Scarborough Subway Extension - June 2015 Public Consultation Report

SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
21
Scarborough Subway Extension
Draft Terms of Reference
Draft Evaluation Criteria
21
21
21
1
June 2015 Public Consultation Report

21
21
21
21
2
Table of Contents
Page
Overview......................................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Approach to Public Consultation...........................................................................................5
1.2 Presentation Materials ..........................................................................................................6
1.3 Consultation Questions.........................................................................................................6
Feedback .....................................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Overview of Feedback Analysis............................................................................................8
2.1.1 Existing Conditions....................................................................................................8
2.1.2 Preliminary Corridor Evaluation.................................................................................9
2.1.3 The Short Listed Corridors ......................................................................................13
2.1.4 Potential Alignments................................................................................................15
2.1.5 Potential Station Concepts ......................................................................................17
2.1.6 Responses ..............................................................................................................21
2.2 Other Comments.................................................................................................................22
2.3 Out of Scope Comments.....................................................................................................22
Public Consultation Tools and Activities...............................................................................................23
3.1 Public Notification................................................................................................................23
3.1.1 Notification and Timing............................................................................................23
3.1.2 E-newsletter Updates ..............................................................................................24
3.1.3 Media Releases.......................................................................................................24
3.1.4 Project Website .......................................................................................................25
3.1.4.1 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)........................................................25
3.2 Public Consultation Tools and Activities .............................................................................25
3.2.1 Public Meetings.......................................................................................................25
3.2.1.1 Public Meeting “What do you think” Boards............................................26
3.2.1.2 Discussion Guides ..................................................................................26
3.2.2 Online Consultation.................................................................................................27
3.2.3 Phone and Email Comments...................................................................................27
Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)........................................................................................................28
4.1 Interactive Workshop ..........................................................................................................28
4.1.1 Objectives and format .............................................................................................28
4.1.2 Participants..............................................................................................................28
4.2 SAG Meeting #2..................................................................................................................29
4.2.1 Objectives and Format ............................................................................................29
4.2.2 Participation and Comments ...................................................................................29
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................30
5.1 Phase 3 Consultation..........................................................................................................30

21
21
21
21
3
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Short Listed Corridors ..........................................................................................................13
Figure 2. Project Description Timeline .....................................................................................................30
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Corridor Feedback..................................................................................................9
Table 2. Preliminary Corridor Evaluation Comment & Response ...........................................................12
Table 3. Summary of Short Listed Corridors Feedback..........................................................................13
Table 4. Short Listed Corridor Comments & Responses ........................................................................15
Table 5. Summary of Potential Alignments Feedback ............................................................................16
Table 6. Potential Alignments Comments & Responses.........................................................................17
Table 7. Summary of Potential Station Concepts Feedback...................................................................18
Appendices
Appendix A Existing Conditions
 Existing Conditions Feedback
Appendix B Preliminary Evaluation of the Corridors
 Preliminary Evaluation of the Corridors Feedback
o SRT (Line 3) Corridors
o Midland to Markham/ Progress Corridor
o Midland to McCowan Corridor
o Hydro and Brimley Corridors
o McCowan Corridor
o Bellamy Corridor
o Markham Corridor
o The Short-listed Corridors (comments about all three together)
Appendix C Potential Alignments
 Potential Alignments Feedback
o Midland Corridor Alignments
o McCowan Corridor Alignments
o Bellamy Corridor Alignments

21
21
21
21
4
Appendix D Potential Station Concepts
 Potential Station Concepts Feedback
o EE1
o EE2
o LE1
o LE2
o LE3
o SC1
o SC2
o SC3
o SC4
o SC5
o SC6
o SC7
o SC8
o SE1
o SE2
o SE3
o SE4
o SE5
Appendix E Other Comments
Appendix F Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Appendix G E-Newsletters
Appendix H Media Release
Appendix I Public Meeting
 Notice
 Presentation
 Display Boards
 Discussion Guide
Appendix J Interactive Workshop
 Agenda
 Presentation
 Minutes
Appendix K Stakeholder Advisory Group
 Meeting #2 Agenda
 Presentation
 Meeting #2 Minutes

21
21
21
21
5
Overview
Between March and July, 2015 a preliminary evaluation of the nine potential corridors was presented to
the public including the inventory/ existing conditions in the study area and the three short listed corridors.
For each shortlisted corridor, a preliminary set of potential alignments and station concepts were also
presented. This work bridges both Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Scarborough Subway Extension Project
Assessment (SSEPA).
1.1 Approach to Public Consultation
Community input is an essential part of the SSEPA. People care about how transit is planned and
developed, and the City of Toronto is committed to engaging the public in a way that is transparent,
collaborative, inclusive and authentic. In order to make it easy for the public to get involved and provide
feedback a number of in-person and online tools were used during Phase 2, including:
1. A set of relevant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) was developed to address questions
about the project and Phase 2 in particular;
2. Advertising was used to inform people about Phase 2 activities and consultation
opportunities;
3. An e-newsletter was used to inform those on the project contact list about Phase 2
activities and consultation opportunities:
4. The project website was used to provide useful information about the project, including
invitations to consultation opportunities;
5. Online consultation was used through the project website, giving community members the
opportunity to provide comments and feedback online;
6. An interactive workshop was held for Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) members to
inform the corridor analysis;
7. A Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) meeting was held to provide SAG members the
opportunity to review the results of the preliminary analysis of corridors and provide
feedback on potential alignments; and
8. Eight public consultation events were held across Toronto, including two locations
(Winston Churchill Collegiate and Scarborough Civic Centre) within the study area, giving
community members an opportunity to discuss the project with the team and provide
comments.
Many comments were received to inform the staff recommendation of the preferred corridor option, alignment and
station locations.

21
21
21
21
6
1.2 Presentation Materials
Clear, easy-to-understand and engaging materials (including notices, information boards, PowerPoint
presentations, a discussion guide and web content) were developed for Phase 2 and focused on the key
messages of this phase, including:
 Recap of the study – background information about what the study is and how it is being
completed
 What we’ve heard so far – an overview of the feedback that was received during Phase 1
consultation
 Existing conditions/ study area inventory – an overview of the factors that were studied to
better understand the study area
 Preliminary corridor evaluation – a recap of the evaluation criteria and the preliminary results of
the evaluation
 Short listed corridors – presentation of the three short listed corridors
 Potential alignments – maps and information related to the potential alignments within each of
the short listed corridors
 Potential station concepts – maps and information for the station concept alternatives for each
of the short listed corridors
1.3 Consultation Questions
A number of key consultation questions were identified by the project team for this part of the SSEPA
study. The public was invited to provide their input and feedback to these key questions through various
consultation tools and activities. These questions include:
To receive feedback on the existing conditions/ inventory of the study area:
 We would like to know your feedback or concerns about the inventory. Have we missed anything?
To receive feedback on the preliminary corridor evaluation:
 Did we miss anything in the evaluation of each corridor?
To receive feedback on the short listed corridors:
 We would like to know your thoughts, ideas and concerns about the short listed corridors. Do you agree that
these are the three best corridors? Why or why not?
To receive feedback on the potential alignments within the short listed corridors:
 What are your thoughts about the alignments within each corridor?

21
21
21
21
7
To receive feedback on the potential station concepts within the short listed corridors:
 Provide your thoughts about each of the potential station concepts:
o Would the station provide good access to key destinations?
o What do you think about the placement of the bus terminal?
o Are the entrances convenient locations?
o How could the station concepts be improved?

