Yonge Relief Network Study: Technical Summary Final July Metrolinx

Transcription

1 Yonge Relief Network Study: Technical Summary Final July 2015 Metrolinx

2 Prepared by: Prepared for: Yonge Relief Network Study: Technical Summary Steer Davies Gleave Bay St Toronto, ON, M5H 2S8 Canada Metrolinx 97 Front Street West, Toronto, ON M5J 1E6 Final July (647) na.steerdaviesgleave.com Metrolinx Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for Metrolinx. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made.

3 Contents Executive Summary... i 1 Introduction... 1 Background Present and Future Crowding: setting a vision for Line 1 Relief... 3 A Vision for Congestion Relief... 3 Existing Conditions... 4 Future Conditions Potential Solutions to Line 1 Crowding... 8 Framing the Problem... 8 Three Stage Development and Evaluation Process Short Term/Low Cost Options: Development and Evaluation Short Term/Low Cost Options Evaluation: Short Term/Low Cost Options Medium Term/Medium Cost Options: Development and Evaluation Overview Medium Term Middle Cost Evaluation Longer Term Solutions to Line 1 Crowding: Option Development Background Option Development Process Option 1: Regional Express Rail Plus Option 2: Surface LRT Relief Line Subway Option Modelling Longer Term Higher Cost Evaluation: making the case for long term investment in Line 1 Relief Business Case Analysis Strategic Case Economic Case Economic Development Impacts Financial Case Deliverability and Operations Case Business Case Summary July 2015

4 8 Conclusions Crowding Relief and Network Development The Case for Relief Option Development Findings Figure 6.4: Option 3 - Short Subway Figure 6.5: Option 4 - Long Subway Figure 6.6: Option 5 - Surface Subway Figure 6.7: Option 6 - U Subway Acknowledgements Tables Figures Figure 2.1: YRNS Problem Statement and Vision. 4 Figure 2.2: Base Case Specification... 5 Figure 2.3: YRNS Base Case Demand on the Yonge Segment of Line Figure 3.1: Yonge Relief Interventions... 9 Figure 3.2: YRNS Three Stage Evaluation Process Figure 3.3: Project Typology Figure 6.1: Option Development and Refinement Process Figure 6.2: Option 1 - RER Plus Figure 6.3: Option 2 - Surface LRT Table 3.1: Yonge Relief Interventions Table 4.1: Short Term Low Cost Options Table 5.1: Medium Term Medium Cost Option Assessment Table 6.1: Longer Term Higher Cost Scoping - initial option ideas Table 6.2: Option 1- RER Plus Scoping Table 6.3: Option 2 - Surface LRT Table 6.4: Surface LRT Alignment Design and Modelling Assumptions Table 6.5: Option 3 - Short Subway Scoping Table 6.6: Option 4 - Long Subway Scoping Table 6.7: Option 5 - Surface Subway Scoping.. 29 July 2015

5 Table 6.8: Surface Subway Alignment Design and Modelling Assumptions Table 6.9: Option 6 - U Subway Option Scoping 31 Table 6.10: Runtime Comparison Table 6.11: Rapid Transit Peak Hour Demand Option Impacts Table 7.1: Strategic Case Summary Table 7.2: Economic Case Transport Impacts Option Performance Table 7.3: Economic Case Financial Impact Option Performance Table 7.4: Economic Case Environmental Impact Option Performance Table 7.5: Economic Case Economic Impacts Option Performance Table 7.6: Economic Case Community Impact Option Performance Table 7.7: Financial Case Analysis Table 7.8: Constructability Assessment Table 7.9: Acceptability Assessment Table 7.10: Business Case Summary July 2015

6 Executive Summary The Need for Relief on Line 1 The City of Toronto and the broader Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) are experiencing a rapid pace of growth, with continued development and intensification in the region s core. This growth has put increased pressure on existing rapid transit infrastructure, which will lead to increased crowding and diminished passenger experience. Line 1 of TTC s subway network will see increased crowding over the next twenty years, which will impact the line s resilience and ability to provide a high quality service. Line 1 is a critical link for travellers from Toronto and the broader GTHA, which makes line 1 crowding a serious issue to be addressed. Due to this challenge, Metrolinx conducted the Yonge Relief Network Study (YRNS) in order understand the crowding Line 1 will experience and develop options that can address it. Planned and funded projects, such as Regional Express Rail (RER) and ATO/ATC on Line 1 will significantly reduce crowding on the subway and help accommodate new growth until However, as growth continues past 2031, a new transit project that can relieve demand on Line 1 will be required in order to create a resilient and effective transit network that can continue to support GTHA growth and development Development and Evaluation of Relief Options The YRNS reviewed short, medium, and long term options, which were developed from a long list of over 150 potential project concepts, to determine the potential to relieve crowding while augmenting regional travel opportunities. Short and medium term options were evaluated and it was determined that no individual option could address long term crowding, however a combination of options may delay the need for investment in a long term option. A set of options, including upgrades to GO Rail and surface transit operations, were identified and recommended for inclusion in existing programs and agency studies for development. Long term options, including a surface LRT, four subway configurations, and improvements to RER were developed and evaluated. These options were evaluated using the Metrolinx four case business case analysis framework. Performance varied among the long term options. This analysis concluded that RER already abstracts significant demand from Line 1 and further upgrades will offer little Line 1 relief benefits. The LRT option, despite being lower cost, was deemed to not offer significant crowding reduction potential. It was determined a new subway option, which may be tunnelled or use surface running alignments/legacy infrastructure, would be the most effective solution for long term Line 1 crowding. Next Steps Moving forward, the YRNS determined that further development work should be conducted to create a subway option based on the four configurations evaluated in this study (short, long, surface, and U). This option should be optimized for reducing line 1 crowding and providing regional travel options in a cost effective manner and synthesize broader YRNS findings with concurrent City of Toronto relief line development analysis. During option development, effort should be made to assess how changes in population/employment growth rates, crowding at Bloor-Yonge Station, and regional fare integration will impact the timeline for necessary delivery of a relief line project. July 2015 i

7 1 Introduction Background 1.1 The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) is rapidly growing. High levels of population and employment growth in the region are expected to continue, which will put increased demands on the transport network. 1.2 The Yonge segment of Line 1 is a critical link in the GTHA s transportation network for accessing the downtown core. Each day, south of Bloor-Yonge station, it carries nearly 50,000 passengers during the AM peak period. This has led to significant crowding issues. 1.3 By 2031, several upgrades will improve Line 1 s capacity, while new transit investments, such as Regional Express Rail, will decrease demand. However, despite these improvements, it is expected that Line 1 demand will approach the system s theoretical capacity past This will reduce system efficiency and impact passenger experience, while also limiting the ability for Line 1 to continue to serve the downtown core. 1.4 Because the Yonge segment of Line 1 plays a critical role in regional transport, its effective operation is essential for an effective, resilient, and accessible transport system. 1.5 In response, both the City of Toronto and Metrolinx initiated work programs related to Line 1 crowding, which build upon the conclusions of the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES). The City of Toronto has launched the Downtown Relief Project Assessment, which aims to identify potential corridors and stations for a relief line. 1.6 Metrolinx conducted the Yonge Relief Network Study (YRNS), to understand the scale of the problem and identify potential solutions that can reduce crowding on the Line 1 while augmenting the GTHA s transportation network. Steer Davies Gleave was commissioned by Metrolinx to conduct the YRNS a comprehensive planning study that aims to: Identify the scale of the problem and quantify if and when some form of intervention is required in the light of existing planned investments in the Regional transport network. Following this, if required, identify a transit capacity improvement program that provides network benefits, reduces crowding on the subway in the Downtown and optimizes the value of the investment. July

8 Solutions should focus on opportunities that can transform the way people travel to and from downtown and provide needed congestion relief to Line 1 by creating new local and regional travel opportunities and improve mobility across the GTHA. For this study, no level of fare integration has been assumed. July

9 2 Present and Future Crowding: setting a vision for Line 1 Relief A Vision for Congestion Relief 2.1 Existing and future conditions for transit usage and urban development, particularly on Line 1, were assessed to develop a problem statement, vision, and goals for the YRNS. This process considered: Line 1 Crowding: an assessment of current Line 1 crowding issues and their causes, as well as how demand will change into the future and where new crowding issues originate Current Transit Network: a review of the existing transit network and where passengers access Line 1 Future Transit Network and Land Use: a estimation of how future changes to land use and development of the transit network will impact crowding on Line ` 2.2 This review, detailed in subsequent sub sections, developed the foundational knowledge that informed the development of an overarching problem statement, Vision, and set of goals, which are set out in Figure 2.1. The problem statement defines the critical issue to be addressed by the YRNS, while the vision provides a clear statement of what changes the study s outputs should facilitate. Project goals detail components of the vision. July

