Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

3,795 views

Published on

For more information, see http://reliefline.ca

Do not include any personal information as all posted material on this site is considered to be part of a public record as defined by section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

We reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments. Please see Terms of Use for City of Toronto Social Media Sites at http://www.toronto.ca/e-updates/termsofuse.htm.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

  1. 1. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT October 2015
  2. 2. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................3 Background..................................................................................................................................................3 Purpose of Report........................................................................................................................................3 2. CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................4 Communication and Promotional Tactics....................................................................................................4 Consultation Resources ...............................................................................................................................6 Consultation Activities.................................................................................................................................7 3. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK......................................................................................................9 Results of the Potential Station Location Evaluation................................................................................ 10 Potential Corridors.................................................................................................................................... 12 4. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP ............................................................................................................ 15 5. NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A – June 9 SAG Meeting Minutes Appendix B – Public Comments
  3. 3. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 3 1. INTRODUCTION Background The City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) are conducting the Relief Line Project Assessment to identify a preferred alignment and station locations for a new subway line connecting downtown to the Bloor-Danforth Subway east of the Don River, between Broadview and Coxwell Stations. The Project Assessment process is divided into four phases: 1A. Setting the stage / Opportunity and Rationale 2. Long List of Options 3. Short List of Options 4. Recommended Option Purpose of Report This report summarizes the communications and consultation activities that were used, as well as the feedback from stakeholders and the public that were received as a result of those activities, during the first consultation period within Phase 3 of the RLPA. The first consultation period considered the results of the potential station area evaluation (completed in Phase 2) and potential Relief Line corridors. The second part of Phase 3 is anticipated to take place in September, 2015, and will consider an evaluation of the potential corridors as well as potential alignments within the preferred corridor(s). This report combines the comments received at the public and stakeholder meetings, through an online survey, and directly through correspondence. It will form part of the public record, and all public input will be considered as the study proceeds. The communication and consultation activities used within Phase 3 of the Project Assessment:  Provided updates on the Relief Line study, reviewing the need and rationale for the Relief Line as well as the project assessment and process;  Presented a synopsis of work completed to date (background studies, existing and future conditions, evaluation criteria, analysis of station locations, proposed corridors, etc.); and  Solicited input on the results of the station location evaluation and four potential corridors. Communication materials were designed to:  Present information clearly, and in formats that are engaging and accessible to a variety of audiences;  Continue building relationships with key stakeholders and the community; and  Demonstrate transparency, accountability and a spirit of collaboration throughout the project assessment and process.
  4. 4. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 4 The public meeting included interactive elements that were mirrored online. 2. CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW The City has committed to engaging the public in a way that is transparent, collaborative, inclusive and authentic. The City wants to make it easy for the public to get involved and invites feedback at every stage of the process – in person and online. Phase 1A of the study engaged the public in the Spring of 2014 on the development of the Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan that are guiding the study. Phases 1B and 2 were combined in the winter of 2015, and focused on the Problem Statement, Rationale for the Project and a “long list” of potential station area options, and the development of evaluation criteria. This report relates to Phase 3 which focused on the results of the potential station area evaluation and the development of four potential corridors based on those results. The public will be further engaged in Phase 4, to identify a preferred corridor and preferred alignment with station locations. All of this work is anticipated to be completed during the winter of 2016. The process is governed by the City Council approved Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan. For Phase 3, key activities included:  eight public meetings across the city (which focused on four major transit planning initiatives underway);  online engagement; and  meetings with stakeholders. Aiming to lower barriers to participation, all in-person consultation was mirrored online through the project website. Public information and education was extensive, with detailed information provided on the project, process, study area, evaluation criteria, results of the station location evaluation and four potential corridors. Feedback on the four potential corridors and the results of the potential station area evaluation was received through a sticker-dot exercise, in writing at the public meetings and through an online survey. Comments were also received by email, phone and mail. Communication and Promotional Tactics As part of the public consultation plan for the RLPA, a number of activities were carried out to notify and promote the project, provide up-to-date information, seek input on the current phase of the study and answer the public questions.
  5. 5. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 5 Project Website The project website (www.reliefline.ca) has formed the foundation of the communications and consultation program. The website mirrored face-to-face consultations at public events, with all material displayed and presented posted online as well as background reports and public notices. For Phase 3 of the study, the website hosted an online survey to solicit feedback on the potential corridors and the results of potential station area evaluations including connections to the downtown and Bloor-Danforth subway line. Newspapers (print and online); Media advertising, newspapers both print and online, public notices, invitations and media coverage were used to notify the public about consultation meetings and inform the public about the status of the RLPA study. Media Date Traditional Newspaper Advertisements Metro News (commuter daily) May 29 24 Hours (commuter daily) May 29 Beach-Riverdale Mirror (local weekly) June 4 East York Mirror (local weekly) June 4 Etobicoke Guardian (local weekly) June 4 Sing Tao (Chinese language weekly) June 4 Senthamarai (Tamil language weekly) June 4 Uthayan (Tamil language weekly) June 4 Scarborough Mirror (local weekly) June 11 Media Releases City of Toronto, Metrolinx and the TTC hosting joint transit information sessions June 10 Toronto seeks input into important transit planning decisions June 22 Councillors 18 Councillors provided with wording to distribute to constituents via e- blast or blog post Various dates TTC System One-stop Screens June 12-25 2500 postcard fliers distributed at Bloor-Yonge and Scarborough Centre Stations June 24-25 Project Email Lists Relief Line Project Assessment June 8 & 19
  6. 6. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 6 Media Date Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessment June 8 & 19 Social Media @CityPlanTO – various messages Started on June 12 Various Facebook Groups Started on June 10 Stakeholders Over 200 stakeholder groups, agencies and community leaders asked to promote consultation June 1 Fliers 1600 fliers distributed to businesses along Danforth Ave June 1 Over 200 schools asked to distribute fliers June 1 All Toronto Libraries, Community Centres and other public buildings such as Civic Centres asked to post flier June 1 Existing Networks and Mailing Lists; An email contact list was developed during Phase 1A and Phase 1B/2 consultations. Additional email contacts were collected during the public open houses. The project team also utilised existing emailing lists from the Councillors. These email contact lists were used to invite the public to take part in the open houses. Online Engagement (social media); Facebook: The Relief Line is already a topic of discussion for multiple Facebook groups and the City actively interacted with those existing networks via Facebook. Twitter: The City did not create a dedicated Twitter handle (user name / account) instead, broadcast key messages and answer questions via existing City handles including @CityPlanTO and @GetInvolvedTO. A project-specific hashtag was developed to coordinate conversations on Twitter; #reliefline. The City has established a Relief Line Project Assessment email list. The public can subscribe and unsubscribe to this list by visiting the project web page. The City will communicate news about the study approximately monthly. Updates will include key information about the progress of related TTC and Metrolinx work, and how the City is collaborating with these agencies. Some feedback was received by email and is included in this report. Consultation Resources The following tools were utilised both at in-person public meetings and were available online.  Discussion Boards  Overview Presentation
  7. 7. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 7 Stakeholder Advisory Group members participated in a table mapping exercise  Public Meeting Panels and Four Corridor Maps  Feedback Comment Form Consultation Activities Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting On June 9, 2015 at the Metropolitan United Church, City consultants and experts presented a recap of the study to date, results of the evaluation of potential station locations, and four potential corridors. Members had the opportunity to discuss and provide feedback on the potential corridors and station locations through a small group table mapping exercise. Meeting minutes are included in this report in Appendix A. Public Meetings Eight public meetings were held across the city focused on coordinated transit planning initiatives currently underway. The four projects presented included GO Regional Express Rail/SmartTrack Background Study, SmartTrack Eglinton West Feasibility Study, Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessment and Relief Line Project Assessment. Three of the eight public meetings were held in the Relief Line study area. Date Location June 13, 2015 Burnhamthorpe Collegiate Institute - 500 The West Mall June 15, 2015 Estonian House - 958 Broadview Avenue June 17,2015 Spring Garden Baptist Church - 112 Spring Garden Avenue June 18, 2015 Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School - 99 Humber Boulevard South June 20, 2015 Hyatt Regency Hotel, Regency Ballroom - 370 King Street West June 22, 2015 Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute - 2239 Lawrence Avenue East June 24, 2015 Scarborough Civic Centre - 150 Borough Drive June 25, 2015 Riverdale Collegiate Institute - 1094 Gerrard Street East Each of the public open houses included the following activities and materials: o Evaluation Discussion Boards Discussion boards provided detailed information on ‘What We Heard During the March Consultations’, station location evaluation results, results of the evaluation criteria mapped in colour codes on three separate boards for Downtown Stations, West and East of the Don, and Connection to Danforth Subway. These boards asked meeting participants to participate in a sticker-dot exercise on whether they agreed with the results of the evaluation (yes/no) and to provide comments on why or why not.
