Scarborough Subway Extension - Phase 1 Consultation Report

SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION

2

Scarborough Subway Extension

Phase 1 Public Consultation Report


2

Table of ContentsPage

Overview ..................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Approach to Public Consultation ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Presentation Materials ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Consultation Questions........................................................................................................................ 2

Feedback..................................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Overview of Feedback Analysis .......................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 The Study Process (Draft Terms of Reference) ..................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Engaging the Community (Draft Public Consultation Plan).................................................... 5 2.1.3 Proposed Corridors and Station Location Areas .................................................................... 7 2.1.4 Draft Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Other Comments ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Out of Scope Comments ................................................................................................................... 12

Public Consultation Tools and Activities............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Public Notification .............................................................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Project Contact List............................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Notification and Timing ......................................................................................................... 13 3.1.3 Project Website..................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.3.1 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) ................................................................... 14 3.2 Consultation Activities........................................................................................................................ 14

3.2.1 Public Open House............................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1.1 Open House “What do you think” Boards .......................................................... 15 3.2.1.2 Discussion Guides.............................................................................................. 15 3.2.1.3 Open House Comment Cards ............................................................................ 15

3.2.2 Online Consultation .............................................................................................................. 15 3.2.3 Phone and email comments ................................................................................................. 16 3.2.4 Media Coverage ................................................................................................................... 16

Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) ..................................................................................................... 17 4.1 SAG Composition .............................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Objectives and Format....................................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Participation and Comments ............................................................................................................. 18

Next Steps..............................................................................................................................................19 5.1 Phase 2 Consultation......................................................................................................................... 19


2

AppendicesAppendix A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Appendix B Public Open House• Notice• Agenda• Presentation• Display Boards• Discussion Guide• Comment Card• Comment Card Feedback

Appendix C Stakeholder Advisory Group• Terms of Reference• Meeting #1 Agenda• Presentation• Meeting #1 Minutes

Appendix D Terms of Reference • TOR Feedback• Responses to Comments on TOR

Appendix E Public Consultation Plan • Public Consultation Plan Feedback

Appendix F Evaluation Criteria • Evaluation Criteria Feedback

Appendix G Corridors • Corridors and Station Area Locations Feedback

Appendix H Other Comments


2

Overview Phase 1 of the Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessment (SSEPA) began January, 2015 and was completed March, 2015. During this phase, various components of the study were introduced to the public including the study background and rationale, study process, consultation process, potential corridors and station locationareas under consideration, and draft criteria which will be used to evaluate the alternative corridors, alignments and station locations for the subway extension.

1.1 Approach to Public ConsultationCommunity 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’s 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 1, including:

1. A set of relevant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) was developed to address questions about the project and Phase 1 in particular;

2. A subscriber mailing list was set up using the project website to collect contact information;3. Advertising was used to inform people about Phase 1 activities and consultation opportunities;4. A project website was created 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. A Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) was established and a meeting held to advise and provide feedback to

the project team; and, 7. Two public Open Houses were held at two separate locations within the study area, giving community

members an opportunity to discuss the project with the team and provide comments.

Many comments were received during Phase 1 of the SSEPA and will help shape Phase 2 in narrowing corridoroptions. Some comments were applicable to later phases of the SSEPA and will be reviewed as appropriate during those phases.

1.2 Presentation MaterialsClear, easy-to-understand and engaging materials (including notices, information boards, PowerPoint presentations,a discussion guide and web content) were developed for Phase 1 and focused on the key messages of this phase, including:

• Overview of the study and process – background information about why the study is being completed, what the study is and how we are doing it (as outlined in the Draft Terms of Reference)

• Corridors under consideration – the corridors and potential station location areas that will be reviewed and studied during this phase

• Corridor assessment – information related to the evaluation process and criteria• Engaging the community – information about the public consultation process for this study (as outlined in the

Draft Public Consultation Plan)

1


2

1.3 Consultation QuestionsA number of key consultation questions were identified by the project team for Phase 1 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 Draft Terms of Reference:

• How can we strengthen the study process or Terms of Reference? Is anything missing?• Is there anything else we should consider during the SSEPA study?

To receive feedback on the Draft Public Consultation Plan and better understand how individuals want to be involved in the study process:

• Who needs to be engaged in this study? • How do you want to be involved in the SSEPA study process?• Which engagement tools would you find most useful to learn about and provide input to the study?• When should public meetings be held regarding the SSEPA?• What online and/ or social media tools would you rather use to provide input to the study?

To receive feedback on the potential corridors and possible station location areas:

• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the potential corridors being considered?• Have we missed any corridors?• Are the potential station location areas appropriate?

