto that are currently not well connected by direct transit (e.g., connects the Junction to Distillery District; connects Danforth with Queen West; etc.), which will help promote mobility within the core (an often overlooked objective of a good transit program – i.e., moving people AROUND the city, not just into and out of the downtown core).

c. Services expanded Waterfront: As development along the waterfront expands (e.g., East Bayfront, West Don Lands), locating the DRL at‐grade along the rail corridor connects the City’s new waterfront developments in a convenient an unobtrusive way.


58

d. Relief for streetcar networks: As the corridor could service key neighbourhoods like Liberty Village and West Queen West in the west end and Riverside/Lesliville in the east, it would offer significant relief for overburdened streetcars on the Queen and King St. lines.

It is worth noting that a Queen St. or King St. alignment would have disastrous impacts on streetcar traffic and movement of people into and out of the downtown core during the period of construction, making a Front St. alignment perhaps the most sensible and least disruptive alignment for a DRL subway. Accordingly, an at‐grade rail relief line along the existing corridors is not far south from a Front St. alignment, making it a functionally similar option.

4. Future east side service expansion. I understand that the City would eventually like the DRL to extent towards Thorncliffe Park/ Flemingdon Park area. My suggested approach could accomplish this via a short (2KM) tunneled segment between Greenwood/Danforth and O’Connor, and then cross over the Don Valley to connect to Overlea/Don Mills. The system could run at‐grade in a dedicated right of way along Don Mills, north, providing additional transit capacity to an underserviced area of the City with opportunities for redevelopment and future growth.

5. Politics. I understand that the City does not own the rail corridors, and in fact, Metrolinx has been

acquiring them for the RER and improvements in GO service. Accordingly, my plan would require extensive collaboration between the City and Province (as well as with the cargo rail companies and VIA) to come to a solution. I believe that there should be significant savings realized from my suggested plan and believe that the current leadership in City Hall should be well equipped to negotiate a reasonable solution with the various parties involved.

I would be happy to discuss my suggestions in more detail if required. I appreciate your taking the time to review my note and hope you will give it serious consideration. Regards, Paul This email is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not its intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.


59

From: Heidi Sent: April‐22‐15 4:55 PM To: [email protected]#032#Relief#032#Line#032#initiative; [email protected]#032#Councillor#032#Davis; [email protected]#032#Councillor#032#Berardinetti; [email protected]#032#Councillor#032#Crawford; [email protected]#032#Councillor#032#McMahon Subject: TTC Relief Line ‐ March Consultation Biased to City Core Perspectives Attn: ReliefLine Team and Councillors Mary‐Margaret McMahon, Michelle Berardinetti, Gary Crawford and Janet Davis: I realize the consultation period for the current stage of the relief line was completed in March, however, having just read the information for these public consultations, I am concerned that the process was significantly biased to reflect the input of communities located closer to the city core since the eastern‐most meetings were held near Pape Station and only slightly more east at Riverdale Collegiate. A consultation should have been held with communities east of the Pape/Donlands Station catchment areas; and especially economically needy communities which rely heavily on the TTC. During morning rush hour, trains are already full by the time they reach Victoria Park/Main/Woodbine stations. It is this overcrowding that severely impacts the ability of transit riders to board trains at stations such as Pape/Chester/Broadview. By the time this project is completed this overcrowding will commence even further east. The location should consider the long‐term city growth outward and the needs of the under‐serviced Scarborough region. I urge you to consider further consultations of residents east of Pape/Donlands, or at minimum to consider this lack of consultation in your recommendations for next steps and short‐list of stations (including adding some east of Coxwell, since eastern residents may have made this recommendation given the heavy subway crowding before trains reach Coxwell). Three Stations East of Coxwell all have many benefits: Woodbine Station provides the option to extend to the north of the city up O'Conner and then Victoria Park to many TTC needy regions. Possible East‐West routes for the Relief Line such as Lakeshore, Dundas, Gerrard all intersect with Woodbine. Main Station provides the option to create a significant and fully integrated hub with direct underground access to all of Main Station on the Danforth Line, a new Relief Line Station and the Danforth GO Station. Possible East‐West routes for the Relief Line prior to Main Station include Gerrard and Lakeshore/Dundas to Kingston Road. The route could be extended to the north of the city through Dawes Road and then Victoria Park Avenue. This location also has an


60

interesting historical aspect because the Danforth GO was the location of the Eastern Train Yards in the previous City of East Toronto. Victoria Park Station provides the option to extend northward up Victoria Park to many TTC needy regions all the way to the north end of the city. Possible East‐West routes for the Relief Line prior to Victoria Park Station include Gerrard, and Lakeshore/Dundas to Kingston Road. A station at Kingston Road and Victoria Park would be very valuable as a key station for passengers arriving from many needy destinations east of there (all the way to the Guildwood GO). This also opens the option for future significant improvement in transit east along Kingston Road, transforming heavy car use on Kingston Road to increased ridership; supporting the dense population on this route; supporting economic growth on Kingston Road; and greening our city by reducing cars. A future northward extension located east of the Don Valley Parkway would be much more beneficial for serving the needs of the heavy population growth in the eastern and north‐eastern parts of the city; and much better serves patrons who have lower income (versus an north extension into for example Leaside, Bayview...). This infrastructure will also serve to foster/enhance needed economic activity in these regions; and more significantly support the green goals of the city. Sincerely Heidi Ward 32 Reference: http://reliefline.ca/the‐project/project‐materials#P2Presentation

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Calvary Church

746 Pape Avenue, Toronto, ON

TTC: Pape Station

Time: 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Riverdale Collegiate Institute

1094 Gerrard Street East, Toronto, ON

TTC: 506 Streetcar or 83 Bus

Time: 7:00 p.m.- 9:00 p.m.

Monday, March 9, 2015


61

St. Lawrence Hall

157 King Street East, Toronto, ON

TTC: King Station or 504 Streetcar

Time: 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Christ Church Deer Park

1570 Yonge Street, Toronto, ON

TTC: St. Clair Station

Time: 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Please consider the environment before printing this email


62

From: Relief Line initiative To: [email protected] Councillor Davis; [email protected] Councillor McMahon; [email protected] Councillor Crawford; [email protected] Councillor Berardinetti; Heidi (name removed) CC: Kate Kusiak; Tim Laspa; Stella Gustavson Subject: Re: TTC Relief Line - March Consultation Biased to City Core Perspectives Message Type: Mail Create Date: Apr 30, 2015 11:55:41 AM

Ms. (information removed) Thank you for your message about the Relief Line. I will try to answer each of your questions. Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of these comments further. The Relief Line Project Assessment is an open, collaborative assessment process to determine the best route and station locations for the new subway line that would relieve crowding on the Yonge Subway and at Bloor-Yonge Station. The study is being led by Toronto's City Planning Division in partnership with the TTC, and is designed to engage community members and other stakeholders in the decision-making process. Easterly Stations The study area for the Relief Line (shown here) was determined through extensive public consultation in the spring of 2014 and approved by City Council in June, 2014. This is the area where infrastructure - tunnels, stations, etc. - might be built and where impact of construction and operation will occur. However, benefits of the Relief Line would be realized across the transit system and throughout Toronto. We will be carefully considering how the Relief Line would impact the transit and transportation networks throughout the process leading to a recommended alignment for the new subway line. During consultation on the study area, several people suggested extending it eastward as you have. After careful consideration, Coxwell Avenue was identified as the easterly extent of the study area for two key reasons:

a) to maximize the number of riders diverted from transferring at Bloor-Yonge Station, and b) to allow for a future northerly extension of the Relief Line to connect with the future Don Mills

LRT. Consultation with more Easterly Communities While it is most important to hold consultation events in and close to communities where the infrastructure will be built, the City is committed to engaging and consulting with people from across Toronto and the broader region. Consultation is an on-going process and we welcome your comments throughout the process. To date, we have held events in the Danforth neighbourhoods, Riverdale/Leslieville, and downtown. We have also held meetings in central locations (on the Yonge Subway) for a broader audience. This approach is consistent with the Public Consultation Plan approved by City Council in June, 2014. This June, we will


63

mailto:[email protected]�




http://reliefline.ca/the-project/faqs�

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.PG33.12�

http://reliefline.ca/the-project/the-process/public-consultation-plan�

be hosting public meetings about the Relief Line and other transit projects across Toronto including in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. The locations of traditional public meetings notwithstanding, all are welcome and encouraged to attend. Meetings are advertised in local papers that cover the study area, in Metro News (available in transit stations and other locations across the GTA) and on electronic screens throughout the TTC subway system. In addition, robust online consultation is made available through the project website. The project team is also available to speak about the project at other community meetings organized by community groups or Councillors. Please consider joining our project mailing list to be kept informed of project milestones and opportunities to provide input. (Join by filling out the form at the bottom of the main webpage.) If you have any further questions or comments or would like to discuss the project in person, please contact me at any time. Mike Logan


64

http://reliefline.ca/�

http://reliefline.ca/�

From: Darren Sent: April‐26‐15 9:26 PM To: Relief Line initiative Subject: Long term transit options The SOLUTION, as noted below, would help with multiple issues and yet the City of Toronto has failed to recognize this. The so-called "downtown relief line" would solve NOTHING and create more problems since both Pape and Dundas West Stations were NOT designed to handle the volumes that are proposed. Thus you would have MASSIVE OVER CROWDING - WORSE THAN THE CURRENT OVERCROWDING AT YONGE-BLOOR STATION. Just as a refresher, you talk about bike lanes, vehicle grid-lock and improved movement through the downtown core. Your transit plans don't even come close to solving these BASIC issues. Since no one has offered a ONE plan solution (bikes, pedestrians, vehicles AND transit), which my solution does. Is this solution too simple because it solves multiple solutions at once? Darren This is a better option for downtown, and, as noted in this email, Metrolinx and the City of Toronto have now seen this this NEW initiative to the City of Toronto that was originally submitted to all councillors in 2012 and the Chief City Planner in 2013. Please read the entire email, then contact me to discuss this further at 647-760-4636 Thank You Darren -------Original Message------- From: Relief Line initiative Date: 07/04/2014 2:10:46 PM To: Darren Subject: RE: Long term transit options Mr. Parberry, Thank you so much for your comments. They will be reviewed by the project team and


65

be considered in finalizing the Terms of Reference for the study. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me again, Mike Logan Senior Public Consultation Coordinator 416-338-1065 [email protected] -------- From: Meghan Brien Date: 04/07/14 11:28:19 To: Darren Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Long term transit options Hi Darren,

Thank you for your interest. Your comments have been forwarded to the Metrolinx study team (Yonge Relief Network Study, looking at the larger network as a whole), for consideration. I am also forwarding your request to the City of Toronto, who is leading the study for the relief line in the downtown area.

Thanks,

Meghan

Communications Specialist

Metrolinx

[email protected]

P: 416‐202‐5791 or 416‐869‐3600 x5663

C: 416‐525‐1987

From: Darren Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 10:46 AM To: yongereliefnetworkstudy Cc: Leslie Woo; Chair of Metrolinx; CEO (Metrolinx); Jack Collins Subject: Long term transit options


66

Dear Metrolinx:

The "downtown relief line" would not service anyone and create more problems than it would solve. People do NOT like to transfer. The proposed line would force people from Scarborough to transfer the same amount of time and would NOT save any travelling time. It would just move the transfer from Yonge & Bloor Stns to another station - with the same problem.

What I propose below is a solution that would solve transit issues AND create a vibrant and healthy downtown core in Toronto for ALL mobility modes (walking, bicycle, commercial and private vehicles AND transit vehicles)

As you can see from the first email, this idea was submitted in 2012 and again in 2013, to date nobody from the City of Toronto has contacted me to discuss this idea, not even the chief planner.

It would be a waste to create the "DRL" as it would NOT solve any transit problems, just move them to another part of the city. Here is a solution that would benefit the east, west and southern portions of Toronto, while improving passenger and traffic flow throughout the downtown core. Is that not the goal of transit operations?