  8. 8. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 8 o Open House Displays Open house displays available at the public meetings focused on each of the four transit planning initiatives named above and the public was given the opportunity to freely explore each of the projects. Subject matter experts were also present to engage in one-on-one and small group discussions and answer questions. o Presentation The meetings opened with an overview presentation on each of the key transit studies. The portion of the presentation that focused on the Relief Line provided an overview of the study process and status, key feedback received during March consultations, an explanation of the evaluation results of the potential stations and an explanation of the proposed corridors for public consideration. o Questions of Clarification Following the presentation there was an opportunity for the public to ask questions about the coordinated transit planning initiatives and the Relief Line study process. Notes summarizing the questions and answers at each meeting are provided at reliefline.ca. o Potential Corridors Feedback The public provided feedback on the potential corridors by participating in a sticker-dot exercise and by providing comments on table-sized maps or individual worksheets. The final cumulative total of the sticker-dot exercise following the 8 public meetings is depicted below. These questions were mirrored online using a survey embedded in the project website.
  9. 9. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 9 o Station Locations Feedback The public provided feedback on the station locations by providing comments on table-sized maps, display panels, or individual worksheets and via online comments. These questions were mirrored online using a survey embedded in the project website. 3. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK Many comments and questions were received during Phase 3 of the RLPA through the various consultation tools and activities demonstrating a great deal of community and stakeholder interest in the Relief Line Project Assessment study. In reviewing this feedback, there was general agreement with the results of the potential station location evaluation and there is a strong interest in a route that connects to the Danforth subway line at Pape Avenue (Corridor B and D). A detailed summary of participant feedback is provided below.
  10. 10. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 10 Results of the Potential Station Location Evaluation A total of 45 potential station areas were identified and sorted into the following geographical categories:  Potential Downtown Connections  Potential Danforth Connections  Potential Connections East and West of the Don River The results of the potential station location evaluation were presented and participants were asked whether they agree with the findings and why or why not. Overall, majority of participants indicated agreement with the findings for each of the geographical categories. With respect to the Downtown potential station areas:  There is support for both King and Queen as potential stations connecting to the Yonge line, however it was noted that both stations are currently overcrowded.  There was no consensus on whether there should be a connection to Union station; there are concerns with existing congestion at Union.  There was support for a station along Bay St with a tunnel connection an existing station(s) on the Yonge-University line.  Consideration of future west subway expansion is a priority.  Increasing points of access to stations at street level is important. o A station at Bay Street with entrances/exits to the east and west sides, to the street and connections within the underground , and to other subway stations was suggested. With respect to the Danforth potential station areas:  There was general consensus that a station at Pape is preferred as it accommodates future northern transit expansion and access to the Greenwood TTC yard, has a large catchment area of riders, and accommodates a potential station at Gerrard Square.  There was interest in a station connection further east on the Danforth (e.g. Donlands). With respect to potential stations east and west of the Don Valley:  Stations with connections to existing and future transit lines were supported in order to create an integrated network.  There was support for stations serving Gerrard Square, Regent Park, St. Lawrence Market, the Distillery District, West Don Lands, the Unilever site and the Portlands.  There was support for stations that serve new and future residential and commercial developments. Comments that were in disagreement with the results of the potential station area evaluation are provided in the tables below and organized by geographic area. Responses from the study team are included beside each comment to indicate how they have been considered in the study.
  11. 11. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 11 Evaluation Results Comment Study Team Response Potential Downtown Stations A connection at King Station should be shown to have higher potential (in comparison to Queen Station) as it is closer to the financial district and Union Station. The King Street corridor would also better service the West Don Lands and Unilever site while relieving the overcrowded King streetcar. In the Preliminary evaluations, King and Queen street stations both performed well. Public feedback reflected this as well: Queen Street was preferred station at Yonge and King Street was preferred at University. Further analysis will be carried out on potential alignments and conclusions shared for public comment. The downtown stations should be equidistant between Union Station and the Bloor line; the potential stations located further north should be weighted higher than the potential stations located further south. Potential station areas, corridors and alignments are identified using a number of criteria and will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation to determine the best route and stations. Alignment along Wellington is preferred in order to allow streetcar routes to continue operating during construction. This is included as an important consideration in the evaluation of stations. Mitigation strategies will be developed in coopration with TTC and Transportation Services to address all construction impacts to traffic. The results of the potential station area evaluation should have included PATH connections and the rectangular platform sizes of existing and potential stations. This level of detail will be provided when potential alignments and their stations are being considered during the next study phase. Potential Danforth Stations A connection at Broadview is not supported because:  it is too close to the Yonge line to provide adequate relief  construction may cause disruption to the critical streetcar service along Broadview.  Initial technical work indicates that both Broadview and Pape Stations would provide desired diversion from the Line 1 south of Bloor Street. A final evaluation of potential corridors will be informed by detailed travel demand modelling that will estimate how many people would use the Relief Line in each corridor.  This is included as an important consideration in the evaluation of stations. Mitigation strategies will be developed in cooperation with TTC and Transportation Services to address all construction impacts to traffic. A connection further east on the Danforth line should be considered:  as it has better potential for reducing traffic congestion and would create a more integrated transit network that will support long-term development.  Donlands is currently underused and there is potential for growth and development around the station. Donlands also provides a more direct future connection to Thorncliffe Park. The evaluation showed that the development potential around Donlands Station is less than around Pape Station. There are also significant barriers to developing the Relief Line south of Donlands Station. Stations further east, including Coxwell, do not allow for a future northern extension to serve Thorncliffe Park. The primary goal of the Relief Line is to provide maximum relief at Yonge-Bloor interchange station, therefore there are better opportunities to capture more
  12. 12. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 12 Evaluation Results Comment Study Team Response  Broadview and Pape stations are already too congested.  It would benefit more people and the subway is already full at Coxwell passengers at Pape and Broadview. Potential Stations East and West of the Don Valley There may be more opportunities for station areas east of the railway line. 45 potential station areas were considered and included five potential stations east of the rail corridor. These 5 generally did not perform as well as stations nearer to and west of the corridor. Connecting to Line 2 east of Donlands precludes the opportunity to extend the Relief Line north to serve Thorncliffe Park in the future. Specific station locations should only be determined after a preferred corridor is selected. Potential station locations were considered first to specifically address the anchor points in downtown and along Danforth. We also evaluated key activity nodes which might be appropriate station locations. This process ensures that this transit investment is positively contributing to the development of the city by providing transit service to appropriate locations. Once potential alignments are developed, station locations will be adjusted. A station at Dundas St. and Sumach St. is too far north to be compatible with the potential corridors. This station is located within Corridor A. Neighbourhoods will become congested if stations are added to established residential areas. There is no intent to change policies in the OP that protect the character of stable neighbourhoods. The evaluation of potential station areas generally shows these potential station areas as not performing as well as potential stations in areas that are currently undergoing change. There should be more station areas with high potential in Riverdale/Leslieville Potential station areas in these neighbourhoods tend to have less potential due to lower existing and projected population and employment densities and less development potential due to Heritage Conservation Districts and less land designated for intensification. Potential Corridors Four potential corridors were identified and displayed on maps at the public and stakeholder meetings as well as online in the feedback survey. Participants were asked to indicate their preference for each corridor on a scale of one to five, with one indicating low preference for the corridor and five indicating high
  13. 13. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 13 preference for the corridor. Most participants had a preference for Corridors B and D, and least preferred Corridors A and C. The results are shown in Appendix B. The significant comments on each of the potential corridors are provided in the tables below and organized by potential corridor. Responses from the study team are included beside each comment to indicate how they have been considered in the study. Evaluation Results Comment Study Team Response Corridor A – Broadview to Queen/Richmond Corridor A would have the shortest route and therefore the lowest cost. Rough estimates have been used and will be refined as the alignment options are developed. Barriers to construction, property requirements and environmental mitigation strategies are examples elements that could cost more. There are environmental concerns with a route constructed close to the Don Valley. The natural environment is an important consideration in the evaluation of corridors. City staff have been reviewing the corridors with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to understand the environmental concerns and mitigation strategies that would be appropriate. Broadview is already well serviced by streetcar routes and therefore the relief line would be redundant. The purpose of the Relief Line is to divert as many riders from Line 1 as possible. The Relief Line would divert significantly more riders than the 504 Streetcar due to its speed and frequency. There are no intentions to change surface routes at this time. Corridor A does not provide a connection to SmartTrack. Lack of regional transit connectivity is a concern. This is an important consideration in the evaluation of the potential corridors. Corridor B – Pape to Queen/Richmond Alignment along Queen Street better serves tourist destinations (Eaton Centre, City Hall, Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, etc.) while still being close to the financial district. All types of destinations served will be considered in the potential corridor evaluation. Corridor B provides greater social equity benefits (access to Regent Park) of the two Pape alignment corridors. Service to Neighbourhood Improvement Areas is an important consideration in the evaluation of potential corridors. Corridor B is more equidistant between Bloor and Union, and accommodates future northern transit expansion. Destinations served will be considered in the potential corridor evaluation. Corridor B is further from the lake and may have technical benefits in terms of tunnel construction. Constructability is an important consideration in the evaluation of potential alignments.