To receive feedback on the draft evaluation criteria:

• Which criteria are most important to you?• Are there any other criteria that should be considered?

To better understand community concerns, views and feelings around the Scarborough Subway Extension:

• How do you think the Scarborough Subway Extension will shape and strengthen this community and the City? How will it change your commuting habits? What are you most excited about?

• What do you care most about in your community?

2


2

Feedback 2.1 Overview of Feedback AnalysisMany comments and questions were received during Phase 1 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 Open Houses, online survey, through the project email and phone, and from the SAG meeting minutes.

2.1.1 The Study Process (Draft Terms of Reference)

The Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) was provided as part of Phase 1 of the SSEPA. Comments received on these documents were reviewed and will be used to shape the study. The project team asked the following questions for feedback:

• How can we strengthen the study process or TOR?• Is anything missing from the TOR?• Is there anything else to consider during the SSEPA study?

Public feedback identified three themes of concern regarding the study process: time, study area boundary expansion and other projects. See Comments in Appendix D.

Time

Concern was expressed over the length of time of the study process and the time between the completion of the study and the building and operation of the Scarborough Subway Extension. Some believe that the study process is too long and they want to see “shovels in the ground” sooner. Others however believe that the project team is underestimating the amount of time it will take for this process, and that these timelines should be re-evaluated.

Extension of the Study Area Boundaries

A number of comments were received regarding the study area boundaries. There is concern that the study area (and thus the potential corridors) does not extend far enough into the east of Scarborough to include the University of Toronto at Scarborough (UTSC) and the Malvern community. It was also suggested that the study area be “squared off” in the northwest corner to include the community there.

Other Transit Projects (i.e. Smart Track)

Questions and concerns were raise regarding the plans for how the Scarborough Subway Extension will interact with other proposed transit projects and whether they are being considered in the SSEPA. Many expressed interest particularly in SmartTrack and how that will impact the corridor selection (see “Proposed Corridors and Station Location Areas” below).

Table 1 below, presents the comments pertaining to the Draft Terms of Reference along with the project team response or action taken.

3


2

Table 1 Draft Terms of Reference Comment & Response

Comment Project Team Response/ActionTiming or duration of the study The study team will look for opportunities to shorten the process as much

as possible while also fulfilling the need to provide opportunities for public input.

Extending the study area boundaries The City recognizes that the subway extension will serve a broad area and population in Scarborough and beyond. The boundaries of the study area are meant to identify the area in which a route will be selected, based on the basic study parameters of serving Scarborough Centre and Sheppard Avenue.

Coordination with SmartTrack The work on these two projects is being coordinated. The City is looking at how to advance both projects to optimize service to Scarborough.

As a result of these and other comments, the following major changes were made on the Draft Terms of Reference:

Section 1.4 Transit Planning in Toronto

This section is newly created as a result of questions about the integration and impact of SmartTrack and other transit planning studies, such as the City-lead Relief Line Project Assessment and Metrolinx Regional Express Rail (RER). A coordinated approach to these studies will develop a set of aligned recommendations.

Section 2.5 Appropriate Timelines

A number of comments were received that noted the timelines of the study were too long or too short. Along with the study approach that is coordinated with other transit planning studies (see Section 1.4 Terms of Reference) the SSEPA timeline was not revised from the draft, but included the importance of accommodating the timelines ofSmartTrack, Relief Line and Regional Express Rail. Recommendations to City Council and TTC Board by late 2015/early 2016 will be aligned amongst these studies.

The following additional changes were made to the Draft Terms of Reference:

Section 1.3 Planning Context

This section was distinguished from the previous section (1.2 Project Background, Terms of Reference) in order to underscore the importance of the broader planning concerns at the municipal and provincial levels. The municipal planning context includes the Toronto Official Plan and identifies Scarborough Centre as urban growth centre as well as sections of Lawrence Avenue East and Sheppard Avenue East as Avenues to accommodate additional growth. Provincial planning policies that help guide planning in this part of Toronto include the MMAH Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Metrolinx The Big Move, which identifies Mobility Hubs at Kennedy Station (Gateway Mobility Hub) and Scarborough Centre (Anchor Mobility Hub).

Section 2.4 Overall Study Approach, Phase 2 Choosing the Corridor

This section was revised to reflect the process of determining a short-list of possible corridors, and includes options of alternative station locations and possible alignments. The evaluation criteria will be applied to the short-list to help select the preferred corridor for Phase 3 of SSEPA.

