Draft Relief Line Corridor Evaluation

Draft Corridor Evaluation - 12/02/2016
Evaluation Criteria Description Measure A
Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Qualitative - List existing and planned
surface transit routes that could be
connected in this corridor option
Potential connections to major transit
routes in the study area:
-506 Carlton
-504 King
-505 Dundas
-501 Queen
-502 Downtowner
-75 Sherbourne
-8 Broadview
-62 Mortimer
-87 Cosburn
-100 Flemingdon Park
Least potential for connections to future
Eastern Waterfront or streetcar on Cherry
Street
-506 Carlton
-504 King
-503 Kingston Road
-501 Queen
-502 Downtowner
-75 Sherbourne
-25 Don Mills
-72 Pape
-81 Thorncliffe Park
Most potential for connections to future
Eastern Waterfront network; potential
stations at Queen/Sumach would fall just
short of Cherry streetcar; station at
Queen/Broadview would connect with the
Broadview streetcar extension into the
Portlands
-506 Carlton
-504 King
-501 Queen
-502 Downtowner
-503 Kingston Road
-75 Sherbourne
-25 Don Mills
-72 Pape
-143 Downtown/Beach Express
stations at King/Sumach or Unilever
would provide connectivity
-506 Carlton
-504 King
-505 Dundas
-501 Queen
-502 Downtowner
-503 Kingston Road
-508 Lakeshore
-75 Sherbourne
-8 Broadview
-62 Mortimer
-87 Cosburn
-100 Flemingdon Park
stations at Front/Cherry or
Queen/Broadview would provide
connectivity
-506 Carlton
-504 King
-503 Kingston Road
-501 Queen
-502 Downtowner
-508 Lakeshore
-75 Sherbourne
-25 Don Mills
-72 Pape
Eastern Waterfront network; stations at
King/Sumach and Queen/Broadview
would provide connectivity
-506 Carlton
-504 King
-503 Kingston Road
-501 Queen
-502 Downtowner
-508 Lakeshore
-75 Sherbourne
-25 Don Mills
-72 Pape
-143 Downtown/Beach Express
Eastern Waterfront network; stations at
Front/Cherry and Unilever would provide
connectivity
Quantitative - number of people who
use the station to transfer to and from
surface routes, number of transit riders
passing by the potential station
location
Total number of inbound surface transit
passengers passing potential station
locations: 94,445
Corridor interfaces with significant
existing ridership at Gerrard/Broadview;
however, overall ridership across the
corridor is lower
locations: 117,049
existing ridership at Queen/Sherbourne,
Queen/Sumach, Queen/Broadview, and
Pape/Gerrard
locations: 106,253
existing ridership at Queen/Sherbourne,
Queen/Pape-Carlaw, and Pape/Gerrard
locations: 103,624
existing ridership at King/Sherbourne,
Queen/Broadview, and
Gerrard/Broadview
locations: 118,508
Queen/Pape-Carlaw, and Pape/Gerrard
locations: 97,609
Queen/Pape-Carlaw, and Pape/Gerrard.
Misses existing ridership at Front/Cherry
Connectivity to Walking and
Cycling Routes
What is the ability to connect to existing
and planned walking and cycling routes?
Qualitative – Describe opportunities to
connect with existing and planned
walking and cycling routes Potential to connect with existing and
planned pedestrian and cycling networks
including:
- Sherbourne cycle track
- Richmond cycle track (pilot)
- Simcoe cycle track
Potential to connect with existing and
including:
- Cherry bike lane
including:
- Martin Goodman multi-use trail
- Cherry bike lane
including:
- Adelaide cycle track (pilot)
- Cherry bike lane
including:
- Cherry bike lane
including:
- Martin Goodman multi-use trail
- Cherry bike lane
Connectivity to High-Order
Transit Services
and planned higher-order TTC Subway,
Metrolinx LRT, GO Transit and SmartTrack
Services
Qualitative - potential for connectivity
with higher-order transit services No potential for connections to
SmartTrack / Regional Express Rail.
Connects with the Yonge-University-
Spadina and Bloor-Danforth Subways
Opportunity for connections to
SmartTrack / Regional Express Rail at
Pape/Gerrard
Opportunity for two connections to
Pape/Gerrard and Unilever site
No potential for connections to
SmartTrack or Regional Express Rail
Opportunity for connections to
Pape/Gerrard
Opportunity for two connections to
Pape/Gerrard and Unilever site
Corridors
Choice
and planned bus and streetcar routes?
Connectivity to Surface
Transit Routes

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Supporting Transportation
Infrastructure
What is the availability of land at the
station location to provide supporting
transportation infrastructure (e.g. bus
bays/lay-bys/terminals, taxi stands,
PPUDOs, bicycle racks, secure bicycle
parking facilities, and commuter parking if
applicable)?
Qualitative: assessment of land or
roadway space available for bus stops,
pick-up/drop-off activity, bicycle racks,
etc.
Downtown: Limited space may be
available for supporting transportation
infrastructure at Queen / University or in
Nathan Phillips Square
Inline: opportunities for infrastructure at
Regent Park; some space available at
Sherbourne/Queen-Shuter and
Broadview/Gerrard
Danforth: some space available at
Broadview Station
Pape/Gerrard. Less space available at
other stations along Queen corridor
Danforth: some space available at Pape
Station
Pape/Gerrard and Unilever. Less space
available at other stations along Queen
corridor
Station
Downtown: Very little space available for
supporting transportation infrastructure
within the King/Wellington corridor
Sherbourne / Front and Front/Cherry;
less space available at Queen/Broadview
and Gerrard/Broadview
Danforth: some space available at
Broadview Station
Sherbourne / Front and Pape/Gerrard.
Less space available at other stations
along King Street
Station
Sherbourne / Front, Unilever,
Front/Cherry and Pape/Gerrard. Less
space available at King/Sherbourne
Station
Directness of Transfer to
the Bloor/Danforth and
Yonge/University/ Spadina
subway
How direct is the connection to the
Bloor/Danforth Subway Line?
How direct is the connection to the Yonge-
University-Spadina Subway Line?
Quantitative - Approximate distance
and journey time between existing BD
station / YUS station and proposed new
RL station
Downtown: Dependant on alignment,
this could support a direct connection
between YUS and Relief Line at Queen
Station
Danforth: Broadview Station located at
Broadview Avenue; therefore, transfer
with minimal horizontal separation could
be provided between Broadview subway
platform and Relief Line platform
*Distance and journey time will be
estimated at the alignment evaluation
phase when station box locations are
determined
Station
Danforth: Pape Station located at Pape
Ave; therefore, transfer with minimal
horizontal separation could be provided
between Pape subway platform and
Relief Line platform
determined
Station
determined
between YUS and Relief Line at King
Station
Danforth: Broadview Station located at
Broadview Avenue; therefore, transfer
with minimal horizontal separation could
be provided between Broadview subway
platform and Relief Line platform
assessed at the estimated evaluation
determined
Station
determined
Station
determined
Compatibility with the
PATH network
What is the ability to support the
expansion and/or integrate with the
downtown PATH network?
What is the ability to improve pedestrian
flow within the PATH network?
Qualitative – comment on connectivity
to PATH and potential for improved
pedestrian flow
PATH network expansion may be
required to provide multiple points of
connectivity to stations within a
Queen/Richmond corridor downtown
PATH network is well-developed along
King/Wellington corridor; corridor has
high potential for integration with PATH
network
network
network
Ability to reduce passenger
crowding at existing
stations
What is the ability to reduce passenger
crowding at existing stations?
Quantitative – existing passenger
volumes at existing downtown subway
stations
Potential to increase crowding at existing
Queen Station (appx 55,000 riders); May
increase crowding at Osgoode Station,
however station usage less than half of
St. Andrew (appx 23,000 riders)
King Station (appx 60,000 riders) and St.
Andrew Station (appx 55,000 riders)
Choice