21
21
21
21
8
Feedback
2.1 Overview of Feedback Analysis
Many comments and questions were received during this part of the SSEPA through the various
consultation tools and activities demonstrating a great deal of community and stakeholder interest in the
Scarborough Subway Extension and study. In reviewing this feedback, a number of themes emerge
related to the key questions of this phase. These themes are based on comments received from the
Discussion Guides, Public Meetings, online survey, through the project email and phone, and from the
SAG meeting and interactive workshop minutes.
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
Before evaluating the nine corridors and identifying the short list, an inventory of the study area was
conducted, looking at a number of different factors including:
 Official Plan Urban Structure – What are the areas for future growth as outlined in Toronto’s
Official Plan?
 Planning and Development Context – What do other plans (i.e. Secondary Plans, Precinct
Plans and local guidelines) say about growth and development in the area?
 Land Use Designations – What are the designated future uses for the area as outlined in
Toronto’s Official Plan?
 Existing Land Use – How is the area currently being used?
 Natural Heritage System – Where are the watercourses, forests and wetlands?
 Community Services and Facilities – Where are the important schools, hospitals, community
centres and other facilities?
 Population and Employment Densities – Where do the people and jobs exist?
 Transit – Where are the existing and planned transit facilities?
 Heritage and Archaeological Potential – Where are the heritage buildings and conservation
districts?
The public had the opportunity to review and "ground truth" the findings of the project team to ensure that
the technical experts had accurately reflected the existing conditions. Although few comments were
received, feedback provided identified two areas of concern: congestion and conditions of current transit
stations. See all comments received in Appendix A.
Congestion
Concerns were expressed regarding current traffic congestion within the study area. Some believed that
plans for the Scarborough Subway Extension would relieve congestion whereas others stated that the

21
21
21
21
9
options proposed would have no effect on current congestion issues. A suggestion regarding more double
length buses to relieve congestion was also recorded.
Conditions of Current Transit Stations
Some comments regarding the current conditions of transit stations were noted. Complaints regarding
safety, cleanliness and unsatisfactory exteriors were made. One member of the public asked if the old
stations currently being used will be redesigned along with the installation of the new station for the
subway extension.
2.1.2 Preliminary Corridor Evaluation
During Phase 2, each of the nine corridors was evaluated using the Evaluation Criteria previously
finalized. The results of this preliminary evaluation were presented and the following question was asked
to seek feedback on these results:
 Did we miss anything?
Table 1 below, provides a summary of comments received on the preliminary evaluation of each corridor
that outline what was missed and/or concerns regarding the evaluation results. See all comments
received in Appendix B.
Table 1. Summary of Corridor Feedback
Proposed
Corridor
Summary Project Team Response/Action
SRT (Line 3)
Corridors
The majority of feedback received about this corridor
was in agreement with the evaluation that it should
not be carried forward for further study. However,
there was some concern about access to
neighbourhoods and businesses in this area and the
need to maintain the existing conditions created by
the current SRT.
Maintaining access to rapid transit
for current SRT riders is considered
in the evaluation criteria, however
the benefits of placing stations in
the same locations were not as
great as benefits that could be
realized by new station locations.
Midland to
Markham/
Progress
Corridor
The majority of feedback received about this corridor
was in agreement with the evaluation that it should
not be carried forward for further study.
The comments in agreement with the evaluation of
this corridor option primarily focused on the access
to nearby residential areas and the potential
connectivity to institutions such as Centennial
College.

21
21
21
21
10
Proposed
Corridor
Midland to
McCowan
Corridor
Some members of the public agreed that this
corridor be carried forward for further study due to
the connections to Scarborough Town Centre,
Kennedy Station, and nearby residential areas.
Other comments liked the proximity to the existing
SRT and minimal capital costs.
However, similarly to the SRT (Line 3) and Midland
to Markham/Progress corridor feedback, most
people disagreed with the evaluation of this corridor
due to the proximity to SmartTrack, creating
redundancy in service. Furthermore, this
redundancy in service lead to great concerns
regarding the cost of constructing a corridor so close
to SmartTrack. Other considerations regarding this
corridor included the congestion related to the
closure of the SRT, not serving businesses, and low
density and development potential along this
corridor.
Proximity to SmartTrack is an
important consideration, however
we do not yet know how proximity
to SmartTrack may impact the
Scarborough Subway Extension. It
would not be prudent to eliminate all
potential corridors close to
SmartTrack before the interaction is
better understood in terms of
ridership and station activity.
There is significant development
potential at station locations.
Hydro and
Brimley
Corridors
Few comments were received regarding these
corridors. The majority agreed with the decision that
they should not be carried forward for further study
due to low density and lack of development potential
exhibited at a potential Lawrence and Brimley
station.
McCowan
Corridor
There was strong support for this corridor,
specifically because it provides direct access to the
Scarborough Hospital and Scarborough Town
Centre. Many also commented that McCowan is
their preferred corridor because it would serve
many, reach the most destinations in Scarborough,
has the potential to reduce traffic in the area, would
provide an opportunity for a fourth station (at
Eglinton and Danforth), and seems the most logical.
Generally, those in disagreement with the evaluation
of this corridor were concerned about the additional
capital cost and the lack of service to UTSC and
Centennial College.
While Centennial College is located
within the project study area, UTSC
is not. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to provide subway service
to these destinations while
achieving the objectives of the
Scarborough Subway Extension.
Through the City's review of its
Rapid Transit Network under the
banner of "Feeling Congested?"
(http://feelingcongested.ca) there
will be further opportunity to
consider how these important
destinations may be served by rapid
transit.

21
21
21
21
11
Proposed
Corridor
Bellamy
Corridor
In general, there was strong support for the decision
to carry this corridor forward for further study as it
offers a direct connection to the Eglinton GO Station
on the Lakeshore East GO Rail corridor, it is an
appropriate distance from SmartTrack, and has the
potential to serve the eastern part of Scarborough.
Many also mentioned additional considerations for
this corridor including the potential to serve more
people and reach more destinations such as the
Cedarbrae Mall, Lawrence Avenue shopping areas
and Cedarbrae Collegiate.
Those who disagreed with the evaluation of this
corridor noted the issue of backtracking. Other
concerns included increased capital costs, low
density and lack of development potential along the
corridor.
It is important to consider the
existing and planned density of
people and jobs around station
areas because this helps us
understand how many people would
gain direct access to the service.
However, density between station
areas is less important because
there is no direct access to the
service.
There is significant development
potential at both the
Eglinton/Bellamy and
Lawrence/Bellamy station
locations..
Markham
Corridor
The Markham corridor received mixed reviews.
Some disagreed with the evaluation of this corridor
because they liked the distance from SmartTrack,
the potential to serve the eastern part of
Scarborough, and the potential for future
development. Other positive qualities identified
included the potential to serve priority
neighbourhoods in the area, and provide many
residents with affordable and accessible transit.
Generally, those in agreement with the evaluation of
this corridor to not carry if forward for further study
identified the reasons being the additional capital
cost, the need for extensive tunneling and track
work, the poor connection to the Scarborough
Centre and the indirect route.
While there are significant benefits
of this corridor, they are similar to
the benefits of the Bellamy Corridor
without the incremental costs and
travel time associated with the
Markham Corridor.
In evaluating the comments from members of the public it has been made clear that cost, connectivity,
and proximity to SmartTrack are still very important topics of discussion. However, when asked if anything
was missed regarding the preliminary corridor evaluation, public feedback identified four additional areas
for consideration along with the previously mentioned topics of concern: alternate corridor options, traffic
during construction, integration opportunities with other modes of transit, and providing service to more
people and places. To view all comments regarding the preliminary evaluation of corridors, see
Appendix B.