10 Figure 2.1: YRNS Problem Statement and Vision Problem Statement The GTHA is experiencing unprecedented growth but is increasingly constrained by a limited transportation network. Many people use transit to access downtown Toronto and other employment areas; however, supply has not kept up with demand. In particular, Line 1 serves both local and regional trips, and even with committed improvements, is projected to be over-crowded in the future Vision Transforming the way people travel to and from downtown and providing needed congestion relief to Line 1 by creating new local and regional travel opportunities and improving mobility across the GTHA. Goals Transportation: The project improves service quality, increase transit choice and ridership, increase network flexibility and meet local and regional transit travel needs for existing and new passengers through measures such as new infrastructure, operations or policy direction Financial:The project is fundable and provides value for money in the short and long term Environment:The project enhances and protects the natural environment and contributes to minimizing the impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Economic Development:The project encourages regional economic development, improves access to downtown, major employment generators, employment, leisure and local businesses by sustainable modes Community:The project helps foster an equitable society by contributing to the creation of inclusive, accessible, livable and connected communities Deliverability: The project is feasible to build and operate, does not place undue pressure on other parts of the transportation network, and is financially sustainable Existing Conditions 2.3 Currently Line 1 experiences crowding south of Bloor-Yonge station due to heavy demand originating north of downtown that directly uses Line 1, as well as eastern Toronto demand that transfers to Line 1 from Line 2 at Bloor-Yonge station. The current Line 1 hourly capacity is 28,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphd). 2.4 The am peak point demand on Line 1, south of Bloor-Yonge Station, is over 31,000 pphpd, which exceeds the available capacity on the line. As Line 1 is a critical link connecting northern and eastern Toronto to the downtown core, there are numerous negative impacts of crowding, including: Reduced resilience a significant number of trips are reliant on one service, which is impacted by crowding. Additionally, crowded stations can impair safety and operational efficiency and flexibility. User experience a crowded service decreases the quality of user experience Limited ability to accommodate growth regional and local plans call for increased employment and population, which will rely on an efficient, effective and resilient transportation network. July

11 2.5 Current crowding originates from two generalized types of trips: Northern Toronto Trips: trips accessing Line 1 north of Bloor-Yonge station either by transfers (buses, Line 4) or direct access. These trips originate in neighborhoods north of Bloor Street. Eastern Toronto Trips: trips accessing Line 2 and then transferring to Line 1 at Bloor- Yonge Station. These trips originate east of Yonge Street along the Bloor-Danforth/Line 2 corridor and put increased pressure on Bloor- Yonge station. 2.6 Planned upgrades to Line 1, including ATO/ATC systems and larger trains will allow for a higher frequency and provide more capacity. However, due to ongoing development and growth in the region, additional relief to Line 1 may be required into the future. Future Conditions 2.7 Future conditions were assessed to develop a future base case that sets out changes to infrastructure, transit service, and land use (population and employment) in order to understand how travel demand will change. 2.8 The future base case for the YNRNS was set to 2031 and includes a number of committed and planned improvements and expansions to the region s transportation network, as well as population and employment growth. The 2031 base case for the YRNS, which will be used to define the scale of future year subway crowding and against which all options will be tested and compared to understand their benefits, is outlined in Figure 2.2. Land Use Changes City of Toronto land use assumptions were used for future year population and employment assumptions Population growth: 30% growth to 3.20 million (present: 2.45 million) Employment growth: 24% growth to 1.66 million (present: 1.34 million) Density is expected to increase throughout downtown Toronto Funded and Commited Transport Projects Toronto - York Spadina Subway Extension to Vaughan Eglinton Crosstown, Finch West and Sheppard East LRT Scarborough RT replacement with Bloor Danforth Extension Mississauga BRT York Region VIVA Next Rapidways Union Pearson Express Union Station upgrades Road network east expansion New and longer streetcars TTC automatic train operation (ATO/ATC) with all rocket trains Figure 2.2: Base Case Specification Regional Express Rail Regional Express Rail base assumptions from September 2014 were used to develop the base case. 15 minute two way all day service Peak period service on eastern Toronto corridors: Stouffville: 21 Richmond Hill: 8 Full implementation by model year (2031) July

12 2.9 The base case was modelled to understand demand, and the extent of crowding, on Line 1 in Figure 2.3: YRNS Base Case Demand on the Yonge Segment of Line 1 As noted in Figure 2.3, the modelling illustrated that: Regional development and growth will lead to 6,600 more passengers on Line 1 at the peak point in the peak hour. RER and other funded projects are expected to abstract 5,500 of the 6,600 new passengers in the peak hour While this relief leaves Line 1 ridership at about the same level as today, at approximately 90% capacity, future projects (including Line 1 extension north to Richmond Hill) may add an additional 2,400 passengers. This will increase demand to 96% capacity Capacity: 28, Capacity: 36,000 July

13 2.11 The analysis suggests that while Line 1 is not theoretically overcapacity in 2031, post 2031 relief will be required to accommodate future growth. Two considerations emerge: Short/middle term relief: upgrades over the next 10 years, including Regional Express Rail, ATO/ATC upgrades, and the Toronto Yonge Spadina Subway Extension will aid in the relief of crowding. Long term relief: in order for Line 1 to accommodate future growth and remain an efficient and resilient transit option some form of large scale infrastructure improvement(s) will be required beyond The YRNS therefore focussed on exploring potential ways to augment short/medium term programs and projects while also identifying the long range projects that can provide higher degrees of crowding relief. July

14 3 Potential Solutions to Line 1 Crowding Framing the Problem 3.1 The vision of the YRNS calls for a program of transit investment that will reduce crowding on Line 1, while improving regional travel opportunities. 3.2 In order to identify, develop, and refine potential options to match this vision, three strategic interventions were identified. These outline three ways to alleviate crowding on Line 1 based on capacity improvements and shifting demand. 3.3 Intervention 1 Reduce Northern Line 1 Ridership: interventions that abstract trips from Line 1 that originate north of Bloor Yonge Station by providing new journey opportunities with competitive travel times and routing directly to the downtown core. 3.4 Intervention 2 Reduce Line 2 Transfers to Line 1: interventions that abstract trips from Line 2 that originate east of Bloor Yonge Station by providing new journey opportunities with competitive travel times and routing directly to the downtown core. 3.5 Intervention 3 Improve Capacity on Line 1: interventions that improve capacity on Line 1 above and beyond improvements in the base case. 3.6 These relief interventions are described in Figure 3.1. Intervention 1 and 2 are framed around the development of competitive services that provide a clear alternative to Line 1 for trips in northern and eastern Toronto. Given the strategic nature of the study, travel time was selected as the key measurement of competitiveness for the YRNS. 3.7 The requirements for each relief interventions and their accompanying strategies are scoped against existing travel conditions in Table 3.1. Existing conditions for interventions 1 and 2 use travel to St. Andrew, which was assumed to be the furthest station that would be accessed using Line 1, as a comparator. 3.8 Intervention 1 travel times use a corridor from Don Mills as an eastern boundary for travel time comparisons for north to south travel. Additionally, this boundary provides an intersection with other rapid transit options which feed into Line 1. Bloor Yonge station is used as a comparative point for intervention 2 as it is the interchange point for all passengers travelling on Line 2 to access the Yonge segment of Line 1. July

15 Figure 3.1: Yonge Relief Interventions July

16 Table 3.1: Yonge Relief Interventions Intervention Existing Conditions Relief Intervention Strategy 1 Reduce Northern Line 1 Ridership 2 Reduce Line 2 transfers to Line 1 Travel Time from Don Mills to St. Andrew via Line 4 Line 1: 34 minutes Travel Time from Eglinton/Leslie to Union via Crosstown (Line 5) and Line 1: 24.3 minutes Travel Time from Bloor Yonge to St. Andrew via Line 1: 7.7 minutes Provide a competitive travel time from key interchange points using a new rapid transit line. Assumed Regional Express Rail base case will attract riders through this intervention. Provide a competitive travel time from Bloor Yonge to St Andrew plus access time from Line 2. Assumed Regional Express Rail base case will attract riders through this intervention. Three Stage Development and Evaluation Process Process Overview 3.9 A three stage option development and evaluation process was created using the YRNS vision and Metrolinx business case analysis guidelines This process, as outlined in Figure 3.2 provided a standardized evaluation process to assess the comparative merits of options, while also allowing the refinement of options as the evaluation progressed. 3 - Improve Capacity on Line 1 Capacity in 2030: 36,000 pphpd 1 Improvements to Line 1 capacity through operations and infrastructure upgrades. Base case assumes improved trains (rockets) and ATO/ATC. Initial evaluation ruled out the use of this intervention type to achieve study goals because ATO/ATC/new trains will raise Line 1 capacity to its theoretical maximum. 1 Based on current estimate provided by the TTC July

17 Figure 3.2: YRNS Three Stage Evaluation Process Stage 1: Long List Development and Screening Public Consultation 3.11 In April 2014, three public consultation events were held within the City of Toronto and York Region. The City of Toronto meetings were hosted jointly with the TTC For the Yonge Relief Network Study element of the consultation, the public were able to browse a set of display boards outlining the purpose of the project, network improvements currently under way and proposals for different solutions that may be considered as part of the study All participants heard an overview presentation delivered by Metrolinx staff, which was followed by facilitated group discussions that were used to generate a variety of potential solutions to crowding on the Yonge subway. These ideas were collated into a long list document which subsequently was used to develop the option scenarios that were taken through to full evaluation. Option Development 3.14 As a first phase of option development, a long list of potential options was generated from a number of sources, including: Public consultation Past studies by cities and agencies Unfunded projects outlined in the regional transportation plan 3.15 Initially, this process identified over 150 potential projects that appeared aligned with the problem statement/vision In order to adequately review each option s potential, they were sorted into three categories outlined in Figure Options under each category were further sub categorized based on the intervention(s) they utilized as well as option features, including: Geography Time scale of development Likely cost July