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Downtown Pedestrian
Network Impacts
What is the ability to reduce pedestrian
crowding at existing downtown stations
and at street level?
Qualitative – comment on connectivity
and potential for improved or
worsened pedestrian flow at existing
downtown stations and at sidewalk
level
- Brings pedestrians in along the top
edge of the Financial District, further from
Union Station where large volumes of
passengers are alighting from GO
services; can promote more balanced
pedestrian flows in the Financial District
- Potential capacity reduction due to
introduced counter-flow pedestrians
southbound from Queen
- Brings passengers to the centre of the
Financial District, close to where large
volumes of passengers are alighting from
GO services at Union Station
- Potentially reduces overall pedestrian-
km travelled if passengers exit the
system on King in the heart of the
Financial District
southbound from King
Financial District
Financial District
Service Area
What is the degree of duplication the
corridor/alignment provides with other
existing/planned higher-order transit
services (e.g. Regional Express Rail,
SmartTrack)?
Qualitative – assessment of degree to
which service areas overlap between
the Relief Line and other
existing/planned higher-order transit
services
No duplication of Service Area with
SmartTrack/Regional Express Rail.
- Queen terminus has limited overlap with
Union SmartTrack/RER station service
area
- Limited catchment overlap at inline
stations
Catchment overlap: 0.1 km2
Very little potential duplication of Service
Area with SmartTrack/RER
area
- Some overlap at inline stations
Potential for some duplication of Service
area
- Significant overlap at inline stations
Very little potential duplication of Service
- King terminus has some overlap with
area
- Limited overlap at inline stations
area
area
- Significant overlap at inline stations
-Least service overlap with
SmartTrack/RER, but doesn't provide any
connection to the service.
- Does not connect to potential future
routes that would serve the Eastern
Waterfront
- brings passengers to the top of the
CBD, thus potentially diverting
customers from King/St Andrew and
Dundas/St Patrick stations and reducing
sidewalk crowding
- this corridor offers the least overlap with
SmartTrack RER service areas while still
connecting with it
- high connectivity to existing and
planned eastern waterfront surface
transit routes with very high existing
ridership
sidewalk crowding
- this option shares two potential
connection points with SmartTrack/RER
but also has a higher duplication of
service area as a result
planned surface transit routes with very
high existing ridership
sidewalk crowding
-Key disadvantage is inability to connect
with SmartTrack while still overlapping
with its service area along King
- Does not address station crowding at
King station
- less space at potential stations for
supporting infrastructure
- connects with SmartTrack but would
potentially suffer from a high degree of
duplication with that service along King
King station
transit routes with very high existing
ridership
- connects with SmartTrack but would
potentially result in a high degree of
duplication compared to a Queen
alignment
King station
transit routes with high existing ridership
Choice - Summary
Choice - Guiding Points
Choice

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Proximity to Key
Destinations
What is the ability to provide transit
service to key destinations (hospitals,
daycare centres, seniors/ retirement
homes, other care facilities, education
facilities, libraries, community centres,
recreation centres, major employment
centres, shopping malls, attractions,
government offices, social service centres,
transit hubs, etc.)?
Quantitative - Number of key
destinations within 500 m radius of the
stations for each corridor
List the key destinations served and
describe their scale
Improves access to Key Destinations
such as:
-Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO)
-Opera House
-City Hall
-Old City Hall
-Nathan Phillips Square
-Toronto Eaton Centre
-Massey Hall
-Daniels Spectrum
Improves access to key Health Facilities
such as:
-Bridgepoint Health
-St. Michael's Hospital
-"Hospital Row" on University Avenue,
including Toronto General Hospital,
Mount Sinai Hospital, Princess Margaret
Cancer Centre, Peter Munk Cardiac
Centre, Hospital for Sick Children, and
Toronto Rehab
Improves access to key Universities and
Colleges such as:
'-Ryerson University
such as:
-Opera House
-City Hall
-Old City Hall
-Massey Hall
-Daniels Spectrum
such as:
Toronto Rehab
Colleges such as:
-Ryerson University
such as:
-Opera House
-City Hall
-Old City Hall
-Massey Hall
-Daniels Spectrum
such as:
Toronto Rehab
Colleges such as:
-Ryerson University
such as:
-Metro Hall
-Metro Toronto Convention Centre North
-Roy Thompson Hall
-Union Station
-Air Canada Centre
-Sony Centre for Performing Arts
-Distillery District
-St. Lawrence Market
such as:
-Bridgepoint Health
Colleges such as:
-George Brown College
such as:
-Metro Hall
-Roy Thompson Hall
-Union Station
-Air Canada Centre
Does not improve access to any key
Health Facilities
Colleges such as:
such as:
-Metro Hall
-Roy Thompson Hall
-Union Station
-Air Canada Centre
Does not improve access to any key
Health Facilities
Colleges such as:
Relief to Existing Subway
Network (Danforth)
How much relief will the option provide to
the Yonge Subway Line, Yonge-Bloor
Station and the Bloor/Danforth subway,
compared to other options?
Qualitative - Proximity to Bloor-Yonge
Station, representing catchment area
for diversion
Quantitative – Number of existing daily
riders entering the station
As a result of location at the western end
of the study area, and higher number of
daily passengers at the station, more
diversion potential expected.
Existing Daily Originating Passengers:
28,860
As a result of location in the central
portion of the study area, and higher
number of daily passengers at the
station, more diversion potential expected
25,100
25,100
As a result of location at the western end
of the study area, and higher number of
daily passengers at the station, more
diversion potential expected.
28,860
25,100
25,100
Relief to Existing Subway
Network (Downtown)
the Yonge Subway Line, Yonge-Bloor
Station, Union Station and the
Bloor/Danforth subway, compared to other
options?
Qualitative – Proximity to the centroid
of employment density, representing
ability to divert trips from existing
subway network
Quantitative – existing boardings and
alightings at downtown subway
stations, serving as an indicator of
transit demand
Proximate to the centroid of employment
in the financial district.
Combined boardings and alightings at
Queen and Osgoode: 78,000
King and St. Andrew: 115,000
Experience

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Interchange Station Design
(Danforth)
What is the ability for the station
layout/design to function well as a new
interchange station?
Qualitative – assessment of features at
existing subway stations, such as bus
loops, accessibility features, number of
existing entrances, etc.
Broadview station suitable for upgrades
to fulfill interchange function, including
opportunity to optimize passenger flows
by designing Relief Line station to
intersect at an angle
Pape station suitable for upgrades to
fulfill interchange function; second exit
already constructed
already constructed
Broadview station suitable for upgrades
to fulfill interchange function, including
opportunity to optimize passenger flows
by designing Relief Line station to
intersect at an angle
already constructed
already constructed
Interchange Station Design
(Downtown)
What is the ability for the station
layout/design to function well as a new
interchange station?
Qualitative – assessment of features at
existing subway stations, such as bus
loops, accessibility features, number of
existing entrances, etc.
Queen and Osgoode suitable for
upgrades to fulfill interchange function
King and St. Andrew suitable for
Proximity to key
destinations for potential
future northern extension
What is the future ability to serve
customers and key destinations such as
Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park?
Qualitative – comment on the ability to
provide stations on the future
alignment which would serve people
and destinations north of the Danforth,
based on population and employment
#################################
Provides connectivity to high population
and employment at Thorncliffe Park;
Pape catchment is not constrained by
physical barriers; higher density
developments at Cosburn and mixed-use
developments along Pape
developments along Pape #################################
Proximity to key
destinations for potential
future western extension
What is the future ability to serve
customers and destinations west of the
downtown such as Liberty Village, Parkdale
and Roncesvalles?
Qualitative – comment on the ability to
provide stations on the future
alignment which would serve people
and destinations west of the
downtown, based on population and
employment
Moderate planned population and
employment along Queen West corridor;
less compared to King
Key destinations include:
- Queen Street West
- West Queen West
- Trinity Bellwoods
- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
- Parkdale
- Roncesvalles
- Queen Street West
- West Queen West
- Trinity Bellwoods
- Parkdale
- Roncesvalles
- Queen Street West
- West Queen West
- Trinity Bellwoods
- Parkdale
- Roncesvalles
High planned population and employment
density along King West corridor
- Metro Hall and TIFF lightbox
- Entertainment District
- New developments at Front / Spadina
- Liberty Village
- Parkdale
- Roncesvalles
- Liberty Village
-Parkdale
- Roncesvalles
- Liberty Village
-Parkdale
- Roncesvalles
Experience