Darren Parberry

-------Original Message-------

From: Darren

Date: 22/03/2013 4:45:38 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Fw: Long term transit options

This transit suggestion was sent to ALL City of Toronto councillors, starting on the date noted in this email.

Darren Parberry


67

-------Original Message-------

From: Darren

Date: 27/10/2012 12:27:19 PM

Subject: Long term transit options

Dear Members of the City of Toronto Council

I am writing this letter to show how Toronto can have a multi-modal rapid transit system.

It seems that some want to concentrate on only one mode of moving people from point A to B without looking at other options. It is time that we bring the TTC back to being the well respected transit system that it was.

Before I explain some very interesting options that nobody has even considered, let me bring you back into history. In 1992, the TTC commission decided to eliminate the electric trolley coach due to budget crunch. Did anyone look at the ridership before making this decision, nope.

When these electric surface vehicles were operating, the vehicles were always packed with frequent service provided on all ETB routes. When they were replaced with buses, the ridership dropped considerably. Most previous ETB routes now operate every 20-30 minutes due to low ridership. The people spoke and nobody listened.

Here we are again talking about ridership BUT not thinking ahead and planning ahead to help shape the City of Toronto.

The example above shows what happens when you don't listen to your riders.

As a TTC rider for over 40 years, I have seen many changes and many ideas that started great but disappeared very quickly.

Here are my suggestions for improving transit for the long-term future of Toronto.

This route (ETS -Etobicoke-Toronto-Scarborough) will require that it be built


68

in stages.

{Stage 3} Starting from Humber College in Etobicoke along Highway 27 to just south of Dixon Road. At Dixon Road follow the hydro right of way to Kipling Station then south to The Queensway. Along The Queensway and Queen to Bathurst.

{Stage 1} Along the Downtown Right of Way (See below for a complete explanation).

{Stage 2} Then along Eastern Avenue to Kingston Road. Along the Kingston Road right of way (east of Birchmount Road) to Rouge Hill GO Station and {stage 4} another branch to the Zoo. This also allows another option to meet the Crosstown LRT at Kennedy Station along Eglinton Ave.

The Downtown right of way - A new dedicated right of way through Downtown with both the 501 Queen and 504 King streetcars using this new right of way. Starting from Bathurst along a reconstructed private-right-of-way along both Richmond Street and Adelaide Street to Eastern Avenue. The second lane from the right would be a dedicated track lane while the right lane would be extended half a lane to meet the new LRT and re-routed streetcars. The other half of the lane would be a dedicated bike lane. This would create a pedestrian style outdoor mall in the Downtown core while helping to create faster and more reliable transit for both public transit users and vehicle traffic, especially along King and Queen streets in the Downtown core. The future Waterfront East LRT could connect with this line along Eastern Avenue and offer another alternative to getting Downtown.

These are long-term options for improving transit for the general public, as most people hate to continuously transfer from one vehicle to another. The current proposal for the Downtown relief line would add additional time and another transfer and would NOT address the long term need of a continuous non-transfer trip from either the west end or east end of the City of Toronto.

I look forward to your response.

Darren


69

From: Sharon Sent: June‐16‐15 10:06 PM To: Stella Gustavson; [email protected]; Jennifer Keesmaat Subject: Transit Innovation needing Assessment Hello Stella, Having seen your background on LinkenIn, it appears you come with great experience. Not sure, if you have heard of me or my work. My apology ahead of time, this might be a long letter, but a very important letter (worth 4 Billion Dollars in Tax Savings - while Toronto gets the Relief it NEEDS)....... noting at present - there is no committed funding for the Relief Subway or Smart Track (collectively 12 Billion Dollars). I began my work May 2008, with a "registered Subway Safety Invention" with a predicition, that this invention will increase Yonge Line Subway Capacity by 50%. Four things happened. 1. TTC's response was, "we cannot increase capacity without ato", going against my claim stating "people are the weaklink, not trains as traditionally thought". 2. TTC WAS WRONG. My claim was right, Capacity increased by 50% in just 36 days. 3. Others got paid (to use my invention) $500,000.00 for a 23 page report (Aecom) 4. Aecom and TTC botched the solution: and lost 9 of the 10 gained train count. Given this injustice to me, I dedicated my life to "Transit Innovation" and have devised several deep solutions to providing: 1. 100% Relief 2. Increasing Downtown Capacity by 15,000 Persons in Peak Hour - without building a thing. These are very big claims ! If these 55 Relief Line Stakeholders were asked a question: 1. If you could have the needed relief, without paying 4 Billion Dollars, would this be your preference? ALL 55 Stakeholders would say YES ! Of if these same 55 Stakeholders were asked this question: 1. If you could have the needed relief, without any traffic disruption, business disruption, transit disruption, safety hazards etc, would this be your preference? ALL 55 Stakeholders would say YES ! Do you not suppose all 55 Stakeholders ought to know .... .all solutions on the table. SO FAR JUST 2 INDIVIDUALS HAVE MADE A DECISION ON BEHALF OF ALL TORONTO, while all of Toronto are missing out on taxpayer savings equalling 4 Billion Dollars, and the 55 Stakeholders are left in the dark. I have copied Ms. Keesmatt, who promotes the Relief Line as does everyone, but one can suggest if there was a better way to.... a) CREATE RELIEF and b) DOUBLE Yonge Line Capacity, Jennifer + all Relief Line Fans, would shift to the "Innovation Solution". All of us being woman, (kind of in a man's world), I can speak candidly. Me and my work is entirely up against male pride 100%. I have no issues with my work being wrong, it's just the fact that the "male


70

world" out there have relentlessly blocked the advancement of innovation. (I have all the written proof to prove this). Now I will go on to say, as an "Innovator", I am 100% always willing to be wrong. As an "Innovator" we are always working blindly, and we dig and we dig, and we dig, and we dig, than we forgot what we dug, and then we dig some more, etc. The comprehensive answer to the relief problem is a combination of "Smart Streetcars", "Smart BRT", "Smart Subways", and "Transit Flow Technology", and for obvious reasons, I cannot share all that I know, here. My contention is, if Relief can be solved with creative Innovation than... immediately Smart Track is funded, Fare Integration is funded, Waterfront Transit is Funded and so much more.and there isn't the Relief Line Subway Tax Drain on top of all of this - since Relief was alternatively solved. Here's proof I know what I am talking about: even though that 4 line subway shutdown, should not have happened in the first place (and Toronto got no apology), but here's how to run a subway system without a signalling system or a communications system. All trains have a clock in their cab, snycronized to the second with all subway trains. All Trains leave a station on the even minute to the next station. Than all trains wait for the split second for the next even minute, to proceed again. This is called "The Buddy Train System" or "Precision Transit" I created this technology 2 1/2 years ago. (No trains can hit - and you could literally travel about 15 km/hr between stations, and still be within the 2 minute cycle, since between most stations it only takes 1 minutes. BUT THE KEY IS TORONTO IS MOVING ! At the present time, no one is holding TTC accountable, except for myself as an innovator, who keeps, pushing my limits for a place at the table. Did you know I have a full comprehensive subway safety plan, at about 70% LESS COST? These suicides and falls are all preventable. Or how about "Tunnel Loading Technology" created 5 years ago. All Train Cars are 7 cars long. At Finch Station only 2 end cars are filled 1. A Financial District Train Car and 2. A "all others train car". This is done for the first 2 stations. This just increased subway capacity by 17% (building absolutely nothing). The "first" or "last car" now sits on the King Platform for a full evacuation. I have a comprehensive plan for "simultaneous flow" at Yonge/Bloor Station. I have a comprehensive plan for "equal door loading" at Yonge/Bloor Station. I have a comprehensive plan for 2 Yonge Line Subways. (yes this one has some digging) - but something - no one else can figure out, with a highly unique flow plan. I can't say it more clearly than this, I lay my husband's life on it (and we are deeply in love), that NO RELIEF SUBWAY IS REQUIRED ! Doug Ford (like him or not) knows of my "fool proof" relief solution and promised me a position in the Mayor's Office, knowing personally the genius work that I do. So my question to Ms. Keesmatt, would she rather more "north/south rapid transit" or more "east/west" rapid transit. Knowing Ms. Kessmatt knows her stuff, her answer would be north/south. Both Andy's and Jennifer's answer would be north/south, but they know they have to solve that pesky "relief problem". Here are a few of my Innovation Powerpoints: Gardiner Innovation - Saving 800 Million Dollars - that can go toward transit: http://www.slideshare.net/secret/m9XLvAaYqQQI5X "Smart Subways" and "Smart Stations" saving 1 to 2 Billion Dollars on the Scarborough Subway: http://www.slideshare.net/secret/JvfCuboyawcnjQ


71

"Smart LRT", "Smart Streetcars", gaining 4 lanes of Roadspace, while have 'SAFER TRANSIT uses', while transit is just as fast as Traditional LRT": http://www.slideshare.net/secret/Bzm6qqHQaXJwid The Relief Lie: http://www.slideshare.net/secret/BYiuwO8r7EKGBI How to move 21 Trains from Danforth Go in Peak Hour: http://www.slideshare.net/secret/kJxKys0DVkd05G Trusting for a follow-up meeting to discuss, about the fact that the 55 Stakeholders have a right to "all options" on the table. My solutions are not even on the Long List or Short List, since there is no one else in Canada who specifically does "Transit Flow Technology". (different from Transit Planning or Planning).

Which consultant firm is leading this project, and perhaps we ought to meet with them?

Most sincerely,

Sharon Canada's ONLY Transit Flow Technologist, Canada's ONLY Innovation Firm, dedicated to Toronto Solutions, Platform Technology Consultancy,Lobby#18645S-1 and SM17608 Ontario's ONLY INNOVATION FIRM, SPECIALIZING in Toronto Solutions. NOTE: None of the attached or described "Unique Flow Technology Solutions", "Smart Streetcars", "Smart BRT", "Smart LRT", "Smart Stations", "Smart Subways", "Innovative Catchment Mesh", can be used in part, in whole or tweaked variations without the written consent of Sharon Yetman of Platform Technology Consultancy. Intellectual Property Rights Protected. All rights reserved. NOTE: any and all Consultancy Fees, can be paid for via Canada's Transit Design Innovation Fund. TTC have no right and no reason, to unethically, unprofessionally and dishonestly keep "taking/stealing" the work from my Transit Innovation Firm. TTC stole my 2008 registered CIPO Platform Safety Flow Invention and gained 50% Subway Capacity in just 36 days, while paying "their regulars" $500,000.00 for a 23 page report, whole end result TTC lost 90% of that Capacity Gain, since they "by-passed" the Inventor and the Innovator of this Solution. I still hold this solution to gain 9 EXTRA YONGE LINE TRAINS, EACH AND EVERY HOUR, in time for the Pan Am Games!


