October 2014 CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL BUSINESS CASE AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY. Final Report

Transcription

1 October 2014 CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL BUSINESS CASE AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Final Report

2

3 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo are requesting the Province to initiate GO Train service on the CP rail line between Milton and Cambridge as quickly as possible. A Feasibility Study for the extension of intercity passenger rail service to Cambridge was completed in 2009 and determined that the preferred routing option was to extend the current GO Train service from Milton rather than connecting Cambridge to the GO Train service on the north mainline at Guelph. The 2009 Passenger Rail Feasibility Study (2009 Study) includes estimates for capital and operating costs and provides ridership and revenue forecasts for 2021 and 2031 horizon years. The study assumed that the service extension would follow GO Transit s traditional approach of starting the new service with four peak period trains and increasing the number of peak period trains in response to demand. The team of Dillon Consulting Limited and Hatch Mott MacDonald was retained by the City of Cambridge to augment the 2009 Study by developing three additional scenarios that build on the previous work; explore the opportunity to start the train service quickly and with lower investment; test other important transit travel markets and promote a less auto-centric approach to station access and commuter service design. Scenario 1 starts the new service with two 12-car GO Trains, no storage yard in Cambridge and three (rather than four) stations of minimum design. This Scenario was developed to represent the fastest possible implementation with the lowest initial capital investment. The final investment requirements and timing of the start-up of service will require further negotiation between CP and GO Transit. Metrolinx is acquiring Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains to provide a passenger rail connection from Union Station to Pearson International Airport and these vehicles are designed to be suitable for operation on a freight rail line 1. This technology (which can operate as a self-propelled single vehicle or in multiple car train sets), may provide new and significant intercity passenger rail opportunities when applied more broadly on the GO Rail network. Scenario s 2 and 3 were designed to use the Cambridge rail service extension to test DMU flexibility, performance, operating cost, customer acceptance, infrastructure requirements and its ability to address intercity passenger rail markets. Scenario 2 uses only DMU technology for the Cambridge to Milton rail service and tests a variety of transit travel markets. Scenario 3 uses a blend of DMU vehicles and 12-car trains for the service. DMU s in the appropriate applications will have some significant advantages over the traditional 12-car trains, including: lower operating costs (reduced energy consumption and crewing); improved acceleration/deceleration performance giving faster trip times; lower infrastructure costs through shorter platform/siding requirements; reduced physical impacts in an urban environment (e.g. shorter delays at level crossings); greater ability to be integrated with local transit buses and LRT s in multimodal 1 Note: CP expressed concerns with mixing DMU s and freight services on its rail line and these potential concerns need to be discussed with CP prior to moving forward.

4 ii stations (due to the shorter platform requirements, which makes integration into an urban multi-modal station much easier); and improved reliability of the total corridor (e.g. delays on the outer DMU section of the corridor would not affect 12-car train service on the inner section of the corridor). Customer reaction to the DMU s (including AODA compliance), ridership impacts of a train-to-train transfer and a host of scheduling, operational and equipment compatibility issues are potential concerns and will also need to be tested and assessed. Either through the traditional approach of implementing 12-car trains or by testing promising DMU technology for intercity passenger rail service, residents and employers in Cambridge are seeking the earliest possible implementation of GO Train service. Other municipalities along the full service corridor will also benefit, through new stations, provision of an improved intercity passenger rail service for their residents and employees, and the development of a transit option for regional travel markets. The close proximity of the CP rail line to the heavily congested Highway 401, combined with the fast and reliable travel times that will be possible for rail commuters on this corridor, suggest a great opportunity for the Province to achieve positive economic and environmental results from the early implementation of GO Train service to Cambridge. The Table below summarizes the results of the previous business case and the three new scenarios. The significant advantages of applying DMU technology on the GO Rail network, including the opportunity to address more regional travel markets with a high quality transit service, suggest that Scenario 2 would be an excellent application for the Milton to Cambridge service extension. Summary of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for GO Train Expansion to Cambridge (2021 Horizon) Scenario Annual Ridership Annual Revenue Annual Low High Low High Operating Cost Capital Cost 2009 Feasibility Study 4 peak GO Trains 225, ,100 $1.9M $3.6M $3,8M $110M Scenario 1 2 peak GO Trains 142, ,600 $1.2M $2.5M $2M $32M to $85M Scenario 2 4 DMU trains 134, ,100 $1.2M $2.5M $20M to 73M Scenario 3 2 DMU, 2 GO Trains 150, ,600 $1.3M $2.6M $35M to 89M Notes: 1. All Revenue, Operating and Capital Costs in $ Ridership forecast is for GO Train refers to traditional 12-car consist 4. Annual operating costs for DMU s are not yet known but will be less than 12-car GO Trains

5 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO INTRODUCING GO TRAIN SERVICE BUSINESS CASE: FOUR PEAK TRAINS GROWING TO 7 PEAK TRAINS Description of the Scenario s Station and Yard Locations Proposed Train Schedules Capital Expenditures Operating Costs Ridership and Revenue SCENARIO 1: TWO PEAK PERIOD 12-CAR GO TRAINS Description of the Scenario Station Locations Proposed Train Schedule Capital Costs (CAPEX) Operational Costs Ridership and Revenue SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH LIMITATIONS OF THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH DIESEL MULTIPLE UNITS (DMUS) TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF A DMU DMU COMPATIBILITY WITH FREIGHT RAIL EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS DMU S AND CANADIAN CONTENT DEMONSTRATING SOME NEW APPROACHES SCENARIO 2: FOUR PEAK PERIOD HEAVY DMUS Description of the Scenario Station Locations Proposed Operational Schedule Capital Costs Operational Costs Ridership and Revenue SCENARIO 3: HYBRID SERVICE WITH DMU S AND 12 CAR GO TRAINS IN THE PEAK PERIOD Description of the Scenario... 23

6 iv Station Locations Proposed Train Schedule Capital Costs Operating Costs Ridership and Revenue SUMMARY TABLES FOR NEW APPROACHES USING DMU TECHNOLOGY STAKEHOLDER POSITIONS METROLINX/GO TRANSIT CP RAIL MUNICIPALITIES ALONG THE CORRIDOR STATION CONSIDERATIONS TYPICAL GO STATION CONFIGURATION LONGER TERM GO TRAIN STATION CONSIDERATIONS SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS APPENDICES Appendix A - Capital and Operating Costs Appendix B - Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Appendix C - Potential Site Locations TABLES Table 1 Prototype Schedules for 2011 and 2021 Scenarios (2009 Feasibility Study)... 5 Table 2 Estimated Capital Costs (CAPEX, 2009 Feasibility Study)... 5 Table 3 Annual Ridership, Revenue and Operating Costs (2009 Feasibility Study)... 6 Table Scenario 1 Ridership Forecasts... 9 Table 5 Scenario Revenue Forecasts... 9 Table 6 Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to Cambridge Table Scenario 2 Ridership Forecasts... 22

7 v Table Scenario 2 Ridership Forecasts Table 9 Scenario 2 Revenue Forecasts Table Scenario 3 Ridership Forecasts Table Scenario 3 Ridership Forecasts Table 12 Scenario 3 Revenue Forecasts Table Horizon Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to Cambridge Table Horizon Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to Cambridge FIGURES Figure 1 Potential Passenger Rail Corridor Connections from Cambridge (2009 Feasibility Study)... 4 Figure 2 Scenario 1 Train Schedule to Cambridge... 7 Figure 3 Proposed Scenario 2 Schedule Figure 4 Proposed Scenario 3 Schedule Figure 5 Typical GO Station Layout: Double sided with Integrated Bus Facility Figure 6 Map of Tremaine Road Widening and Realignment Figure 7 Map of the Morriston Bypass... 36

8 vi this page left intentionally blank

9 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Having completed the 2009 Passenger Rail Feasibility Study (2009 Feasibility Study) for the provision of intercity passenger rail service between Cambridge and the Toronto area, the team of Dillon Consulting Limited and Hatch Mott MacDonald were retained to develop some new scenarios that would complement and expand upon the previous study. Metrolinx/GO Transit have indicated that a minimum market entry for a community to receive intercity passenger rail service is the provision of four peak period, peak direction trains. As demand increases more peak trains are added and ultimately the corridor is upgraded to all-day, two-way service. The service is provided by 12-car trains and the train schedule is designed for commuters destined to employment within a short distance of Union Station. For almost 50 years, GO Transit has enjoyed great success in addressing this market and implementing its approach to service upgrades. The 2009 Passenger Rail Feasibility Study followed this traditional approach and the capital and operating cost, ridership and revenue forecasts in that report are considered good estimates (subject to final negotiations between GO Transit and CP which owns the rail corridor). Recognizing that the capital cost estimate of $110 M might be an impediment to early implementation, Scenario 1 is developed to reflect a lowest cost and fastest implementation strategy. While starting service with two peak period trains is not preferred, this strategy has been used in other corridors and may be more effective when applied to a Cambridge service given the excellent travel times that are possible in this corridor. Section 2.0 of this report describes the traditional approach for extending GO Train service as developed in the 2009 Feasibility Study and supplemented by Scenario 1. Since the 2009 study, Metrolinx has acquired a new vehicle technology which will be used in its Union to Pearson Express service. Self-propelled, Diesel Multiple Units (DMU s) can be compatible with mixed operation in a freight rail corridor and present some significant opportunities for application on a Cambridge extension and other parts of the GO Rail network 2. Section 3.0 describes the DMU and its potential applications. A limitation of the traditional approach to implementing and upgrading GO Train service is that some significant travel markets are not provided with an attractive transit option. Train schedules that are developed for employment start/stop times near Union Station, are often not convenient for travel to employment opportunities near other stations along the corridor. As well, the long time period before 2 Note: CP expressed concerns with mixing DMU s and freight services on its rail line and these potential concerns need to be discussed with CP prior to moving forward.

10 2 implementing two-way service in the corridor means that many regional travel markets are not provided a timely rail transit option. A further concern involves the large car parking lots typically associated with the design of GO Rail stations. Particularly in urban cores areas, such as downtown Cambridge or Milton, it is very important to have a more efficient land use and a transit supportive environment around rail stations to achieve community sustainability and intensification goals. Section 4.0 of this report attempts to address these limitations by capitalizing on the potential advantages of the new DMU technology. Scenario 2 uses four DMU s to provide peak period service between Cambridge and Milton and allows passengers to connect with four of the eight peak period 12- car GO Trains at Milton. With this approach it is also possible to immediately provide a rail transit option using the DMU s for other regional labour force mobility markets (i.e. Milton residents working in Cambridge) and to address midday and evening travel markets in both directions. Scenario 3 is a hybrid in which two 12-car trains are extended from Milton to provide peak period service to/from Cambridge and two DMU s are used to augment this peak service. If Scenario 3 is selected, the DMU s could also be used to test the additional travel markets noted above. Section 5.0 provides a brief summary of the positions of various stakeholders, including Metrolinx/GO Transit, CP, and municipalities along the corridor. Section 6.0 provides some commentary on potential GO station locations along the corridor both in the immediate and longer term. There is an urgent need to move ahead quickly with this initiative and allow the municipalities to plan and protect for ultimate station locations that are consistent with their community sustainability, intensification and local transit integration goals.

11 3 2.0 THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO INTRODUCING GO TRAIN SERVICE The 2009 Feasibility Study is fully documented in Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports prepared by the consultant team of Hatch Mott MacDonald and Dillon Consulting Limited. These reports were circulated and presented to GO Transit, CP and municipal councils in the Region of Waterloo and City of Cambridge. The Phase 1 report assessed the preferred intercity passenger rail routing to connect Cambridge with Toronto. The two options (Figure 1) involved connecting Cambridge to Guelph using the Fergus subdivision and linking to the north mainline GO Train extension from Georgetown or to extend the GO Train service from Milton to Cambridge in the CP corridor. The Milton extension option was recommended with a key determinant being the reduced travel time possible using the CP corridor. The 2009 Feasibility Study does recommend that the Fergus sub be designated by the municipalities for a potential intercity passenger rail transit link between Cambridge and Guelph. In the 2009 Feasibility Study, there were up to seven peak period trains in operation between Milton and Union Station and preliminary cost estimates were developed based on initial CP estimates for the expansion requirements to accommodate passenger trains on this mainline freight corridor. Four new stations and a storage facility in Cambridge were included and double tracking was required for about two-thirds of the 26 mile extension. Operating costs for the extension of service were estimated by taking a pro rata of existing costs, ridership was forecasted for 2021 and 2031 horizon years and this ridership was then converted to expected passenger revenue using formulas provided by GO Transit. All costs and revenues were expressed in 2009$ and subject to final negotiations between GO Transit and CP.