21
21
21
21
12
Traffic During Construction
The consideration of traffic during construction was identified when discussing corridor options. Many
commented that particular corridor options would either cause major traffic delays or would impact traffic
flow the least during construction. Many felt as though the decision to carry the Bellamy corridor option
forward for further study was a good decision because construction would have minimal impact on traffic
as it is not currently a very busy location.
Integration Opportunities with Other Modes of Transit
Many people suggested choosing the corridor option that would have the capability to connect with other
modes of transit in the future. Connections with the potential SmartTrack and Scarborough-Malvern LRT
line were at the forefront while others emphasized the importance of connecting the new corridor to
current GO Transit lines and bus routes.
Providing Service to More People and Places
Providing maximum access to all areas of the city to the greatest number of people was an important
consideration. Many felt the most southern part of Scarborough currently lacked accessibility to other parts of
the city and thought the corridor options being carried forward for further study would solve the access issue.
Table 2 below, presents the summary comments pertaining to the preliminary corridor evaluation along
with the project team response or action taken.
Table 2. Preliminary Corridor Evaluation Comment & Response
Comment Project Team Response/Action
Traffic during
Construction
Traffic congestion during construction is not a significant factor in determining the
preferred corridor, because traffic impacts will be minor in scope and severity
compared with the long-term benefits of the subway extension, including the
economic development opportunities that it will provide.
Impact to traffic will be considered after a preferred corridor has been selected and
the potential station concepts are compared. Concepts that offer less disruption to
traffic will be favoured over concepts with greater disruption.
Integration
Opportunities
with Other Modes
of Transit
Connecting to existing and planned transit lines is a significant consideration in the
corridor evaluation. Preliminary analysis highlighted proximity to SmartTrack and the
opportunity to connect with Eglinton GO, but the full evaluation will include a more
robust evaluation of possible connections including interface with the proposed
Scarborough-Malvern LRT, and a clearer understanding of how SmartTrack and the
Scarborough Subway Extension would impact one another based on upcoming
ridership forecasting work.
Providing Service
to More People
and Places
Existing and projected future population and jobs around potential station areas has
been considered in the corridor analysis. However, the project has specific objectives
and parameters that limit the number of stations and routes that can be considered.

21
21
21
21
13
Figure 1. The Short Listed Corridors
2.1.3 The Short Listed Corridors
From the nine potential corridor options, three
corridors were carried forward for further study,
including:
 Midland corridor
 McCowan corridor
 Bellamy corridor
Feedback on each short listed corridor will be
reviewed and considered during the next stage of
the study. The following questions were asked:
 Do you agree that these corridors should be
carried forward?
 Why or why not?
Table 3 below, provides a summary of comments
received on each short listed corridor. See all
comments in Appendix B.
Table 3. Summary of Short Listed Corridors Feedback
Short Listed
Corridor
Midland
Corridor
Generally, most of the people in agreement
with this corridor liked the connections to
Scarborough Town Centre, Kennedy Station,
and nearby residential areas. Another key
benefit identified over the other corridor
options was the reduction in capital costs in
comparison to the McCowan corridor.
Those who disagreed that this corridor
should be carried forward for further study
expressed concerns about the proximity to
SmartTrack, creating a redundancy in
service. Other concerns included the closure
of the SRT and the low density of the corridor
area.
Overall, Midland seemed to be the middle
ground within the three short listed corridors
Proximity to SmartTrack is an important
consideration, however we do not yet know
how proximity to SmartTrack may impact the
Scarborough Subway Extension. It would not
be prudent to eliminate all potential corridors
close to SmartTrack before the interaction is
better understood through modelling.
There is significant development potential at
station locations.

21
21
21
21
14
Short Listed
Corridor
with some of the public in agreement and
some in disagreement with the decision to
carry it forward.
McCowan
Corridor
Out of the three short listed corridors, this
seemed to be the most preferred option.
Many thought that this option would provide
the most service to the most people. Many
also thought this corridor has the potential to
reduce traffic and congestion in the area,
made the most sense and seemed logical.
Generally, those who disagreed that this
corridor should be carried forward for further
study were concerned with the additional
capital cost (as compared to Midland) and
the lack of service to Centennial College and
UTSC.
While Centennial College is located within
the project study area, UTSC is not.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide
subway service to these destinations while
achieving the objectives of the Scarborough
Subway Extension.
Through the City's review of its Rapid Transit
Network under the banner of "Feeling
Congested?" (http://feelingcongested.ca)
there will be further opportunity to consider
how these important destinations may be
served by rapid transit.
Bellamy
Corridor
This corridor seemed to cause the most
disagreement out of the three short listed
corridors. Those in agreement that this
corridor be carried forward liked the
connection to the Eglinton GO station, and
access to Scarborough Town Centre and
Cedarbrae Mall.
Many disagreed with the decision to carry
this corridor forward due to the additional
capital costs, lower density and fewer
opportunities for development in the area.
It is important to consider the existing and
planned density of people and jobs around
station areas because this helps us
understand how many people would gain
direct access to the service. However,
density between station areas is less
important because there is no direct access
to the service.
There is significant development potential at
both the Eglinton/Bellamy and
Lawrence/Bellamy station locations.
Public feedback identified two general areas of concern regarding the short listed corridors: cost-
effectiveness and clarity around the process. See Comments in Appendix B.
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness was identified as an important factor when discussing the three short listed corridors.
Questions regarding the revenue to cost ratio and requests for further explanation regarding differences in
costs were asked.

21
21
21
21
15
Clarification
A need for clarification about how the short list was determined was identified. Many were unsure about
the process and wanted to know how the decision was made in narrowing down the corridor options from
the original nine to the three short-listed corridors.
Table 4 below, presents the summary comments pertaining to the short listed corridors along with the
project team response or action taken.
Table 4. Short Listed Corridor Comments & Responses
Cost-effectiveness Costs have been provided in relation to the McCowan corridor, which was used to
create the budget supported by Council in October 2013. The Midland corridor
would cost $100M - $130M less than the final cost for the McCowan option and the
Bellamy corridor would cost $600M - $625M more.
Increased revenues are not available at this time. These include fares collected
from new riders and increased property taxes that may result from redevelopment.
Clarification About
How the Short List
was Identified
A reasoned argument approach was taken, whereby similar corridors were
grouped. That is, corridors in the west of the study area (SRT, Midland), the centre
of the study area (Hydro, Brimley and McCowan) and the east of the study area
(Bellamy and Markham). In each group, the best corridor was selected using the
project evaluation criteria.
The result of this reasoned argument is three short-listed corridors that include the
preferred corridor. In other words, even if one of the corridors that was not carried
forward was better than one that was carried forward, it is not possible that a
corridor not carried forward would be the preferred corridor. E.g. Brimley might be
the second choice – better than either Midland or Bellamy – but since McCowan is
preferred over Brimley, we can eliminate Brimley from further analysis.
The preferred corridor will be selected from the short listed corridors .
2.1.4 Potential Alignments
Within the three short listed corridors, potential alignments were developed. Feedback received about the
potential alignments will be considered in Phase 3 of the SSEPA to produce alignment recommendations
and identify potential impacts and mitigation strategies before completing the final review.
Table 5 below, provides a summary of comments received on the potential alignments. See verbatim
comments in Appendix C.

21
21
21
21
16
Table 5. Summary of Potential Alignments Feedback
Potential
Alignments
Summary
Midland Generally, many comments about potential alignments for this corridor questioned
tunneling costs and the possibility to use existing elevated structures.
McCowan When discussing potential alignments for this corridor, many members of the public
questioned the cost, of integration with the Scarborough Town Centre and the impact
construction would have on the Scarborough Town Centre.
Bellamy Those in favour of the Bellamy alignment options thought they would cover more
neighbourhoods and provide network breadth.
Questions and comments highlighting the drawbacks primarily focused on cost, and the
need for a fifth station. Many thought these options would be too expensive and thought
the distance from Bellamy and Lawrence to the Scarborough Town Centre would be too
far.
The following three areas of concern emerged from the review of comments regarding the potential
alignments: cost, use of existing structures, and impact of construction.
Cost
Similarly to the preliminary evaluation of the corridors, cost was identified as a main concern in discussing
potential alignment options. Many questioned the cost-effectiveness of each alignment option and wanted
to know exact dollar amounts before coming to a final decision. Generally, people wanted to choose the
most cost-effective option that would provide long-term improvements in service.
Use of Existing Structures
Use of existing structures was identified as a key idea for consideration. Many thought using existing
elevated structures, primarily for the Midland alignment options, would be more cost-effective in reducing
tunneling costs and construction period.
Impact of Construction
Many questioned the impact of construction within the different alignment options. Some wanted to know
how the Scarborough Town Centre would be affected during the construction period and others
questioned the length of construction for each alignment option.
Table 6 below, presents the comments pertaining to the potential alignments along with the project team
response or action taken.