  14. 14. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 14 Evaluation Results Comment Study Team Response Corridor B would serve more areas that are visited outside of the peak commuting time (e.g. Eaton’s Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital) compared to Corridor D. All types of destinations served will be considered in the potential corridor evaluation. Corridor C – Broadview to King/Wellington There are environmental concerns with a route constructed close to the Don Valley. The natural environment is an important consideration in the evaluation of potential corridors. City staff have been reviewing the corridors with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to understand the environmental concerns and mitigation strategies that would be appropriate. Broadview is already well serviced by streetcar routes and therefore the relief line would be redundant. The purpose of the Relief Line is to divert as many riders from Line 1 as possible. The Relief Line would divert significantly more riders than the 504 Streetcar due to its speed and frequency. There are no intentions to change surface routes at this time. Corridor C is shorter and would provide a more direct link to the downtown core; however the areas it serves would be limited. The evaluation of potential corridors will use a wide range of measures to determine the preferred corridor. Corridor C enables future transit expansion to areas in need further west including Liberty Village. Future phases of the Relief Line will be An important consideration in the evaluation of potential corridors. Corridor C is too close to the Yonge line and would only draw ridership from the east side of Broadview Station. All potential corridors will be modelled to help us understand how each would impact the transit network. Corridor D – Pape to King/Wellington via Queen Street Corridor D adds service to areas of the city that are currently not served by transit and has potential for connecting to existing and future transit lines (e.g. SmartTrack Waterfront East LRT). How each alignment would improve access to transit, including connectivity between services, will be carefully considered. Corridor D has the potential for stations serving future development and intensification areas (e.g. Unilever site, Portlands, West Don Lands, waterfront). Development potential and opportunities to support the city's growth strategy are an important consideration in the comparison of corridors. Corridor D has potential for future west expansion to high density development areas (e.g. Liberty Village, CityPlace). Both the King and Queen corridors have the potential to extend west, but more detailed technical analysis will inform the evaluation of corridors Corridor D connects to the highest employment density in the downtown core, providing the most relief during peak commuting hours. Further technical work will consider which is the optimal downtown corridor – employment density will be a strong factor in this work
  15. 15. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 15 Evaluation Results Comment Study Team Response Corridor D provides access to key destinations such as St. Lawrence Market, Distillery District, and George Brown College. All types of destinations served will be considered in the potential corridor evaluation. Additional Comments Additional comments and suggestions for the Relief Line corridor and station location analysis include:  There was strong support for timely completion of the Relief Line Project.  The Relief Line needs to support long-term growth of the city and consider future planning and development needs. The route should also be considered in the context of a regional and integrated transit network.  Minimizing disruption to existing streetcar service during construction is an important consideration. It is suggested that construction under Queen and King Street be avoided.  It was suggested that the Relief Line incorporate express service to the downtown core with decreased travel time during peak hours.  Concern was expressed for increased property values/rents in close proximity to the potential stations. The social cost in terms of impacts to affordable housing in Regent Park should be considered.  There was concern for the impacts of the Relief Line on existing residential areas (e.g. noise, congestion, pollution, property values). The terminus of the Relief Line should be aligned to allow for expansion West and further South to serve destinations such as Rogers Centre and the Island Airport pedestrian access before turning North to relieve Line 2.Please see a full list of all verbatim comments received in Appendix B. 4. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP The Relief Line Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) is made up of local community leaders (residents, business and institutions) as well as issue experts. A SAG meeting was held on June 9, 2015 in the Metropolitan United Church Community Room. 24 participants attended. At the meeting, the project team gave a presentation summarizing the work to date, the results of the potential station area evaluation and the four potential corridors. After the presentation, there was a chance for participants to ask questions. Participants were then divided into small groups to discuss their preferred corridor, and potential alignments within that corridor. Groups were given large scale maps of the study area, as well as tools to help them draw potential alignments – these included scale curve radii and station boxes, radii to show the catchment area of stations, etc. See Appendix A for the detailed SAG Meeting Minutes.
  16. 16. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 3 Summary Report DRAFT – October 2015 16 5. NEXT STEPS The consultation period for Phase 4 is anticipated to take place in November 2015. This consultation period will focus on: 1. Analysis and evaluation of the potential corridors, including the identification of a preferred corridor 2. Identification of potential alignments and station concepts The preferred corridor will have the highest potential to address the full range of project objectives and city- building criteria. The potential alignments and their stations will be further evaluated to identify a recommended alignment.
  17. 17. RELIEF LINE Potential Station Areas Summary of Preliminary Evaluation Results RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Phase 3 Summary Report Appendix A: June 9 SAG Meeting Minutes
  18. 18. Relief Line Project Assessment Phase 3 Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) Meeting #2 Tuesday, June 9, 2015 | 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm Metropolitan United Church |56 Queen St. East Meeting Summary - DRAFT Participants Craig Nichol Advisory Committee on Accessible Transit Carlos Benzecyi Bloor-East Neighbourhood Association Linda Brett Bloor-East Neighbourhood Association Briar de Lange Bloor-Yorkville BIA Amin Ali City Youth Council of Toronto Cameron MacLeod CodeRedTO Ole Calderone Corktown Residents and Business Association Stephen Wickens Danforth East Community Association Berni Campbell Degrassi/Wardell Neighbourhood Group Lana MacInnes Degrassi/Wardell Neighbourhood Group Evan M. Weinberg Financial District BIA Bennet MacNeil First Gulf Keith Viera Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association Nicole Beayni Greater Toronto Civic Action Alliance Marcus Bowman Metrolinx Gilles Durot The Pocket Nic de Salaberry Ryerson University Al Smith St. Lawrence Market Neighbourhood BIA Laurie Naylor St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Marion Wingson St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Jessica Mustachi Toronto Women's City Alliance Karl Junkin Transport Action Ontario Mario Silva Toronto District School Board Suhail Barot TTC Riders Ryan Kichler Yonge-Dundas Square Taylor Raths Yonge-Dundas Square Project Staff Tim Läspä Director, Transportation Planning Paul Millett Chief Project Engineer, Engineering, Construction and Expansion Section, TTC Stella Gustavson Program Manager, Transit Implementation Unit 1
  19. 19. David Cooper Transit Implementation Unit Michael Hain Transit Implementation Unit Charissa Iogna Transit Implementation Unit Kate Kusiak Transit Implementation Unit Mike Logan Transit Implementation Unit Hans Riekko Transit Implementation Unit Project Consultant Team Natalia Banoub Argyle Communications Jim Faught LURA Consulting Andrew O'Connor HDR Inc. Nick Shaw HDR Inc. Brodie Vissers LURA Consulting Leah Winter LURA Consulting Mary Zajac Argyle Communications Also Invited (Meeting minutes will be circulated) 519 Church Street Community Centre BILD GTA Cabbagetown South Residents' Association Cadillac Fairview Church of the Holy Trinity Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer Associations in Toronto Danforth Mosaic BIA Distillery Historic District Downtown Yonge BIA Eastview Community Centre Evergreen Garden District Residents' Association George Brown College Gerrard East Community Organization Gerrard India Bazaar BIA Gerrard Square Greek Community of Toronto GreekTown on the Danforth BIA Kempton Howard Community Association Leslieville BIA Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Oxford Properties Pembina Institute Regent Park Community Health Centre Riverside District BIA Social Planning Toronto South Riverdale Community Health Centre The Danforth BIA Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas Toronto Catholic District School Board Toronto Centre for Active Transportation Toronto Region Board of Trade Urban Land Institute - Toronto Woodgreen Community Services Yonge-Bloor-Bay Business Association 1. Agenda Review, Opening Remarks and Introduction Stella Gustavson, Program Manager, Transportation Planning, City of Toronto welcomed participants to the second Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting for the Relief Line Project Assessment. The purpose of the meeting was to report on the results of the potential station area evaluation and seek input on potential corridors. Mike Logan, Senior Transportation Planner, provided an overview of the meeting agenda and facilitated a round of introductions. David Cooper, Senior Transportation Planner, provided an overview of transit planning initiatives and a recap of the study to date. Andrew O’Connor, HDR Inc., presented the results of the potential station area evaluation and potential corridors. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions of clarification as well as provide feedback through a 2
