RELIEF LINE PRELIMINARY BENEFITS CASE ANALYSIS. November 2012

Transcription

1 RELIEF LINE PRELIMINARY BENEFITS CASE ANALYSIS November 2012

2 Relief Line Preliminary Benefits Case Analysis Final Report November 2012

3 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 PART A PROJECT RATIONALE CONTEXT AND NEED STUDY BACKGROUND Reported Capacity Constraints Additional Considerations Project Objectives Project Timeline PART B PROJECT CONCEPTS INTRODUCTION REFERENCE CASES Reference Case 1 Business As Usual Reference Case 2 Business As Usual with Metrolinx Priority Projects PROJECT CONCEPTS Project Concept 1 Incremental Improvements Project Concept 2 DRTES Options Project Concept 3 Union 2031 Options Project Concept 4 Additional Options PART C ASSESSMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK CRITERIA-BASED ASSESSMENT Summary of Criteria-Based Assessment EARLY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY MULTIPLE ACCOUNT EVALUATION Preview of Future BCA Quantitative Analysis Preview of Future BCA Additional Benefits to be Calculated Preview of Future BCA Complete view of Costs and Benefits PART D CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A LIST OF PREVIOUS STUDY GOALS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA A.1 DRTES STUDY GOALS A.2 UNION STATION 2031 STUDY GOALS A.3 DRTES EVALUATION CRITERIA A.4 UNION STATION 2031 EVALUATION CRITERIA APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS B.1 NETWORK CONSIDERATIONS

4 B.2 POTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS B.3 OTHER LOW-COST POLICY ALTERNATIVES Land Use and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategies Parking Policies Multi-modal Strategies Travel Demand Management (TDM) Measures B.3 OTHER CAPITAL PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS TABLES Table 1: Summary of Assessment of Primary Criteria... 8 Table 2: Project Concept 2 - Travel Times and Speeds Table 3: Project Concept 3-1 Travel Times and Speeds Table 4: Summary of Assessment of Primary Criteria Table 5: Performance Statistics for options presented in DRTES and Union Table 6: Multiple Account Evaluation Framework FIGURES Figure 1: DRTES Options Corridor and GO Current Rail Network... 5 Figure 2: Project Timeline Overview... 6 Figure 3: Yonge North Subway Extension Figure 4: RL Preliminary BCA and related Project Elements Figure 5: Existing Inbound Peak Hour Rapid Transit Capacity Deficiencies Figure 6: 2031 Inbound Peak Hour Rapid Transit capacity Deficiencies Figure 7: 2031 Inbound Peak Hour Rapid Transit capacity Deficiencies with yonge subway extension Figure 8: YUS Station Boardings 2001 and 2031, AM Peak Figure 9: YUS Station Alightings 2001 and 2031 AM Peak Figure 10: GO Union Station Alightings 2006 and 2031 AM Peak Figure 11: Project Timeline Overview Figure 12: Estimated Travel Times for Project Concept Figure 13: 2031 Ridership and Costs of Option 2-1 and other Subway Projects Figure 14: Capacity Improvements on Yonge of OPTION 2-1 and other Subway Projects Figure 15: Recent Network Peak Hour Boardings vs. Projected 2031 DRTES RL Peak Hour Boardings Figure 16: Increase In Rapid Transit Ridership For Option 2-2 (Pape-Dundas West) Figure 17: Effect of Project Concept 2 on Yonge Capacity Figure 18: Transit Travel Time Benefits By Location for Option Figure 19: Summary of Benefits from UK's High Speed Rail Figure 20: Alternatives Evaluation Table from DRTES Figure 21: Options Evaluation Table from Union 2031 Study Figure 22: Mobility Hubs in the Relief Area

5 Executive Summary Overview and Conclusions The Relief Line Preliminary Benefits Case Analysis (BCA) provides a summary and presentation of previous relevant work. Main points are as follows: Capacity constraints on the Yonge Subway line south of Bloor and at Yonge-Bloor station will limit our ability to expand the GTHA rapid transit system, risking the successful delivery of Metrolinx s priority projects. A criteria-based assessment summarizing analysis from studies done by the TTC and Metrolinx indicate a major transport capacity solution in downtown Toronto is required before 2031 in order to complete Metrolinx priority projects. As a result, this preliminary BCA supports advancing a Relief Line concept from The Big Move s 25-year plan to the 15-year plan. The TTC has proposed a traditional subway solution (named Downtown Relief Line or DRL) to relieve the downtown transit capacity problem. The TTC has also recommended that Metrolinx assess regional rail alternatives that will help alleviate future downtown transit capacity constraints. Metrolinx work in 2011 on Union Station capacity anticipates that significant investment (likely tunnel) is needed in the long term. This Preliminary BCA summarizes broad concept options as a basis for refined options to be developed and evaluated through further regional-level planning (network analysis) work including collaboration between Metrolinx, Toronto and York Region. Preferred concepts from the network analysis will be fully considered by a complete BCA. BCA results will then be inputted to the Metrolinx Prioritization Framework for investment consideration, pending an Investment Strategy. A full description of the conclusions from this report is provided in Part D. Study Background and Motivation In 2006 the Province of Ontario created the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, renamed Metrolinx in The organization s mission is to champion, develop and implement an integrated transportation system for our region that enhances prosperity, sustainability and quality of life. A core component of Metrolinx s mandate and one of Metrolinx s first deliverables was the development of The Big Move, a Regional Transportation Plan that presents a 25-year vision for improved mobility in the GTHA. A vital component of The Big Move is to complete a Benefits Case Analysis for each proposed rapid transit project. Metrolinx has completed Benefits Case Analyses (BCAs) on over a dozen corridors, successfully informing billions of dollars of investment. The technical methodology is aligned with international 3

6 best practices on alternatives analysis and project evaluation and is regularly updated to address expanded impacts. The BCA employs a robust multiple account evaluation where financial, economic, environmental and social needs are taken into account to guide optimal investment decisions. This Relief Line Preliminary BCA is a precursor to a full Metrolinx BCA, laying the groundwork for comparative analysis. More information on options needs to be developed before a full BCA can be completed. The information on options to be taken forward to a full BCA will come out of a future network analysis. The Big Move represents the Relief Line in the 25-year plan as Downtown Core (Schedule A). Considerable work has been completed since the release of The Big Move and it has been identified that the Relief Line warrants a broader assessment. This report is motivated by the following studies and their conclusions: Interim Yonge North Subway BCA [Metrolinx, 2009] o Assessed the potential options for a Yonge subway extension beyond Finch. o Conclusions included that the increased downstream demand on the Yonge Subway (at Bloor) would exacerbate the already capacity-constrained system. Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan (DRTES) [Toronto Transit Commission, October 2012] o Issue Studied: Existing and future rapid transit capacity deficiencies into Toronto s downtown. o Advanced specific subway options for further evaluation, named Downtown Relief Line (DRL). Evaluation will be part of the proposed Phase 2 study. o Recommends Metrolinx explore alternatives that utilize existing rail corridors that will help alleviate anticipated future capacity constraints. Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study (Union 2031) [Metrolinx, 2011] o Issue Studied: Future capacity constraints expected at Union Station. o Confirmed and refined the capacity forecasts at Union Station. o Evaluated potential options to address the resulting capacity constraints and recommended advancing options for further scoping and evaluation. Other findings reported the importance of fare integration, and location of GO stations close to employment. Union Station and USRC Capacity Study [Metrolinx, 2011] o Issue Studied: Future track capacity constraints for passenger rail services at Union Station. o Found that capacity was sufficient in the short-term but deficient for long-term service expansion plans. o Identified double-berthing and infrastructure modifications as interim solutions, with long-term solutions requiring vertical expansion (i.e. downtown tunnel). 4