21
21
21
21
17
Table 6. Potential Alignments Comments & Responses
Cost Costs have been provided in relation to the McCowan corridor, which was used
to create the budget supported by Council in October 2013. The Midland corridor
would cost $100M - $130M less and the Bellamy corridor would cost $600M -
$625M more than the final cost of the McCowan option. As design proceeds,
more detailed cost estimates will be determined.
Increased revenues are not available at this time. These include fares collected
from new riders and increased property taxes that may result from
redevelopment.
Use of Existing
Structures
Reuse of existing elevated structures has been included in cost estimates for the
Midland corridor alignments.
Impact of
Construction
Length of the construction period is comparable for all alignments. Likewise,
impacts to the operation of the Scarborough Town Centre are expected to be
minimal for all Scarborough Centre Station concepts.
More details about construction methods and impacts will be determined through
a detailed analysis of the station concepts in future phases.
2.1.5 Potential Station Concepts
Within the three short listed corridors and potential alignments, multiple potential station concepts were
developed. The station concepts provide a layout of the potential subway station including the subway
platform, bus terminal, entrances and an electrical substation. Some potential station concepts also
included a passenger pick up and drop off.
Station Concepts Associated with Each Corridor
Midland Corridor
 LE1
 SC1
 SC2
 SE1
 SE2
 SE3
 SE4
 SE5
McCowan Corridor
 EE1
 LE2
 SC3
 SC4
 SC5
 SC6
 SC7
 SC8
 SE1
 SE2
 SE3
 SE4
 SE5
Bellamy Corridor
 EE2
 LE3
 SC3
 SC4
 SC5
 SC6
 SC7
 SC8
 SE1
 SE2
 SE3
 SE4
 SE5

21
21
21
21
18
Feedback on the potential alignments will inform the analysis of station concepts and identify potential
impacts and mitigation strategies before completing the final review.
The following questions were asked to seek feedback from the public on the potential station concepts:
 What do you think about the potential station concepts?
 Would the station provide good access to key destinations?
 What do you think about the placement of the bus terminal?
 Are the entrances convenient locations?
 How could the station concepts be improved?
Table 7 below, provides a summary of comments received on each of the potential station concepts. See
verbatim comments received in Appendix D.
Table 7. Summary of Potential Station Concepts Feedback
Potential
Station Concept
Summary
EE1 Those in favour of this station concept believed it would offer optimal access from the
main roadways and felt there would be great opportunities for development and growth
in the future.
Many questions and concerns focused on buses. Some wanted to know how the
Brimley bus looped back and others were concerned that the capacity for buses in this
area was underestimated. It was also suggested that the EE1 station design would not
be able to handle the eventual bus and passenger traffic in the long-term.
EE2 Many comments in favour of this station concept focused on the connection with the
Eglinton GO station and redevelopment opportunities for the surrounding
neighbourhoods.
Comments highlighting the drawbacks of this station concept questioned the need for a
bus terminal and recognized the potential for congestion if not properly designed.
LE1 Those in favour of this station concept liked that it would be close to the existing RT
station which will be close to the SmartTrack. It was suggested that the existing bus bay
be kept in place and a tunnel be developed to lead to the new station.
Questions and concerns focused on the location and design of the bus terminals,
connectivity from the bus terminal to the subway platform, ridership, and cost-
effectiveness. Many were concerned with bus bays and station designs during
inclement weather conditions.

21
21
21
21
19
Potential
Station Concept
Summary
LE2 This station location raised many questions and concerns.
Concerns included the location of bus loops, impact on construction (especially
regarding the nearby park, low ridership, and uncovered bus terminals. Some thought
the bus loops would be located too far away from the subway platform meaning
passengers would have to have to walk further and stand outside in inclement weather.
Some stated the need for connection to the hospital and suggested the bus loops be
placed on hospital property for more convenience.
LE3 Those in favour of this station concept liked the connectivity it would provide. The proximity
to Cedarbrae mall was celebrated as was the potential for development in the future.
Most of the concerns raised focused on the location of the bus loops. Some thought bus
loops were too far west and others questioned if the plans included changes to Tabor
Hill and asked if the westbound loop would be above an Aboriginal burial ground.
SC1 The support for this station concept highlighted the connectivity between buses and trains.
Concerns regarding walking distance for passengers transferring from one mode of
transportation to another or walking to the mall were highlighted. Suggestions to provide
a direct connection to the mall and the library were also made.
SC2 This station concept seemed to be one of the least preferred options. Many were
concerned with the location of the bus loop and thought it would be too far from the
subway platform.
SC3 Generally, people liked this station concept because of the proximity to the Scarborough
Town Centre and because it would be compact, minimizing the walking distance for
passengers transferring from one mode of transit to another.
The main concerns focused on the impact of construction to the Scarborough Town
Centre and the connection from the subway platform to the Scarborough Town Centre.
A suggestion was made to develop an underground or aboveground walkway to bring
transit riders directly into the Scarborough Town Centre.
SC4 This station concept seemed to be one of the least preferred options. Many were
concerned that the station was too spread out and the passenger pick-up and drop-off
was too far from the station, requiring passengers to walk a great distance when
transferring from one mode of transit to another. Some also questioned if the current
Jack Astor’s restaurant would need to be relocated if this station concept were chosen.
SC5 Generally, there was strong support for this station concept. People liked that the
station would be compact, minimize walking distance for passengers transferring from
one mode of transit to another, and liked the connectivity.
Concern was raised regarding the cost of stacking the terminals and the relocation of
the current Jack Astor’s restaurant.

21
21
21
21
20
Potential
Station Concept
Summary
SC6 Those in favour of this station concept liked the proximity to McCowan Road and the
Scarborough Town Centre developments.
The main drawback highlighted was that the station seemed to be too spread out and
would require a lot of walking for passengers transferring from one mode of transit to
the other.
SC7 This station concept received a lot of support. Highlights included access to the
Scarborough Town Centre and great potential for development and growth.
Concerns included construction impacts and increased congestion.
SC8 This station concept was also one of the most preferred options. People liked that the
station would be very compact and would minimize the walking distance for passengers
transferring from one mode of transportation to another.
SE1 Support for this station concept focused on the maximized opportunity for development
and the minimal walking distance for passengers transferring from one mode of
transportation to another. Some also liked that the station would be compact.
A drawback for this station concept focused on the difficulty for buses to get to the
station. Others commented that the southwest corner should be considered as well as
the northwest corner with the bus terminal placed north of Canadian Tire.
SE2 Support for this station focused on the connectivity between the subway, the future
Sheppard LRT and local bus services. Some noted that keeping all TTC infrastructure
together is important to allow passengers an easier, more convenient transfer from the
bus and LRT to the subway.
The only drawback noted was that it was the least compact out of all the potential
station concepts.
SE3 Those in favour of this station concept commented that it was the best because it would
keep the bus terminal accessible from both Sheppard and McCowan.
The drawback discussed was that the bus terminal would be placed too far north and
needed to be closer to the station.
SE4 Generally, comments in favour of this station concept focused on redevelopment
opportunities, available parking lot space and the connectivity to bus routes north of
Sheppard Avenue.
The drawback raised for this station concept was regarding location. Some thought it was
located too far from the subway platform and the suggestion was made to shift this station
concept further north to provide access to the potential GO service on the Midtown corridor.
SE5 The main concerns regarding this station concept focused on connectivity. A suggestion
to design a connection from the subway platform to the CPR line to allow for a future
RER service was made.