  20. 20. small group discussion and mapping exercise. Approximately 24 participants attended the meeting representing a variety of stakeholder groups. 2. Questions of Clarification A summary of the Question and Answer period following the presentation is provided below. Questions are noted with Q, responses are noted by A, and comments are noted by C. Answers were provided by Stella Gustavson, Tim Läspä (Director, Transportation Planning, City of Toronto) and Paul Millett (Chief Project Engineer, Engineering, Construction and Expansion Section, TTC). Questions of Clarification on Station Locations: Q. What was the methodology used for defining the station area? A. We used a 500 m radius to define existing and future population and employment. A station could impact a larger area; we take that into consideration in different ways for different criteria. Q. At the last SAG meeting we talked about potential routing further north near Dundas and Gerrard which could serve important destinations such as Ryerson and the Eaton’s Centre. Why are you only proposing options that are further south? A. The study area has been focused on the southern part of the downtown core near the financial district which is the centre of highest employment density. The intention is to provide the greatest relief function, and part of that is to build the Relief Line closest to the destination of most riders. The centre of employment density and trip generation is in the area from Queen to Union. Q. Is it the intention to take Bloor/Danforth riders and bring them downtown via another corridor? Broadview station during peak hours is very crowded. Putting another line there would be confusing. The relief is needed east of Broadview. A. Ridership modelling is still being finalized. The modelling results will be a significant factor in determining the preferred corridor. C. Routing at Broadview station would also provide relief to the surface streetcar network. Q. One of the concerns in my community is that you can’t get on the trains in the morning at Woodbine and Coxwell. Broadview is too far west to provide significant relief. Why was the Donlands area not further considered? A. As shown in the evaluation tables, Donlands has some issues. We want to restrict construction to existing rights-of-way as much as possible to avoid impacts to private property. Donlands Ave. ends at Danforth in a "T" intersection so there would be property impacts south of Danforth as the tunnel realigns onto a public right-of-way. There is also landfill in the Donlands area. When doing tunnel boring we have to be cautious of geotechnical constraints and the potential for gases originating from the landfill. Q. Has the evaluation framework been updated since the Feeling Congested exercise in the Official Plan update? There were never any follow up meetings to discuss how the public input was considered. I am concerned that the evaluation framework was used as a starting point because there are a lot issues with the framework itself, especially with respect to Social Equity. 3
  21. 21. A. The evaluation framework was developed through the Official Plan review process and it is not within the scope of the Relief Line project to revisit it. The evaluation criteria presented and consulted on in Phase 2 were developed specifically for this project based on a broad array of technical considerations and stakeholder input, using the Feeling Congested framework as a starting place. Social and gender equity issues are addressed very broadly, not just within the "social equity" set of criteria. The evaluation criteria developed for the Relief Line Project Assessment are considered final for this project. Questions of Clarification on Potential Corridors: Q. You mentioned corridor A is the shortest route. What are the distances of the potential corridors? A. The corridor areas are quite broad. Depending on the alignment that is identified, the distances would vary. The following distances were provided after the meeting Corridor Approximate Length (from Danforth Terminus to University Avenue) A 4.6 – 5.1 km B 5.7 – 6.6 km C 5.5 km D 5.8 – 6.6 km Q. Some of the potential corridors overlap with the Queen Street and King Street streetcar network. Is the implication that streetcars will be eliminated as a result of a new line? A. There is no intent to eliminate any streetcar service as part of the Relief Line project. C. The overlap with existing streetcar routes has not been framed as an advantage or disadvantage in the routing evaluation. It seems redundant to overlap the Relief Line with existing streetcar routes, but it could be an opportunity to somewhat reduce the need for service on some streetcar lines and deploy some of the streetcars to other lines that are in need across the city. Q. Are the network impacts during and after construction considered in this corridor selection process? A. In the assessment we have considered the potential for impacts to surface transit and traffic during construction. Depending on the construction methods that are most appropriate, as well as the preferred alignment that is identified, there may be more or less impact at street level. Q. There are some proposed projects that would be competing for the same ridership. How do you protect the service for the users who are already there? A. Network impacts will continue to be incorporated and we will be providing more detail in the next phase of the project as the modelling results become available. In terms of the network, we will be looking at how the corridors impact other lines and proposed projects and how service areas could overlap. 4
  22. 22. Q. How do these corridors relate to the debate about the Gardiner East? We don’t know the result of the decision yet, but the decision could result in significant new developments and potential for construction overlap. A. The evaluation did take into account the impact of future transit lines and improvements, but we did not look at how the Relief Line may impact use on the Gardiner. From a strategic perspective, there is a potential for changing modal split. That is being considered at a broad and strategic level in the Gardiner study. Q. If the Gardiner East is replaced and there is more development along the existing corridor, which potential corridor would best serve those new developments? A. While the corridors that connect to King/Wellington would probably be better than the ones that connect to Queen/Richmond, there is a difference between corridors and alignments. At this stage, we are introducing corridors which are broad bands connecting the Danforth to downtown. Within each corridor, the potential for the various potential alignments and stations to serve existing and future development opportunities will need to be considered. 3. Facilitated Small Group Discussion and Mapping Exercise Participants engaged in small group facilitated discussions on the potential corridors. Each group was asked to come to a consensus on a preferred corridor. Participants were then given large maps of the preferred corridor and invited to discuss and illustrate possible alignments and station locations within that corridor. A summary of key feedback by participants is provided below: Preferred Corridors: • Overall, most groups had preference for either Corridor B (Pape to Queen/Richmond) or Corridor D (Pape to King/Wellington via Queen Street). Both of these corridors include a station at Pape/Danforth which facilitates a potential northern expansion and provides an efficient link with the public right-of-way. • One group table showed a preference for Corridor A (Broadview to Queen/Richmond) and one table showed a preference for Corridor C (Broadview to King/Wellington). Preferred Stations: • Some participants were in support of having two downtown stations that connect to both the Yonge and University lines while others felt that one centrally located downtown station with multiple access points would be sufficient. • There was consistent support for a station at Gerrard Square, providing a connection to SmartTrack, streetcar, and future development opportunities. • There was consistent support for stations at Sherbourne and Cherry/Sumach. • There was some support for a station at the Unilever site. Top Considerations in Corridor Discussions: • Providing greatest relief to the transit network • Access to employment areas • Connections to other transit routes • Train operations (speed, curve radius) • Access to key destinations 5
  23. 23. • Serving areas with development potential Additional Feedback from Small Group Discussion on Potential Corridors and Potential Stations: Corridor A: • Alignment on Adelaide was suggested to provide better access to both the financial employment district and destinations further north. • Adelaide alignment would also reduce impacts to existing surface transit. • Stations on Adelaide at both Yonge and University were suggested. • A station at Sherbourne/Adelaide was suggested, serving George Brown College and St. Lawrence Market. • A station near Sumach/Richmond was suggested. • A station at Sumach/Dundas was suggested to serve the Regent Park community. • An elevated crossing over the Don River was suggested. Corridor B: • A station on Queen at Bay (or between Bay and Yonge) was suggested, with underground connections to the Yonge and University lines. • Alignment along Queen was preferred to increase access to destinations further north (Ryerson, Eaton’s Centre, hospital, City Hall) while still providing access to the King employment areas. • A station at Sherbourne/Queen was suggested which would serve George Brown College. • A station near Regent Park was suggested (near Parliament or Sumach). • A station at the Unilever site was suggested, in addition to extension of the Broadview streetcar to the site, to create an interconnected transit hub. • A station at Queen/Broadview was suggested providing connection to the Queen and Broadview streetcars. • There was consistent support for a station at Gerrard Square due to potential connection to Smart Track. Corridor C: • A station at Bay/Wellington was suggested to provide access to key destinations such as Union Station, UPX, the financial district, Rogers Centre, etc. • Alignment of corridor C has the potential to serve future development south of Front St. and along the waterfront. • Stations at Queen/Broadview, Front/Cherry, and Front/Sherbourne were suggested. • A station at Broadview/Gerrard would allow streetcar connection opportunities to Ryerson, hospitals, Gerrard Square, etc. Corridor D: • A station between Yonge and Bay on King was suggested. • A station between Yonge and Bay on Wellington was suggested. • A station between University and John was suggested. • A station at King/Sherbourne was supported. It was suggested that the station be located between King and Front, providing pedestrian access from both King and Front. • A station at Front/Cherry was supported, providing better access to the Distillery District. 6
  24. 24. • A station at the Unilever site was supported to connect with future employment and development opportunities, however there were concerns with flooding. Shifting the station to Eastern Ave was also suggested. • Some participants showed support for a station at Queen/Carlaw while others showed support for Queen/Pape. • A station at Gerrard Square was supported due to potential connection to Smart Track. 4. Wrap Up and Next Steps The potential corridors presented at the meeting will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria. SAG and public feedback obtained during the upcoming eight public meetings will inform the evaluation process. Once a preferred corridor is determined, the project team will be identifying potential alignments for public review comment in the fall of 2015. 7
  25. 25. RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation Phase 1B/2 Summary Report RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Phase 3 Summary Report Appendix B: Public Comments