7 Union Station Pedestrian Movements Study [Metrolinx, on-going] o Issue Studied: Impacts of future ARL and GO service on Union Station passenger flow. o Identified some crowding/capacity challenges at platforms and stairways. There is considerable overlap in the multi-billion dollar options identified in the DRTES and Union 2031 studies despite addressing different problems. The Relief Line project options identified in both reports cover a large geographic area and a range of technologies. These include services to areas immediately east and west of downtown, as well as further east, west, and north, connecting to existing and planned rapid transit corridors (see Figure 1). Options considered enable the existing rapid transit network to maintain functionality by relieving lines currently under stress due to capacity constraints. With so large a scope, the Relief Line will have substantial regional implications on the location of future population growth and the evolving shape of the transportation network. FIGURE 1: DRTES OPTIONS CORRIDOR AND GO CURRENT RAIL NETWORK As the GTHA s Regional Transportation Authority, Metrolinx has the responsibility to undertake a comparative analysis, applying a broader lens to a highly complex opportunity. This Preliminary Benefits Case Analysis presents previous study results through a regional lens and sets up the next stages of work required to advance a Relief Line investment. The need to increase transportation access into the Toronto region s core by advancing the Relief Line from the 25-year to the 15-year time horizon is supported. 5

8 FIGURE 2: PROJECT TIMELINE OVERVIEW Regular prioritization updates to Board anticipated PDE: Planning, Design, and Engineering As shown in Figure 2, the Relief Line Preliminary BCA is part of the larger process of project development. This report builds on the extensive amount of previous work completed for this project. It consolidates information and advances the established Metrolinx BCA MAE Framework to be used in later stages of the project. Following this Preliminary BCA, a network analysis study is needed in order to properly consider the many potential subway and rail alternatives, and identify preferred options for detailed investment consideration in a full BCA. Other related work planned to proceed in parallel to Relief Line work is described above: TTC is proceeding with DRTES Phase 2, establishing preferred alignment, station locations, real estate purchase recommendations, and technology choice for traditional subway options. 6

9 Metrolinx s Big Move Update and consultation in late 2012 and early City of Toronto s Official Plan review, scheduled to conclude in April The City s Official Plan currently does not include any Relief Line concepts, including the RL. Work on the Yonge North subway extension continues to advance, in combination with the Yonge North BCA Update, as well as the Yonge North Land Value Capture Study. On-going updates to the Prioritization Framework will occur as more knowledge on respective Big Move projects is gained. A full description of the background and motivation of this report is provided in Part A Project Rationale. Project Concepts Four Project Concepts are presented, representing the options considered by prior studies and for consideration by future network analysis and subsequent full BCA. The Project Concepts are: Project Concept 1 Incremental Improvements, of relatively incremental cost; Project Concept 2 DRTES Options: Subway Expansion, TTC-proposed multi-billion dollar subway; Project Concept 3 Union 2031 Options: Regional/Urban Rail Service, Union 2031 study advanced multi-billion dollar options; Project Concept 4 Additional Options, covering any other concepts that have not been studied to date, including multi-billion dollar regional rail solutions The four Project Concepts are compared to the two Reference Cases below: Reference Case 1 Current Commitments: Existing and committed transit network Reference Case 2 Current Commitments with completion of Metrolinx Priority Projects: Existing and committed transit network and remaining unfunded Big Move 15-year plan Priority Projects. A full BCA cannot be undertaken at this time because not enough is known to derive specific inputs for Project Concepts. Future network analysis will identify a narrowed list of project options that will inform a subsequent full BCA. A full description of the Project Concepts presented in this report is provided in Part B. 7

10 Project Concepts Preliminary Assessment Part C provides a preliminary assessment of the Project Concepts identified in Part B. The Project Concepts are evaluated in the Preliminary BCA using the following approach: Project Concepts and Reference Cases are advanced through a criteria-based assessment, summarizing from conclusions of previous studies to identify the size of solution that may be needed. Project Concepts with known performance characteristics are compared to projects of similar transformative scale. A summary of performance results from previous studies is presented. An overview and preview of Metrolinx s full BCA Multiple Accounts Evaluation (MAE) is presented, including early quantitative results on one of the DRTES options. The Criteria-Based assessment (Table 1) shows that all project concepts require further study and anticipates that major investment is needed. Completing the Metrolinx Priority Projects including the Yonge North Subway extension (Reference Case 2) causes a worsening in the already capacity constrained transit system. TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF PRIMARY CRITERIA 1 Not acceptable in the long term -- No Change to BAU Acceptable in the long term Negative Impact Positive Impact 1 Summary of results drawing directly from or extrapolated from DRTES and Union Station 2031 analysis 8

11 Incremental solutions (Project Concept 1) have not been reported to provide adequate capacity relief, suggesting that major investment is needed. Despite not expecting to meet ultimate capacity requirements, it should be noted that Project Concept 1 options may be attractive investments. Further and refined analysis may show they can be of good value on their own, as interim measures, in addition to their potential benefit of delaying the need for significant investment projected to be ultimately required. Three of the Project Concepts (2, 3, and 4) are expected to meet the primary criteria for long-term transit capacity needs. Preliminary ridership estimates for the south-east section of the DRTES subway concept are higher than the Spadina subway extension, which is similar in cost and length. The ability of the south-east section of the DRTES subway concept to off-load Yonge subway south of Bloor is almost twice as high as the additional demand created by the Yonge North subway extension, and five times more effective at reducing Yonge subway demand than the Spadina subway extension. Performance of rail-based options needs to be determined by future network analysis; it should be possible to meet many, or all of the project needs with a multi-billion dollar solution. A full description of the Preliminary Project Concepts Assessment is provided in Part C. This assessment is a preliminary stage of the full BCA MAE evaluation, which will occur after the proposed network analysis. Report Structure This report is structured as follows: Part A - Project Rationale: This section describes the policy context, the broader regional and project objectives, the characteristics of the corridor and the issues and opportunities to be addressed by the proposed project; Part B Project Concepts: This section describes the options that are evaluated; and Part C Preliminary Project Concept Assessment: This section will describe the evaluation approach and summary of previous assessment. Part D Conclusions: This section describes the results of the evaluation and suggested next steps. 9

12 Part A Project Rationale Context and Need The City Toronto is the largest municipality in Canada with a population of nearly 2.7 million and is at the heart of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Region. Regional population growth and recent downtown development unmatched anywhere in North America or Europe is contributing to transit ridership. Investment is required to effectively meet the short and long term needs posed by growing transit demand into the downtown core. As a result, in tandem with advancing projects through a rigorous assessment process, Metrolinx is moving forward an investment strategy to implement remaining unfunded projects in the regional transportation plan, The Big Move. Expanding rapid transit into and through Toronto s downtown has been an interest of the City of Toronto s dating back to the early 20 th century. More recently, two studies have shed light on current and projected constraints facing increased transit access into the region s core: Metrolinx s Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study (Union 2031) from Fall 2011 and the Toronto Transit Commission s Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan (DRTES) from October Both reports highlight how, despite ongoing and future investments in service upgrades, transit services on the Yonge Subway line, the King Streetcar Line, and select GO Train lines will be unable to keep pace with growing travel demands into downtown Toronto. As the Region s financial and business services hub, land use is heavily commercial office at the southern portion of the Yonge Subway anchored by Union Station. In recent years, significant office development and high density residential development has occurred in the downtown core, contributing to increased demand on transit services. Of particular note: In October 2012, there were 183 high rise buildings under construction in Toronto, the majority of which are downtown 2 New high rise commercial development has focused around Union Station, including seven new office towers south of Union Station North America s largest waterfront brownfield redevelopment is underway The transformation of King West, Liberty Village, Fort York and Queen West/Dufferin neighbourhoods along the rail corridor into high density mixed use districts Land use varies to a considerable degree east, west and north of the core, which features a mix of medium to high density housing, retail, office and institutional uses. Downtown areas identified already display high transit use, which would be augmented by enhanced rapid transit service. Union Station is Canada s busiest transportation hub and underpins the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area s largest commercial office concentration. Provincial planning policies outlined in the 2 City of Toronto Economic Development Committee 10

