Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda

Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda

CW#09-25Monday, September 8, 2025, 10:00 a.m.

Council Chambers225 East Beaver Creek Road

Richmond Hill, Ontario

Chair, Karen Cilevitz, Ward 5 Councillor

Pages

1. Call to Order

2. Council Announcements

3. Introduction of Emergency/Time Sensitive Matters

4. Adoption of Agenda

5. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

6. Identification of Items Requiring Separate Discussion

7. Adoption of Remainder of Agenda Items

8. Public Hearing

8.1 SREIS.17.002 – Approval of Phase 2 Expansion – AdministrationBuilding

5

a) That the construction plans for Phase 2 as outlined in SREIS.17.002be approved;

b) That the project budget be increased by $50,000;

c) That staff report back to Council with recommendations for Phase 3 ofthe construction project.

9. Presentations

9.1 Presentation by Ryan Ban on breakfast cereals versus muffins. 9

10. Delegations

10.1 Lisa Bogatko regarding concerns relating to Ryan's presentation

10.2 Lena Sampogna regarding support of Ryan's presentation

11. Committee and Staff Reports

11.1 Staff Report SRCFS.17.999 – 2019 Calendar of Council and CommitteeMeetings

11

That the 2019 Calendar of Council and Committee meetings beadopted.

11.2 Staff Report SRCFS.17.998 – Job Description for Council/CommitteeCoordinators

27

That the updated job description for the Council/Committee Coordinatorposition be received.

11.3 SRCFS.17.LENA0908 – Lunch Menu 35

That the following vendors be approved:

Panera Bread

McDonald’s

11.4 SRE.01.138 39

11.5 This is another sample test report for E2E test. 63

Please approve.

11.6 Access and Privacy 67

That the report be received

11.7 Heritage Richmond Hill Minutes from June 24, 2017 Meeting 71

That the Heritage minutes be received.

11.8 Breakfast 73

That the report be approved

12. Other Business

13. Emergency/Time Sensitive Matters

14. Closed Session

14.1 Resolution to move into Closed Session

Page 2 of 76

15. Adjournment

Page 3 of 76

Page 4 of 75

Staff Report for Committee of the Whole Meeting

Date of Meeting: TDB Report Number: SREIS.17.002

Department: Environment and Infrastructure Services Division: Facility Design, Construction and Maintenance Services

Subject: SREIS.17.002 – Approval of Phase 2 Expansion – Administration Building

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to approve Phase 2 of the construction planned for 225 East Beaver Creek.

Recommendation(s): a) That the construction plans for Phase 2 as outlined in SREIS.17.002 be approved; b) That the project budget be increased by $50,000; c) That staff report back to Council with recommendations for Phase 3 of the construction project.

Contact Person: Gloria Collier, extension 3619

Submitted by: Italo Brutto, Commissioner of Environment and Infrastructure Services

Approved by: Neil Garbe, Chief Administrative Officer

Report Approval: All reports are electronically reviewed and/or approved by the Division Director, Treasurer (as required), Town Solicitor (as required), Commissioner, and Chief Administrative Officer. Details of the reports approval are attached.

Page 5 of 75

Town of Richmond Hill – Committee of the Whole meeting Date of Meeting: TDB Report Number: SREIS.17.002 Page 2

Background:

xxxx

Subheading

xxxx

Financial/Staffing/Other Implications: xxxx

Subheading

xxxx

Relationship to the Strategic Plan: xxxx

Conclusion: xxxx

Attachments: The following attached documents may include scanned images of appendixes, maps and photographs. If you require an alternative format please call contact person listed in this document.

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Page 6 of 75

Town of Richmond Hill – Committee of the Whole meeting Date of Meeting: TDB Report Number: SREIS.17.002 Page 3

Report Approval Details

Document Title: SREIS.17.002.docx

Attachments:

Final Approval Date: Sep 7, 2017

This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

No Signature found

Lena Sampogna - Sep 7, 2017 - 3:21 PM

No Signature found

Karyn Hurley - Sep 7, 2017 - 4:16 PM

Tina Arbuckle - Sep 7, 2017 - 4:22 PM

Page 7 of 75

Page 8 of 75

Page 9 of 75

Page 10 of 75


Date of Meeting: 9/8/2017 Report Number: [SRCFS.17.999]

Department: Corporate and Financial Services Division: Legislative Services

Subject: Staff Report SRCFS.17.999 – 2019 Calendar of Council and Committee Meetings

Purpose: To create a calendar of meetings for 2019.

Recommendation(s): That the 2019 Calendar of Council and Committee meetings be adopted.

Contact Person: xxxx

Submitted by: Mary-Anne Dempster, Commissioner of Corporate and Financial Services



Page 11 of 75

Town of Richmond Hill – Committee of the Whole Meeting Date of Meeting: 9/8/2017 Report Number: [SRCFS.17.999] Page 2

Background:

xxxx

Subheading

xxxx


Subheading

xxxx


Conclusion: xxxx


xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Page 12 of 75



Document Title: 2019 Calendar of Council and Committee Meetings.docx

Attachments: - 2018 Meeting Calendar for Staff Report - DRAFT.pdf




Page 13 of 75

Page 14 of 75

Council and Committee Schedule

January 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

New Year’s Day

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Committee of the Whole – 4:30 p.m.

23

24 Meeting Hold – 1:30 p.m. Council Public Meeting – 7:30 p.m.

25

26

27

28

29 Council – 7:30 p.m.

30

31

To be considered at the September 5, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting

Page 15 of 75


February 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2

3

4


6

7 Council Public Meeting – 7:30 p.m.

8

9

10

11


13

14 Meeting Hold – 1:30 p.m.

15

16 Chinese New Year

17

18

19

Family Day



22

23

24

25


27

28

Purim


Page 16 of 75


March 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

Purim

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

March Break

13

March Break

14

March Break

15

March Break

16

March Break

17

18


20

Nowruz


22

23

24

25


27


29 30 Passover begins

Good Friday

31

Passover


Page 17 of 75


April 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

Passover

Easter Sunday

2

Passover

Easter Monday

3

Passover

4

Passover

5

Passover

6

Passover

7

Passover ends

8


10


12

13

14

15


17


19

20

21

22


24


26

27

28

29



Page 18 of 75


May 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 Nomination

and Campaign Period Begins

2

3

4

5

6 7 Committee of the Whole – 4:30 p.m.