  26. 26. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 1 Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas Disagreement I appreciate that Queen St. appears to be the most favourable route due to its proximity to St. Michael's Hospital, offices at Yonge and Queen, Hudson's Bay, The Eaton Centre, City Hall and the Sheraton Centre. However, I am concerned it is too far from the heart of the Financial District and Union Station. The King Streetcar also has higher ridership than the Queen Streetcar. There must be stations that connect to the Yonge and University portions Line 1. Maybe placing a station between Bay and Yonge would eliminate the need for stations in both places. King Online survey In the Preliminary evaluations, King and Queen street stations both performed well. Public feedback reflected this as well: Queen Street was preferred station at Yonge and King Street was preferred at University. Further analysis will be carried outon potential alignments and conclusions shared for public comment. Why is a connection at King Station not shown to have as much potential as Queen Station? King St. is a popular streetcar route and the relief line could better service the West Don Lands and Unilever site if it were to run along King St. King Online survey The study indicates that the Osgoode-Queen alignment has the highest potential. I'm leaning towards that alignment as my preferred route. However, I believe the King streetcar has higher ridership, and a St. Andrew- King alignment would therefore do more in relieving congestion. Queen or King Online survey I believe the analysis unfairly deprecates Richmond/Adelaide as corridors even though they provide a practical alternative for King/Queen, c.f. the Bloor Danforth running north of its namesake roads. If downtown is the destination, then Bloor-Yonge style transfers at line intersections aren't really necessary -- people won't be heading back north, so a walking transfer like at Spadina could work. Adelaide/Richmond Online Survey Richmond is included in the Queen St Corridor and Adelaide is included in the King Corridor. Potential alignments will consider these routes. I believe the survey results unfairly deprecate the value of using Adelaide/Richmond as a downtown corridor and that these options should still be considered even if not ideal. Adelaide/Richmond Online Survey I think the Wellington route makes more sense, as I have seen what chaos it causes building a subway on roads above - Eglinton - and want the streetcar to keep working in the meantime. Wellington Online survey This is included as an important consideration in the evaluation of stations. Mitigation strategies will be developed in cooperation with TTC and Transportation Services to address all construction impacts to traffic. The more equidistant the relief line is between Union and the Bloor line, the better, so the furthest north stations should be weighted more than the further south ones. Equal distance between Bloor and Union Online survey Potential station areas, corridors and alignments are identified using a number of criteria and will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation to determine the best route and Connecting to the YUS line closer to the middle between Union and the BD line would make for a better network. Equal distance between Bloor and Union Online survey
  27. 27. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 2 Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas stations. The analysis doesn't appear to capture that 1. all locations along Bay and Yonge interface with the PATH which provides connections into the core and 2. the graphic do not show the limits of the subway stations on Yonge and University (nor the reach that a DRL platform will have to service either Bay and Yonge (with a single station). A circle was probably not the appropriate shape. A series of rectangles (the size of a subway platform) may result in different conclusions. Presentation of analysis results Online survey This level of detail will be provided when potential alignments and their stations are being considered during the next phase of study. Stations are actually long rectangles, not circles, so it makes only partial sense to use circles to evaluate locations. Presentation of analysis results Public Meeting Display Circles represent station areas, which will include station boxes, entrances and other station components. I think most of the pros and cons have been adequately assessed Agreement with evaluation results Online Survey Noted Except connecting to Union could be very difficult. Union Online survey Noted Connectivity with Union Station is key Union Online Survey Noted Avoiding Union station is a good idea Union Online Survey Noted Connection into Union would cause too much traffic going through that area and most city commuters head out of the immediate area. Union Online Survey Noted Proximity to Union Station would be beneficial to help relieve pressure on this hub. Union Online Survey Noted Union Station is the best station for the new line to connect because it's the most direct interchange for GO train and buses to the subway. Union Online Survey Noted Union Station connection is important, critical. Union Public Meeting Display Noted The alignment should connect to Union station or be as close as possible to maximize connections to VIA rail, GO train and UP express. Also think about the avenues that would be created from density. Union Online Survey Noted Lots of trains being east/west of Union so need to connect north of Union Union Public Meeting Display Noted I think the downtown portion should cross as far north of Union as possible. The employment area will expand north of the current high density area we know now. Union Mail, Handed In Noted A Relief Line station under Wellington between Bay and Yonge would connect with King Station, so there are three dots on the map but effectively one interchange stations. Wellington Public Meeting Display Noted I would encourage the use of Wellington for the corridor and station, with entrances at Bay and York (and the platform box between). Further, I prefer keeping the downtown stations disconnected from existing Yonge- University stations. This would minimise disruption to existing services during construction, allow the PATH to do the work of pedestrian connectivity, and ensure service is resilient to any disruptions or crises that may affect Line 1. I'd suggest a station named "Exchange" at Wellington and Bay/York, and a "Market" station at Front and Jarvis/Church. Ideally, in future the LRTs that serve the waterfront could be extended north from Union to meet Exchange Station. The terminus of phase 1 should be aligned to allow for expansion West and Wellington Online Survey Noted
  28. 28. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 3 Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas further South to serve destinations such as Rogers Centre and the Island Airport pedestrian access before turning North to relieve Line 2. Stop asking questions and get shovels into the ground! Deadly full subways in the AM. King/Wellington are best. King/Wellington Online Survey Noted Greater demand at King/Wellington than Queen and for service west (Liberty Village). King/Wellington Public Meeting Display Noted Queen St. is not a better destination than King St. Much more employment and connectivity on King/Wellington. King/Wellington Public Meeting Display Noted I think that the King street alignment would the preferred option. As stated in the evaluation it has the highest employment density and the King 504 streetcar is the busiest surface route on the TTC. Also it provides for future expansion West into Liberty village - another high employment area. King street East is also intensifying as an employment area as companies have recently located there as well as the intensifying residential construction. City Hall, St. Michael's hospital and the Eaton centre are already well served by subway. City Hall is within walking distance of two stations (Osgoode and Queen) and St. Michael's hospital is 1 block east of Yonge - a station would not be located at Victoria street with a Queen street alignment anyway. In all three cases (City Hall, St. Mike's and Eaton centre, a transfer would be required from a King/Yonge interchange. Regent Park would be much better served by an improved 505 Dundas streetcar rather a Queen street subway alignment because of higher population density and community amenities along and north of Dundas street. Crowding at King/Yonge speaks to the greater demand for transit at that location. An interchange there would ease crowding at Union station. The King street alignment would best serve the Distillery, St. Lawrence market, George Brown College as well. King Online Survey Noted I think King is a happy midway point that makes getting to the lake quick by foot and reaching north of Queen is not a big deal. Queen is almost too far north to make walking to the lake easy for everyone. Also getting people off the King car would be helpful. King Online Survey Noted A connection through King Street is best for stops through West Donlands, Distillery, St. Lawrence and for future expansion westward through CityPlace and Liberty Village. King Online Survey Noted King and Yonge would appear to be a highest potential station. King Online Survey Noted King corridor seems to serve more employment/residential (better option than Queen). King Public Meeting Display Noted there is more development planned along king st than queen st and the king streetcar is only going to get busier compared to queen King Online Survey Noted I think the downtown destination might be better at King. It's an easy walk to Union or Queen from there, and fully underground and accessible if necessary. King Online Survey Noted I prefer this – I think a relief line would be best on King Street – amongst the taller buildings of the financial district – and eventually lead to Liberty Village – who really needs it. I do not prefer building a subway on Queen Street – Queen Street is so cultural and organic –the construction process would destroy the businesses that are there. Riding the Queen streetcar is a great experience that allows riders to see the street culture of a great street – travelling underground would lose that experience. King Online Survey Noted For the connection with the Yonge line, consideration needs to be given to the access to existing sites, and then look at the potential to connect to other sites in the future. King St, rather than Queen St., seems to have more potential. King Online Survey Noted
  29. 29. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 4 Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas A line that serves Queen or King/Wellington is ideal. King/Wellington, Queen Public Meeting Display Noted Alignment along King or Queen would be ideal, both access major hubs, whether being jobs or tourist attractions. King, Queen Online survey Noted Queen good location King good location Union Station ideal but agree it's congested King, Queen, Union Online Survey Noted It seems like a King interchange downtown makes the most sense for direct connection to downtown buildings (PATH), but isn't there already an interchange station partially built (roughed in) at Queen & Yonge? That could save money. Either one is great. King, Queen Online Survey Noted King Station is already overcrowded. Queen would be much better. Queen also provides more from a social justice perspective by providing great access for people located in the downtown east around queen. St. Michael’s hospital and the Eaton center are very high volume destinations for residents. Queen street would provide very needed relief for the Queen car in the downtown areas. Queen Online survey Noted I think queen area makes sense to allow reasonable distance for walking from the subway from either front (line 1), queen (relief line), or Bloor (line 2). Queen Online Survey Noted Queen St. is correct option. King is too close to Union. Queen Public Meeting Display Noted I think Queen is the better choice based on the results and the fact that it is not as gentrified as King east of Yonge so building a subway here can help change that Queen Online Survey Noted Why does everything have to go to Union Station? – Have you actually stood and watched the mass of humanity rushing between Union Station and the downtown core in the morning – For God’s sake; do it right and run the downtown relief line along Queen Street! – It will provide better service for those that work somewhere other than south of King Street – In fact, it will provide a second option for those traveling to King and Bay – Those that need to get to Union Station will still be able to get there via the existing Yonge and Spadina/University lines – For those that work north of King Street, a Queen Street subway will result in a more efficient (and far less crowded and stressful trip) Queen Online Survey/Email Noted I would prefer a line that would provide more connectivity between the area around the Distillery District to the Queen/Yonge node. By linking to Queen/Yonge, all passengers can still connect to Union in 2 more stops if they transfer; this way, City Hall, Eaton Centre, Ryerson and the hospital and government related jobs in the area north of Queen/Yonge can be well serviced Queen Online Survey Noted I like the idea of Queen/Richmond crossing. Queen/Richmond Public Meeting Display Noted The Bay/King and Bay/Queen seem most appropriate as Bay St. stations. I suggest that consideration be given to both of these stations having east and west entrances, such that the east entrances link relatively closely to the Yonge/Queen and Yonge/King stations of the Yonge Street line. Indeed, if the Queen Street route is chosen for the Yonge/University link, I suggest considering no station on Bay and ensuring there is a west end exit from the Yonge/Queen station that directs patrons to Bay Street (not a long walk - or distance to travel in a wheelchair assuming that the funds are spent on an essential elevator and accessible exit and entrance) Bay/King, Bay/Queen Online Survey Noted I think the Line 1 transfer should be at Queen over King -I also like the idea of 1 single station at bay with walking connections to The Yonge Line and University Line. This would logically save a ton of money. Bay/Queen Online Survey Noted Prefer to add a new station and to locate it on Bay Street with a tunnel link to an existing station similar to the Spadina station (linking line one and two). Bay/King with a tunnel link to King station or at Bay/Wellington Bay/King, Bay/Wellington Online Survey Noted