21
21
21
21
21
The following four key themes emerged from the review of comments regarding the potential station
concepts: opportunity for growth, cost, access, and the potential for additional station concepts.
Opportunity for Growth
The opportunity for growth and development played an important role in the consideration of potential
station concepts. Many people want a station that will enable mixed use developments to occur in the
future. Some suggested using existing surface parking lots for redevelopment to reduce the impact on
green spaces when building the new station.
Cost
Once again, cost was brought forth as a main concern when discussing potential station concepts. Many
members of the public suggested alternative plans (e.g. reducing the amount of bus terminals) to lower
the overall costs of the project and others requested to know exact dollar amounts of each station
concept.
Access
The main consideration regarding the station concepts appeared to be the placement of the subway
platform in relation to the bus terminal. Many requested the terminal to be within close proximity to the
platform, and for the connection to be weather protected. Others questioned the access to the
Scarborough Town Centre and suggested underground or aboveground walkways to bring transit riders
into the Centre for ease and convenience.
Potential for Additional Station Concepts
The possibility for additional station concepts was brought to question. People wanted to know if the
proposed station concepts were the only options being considered or if others would be proposed in the
next phase of the study. Some were not satisfied with the options given and made suggestions for other
possible locations they thought would be beneficial.
2.1.6 Responses
Questions and comments raised about the potential station concepts are all part of the evaluation criteria
that will be applied to select the preferred station concepts. Comments received will inform this analysis,
which will take place in July and August, 2015. Results of this evaluation will be presented in the fall,
when stakeholders and the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback.

21
21
21
21
22
2.2 Other Comments
SSE Consultation Process
Some comments regarding the timelines and data collection of the SSE consultation process were
received. Many people were interested in knowing the dates of the Phase 2 report as well as the next
round of public consultation for the project. See comments in Appendix E.
Maximizing Connections to Key Locations
Many of the comments received expressed an interest in making the subway extension maximize
connections to key locations (both inside and outside of the study area) such as the Scarborough
Hospital, Scarborough Centre, Centennial College, UTSC, and local businesses. People put forth a need
for the subway line to service all areas of Scarborough from east to west and north to south, as well as the
downtown. See comments in Appendix E.
2.3 Out of Scope Comments
Subway vs LRT
Some comments received expressed excitement and support for the subway extension, and conversely,
some comments expressed disappointment and frustration that the LRT is no longer under consideration.
There are those who “just want something to happen” and are glad that this project is underway. Some
suggestions were made regarding new possibilities for the LRT if the plans were to be brought forth again
and many suggested reconsidering the LRT in place of the SSE. See Comments in Appendix E.
Ideas and Initiatives for all transit projects in Toronto
Many members of the public submitted planning ideas and initiatives for the Scarborough Subway
Extension as well as other transit projects in the City, including the Relief Line and SmartTrack. Some
also provided alternatives to replace current transit plans and solve problems such as congestion, wait
times, travel time, and cost. See comments in Appendix E.

21
21
21
21
23
Public Consultation Tools and Activities
As part of the public consultation plan for SSEPA, 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 and concerns.
3.1 Public Notification
The following activities were carried out in advance of the public meetings to provide notice of the project
to local and city-wide organizations, businesses and residents. The following methods and tools will
continue to be used along with any additional tools that will help support further notification and outreach.
3.1.1 Notification and Timing
During this consultation period eight public consultation events were held for four key transit projects in the
City – SmartTrack, GO Regional Express Rail, Relief Line and the Scarborough Subway Extension. Each
event featured an overview presentation on all four projects with more detailed information about the
project(s) of most local significance, as well as information panels and interactive activities about each
project. Two of the events took place in Scarborough and focussed on the Scarborough Subway Extension.
Public consultation event details:
Saturday, June 13
9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Burnhamthorpe Collegiate Institute
500 The East Mall
(Etobicoke-York)
Monday, June 15
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Estonian House
958 Broadview Avenue
(Toronto-East York)
Wednesday, June 17
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Spring Garden Church
112 Spring Garden Avenue
(North York)
Thursday, June 18
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Archbishop Romero Catholic SS
99 Humber Boulevard South
(Etobicoke-York)
Saturday, June 20
9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Hotel
370 King Street West
(Toronto-East York)
Monday, June 22
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute
2239 Lawrence Avenue East
(Scarborough)
Wednesday, June 24
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Scarborough Civic Centre
150 Borough Drive
(Scarborough)
Thursday, June 25
6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Riverdale Collegiate Institute
1094 Gerrard Street East
(Toronto-East York)

21
21
21
21
24
A notice was prepared for the combined series of public meetings and was advertised in advance of the
public meetings in the following locations:
 City of Toronto website
 TTC website
 Project websites www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca, reliefline.ca, toronto.ca/smarttrack
 Traditional newspapers:
 24 Hours (May 29)
 Metro (May 29)
 The Scarborough Mirror (June 11)
 Etobicoke Guardian (June 4)
 Beach-Riverdale Mirror (June 4)
 East York Mirror (June 4)
 Sing Tao (June 4)
 Uthaya (June 4)
 Thamilar Senthamarai (June 4)
 Pattison One Stop (TTC subway stations) (June 12-25)
 Project email list on June 8 and 19, 2015
 Fliers distributed to over 200 schools in Scarborough (June 1)
 Posters distributed to all Toronto libraries, community centres and public buildings such as
Civic Centres (June 1)
 1,000 postcards distributed at Scarborough Centre Station (June 24)
To ensure further reach into the Scarborough community, the notice was also translated to simplified
Chinese (Sing Tao) and Tamil (Uthaya and Thamilar Senthamarai).
The public meeting notice is included in Appendix I.
3.1.2 E-newsletter Updates
An electronic newsletter was developed and used to keep members the project contact list informed about
the activities and consultation opportunities. Newsletters were sent on June 8 (432 recipients), June 19
(428 recipients) and July 2 (602 recipients). People opted-in to receive newsletters through the project
website or at public meetings. These e-newsletters are found in Appendix G.
3.1.3 Media Releases
Two media releases were prepared to inform residents of the City of Toronto about the combined public
meetings. The media releases were distributed to all media outlets, through the City's media release
mailing list and on the City's website
(http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=84a7e03bb8d1e310VgnVCM10000071d60f89
RCRD)

21
21
21
21
25
The media releases have been included in Appendix H.
3.1.4 Project Website
The project website – www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca – continued to be used during Phase 2. The
purpose of the website is to be a hub for information about the SSEPA, and to offer the public another
opportunity to get involved and provide feedback. Information found on the website includes:
 the history of and rationale for the SSEPA (including background reports);
 a "Fast Facts" and the FAQs; (see Section 3.1.4.1 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ));
 the detailed study process;
 project materials from each phase of the study;
 invitations for public involvement including in-person events, and online consultation
opportunities;
 option to subscribe to the project contact list;
 summaries of public consultation meetings such as the Public Meeting and Stakeholder
Advisory Group; and,
 contact information – including phone number, email address and online comment form.
3.1.4.1 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
The series of FAQs were updated on the website to provide accurate, clear and concise information to
help interested stakeholders receive pertinent information regarding Phase 2 of the SSEPA. The FAQs
were selected based on information relevant to this stage of the project with the current understanding of
stakeholder interests and concerns related to the Scarborough Subway Extension.
The Phase 2 FAQs can be found in Appendix F.
3.2 Public Consultation Tools and Activities
The following opportunities for public consultation were created to provide project information, engage
with the public, seek feedback and answer questions. These activities were part of the Final Public
Consultation Plan and will continue to be used (see www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca/project-
materials for the Final Public Consultation Plan).
3.2.1 Public Meetings
The purpose of the combined public meetings during this consultation period was to provide information
and gather feedback about four key interrelated transit projects in the City of Toronto - SmartTrack, GO
Regional Express Rail, Relief Line and the Scarborough Subway Extension. For the SSEPA, this focused
on the preliminary evaluation of the corridors including the inventory/ existing conditions in the study area