72

From: Stella Gustavson Sent: June-17-15 11:42 AM To: 'Sharon (contact removed)' Cc: [email protected]; Jennifer Keesmaat; Tim Laspa Subject: RE: Transit Innovation needing Assessment Sharon, Thank you for your interest in transit planning in Toronto. City Planning, together with Metrolinx and TTC, is currently in the midst of public consultation on some key rapid transit initiatives, aimed at improving the overall transit network:

- Regional Express Rail (RER) - SmartTrack - Scarborough Subway Extension - Relief Line

For the Relief Line and Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessments, we are seeking input on potential corridors/alignments and station locations. We are also seeking input on the feasibility of connecting Mt. Dennis to the Mississauga Airport Corporate Centre with SmartTrack. Please see www.toronto.ca/TransitTO for more information on meeting locations and project websites. Sincerely, Stella Stella Gustavson, MCIP, RPP, AICP Program Manager, Transit Implementation Transportation Planning, City Planning City of Toronto City Hall, 21st Floor, East Tower 100 Queen St W | Toronto M5H 2N2 T 416-338-1811 C 437-346-0424 [email protected]


73


http://www.toronto.ca/TransitTO�


From: hamish Sent: July‐02‐15 9:40 PM To: Relief Line initiative; [email protected]; scarboroughsubwayextension; TransitTO Cc: [email protected]; Councillor Carroll; Councillor Colle; Councillor Mihevc; Councillor Perks; Mayor Tory; abyford; ttc gso Subject: Squeezing the transit schemes for billions... Greetings Despite the overall grrump at the billions maybe getting spent for transit, please be assured that I quite support spending large sums on transit, and doing far far more than what we've done. But I am deeply perturbed at the overall processes of scheming supplanting planning, with a variety of silos in some broad fields of complexities, and much of the control of decisions being allocated to less-wise processes (politricks) where the short-term interests of many (some of whom do go beyond the mywardopic visions) often dominate what we do. Or don't do. So it's a really big mess; sensible things should have been done a decade or three ago; and the scheming is creating conditions where we can have any type of transit as long as it's a subway here, and another type of project here, and only what we're offering, because new ideas don't fit into the box we've been instructed by Clowncil or the money from another level has strings attached for only certain schemes/ridings... And simpler things like paint and political will that could squeeze billions but alienate votorists eg. HOV lanes on the DVP with busways too, and one fare express services, well, impossible here hmm? Because of the depth of this transit crisis, I think there's a great need for faster actions everywhere, and with the HUGE costs of the billions into what some tout as a Silver Bullet, we may well have further blights on our budgets and options, and the large subways in sprawl do cost us both in capital and operating. So the SSE is clearly bad on its numbers, and the best single piece on these dismal numbers is in the Star of March 16/15 "UofT report favours LRT over subway in Scarborough" - but so what if it's a stinker? - and one gets the distinct impression it is not about doing transit but whatever to keep the concrete and construction interests well-paid/busy, though respect to those doing the work, because it can be brutally hard. I also fear that for its cost and potential ridership, the DRL as proposed c. Pape to Union will be a core stubway, and it will be too much cost for too little result. Both of these come back to having less real faith that the actual origin/destination data is truly around, or presented, and bolsters doing the massive expenditures proposed. The Smart Trick is perhaps just a rebranding of the RER, which is perhaps quite do-able and sensible, especially if it first presents from Main to Union to Dundas St. W. Since the province was going to pick up the tab in large measure for what it was thinking with the RER, as it's close enough to the Smart Track idea of Mr. Tory (which echoes sets of plans/ideas going back decades), maybe it didn't matter that the financing of it all was sketchy, as the province was happy to have a rebranding if it meant excising a Ford or two, to hopefully do more correct things more smoothly.


74

Indeed, Fordwards was backwards. But due to the limitations of what has been schemed of and approved, and what's underway, coupled with the lack of data and the copious layering of politricks, I sense that there are many smaller things that could be done sooner, and some clearer options involving different technologies and thinking, and routes, that could be as viable, sooner, and also providing more real service to the eastern half of Toronto, whilst potentially squeezing the billions. At times, there would be a need for heavier investment to keep the jobs for men and machines and materials usage. The RER, especially from Main to Union to Dundas St. W. might be a very quickly done thing to help the Y/B press. But I also am convinced that a Bloor/Danforth bikeway could also shed enough people to ease some of the press but do so at a tiny fraction of the cost of anything else. I do have thoughts that the TTC likes to keep biking dangerous to keep the riders captive to keep revenues up to support the suburbs, and it's only because it's gotten too pressed that there's actual interest in doing things. Again, we could keep the DVP HOV lanes, right? - except it's a political will thing, which also includes a bit of user pay for the cars, which could - if done - reduce congestion again. And to be somewhat fair, ahead of any tolling, or concurrently, it really is kinda necessary to ensure a boost in the transit. But the political will was the key ingredient to the Curitiba busway beginnings, along with smartness. Curitiba has a large busway network now, and has been a model to much of the world, and got the result of a subway capacity for about 1 % of a subway cost. We know in Ottawa that busways can work, though they aren't totally OK, it's true, and steel wheels and larger vehicles are more efficient, if in the right places and matched with demand to get revenue/usage. A small tiny step to more bus transit would be cutting out the double fare the TTC charges, or has charged, for some routes. I've gathered some sense that the pressures for Y/B are more originating in NE Scarborough, and yet it's not clear as to really how effective the DRL/RER/ST etc. will be in dealing with it all, as one can't necessarily presume that all of our trips go to the core, correct? About a year ago I started thinking longer and harder about options to the SSE, having endured a part of the meeting of its approval, and hence terms "Clowncillor" and "Clowncil" and "sub-braying". As part of doing memorial rides for some killed cyclists, we took some parts of a bike path on the Gatineau Hydro corridor too. And in looking later, at maps, heck, there's this diagonal linear corridor cutting through all of Scarborough, and it may be as good as other schemes in terms of having potential ridership, and doing things on surface is cheaper. It's a very


75

wide corridor too, as well as being somewhat publicly owned, though not unused. So phase I of a busway that could presumably be underway ahead of the next election is within Scarborough, and by using buses, it ensures that on-road "detours" could be made to both make large destinations and connections. Why not? - and at times, there would be need for bigger works eg. under rail corridor. But overall, Eg/Vic park to the Zoo? with potential at the Hospital, and the UT Scar and and and ... But this could be a standalone project; and why not? Are you really interested in providing better service to much of Scarborough??

I've also had further thoughts about expediting bus, and near-express ones too, from Leslie through high-demand Thorncliffe Park to more linked places like St. Clair but also the core, and this would be costlier/trickier as it is more established and "green" at times too. I've sent this around to varied politicians and institutions, but I guess a new idea that saves a billion or two while deflecting "winning" ideas isn't too popular - but there's hardly been a single thank you letter back, which is pretty foolish I think as have the billions materialized for the existing schemes?? I've heard that it's "Owintario".... and there's ZERO interest in charging the cars for the millions, Clowncil wouldn't even let a study of the VRT occur... But there are routes to the St. Clair possible with sensitive tunnelling, and bridging, from both Leslie and the end of the Hydro corridor through the dense Thorncliffe Park area. I also saw the potential of an existing owned by Metrolinx remnant spur line of a bridge by the Brickworks


76

parallel to the DVP that could be converted to a busway bridge of one-way depending on lights, and then to the core. This following is of a rough schematic map of the hydro corridor as a long busway, with rough outlines of a continuation to the core, not including Leslie linkage to St. Clair.

It is using the TTCs ride map which conveniently maps the density of the bus transit, and the Thorncliffe Park area is a dense one. In some ways it's also a bit of a desert and deserves better connections, as indeed, the large swath of all of Scarborough could also be improved, starting with buses, and done as silver buckshot, and if something doesn't quite pan out to projections, it'd be a modest drain relatively. We need quicker A to E to M to U sorts of trips I think; we don't need the milk runs of local transit nor will GO be able to do that sub-regional load-lifting because it takes time/energy to have more stops, and the virtues of having a fast trip in is done with fewer stops. So rather than wasting too much time and money on dumb projects and some over-due ones that made sense 50 years ago but now don't go far enough, there must be a real look see at starting up alternative fast transit-only corridors that parallel enough demand to supplant it, and give enough speed in off-road situations to advantage the transit but not always at the expense of the votorists. The Hydro corridor, and then some mix of complicated filling in of the grid broken by the Don Valley offer some of these options. As a key to a good transit system is resiliency, that is what is needed, and we don't need the stubways and stupidways that eat the billions and would blight


77

operating. I've provided many with paper copies of these ideas. I'd suggest that building subways in sprawl, and highways in the core, is absolutely the foolish/wrong thing in the greenhouse century, and we need the broad silver buckshot of a wide range of improvements, everywhere, combined with political will to clear off cars and provide new routes, though clean hybrid buses would likely be needed, and a high sensitivity to the established and natural areas that would be given new corridors, perhaps often tunnelled. Hamish


78

From: Sharon Sent: July‐02‐15 3:55 PM To: Relief Line initiative Cc: Rob Deline; [email protected]; Councillor Ford; Jennifer Keesmaat; John Livey; Talk To City Manager; abyford; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Relief Line ‐ Provide your feedback by July 3! Dear Relief Line Project Team, In response to you requesting a reply prior to July 3rd.... INNOVATION WILL DOUBLE YONGE LINE CAPACITY .....respectfully requiring a meeting ! Did you know, because of TTC, not dealing with me or my work, TTC has lost out on $206,000 in daily Peak Period revenue or 473 Million Dollars potential revenue, because of the lost capacity, trying to "by-pass the Inventor of the Yonge/Bloor Solution"? I have requested for a very long time, for a meeting with "the right people at the table", which includes decision makers and experts together. I AM READY, FOR "ALL OF YOUR VERY HARDEST QUESTIONS". Prior to the city using my "Subway Safety Flow Invention" of 2008, and re-used again October 2014, "both without my consent", Toronto delivered just 20 Trains Hourly on the Yonge Line, as admitted by Mr. Brad Ross October 6th, 2014, while the Streetcar System delivers 2,000 per hour. This is a Combined Capacity = 28,000 (for 1 Subway Line and 1 Streetcar Line) My Formula Based Transit Innovation Solution WILL DELIVER mathematically 53,500 Persons in Peak Hour - MORE THAN DOUBLE, without requiring building any new infrastructure, and having nothing to do with Smart Track or RER, noting my work invented Smart Track, and my unique RER work will deliver 21 Trains in Peak Hour from Danforth Go (not just 4, as per Mayor Tory's Plan or Metrolinx's RER Plan). If my work surpasses the work of Metrolinx and Smart Track, than perhaps, I've got Yonge and Bloor completely figured out, having put 30,000 hours into it. http://www.slideshare.net/secret/kJxKys0DVkd05G Do you not suppose this requires a meeting, with the right people at the table, to allow me to professionally to "PROVE my CASE and PROVE my CLAIMS", in a safe place with interactive dialogue? My inventive work of 2008, increased the Yonge Line Capacity by 50% in just 36 days, while the company "wrongfully hired", botched up my inventive solution that had patent pending status, that TTC contacted my home, requesting I do the Patent Process, and promised professional follow-up.... which never happened. Kindly note, "my fee to the city of Toronto and/or the TTC is FREE", since the Federal Government pays to pilot Transit Innovation Design Fees. (see CUTA's Website) Why would you wish to spend 8.9 Billion Dollars needlessly, if there already is a "30,000 hour developed Innovation Plan" that will provide you all the Relief you require while also, DOUBLING YOUR CAPACITY? TTC have made it their practice, to "wrongfully take" the work of others, while I watch from a distance "my work constantly and continuously being botched up", which has caused me to wisely hold my VERY best solutions back. TTC's Train Count History: May 2008 = 20 Trains in Peak Hour


79

November 2009 = 30 Trains in Peak Hour ......the result of TTC using my registered CIPO Subway Safety Invention. September 2014 = 20 Trains in Peak Hour ..... admitted by Mr. Brad Ross October 6th, 2014 Globe and Mail. October 2014 = 28.5 Trains in Peak Hour....since Mr. Byford, read my April 4th, 2014 email as I offered "an olive branch". Truth is, I have had it figured for years on how to deliver 53,500 on the Yonge Line Corridor in AM PEAK HOUR. Kindly awaiting, professional follow-up by Mr. Byford, as promised since 2011, not yet received. Perhaps the city of Toronto also have a vested interest to "get this right" asap, since there is no money to fund this relief line, and OUGHT TO owe due diligence for Toronto Taxpayers, 'TO NOT WASTE 8.9 Billion Dollars' if there is "efficiency finding alternative". Respectfully, this Transit Innovation Pilot Project will move double capacity, technically costing the Toronto Taxpayer absolutely nothing! Awaiting the professional follow-up as promised by the TTC Commission November 18th, 2013, by Mr. Andy Byford October 24th, 2012, and the promises by Mayor Tory and Commissioner Colle of May 13, 2015, while each promise remains broken. My "promise" remains constant that "my unique work" will be able to create the above movement of "DOUBLE CAPACITY" without building a thing, while saving Toronto Taxpayers 8.9 Billion Dollars, and much, much more. You have "absolutely nothing to lose" to investigate the truth of my ridiculous claims, "PROVEN, only in person" by meeting me yourselves (with the right persons at the table). The only thing standing in the way of results and no results, is pride alone. I am willing to be wrong, but TTC is not. A young 12 year old boy with no formal education, at the time, was responsible for creating one of North America's Largest Multi-Billion Dollar corporations, so is it a woman without formal education in the Transit Industry, may be onto the very biggest Transit Innovations - ever. Strangely, Doubling Yonge Line Capacity, is not my "favourite innovation", but rather "Smart LRT" is, that still requires Transportation Personnel at the table. If I can convince Mr. Ford, that "Smart LRT" is a good thing, than my Yonge/Bloor Solution, must be brilliant. "Imagination, is more powerful than knowledge itself". Awaiting a long awaited meeting date, with the right people at the table. The longer "lack of accountability", and "working for the taxpayer is lacking", the greater chances Rob Ford will be Mayor again. Innovators work for the taxpayer, and so ought the bureaucratic system. Most Respectfully, Sharon Yetman,Lobby#18645S-1 and SM17608 Canada's First and ONLY Transit Flow Technologist, Platform Technology Consultancy, Canada's ONLY Transit Innovation Firm, NOTE: The Attached "Unique Flow Technology Solution", "Smart Subways" strictly cannot be used in part, in whole or tweaked variations without the written consent of Sharon Yetman of Platform Technology Consultancy. Intellectual Property Rights Protected. All rights reserved.