13 Places to Grow Act, 2005 aim to build on Union Station s strengths by encouraging intensification of commercial office and residential development in the downtown core. The City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of York Official Plans and supporting documents will be required to continue to align with Provincial policies. The City of Toronto estimates that by 2031 between 20 and 40 million square feet of new office development will be needed based on emerging growth drivers in Toronto. 3 Expanding transit capacity is cited as a key to retaining the attractiveness of the downtown core and shoulder areas for future businesses. In York Region, planning policies anticipate investment in higher order transit along Yonge Street to Richmond Hill by supporting higher density development along the corridor and complementary local and express bus rapid transit service. Surface transit ridership on connecting services to the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth Subways as well as on Commuter train lines into the downtown have seen significant recent increases. 4 Total system ridership on York Region Transit, which offers many connecting express bus services to Finch and Don Mills Subway Stations, increased by 26% between 2005 and 2011 with daily ridership averaging 84,500 in March, Between 2005 and 2011, average daily bus ridership on six major Scarborough bus lines (Finch East, Don Mills, Steeles East, Lawrence East, Sheppard East and Morningside Drive) grew by over 23,000 riders, a 14% increase. Inbound (southbound) Yonge Subway line is operating at 9% over capacity during the AM peak hour. The Barrie-Bradford, Stouffville, Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West GO Train lines are currently operating over capacity. Even with existing and planned investments, by 2031 there will be five GO Train Lines - Barrie-Brantford, Stouffville, Georgetown, Milton and Lakeshore East operating over capacity. The eastbound King Streetcar into the downtown core is also facing operational concerns due to ridership growth and surface congestion. In total, transit ridership into Toronto s downtown is expected to grow by 51% by 2031, 5 with the number of trips originating from the north and east exceeding existing and planned capacity. Similarly, Metrolinx s Union 2031 study projects a doubling of ridership into Union Station, reaching 191,000 daily boardings in 2031 (2.2 times the 2009 number of boardings). 6 3 Staff report for action on Planning for a Strong and Diverse Economy. City of Toronto, Accessed at 4 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan 5 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan 6 Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study 11

14 Metrolinx has already made significant investments to expand transit capacity into the downtown core where demand has demonstrated a need for improved service. These investments are already well on their way to completion and represent some of the largest transit investments in the City of Toronto in over a generation. They have been funded with the support of the Provincial government as well as other government partners and include: Automatic Train Control (TTC Subway Improvements) o Allows trains to operate with a headway of 105 seconds rather than every 150 seconds o Improves capacity of subway trains by 30-35% o Implementation: New TTC Vehicles o Toronto Rocket Train Sets improve capacity by 10% over the previous T1 trains o New Bombardier Flexity Outlook streetcars will improve capacity by 90% over CLRV s and 22% over ALRV s, assuming an equal headway o Implementation: (subway); (streetcars) Metrolinx Union Station and USRC Improvements o New trackage and signal improvements allow twice as many trains than previously o Improved access to platforms, a new more spacious concourse, and a new glass atrium will increase passenger comfort and help speed train boardings and alightings o Implementation: 2014 TTC Union Station Improvements o A new south platform and a rebuilt concourse will improve passenger flow and allow additional capacity at Union Station o Implementation: 2015 Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension o The extension to Highway 7 is expected to divert riders off the existing Yonge line, resulting in a 4% capacity improvement on Yonge o Implementation: 2016 TTC Subway Crossovers between King and Queen Stations (Metrolinx Quick Win ) o Re-installing crossovers between King and Queen stations increases subway system flexibility and resilience, improving recovery and allowing partial service during a system failure or delay o Implementation: Completed. Despite the increased capacity these investments entail, transit lines into the downtown core will remain constrained, with ridership demand on streetcar, subway and GO Train lines still approaching or exceeding their capacity by The Big Move Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) assumptions show continued and growing population and employment forecasts in the downtown core. 12

15 Furthermore, DRTES and Union Station 2031 forecasts show a significant rise in the number of trips into the downtown core originating from inner suburban areas of Toronto as well as the municipalities beyond the City of Toronto s borders. As the epicentre of the GTHA s transit network, constrained transit capacity in Toronto s downtown has regional implications for the Metrolinx Priority Projects listed in The Big Move, particularly the Yonge North Subway Extension (Figure 3). 7 As a result, examining the need for improved access into the downtown core has become necessary. FIGURE 3: YONGE NORTH SUBWAY EXTENSION Study Background As identified above, Metrolinx, the City of Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission and York Region have undertaken significant work examining the problems facing transportation access to Toronto s downtown. This Relief Line Preliminary BCA draws primarily from information contained in the TTC s Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan and Metrolinx s Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study. In addition to these, there is a considerable body of knowledge related to this topic, including Union Station and USRC Capacity Study, Union Station Pedestrian Flow Study, TTC Yonge-Bloor Study, Interim Yonge North BCA, GO Electrification Study, GO Rail BCAs, Lakeshore Express Rail BCA, TTC Railway Yards Needs Study, and many other reports. These reports include information on: Transit service operating details; Transit line passenger count data; Transit investment proposals; and Land use proposals. 7 Yonge Subway Extension Design Demand Forecasting Report 13

16 This Preliminary BCA summarizes and consolidates this previous research, and sets up further regional-level planning and technical evaluation including collaboration between Metrolinx, the City of Toronto and York Region. Figure 4 shows where the Relief Line Preliminary BCA fits within the many stages of project development. FIGURE 4: RL PRELIMINARY BCA AND RELATED PROJECT ELEMENTS Reported Capacity Constraints Previous studies have provided considerable information on existing ridership levels as well as boardings and alightings information on transit lines into the downtown core. TTC s DRTES presented existing and projected capacity deficiencies during the inbound AM peak into the downtown core (Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7): 14

17 FIGURE 5: EXISTING INBOUND PEAK HOUR RAPID TRANSIT CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES 8 Figure 5 demonstrates that there are significant capacity issues currently facing the regional transit network during the inbound peak hour in the downtown. There are presently more passengers heading south on the Yonge Subway during the peak morning rush hour than the existing line is designed for, producing significant crowding. In addition, four GO Train corridors are also operating over capacity, with the Richmond Hill and Milton GO Train lines also approaching their limits. Transit riders on the Bloor-Danforth subway heading towards the downtown from east of Sherbourne station are also experiencing the limits of the line s operating capacity. Together, these capacity constraints demonstrate that today s travel demands into the downtown particularly from the north and the east are not properly accommodated by the existing transit network. This reality is what has prompted significant infrastructure investment currently underway (see list in previous section). 8 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan, p.19 15

18 FIGURE 6: 2031 INBOUND PEAK HOUR RAPID TRANSIT CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES 9 Figure 6 and Figure 7 demonstrate that despite improvements currently underway (Toronto Rocket trains, Automatic Train Control, Union Station and USRC improvements, etc.), there will still be inadequate capacity accommodate travel demands into the downtown core. The Yonge North subway extension further exacerbates these existing constraints by adding additional ridership in key areas. Although the subway extension is forecasted to increase demand beyond capacity on the Yonge Subway line by 2031 (Figure 7), the regional transit network as a whole will be facing significant pressure as system ridership increases due to transit expansion, population and employment growth. 9 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan, p.20 16

19 FIGURE 7: 2031 INBOUND PEAK HOUR RAPID TRANSIT CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES WITH YONGE SUBWAY EXTENSION 10 Passenger crowding at specific subway stations is a related but separate issue that must be relieved if the current subway network is to continue to effectively serve transit riders throughout the region. The boarding and alighting pattern for the Yonge-University-Spadina Subway corridor south of Bloor is shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, projected out to Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan, p.21 17

20 FIGURE 8: YUS STATION BOARDINGS 2001 AND 2031, AM PEAK 11 FIGURE 9: YUS STATION ALIGHTINGS 2001 AND 2031 AM PEAK Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan 12 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan 18