18 Figure 3.3: Project Typology Policy Options: Options that aim to change government or agency policy to shift demand from the YRNS. These options included: TDM programming, new trip planning tools, fare integration policies, and changes to planning processes for land use and the transport network. Operations Options Options that change operating patterns of existing transit to develop new travel patterns and shift demand off Line 1. These options included: new GO operating patterns, new TTC surface network operating patterns/services, and new subway operating patterns. Infrastructure Options Options that develop and expand the transport network by either improving existing infrastructure or developing new infrastructure. These options included: new segregation for surface transit, new GO Stations, GO network expansion, new rapid transit lines, and improved stations Stage 1 Evaluation 3.18 The stage one evaluation screened out low performance ideas that were not deemed to be in line with the project s vision and goals. Each option was assessed against the strategic case for the YRNS based on a vision screen as well as a high level assessment against the six project goals At this stage, options were defined at a conceptual level, so the analysis was based on likely performance based on similar projects implemented in other jurisdictions. Additionally, options that were seen as infeasible due to physical/geographic constraints, deliverability challenges that are unlikely to be mitigated, or a financial requirement that is considered unreasonable were screened out This process also grouped options that were seen as duplicates. Removing low performance ideas, infeasible ideas, and duplicate ideas reduced the list from over 150 options to options. All intervention 3 options were removed in this stage as further upgrades to Line capacity beyond ATO/ATC and rocket trains were deemed undeliverable. Stage 2: Option Sorting 3.21 Stage two comprised a strategic review of the remaining ideas in order to: Group ideas based on geographic scale, intended outcomes, and type of service Sub divide groups based on cost/time scale Sort subdivided groups into projects sets within investment options Refine subgroups to ensure they achieved one or more relief interventions 1.7 By sorting and amalgamating ideas based on these factors, three overall categories, each representing a different time/cost horizon and composed of multiple options/potential projects, were developed as the output of the stage 2 evaluation: Shorter Term, Lower Cost Options: this group contains all options that may be implemented in a five year window without incurring significant costs. These options are mainly policy and operation modifications. Medium Term, Medium Cost Options: this group includes a range of infrastructure investments that could be implemented in the next 10 years and would be additional to all the best-performing elements of the short term lower cost options. July

19 High Cost, Long Term Options: this group includes large projects that may offer the greatest transportation benefits, but are likely to incur high costs and require greater than 10 years to implement Stage 3: Option Refinement and Business Case Evaluation Stage 3 Option Development and Evaluation 3.23 Following Stage 2, each option was developed and defined in more detail to allow for a higher level of detail in the evaluation. The remainder of this report summarizes the option analysis and development process Stage three completed a high level evaluation of short and medium term options, outlined in section 4 and 5, and a complete business case evaluation of long term options, outlined in section 6. July

20 4 Short Term/Low Cost Options: Development and Evaluation Short Term/Low Cost Options 4.1 Stage two of the evaluation bundled ideas that could be relatively easily implemented within the next five years at a low cost into one category. These options are a mixture of operational and policy measures that have been developed to improve existing transport system performance to support a reduction of crowding on the Line Many of these ideas represent basic transportation planning interventions and they could be implemented regardless of any larger scale infrastructure investment. Although it is unlikely that they will address all problems under consideration in the YRNS, they do represent important shorter term interim improvements to existing conditions for passengers. In addition, these ideas will support higher order option groups. 4.3 Eight options across three categories passed the stage 1 and 2 evaluation process based on their potential for reducing Line 1 crowding. These options are: Development of potential GO Service Modifications Increased frequency in the peak (beyond that planned in years 0-5 of the RER network) New stopping patterns (at existing stations) Longer service hours to help make GO an attractive off-peak travel choice Development of potential Surface Network Modifications Bus network reorganization to bring more buses Downtown and provide better connections with GO stations- all designed to improve passenger travel choices and convenience. Revised and increased routes for express bus services Policy New Fare Policies Line 1 specific Travel Demand Management (TDM) July

21 Evaluation: Short Term/Low Cost Options 4.4 An evaluation of all short term/low cost options was conducted to determine if and how each option should be progressed, either within the YRNS or in other ongoing studies or programs. 4.5 The final set of recommended short term options are set out in Table 4.1 along with a suggestion of how they should be advanced. Table 4.1: Short Term Low Cost Options Option Description Evaluation Recommendation Increased Frequency New GO Stopping Patterns Longer Service Hours Review Feeder Buses Develop Express Buses East York and Clairlea Integration Fare Parity GO/TTC/YRT Co-Fare Peak Premium TDM Plan GO Rail Service Improvements Implement a set of infrastructure and service improvements to provide higher frequency service on GO Rail lines that compete with the Line 1. Stop the Stouffville Line at Danforth and Scarborough stations to improve frequencies and reliability for urban travellers. Increase GO service through the day and provide 2 way service. Surface Network Improvements Reallocate current feeder buses to provide direct service to downtown. Provide direct express services from select neighbourhoods to downtown. Connect TTC surface routes to GO Rail stations to improve access from Clairlea and East York Policy Options Set GO and TTC fares to the same level within Toronto. Allow GO/YRT travellers to use a co-fare to access TTC. Increase peak hour subway fare or decrease nonpeak hour fares. Develop a multi-agency TDM plan to reduce Yonge Crowding. Metrolinx should consider GO Rail frequencies and their potential to reduce crowding as part of RER development. This options is achievable with current fleet and would offer benefits. Should be considered by GO Rail in detail. This option is included in RER. Lines with high potential to shift demand from the Line 1 may be prioritized. Potential benefit to select neighbourhoods should be included in TTC Operational Review Potential benefit to select neighbourhoods should be included in TTC Operational Review Potential benefit to select neighbourhoods should be included in TTC Operational Review To be considered in Fare Integration Study To be considered in Fare Integration Study To be considered in Fare Integration Study To be considered by Metrolinx, City of Toronto, and York Region. July

22 5 Medium Term/Medium Cost Options: Development and Evaluation Overview 5.1 A range of infrastructure investments that could be implemented in the next 10 years at a moderate cost passed the stage 1 and 2 evaluation process. These options were considered as additional network improvements to be implemented in conjunction with the bestperforming short term/low cost options. 5.2 While none of these options will offer a great reduction to Line 1 crowding, together they may have an incremental benefit. In combination, these medium term options could help further optimize the transportation network as well as help reduce subway crowding in advance of long term or higher cost options. 5.3 The focus of this assessment is on defining the ideas, identifying the impact they may have on trip diversion, and undertaking an assessment of their deliverability. 5.4 Two themes emerged while bundling middle term/medium cost options: GO Network Improvements and Surface Network improvements. GO Network Improvements 5.5 A set of improvements to be considered as lead in elements and components of Regional Express Rail. These are intended to increase accessibility to GO services and provide new service plans that for some travellers maybe attractive alternatives to Line 1, thereby shifting demand. Two key types were identified: Development and Implementation of New GO Stations: identifying locations for new stations that could be used as key attractors for trips that currently use the Line 1. Implementation of a GO Shuttle Service: implementing a shuttle type GO Rail service to compete with the Line 1. Surface Network Improvements 5.6 A set of improvements intended to expand service and improve service reliability and travel speed in order to provide competitive travel alternatives to Line 1. Three potential improvements were identified Dedicated Bus Lanes on Highways and Downtown Routes: a number of options suggested the use of highways and direct downtown routes for dedicated express bus services. These options aim to offer a competitive alternative to the Line 1 for trips from North East Toronto to downtown. Traffic Operations Changes: these options outline changes that could enable more July

23 effective transit through signal priority or queue jump lanes. Improved TTC/GO Integration: these options seek to expand integration from short term/low cost options to provide full integration as GO peak services increase Medium Term Middle Cost Evaluation 5.7 All options were developed and assessed, through high level analysis, based on their expected potential to reduce crowding on the Line 1, while building on short term/low cost options. The results of this assessment are detailed in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Medium Term Medium Cost Option Assessment Option Description Evaluation Recommendation Development of New Stations Implementation of a Shuttle Service Bus Lanes on Major Highways/Downtown Bus Routes GO Network Improvements The identification of new stations that can provide improved journey opportunities for current and future Line 1 riders. Providing a direct service to Union Station from Broadview, Oriole, or Kennedy. Surface Network Improvements Provide bus lanes on bus routes to downtown and highways to improve the competiveness of buses. Include the prioritized stations within the RER development process, with special consideration of the higher priority stations. Include Kennedy and Oriole shuttles as consideration for potential phases of the RER network during RER planning. Selected routes offer limited benefit and low deliverability to be included in broader operational reviews as a potential project. Traffic Signal Priority/Queue Jump Lanes Provide queue jump lanes and signal priority to improve the performance street car and bus routes that offer service to downtown. TTC is reviewing operations/identifying pinch points in network. Include selected routes as recommendations for consideration. TTC/GO Integration As RER is implemented, select Toronto stations should offer integrated services to create competitive journey opportunities to the Line 1. Select routes and stations should be considered during the TTC Operations Review, RER plan development, and GO rail service improvements included in RER. July