The final version of the Terms of Reference will be posted online at www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca

4


2

2.1.2 Engaging the Community (Draft Public Consultation Plan)

The Draft Public Consultation Plan was provided as part of Phase 1 of the SSEPA. Comments received on this document were reviewed and will help determine improvements to the consultation approach in future phases of this study. The project team sought feedback that would help support public consultation by asking:

• Who else needs to be engaged in this study?• How do you want to be involved in this study?• Which engagement tools would you find most useful to learn about and provide input to the study?• When should public meetings be held regarding this study?• What online and/or social media tools would you use to provide input into this study?

Feedback on the Draft Public Consultation Plan identified that transit riders and schools need to be engaged. There was general support to continue using the set of both online and in-person tools for engagement. See Comments in Appendix E.

Engaging Transit Riders

While some commented that “everyone” should be engaged in the SSEPA, there was particular emphasis placed on engaging transit riders who currently use the system to travel both downtown and within (across) Scarborough. In particular, both low income residents and the elderly were identified as frequent transit users, so they should also be engaged.

Engaging Schools

Many comments received during the Phase 1 consultation expressed the importance of this project to schools in Scarborough – including high schools, Centennial College and University of Toronto Scarborough Campus (UTSC).It is noted that there is an interest to ensure that these schools are engaged in the public consultation.

Online Surveys, Open House Events, Mailing List, Workshops

A majority of the feedback received suggested that the best way to engage the community in learning about and contributing to the project is through the use of online surveys, open house events, a project mailing list (email) and through interactive workshops. For in-person events the best time for public meetings include weekday evenings and on weekends. Online/ social media tools that are most likely to be used include online surveys and Twitter.

Good Opportunities for Engagement

From the open house comment cards and additional feedback received it appears that overall the public is pleased with the opportunities that have been provided for engagement in this project. (See additional comments in Appendix B).

Table 2 presents the comments pertaining to the Draft Public Consultation Plan along with the project team response or action taken.

5


2

Table 2 Draft Public Consultation Plan Comment & Response

Comment Project Team Response/ActionEngaging Transit Riders In addition to including transit groups (CodeRedTO, Transport Action Ontario, Sheppard

Subway Action Coalition and TTC Riders) on the Stakeholder Advisory Group, the team will be promoting the project and carrying out pop-up consultation events (see Public Consultation Plan) in the TTC and other public places. The principle to engage existing passengers to provide feedback will be ongoing throughout the duration of this study. The project team always welcomes new ideas to get in touch with riders.

Engaging Schools Centennial College and the public and Catholic school boards (TDSB and TCDSB) are represented on the Stakeholder Advisory Group. Additional efforts to reach educational stakeholders and their students will include social media.

Consultation tools – online surveys, open house events, mailing list, workshopsandGood opportunities for engagement

The project team will continue to utilize these tools as mechanisms for dialogue, receive feedback and answer questions.

As a result of these and other comments, in conjunction with the public consultation principle of traceability, the following changes were made to the Draft Public Consultation Plan:

Section 4 Showing Progress

This section was further described to include the following ways the public could be engaged after the TPAP, during Detail Design and construction stages. The following sub-headings were added to further describe how this project will demonstrate progress via the Project Website, Project Communications and Multimedia, Signage, Outreach and Special Events, Stakeholder Advisory Group, Community Office and Construction Liaison Officers, Design Charrettes and Active Community Design.

The final version of the Public Consultation Plan will be posted online at www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca

6


27

Figure 1 Potential Corridors under consideration

2.1.3 Proposed Corridors and Station Location Areas

Nine potential corridors were identified to begin the process of determining the route of the subway extension and general areas for station locations along that route. Feedback on each corridor will be reviewed and considered during the next stage in the study. The following questions were asked:

• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the corridors being considered?

• Have we missed any corridors?• Are the station locations appropriate?

Table 3 below, provides a summary of comments received on each proposed corridor. See comments in Appendix G.

Table 3 Summary of Corridor Feedback

Proposed Corridor

Summary

SRT 1 & 2 Several of the comments in favour of SRT 1 & 2 focused on maintaining existing connections and access to neighbourhoods, businesses, and Scarborough Town Centre (STC). Other perceived benefits included minimizing both construction costs and impacts, by using the existing SRT corridor.

Generally, most of the comments highlighting the drawbacks of these corridors recognized its close proximity to SmartTrack / Region Express Rail (RER), which could negatively impact ridership between the two lines. Furthermore, this redundancy in service would restrict the opportunity to provide new transit to other neighbourhoods in Scarborough. Other perceived drawbacks included low density and development potential, and not serving some of the more prominent destinations like Centennial College and Scarborough Hospital.

Midland 1 & 2

Generally, most of the benefits of the Midland 1 & 2 corridor options included connections to Scarborough Town Centre and the existing bus terminal, and access to various schools, nearbyapartment buildings, and employment areas. Other key themes included proximity to the existing SRT, minimal impact on businesses, and support for future development opportunities.