21
21
21
21
26
and the three short listed corridors, and the preliminary potential alignments and station concepts for each
short listed corridor.
Upon arriving at the Public Meeting, attendees were greeted and encouraged to sign-in at the registration
table. A Discussion Guide was provided for attendees to submit their comments at the conclusion of the
event. The attendees were also informed of the meeting agenda. These materials are provided in
Appendix I.
Information about the SSEPA was presented and feedback was invited at the public meetings using two
methods:
1. Presentation and Question & Answer Period
Shortly after the start of the meeting, a presentation was provided by City staff. The
presentation provided an overview of the transportation projects in Toronto. During the
Scarborough public meetings, the presentation also included more detailed information
about the SSEPA study, Phase 2 information, and purpose of the public meetings.
Following the presentation, a Question and Answer (Q&A) session took place. Following
the Q&A, attendees were encouraged to continue to ask questions of the project team at
the various information boards.
2. Information Boards
Project information was displayed around the room using a number of information boards.
Attendees were encouraged to view the information boards in sequence. Each boards
contained information about a particular aspect of Phase 2 of the study. An interactive
engagement point related to each topic on the boards asked attendees “What do you
think?” about a particular project-related question. Facilitators and staff encouraged
attendees to provide their feedback by posting their comments directly on the information
boards and maps, or using the Discussion Guide provided.
The presentation and the information pod boards presented at the Scarborough public meetings are provided in
Appendix I. A summary of the events can also be found at http://scarboroughsubwayextension.ca/phase-2-
materials.html.
3.2.1.1 Public Meeting “What do you think” Boards
Attendees were invited to provide their thoughts and ideas related to the key questions posed at multiple
points throughout the public meeting. Attendees posted a number of comments directly on information
boards and maps (study area and corridors) using sticky notes. See Section 2 for feedback summaries.
3.2.1.2 Discussion Guides
Attendees were also invited to provide their thoughts and ideas related to the key questions by completing
and returning a Discussion Guide. Attendees could complete and leave behind the Discussion Guide

21
21
21
21
27
during the event, or they could take it away to complete at a later time and return using a prepaid
envelope. A total of 24 completed Discussion Guides were received.
3.2.2 Online Consultation
In Phase 2, online consultation was used to gather public input related to the components of this phase,
including the inventory/ existing conditions maps, preliminary evaluation of the corridors, short listed
corridors and potential alignments and station concepts within each of the short listed corridor. Interactive
maps for each of these were posted on the website and were followed by simple survey questions that
allowed the community to comment on them. The surveys were developed using FluidSurveys and used a
similar set of questions asked in the Discussion Guide. This online consultation period was open from
June 9 to July 3, 2015.
A number of responses were received through the online consultation, including:
 2 responses regarding Existing Conditions
 105 responses regarding the Preliminary Evaluation of Corridors
 31 responses regarding the Potential Alignments
 54 responses regarding the Potential Station Concepts
Comments received through online consultation were sorted accordingly in Appendices A to E.
3.2.3 Phone and Email Comments
During Phase 2 of the SSEPA 43 emails were received through the project email address
(scarboroughsubwayextension@toronto.ca) and by project team members. In addition, approximately 11
phone calls were received. These emails and phone calls included general comments and concerns
regarding the subway extension, questions and comments regarding Phase 2 consultation and study
activities, feedback on the various key questions, and additional ideas and thoughts for consideration
related to the subway extension and study. Comments received by phone and email were sorted
accordingly in Appendices A to E.
Comments received after the deadline of July 3, 2015 were reviewed, but are not reflected in this report.

21
21
21
21
28
Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)
4.1 Interactive Workshop
4.1.1 Objectives and format
An interactive workshop was held for SAG members at the start of Phase 2. This meeting was held on
Thursday, April 2, 2015, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the Chinese Cultural Centre located at 6183 Sheppard
Ave East. The purpose of this workshop was to provide key stakeholders representing various interests of
the community with the opportunity to learn about and provide their input into this key stage of the study.
Specifically, the workshop participants:
 Reviewed the evaluation criteria and applied them against the long-list of corridor options;
 Identified their short-list of preferred corridor options;
 Provided valuable feedback to the study team about the rationale behind their decisions; and
 Developed a deeper understanding of the decision-making process and trade-offs that must be
made in determining a short-list of preferred corridor options.
A brief summary of background information was provided to the participants, including a recap of the nine
corridors under consideration and preliminary information about constraints as related to the Hydro and
Brimley corridors. The evaluation criteria were also reviewed as was the corridor evaluation process.
The participants then had the opportunity to complete their own evaluation of the nine corridor options. In
Part 1 of the workshop, the participants divided themselves into groups according to the categories of
Serving People, Strengthening Places and Supporting Prosperity. They then evaluated the corridors using
the criteria associated with each of the categories. In Part 2 of the workshop, the participants joined with
people from each of the categories to discuss all of the criteria together.
Following this evaluation, a brief presentation was provided to help the participants understand the
different cost factors as related to the corridors. The results of the preliminary evaluation of the corridors
were also presented to show how it compares with the participants’ evaluation of the corridors.
The meeting agenda and the presentation to the SAG during the interactive workshop are provided in
Appendix J.
4.1.2 Participants
During the interactive workshop, 18 member organizations were represented, and the participants
provided comments and asked questions that were recorded. The comments/ questions captured from the
interactive workshop are provided in the meeting minutes found in Appendix J.

21
21
21
21
29
4.2 SAG Meeting #2
4.2.1 Objectives and Format
SAG Meeting #2 of the SSEPA was held on Monday, June 1, 2015, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m.at the Bendale
Branch of the Toronto Public Library located at 1515 Danforth Road. This first meeting focused on:
 The preliminary analysis of corridors;
 Education about the factors and constraints in choosing alignments and station locations; and
 The presentation and collection of feedback on potential alignments
The format of the meeting included a presentation focused on the updated transportation model, recap of
Phase 1 of the study, preliminary analysis of potential corridors, and the draft short list of potential
corridors and proposed alignments, followed by a Q&A session. The SAG members then participated in
group discussions about the possible alignments and station concepts. The minutes below outline the
questions, comments and feedback received during the SAG meeting.
The meeting agenda and the presentation to the SAG are provided in Appendix K.
4.2.2 Participation and Comments
During SAG Meeting #2, 17 member organizations attended, provided comments and asked questions
that were recorded. The comments/ questions captured from the SAG are provided in the meeting
minutes found in Appendix K.
The comments provided by SAG members ranged from costs to construction alternatives, ridership,
concern from existing residents, proximity to proposed SmartTrack, and improving connectivity. Many
questions regarding the importance of serving the Scarborough Hospital and the detailed ridership
modelling process were also put forth. Strong opinions regarding the three short listed corridors were
made clear, specifically regarding the Midland corridor.
The SAG meeting helped establish a clear channel of communications with the project team. The
comments identified in meeting minutes in Appendix K have been included with comments received
during public consultation in Section 2.

21
21
21
21
30
Next Steps
5.1 Phase 3 Consultation
With further study and the information gathered during Phase 2, the project team will identify the draft
preferred corridor and the draft preferred alignment and station concepts. Consultation for Phase 3
"Recommending the Alignment" will gather feedback on the draft preferred corridor, alignment and station
concepts.
Figure 2. Project Description Timeline

Appendix A
Feedback – Existing Conditions

Appendix A2 - Existing Conditions Page 1 of 1
Existing
Conditions
Overarching
Theme
Comment Date Source Response
Official Plan
Urban
Structure
Map
Opportunities
for Growth
I would suggest re-designating Lawrence Avenue,
between Brimley and McCowan, as an Avenue. It is
already a mixed use area, several opportunities exist for
medium density development, and intensification may
encourage the clustering of more medical services around
Scarborough General Hospital. Of course, this would be
best suited for the McCowan Road subway alignment. In
addition, I would recommend that the City amend the
Official Plan by re-designating the chosen north-south
street to an Avenue in order to encourage development
along the entirety of the subway route.
10-Jun-15 online
consultation
Existing
Land Use
Map
Other As someone who sees the traffic on Sheppard Ave. near
Brian Drive every weekday, the addition of an LRT makes
no sense. It wouldn't alieviate traffic volume. With the
extra stop light and the extra traffic volume on that
roadway and the extra volume coming as a result of the
building in the area, the best option would be an
underground subway, 2nd best is more of the double
length buses that transit has started using.
3-Jul-15 online
consultation
Other Other Do not let any REEK like Midland and Ellesmere station 24-Jun-15 post-it
As you know the RT already in place is rather old and
worn down. While you are adding stations to the system
will you be overhauling the ones currently in use?
24-Jun-15 email/phone