80

25th May 2015 To Whom It May Concern Re: Downtown Relief Line Project I am writing on behalf of Toronto Women’s City Alliance. We are an organization comprised of diverse women working to end the silence of women and girls’ voices in the municipal legislative arena. In this instance, I am writing with regard to the recently completed meeting of the transit committee and the evaluation criteria materials which have been circulated for further consideration of the proposed Downtown Relief Line. Toronto Women’s City Alliance would like to take this opportunity to provide the following comments, as the committee moves forward to its next meeting on June 9th. In general, the design of any transit hubs must take into consideration the differentiated needs of all users. To this end, the use of a gender lens in planning can be especially helpful in revealing how the patterns of usage can vary among women and men, and even within these groups. This would require careful consideration of design issues such as the proximity of daycare spaces, connectivity with social services such as medical offices, etc. Related to this is the issue of safety. Women are more vulnerable to harassment and violence in all public spaces, including public transit. We recommend the implementation of the City of Toronto’s Safer City Guidelines as a start in addressing this issue. The Transit Committee should work with organizations such as METRAC which have expertise in these areas, to ensure that the resulting design provides a safe space for all transit users. With specific regard to the Evaluation Criteria Feedback circulated at the last meeting, we have the following concerns: 1) The definition of “social equity” should be expanded to make clear exactly how the criteria will ensure the inclusion of vulnerable populations.


81

2) It is alarming to us that the definition of “affordability” has been laid down solely from the perspective of the corporate entity, with no word about building transit that is affordable to the user. 3) “Supporting growth” focuses solely on movement from one point to another, without consideration of the transit hub that will result from any new transit infrastructure. Such hubs should be planned with the growth of communities in mind. For example, what social services can/should be available around the hubs? Is it accessible to the communities for whom it is intended to serve? Please note these comments on official record and feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Kara Santokie, PhD

Director

Toronto Women’s City Alliance

www.twca.ca

[email protected]

647-235-8575


82

http://www.twca.ca/

mailto:[email protected]

From: Stella Gustavson Sent: July-08-15 4:17 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Charissa Iogna; Mike Logan Subject: Relief Line Project Assessment / Social Equity Criteria Hi Kara, Following up from our conversation, we look forward to having a conversation with you and Jessica. Here are some dates next week that would work well for us – please let me know your availability:

- Monday July 13 at 2 pm - Wed. July 15 at 10 am - Thursday July 16 at 11:00 am

When we meet, we would like to review your comments dated May 25, 2015 regarding the Evaluation Criteria for the Relief Line Project Assessment and have some general discussion about social equity considerations in the transit planning process. Here are some responses to the points you have raised:

1) We have revised the evaluation measures for the social equity criteria for the Relief Line Project Assessment to include additional considerations of the potential impacts on vulnerable populations of the various options being considered. Please see pages 5-6 of the attached Evaluation Criteria.

2) The definition of "affordability" for the purposes of the evaluation criteria for the Relief Line Project Assessment is focused on evaluating options for corridors, alignments and station options in order to select a preferred route for the Relief Line. The route selection process does not deal with transit fares.

3) A fundamental principal behind the evaluation framework we are using for the Relief Line

Project Assessment is "city building". The notion that stations should fit into and be part of the surrounding community and land uses – jobs, housing, services – is very important to City Planning. Please see the attached results of the evaluation for the potential station locations. Further planning analysis of station areas will continue as part of the evaluation.

We can discuss these further when we get together. Thanks, Stella


83

June 22, 2015

To: The City of Toronto Metrolinx Re: Rapid Transit Consultation – Basic Considerationsand Concerns This letter provides high-level input to the public consultation by Toronto and Metrolinx of four major rapid transit proposals/projects. Please consider these very basic points. Scarborough Subway Extension (SSE) A 6-stop extension to the Danforth subway in Scarborough would be a significant step forward. The original three-stop proposal is insufficient. The subway would work far better than an LRT along the current SRT alignment – speeds would be higher, capacity would be higher, there would be no transfer delays to/from the subway at Kennedy station, and more people would be served. A McCowan Road alignment is most appropriate. A Bellamy alignment, mostly as a sop to SmartTrack, is inappropriate. The six stops on a McCowan alignment would be Danforth/Brimley, Lawrence East, Brimorton (a significant residential road that currently has no TTC service), Ellesmere, Scarborough Town Centre, and Sheppard, plus Kennedy station. Moreover, a two-kilometre extension to Finch, with stops at Middlefield/Huntingwood and Finch Avenue should be added, and would deliver significant benefits to many residents and workers. Recent concerns regarding low walk-on ridership for any of the Scarborough alignments have been overstated; it is not a valid argument for determining the value of the extension. By far, for suburban subway stations (as with GO rail stations), the bulk of ridership is to/from bus connections. Downtown Relief Subway Line (DRL) This project is needed, not only to relief congestion at Yonge/Bloor and St. George, but to provide much better and faster transit opportunities for many residents living along a broad swath of the central area. An alignment under King Street is best, with King, St. Andrew and other stations enabling superior access to/from work destinations. The King Street alignment would need to be supplemented with some local surface bus services. The DRL would put into place the possibility of future northward extensions to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, and even to Sheppard Avenue. GO Transit Transformation The plans for GO Transit’s rail system are right on the mark. All-day two-way service on all rail lines must become a reality, by no later than 2024. Plans for electrification are long overdue.


84

14th Avenue GO can add this independentlyFinch Avenue E. GO can add this independentlyEllesmere Rd. SSE station opportunityLawrence E. SSE stationGerrard St. A DRL stationQueen St. E. A DRL stationUnilever site

Spadina South A DRL stationLiberty Village A DRL Strachan stationSt. Clair West GO can add this independentlyScarlett/JaneKiplingMatheson/Renforth

New Smart-Track Stations

New DRL, SSE & GO Stations

Near a Broadview S DRL station of a Lakeshore LRT

SmartTrack (ST) SmartTrack is not a smart idea for many reasons, especially in the context of other rapid transit opportunities. Its focus on bringing people to Union Station is counterproductive, not only because it will further crowd that station but, compared to the DRL and SSE, it is too remote from many destinations in the city. ST fails to intersect with Scarborough Town Centre. Its claim to serve the employment areas near Pearson International Airport is significantly overstated, because it does not penetrate the area. ST would crowd/complicate/impinge on GO Rail services. GO already serves commuters in the city’s Northeast and Northwest well, and it can add a few more stops without being part of SmartTrack. ST should not be allowed to scuttle the DRL or the Danforth subway extension. The lure of lower overall upfront costs and faster implementation should not override longer term diseconomies. The claim of 200,000 transit riders per day is questionable; how many would be new transit riders is unclear.

Importantly, when seen in the context of the DRL an 8-station SSE, and an evolution of GO Transit, Smartrack is mostly duplicative and unnecessary. The January 16, 2015 staff report identifies 13 new stations that SmartTrack would create. However, 6 to 7 of these could be provided by the DRL and SSE, and GO Transit can add three others independently of a SmartTrack project. Three of the remaining stations – extensions of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT – should be considered a separate rapid transit project. (see map below)

The best solution is not to implement SmartTrack, but to: 1) Have GO Transit add perhaps three stops to its rail services (at St. Clair West, Finch Avenue East, and St. Denis at Eglinton); 2) recognize that the DRL would more directly connect many more people to destinations in the central area; and 3) Build an eight-stop SSE to Finch Avenue. The capital investment costs of the DRL ($7.3 billion) and a 10-kilometre SSE to Finch ($3.75 billion) are affordable. At 4.0% over 30 years, Ontario/Canada funding 2/3 of the gross cost, and households picking up 75% of the net Toronto cost, the daily cost per household would average 36¢ (see estimates below). This is affordable and marketable to the public. As Toronto grows, the benefits of the Scarborough Subway Extension, the Downtown Relief Line, and GO Transit’s ‘Transformation’ – transit-friendly urban development growth, traffic congestion relief, better and more attractive rapid transit, many more new transit riders, and reduced long term environmental damage – will exceed the initial investment cost.


85

Investment Cost Estimates Downtown Relief Line

Length in kilometres - all tunneled 10.0 12.3Cost per kilometre @ 180 m$ / km 1,800 2,214No. of sations (underground) 8 16Station cost @ 200 m$ / stn 1,600 3,200Property Acquisition (a guess) 100 100No. of subway cars @ 6.0 per km.* 60 74Cost of subway cars @ 2.50 m$ 150 185Storage/maintenance facility (a guess) 100 250

Total million$$ 3,750 5,949but

* One 6-car train per 2 kms x 2 directions Recent quote 7,300

Ontario / Canada share @ 66.7% 2,500 millions$ 4,867Net Toronto share 1,250 millions$ 2,433Residential share @ 75% 938 millions$ 1,825Cost per year, @ 4.00% 54 millions$ 104

30 years 24 pmts/yrCost per day per household per day ** 0.12$ 0.24$

0.36$** 1,200,000 Toronto households circa 2031

DRL stations: Pape, Gerrard, Queen East, Broadview South, Parliament South, Yonge, St. Andrew, Spadina South, Bathurst South, Strachen, Dovercourt, DufferinSouth, Jameson, Roncesvalles/Queen, Howard Park, Dundas West.Danforth Subway Extension stations: Danforth/Brimley, Larwence East, Brimorton, Ellesmere, Scarborough Town Centre, Sheppard, Middlefield/Huntingwood, Finch East.

Scarborough Subway

Extension

The short-sighted complaints of naysayers must not be heeded, and SmartTrack must not be approved.

Sincerely,

John A brief (and crude) estimation of the capital cost of the SSE and DRL used in the text above:

(see map next page)

(Last name removed for privacy)


86


87


88


89

Relief Line Initiative Submission

June, 2015 1

Acknowledgements

This document is submitted on behalf of Transport Action Ontario, whose board of

directors were involved in input for and review of its content. As Transport Action

Ontario’s representative on the Stakeholder Advisory Group for the Relief Line Initiative

and the author of this submission, I would like to thank the following from Transport Action

Ontario for their contributions and time in reviewing the content:

• Peter G. Miasek, PhD, President

• Bruce F. Budd, Secretary

• Kenneth Westcar, Director

As a submission for the City of Toronto regarding a City of Toronto project, imagery from

City of Toronto resources have been used to provide supporting illustrations with the text

in this submission. Some of the materials from the Relief Line website have been rich in

information and were very helpful in enabling the development of this submission. In

addition, the City of Toronto’s interactive mapping [Geographic Information System] site

was also used for ortho [satellite/aerial] imagery as well as contour maps. Thanks to the

City for making such useful and informative resources available to the public in this

important process.