On the other hand and similar to the SRT 1 & 2 corridor feedback, many comments were concerned that both Midland corridor options remain too close to SmartTrack, creating a redundancy in service. Other drawbacks raised included a lack of community benefit for neighbourhoods east of Brimley (i.e. accessing transit), connections to institutions (i.e. Centennial College), and the added cost to construct a subway terminating at either Markham Road or Progress Avenue.


2

Proposed Corridor

Summary

Hydro Corridor

The predominant theme of this corridor option related to the expected construction cost, as a large section would traverse the hydro corridor. Some noted the unique opportunity to install a bus terminal at Brimley Road and Lawrence Avenue to help deal with the high volume bus traffic. Other highlights include access to Thompson Park, and an overall preference for the corridor option, "seems like the best."

Those opposed to the Hydro Corridor option commented on the overall poor development potential this corridor offers, specifically at Brimley Road and Lawrence Avenue. Others were concerned about the station spacing being too far apart, the lack of a direct connection to the current transit station hub and bus terminal at Scarborough Town Centre, and not serving Scarborough Hospital, and other major institutions (i.e. Centennial College and UTSC).

Brimley Corridor

Generally, many commented on the connection this corridor provides to Scarborough Town Centre (STC). Further, it was recognized that this corridor could facilitate any future station location around STC unlike any other corridor option. Other highlights include proximity to the Scarborough Hospital and a suitable separation distance from the proposed SmartTrack corridor.

Some of the drawbacks raised for this corridor related to the alignment curvature, specifically at Brimley Road and Eglinton Avenue. Other concerns included missing the Scarborough Hospital and major institutions, ignoring pipeline developments, and the lack of ridership due to the existing low density neighbourhoods and development potential at Brimley Road and Lawrence Avenue.

McCowan Corridor

There was strong support for this corridor, specifically because it provides direct access to Scarborough Hospital. Many also commented that McCowan is their preferred corridor because it seemed logical, made the most amount of sense, it serves many, and reaches the most destinations in Scarborough.

Generally, the main concern about this corridor included station spacing, noting that stops are too far apart. A remedy would be to add an additional station at Danforth Road and Eglinton Avenue. Others were concerned about construction being long and disruptive, the low density in the corridor, and poor access to Scarborough Town Centre.

Bellamy Corridor

In general, there was strong support for this corridor as it offers a fourth station, with direct connection to the Eglinton GO Station on the Lake Shore East line. There was also support for this corridor's potential to serve the eastern part of Scarborough.

One major drawback discussed is the potential alignment of this corridor, with its sharp turns, detours, and backtracking. Concerns about increased cost were also raised, as some questioned the need to travel an additional 3 kilometres to arrive back at McCowan Road and Sheppard Ave E. Other concerns included station spacing, low density corridor, and a lack of development potential along the corridor, especially at Lawrence Station.

8


2

Proposed Corridor

Summary

Markham Corridor

Similar to the Bellamy Corridor, there was strong support for Markham because of the proposed fourth station, and direct connection to the Eglinton GO Station. Another key theme discussed was the desire to serve priority neighbourhoods in the area, and provide many residents with affordable and accessibletransit. Other highlights include development potential, separation from SmartTrack, and serving the "centre" of Scarborough.

Many questioned the cost, and debated whether the additional funds could be better spent elsewhere. Concerns regarding the route length and total travel time were raised. Other concerns included the potential alignment, poor connections to Scarborough Centre and major institutions, and station spacing.

A number of different corridor ideas were proposed by the public. Some proposals displayed a unique variation from the nine corridor options presented. For example, the Brimley Corridor could follow the same path, but would terminate at Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue instead of McCowan Road and Sheppard Avenue. Other corridor options contemplated completely different alignments; some included more stations, while others utilized Highland Creek, or a combination of both the Hydro and the SRT corridors. All input on potential corridor options waswelcomed, and the options were considered. Concerns regarding the cost, scope, and feasibility when determining an alignment limited further review and consideration of these options for Phase 2 of SSEPA.

An additional corridor option was proposed between the SRT and McCowan corridor options that included five possible stations (See Appendix G). The proposal also included recommendations on construction methods for the subway to reduce costs, and a model for development of public lands. The study team examined the option in detail. While the proposed corridor itself is not being carried forward as an option, the development ideas will be examined in greater detail over the course of this project.

The following three key themes emerged from the review of comments for the proposed corridors: Connectivity, Key Locations and Additional Station Locations.