Appendix B
Feedback – Preliminary Evaluation of the Corridors

Appendix B2 - Preliminary Evaluation Of The Corridors Page 1 of 24
Corridor Theme Comment Response
SRT (Line 3) Additional
Considerations
I agree that this route would disrupt current SRT service, but I
disagree with the ultimate conclusion that it should not be
considered as a result. I don't see this route as overlapping or
being in direct competition with SmartTrack. Instead, I see the
potential for the Scarborough subway to be integrated into the
SmartTrack project. This can be done by connecting
SmartTrack to Scarborough Town using the current (or a
reconstructed) SRT right of way east of Ellesmere/Midland
stations. This route would act as a spur/feeder line to the
SmartTrack main line. This would save the City hundreds of
millions of dollars as the City would no longer need to tunnel
6km+ and build 2 or 3 underground stations. Instead, the City
could extend/renovate/modernize current SRT stations,
repurposing them for SmartTrack service. In addition, assuming
SmartTrack gets funded and does get built, it too will disrupt
SRT service. This means that, if construction is properly
coordinated, the two services could be built at the same time,
reducing the period without any rapid transit service along the
current SRT route. (I do understand, however, that City Council
likely mandated your team to study options specific to extending
the Bloor-Danforth subway line to Scarborough Centre).
Regardless, I see this as a much cheaper, but equally as
effective solution. If your team has the opportunity, please
reconsider this option.
SmartTrack is a separate service
using different vehicles and
infrastructure than the extension
of Line 2; for the purposes of the
SSEPA, we are considering
building a subway in the same
location as the existing SRT,
which would be adjacent to
SmartTrack.
this line can convenient for centennial students and Malvern
communities neighbourhood. and encourage people move to
that area.
The SRT to Markham/Progress
corridor would pass by
Centennial College but would
not have a stop there.
Other Positive Line 3 SRT corridors works for me
This is the most convenient for me since I don't have a vehicle
and need to travel to East York evedry day to get to my 2 jobs
Negative No – not a good corridor
I agree that this option is the wrong route - The SRT was a
mistake - It is a white elephant and has held up proper transit
development in Scarborourgh for over 30 years

Proximity to
SmartTrack
These are where people already use the system. It has high
potential. Just build either it or SmartTrack, not both.
The corridor could have been active by running the SSE on the
same tracks as Smart Track. Also while it is being constructed
we could run temporary trains on existing GO tracks thereby
minimizing disruptions
Idea: extend Sheppard subway to STC, build SmartTrack but
build a SmartTrack spur to STC and cancel the Scarborough
Subway Extension.
How could this option be integrated with instead of separated
from SmartTrack? And what about Centennial College?
Is it the same for "SRT". Please share "SRT" post corridor.
If it's the same for "SRT", why failed?
The SRT was a mistake. Lets not make another mistake.
This was the closest to "Smart Spur". Bring this back.
Midland to
Markham/
Progress
Additional
Considerations
Other Positive Agree!!
It will serve more public and residential area. Please consider.
Negative Wrong route! - The subway should follow the most direct route,
and eventually link with Markham and Markville Shopping
Centre
Proximity to
SmartTrack
Midland too close to the smarttrack proposal
Connectivity How will the need to bring Rapid Transit service to Centennial
College be addressed here?
The Midland to
Markham/Progress corridor
would pass by Centennial
College but would not have a
stop there. It would be possible
to protect for a future station
near Centennial College.
These feedback forms suck - The names of the corridors don't
match the names on the maps and make it very confusing to be
sure that you are commenting on the correct route - I hope the
rest of your planning does not reflect the quality of this survey -
Having said that; (if this feedback page is referring to the
"Midland to Markham / Progress Corridor"; then yes; I agree
with this option being dropped

Midland to
McCowan
Additional
Considerations
This is a terrible option - way too close to the smart track, much
less development potential. Cannot under any circumstances
afford to spend money on duplicating the smart track. Doesn't
help the many many people much further east in Scarborough,
who need to be spending much less time on the bus. Not
visionary - the city and density east of here is only going to
increase substantially. Need to be as Far East as possible.
Being close to SmartTrack shouldn't be a negative. GO Train
and SRT currently run side by side with no problem. Think of it
as two subway systems that briefly overlap when they meet at
Kennedy. The SmartTrack heads north while the SSE spltis off
and heads east. If tracks can be linked than it gives us an
alternative if an emergency alarm is blocking one of the systems
This option is close enough to Kennedy road to attract more
riders and it is relatively cheaper due to open land in the area. It
also will allow more areas to grow due to the crossover of major
roads which also allows more riders to use the system.
Pros: Cheapest corridor, You can still keep the Bus Bay at
Lawrence East Station and build a bridge or tunnel to station.
Development opportunities is there. Also at Scarborough town
Centre you can also keep the TTC bus station there as well.
Closer link to town centre as well. Cons: Need to shut down
Scarborough RT for years to build which will make traveling in
Scarborough hard. Too close to Smart Track and will compete
with each other but can also compliment each as well. If new bus
station is to be built, not much room. Also no room for 4th station.
Not preferable - minor arterial road (mostly residential), does not
directly serve employment / shopping
As shown on the Urban
Structure map
(http://scarboroughsubwayexten
sion.ca/official-plan-urban-
structure.html) the Midland
corridor is the best at serving
employment areas. That is, all
lands west of Midland between
Lawrence and Ellesmere, and all
lands north of Ellesmere east to
Scarborough Centre.

Will be most useful and efficient to the community because of
the high use of public transportation in the Scarborough area.
Other Positive Less expensive, target market, best corridor option!
Semi-acceptable - The McCowan Road corridor though is the
correct route
Negative I do not support this corridor; too little overlap with
Neighbourhood Improvement Areas.
Proximity to
SmartTrack
Serves current users, just build either it or SmartTrack.
No – too close to SmartTrack and Kennedy Station
Midland Avenue is by far the most redundant route option. The
distance between Midland Avenue and the SRT rail corridor is
closer than the distance between the Yonge subway and the
University Avenue subway.
Too close to Smart Track, so unless Smart Track operates as
somewhat of an 'express' through this area, with few or no
stations, the overlap is a (bigger) waste of money, with each line
stealing riders from the other.
Way too close to potential SmartTrack - would be huge waste!
This makes the SmartTrack redundant
It's very close to the "SRT". Already removing "SRT". Why
running new subway close to "SRT"? It's a waste.
Literally 400 m apart
This option costs the least of the three, however, it is too close
to the proposed SmartTrack RER line. Miss an opportunity to
connect residents to Scarborough General Hospital.
Seems better from a development point of view, but may be too
close to Smart track
Connectivity Love this option. Connects well to Kennedy Station and
Scarborough Town Centre and it's close to the existing SRT.
Development
Opportunity
Proposed corridor would run substantially through single family,
low density residential area south of Lawrence. Low ridership
likely to result from existing population base. Some
opportunities for intensification of more
commercial/office/industrial development north of Lawrence.

Other Why would the SRT need to be closed. We are essentially re-
building it.
The SRT would need to be
closed approximately 3 years
before the end of construction of
the subway to allow for the east-
west section to be demolished
and replaced with the subway.
Closing SRT for 3 years = traffic nightmare
It's straight. No problem for moving for driver.
Will residents support more bus / car traffic at stations?
I find this to be an acceptable alternate, but prefer the more
direct McCowan route
Hydro and
Brimley
Additional
Considerations
Other Brimley OK – No on Hydro Corridor
Agree with this corridor
I agree with this option being dropped
McCowan Additional
Considerations
This corridor seems to be the most feasible (given costs). The
LRT would have been preferred, however if the subway is to go
forward then this corridor is preferred. There should at least be
the provision for a station at Danforth-Eglinton area with
consideration of the Scarborough-Malvern LRT line and whether
that would run to Kennedy Station or would stop at Danforth-
Eglinton (and how it would stop at that potential fourth station).
McCowan is the best option for future exntension to Markham
and Markville.
This seems like the best option. It may help to decrease traffic
on McCowan, which is very heavy. There there is more
potential for ridership. May also link with the Markville Mall,
possibly reducing traffic congestion of cars coming into Toronto
from Markham. There is already an RT station at Midland and
Ellesmere. There is little density on Bellamy and there is not
much within walking distance.
This is the correct route - Line 2 should be extended along
McCowan Road to Sheppard and McCowan, and then
eventually north to Markham - Malvern and the Toronto Zoo
should be serviced by an extension of the Sheppard subway