  30. 30. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 5 Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas with a tunnel under Bay to Union subway station. I would prefer the Bay/Wellington location because Wellington is not served by surface public transit and it can be extended further west with a potential station at John and Wellington serving the Entertainment district, Rogers Centre and Metro Hall. There is potential intensification and new development nearby on the Metro Convention Centre site and on a deck over the railway corridor. This location would also align up with stations at Front/Sherbourne (St Lawrence Market) and at Front/Cherry(Distillery District, Pan Am Athletes village, East Bayfront and the Portlands) Wellington is best (by far) to me. I would turn Bay & Wellington into a massive interchange to the south-end of the King Station box/platforms, and a Bay/PATH connection to Union for transit interchange! West of there is up to you, but can there be a track connection to St. Andrew on University to swap transit between lines?? Bay/Wellington Mail, Handed In Noted I think a logical route west of the Don River would be for trains to run under Richmond (westbound) and Adelaide (eastbound), therefore stations can service Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, and King Sts equally, increasing points of access from street level. Richmond/Adelaide Online survey Noted Having an alignment running under Richmond St (westbound) and Adelaide (eastbound) would allow for the stations west of The Don service Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, and King Sts equally providing multiple access points at street level. Richmond/Adelaide Online Survey Noted Is there a possibility of partially using the Adelaide corridor to avoid some of the issues of contributing to pedestrian congestion along King? => I think it is important that the west end of the initial phase leave the possibility of future extension along King Street toward Liberty Village area - we need to get back to incremental expansion and this could be an important future incremental expansion This might also provide a connection to streetcars from the Queensway line to bring people downtown faster and create more potential to increase ridership on that dedicated LRT corridor from the Lakeshore / Mimico area. Adelaide, future western transit expansion Online Survey Noted Need to serve condos and businesses at south of Richmond Connection south of Richmond Mail, Handed In Noted The relief line should terminate at the Yonge Street station rather than extending to University: a couple of transfers are preferable to spending millions on a Yonge-University connection, especially one so near Union station. Connection to Yonge Online Survey Noted Sirs/Madams Having attended the June 15th meeting at Estonia House, I seemed to be getting mixed messages re the potential future western extension of the relief line; namely it was stated that the need for the western extension was questionable, but the evaluations of the various options included references to it. Regardless, it seems more reasonable to terminate this relief line at selected Yonge St. Station, rather than extending it to the University Ave section. If / when the Western relief line is built, it should terminate at University Ave. Having a Queen - Osborne connection with a station at City Hall might be convenient for Councillors, but would give the Rob Fords of Toronto added ammunition to denounce the relief line as really being built for the 'downtown elites', rather than for East-enders and, hopefully in the near future, citizens in Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks. Connection to Yonge Online Survey Noted The potential for extending the line and placement under high employment density areas are both important and should definitely influence station choice. Future transit expansion, employment density Online Survey Noted Whatever is easy to extend west should be considered. Future transit expansion Public Meeting Display Noted
  31. 31. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 6 Comment Theme Source Response Downtown Station Areas University potential not relevant until you look at west end relief. Future transit expansion Public Meeting Display Noted Consider connecting to the Yonge-University line at Queen and St. Andrew, to allow for extension west along King street to better serve Liberty village. Future western transit expansion Online Survey Noted Relief I think is a key word so let me try with this: Most potential to receive Yonge use a subway line from Don Mills Station to St. Andrew for offloading some Yonge riders. A shorter approach from Pape Station on the east side of Don river to St Andrew would I believe relief Yonge and Danforth line at Yonge Bloor. Also U from Danforth subway through downtown and back up to Bloor Street also from the Kennedy Station where there is a Go station would I think also help for relief as we need to think Golden Horseshoe area as one area into the heart and out of Toronto. There is a penalty for doing nothing over the years and when it comes to funding there is history where major projects like St. Lawrence seaway was funded by the Bank of Canada with no interest. This still exists in the Bank of Canada Charter. Maximum relief Online Survey Noted My primary concern about the Relief line is that we place the connection to the YUS line at the point that does the most good. That where ever it is put it draws the maximum number of people off of the eastern part of the BD line. Maximum relief Online Survey Noted I have not enough knowledge or experience with the issue to offer a meaningful judgement – Experts opinion should prevail Expertise required Mail, Handed In Noted Having a station at King/Bay or Queen/Bay poses a potential security threat. King/Bay has the Toronto Stock Exchange and First Canadian Place. Queen/Bay has City Hall and Old City Hall. Security concerns along Bay Public Meeting Display Noted Queen's Park and College stations also have a large amount of traffic, and can be hectic especially during rush hour times. College Online Survey Noted Is ridership on Queen & King streetcar, heavy east or west of Yonge? Streetcar Ridership Mail, Handed In The number of people entering downtown on the King and Queen Streetcar corridors is approximately the same from the east (at Jarvis/Church) and the west (at Spadina) during the AM peak period Perhaps the best way to decide between the Queen and King corridors is to plot out viable routes for each, taking into account right-of-way, and note which routes would best hit the critical station areas. I believe that 90 degree turns should be avoided if possible. Technical feasibility of routes Online Survey Noted Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas Disagreement The stations on Line 2 are already too close together; constructing the interchange where there is not an existing station would require a new station and make the ride even slower for most commuters, not to mention the extra expense. Connection to existing station Online Survey A walking or pedestrian connection would be required from the existing Line 2 to a new
  32. 32. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 7 Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas station on the Relief Line. I am extremely disappointed that a spot further east in the Danforth line was not shortlisted. The heavy volumes of users start much further east of Pape. Pape is only a problem because the subways are already full at Coxwell. Broadview is the worst option. The users in this location are already practically downtown. Broadview is not visionary. Broadview is not long-term. Broadview provides almost no development potential and doesn't integrate with the GO or SmartTrack. Only options that integrate with other lines should be selected. It is critical to benefit the whole grid, not just a corridor. An integrated grid will get more people out of cars. The further east the option, the higher number of people will leave their cars at home; and it will increase the number of people who consider bicycling to the station. The further east, the more people will benefit. Station further east Online Survey The evaluation showed that the development potential around Donlands Station is less than around Pape Station. There are also significant barriers to developing the Relief Line south of Donlands Station. Stations further east, including Coxwell, do not allow for a future northern extension to serve Thorncliffe Park. I think the Danforth Line connection should be as far east as possible. Broadview is only half populated as the line would follow the DVP. Increased density will happen throughout the east neighbourhoods, especially after the relief line is built so we might as well put it there the centre of a full target area. Station farthest east Mail, Handed In Stations further east (Greenwood/Coxwell) would be great as it is a half way point to Kennedy. Station further east Online Survey Broadview just seems too close to the final downtown destinations to provide the flexibility that this line is meant to. Station further east Online Survey The further east along the line, the better. There's no point in running a line down Broadview when it's so close to the Yonge Line. The people who are at Broadview Station already have it easy enough. What is the goal? 1. Yes, to help with the congestion, but it should also be: 2. To make the commute faster/ easier for those further away from the Yonge line. Station further east Online Survey By considering Coxwell, there is more potential in connecting the city to the Beaches and the Beaches to the city. By extending the potential subway line as farthest east as possible there is more potential in reducing traffic and congestion from areas that have less transit connectivity. Station further east: Coxwell Online Survey I believe that the relief line should extend as far east as possible for two main reasons: 1) Those are the areas that have lower-income households and they are the main users of transit. By having a stop at Broadview or Pape, all that we will accomplish is to drive up the property values for people who need transit the least. 2) The reduction in commute times is amplified the further east that the relief line is placed. Station further east Online Survey Pape & Danforth is far too congested already and NOT a good choice for an interchange station. Donlands Station is a better choice / better sounding name for the station, i.e. "Don Lands" - Donlands Station is currently underused and there is potential for growth around that station, unlike Pape Station which is already vastly congested - Donlands Avenue has a direct route to Thorncliffe Park. (ps: your map is incorrect. Jones Avenue does not extend above Danforth Avenue.) Donlands Online Survey For the eastern arm of the line, Donlands is physically the best station to start the alignment downtown as well as for its future extension towards Scarborough due to its location as an intersection in the Toronto grid, thus providing roughly even spacing between stations in terms of diagonal point to point. Donlands Online Survey Greatest number of stations, serving the most number of transit customers. I would start this corridor even further east, possibly at Donlands or Greenwood (Access to Greenwood Yards, growing population density along the Danforth East corridor) Donlands Online Survey Should include a Donlands destination corridor given potential to connect/utilize current yard for new line. Donlands Online Survey