Connectivity

Connectivity was identified as an essential characteristic of the final corridor in the development of a transit network within the Scarborough community, across the City, and regionally (east and west). This includes the need for transit hubs where the subway extension will connect to local TTC bus routes and the GO Train network. Those referenced include the Eglinton and Agincourt GO Stations.

Key Locations

Key locations were identified as areas in Scarborough that the Subway Extension should reach. Those locations most identified (in no particular order) as potential station locations include:

• The Scarborough Hospital• Scarborough Town Centre• Centennial College• University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus

9

Proposed Corridor

Summary

Markham Corridor

Similar to the Bellamy Corridor, there was strong support for Markham because of the proposed fourth station, and direct connection to the Eglinton GO Station. Another key theme discussed was the desire to serve priority neighbourhoods in the area, and provide many residents with affordable and accessibletransit. Other highlights include development potential, separation from SmartTrack, and serving the "centre" of Scarborough.

Many questioned the cost, and debated whether the additional funds could be better spent elsewhere. Concerns regarding the route length and total travel time were raised. Other concerns included the potential alignment, poor connections to Scarborough Centre and major institutions, and station spacing.

A number of different corridor ideas were proposed by the public. Some proposals displayed a unique variation from the nine corridor options presented. For example, the Brimley Corridor could follow the same path, but would terminate at Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue instead of McCowan Road and Sheppard Avenue. Other corridor options contemplated completely different alignments; some included more stations, while others utilized Highland Creek, or a combination of both the Hydro and the SRT corridors. All input on potential corridor options waswelcomed, and the options were considered. Concerns regarding the cost, scope, and feasibility when determining an alignment limited further review and consideration of these options for Phase 2 of SSEPA.

An additional corridor option was proposed between the SRT and McCowan corridor options that included five possible stations (See Appendix G). The proposal also included recommendations on construction methods for the subway to reduce costs, and a model for development of public lands. The study team examined the option in detail. While the proposed corridor itself is not being carried forward as an option, the development ideas will be examined in greater detail over the course of this project.

The following three key themes emerged from the review of comments for the proposed corridors: Connectivity, Key Locations and Additional Station Locations.

Connectivity

Connectivity was identified as an essential characteristic of the final corridor in the development of a transit network within the Scarborough community, across the City, and regionally (east and west). This includes the need for transit hubs where the subway extension will connect to local TTC bus routes and the GO Train network. Those referenced include the Eglinton and Agincourt GO Stations.

Key Locations

Key locations were identified as areas in Scarborough that the Subway Extension should reach. Those locations most identified (in no particular order) as potential station locations include:

• The Scarborough Hospital• Scarborough Town Centre• Centennial College• University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus

9


2

Additional Stations and Station Locations

Many comments supported an additional station beyond the three stations included in most corridor options except the Bellamy and Markham options. There was concern about multiple corridors that the distance between stations was too great, in particular from Kennedy Station to the first station at Lawrence Avenue East. It was also mentionedthat at the Scarborough Town Centre, the subway needs to connect directly with the Scarborough Centre Bus Terminal rather than on McCowan Road, which is located a distance away. This would make for an easier connection to the current transit hub. See additional comments in Appendix H.

Table 4 below, presents the comments pertaining to the corridor options along with the project team response or action taken.

Table 4 Corridor Comments & Responses

Comment Project Team Response/ActionConnectivity Connectivity will be supported in the evaluation of corridors and will determine

the route that will provide the most connections within Scarborough and the adjacent communities.

Key Locations Based on Council direction, one objective of the SSEPA is to connect Kennedy Station through Scarborough Centre to Sheppard Avenue East.Access to major community facilities will be an important factor.

Additional Station Locations The inclusion of a fourth station on some corridors may be considered, beyond the fourth station included in the Bellamy and Markham corridors.

The proposed corridors will remain consistent for the next Phase 2 of the SSEPA.

2.1.4 Draft Evaluation Criteria

Eight groups of evaluation criteria based on the “Feeling Congested?” initiative were provided to identify the important considerations in determining the route of the subway.

Feedback on each criteria will help in Phase 2 of the SSEPA to produce preliminary evaluations of each proposed corridor in the evaluation. See Comments in Appendix F. The following questions were asked to seek feedback on the draft evaluation criteria:

• Which criteria are most important to you in deciding the best route for the subway extension? (Use three dots and place next to the criteria most important to you)

• Are there any other criteria that should be considered?

Growth and Affordability

The two criteria that were identified as being most important were ‘Supports Growth’ and ‘Affordability’. Many people referenced the need to ensure that there is development potential along the recommended corridor. In addition people want to see what the costs are for the proposed corridors, through a cost-benefit analysis.