12 4 Figure 1 Potential Passenger Rail Corridor Connections from Cambridge (2009 Feasibility Study) Business Case: Four Peak Trains Growing to 7 Peak Trains Description of the Scenarios For 2021 it was assumed that four of the seven existing 12-car GO Trains would be extended from Milton to Cambridge operating eastbound only in the AM peak and westbound only in the PM peak. For 2031, all seven peak period trains would be extended to Cambridge and for three of these runs, a semiexpress schedule would be adopted Station and Yard Locations Four new stations were assumed at Cambridge Central (near Water/Samuelson), Cambridge East (near Franklin Blvd/Dobbie Drive), Puslinch (near Highway 6) and at Campbellville (or Tremaine Road). Costs were estimated for both rural and urban station designs with associated parking requirements (500 cars initially with expansion possible for 500 additional cars). A new storage yard was assumed to be required in the Cambridge area Proposed Train Schedules Train running times were estimated based on performance characteristics of the 12-car trains and the specifics of the track geometry and corridor speed zones. Schedules were developed for the 2021 and 2031 scenarios and are illustrated in Table 1 below. It is recognized that the Union-Milton GO service now has eight peak period trains with a new schedule. While the 2009 analysis will require updating, the results are still illustrative of the business case for a Cambridge service extension and have the benefit of previous input and review by all stakeholders.

13 Potential +37 min GO Schedules as of June GO Schedules as of June Potential +37 min C A M BRI D G E T O M I L T O N P A S S E N G E R RAIL 5 Table 1 Prototype Schedules for 2011 and 2021 Scenarios (2009 Feasibility Study) EASTBOUND SCHEDULES Cambridge Central 6:11 6:31 6:46 7:16 Cambridge East 6:15 6:35 6:50 7:20 Puslinch 6:25 6:45 7:00 7:30 Campbellville 6:34 6:54 7:09 7:39 Milton 6:48 7:08 7:23 7:53 Lisgar 6:56 7:16 7:31 8:01 Meadowvale 7:00 7:20 7:35 8:05 Streetsville 7:05 7:25 7:40 8:10 Erindale 7:10 7:30 7:45 8:15 Cooksville 7:15 7:35 7:50 8:20 Dixie 7:20 7:40 7:55 8:25 Kipling 7:25 7:45 8:00 8:30 Union 7:42 8:04 8:20 8:50 WESTBOUND SCHEDULES Union 16:50 17:10 17:40 18:10 Kipling 17:06 17:26 17:56 18:26 Dixie 17:11 17:31 18:01 18:31 Cooksville 17:17 17:37 18:07 18:37 Erindale 17:23 17:43 18:13 18:43 Streetsville 17:28 17:48 18:18 18:48 Meadowvale 17:34 17:54 18:24 18:54 Lisgar 17:37 17:57 18:27 18:57 Milton 17:48 18:08 18:38 19:08 Campbellville 18:00 18:20 18:50 19:20 Puslinch 18:09 18:29 18:59 19:29 Cambridge East 18:20 18:40 19:10 19:40 Cambridge Central 18:25 18:45 19:15 19: Capital Expenditures The estimated capital cost for implementing these scenarios was $110 M (in 2009$) with the understanding that this estimate would be subject to final negotiations between CP and GO Transit. A breakdown of the estimate is provided below with full details in the Phase 2 report. Table 2 Estimated Capital Costs (CAPEX, 2009 Feasibility Study) Item Amount Property $ 2,625,000 Civil Work $12,535,000 Track $28,595,000 Structures $12,181,500 Signals $15,241,500 Stations and Yards $38,750,000 Total $109,928,000

14 Operating Costs For the 2021 four train service, the operating cost estimate was $3.8M and for the 2031 seven train service, the annual operating cost estimate was $4.8M with estimates based on a pro rata of new service versus existing service in the corridor Ridership and Revenue Ridership and revenue forecasting techniques are fully described in the 2009 Feasibility Study Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports. Table 3 below illustrates the range of potential ridership, revenue (high and low estimates) and operating cost estimates for the 2021 and 2031 scenarios. Table 3 Annual Ridership, Revenue and Operating Costs (2009 Feasibility Study) Horizon Daily Ridership 1 Annual Ridership 2 Annual Revenue Annual Operating Year Low High Low High Low High Cost , ,609 $1,115,000 $2,016,000 $3,833, , , ,093 $1,902,000 $3,573,000 $3,833, ,538 2, , ,698 $3,366,000 $6,275,000 $4,792, Two-way ridership estimate 2. Annual ridership based on 253 days a year (five days per week, two-way travel, excluding statutory holidays) 3. Operating Costs based on per mile cost generated by GO Transit 2.2 Scenario 1: Two Peak Period 12-Car GO Trains Description of the Scenario Scenario 1 is the extension of two (rather than four) existing 12-car GO Trains from Milton to Cambridge operating eastbound only in the AM peak period and westbound only in the PM peak period Station Locations This scenario includes three (3) new station locations: Cambridge Central (near Water/Samuelson); Cambridge East (near Franklin/Townline); Campbellville or Tremaine; and Milton (existing).

15 7 The assumption is that these new station locations would initially be constructed to minimum standards in the context of what may be provided at traditional GO Rail stations (new stations assumed to initially contain fewer amenities, less parking, no buildings, etc.). The Puslinch station was dropped initially due to concerns by the municipalities about the need for a Hwy 6 bypass at Morriston prior to introducing more car traffic in to the area Proposed Train Schedule In the AM peak period eastbound direction, the service would include a train departing Cambridge Central Station at 6:09am and 6:39am, which would then depart Milton Station at 6:43am and 7:13am respectively. In the PM peak period westbound direction the service would extend the trains arriving at Milton Station at 5:28pm and 6:23pm, which would then arrive at Cambridge Central Station at 6:03pm and 6:58pm respectively. The following train schedule includes timings for these trips as well as indicative timings for the remainder of the eight (8) Milton-Union trips for reference. The times selected were considered attractive for Cambridge commuters but alternatives might need to be considered based on the available capacity on the existing runs. Figure 2 Scenario 1 Train Schedule to Cambridge Capital Costs (CAPEX) Capital cost estimates for this scenario range from $32M to $85M depending on the final inclusion requirements of rail corridor infrastructure costs previously carried in the 2009 study. For consistency of the new scenarios with the previous business case, all costs estimates remain in 2009 $ and will still be

16 8 subject to final negotiations between CP and GO Transit. No rail equipment has been included in these costs as the extension of service is based on using trains from the existing fleet. CAPEX costs for this scenario do not include provision for a layover yard as discussions with GO Transit indicated that there was sufficient storage at the existing Milton GO layover facility. A detailed capital cost breakdown can be found in Appendix A Operational Costs Operational costs are estimated to be in the order of $2M per year based on the cost data provided in the 2009 study and prorated for the number of trips in this scenario Ridership and Revenue Ridership and revenue forecasts for Scenario 1 were developed using the same methodology as the 2009 Feasibility Study. The approach to estimating ridership is detailed in Appendix B. As in the previous study, two approaches were used to calculate ridership: 1. Trips to Union Station were based on the Greater Toronto Transportation Model, by establishing a trip rate per population within the catchment area of the two Cambridge and Campbellville stations; 2. Trips to intermediate stations were forecasted by assessing a transit mode share potential and applying this to all trips (TTS survey results) made between the Cambridge/ Campbellville catchment areas and the destination catchment areas. Ridership forecasts for this scenario are illustrated in Table 4. These include new trips made to all stations along the corridor. Trips to Union Station represent approximately 90 percent of total ridership along the corridor in This high attraction to Union Station is due to a number of factors; primarily, the accessibility to many large and unique employers near Union Station, the high quality of local transit connections and the challenges for auto drivers with congestion on access roads and parking (pricing and supply) within this catchment area. No other station within the GO Rail network has this combination of elements to make it as attractive a destination point for GO Train passengers. Also, since the train schedule is set for convenient arrival/departure times at Union Station, the times for Cambridge travelers destined to intermediate stations are not as attractive. It should be noted that the ridership forecasts presented below represent a significant reduction from the 2009 Feasibility Study. This is due to an assumed decrease in the trip rate and mode share, which is mainly attributable to the change in the frequency of train service (from four trains as proposed in the

17 Feasibility Study to two trains as proposed in Scenario 1). This limited service reduces the overall flexibility that GO Rail passengers have in accommodating their desired departure and arrival times on both the inbound and outbound trips. Most GO Train services operate with a minimum of four peak period, peak direction trips per day. The only service that does not currently do this is the extension of the Georgetown service to Guelph and Kitchener which currently operates with two peak period trains. Table Scenario 1 Ridership Forecasts Destination AM Peak PM Peak Total Station Low High Low High Low High Milton Mississauga Kipling Union ,050 Total ,175 Revenue forecasts were calculated using a similar methodology as in the 2009 Feasibility Study based on ridership derived from Scenario 1. Fares on the GO Transit network have increased since the 2009 Feasibility Study and the Presto Card has been introduced. Using the current 2014 fare structure has increased the revenue estimate, so caution must be used when comparing results with other scenarios in the 2009 study. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue using the fare assumptions used in the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 5 below. Appendix B describes the methodology used to calculate revenue. Revenue forecasts for Scenario 1 are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Scenario Revenue Forecasts Horizon Daily Ridership 1 Annual Ridership 2 Annual Revenue Year Low High Low High Low High , , ,600 $1,618,900 ($1,212,600) $3,296,800 ($2,472,200) 1. Two-way ridership estimate 2. Annual ridership based on 243 days a year (five days per week, two-way travel, excluding statutory holidays and two-week vacation)

18 Summary Tables for the Traditional Approach Table 6 below summarizes the key characteristics of the traditional approach to introducing GO Train service to a new market area. The capital expenditure, operating costs, ridership and passenger revenue are estimated for the two scenarios presented in the 2009 Feasibility Study involving four new stations, 12-car trains and four peak period trains in 2021 growing to seven peak trains and some semi-express service in As a lower cost, fast implementation strategy the initial use of two 12-car peak period trains and three minimal stations is included as an option consistent with the traditional approach. Caution must be used in comparing these three scenarios as the revenue estimates are based on the current 2014 fare structure for the two train scenario and the 2009 fare structure for the four and seven train scenarios. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue using the fare assumptions used in the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 5 below. Table 6 Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to Cambridge Annual Ridership Annual Revenue Annual Scenario Operation Capital Cost Low High Low High Cost 2021 $32,000,000 $1,618,900 $3,296,800 2 peak 142, ,600 $2,000,000 - ($1,212,600) ($2,472,200) trains* $85,000, peak 225, ,100 $1,902,000 $3,573,000 $3,800,000 $110,000,000 trains** peak trains** 389, ,700 $3,366,000 $6, $4,800,000 $110,000,000 *note: revenue is increased due to changes in GO Transit fares since the 2009 Feasibility Study, but operating and capital costs are in 2009$ **source: 2009 Feasibility Study

19 Limitations of the Traditional Approach The ridership forecasts that have been developed reflect a traditional approach to the introduction of a new GO Train service. Typically, a minimum number of peak period trains are introduced for the initial service and more peak trains are added over the years as demand increases. In the long term, consideration is given to providing off-peak, two-way and weekend train services. This strategy has been very successful over the past 50 years in addressing the travel market of GTA residents destined for employment locations in downtown Toronto. However, this approach has limitations and there are other important inter-regional travel markets that are not currently being addressed with an attractive rail transit option. GO Transit has standardized its fleet and delivers intercity passenger rail transit with locomotive-hauled, bi-level coaches typically as 12- car trains. Such large passenger carrying capacity is not required along the outermost segments of the corridors (e.g. between Cambridge and Milton) or during periods of low demand such as the midday, evening and weekend periods. Addressing lower demand corridor segments and travel periods with a smaller capacity train may present an opportunity for lower operating costs (energy savings, reduced crewing requirement). Other potential advantages (and limitations) of using DMU technology are discussed in Section 3.4.