8


10

11

12

13


15

16

Ramadan begins

17

18

19

Shavuot begins

20

Shavuot

21

Victoria Day Shavuot ends



24

25

26

27


29

30

31


Page 19 of 75


June 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2

3

4



7

8

9

10

11



14

15

Eid al-Fitr

16

17

18



21

22

23

24

25


27

28

29 30


Page 20 of 75


July 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

Canada Day

2


4

5

6

7

8


10


12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27 Nomination

Day

28

29

30 31


Page 21 of 75


August 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2

3

4

5

6

Civic Holiday

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Eid al-Adha

23

24

25

26

27

28 29 30

31


Page 22 of 75


September 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2

3

Labour Day


5

6

7

8

9

Rosh Hashanah begins

10

Rosh Hashanah

11

Rosh Hashanah ends


13

14

15

16


18 Yom Kippur begins

19 Yom Kippur ends

20

21

22

23

Sukkot begins

30

Sukkot ends

24

Sukkot

Council – 7:30 p.m.

25

Sukkot

26

Sukkot

27

Sukkot

28

Sukkot

29

Sukkot


Page 23 of 75


October 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Thanksgiving Day

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 18

19

20

21

22 2018 Municipal

Election

23

24 25

26

27

28

29

30

31


Page 24 of 75


November 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2 3

4

5

Diwali

6

7

8

9

10

11

Remembrance Day

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


20

21

22

23

24

25


27 28

29

30


Page 25 of 75


December 2018 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

2

Chanukah begins

3 Inaugural Meeting of

Council – 7:30 p.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Chanukah ends


12

13

14

15

16


18

19

20

21

22

23

30

24

31

25

Christmas Day

26

Boxing Day

27

28

29


Page 26 of 75


Date of Meeting: 9/8/2017 Report Number: [SRCFS.17.998]

Department: Corporate and Financial Services Division: Legislative Services

Subject: Staff Report SRCFS.17.998 – Job Description for Council/Committee Coordinators

Purpose: To provide information.

Recommendation(s): That the updated job description for the Council/Committee Coordinator position be received.





Background:

xxxx

Subheading

xxxx


Page 27 of 75


Subheading

xxxx


Conclusion: xxxx


xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Page 28 of 75

2017 Committee of the Whole Deadlines

Committee of the Whole staff reports require sign-off from your Commissioner, and by the

Treasurer where applicable, prior to submission to the Clerk’s Office.

Original staff reports will be returned to you once they have received sign-off from the CAO and the agenda has been printed.

Committee of the Whole

Meeting Date (Monday unless otherwise noted)

Clerk’s Deadline @ Noon

(Monday unless otherwise noted)

Publication and Distribution to Council

(Tuesday unless otherwise noted) January 23 January 9 January 17 February 6 January 23 January 31

Tuesday, February 21 February 6 February 14 Tuesday, March 21 March 6 March 14

April 3 March 20 March 28 Wednesday, April 19 April 3 April 11

May 1 Tuesday, April 18 April 25 May 15 May 1 May 9

Tuesday, June 6 Tuesday, May 23 May 30 Tuesday, June 20 June 5 June 13

July 4 June 19 June 27 Tuesday, September 5 August 21 August 29

September 18 Tuesday, September 5 September 12 October 2 September 18 September 26

October 16 October 2 October 10 November 6 October 23 October 31

November 20 November 6 November 14 December 4 November 20 November 28

Please note that staff reports must be received by the Clerk’s Office on or before the 12 p.m.

deadline, the digital copy must meet AODA compliance requirements and be provided electronically to the Council/Committee Clerks.

The publication date is noted above as a guide for you in communicating with your team.

Agenda material will be available from the Clerk’s Office and on the Town of Richmond Hill’s website by 3 p.m. on the date identified.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact either:

Tina Arbuckle, Council/Committee Clerk ext.6394 Karyn Hurley, Council/Committee Clerk ext. 5453

Lena Sampogna, Council/Committee Clerk ext. 6402

Page 29 of 75

Page 30 of 75

2017 Council Deadlines

Please note that you must target your staff report to go forward to a Committee of the Whole

meeting. The Council deadlines are provided for the rare occasion when a staff report is required to go directly to Council and for the submission of by-laws.

Council Meeting Date

(Monday unless otherwise noted) Clerk’s Deadline

@ Noon (Monday unless otherwise noted)


(Thursday unless otherwise noted) January 30 January 23 January 26 February 13 February 6 February 9 February 27 Tuesday, February 21 February 23

March 27 March 20 March 23 Wednesday, April 12 April 3 April 6

April 24 Tuesday, April 18 April 20 May 8 May 1 May 4

Tuesday, May 23 May 15 May 18 Tuesday, June 13 June 5 June 8 Tuesday, June 27 June 19 June 22

July 10 Tuesday, July 4 July 6 September 11 Tuesday, September 5 September 7 September 25 September 18 September 21

Tuesday, October 10 October 2 October 5 October 23 October 16 October 19

November 13 November 6 November 9 November 27 November 20 November 23 December 11 December 4 December 7

Remember that any staff report going forward directly to Council requires sign-off from your

Commissioner, by the Treasurer where applicable, and by the CAO prior to submission to the Clerk’s Office. Please note that the Clerk’s Office is to be provided with one paper copy of the

staff report or by-law on or before the 12 p.m. deadline, the digital copy must meet AODA compliance requirements and be provided electronically to the Council/Committee Clerks.


Agenda material will be available from the Clerk’s Office and on the Town of Richmond Hill’s

website by 3 p.m. on the date identified.




Page 31 of 75

Page 32 of 75

2017 Council Public Meeting Deadlines

Council Public Meeting staff reports require sign-off from your Commissioner, and by the

Treasurer where applicable, prior to submission to the Clerk’s Office.

Original staff reports will be returned to you once they have received sign-off from the CAO and the agenda has been printed.

Council Meeting Date

(Wednesday unless otherwise noted) Clerk’s Deadline

@ Noon (Wednesday unless otherwise noted)


(Wednesday unless otherwise noted) January 25 January 11 January 18 February 1 January 18 January 25

February 15 February 1 February 8 March 22 March 8 March 15 March 29 March 15 March 22

April 5 March 22 March 29 April 26 April 12 April 19 May 3 April 19 April 26

May 17 May 10 May 3 April 26 May 10 May 3 May 24 May 10 May 17 June 7 May 24 May 31

June 21 June 7 June 14 September 6 August 23 August 30

September 27 September 13 September 20 October 18 October 4 October 11 October 25 October 11 October 18 November 1 October 18 October 25

November 15 November 1 November 8 December 6 November 22 November 29

Please note that staff reports must be received by the Clerk’s Office on or before the 12 p.m.

deadline, the digital copy must meet AODA compliance requirements and be provided electronically to the Council/Committee Clerks.


Agenda material will be available from the Clerk’s Office and on the Town of Richmond Hill’s

website by 3 p.m. on the date identified.