  33. 33. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 8 Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas Broadview station is a busy station but that is due the fact that it is currently the largest bus terminal (versus Pape and Donlands) and as such, TTC directs most of its service to this location. Same can be said for Pape versus Donlands (when Pape was under construction and buses went to Donlands, it was a busy station). Donlands has the advantage that the yard is to the south which avoids the massive impact and cost associated with a Wye connection from the DRL to one of the other lines. It also has the benefit that a northern extension in the future to Thorncliffe Park is due north and affects very few houses north of O'Connor Donlands Online Survey The ‘experience’ criteria undervalues the benefit enjoyed by those west of the first Danforth connection. I think Coxwell would be better for more. Coxwell Public Meeting Display The primary goal of the Relief Line is to provide maximum relief at the Yonge-Bloor interchange station, therefore there are better opportunities to capture more passengers at Pape and Broadview stations. Broadview is a good station for Relief interchange. Lots of mid-high density development potential, more relief, more affordable Broadview Online Survey Noted follow the Don River / do not invade residential pockets - Broadview travels both north and south - Pape is far too congested already Broadview Online Survey Noted I think the less disturbance to eastern neighbourhoods should be considered. There is considerably more space available at Broadview. Read my rating for more on that end. Broadview Online Survey Noted Pape station would be the most logical choice in the instance of future expansion potential to continue northward via Don Mills Rd. Pape Online Survey Noted Pape station more ideal in consideration of the fact of a future expansion North. Pape Online Survey Noted I think it makes sense to put the relief line intersection with line 2 as far east as possible (Pape) to support ongoing development in the east danforth area. Pape Online Survey Noted I think Pape is the better choice based on the results Pape Online Survey Noted A connection at Pape Station would attract riders coming from the East and provide service to neighbourhoods currently lacking. Broadview has a streetcar route and would not allow for optimal service to the Financial District, West Don Lands and Unilever sites. Pape Online Survey Noted It should go through Pape station and up Don Mills Road to lessen the number of people going over to the Yonge-University line. Pape Online Survey Noted Pape makes the most sense. Broadview is too far west, and tunnelling under Broadview would seriously disrupt the critical streetcar lines Pape Online Survey Noted Pape would get people off Line 2 more easily Pape Online Survey Noted Pape Station makes the most sense for an interchange, being far enough from Yonge to provide a time-saving alternative and serve new destinations, but close enough to allow for many transferring passengers to have boarded. Pape Online Survey Noted Broadview is already a very busy station. To make it worse would be silly. It's also a bit too close to the Yonge line and entirely inaccessible on its western boundary thanks to the Don. Pape is ripe for a build-up and using Pape would move the line further east increasing its catchment. Pape Online Survey Noted
  34. 34. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 9 Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas Pape is definitely the ideal Station option for both North and South Route options and will allow for connection with RER at Gerrard and through major development area on Carlaw. Pape Online Survey Noted Yes Pape and Danforth Station ideal Pape Online Survey Noted I'm less familiar with this part of the route, but Pape has always been seen as the natural choice for where the connection should be ... not too far east or west. Pape Online Survey Noted I support the Pape alternative in order to move the line further east. Pape Online Survey Noted Prefer to locate the station at Pape because it would enable a future northern extension along an Avenue designation towards Thorncliffe Park. The station would also line up with a station at Pape/Gerrard (Smart Track) Pape Online Survey Noted Go Pape - and then follow the Metrolinx recommendation and build up the Science Centre (Don Mills and Eglinton) and then to Fairview Mall ( Don Mills and Sheppard) - it would be easier for me to go to work with no car. Pape Online Survey Noted A line running NS on Broadview has a much smaller catchment area than one running along Pape. As well, future expansion northwards across the Don Valley will require a longer structure using a Broadview line than a Pape line. Pape Online Survey Noted Pape or somewhere east of Pape so more relief on existing subway. Pape Public Meeting Display Noted Pape (x2) Pape Public Meeting Display Noted I have always felt Pape was the best option on the Danforth. Pape Public Meeting Display Noted Pape is probably a better interceptor of east end Danforth line users. Pape Public Meeting Display Noted Broadview crowded now with buses and streetcars. Pape is the best option. Pape Public Meeting Display Noted Pape is an ideal location, but it's a small station. Pape Public Meeting Display Noted Pape is better, more opportunity to advance north of Gerrard Square and connect to Portlands and Unilever. Pape Public Meeting Display Noted Broadview is ridiculous. It's too far east to be useful for most people east of the Don. Pape's more central location will shorten the distance to the subway for many more people. Pape Public Meeting Display Noted Gerrard Square Pape Station Pape Mail, Handed In Noted But Pape makes much more sense to me than Broadview Pape Mail, Handed In Noted However, Broadview does not work (to me) as a route. Too close to valley, too late for easterners to consider switching trains. Pape is far superior. Pape Mail, Handed In Noted Pape is Best Pape Mail, Handed In Noted Pape Pape Mail, Handed In Noted -I think the Line 2 transfer should be at Pape over Broadview Pape Online Survey Noted This route serves, not only the Business District traffic, but also the nighttime entertainment traveller. Toronto needs 24/7 service to reduce car usage... not just daytime workers. A connection at Pape Stn would make it Pape Online Survey Noted
  35. 35. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 10 Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas rival the Spadina and St. George interchanges and would relieve Yonge-Bloor Stn which is especially badly designed for switching large volumes of passengers (pedestrians cross paths in every direction with almost no option to redirect any pedestrian traffic. im less concerned about the King or queen spot, but I feel strongly that Broadview will not service all the people that the relief line is supposed to reach Pape is the better option Pape Online Survey Noted Broadview and Pape were the two possible connection points on the Bloor line. My preference is Papa since it will help to relieve congestion earlier on the westbound leg. Pape Online Survey Noted The Pape station seems more desirable than the Broadview station as we already have overcrowding in morning rush hour starting at Pape. Patrons at Pape, Chester and Broadview already have to wait occasionally at times for more than one train to be able to access eastbound between 7:30 and 9:00 AM. This will only get worse over time and the extension of the Bloor/Danforth line when it opens will make it even more overcrowded. The best option by far is to provide the option for downtown-bound patrons to leave at Pape, thus easing Pape, Chester and Broadview. In addition, given how urgent it is to provide this relief to the already disastrous over-crowding at Yonge/Bloor, I suggest that there be a dual system along the relief line, with one of the lines providing for express service to Yonge/King (or Queen) and St. Andrew/Bay (or Osgoode). This express service would have greater drawing power than the regular service line the significantly given decreased travel time. It may be that in the first decade or so, this express would only be needed during rush hours, but it provides opportunity for further relief outside of rush hours in future if needed. It also could be used as parking for the new multi-car trains overnight. Pape, express service to downtown core Online Survey Noted Possibility for extension under right of ways is helpful, but I do worry about Pape Station's ability to handle increased traffic. Also, additional costs to alter or expand Pape Station so shortly after funds were spent to renovate station appears wasteful. Pape, extension under right of way Online Survey Noted Besides the narrow view of this study, we need to look at the bigger picture. Where will this line extend in the future, where will it connect? The Relief Line must go to Eglinton. Without this context, we are studying options in the dark. From Broadview, it doesn't work well. Only from Pape or Donlands a further extension is possible, through Thorncliffe. Pape or Donlands, future transit expansion Online Survey Noted Pape or Donlands! Broadview would require subway through Riverdale Park. Pape or Donlands Public Meeting Display Noted Eventual routes to the north of the Danforth are an important consideration for taking traffic away from Yonge & Bloor station. Future transit expansion Online Survey Noted The station along the BD line should be selected on the basis that a connection to Eglinton (and even beyond that to Sheppard) will definitely be required for a useful network and relief. To not go north of BD means not providing any relief to the Yonge line at all. What were the transit planners thinking? Future transit expansion Online Survey Noted for relief we need to think destinations like from Don Mills Station to St Andrew as one leg, another shorter version Pape Station to St. Andrew and an underground U from the Danforth subway through downtown and back up to Bloor line for yet even a shorter version...also the Kennedy station which also has a GO station to Union should be studied also. Maximum relief Online Survey Noted I think we need to also consider what the southern route will be and which station would best satisfy that as well. For instance, it seems to me that Broadview might be tricky because the street goes East, but I know little of this, so it is irrelevant. Technical considerations Online Survey Noted Where do people on Yonge Line get off most south of Bloor? What stations? The further north of Danforth you Current ridership Mail, Handed In Dundas is the busiest