20 12 this page left intentionally blank

21 DIESEL MULTIPLE UNITS (DMUS) Metrolinx has purchased 18 DMU vehicles for the Union Pearson Express and with the provincial commitment to electrification on this corridor, the DMU s may be replaced by EMU s and become available for other applications. As noted above, adopting the DMU technology has the potential to address new and growing commuter markets and a Cambridge service extension may be an excellent opportunity to test such applications. If successful in a Milton to Cambridge service, these applications could be extended more generally throughout the GO Rail network. This section provides more detail on the DMU and includes both positive features and concerns/issues that would have to be addressed. 3.1 Technical Description of a DMU A Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) is a self-propelled rail vehicle capable of operating as a single unit or coupled together to operate in multiple unit trains. Commonly DMUs are assembled in two unit combinations. This scalability is one of the advantages of this type of transit vehicle. Propulsion for a DMU consists of an on-board diesel motor that can either be connected mechanically to the drive train, can be used to drive a hydraulic pump which then drives hydraulic traction motors or can be used to run a generator which would create electricity to power electric traction motors. Due to their size and power to weight ratio, DMUs have better acceleration and braking characteristics than typical locomotive-hauled coach consists. As an example, the acceleration and deceleration rates for the Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA) vehicles that Metrolinx has purchased for use on the Union Person Express (UPE) have been calculated to be in the order of 1.06 mph/s and 2.0 mph/s respectively. This compares to 0.6 mph/s and 1.8 mph/s for a traditional GO Train and may result in train scheduling and travel time advantages for the DMU. DMU s in the appropriate applications will also have lower operating costs than a traditional 12 car GO Train. There will be fewer operating crew required on the DMU and energy consumption will also be lower. While DMUs are more common in Europe, Asia and Australia, they are gaining popularity in North America. At the time of writing this report there were four (4) DMU revenue service operations in the United States and three (3) in revenue service in Canada with a fourth (the UPE) coming on line shortly. North American applications are:

22 14 North County Transit District, San Diego, CA New Jersey Transit Corporation, New York-Newark, NY-NJ Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), Portland, OR Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, TX O-Train, OC Transpo, Ottawa, ON VIA Rail Sudbury to White River, Ontario, ON CN Koaham Shuttle, Vancouver, BC Union Person Express (UPE), Toronto, ON (anticipated revenue service 2015) O-Train, Ottawa, ON Sumitomo DMU, UPE, Toronto, ON The following renderings and drawings are from the SMART system DMUs which will be similar to the Union Pearson Express DMU. These renderings are indicative of the interior configuration of a modern DMU with 78 seats per vehicle.

23 15 Source: Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit, DMU Vehicle Procurement Recommendation for Award, October 25, 2010 The following graphic is a general arrangement drawing for one of the A-Cars from the SMART system. Source: Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit, DMU Vehicle Procurement Recommendation for Award, October 25, 2010

24 Benefits of DMUs If the corridor segment (e.g. Cambridge to Milton) can be served exclusively by DMU s (new Scenario 2 below) then there is also the possibility of significant savings in infrastructure costs. For instance, the typical GO Train station platform length of 315 m could be greatly reduced if the ultimate design was for a three car DMU consist. Similar savings would accrue for the provision of passing sidings and storage tracks. In an urban environment with many level crossings, small DMU trains would be less disruptive to local streets and traffic and would be more easily integrated with multi-modal station designs. In Cambridge there would be the potential opportunity to fully integrate the DMU with the future LRT station as both vehicles have the same track gauge. Small intercity passenger rail trains and smaller car parking areas at downtown stations combined with excellent feeder transit (such as Metrolinx s first-mile, last-mile strategies) are consistent with the planning aspirations of most communities. If the service is designed with DMU s in the lower demand, outer portion of the corridor and a DMU to/from 12-car train transfer is used at an intermediate station, the overall reliability of service in the total corridor would be improved, especially in winter conditions. If there is an incident at a level crossing or a delay occurs due to a frozen switch, the event might delay only the DMU service while the portion of the corridor operating with 12-car trains would not be affected. A major advantage of adopting the DMU as a second fleet standard for GO Transit is that after the peak period transfer to the 12-car GO Train is completed, the DMU vehicle is available to serve other transit markets. In new Scenario 2, a train schedule is developed that would provide peak period rail transit connections for Milton residents working in Cambridge. As well, there is the opportunity to use the DMU s for midday, evening and weekend/special event services between Milton and Cambridge (or potentially along greater lengths of the corridor). Employment areas outside of downtown Toronto are also important and currently there are poor to non-existent transit options for GTA residents to access these regional employment centres. Employers in Milton industrial parks, for instance, draw a majority of employees from locations such as Cambridge, Guelph, Brampton and Mississauga and small, fast, reliable DMU s could form the backbone of a regional transit strategy to serve these employment centres and the associated communities. Currently 95 percent of GO Transit riders are destined to employment locations near Union Station and the availability of DMU s and existing rail corridors may provide the opportunity to efficiently address other regional employment destinations. This need for high quality regional transit services has been

25 17 identified in recent area transportation studies by the provincial Ministry of Transportation including the GTA West Corridor study, the Niagara to GTA Corridor study and the Wellington Waterloo Brant study. 3.3 DMU Compatibility with Freight Rail Equipment and Operations Aside from the propulsion system and the ability to run in single or multiple unit configurations, another significant difference between DMU technology and their heavier freight rail counterparts relates to weight and structural strength. Typical DMUs are not built with the same structural properties as the heavier equipment. This fact has been a significant challenge for operators and transit owners to overcome in order to permit this type of equipment to operate on the same rail lines as heavier freight rail equipment. DMU vehicles that are not constructed with the same structural properties as heavier freight rail equipment are referred to as non-compliant. CP has expressed serious concern about any operation of DMU s on its freight line. In the United States, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has very stringent requirements for passenger and freight rail equipment. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 49, part 238 governs passenger equipment safety standards. The Union Pearson Express DMU s are believed to be FRA compliant for mixed operation with freight rail services. The following are some of the key provisions of this subsection, which are not typically met by noncompliant DMUs, and include: Subsection , Static End Strength, which requires that vehicles resist a static end load of 800,000 pounds without permanent deformation Subsection , Anti-Climbing Mechanism, which requires anti-climbers at both ends capable of resisting an upward or downward vertical force of 100,000 pounds without failure. Subsection , Collision Posts, which requires collision posts at the one-third points of vehicle width, laterally, with an ultimate longitudinal shear strength of 300,000 pounds Subsection , Corner Posts which requires full-height corner posts capable of resisting 150,000 pounds at the point of attachment to the underframe without failure. Subsection , Locomotive Fuel Tanks, specifies fuel tank construction standards typical of mainline locomotives, but also applying to DMUs.

26 DMU s and Canadian Content While the Union Pearson Express DMU vehicles will be produced and assembled outside of Canada, there is a service proven option with Canadian content. Conceived in the early 1950 s, the Budd Rail Diesel Car (RDC) was considered ideally suited to operate in a wide range of services. The propulsion system and stainless steel body proved to be rugged and reliable and these vehicles are still in service today. Industrial Rail Services of Moncton New Brunswick, an experienced locomotive and passenger railcar repair and refurbishment firm, sells rebuilt and refurbished Budd RDCs for use in passenger transit service. The VIA Rail Sudbury to White River train service uses these Budd RDCs which have two diesel motors driving hydraulic pumps (a technology proven in the automotive and military fields). While not as modern in appearance as some DMU s, passenger comfort levels are excellent and costs are relatively low. Budd RDC-1 Cape May Seashore Lines #407. Photograph by Bevis R. W. King, November Reproduced with permission from photographers website and released to GFDL courtesy Bevis R.W. King.

27 DEMONSTRATING SOME NEW APPROACHES The potential availability of DMU technology and its compatibility with mixed freight operation provides the opportunity to test the DMU s on a Cambridge service extension for a variety of intercity passenger rail transit applications. Scenario s 2 and 3 were designed specifically to test the following: passenger acceptance, ridership impacts, AODA concerns with a train-to-train transfer; train scheduling and operational impacts of introducing DMU technology; storage requirements and marshaling strategies with DMU s; performance and operating cost advantages of DMU technology; infrastructure impacts including station requirements at the transfer location; improved transit access to regional employment centres outside the Union Station area; and compatibility of DMU s with urban environments and mobility hub station designs. 4.1 Scenario 2: Four Peak Period Heavy DMUs Description of the Scenario Scenario 2 is a four train DMU option with one minimal new station at Cambridge Central. This scenario requires users travelling beyond Milton to transfer between the DMU and a 12-car GO Train at the Milton station. This service would include four eastbound AM peak moves and four westbound PM peak period moves for comparison with the traditional approach to minimum market entry for service start-up. Since the DMU s are not required for service beyond Milton, this scenario allows for counter peak transit travel in the AM and PM periods to accommodate Milton residents working in Cambridge. The scenario can also be used to test two mid-day return trips and evening service between Milton and Cambridge. Potentially these new service strategies could be tested on even longer sections of the corridor depending on track availability between Milton and Union Station. Storage of the DMU vehicles will be required at the Cambridge Central station area, or somewhere along the line preferably near this end of the service.

28 Station Locations This scenario includes one station at Cambridge Central (preferred over Cambridge East because of the better local transit connection). A train to train transfer will occur at Milton and that station will need to be modified to accept the DMU vehicles. An end-to-end configuration as well as a side-to-side configuration would be examined in future phases of design. Each option has unique advantages and disadvantages that would need to be assessed to determine the preferred station configuration at Milton Proposed Operational Schedule In the AM peak period eastbound direction, the service would include DMUs departing Cambridge Central at 6:08am, 6:38am, 7:03am and 7:33am. Passengers travelling beyond Milton would need to transfer between the DMU and a 12-car GO Train at the Milton station which would then depart Milton towards Union Station at 6:43am, 7:13am, 7:38am and 8:08am respectively. In the PM peak period westbound direction, the 12-car GO Train service would arrive at Milton Station from Union Station at 4:58pm, 5:48pm, 6:23pm and 7:13pm. Passengers would transfer onto the DMU service at Milton Station, which would then arrive at Cambridge Central Station at 5:33pm, 6:23pm, 6:58pm and 7:48pm respectively. The following train schedule includes timings for these trips as well as the counter peak AM/PM, midday trips and evening runs. For clarity, eastbound trips are shaded blue and westbound trips are shaded orange. Due to the bi-directional nature of this service, it is assumed that prior to the PM peak, all four DMUs will travel to Milton GO Station for the start of the service (either coupled together or coupled in sets of twos). The mid-day and evening times shown in red are taken from the GO Bus schedules beginning at Milton GO Station and Union Bus Terminal. Figure 3 Proposed Scenario 2 Schedule

29 Capital Costs Capital cost for this scenario ranges from $20M to $73M depending on the final inclusion requirements of rail corridor infrastructure costs previously carried in the 2009 study. These figures do not include the costs of rail equipment as the DMU s may become surplus when the airport service is electrified. With the costs of six DMUs included, the range is from $47M to $100M. A detailed capital cost breakdown can be found in Appendix A Operational Costs Given that the DMU fleet will have much smaller (Tier-4 compliant) diesel engines than their heavy locomotive counterparts and that the operating crew requirement will be significantly smaller than on the 12-car locomotive hauled coach trains, it is anticipated that DMU operational costs will be less than the costs for a traditional GO Train. This exact cost savings from reduced energy consumption and lower staffing levels can be estimated after commencement of the Metrolinx UPE service once exact operating costs become available Ridership and Revenue The calculation of ridership and revenue for Scenario 2 used a similar approach as for Scenario 1 and details are provided in Appendix B. Ridership forecasts for this scenario are illustrated in Tables 7 and 8. These include trips made from Cambridge to all stations along the Milton line, as well as off-peak trips (midday and evening service between Milton and Cambridge) and reverse flow direction peak period trips between Milton and Cambridge. Total ridership is slightly higher than in Scenario 1 (2021 horizon). While the increased number of trains and the faster travel time from Cambridge to Milton helps increase the level of service, this is offset somewhat by the transfer required at Milton Station, which adds a 5 minute wait to the total travel time and impacts passenger convenience. Trips to Union Station continue to represent approximately 87 percent of total ridership along the corridor. While a higher level of transit service is provided between Milton and Cambridge, it is anticipated that this will not generate a high level of ridership in the short-term until the land use around both Cambridge Central and Milton stations change to become more transit supportive. Higher transit ridership between these municipalities will occur if there is good local feeder services and once two-way service is provided along the GO Rail line between Milton Station and Union Station. Once an intercity passenger rail service is established and station locations identified, some families will alter their live-work relations and relocate which will also increase ridership potential between intermediate stations.