10


2

Social Equity

Social equity was also referenced in many comments. A transit system should be developed to ensure access to the communities that need it – in particular low income residents and the elderly.

Connectivity While connectivity was not identified as the most important criterion, there were many references to it in the corridor comments (see Section 2.1.3), indicating that it is an important factor in choosing the best route for the subway extension.

All comments received on the Evaluation Criteria will help the project team in evaluating the corridor options.

Detailed below, under the criteria used to evaluate each corridor; Serving People, Strengthening Places, and Supporting Prosperity, are the comments and feedback we received. Many of the changes to the Evaluation Criteria were minor. These revisions included grammatical changes, relocating sub-criteria and measures, or the consolidation and elimination of either sub-criteria or measures.

Serving People

The assessment of impact on crowding and congestion within the transit system (i.e. connecting subway lines, Sheppard LRT and bus routes) during subway operations was removed because all possible alignments have very similar impacts on crowding on the transit network.

The assessment of speed and travel time changed from a measure between Kennedy and Sheppard, to a measure between Kennedy and Scarborough Centre, recognizing that two corridors travel further east along Sheppard.

Changes regarding integration and connections to existing stations are no longer a qualitative assessment, but include walking distances set at 500 metres as a measure. On the other hand, travel times to bus transfers have now become a qualitative measure.

Opportunities to provide taxi stands/Passenger Pick-Up and Drop-Off, and commuter parking have each become individual qualitative measures instead of a single consolidated measure.

Strengthening Places

During Phase 1, the City’s population and employment projections were being updated. Measures of future population within 500 metres walking distance of subway stations, and the potential to achieve minimum population density targets for transit supportive developments will be considered in subsequent phases of the project. At the early stages of the project, connections to Metrolinx Mobility Hubs (i.e. Kennedy and Scarborough Centre) will provide some measure related to the ability to encourage transit-oriented development.

More minor changes include highlighting locations of stations relative to their proximity to Centres rather than mixed use areas, and the threshold used to measure the proximity of stations to major destinations was reduced from a 500m to 100m radius.

Assessing the impact on existing stable neighbourhoods is an important consideration in this project. One criterionto measure this was modified to better reflect this consideration, from a straight count of the number of properties

11


2

adjacent to the corridor and stations, to a measure of the proportion of each corridor’s length that runs adjacent to stable neighbourhoods.

Supporting Prosperity

The opportunity to encourage transit oriented developments in the vicinity of all station sites was removed from the evaluation criteria while an assessment of the opportunity to improve transit service to employment areas was added. Vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns, visibility of store fronts and signage, the loss of parking, and patron inconvenience due to temporary construction debris, noise and dust were also removed.

The measure to assess annual operating and maintenance costs has changed from the number of subway trains required to service the extension, to the length of the corridor. Similarly, constructability issues are no longer a quantitative assessment, but instead, qualitative.

The final version of the Evaluation Criteria will be posted online at www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca

2.2 Other Comments

Costs

There appears to be a good deal of concern about costs of building the Scarborough Subway Extension. People want to have a better sense of how much this project will cost to build and how it will be funded. In addition, there are many references to the “waste of money” particularly from cancelling any previous transit plans. As the project proceeds, costs estimates will be developed. See Comments in Appendices G and H.

Future of the SRT

Some comments received indicated confusion about the future of the SRT. Some comments were received indicating that people did not know why the City is getting rid of the SRT or why it could not be fixed. In addition, suggestions were received for the proposed corridors that referenced “linking the SRT to the subway.” The SRT will be maintained until the subway is operational. See Comments in Appendices G and H.

2.3 Out of Scope CommentsSubway vs LRT

Some comments received expressed excitement and support for the subway extension, and some comments expressed disappointment and anger that the LRT is no longer under consideration. There also those who “just want something to happen” and are glad that this project is underway. See Comments in Appendices G and H.

12


2

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 usedalong with any additional tools that will help support further notification and outreach.

3.1.1 Project Contact List

An email contact list was developed during Phase 1 of the SSEPA. Initially email contacts were collected using the project website subscriber option. This contact list was used to invite subscribers to take part in the public open houses. Additional email contacts were also collected during the public open houses.

At the end of Phase 1 there were 655 subscribers including individual community members, community stakeholders, representatives of agencies and utilities, and representatives of schools.

3.1.2 Notification and Timing

Public Open Houses were held for Phase 1 of the SSEPA in two locations to provide interested stakeholders and community members with an opportunity to learn more about the study and to provide preliminary input into various aspects of the study. The first Open House was held on Saturday, January 31, 2015 at Jean Vanier Catholic Secondary School (959 Midland Avenue) and the second was held on Monday, February 2, 2015 at the Scarborough Civic Centre (150 Borough Drive).