90


2 June, 2015


91


June, 2015 3

Executive Summary

The current evaluation framework for the Relief Line station locations is focussed largely

on the urban planning aspects and related policy goals. Transport Action Ontario believes

that the constructability of the alignment and the capital costs are also influential

parameters for whether the project proceeds, and therefore require heavier consideration

early in the process.

Key alignment considerations include:

• TTC geometry standards as related to radius and tangent minimums while

avoiding deep building foundations at the same time

• The crossing of the Don River, where an elevated crossing carries less risk than

would a tunneled crossing

• Optimizing the interchange with the Bloor-Danforth line by avoiding a near-

perpendicular intersection between alignments to provide superior circulation for

transfers within the interchange

• How the surface feeder network relates to the Relief Line, where a Broadview Ave

terminus offers advantages to optimizing the bus network in a way that alleviates

the Bloor-Danforth line

• A connection to the Greenwood yards and shops; Broadview's triple-track structure

east of the existing station could be re-purposed for non-revenue movements

to/from the Relief Line while causing minimal property impact

• Crossing downtown without severely disrupting existing transit services for a

prolonged period; Adelaide St or Wellington St provide the least disruptive

opportunities

Based on these factors, two constructible alignments emerged. Which is preferred

depends on policymakers' weighting regarding a connection between the Relief Line and

SmartTrack/Regional Express Rail, as well as the Lever site:

• The “Sackville St Alignment,” which runs from University Ave and Adelaide St W

to Broadview Ave and Mortimer Ave using a direct route.


92


4 June, 2015

• The “River St Alignment,” which runs from University Ave and Wellington St W to

Broadview Ave and Mortimer Ave via a connection with SmartTrack and the Lever

site.

Both alignments have viable future extensions to the north from Mortimer Ave and to the

west from University Ave.

Regardless of which alignment is chosen, it is important that planning for the Relief Line

coordinate with ongoing work for the expansion of the streetcar system, so that both are

working together and not competing for ridership. The evaluation needs to treat the

system as a network.

The most important criterion, however, remains the constructability of the project. The

alignment, and all the constraints that it is subject to, will be more influential on the location

of the stations than the preferred locations of stations will be on the alignment.


93


June, 2015 5

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7

2. Key Alignment Considerations ................................................................................. 8

2.1. Geometric Constraints ....................................................................................... 8

2.2. Crossing the Don River ...................................................................................... 9

2.3. Transfers from the Bloor-Danforth Line ............................................................ 10

2.4. The Surface Feeder Network ........................................................................... 12

2.5. Yard Connection .............................................................................................. 15

3. Two Constructible Alignment Concepts ................................................................. 16

3.1. Crossing Downtown ......................................................................................... 17

3.2. Sackville St Alignment ...................................................................................... 18

3.3. River St Alignment ........................................................................................... 22

3.4. Comparisons of Alignments ............................................................................. 24

3.5. Streetcar System Relationships to the South ................................................... 31

4. Future Extensions .................................................................................................. 33

4.1. From Broadview ............................................................................................... 33

4.2. From University ................................................................................................ 34

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 35


94


6 June, 2015

Table of Figures

Figure 1 - Bloor-Yonge General Arrangement ............................................................... 10

Figure 2 - Broadview-Danforth Station General Arrangement ....................................... 11

Figure 3 – Conceptual Surface Feeder Network for the Relief Line .............................. 13

Figure 4 - Conceptual Broadview Non-Revenue Service Connection ........................... 15

Figure 6 - Relief Line Sackville South Curve ................................................................. 18

Figure 5 - Relief Line Across St James Park ................................................................. 18

Figure 7 - Relief Line Sackville North Curve .................................................................. 19

Figure 8 - Carlton Portal ................................................................................................ 19

Figure 9 - Broadview Portal ........................................................................................... 20

Figure 10 - Sackville St Alignment from Church St to Carlton St ................................... 21

Figure 12 - Relief Line Keating Curve ........................................................................... 22

Figure 11 - Relief Line Berkeley Curve.......................................................................... 22

Figure 13 - Spruce Portal .............................................................................................. 23

Figure 14 - River St Alignment from Church St to Carlton St ........................................ 23

Figure 15 - Don River Flood Plain South of Queen St E ............................................... 24

Figure 16 - Terrestrial Natural Heritage System ............................................................ 25

Figure 17 - River St Alignment Development ................................................................ 26

Figure 18 - Sackville St Alignment Development .......................................................... 26

Figure 19 - Land Use and Relief Line Alignments ......................................................... 27

Figure 20 - Relief Line Alignments and Key Destinations .............................................. 28

Figure 21 - River St Alignment PATH Relationship ....................................................... 29

Figure 22 - Sackville St Alignment PATH Relationship ................................................. 30

Figure 23 - Streetcar Network Expansion Plans ............................................................ 32


95


June, 2015 7

1. Introduction

Transport Action Ontario (TAO) is a non-government organization that advocates for

passenger and freight transportation that is economically, socially, and environmentally

sustainable. TAO has been active for 39 years, most of that time under its previous name,

Transport 2000 Ontario. TAO is pleased to be a part of the Stakeholder Advisory Group

for the Relief Line Initiative.

TAO believes that the Relief Line is an urgent project important to the Toronto Transit

Commission (TTC) subway network's future growth and sustainability, including the

alleviation of existing system bottlenecks currently under excessive stress. It is noted

that the focus to date has been on the planning considerations for determining station

locations, along with the evaluation criteria. However, certain other factors could be

especially influential in whether this important project moves forward.

TAO is concerned that the planning considerations related to the selection of Relief Line

alignment and stations need to be tempered by a more up-front consideration of

constructability. Constructability is a criterion the city has identified, but it is felt by TAO

that it needs to be more prominent in a project as unusually complex as the Relief Line.

Related to the constructability for the Relief Line specifically is the cost of the project due

to the political unpopularity of spending money on downtown Toronto, particularly among

senior levels of government.

While the line needs to have a thoughtful and considered alignment in order to achieve

both the ridership and the other policy goals impacted and/or influenced by rapid transit

projects that the City desires, the combination of cost and a downtown location is a

concern for getting the project funded. In order for anything to get built, it will have to

have a defensible cost, and by extension the Relief Line has to be as short as practical.

The shortest alignment within the study area would connect the Relief Line with the Bloor-

Danforth subway at the Broadview station. TAO believes that constructability among

other considerations discussed in this submission make the Broadview station connection,

along with Broadview Ave north of Danforth Ave, very favourable for the Relief Line.


96


8 June, 2015

2. Key Alignment Considerations

2.1. Geometric Constraints

On constructability, the issue of subway track geometry is paramount, because the TTC

demands a minimum radius of 300 metres for main line track curvature. Additionally, the

TTC requires an absolute minimum of 46 metres of tangent between curves, and prefers

150 metres of tangent. These TTC geometry standards create complications with the

City's preference of keeping new rapid transit tunnels beneath existing municipal rights-

of-way.

The broader central area of Toronto is densely developed, with many large buildings with

very deep foundations spread out across the study area. Central Toronto is built

predominantly on a grid-based roadway network, with few large open green spaces. This

creates high potential for significant technical challenges, in some cases comparable to

those that have been encountered in other jurisdictions such as London, UK, which has

built new rapid transit infrastructure beneath large, very old, and even very vibration-

sensitive structures.

In a built-up environment such as old Toronto, there will inevitably be many constraints

on alignment alternatives, especially when dealing with curves along either the subway

geometry below or the roadway geometry above. Going very deep to try to pass beneath

larger structures with deeper foundations could add significant cost from considerably

deeper stations, not to mention minimization of settlement of existing structures that may

require treatments such as jet-grouting 1 . TAO therefore has concerns with the

rationale/sequencing of the station locations consultation, which is currently detached

from constructability.

1 Injecting grout into the ground by hose-like equipment to turn soil into a much more structurally solid state


97


June, 2015 9

2.2. Crossing the Don River

The looming challenges associated with the crossing of the Don River are already

acknowledged by the City. The Don River has an industrial history dating back to the late

1800s, a time with very few environmental controls or concerns. As such, nobody is really

sure what lies along and beneath the riverbed today – it has been said that some are

afraid to find out.

This history creates substantial uncertainty about what may be involved in trying to go

underneath the Don River, including the depths required of the tunnel. There could also

be significant concerns about the environmental condition of the spoil2 collected from

beneath the Don River, which could require decontamination treatments or secure landfill

storage.

There is likely a substantial incentive in going above the river, instead of below, to reduce

uncertainty and environmental risk, thereby potentially bringing significant savings on

capital cost.

2 Excavated soil from a tunnel boring machine


98


10 June, 2015

2.3. Transfers from the Bloor-Danforth Line

One of the key considerations will be the ability of the Relief Line transfer station with the

Bloor-Danforth line to efficiently handle large volumes of transferring passengers. Any

opportunity to avoid reproducing problematic layouts like what exists today at the Bloor-

Yonge station would have

significant value. The

Bloor-Yonge station

experiences constraints in

its accommodation of

transfer volumes due to

the near perpendicular

layout of the interchange

as shown in Figure 1. This

is not a detailed design

issue; it is a fundamental

issue of the alignment

design as it revolves

around the angle of

intersecting subway lines.

The Bloor-Yonge station’s constraints are caused by three phenomena:

1. Bloor-Danforth passengers wishing to go southbound are required to access the

Yonge line from the west end of the Bloor-Danforth platform while northbound

passengers must use the east end of the Bloor-Danforth platform

2. All Yonge line passengers, regardless of direction, must access the Bloor-Danforth

platform from the north end of either of the Yonge line platforms

3. Both halves of the Bloor-Danforth platform must be shared between four directions

of transfer. These fall into two main groupings:

Figure 1 - Bloor-Yonge General Arrangement


99


June, 2015 11

a. The west half of the Bloor-Danforth platform is shared between south-to-

west, south-to-east, east-to-south, and west-to-south transfers, all using

only two stairwells.

b. The east half of the Bloor-Danforth platform is shared between north-to-

west, north-to-east, east-to-north, and west-to-north transfers, all using only

two stairwells.

These constraints serve as choke points for the passenger transfer volumes. It is

a better situation at St George where all directions can be distributed across all

stairwells along the full length of both platforms, allowing for the maximum number

of alternative routes through the interchange to make a transfer between lines.

Perpendicular crossings of

subway alignments are

undesirable and would best be

avoided wherever possible;

the closer to parallel two

subway alignments cross, the

better the interchange station’s

transfer passenger distribution

and circulation. It is

recognized that a parallel

arrangement such as St

George will not be feasible

since St George was only

possible because both levels were built together as a single project/structure3, but a near-

perpendicular arrangement can be avoided by having the interchange at the Broadview

station. At the Broadview station, the angle between intersecting lines would be in the

neighbourhood of 45 degrees, as shown in Figure 2, which presents a significant

opportunity for the Relief Line.

3 The Bloor-University Subway was a single project approved in the late 1950s

Figure 2 - Broadview-Danforth Station General Arrangement


100


12 June, 2015

2.4. The Surface Feeder Network

At least as important as the Bloor-Danforth connection to the Relief Line are the

relationships the Relief Line will have with the feeder4 bus system, especially in the Old

East York5 area. This applies both to the Relief Line’s initial phase and to its subsequent

extension(s). Streetcar connections will also be important, but they do not meaningfully

impact the subway system’s capacity whereas the buses that connect to the Bloor-

Danforth or Yonge lines do as direct, peak direction feeder services.

Broadview Ave is currently a trunk route of sorts for buses, as the Mortimer, Cosburn,

Flemingdon Park, and Broadview bus services converge upon it. All of these bus services

are also present at the intersection of Broadview Ave and Mortimer Ave, a location within

the study area and where the final stop for the first phase of the Relief Line could be

located.