21 Metrolinx s Union Station 2031 study projects a doubling of ridership into Union Station, reaching 191,000 daily boardings in 2031 (2.2 times the 2009 number of boardings). 13 GO Transit track capacity studies suggest that current investments will satisfy demand in the short term, however additional investments, including double-berthing and other measures will likely be required in the long term. 14 Furthermore, although significant work is underway at TTC s Union Station, projected ridership demands are expected to near or exceed station capacities in future peak periods. 15 FIGURE 10: GO UNION STATION ALIGHTINGS 2006 AND 2031 AM PEAK 16 Additional Considerations There are many additional considerations that should be accounted for in the determination of the preferred project scope. Some of these have been identified in Appendix B, including network considerations, potential station locations, policy alternatives and capital project considerations. Project Objectives The purpose of this Preliminary BCA is to summarize and tie together previous analyses of various downtown rapid transit options under a regional framework or lens to present the broader opportunities and requirements and to set the stage for necessary further network planning analysis. 13 Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study 14 Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study 15 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan, page iv 16 Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study, page 67 19

22 Recent transportation studies in the project area have identified project objectives specific to the purpose of the study. For example, the main focus of DRTES was the relief of the subway capacity issues, and the main focus of the Union 2031 study was the relief of Union station capacity issues. A project as significant and expensive as the Relief Line should make every attempt possible to maximize utilization of infrastructure, maximize return on investment, and address multiple objectives. This effort has begun in this Relief Line Preliminary BCA with the following consolidated list of objectives from DRTES, Union 2031, and The Big Move, presented below. 17 Increase transportation capacity to the downtown core Relieve capacity constraints on the TTC subway system Relieve capacity constraints at Union Station Enable the construction of the Yonge North Subway Improve the transit mode share within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Support the land use planning goals of the representative governments involved, including the Official Plans of the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipality of York and the Government of Ontario s Provincial Policy Statements/Places to Grow Act, 2005 Ensure strong network connectivity with other regional investments, in particular the Metrolinx Priority Projects Achieve a reasonable and highest possible broad benefits per dollar of investment Project Timeline A timeline of the project-analysis component of a Relief Line is visualized in Figure 11. It includes prior studies recently completed related to downtown transit capacity relief as well as future Planning, Design and Engineering (PDE) for a Relief Line project. Figure 11 also identifies parallel processes that could impact the timing of both project analysis and implementation work of a Relief Line project such as the results of on-going work on the Yonge North project, updates made to The Big Move and any future updates to the Metrolinx Prioritization Framework. At this time, it is assumed that future Network Analysis a vital input to a full BCA could be completed by 2013 or early 2014 and a subsequent full Relief Line BCA could be finalized six months following the Network Analysis. These products would provide inputs for the Metrolinx Prioritization Framework that would guide the start date for planning, design and engineering work. 17 For a list of previous study goals, see Appendix A List of Previous Study Goals and Evaluation Criteria. 20

23 FIGURE 11: PROJECT TIMELINE OVERVIEW Regular prioritization updates to Board anticipated PDE: Planning, Design, and Engineering 21

24 Part B Project Concepts Introduction The location of this project, combined with the project objectives, lead to a relatively broad set of project concepts that should be considered. These concepts are identified in the Preliminary BCA and will be further scoped in future network analysis. Four Project Concepts are presented, representing the options considered by prior studies and for consideration by future network analysis. The Project Concepts are: Project Concept 1 Incremental Improvements, of relatively incremental cost; Project Concept 2 DRTES Options: Subway Expansion, TTC-proposed multi-billion dollar subway; o Option 2-1: Subway connecting Pape to St. Andrew Station (DRTES: 1a) o Option 2-2: Subway connecting Pape to Dundas West Station (DRTES: 2a) o Option 2-3: Subway connecting Eglinton to St. Andrew Station (DRTES: 2b) o Option 2-4: Subway connecting Eglinton to Dundas West Station (DRTES: 3) Project Concept 3 Union 2031 Options: Regional/Urban Rail Service, Union 2031 study advanced options; o Option 3-1: Subway connecting Pape to Exhibition Station (Union 2031: 4b) o Option 3-2: New downtown tunnel for Lakeshore GO lines with a second Union Station (Union 2031: 6b) Project Concept 4 Additional Options, covering any other concepts that have not been studied to date, including regional rail solutions 18 The four Project Concepts are compared to the two Reference Cases below: Reference Case 1 Current Commitments: Existing and committed transit network Reference Case 2 Current Commitments with completion of Metrolinx Priority Projects: Existing and committed transit network and remaining unfunded The Big Move 15- year plan Priority Projects. 18 There are many combinations of rail service that could be provided on expanded infrastructure in the downtown, and regionally. Electrification study, Regional Expressrail study, are sources for ideas, as are existing assets that Metrolinx owns and are unutilized the Don Branch GO line could carry riders from Eglinton and Don Mills to downtown Toronto, for example. This option has not been studied in detail but should be as part of the network study. 22

25 A full BCA cannot be undertaken at this time because not enough is known to derive specific inputs for the Project Concepts. A future Network Analysis will identify a narrowed list of project options that will inform a subsequent full BCA. Reference Cases Two reference cases are presented for consideration in this report. The two cases are necessary to indicate the current business as usual scenario, as well as the impacts of building the Metrolinx Priority Projects. Reference Case 1 Business As Usual Over and above the existing transit services there are a number of committed projects underway within the GTHA. These projects include Quick Wins and funded Metrolinx Priority Projects being delivered by both Metrolinx and the municipalities. Reference Case 1 is defined as a network consisting of existing transit service plus: The TTC subway extension to Vaughan Metropolitan Centre; York Region VIVA BRT; Committed Brampton Züm network; Mississauga Transitway; Eglinton Crosstown LRT; Scarborough RT replacement with LRT; Finch LRT; Sheppard LRT; and Automated Train Operation (ATO) implementation on the Yonge-University-Spadina line (providing 105sec headways to Finch Station). Reference Case 2 Business As Usual with Metrolinx Priority Projects This reference case builds on Reference Case 1, adding the Metrolinx Priority Projects. These projects are: Brampton Züm expansion Dundas BRT Durham BRT Hamilton LRT Hurontario LRT Yonge North Subway extension GO Service Improvements (including 2-Way All-Day service) 23

26 Project Concepts Four project concepts have been identified for the Relief Line Preliminary BCA and a summary description of each is provided below. Project Concepts defined in this report are preliminary and are not as detailed as standard Metrolinx BCA options. Further scoping of these concepts will occur in subsequent analysis. Project Concept 1 Incremental Improvements The DRTES outlined several alternatives to significant capital investment by maximizing the use of existing infrastructure through supportive policies and low-cost projects. A selection of these is included below along with additional measures that could be taken to improve transit access to downtown: Improved cycling infrastructure within the downtown core and shoulder areas; Improved transit signal priority in the downtown core and shoulder areas; Optimized on-street parking and turn restrictions; Improved connectivity and signage between GO Transit and TTC Subway Stations; Fare restructuring that promotes a shift to off-peak travel; Express bus service from Broadview or Castle Frank station to the Downtown Core; Improved GO Transit rail capacity and potentially service speeds on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors, using available and potential Union Station capacity; and Improved pedestrian connection between the TTC s Main Street Station on the Bloor- Danforth Line and GO Transit s Danforth Station on the Lakeshore East line to facilitate transfers. These improvements have the potential to increase service speed and reliability along with system capacity at a relatively low cost of implementation compared to entirely new subway or rail infrastructure. These improvements have a shorter implementation timeframe, and could be considered in conjunction with subsequent options presented. Project Concept 2 DRTES Options TTC s DRTES proposed several new subway line options which have been grouped under one Project Concept for the purposes of preliminary summary presentation and assessment. This report uses the project name Relief Line (RL). The concept consists of a new underground subway connection between Pape Station and the downtown core with possible western extension to Dundas West Station and northern extension to Don Mills and Eglinton Ave. While this Project Concept is based around subway options, this does not preclude similar technology choices such as underground LRT or driverless metro. The purpose of this concept is to have a high capacity technology with a grade separated right-of-way. The specific technology choice 24