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Travel Time
How long will it take to get from the
Danforth to the downtown?
Quantitative – Estimated travel time
from Danforth to Downtown, which will
vary based on distance, number of
stations and alignment
Travel time savings (Coxwell to Queen
Stations) estimated at 11% or 2.3 mins
Via Relief Line: 18.6 mins
Via existing subway: 20.9 mins
*Dependent on alignment; ultimate
number of stations included on the
alignment will also affect travel time.
Travel time savings (Coxwell to King
Relief to Yonge Subway Line
How much relief will the corridor provide
to the Yonge Subway line?
Quantitative – Reduction in AM
peakhour ridership southbound on
Yonge Subway south of Bloor
9% reduction* 9% reduction* 8% reduction* 11% reduction* 10% reduction* 10% reduction*
Relief to Bloor-Yonge
Station
to the Bloor/Yonge Station?
Quantitative - Reduction in passengers
transferring in AM peak hour between
BD Subway (westbound) and Yonge
Subway (southbound)
31% reduction* 32% reduction* 23% reduction* 35% reduction* 34% reduction* 34% reduction*
Relief to Union Station
to Union Station?
Quantitative - Reduction in passengers
using Union Station in AM peak hour
10% increase in alightings from Finch to
Vaughan trains*
Negligible effect on overall Union subway
station usage during AM peak hour*
1% decrease in overall passengers using
Union Station GO Rail services during
AM peak hour*
Vaughan trains*
Negligible effect on overall Union subway
AM peak hour*
Vaughan trains*
1% increase to overall Union subway
Negligible change to overall number of
passengers using Union Station GO Rail
services during AM peak hour*
10% decrease in alightings from Finch to
Vaughan trains*
1% decrease to overall Union subway
AM peak hour*
Vaughan trains*
AM peak hour*
Vaughan trains*
AM peak hour*
Relief to Bloor-Danforth
Subway Line
to the Bloor/Danforth line?
Quantitative - Reduction in AM peak
hour ridership westbound on BD
Subway west of Sherbourne
22 % reduction* 29% reduction* 16% reduction* 30% reduction* 30% reduction* 30% reduction*
Relief to Surface Transit
Route
surface routes?
Quantitative – Improvement to surface
routes with capacity deficiencies
(measured by improvement to volume-
to-capacity ratios for routes with
capacity deficiencies)
Option would bring Queen streetcar
ridership just below or at theoretical
capacity and King streetcar ridership well
below theoretical capacity**
Queen Streetcar: Reduction of 200*
passengers in AM peak hour
King Streetcar: Reduction of 1400*
passengers during AM peak hour
Option would bring King and Queen
streetcar ridership well below theoretical
future capacity**
future capacity
future capacity**
future capacity**
future capacity**
Experience

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Relief Line Ridership
How much ridership will this corridor
attract?
Quantitative - AM peak period total
boardings on the Relief Line
AM Peak Boardings: 14,600* AM Peak Boardings: 21,500* AM Peak Boardings: 20,700* AM Peak Boardings: 26,800* AM Peak Boardings: 24,400* AM Peak Boardings: 28,300*
Total Transit Ridership
How much total ridership can be expected
on transit routes with this corridor?
Quantitative - Total transit ridership
within model area during the AM Peak
Period
Net new daily riders: 5,800* Net new daily riders: 7,800* Net new daily riders: 9,800* Net new daily riders: 15,100* Net new daily riders:10,700* Net new daily riders: 17,600*
- Serves the most key destinations along
its length
- Less able to serve Liberty Village along
a future western extension.
- Opportunity to use pre-built east-west
station elements at Queen and Osgoode
- Expected to attract the fewest new
riders overall
- Predicted to provide significant relief to
the existing streetcar network
- Less able to serve developments at
Cosburn along a future northern
extension because its catchment area is
limited by the Don Valley to the west
-Serves most key destinations along its
length
a future western extension.
- Expected to attract fewer new riders
overall
the existing streetcar network and on
Line 2 west of Broadview
- Greatest potential to serve destinations
such as Thorncliffe Park along a future
northern extension
- Serves the most key destinations along
its length
- Expected to attract a relatively
moderate number of new riders
the existing streetcar network
northern extension
- Serves fewer key destinations along its
length compared to Queen corridors
- Able to serve Liberty Village and the
highest population/employment along a
- Expected to attract a relatively high
number of new riders
- Less able to serve developments at
Cosburn along a future northern
extension because its catchment area is
limited by the Don Valley to the west
- Expected to attract a relatively
moderate number of new riders
northern extension
- Expected to attract the highest number
of new riders amongst the corridors
considered
northern extension
Experience - Summary
Experience - Guiding Points
Experience

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Improving Service to
Neighbourhood
Improvement Areas
What is the ability to serve the City's
disadvantaged residents?
Quantitative - City of Toronto
Neighbourhood Equity Score weighted
by population within a 500 m radius of
the potential station areas of the
corridor
-Potential for a station in the middle of
Regent Park redevelopment
(Dundas/Sumach)
-Improves service to the Queen corridor,
which has greater equity needs than the
King corridor
-Improves service to Broadview station,
which has less equity needs than Pape
Station
-Corridor likely to have fewer stations,
resulting in less local access
- highest population served weighted by
NES despite having the fewest proposed
stations amongst corridor alternatives
Population x NES: 19,700
-Potential to improve service to Regent
Park (potential station at Queen /
Sumach is within 500 m of the southern
portion of Regent Park)
-Improves service along the Queen
corridor, which has greater equity needs
than the King corridor
-Improves service to Pape station, which
has more equity needs than Broadview
Station
Park (potential station at King / Sumach
is within 500 m of the southern portion of
Regent Park)
'-Improves service along the Queen
corridor, which has greater equity needs
than the King corridor
-Improves service to Pape station, which
Station
-Option does not serve Regent Park
-Improves service along the King
corridor, which has less equity needs
than the Queen corridor
-Improves service to Broadview station,
which has less equity needs than Pape
station
Park (potential station at King / Sumach
is within 500 m of the southern portion of
Regent Park)
-Improves service to Pape Station, which
Station
-Option does not serve Regent Park
-Improves service to Pape Station, which
Station
-Corridor likely to have more stations,
resulting more local access
Supporting Equity in
Mobility by Gender,
Income, Family Status, and
Age Class
Does the option improve transit access and
support broad transit mobility needs of
genders, income groups, family statuses
and age groups in consideration of the
objective to improve equity for all groups?
Qualitative – demographic analysis to
identify concentrations of households
with low income, unemployment,
single parents (female headed
households), seniors and youths
Qualitative – describe how options may
support greater equity in terms of
gender, class, family status and age
groups
Despite Corridor A having the lowest
number of proposed new stations, the
corridor as a whole serves the greatest
absolute number of individuals in several
equity-seeking groups including: low-
income persons, recent immigrants,
market and subsidized housing tenants,
and unemployed persons.
These numbers are largely accumulated
at the proposed Regent Park station
(Dundas at Sumach) and Moss Park
(Shuter and Sherbourne). Further, there
is a relatively higher proportion of
individuals in equity-seeking groups living
along the Queen corridor into the
downtown, compared to King.
Corridor B1 as a whole does not excel in
any one equity-seeking category;
regardless, the results suggest it could
serve a large number of female-headed
single-parent households, children, and
recent immigrants. Together with B2,
Corridor B1 serves a notable number of
low income as well as market and
subsidized tenants.
These numbers are mainly accumulated
at Queen-Sumach (just south of Regent
Park) and Queen-Sherbourne (Moss
Park). Further, there is a relatively higher
proportion of individuals in equity-seeking
groups living along the Queen corridor
into the downtown, compared to King.
Corridor B2 as a whole does not stand
out in any single category with the
exception of children under 18 and
seniors (65+). Regardless, the results
suggest it could serve a large number of
female-headed single-family households,
and unemployed persons. Together with
B1, Corridor B2 serves a notable number
of low income as well as market and
subsidized tenant households.
at King-Sumach (south of Regent Park)
and Queen-Sherbourne (Moss Park).
Further, there is a relatively higher
proportion of individuals in equity-seeking
groups living along the Queen corridor
into the downtown, compared to King.
Corridor C as a whole serves the fewest
disadvantaged, equity-seeking
individuals both proportionally and
absolutely.
at King-Sherbourne, where higher
numbers of equity-seeking individuals
reside; however, the benefits of serving
this station are outweighed by the
relatively poorer performance of Front-
Cherry and King stations downtown.
Corridor D1 as a whole does not stand
out in any single category in absolute
terms. Speaking relative the population
served, it serves the highest proportion of
tenants living in subsidized housing. It
also serves a moderate number of low-
income individuals as well as children
under 18.
at King-Sumach (south of Regent Park)
and at King-Sherbourne, where higher
numbers of equity-seeking individuals
reside; however, the benefits of King-
Sumach and King-Sherbourne are
outweighed by the lower performance of
the King stations downtown.
Corridor D2 as a whole does not stand
out in any single category. It does serve
an overall high number of seniors (65+)
and a notable number of low-income
individuals.
at King-Sherboure, where higher
numbers of equity-seeking inviduals
reside; however, the benefits of serving
this station are outweighted by the
relatively poorer performance of Front-
Cherry and King stations downtown.
Social Equity