24 6 Longer Term Solutions to Line 1 Crowding: Option Development Background 6.1 All stage 2 evaluation ideas that incur significant capital costs and would also require a long time frame to be fully implemented were grouped together for further analysis and refinement. As a number of these ideas had significant overlap, they were grouped together based on the component of the transportation system they sought to augment(e.g. GO Rail, new rapid transit). 6.2 This led to longer term and higher cost options that represent conceptual approaches to relieving congestion based on different corridors and technology types. The ideas contained in these options are intended to represent a base potential project and do not represent a specific project that would be implemented. Rather, they allow for a detailed relief performance comparison between a number of unique tools to relieve congestion. 6.3 These options are 2 : Option 1 - Regional Express Rail (RER) Plus: this option includes ideas that expand upon 2 YRNS Scenario 3 Report A Option Planning and Development provides further detail on the option development process and design assumptions the base RER network to provide improved journey opportunities through new services and stations Option 2 - Surface LRT: this option includes a new surface transit option from Don Mills to Union station along with a number of enhancements to the surface transit network. Option 3-6:Relief Subway: this option utilizes a new subway line that runs parallel to Line 1 and provides access to downtown via Pape Station based on proposals in past relief line studies. Four potential subways were evaluated: Option 3 -Short Subway: a subway from Pape to St. Andrew station that serves eastern downtown Toronto Option 4 - Long Subway: a subway that connects Don Mills Station on Line 4 to St. Andrew station, providing a new service to eastern Toronto Option 5 - Surface Subway: this option connects Don Mills Station to St. Andrew Station using a surface alignment and legacy infrastructure Option 6 - U Subway: a subway connecting Dundas West and Pape stations via the downtown core through St. Andrew and King stations. July

25 6.4 Each option initially contained a set of interventions to operations, policy, and infrastructure that were analyzed in order to determine the highest impact potential interventions to be included in each option. Each intervention was optimized and refined to improve the option s relief potential. Each option s design process has been outlined in the following chapters. Table 6.1 highlights the initial ideas that were used to scope each option. Option Development Process Development and Refinement Framework Overview 6.5 Each option calls for a new type of transport service that will require new infrastructure (stations and/or alignment) and operating service. In order to ensure all options were comparable a common process was followed for refining and improving each as shown in Figure 6.1. Table 6.1: Longer Term Higher Cost Scoping - initial option ideas Option RER Plus Surface LRT Relief Line Subway Key Ideas Included New GO Stations Richmond Hill service improvements Stouffville service improvements Street car improvements (upgrade to LRT Style service) New north-south rapid transit connection from Don Mills using surface street network and/or rail corridors Use of legacy infrastructure and rail corridors Downtown relief line (DRTES) - short, long, and u-shape subways connecting Bloor Danforth to Subway to downtown Underground/grade separated subway proposals Rapid north/south service using full grade segregation Use of legacy infrastructure and rail corridors Developing improved integration between rapid transit modes July

26 Figure 6.1: Option Development and Refinement Process Step 1: Identify Key Access Areas Purpose: identify key areas the option should serve to maximize access to employment and population centres, while also serving existing Line 1 riders with a new option Process: Determine the population, employment, and Line 1 ridership of planning areas across Toronto. Prioritize planning areas to be served by the new option Step 2: Identify and Scope Alignment and Right of Way Purpose: determine a feasible corridor that serves the highest priority areas while also connecting to the downtown core. Process: Review potential corridors/alignments that connect the highest potential areas together Design alignment based on typology of right of ways and option assumptions (e.g. option assumes subway alignment) Step 3: Identify and Scope Stations Purpose: determine station locations that are aligned with study goals and are connected to access areas via feasible right of ways. Process: Review access areas and feasible right of ways to identify locations that are feasible and aligned with surrounding land uses. Plan stations based on type (e.g. underground, at grade, elevated) and purpose (e.g. local service, transit hub, interchange, commuter service) to maximize transit and land use integration Step 4: Detailed Option Scoping Purpose: develop a high level design of the option including cost, operating, and demand modeling Process: Refine alignment based on ROW and stations location Develop operating plan using runtime models Estimate capital costs and operating costs based on infrastructure assumptions (e.g. ROW type, fleet) and operating assumptions (e.g. headway, service type) July

27 Option 1: Regional Express Rail Plus 6.6 Regional Express Rail (RER) Plus aims to achieve both strategic interventions 1 and 2 through enhancements to the RER network proposals. This includes improved service frequency on both Stouffville and Richmond Hill lines, as well as three new stations. 6.7 Base Case modelling demonstrated that RER would remove 4,200 trips from Line 1 during the peak hour in RER plus has been developed with an aim to exceed this performance and remove more trips from Line 1 to reduce crowding while enhancing regional journey opportunities. 6.8 This option seeks to determine: If improvements to the RER proposals provide additional Line 1 crowding relief The extent to which RER improvements can meet study goals 6.9 Figure 6.2 and Table 6.2 detail the option s alignments, stations, and scoping considerations. Figure 6.2: Option 1 - RER Plus July

28 Table 6.2: Option 1- RER Plus Scoping Factor Relief Intervention Stations Headway/Frequency Comments Intervention 1: relieves Line1 crowding by improved service on Richmond Hill (removes northern Line 1 passengers) Intervention 2: relieves Line 1 crowding through improvements Stouffville (removes Line 2 trips that would transfer to Line 1) Both are achieved by providing improved service frequency and intermediate stops to allow more journey opportunities for travellers. Three new stations: Queen Street Station, Cherry Street Station, and Thornhill Station Stouffville: 24 services/peak period (21 in base case) Richmond Hill: 14 services/peak period (8 in base case) Vehicle Capacity/Configuration RER Base Fleet Alignment Length Stouffville: Lincolnville to Union Richmond Hill: Bloomington to Union Source: July

29 Option 2: Surface LRT 6.10 The surface LRT option aims to use both strategic interventions 1 and 2 to relieve crowding on the subway, while providing new travel opportunities to north eastern Toronto. This option includes a new rapid transit line connecting Don Mills Station on Line 4, Broadview Station on Line 2, and Union Station on Line 1 and the GO network In order to maintain competitive travel times, the LRT has a reduced number of stations. Interchanges with Lines 1,2, 4, and the Eglinton Crosstown are included to provide increased journey opportunities Table 6.3 and Figure 6.3 provide an overview of the option The LRT Option uses multiple right of way types along its alignment, including current and disused rail corridors, on street segregated and mixed traffic, structures, and tunnels. An outline of the assumptions used to model and test the alignment is provided in Figure 6.3: Option 2 - Surface LRT July

30 Table 6.3: Option 2 - Surface LRT Factor Comments Intervention 1: This option relieves Line 1 crowding by providing travellers from North Toronto a reduced stopping high frequency service to downtown Toronto. Relief Intervention Intervention 2: travellers using Line 2 to access Line 1 may also use this option by transferring at Broadview station Rail Corridor: 6.2 km On Street - Mixed Traffic: 4.3 km On Street - Segregated: 2.4 km Alignment Length Structures: 3.0 km Tunnel: 1.3 km Total: 17.2 km Stations 7 Headway/Frequency Vehicle Capacity/Configuration Fleet Maximum Speed Acceleration Dwell Time Average Speed Travel Time: Comparative Travel Time on Existing Transit: Peak: 3:00 (mm:ss) / 20 Trains Per Hour 450 passengers per train 2x40m LRV Operating: 15 trains / Required: 17 trains 80 km/h (where achievable) Acceleration profile based on maximum speed of 80 km/h and typical LRVs 00:20 (mm:ss) 38km/h (including dwell) Don Mills to Union (intervention 1): 20:30 (mm:ss) Broadview to Union(intervention 2): 9:24 (mm:ss) Cycle Time: 43:30 (mm:ss) Don Mills to Union via Sheppard/Line 1: 27:20 (mm:ss) Broadview to Union via Bloor Danforth/Line 1: 15:90 (mm:ss) July

31 Table 6.4: Surface LRT Alignment Design and Modelling Assumptions Segment Don Mills Road Station to York Mills Road Station York Mills Station to Eglinton/Leslie Station Eglinton/Leslie Station to Broadview Station Broadview Station to Corktown Commons Station Corktown Commons Station to Union Station Description The northern terminus of the route would be at Line 4 Don Mills station. An integrated station complex is proposed. From Sheppard Avenue south to Kern Road, Don Mills Road is predominantly a six lane road with a narrow central median and additional turn lanes on the approaches to intersections. Over this section a central segregated LRT alignment can be provided, with the roadways narrowed to two through lanes in each direction. This configuration would tunnel under intersections to allow for higher travel speeds. The option would turn west in the vicinity of Kern Road and join the Leaside Spur Line. At this point, the Richmond Hill line is at grade, so the LRT would use an elevated structure to pass over roads and rail while minimizing impact on the business area. The Leaside spur would converted to an active LRT alignment, which may impact the Leaside Spur Trail Structures would be provided at Lawrence Avenue East and at the south end of the spur, the LRT route would cross the CPR Belleville Subdivision tracks on a structure Structures are used to cross over Eglinton. An elevated station at Eglinton/Leslie is proposed to allow for seamless transition over Eglinton and integration with the crosstown LRT. Structures are used to rejoin the rail corridor. The route follows the south side of the Belleville Subdivision to the Don Subdivision near Bayview Avenue. On some parts of this section the existing CPR rail formation is wide enough to accommodate the LRT tracks with a reasonable track separation from the heavy rail lines; in other sections land outside the rail corridor will be required. The Don Subdivision route comprises a single rail track from the point where it diverges from the Belleville Subdivision tracks to the point where it joins the CN Bala Subdivision tracks north of Gerrard Street. However parts of this corridor are wide enough to accommodate two LRT tracks. The bridges at Bayview Avenue and True Davidson Drive are able to accommodate a double track LRT Route. Before the subdivision s second Bayview Avenue crossing, the option utilizes structures to pass over Bayview Avenue and the Don Valley Parkway before tunneling under Broadview Avenue to connect to Broadview Station. The route follows tunnels south of Broadview Station before exiting onto a structure to pass over the Don River and run along the existing rail corridor between Bayview Avenue and the Don River. This corridor is followed before diverging onto a shared running section on Bayview Ave into Corktown Commons Station. This alignment is on street in mixed operations and passes through thee Parliament and Distillery District Stations. On street operations limits train length. The route would be shared running from Bayview Avenue to Trinity Street. The short length of Front Street between Trinity Street and Eastern Avenue would be closed to traffic. The alignment would continue to Union Station on the south side of Front Street, with a narrower roadway provided on the north side. Signals would limit the speed of the LRT to mixed traffic operational speeds of 30km/h. The LRT terminus is located on the south side of Front Street East outside Union Station, providing good connectivity to the Subway, GO Rail/Bus services and other rail services at Union Station July