27 can be determined in future study. Traditional TTC subway with Toronto Rocket trains was assumed in the DRTES. Estimated travel times for different sections of the project concept are listed below: FIGURE 12: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIMES FOR PROJECT CONCEPT 2 19 TABLE 2: PROJECT CONCEPT 2 - TRAVEL TIMES AND SPEEDS 20 Route Section Distance Average Speed Travel Time Eglinton/Don Mills to Pape 5.8 km 34 kph 10 min Pape to King 5.6 km 34 kph 10 min King to St. Andrew 0.6 km 18 kph 2 min St. Andrew to Dundas West 7.2 km 33 kph 13 min TOTAL ROUTE 19 km 32 kph 35 min NOTE: Totals may not sum due to rounding The DRTES scope proposes connections with rapid transit could occur at Pape, King, and St. Andrew stations and at new proposed GO Transit stations at Gerrard (Lakeshore East/Stouffville) and at River Street (Richmond Hill). 19 Travel times derived from DRTES distance and travel time information 20 Travel times derived from DRTES distance and travel time information 25

28 Option 2-1 Subway connecting Pape Station to St. Andrew Station (DRTES Option 1) Option 1 of the DRTES, this subway line is approximately 6.2 km, with stations every metres. The approximate route is underground south from Pape Station to Queen Street, west on Queen Street to King Street, then West on King Street to St. Andrew Station. Connections with rapid transit are proposed at Pape, King, and St. Andrew Stations for the subway, and at new proposed GO stations at Gerrard (Lakeshore East /Stouffville), and at River Street (Richmond Hill). The estimated travel time from end to end of the subway line is 12 minutes. Option 2-2 Subway connecting Pape Station to Dundas West Station (DRTES Option 2a) Option 2a of the DRTES, this subway line is approximately 13.3 km, with stations every metres. The approximate route is underground south from Pape station to Queen Street, west on Queen Street to King Street, west on King Street curving up to Queen Street at roughly Dufferin, west on Queen Street to Roncesvalles, and north on Roncesvalles to Dundas West Station. Connections with rapid transit are proposed at Pape, King, and St. Andrew, and Dundas West stations for the subway, and at new proposed GO stations at Gerrard (Lakeshore East/Stouffville), and at River Street (Richmond Hill), Roncesvalles (Lakeshore West), and Dufferin (Milton/Kitchener/Barrie). The estimated travel time from end to end of the subway line is 25 minutes. 26

29 Option 2-3 Subway connecting Eglinton/Don Mills to St. Andrew Station Option 2b of the DRTES, this subway line is approximately 11.9 km, with stations every metres. The approximate route is underground south from Eglinton and Don Mills to Pape, south on Pape to Queen Street, west on Queen Street to King Street, and west on King Street to St. Andrew Station. Connections with rapid transit are proposed at Don Mills/Eglinton for the Eglinton LRT, Pape, King, and St. Andrew stations for the subway, at new proposed GO stations at Gerrard (Lakeshore East/Stouffville), and at River Street (Richmond Hill). The estimated travel time from end to end of the subway line is 22 minutes. Option 2-4 Subway connecting Eglinton/Don Mills to Dundas West Station Option 3 of the DRTES, this subway line is approximately 19 km, with stations every metres. The approximate route is underground south from Eglinton and Don Mills to Pape station, then south to Queen Street, west on Queen Street to King Street, west on King Street curving up to Queen Street at roughly Dufferin, west on Queen Street to Roncesvalles, and north on Roncesvalles to Dundas West Station. Connections with rapid transit are proposed at Don Mills/Eglinton for the Eglinton LRT, Pape, King, St. Andrew, and Dundas West stations for the subway, and at new proposed GO stations at Gerrard (Lakeshore/Stouffville), and at River Street (Richmond Hill), Roncesvalles (Lakeshore West), and Dufferin (Milton/Kitchener/Barrie). The estimated travel time from end to end of the subway line is 35 minutes. 27

30 Project Concept 3 Union 2031 Options Metrolinx s Union Station 2031 Opportunities and Demands Study highlighted several rail corridors where new higher frequency urban rail service could be introduced into the downtown via an underground tunnel. This Project Concept requires the construction of new track, stations, and a new downtown tunnel relieving Union Station. The primary purpose of these options is to offload demand from Union Station. The report identified a variety of tunnel options to be considered for further study. Options 4B and 6B were presented for further consideration by the Union 2031 study presentation material, and are carried forward for consideration in this report. The report identified that a variety of tunnel options beyond the presented 4B and 6B options should be considered; important reference for the future network analysis. Option 3-1 Subway connecting Pape to Exhibition GO Station Option 4B of the Union 2031 study, this subway line is approximately 9.4 km, with stations every metres. The approximate route is underground south from Pape station to Queen Street, west on Queen Street to slightly west of University, southwest to Front and Spadina, and then west to Exhibition GO Station. This Option proposes Queen Street as the downtown east-west corridor, which is different than the DRTES proposed options. Both studies indicate that the preferred corridor is not yet determined and that the one identified is for analysis purposes. GO trains on the Barrie and Kitchener lines would terminate at a new GO station at the Bathurst North yard, which would connect to the subway line to allow passengers to continue their trips east. Connections with rapid transit would occur at Pape, King, and St. Andrew stations for the subway, and at new and current GO Stations at River Street (Richmond Hill), Exhibition (Lakeshore West), and Bathurst North (Kitchener/Barrie). The estimated travel time from end to end of the subway line is 18.5 minutes. 28

31 TABLE 3: PROJECT CONCEPT 3-1 TRAVEL TIMES AND SPEEDS 21 Route Section Distance Average Speed Travel Time Pape to King 5.6 km 34 kph 10 min King to St. Andrew 0.6 km 18 kph 2 min St. Andrew to Exhibition 3 km 30 kph 6 min TOTAL ROUTE 9.2 km 31 kph 18 min NOTE: Totals may not sum due to rounding Option 3-2 New Downtown Tunnel for Lakeshore GO Lines with a Second Union Station Option 6B of the Union 2031 study, this option requires a new tunnel to be built under the existing rail corridor. This tunnel would be used by both the Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West GO trains, stopping at a new underground second Union Station at Yonge Street. This option introduces no new corridor, and is specifically focused on Union Station operations. Project Concept 4 Additional Options Project Concept 4 represents any major investment options that had not been fully scoped in either the DRTES or Union 2031 reports. Some potential options for study could include, but are not limited to: Urban Regional Rail utilizing GO corridors and an east-west tunnel running through downtown under any potential east-west route; 21 Speeds taken from similar DRTES routings; travel times calculated from speeds. 29

32 Lakeshore Rapid Transit (as suggested in DRTES) New service making use of the GO Transit-owned Don sub Use of the CP main line through midtown Toronto Improved usage of rail in the Don Valley 30

33 Part C Assessment Evaluation Framework The Relief Line Preliminary BCA presents a three-stage approach for summarizing the assessment of the alternatives in advance of more detailed study to be done in a Network Analysis and subsequent full BCA. First is a criteria-based assessment, which synthesizes the assessment criteria from previous studies to achieve a regional view of the Project Concepts. This assessment tests if the Project Concepts satisfy the project objectives defined in Part A of this report. Second is an Early Performance Summary to indicate whether the performance of the Project Concepts perform at a reasonable level. This Early Performance Summary uses existing and available analysis, using reasonable comparisons in some cases, to achieve a coarse performance assessment. This assessment is intended to be the best possible in the absence of detailed analysis that would be part of a standard Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE), which would include a costbenefit ratio of all alternatives, among other measures. Thirdly, a preview of the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) is presented, with full results expected in a future full BCA. Metrolinx s MAE follows international best practices for project evaluation, covering the project s fiscal impact, transportation user benefits, and incorporating Metrolinx s three pillars: Economic, Environmental, and Social sustainability. Criteria Based Assessment Early Performance Summary Multiple Account Evaluation Preview Criteria are summarized Reference Cases and Project Concepts are tested to meet the primary criteria Comparative evaluation to other transformational regional projects Summary of performance results from DRTES Overview and preview of elements of the full MAE MAE will be populated by inputs from future network study For the Preliminary-BCA, an overview and preview of these accounts is presented. A full quantitative Multiple Account Evaluation will take place in a full BCA, after detailed analysis inputs are available from a network study, which has not yet begun. 31