This is the correct route - The most direct route; and along
McCowan with eventual connection to Markham and Markville
Shopping Centre - Malvern Town Centre and the Toronto Zoo
should be serviced by an extension of the Sheppard Avenue
subway
The only way that the mccowan road line will benefit people
living in scarborough Is if there is a fourth stop at danforth road
and eglinton or mccowan and eglinton. There are many high
rise building developments on danforth road and mccowan road
that will not be serviced at all if the three proposed stations are
put forth. Adding this fourth stop would help alleviate pressure
on the mccowan 16 bus and the kennedy 85 and 116 busses.
Please consider this, as the current proposal will not help
reduce any pressure on the bus system.
Other Positive The correct route is to extend Line 2 along McCowan Road to
Shepaprd and McCowan, and eventually north to Markham -
Malvern and the Toronto Zoo should be serviced by an
extension of the Sheppard subway
I agree with this option being dropped - Line 2 should be
extended along McCowan Road to Sheppard and McCowan,
and eventually north to Markham - Malvern and the Toronto Zoo
Line 2 should be extended along McCowan Road to Sheppard
and McCowan, and eventually north to Markham - Malvern and
the Toronto Zoo should be serviced by an extension of the
Sheppard subway
As it is, this project already cost a lot of money and is just going
to grow but this option seems to make more sense (according to
the data provided). At this point, I would be happy with anything,
as soon as possible.

The McCowan route seems to have the fewest cons. Most
importantly, I think that any new Scarborough route needs to
have 3 key stops: 1) the Scar. General Hospital (Lawrence and
McCowan), Town Centre and Sheppard Ave. I think that
overlooking a stop at the SGH (which would happen is several
of the corridor options), would be a grave oversight in the
planning and execution of the project . To me a SGH stop is a
no brainer. I would also add that an additional stop at Eglinton
and Brimley/Danforth Rd. is essential for doing the job right.
However, funding may not be available at this time. You can
build it now or build it later but that stop will ultimately have to
be built - especially when the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is
operating. Creating a transit station, on Eglinton, that services
both the Bloor subway and the Eglinton LRT, under one roof,
would be an elegant and preferred solution.
This seems the best option, on all levels - with stations at
Sheppard, Scarborough Town/Civic Centre and Lawrence, as
well as one at Danforth & Eglinton.
The best route by far with four stations and hooking up with
Scarborough's general hospital, town centre and a future link for
Sheppard development. This is doing it right like it should have
been done thirty years ago.
I think this is the most natural of subways connecting the
Scarborough town centre with Eglinton. You will keep the srt in
place during construction too. Scarborough town is the centre
of Scarborough and this is a logical transit route

This seems to be the best Aligment: Pros: Will be quick
between Kennedy and Scarborough town Centre. Has option of
4 station and Eglinton and Danforth were development will
occur. Will be away from Smart Track. Can provide faster
connection for residents in North Scarborough from new
Sheppard East Station and from East Scarborough at new
Lawrence East Station at McCowan Rd. Also new connection to
Scarborough General Hospital. This will relieve overcrowding at
Scarborough Centre station and separate some of the bus
routes as well. Scarborough RT does not get impacted and no
need for shut down during construction. Also has opportunities
to extend north east to Malvern Town Centre in future. Cons:
Will lose the bus bay at Lawrence East Station and need
transfer to connect to Lawrence East Routes. No huge
development opportunities as Lawrence and McCowan. Also
New Bus stations will have to be created at Scarborough Town
Centre and new link to the mall will need to be created as well.
This appears to me to be the best option. However, it would be
a mistake to construct this line if there was no station at
Eglinton/McCowan. The distance from the Lawrence Stn to
Kennedy Stn. would be too long a stretch without the Eglinton
Stn. Although "development" is important to consider, the line is
being built to serve the people and the Eglinton Stn would make
the route accessible to a lot more people.
Best Option! Service the hospital where we have the highest
density.
The least dopey option - hits existing and planned
developments.
McCowan corridor is the best option. Wide road potential for
future development.
McCowan corridor is the best alignment for the Scarborough
Subway. It connects Scarborough Centre to Scarborough
Hospital and enables maximum redevelopment opportunities.
McCowan is the best option! Good ridership, room for
development, investment business, access to Hospital (health
care)

After reviewing all of the corridor options and taking into
consideration the huge task of addressing Toronto's transit
requirements both today and into the future. The McCowan
Corridor surpasses all other options that have been considered.
The plan is flawed if there isn't a fourth station at Danforth Road
and Eglinton Avenue East to allow for growth of business and
for residential consideration.
The best route by far with four stations and hooking up with
Scarborough's general hospital, town centre and a future link for
Sheppard development. This is doing it right like it should have
been done thirty years ago.
This route makes the most sense with a stop at Danforth and
Eglinton, Lawrence Ave.East (Scarborough Hospital, General
campus) and the Scarborough Town Centre. (This line should
not go up to Sheppard as the Bus Hub is at the Town Centre)
Then there is only a need for 3 stations and in the future the line
can carry on to hook up with the Don Mills line.
I don't agree with this option - It's not the correct route; and is
not worth the extra $600m - Line 2 should be extended along
McCowan Road to Sheppard and McCowan, and then
eventually north to Markham - Malvern and the Toronto Zoo
Negative More expensive. Do not support.
I do not support this corridor; too little overlap with
Neighbourhood Improvement Areas.
Proximity to
SmartTrack
In my opinion, the most logical route option. - Adequate
distance from SmartTrack - Several trip generators along the
route (Scarborough General, Thomson Park, Scarborough
Town, etc.) - Several development opportunities. at all stations
(surely a couple car dealerships and a big box store can be
rezoned from "Employment"). Lots of potential development if a
fourth station is built - Potential for more medical services
clustering around Scarborough General.

What is adequate? Who measures it? 2km was assumed to be an
"adequate" separation from
SmartTrack, because this is the
best-practice spacing between
rapid transit stations in a
suburban context. This distance
reflects an efficient spacing for
stations recognizing that many
riders will arrive by automobile or
bus.
Connectivity I'm all for the McCowan corridor. This is a high traffic road and a
subway route here might help elevate some of it. If a station
was built at the Lawrence intersection it could service the
hospital. It could also service the bike routes nearby to get to
Thompson Park (rib fest and heritage museum).
Best option because it connects to the hospital, STC, Sheppard
and McCowan, Danforth and Eglinton would be nice
I would use the McCowan right of way because it will add a
station at Lawrence for Scarborough General Hospital and its
many healthcare workers. The area also has many Nursing
homes which are difficult to access for there healthcare
employees. After the line stops at Scarborough City Centre I
would swing it east towards the Markham RD. corridor to cover
the many thousands of students at Centennial College and
access to the Malvern area as well as the eventually access to
the east side to the massive redevelopment at the Toronto
(Agincourt) CPR Yards.
Eglinton Danforth Station, fast connection between Kennedy
and STC station.
Why not follow McCowan Rd. north from Eglinton instead of
Danforth Rd? This would bring the line closer to the Go Stn.
The extra cost in time (2min) and dollars to go to Bellamy may
not be necessary. Also a station at Lawrence Ave E. near the
Scarborough Hospital would be bonus.
McCowan corridor is the best alignment for the Scarborough
Subway. It connects Scarborough Centre to Scarborough
Hospital and enables maximum redevelopment opportunities.

Scarborough Subway Extension - June 2015 Public Consultation Report

Scarborough Subway Extension - June 2015 Public Consultation Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Scarborough Subway Extension - June 2015 Public Consultation Report

Similar to Scarborough Subway Extension - June 2015 Public Consultation Report (20)

More from Toronto Public Consultation Unit

More from Toronto Public Consultation Unit (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Scarborough Subway Extension - June 2015 Public Consultation Report