32 Relief Line Subway 6.14 There are a number of different potential configurations of a relief line subway informed by the previous option development work conducted in the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (DRTES). This set of options was developed to assess the extent to which a fully tunnelled option could provide relief to Line 1 while enhancing regional travel. Option 3: Short Subway 6.15 A subway connecting Pape Station on Line 2 to St. Andrew Station on Line 1. This is the base relief line and it is intended to use intervention 2 to relieve crowding on Line 1, while also creating new journey opportunities in eastern and downtown Toronto. The alignment travels south of Pape Station and along King St to provide service to the downtown core. Option 4: Long Subway 6.16 A subway connecting Don Mills station on Line 4 to Pape Station on Line 2 and St. Andrew Station on Line 1. This relief line is an extension of the short subway option that is able to use both intervention 1 and intervention 2 to relieve crowding on Line 1. This option is developed to provide much greater journey opportunities than the short subway option, but has significantly higher cost. It interchanges with lines 1, 2, and 4, as well as the Eglinton Crosstown. The alignment largely follows Don Mills Road north of Pape Station until Don Mills Station on the Sheppard line. Option 5: Surface Subway 6.17 The surface subway is designed as a higher speed express style service with limited stops between Don Mills and the downtown core. It was developed to test the performance of a long subway that maximizes the use of surface alignments and legacy infrastructure for cost effectiveness This option is designed to focus transit stations in high potential areas and provide integration between all rapid transit in eastern Toronto and the downtown core. The basic concept uses multiple right of way types along its alignment, including rail corridors, on street segregated, structures, and tunnels, as outlined in Table 6.8. Option 6: U Subway 6.19 A subway connecting Dundas West and Pape stations on Line 2 via a U shaped alignment through the downtown core, passing through St. Andrew and King stations on Line 1. This option is a westward expansion of the short subway option that provides greater journey opportunities through the downtown core and in western and eastern Toronto. Scoping Subway Options 6.20 The development of these four options seeks to determine: The extent to which subway options of different lengths and configurations relieve crowding on Line 1 and meet study goals The comparative performance improvements of developing a longer subway option including increased relief to Line 1 and regional benefits 6.21 While this study did not include an option that combines the long subway/surface subway and the U Subway options, such a project may be considered for a timeframe outside of the scope of this study in future option analysis and development High level plans have been developed for each option to aid in the evaluation of subway concepts against the goals of this study. Design assumptions are detailed in Table 6.5 to Table 6.9 and Figure 6.4 to Figure 6.7 provide an overview of potential subway alignments. July

33 Figure 6.4: Option 3 - Short Subway Table 6.5: Option 3 - Short Subway Scoping Design Factor Short Subway Intervention 2: This option relieves Line 1 crowding by providing an alternative route for Relief Intervention travellers on Bloor Danforth who currently transfer to Line 1 at Bloor Yonge Station Alignment Length Tunnel: 5.6 km Stations 7 Peak: 3:30 (mm:ss) / Trains Headway/Frequency Per Hour Vehicle Capacity/Configuration Fleet Speed Travel Time: Comparative Travel Time on Existing Transit: Train Capacity: 1,100 passengers per train Train setup: 6 car subway train Operating: 6 trains Required: 8 trains Max: 100 km/h Average: 38km/h (including dwell) Pape to St. Andrew (intervention 2): 8:48 (mm:ss) Cycle Time: 46:24 (mm:ss) Pape to St. Andrew via Line 2/Line 1(intervention 2): 17:54(mm:ss) July

34 Figure 6.5: Option 4 - Long Subway Table 6.6: Option 4 - Long Subway Scoping Design Factor Short Subway Intervention 1: This option also provides an alternative to riders who access Line 1 from east of Yonge Street Relief Intervention Intervention 2:This option relieves Line 1 crowding by providing an alternative route for travellers on Line 2 who currently transfer to Line 1 at Bloor Yonge Station Alignment Length Tunnel: 16.5km Stations 14 Peak: 3:30 (mm:ss) / Trains Headway/Frequency Per Hour Vehicle 1,400 passengers per train 8 car subway train Capacity/Configuration Operating: 14 trains Fleet Required: 16 trains Max: 100 km/h Speed Average: 45m/h (including dwell) Don Mills to St. Andrew (intervention 1): 22:12 (mm:ss) Travel Time: Pape to St. Andrew (intervention 2): 8:48 (mm:ss) Cycle Time: 46:24 (mm:ss) Don Mills to St. Andrew via Line Comparative Travel 4/Line 1 (intervention 1): 34:00 Time on Existing (mm:ss) Transit: Pape to St. Andrew via Line 2/Line 1 (intervention 2): 17:54(mm:ss) July

35 Figure 6.6: Option 5 - Surface Subway Table 6.7: Option 5 - Surface Subway Scoping Design Factor Short Subway Intervention 1: Passengers who access Line 1 from the east in northeastern Toronto Relief Intervention Intervention 2: Passengers who access Line 1 from Line 2 may use this option at Broadview for rapid access Rail Corridor: 7.6 km On Street Segregated: 2.36 km Alignment Length Structures: 2.94 km Tunnel: 4.06 km Total: km Stations 7 Peak: 3:00 (mm:ss) / 20 Trains Per Headway/Frequency Hour Vehicle 1,225 passengers per train 7 car subway train Capacity/Configuration Operating: 15 trains Fleet Required: 17 trains 100 km/h Speed Average: 54 km/h (including dwell) Don Mills to St. Andrew: 18:42 (mm:ss) Travel Time: Broadview to St. Andrew: 5:54 (mm:ss) Cycle Time: 39:24 (mm:ss) Don Mills to Union via Comparative Travel Sheppard/Line 1: 27:20 (mm:ss) Time on Existing Broadview to Union via Bloor Transit: Danforth/Line 1: 15:90 (mm:ss) July

36 Table 6.8: Surface Subway Alignment Design and Modelling Assumptions Segment Don Mills Road Station to York Mills Road Station York Mills Station to Eglinton/Leslie Station Eglinton/Leslie Station to Broadview Station Broadview Station to St. Andrew Station Description The northern terminus of the route would be at Line 4 Don Mills station. An integrated station complex is proposed. From Sheppard Avenue south to Kern Road, Don Mills Road is predominantly a six lane road with a narrow central median and additional turn lanes on the approaches to intersections. Over this section a central segregated rail alignment can be provided, with the roadways narrowed to two through lanes in each direction. This configuration would tunnel under intersections to allow for higher travel speeds. The option would turn west in the vicinity of Kern Road and join the Leaside Spur Line. At this point, the Richmond Hill line is at grade, so the Express Subway would use an elevated structure to pass over roads and rail while minimizing impact on the business area. The Leaside spur would converted to an active surface rail alignment, which may impact the Leaside Spur Trail Structures would be provided at Lawrence Avenue East and at the south end of the spur, the Express Subway route would cross the CPR Belleville Subdivision tracks on a structure Structures are used to cross Eglinton at Leslie. An elevated station is provided to tie into the Leslie station on Eglinton Crosstown. The alignment continues on structures to cross Eglinton and rejoin the rail corridor. The route followed the south side of the Belleville Subdivision to the Don Subdivision near Bayview Avenue. On some parts of this section the existing CPR rail formation is wide enough to accommodate the Express Subway tracks with a reasonable track separation from the heavy rail lines; in other sections land outside the rail corridor will be required. The Don Subdivision route comprises a single rail track from the point where it diverges from the Belleville Subdivision tracks to the point where it joins the CN Bala Subdivision tracks north of Gerrard Street. However parts of this corridor are wide enough to accommodate two Express Subway tracks. The bridges at Bayview Avenue and True Davidson Drive look to be wide enough to accommodate a double track surface rail Route. Before the subdivision s second Bayview Avenue crossing, the option utilizes structures to pass over Bayview Avenue and the Don Valley Parkway before tunneling under Broadview Avenue to connect to Broadview Station. The route follows tunnels south of Broadview Station before exiting onto a structure to pass over the Don River and run along a new rail corridor which will impact adjacent parks. This corridor is followed before entering a tunnel under King Street, which is used to access Sherbourne, King, and St. Andrew stations. July

37 Figure 6.7: Option 6 - U Subway Table 6.9: Option 6 - U Subway Option Scoping Design Factor Short Subway Intervention 2: This option relieves Line 1 crowding by Relief Intervention providing an alternative route for travellers on Line 2 who currently transfer to Line 1 Alignment Length Tunnel: 12.61km Stations 13 Peak: 3:30 (mm:ss) / Headway/Frequency Trains Per Hour Vehicle 1,050 passengers per train 6 car subway train Capacity/Configuration Operating: 12 trains Fleet Required: 14 trains Max: 100 km/h Speed Average: 45m/h (including dwell) End to End: 19:00 (mm:ss) Pape to St. Andrew Travel Time: (intervention 2): 8:48 (mm:ss) Cycle Time: 40:00 (mm:ss) Comparative Travel Pape to St. Andrew via Line Time on Existing 2/Line 1(intervention 2): Transit: 17:54(mm:ss) July