To divert some bus traffic from the Yonge subway, the option would be available to reroute

the Bayview and Leslie buses to the intersection of Mortimer Ave and Broadview Ave to

connect with the Relief Line instead. This can be done while maintaining service to other

areas. In the case of the Leslie service, the Eglinton-Crosstown Light Rail Transit line will

be in operation years before the Relief Line and so is no longer necessary for it to serve

the Yonge St to Laird Dr portion of Eglinton Ave E. In the case of the Bayview service,

only the Davisville Ave portion would be affected, which has its own dedicated route

running between Yonge St and Bayvew Ave that could have its frequency increased as

necessary to compensate for the rerouting of the Bayview service.

4 A bus or streetcar service from which most passengers transfer to the subway, typically the last bus stop 5 Bounded by the Don Valley to the west, Massey Creek to the north, Victoria Park to the east, and an frequently jogged southern boundary between Danforth Ave and Mortimer Ave.


101


June, 2015 13

Other buses serving

the Old East York

area could also be

rerouted away from

the Bloor-Danforth

subway to the Relief

Line. In particular,

several opportunities

can be created by

extending the Pape,

Coxwell, and

Woodbine South

buses north of

Danforth Ave, either

to O’Connor Dr or a

short distance north

of O’Connor Dr. This would allow a number of changes to become possible, all of which

would increase connectivity with the Relief Line while providing needed alleviation to the

Bloor-Danforth subway. These changes, summarized visually in Figure 3, include:

1. Limiting the feeder network catchment area of the Bloor-Danforth line between

Woodbine Ave and Broadview Ave to be predominantly within the Old East York

boundaries, thereby alleviating demand on the Bloor-Danforth subway.

2. Rerouting the Thorncliffe Park and Don Mills bus services off of Pape Ave at either

Cosburn Ave or Mortimer Ave to connect with the Relief Line, while the northerly-

extended Pape bus serves the Pape corridor proper to replace service lost or as

appropriate to reflect changing travel patterns from the Relief Line.

3. Merging the Broadview and O’Connor bus services into a single route while the

northerly-extended Coxwell bus service replaces service lost by the O’Connor

rerouting off of Coxwell. The extended Coxwell bus service could use the same

loop that is used today by the Broadview bus.

Figure 3 – Conceptual Surface Feeder Network for the Relief Line


102


14 June, 2015

4. The Woodbine corridor is served by two services: “Woodbine” north of Danforth

Ave and “Woodbine South” south of Danforth Ave. Except for the primary (“A”)

branch of the “Woodbine” service, most of the branches’ routing are not actually

on Woodbine Ave proper. The O’Connor bus service could merge with the “non-

Woodbine” portions of the non-primary “Woodbine” branches (“B,” “C,” and “D”)

into a single service, with various branches. The “Woodbine South” service could

merge with the primary (“A”) branch of the “Woodbine” service, thereby simplifying

service along the Woodbine Ave corridor by having the same route north and south

of Danforth Ave.

The terminal station at Mortimer with the bus connections described above could see

strong feeder traffic relative to other terminal subway stations, as illustrated in Table 1.

This highlights the importance of having the Mortimer station as a part of the initial phase

of the Relief Line in order to have subway-to-subway transfers and subway-to-bus

transfers at separate stations. Under normal operating conditions, this will help maintain

manageable transfer passenger volumes within a given station complex.

Kennedy Mortimer Kipling Don Mills Downsview

108.7 95.6 86.5 81.1 76.6

AM Peak Buses/Hour by Subway Terminal Station

Table 1 - Estimated Buses per Hour at Subway Termini

From the east, streetcar services along Gerrard St E and Queen St E are expected to be

key links with the Relief Line because of their termini being farther east than other

streetcar services, at Main St and Victoria Park Ave [Neville Park Blvd], respectively. The

King streetcar may not even have a direct connection with the Relief Line, but it will

certainly see alleviation from the Relief Line as they share common territory at Broadview

and Danforth, and again at a location closer to downtown. The King streetcar will still be

required to serve a local ridership for which the Relief Line is poorly oriented to serve.

This is expected to be synergistic by rebalancing the distribution of the longer distance

riders coming in from other routes (bus or subway), and local riders whose trips start on

the streetcar (e.g. along Broadview Ave south of Danforth Ave), to their best-suited modes.


103


June, 2015 15

2.5. Yard Connection

The Relief Line will require some form of access to the Greenwood yards and shops for

its first phase. In the case of using the Broadview station as the subway-to-subway

interchange, there is an opportunity for a non-revenue connection to the Bloor-Danforth

line at this location that may be uniquely favourable from a property perspective due to

the 45-degree angle between the intersecting subway lines requiring minimal deviation

from TTC or City rights-of-way, as illustrated in Figure 4.

The Bloor-Danforth line

has a triple-track

structure 6 between the

Broadview and Chester

stations. This could be

retrofitted to be a single-

track non-revenue

connection with the Relief

Line. After clearing the

switch at the east end of

the centre track in this

existing structure, the new

connecting track could

begin its descent to attain

vertical clearance with the

Bloor-Danforth tracks before the existing curve west of the triple-track structure. The

connecting track’s descent would continue to clear beneath the Relief Line’s Broadview

station structure by the point structures horizontally intersect. When clear of all conflicting

structures south of Danforth Ave, the non-revenue connecting track would be able to rise

and connect with the Relief Line near its Broadview portal.

6 Also known as a double-ended pocket track

Figure 4 - Conceptual Broadview Non-Revenue Service Connection


104


16 June, 2015

3. Two Constructible Alignment Concepts

Based on the aforementioned considerations and goals, this submission proposes two

concepts for constructible alignments. Both meet two important criteria:

1. They go over the Don River instead of under; and

2. They connect with the Bloor-Danforth subway at Broadview, which offers the only

non-perpendicular angle between intersecting subway lines.

For simplicity, the alignments are referred to by their unique north/south-oriented

segment: The Sackville St alignment and the River St alignment. Other than cost, length,

and number of stations, the biggest difference between the Sackville St alignment and

the River St alignment is whether or not the Relief Line serves the Lever Site and a

SmartTrack/Regional Express Rail connection. That is a policy decision that will be

influenced by various other considerations, some of which are the City's jurisdiction and

others that are the Province's jurisdiction.

The chart below outlines a very high-level comparison of these two alignments with two

other options from previous studies: A Queen St - Leslie St/Donlands Ave alignment7

and a King St – Pape Ave alignment8. The Sackville St alignment stands out for its short

length, along with a part of that length being elevated. Both the Sackville St and River St

alignments involve shorter tunnels by going over the Don River.

Alignment Don Crossing Elevated (km) Tunneled (km) Total (km) Yard Access via

Sackville Over (Riverdale) 1.1 4.8 5.9 Broadview Pocket

River Over (Riverdale) 1.1 6.1 7.2 Broadview Pocket

Pape Under (Don Mouth) 0 7.4 7.4 GO Kingston S/D

Leslie Under (Queen St E) 0 7.6 7.6 West Yard Limits

Table 2 - High-Level Comparison of Alignments

7 Queen Subway proposal from the late 1960s 8 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study, 2012


105


June, 2015 17

3.1. Crossing Downtown

An important consideration is minimizing the disruption to existing transit service from the

construction of the Relief Line, as transit capacity into the core today is already strained.

The streetcar services are especially sensitive in this case, as they have limited

opportunities to be put on a diverted route and their capacity cannot be provided by

replacement bus services. To protect streetcar services from disruptions, the Relief Line

should not run directly beneath King St or Queen St in order to avoid prolonged streetcar

service disruptions from station construction, as it runs the risk of damaging ridership in

the corridor in the lead-up to the introduction of higher capacity and higher quality service.

The remaining streets are Front, Wellington, Adelaide, and Richmond. Front St W is a

poor candidate due to the obstruction of the existing Union subway station structure

potentially compromising its feasibility, although Front St E east of Church St would be

available. Richmond St has some locations where the geometry of the roadway

combined with large buildings that have recently been erected along both sides of the

street cannot accommodate a feasible subway alignment. Therefore, Wellington and

Adelaide are the remaining appropriate options available for a subway alignment across

the downtown core.

The Sackville St alignment makes use of the Adelaide St route across downtown. The

River St alignment makes use of the Wellington St route across downtown.


106


18 June, 2015

3.2. Sackville St Alignment

Beginning at the north end of the St Andrew station on Adelaide St W, the alignment

follows Adelaide St W across Yonge St and along Adelaide St E to Church St. East of

Church St, the subway would have to deviate beneath St James Park’s northern fringes

to remain on Adelaide St E east of Jarvis St, as illustrated in Figure 6. The alignment

continues along

Adelaide St E from

Jarvis St until just west

of Parliament St where

a left-hand turn begins

off Adelaide and onto

Sackville St – much of

this curve is

accommodated within

public lands, as

illustrated in Figure 5

(City Transportation

lands in aqua, school

board in purple).

St James Park

Figure 5 - Relief Line Sackville South Curve

Figure 6 - Relief Line Across St James Park


107


June, 2015 19

The alignment proceeds north along Sackville until Gerrard St E, where it enters a right-

hand turn, half of which is also on public lands as shown in Figure 7 (school board lands

in purple), onto the eastern tail-

end of Carlton St where it

emerges out into the Don Valley

through Carlton portal. Carlton

portal is exceptionally

favourable from a topography

perspective: At the eastern end

of Carlton St, the ground falls off

at a slope of over 20% for a fall

of almost 20 metres as shown in

Figure 8. The elevation at which

the Relief Line emerges from the

Carlton portal, about 87 m,

should be almost high enough

already to clear the GO Transit

railway crossing beside the Don

River, which is about 80 m,

requiring an average gradient of

less than one percent between the portal and the GO corridor.

Both of the curves at either end of the Sackville St portion being accommodated to a large

extent within public lands combined with the steep and high-altitude fall off for the Carlton

portal is an exceptionally favourable combination, especially for a route that is relatively

direct and thereby able to provide very competitive travel times. All of these features help

reduce the capital cost of the project.

Figure 7 - Relief Line Sackville North Curve

Figure 8 - Carlton Portal


108


20 June, 2015

The alignment proceeds along an elevated structure

over the GO corridor, the Don River, and the Don Valley

Parkway, along a path very close to the Don Valley

Parkway towards the Danforth Ave northbound on-ramp.

A short distance south of Danforth Ave would be the

Broadview portal, which has a height of around 25

metres as per Figure 9. The Broadview portal may

involve an on-ramp realignment, although this would be

influenced by any opportunities related to Transit-

Oriented Development with the Toronto District School

Board-owned lands enveloped by the on-ramp that are

currently used for the City Adult Learning Centre. The

alignment would be underground again north of the

portal as it enters its interchange station with the Bloor-

Danforth line. The connection point for its non-revenue connection towards the Chester

station to provide access to the Greenwood yards and shops may be on either side of the

portal depending on the detailed design.

Beneath Broadview Ave, the alignment continues north to its terminus at Mortimer Ave

where several bus connections with the Relief Line could be made.

Figure 10 on the following page shows which Key Activity Areas identified by the City

would be within 500 m of the Sackville St alignment stations’ access points, identified with

a green circle.

Figure 9 - Broadview Portal


109


June, 2015 21

Figure 10 - Sackville St Alignment from Church St to Carlton St


110


22 June, 2015

3.3. River St Alignment

Beginning south of the

St Andrew station, the

alignment follows

Wellington St through

the core until it merges

with Front St E. The

alignment proceeds

beneath Front St E via

the St Lawrence market until a block or so east of Sherbourne St, where a right-hand turn

to an off-street alignment heads towards the Distillery district and the Keating precinct as

shown in Figure 12. This curve passes beneath some older buildings, including some

with Heritage designation, that

are used as performance venues

and may require additional

mitigation. From the Keating

precinct at Cherry St, a very long

left-hand turn in the alignment as

in Figure 11 leads to a station

connection with the GO system

in the Corktown Common, which

could also provide a pedestrian

link to the Lever site. Figure 11 - Relief Line Keating Curve

Figure 12 - Relief Line Berkeley Curve


111


June, 2015 23

From the Corktown Common, the alignment proceeds north

beneath green space, St Lawrence St, and then turning onto

River St around King St E. Beneath River, it proceeds north

until Spruce portal. The topography for Spruce portal is

reasonable, with a slope of around 9% and a fall of around

12 metres, as in Figure 13. North of Spruce portal, the

alignment is very similar in principle to the Sackville St

alignment, although its geometric details would be different.