Page 33 of 75

Page 34 of 75

Staff Report for Council Meeting

Date of Meeting: Click here to enter a date. Report Number: [add report number]

Department: Corporate and Financial Services Division: Select Division

Subject: SRCFS.17.LENA0908 – Lunch Menu

Purpose: xxxxxxxxxxx

Recommendation(s): That the following vendors be approved: a) Panera Bread b) McDonald’s





Page 35 of 75

Town of Richmond Hill – Council Date of Meeting: Click here to enter a date. Report Number: [add report number] Page 2

Background:

xxxx

Subheading

xxxx


Subheading

xxxx


Conclusion: xxxx


xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Page 36 of 75



Document Title: SRCFS.17.LENA0908.docx

Attachments:




Page 37 of 75

Page 38 of 75

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL

COUNCIL MEETING

November 26, 2001SRE.01.138

Engineering & Public Works Department

SUBJECT; RESPONSE TO THE TTC RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY

(RTES)

PURPOSE

To respond to the TTC Rapid Transit Expansion Study - Screening of Options report datedAugust 2001.

RECOMMENDATION:

a) That the recommendations in the Region of York staff report of November 8, 2001 beendorsed.

b) That, based on the TTC's own analysis, the extension of the Yonge Subway line becarried forward for further analysis and that the analysis include an a review ofopportunities to improve the capacity of the Yonge Subway line south of Bloor Street.

c) A copy of this report be forwarded by the Town Clerk to the Federal Minister ofTransport and Provincial Minister of Transportation, City of Toronto and the TorontoTransit Commission (TTC), York Region MPs and MPP, the Region of York, the TownofMarkhan and the City of Vaughan.

Contact: Marcel Lanteigne ext. 2456.

Submitted by:

Brheildâcgregor, P.Eng.Commissioner of Engineering& Public Works

Approved by

C.D. Weldon, ChiefAdministrative Officer

Page 39 of 75

BACKGROUND:

SRE.01.138

November 26,2001Page 2

In August of 2001, staff of Toronto Transit (TTC) submitted a report entitled 'Rapid TransitExpansion Study' (RTES) to their Commission. The study examines the ability of TTC's rapidtransit system to support population and employment growth over the next 10 to 15 years inrecognition of GTA development trends. The study focuses primarily on the TTC's needs forrapid transit that require a fully separate right-of-way (subway or rapid transit) and does not dealwith issues such as HOV lanes, reserve bus lanes, transit priorities, LRT ina reserve right-of-wayor similar transit initiatives as they arethe subject of a separate TTC study.

The Town of Richmond Hill has been requested to provide comments on theAugust 2001 TTC-Rapid Transit Expansion Study (see Exhibits 1 and 2).

The Region of York prepared a response to the August 2001 TTC report that was submitted totheir Council on November 8, 2001 (see Exhibit 3). That staff report was prepared with inputfirom staffofthe Towns ofMarkham and Richmond Hill and the City ofVaughan.

TTC's Rapid Transit Expansion Study Report

The TTC's RTES report outlines that the capital needs of the TTC over the next decade(assuming no rapid transit expansion) are $3.8 billion, against which the City of Toronto hasestablished a target of $2.2 billion thus creating a shortfall of $1.6 billion that senior levels ofgovernment are expected to fimd. This capital fimding would be spent based on a priority asfollows:

Priority Canital Item

1. StateofGoodRepair/Safety for existingequipment2. Legislative requirements3. Ridership Growth Related4. Transit Priorities/Improvement5. Rapid Transit Expansion/System Enhancements

Following the initial outline of funding shortfalls noted above, the report identifies 6 potentialrapid transit initiatives over the next 10 to 15 years that would be based on a 2.7 millionpopulation growth scenario envisioned in the City of Toronto Official Planand in recognition ofGTAdevelopment trends. Theseoptionsare:

• Sheppard Subway (6 options)• ScarboroughRT (1 option)• Eglinton Subway (1 option)• Bloor-Danforth West (3 options)• Spadina Subway Radial (2 options)• Yonge Subway Radial (2 options)

Page 40 of 75

w

SRE.01.138


All of the above noted options were then evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Ridership (Peak point ridership; Annual riders; Annual new riders; Daily boardings; Boardingsper kilometer)

• Population and Employment (Population and employment within 500 m of station;Population and employment within 2 km;Population/employment densities)

• Capital Cost Effectiveness (Ratio of capital cost to new riders)• Operating Cost Effectiveness (Ratio of operating cost to new rides)• Network Connectivity (Connection to nodes, feeder buses, GO lines, inter-regional transit)• Development Potential (Success factor for development)• Official Plan Support (Compliance to City ofToronto Official Policies and growth areas)• Staging Flexibility/Risk (Time to implement and risk that forecasts may not materialize)• Inter-Regional Impacts (ability to increase cross boundary ridership)

Based on the above criteria, three options ranked highest:

• Sheppard Subway (to Scarborough City Centre)• Spadina Subway (to Steeles Avenue)• Yonge Subway (to Hwy. 7)

However, even though the Yonge line ranked better than the Spadina line with respect to ridership,it was recommended that only the Sheppard and the Spadina options be carried forward for furtheranalysis. It was feared that extending the Yonge subway north would put too much pressure onthe section of the Yonge line south of Bloor Street. By extending the Spadina line ahead of theYonge Une, some of the trips firom the west and north-west would divert to the newly extendedSpadina line. As a form of acknowledgment to the importance of the Yonge line, TTC staff notethat short term improvements can be implemented to improve bus service and ridership prior toimplementing rapid transit extensions.

Comments on TTC Report

Staff have reviewed the TTC report and the analysis used to select the two options recommendedfor further studies. Staff note that the main reason for the Yonge subway line not being selectedfor further analysis is because the section of the Yonge Street subway south of Bloor "might getcongested". It should be noted that that section of the Yonge subway line has had a capacityproblem for sometime and congestion problems peaked in the mid 80's. However, the TTC hasdone very little to relieve the problem except to improve the Yonge/Bloor station. Over the pastdecade and as a result of the recession of the late 80's early 90's, this capacity problem hassomewhat subsided. The core of the City of Toronto will continue to grow and attract largevolume of daily commuters. Given the forecasted growth in population in southern York Regionit would be prudent for the TTC to also focus their attention on that section of the Yonge subwayline while continuing to extend north-south subway lines that have the greatest potential to removeauto trips from the already congested north-south roads.

Page 41 of 75

SRE.01.138

November 26, 2001Page 4

In addition, because the trips from areas north of Steeles Avenue to the Toronto core area continueto increase, more aggressives approach to the extension of rapid transit lines into York Regionneed to be pursued. These lines will ultimately connect to the proposed east-west Highway 7rapid transit line which will reduce the number cars that are now parked at the Finch and WilsonSubway stations.

The Region's report, which was prepared in consultation with the three southern areamunicipahties, endorsed the recommendations of the TTC report in principle subject to thecomments provided in the staff report. More specifically, the report recommends that extendingthe Yonge subway should be given the same priority as the Sheppard and Spadina Subwayextensions.