38 Option Modelling Operations, and demand modelling were conducted for all six options. Operations modelling set out hours of operation and operating patterns for each option and also utilized runtime models to determine travel times. Demand modelling utilized the Greater Golden Horseshoe Model (GGHM) to model changes in transport demand in 2031 that would occur as a result of implementing the options. riders. Runtime model results are shown in Table Operations Modelling A run time model was developed for all options with the exception of RER Plus, which assumed current travel times. Each option was scoped to provide a competitive travel time based on the two relief interventions that guide option scoping The comparative analysis of run time modelling is used to determine if each option can provide a reasonable travel time saving for existing trips, and therefore be a viable travel alternative to the downtown core for Line 1 3 YRNS Scenario 3 Report B Modelling provides further detail on the option modelling process July

39 Table 6.10: Runtime Comparison Existing and Planned Rapid Transit Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Bloor to Downtown (Intervention 2) Line 2 transfer to Line 1 Broadview to St Pape to St Pape to St Broadview to (Pape to St. Andrew) Andrew Andrew Andrew Union Pape to St Andrew Journey time (mins) Dwell time (mins) Total time (mins) Length (km) Number of stations Ave speed (kph) excluding dwell Ave speed (kph) including dwell Eglinton/Leslie to Downtown (Intervention 1) Crosstown and Line 1 Direct n/a Direct Direct n/a Journey time (mins) Dwell time (mins) Total time (mins) Length (km) Number of stations Ave speed (kph) excluding dwell Ave speed (kph) including dwell Don Mills / Sheppard Ave to Downtown (Intervention 1) Line 4 and Line 1 Direct n/a Direct Direct n/a Journey time (mins) Dwell time (mins) Total time (mins) Length (km) Number of stations Ave speed (kph) excluding dwell Ave speed (kph) including dwell July

40 Demand Modelling 6.25 Demand modelling using the GGHM was conducted for all options. The key indicators were: Option Demand: the demand on the option indicates the extent to which the provided capacity on the option can meet new demand, as well as the viability of the option as a transit alternative Abstraction from Line 1: changes in demand on Line 1 are the primary goal of the YRNS and are used to assess the effectiveness of the options based on relief interventions 1 and 2 Abstraction from Line 2: changes to demand on Line 2 indicate whether or not the option successfully uses relief intervention 2. Abstraction from GO: abstraction from GO rail impacts revenue and also the performance of the GO network Automobile Abstraction: automobile abstraction reflects how well the option serves as a new regional travel option by removing car trips 6.26 Table 6.11 outlines the modelling outputs across these indicators. July

41 Table 6.11: Rapid Transit Peak Hour Demand Option Impacts Demand Change Relief Line Plus Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Northern Toronto Demand Changes (Intervention 1: North of Line 2) Option Ridership (peak point) 13,200 6,800 10,800 19,200 19,300 11,100 Line 1 (Yonge) ,670-5,970-11,620-12,210-5,950 Line 1 (Spadina) ,340-2,630-4,170 GO Barrie GO Richmond Hill GO Stouffville ,490-1, Eastern Toronto Demand Changes (Intervention 2: east of Bloor-Yonge Station) Line 2 (Bloor-Danforth) ,130-6,600-5,890-7,120 GO Lakeshore East Existing TTC Subways/Rapid Transit ,670-12,740-19,560-20,730-17,240 GO -50-1,310-1,190-1,950-2,860-1,490 Total Change Automobile Network 80-1, ,130-1,850-1,480 July

42 7 Longer Term Higher Cost Evaluation: making the case for long term investment in Line 1 Relief Business Case Analysis The business case evaluation uses the four cases from the Metrolinx Business Case development guidelines. These cases are: Strategic Case: assesses the alignment of the intervention with Metrolinx policies and the YRNS vision, goals, and objectives. Economic Case: assesses the impacts of the proposed investment. Covers the costs and benefits of the proposed project to society as a whole. Financial Case: examines lifecycle costs and revenues of the project to provide an assessment of how affordable the project is. Deliverability and Operations Case: assesses the project s commercial viability, procurement and implementation issues and risks associated with project delivery and operations. 4 YRNS Scenario 3 Report C Evaluation and Business Case Development provides further detail on the evaluation process and business cases for each option 7.2. The combined analysis under each of the four cases provides a holistic and comprehensive view on the likely performance, costs, and benefits of each potential project based on regional policy, financial considerations, and expected return on investment in the widest sense. Strategic Case 7.3 The strategic case determines if an option is well aligned with the overall vision and objectives of the project. Under this analysis, each option is assessed to ensure it is able to deliver crowding relief on Line 1, as per the vision statement of the project. The strategic case was assessed based on two considerations: Transit Crowding Relief: an analysis of the option s ability to relieve crowding on Line 1 Transit Network Efficiency: an assessment of the options ability to provide multiple transit options to downtown and increases transportation choice 7.4 The performance of each option is summarized in Table 7.1. All options demonstrated a strategic case with the exception of option 1 RER Plus. July

43 Table 7.1: Strategic Case Summary Option Transit Crowding Relief Transit Network Efficiency Summary Regional Express Rail Plus Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Unable to relieve demand above and beyond the base case RER. Intervention 1: reduces north south movements on Line 1 that originate east of the line. Intervention 2: provides limited relief to Line 1 by abstracting passengers from Line 2. Upgrades Bloor Yonge are likely required. Outcome: Provides lowest relief to Line 1 (reduction of 3,700). Intervention 1: N/A Intervention 2: reduces transfers from Line 2 to Line 1 at Bloor Yonge Station. Outcome: Provides moderate crowding relief (reduction of 6,000) to Line 1. Intervention 1: reduces north south movements on Line 1 that originate east of the line. Intervention 2: reduces transfers from Line 2 to Line 1 at Bloor Yonge Station. Outcome: Providers high levels of crowding relief (reduction of 11,600) to Line 1. Intervention 1: reduces north south movements on Line 1 that originate east of the line. Intervention 2: reduces transfers from Line 2 to Line 1 at Bloor Yonge Station. Outcome: Providers high levels of crowding relief to Line 1 (reduction of 12,000). Intervention 1: N/A Intervention 2: reduces transfers from Line 2 to Line 1 at Bloor Yonge Station. Outcome: Providers moderate crowding relief (reduction of 6,000) to Line 1. No assessment conducted crowding relief not provided. Offers new journey opportunities for passengers using all rapid transit lines through 5 new interchanges. Slower travel speed limits role as regional integrator. Limited change in transit mode split to downtown. Offers new journey opportunities to Line 2 passengers heading south, as well as downtown core residents connecting to the eastern portion of Line 2. Limited change in transit mode split to downtown. Offers new journey opportunities for passengers using all rapid transit lines through 5 new interchanges. Enables quicker downtown to eastern Toronto and north eastern Toronto movements. Limited change in transit mode split to downtown. Offers new journey opportunities for passengers using all rapid transit lines through 5 new interchanges. Enables quicker downtown to eastern Toronto and north eastern Toronto movements. Limited change in transit mode split to downtown. Offers a bypass of Line 2 between Pape and Dundas West that joins with Line 1. Provides new connections for downtown core to east west movements. Limited change in transit mode split to downtown. Strategic case not met. Removed from further consideration. Strategic case met. Option to be considered for full evaluation. Strategic case met. Option to be considered for full business case evaluation. Strategic case met. Option to be considered for full evaluation. Strategic case met. Option to be considered for full evaluation. Strategic case met. Option to be considered for full evaluation. July

44 Economic Case Economic Case Overview 7.5 The Economic Case analyzes the extent to which each option impacts society at large, positively or negatively, as well as how investment in each option generates regional benefits. 7.6 Impacts were sorted based on five categories: Transportation: an assessment of option s impacts on the broader transportation network - including transit users and non-transit users. Financial: an assessment of the option s impacts on regional finances including an assessment of costs and value for money. Environmental: an assessment of option s impacts on the environment including changes in emissions and impact on natural areas. Economic Development: an assessment of option s impacts on regional economic activity including employment accessibility and impact to economic activity due to option development. Community: an assessment of option s impacts on social equity including an assessment of benefits to low income populations. 7.7 Each impact category is composed of a set of area specific criteria that have been selected based on their ability to differentiate options based on their performance. Transportation Impacts 7.8 These reflect how each option will impact the regional transportation network above and beyond the crowding relief assessed in the strategic case. It is assessed based on two considerations: transit user benefits and nontransit user benefits. Transit User Benefits 7.9 The transportation user benefits criteria reflect the journey improvements that passengers will receive upon the implementation of the new transit system. Four indicators were selected: Change in daily transit network ridership Average journey time benefit per project rider Travel time saving benefits Reliability Improvements Non Transit User Benefits 7.10 This criteria assesses the benefits received by non-transit users due to transit system expansion. Due to increased transit ridership, there will be reduced demand on the automobile network, which will lead to lower congestion, lower incurred operating costs and fewer accidents. July