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
-Provides best access to Regent Park, a
high density designated neighbourhood
improvement area
- Station at Shuter-Sherbourne provides
service to Moss Park, a neighbourhood
wtih high equity-seeking population
density
- Corridor ahs the fewest proposed
stations yet the highest absolute number
of individuals served
- While it may provide slightly less access
to Regent Park than Corridor A, the
potential station at Queen/Sumach
captures some of the Regent Park
population within the 500 m buffer
- Station at Queen-Sherbourne provides
density
- Overall, the corridor travels through the
areas of greater need across its length,
connecting the Queen corridor to Pape
Station
- While it may provide slightly less access
to Regent Park than Corridor A, the
potential station at King or Queen at
Sumach captures some of the Regent
Park population within the 500 m buffer
- Station at Queen-Sherbourne provides
density
- Overall, the corridor travels through the
areas of greater need across its length,
connecting the Queen corridor to Pape
Station
- Provides little access to Regent Park
-With the exception of King-Sherbourne,
the King corridor performs serves a lower
social equity function than Queen
- Provides some access to Regent Park
at proposed King/Sumach station
- Serves areas of greater need east of
the Don River along Pape
-Provides little access to Regent Park
- Serves areas of greater need east of
the Don River along Pape
Social Equity - Summary
Social Equity - Guiding Points
Social Equity

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Serving Areas of Existing
Population
What is the ability to serve people within
station area?
Quantitative - number of people within
500 m radius of each station
-Existing population density is high
2011 Total Population: 46,005
2011 Population Density: 105 ppl/ha
-Existing population density is high but
total population catchment is slightly
lower due to fewer stations and
catchment overlap
Serving Areas of Planned
Population Growth
What is the ability to serve areas of
planned population growth?
Quantitative – forecast future number
of people within 500 m radius of each
station (reflecting physical barriers)
Travels through areas of highest future
population density, including Regent Park
and the Queen corridor through
downtown. The Queen corridor station
catchments capture planned population
growth on King St.
In the Downtown area, most residential
growth is likely to take place south of
Queen St given the largely stable
residential character of the Mixed Use
designated areas north of Queen, and
the Queen West HCD west of University.
Travels through areas of high future
population density, including Pape
Station and the Queen corridor
growth on King St.
East of the Don, development along
Queen St may eventually be constrained
by a Queen St E HCD.
Travels through areas of high future
population density, including Pape
Station and the Queen corridor
growth on King St.
Future population density is slightly less
at Broadview station and through the
King corridor downtown; however, most
significant population growth downtown
will likely be closer to King St.
through the King corridor downtown;
however, most significant population
growth downtown will likely be closer to
King St.
through the King corridor downtown;
however, most significant population
growth downtown will likely be closer to
King St.
Shaping the City

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Downtown: Corridor is within the
Downtown Core and Central Waterfront
Areas and is in a Mixed Use Area.
Corridor would serve significant
Regeneration Areas west of the
downtown.
West of the Don: The King St-oriented
corridors serve the greatest amount of
land designated as Regeneration Areas,
which are intended to attract significant
levels of employment, commercial and
residential uses. Would serve King-
Parliament, West Don Lands Keating
Channel precinct Regeneration areas.
Potential to serve Mixed Use Areas as
designated in the City's Official Plan.
East of the Don: Potential to serve Mixed
Use areas at Gerrard/Broadview and
Mixed Use areas at Queen/Broadview.
Alignment would also serve
Neighbourhoods along Broadview
corridor.
Potential to serve the employment lands
on former Unilever site, though not with
direct or convenient access. Potential to
serve employment lands at
Eastern/McGee.
Danforth: Broadview located at the
intersection of two Avenues and is in a
Mixed Use area. Improved transit service
would support future redevelopment
along the Avenues.
23% Mixed-Use
12% Regeneration Areas
downtown.
Parliament and West Don Lands
Regeneration areas.
East of the Don: Potential to serve
Mixed Use areas at Gerrard/Broadview
and Mixed Use areas at
Queen/Broadview. Alignment would also
serve Neighbourhoods along Broadview
corridor.
Potential to serve the employment lands
on former Unilever site, though not with
direct or convenient access. Potential to
serve employment lands at
Eastern/McGee.
along the Avenues.
23% Mixed Use
Compatibility with City
Planning Policies
Corridor would serve Mixed Use Area
west of the downtown. However,
redevelopment along Queen St West will
be constrained by the Queen St West
Heritage Conservation District. Southern
edge of corridor would serve
downtown. Queen St between Bay and
John falls within flight path protection
area for St. Michael's Hospital. However,
significant heights still possible.
West of the Don: Potential to serve
Regeneration Areas, Mixed Use Areas
and Apartment Neighbourhoods as
Mixed use development on the north side
of Queen will be limited by adjacent
stable neighbourhoods. Queen St
between Jarvis and Parliament falls
within flight path protection area for St.
Michael's Hospital. However, significant
heights still possible.
Mixed Use Area at Gerrard and
Broadview; otherwise, travels beneath
Neighbourhoods
along the Avenues.
23% Mixed-Use
West of the Don: Potential to serve the
King-Parliament and West Don Lands
Regeneration Areas. Regeneration Areas
are intended to attract significant levels of
employment, commercial and residential
uses.
Would serve Mixed Use Areas and
Apartment Neighbourhoods as
Mixed use development on the north side
of Queen will be limited by adjacent
stable neighbourhoods. Queen St
between Jarvis and Parliament falls
within flight path protection area for St.
Michael's Hospital. However, significant
heights still possible.
Mixed Use Areas and Neighbourhoods.
Potential to improve service and support
transit-oriented development along
Queen Street, which is designated as an
Avenue. Potential to serve Employment
areas north and south of Eastern Ave
and at Dundas/Carlaw.
Danforth: Pape located at the
along the Avenues.
23% Mixed-Use
West of the Don: Potential to serve the
King-Parliament and West Don Lands
Regeneration Areas. Regeneration Areas
are intended to attract significant levels of
employment, commercial and residential
uses.
Would serve Mixed Use Areas and
Apartment Neighbourhoods as
Queen St between Jarvis and Parliament
falls within flight path protection area for
ST. Michael's Hospital. However,
Mixed Use Areas and Neighbourhoods at
Pape and Queen. Serves regeneration
area in the Port Lands.
Pape-oriented corridors that extend south
of Eastern serve the greatest amount of
lands designated for Employment, which
are intended to accommodate significant
numbers of jobs. Would provide direct
service to potentially significant
employment area on former Unilever
lands, employment lands south of
Eastern Ave and employment lands
along Carlaw. Potential to serve
Regeneration lands in the Port Lands.
along the Avenues.
20% Mixed-Use
downtown.
Parliament, West Don Lands Keating
Channel precinct Regeneration areas.
designated in the City's Official Plan. King
and Front Streets are significant Mixed
Use Areas served by this corridor.
Mixed Use Areas and Neighbourhoods.
Potential to improve service and support
transit-oriented development along
Queen Street East, which is designated
as an Avenue.
Pape-oriented corridors that extend south
of Eastern serve the greatest amount of
lands designated for Employment, which
are intended to accommodate significant
numbers of jobs. Would provide direct
service to potentially significant
employment area on former Unilever
lands, employment lands south of
Eastern Ave and employment lands
along Carlaw. Potential to serve
Regeneration lands in the Port Lands.
along the Avenues.
21% Mixed-Use
Qualitative – Descriptive of whether
the option supports the growth
intentions of the official plan or
relevant planning studies within the
station area (i.e. is the station located
within the Downtown, Central
Waterfront, or a Centre, Avenue or
Employment District in the urban
structure?)
Quantitative – percentage of land
within 500 m radius of stations along
the corridor designated as mixed-use
area
Does the option support the city’s planning
policies?
Shaping the City