Based on the TTC's own analysis, which considers ridership growth as one of the main criteria forcarrying forward an option for further analysis, the following is noted:

• The Yonge Street subway extension is expected to result in annual ridership of over 32 million- the highest of any proposed extension.

• At close to 14 milhon new riders annually, projections for the Yonge Street line are as good(or better) than either the Sheppard or Spadina lines.

• Nearby population and employment forecasts are suspect and do not seem to reflect currentdevelopment trends for the Langstaff Gateway. These forecasts also tend to mask theoverwhelming network significance of this location as one of the few transit gatewaysstrategically located on a GO rail line and at the intersection of the two most prominent rapidtransit lines planned for the Region ofYork - Yonge Street and Highway 7/407.

• The cost per rider for the first stage of a Yonge Street subway extension (to Clark Street) isone of the lowest, second only to Sheppard Avenue. The full extension to Langstaff is ascompetitive as either of the "preferred" options.

• The evaluation of Development Benefits and Policy Support has been reported (in the TTCStudy) in a rather subjective fashion using symbols to differentiate between high, medium andlow ratings. If these subjective ratings are expressed in a comparable numeric form, the YongeStreet subway extension is, again, better than or equal to either ofthe "preferred" options.

While transit is now a Regional responsibility, the southem communities are most significantlyaffected by rapid transit connections to the TTC subway system. Newer developments in allthree municipalities have contemplated improved transit as densities increase. Nowhere is thismore evident than in the Langstaff Gateway lands in Richmond Hill. The Langstaff Gateway isdesigned as a Regional Centre and is one of the few locations providing intermodal connectionopportunities (i.e. GO Rail, Highways 7 and 407, Yonge Street, local transit, etc.). Planning forthis area of Richmond Hill has contemplated a subway extension for some time. Terms ofReference for an Environmental Assessment for a Highway 7 rapid transit line are being preparedby the Region of York. This east-west rapid transit line will complete the rapid transit loop

Page 42 of 75

w

SRE.01.138


necessary for 'network connectivity' raised in the TTC-RTES report. An EnvironmentalAssessment for Rapid Transit on Yonge Street is also being completed by the Region.

CONCLUSION

The TTC - Rapid Transit Expansion Study has suggested extension of two existing subway lines.The "preferred" projects are:

1. Sheppard Avenue - to Victoria Park

2. Spadina - to York University (Steeles)

The Sheppard Avenue subway is not yet in service, but will open in 2002. The most significantridership in the entire TTC network is on the Yonge Street subway line.

The evaluation criteria reported in the TTC Study rates extension of the Yonge Street line as betterthan or equal to either of the "preferred" options.

The TTC Study is an important step towards recognizing the significant ridership beyond theboundaries of the City of Toronto. Any project will however require substantial funding firomprovincial and/or federal levels of government and a strategy to secure the additional funding isvital.

Extending the Yonge Street line should be considered in further initiatives to be carried out for the"preferred" projects. The extension will compliment rapid transit initiatives being pursued by theRegion ofYork on Yonge Street and on Hwy 7/407.

ML/js

Attach.

Page 43 of 75

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

BRIAN ASHTONCHAIR

MARIO SILVAVICE-CHAIR

GERRY ALTOBELLOBETTY DISERONORM KELLYJOE MIHEVCDAVID MILLERHOWARD MOSCOESHERENE SHAWCOMMISSIONERS

Cleric's Copy To

RICHARD C. DUCHARMECHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

VINCENT RODOGENERAL SECRETARY

J

" j B !

September 6, 2001 Mayor V iRnanoe

Council V^Flre

Bidg. Legal

C.A.O. y ^Parks

Corp. Serv. Planning

Enghiaering v/

He

DBP.OTfvltriT

• SEP 1 7 2001

Mr. Robert Prowse

Town Clerk

Town of Richmond Hill

P.O. Box 300

Richmond Hill, OntarioL4C 4Y5

Dear Mr. Prowse:

Per:

At its meeting on Wednesday, August 29, 2001, the Commission considered the attachedreport entitled, "Rapid Transit Expansion Study - Screening of Options."

The Commission adopted Recommendation Nos. 1 to 4 contained in the report, as listedbelow:

"It is recommended that the Commission:

1. Receive the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) for information recognizing thatstaff will be proceeding with the next steps defined in the RTES ExecutiveSummary (attached as Appendix 'A');

2.

3.

4.

Confirm that the TTC's basic capital needs - specifically the requirements pertainingto state of good repair, safety and legislative, ridership growth, and transit priorities- must be met before consideration is given to funding of any rapid transitexpansion projects;

Confirm that, if all of the TTC's base capital needs were to be fully funded, then theTTC's highest priority for rapid transit expansion would be either a northerlyextension of the Spadina Subway to York University/Steeles Avenue, or an easterlyextension of the Sheppard Subway (to Victoria Park, CN/CP, or the ScarboroughCity Centre);

Circulate the RTES to the following agencies for comment, requesting their input byNovember 30, 2001: GO Transit, GTSB, York University, Region of York, City ofVaughan, City of Richmond Hill, Town of Markham, Region of Peel, City ofMississauga, Region of Durham, and Toronto Board of Trade;"

1900 Yonge Street,Toronto, Canada, M4S1Z2 Telephone(416) 393-4000 Fax: (416)485-9394

RECYCLED PAPER Page 44 of 75

- 2 -

The Commission amended Recommendation No. 5 by adding the words, "and further thatCouncil be requested to approve, in principle, the TTC's direction for subway expansion",so such Recommendation reads, as follows:

"5. Forward this report to the City of Toronto's Planning and Transportation Committee,and further that Council be requested to approve. In principle, the TTC's directionfor subway expansion."

The Commission also approved that a Recommendation No. 6 be added to the report, asfollows:

"6. That staff develop critical path scenarios identifying, among other things, at whatstages funding from other levels of government are required."

The Executive Summary and Technical Report are forwarded to the Town of Richmond Hillfor information and consideration of the Commission's request embodied InRecommendation No. 4 noted above. Kindly submit your comments to the undersigned byNovember 30, 2001. Technical enquiries regarding the attachments may be directed toMitch Stambler, Manager - Service Planning at (416) 393-4460.