A notice was prepared for the Phase 1 public Open Houses and advertised approximately 2 weeks in advance of the public open houses in the following locations:

• City of Toronto website• TTC website • Project website www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca• Local newspapers

1. The Scarborough Mirror on January 15 and 22, 2015.2. Sing Tao on January 16 and 23, 2015.3. Uthaya on January 16, 2015.4. Thamilar Senthamarai on January 16 and 23, 2015.

• Pattison One Stop (TTC subway stations) starting on January 16 and repeated until February 2, 2015.• Project email list on January 15, 2015.

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 Open House notice is included in Appendix B.

13


2

3.1.3 Project Website

The project website – www.scarboroughsubwayextension.ca – was launched on January 13, 2015. 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 3.1.3.1 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ));• the detailed study process;• project materials from each phase of the study (See Appendix B);• 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 Open House and Stakeholder Advisory Group; and,• contact information – including phone number, email address and online comment form.

3.1.3.1 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

A series of FAQs were prepared and posted on the website to provide accurate, clear and concise information to help interested stakeholders receive pertinent information regarding Phase 1 of the SSEPA. The FAQs wereselected 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 FAQs documented in this phase focusedon information related to project rationale, the study area, the study process and expected study timelines.

The Phase 1 FAQs is found in Appendix A.

3.2 Consultation ActivitiesThe following opportunities for public consultation were created to provide project information and study process, engage with the public, seek feedback and answer questions. These activities were part of the Draft Public Consultation Plan and will continue to be used. Revisions to the Draft Public Consultation Plan will identify summarize changes and improvements to consultation activities in the remaining Phases of SSEPA.

3.2.1 Public Open House

The purpose of the Phase 1 Open House was to introduce the project, inform the community and gather input on various aspects of this project phase. This included the study process (Draft Terms of Reference), the corridors and station location areas under consideration, how the corridors will be assessed (Draft Evaluation Criteria) and how the community will be engaged throughout the study (Draft Public Consultation Plan).

Upon arriving at the Open House, attendees were greeted and encouraged to sign-in at the registration table. ADiscussion Guide and event comment card were 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 AppendixB.

Information was presented and feedback was invited at the Open House using two methods:

1. Presentation and Question & Answer period – Shortly after the start of the Open House, a presentation was provided by Tim Läspä, Director of Transportation Planning for the City of Toronto. The presentation provided an overview of the SSEPA study, Phase 1 information, and purpose of the Open House. Following

14


2

the presentation, a brief, moderated Question and Answer (Q&A) session took place. Attendees were encouraged to continue to ask questions of the project team at the various information pods.

2. Information Pods – Project information was displayed around the room in a number of theme-related pods. Attendees were encouraged to visit the pods that were of most interest to them, or to view the information boards in sequence. Each pod contained information about a particular aspect of Phase 1 of the study on a series of information boards. An interactive engagement point at each pod asked attendees “What do you think?” about a particular project-related question. Facilitators at each pod 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 Open Houses were posted on the project website and are provided in Appendix B.

Approximately 100 members of the general public were in attendance at the first Open House (January 31), with a total of 79 people officially signing in at the event. Among these were Councillor and Deputy Mayor of Scarborough, Glenn De Baeremaeker. Approximately 125 people were in attendance at the second Open House (February 2), including Councillors Jim Karygiannis, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Michael Thompson, Chin Lee and Paul Ainslie.Comments and feedback were received during the Open House using a number of tools as outlined below. A copy of all feedback received is included in Appendices B to H.

3.2.1.1 Open House “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 Open House. Attendees posted a number of comments directly on information boards and maps(study area and corridors) using sticky notes. See Section 2.1 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 during the event, or they could take it away to complete at a later time and return using a prepaid envelope. A total of 15 completed Discussion Guides were received.

3.2.1.3 Open House Comment Cards

Attendees were also encouraged to provide their feedback about the Open House events using a comment card. The comment card could be completed during the event or taken away to complete at a later time and returnedusing a prepaid envelope. In total, 23 comment cards were received and the overall reception of the public open houses was generally positive along with suggestions to indicate the start time of the presentation and allow for more Question & Answer time. All feedback from the comment cards is included in Appendix B.

3.2.2 Online Consultation

In Phase 1, online consultation was used to gather public input related to the components of this phase, including the draft study process (i.e. Draft Terms of Reference), draft consultation process (i.e. Draft Public Consultation Plan), draft evaluation criteria and potential corridor options and station location areas. Information materials 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 the same set of questions asked in

15


2

the Discussion Guide, which was provided at both public open houses and the SAG meeting. This online consultation period was open from January 31 to February 13, 2015.