34 Criteria-Based Assessment Significant work and evaluation is presented in the DRTES and Union 2031 studies. The Relief Line Preliminary BCA takes from this work in both the criteria selected and the assessment given. The DRTES and Union 2031 studies, respectively, identified evaluation criteria appropriate for each individual study purpose. The goal of this report is to synthesize these sources in order to provide an amalgamated view, creating a regional lens for early project concept assessment. Listed below, the criteria have been separated into two categories: Primary: Necessary criteria to be met for the Project Concept to be considered a long-term solution; and Additional: Criteria that should be optimized by the preferred option. The criteria listed below are consistent with those identified with DRTES and Union 2031 and have been combined with the goals identified in Metrolinx s Regional Transportation Plan, The Big Move. These criteria provide the basis for future evaluation methodologies. Appendix A presents a list of the criteria identified in the DRTES and Union 2031 studies. Primary Criteria Improves transportation access to the downtown Core Relieves train capacity demands on Yonge Subway demand south of Bloor Relieves demand at Bloor-Yonge Station Meets or relieves Union Station track capacity constraints Relieves Boardings and Alightings demand at TTC Union Station Additional Criteria* Maximizes integration between GO and TTC networks Promotes new development Improves east-west transit flow in downtown core New transit capacity in downtown shoulder areas Improves accessibility to rapid transit Improves modal share, maximizing ridership Improves flexibility in subway operations Maximizes social benefits Minimizes construction issues Minimizes cost Relieves demand at other YUS stations, South of Bloor Minimizes rapid transit (GO and TTC) capacity deficiencies *Additional Criteria is assessed through MAE framework in future BCA 32

35 Summary of Criteria-Based Assessment Project concepts and options are assessed for each of the evaluation criteria. Project concepts must meet the Primary Criteria in order to meet the Project Objectives and be considered an adequate long-term solution. A summary of the assessment of the primary criteria is shown in Table 4. The scoring relies on the extensive research already completed for these options in previous studies. If insufficient information was available, a checkmark was given in order to advance the option for further study. Assessment specific to each study (DRTES and Union 2031) can be found in Appendix A. TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF PRIMARY CRITERIA 22 Not acceptable in the long term -- No Change to BAU Acceptable in the long term Negative Impact Positive Impact The Criteria-Based assessment (Table 4) shows that all project concepts require further study and anticipates that major investment is needed. Completing the Metrolinx Priority Projects, including the Yonge North Subway extension (Reference Case 2), causes a worsening in the already capacity constrained transit system. Incremental solutions (Project Concept 1) have not been reported to provide adequate capacity relief, suggesting that major investment is needed. Despite not expecting to meet ultimate capacity requirements, it should be noted that Project Concept 1 options may be attractive investments. 22 Summary of results drawing directly from or extrapolated from DRTES and Union Station 2031 analysis 33

36 Passengers $ (millions) Relief Line Preliminary Benefits Case Analysis Further and refined analysis may show they can provide good value on their own, in addition to their potential benefit of delaying the need for significant investment projected to be ultimately required. Three of the Project Concepts (2, 3, and 4) are expected to meet the primary criteria for long-term transit capacity needs. Early Performance Summary This preliminary BCA provides an early performance summary of Project Concept 2 to indicate what kind of results may be seen in future study. This is presented through comparison to other similar projects (Case Study Comparisons) and summary of TTC s DRTES performance results (Performance Statistics). Case Study Comparisons In advance of a full network analysis to refine project options, a comparative assessment of one of the subway options is presented in this section. Option 2-1 (DRTES Option 1) is similar in project scope and size to two local subway projects; Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension, and the proposed Yonge North subway expansion. Figure 13 shows that the TTC DRTES Option 1 is predicted to achieve higher performance in terms of peak period, peak direction ridership than the Spadina Subway extension, but not as high as predicted for the Yonge North Extension. Additional study will be required to ensure that all potential ridership has been properly captured with a high level of confidence. For example, the location of stations can have a significant impact on ridership, but this is not yet finalized for the Relief Line Option 2-1 (DRTES Subway Option 1). FIGURE 13: 2031 RIDERSHIP AND COSTS OF OPTION 2-1 AND OTHER SUBWAY PROJECTS Downtown Relief Line Option 2-1 Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension Yonge North Extension 0 Peak Period Peak Direction Ridership Cost 34

37 Available Capacity $ (millions) Relief Line Preliminary Benefits Case Analysis Figure 14 shows the effectiveness of the DRTES Subway option 2-1 in relieving the vehicle capacity on the Yonge Subway line south of Bloor. This figure also shows that the DRTES subway option provides more than adequate capacity for the additional demand incurred by the Yonge North Subway extension. FIGURE 14: CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS ON YONGE OF OPTION 2-1 AND OTHER SUBWAY PROJECTS Downtown Relief Line Option 2-1 Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension Yonge North Extension Capacity Improvement on Yonge in Peak Period SB Cost Performance Statistics This section contains a comparison of options as presented in the TTC DRTES and Union 2031 studies. Table 5 presents available data on: Cost; Peak Hour Total Boardings; Peak Hour Peak Point Ridership; Peak Hour Boardings per Kilometre; Increase in Rapid Transit Ridership; Reduction of Yonge Subway Demand; and Reduction of Passengers through GO Union Station. 35

38 TABLE 5: PERFORMANCE STATISTICS FOR OPTIONS PRESENTED IN DRTES AND UNION 2031 Option 2-1 (DRTES Op. 1) Option 2-2 (DRTES Op. 2a) Option 2-3 (DRTES Op. 2b) Option 2-4 (DRTES Op. 3) Option 3-1 (Union B) Option 3-2 (Union B) Lakeshore Rapid Transit East Only Lakeshore Rapid Transit East and West Cost $3B $5.9B $5.3B $8.2B TBD TBD $5.3B $8.0B Peak Hour Total Boardings Peak Hour Peak Point Ridership Peak Hour Boardings per Kilometre 23 Increase in Rapid Transit Ridership Reduction of Yonge Subway Demand Reduction of passengers through GO Union Station 24,400 44,600 26,800 49,500 TBD TBD TBD TBD 11,700 13,600 12,900 14,900 TBD TBD 13,900 14,600 3,935 3,353 2,252 2,605 TBD TBD TBD TBD 5% 12% 5% 12% TBD TBD 3% 5% 4,700 (12%) 4,800 (13%) 5,400 (14%) 6,300 (17%) TBD TBD 7% 7% 7% 18% 7% 18% 52,000 59,000 12% 18% These results are compared to the existing subway network in the figures below to capture the relative magnitude of the preliminary results. 23 Calculated by dividing TTC reported ridership by TTC reported route distance 36

39 Peak Hour Total Boardings Relief Line Preliminary Benefits Case Analysis FIGURE 15: RECENT NETWORK PEAK HOUR BOARDINGS VS. PROJECTED 2031 DRTES RL PEAK HOUR BOARDINGS Option 2-1: Pape St. Andrew (DRTES Op.1) Option 2-3: Eglinton/Don Mills St. Andrew (DRTES Op. 2a) Option 2-2: Pape Dundas West (DRTES Op. 2b) Option 2-4: Eglinton/Don Mills Dundas West (DRTES Op. 3) Figure 15 shows that subway Options 2-2 and 2-4 in 2031 are projected to have as many boardings in the peak hour as the entire Bloor-Danforth subway does today. Options 2-1 and 2-3 are projected to have roughly half as many boardings. FIGURE 16: INCREASE IN RAPID TRANSIT RIDERSHIP FOR OPTION 2-2 (PAPE-DUNDAS WEST) 37

40 Option 2-2 forecasts an increase of 16,100 passengers using rapid transit at the peak point of the system. Figure 16 shows the comparable amount of buses required to move as many people, with a slower trip. FIGURE 17: EFFECT OF PROJECT CONCEPT 2 ON YONGE CAPACITY All Options identified in Project Concept 2 are forecasted to cause a reduction of demand on the Yonge line equivalent to roughly 5 trains per hour, allowing an additional 4,700-6, new riders during peak hour. Multiple Account Evaluation Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) is consistent with previous Metrolinx BCAs and international best practices of project evaluation. The MAE is a framework that provides a systematic identification and analysis of broader implications and criteria of an option. It systematically compares the impacts on costs, users, environment, economy and community and shows the trade-offs among the often conflicting criteria. A preview of the full MAE is presented in this report. Full MAE results will be provided in a complete BCA to be completed following network analysis. The MAE framework includes a number of evaluation accounts that together address the most significant project performance and policy considerations for a specific project. 24 From Options 1, 2a, 2b, and 3 in TTC DRTES 38