Sincerely,

Vincent Rodo

General Secretary1-8

Attachments

960672

1900 Yonge Street,Toronto, Canada, M4S 1Z2 Telephone(416)393-4000 Fax: (416)485-9394 Web Site:www.ttc.ca HiPage 45 of 75

'•en. RaviMd: S«ptember 1999

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

REPORT NO. I

MEETING DATE: August 29, 2001

SUBJECT: RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY - SCREENING OFOPTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Commission:

1. Receive the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) for information recognizing thatstaff will be proceeding with the next steps defined in the RTES ExecutiveSummary tattached as Appendix A);

2. Confirm that the TTC's basic capital needs - specifically the requirementspertaining to state of good repair, safety and legislative, ridership growth, andtransit priorities ~ must be met before consideration is given to funding of any rapidtransit expansion projects;

3. Confirm that, if ail of the TTC s base capital needs were to be fully funded, thenthe TTC's highest priority for rapid transit expansion would be either a northerlyextension of the Spadina Subway to York University/Steeles Avenue, or an easterlyextension of the Sheppard Subway (to Victoria Park, CN/CP, or the ScarboroughCity Centre);

4. Circulate the RTES to the following agencies for comment, requesting their input byNovember 30, 2001: GO Transit, GTSB, York University, Region of York, City ofVaughan, City of Richmond Hill, Town of Markham, Region of Peel, City ofMississauga, Region of Durham, and Toronto Board of Trade;

5. Forward this report to the City of Toronto's Planning and Transportation Committee^.

FUNDING

The TTC's 2001-2005 Capital Budget does not include funds for rapid transit expansionbeyond the completion of the Sheppard Subway project in 2002.

BACKGROUND

The TTC faces a huge capital shortfall just to maintain the existing system in a state ofgood repair. Assuming no rapid transit expansion, the TTC's capital needs in the next •

£xi:(>f7-Zê.e: o/. /3TPage 46 of 75

RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY- SCREENING OF OPTIONS Page 2

decade are $3.8 billion, and currently the City of Toronto has established a target of $2.2biliion. With a $1.6 billion shortfall in its base capital needs, it must be reiterated that theCity of Toronto and senior levels of government must fund the TTC's basic capital needsbefore contemplating funding for rapid transit expansion.

The purpose of the RTES is to examine the needs and priorities for expansion of the TTC'srapid transit system in support of the population and employment growth envisioned in thenew City of Toronto Official Plan and in recognition of GTA development trends. It isimportant for the TTC to have a clear vision on the need and feasibility of the developmentand expansion of the rapid transit system in the next 10 years and that the Commission beable to articulate a short-term strategy for expansion for discussion with the current termof Toronto City Council (2001-2003), should funding be made available over and above theTTC's other higher priority capital needs.

DISCUSSION

Following a detailed review of a wide variety of rapid transit expansion options, twoprojects stand out as having the potential to be successful from a ridership, density,

W financial, development, operational, and policy perspective:

, Anortherly extension of the Spadina Subway to York University/Steeles Avenue.

« An easterly extension of the Sheppard Subway from Don Mills Station to one of threeterminal locations (Victoria Park Avenue, the interchange of the CN/CP rail lines east ofKennedy Road, or the Scarborough City Centre).

The details of these two projects are outlined below (see also Exhibit 1):

W

Rapid Transit Project Length inKilometres

No. of Stations Capital Cost *(2000 dollars)

Spadina SubwayEl Downsview to Steeles 6.1 4 $975 M

Sheppard SubwayA2 Don Mills to Victoria Park 2.1 2 $420 M

A4 Don Mills to CN/CP 5.5 5 $1,050 M

A5 Don Mills to Scarborough TownCentre

8.0 7 $1,535 M

Rxed facilities and vehicles but excluding property, yard, and escalation costs.

Page 47 of 75

RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY

- SCREENING OF OPTIONS Page 3

The RTES Executive Summary attached to this report highlights the rapid transit optionsconsidered and the rationale for the short listing of these two projects for more detailedassessment.

The TTC's existing rapid transit system provides passengers with an excellent quality ofservice in terms of speed, frequency and hours of service. Its success lies in its abiiity toattract the large numbers of passengers required to make the system cost-effective. Thesingle biggest factor in attracting passengers to a rapid transit line is the density ofdevelopment in the corridor in which it operates. Eighty-two percent of all of thepassengers using the TTC's subway lines start or end their trip within walking distance ofa subway station. High densities of development close to stations provide many trip-originand trip-destination opportunities that can be well served by rapid transit. The operatingsuccess of a new rapid transit initiative depends, to a great extent, on the density ofdevelopment that exists in the corridor today, and the potential increased densities in thefuture. Transit modal splits in excess of 30% are only possible if the density in the vicinityof stations exceeds ICQ employees and/or residents per hectare. At densities below 100,the success of rapid transit cannot be assured and the operational performance of a linemay not be financially affordable.

This study focuses on rapid transit initiatives that are at or near the density threshold of100 population/employment per hectare. The risk of operational losses increases in theinitial years of a line's operation if extensive redevelopment must take place to reach thisthreshold. The opposite is also true; i.e., lines that are at or near the threshold today areless risky from a financial perspective since redevelopment is not needed to ensureoperational success in the short term.

JUSTIFICATION

A northerly extension of the Spadina Subway or an easterly extension of the SheppardSubway have a high probability for success and are cost effective in terms of capital andoperating costs.

August 13, 200122-9-7

Attachments: Appendix A - Executive SummaryExhibit 1 - Rapid Transit Options Retained for Further Evaluation

Page 48 of 75

Possible

Alternative

Alignment

Vaiishan

SPADINA NORTH (El)

EA Alignment

Rapid Transit.Expansion Study TORONTO

Markham

LEGEND:

Existing Subway/RT System

Expansion Options Retainedfor Further Evaluation

Potential Rapid Rail Station

GO Rail and Station

Consumers Road Business Park

York University

MajorNodes of Development

SHEPPARD EAST(A2MA5)

SHEPPARD

TORONTO

Rapid Transit OptionsRetained for Further Evaluation

Exhibt

GROUP

Page 49 of 75

PREPARED BY: C. Wheeler

EXTENSION: 6536

USER ID: [email protected]

STAFF SUMMARY SHEET

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION BRANCH

DEPARTMENT HEAD - C. Wheeler

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER -

GENERAL MANAGER -J. Sepulis

Commission Report Rapid Transit Expansion Study - Screening of Options

ROUTING

GM-ENG& CONST

GM-EXECUTIVE

GM-OPERATIONS

DEPUTY GM - SUBWAY

DEPUTY GM - SURFACE

DEPUTY GM - CORPORATE

GENERAL COUNSEL

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

MGR-HUMAN RES

MGR-M&P

MGR - PROPERTY DEVT

CHIEF PM- SHEPPARD

MGR-SERV PLANNING

Form Revised: Septemberisgg

CONCUR NON

CONCUR

DATE ATTACHMENTIS)

Commission Report

- Appendix A —Executive Summary

- Exhibit 1 - Rapid Transit Options Retained for

Further Evaluation

ACTION REQUIRED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

• SIGN AGREEMENT.O RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION• APPROVE

• APPROVE FOR SUBMISSION TOCOMMISSION

• APPROVE FOR SUBMISSION TO CHAIR

Page 50 of 75

1Rsport No. 6 ofths Cofomissionor ofTrsnsportation and Works

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

REPORT NO. 6OF THE REGIONAL

COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION AND WORKS

For Consideration byThe Councii ofThe Regional Municipality of York

on November 8,2001

1TTC RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY (RTES) - SCREENING OF OPTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONSIt is recommended that:

1. The TTC Rapid Transit Expansion Smdy dated August 29, 2001 be endorsed inprinciple, subject to the comments contained in this report

2. The earhest possible extension of the Spadina Subway to Steeles Avenue beendorsed.

3. Extension ofthe Yonge Street Subway be given ecûal consideration in the subsequentanalyses to be undertaken for the Sheppard and Spadina Subway extensions.