30 BUSINESS CASE A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I ON ST RATEGY 22 Table Scenario 2 Ridership Forecasts Cambridge AM Peak - EB AM Peak - WB Midday -EB Midday -WB PM Peak -WB Evening - EB Evening - WB Total to/from: Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Milton Mississauga Kipling Union Station Total ,206 Table Scenario 2 Ridership Forecasts Cambridge AM Peak - EB AM Peak - WB Midday -EB Midday -WB PM Peak -WB Evening - EB Evening - WB Total to/from: Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Milton Mississauga Kipling Union Station ,183 Total ,548

31 23 Revenue forecasts for Scenario 2 were based on a similar methodology used in the 2009 Feasibility Study, but updated using the 2014 fare structure. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue using the fare assumptions used in the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 9 below. Appendix B describes the methodology used to calculate revenue. Table 9 Scenario 2 Revenue Forecasts Horizon Daily Ridership 1 Annual Ridership 2 Annual Revenue Year Low High Low High Low High , , ,100 $1,580,200 $3,446,300 ($1,157,300) ($2,539,800) , ,200 $3,571,300 $4,442,200 ($2,019,000) ($3,226,813) 1. Two-way ridership estimate 2. Annual ridership based on 243 days a year (five days per week, two-way travel, excluding statutory holidays and two-week vacation) 4.2 Scenario 3: Hybrid Service with DMU s and 12 Car GO Trains in the Peak Period Description of the Scenario Scenario 3 is a hybrid of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 and involves the extension of two (2) existing 12-car GO Trains from Milton to Cambridge and the addition of two DMU trains. This service operates eastbound only in the AM peak period and westbound only in the PM peak periods. With this strategy, some riders will be able to avoid the train-to-train transfer and there will still be DMU vehicles available to test the potential advantages and limitations of this technology in an intercity passenger rail application Station Locations This scenario includes three station locations: Cambridge Central (near Water/Samuelson); Cambridge East (near Franklin/Townline); Campbellville or Tremaine; and Milton (existing). The assumption is that these station locations would initially be to a minimal design in the context of what may be provided at a traditional GO Rail station (assumed to contain fewer amenities, less parking, no buildings, etc.).

32 Proposed Train Schedule In the AM peak period eastbound direction, the service would include a 12-car GO train departing Cambridge Central Station at 6:09am and 6:39am which would then depart Milton Station towards Union Station at 6:43am and 7:13am respectively. DMUs would depart Cambridge Central Station at 6:54am and 7:24am and connect to an existing GO Train at Milton Station, which would then depart Milton towards Union Station at 7:38am and 7:58am respectively. In the PM peak period westbound direction, the service would extend the trains arriving from Union Station to Milton Station at 5:28pm and 6:23pm, which would then arrive at Cambridge Central at 6:03pm and 6:58pm respectively. DMU trips westward would depart Milton at 6:18pm and 7:23pm and arrive at Cambridge Central Station at 6:52pm and 7:57pm respectively. The following train schedule includes timings for these trips. For clarity, GO Train trips are shaded yellow and DMU trips are shaded green. Figure 4 Proposed Scenario 3 Schedule

33 Capital Costs Capital cost for this scenario ranges from $35M to $89M depending on the final inclusion requirements of rail corridor infrastructure costs previously carried in the 2009 study. These figures do not include the costs of rail equipment. With the costs of DMUs included, the range is from $53M to $107M. CAPEX costs for this scenario do not include provision for a layover yard as previous discussions with GO Transit indicated that there was sufficient storage at the existing Milton GO layover facility for GO Trains. DMUs will be stored at the Cambridge Central station area, or somewhere along the line preferably near this end of the service. A detailed capital cost breakdown can be found in Appendix A Operating Costs For the two 12-car GO Trains, operating costs are estimated to be in the order of $2M per year based on the cost data provided in the 2009 study and prorated for the number of trips in this scenario. As in Scenario 2 above, DMU operating costs are unknown but anticipated to be less than the costs for 12-car trains due to crewing and energy savings Ridership and Revenue The calculation of ridership and revenue for Scenario 3 used a similar approach as for Scenario s 1 and 2. This approach is detailed in Appendix B. Ridership forecasts for this scenario are illustrated in Tables 10 and 11. These include trips made to all stations along the Milton line. Scenario 3 provides the highest level of ridership among the three new scenarios due the higher level of service and access to additional stations. While travel time is slightly higher on the two DMU trips compared with the two 12-car GO Train trips (due to the need to transfer), the two extra trips (compared to Scenario 1) and the presence of a Campbellville station will help increase overall ridership on this section of the corridor. Trips to Union Station continue to represent approximately 88 percent of total ridership along the corridor. While a higher level of service was provided between Milton and Cambridge, it is anticipated that this will not support a high level of ridership in the short-term until the land use around both Cambridge Central and Milton Stations changes to become more transit supportive and the two-way service is provided along the GO Rail line between Milton Station and Union Station. Once an intercity passenger rail service is established and station locations identified, some families will alter their livework relations and relocate which will also increase ridership potential between intermediate stations.

34 26 Table Scenario 3 Ridership Forecasts Destination AM Peak PM Peak Total Station Low High Low High Low High Milton Mississauga Kipling Union ,093 Total ,241 Table Scenario 3 Ridership Forecasts Destination AM Peak PM Peak Total Station Low High Low High Low High Milton Mississauga Kipling Union ,223 Total ,554 Revenue forecasts for Scenario 3 were based on a similar methodology used in the 2009 Feasibility Study, but updated using the 2014 fare structure. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue using the fare assumptions used in the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 12 below. Appendix B describes the methodology used to calculate revenue. Table 12 Scenario 3 Revenue Forecasts Horizon Daily Ridership 1 Annual Ridership 2 Annual Revenue Year Low High Low High Low High , , ,600 $1,706,400 $3,482,500 ($1,274,300) ($2,605,200) , , ,700 $3,347,800 $4,297,200 ($1,620,600) ($3,173,633) 1. Two-way ridership estimate 2. Annual ridership based on 243 days a year (five days per week, two-way travel, excluding statutory holidays and two-week vacation)

35 Summary Tables for New Approaches Using DMU Technology The following tables summarize the key characteristics of the non-traditional approach to introducing GO Train service to a new market area. For two new scenarios involving four DMU s or two DMU s and two 12-car GO Trains, the capital costs, operating costs, ridership and revenue estimates are provided for 2021 and 2031 horizon years. Revenues are expressed in current $ and capital cost are in 2009$. Operating costs of DMU are not currently available but will be lower than operating costs of 12-car trains. Table Horizon Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to Cambridge Scenario Annual Ridership Annual Revenue Low High Low High Capital Cost Scenario 2 134, ,100 $1,580,200 $3,446,300 ($1,157,300) ($2,539,800) $20M to 73M Scenario 3 150, ,600 $1,706,400 $3,482,500 ($1,274,300) ($2,605,200) $35M to 89M Note: Annual Revenue based on the 2014 GO Transit fare structure. The revenue reported in brackets calculated using the 2009 GO Transit fare structure for ease of comparison to the 2009 study. Table Horizon Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to Cambridge Scenario Annual Ridership Annual Revenue Low High Low High Capital Cost Scenario 2 192, ,200 $3,571,300 $4,442,200 ($2,019,000) ($3,226,813) $20M to 73M Scenario 3 195, ,700 $3,347,800 $4,297,200 ($1,620,600) ($3,173,633) $35M to 89M Note: Annual Revenue based on the 2014 GO Transit fare structure. The revenue reported in brackets calculated using the 2009 GO Transit fare structure for ease of comparison to the 2009 study.

36 28 this page left intentionally blank

37 STAKEHOLDER POSITIONS 5.1 Metrolinx/GO Transit During this study, discussions were held with Metrolinx/GO Transit staff to provide background information and an update since the 2009 Feasibility Study. It was noted that an extension of GO Train service from Milton to Cambridge is not part of the Metrolinx Big Move Strategy and the City/ Region should pursue its inclusion in the next update of the Big Move planned for A further complication is that the transportation planning mandate for Metrolinx does not extend to the Region of Waterloo and this would also need to be addressed. The recent extension of GO Rail service to Guelph and Kitchener was at the direction of the Minister of Transportation. GO Transit is currently negotiating with CP for capacity improvements required to introduce additional service between Union Station and Milton, and does not want to add consideration of expansion requirements west of Milton to this negotiation. It was also noted that in introducing a new intercity passenger rail service, an initial complement of four peak period trains is considered a minimum for market entry to a new service area. 5.2 CP Rail The existing CP Galt Subdivision from Milton to Cambridge consists of double track from the Milton GO station (Mile 31.2) to Guelph Junction (Mile 40.2) and single track from Guelph Junction west through Cambridge. The Galt Subdivision is part of the CP Montreal/Chicago main corridor and freight operations are approaching capacity on this corridor. Freight rail operations on this corridor are not scheduled and would typically occur on-demand as per shipper s requirements. Unit trains have been noted on the corridor which would commonly operate on more of a predictable schedule. CP would have significant concerns with the suggestion of DMU operation on its freight mainline. Further discussion with CP is required to determine whether this concern relates to all DMU s or only those DMU s that are not FRA-compliant (see Section 3.3). Through a review of the capacity and discussions with CP, the 2009 Study indicated that additional infrastructure would be required in order to accommodate GO passenger trains between Milton and Cambridge. As part of this current study, CP was contacted to provide an update on capacity and corridor availability. CP indicated that previous information was still valid and did not wish to provide any new information at the time of writing this report.

38 30 As a result of previous discussions with CP and confirmation that previous assumptions are still valid, preliminary infrastructure requirements have been identified for the passenger rail scenarios identified in this report. 5.3 Municipalities Along the Corridor During the study, discussions were also held with municipal staff from the Town of Milton/ Region of Halton and the Township of Puslinch/County of Wellington. Based on this these discussions, a conclusion was reached that any new intercity passenger rail station in Puslinch should be integrated with the design of the proposed Hwy 6 Morriston Bypass. A new station which would increase current traffic congestion and safety concerns should not be constructed until this bypass facility is in place. There will not be significant residential intensification of Morriston or Aberfoyle. The Town of Milton is interested in a new station further west from the current Milton station to reduce auto travel along local streets and parking requirements at its existing Milton Central Station. Milton Central station is planned as a Metrolinx Mobility Hub and as such a new western terminus for the GO Train service is highly desirable to allow intensification and better utilization of lands around the existing station. Potential new station locations at Tremaine/Steeles (new Hwy 401 interchange) and at Campbellville (Guelph Junction Rd and CP yard area) would each have advantages and disadvantages. There are several competing Big Move priorities in Halton Region such as two-way all-day service from Union to Milton and a new Trafalgar Station. Strong labour force linkages between Milton and Cambridge are evident.