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Existing Physical Barriers
Are there any physical barriers (such as
highways, valleys, rail corridors,
disconnected street networks, retaining
walls, fences, etc.) that impact connectivity
or limit the future ability to implement
transit-oriented development around the
station?
Qualitative – Discussion of potential
barriers, % of walk-up catchment area
(i.e. 500 m radius of stations) lost,
barriers to station entrances from
people/jobs
Downtown: No physical barriers limit the
catchment area of this corridor through
downtown
Inline: Catchment areas constrained by
the Don Valley at Gerrard/Broadview
(appx. 30% reduction) and at Regent
Park (appx. 10% reduction) limited by the
Don River
Danforth: Western side of the catchment
area at Broadview Station is limited by
the Don Valley and the Don Valley
Parkway (appx. 40% reduction)
downtown
Inline: Catchment areas of potential
stations reduced by the Don Valley
and/or rail corridor at Queen/Broadview
(appx. 30% reduction) and
Queen/Sumach (appx. 5% reduction)
Danforth: No physical barriers limit the
catchment area of Pape Station
downtown
and/or rail corridor at Unilever (appx.
50% reduction) and King/Sumach (appx.
5% reduction)
Downtown: Union Station Rail Corridor
limits catchment area of potential
downtown stations by 10% to 40% for
King and Wellington stations,
respectively; impact mitigated somewhat
by PATH network through Union.
Inline: Catchment areas of all potential
inline stations reduced by the Don Valley
at Gerrard/Broadview (appx 30%),
Queen/Broadview (appx. 30%). An
approximate 10% reduction in walk-up
catchment is possible at Front/Cherry
and King/Sherbourne. Front/Sherbourne
catchment would be further reduced by
the rail corridor.
Danforth: Western side of the catchment
area at Broadview Station is limited by
the Don Valley and the Don Valley
Parkway (appx. 40% reduction)
by PATH network through Union
and/or rail corridor at Queen/Broadview
(appx. 30% reduction) and King/Sumach
(appx. 5% reduction)
by PATH network through Union.
and/or rail corridor at Unilever (appx.
50% reduction), Front/Cherry (appx. 10%
reduction), and King/Sherbourne (appx.
10% reduction)
Supporting City-Building
Opportunities
Does the option support new, planned or
proposed development or opportunities
for place-making?
Qualitative – Describe opportunities to
support development areas, improve
connectivity or enhance sense of place,
with consideration for built form and
development potential, area of
potential opportunity sites
Supports new and emerging
developments in Regent Park. Although
this is a significant area of emerging
development, it is the only such
opportunity along this corridor.
Supports mid-rise, transit-oriented
redevelopment along the Avenues.
-Supports new and emerging
developments in Broadview Loft District,
West Don Lands and Distillery District
Supports opportunities to establish
Gerrard Square as major community hub.
developments in the Queen/Carlaw
District, Unilever redevelopment site, Port
Lands redevelopment, South of Eastern
Employment District, West Don Lands
and Distillery District
redevelopment along the Avenues
(Queen west of the Don and at Pape
only).
developments in the Broadview Loft
District, West Don Lands and Distillery
District
developments in the Broadview Loft
District, West Don Lands, and Distillery
District
developments in the Queen/Carlaw
District, South of Eastern Employment
District, Unilever Redevelopment Site,
Port Lands redevelopment, Keating
Channel Precinct, West Don Lands, and
Distillery District
Shaping the City

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Partnership Opportunities
for Transit-Oriented
Development
What are the development partnership
opportunities available at the station
location to encourage integration of
station entrances with new mixed-use,
transit-oriented development connecting
development to transit, and participate in
the cost-sharing of infrastructure such as
station entrances?
Qualitative – assessment of soft sites
within potential station areas / areas
identified for station entrance buildings
and other infrastructure Queen/Sherbourne: Potential to integrate
station as part of potential Moss Park
Community Centre revitalization.
Jarvis/Queen: Potential to integrate
station at new development at SW corner
of Queen/Jarvis or as part of a potential
Moss Park redevelopment
Broadview/Danforth: Potential to
integrate station south of Danforth
Queen/Sherbourne: Potential to integrate
Queen/Broadview: Potential to integrate
station within redevelopment sites at SW
corner.
Gerrard/Pape: Potential to integrate
station entrances as part of a potential
redevelopment of Gerrard Square or
Riverdale Shopping Center
Pape/Danforth: Potential to integrate
station across from Pape Station through
potential redevelopment of surface
parking lot
Queen/Sherbourne: Potential to integrate
Eastern/Broadview : Potential to integrate
station within Unilever redevelopment
site.
parking lot
Front/Sherbourne: Potential to integrate
with new development at SE and NW
corners
Front/Cherry: Potential to integrate
station into new development on the west
side of Cherry at Front
Queen/Broadview: Potential to integrate
corner.
Broadview/Danforth: Potential to
integrate station south of Danforth
corners
'Queen/Broadview: Potential to integrate
corner
parking lot
corners
Front/Cherry: Potential to integrate
station into new development on the west
side of Cherry at Front
Eastern/Broadview : Potential to integrate
station within Unilever redevelopment
site.
parking lot
- Travels through the highest absolute
and relative (density) population
- While this corridor does support
redevelopment in Regent Park, it
provides the least connectivity to most
areas of future redevelopment in the City
(such as the Portlands and Unilever
lands).
- Stations east of the Don are limited to
the west by the Don
-Travels through areas of high existing
and future population density
- Supports connectivity to many of the
emerging developments in the study area
- Development limited north of Queen
('Neighbourhood' designation)
- Station walking catchments in this
corridor are cumulatively the least limited
by physical barriers compared to the
other options
- Travels through areas of high existing
- Provides the very good connectivity to
areas of future development (Unilever,
Portlands, etc.); however, misses some
opportunities with its King/Sumach
station compared to a Front/Cherry
option with D2 and C
- Development limited north of Queen
('Neighbourhood' designation)
- Some of the station catchment areas
are limited by physical constraints
- Travels through areas of lowest current
- While this corridor does provide access
to Front/Cherry, it provides less
connectivity to the Unilever lands and the
Portlands
- Development along King corridor not
significantly constrained any stable
residential neighbourhoods
- All stations within this corridor are
limited by physical barriers to some
degree (Don River at Broadview stations
and the rail corridor along King stations)
and future population; slightly lower than
Queen, however, a majority of growth is
anticipated directly along King on both
sides
- Support connectivity to many emerging
developments in the study area
significantly constrained by stable
and future population; slightly lower than
Queen, however, a majority of growth is
anticipated directly along King on both
sides
- Provides the best connectivity to areas
of future development (Unilever,
Portlands, etc.)
significantly constrained by stable
Shaping the City - Summary
Shaping the City - Guiding Points
Shaping the City