45 Table 7.2: Economic Case Transport Impacts Option Performance Criteria Indicator Units/method Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Transit User Benefits Non-Transit User Benefits Total transit network ridership Average journey time benefit per project rider Travel time saving benefits Change in ridership (daily passengers) 8,250 5,750 16,270 14,250 14,920 Minutes year sum in Million 2015$ $2,617 $4,708 $12,980 $10,532 $9,800 Reliability Qualitative Vehicle operating costs savings Reduction in vehicle accidents Net Benefits 60 year sum in Million 2015$ 60 year sum in Million 2015$ 60 year sum in Million 2015$ $173 $76 $364 $315 $249 $23 $10 $48 $41 $33 $2,813 $4,794 $13,392 $10,888 $10,082 Financial Impacts 7.11 The financial impact category represents how each option will interact with regional transportation finances as described by the YRNS financial goal. It is based on the costs and monetized benefits required to deliver and operate each option over a 60 year window Impacts are assessed with three criteria: capital costs, incremental operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness. The output of the assessment are shown in Table 7.3. All costs were estimated through the use of a cost model using a costing process appropriate for the level of detail in the YRNS. Capital Costs 7.13 Capital costs for each option were assessed in base terms (unadjusted cost of delivering the project) and real terms, which take into account the effects of inflation and discount rates based on an assumed construction timeline. Incremental Operating and Maintenance Costs 7.14 Operating and maintenance costs were assessed over a 60 year evaluation period. Operating costs reflect the cost to operate the July

46 transit service, while maintenance costs are captured by life cycle costs, which represent the cost to replace and repair assets over a 60 year analysis window. Table 7.3: Economic Case Financial Impact Option Performance Criteria Indicator Units Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Cost Effectiveness 7.15 Cost effectiveness considered a variety of factors that represent value for money of investment: Net Costs: summation of additional revenue, life cycle costs, operating costs, and capital costs Net Benefits: summation of monetized transport benefits (user cost savings, collision savings, travel time benefits) Net Present Value: summation of net benefits and net costs Benefit Cost Ratio: ratio of net benefits to net costs Incremental Revenue: 60 year revenue calculation of additional revenue due to new network boardings and reduction in boardings on GO services Revenue Operating Cost Ratio: 60 year revenue change/ 60 year option operation costs Cost per new trip on projects: Net cost/60 year ridership increase Capital Costs Incremental Operation and Maintenance Costs Cost Effectiveness Base Capital Costs Real Capital Costs Annual Operating Costs Life Cycle Costs 60 year Operating Costs (million 2015 $) Net Costs Net Benefits Net Present Value Millions 2015$ Millions 2015$ Millions 2015$ Millions 2015$ Millions 2015$ Millions 2015$ Millions 2015$ Millions 2015$ $3,440 $3,480 $7,820 $4,570 $6,970 $2,433 $2,461 $5,745 $3,310 $5,021 $19 $19 $46 $31 $38 $315 $391 $850 $557 $769 $326 $330 $808 $546 $670 $3,053 $3,158 $7,279 $4,348 $6,357 $2,813 $4,790 $13,392 $10,888 $10,081 -$240 $1,636 $6,113 $6,540 $3,724 Benefit Cost Ratio Incremental Revenue Revenue Operating Cost Ratio Cost per new trip on project Millions 2015$ $22 $24 $125 $65 $ $ $1.25 $0.83 $0.88 $0.64 $0.84 July

47 Environmental Impacts 7.16 The environmental impact category reflects each option s impact on the regional environment, as described by the YRNS environmental goal. The economic case sets out two criteria to assess the option s impact on the environment as well as its alignment with broader environmental policy: emissions reductions and natural habitats. Analysis of each option is shown in Table 7.4. Emission Reductions 7.17 This criteria assesses the total emission reductions in the GTHA due to the implementation of each option. Two classifications of emission were considered: CO 2 Equivalents Criteria Air Contaminants (CO, SO x, NO x ) Natural Habitat Impacts 7.18 Each option was assessed on a scale of low(x) to high (xxx) impact based on their expected impact on natural environments. Table 7.4: Economic Case Environmental Impact Option Performance Criteria Indicator Units Emission Reductions Natural habitats Reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (tonnes) (60 year) Reduction in criteria air contaminants (CAC) emissions (Tonnes) (60 year) Qualitative assessment Tonnes of CO2e (60 year) Tonnes of CO (60 year) Tonnes of NOx (60 year) Tonnes of SOx (60 year) GIS/Qualitative assessment Economic Development Impacts 7.19 The economic development impact category reflects how each option s development will affect the broader regional economy, as outlined in the YRNS economic development goal. This impact area is characterized by two criteria to assess each option s contributions and impacts on the regional economy: economic impacts during construction (which represents short term impacts), and wider economic impacts (which represents longer term impacts). Surface LRT Low(x) to High (xxx) Impact Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway Economic Impacts During Construction and Implementation U Subway 25,700-12, ,00 81,700 62,700 1, ,750 2,375 1, Economic impacts during construction uses a qualitative assessment of each option s proposed infrastructure to identify likely scale of impacts. Each option was assessed on a scale of low(x) to high (xxx). July

48 Wider Economic Impacts 7.21 Wider economic impacts assess the contributions of the option to regional goals to create a vibrant economy. This evaluation considers employment catchment within 60 minutes of downtown Toronto 2031 population catchment within 60 minutes of transit access to downtown Toronto Table 7.5: Economic Case Economic Impacts Option Performance Criteria Indicator Units/method Economic Impacts During Construction Qualitative assessment considering the time to construct and capital cost as well as any potential financial mitigation required from construction impacts employment catchment within 60 minutes of PD1 Qualitative assessment Employment count (2031) Surface LRT Low(x) to High (xxx) Impact Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway 777, , , , ,000 Wider Economic Impacts 2031 population catchment within 60 minutes of transit access to PD1 Population count (2031) 804, , , , ,000 July

49 Community Impacts Analysis 7.22 The community impact category represents the ability of the option to promote social policy and create a more equitable region as outlined in the YRNS community development goal. Given the high level nature of this assessment, one social criteria has been selected for inclusion in the business case and multiple account evaluation. Table 7.6: Economic Case Community Impact Option Performance Criteria Indicator Units Social Inclusion & Equity Catchment analysis for social groups (low income and minority census tract) within 800m Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway People 6,600 11,000 14,000 3,900 4, All options were assessed based on their contributions to social inclusion and equity based on the total low income population that can access the option within an 800m walking catchment around stations. This analysis is outlined in Table Future studies that assess specific alignments may further optimize and evaluate options for a wider range of social equity indicators and community goals. Financial Case 7.25 The financial case is a high level assessment of each option s affordability and cash flow considerations. This case is set out to assess the likely impacts of the option on cash flow for providing new transit service as well as potential financial tools that can be used to fund projects The YRNS is a pre-feasibility study of potential policy, infrastructure, and operating plans that can lead to relief on the Yonge segment of Line 1. As a result, the capacity to deliver detailed financial analysis is limited. The financial case for this study has been set out at a level of detail commensurate with the nature of the study, with a focus on critical issues for each option that will impact their financial case under e, more detailed, analyses. Table 7.7 summarizes the financial case for each option. July

50 Table 7.7: Financial Case Analysis Option Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Financial Case Considerations Comparatively low capital and life cycle costs for low level of relief. Low 60 year operating costs. No additional upgrades or investments possible to improve relief.. Moderate GO revenue impacts due to northeastern Toronto service area. Comparatively high incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. This option cannot deliver moderate/high relief benefits, limiting the impact of investment in the option. Comparatively low capital and life cycle costs for moderate level of relief. Low 60 year operating costs. May be upgraded to a longer subway with additional investment overtime. Lowest GO revenue impacts due to its downtown focus. Comparatively low incremental revenue and operating cost recovery ratio. If moderate relief is required, this option can provide necessary relief benefits at a low level of investment. Highest capital and life cycle costs for high level of relief. If high levels of relief are required then this investment may be required. Highest 60 year operating costs. May be upgraded to include the U Subway with additional investment. Moderate GO revenue impacts due to northeastern Toronto service area. Comparatively high incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. If high levels of relief are required, this option can provide high crowding relief for a high level of investment. Moderate capital and life cycle costs for high level of relief. If high levels of relief are required, this option can deliver them in the most cost effective manner. High 60 year operating costs. Highest GO revenue impacts due to northeastern Toronto service area. Comparatively low incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. If high levels of relief are required, this option can provide high crowding relief for a moderate level of investment. Comparatively high capital and life cycle costs for moderate level of relief. High 60 year operating costs. May be upgraded with a northern extension with additional investment to provide additional relief. Moderate GO revenue impacts due to new services from Dundas West Station. Comparatively high incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. This option does not yield significant relief benefits above option 2, which should be considered in financial analysis of the option. Deliverability and Operations Case 7.27 The Deliverability and Operations case assesses issues that may render any of the options undeliverable and risks that may hinder their construction and ongoing operations Deliverability impacts are included in the Metrolinx Business Case Assessment to determine policy, financial, and physical factors that may impact the deliverability of an option. This analysis sets out to establish if options are feasible to build and operate and do not place undue pressure on other parts of the transportation network All options are assessed based on constructability and acceptability. Constructability is concerned with physical/infrastructure issues that may hinder the deliverability of the option, while acceptability is concerned with stakeholder issues that impact agencies and the broader public of the GTHA Critical issues have been flagged under each category and each option is scored on a seven point scale: (high negative impact) to (high positive impact). July