39 STATION CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Typical GO Station Configuration The following sections pertaining to site design and development are extracted from the GO Transit Design Requirement Manual (DRM). Procedure CI-0201 states: Typically, any site design and development must address the convenience and safety of the users, accommodation of vehicle movements, parking facilities, bus infrastructure, while ensuring ease of maintenance and servicing. Site design must respond to both the urban design and environmental challenges associated with developing given site. The Guidelines intention is to achieve site layouts that are not only efficient, but also safe, attractive and environmentally responsible. Site design and development must respond to the following considerations: Site layout; Accommodation of vehicle movements and parking; Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure; Stormwater management; Landscaping; Reducing the urban heat island effect; and Using sustainable materials and technologies. A basic objective of GO sites is the integration of rail service, bus transit and other modes of transportation. In order to implement this objective, especially the station facilities should be designed to promote convenient and efficient transfer of patrons between different modes of transportation. SITE LAYOUT In developing a site layout, the convenience and safety of the users or passengers, along with economy of the overall layout shall be the prime considerations. The overall layout should respect any existing natural assets of the site, and complement the form of the adjacent community. It should allow for emergency, service, parking and maintenance access. Site development also will include fencing, landscaping, snow clearing and storage, as well as

40 32 illumination and acoustical buffers. The location of the rail platform access, tunnels and stairs, parking access and pedestrian routes and station facilities shall be located to reflect safety and convenience of the users and operational constrains. The station building should be centrally located with respect to parking facilities, taking into account future expansion (parking growth, tunnels, etc.). Pedestrian and bicycle access from the surrounding community, and from the surrounding sidewalk/path network should be encouraged by providing short, convenient paths from each applicable direction. Bicycle parking/storage should be provided in the vicinity of the station and should be located where station staff can observe it directly or by CCTV. Bus service to the station by local transit and by GO where warranted, shall be directed to a bus platform close to the station building, with a separate access from the street to facilitate bus access and egress. Passenger drop-off and pick-up facilities, including taxi and accessible accommodation, should be provided close to the station building. A convenient accessible pathway with curb cuts should be provided from the accessible parking spaces and accessible drop-off and pick-up location to the station building, and continue throughout the station facility. Station egress should be designed to mitigate the peak volumes of vehicles leaving the site after arrival of a busy train; multiple egress points should be provided where feasible, and intersection design should reflect the high peak volumes. Provisions shall be made for access by emergency vehicles. Designated fire access routes shall meet OBC and local fire department requirements. The excerpts from Procedure CI-0201 above note the general principles and accommodations that a typical GO Rail site would address. While these are standards that are applied generically, it is equally important to realize that each GO Rail site location will be unique and the design would be customized to suit the opportunities and constraints at each site. The following preliminary sketch details a typical GO Rail site accommodating 12-car trains, surface parking lots on either side of the corridor and an integrated bus facility.

41 33 Figure 5 Typical GO Station Layout: Double sided with Integrated Bus Facility A typical site rail station site may include the following provisions: Tracks Island platform Mini-platform (AODA compliant) Elevators as necessary (depending on the number of tracks and side of access) Tunnels as necessary (depending on the number of tracks and side of access) Passenger shelters Parking (typically ) Accessible parking (10) Vehicle access and egress

42 34 Kiss and Ride, Taxi lane, Accessible drop off Bus loop and drop off Bus bays Bus shelters Station building as required Within this study, station areas were identified and basic key plans of these areas can be found in Appendix C. Regarding the Cambridge East (East Boundary Road) location, the Region of Waterloo is currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment to identify a preferred corridor for the proposed East Boundary Road. All of the preliminary alignment options under consideration would intersect with the CP Rail Galt Subdivision and may present future opportunities to create a GO Rail station. Scenario 1 and 3 considered in this report contain the extension of 12-car GO Train service from Milton to Cambridge. While the exact station locations and layout will be highly dependent on the site selected, the above principles will be followed. These scenarios contemplate stations at the following locations: Cambridge Central; Cambridge East; Campbellville/Tremaine; and Milton. Scenario 2 is the addition of train service involving only DMU technology from Milton to Cambridge. This scenario includes only one (1) station at Cambridge Central and as a result will observe the relevant principles from the above highlighted sections of the DRM. While specific station details have not been developed, discussions with Municipal stakeholders have indicated a number of important considerations to be taken into account when developing the station concepts. These are discussed in Sections 5.3 and 6.2 in more detail. The following figures illustrate a widening, realignment and new Hwy 401 interchange project underway for Tremaine Road in Milton and the proposed Highway 6 Bypass at Morriston (Puslinch). Both projects will be relevant to the consideration of final station locations for a Cambridge GO train service extension.

43 35 Figure 6 Map of Tremaine Road Widening and Realignment Source: Halton Region website, retrieved

44 36 Figure 7 Map of the Morriston Bypass Source: Township of Puslinch website, retrieved Longer Term GO Train Station Considerations The 2009 Feasibility Study and the three new scenarios in this study have assumed approximate station locations for the Cambridge intercity passenger rail service extension in order to facilitate development of prototype train schedules, ridership forecasts and cost estimates. The short term strategy is to implement service with minimal stations in convenient locations but planning and property protection for long term GO Train stations is a high priority for each municipality. The following are some opportunities that need to be addressed in a timely fashion and this adds to the urgency of obtaining a provincial commitment to initiate detailed planning for the extension of intercity passenger rail services to Cambridge. 1. Cambridge Central Station: The short term location at the existing station platform near Water Street is at the north boundary of the downtown and distant from the local transit terminal. With a future LRT alignment planned to serve downtown Cambridge, a fully integrated multimodal terminal is highly desirable. For Cambridge Central station, the location should be refined to take full advantage of the Urban Growth Centre designation for downtown Cambridge specified in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This downtown station location would be consistent with other Metrolinx Mobility Hub designations. The decision on the use of DMU s versus 12-car trains will greatly influence options for this multi-modal station location and design as DMU s can operate on the same track

45 37 gauge as LRT s. 2. Cambridge East Station: The short term location is assumed between Franklin and Dobbie Drive but available parcels are limited and track alignment may be problematic. A regional road study is underway for a new East Boundary Road alignment near the city limits which might be an appropriate location for the second Cambridge station. The Region of Waterloo is currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment to identify a preferred corridor for the proposed East Boundary Road. All of the preliminary alignment options under consideration would intersect with the CP Rail Galt Subdivision. 3. Puslinch Station: The County and Township would be very opposed to a new station before the Morriston Bypass is constructed as increased commuter traffic would exacerbate road congestion and safety issues on existing Hwy 6. The long term station location should be designed to be consistent with the proposed bypass alignment illustrated above. 4. Campbellville/Tremaine Station: The study has assumed a station near Campbellville recognizing that there is good access from Hwy 401 and suitable rail alignment in the vicinity of the existing CP storage yard. Alternatively a station near the realignment of Tremaine Road and close to the new Hwy 401 interchange would also have good road access and support from the local Milton Transit service. In the long term, both locations might be considered for GO stations. If DMU s are selected as the technology then it might be more reasonable to design the DMU to 12-car train transfer at the Tremaine/Steeles Station rather than Milton Central Station. 5. Milton Central Station: While not a new station, the extension of GO Trains to Cambridge will significantly reduce the car parking demand at this station and allow the land to be better utilized for intensification as a transit supportive Mobility Hub.

46 38 this page left intentionally blank

47 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS This study has augmented the results of the 2009 Feasibility Study by introducing three additional scenarios for the extension of GO Train service from Milton to Cambridge. Several options have now been documented to provide information for decision makers. There is urgency in moving ahead related to both provincial and municipal strategies for business attraction, labour force mobility, congestion relief, land use intensification, community sustainability planning and protection of future station locations. Whether by adopting the traditional approach of starting with peak period service using 12-car GO Trains, or by introducing new DMU technology and testing its application for current and emerging markets, the City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo want a provincial commitment to extend intercity passenger rail service to Cambridge as quickly as possible. Transit travel times in this corridor would be excellent and an extension of GO Rail service will attract some auto commuters who are currently adding to congestion on Highway 401. Recent provincial area transportation studies (GTA West Corridor; Niagara to GTA Corridor; and Wellington Waterloo Brant) place a heavy emphasis on the need to develop stronger commuter transit links to connect downtowns and regional centres. Based on the potential advantages of adopting DMU technology for specific applications on its intercity passenger rail network, Metrolinx should be requested to implement Scenario 2 as a pilot project of four DMU s operating on the CP rail corridor between Milton and Cambridge. If DMU s are not considered appropriate then some of the extending GO trains from Milton to Cambridge should be implemented. It is recommended that municipal councils in the City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo support the findings of this study, solicit support from all municipalities along the corridor and other key stakeholders and request action by the Minister of Transportation to implement a Milton to Cambridge intercity passenger rail service extension as soon as possible.

48 40 this page left intentionally blank

49 Appendix A Capital and Operating Costs

50

51 WORK-UP SHEET reference drawing:.dwg printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx tab: Estimating Methodology C:\Users\con39969\Documents\HMM\Projects\ Cambridge Rail Study\Costs\ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx PAGE 1 OF 12 DATE PROJECT LOCATION OPTION ESTIMATOR Cambridge to Milton Cambridge Methodology & E. Cone Passenger Rail Study Ontario Assumptions Estimating Methodology All capital (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) costs are derived from the 2009 Report "Cambridge to GTA Rail Passenger Feasibility Study, Phase 2 (August 2009)". For the purpose of this study, the 2009 baseline estimate of $109,927,484 forms the initial start to all scenarios. All CAPEX estimates start with the 2009 baseline and have the summary costs of individual elements factored up or down to suit the options being evaluated in each scenario. This approach results in an estimate which has the same expected level of accuracy as the previous estimate: AACE Class 4, -30% / +50%. Within the body of the report, each scenario will include an explanation of the modifications to the 2009 baseline estimate that were included to develop the revised CAPEX costs. At this feasibility stage, rough assumptions were made to enable the advancement of the costing information in the absence of all relevant data. This approach is deemed appropriate for the nature of this study and future refinements to the design, assumptions and methodology will be required as the project advances through development towards implementation. Assumptions All assumptions pertaining to CAPEX and OPEX contained in the 2009 Report "Cambridge to GTA Rail Passenger Feasibility Study, Phase 2 (August 2009)" have been included, by association in this study. For the purpose of providing a relative range of CAPEX costs for scenarios with and without rail corridor infrastructure costs, estimates were prepared with and without these CAPEX line items. This by no means suggests that the scenario is possible without necessary infrastructure upgrade and expansion. It is purely to provide a comparison of the high and low range of costs for the Scenario. The assumption should be that CP will require infrastructure improvements and expansion, consistent with the findings of the 2009 study.