41 The accounts considered are: Transportation User Benefits; Financial Impacts; Environmental Impacts; Economic Impacts; and Socio-Community Impacts. The assessment is done by comparing each option to the Reference case and identifying the magnitude of incremental costs or benefits that are generated by each Project Concept. A full MAE evaluation will be completed in a future phase of the project. TABLE 6: MULTIPLE ACCOUNT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Project Concept 1 Project Concept 2 Project Concept 3 Project Concept 4 Transportation User Benefits TBD TBD TBD TBD Financial Account TBD TBD TBD TBD Environmental Benefits TBD TBD TBD TBD Economic Impacts TBD TBD TBD TBD Socio-Community Impacts TBD TBD TBD TBD Preview of Future BCA Quantitative Analysis Preliminary modelling was undertaken on Option 2-2 to determine travel time benefits for transit. It is important to note that these numbers are not just preliminary, but that modelling does not yet account for important features such as existing network reconfiguration, preferred alignment or preferred station locations. A future BCA will undergo comprehensive modelling to determine more accurate transportation user benefits. Travel Time Savings Travel time savings are included for both transit and non-transit users. With the improvement of transit services in the scoped corridor, the analysis shows that the investment will generate time savings for existing transit users (subway, downtown bus, and streetcar riders), and new transit users. The expected time savings on transit are estimated to be several million hours in Figure 18 shows preliminary results on the location of transit travel time savings for Option 2-2. According to previous modelling results for other projects, auto time savings can represent approximately 50-80% of total transit time savings. 39

42 FIGURE 18: TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME BENEFITS BY LOCATION FOR OPTION 2-2 Auto Cost Savings and Accident Reduction Automobile operating costs savings are derived from a reduction in auto kilometres as a result of the transit investment. Analysis would show that there would be a reduction in vehicle kilometres. The reduction in accidents follows from the fewer kilometres driven. According to previous modelling results for other projects, these benefits are around 15% of auto cost savings. Preview of Future BCA Additional Benefits to be Calculated International best-practices for Project Evaluation continue to evolve and improve. The purpose of the evaluation is to appropriately capture the life-cycle impacts (both costs and benefits) of a project. In particular, this work helps avoid double-counting by identifying which benefits are additive and should therefore contribute to the benefit cost ratio. There are three items that contribute to benefits in Metrolinx s traditional benefit-cost ratio in the BCA, namely: Travel Time Savings monetized time savings seen by both transit users and auto users 40

43 Auto Operating Cost Savings vehicle ownership and operation savings from less auto use Safety Savings savings due to fewer traffic collisions as a result of decreased auto use Recent best practices indicate that an additional three elements not included in the above list, which may have significant implications for the Relief Line are as follows: Reliability Benefits benefits from the decrease in variability of travel time Wider Economic Benefits benefits to the economy of providing greater connectivity and ease of access to employment areas Crowding Benefits benefits from a perceived higher level of comfort and service Major urban centres in the UK and Australia have incorporated these factors into their project evaluation framework. Some projects have shown that these benefits can be near in value to the transportation user benefits of a project. Metrolinx in recent work has quantified reliability and wider economic benefits. Due to the nature and location of the Relief Line, the future BCA work will include all three of these value-add features. Reliability Benefits As well as travel time and other quantified savings, transit users will also benefit from other factors, such as a higher quality service, better reliability and greater convenience, as a result of implementing rapid transit. FIGURE 19: SUMMARY OF BENEFITS FROM UK'S HIGH SPEED RAIL 2 41

44 Reliability is an important attribute of a mode which transit passengers value. Travellers wish to arrive at their destination at their planned time and perceive early or late arrivals as a disbenefit. Those concerned about arriving late to their destination will begin their journey earlier if they believe that their journey time has a significant amount of travel time variability. Variability of journey times is usually not captured in transportation models, including the GGH model. However, these benefits can account for a considerable portion of overall user benefits, in particular for the Relief Line where the reference case operations have low reliability due to being over capacity. An example of the magnitude of reliability benefits is captured in Figure 19 which summarizes the range of benefits UK High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) is estimated to achieve. While HS2 is not a comparable project to the Relief Line, it is an example of how additional benefits can make a major impact on project evaluation. Crowding Relief Benefits Benefits of relieving capacity constraints are not only seen in travel time savings from additional capacity and reduced delays for boarding and alighting vehicles, but there are significant perceived benefits of travelling in a less-crowded vehicle. These are called crowding relief benefits. Crowding relief benefits are applied in situations where the reference case (or business as usual) has public transit vehicles that are over capacity. This issue is core to the Relief Line and is a major motivation for advancing the project. The crowding relief benefits that will be calculated in the full BCA will account for the increase in the quality of trip offered, and be added to the travel time and reliability savings captured elsewhere. The [crowding impact] value differs according to the type of passenger and the level of crowding with the value for standing passengers significantly higher than for those with seats. For example, each leisure passenger on a train with more than 70% of seats taken has a crowding penalty attributed to them in our model. This is small (equivalent to an additional 3% on top of the monetized value of a minute of journey time). As the crowding levels rise the penalty increases, until when 100% of seats are taken, the penalty used rises to the equivalent of an additional 16% on top of journey time for passengers with a seat. For a passenger standing when 100% of seats are taken, the crowding penalty value is much higher, at over three times the value placed on journey time. The penalty continues to increase as the level of crowding increases and passengers have increasingly less personal space. - Economic Case for HS2 (p.29) For reference, crowding benefits were included in the assessment of UK High Speed Rail 2 (HSR2) 25. Crowding benefits represent 15% of the total benefits estimated for the project (Figure 19). An excerpt describing how crowding is valued (i.e. how it translates into monetized benefits) is included adjacent. 25 Economic Case for HS2: The Y Network and London West Midlands. UK Department for Transport, February

45 Wider Economic Benefits Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) capture net economic welfare benefits arising from market failures in the non-transportation economy. These benefits can be considered fully additional to those gains included in Metrolinx s full Benefit Case Analysis. Three main WEBs are typically considered in this analysis: Agglomeration Benefits Productivity gains arising from increasing the effective density of economic activity in urban areas; Labour Supply Benefits The tax take on additional economic activity arising from more workers joining the labour market; Imperfect Competition Benefits Benefits from increased output where there are price cost margins. Preview of Future BCA Complete view of Costs and Benefits A complete BCA will use the results of a full network study in order to provide a greater degree of accuracy on costs and benefits, including both operating and capital costs. In particular, costs associated with a maintenance facility, and new vehicle requirements would receive a more thorough study on the capital side. Because of the potentially large investment associated with this project, there also exists potential for significant savings on the operating of existing TTC bus and streetcar routes, as service reductions or elimination of parallel routes may make sense, as would reorganization of other routes to potentially make them shorter. Savings from the reorganization of routes may be significant. Travel time savings could also result for autos from the reduction of streetcar services in the corridor. Reducing the number of streetcars, which limit opportunities for surface vehicles, creates the potential to speed up traffic. Further work is required to determine the cost implications of these factors and will contribute to the overall assessment of Relief Line options. 43