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Queen/ Sherbourne: Station has potential
to significantly contribute to revitalization
of Moss Park and the community facilities
there
Queen/Sumach: Station has potential to
impact stable neighbourhoods north and
south of Queen
Pape/Gerrard: Station could help to
improve north-south connectivity across
GO corridor. However, private
residences to the north of the potential
station area may be impacted.
Corridor will require tunnelling under
stable neighbourhoods at turn east of
Carlaw
Potential impacts to existing stable
neighbourhood areas at Carlaw/Eastern
and Pape
Stable neighbourhoods are within 500m
of Queen/Sherbourne, but impacts are
unlikely given distance.
*List of private residences impacted will
become available at the alignment
evaluation stage
Queen/ Sherbourne: Station has potential
to significantly contribute to revitalization
of Moss Park and the community facilities
there
King/Sumach: Station has potential to
impact stable neighbourhoods north of
King
Queen/Pape: Station has potential to
impact stable neighbourhoods on either
side of Pape
GO corridor. However, private
residences to the north of the potential
station area may be impacted.
Corridor will require tunnelling beneath
stable neighbourhoods east of Logan
unlikely given distance.
evaluation stage
Station at Gerrard/Broadview has
potential to impact stable
neighbourhoods which are in close
proximity
Front/Cherry: New station could be
designed to mark the gateway to the
West Don Lands and the Front St
promenade
Fewest anticipated below-grade impacts
to residential properties
evaluation stage
King/Sumach: Station has potential to
impact stable neighbourhoods north of
King
GO corridor
Requires tunnelling beneath stable
neighbourhoods at turn east of Carlaw
evaluation stage
Queen/Pape: Station has potential to
impact stable neighbourhoods on either
side of Pape
GO corridor
Front/Cherry: New station could be
designed to mark the gateway to the
West Don Lands and the Front St
promenade
stable neighbourhoods east of Logan
evaluation stage
Healthy Neighbourhoods
Compatibility with Existing
Neighbourhoods
Are there opportunities to enhance
existing neighbourhoods through improved
connectivity or place-making? Are there
potential impacts to existing stable
residential neighbourhoods?
Qualitative – Describe opportunities for
neighbourhood improvement within
500 m radius of rapid transit station,
with consideration for transition areas
and integration of the station facilities
with adjacent properties and
surrounding neighbourhoods.
List private residences potentially
impacted by construction and long-
term operations
Regent Park: Station would provide
access to a dense apartment
neighbourhood that is undergoing
revitalization.
stable neighbourhoods west of
Parliament and between River and
Broadview.
Potential impacts to existing stable
neighbourhood areas at
Gerrard/Broadview and Broadview
unlikely given distance. Greater impacts
at Shuter/Sherbourne.
evaluation stage

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Improving Access to
Community Services and
Facilities
Does the option improve access to schools,
places of worship, and community service
providers?
Does the option impact schools, places of
worship and other community service
providers?
Qualitative – List the key institutions
and services to which access will be
improved
Improves access to Community Centres,
including:
-Harrison Pool
-John Innes CRC
-Regent Park North RC
-Regent Park South CC
Improves access to schools, including:
-St. Michael Choir School
-CALC Secondary School
including:
-Harrison Pool
-John Innes CRC
-Frankland CC
-Matty Eckler CRC
-Riverdale Collegiate Institute
including:
-Harrison Pool
-John Innes CRC
-Jimmie Simpson RC/Park
-Frankland CC
-Matty Eckler CRC
including:
-St. Lawrence Community Centre
Improves access to schools and
universities, including:
-CALC Secondary School
including:
-Frankland CC
-Matty Eckler CRC
including:
-Jimmie Simpson RC/Park
-Frankland CC
-Matty Eckler CRC
Provides best access to community
services and facilities, with a moderate
degree of compatibility with existing
neighbourhoods (from an impacts
perspective) and multiple opportunities
for placemaking and context-sensitive
integration of station facilities into
surrounding neighbourhoods
services and facilities, with a high degree
of compatibility with existing
neighbourhoods, and some opportunity
Provides the least access to community
services and facilities, yet it is considered
the most compatible with existing
neighbourhoods (from an impacts
perspective) with some opportunity for
placemaking and context-sensitive
Provides access to fewer community
Provides access to fewer community
neighbourhoods and multiple
opportunities for placemaking and
context-sensitive integration of station
facilities into surrounding
neighbourhoods
Downtown: Large buildings and below
grade parking will constrain the
integration of station facilities
King/Sherbourne: Tight main street and
neighbourhood fabric and below grade
parking will challenge sensitive
integration of station facilities.
Redevelopment sites along Front St have
better potential for context sensitive
King/Sumach: Tight main street and
neighbourhood fabric will challenge
sensitive integration of station facilities.
Queen/Broadview: Soft site at SW corner
may create opportunity for sensitive
Pape/Gerrard: Large sites and areas of
surface parking will make it easier for
more context-sensitive station facility
integration
Cherry/Front: Redevelopment sites west
of Cherry will help to facilitate more
Broadview/Eastern: Significant planned
change creates the potential to integrate
the station within the emerging
neighbourhood.
Queen/Pape: Tight main street fabric with
neighbourhoods on either side of paper
will create challenges for sensitive
integration
Downtown: Queen St stations have
potential to impact the heritage setting.
Queen/Sherbourne: station would require
careful design to ensure that is well
integrated with Moss Park and the
community facilities there
Stations at Sumach: Tight main street
and neighbourhood fabric will challenge
sensitive integration of station facilities
integration
Queen/Sherbourne: station would require
integrated with Moss Park and the
community facilities there.
King/Sumach: Tight main street and
neighbourhood fabric will challenge
Queen/Pape: Tight main street fabric with
neighbourhoods on either side of paper
will create challenges for sensitive
integration
Broadview/Eastern: Significant planned
change creates the potential to integrate
the station within the emerging
neighbourhood.
Opportunities for context-
sensitive integration of the
station facilities with
adjacent properties and
surrounding
neighbourhoods
Are there opportunities for context-
sensitive integration of the station facilities
with adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighbourhoods, and within
existing buildings?
Qualitative – describe opportunities to
integrate the station and station
facilities with the existing
neighbourhood
Queen/Jarvis: Opportunity to integrate
station within new development or into
Armoury site.
Regent Park: New station would require
integrated with new open space and
aquatic centre
Gerrard/Broadview: Will be difficult to
integrate within existing buildings such as
the Riverdale Library which is a heritage
structure. Development on the south
side of Gerrard would require the
demolition of some main street
structures.
Healthy Neighbourhoods - Summary
Healthy Neighbourhoods - Guiding Points
Cherry/Front: Redevelopment sites west
of Cherry will help to facilitate more
Gerrard/Broadview: Will be difficult to
integrate within existing buildings such as
the Riverdale Library which is a heritage
structure. Development on the south
side of Gerrard would require the
demolition of some main street
structures.
Healthy Neighbourhoods

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Impacts and Compatibility
with natural environment
Does this corridor have any impacts to the
natural environment that cannot be
avoided at the alignment planning stage?
Is there potential for temporary or
permanent impacts on natural features?
Qualitative – list species (flora and
fauna) that may be affected by
the option
Qualitative – assessment of whether
station is located within an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), a
Heritage Conservation District (HCD), a
Natural Heritage System (NHS) or an
area of archaeological potential (or
near to registered archaeological sites)
Qualitative – opportunities for station
construction to result in improvement
to the natural environment
- Potential stations not located within
ESA, HCD, NHS, registered
archaeological site; some station located
in areas of archaeological potential
- No flora or fauna of concern at station
areas
- Depending on alignment, may cross the
former Consumers Gas coal-gasification
works that are heavily impacted by coal
tar
- Greater environmental impacts where
the corridor crosses the Don on a future
northern extension (longer crossing
distance)
areas
tar
- Fewer environmental impacts where the
corridor crosses the Don on a future
northern extension (shorter crossing
distance)
ESA, HCD, or registered archaeological
site; First Gulf site located near boundary
of a NHS which can be avoided at the
alignment planning stage; some station
located in areas of archaeological
potential
areas
tar
distance)
*Environmental soil and groundwater
impacts at First Gulf are unknown as no
information has been provided by the
property owner
areas
- Corridor crosses the former Consumers
Gas coal-gasification works that are
heavily impacted by coal tar
- Greater environmental impacts where
the corridor crosses the Don on a future
northern extension (longer crossing
distance)
areas
tar
distance)
ESA, HCD, or registered archaeological
site; First Gulf site located near boundary
of a NHS which can be avoided at the
alignment planning stage; some station
located in areas of archaeological
potential
areas
tar
distance)
*Environmental soil and groundwater
impacts at First Gulf are unknown as no
information has been provided by the
property owner
Ability to Mitigate Natural
Impacts
Are there ways to mitigate the natural
impacts arising from this option?
Qualitative – ability to mitigate flooding
risks or impacts to flora and fauna in
the study area
- Potential station locations not located
within flood plain; little to no risk of station
flooding
- Impacts to flora and fauna will be
temporary (during construction) and can
be mitigated
- Some possible alignment options may
cross the former Consumers Gas coal-
gasification works that are heavily
impacted by coal tar.
flooding
be mitigated
-Potential station at Unilever located
within Don River flood plain; more difficult
to mitigate against flooding risk
be mitigated
flooding
be mitigated
flooding
be mitigated
-Potential station at Unilever located
within Don River flood plain; more difficult
to mitigate against flooding risk
be mitigated
Public Health & Environment