52 WORK-UP SHEET reference drawing:.dwg printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx tab: Summary Sheet C:\Users\con39969\Documents\HMM\Projects\ Cambridge Rail Study\Costs\ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx PAGE 2 OF 12 DATE PROJECT LOCATION OPTION ESTIMATOR Cambridge to Milton Cambridge Preliminary E. Cone Passenger Rail Study Ontario OptionSummary Option Summary Baseline Estimate 2009 Baseline Estimate (Extend 12-car GO Train, full stations, layover) $ 109,927,484 A Option Summary - Assuming all Trackwork, Signals, Structures + Vehicles Included Scenario 1-2 x 12-car GO Trains to Cambridge, 3 stations $ Scenario 2-4 DMU trains to Cambridge, 1 station $ Scenario 3-2 x 12-car GO Trains + 2 DMU trains to Cambridge, 3 stations $ 84,927, ,677, ,677,484 B Option Summary - Assuming all Trackwork, Signals, Structures Required (No Vehicles) Scenario 1-2 x 12-car GO Trains to Cambridge, 3 stations $ Scenario 2-4 DMU trains to Cambridge, 1 station $ Scenario 3-2 x 12-car GO Trains + 2 DMU trains to Cambridge, 3 stations $ 84,927,484 73,677,484 88,677,484 C Option Summary - Assuming no (minimal) Trackwork, Signals, Structures + Vehicles Included Scenario 1-2 x 12-car GO Trains to Cambridge, 3 stations Scenario 2-4 DMU trains to Cambridge, 1 station Scenario 3-2 x 12-car GO Trains + 2 DMU trains to Cambridge, 3 stations $ $ $ 31,854,017 47,604,017 53,604,017 D Option Summary - Assuming no (minimal) Trackwork, Signals, Structures (No Vehicles) Scenario 1-2 x 12-car GO Trains to Cambridge, 3 stations Scenario 2-4 DMU trains to Cambridge, 1 station Scenario 3-2 x 12-car GO Trains + 2 DMU trains to Cambridge, 3 stations $ $ $ 31,854,017 20,604,017 35,604,017

53 ESTIMATE Project: Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Project No: Estimate No: Page 3 of 12 Element/ Trade: Measured: E. Cone Estimate Type: Preliminary Date: Element/UCI Reference: 2009 Baseline Estimate Extended: E. Cone Priced: Checked: reference dwg: printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 estimate filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx No. Description Units Unit Quantity Total Notes Price 00 Property Requirements Base (2009 estimate) Ac $2,100,000 Contingency % 25 $525,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $2,625, Civil Base (2009 estimate) LS $8,953,386 Contingency % 40 $3,581,354 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,534, Track Base (2009 estimate) LS $25,995,221 Contingency % 10 $2,599,522 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $28,594, Structures Base (2009 estimate) LS $9,745,200 Contingency % 25 $2,436,300 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,181, Signals Base (2009 estimate) LS $11,290,000 Contingency % 35 $3,951,500 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $15,241, Stations & Platforms Base (2009 estimate) LS $31,000,000 Cambridge East / CV/Tremaine Contingency % 25 $7,750,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $38,750, Vehicles Base (2009 estimate) LS 0 0 $0 Contingency % 0 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 Grand Total $109,927,484

54 ESTIMATE Project: Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Project No: Estimate No: Page 4 of 12 Element/ Trade: Measured: E. Cone Estimate Type: Preliminary Date: Element/UCI Reference: Scenario 1 w/ trk & sig Extended: E. Cone Priced: Checked: reference dwg: printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 estimate filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx No. Description Units Unit Quantity Total Notes Price 00 Property Requirements Base (2009 estimate) Ac $2,100,000 Contingency % 25 $525,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $2,625, Civil Base (2009 estimate) LS $8,953,386 Contingency % 40 $3,581,354 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,534, Track Base (2009 estimate) LS $25,995,221 Contingency % 10 $2,599,522 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $28,594, Structures Base (2009 estimate) LS $9,745,200 Contingency % 25 $2,436,300 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,181, Signals Base (2009 estimate) LS $11,290,000 Contingency % 35 $3,951,500 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $15,241, Stations & Platforms Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station ea $8,000,000 Cambridge East & CV/Tremaine Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station, no parking ea $3,000,000 Cambridge Central (no parking) Layover Yard ea $0 Contingency % 25 $2,750,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $13,750, Vehicles Base (2009 estimate) LS 0 0 $0 Contingency % 0 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 Grand Total $84,927,484

55 ESTIMATE Project: Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Project No: Estimate No: Page 5 of 12 Element/ Trade: Measured: E. Cone Estimate Type: Preliminary Date: Element/UCI Reference: Scenario 2 w/ trk & sig Extended: E. Cone Priced: Checked: reference dwg: printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 estimate filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx No. Description Units Unit Quantity Total Notes Price 00 Property Requirements Base (2009 estimate) Ac $2,100,000 Contingency % 25 $525,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $2,625, Civil Base (2009 estimate) LS $8,953,386 Contingency % 40 $3,581,354 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,534, Track Base (2009 estimate) LS $25,995,221 Contingency % 10 $2,599,522 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $28,594, Structures Base (2009 estimate) LS $9,745,200 Contingency % 25 $2,436,300 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,181, Signals Base (2009 estimate) LS $11,290,000 Contingency % 35 $3,951,500 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $15,241, Stations & Platforms Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station ea $0 Cambridge East & CV/Tremaine DMU Station ea $2,000,000 Cambridge Central (no parking) Layover Yard ea $0 Contingency % 25 $500,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $2,500, Vehicles Sumitomo (UP Express) DMU ea $27,000,000 Contingency % 0 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $27,000,000 Grand Total $100,677,484

56 ESTIMATE Project: Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Project No: Estimate No: Page 6 of 12 Element/ Trade: Measured: E. Cone Estimate Type: Preliminary Date: Element/UCI Reference: Scenario 3 w/ trk & sig Extended: E. Cone Priced: Checked: reference dwg: printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 estimate filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx No. Description Units Unit Quantity Total Notes Price 00 Property Requirements Base (2009 estimate) Ac $2,100,000 Contingency % 25 $525,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $2,625, Civil Base (2009 estimate) LS $8,953,386 Contingency % 40 $3,581,354 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,534, Track Base (2009 estimate) LS $25,995,221 Contingency % 10 $2,599,522 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $28,594, Structures Base (2009 estimate) LS $9,745,200 Contingency % 25 $2,436,300 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $12,181, Signals Base (2009 estimate) LS $11,290,000 Contingency % 35 $3,951,500 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $15,241, Stations & Platforms Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station ea $8,000,000 Cambridge East & CV/Tremaine Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station, no parking ea $3,000,000 Cambridge Central (no parking) DMU Station ea $3,000,000 Layover Yard ea $0 Contingency % 25 $3,500,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $17,500, Vehicles Sumitomo (UP Express) DMU ea $18,000,000 Contingency % 0 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $18,000,000 Grand Total $106,677,484

57 ESTIMATE Project: Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Project No: Estimate No: Page 7 of 12 Element/ Trade: Measured: E. Cone Estimate Type: Preliminary Date: Element/UCI Reference: Scenario 1 w/o trk & sig Extended: E. Cone Priced: Checked: reference dwg: printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 estimate filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx No. Description Units Unit Quantity Total Notes Price 00 Property Requirements Base (2009 estimate) Ac $2,100,000 Reduction to suit scenario Ac $2,100,000 assumed no property req'd Contingency % 25 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 10 Civil Base (2009 estimate) LS $8,953,386 Reduction to suit scenario LS $8,058,047 assumed minimal trackwork civil req'd Contingency % 40 $358,135 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $1,253, Track Base (2009 estimate) LS $25,995,221 Reduction to suit scenario LS $17,604,500 assume second track not required Contingency % 10 $839,072 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $9,229, Structures Base (2009 estimate) LS $9,745,200 Reduction to suit scenario LS $9,745,200 assumed no structures required Contingency % 25 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 80 Signals Base (2009 estimate) LS $11,290,000 Reduction to suit scenario LS $5,645,000 assumed 50% of previous cost Contingency % 35 $1,975,750 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $7,620, Stations & Platforms Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station ea $8,000,000 Cambridge East & CV/Tremaine Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station, no parking ea $3,000,000 Cambridge Central (no parking) Layover Yard ea $0 Contingency % 25 $2,750,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $13,750, Vehicles Base (2009 estimate) LS 0 0 $0 Contingency % 0 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 Grand Total $31,854,017

58 ESTIMATE Project: Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Project No: Estimate No: Page 8 of 12 Element/ Trade: Measured: E. Cone Estimate Type: Preliminary Date: Element/UCI Reference: Scenario 2 w/o trk & sig Extended: E. Cone Priced: Checked: reference dwg: printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 estimate filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx No. Description Units Unit Quantity Total Notes Price 00 Property Requirements Base (2009 estimate) Ac $2,100,000 Reduction to suit scenario Ac $2,100,000 assumed no property req'd Contingency % 25 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 10 Civil Base (2009 estimate) LS $8,953,386 Reduction to suit scenario LS $8,058,047 assumed minimal trackwork civil req'd Contingency % 40 $358,135 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $1,253, Track Base (2009 estimate) LS $25,995,221 Reduction to suit scenario LS $17,604,500 assume second track not required Contingency % 10 $839,072 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $9,229, Structures Base (2009 estimate) LS $9,745,200 Reduction to suit scenario LS $9,745,200 assumed no structures required Contingency % 25 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 80 Signals Base (2009 estimate) LS $11,290,000 Reduction to suit scenario LS $5,645,000 assumed 50% of previous cost Contingency % 35 $1,975,750 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $7,620, Stations & Platforms Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station ea $0 Cambridge East & CV/Tremaine DMU Station ea $2,000,000 Cambridge Central (no parking) Layover Yard ea $0 Contingency % 25 $500,000 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $2,500, Vehicles Sumitomo (UP Express) DMU ea $27,000,000 Contingency % 0 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $27,000,000 Grand Total $47,604,017

59 ESTIMATE Project: Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Project No: Estimate No: Page 9 of 12 Element/ Trade: Measured: E. Cone Estimate Type: Preliminary Date: Element/UCI Reference: Scenario 3 w/o trk & sig Extended: E. Cone Priced: Checked: reference dwg: printed: 1:46 PM 5/25/2014 estimate filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx No. Description Units Unit Quantity Total Notes Price 00 Property Requirements Base (2009 estimate) Ac $2,100,000 Reduction to suit scenario Ac $2,100,000 assumed no property req'd Contingency % 25 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 10 Civil Base (2009 estimate) LS $8,953,386 Reduction to suit scenario LS $8,058,047 assumed minimal trackwork civil req'd Contingency % 40 $358,135 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $1,253, Track Base (2009 estimate) LS $25,995,221 Reduction to suit scenario LS $17,604,500 assume second track not required Contingency % 10 $839,072 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $9,229, Structures Base (2009 estimate) LS $9,745,200 Reduction to suit scenario LS $9,745,200 assumed no structures required Contingency % 25 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $0 80 Signals Base (2009 estimate) LS $11,290,000 Reduction to suit scenario LS $5,645,000 assumed 50% of previous cost Contingency % 35 $1,975,750 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $7,620, Stations & Platforms Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station ea $8,000,000 Cambridge East & CV/Tremaine Less Formalized 12-car GO Train Station, no parking ea $3,000,000 Cambridge Central (no parking) DMU Station ea $3,000,000 Layover Yard ea $0 Contingency % 25 $3,500, Vehicles Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $17,500,000 Sumitomo (UP Express) DMU ea $18,000,000 Contingency % 0 $0 Sub Total (base cost + contingency) $18,000,000 Grand Total $53,604,017

60 SHEET NO. N..NOF NNN filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx printed: 5/25/2014 1:46 PM DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. MADE BY CHECKED BY Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Study Capital Costs E. Cone SMART / Sumitomo Corp DMU DATE 9-May-2014 DATE DMU Capital Costs CALCULATION SHEET Original purchase $ 53,000,000 for 12 vehicles $ 4,416,667 each Option - 6 additional vehicles $ 75,000,000 for 18 vehicles $ 4,166,667 each say $ 4,500,000 each

61 CALCULATION SHEET SHEET NO. N..NOF NNN filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx printed: 5/25/2014 1:46 PM DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. MADE BY CHECKED BY Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Study Capital Costs E. Cone Stations DATE 9-May-2014 DATE Station Capital Costs 2009 Study $ $ 5,000,000 10,000,000 each each (typical GO station) (Cambridge central - terminal type GO station) 2014 Update for less formalized, gravel parking, minimal station furniture/facility, no platform snow melting or buildings say 20 % reduction $ 4,000,000 each (typical sized GO train station) for less formalized, gravel parking with half capacity (room for expn), minimal station furniture/facility, no platform snow melting or buildings say 40 % reduction $ 3,000,000 each (reduced size GO train station) for DMU only station (significantly shorter platform) say 60 % reduction $ 2,000,000 each (reduced size DMU only train station) for DMU station with 12-car GO station say $ 1,000,000 each (DMU platform at the end of 12-car platform)

62 CALCULATION SHEET SHEET NO. N..NOF NNN filename: ROM CAPEX and OPEX.xlsx printed: 5/25/2014 1:46 PM DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. MADE BY CHECKED BY Cambridge to Milton Passenger Rail Study Operating Costs E. Cone DATE 23-May-2014 DATE Traditional GO Train Operating Costs (from 2009 Report) Original Operating Cost Estimate - GO Train $ 3,800,000 per year for 4 trains operating from Milton to Cambridge annual operating cost per train $ 950,000 each

63 Appendix B Ridership and Revenue Forecasting

64

65 B-1 Introduction Ridership forecasts for the Cambridge to Milton corridor were updated from the 2009 Feasibility Study. The update was based on new population and employment forecasts received from the Region of Waterloo, updated travel demand patterns using the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey and modifications made to the rail service scenario. Ridership Forecasting to Union Station The change in the service scenario had the most significant impact on the ridership forecast. The 2009 Report consisted of four peak period, peak direction trains, with four additional train stations west of the Milton GO Station. The travel time to Cambridge Central station was projected to be 92.5 minutes. Table B1 compares this scenario with the three service scenarios illustrated in Section xx of this report. Table B1 Change in Service Scenario from 2009 Cambridge Rail Feasibility Study 2009 Feasibility Study Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario Horizon Number of New Stations AM Peak Period Trains Travel time to Union (Cambridge) Travel time to Union (Campbellville) Horizon Number of New Stations AM Peak Period Trains Travel time to Union Travel time to Union (Campbellville) Refinements to the catchment area population in Cambridge were completed to reflect updated population forecasts provided by the Region. Trip rates where then adjusted to reflect changes in both travel time to Union Station and the frequency of service during the operating period (number of train times).