4. Anorth/south corddor linking Markham Centre to the TTC Rapid Transit network beinvestigated for implementation oftransit priority strategies including future rapid transitservices.

5. In recognition ofthe need to engage in inter-regional planning and implementation oftransit services, the City' ofToronto, the TorontoTransit Commission and GO Transitbe requested to work with the Region ofYork to address mutual planning, policy,funding and implementation issues, including a strategy^ toengage Federal and Provinciallevels of Government.

6. This report be forwarded by theRegional Clerk to theFederal andProvincial MinistersofTransportation, City ofToronto and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) andYork Region MPs and MPPs.

EdU/Ts

Page 51 of 75

2ReportNo. 6 ofthe Commissioner of Transportation and Works

2. PURPOSE ^

The purpose ofthis report is to respond to Toronto Transit Commission's (TTC) request toprovide comments on their report "Rapid Transit Expansion Study —Screening ofOptions"(RTES), dated August 29,2001 and the associated technical report. This report is intendedto identify a umfied Regional position on rapid transit expansion issues addressed in theTTC report, as well as other related issues.

3. BACKGROUND

The Toronto Transit Commission considered astaff report (CouncilAttachment 1) entitledRapid Transit Expansion Study —Screening ofOptions" (RTES) at its meeting on August

3.1 Purpose of the TTC ReportAccording to the report, "The purpose of the RTES is to examine the needs and prioritiesfor expansion ofthe TTCs rapid transit system in support ofthe population andemplojTnent growth envisioned in the new Citj*^ ofToronto Official Plan and in recognitionofGreater Toronto Area (GTA) development trends. Itis important for the TTC to have aclear vision on the need and feasibility of the development and expansion ofthe rapid transitsystem in the next ten years and that the Commission be able to articulate a short-termstrategy for expansion for discussion with the current term ofToronto Citj' councd (2001-2003), should funding be made available over and above the TTCs other higher priorit}'capital needs."

3.2 Scope and ContextThe RTES report deals only with rapid transit requiring fully separate right-of-way (subway.Rail Transit). Itis not intended to deal with such issues as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)lanes, reserved bus lanes, transit priorities and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in areserved right-of-way. The report does address short-term operational improvements, including bus rapidtransit, in corridors notrecommended for rapid transit extensions.

In setting the context for the study, the RTES report indicates that the TTC faces ahugecapital shortfall just to maintain the existing system in agood state ofrepair. The capitalneeds in the next decade and the estimated short fall, assuming no capit^ expansion, arestated as follows:

• Capital needs $3.8 billion• Cit)'ofToronto target $2.2 billion• Capital shortfall (assuming no expansion) $1.6 billion

It should benoted that the above figures were prepared prior to the recent Provincialannoimcement on transit funding.

3.3 Prioritization of Capital ProjectsThe RTES report presents the foUouing method for prioritizing capital projects:

Page 52 of 75

Priority1

2

3

4

5

Report No. 6 ofthe Commissioner ofTransportation and Works

Capital ItemState of Good Repair/SafetyLegislativeRidership Growth RelatedTransit Priorities/ImprovementRapidTransit Expansion/System Enhancements

The report states that the implementation ofexpansion projects "would be supportable onlyafter the TTGs base capital needs have beenmet".

3.4 List of Rapid Transit Initiatives Considered in the ReportThe report examined die issue ofYonge-University-Spadina Loop and concluded that such aloop is not required for the foreseeable future. The original concept of looping on SteelesAvenue "could be pushed further north (e.g. Highway 7) ifrequired in the future."

The report identified six rapid transit initiatives for potential implementation in the next ten-fifteen years (representing a total of15 staging options) as outlined below:• Sheppard Subway (six options)• Scarborough Rail Transit (one option)• Eglinton Subway (one option)® Bloor-Danforth West (three options)• Spadina Subway Radial (two options)• Yonge Subway Radial (two options)

3.5 Evaluation Criteria

The above initiatives were evaluated using the following criteria:RidershipPopulation and emplo3nnentCapital cost effectivenessOperating cost effectivenessNetwork connectivityDevelopment potentialOfficial Plan supportStaging flexibility/RiskInter-regional impacts.

3.6 Recommended Priority ProjectsBased on the evaluation, two projects —Spadina Subway extension toSteeles Avenue andthe Sheppard Subway (three staging options) were short listed. Regarding the YongeSubway, the report notes: "while the Yonge Subway options rank higher fban most options,anortherly extension ofthe Yonge Subway line has the potential to overload the Yonge

Page 53 of 75

4Report No. 6 ofthe Commissioner ofTransportation and Works

line . It was also noted that from an operational perspective, it would be more prudent tobetter balance the ridership" on the Yonge Spadina lines, by first extending the Spadina line.

ê RTES report also recommends two other corridors for priority attention for interimnnprovements including transit priority measures. They are:• Yonge Subway corridor from Finch Avenue to Highway 7, and• Bloor-Danforth Subway corridor from Kipling to Sherway Gardens.

3.7 Next StepsThe next steps include:

• Further detailed analyses of the preferred options, including the preparation ofbusinesscase analyses, leading to arecommendation of the highest priority rapid transit project.

• Smdy of future downtown development scenarios and the resulting long-term GO andrapid transit capacity needs into the corearea.

• Identification of opportumties to implement surface transit priority strategies and busrapid transit services as aprecursor to fiiture rapid transit services. Possible corridorsinclude: Yonge Street north of Finch and Downsview station to York University andVaughan.

3.8 Actions by the TTC and the City ofTorontoAt the meeting on Au^st 29, 2001, the Toronto Transit Commission essentially approvedthe staff recommendations, with several amendments requiring staff to conduct additionalanalyses.

The City ofToronto is currently developing atransportation plan as part of their OfficialPlan Review. Itis expected that TTCs recommendations will be reviewed as apart of thateffort.

3. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS

The following comments are based on staff review of the Commission report and the RTEStechnical report; the presentation and discussion at the August 29, 2001 Commissionmeeting and areview ofimplications of the recommendations to York Region.

• TTC is to be commended on taking abroader GTA view in examining rapid transitneeds and priorities. The study and recommendations arein accordance with theRegional Official Plan, although the TTC study provides only aten year capital forecastwhich falls short of the twenty-five year growth outlook and vision onwhich the OfficialPlans are predicated.

• The recent Provincial announcement regarding proposed funding oftransitinfrastructure is welcome news. This pro\'ides new opportunities for the Region ofYork

Page 54 of 75

5Report No. 6 of the Commissioner ofTransportation and Works

^ and City of Toronto to work together towards an integrated overaU transit solutiontoat benefits both the Region and the City. It is therefore important that York Regionbe mvolved in future analyses of rapid transit improvements in Spadina, Yonge andSh^pard corridors, morder to best integrate transit plans ofYork Region and the QtyofToronto. Ajomt review by the City and the Region will aUow due consideration to begiven to:

the proposed rapid transit links in York Region (for example, the Highway 7Transitway), andthe Region s population and employment forecasts.

ê short-listing of the Spadina Subway Extension to Steeles Avenue supports theRegional and Vaughan Official Plans. The OMB has approved Vaughan's CPA No.529, wHch identifies and preserves ahigher order rapid transit right ofway, extendingfrom the Vaughan Corporate Centre to York University. The subway extension wiUserve York University and the City ofVaughan well and sets the stage for an eventualfurther extension to the Vaughan Corporate Centre. It is important that York Regionand City ofVaughan staff be consulted in the detailed analyses to follow.

• ê report cont^s an an^ysis ofpopulation and emplo)mient concentrations inToronto. Asimilar analysis for York Region is being completed, especially for theftghway 7and Yonge Street Corridors, as part of the Region's Growth Management

W • The Steeles Subway Loop is no longer considered necessary. This decision to considermore northerly alipments wiU better serve the Vaughan Corporate Centre, the YongeStreet Corridor, Richmond Hill Centre andMarkham Centre.

• The TTC report analyzed the relative benefits of each of the options for subwayextensions. The evaluation ofthe Yonge Subway extension determined that ithadsimilar benefits to the two projects that were selected for the short list for fiirtherconsideration (Spadina and Sheppard). Therefore, it is recommended that the YongeSubway extension also be included in the short list for further consideration. Inparticular, the Yonge Subway extension was found to have the following benefits:

the highest projected ridership ofany ofthe proposed extensionsasimilar number ofnew riders compared to the Spadina and Sheppard extensionsoneof the lowest costs per rideran extension to the Langstaff Gateway provides the overall network connectivit}' toboth GO Rail as well as the Yonge and Highway 7Transitways.

• TTC sassessment of the Yonge Subway extension appears to have been greadyinfluenced by operational considerations. The Yonge line has limited spare capacitysouth ofBloor and, therefore, any additional demand created by an extension needs tobe addressed carefiiUy. In Hght ofthe importance ofYonge Corridor to York Region.TTC should be requested to:

W

Page 55 of 75

6Report No. 6 of the Commissioner ofTransportation and Works

re-examine ways of increasing capacitj' on the Yonge line, studied previously as partof the Let's Move Program.carry out a detailed analysis of the expected destinations of the new riders todetermine sigmficance of the operational problems created by the extension (forexample, itis reasonable to assume that most ofthe York Region riders destined topomts south ofBloor are already using either the TTC subway or GO Transit andany new riders are most likely to be destined to points north ofBloor).determine the preferred staging for the Yonge Street extension to Piighway 7.

• Short-term operational improvements in the Yonge Corridor from Finch Subway stationto Highway 7have been recommended for priority attention. This is welcome news.

• ê prioritization method described in the RTES report does not seem to give dueimportance to the growing inter-regional transit demands. According to the method, notransit priorities/improvement or Rapid Transit Expansion/System enhancements areentertained until all ofthe TTC's "base capital needs" are fhllv met. This includes Stateof Good Repair/Safety, Legislative and Ridership Growth related items. While these areall important, what is required is aless rigid approach that gives due consideration to therapidly growing inter-regional transit needs. Taken to the extreme, the RTES approachcould result mno capital improvements at all to serve the growing needs of the northernpart of the City ofToronto and the rapidly expanding ridership base in York Region.

• Two corridors, Yonge and York University/Vaughan, are given as examples ofpotentialroutes for implementation of transit priority strategies and bus rapid transit services as aprecursor to future rapid transit services. Anorth/south corridor linking the MarkhamCentre to the TTC Rapid Transit network, as identified in the Transportation MasterPlan, should be added to this list.

• It is important that the Region is consulted by the TTC/City ofToronto in conductingthe follow up rapid transit studies which affect the Region.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONSThe recommendations in this report have no financial implications at this stage.

5. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACTThe recommendations in the TTC report and future actions recommended in this report areexpected to lead to significant transit improvements for residents of the City ofVaughan,and the Towns of Richmond Hill and Markham. This report has been reviewed by stafffrom Vaughan,Markham, and Richmond Hill.

6. CONCLUSION

The TTC Report generally represents welcome new to the York Region by higWighting the I Jneed for rapid transit extensions to the north. This report identifies several new initiatives

Page 56 of 75

w

Report No. 6 of the Commissioner ofTransportation and Works

necessar}^ to address the growing inter-regional transit needs to serve the residents ofbothToronto and the York Region.

This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group.

(A cp,^tlx attachment pmd to in theforegoing, is included ndth this report and is also onfile in the Office oftheKfônalClerk.) m j

Respectfully submitted,

Newmarket, OntarioNovember 1, 2001

K. SchipperCommissioner ofTransportation and Works

Page 57 of 75

COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 1

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSIONreport no.

MEETING DATE: August 29,2001

SUBJECT: RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY - SCREENING OF OPTIONS

recommendationsIt is recommended that the Commission:

1. Receive the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (RTES) for infotmation recognizing that staffwill be proceeding with the next steps defined in the RTES Executive Summary (attachedas Appendix A);

—Confirm that the TTC's basic capital needs - specifically the requirements pertaining tostate of good repair, safety and legislative, ridership growth, and transit priorities ~mustbe met before consideration is given to funding of any rapid transit expansion projects;

^ capital needs were to be fully funded, then theTTC's highest pnority for rapid transit expansion would be either anortherly extensionof the Spadina Subway to York University/Steeles Avenue, or an easterly extension ofthe Sheppard Subway (to Victoria Park, CN/CP, or the Scarborough City Centre);

4. Circulate the RTES to the following agencies for comment, requesting their input byNovember 30, 2001: GO Transit, GTSB, York University, Region of York, City ofVaughan, City of Richmond Hill, Town of Markham, Region of Peel, City ofMississauga, Region ofDurham, and Toronto Board of Trade;

5. Forward this report to the City of Toronto's Planning and Transportation Committee.

FUNDING

The TTC s2001-2005 Capital Budget does not include funds for rapid transit expansion beyondthe completion ofthe Sheppard Subway project in 2002.