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Compatibility with Parks
and Public Spaces
Does the option create an opportunity to
enhance parks and public spaces?
Is there potential for temporary or
permanent impacts to parks?
Qualitative – Describe the
opportunities to enhance parks and
public spaces
List parks potentially impacted by the
construction or long term operations
-Depending on alignment, multiple parks
and public spaces could potentially be
impacted, including Nathan Phillips
Square, Moss Park, Regent Park North,
Regent Park South, Hubbard Park and
Riverdale Park East
*Full estimation of impacts to parks and
public spaces, along with mitigation and
enhancement measures, will be explored
in the alignment evaluation stage
Square, Moss Park, Underpass Park,
McLeary Park, Jimmie Simpson Park,
Matty Eckler Playground
Square, Moss Park, Underpass Park,
Corktown Common, Matty Eckler
Playground
impacted, including David Pecault
Square, Berczy Park, St. James Park,
Market Lane Park, Corktown Common,
River Square, Underpass Park, Joel
Weeks Park, Thompson Street Parkette,
Hubbard Park, and Riverdale Park East
Market Lane Park, Corktown Common,
Weeks Park, McLeary Park, Jimmie
Simpson Park, Matty Eckler Playground
Market Lane Park, Sackville Playground,
Weeks Park, McLeary Park, Matty Eckler
Playground
Encouraging People to use
Public Transit and Drive
Less
How much less will people drive as a result
of this alignment?
Quantitative – reduction in total vehicle
kilometres travelled during the AM
Peak Period
Quantitative – reduction in auto mode
share
VKT Change: +10,300*
Auto mode share change: -0.05%*
VKT Change: -18,300*
VKT Change: +3,900*
VKT Change: -6,700*
- greater impact to the Don River for a
- no stations at risk of flooding
- low impact to AM peak auto mode share
and positive influence on AM peak VKT
- least impact to the Don River for a
- minimal impact to AM peak auto mode
share and VKT
- flood mitigation measures may be
required at unilever site
share and VKT
- greater impact to the Don River for a
share and VKT
share and minor positive influence to AM
peak VKT
- flood mitigation measures may be
required at unilever site
share and VKT
Public Health and Environment - Summary
Public Health and Environment - Guiding Points
Public Health & Environment

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Engineering Feasibility
Is the option possible to construct and how
difficult will it be in comparison to other
options? (Comparison of the downtown
corridors)
Qualitative - List key technical
challenges associated with tunnel
construction such as:
-Geotechnical conditions / flooding
characteristics
-Compatibility with other major
infrastructure projects (i.e. Coxwell
Bypass sewer, flood protection
landform at the West Donlands, etc.)
-Availability of laydown / staging areas
- Crosses Don River further north where
crossing distance is shortest; crosses
well north of the flood protection landform
- Tight sub-surface building constraints
along Queen Street; some space
available on the north side of Queen
between Albert and University for
laydown / staging areas
- Steam pipes running beneath Queen
and Richmond; however, Queen pipes
designed to accommodate a future
subway thus pose fewer design
complexities compared to a
King/Wellington corridor
- Crosses the Don River further south
where the crossing distance is greater;
crosses just north of the flood protection
landform
- The longest crossing of the Don Valley
near the Unilever lands; will require
tunnelling beneath the flood protection
landform; mitigation measures required
landform
along King Street; limited space available
for laydown / staging areas
- Steam pipes running beneath King and
Wellington were not designed to
accommodate future below grade
infrastructure; will require extensive utility
relocation
landform
relocation
- After B2 this option has the longest
crossing of the Don Valley near the
Unilever lands; will require tunnelling
beneath the flood protection landform;
mitigation measures required
relocation
Downtown: Construction within this
corridor has the potential to impact Major
Arterials in the downtown core, (Yonge
Street, Bay Street, University Avenue,
Queen Street, Richmond Street), existing
subway stations (Queen, Osgoode and
Broadview) and surface transit routes. A
total of 8 potential service disruptions to 4
streetcar routes (501, 502, 504, 505) at 5
open cut locations
Transit ridership on Queen streetcar and
at Queen and Osgoode subway stations
is lower than the King streetcar and
subways stations
Opportunity to use Richmond in the
downtown core, with fewer impacts to
surface transit and traffic
Inline: Particular impacts to traffic and
transit at Queen/Sherbourne and
Gerrard/Broadview stations
Danforth: Impacts may be more difficult
to mitigate at Broadview station
compared to Pape station, as a result of
streetcar service to Broadview
Pape) and surface transit routes. A total
of 8 potential service disruptions to 6
streetcar routes (501, 502, 504, 504, 505,
506) at 6 open cut locations
subways stations
transit at Queen/Sherbourne,
River/Queen, Queen/Broadview and
Queen/Carlaw
Danforth: Pape station buses can be re-
routed to alternate stations
streetcar routes (501, 502, 503, 504, 506)
at 6 open cut locations
subways stations
transit at Queen/Sherbourne,
River/Queen, Queen/Broadview and
Queen/Carlaw
King Street, Adelaide Street), existing
subway stations (King, St. Andrew and
Broadview) and surface transit routes. A
total of 17 potential disruptions to 7
streetcar routes (503, 504, 508, 501, 502,
505, 506) at 6 open cut sites
Potential for impact to more transit users
downtown, as ridership on King streetcar
and at King and St. Andrew subway
stations is higher than that of the Queen
streetcar, and Queen and Osgoode
subway stations
Opportunity to use Wellington in the
transit at King/Sherbourne,
Queen/Broadview and
Gerrard/Broadview
Danforth: Impacts may be more difficult
to mitigate at Broadview station
compared to Pape station, as a result of
streetcar service to Broadview
streetcar routes (503, 504, 508, 501, 506)
at 6 open cut sites
subway stations
Opportunity to use Wellington Street in
the downtown core, with fewer impacts to
Queen/Broadview and Queen/Carlaw
streetcar routes (503, 504, 506, 508) at 6
open cut sites
subway stations
Opportunity to use Wellington Street in
the downtown core, with fewer impacts to
Queen/Broadview and Queen/Carlaw
Affordability
Construction Impacts
-Construction Impacts to
Existing Transit Services
-Traffic Impacts during
Construction
What is the ability to maintain existing
transit service during construction (e.g.
maintaining service on streetcar lines,
subway station closures required, etc.)?
What are the traffic impacts to local and
arterial streets and intersections during the
construction of the option?
Qualitative – assessment of number of
transit routes to be affected, ridership
on affected routes, impact to existing
subway stations and ease of re-routing
surface transit routes
Qualitative - assessment of impacts to
vehicular traffic based on the City of
Toronto’s roadway classification system
(i.e. Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, etc.)