66 B-2 Trip rate adjustments were due to two primary factors: Change in travel time; and Change in number of trains (frequency). For travel time, it was assumed that a 10 minute change in travel time would have the reverse impact on ridership by 30 percent. Thus a 10 minute increase in travel time would reduce ridership by 30 percent, while the reverse would have the opposite effective. This was applied to the trip rate from the 2009 Feasibility Study. Service elasticity formulas were used to estimate the impact that a frequency change would have on ridership. A 0.3 elasticity rate was used, assuming a change in service levels for GO commuters is relatively inelastic. Where there was a change in frequency, this formula was used to further adjust the trip rate. As in the 2009 Feasibility Study, trip rates for 2021 and 2031 were adjusted upwards to reflect continued, long-term evolution of commuter travel patterns favoring the use of GO Rail service. This is based on an increasing amount of transit-oriented development and local transit investment, as well as the potential for travel time savings and more flexibility in travel times as Metrolinx moves to all-day two-way service and semi-express trains. The changes in the trip rate are illustrated in Tables B2 to B3 below: Table B Estimated Changes in Trip Rates 2009 Feasibility Study Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Cambridge (P) Cambridge (S) Campbellville

67 B-3 Table B Estimated Changes in Trip Rates 2009 Feasibility Study Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Cambridge (P) Cambridge (S) Campbellville The overall adjustments in trip rates for each scenario were then applied to the population within the catchment area to determine the potential ridership for each scenario. This is reflected in Tables B4 to B6. Table B4 Scenario 1 AM Peak Period Forecast (one-way trips) Catchment Assumed Trip Rate per 1,000 Rail Trips Area* Population Low High Low High 2021 Cambridge (P) 49, Cambridge (S) 28, Campbellville 4, Total Cambridge (P) 49, Cambridge (S) 28, Campbellville 4, Total * (P) = Primary Catchment Area; (S) = Secondary Catchment Area

68 B-4 Table B5 Scenario 2 AM Peak Period Forecast (one-way trips) Catchment Assumed Trip Rate per 1,000 Rail Trips Area* Population Low High Low High 2021 Cambridge (P) 49, Cambridge (S) 28, Campbellville 4,022 Total Cambridge (P) 49, Cambridge (S) 28, Campbellville 4,022 Total * (P) = Primary Catchment Area; (S) = Secondary Catchment Area Table B6 Scenario 3 AM Peak Period Forecast (one-way trips) Catchment Assumed Trip Rate per 1,000 Rail Trips Area* Population Low High Low High 2021 Cambridge (P) 49, Cambridge (S) 28, Campbellville 4, Total Cambridge (P) 49, Cambridge (S) 28, Campbellville 4, Total * (P) = Primary Catchment Area; (S) = Secondary Catchment Area

69 B-5 Forecasting Methodology for Service to Intermediate Stations Transit ridership potential between Cambridge and intermediate stations (i.e. stations other than Union Station) was updated from the 2009 Feasibility Study. While ridership forecasting to Union Station is based on a long history of observed travel behaviour, forecasting for intermediate stations is more difficult and subject to broader interpretation. This is because there are very few stations in the GO Rail network that are considered important destinations for GO Rail passengers. Approximately 95 percent of all passengers currently using the Milton GO Rail service alight at Union Station during the AM peak period. The remaining 5 percent are split between other Toronto stations (4 percent) and non-toronto stations (1 percent). For intermediate stations to be attractive to GO Rail users, they require a high concentration of destinations (i.e. unique employment opportunities) near the station and connectivity (via local transit or within walking distance of the train station) to these destinations. The current land use and connectivity at intermediate stations indicate few destination opportunities other than at Union Station for GO Rail passengers. The forecasts conducted in the 2009 Feasibility Report were updated for this current business case study. The 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey was used to assess travel demand between the catchment area of GO Rail stations on the Milton Line for each service scenario. The boarding catchment area used for Cambridge is defined in Figure B1 below. The catchment area is larger than the destination zone catchment area because it assumes GO Train passengers can take multiple modes to access the GO Train (walk, cycling, transit or drive). When the majority of GO Transit customers embark from the GO Train, they can only access their final destination by walking or taking local transit. Therefore, the embarkment catchment area was roughly defined as an area that could be accessed by foot or within a 15 minute ride on a local transit service. For Kipling Station, this area was slightly extended along the Bloor subway due to the higher level of service provided (people are willing to travel longer with a higher service level). The 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey was used to update the overall travel demand between Cambridge and Intermediate Stations. The existing transit mode share was also updated for each station area and compared against the characteristic of each intermediate station (e.g. number of connecting transit routes, etc.). Given that projected trips for 2031 were not provided, population growth data of corresponding catchment areas for 2011, 2021, and 2031 were linearly interpolated based on projected stable

70 B-6 population growth. This factor was then applied using weighted distribution of ridership growth in intermediate station areas from 2011 to 2021 to achieve 2031 ridership growth projected for intermediate stations. As indicated in the 2009 Rail Feasibility Study, GO Rail ridership is dependent on a number of factors, including level of congestion on access roads to destinations, availability and price of parking, accessibility to final destination (by walking, ease of transfers to local transit and the level of service on local transit) and the availability of unique employment opportunities or major education institutions near the stations. The low transit mode share at all intermediate stations can be understood when taking these factors into consideration. Table B7 outlines the updated station area characteristics that have influenced the mode share choice. For each station area along the Milton line, the existing mode share was calculated using the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey to determine the extent of local transit and pedestrian trips for workbased trips during the AM peak period. This provided a further clue to the potential mode share of passengers embarking at each intermediate station.

71 B-7 Figure B1 Catchment Area for Cambridge Stations

72 BUSINESS CASE A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I ON ST RATEGY B-8 Table B7 Station Characteristics Summary along the Cambridge Milton Line Destination Station Distance (from Cambridge) Congestion along the Corridor (from Cambridge) Parking (at employment / education opportunities near station) Key Destinations (near Station) Pedestrian Orientation (ability to walk to key destinations) Transit Connections (ability to access key destinations via local transit) Future Improvements (land use and transit improvements that will improve station accessibility) Summary Campbellville* 30km Limited congestion on Free and abundant Rural area with low Rural area, limited No local transit connections. No major improvements Little potential as a future this portion of Hwy parking at nearby density residential pockets destinations within safe identified. destination. If Milton/Halton 401 (and therefore employment and limited employment and accessible walking Region preferred this station limited travel time opportunities. opportunities near the distance. at Tremaine Road there would saving using GO Rail). station. be somewhat higher potential. Milton 40 km Limited congestion on Free and reasonable Primarily an origin station Auto oriented Eight local transit routes A Wilfrid Laurier University Potential future destination this portion of Hwy parking supply at nearby and surrounded by mainly surroundings and key serving the Milton urban area Satellite campus may locate in due to close proximity to 401 (and therefore employment residential uses, with destinations such as and converging on the GO Milton, increasing student Cambridge, employment limited travel time opportunities. some large format downtown Milton or Station. A peak period local ridership potential. growth, and land use saving using GO Rail). commercial. industrial areas along Hwy transit route connects the GO intensification opportunities 401 more than 1km away. Station to the industrial area Milton Station is designated as a at the station. to the north. Mobility Hub. Significant land is freed up for intensification if GO Laurier campus and planned Train service has a new western upgrade of local transit terminus services will also improve ridership potential. Lisgar 51km Some congestion Free and abundant Surrounded by mainly Suburban auto oriented Four transit connections, No major improvements Little potential as a future occurs in peak times parking at nearby residential development, surroundings, large serving Mississauga and identified. destination. along Hwy 401, little employment with a large commercial shopping plaza within Brampton. congestion on Hwy opportunities shopping plaza to the walking distance East. One Brampton Transit route operating along Steeles Ave. W. corridor to Brampton Gateway Terminal. Mississauga Transit routes connect to Mavis-Erindale employment district and Erin Mills Town Centre.

73 BUSINESS CASE A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I ON ST RATEGY B-9 Destination Station Distance (from Cambridge) Congestion along the Corridor (from Cambridge) Parking (at employment / education opportunities near station) Key Destinations (near Station) Pedestrian Orientation (ability to walk to key destinations) Transit Connections (ability to access key destinations via local transit) Future Improvements (land use and transit improvements that will improve station accessibility) Summary Meadowvale 56km Congestion significant Free and abundant Surrounded by Suburban auto oriented One Mississauga Transit No major improvements Some potential as a future on Hwy 401 during parking at nearby employment area surroundings, and low route which connects to identified. destination. peak times. employment (industrial and office) and density employment area Meadowvale Town Centre. opportunities. some residential within 5 minute walking developments. distance. Not ideal for One Mississauga Transit pedestrian connections. route runs along Mississauga Road and connects to University of Toronto Mississauga and Mavis- Erindale employment district. Connections to Hwy 407 GO Bus (to York University). Streetsville 61km Area best accessed by Historic village centre, Surrounded by mainly Streetsville village centre One Mississauga Transit No major improvements Limited potential as a future Hwy 401 from parking opportunities residential development is pedestrian oriented route connects to identified. destination due to continued Cambridge. Congestion somewhat limited. and not many offering numerous shops Mississauga City Centre, Erin designation as established significant on Hwy 401 destinations. within walking distance. Mills Town Centre and historic village centre. during peak times. However, employment Churchill Meadows opportunities are not employment district. specialized enough to attract a long distance Connections to Hwy 407 GO commute. Bus (to York University). Erindale 65km Area best accessed by Free or low cost parking Surrounded by a mix of Suburban auto oriented Numerous Mississauga No major improvements Potential future destination Hwy 403. Highly at nearby employment/ uses (residential, surroundings; pedestrian Transit routes connect to identified. due to proximity to Uof T congested during peak education opportunities. commercial and overpass connects Mississauga City Centre, Erindale and connectivity to times with Mississauga industrial/ office). employment area on the South Common Centre, and Mississauga City Centre. City Centre nearby. Close to University of south side of Mavis-Erindale employment Highway 401 to the Toronto s Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Road. district. north also congested campus but not currently