  36. 36. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 11 Comment Theme Source Response Danforth Station Areas go, will there be more relief on all Yonge? How many years before connecting to #4 Sheppard Line? - Go Lines are long distance destinations - Smart Tracks is ½ & ½ - Broadview & Pape Stations renovated, others will too, soon station between Union and Bloor, with King Station being next. View online: www.ttc.ca/PDF/ Transit_Planning/ Subway_ridership _2014.pdf Metrolinx has identified a northern extension to Sheppard but would require further study to determine timing, alignments and stations. Comment Theme Source Response Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley Disagreement Station Density is too low No location specified Mail, Handed In Noted Could be more opportunity east of the railway line Station areas east of rail line Mail, Handed In The five potential stations east of the rail corridor generally did not perform as well as stations nearer to and west of the corridor. Connecting to Line 2 east of Donlands precludes the opportunity to extend the Relief Line north to serve Thorncliffe Park in the future. This is the most confusing part, in that if you're asking about subway route, pinning the start and the end will naturally make station location will make the stations in this section dependent upon the route, not the other way around. Holy turd spheres that's a lot of circles with 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, or fully filled green balls. It has the feel of 'we have to cover everything so no one can critique us for anything' indecisiveness. Quite honestly, specific station locations should be dependent upon the route, not having them co-equal concerns. As it seems Pape / Broadview and King / Queen are pinned as start and end points, and there are only 4 Study process Online Survey Noted
  37. 37. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 12 Comment Theme Source Response Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley routes, once that is figured then and only then should talking about where stations could be put along that line. I know it may be cheaper to ask about both at the same time, so you don't have to go through two rounds of public consultation, but this is like trying to determine which should go first, the cart or the horse at the same time as determining which is the cart and which is the horse. Dundas and Sumach station is too far north to be useful for the corridors contemplated. Dundas and Shuter Online Survey This station is located within Corridor A. In all of Riverdale and Leslieville there is only one good spot for a station? Time to change the criteria. Evaluation criteria, stations to serve Riverdale/ Leslieville Public Meeting Display Potential station areas in these neighbourhoods tend to have less potential due to • lower existing and projected population and employment densities • less development potential due to Heritage Conservation Districts and, • less land designated for intensification. These policies are identified in the City's Official Plan. 2 stations west of the Don River. Align the station box of Sherbourne west of the intersection so that it reaches closer to George Street, thus better acting as a St. Lawrence Market stop as well (imagine west-end of platform being stairs up to that short one-block walk to the market itself) St. Lawrence Market Mail, Handed In Noted Please have a stop at the St. Lawrence Market. Also, the east side needs excellent transfers with the Carlton and Queen cars. St. Lawrence Market, streetcar connections Online Survey Noted To me, these stations are best when chosen to build a better city, with new transit oriented development that does not severely impact existing neighbourhoods. Stations should be few and curves generous to maintain high speed service. They should also provide relief to congested streetcar routes. Stations at St. Lawrence Market, the Distillery District, new neighbourhoods West and East of the Don River, and at a single RER/SmartTrack interchange would be helpful. St. Lawrence Market, Distillery District, East/West Don Lands, SmartTrack/RER connection, streetcar connections Online Survey Noted
  38. 38. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 13 Comment Theme Source Response Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley I think running closer to Cherry, Distillery, Unilever would also facilitate more under accessible living working space Cherry, Distillery District, Unilever Online Survey Noted Great opportunity to bring transit to the centre of Regent Park and open all the incredible new amenities up to the larger community via transit - cricket field, new pool, skating rink etc. Regent Park Online Survey Noted Believe a station needs to be added in the Regent Park area, as well as the Sherbourne area, to support growth and development, as well as equity, in the downtown east. Regent Park, Sherbourne Online Survey Noted Good thinking out of the box with Regent Park Regent Park Mail, Handed In Noted A station serving George Brown or somewhere thereabouts could be good, but I don't think St. Lawrence is in need of a stop or the Distillery, either. George Brown Online Survey Noted River/Oak Streets is a good location for a station. River/Oak Online Survey Noted Given the number of current and planned development projects in the Downtown East/Lower Parliament and Waterfront locales, any relief line proposals should meet at least some of the transportation shortfalls that currently exist in this area. Downtown east and waterfront development Online Survey Noted A station in the centre of the West Don Lands further south east of Cherry and Front would likely be in close proximity to more commuter than other options considered. West Don Lands Online Survey Noted The stations on the West Don Lands/Distillery District area, and Sherbourne/St. Lawrence are the ones with the most potential, I hope they end up being chosen. West Don Lands, Distillery District, St. Lawrence Market Online Survey Noted With all the development in the West Don Lands, there needs to be additional lines to service this area. There are already too many people waiting at Queen and River to board an already-jammed-packed 501 streetcar. Once the Canary District condos take occupancy and the new Riverside Square condo is built east of the river, that area will be completely overwhelmed. It is all young professionals moving in here who depend on TTC as their main mode of transportation. 501 is by far the busiest. The 505 and 504 are busy, but manageable at current levels of ridership. On the AVERAGE winter day, I have to wait for at least one or two completely full 501 streetcars to pass before there is one with room for me. More 502 rush hour streetcars might help if there is no relief line in this area. I also want to mention that this "station area evaluation" is not the easiest to understand, and I am a university-educated professional. Hopefully this doesn't hinder the quality of feedback you receive. West Don Lands Online Survey Noted Important that consideration be given to the future housing and commercial development in the east and west Donlands in selecting station(s) on either side of the Don River. Future development in east/west Don Lands Online Survey Noted Unilever King Cherry Unilever, King/Cherry Mail, Handed In Noted Need to serve Pan Am, Distillery, and create development along Portlands area Avoid parks and do not disrupt established communities West Don Lands, Portlands, Distillery District Mail, Handed In Noted The relief line MUST run as far south as possible to serve future development in the west don lands, future development in the Portlands and into the proposed development off lake shore in sunlight park. The distillery district deserves service, especially as a tourist destination. Ultimately, future developments are going to push south towards the lake and these areas need to be serviced with subway, especially if they are West Don Lands, Portlands, Distillery District Online Survey Noted
  39. 39. Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation 14 Comment Theme Source Response Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley going to be large scale developments as expected. Going through the Portlands under Commissioners Drive should be considered. This is where the maximum development potential exists. The current evaluation is too timid and not forward looking enough. The City is underestimating the need for central employment lands in the future Portlands, employment areas Online Survey Noted Either of these is fine but I think we need to provide support to the new developments in the south. And provide better access to the Portlands Portlands, serve new development Online Survey Noted Providing a connection to the future Port Lands development is important. Portlands Online Survey Noted Still consider the Portlands an alignment. Portlands Public Meeting Display Noted Seems to me that the Unilever site station should be green based on the huge redevelopment which the city should foster (not just consider). With Broadview extending south, this will be the station for the east Portlands. Build for the future! Unilever/Portlands Public Meeting Display Noted Servicing the Unilever and Portlands area is very important in so far as managing future growth of the city. To not have them serviced would be short sighted. Subways are long term projects that require vision. We once built for a great future as in the Harrison filtration plant and the Bloor Viaduct. I think a subway should be built with the same mindset. Cost savings and a lack of future vision would be a waste of opportunity. Don't think small. Unilever/Portlands Online Survey Noted Are we sure the Unilever lands will be important once developed? It would be sad not to have a station there if indeed it does work, there is a lot of potential; but if it doesn't, it would be a major (or mayor) boondoggle and embarrassment. Please evaluate this thoroughly before reaching a decision. Unilever Online Survey Noted Make sure the Relief Line hits future development sites like Gerrard Square and the First Gulf site. Hitting the Port Lands would be even better, but probably unrealistic. Gerrard Square, Unilever/Portlands Online Survey Noted A station at Queen/Broadview nicely intercepts 501 and 504 streetcar riders. Queen/Broadview Public Meeting Display Noted All corridors should consider a Broadview / Queen station as this can provide an important transfer point from DRL to King and Queen (and Broadview) Streetcars. Queen/Broadview Online Survey Noted Avoid Queen St & Degrassi St Opposition to Queen/Degrassi Mail, Handed In Noted I do not think Queen Degrassi is a viable station location. I was told at the last public meeting that although it still is orange on the report, that it is no longer being considered. Opposition to Queen/Degrassi Online Survey Noted Favour a station at Degrassi and Queen Queen/Degrassi Online Survey Noted Would like to see a station at Queen and Carlaw Queen/Carlaw Online Survey Noted Please do build a subway at queen/Carlaw My son's school is right there (Morse St.). The disruption would be catastrophic. Thank you Queen/Carlaw Online Survey Noted Connections from Gerrard and Queen Streetcars to subway in east end, could help us get to work faster. Streetcar connections Online Survey Noted Stops on Carlaw south of Gerrard are preferable to stops on Pape as Pape is a more quiet residential street than Carlaw in this area Carlaw/Gerrard Online Survey Noted Gerrard Square is a must. Gerrard Square Public Meeting Display Noted Gerrard/Pape to Dundas/Sumach To Queen/Richmond alignment seems most logical as it would service the Gerrard Square, Online Survey Noted

×