Figure 14 shows which Key Activity Areas identified by the

City would be within 500 m of the River St alignment stations’

access points, identified with a green circle.

Figure 14 - River St Alignment from Church St to Carlton St

Figure 13 - Spruce Portal


112


24 June, 2015

3.4. Comparisons of Alignments

3.4.1. Natural Heritage

The Sackville St alignment is better protected from risks of flooding than the River St

alignment. There are two key factors involved. First is the River St alignment south of

Queen St E and east of Yonge St being within the Toronto Region Conservation

Authority’s regulatory limit and the Lower Don Flood Plain, as shown in Figure 15.

However, the flood plain issue, which is under review, may be resolved with the

naturalization of the Don Mouth. Second is the expected elevation of the portal north of

Gerrard St E. The Sackville St alignment would emerge at an elevation of around 87

metres, while the River St alignment would emerge at an elevation of around 81 metres.

This difference in elevation is significant as the nearby Richmond Hill GO corridor, at an

elevation of around 80 metres, was exposed to significant water levels in the flooding of

July, 2013. The River St alignment’s Spruce portal would be expected to potentially be

at a risk of water infiltration at its elevations. This is much less of a concern for the

Sackville St alignment’s Carlton portal and its six metres’ higher elevation, as even in a

repeat of the July, 2013 storm event and associated flooding, water would not infiltrate

the Carlton portal. The Don Mouth naturalization, however, is expected to prevent

flooding levels such as those observed in July, 2013 from happening in future.

Figure 15 - Don River Flood Plain South of Queen St E


113


June, 2015 25

North of the Riverdale Park pedestrian bridge, the two alignments’

environmental mitigation measures would be roughly equivalent.

Environmentally sensitive areas are very minimal, confined to the

immediate vicinity of the Don River itself. A Terrestrial Natural

Heritage System occupies the Broadview portal and approach

area per Figure 16, and mitigation measures would be about

equivalent for both alignments.

3.4.2. Population Growth

Both alignments serve the already dense yet redeveloping Regent Park area, as well as

the Trefann Court area that is projected to grow. Given the limited connections across

the Union Station Rail Corridor, the area of projected growth between Parliament St and

Jarvis St south of Queen St E is also expected to be served about equally between the

two alignments.

The West Don lands and the Keating precinct, both of which are to see significant growth,

are served only by the River St alignment. This is also an area where other transit

infrastructure investment has been built9 or proposed10.

West of Jarvis St, the Sackville St alignment appears to serve the larger projected future

population base. This is influenced by the block of growth identified northeast of the

intersection of Yonge St and Queen St, which is within the catchment area of the Sackville

St alignment only. The area southwest of Bremner Blvd and York St would be within the

River St alignment’s catchment area, but due to the Union Station Rail Corridor, only a

small portion of this area would fall within the 500 metre walk to the terminating station.

3.4.3. Employment Growth

Through the core, the Sackville St alignment is best positioned to capture the zones of

projected employment growth. Main areas of growth from the City’s data are between

9 Cherry St streetcar right-of-way 10 SmartTrack/Regional Express Rail station, southerly extension(s) of Cherry St streetcar right-of-way

Figure 16 - Terrestrial Natural Heritage System


114


26 June, 2015

Dundas St and Queen St from Parliament St to University Ave, and between Queen St

W and King St W from Yonge St to Spadina Ave.

North of Queen St E and east of Sherbourne St, the two alignments are about equal,

although only the Sackville St alignment would capture the mixed-use Parliament corridor,

east and west sides, which is a mixed-use area that is projected to see employment

growth. Both alignments would also boost the transit accessibility to employment in the

Broadview station area south of Danforth Ave.

South of Queen St E and east of Parliament St, the River St alignment serves territory

that the Sackville St alignment does not, but as previously noted, that territory is also an

area where other transit investments either are already planned/under study or were

recently completed. How the network would behave in this area and how the River St

alignment would impact other recent and planned transit investments would need to be

considered carefully and assessing the network as a whole.

3.4.4. Development

Both of the alignments are expected to benefit 60 to 70 recent or planned development

sites, as identified by the green dots inside the blue-enclosed areas in the images above.

Approximately 62 developments would be within the catchment area for the Sackville St

Sackville St Alignment

River St Alignment

Figure 18 - Sackville St Alignment Development Figure 17 - River St Alignment Development


115


June, 2015 27

alignment while approximately 67 developments would be within the catchment area for

the River St alignment; a difference of five sites. This count was based on a University

Ave terminus, but a check was done for a Spadina Ave terminus and the difference

between the two alignments remained at five, as both gained the same number of sites

at Spadina Ave, although not the same combination of sites. Such a small difference

would likely vanish upon the selection of an alignment for the Relief Line, as such a

decision would be expected to stimulate development near its proposed stations,

especially as there are very few areas along the alignment designated as stable

neighbourhoods, per the yellow-shaded areas in Figure 19.

Figure 19 - Land Use and Relief Line Alignments

Sackville St Alignment

River St Alignment


116


28 June, 2015

3.4.5. Key Destinations

Both alignments hit many of the same key destinations as per the map provided by the

City, as shown with catchment area overlays in Figure 20. These sites are:

• Young Centre

• Distillery District

• St Lawrence Market

• Daniels Spectrum

• John Innes Community and Recreation Centre

• Regent Park North Recreation Centre

• Regent Park South Community Centre

• St Lawrence Community Centre

• Metro Hall

• Opera House

• Union Station

• Sony Centre for the Performing Arts

• Roy Thomson Hall

Within the downtown core

west of Church St, there

were some destinations

within the catchment area of

the Sackville St alignment

only:

• City Hall

• Toronto Eaton Centre

• Massey Hall

• St Michael’s Hospital

• St Michael’s Choir School

Figure 20 - Relief Line Alignments and Key Destinations


117


June, 2015 29

West of Bay St, the Air Canada Centre and the Metro Toronto Convention Centre North

Building were within the catchment area of the River St alignment only. However, both

of those locations are exceptionally well served through direct connections from the Union

GO rail station.

3.4.6. PATH Network

Figure 21 - River St Alignment PATH Relationship

Both alignments have the potential for strong connections to the PATH network, but would

serve different areas of it. The River St alignment would provide more convenient

connections to the east and south while the Sackville St alignment would provide more

convenient connections to the west and north; see Figure 21 and Figure 22, respectively,

for the immediate PATH area around each alignment. There are a couple of below-grade

knock-out panels in buildings along Adelaide St W that could be exploited by the Sackville

St alignment, as highlighted in Figure 22.


118


30 June, 2015

Figure 22 - Sackville St Alignment PATH Relationship

3.4.7. Bike Network

Both alignments have comparable but different cycling access. Both provide connections

to bike lanes at Simcoe St, Sherbourne St, and Shuter St, as well as the proposed bike

lanes along Broadview Ave at Mortimer Ave. Both have a bike lane above a portion of

their route; along River St in the case of the River St alignment, and along Adelaide St in

the case of the Sackville St alignment. Both alignments have access by bicycle to the

Regent Park station, but from different directions, with the River St alignment providing

good access from the east and the Sackville St alignment providing good access from the

north. Either alignment could potentially be tied into the Don River Trail system.

The River St alignment would also connect with the Waterfront and Martin Goodman trails.

3.4.8. Planning Frameworks

Both alignments pass through the following planning areas:

• Regent Park Neighbourhood Improvement Area & Regent Park Secondary Plan

• King Spadina Secondary Plan

• King Parliament Secondary Plan

• T.O. Core Study

Knock-out Panel

Knock-out Panel


119


June, 2015 31

The River St alignment passes through the following planning areas in addition to the

above:

• St Lawrence Neighbourhood Urban Design Charrette

• St Lawrence Heritage Conservation District

• Keating Channel Precinct Plan

• West Don Lands Precinct Plan

• Central Waterfront Secondary Plan

Due to the relationship the River St alignment would be expected to have with the Lever

site, the South of Eastern Strategic Direction area may also be affected by the River St

alignment, even though the River St alignment is not physically within or along the

boundary of that area.

3.5. Streetcar System Relationships to the South

The City has just invested substantial resources in the renewal of its streetcar

infrastructure, including tracks, overhead wiring, shops, storage facilities’ retrofits, and

fleet replacement, a process that is now almost complete after about 15 years of

construction. The City is continuing to invest in this network, including expansion of the

system – new tracks were recently built along Cherry St north of the Union Station Rail

Corridor, with service to start after the Pan-Am Games. An environmental assessment is

in place for a new corridor along Queen’s Quay E, and a proposal is being assessed to

extend Broadview Ave south to Commissioners St, including streetcar infrastructure.

Planning work for the Relief Line should coordinate with the work ongoing for the

expansion of the streetcar system so that both are working together towards a common

goal of providing effective transportation within the city, and not competing with one

another for serving the same trips.

From the south, Cherry St and Broadview Ave would serve as links to the waterfront,

where future demand projections for transit service are strong. Some of these

investments have already been made along Cherry St, and plans for other waterfront area

streetcar investments are already agreed upon and approved, plus some others that are


120


32 June, 2015

in development, summarized in Figure 23. How these proposals will fit with the Relief

Line, and how the Relief Line fits with these proposals, requires careful consideration in

order to ensure one transit service does not cannibalize the ridership of another.

Figure 23 - Streetcar Network Expansion Plans


121


June, 2015 33

4. Future Extensions

The Relief Line is required to have viable extensions in future to both the north from

Mortimer Ave and the west from University Ave. Both the Sackville St and the River St

alignments are able to provide this.

4.1. From Broadview

Broadview Ave has no real advantages or disadvantages compared to Pape Ave or

Donlands Ave as it relates to the challenges of crossing the Don Valley to reach the

Thorncliffe Park area11, one of the densest communities in Toronto outside of a growth

centre. All options across the Don Valley will require an elevated structure around 700 to

800 metres in length.

It terms of direct routes, the Broadview alignment does have an advantage over Pape

Ave and Donlands Ave, as Broadview Ave follows an alignment that is pointing towards

the core instead of straight towards Lake Ontario like Pape Ave. This means Broadview

Ave would provide the fastest travel times, as the “L-shape” influence on travel time is

minimized by Broadview Ave’s “off-grid” alignment.

The integration of bus services in Old East York also favours Broadview Ave for future

extensions as there would be a more intuitive bus network structure from Mortimer,

Cosburn, and O’Connor bus services than would result with a Pape Ave or Donlands Ave

alignment. Many buses terminating at Mortimer for the initial phase of the Relief Line,

other than the Mortimer bus service itself, would move to a station in Thorncliffe Park in

phase two, except for the Cosburn and O’Connor services, which would serve a new

station at Cosburn. This would result in a dramatic reduction in buses using the Leaside

Bridge. At an absolute minimum, the Donlands bus would be expected to continue to

cross the Leaside Bridge.

11 South of Overlead Blvd east of Millwood Rd


122


34 June, 2015

4.2. From University

There are many questions to be answered about the western extension that are beyond

the scope of this study. However, both Adelaide St W and Wellington St W provide viable

options to extend the line further west. Adelaide St W runs as far as Shaw St, while

Wellington St W runs as far west as Strachan Ave, where it becomes Douro St and follows

the rail corridor to King St W. The terminus of Adelaide St W at Shaw St is at the eastern

limits of the large Centre for Addiction and Mental Health complex occupying a huge

majority of the block bounded by Queen St W, Shaw St, King St W, and Dovercourt Rd.

The Relief Line, if running along Adelaide St W, could conceivably cut across beneath

this complex, emerging at Sudbury St which, like Douro, follows the rail corridor, and

would take the Relief Line to Queen St W, where there may be a GO rail station in the

future.