74 BUSINESS CASE A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I ON ST RATEGY B-10 Destination Station Distance (from Cambridge) Congestion along the Corridor (from Cambridge) Parking (at employment / education opportunities near station) Key Destinations (near Station) Pedestrian Orientation (ability to walk to key destinations) Transit Connections (ability to access key destinations via local transit) Future Improvements (land use and transit improvements that will improve station accessibility) Summary at peak times. accessible by bus from Mississauga Transit does not station. provide a transit connection to UofT Mississauga. Cooksville 70km The QEW to the Free or low cost and Surrounded by a mix of Suburban auto oriented One Mississauga Transit Metrolinx s 15 year plan Potential as future destination southeast and Hwy 403 reasonable parking uses (residential, surroundings, but route which connects to identifies Rapid Transit due to significant transit to the northwest are supply at nearby commercial and significant employment Mississauga City Centre connecting to the station from improvements in future and highly congested employment industrial/ office). within 5 minute walking (major nearby employment the north (Hurontario). Dundas proximity to Mississauga City during peak times. opportunities. distance. area). Street to the southeast is also Centre. identified by Metrolinx as a Rapid One Mississauga Transit Transit Corridor in the 15 year route which connects to high plan. density residential area just Identified as a Mobility Hub in south of Mississauga City Metrolinx s 15 year plan. Centre. Dixie 75km Severe congestion Free or low cost and Located in a major Access to employment One Mississauga Transit Dundas Street to the northwest Limited potential as a future along QEW to the reasonable parking industrial employment opportunities is not route which connects north identified by Metrolinx as a Rapid destination due to established southeast, Hwy 427 to supply at nearby area. pedestrian friendly. to Northeast employment Transit Corridor in the 15 year surroundings. the east and Hwy 401 employment district. plan. Connects to Etobicoke City and Hwy 403. opportunities. Centre and Oakville. Kipling 80km Severe congestion Medium cost and limited Located in Etobicoke City Numerous employment Connected to the TTC Kipling Etobicoke City Centre identified High potential for a future along QEW to the parking which may be in Centre; a high density opportunities are within Subway Station, a major as Urban Growth Centre in Places destination due to south and Hwy 427 to high demand during work mixed use area. walking distance and the transit interchange which to Grow Plan and as a Mobility considerable employment the west and along hours in nearby area is experiencing provides access to Hub by Metrolinx. growth, subway connection, Hwy 401 and Hwy 403 employment area. High rise residential ongoing development. employment in other areas of road congestion, parking access routes. development directly the City. Dundas Street to the northwest supply and pricing and land north of GO station. Access to employment identified by Metrolinx as a Rapid use intensification (due to opportunities is generally Numerous TTC routes which Transit Corridor in the 15 year designation as a Mobility Hub not pedestrian friendly. connect to surrounding plan. Connects to Etobicoke City and Urban Growth Centre). employment areas. Centre and Oakville. * Potential new GO Rail Station

75 B-11 For the proposed service extension to Cambridge, it can be expected that mode share to intermediate stations will remain low (1 to 6 percent) for This will increase slightly for 2021 as a number of transit systems continue to improve and intensification strategies around GO Stations begin to take shape. By 2031, further intensification strategies planned by municipalities, Metrolinx (Mobility Hubs) and the Province (Places to Grow) will have had over 15 years to take place and improve overall transit orientation at certain stations. This may bring unique employment opportunities as well as improved local transit connectivity. While this report assumes that the service scenarios between Cambridge and Milton will remain consistent between 2021 and 2031 (same number of trains and travel time), it is considered a safe assumption that Metrolinx will introduce improvements along the Milton corridor, that will further increase the attractiveness for people to choose GO Train service. This includes the introduction of semi-express and all day, two-way GO Train service. While not included in the ridership forecast, this will be a key driver in increasing ridership to intermediate stations by this time-frame. Mode shares from Cambridge to intermediate stations were further assessed for each service scenario. Low and high estimates are provided for each horizon year to reflect a level of ridership potential as the municipality grows and planned transit supportive development and new local transit infrastructure is implemented. Estimated mode shares for travel between Cambridge and intermediate station areas are presented in Table B8. The specific stations that were identified as having potential to attract some demand by 2021 as trip destinations include Milton, Erindale, Cooksville and Kipling (subject to improved land use strategies, pedestrian linkages and local transit connections being realized). The remaining stations are expected to attract insignificant transit demand (0 to 1 percent mode split of all travel to that location).

76 BUSINESS CASE A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I ON ST RATEGY B-12 Table B8 Estimated GO Rail Share of Total Travel Demand Municipality Stations AM Peak Modal Share Comments Low High Low High Milton Campbellville* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Campbellville station does not have access to transit service and there are no destinations within a reasonable walking distance. This means there is very limited opportunity for GO train passengers to disembark at this station to access their final destination. Milton 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 5.0% The Milton GO Station has been identified as a Mobility Hub, which should increase the transit supportiveness of the area. Employment is rapidly growing in Milton and there are potential plans to put in place a post-secondary institution along Tremaine Road. Local transit has recently increased, including service to the industrial areas. Additional improvements should be in place by 2021 and significant improvements by There is little congestion between Cambridge and Milton and parking supply and pricing does not favour transit. Mississauga Lisgar Meadowvale 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 5.0% Little potential for transit oriented develop to these stations. There are also few transit connections. Meadowvale GO Station has a higher potential to attract ridership due to the employment nearby, but the connections are poor.

77 BUSINESS CASE A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I ON ST RATEGY B-13 Municipality Stations AM Peak Modal Share Comments Low High Low High Streetsville Erindale 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 6.0% Erindale has potential as a destination once the BRT is developed along Highway 403, however, there is little employment opportunity within close proximity. An improved transit connection to Erindale campus would help. Cooksville 2.0% 4.0% 5.0% 8.0% Cooksville has potential as a destination once Light Rail is built along Hurontario Street and Dundas Street. An Environmental Assessment for this corridor is currently underway. Dixie 2.0% 4.0% 5.0% 8.0% Dixie Station has potential as a destination once the Dundas rapid transit service identified by Metrolinx is built. Road congestion will assist the choice of transit. Parking supply and pricing do not favour transit. Local transit services from these GO stations to nearby destinations will need to be improved Toronto Kipling 4.0% 8.0% 8.0% 14.0% Kipling Station currently receives some mode share due to its connection to the Bloor subway and intensified development in the area. Road congestion leading to Kipling and parking limitations also improve transit attractiveness. Etobicoke Centre is identified as an urban growth centre by Metrolinx, which should increase transit supportive development. The proposed Dundas BRT will provide additional connections to Peel Region destinations within 15 years.

78 B-14 Based on the above assessment, the mode shares for intermediate stations were applied to total 2021 and 2031 travel demand between Cambridge and the municipalities on the Milton line and the result is presented in Tables B9 through B14. Ridership from Campbellville to intermediate stations was calculated using the proportion of GO Rail trips to Union Station originating in these municipalities relative to the total number of trips. Table B GO Rail Ridership Forecasts to Intermediate Stations (Scenario 1 AM Peak) Stations Total AM Cambridge Campbellville Mode Share Peak Period Ridership Ridership Total Ridership Trips (Cambridge) Low High Low High Low High Low High Campbellville Station* Milton Station % 2.0% Lisgar / Meadowvale % 2.0% Station Streetsville / Erindale Station 2.0% 3.0% Cooksville Station % 4.0% Dixie Station % 4.0% Kipling Station % 8.0% Union Station From GTA Model Forecasting TOTAL 1,

79 B-15 Table B GO Rail Ridership Forecasts to Intermediate Stations (Scenario 1 AM Peak) Stations Total AM Cambridge Campbellville Mode Share Peak Period Ridership Ridership Total Ridership Trips (Cambridge) Low High Low High Low High Low High Campbellville Station* Milton Station % 5.0% Lisgar / Meadowvale % 5.0% Station Streetsville / Erindale 4.0% 6.0% Station Cooksville Station % 8.0% Dixie Station % 8.0% Kipling Station % 14.0% Union Station From GTA Model Forecasting TOTAL 1,

80 B-16 Table B GO Rail Ridership Forecasts to Intermediate Stations (Scenario 2 AM Peak) Stations Total AM Cambridge Campbellville Mode Share Peak Period Ridership Ridership Total Ridership Trips (Cambridge) Low High Low High Low High Low High Campbellville Station* Milton Station % 4.0% Lisgar / Meadowvale % 2.0% Station Streetsville / Erindale 0 2.0% 3.0% Station Cooksville Station % 4.0% Dixie Station % 4.0% Kipling Station % 8.0% Union Station From GTA Model Forecasting ,

81 B-17 Table B GO Rail Ridership Forecasts to Intermediate Stations (Scenario 2 AM Peak) Stations Total AM Cambridge Campbellville Total Mode Share Peak Period Ridership Ridership Ridership Trips (Cambridge) Low High Low High Low High Low High Campbellville Station* Milton Station 1, % 5.0% Lisgar / Meadowvale % 5.0% Station Streetsville / Erindale 0 4.0% 6.0% Station Cooksville Station % 8.0% Dixie Station % 8.0% Kipling Station % 14.0% Union Station From GTA Model Forecasting , Table B GO Rail Ridership Forecasts to Intermediate Stations (Scenario 3 AM Peak)

82 B-18 Stations Total AM Cambridge Campbellville Mode Share Peak Period Ridership Ridership Total Ridership Trips (Cambridge) Low High Low High Low High Low High Campbellville Station* Milton Station % 2.0% Lisgar / Meadowvale % 2.0% Station Streetsville / Erindale 2.0% 3.0% Station Cooksville Station % 4.0% Dixie Station % 4.0% Kipling Station % 8.0% Union Station From GTA Model Forecasting ,

83 B-19 Table B GO Rail Ridership Forecasts to Intermediate Stations (Scenario 3 AM Peak) Stations Total AM Cambridge Campbellville Mode Share Peak Period Ridership Ridership Total Ridership Trips (Cambridge) Low High Low High Low High Low High Campbellville Station* Milton Station 1, % 5.0% Lisgar / Meadowvale % 5.0% Station Streetsville / Erindale 4.0% 6.0% Station Cooksville Station % 8.0% Dixie Station % 8.0% Kipling Station % 14.0% Union Station From GTA Model Forecasting , Passenger Fare Revenue Forecasting Methodology The revenue generated by the daily commuting trips was calculated using passenger fare calculator on the GO Transit website. GO Transit offers a variety of fare payment options, with discounts provided depending on age category and fare payment method. Table B15 outlines the existing use of each fare payment option on the Milton line (provided by GO Transit). Table B15 Fare Payment Usage on the Milton Line PRESTO Single-Ride Day Pass Group Pass Other Adult 88.69% 1.10% 0.83% 0.09% 1.29% Student 4.53% 0.06% 0.04% 0.00% 0.07% Senior/Child 2.02% 0.03% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% Other 1.16% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% This distribution was reflected in the revenue calculations for new commuter trips on the Milton

84 B-20 corridor from the four new stations. The fare was then multiplied by two (2) to calculate two-way travel. Revenue was calculated for trips between new stations in Cambridge (2) and Campbellville to existing stations in Milton, Mississauga, Kipling and downtown Toronto. Annual revenue from new trips as a result of the service extension to Cambridge was calculated based on 243 days a year. This assumes weekdays only, minus statutory holidays and two weeks holiday. Average fare prices were assumed where station catchments are grouped together, reflecting a ridership distribution of 50 percent from each station. Because Campbellville is a proposed station, distance factors were used to calculate trip costs from Campbellville to intermediate stations. These factors were calculated based on distance interpolations using Cambridge to intermediate station trip costs as a basis of reference. Distribution of fare media was reflected in this calculation.

85 Appendix C Potential Station Site Locations

86

87 C-1 Potential Station Area: Campbellville

88 C-2 Potential Station Area: Puslinch

89 C-3 Potential Station Area: Cambridge East (Franklin Blvd)

90 C-4 Potential Station Area: Cambridge Central

91 C-5 Potential Station Area: Cambridge East (East Boundary Road) Source: East Boundary Road Class Environmental Assessment Public Consultation Center No. 1