51 (high negative impact) Table 7.8: Constructability Assessment (high positive impact) Issue Tunnelling alignments will need to be developed with reference to existing infrastructure and built environment, including residential, office, and commercial developments Station integration at St. Andrew, and King will require complex construction to integrate passenger access areas Integration with Pape Station will require significant expansions to manage passenger flow Developing a new tunnel in the vicinity of an active subway poses complex construction issues Structures over rail corridors/active roadways will require complex construction Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway Option uses minimal tunneling Requires connections to line 2 and 4 Option has shorter tunnel length through downtown core Requires connections to line 1 and 2 Option has significant tunnelling through built up areas Larger platforms and higher passenger flow Larger platforms and higher passenger flow Requires connections to line 1, 2, and 4 and Eglinton Crosstown Option has two short tunnels one through the downtown core Larger platforms and higher passenger flow Requires connections to line 1, 2, and 4 and Eglinton Crosstown U Subway Option has significant tunnelling through built up areas Larger platforms and higher passenger flow Requires connections to line 1 and two connections to line 2 Structure/tunnels connecting to Broadview Station will require complex construction Broadview Station will require upgrades to accommodate passenger flows On street transit and transit underpasses will require significant changes to roadways Front street surface running LRT Requires larger tunnels Larger platforms and more passengers July

52 Table 7.9: Acceptability Assessment (high negative impact) (high positive impact) Issue Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Requires changes to existing surface network to ensure adequate feeder The reduced number of Stations are focused in Multiple changes will be The reduced number of stations service stations requires fewer downtown core with only required to ensure requires fewer adjustments to adjustments to surface minor changes required adequate service to all surface network network stations Abstracts ridership from the streetcar and surface network, reducing operational requirements for the surface transit network Surface stations provide direct access for street car riders. North-south stations in eastern downtown provide alternative route North-south stations in eastern downtown provide alternative route Fewer stations along northsouth alignment reduces streetcar abstraction. Multiple changes will be required to ensure adequate service to all stations Provide alternative to streetcar routes. Impacts existing trail network in Leaside Subway alignment expected to more heavily impact trails Revenue Loss to GO Rail 5 Reduced stations impacts community acceptance (desire for stations in more communities) Station location may impact community acceptance (desire to not have stations located in community) Impact to Line 4 ridership Development Potential On street mixed operations impacts public acceptance Slow speed service with minimal development potential High speed service through eastern downtown with multiple stations across a smaller geographic area High speed connection from northeast Toronto to downtown core with multiple stations High speed connection between mobility hubs and downtown core allows for focussed development High speed service through southern Toronto with multiple stations 5 Current GO revenue analysis assumes current fare structure July

53 Business Case Summary 7.32 The business case for each option is summarized in Table Table 7.10: Business Case Summary Option Strategic Case Economic Case RER Plus Surface LRT Short Subway Long Subway Surface Subway U Subway Strategic case not met: 400 peak hour trips drawn from Line 1. Strategic case met low relief (3,700 peak hour trips) on Line 1. Strategic case met moderate relief (6,000 peak hour trips) on Line 1. Strategic case met high relief (11,600 peak hour trips) on Line 1. Strategic case met high relief (12,000 peak hour trips) on Line 1. Strategic case met moderate relief (6,000 peak hour trips) on Line 1. Transport: the option s long length does not yield a large travel time benefit or auto abstraction due to its slow travel time. Financial: negative net present value and BCR<1 due to lower ridership and auto abstraction. Environment: lower energy requirements for LRVs lead to reductions in GHGs, CO, NOx. Economy: limited improvements to regional economic access, limited impacts due to construction. Social Equity: fewer stations over a large area leads to limited social benefits. Transport: moderate travel time savings; downtown location limits auto abstraction Financial: provides a positive net present value and BCR of 1.5. Environment: increases in GHGs and SOx. Economy: moderate improvements to regional economic access, moderate impacts due to construction. Social Equity: larger number of stations over short area leads to moderate access for low-income households. Transport: high travel time savings abstracts a large number of trips from the auto network. Financial: provides a positive net present value and BCR of 1.8. Environment: decrease in GHGs, CO, and NOx, with an increase in SOx. Economy: high performance improvements to regional economic accessibility, moderate impacts to economic activity due to construction. Social Equity: large area served by high number of stations leads to a large number of low-income households being served. Transport: longer length system with quick travel time provides large travel time savings and a large number of auto network abstraction benefits. Financial: provides strongest financial performance with a positive net present value and a BCR of 2.5 due to optimized benefits with a reduced cost alignment. Environment: reduction in GHGs, CO, and NOx with an increase in SOx. Economy: moderate improvements to regional economic access, moderate impacts due to construction. Social Equity: fewer strategically placed stations over a large area serve a moderate number of low-income households. Transport: high travel time savings ;downtown location limits reduction in auto travel. Financial: Provides high speed service throughout downtown that provides a positive net value and BCR of 1.6. Environment: decrease in GHGs, CO, and NOx, with an increase in SOx. Economy: moderate improvements to regional economic accessibility, moderate impacts to economic activity due to construction. Social Equity: high number of stations over a long distance serves the largest number of low income households. July

54 Option Financial Case Deliverability and Operations Case RER Plus Surface LRT This option can deliver moderate/high relief benefits, limiting the impact of investment in the option. Moderate GO revenue impacts due to northeastern Toronto service area. Comparatively high incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. Complex construction required to integrate at Broadview Station Integration with other rapid transit may be a complex process Potential deliverability impacts due to on street downtown alignment Moderate surface network benefits Short Subway Long Subway If moderate relief is required, this option can provide necessary relief benefits at a low level of investment. Lowest GO revenue impacts due to its downtown focus. Comparatively low incremental revenue and operating cost recovery ratio. If high levels of relief are required, this option can provide high crowding relief for a high level of investment. Moderate GO revenue impacts due to northeastern Toronto service area. Comparatively high incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. Complex construction required to integrate at Pape Station Station location requires further analysis Integration with other rapid transit may be a complex process Potential construction impacts in downtown core Low surface network benefits Complex construction required to integrate at Pape Station Station location requires further analysis Integration with other rapid transit may be a complex process Potential construction impacts in downtown core Moderate surface network benefits Surface Subway If high levels of relief are required, this option can provide high crowding relief for a moderate level of investment Highest GO revenue impacts due to northeastern Toronto service area. Comparatively low incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. Complex construction required to integrate at Broadview Station Reduced stations may impact acceptability Integration with other rapid transit may be a complex process Low surface network benefits U Subway This option does not yield significant relief benefits above option 2, which should be considered in financial analysis of the option. Moderate GO revenue impacts due to new services from Dundas West Station. Comparatively high incremental revenue and operating cost recovery. Complex construction required to integrate at Pape Station Station location requires further analysis Integration with other rapid transit may be a complex process Potential construction impacts in downtown core Moderate surface network benefits July

55 8 Conclusions Crowding Relief and Network Development 8.1 The YRNS noted that future levels of crowding on the Yonge segment of Line 1 is dependent on three critical considerations: Rate of population and employment growth along feeder corridors and within the downtown core The extent to which new transit projects abstract or add ridership to Line 1 The impact of RER on Line 1 crowding 8.2 Analysis of the base case indicated that the development of RER provides significant relief to Line 1 prior to Of the anticipated growth in ridership of 6,600 passengers in the peak hour, RER will abstract 4,200. However, by 2031 it is anticipated that ridership on Line 1 will be approaching its theoretical capacity and further transit development will be required. 8.3 The overarching conclusion of the YRNS is that a new rapid transit option will be required post 2031 to abstract growing demand on Line 1 and accommodate future growth. The Case for Relief Option Development 8.4 The business case analysis of all YRNS options highlighted important performance and implementation considerations that guide the selection of preferred options for future study and development. 8.5 This analysis determined that the assumed base case for RER is likely to maximize relief benefits from the GO network, and that a surface LRT option is unlikely to provide a cost effective long term relief option. The remaining options represented different configurations of subway. 1.1 Of these subway configurations, two subway options, which link Don Mills to downtown, offered the highest performance: Long Subway Surface Subway 8.6 Both options provide significant relief to Line 1 via both strategic interventions, including relief to Line 2. As a result, pursuing either option limits pressure on Bloor-Yonge station, which reduces the need for station infrastructure expansion. July

56 8.7 These options are optimized to reduce crowding on Line 1 and yield the greatest benefits of all options. However, the options vary on the type of service they provide, and therefore vary on the costs and requirements for successful delivery. 8.8 The long subway was scoped to provide an urban style service with multiple stations located throughout the city of Toronto. This option uses tunnels to be able to connect to a greater number of communities. The surface subway option proposes a lower cost alternative that can capture a similar demand, but uses existing surface corridors that do not directly serve communities. As a result, this option focussed its service on key demand centres and interchange points. The use of surface alignments offers significant cost savings. 8.9 Both options were developed as a proof of concept, and the evaluation demonstrates that a variety of subway type services could be developed to meet the need for relief, while also developing greater regional journey opportunities. Findings 8.10 Based on a future (post 2031) need for crowding relief on Line 1, the YRNS concludes that continued development and analysis of potential subway options along the northeastern corridor identified in this study should be undertaken. All future projects development and analysis work should synthesize findings from the City of Toronto s ongoing Relief Line Project Assessment work and the outputs of the YRNS evaluation This analysis should determine a preferred project concept for Line 1 relief that builds upon the surface and tunnelled options included in the YRNS evaluation. Phasing of potential subway components is a critical consideration for this work. Based on the YRNS evaluation, it is likely that a short subway option may provide relief post 2031, with an extension to Line 4 at Don Mills providing longer term relief and a complete transit network The development of this project should consider key factors influencing crowding on Line 1 in determining a timeline for implementation and project development: Rate of population and employment growth Impact of fare integration on RER s abstraction from Line 1 Impact of new transit projects above those included in the YRNS base case Crowding impacts at Bloor-Yonge Station July