While the Adelaide St W route is straighter, the main challenge along this alignment is

crossing beneath St Mary’s Church on the west side of Bathurst St. The Wellington St W

alignment has at least two jogs, one just east of Spadina Ave, and another at Portland St.

The jog at Portland St may be expected to cause problems as it provides less green space

through which to negotiate an ‘S’-curve compared to the jog at Spadina Ave.

What functions and which ridership is GO rail service able to serve in the west end, and

what gaps are there that would need to be met by other transit services? This is a broader

network question beyond the scope of this study, but it has a significant impact on what

the western extension of the Relief Line would be required to accomplish. The future

roles of the Kitchener and Milton GO rail services are especially relevant to this question.

The western extension of the Relief Line may be very short depending on the answer.


123


June, 2015 35

5. Conclusion

Both the Sackville St alignment and the River St alignment are geometrically viable. Key

qualities of both alignments are their north-of-Danforth alignment along Broadview Ave,

and their crossing the Don River with an elevated structure instead of a tunneled structure.

Both alignments have the benefits associated with the Broadview station being the

interchange with the Bloor-Danforth subway as it relates to circulation capacity for

subway-to-subway transferring passengers at Danforth Ave. Both alignments have the

opportunity to re-purpose the existing triple-track structure for a non-revenue access track

to the Greenwood yards and shops with minimal property impacts. Broadview Ave also

provides an intuitive bus network, particularly for a subsequent northern extension, but to

a lesser extent in the initial phase as well. A high level summary comparison of the two

alignments is provided in Table 3.

CriterionLength

(km)Cost

Direct

Route

Travel

Time

Smart

Track

Lever

Site

Flood

Plain

Sackville 5.9 Lower Yes Shorter No No Outside

River 7.2 Higher No Longer Yes Yes Inside

Table 3 - Summary Comparison

The remaining key differentiator is the SmartTrack/Regional Express Rail connection (and,

by extension, service to the Lever site), and how much weight policymakers or evaluation

methodology place on that connection. Is it a “must have” or a “nice to have?” What kind

of network phenomena result from such a connection? Are those results desirable and

manageable? These questions remain unanswered, but they will be very influential.

If the SmartTrack/Regional Express Rail and Lever site connections are not essential, the

Sackville St alignment offers more advantages overall, including speed, cost, property,

topography, and downtown core densities and destinations within the catchment area.


124


36 June, 2015

If the SmartTrack/Regional Express Rail connection is essential, along with service to the

Lever site, and is weighted higher than other criteria, then the River St alignment would

be preferable over the Sackville St alignment.

The most important criterion, however, remains the constructability of the project. The

alignment, and all the constraints that it is subject to, will be more influential on the location

of the stations than the preferred locations of stations will be on the alignment.


125


126


127

From: Relief Line initiative Sent: July-16-15 5:26 PM To: 'Karl Junkin' Cc: 'Peter Miasek'; Stella Gustavson; Millett, Paul ([email protected]); Mike Logan Subject: RE: Submission from Transport Action Ontario Hi Karl, Thank you for your submission on behalf of Transport Action Ontario regarding the Relief Line Project Assessment. We appreciate your interest in transit planning in Toronto and your support for the Relief Line project. Your opinions are very important to the work we are doing. As you are aware, we have developed an evaluation process with an extensive set of criteria that reflects the wide array of matters that need to be considered in evaluating route and station options within the context of city building. Constructability, cost, ridership and the ability of the Relief Line to extend to the north and west are all very important criteria that we are taking into account as part of the evaluation process. We agree with that crossing the Don Valley presents many challenges that will need to be addressed as the project moves forward through the planning and design process. During our consultation for the Relief Line Project Assessment in June, we sought public input on the results of the evaluation of potential station locations, as well as on four potential corridors. We are currently finalizing the technical evaluation of the potential corridors and reviewing all of the input we have received. As you know, we must balance a wide range of technical considerations and opinions. Once a preferred corridor has been identified, potential alignments within that corridor will be determined, taking into account the technical work and input to-date. If Corridor A or Corridor C is preferred, we will consider the alignments that you have suggested. We agree with your comment that parallel interchanges have the potential to offer more freely flowing passenger movements; however, building a new station beneath an existing one, regardless of the offset angle, requires considerably more complex construction, reducing the opportunity for any additional pedestrian access points. This is particularly true if the station boxes are not truly parallel. Given these complexities and unknowns, the possible orientation of the Relief Line station box is not a significant consideration in determining the preferred interchange with Line 2. We appreciate your comments on the need to consider the broader transit network, including changes to surface transit routes and connections. With respect to connecting to the Greenwood Yard, we evaluated the use of the Chester pocket track as you suggest. We agree that there are potential efficiencies to this approach; however, our technical assessment has determined that it is not feasible, as follows: - Starting from the east equilateral turnout, there is roughly 290m of length available to descend below the westbound main track at Broadview station. - At a 3% grade, this would allow the track to descend roughly 9m and could potentially clear the underside of the existing Line 2 tunnel structure. - Only 120m of additional length is available before the track would have to cross under the new Relief Line tunnel structure, which would be at a lower level. This additional length would only provide about 4m of additional clearance - not enough to pass under the new Relief Line tunnel.


128

Notwithstanding the above, the construction would be very complex, requiring the entire existing station to be underpinned while both the Relief Line station and connection track below were excavated using mining techniques to avoid disruption to all the streetcar lines using the station. Further, the proposed connection track would likely have to reconnect to the Relief Line on the bridge across the Don River, resulting in an elevated junction. This may have significant safety and access implications. We look forward to seeing you at the next Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting which is being planned for September. At that time we will present the results of the evaluation of the corridor options and identify the preferred corridor, along with potential alignments within the preferred corridor for consideration. Mike Logan


129

From: Stephen Sent: July-02-15 1:58 AM To: Tim Laspa Cc: Stella Gustavson; James Perttula Subject: I hate to do this again, but ...

Hi Tim, James and Stella (couldn't find an email address for Mr. Logan):

I hate to do this to you all again, but a fifth alignment on the DRL increasingly makes the most

sense. Let's call it Option E, even though it's really a variation on B and D. I saw the scientific

looking pie-chart evaluation and read the explanations but it all seems nebulous at best. The fact

it rated Broadview above Donlands doesn't inspire confidence. Who did that evaluation? Can we

see the raw data used to tabulate it it?

I probably lean slightly toward Queen over King because the short walking distances allow us

to serve King while broadening pedestrian catchment areas, which is key. On the Danforth, we

have problems. Donlands makes the most sense, with Pape a semi-reasonable but more costly

second (Coxwell would make my life really easy, but we can't begin to justify it). Unlike Pape,

Donlands provides easy connections to the Greenwood yard and its built-in Y to the Bloor-

Danforth, a key point that appears to be getting glossed over. The TTC's Paul Millett talked of

creating new connections with a costly Y at Pape (along the lines of what was done at Yonge and

Sheppard) and-or boring a connecting tunnel from Pape to the Greenwood yard under the GO

corridor, both of which are totally unnecessary and very expensive. Let's take the savings and

plow them into pushing the line further north into some really dense apartment districts in East

York.

Aside from the fact that the Donlands pedestrian catchment area has several undeveloped and

under-utilzed lots that make the potential for transit-oriented development greater but far less

disruptive than anything we can do at Pape or Broadview, the argument that Donlands "has

limited ability to use existing public rights of way" appears to be bullshit, possibly to cover up

for the TTC's irrational unwillingness to consider expropriation and cut-and-cover, two of the

tools that were key to its success back when Toronto built subways constantly and well.

A small amount of expropriation or negotiated purchases than can be easily justified just

south of Danforth will be needed to make the wiser connection. One two-storey building on the

south side of Danforth is owned by WoodGreen, which is preparing to consolidate its offices

elsewhere and would be approachable, possibly even a partner. A couple of semi-detached

houses on the north side of Chatham would have to be purchased, but that's it. We, the public,

own Eastern Commerce Collegiate on the south side of Chatham (which BTW has the lowest

enrollment of any high school in Toronto, 7% or just 62

students http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/the-full-list-of-tdsb-schools-at-65-per-

cent-or-less-capacity/article22695406/ and would be a great redevelopment site). There is one

public housing building with, I believe, six units (I'll confirm) and a bit of Phin Avenue Park,

which we also own, and then you're into the TTC's right-of-way down the west side of the yard

to the GO corridor where you can easily dive down underneath en route to Gerrard Square.


130

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/the-full-list-of-tdsb-schools-at-65-per-cent-or-less-capacity/article22695406/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/the-full-list-of-tdsb-schools-at-65-per-cent-or-less-capacity/article22695406/

That strip down the west side of the yard was acquired for this very purpose more than 50

years ago. Millett says it's no good now because a TBM might hit methane. Fine, let's do the

obvious thing and use an open cut for linking the line to the yard, cover it if you want, too.

As for the argument that Pape and Broadview draw higher numbers of passengers, that's

skewed by surface-route patterns that would change massively with the DRL's completion.

Donlands, as we've said earlier, accommodates growth better than any other Danforth option

(other than Coxwell) and could be a useful catalyst for regenerating the East Danforth, a key

Avenue that needs help. Donlands also achieves a network goal best: It brings the relief as far

east as possible without getting us out of position to efficiently serve three dense apartment areas

- the Cosburn apartment corridor, Thorncliffe and Flemingdon.

I'll be blogging about all this soon, but thought you should have advance feedback.

Two things were encouraging about the June meeting:

1) The widespread rejection of the Broadview options, especially if we're keeping the streetcars

(which I definitely back). Why duplicate the streetcar service on Broadview and why put a

subway next to a barrier valley that leaves you with virtually no pedestrian catchment area to the

west, even less than Sheppard has to its south because of the 401.

2) Officials at previous meetings seemed set on suburban station spacing in the core. It's clear,

people want an urban subway, more akin to our successes on Yonge and Danforth. I pushed that

concept maybe a bit too hard, and I can see the logic for just doing two at Queen in the core, but

even three would be workable.

Cheers, Steve

Stephen


131

From: Stella Gustavson Sent: July-16-15 2:48 PM To: Mike Logan Cc: Kate Kusiak; Charissa Iogna Subject: RE: I hate to do this again, but ... Steve, Thanks for your message. We have reviewed your comments carefully and have the following responses. As you know, we must balance a wide range of technical considerations and opinions when we are assessing options for the Relief Line. The results of our technical evaluation of potential stations for connecting to the Danforth subway indicate that Pape and Broadview have higher potential for meeting the project objectives and addressing the full range of city-building criteria. Below are some of the key points from the evaluation which are related to your comments. You are correct that Donlands could facilitate a less expensive connection to the Greenwood Yard – this is captured in the second criteria under "Affordability" on our evaluation table for Danforth Connection Stations. However, service along such a route would require tight turns, particularly between the Yard and tunnel beneath the GO Rail Corridor, which would slow service and reduce passenger comfort. Based on our preliminary assessment of redevelopment opportunities, while there are some "soft sites" at Donlands and Danforth – lots that could be redeveloped as higher-densities for transit-oriented development –opportunities at Broadview and Pape are greater, as described in the evaluation for the criteria called "Supporting City-Building Opportunities" under "Shaping the City." Moreover, Donlands does not perform as well as Broadview and Pape for "Compatibility with City Planning Policies." The City's Official Plan identifies the areas along Broadview and Pape as "Avenues", areas within which growth is encouraged. While it might be possible to reroute buses to Donlands from Pape or Broadview, there would be potential community impacts from both the construction of a bus terminal and the operation of additional buses in this neighbourhood. Finally, while the property impacts you list between Danforth Ave and Greenwood Yard, there could also be property impacts along Boultby Ave between Greenwood Yard and the GO Rail corridor.


132

http://reliefline.ca/uploads/PDF/Results%20of%20Danforth%20Station%20Evaluation%20DRAFT%20-%20June%202015.pdf

http://reliefline.ca/uploads/PDF/Results%20of%20Danforth%20Station%20Evaluation%20DRAFT%20-%20June%202015.pdf


133


134


135


136


137


138


139

Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report