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Construction Costs How much will it cost?
Qualitative – high level cost estimate
(corridor evaluation will be based on
$250M/km and $150M/station, plus
special circumstances where known;
alignment evaluation will include
additional unit cost pricing where
quantities can be calculated)
$3.3 billion
* Preliminary cost estimate of provided
by the TTC
$3.7 billion
by the TTC
$4.1 billion
by the TTC
$3.6 billion
by the TTC
$3.7 billion
by the TTC
$4.0 billion
by the TTC
Minimize Property
Acquisition Costs
How many properties will be impacted
or need to be purchased to support the
option?
Qualitative – Property Impacts, with
consideration for platforms,
primary and secondary
access/egress, vertical circulation
elements (VCE’s), and service
rooms.
This corridor option would likely require
property acquisitions at six potential
station locations
*A full estimation of the property
acquisition costs associated with each
option will be known at the alignment
phase
property acquisitions at seven potential
station locations
phase
property acquisitions at eight potential
station locations
phase
station locations
phase
station locations
phase
property acquisitions at eight potential
station locations
phase
Ease of Providing
Connection to Storage
Facility
How easy will it be to connect to a storage
facility?
How many properties will be affected to
connect to a storage facility?
Qualitative – General description of
property requirements and
construction complexity for providing
connection to a Storage Facility
Quantitative – Identify the approximate
number of properties affected
Qualitative – Comment on
constructability and impact to TTC
operations from engineering
perspective
-Further from Greenwood Yard;
connection via GO Rail corridor likely
infeasible as a result of 2.7 km length.
Therefore, wye connection required
-Use of TTC station property as staging
space for wye track construction has the
potential for disruption to streetcars
-Potential use of existing third track
available between Broadview and
Chester
*Further assessment of impact to
properties and TTC operations will occur
-Closer to Greenwood Yard
-Connection via GO Rail corridor would
require approximately 1 km long "service
spur"
potential for disruption to buses; buses
can be temporarily re-routed to other
stations more easily than streetcars
spur"
-Further from Greenwood Yard;
connection via GO Rail corridor likely
infeasible as a result of 2.7 km length.
Therefore, wye connection required
potential for disruption to streetcars
-Potential use of existing third track
available between Broadview and
Chester
spur"
-Existing bus terminal could be
temporarily used as construction staging
space for Wye track at Pape Station
spur"
-Existing bus terminal could be
temporarily used as construction staging
space for Wye track at Pape Station
Ease of Constructing Future
Northern Extension
Are there constructability constraints
associated with extending the Relief Line
west of downtown?
Qualitative – Comment on future
potential extension from
constructability perspective, with
consideration for property impacts
Extension to the north along Broadview
results in property impacts at the north
end of Broadview and will result in a very
long crossing structure
Potential conflict with planned Wet
Weather Flow treatment plant
Extension to the north allows for shorter
crossing structure; however, there are
some potential property impacts at the
north end of Pape
north end of Pape
Extension to the north along Broadview
results in property impacts at the north
end of Broadview and will result in a very
long crossing structure
Potential conflict with planned Wet
Weather Flow treatment plant
north end of Pape
north end of Pape
Affordability

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Ease of Constructing Future
Western Extension
Are there constructability constraints
associated with extending the Relief Line
west of downtown?
Qualitative – comment on future
potential extension from
constructability perspective, with
consideration for property impacts
- Opportunity to extend the line to the
west using existing public rights-of-way
- No foreseeable constraints to the
constructability of a western extension
Operating / Maintenance
Cost
What is the ongoing annual operating and
maintenance cost for the option?
Qualitative – high-level assessment of
ongoing operating and maintenance
cost for the option, considering the
length of tunnel, number of stations,
additional infrastructure (such as
emergency exit buildings) and any fleet
size implications
Shorter corridor (appx. 5.4 km) with fewer
stations expected to have lower ongoing
operating and maintenance costs
Longer corridor (appx. 6.8 km) with more
stations expected to have higher ongoing
Corridor with medium length (appx. 6.1
km) and number of stations expected to
have moderate ongoing operating and
maintenance costs
-Shortest corridor with the fewest
stations therefore the least expensive to
construct and operate
-Crosses the Don further north where the
crossing distance is shortest and
geotechnical conditions are more
favourable
-Travels through downtown along the
Queen/Richmond corridor which is less
built-up than the King/Wellington corridor
- Steam pipes designed to accommodate
future subway on Queen
- Opportunity to use pre-built elements at
Queen and Osgoode stations
-More challenging to extend north across
the Don from Broadview Station
(northern ext.)
-Service spur to Greenwood Yard not
feasible, so construction of Wye track
would be required (greater anticipated
property requirement)
-Future Don crossing expected to be
easier coming along Pape Avenue
(northern ext.)
- Crosses the Don at Queen where
crossing distance is shorter; does not
affect FPL
-Potential for service spur connection to
Greenwood Yard (reduced property
requirement)
-Longer corridor with potential for the
most stations therefore higher
construction and operating costs
(northern ext.)
- Crosses the Don on an angle from
Unilever to Queen -- crossing distance is
greatest; crossest FPL.
requirement)
-Flood mitigation measures required for
Unilever site
-Longest corridor option therefore highest
'-Travels through downtown along the
King/Wellington corridor which is more
built-up than the Queen/Richmond
corridor
- Steam pipes along King and Wellington
present significant engineering
challenges compared to
Queen/Richmond
-More challenging to extend north across
the Don from Broadview Station
(northern ext.)
-Service spur to Greenwood Yard not
feasible, so construction of Wye track
would be required (greater property
requirement)
(northern ext.)
requirement)
-May cross the Don River at the location
where bedrock is deeper
corridor
Queen/Richmond
-Longer corridor with potential for the
most stations therefore higher
(northern ext.)
requirement)
- Crosses the Don from Unilever to King --
crossing distance is greater; crossest
FPL.
-Flood mitigation measures required for
Unilever site
corridor
Queen/Richmond
Affordability - Summary
Affordability - Guiding Points
Affordability

Broadview ↔ Queen
B1
Pape ↔ Queen
via Queen
B2
Pape ↔ Queen
via Unilever
C
Broadview ↔ King
D1
Pape ↔ King
via Queen then King
D2
Pape ↔ King
via Unilever
Corridors
Serving Areas of Existing
Employment
What is the ability to connect to
employment areas?
Quantitative – number of existing jobs
within 500 m radius of station
(reflecting physical barriers) -Provides access to high employment
density downtown (Queen corridor)
2011 Total Employment: 153,344
2011 Employment Density: 349 jobs/ha
-Provides access to high employment
'-Provides access to high employment
-Provides access to very high
employment density downtown (King
corridor)
'-Provides access to very high
corridor)
-Provides access to very high
corridor)
Serving Areas of Planned
Employment Growth
What is the ability for station to serve
areas of new, planned and proposed
commercial and employment
development?
Quantitative – forecast number of
potential jobs within 500 m radius of
station
density downtown (Queen corridor), but
does not provide access to proposed
employment growth at the Unilever site
density downtown (Queen corridor), with
some access to the Unilever site via
Queen/Broadview
density downtown (Queen corridor), and
proposed employment growth at Unilever
site
-Provides access to highest employment
density downtown (King corridor), with
Queen/Broadview
-Provides access to highest employment
density downtown (King corridor), with
Queen/Broadview
-Provides access to highest density in the
downtown (King corridor), and to
proposed employment growth at the
Unilever site
-Provides some access to the Financial
District via Queen corridor, but does not
provide access to future employment
lands around the Unilever site
District via Queen corridor, and some
access to future employment lands
around the Unilever site (via a station at
Queen and Broadview)
District via Queen corridor, and access to
future employment lands around the
Unilever site
-Provides best access to Financial
District along King corridor, and some
-Provides best access to Financial
District along King corridor, and some
-Provides best access to the Financial
District along King corridor and to future
employment lands around the Unilever
site
Project team assessment of comments received during PIC3
Supports Growth
Supports Growth - Summary
Supports Growth - Guiding Points
Technical Summary
* Future ridership modelling for 2031, based on low population growth, medium employment growth scenario without SmartTrack
** Theoretical streetcar capacity based on an assumption of full deployment of the Flexity streetcar series at 3 minute headways

Draft Relief Line Corridor Evaluation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Draft Relief Line Corridor Evaluation (20)

More from Toronto Public Consultation Unit (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Draft Relief Line Corridor Evaluation