46 Part D Conclusions The City Toronto is the largest municipality in Canada with a population of nearly 2.7 million and is at the heart of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Region. Regional population growth and recent downtown development unmatched anywhere in North America or Europe are contributing to transit ridership increases. Transit access to downtown Toronto is currently over capacity on a number of routes, with significant issues arising on the Yonge Subway line. Similarly, many GO Transit routes are over capacity and track availability at Union Station is nearing capacity. This demand will only increase with the expected growth in the Region and planned transit network expansion (including the Yonge North Subway extension). Capacity constraints in downtown Toronto will limit our ability to expand the GTHA rapid transit system, risking the successful delivery of Metrolinx s Priority Projects. Significant investments are currently underway that will address these capacity issues. The projects will provide additional capacity in the interim, but will not address long-term capacity issues. Capacity relief projects include: Automatic Train Control (TTC Subway Improvements) New TTC Vehicles Metrolinx Union Station Improvements TTC Union Station Improvements Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension Many studies have been completed to better understand the downtown Toronto transit capacity issue and potential solutions. Recently, the completion of the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan and the Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study has identified a number of options to address capacity constraint issues. There is considerable overlap in the multi-billion dollar options identified in these studies despite addressing different problems. The Relief Line project options identified in both reports cover a large geographic area and a range of technologies. With so large a scope, the Relief Line will have substantial regional implications on the location of future population growth and the evolving shape of the transportation network. As the GTHA s Regional Transportation Authority, Metrolinx has the responsibility to undertake a comparative analysis, applying a broader lens to a highly complex opportunity. There are many options to consider, some of which are appropriate for interim (short term) solutions and some will be needed as long term solutions. A criteria-based assessment summarizing analysis from studies done by the TTC and Metrolinx indicate a major transport capacity solution in downtown 44

47 Toronto is likely required before As a result, this preliminary BCA presents evidence that supports advancing the Relief Line project from The Big Move s 25-year plan to the 15-year plan. However, although incremental solutions do not meet the ultimate need, they can provide excellent interim solutions to the issue. These solutions are relatively low in cost and have the potential to facilitate the preliminary stages of the Yonge North Subway extension. Over the long term, these solutions are likely not adequate, but the benefits from making these investments will be worthwhile even after more major infrastructure is introduced. Long-term solutions include both traditional subway and regional rail alternatives. The TTC has proposed a number of options for the traditional subway solution and is advancing them through further, more detailed, analysis. The TTC has also recommended that Metrolinx assess regional rail alternatives that will help alleviate future downtown transit capacity constraints. Similarly, Metrolinx studies on Union Station capacity anticipate significant investment (likely tunnel) is needed in the long term. The summary of broad concept options presented in this report should be considered as a basis for refined options to be developed and evaluated through further regional-level planning work (network analysis). A collaborative approach should be advanced between Metrolinx, the City of Toronto and York Region that will identify preferred options to be fully considered by a complete BCA. BCA results will then be inputted to the Metrolinx Prioritization Framework for investment consideration, pending an Investment Strategy. 45

48 Appendix A List of Previous Study Goals and Evaluation Criteria A.1 DRTES Study Goals On page 30, the study identifies the main objectives that are needed to address the needs and challenges identified in the problem statement. The needs and challenges in the problem statement can be found on page iii and are listed as follows: The Yonge Subway will be approaching capacity despite investments in Toronto Rocket Cars and Automatic Train Control signalling systems; Some GO lines will have insufficient capacity despite improvements currently planned by Metrolinx; Bloor-Yonge Station has limited capacity for passenger transfers and large transfer volumens are contributing to increased train dwell times on at the station platforms; Passenger flows at TTC Union Station and other downtown subway stations may near or exceed station capacities in the future during peak periods; Deteriorating quality of surface transit services, particularly in the shoulder areas adjacent to the downtown; Attaining higher self-containment in the downtown core where a greater proportion of jobs in the downtown area are filled by downtown residents is a problem that must be considered by the study for its impact on properly estimating long-distance commute trip projects; A.2 Union Station 2031 Study Goals The Union Station 2031 study lists four main objectives to be accomplished by the report. They can be found on page 2 of the report and are listed verbatim below: Refine existing long term estimates of future passenger demand at Union Station, including documentation of the origins and destinations of rapid transit users travelling to and from downtown Toronto via Union Station; Identify potential strategies to reduce future Union Station passenger demand by intercepting and/or off-loading projected Union Station demands at secondary transit terminals and to other elements of the regional and local transit network within the vicinity of Union Station; Assess the extent to which forecasted [sic] Union Station passenger demand created by planned regional rapid transit network expansion and the introduction of Express Rail might be reduced by implementing the identified off-loading strategies, and identify the high level next steps that may [sic] be required to confirm these conclusions; and Collaborate with parallel Metrolinx studies, such as the Union Station & Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) Track Capacity study and the GO Electrification study, and the TTC on their 46

49 ongoing Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES) in addressing Union Station and related rapid transit capacity issues. A.3 DRTES Evaluation Criteria The Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study identified a number of evaluation criteria, as follows: 26 Requirements: Relieves Yonge demand south of Bloor Relieves demand at Bloor-Yonge Station Relieves demand at other YUS Stations south of Bloor Minimizes rapid transit (GO and subway) capacity deficiencies Minimizes local transit capacity deficiencies Minimizes congestion at TTC Union Station Minimizes congestion at GO Union Station. Additional Benefits: Improves total transit capacity in shoulder areas outside the downtown core Increases rapid transit (GO and subway) modal share and transit ridership Increases accessibility to rapid transit (larger catchment area, ease of access) Supports Waterfront development Opportunity for intensification / revitalization of shoulder areas and corridors Discourages inbound SOV automobile travel Supports the eventual construction of the Relief Line. 26 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan, page 45 47

50 FIGURE 20: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION TABLE FROM DRTES 27 A.4 Union Station 2031 Evaluation Criteria The Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study presents the evaluation criteria used on page 97 of the report, namely: Ability to Off-Load Union Station Passenger Demands, Ability to Serve the GO Rail Market/ PD 1 Employment, Ability to Integrate New TTC Subway Services Providing System Flexibility and Redundancy, Consistency with GO 2020 Plan, Ease of Interagency Coordination and Approvals, Ability to Promote New Development, Magnitude of Construction Issues, Affordability of Capital Costs, Risk / Sphere of Influence Control, and Ability to maintain Reasonable Passenger Flows on the Subway. 27 Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study: Phase 1 Strategic Plan, page 87 48

51 FIGURE 21: OPTIONS EVALUATION TABLE FROM UNION 2031 STUDY Union Station 2031: Opportunities and Demands Study, p

52 Appendix B Additional Considerations B.1 Network Considerations Future network analysis of the Relief Line will consider the connection with important existing transit infrastructure serving the Greater Toronto area. These include, but are not limited to, direct connections with GO Train and Subway stations, TTC streetcar and bus stops, as well as major bicycle and pedestrian hubs. Several highways and major streets 29 also provide access into the downtown. Those with segments that see traffic volumes of 2000 or more vehicles in one or both directions during the peak AM period include: Bloor Street East; Jarvis Street; Lakeshore Boulevard; Richmond Street West; Spadina Avenue; The Don Valley Parkway; The Gardiner Expressway; University Avenue; Wellington Street; York Street. The Relief Line has the potential to facilitate the development of previously identified Mobility Hubs. Mobility Hubs in the Relief Line study area are: Union Station; Queen-Yonge; Osgoode Station-University; Bloor-Pape; Dundas West-Bloor; Yonge-Bloor; St. George-Bloor; Yonge-Eglinton; and Don Mills-Eglinton. 29 Road infrastructure with significant volumes 50

53 In addition, the project concept and specific alignment ultimately selected may suggest the designation of new Mobility Hub areas. FIGURE 22: MOBILITY HUBS IN THE RELIEF AREA 30 B.2 Potential Station Locations Station locations used throughout this preliminary BCA are being used for the purpose of mapping and analysis, and no final decisions have been made as to the specific stations that would be constructed. When stations are chosen, there must be a delicate balance of ensuring the line has a high speed by minimizing stations that would not have a high ridership, while ensuring local demand is properly served. If streetcars are to be eliminated on King, Queen, or both, then tighter stop spacing would be required in order to replace the role of those vehicles. These contradictory goals show the challenge in determining placement, which will be resolved in future study and evaluation. B.3 Other Low-Cost Policy Alternatives DRTES identified several low-cost policy alternatives that in this report have been grouped in this Preliminary BCA under Project Concept 1: Incremental Improvements. While these alternatives may not provide sufficient capacity relief to the downtown core in themselves, they are worthwhile 30 The Big Move 51