A number of responses were received through the online consultation, including:

• 16 responses regarding the Draft Terms of Reference• 15 responses regarding the Draft Public Consultation Plan• 36 responses regarding the proposed corridors and potential station location areas• 15 responses regarding the draft evaluation criteria

Comments received through online consultation were sorted accordingly in Appendices D to G.

3.2.3 Phone and email comments

During Phase 1 of the SSEPA 74 emails were received through the project email address ([email protected]) and by project team members. In addition, approximately 10 phone calls were received. These emails and phone calls included general comments and concerns regarding the subway extension, questions and comments regarding Phase 1 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 D to G.

Comments received after the deadline of February 13, 2015 were reviewed, but not reflected in this report.

3.2.4 Media Coverage

As part of the launch of public consultations on the subway extension, the project team held a media briefing. Several major print and broadcast media outlets, along with one influential transportation blogger, attended the briefing. Media also attended both public meetings in Scarborough. This led to several print, television and radio reports about the consultations and the project more generally, including articles in the following media outlets:

• Global News• Radio Canada• CBC Radio• Toronto Star• Globe and Mail• Toronto Sun• SteveMunro.ca

16


2

Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)4.1 SAG CompositionA SAG was established during Phase 1 to be a forum for identified stakeholders to discuss opportunities, concerns, needs, issues and risks related to the project.

In total, 33 organizations representing a broad range of stakeholder interests (community/neighbourhood, businesses, institutions, professional interests and transit-oriented groups) were invited to take part in the SAG,including:

1. BILD GTA2. CD Farquharson Community Association3. Centennial College4. Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto5. CodeRedTO6. Curran Hall Community Association7. Dorset Park Community Hub (Agincourt

Community Services)8. Dorset Park Neighbourhood Association9. East Scarborough Storefront10. Eglinton East-Kennedy Park-Ionview

Neighbourhood Action Plan11. Evergreen12. Glen Andrew Community Association13. Kennedy Road BIA 14. Kevric Real Estate Corp Inc15. Midland Park Community Association16. North Bendale Community Association

17. Oxford Properties18. Pembina Institute19. Scarborough Centre for Healthy Communities20. Scarborough Hospital21. Scarborough Neighbourhood Action Plan22. Scarborough Village Neighbourhood Association23. Sheppard East Village Business Improvement

Association (BIA)24. Sheppard Subway Action Coalition25. Tesoc Multicultural Settlement Services26. Toronto Association BIA27. Toronto Catholic District School Board28. Toronto Centre for Action Transportation29. Toronto District School Board30. Toronto Region Board of Trade31. Transport Action Ontario32. TTC Riders33. Urban Land Institute

These organizations were sent an email invitation on January 16, 2015 and a Terms of Reference, outlining the SAG purpose, roles and responsibilities, and expected time commitment. The SAG Terms of Reference is included in Appendix C.

Councillors from Scarborough were invited to attend as observers.

4.2 Objectives and FormatSAG Meeting #1 for Phase 1 of the SSEPA was held on Monday, February 9, 2015, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.at the Bendale Branch of the Toronto Public Library located at 1515 Danforth Road. This first meeting focused on:

• the study process and timing;• the evaluation process and criteria;• potential corridor options; and • the role of SAG members in engaging Torontonians in the study

17


2

The format of the meeting included a presentation focused on the project background, scope, process and opportunities for public engagement, followed by a Question & Answer session. The SAG members then participated in group discussions about the evaluation criteria and possible station locations and corridor options.

The meeting agenda and the presentation to the SAG are provided in Appendix C.

4.3 Participation and CommentsDuring SAG Meeting #1, 19 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 C.

The comments provided by SAG members ranged from costs to construction impacts, development opportunities and pressure, concern for existing residents and improving connectivity. They asked questions about the broader transit network and other transportation modes, ridership, the study's evaluation process, trade-offs and other nearby land use studies.

The SAG meeting helped establish a clear channel of communications with the project team. The comments identified in meeting minutes in Appendix C have been included with comments received during public consultation in Section 2.

Project team members hosted additional meetings with SAG members who were not able to attend on February 9, 2015.

18


2

Next Steps

5.1 Phase 2 ConsultationThe feedback received during Phase 1 of the SSEPA will be used to help plan and inform the Phase 2 consultations.

Consultation for Phase 2 "Choosing the Corridor" will apply the evaluation criteria to assess corridor options as the next step in the process to determine the preferred corridor.

Figure 2 Project Description timeline

19

Government & Nonprofit

Scarborough Subway Extension - Phase 1 Consultation Report