BACKGROUND

The TTC faces ahuge capital shortfall just to maintain the existing system in astate of goodrepair. Assuming no rapid transit expansion, the TTC's capital needs in the next decade are $3.8billion, and currenUy the City of Toronto has established a target of $2.2 billion. With a $1.6billion shortfall in its base capital needs, it must be reiterated that the City of Toronto and seniorlevels of government must fund the TTC's basic capital needs before contemplating funding forrapid transit expansion. o &

The purpose of the RTES is to examine the needs and priorities for expansion of the TTC's rapidânsit system in support of the population and employment growth envisioned in the new City ofToronto Official Plan and in recognition of GTA development trends. It is important for the TTCto have aclear vision on the need and feasibility of the development and expansion of the rapidtransit system in the next 10 years and that the Commission be able to articulate a short-termstrategy for expansion for discussion with the current term of Toronto City Council (2001-2003)should funding be made available over and above the TTC's other higher priority capital needs. ' ^

Page 58 of 75

w

DISCUSSrON

Following a detailed review of awide variety of rapid transit expansion options, two projectsstand out as having the potential to be successful from a ridership, density, financial,development, operational, and policy perspective:

• Anortherly extension ofthe Spadina Subway to York University/Steeles Avenue.• An easterly extension of the Sheppard Subway from Don Mills Station to one of three

terminal locations (Victoria Park Avenue, the interchange of the CN/CP rail lines east ofKennedy Road, orthe Scarborough City Centre).

The details ofthese two projects are outlined below (see also Exhibit 1):

Rapid Transit Project Length inKilometres

No. of

StationsCapital Cost

*

(2000dollars)

Spadina SubwayEl Downsview to Steeles 6.1 4 $975 MSheppard SubwayA2 Don Mills to Victoria Park 2.1 2 $420 MA4 Don Mills to CN/CP 5.5 5 $1,050 MA5 Don Mills to ScarboroughTown Centre

8.0 7 $1,535 M

* Fixed facilities and vehicles but exc uding property, yard, and escalation costs.

The RTES Executive Summary attached to this report highlights the rapid transit optionsconsidered and the rationale for the short listing of these two projects for more detailedassessment.

The TTC sexisting rapid transit system provides passengers with an excellent quality of servicein terms of speed, frequency and hours of service. Its success lies in its ability to attract the largenumbers of passengers required to make the system cost-effective. The single biggest factor inattracting passengers to arapid transit line is the density of development in the corridor in whichit operates. Eighty-two percent of all of the passengers using the TTC's subway lines start or endtheir trip within walking distance of a subway station. High densities of development close tostations provide many trip-origin and trip-destination opportunities that can be well served byrapid transit. The operating success of anew rapid transit initiative depends, to a great extent, onthe density ofdevelopment that exists in the corridor today, and the potential increased densitiesin the future. Transit modal splits in excess of 30% are only possible if the density in the vicinityof stations exceeds 100 employees and/or residents per hectare. At densities below 100, thesuccess of rapid transit cannot be assured and the operational performance of a line may not befinancially affordable.

Page 59 of 75

This study focuses on rapid transit initiatives that are at or near the density threshold of 100population/employment per hectare. The risk ofoperational losses increases in the initial years ofa line s operation if extensive redevelopment must take place to reach this threshold. Theopposite is also true; i.e., lines that are at or near the threshold today are less risky from afinancial perspective since redevelopment is not needed to ensure operational success in the shortterm.

.tustificatton

Anortherly extension of the Spadina Subway or an easterly extension of the Sheppard Subwayhave ahigh probability for success and are cost effective in terms of capital and operating costs.

August 13, 200122-9-7

Attachments: Appendix A- Executive SummaryExhibit 1—Rapid Transit Options Retained for Further Evaluation

Page 60 of 75

EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING

C#37-01 HELD NOVEMBER 26,2001CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW NO. 197-01

W

4.0 Responseto the TTC Rapid Transit ExpansionStudy (RTES)- (SRE.Ol .138)

Moved by: Councillor SpataforaSeconded by: Regional and Local Councillor Barrow

a) That the recommendations in the Region of York staff report of November 8,2001 be endorsed.

b) That, based on the TTC's own analysis, the extension of the Yonge Subway linebe carried forward for further analysis and that the analysis include an a review ofopportunities to improve the capacity of the Yonge Subway line south of BloorStreet.

c) A copy of this report be forwarded by the Town Clerk to the Federal Minister ofTransport and Provincial Minister of Transportation, City of Toronto and theToronto Transit Commission (TTC), York Region MPs and MPP, the Region ofYork, the Town ofMarkhan and the City ofVaughan.

Carried Unanimously

W

FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND ANY ACTION DEEMED NECESSARY

Page 61 of 75

Page 62 of 75




Subject: This is another sample test report for E2E test.

Purpose: Completion of a successful E2E mock test run.

Recommendation(s): Please approve.





Page 63 of 75

Town of Richmond Hill – Committee of the Whole Meeting Date of Meeting: Click here to enter a date. Report Number: [add report number] Page 2

Background:

xxxx

Subheading

xxxx


Subheading

xxxx


Conclusion: xxxx


xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Page 64 of 75



Document Title: Test Report - ad2.docx

Attachments:



No Signature - Task assigned to Gloria Collier was completed by workflow

administrator Tina Arbuckle

Gloria Collier - Sep 8, 2017 - 9:10 AM

Tina Arbuckle - Sep 8, 2017 - 9:10 AM

Page 65 of 75

Page 66 of 75



Department: Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Division: Select Division

Subject: Access and Privacy


Recommendation(s): That the report be received


Submitted by: Select Director



Page 67 of 75


Background:

xxxx

Subheading

xxxx


Subheading

xxxx


Conclusion: xxxx

Attachments: The following attached documents may include scanned images of appendixes,

maps and photographs. If you require an alternative format please call contact person listed in this document.

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Page 68 of 75



Document Title: Staff Report - Access and Privacy.docx

Attachments:




Page 69 of 75

Page 70 of 75

Minutes from HRH

Page 71 of 75

Page 72 of 75

Staff Report for Council Meeting



Subject: Breakfast


Recommendation(s): That the report be approved





Page 73 of 75


Background:

xxxx

Subheading

xxxx


Subheading

xxxx


Conclusion: xxxx


xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Page 74 of 75



Document Title: Ryan - Breakfast Expenses.docx

Attachments:




Page 75 of 75

Documents

Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda