Visionary/Author - Jim Jones Markham Regional Councillor


Reasons for I-Metro-E and Re-Wealth Intergrated Stouffville GO-Transit Line Resolution I-Metro-E Imperatives Making Transit Useful Station Riderships Station Riderships - Base First vs. Peak First Plan my Trip: From Each Station to Union Station Plan my Trip: From Each Station to Stouffville All About Metros Strategic System Network Grid Blueprint Toronto’s Downtown Relief Merge the Go-Transit and TTC Rail Transit Networks I-Metro-E Fact Sheet Proposed Stations & Timings The Power and Efficiency of the Grid GTA/Toronto Grid Network GTA/Toronto Gridded Backbone Network GTA/Toronto Sphere of Influence The Rail Network is the Economy Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Station Profiles Population and Employment Business Model Revenue Model Capital Model Line and Station Profile Alternatives Financing Housing, Populations Intergrated Sustainable City System Oil Rich Abu Dhabi’s “Masdar City” Importance of Urban Design Design Matters Urban Design Over-Arching Principles Urban Typologies I-Metro-E Network of Urban Typologies Environmental Green Initiatives Standards Try to Leave Everything Better than What We Inherited Train Technologies: Intergrated Communities Train Technologies: Electrification Train Technologies: Maglev A Solution for The Last Mile: Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Reasons for a Public Private Partnership (P3) Federal Position on P3s (PPP Canada) Why I-Metro-E should it be a P3 Financial Considerations Madrid Subway Experience Train Technologies: Siemen’s CityVal Next Steps Things to Consider

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 65 68 69 70 72 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81


Stouffville Station Major Mackenzie Station Mount Joy Station 16th Avenue Station Mainstreet Markham Station Centennial Station Highway 7 Station Markham Centre Station 14th Avenue Station Denison Street Station Steeles Station McNicoll Station Finch Station Sheppard Station Ellesmere Station Lawrence Station Kennedy Station Scarborough Station Warden-Danforth Station Danforth Station Pape-Gerrard Station Queen East Station Docklands Foot of Don Valley Parkway West Don Lands Station Union Station

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 48 49

Gridlock is estimated to be costing the GTA economy $7.5 billion a year in lost productivity. By 2017 it will be $15 billion a year plus releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 emission into our atmosphere. Transport/Transit is the most important of all infrastructure concerns and is the one area that our citizens believe has the biggest impact on a city’s competitiveness. As the backbone of the megacity, the transit network needs to keep pace with the needs of the growing urban population. When it fails to do so, the people and economy bears the brunt. Cities cover only 1 percent of the Earth’s surface but are home to more than half of humanity, consume 75 percent of the available energy and emit around 80 percent of all harmful greenhouse gases. It is estimated that roughly 70 percent of the world’s population will live in urban centers by 2050. With urban economic output and energy needs set to soar, the GTA will have to massively invest in expanding and modernizing our infrastructure, and adopt sustainable and eco-friendly solutions to reach our climate change goals. The Province’s “Places to Grow Act” should have laid out and funded the 400 series of high speed rail transit network, giving direction to municipalities where to plan their density. Tying Toronto and GTA area together into an integrated hierarchical seamless transit network using high-speed rail (LRTs-replace GO-Trains), Subways, Streetcars (slower speed LRT), Bus and Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) into a grid network to build a strong economy. ‘Integrating public transport and urban planning: a virtuous circle’ provides a perfect illustration of the important of coordination between urban planning, land use and public transport from the very beginning of the I-METRO-E project. Four essential planning principles should be taken into consideration: • • • • Keep life in the cities and turn our cities into genuine activity and residential centres by promoting dense, compact, mixed land use, urban development will facilitate transit use. Early-stage planning and analysis of the urban development project are key success factors when considering future sites and the necessary public transport links. Localization of activities must prioritize major multimodal nodes, thereby reducing mobility demand and promoting intermodal transport. Ensure that major new trip generators (employment, schools, universities, hospitals and integrated shopping centres) are located near public transit nodes. In that respect, planning permits should be able to be obtained more quickly like as in Chicago, if the development integrates public transit access. Intensification should occur around high-speed rail and enhanced local transit nodal stations, benefits to include: • • • • • • Vehicle kms traveled per household will be reduced by 50-60% Establishing high-rise TDD nodes could remove the equivalent of one million cars off of the roads daily I-METRO-E helps offload the Yonge Subway I-METRO-E acts as the downtown Toronto relief line along with the Georgetown GO-Line Eliminate 350 billion vehicle kilometers travelled (250 billion fewer gallons of fuel over the next 25 years. Eliminate the need for new roads and highways construction, would be reduced by 1000 lane kilometers, saving around $2-4 billion over the next 25 years

Compact, seamlessly integrated TDD with a strategy for net zero energy, waste and emissions for our I-METRO-E station communities means: • less air pollution: • fewer respiratory diseases, • less water consumption, • efficient local infrastructure, • lower costs to local governments • lower insurance costs • less energy dependants from the grid • less crime When these savings are combined with other transportation and energy savings, households could save close to $15,000 per year. Compact TDD communities require: • 80-90% less land used • saving prime farmland, open space and less temptation to use the Greenbelt • eliminate billions of tonnes of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere The 400 series of highways helped build the modern suburb, the I-METRO-E high-speed rail would energize a new generation urban community building, one that fits our current environmental and economic needs. In the Year 2037 • Quality of Life - Saving 50,000,000,000 travel hours • 1,200,000 Transit passengers per day • 395,000,000 passengers per year

Toronto and Markham need to plan the I-METRO-E corridor together to reach our economic, transit, TDD and environmental goals. Creating a predicable environment for change guarantees a successful outcome for TDD. Transit, TDD and the Environment are inextricably linked. The future I-METRO-E integrated TDD Communities should be planned for full build out.

We need a transit system that delivers connectivity, span of service, frequency, reliability, comfort, security, availability, speed and cost efficiency. For these reasons, I proposed the following resolution.

JULY 2012



Notice on Motion: Markham East Toronto Rapid Ontario-Electric All Day Train Service Moved by: Regional Councillor Jim Jones Seconed by: Ward V Councillor Colin Campbell

Whereas climate change, global warming, end of oil and gridlock are issues facing all major cities, it is important that all station communities are TDD designed systems to be net zero in energy, waste and emissions and produce the best public realm and quality of life for our citizens; and Whereas I-METRO-E would reduce automobile dependence, energy consumption and would promote environmental, social and economic sustainability initiatives; and Whereas Metrolinx has allocated their budget for transit projects for the next five years and revenues from development charges, TIFs, Section 37, HST, taxes, Gas Taxes, increased user fees, improve operating performance are viable and can be leveraged within a Public Private Partnership (P3) model.


Whereas the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan 2009 (“The Big Move 2020”) identifies full day, 2-way service on the Stouffville line from Mount Joy to Toronto’s Union Station as part of the 15 year plan for Regional Rapid Transit; and Whereas GO Transit will be undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) study on the Stouffville line for future infrastructure improvements in Markham and Toronto to provide for the planned full day, 2-way service, to be operational between Markham Center and Toronto’s Union Station by 2014; and Whereas Metrolinx in 2013 is reviewing and updating its Regional Big Move 2020 Transportation Plan.The Stouffville Go Line should be considered for electrification in its entirety; and Whereas during the environmental assessment process for the Stouffville rail corridor, opportunities exist for alternative technologies to be considered.These alternative technologies include MagLev which is currently used in major centers and is extremely quiet, affordable, efficient and fast; and Whereas smaller, more cost effective diesel-electric multiple unit (DEMU), trains that are used throughout Europe, in use today in Ottawa on their O-Train line, and is currently being implemented between Toronto Pearson Airport and Union Station; and Whereas consideration should be given to go directly to Electric Train Technology for the Stouffville GO Line; and Whereas the electric technology will enable more frequent, lower cost service, with a greater number of new stations stops along the route and improve travel time to our transit riders; and Whereas the electric trains technology could carry a similar or larger number of transit riders than subway service; and Whereas the Markham East Toronto Rapid Ontario-Electric (I-METRO-E) concept would enable more frequent headways, and more frequent transit stops along this approved north-south rapid transit corridor between Stouffville and Union Station; and Whereas this north-south corridor will also interconnect with a number of existing and planned east-west transit corridors, including VIVA bus rapid transit, 407 Rail Transitway, Steeles BRT/LRT. Finch BRT/LRT, Sheppard, Eglinton-Crosstown, and Bloor-Danforth Subway, and Lakeshore East GO; Peterborough Go-Transit. Scarborough SRT; and Whereas the I-METRO-E would stimulate transit dependant development (TDD) and redevelopment along I-METRO-E transit corridor; and

That a steering committee co-chaired by Markham Regional Councillor Jim Jones and Toronto Councillor Chin Lee. The committee will determine its membership which will include members of Markham, Toronto Council and other municipalities and levels of Government. This committee will focus on station and rail strategy, TDD, community planning, Government Relationships and Public Private Partnerships; and That the Steering Committee seek advice from the participating government bodies, agencies and other sources as determined by the committee with respect to terms of reference and funding requirements for comprehensive studies and reports that would be required to pursue the I-METRO-E concept; and That a working group reporting to the steering committee be formed of representatives from Metrolinx, the City of Toronto, the Region of York, the Town of Markham to review the need and justification of the I-METRO-E concept, and the associated transportation, land use planning and economic development benefits; and That Metrolinx and other government agencies and stakeholders at the Federal, Provincial, Regional and Municipal level be requested to consider the merit and implications of the I-METRO-E concept and Maglev/Electric/DEMU technology on the Stouffville rail line in the context of the current review and update of the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan and Metrolinx Environment Assessment Study for the GO’s Stouffville Line; and That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Federal Ministers of Finance, Transportation, Infrastructure and the Provincial Ministers of Finance, Transportation and Infrastructure Ontario, East Toronto and Markham area MPP’s, the City of Toronto, the Mayor and Council members of the City Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission, Metrolinx, York Region and York Rapid Transit Corporation.



JULY 2012

Grid up all major bus lines and Rail Lines from Major MacKenize to Union Station Buses should never leave their street route Go directly to Electric train technology as this line doesn’t have freight on it Plan Sustainable Transit Dependant Development Communities in the corridor to realize its greatest economic opportunity (Replace GO-Trains with electric trains) Plan maximum use of transit infrastructure Develop energy, emissions and waste net zero TDD communities Focus on the 2,000,000 potential transit riders’ mobility, flexibility and competitiveness Focus on green and smart technology Engineer all the inefficiencies out of the I-METRO-E rail transit system Eliminate municipal boundaries and develop a truly integrated grid transit system Standardize rail track, train technology, fare collection, intelligent transit systems ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SHOULD INCLUDE: Cost justification and best optimum solutions New role of the Stouffville GO Line (I-METRO-E) Line Report to a political/citizen steering committee on a regular basis The design interfaces of all I-METRO-E stations Elevated track for greater TDD community integration Elevate the track to eliminate ugly grade separations and maximize land use Ensure maximum connectivity from end-to end of the I-METRO-E Line Train technology to be used & Twinning the tracks Incorporate all transit automation as possible for an P3 opportunity E/A Design Documentation – P3 Bidding for financing the I-METRO-E Eliminate redundancy in track, share when possible, properly mission each transit line through proper transit planning Eliminate transit turf - create the most efficient and versatile/flexible system from operation to meeting ridership requirements Regular Town hall meetings with subject matter experts 1st phase of the downtown relief line (est cost is $5.9 billion) Educate the public to change – Creating the Future for a competitive megacity economy Financial models based on citizens mobility, connectivity, span of service, predictability, ridership, affordability, flexibility, development opportunity, creative designs and business solutions Leave no ecological footprint behind communities, rail transit trains and infrastructure must be carbon neutral Next 3 Federal & 3 Provincial bldgs should be locate on the I-METRO-E station communities.

MegaCity Rail Transit Lines:

JULY 2012



Demand 1


“It takes me where I want to go.”  The location of stops and stations determines how close transit service comes to each place that anyone might want to come from or go to.  Connectivity is a measure of whether links the place you want to go (your destination) with the place you are now (your origin) “It takes me when I want to go.”  Whether transit runs at all when you need it; the answer to this is the span of service. Span of service is indicated by the scheduled time of the first and last trip in each direction.  Whether the service runs often enough that you can leave when you really want to go. Frequency is the number of minutes between consecutive trips. “It is good use of my time.”  Includes all the ways of making travel time useful to the passenger. We want travel time to be short. “It is a good use of my money.”  People compare the cost of using transit with the cost of getting somewhere in some other way and this can strongly influence their decision. “It respects me in the level of safety, comfort, and amenity it provides.”  Whether the rider feels valued as a customer, as a citizen and as a human being. Shared values unrelated to travel time or cost – such as comfort, cleanliness, courtesy, safety, security and amenities that give value to our time. “I can trust it.”  Our ability to trust operation is called reliability, though frequency is also an important aspect of trust because it reduces our dependence on the reliability of any single transit vehicle. “It gives me freedom (to change my plans).”  Freedom is a crucial sensation, and in most places it is the private car’s crowning virtue. When limited transit schedules interfere with people’s lives – forcing them, for example, to decline a last-minute dinner invitation or cut short the family’s day at the zoo – we see why transit is not the mode of choice for more of the trips we make.  The real test of freedom is spontaneity. I can change my plans suddenly? Can I change my plans suddenly? Can I get home if I need to, or go to my child’s school if something came up? Can I simply move freely around my city, following whatever impulse I may feel at the moment?  A transit system offers freedom if it offers frequency and span of service (so that there is service whenever you suddenly need it) and a reasonable average speed compared to your alternatives.

Demand 2

Demand 3

Demand 4

Demand 5

Demand 6

Demand 7



JULY 2012


Major Mackenize

Markham Centre

Milliken Steeles

5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00: AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM

100 300 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 300 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 2,500

200 300 300 300 100 100 100 100 100 100 300 200 200 100 100 200 100 100 50 50 3,100

300 500 500 500 100 200 200 200 200 200 300 200 500 300 200 200 100 200 100 100 5,100

100 200 300 300 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 300 300 200 200 100 200 100 100 3,400

100 200 200 200 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 200 200 100 100 100 100 2,550

0 300 500 500 100 500 400 200 200 200 400 500 500 500 500 500 200 400 300 200 6,900

300 800 800 800 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 800 800 800 800 500 300 400 400 200 9,800

300 800 800 800 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 800 800 800 800 800 300 1000 500 300 12,300

100 100 200 300 100 100 300 100 100 100 300 300 200 200 200 200 100 200 100 50 3,350

200 300 400 400 200 200 300 200 200 200 300 500 400 400 400 200 200 400 200 100 5,700

200 600 1000 1000 400 500 500 500 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 1000 500 500 500 500 300 12,500

100 300 300 300 200 200 300 200 200 200 200 300 300 300 300 200 200 200 200 200 4,700

100 500 500 500 200 200 300 200 200 200 300 500 500 500 300 200 200 200 200 200 6,000

200 500 500 500 200 200 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 300 300 8,700

100 500 500 500 200 200 300 200 200 200 200 500 500 500 500 200 200 200 200 200 6,100

200 500 500 500 200 200 300 200 200 200 200 500 500 500 500 200 200 200 200 200 6,200

400 500 500 500 200 200 300 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 300 300 8,700

100 300 300 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 4,300

100 300 300 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 4,300

100 300 300 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 500 500 300 200 200 200 200 200 100 200 4,800

100 300 300 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 4,300

100 500 500 500 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 1000 500 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 5,900

100 100 200 200 200 200 500 500 500 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 500 500 500 500 500 9,500

100 500 500 500 200 200 200 200 200 200 500 500 500 500 200 200 200 200 200 200 6,000

200 500 1000 1000 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 500 500 500 500 500 300 12,000 161,150

Transit Agency GO-Transit TTC YRT/VIVA

Morning 12,500 37,500 3,750

Mid-Day 2500 17,500 6,250

Rush Hour 12,500 37,500 3,750

Evening 2500 17,500 6,250

JULY 2012


Union Station

Queen Street

16th Avenue

14th Avenue


I-METRO=E Schedule

Mainstreet Markham

Centennial McCowan

Mount Joy

Highway 7




Agincourt Sheppard


Warden Danforth




Denison Kennedy


Pape Gerrard




BASE-FIRST Think of the pattern of service that runs all the time as your most fundamental product and of the service added on the peak as your supplemental product.

PEAK FIRST Think of the peak service as your most fundamental product and of the other times of day as secondary or supplemental product.



JULY 2012

Plan my Trip (Using base transit available):

Point of Origin-Stouffville Destination-Union Station GO-Transit Service To Union Station Peak 63 minutes 54 minutes 49 minutes 44 minutes 40 minutes Est – Base-GO 25 Stations Union Station 96:38 mins 88.38 mins 85:12 mins 80:10 mins 77:03 mins 72.38 mins 65:00 mins 62:02 mins 58:56 mins 55:32 mins 32 minutes 52:00 mins 48:50 mins 45:32 mins 41:26 mins 34:56 mins 19 minutes 30:56 mins 26:56 mins 22:44 mins 18:35 mins 15:26 mins 11:16 mins 8:26 mins 5:24 mins 2:00 mins 0:00 mins BASE Current Systems Mins – 9:00am 135:00 mins 120:00 mins 115:00 mins 112:00 mins 105:00 mins 90:00 mins 75:02 mins 70:02 mins 68:56 mins 68:00 mins 69:00 mins 63:50 mins 61:32 mins 52:26 mins 50:04 mins 46:86 mins 40:04 mins 26:74 mins 25:20 mins 23:26 mins 22:16 mins 20:26 mins 15:24 mins 10:24 mins 0:00 mins I-METRO-E Base/Peak Electric 43:54 mins 37:54 mins 38:21 mins 37:15 mins 35:51 mins 33:45 mins 30:15 mins 29:00 mins 27:36 mins 26:30 mins 26:00 mins 23:28 mins 22:00 mins 20:05 mins 17:30 mins 15:40 mins 13:50 mins 11:52 mins 9:51 mins 7:50 mins 5:35 mins 4:00 mins 3:03 mins 2:00 mins 0:00 mins METROLINX TRANSIT (DEFICIT) SURPLUS (91 minutes) (82 minutes) (77 minutes) (74 minutes) (69 minutes) (54 minutes) (44 minutes) (41 minutes) (40 minutes) (39 minutes) (43 minutes) (39 minutes) (39 minutes) (31 minutes) (32 minutes) ( 30 minutes) (26 minutes) (14 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (16 minutes) (16 minutes) (12 minutes) ( 8 minutes) (0 minutes)

Main Street, Stouffville Major MacKenize Mount Joy 16th Avenue Mainstreet Markham Centennial (McCowan) Highway 7 Markham Centre 14 Avenue Denison Road Milliken (Steeles East) McNicoll Finch Sheppard (Agincourt) Ellesmere Lawrence Kennedy (Eglinton) Scarborough (St Clair) Warden-Danforth Danforth Pape-Gerrard Queen Street (East) Docklands (Eastern Ave) Distillery District (Front St) Union Station

JULY 2012



Plan my Trip (Using base transit available):

Point of Origin - Union Station Destination - Stouffville GO-Transit Service To Stouffville Station Peak 64:00 minutes Est – Base – GO 25 Stations Stouffville 94:38 minutes 92:14 minutes 89:14 minutes 86:12 minutes 83:04 minutes 79:12 minutes 75:33 minutes 71:54 minutes 45:00 minutes 67:42 minutes 63:42 minutes 59:42 minutes 38:00 minutes 53:12 minutes 49:06 minutes 45:48 minutes 32:00 minutes 42:39 minutes 39:06 minutes 35:42 minutes 24:00 minutes 20:00 minutes 15:00 minutes 10:00 minutes 0:00 minutes 32:36 minutes 29:36 minutes 22:00 minutes 17:35 minutes 14:24 minutes 11:24 minutes 8:00 minutes 0:00 minutes BASE Current System Mins - 9:00am 63:00 minutes 87:00 minutes 85:00 minutes 87:00 minutes 84:00 minutes 81:00 minutes 87:00 minutes 93:00 minutes 95:00 minutes 90:00 minutes 85:00 minutes 73:00 minutes 97:00 minutes 65:00 minutes 105:00 minutes 87:00 minutes 85:00 minutes 89:00 minutes 67:00 minutes 60:00 minutes 39:00 minutes 38:00 minutes 27:00 minutes 36:00 minutes 0:00 minutes I-METRO-E Base/Peak Electric 43:54 minutes 41:48 minutes 40:51 minutes 39:54 minutes 37:49 minutes 36:04 minutes 34:03 minutes 32:02 minutes 30:04 minutes 28:14 minutes 26:24 minutes 23:49 minutes 21:55 minutes 20:25 minutes 18:57 minutes 17:24 minutes 16:18 minutes 14:54 minutes 13:39 minutes 10:09 minutes 8:03 minutes 6:39 minutes 5:33 minutes 4:00 minutes 0:00 minutes Metrolinx Transit (Deficit) Surplus

Union Station Distillery District (Front St) Docklands (Eastern Ave) Queen Street (East) Pape-Gerrard Danforth Warden-Danforth Scarborough (St Clair) Kennedy (Eglinton) Lawrence Ellesmere Sheppard (Agincourt) Finch McNicoll Milliken (Steeles East) Denison Road 14 Avenue Markham Centre Highway 7 Centennial (McCowan) Mainstreet Markham 16th Avenue Mount Joy Major MacKenize Main Street, Stouffville

(20:00 minutes) (45:00 minutes) (43:00 minutes) (47:00 minutes) (46:51 minutes) (47:00 minutes) (53:37 minutes) (61:00 minutes) (61:00 minutes) (64:00 minutes) (59:00 minutes) (49:00 minutes( (65:00 minutes) (44:00 minutes) (86:00 minutes) (59:00 minutes( (58:00 minutes) (74:00 minutes) (53:00 minutes) (42:00 minutes) (28:00 minutes) (31:00 minutes) (21:00 minutes) (32:00 minutes) (0:00 minutes)



JULY 2012

WHAT ARE METROS? Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnels, elevated guideways, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Metropolitan railways are the optimal public transport mode for a high capacity line or network service. Some systems run on rubber-tires but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems. In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube. I-Metro-E will predominately be an elevated track system. METRO: CLEAN, ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND SPACE-SAVING All transport modes use energy in order to move from point to point and require space in which to function and park. The metro, through its combination of electrical traction and high capacity, is the most efficient transport mode in terms of energy consumption and space occupancy. METRO: THE INTEGRATION LEADER As a high-capacity transport mode, metro has a structuring influence on cities. It provides the backbone for the development of residential zones alongside economic and socio-cultural activities into which other transport modes are able to converge. In this way, metro perfectly fulfils its role as integration leader within a city’s transport and urban-planning policies. More than just a transport mode, it is an urban structuring tool and a key factor in providing better quality of life. The metro can also contribute to better integration if it has interchanges designed to offer bustling, user-friendly and safe locations that are an integral part of the city. They can also provide social, commercial and cultural activities that allow transit passengers to make the most of waiting time, and also draw in other citizens. Modal integration is reflected in the development of common fares for all modes and all operators, thus making it easier to use public transport. Within this framework, metro networks were among the first to develop contactless ticketing as a multi-modal payment method. These are now becoming fully-fledged electronic purses that include transport alongside other urban services. Within the same scheme of things, passenger information is becoming dynamic, multimodal and accessible everywhere (before and during the journey), making public transport more accessible. However, integration between ticketing and information is only possible if there is real coordination between operators and other modes. Need one quality integrated trip planner and fare system. DEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS Automation and driverless operation are producing huge changes with their multiple impact on service production and provision. In fact, the productivity gains, enhanced safety and better service reliability through automation allow staff to then provide better customer care and meet customer expectations. The major development of the last five - ten years is the development of driverless train operations. This allows not only for cheaper, but also safer and more reliable operation, and last but not least better customer service. Already 50 driverless lines are in operation and it is expected that in future 80-85% of new lines will be designed as driverless. Existing lines can also be massively retrofitted to driverless operation on the occasion of periodic modernization of rolling stock or signaling equipment.

Calculations produced show that, in order to transport 50,000 passengers per hour per direction, metro needs a right-of-way measuring 9 metres in width whereas a bus would require 35 metres, and cars 175 metres. The same projections show that one kgEP (kg equivalent petrol) will allow a single person to travel more than 48 km by metro or 38 km by bus, but no more than 19 km by car. Similarly, advances in terms of traction now make it possible for the metro to recover energy during braking, producing a significant drop in energy consumption. Moreover, the metro does not produce any local pollutant emissions or greenhouse gases. Its contribution to climate change is confined to the effects linked to electricity production. Finally, as a transport mode that runs mostly underground or on an elevated guideway, metro frees surface space for developments that allow the quality of urban life to be vastly improved.

JULY 2012



Mass Rapid Transit is a topic that will impact millions of people across the GTA every single day. From buses, light rail and metro transit systems, commuters, tourists and everyday people depend on it. While these systems may seem quite different at first glance, they all in fact share the same goal, to provide a safe, reliable, efficient and economic means to transport passengers en mass. Individual Rapid Transit Systems are often developed in an ad hoc manner, which often limits future options for development, upgrade and expansion. It also impairs the ability to share best-practices and innovations which could potentially benefit the entire Rapid Transit network. Mass transit systems share many operational attributes and therefore a common architecture for their automation is not only feasible but also very useful. There are over 350 urban mass transit systems in existence, and more under construction. Additionally, these systems are continually being expanded and overhauled to enhance rider capacity, performance, speed and efficiency of the network. This represents a much broader and larger market for such an architectural blueprint as opposed to developing a single architecture for a specific rapid transit system. Developing a Strategic System Network Grid Blueprint would allow the Ontario Government to model and analyze any rapid transit system and focus in on numerous problems plaguing current systems such as performance, crowding, reliability, safety, control systems, energy consumption, lack of connectivity, lack of service and optimization. There are certain transit lines that are the core backbone network to ensure maximum coverage, high speed performance and reliability. These critical transit lines are the backbone for the GTA economy and should be funded by the Provincial and Federal Governments in their entirety. Mission Statement: Develop a Strategic System Network Grid Blueprint based on the GTA economy that can be expanded or applied to multiple levels of transit system / modes to gain insight and information about system performance from a competitive economy approach and recognizing that the surrounding municipalities of Brampton, Mississauga, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa are urbanized and have a combined population of 3,000,000 people. The Regions of York, Durham, Peel and Simcoe Country are set to double in the next 25-30 years. Developing a architecture blueprint, could make it possible to model any rapid metro network and determine common throughput and efficiency concerns across all lines.

Strategic Rail Backbone - GTA Economy - Federal & Provincial - 100% Funding Responsiblity HST and TIF's
Mode Diesel Diesel Electric Electric Electric Diesel Diesel Distance 50.5 km 63.2 km 140.0 km 46.88 km 46.8 km 102.7 km Speed/hr Capacity/hr 100 km 159 km 135 km 100 km 100 km 50 km 100 km 10,000 people 10,000 people 30,000 people 40,000 people 30,000 people 10,000 people 30,000 people Stations 10 12 24 26 25 9 25 Frequency Headway 10 mins 12 mins 12 mins 3 mins 3 mins 5 times 3 times Travel Times 63:00 mins 73:00 mins 60:00 mins 50:00 mins ???? 71:00 mins 133:00 mins METROLINE - GO Lakeshore East Lakeshore West 407 Rail transitway I-Metro-E Kitchener Stouffville GO Kitchener (ARL) TTC - Subway Lines Yonge Street Spadina Bloor/Danforth Eglinton LRT Sheppard LRT Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric 23.0 km 20.0 km 27.0 km 33.0 km 33.6 km 38 km 30 km 30 km 22 km 15 km 40,000 people 20,000 people 40,000 people 19,560 people 6,000 people 22 22 31 43 20 2 mins 2 mins 2 mins 2 mins 5 mins Daily Riders 42,852 52,230 90,000 168,680 ????? 10,058 15,649

METROLINX Peterborough Stouffville Richmond Hill Barrie Bolton Georgetown Milton Local Urban Transit Eglinton LRT Sheppard LRT/S Finch LRT/BRT VIVA BRT Huroontario LRT Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric 43.0 km 33.4 km 12.0 km 40.0 km 20.0 km 22 km 15 km 22 km 20 km 22 km 15,000 5000 5000 5000 15,000 43 74 8 37 29 Mode Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Distance 50.0 km 46.7 km 33.8 km 101.4 km ?? 102.7 km 50.2 km Speed 45.0 km 45.0 km 50.0 km ?? 60.0 km 45.0 km Capacity 2000 2000 2000 ?? 2000 2000 Stations 9 8 5 ?? 11 9 Frequency 5 times 4 times 4 times ?? 5 times 5 times Travel Time 64 minutes ?? Daily Riders 10,058 7,950 8,952 ?? 15,649 22,353



JULY 2012


JULY 2012




Network Backbone High Order Architecture
1. Very High Speed - Quebec City to Windsor – 250-400kms 2. GTA High Speed - Transit – Inter-Regional – 100-130kms Lakeshore GO … 100km an hour 407 Rail Transitway … 130 km Stouffville GO – (I-METRO-E) ... 80-100 km 3. Commuter Highest Order – GO-Transit Line – 40-60 kms Peterborough GO Richmond Hill GO Barrie GO Bolton GO Georgetown GO Milton GO GO-Transit - Bus 4. Urban High Speed Urban - Subways – 30-32 kms Yonge Subway Spadina Subway Bloor Danforth Subway Sheppard Subway Eglinton Crosstown (18-30 kms) 5. Low - Medium Speed – LRT /BRT– 15-24 km Sheppard LRT VIVA BRT Hurontario LRT Sheppard LRT 6. Local - Low Streetcar Local Bus




JULY 2012


I-METRO-E will run on the existing, Metrolinx-owned Stouffville Corridor, initially interweaving and following the route of existing peak-hour GO Trains between Union Station and Stouffville. DEMUs are able to service stations more closely spaced than traditional GO Transit Trains. As a result, additional stations can be added, including new stations at Major MacKenize, 16th Avenue, Highway 7, 14th Avenue, Denison, McNicoll, Finch Avenue, Ellesmere Road, Lawrence Ave, Scarborough, Warden-Danforth, Danforth, Pape-Gerrard, Queen Street, Docklands, Distillery District and Union Station. During peak periods, GO Trains will continue to run in the short-term to provide the capacity required for downtown bound passengers, as the I-METRO-E train system is being implemented for all-day two-way service to Union Station. I-METRO-E could also service the Scarborough Town Centre, 407 Transitway to Buttonville and connection to the Peterborough GO Line are all possibilities with the proper forward thinking planning needed for transit system networks. A phrasing plan needs to be developed to move from GO diesel trains to a totally electric transit train environment on the I-METRO-E line.

get us around faster: In its first stage, I-METRO-E will provide a fast transit service, traveling

from Stouffville Station to Toronto’s Union Station in just over 43 minutes. Unimpeded by traffic congestion within its own corridor, I-METRO-E will run reliably and provide a truly competitive travel choice. I-METRO-E would reduce the time we spend in traffic so we can get to work and home sooner.

connect regional transit systems and regional centres in a seamless fashion: While existing

transit plans are focused on east-west and downtown connections, I-METRO-E will create a new north-south connection between Markham and Toronto. The line will make essential connections with VIVA Bus Rapid Transit, 407 Rail Transitway, Sheppard Subway, Eglinton-Crosstown LRT, Bloor subway and Lakeshore East GO, Union Station, which serve many of the region’s main centres. I-METRO-E would also provide connections to high frequency, limited stop “rocket” bus services on Major MacKenize, 16th Ave, Hwy 7, 14th Ave, Denison, Steeles Avenue, McNicoll, Finch Avenue, Ellesmere, Lawrence, St. Clair, Danforth, Queen Street, Docklands, PAN AM Village and in Toronto to link to Scarborough Town Centre, Eglinton Centre, Bloor Street Centre, Queen Street Centre and North York Centre.

stimulate development and redevelopment: I-METRO-E would be the catalyst to develop

Markham and East Toronto’s urban growth centres, including Markville, Mount Joy, Highway 7, McNicoll, Progress, Ellesmere, Eglinton, Docklands and Scarborough Centre, both targeted for intensification in both jobs and residents over the next 25 years. It would also promote the redevelopment of areas around proposed stations.


While the Georgetown Rail improvements, Air Rail Link, and Spadina Subway Extension are improving north-south transit in west Toronto and Brampton to downtown Toronto, I-METRO-E will connect East Toronto and Markham and ultimately to Stouffville and Uxbridge to downtown Toronto.

reduce energy consumption and promote green technologies: I-METRO-E would reduce the
need to drive, reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint, vehicle kilometers travelled and emissions. It would serve as a showcase for green technologies by introducing a new way of travel to the GTA/Toronto region.

I-METRO-E is feasible to implement today. Metrolinx owns the rail corridor, already has diesel-multiple units on order, and capital costs are low. Recent study by Metrolinx/GO Transit estimated off-peak service could be implemented for $130M. I-METRO-E could be operational by 2015 and serve as showcase for Pan Am Games if Distillery District station can be accessed and as a replacement service for the SRT which needs to be replaced between 2015 and 2019 and alternative rapid transit is needed. I-METRO-E will connect existing nodes, emerging nodes, and future nodes, including Markham Centre, Milliken, McNicoll, Centennial, Historic Unionville, Highway 7. Kennedy Station Mobility Hub, Scarborough Centre, Ellesmere, Lawrence, Warden-Danforth, Docklands, Pape-Gerrard and Distillery District. Build up of these nodes will stimulate in other areas including Agincourt and 14th Avenue. I-METRO-E will develop the Stouffville Corridor as the “Yonge Street of the East” centered on the rail corridor in terms of transit-dependent development potential.


I-METRO-E stands for Markham East Toronto Rail Ontario-Electric. It is a 46.7 kilometre northsouth rapid transit link between eastern sections of Markham and Toronto, providing a high quality, two-way, all-day rapid rail service that dramatically improves transit access for the ridership in this area of the region. It greatly enhances or replaces the existing GO Transit commuter service that operates in the Stouffville Rail corridor by providing service in both directions, more frequently, more flexibility, more connectivity, more span of service, more mobility, more transit freedom throughout the day while focusing on all destinations including downtown Toronto by providing numerous and seamless connections to south east Toronto, downtown Toronto and GTA regional transit networks and more destination nodes.


I-METRO-E is envisioned as a subway like quick-start rapid transit system that will offload Yonge Subway line, provide a Toronto downtown relieve line and will temporary use diesel-electric multiple unit (DEMU) trains that are popular throughout Europe. DEMU trains are in use today in Ottawa on their O-Train line. DEMUs are also planned for use on the Air Rail Link currently under construction between Toronto Pearson Airport and Union Station. These trains are smaller than the high capacity trains currently in use on the Stouffville Line but are lower in cost to run, allowing for more economical all-day, two-way service. In the not too distance future, I-METRO-E will be totally electrified, elevated, automated and operated similar to an above and underground

JULY 2012



Stations DBS (km) DT(sec) TBS Min/ Sec (incl DT) Schedule Schedule GO Union Station Stouffville - Transit Stouffville Union Station DBS (km) Schedule GO-Transit Stops-8 Schedule GO-Transit Stops-8


Union Station Distillery Docklands Queen East Pape-Gerrard Danforth Warden-Danforth Scarborough Kennedy Lawrence East Ellesmere Sheppard East Finch East McNicoll Steeles East Denison Street 14th Avenue Markham Centre Highway 7 Centennial Mainstreet Markham 16th Avenue Mount Joy Major MacKenize Stouffville

0.0 2.4 0.6 0.6 2.5 2.5 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.8 1.2 2.0 3.0 2.4 1.2 0.8 1.4 6.0

0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

0:00 2:06 0:57 0:57 2:15 2:15 2:01 2:01 1:58 1:50 2:19 2:07 1:54 1:29 1:29 1:33 1:06 1:24 2:15 3:10 2:06 1:24 1:06 1:33 4:00

6:00:00 AM 6:02:06 AM 6:03:03 AM 6:04:00 AM 6:06:15 AM 6:08:16 AM 6:10:17 AM 6:12:18 AM 6:14:16 AM 6:16:06 AM 6:18:25 AM 6:20:32 AM 6:22:26 AM 6:23:55 AM 6:25:24 AM 6:26:57 AM 6:28:03 AM 6:29:27 AM 6:31:42 AM 6:34:52 AM 6:36:58 AM 6:38:22 AM 6:39:28 AM 6:41:01 AM 6:45:01 AM

6:43:54 AM 6:41:48 AM 6:40:51 AM 6:39:54 AM 6:37:39 AM 6:35:24 AM 6:33:23 AM 6:31:22 AM 6:30:04 AM 6:28:54 AM 6:26:35 AM 6:24:28 AM 6:23:14 AM 6:22:25 AM 6:21:36 AM 6:20:03 AM 6:19:37 AM 6:18:13 AM 6:16:38 AM 6:13:28 AM 6:11:22 AM 6:10:38 AM 6:09:32 AM 6:08:39 AM 6:04:39 AM


7:04:00 AM

7:34:38 AM 7:32:14 AM 7:29:14 AM 7:26:12 AM 7:24:20 AM 7:19:12 AM 7:14:42 AM 7:11:54 AM


6:45:00 AM

7:07:42 AM 7:03:42 AM 6:59:42 AM


6:38:00 AM

6:53:12 AM 6:49:06 AM 6:45:48 AM


6:32:00 AM

6:42:39 AM 6:39:06 AM 6:35:42 AM

4.6 2.4 2.0 7.4 0

6:24:00 AM 6:20:00 AM 6:15:00 AM 6:10:00 AM 6:00:00 AM

6:32:36 AM 6:29:36 AM 6:22:00 AM 6:17:35 AM 6:14:24 AM 6:11:24 AM 6:08:00 AM 6:00:00 AM Assumptions: Fully Grade Separated or Elevated at road crossings Speeds – Under 2 Kms Stn Spacing-80km 2kms & Over Stn Spacing-90km Totally Electrified



JULY 2012

THE POWER AND EFFICIENCY OF THE GRID While well intentioned, Move 2020 doesn’t solve the problems of getting people out of their cars to use transit, reducing greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions or the escalating cost of gridlock to the GTA economy. For the last 20 years and into the foreseeable future, we will continue to have 100,000 to 150,000 people moving into the GTA every year. We need to design an ideal transit system for a fairly dense city where there are many activity centers, not just one big central business district –downtown Toronto. Secondly, we must treat the Toronto/GTA as one big mega region/city. We should be able to work where we want to work, live where we want to live and play where we want to play, the high speed rail transit grid network should be able to delivery this flexibility. People should be able to travel literally from anywhere to anywhere else within the GTA by a reasonably direct path, speed at a high frequency. Everybody wants a frequent service from their home to where they want to go. This is essentially what a private car is. But money isn't infinite, so the system has to deliver its results efficiently, with the minimum possible cost per rider. To serve a two-dimensional city with one-dimensional transit lines, the system has to be built on connections, transit user mobility, seamless transfer interfaces, connectivity and for that, you need high frequencies. Frequency is expensive, so it follows that you need to minimize the total route distance so that you can maximize the frequency on each line. That means you can't afford to have routes overlapping each other. Thinking about this challenge, you will soon realize that the answer is a grid. System Network Architect Planners love grids as they are the most efficient. Right now other than the GO-train riders, all north/east transit riders are being funneled to the Yonge Subway, therefore overcrowding the Yonge Subway line. Grid up the GO-Rail Lines with the TTC Subway lines and bus lines allowing total travel flexibility and mobility for the transit rider. Plan additional stations where cross town (east/west mainly) bus line are travelling. At all station stops plan transit depend integrated station communities. The Stouffville GO-Transit Line is the ideal candidate that should be transformed first because within a 4km radius of the I-METRO-E, it serves a population of close to 2 million (residents and jobs) people. Secondly it would improve the quality of life, reduce vehicle kilometers travelled, increase transit user mobility, produce long term economic opportunities, reduce sprawl, create TDD communities, take advantage of existing infrastructure and reduce carbon footprint. The I-METRO-E line is approximately 46.7 kilometers long and has no freight on this GO line. Fully grade separated or elevated track and with full electrification, I-METRO-E can travel the 25 stops and 46.7 kilometers in 43.54 minutes. Giving back to our citizens approximately 2 hours per day of less commute time. The intrinsic efficiency of grids is a huge reason to be optimistic about cities that have arterial streets or potential rail transit corridors that can be laid out in a grid pattern (Peterborough, Stouffville, Richmond Hill, Barrie, Bolton, Kitchener, Milton, East and West Lakeshore GO Lines) with Yonge and Spadina Subways, planned north-south LRT lines, 407 Rail Transitway, Sheppard, Eglinton Cross Town Subway line and Bloor Street Subway) especially if they can have many major destinations scattered all over the city evolving into a transit metropolis. WHY AREN'T ALL FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORKS GRIDS? The competing impulse is the radial network impulse, which says: "we have one downtown; everyone is going there, so just run everything to there." The problem is there will never be enough money to expand Union Station to accommodate the GTA ridership growth. Most networks start out radial, but some time later transition to more of a grid form, often with compromises in which a grid pattern of routes is distorted around downtown so that many parallel routes converge there. Metrolinx and VIA Rail should look that re-routing of the Quebec City to Windsor very high-speed train through the 407 corridor. The stop(s) could be the 407 Kitchener Line stop in Brampton to service Pearson airport and possibly either Yonge Street/407, Markham Centre’s I-METRO-E station or at the proposed Pickering Airport. Given a large GTA urban area with various areas intensifying population distribution, a grid is the most efficient way to lay out major transit routes. The fundamental challenge for transit in such places is not the layout of routes but the need to serve so many destinations because of the spatial distribution of the population. Even for an idealized grid, we should be allowing transit riders to travel between any two addresses with at most a single transfer. With frequent service on all routes to minimize wait times, the vast majority of trips would be faster and cheaper by transit than by car because of the gridlock we are experiencing on our roads and highways today. Utilizing the existing and planned GO-Transit rail lines with the existing and planned Toronto Subway/LRTs lines in a grid array (expect to obtain a 70-80 modal split in urban areas) will give the transit rider more flexibility and reasons to use transit. There is a constrained demand by our citizens in the GTA to use transit but the network flexibility just isn’t there. I believe with a proper design and a seamless implementation of an intelligent transit grid network system as well as a simplistic fare collection system that handles all situations, ridership will increase dramatically. Transforming the Stouffville GO-Line into an all day frequent I-METRO-E rapid transit service, adding more stops focusing on transit user’s convenience and connectivity. Plan all station stops at transit dependent communities. The Stouffville GO Line (I-METRO-E) line along with the Kitchener Air Rail Link Line will offload the Yonge Street Subway, can be the Toronto downtown relief line and eliminate the need for the DRL that is currently being planned on Queen Street. Over the next 25-30 years, there will be hundreds of billions of dollars of economic development opportunities along the planned I-METRO-E Rapid Transit line, the new home for an additional ½ to 1 million people, creating an unparallel transit options for 2-3 million people living along the new Scarborough / Markham Mainstreet in an environmental friendly public realm.

JULY 2012







JULY 2012


Toronto Urban Boundaries 2012 – Population – 4,600,000 2037 - Population - 7,000,000

JULY 2012




I-METRO-E Line Caption Area 2012 – Population – 2,000,000 2037 - Population - 3,000,000



JULY 2012


JULY 2012






JULY 2012


Stouffville Station Profile - TDD Stouffville Land Area - 13.81 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 40,000 7,343

2037 63,000 20,000

JULY 2012




Major MacKenize Station Profile - TDD Major Mackenzie Land Area - 90.28 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 14,480 453

2037 55,255 16,796



JULY 2012


Mount Joy Station Profile - TDD Mount Joy Land Area - 48.47 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 30,920 793

2037 71,695 12,791

JULY 2012







16th Avenue Station Profile - TDD 16th Avenue Land Area - 13.22 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 20,000 5,525

2037 23,728 7,791



JULY 2012


Mainstreet Markham Station Profile - TDD Mainstreet Markham Land Area - 5.24 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 40,955 1,272

2037 47,945 2,541

JULY 2012




Centennial Station Profile - TDD Centennial Land Area - 106.88 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 70,699 3,966

2037 110,309 67,298



JULY 2012


Highway 7 Station Profile - TDD Highway 7 Land Area - 75.88 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 64,304 2,321

2037 102,749 34,037

JULY 2012




Markham CentreStation Profile - TDD

Markham Centre Station Land Area - 251.05 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 1,162 4,054

2037 75,580 77,300



JULY 2012


14th Avenue Station Profile - TDD Highway 7 Station Profile - TDD 14th Avenue Station Land Area - 58.15 Hectares Highway 7 2012 Land Area -(people) Population 75.88 Hectares 15,614 2012 Employment (jobs) 3,394 Population (people) 64,304 Employment (jobs) 2,321

2037 26,099 2037 32,767 102,749 34,037

JULY 2012




Denison Station Profile - TDD Markham CentreStation Profile - TDD Denison Land Area - 38.83 Hectares Markham Centre Station Population (people) Land Area - 251.05 Hectares Employment (jobs) Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 34,601 3,381 2012 1,162 4,054

2037 75,376 20,153 2037 75,580 77,300



JULY 2012


Steeles Station Profile - TDD Steeles Land Area - 96.51 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 35,322 3,520

2037 85,562 26,753

JULY 2012




McNicoll Station Profile - TDD

McNicoll Land Area - 148.73 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 21,374 3,932

2037 62,149 20,275



JULY 2012


Finch Station Profile - TDD Finch Land Area - 48.56 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 37,790 2,927

2037 49,440 5,464

JULY 2012




Sheppard Station Profile - TDD Sheppard Land Area - 146.22 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 56,892 4,080

2037 91,842 84,453



JULY 2012


Ellesmere Station Profile - TDD Ellesmere Land Area - 263.52 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 51,575 10,230

2037 109,825 48,280

JULY 2012




Lawrence Station Profile - TDD Lawrence Land Area - 130.86 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 45,000 19,950

2037 79,950 105,323



JULY 2012


Kennedy Station Profile - TDD Kennedy Land Area - 43.35 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 45,000 1,849

2037 56,777 50,222

JULY 2012




Scarborough Station Profile - TDD Scarborough Land Area - 43.36 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 47,032 1,283

2037 70,332 7,626



JULY 2012


Warden-Danforth Station Profile - TDD Warden-Danforth Land Area Population (people) Employment (jobs)



JULY 2012




Danforth Station Profile - TDD

Danforth Land Area - 108.27 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 46,403 3,982

2037 69,703 10,325



JULY 2012


Pape-Gerrard Station Profile - TDD Pape-Gerrard Land Area Population (people) Employment (jobs)



JULY 2012




Queen East Station Profile - TDD Queen East Land Area - 7.39 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 52,313 6,075

2037 66,293 6,709



JULY 2012



JULY 2012







JULY 2012


West Don Lands Station Profile - TDD West Don Lands Land Area - 44.19 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 157,000 4,537

2037 180,000 36,253

JULY 2012




Union Station Profile - TDD Union Station Land Area - 61.91 Hectares Population (people) Employment (jobs)

2012 350,454 163,448

2037 373,754 391,802



JULY 2012

POPULATION Metro Stations People 2012 Union Station Distillery Dockland

EMPLOYMENT Within 4,000m Within 1,000m People 2037 413,454 188,500 94,000 65,963 67,403 68,032 77,777 76,500 104,075 88,392 48,290 58,124 81,522 71,351 25,064 69,600 59,504 80,004 47,255 27,560 51,920 35,480 82,000 2,046,970 614,091 Jobs 2012 46,188 2,000 3,000

Within 1,000m TOD 2037 (units) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,351 6,102 5,839 6,474 7,000 7,770 3,489 5,572 5,000 5,399 7,232 1,000 5,122 5,255 5,497 5,788 2,500 3,360 1,372 10,500 170,081 17,008 1,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 3,000 15,000 21,000 16,000 3,000 25,000 14,000 15,000 1,000 3,000 15,000 15,000 1,000 234,000 People 2037 45,959 25,500 15,000 7,451 16,602 16,339 16,974 28,000 49,770 45,489 11,872 36,500 49,499 40,832 7,300 57,622 34,655 36,997 7,888 8,800 34,860 32,872 12,600 662,981 198,894 People 2012 350,454 157,000 10,000

Within 4,000m Jobs 2037 299,914 27,373 10,000 2,529 3,679 954 86,420 81,219 15,905 14,059 1,181 7,833 26,753 7,270 7,505 77,300 6,802 35,000 1,234 10,254 7,583 7,343 9,843 763,895 229,168 Jobs 2012 163,448 4,537 5,000

TOD 2037 (Units) 30,000 15,000 40,000 6,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 15,000 5,000 17,500 22,000 17,500 4,500 26,000 12,000 17,000 3,000 3,600 10,000 10,000 20,000 356,600

Off/Retail (sq. M) 10,000,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 25,000 100,000 25,000 250,000 50,000 500,000 500,000 10,000 250,000 1,000,000 250,000 250,000 3,000,000 250,000 2,000,000 25,000 10,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 22,255,000

Off/Retail (sq. M) 15,000,000 3,250,000 11,000,000 25,000 250,000 250,000 1,906,504 1,700,000 1,500,000 2,167,000 100,000 644,120 1,788,267 644,120 1,000,000 7,000,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 50,000 100,000 472,872 644,120 709,426 55,976,757


2037 544,037 86,998 40,000 6,709 10,325 7,626 50,222 123,083 48,289 59,062 5,464 20,275 48,893 20,153 28,767 181,662 34,037 47,000 2,541 7,791 12,791 16,796 20,000 1,524,910 457,473

35,459 15,000 3,000

Queen East




Danforth Scarborough Kennedy Lawrence East Ellesmere Sheppard East Finch East McNicoll Steeles East Denison Street 14th Avenue Markham Centre Highway 7 Centennial Mainstreet Markham 16th Avenue Mount Joy Major MacKenize Stouffville Total Modal Split

46,403 47,032 56,777 45,000 51,575 56,892 37,790 21,374 35,322 34,601 15,614 15,000 34,304 44,304 40,955 20,000 30,920 14,480 40,000 1,298,110 129,811

1,142 320 80,077 79,950 3,219 1,373 927 1,490 1,380 927 1,162 1,182 459 867 600 10,000 1,240 1,000 3,500 246,898 24,690

3,982 1,283 1,849 79,950 10,230 4,080 2,927 3,932 3,520 3,810 3,394 4,054 2,321 3,966 1,272 5,254 793 453 2,000 369,130 36,913

PPU Average Sq.M. Per Employee Modal Split 2012 Pop 2.1 39.41 10% Modal Split 2012 Office Modal Split 2037 Pop Modal Split 2037 Office Downtown Model Split Pop Downtown Model Split Office 10% 30% 30% 15% 15%

JULY 2012



Station No. Go Transit Stations Parking Revenue Jobs & Population 4 kms 2037 957,491 275,498 100,000 72,672 77,728 75,658 127,999 199,583 152,364 147,454 53,754 78,399 130,415 91,504 53,831 251,262 93,541 127,004 49,796 35,351 64,711 52,276 102,000 3,537,880 Ridership Daily 1km 2012 51,390 16,154 3,000 5,839 5,039 4,832 5,863 12,495 6,181 6,097 4,072 2,531 3,884 3,841 1,901 1,905 3,663 4,827 4,223 2,525 3,171 1,493 4,200 168,224 61,401,760 Ridership Daily 4 km 2037 143,624 41,325 20,100 21,802 23,318 22,697 38,400 59,875 45,709 44,236 16,126 23,520 39,125 27,451 16,149 75,379 28,062 38,101 14,939 10,605 19,413 15,683 30,600 866,516 316,278,248 Ridership Revenue 1km 2012 $256,951 $80,769 $250,000 $29,194 $25,193 $24,158 $29,313 $62,475 $30,903 $30,486 $20,359 $12,653 $19,421 $19,206 $9,504 $9,527 $18,313 $24,135 $21,114 $12,627 $15,857 $7,467 $21,000 $1,076,120 $392,783,800 Ridership Revenue 4 km 2037 $718,118 $206,624 $300,000 $109,008 $116,592 $113,487 $191,999 $299,375 $228,546 $221,182 $80,631 $117,599 $195,623 $137,256 $80,746 $376,893 $140,311 $190,506 $74,693 $53,027 $97,067 $78,414 $153,000 $4,532,079 $1,654,208,740 $35,500,000 Advertising Per Station Per Year $4,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $3,100,000 $500,000 $200,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $100,000 $200,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $100,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Union Station Distillery Dockland Pape-Gerrard Queen East Warden-Danforth Danforth Scarborough Kennedy Lawrence East Ellesmere Sheppard East Finch East McNicoll Steeles East Denison Street 14th Avenue Markham Centre Highway 7 Centennial Mainstreet Markham 16th Avenue Mount Joy Major MacKenize Stouffville Total Daily Total Annual

1,000 1,500 500 750 2,250 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 7,500 1,500 1,500 11,250 1,500 3,750 1,500 1,500 11,250 11,250 2,250 $90,825 $33,151,125

PPU Average Sq.M. Per Employee Modal Split 2012 Pop Modal Split 2012 Office 2.10 39.41 10% 10% Modal Split 2037 Pop Modal Split 2037 Office Average Ticket Price Parking Rate (Daily) Parking Turnover Rate Downtown Model Split Pop Downtown Model Split Office 30% 30% $ 5.00 $ 5.00 1.50 15% 15%



JULY 2012

Metro Stations Distance Between Stops - KMs 0 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 5.0 0.6 5.3 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.0 2.5 2.4 1.2 0.8 1.4 6.0 Parking Spaces 0 200 200 100 100 300 300 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 1,000 200 200 1,500 100 500 200 200 1,500 1,500 300

Stouffville Transitway Station Construction Costs (incl Parking 0 10,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 25,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 25,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Grade Separations Twinning the Track Electrication Re-development Acres (DC $) 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 7,500,000 10,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 7,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 12,500,000 12,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 30,000,000 75,000,000 200,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 75,000,000 125,000,000 75,000,000 25,000,000 87,500,000 110,000,000 87,500,000 22,500,000 130,000,000 60,000,000 85,000,000 15,000,000 18,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 100,000,000 # of Units

Station NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Union Station Distillery Dockland Pape-Gerrard Queen East Warden-Danforth Danforth Scarborough Kennedy Lawrence East Ellesmere Sheppard East Finch East McNicoll Steeles East Denison Street 14th Avenue Markham Centre Highway 7 Centennial Mainstreet Markham 16th Avenue Mount Joy Major MacKenize Stouffville

0 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 22,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 50,000,000 45,000,000 25,000,000 15,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 15,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000

0 10,00,0000 10,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 22,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 22,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 14,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 24,000,000 12,000,000 8,000,000 14,000,000 80,000,000

30000 15,000 40,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 15,000 5,000 17,500 22,000 17,500 4,500 26,000 12,000 17,000 3,000 3,600 10,000 10,000 20,000

Total Total Construction

PPU Average Sq.M. Per Employee Modal Split 2012 Pop Modal Split 2012 Office 2.10 39.41 10% 10% Modal Split 2037 Pop Modal Split 2037 Office Average Ticket Price Downtown Model Split Pop Downtown Model Split Office 30% 30% $5.00 15% 15%

JULY 2012



Station No. Go Transit Stations Distance Between Stops (km) 0.00 2.40 0.60 0.60 2.50 2.50 3.20 3.20 2.20 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.10 1.30 1.30 1.40 0.80 1.20 1.00 2.50 2.40 1.20 0.80 1.40 6.00 46.10 Distance from Union Station (km) 0 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.9 5.5 8.1 13.3 15.5 17.5 19.5 21.6 23.7 25.0 26.3 27.7 28.5 29.7 30.7 34.3 36.7 37.9 38.7 40.1 46.7 46.7 DT (sec) Timings Between Stops Min (incl DT) 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 720 0:00 2:06 1:27 1.27 1:50 1:50 2:01 2:01 1:58 1:50 1:50 1:38 1:54 1:29 1:29 1:33 1:06 1:24 1:15 2:10 2:06 1:24 1:06 1:33 4:00 43.54 Parking Spaces Study Area Hectares Condos Unit Numbers 2037 4 Kms 30000 15,000 40,000 6,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 15,000 5,000 17,500 22,000 17,500 4,500 26,000 12,000 17,000 3,000 3,600 10,000 10,000 20,000 355,600 Office & Retail Sq Ft

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Union Station Distillery Dockland Pape-Gerrard Queen East Warden-Danforth Danforth Scarborough Kennedy Lawrence East Ellesmere Sheppard East Finch East McNicoll Steeles East Denison Street 14th Avenue Markham Centre Highway 7 Centennial Mainstreet Markham 16th Avenue Mount Joy Major MacKenize Stouffville

0 200 500 100 100 300 300 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 1,000 200 200 1,500 200 500 200 200 1,500 1,500 300 12,300

61.91 44.19 1,000.22 7.39 108.27 104.44 43.36 130.88 263.52 146.22 48.56 148.73 96.503 38.827 58.154 251.705 75.886 106.878 5.236 13.224 48.467 90.283 13.81 3022.863

8,000,000 1,300,000 11,000,000 25,000


250,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 300,000 844,000 1,825,000 644,120 1,000,000 7,000,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 50,000 100,000 600,000 644,120 709,426 45,831,666

Total Daily Total Annual

PPU Average Sq.M. Per Employee Modal Split 2012 Pop Modal Split 2012 Office

2.10 39.41 10% 10%

Modal Split 2037 Pop Modal Split 2037 Office Average Ticket Price Parking Rate (Daily) Parking Turnover Rate Downtown Model Split Pop Downtown Model Split Office

30% 30% $ 5.00 $ 5.00 1.50 15% 15%



JULY 2012

Station No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Go Transit Stations Union Station Distillery Dockland Pape-Gerrard Queen East Warden-Danforth Danforth Scarborough Kennedy Lawrence East Ellesmere Sheppard East Finch East McNicoll Steeles East Denison Street 14th Avenue Markham Centre Highway 7 Centennial Mainstreet Markham 16th Avenue Mount Joy Major MacKenize Stouffville Total Daily Condos Units (Km & 2037) 20,000 15,000 40,000 6,500 6,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 15,000 5,000 17,500 22,000 17,500 4,500 26,000 12,000 17,000 3,000 3,600 10,000 10,000 20,000 DCs 100,000,000 75,000,000 200,000,000 32,500,000 32,500,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 75,000,000 125,000,000 75,000,000 25,000,000 87,500,000 110,000,000 87,500,000 22,500,000 130,000,000 60,000,000 85,000,000 15,000,000 18,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 100,000,000 TIFs (20 yrs) 291,060,000 218,295,000 291,060,000 94,594,500 94,594,500 145,530,000 145,530,000 145,530,000 145,530,000 218,295,000 363,825,000 218,295,000 72,765,000 254,677,500 320,166,000 254,677,500 65,488,500 378,378,000 174,636,000 247,401,000 43,659,000 52,390,800 145,530,000 145,530,000 291,060,000 Section 37 50,000,000 37,500,000 100,000,000 16,250,000 16,250,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 37,500,000 62,500,000 37,500,000 12,500,000 43,750,000 55,000,000 43,750,000 11,250,000 65,000,000 30,000,000 42,500,000 7,500,000 9,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 50,000,000 HST $520,000,000 $390,000,000 $500,020,000 $169,000,000 $169,000,000 $260,000,000 $260,000,000 $260,000,000 $260,000,000 $390,000,000 $650,000,000 $390,000,000 $130,000,000 $455,000,000 $572,000,000 $455,000,000 $117,000,000 $676,000,000 $312,000,000 $442,000,000 $78,000,000 $93,600,000 $260,000,000 $260,000,000 $520,000,000

DC Condo Rate TIF (Average unit Cost) TIF (# of Years) $5,000 $600,000 20 TIF (Education rate) Section 37 Rate 0.231% $2,500

JULY 2012



Metro Stations
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Singles/Semis 63,147 63,973 64,810 65,658 66,517 66,739 66,962 67,185 67,409 67,634 67,717 67,801 67,884 67,968 68,052 68,086 68,119 68,153 68,186 68,220 Row/Other Multiples 11,012 11,332 11,661 11,999 12,347 12,722 13,108 13,505 13,915 14,337 14,531 14,729 14,928 15,131 15,336 15,454 15,572 15,691 15,812 15,933 Apartments 18,160 18,945 19,763 20,617 21,508 22,088 22,684 23,296 23,924 24,569 25,701 25,584 25,107 26,640 27,185 27,594 28,010 28,431 28,860 29,294 PPU in All Units 3.27 3.26 3.24 3.23 3.21 3.20 3.18 3.17 3.15 3.14 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.10 3.09 3.08 3.07 3.07 3.06 3.05

Source: 2009 Development Charges Study



JULY 2012

Intergrated Communities:

Cities cover only 1 percent of the Earth’s surface but are home to more than 50% of humanity, consume 75 percent of the available energy and emit around 80 percent of all harmful greenhouse gases. It is estimated that roughly 70 percent of the world’s population will live in urban centers by 2050. With urban economic output and energy needs set to soar, cities will have to massively invest in modernizing and expanding their infrastructure, and increasingly tap sustainable and eco-friendly solutions in order to reach their own climate goals Energy – Cities – 40% CO2 Emissions Energy from Waste Solar, Wind Deep Geo-Thermal Energy Storage Buildings- 40% CO2 Lighting Megacities, or the cities with at least 10 million residents, are inhabited by over 324 million people around the globe today. These cities are the financial centers of their countries, accounting for a major share of the national gross domestic product( GDP). Transport is the most important of all infrastructure concerns and is the area that citizens believe has the biggest impact on a city’s competitiveness. As the backbone of a city, the transport network needs to keep pace with the needs of the growing urban populace. When it fails to do so, the economy bears the brunt. Cities need to take a leading role in protecting the climate since they are responsible for 80 percent of CO2 emissions. The most effective approaches to reducing emissions are improved insulation of buildings, use of renewable and low-CO2 energy sources, cogeneration of heat and power, and the use of economical electrical appliances and lighting. Transportation - 30% CO2 Emissions Electric Trains – Zero Emissions - Personal People Movers Each dollar invested in improved access to safe water and sanitation is estimated to produce a return of $3-34. Investing in sanitation infrastructure also has benefits for the environment. Over 80 percent of sewage in developing countries is discharged today without being treated, thereby polluting rivers, lakes and coastal areas. It is estimated that the total cost in industrial countries of replacing aging water supply and sanitation infrastructure may be as high as $200 billion per year. Water & Waste Waste Drinking Gray Water Stormwater Emissions

Rapid Rial Transit & Transportation conectivity, predictable, span of service, affordable

Intelligent Buildings & Communities Net Zero energy waste emissions

Sustainable Cities

P3 - The public private partnership model is gaining acceptance as it is realized that P3s are the most effective to handle big infrastructure projects. Government needs to involve the private sector to fund critical infrastructure development in several areas – energy, environment, rail transit, transport and social infrastructure. P3 lending in public infrastructure has increased tremendously over the last 10 years.

Administration & Security, Efficient, Cost effective and environmentally competitve

Water & Waste

Re-Wealth I-METRO-E Corridor is worth $100s of billions of Economic Opportunity plus an excellent contribution to our people and environment. Plan, Design and build for the ground up around the I-METRO-E Transit Line

JULY 2012






JULY 2012

I-METRO-E aims to help create communities where residents can “live, work, and play” without relying on an automobile. As part of that goal, I-METRO-E encourages the creation of transit dependent communities that are accessible to transit users and provide development potential to the area. TDDs are successful in achieving the following: • Embodying the principles of good transit-dependent design • Complementing the station area and the surrounding neighborhood • Enriching the transit experience for I-METRO-E riders and the pedestrian experience of those who visit or live in the area • Adding to the municipal tax base Transit station areas are desirable places for development. Transit dependent development, or TDD, is a development style that promotes mixed-use development within a 5 to 10 minute walk of a transit station. A look at TDD station area development versus suburban style development highlights the following:
Place-Making. TDD creates a sense of community and of place, a destination that people want to return to time and time again. Market Capture. Increasingly, people want more housing choices and more transportation choices. Skyrocketing fuel prices make suburban commutes less attractive than ever. Further, a housing market shift toward convenience, affordability, and activity – combined with shifting demographics – reinforces the attractiveness of TDD. Property Values. The Urban Land Institute described TDD as an “emerging trend” in real estate and a “best bet for investors” for the third consecutive year. The potential for investment along the I-METRO-E Transit line is between 100-400 billion dollars. When comparing TDD to non-TDDs, studies have shown that transit-dependent residential development had 45% greater property values than non-TDD residential development, and that transit-dependent office development had 40-200% greater property values than office development outside of transit station areas. Density. Transit station areas offer a concentration of people, businesses, and activity that translate into high numbers of residents and customers for development sites. Station areas also have a much higher capacity for density than other non-core developments, offering the biggest potential for growth. Parking Reductions. Many customers arrive at station-area developments via transit rather than cars, parking needs for station area development are much lower than for suburban-style development. Municipal parking standards tend to be significantly reduced within proximity of station areas, and shared parking is the rule instead of the exception. For customers that do travel by car, transit-dependent development offers a “park once” experience for visitors, where it’s possible to park in one location at the beginning of an outing and enjoy local offerings on foot. Sustainability. Without auto-related pollution, station areas enjoy cleaner air quality on average than car congested areas. TDDs also represent a more efficient use of land, energy, and resources than suburban greenfield development, and help conserve open space and gas by concentrating development around transit. Stability. Since transit facilities are a permanent fixture, developing around transit stations has the security of stability, unlike auto-dependent developments whose location could fall out of favor with consumers over time.


Transit-dependent development is defined as a walkable, densely-developed, horizontal and vertical mix of residential space, commercial activity, entertainment facilities, and public open spaces within a 5 to 10-minute walk of public transit. Transit use connects the development to other places, thereby reducing the area’s dependency on automobiles.

I-METRO-E’s role in transit-dependent development will be laid out explicitly in the mission statement developed by Toronto and Markham: “To build, establish and operate a safe, efficient, and effective transportation system within the I-METRO-E corridor, provides mobility, improves the quality of life and creates exceptional economic development opportunities.”

Today, older and newer cities alike are turning to rapid rail transit and TDD as an alternative to sprawl, and as a way to encourage urban economic revitalization, community diversity, equity and travel alternatives.


JULY 2012



The way we perceive our communities is in large part due to the design of the built environment and the degree to which it fosters a livable city. Design choices not only affect our perception of “place” but also the way we use it. While opinions of aesthetics vary from person to person, there are some core design strategies that promote vibrant neighborhoods and livable cities regardless of the chosen style and or aesthetic. Understanding that cities and neighborhoods will approach the design aesthetic of I-METRO-E stations communities differently outlines the system-wide design standards and goals that instill a high level of design quality and consistency throughout the I-METRO-E system . The design goals of stations and the larger station areas as more than transition spaces, but as vibrant places in themselves. There is a huge opportunity for I-METRO-E to design stations as local landmarks and/or gateways to the cities and neighborhoods that they service. Transit stations move travelers from undefined space through a portal to vibrant city streets. Hence, they provide travelers with their first impression of the city, district, or neighborhood to which they are arriving. It is essential that the stations be visible, attractive, and well-integrated into the urban fabric of the area. Community Pride & Social Cohesion: • Boosting civic pride by revitalizing urban heritage • Enhancing the sense of safety and security • Delivering better public realm and services • Returning inaccessible or run down areas and amenities to beneficial public use • Promoting equality • Creating well connected, inclusive and accessible new places Economic Development: • Producing high returns on investments (good rental returns and enhanced capital values) • Placing developments above the competition in their local markets • Reducing management, maintenance, energy and security costs • Raising confidence in development opportunities and attracting high quality investments • Reducing the cost of rectifying urban design mistakes

The scale and size of development should prioritize the pedestrian. Development should distinguish and articulate the ground floor to create an attractive, pedestrian-friendly street front. Primary streets should have a high level of transparency with frequent windows, doors, and/or openings to break up long blank walls. Large buildings should use design techniques to ensure that the massing, height, and scale of the building contribute to a human-scale environment .



JULY 2012

Throughout the I-METRO-E, system-wide design principles maintain a sense of continuity across the system to ensure that each station is user friendly (i.e. easily recognizable, accessible, welcoming, safe, clean, attractive, and offers needed and desired amenities for the transit customer). The design principles address the way each station interacts with the surrounding area, understanding that while each neighborhood differs along the I-METRO-E, certain design elements are important to maintaining a unified, usable, high performing transit system. Creating guiding design principles during the Urban Design phase (sample presented in the box on the right)..

MAKE STATION EASY TO FIND Stations should use common Metro elements and assure the station entrance is visible to help both new and returning riders find the station.

CONNECT TO PATHWAYS, LINKAGES & VIEWS Station areas should use directional and informational signage, landscaping, special paving, and art features to indicate key locations and draw pedestrians in particular directions.

GIVE THE STATION CHARACTER Design each station site thoughtfully, with consideration for the geographical and local narratives of the area. Preserve cultural resources at and near the station site, and include different forms of public art at Each station site. Use innovative materials and finishes that are place-specific.


MAINTAIN SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT Employ natural surveillance techniques, such as transparent station portals designed to be visible from the street and assure maintenance of the station site to upkeep landscaping and lighting features. Auxiliary functions, such as vent shafts and fresh air intakes should be clustered in one area and screened so that they are not visually obtrusive. MAKE DEVELOPMENT TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE Zone for and incentivize transit-supportive uses around station area such as mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and Flex spaces that can change over time. Reduce parking supply In the area and build new development to be humanscaled, so that it is more friendly to pedestrians. Mid-block crossings and pedestrian passes through blocks also support a transit-friendly station area.

There are over twenty four proposed stations along the I-METRO-E, some of which could have more than one design option for station location and portal entrance(s). The urban planner will developed typologies and indicators for each station areas during the design and planning stage in order to tailor design concepts for all station’s local context as it varies along the I-METRO-E. The urban typologies seek to describe the degree of urbanity of the built environment based on density and scale. The activity indicators help explain how the station is used and by whom. Together, the urban typologies and activity indicators work to give future designers, city planners, developers, and community groups a better idea of how to design the station sites and larger station areas.

DESIGN A WELCOMING STATION Design station areas that have pedestrianfriendly uses on ground floors (e.g. retail) with large transparent windows, along with street vendors and micro-Businesses, areas with ample shade, various amenities, and queuing and waiting areas, where appropriate so that people feel welcome and comfortable.

DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE Choose materials and designs that are sustainable and long-lasting in recognition of the permanence of the subway line. Build knock-out panels along the station box to accommodate future station portals. Assure that station and tracks are of sufficient depth and that auxiliary features are appropriately clustered so they do not preclude future development. Consider the role of the station area being designed, in the larger transit system. Not all station areas need the same amenities and land uses, etc.

MAKE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION ATTRACTIVE BY OFFERING CHOICES Assure that station is located near and is connected to bus stops shuttle stops, and bike lanes and that it offers ample amenities for bike riders, including racks, lockers, and bike facilities. Where appropriate, other forms of alternative transportation should be accommodated, including parking for car-shares, electric car charging stations, and taxi queuing area

JULY 2012



Building mass and scale help shape the built environment and thereby influence the role of transit in a particular area. To better understand the way the new stations fit within the larger I-METRO-E, the urban designer created station area typologies based on a matrix of the existing density (described as the number of dwelling units per acre), scale (as described by the floor area ratio (FAR) for development) and building heights. The station area typologies inform the design process by recommending appropriate portal orientation and design. An example for station area typologies for the I-METRO-E could include:
Density/Scale FAR ≥ 6.0, ≥ 100 DUA Building Height High-rise (≥ 240’) Mid/High-rise (75’-239’) Mid-rise (51’-74’)

Density/Scale High density along corridor (FAR ≥ 6.0, ≥ 100 DUA) Low/Mid density adjacent (FAR= 1-2.4, 20-39 DUA) Building Height Mid/High-rise along the corridor Mid-rise adjacent

Major Urban Center: Station area with high density and

high-rise buildings. The area is a central urban place and a regional destinations for residents and visitors.

Urban Corridor: Station area with high density along

the transit corridor and lower density and scale away from the street

Density/Scale Mid (FAR = 2.5-5.9, 40-99 DUA) Low /Mid (FAR=1-2.4, 20-89 DUA) Building Height Mid/High-rise (75’-239’) Mid-rise (51’-74’)

Urban Center: Station area with mid-level densities and
scales. A typical urban condition.

Neighborhood Center: Station area with lower densities

and scale. Area is mainly inhabited by people who live and work in the area and is local in character.
Density/Scale Low/Mid (FAR = 1-2.4, 20-39 DUA) Low (FAR = .5-.9, 8-19 DUA) Building Height Mid-rise (51’ - 74’) Low-rise (≤ 50’)



JULY 2012

JULY 2012






JULY 2012

Improved transportation, green buildings, water conservation and reuse and smart grids infrastructures are just a few of the technologies helping to achieve sustainable environmental development in cities. The challenges presented by sustainable urban development are immense. In 2010, 82 percent of North Americas lived in cities; by 2050 it will be 90 percent. Cities are responsible for around two thirds of the energy used, 60 percent of all water consumed and 70 percent of all greenhouse gases produced worldwide. Because of this we need to be looking at ways to improve our infrastructures to become more environmentally friendly, increase the quality of life for our residents, and cut costs at the same time.

Consistent with the vision for environmentally-conscious development, METRO communities will showcase world-class green roofs. Among the many benefits provided by a green roof are Its capacity to improve environmental integrity, regulate building temperatures, reduce its interior noise levels and provide additional open space for public enjoyment.

Environmental Integrity: The choice of vegetation used on rooftops will take into consideration

issues of irrigation, maintenance, and weight. The right rooftop materials will allow for maximum water harvesting. A proper plant palette will allow for a playful and colorful aesthetic as well as provide an improved air quality and microclimate. It can also encourage a diverse habitat where birds, butterflies and other insects are attracted. provides for a more comfortable atmosphere within the building. The natural processes of plant and soil matter absorb sunlight in summer months reducing the heat island effect, and also establishes a barrier to cold in winter months reducing energy demand for indoor climate control. over a building’s higher stories, green roofs have the capacity to give ordinary buildings extraordinary open spaces and creates new habitats. Their elevated position accommodates unique vistas and provides a more enjoyable rooftop aesthetic for surrounding buildings.

Employing green building standards to regulate new construction is an excellent way to guarantee A level of environmental integrity. By using creative strategies in architecture, engineering and urbanism, green buildings reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and the natural environment. While a Number of green building certification systems exist today (Canada green building council’s leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED Canada) family of programs; energy star Canada; build it green’s green point rated program; built Green; and many other national and local programs), all yield benefits. Using existing certification systems as a framework, I-METRO-E communities will join developments worldwide by establishing a set of green building standards. In addition to controlling a building’s geometry, size, materials and architecture, green standards stress the importance of an appropriate site for construction, proper building orientation on that site, connectivity to transit, and the efficiency of all building systems. Strategies such as climate-responsive design, passive solar, low-flow water fixtures and doubleglazed windows assure that the building will significantly reduce its demand on the environment over its lifespan. The benefits are noted not only in A green building’s reduced consumption, yet also in the health of all who use it. Among the benefits of a green building is its capacity to: • • • • • • • Reduce Energy Consumption And Building Operating Costs Reduce Waste Streams Improve Water And Air Quality Improve Worker Productivity Enhance Comfort And Health Enhance And Protect Biodiversity And Ecosystems Minimize Strain On Local Infrastructure

Temperature Regulation: The plant and soil matter of a green roof create thermal insulation that

Open Space: Essentially bringing any open space displaced at ground level and draping it

Consistent with the vision of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, a social imperative has emerged to lower the amount of water we consume and further minimize human impacts on the environment. I-METRO-E communities will use art water-saving techniques. On a neighborhoods scale, options such as greywater recycling will be used for non-potable applications such as toilet flushing, landscaping, etc., To reduce household water consumption. Commercial and housing units will be outfitted with low flow fixtures and smart appliances to exceed existing codes, with separate piping to supply recycled greywater to the appropriate fixtures. On a block scale, rainwater can be collected via landscaped rooftops and detained in localized cisterns for later usage. Cisterns reduce stormwater runoff through temporary storage and help reduce the peak discharge rate, to reduce the stormwater impact of urban development upon the environment. Discharge has been designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas from excessive inundation. In landscaping the demand for water will be reduced by discouraging excess turf, planting natural and/or drought-tolerant vegetation, and using efficient irrigation practices with water from the cisterns including during times of drought and water rationing.


Programs training residents to optimize savings on energy and limit waste will lead to the development of a community-wide lifestyle of sustainability.

JULY 2012



When planned for at an early stage, cogeneration, also known as ‘combined heat and power (chp)’, has the capacity to greatly improve the efficiency of a district’s heating and cooling systems. In the face of growing international energy demand, cogeneration is widely regarded today as the industry best practice. A typical power generation facility releases heat, a by-product of electricity generation, into the atmosphere through cooling towers or flue gas. Cogeneration facilities capture this heat and distribute it for domestic heating and cooling in the form of steam or hot water, reducing the demand energy to heat water and preserving energy resources for other applications. Cogeneration facilities are more efficient and less expensive to operate; they require less space than a conventional plant. Fueled by natural gas, the plant distributes heated and chilled water through a community-wide network of underground pipes to its commercial and residential clientele. The water is then used by heat exchangers to provide heating and cooling. Landfills threatens our landscapes, air quality, and the health of our natural ecosystems. In addition, the separation of recyclable materials from true waste becomes increasingly difficult after amalgamation. Pneumatic (stationary/mobile) refuse collection is an alternative to be evaluated and can enable I-METRO-E communities to alleviate many of the ills associated with conventional waste management. The system is simple, hygienic, and aesthetically pleasing in any setting. Users dispose of waste in three (3) ordinary refuse chutes, corresponding to particular types of material (combustible waste, organic waste, and paper). Convenient built in scales encourage users to track their waste creation. After temporarily storing the material in underground valves, a network of pipes uses suction to bring materials to a central collection facility. This truck-less system reduces noise and eliminates the need for unattractive dumpsters and alleyways. Waste, separated at the source, is often diverted from landfills after being composted into soil, or recycled into new paper


or similar waste management systems, will highlight the I-METRO-E’s commitment to environmental stewardship and the health of its human population. I-METRO-E communities will explore a number of sustainable waste collection options.


Preserving freshwater resources is vital to the environmental sustainability of the GTA. As global climate change makes weather patterns more volatile, snow melt will become more abrupt, river flows less consistent, and freshwater retention more difficult. Although Canada's freshwater resources are abundant, the country is not exempt from concern. According to the organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) in 2006, Canada ranks second worldwide in terms of annual per capita water consumption. In a world with scarce freshwater capacity, curtailing such consumption will contribute great societal benefit to the livelihood of future generations. Metro communities will set a precedent in the region with its unique commitment to water and water re-use. Opportunities will be explored for building rooftop controls and green roofs to collect rainwater, channeling into on-site storage tanks/retention cisterns located within each block to be re-used. In addition, larger “end of pipe” storage cisterns can be located underground to reduce the neighborhood impact of detention ponds. Water harvesting on site will reduce stormwater runoff; improve stormwater quality, reduce municipal water demand and support on-site vegetation.

Primary concerns in waste management include increasing stress upon existing waste management facilities, the negative effects of waste collection infrastructure and process, the time-consuming task of material separation, and human hygiene. As our growing population generates more waste, the capacity of existing facilities is tested.



JULY 2012

An environment that encourages walking is imperative to the fabric of a vibrant community. Walking and biking provide a variety of impressive benefits – reduced the need for the automobile, increased foot traffic to local businesses, interaction with neighbors, and improved physical health. In fact, a Washington state study found that residents of a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood weigh, on average, 7 pounds less than residents of a sprawling suburb (Smart Growth America, http://blog.Smartgrowthamerica.Org). In addition, walkable neighborhoods need less infrastructure for cars, thus yielding land for more enjoyable spaces such as parks and promenades. I-METRO-E communities will be designed with pedestrian connectivity as a first priority. A grid of pedestrian friendly streets will connect residential neighborhoods to the transit nodes and mixed-use core. A majority of residential units will be within a 5-minute walk of transit, and most, if not all, daily needs can be met within a short and comfortable walk. I-METRO-E communities will prove the capacity of good urban design to minimize auto use.

A development is only truly sustainable if there is a balance of environmental, social and economic sustainability measures for a project and its end users. This is the concept of the Triple Bottom Line: sustainability requires the harmonious consideration of ecological, economic, and social concerns.

Auto-oriented sprawl has proven detrimental to our environment, our health, and our communities. In response to uncontrolled suburban growth, urban infill, density, and smart growth have emerged as the communities of the future. Every housing unit placed near a major transit node lowers the travel distances of those who live there and greatly reduces their carbon emissions. In the wake of global climate change, minimizing our “carbon footprint” that has become a high priority. We need development that is efficient, harmonious with our natural environment, and capable of meeting our human needs. Sustainable design is the natural choice. I-METRO-E communities will showcase an array of cutting-edge sustainable technologies and to demonstrate their benefits to the GTA and all of North America. Energy generation will come from on-site cogeneration facilities and renewable sources. Water recycling and drought-tolerant landscaping will reduce water consumption. Buildings will become more green through solar orientation and green roofs. Woodlot and creek restoration will enhance biodiversity and educate a generation of environmental stewards. In addition to the considerable environmental benefits, I-METRO-E residents will enjoy a diversity of housing, excellent transit connectivity, and economic savings from their triple bottom line communities for years to come.

Many of today’s urban ills can be solved with a singular concept that reduces government spending on infrastructure, increases pedestrian mobility, encourages the use of transit and reduces per capita carbon dioxide emissions. High density transit dependent development is that concept. Simply by placing people closer together and near transit, urban design can curb automobile dependence and use the land spared from roadway construction for more beneficial amenities such as public parks and lively pedestrian promenades. Retail at ground level greatly improves the convenience of a neighborhood and promotes a walkable environment, the diversity of store’s reflecting the diversity of those who frequent them. I-METRO-E communities will demonstrate the benefits of a mix of residential densities in a compact urban form and of true walkable neighborhoods. A collection of townhomes, mid-and high-rise towers will achieve a density appropriate for sustainable regional growth that will provide generous open spaces and harness the capacity of the site’s rich transit connectivity. Ground floor retail uses will create lively pedestrian corridors and support people using nearby transit.

JULY 2012



In the not-too-distant future, whether we like it or not, the price of gasoline will begin a rise that will continue for decades. It will increase so much, in fact, that many aspects of everyday life will be dramatically altered and altered in ways that most of us wouldn’t necessarily anticipate. For example, we envision a future where we travel by train, not by plane. One where today’s distant suburbs gradually become ghost towns. I have gone through the different scenarios when gasoline reaches these price levels. What is the provincial and federal government doing to insulate the public in the event this happen? The consensus is that we have reached peak oil and any oil we find will be expensive and won’t be the big oil fields of the pass. cities reinvent themselves again. When gas reaches $12 a gallon, Americans will feel themselves in a limbo of sorts, the nascent stage of electric vehicles’ slow takeover and gasoline prices so high that driving to the supermarket becomes an exercise of coasting through stop signs in neutral to save every precious drop of fuel.. The only thing real, the only thing proven to save us money and time and to stand the perseverance of market swings and real estate undulations, will be our cities’ great neighborhood and the infrastructure that supports them. Trains will overflow. New subway and heavy rail cars will be brought and manufacturing will revive on the back of this movement as the demand for light rail, urban electric trains and buses spikes to level unforeseen. The dream of one acre lots, four bedrooms homes, three car, and a suburb full of sparking big box stores will be shaken. The dream of America won’t fail, but it will change. No city will reach New York’s level of compression; but the densification of our cities is academic. It is a question of when energy prices and gas prices soar past $10 to $12.

AT $6.00,

Our lives , our businesses, our families, will all be caught, unready for the coming cavalcade of evolution and adaptation that rising gas prices will bring. Monthly gas stations bills for families that were $500 at $2.00 will be $1,500 at $6.00. $6.00 gas, though its-- specter may sound implausible, isn’t too far away, says Jeffrey Rubin, a respected economist and the chief strategist and managing director of CIBC World Markets. Rubin say gasoline will likely cost $7.00 a gallon by 2010. As a Result, he says “Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today Of those 10 million vehicles that Rubin predicts will come off U.S. roads, many will be SUVs. For the first time in American history in 2008, higher gas prices compelled Americans to drive 100 billion fewer miles in 2008 than they did in 2007. Higher gas prices could mean a skinner North America, Fatness costs the Americans a lot of money: 117 billion per year in early mortality and extra medical expenses and 112,000 deaths related to complications and diseases stemming from obesity When gas hits $6.00, asphalt will be more expensive than ever.



The Skies will empty When gas inevitably climbs to $8, the airline carnage will be vast and it will come swiftly. To keep their testaments to human genius flying 500 mph at 40,000 feet, airlines use fuel that’s classified as Ujet A1. Jet fuel is basically kerosene, and jet engines burn it like flash paper. A 737 burns about 13 gallons a minute. Plane people talk about fuel in pounds, not gallons, however, so that’s 91 pounds a minute. A 737 flight from Chicago to Los Angeles burns about 25,000 pounds Jet fuel comes from the same oil-refining process that produces gasoline, diesel, and asphalt, so its price is a volatile as gasoline’s. With $8.00 gasoline, the American domestic network will contract to 50% of its current size. Planes burn an inordinate amount of fuel just getting up to cruising altitude, so shorter flights cost more per mile. Few people will pay $750 for a 200 miles flight, so major air service between cities in the same regions will cease. At $12 gas, trips less than 500 miles will be done by car, bus, or by rail. A standard coach ticket for a U.S.-European flight will cost $2,000 on the cheap end with sustained gas prices of $8.00 a gallon. Airline terminal that once stretched like monolithic petals from a giant airport stem will be closed. The U.S. airline business is a big one. When half of it vanishes, it will leave a crater. Losing half of the airline business will ground 2,800 planes, 200,000 jobs lost, 13,000 flights eliminated, and $67 billion of revenue gone. The above figures apply to job losses only at the airlines. Thousands more jobs will be lost throughout the structure that supports their light network, jobs at airports, maintenance shops, plane caterers, rental car companies, travel agencies, aircraft leasing companies, and even airport peripheral players such as taxi and shuttle drivers. The economic damage will be deep and pronounced. This will be the beginning of the destruction of a major piston in our economy. A lot of people will have been set loose without jobs and without hope of employment elsewhere in their industry.

The Fate of Small Towns, U.S. Manufacturing Renaissance and our Material World There will be two things stemming from high gasoline prices that contribute to the obsolescence of big box stores that, in most cases, are located on the fringes of towns and suburbs rather than city cores. Electric cars will exist, yes, but cars and roads will not be the glue of society any longer. People will walk or travel to stores less than two miles from their home, not five to ten miles people now do to make a visit WalMart, Meijer, or Target. The second and biggest reason for WalMart’s demise - will be the outrageous cost of maintaining the retailer’s vast distribution and product network. WalMart’s model works because of cheap gasoline. The company is able to leverage cheap labor in China to make many of its wares because of the low cost of getting those products back to the United States aboard giant cargo ships. Without gasoline at affordable prices, goods from China didn’t float in at mass quantities, choking a main Walmart Advantage. Flinging the goods around the country, from port to distribution centre to store, will become prohibitively expensive.


The Food Web Deconstructed Reshuffling the world’s spidery and sometimes nonsensical food web will be one of the last tricks turned by rising gas costs. The giant lever awaits at $16 gasoline. Everything starting with farming, will change. The changes will ripple through to things like fish and livestock, then to dairy and other animal products. Our fertilizers, mostly imported and made straight out of fossil fuel will change. We will no longer eat oil. The price of everything will increase, But these price increase will enable one to grow locally. When gas reaches $16 a gallon, natural gas’s price will become exorbitant. To sustain life we must have ammonia-based fertilizers. We used to use water to make ammonia 100 years ago and we will once again. Harness the abundant wind power to use electrolysis to make ammonia from water and nitrogen.



Renaissance of the Rails The reason for our train system’s demise are numerous, but there’s one common stitch that binds all of that together: cheap oil. Cheap oil has enabled us to live where we want on our terms. Sprawling metros, enabled by cheap gasoline and the automobile, have pushed far away from centrally located train stations. The advent of a true high-speed train network will be the ultimate sign that our world has adapted to oil‘s Scarcity. Firebreathing jet engines and carbon dioxide-sputtering cars will fade off into history, part of another era of transportation for an evolving human race and civilization. In a world of $18 gasoline, high-speed rail is necessary to stay relevant to other world powers, some which have a large head start on electrically powered trains (150 for LRT High-speed and 400 km per hour for longer distances.

The car diminished but reborn It will require a mammoth amount of determination to change how and what we drive in this country. People won’t give up their SUVs and their sports cars without a reason so compelling they can no longer deny its fundamental honesty. Ten dollars gasoline will be a crescendo. It will tear down bulwarks to progress and technology. It will change how we think about travel. And most of all, $10 gas will be the powerful force that nudges Americans away from their deep relationships with the automobile. Most people know change is coming; they may bury their acknowledgement deep in their psyche, but they know. Gas prices of $10 a gallon may seem far away but if you look at the fundamentals of the world’s supplies and the certainty of rising demands, it’s a number we will almost definitely see within the next 8-10 years or less. Can we afford to gamble on the future? UPS said when gas approaches six and eight dollars a gallon, we’ll certainly be expediting the examination of their fleet and how they can move away from gasoline but at ten dollars a gallon, you can bet there will be real change.



Urban Revolution and Suburban Decay In our current world, with our current attachment to individualized transportation, the New York City subway system, built anew, couldn’t happen. But the world of $12 gas will be much different. In the world, subway systems will romp across our cities and course beneath our homes, rerouting America toward an urban ideal. As gas prices increase from $6 to $10 to $12 a gallon, the value of mass transit infrastructure will only increase, and more and more cities and their populations will think and want to behave as New York have been doing for decades. Taxes supporting new mass transit projects, taxes that would be outrageously unpopular In our current times, will pass with ease. It is important to realize, too, that electric cars, though they will be swingingly popular, can’t and won’t stop our assimilation into cities. Getting an electric car will be possible, but it won’t be cheap and won’t be plentiful; and our thorough change over to electric cars will take decades. In the meantime, many people will be looking to drive less or not al all. This movement will give rise to a massive shift of population as our fringe suburbs lose their value and our inner

The Future of Energy There is no reason why North America can’t reestablish itself as a manufacturing heavyweight if we get smarter about how we use energy. We will need to, finally, orchestrate a comprehensive energy plan that secures our country’s supply of electrons far into the future. A big part of that plan will be not only finding new sources of supply, such as more wind and nuclear, but also shoring up the massive amounts of energy waste that take place every day. Every time you pass a paper mill or a power plant or a refinery of some type that is billowing steam or a flame into the air - and there are thousands across North America - you’re watching raw energy spewed into the atmosphere. All for the simple reason that buying additional energy supplied by fossil fuels has been the cheap and easy choice for these companies to make before energy prices began their climb. Our electrical grid in 1910 operated at 65% efficiency, that means 65% of the power we made eventually got into the hands of end users. From then until 1957, the efficiency of our national power grid eroded to 33%, which is where it is today/ Cheap energy, however, drew the world away from such efficiencies. By capturing waste heat at just the U.S. manufacturing levels will bring 65,000 megawatts back to the grid, enough for 50 million homes. It is energy we’re already making and that comes cheaply-cheaper than wind, solar, nuclear, or even coal. The role of nuclear will have to increase in a world of higher gasoline and energy prices. Four pounds of enriched uranium has as much energy as a million gallons of gasoline. And there are no sooty nuclear emissions. Go Directly to High-Speed 407 Rail Transitway and By-Pass BRT




JULY 2012

Power of Integrated Automation – Siemen Desiro City ENERGEY EFFICIENT
The Desiro City has been designed with energy efficiency in mind, delivering drastically reduced energy consumption. Therefore, we have undertaken meticulous analysis and design iterations in order to significantly reduce train weight. Bogies, car bodies, interiors and the electrical equipment including the cabling, as an example, are weight optimized – resulting in up to 25% weight reduction compared to the existing UK fleets. For example, the traction and auxiliary converters are designed using the latest IGBT-technology in order to minimize the use of heavy magnetic components, and more important, reduce switching losses. In addition, we have integrated an innovative DAS (Driver Advisory System), developed a new cab shape with improved aerodynamics, and implemented energy-efficient LED-lighting as well as an intelligent air conditioning system with CO2 sensors which control the flow of the fresh air according to the number of passengers. An optional innovative onboard energy storage system allows for the CONFIGURING THE FUTURE use of braking energy for reacceleration. The vehicle is able to reduce The traction concept of the Desiro City is based with the appropriate number of motor cars. its primary energy consumption by as much as up to 50%. on an electrical multiple unit with distributed The trains can be reduced or enlarged in
traction equipment. To achieve maximum flexibility and modularity all necessary traction components are integrated in one single motor car. This means, all motor cars are identical and consist of a traction container with an integrated auxiliary converter, drive unit, line filter and braking resistor. In addition, the motor cars are designed as end and intermediate cars, even motor cars with reduced traction are available. Therefore it is possible to achieve any passenger capacity, length and configuration you like – including a tailored performance. For efficient customer configurations to suit your operation, just combine the desired amount of trailer cars


With 1,500 rail vehicles already running or on order, the Desiro platform has a proven track record in the UK. As a next generation solution, the Desiro City is based on highly reliable technology and incorporates experience gained over many years. It is designed for high capacities with frequent, irregular stops on diverse routes with the objective of achieving best-in-class service performance, low levels of failure, and intelligent equipment redundancy to allow maximum availability. In order to deliver trains that work ‘straight out of the box’, each train is fully tested to UK standards on Siemens’ unique test track in Wegberg-Wildenrath. In addition, intelligent use of onboard train management and monitoring systems permit optimized maintenance exam periods and overhaul intervals. For example, by using operational data with a robust optimization program maintenance control centres can operate balanced maintenance regimes alleviating the need to stop units for long time periods. This maximizes continued availability and operational revenue over the entire life of the train.

length to build units of up to 240 m in length without fearing that the performance is over- or undersized. Compared to conventional motor cars their performance is highly improved thus allowing ideal performance levels required for short dwell times in inner-city and suburban services. The result is a train that you can tailor precisely to your specific needs. Tailored for reliability, high capacity and short dwell times The Desiro City platform is a highly flexible concept, capable of running as an overhead electric or 750-V-third-rail or dual-mode train


Flexibility is crucial when it comes to future train formation changes, redeployment, or oute upgrades, as well as operational adjustments to actual passenger volumes. The Desiro City caters for both: It provides a high level of flexibility regarding train configuration, and interior layout. This is achieved by a Single Car Concept with each motor car being equipped with all necessary traction components. The result: Any train configuration and passenger capacity can be accurately dimensioned without jeopardizing dwell times. Wish to increase the number of seats or provide more bicycle stowage space? No problem, the entire interior design is modular and provides maximum flexibility regarding the saloon layout. For example, the floor areas are kept clear of under seat equipment, no electrical cabinets are located in passenger areas, and the number of interfaces between the interior components has been minimized. As a result, the entire interior layout can be tailored to your specific needs without long workshop hours – allowing adjustments even at short notice.

JULY 2012



The Strengths of Electrification - New Economy HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT
There are no local health or environmental impacts from electric trains. Electric trains receive their power from the grid – they have no emissions and they don’t pollute. Electric Trains can be powered using renewable, green energy such as wind or solar. As our province continues to work towards cleaner, greener energy sources, electric trains will immediately benefit from technological advancements. Electric trains are more energy efficient. They reduce our carbon footprint and our contributions to global climate change. Electric vehicles are approximately four times more efficient than vehicles using internal combustion engines. Electric trains are lighter and quieter. They don’t disrupt the activities of residents and businesses. Lighter trains also require less energy to operate. Electric Trains are faster. Electric trains can accelerate much faster than diesel locomotives, permitting many more stops and significant improvement in travel times. Using electric trains will better support the overall transit needs along the I-METRO-E corridor.

A study funded by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration found that over the next 25 years, 14.6 million households, which represent one-quarter of all new households, will likely be looking for housing in transit-dependent developments.

Electric Trains are feasible. Electrification costs $5 million per kilometer. The cost of electric rolling stock will not differ significantly from that of diesel, and there will be lower maintenance costs because the lighter equipment will cause less wear on infrastructure. Now is the ideal time for investment. The relative cost of financing, materials and equipment is at an all-time low due to our efforts to stimulate economic recovery. This is an advantage that cannot be expected 15 years from now. Furthermore, pollution increases generate secondary costs to our healthcare system and to our workforce, as well as lifelong impacts on the health of our children. Electrifying the corridor at a later date will mean higher costs and wasted public tax dollars. Given the serious negative impacts and unknown costs of diesel emissions on public health for the next 15-50 years, we cannot afford not to electrify now. Electric trains stimulate the economy. An investment in electrification of the systems now will stimulate Ontario’s electric train, technology and energy industries, creating green jobs. It will position Ontario's industries to capitalize on the move to electric rail that is happening in California and elsewhere in the United States.

Electric Trains will allow for the Transformation of the I-METRO-E corridor into many transit stations, create excellent TDD communities, allow for tremendous economic vitality and gives the transit users flexibility and mobility they never had before



JULY 2012

Vision of the Future – The Wind Runner and Metro B worth Looking at LOW COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND LOW COST TRAIN SETS
The 'Wind Chaser' design to be used in cities of less than 2.5 million people, where a full metro might not be required. The three-car prototype is 46.750 mm long with a capacity of 598 passengers, a service speed of 100 km/h and a top speed of 120 km/h. The cost of the low-speed maglev line was estimated at $50 million per kilometre, slightly more than light rail, but cheaper than the subway, which cost more than $300 million a kilometre. Maglev train is a new means of transport consisting of contactless electromagnetic levitation, orientation and drive system. With the further deepening of the trend of diversified technical development of China’s rail transit, low & medium-speed maglev rail transit technology, reputed as “land airplane”, has gradually been recognized by domestic and overseas customers as a representation of high technology for its technical advantages such as strong climbing capacity, small turning radius, low noise and absence of pollution. The train is powered by short-stator induction motor drives, with the primary windings mounted on 'flexible suspension frame modules' supporting the vehicles and a reaction plate attached to the guideway. Curves down to 100 m radius can be negotiated, and the elevated track is predicted to have a maintenance-free life of 30 years. The maglev is expected to be quieter in operation than a steel-wheeled metro trainset offering advantages in an urban environment, however, it would have a higher energy consumption than an equivalent conventional vehicle. Magnetic levitation transport, or maglev, is a modern form of transportation that suspends, guides and propels vehicles (especially trains) via electromagnetic force. Maglev systems represent a revolutionary transport innovation. At the same time, they can also function as a technology development platform (e.g., superconductors, new materials). They can, in certain cases, bring positive economic benefits through the optimization of spatial networking, travel time reduction and resource efficiency. A meaningful use of the technology also brings collective social advantages as well as a good image and prestige. The maglev line will consume more power than subways or light rail, though it produces less noise and needs less maintenance. They are studying the power supply of the maglev, and think this problem will be solved within the next 12-15 months. High-speed maglev vehicles can reach speeds of 450 km per hour and are usually used in long distance transportation, while low-speed (80-120km) maglev lines are usually used in short distance urban (metro) transportation.


JULY 2012



Future is Here – The Windrunner and Metro B worth looking at LOW COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND LOW COST Comparison
Formation Lenght (m) Speed (km/h) Capacity (person)

3-car 46.7 100-120 598

Metro (8 type)
3-car 60.2 80 910

Without gear box, bearing, no wear between wheel and rail, no replacement of wheel set, low cost of maintenance and operations Without rotary components in motor system, less failure rate, longer service life Except vehicle and guideways, maglev is similar to mass transit system, proven, quiet, quick, reliable, competitive, affordable and commercialized


Duration (year)
4 to 6

Cost per Kilometer
$78.9 - $110.6 station - $300 million $39.5 - $47.40 station - $10 million $28.4 - $36.4 station - $15 million


Light Rail Vehicle

3 to 5

Vehicle Guideway Power Supply Operation Bridge Station


1.5 to 2.5




JULY 2012

A Solution for The Last Mile:

Current state of the commercialized PRT industry, Oct-2011 This description has been prepared by the ATRA Industry Group, independently from ATRA PRT is an energy-efficient, electric, (typically) elevated transit system with many four-person vehicles. Working as circulator transit for job centers, airports, and universities, PRT has a higher average speed than a car. In these applications, PRT makes carpooling, light rail, commuter rail, and bus more effective, by solving the "last mile problem.“ The three established PRT manufacturers (with customers) are 2getthere, ULTra PRT, and Vectus. 2getthere has a system at Masdar City in Abu Dhabi featuring 1.1 miles of guideway, five stations, and 13 vehicles. ULTra PRT’s system at London Heathrow Airport has 2.4 miles of guideway, three stations, and 21 vehicles. 2getthere and ULTra PRT began passenger operation in late 2010. Vectus is implementing a system at Suncheon Bay, South Korea. This system is expected to open in 2013 with six miles of guideway and 40 vehicles. 2getthere and Vectus also offer automated transit with larger vehicles. Additionally, there are several startups working on PRT concepts, with a variety of speeds, passengers-per-vehicle, and infrastructure designs After decades of misperceptions on the capabilities of PRT, the operational PRT systems have sparked a renewed interest in PRT. The focus for new applications is no longer on the potential that the concept might have in the long run, but on the transit service it can provide now. Additional systems being procured include a two-mile, seven-station system for Amritsar’s Golden Temple tourist center in North India. PRT studies are underway in locations worldwide including San Jose, Raleigh, Minneapolis, Fort Carson Army Base, 18 locations in India, and multiple locations in Sweden. PRT combines low-cost infrastructure with compelling fare box and real-estate economics, to the point where Heathrow and Amritsar systems are financed solely by private sector sources. For PRT systems, a rule of thumb is “PRT infrastructure costs less than two percent of the value of land and buildings that are served.”


Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), sometimes known as "podcars", is an emerging premium transit concept for local areas. PRT employs automated, four-person vehicles traveling at a maximum speed of approximately 25 MPH on dedicated, narrow, one-way, elevated guideways that go over or under streets. PRT offers the promise of on-demand, express, non-stop, point-to-point travel. PRT excels where short walks to transit - and short waits for transit – are desirable. PRT systems can use very short stop spacing and much tighter turns than are possible with traditional rail transit, and these characteristics may allow for more stations and more transit-dependent development opportunities.

Vectus: Vehicle at test track in Uppsala,

JULY 2012



A Solution for The Last Mile:

Automated, four-person vehicles, that travel at about 25 MPH Dedicated, narrow, one-way guideways that go over/under streets On-demand, nonstop express travel between any two stations Provides premium circulator service for small areas


No schedules to learn -- vehicles travel nonstop directly from origin to desired station You don’t wait for PRT, PRT waits for you Personal service -- you only share your vehicle if you want to Congestion free: ride above the clogged streets below


Vehicles are separated from pedestrians Lightweight vehicles are silent and vibration free


Infrastructure capital cost: $10-$25m per mile (“all-in:” stations, vehicles, guideways, control system, commissioning). Much less expensive than other rail transit technology, but serves a complementary purpose Low operating costs (no drivers) Rapid erection: one mile of guideway per week

Ultra PRT: London Heathrow Station

2getthere: Masdar station


Guideway provides a sense of permanence Stops can be as close as 250 yards apart Creates opportunity for "mesh" or network Transit Dependent Development (TDD) Guideway can be moved and redeployed as an area evolves


Guideway can be colored/textured to blend visually with trees, buildings, and the pedestrian streetscape Narrow guideway, 7’ wide Much smaller turn radius allows vehicles to enter areas that rail cannot Stops can be placed inside buildings


"On-demand" operation -- vehicles run only to service actual demand Environmentally-friendly No point-of-use emissions

Ultra PRT: London Heathrow Vehicle

Vectus demonstrates robust operation



JULY 2012

Public Private Partnership model is gaining ground, as governments try to rope in the private sector to fund critical infrastructure development in several areas – energy, environment, transport and social infrastructure. Private lending in infrastructure has increased fivefold in the last 10 years. Investments in America are centered on upgrading or replacing aging infrastructure. New growth opportunities are coming to the fore in public utilities, transportation and in power solution to the world’s soaring energy needs and as an alternative to fossil fuels. Ontario Government needs to devise new financing programs for infrastructure development to address the challenges posed by growing urbanization. Fostering public private partnerships, need to ensure regulatory and legislative framework is conducive to attracting foreign investments. Ont Gov’t needs to attract investors, will have to demonstrate their capability of implementing good governance, their attractiveness for investors and its creditworthiness assessed by private capital markets depend on it. The public sector seeks innovative and affordable transit solutions, wishes to introduce private sector management and control technologies. Clients wish to reduce the risk adjusted whole life costs of the required rail infrastructure and intend to transfer project risks to the private sector where these may be managed more efficiently. Public sector budgets are constrained, but the need of rail transit solutions remains evident, private sector capital is needed. Projects that would have to be delayed may be implemented by using P3. Further, by engaging private sector capital, diligent risk analysis is conducted and thus further private sector efficiencies may be achieved. The I-METRO-E corridor is an excellent P3 opportunity possibility.


The public sector seeks off balance sheet financing in the case of government opinion that assets involved in P3s should be classified as non-government assets and therefore recorded off-balance sheet, if the private sector bears; • Construction risk • Availability risk • Demand risk

JULY 2012



Public-private partnerships address the following challenges faced by governments in managing large, complex capital infrastructure projects: • Lack of pricing of capital and risk: capital budgeting and execution is generally done with no reference to cost of capital. • Lack of capacity: there is an inability to develop and retain internal expertise to manage large projects. • Inadequate consideration of whole life-cycle costs: governments tend to manage the design, construction, operation and maintenance as separate processes, without considering the interactions between them. • Inadequate incentives and contractual discipline: contracts often do not includes sufficient incentives for scope and cost discipline; cost-based contracts can, In fact, create perverse incentives for contractors to encourage change orders and cost increases.

Most importantly, P3 projects require private sector capital to be at risk. The public sector pays only when the infrastructure is available and performs. This generally means that no payments are made until the infrastructure is built and a substantial portion is paid over the life of the asset, if it is properly maintained and performs. This “skin in the game” means that taxpayers are not on the financial hook for cost overruns, delays or any performance issues over the assets life. It also means that the profit motive is harnessed to ensure effective results. Finally, this requires the private sector to raise both equity and debt capital, meaning that there is substantial oversight by lenders and investors in both the upfront due diligence and project execution. This is a discipline that the public sector cannot match.

P3s work because they engage the expertise and innovation of the private sector and the discipline and incentives of capital markets to deliver public infrastructure projects.

The public sector’s core focus should be on the defining the output it wants (i.e., x liters of clean water, y traffic capacity). Leave it to the private sector to provide the most effective solution to deliver on those outputs.

P3s put into an integrated contract the entire life-cycle -- design, build and operate and maintain; this ensures that overall cost and risk is considered; for example, design takes into account of cost to build, maintain and operate and avoid white elephants

In general, P3s produce value for larger public infrastructure projects (they warrant the transaction costs and attract sufficient private sector interest) and for complex projects (the value of the risk transferred is higher than the incremental financing costs). However, P3s are not the solution in every case. P3s provide benefits but they also involve costs. The cost of private sector finance is higher than government borrowing, as it reflects risk adjusted returns. In addition, P3s involve transaction costs to structure (legal, financial). As a result, in order to ensure the best possible value for the taxpayer, a detailed value for money analysis is required to assess whether the costs exceed the benefits.

The private sector has the experience and expertise to deliver large projects. They bring innovation and learnings from other projects. Many Canadian and international firms have developed significant expertise developing and executing P3s, which can be employed for the benefit of taxpayers.



JULY 2012

The main advantage of public private partnerships is the creation of value for money, which is a collection of several factors. The most important value for money-drivers are the transfer of risk, the output based specification, the long-term nature of contracts, the performance measures, the increased competition and the private sector management. Other important advantages of public private partnerships are the quicker delivery of projects, the improved incentives to market forces, the cost efficiencies, the broad support for P3 and the improved cost calculations by the public sectors. The overall goal of P3 projects is to find solutions to problems in which the advantages of the private sector (such as financial assets, efficient management, propensity to innovative and entrepreneurship) are combined with the advantages of the public sector (such as social and environmental concern). When done right, P3 projects can be a very powerful tools to quickly construct new infrastructure facilities and operate them efficiently.

Canada Line is a rapid transit line in the Metro Vancouver region of British Columbia, Canada. Opened in August 2009, it is the third line in TransLink's SkyTrain metro network, servicing Vancouver, Richmond, and the Vancouver International Airport. It is coloured turquoise on route maps. The Canada Line comprises 19.2 kilometers (11.9 mi) of track; the main line goes from Vancouver to Richmond, while a 4 km (2.5 mi) spur line from Bridgeport Station connects to the airport. Originally scheduled to open on November 30, 2009, it opened fifteen weeks ahead of the original schedule, well in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in the following February. The Canada Line was anticipated to see 100,000 boarding's per day in 2013, and 142,000 boardings per day by 2021, but it has consistently exceeded early targets. Ridership has grown steadily since opening day, with average ridership of 83,000/day in September 2009; 105,000/day in March 2010, and 110,000/day in February 2011. During the 2010 Winter Olympics, the line's ridership increased a further 118 per cent to an average of 228,190 per day over the 17-day event. Governance of the project was through Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. (CLCO), formerly RAV Project Management Ltd. (RAVCO, a reflection of the original "Richmond-AirportVancouver" name). The line was built by SNC-Lavalin, which will also operate it for 35 years. The Canada Line is operationally independent from SkyTrain's Expo and Millennium lines, but is considered part of the SkyTrain network as it is also light metro rapid transit, using fully automated trains on grade-separated guideways. The Canada Line begins in Downtown Vancouver at Waterfront Station (0.0 km) in a cutand-cover subway tunnel beneath Granville Street. It quickly transitions into twin bored tunnels, heading southwest beneath Granville Street, then curving southeast to follow Davie Street through Yaletown. The tunnels then dive deeper to pass below False Creek before rising back up to Olympic Village Station (2.7km). There, the line transitions back to a cut-and-cover tunnel (which is noted by the tunnel going from being circular to square shaped) heading south under Cambie Street, some portions of which have the two sets of tracks stacked vertically on separate levels. The line finally emerges from the ground just south of 64th Avenue, climbing to an elevated guideway. The Canada Line was built as a public-private partnership. Funding was provided by both government agencies and a private partner, the proponent. As of March 2009, the entire project was expected to cost $2.054 billion. The premier of BC has furthermore stated that the project is on budget and ahead of schedule. When approved in December 2004 the cost was given as $1.76 billion. The public contributions to the budget comes from the following sources: Government of Canada: $ 450 million Government of British Columbia: $ 435 million Vancouver Airport Authority: $ 300 million TransLink: $ 334 million City of Vancouver: $ 29 million

JULY 2012

The private partner was expected to contribute $200 million, as well as being responsible for any construction cost overruns. As of November 7, 2009, InTransitBC has invested $750 million. InTransitBC is a joint venture company owned by SNC-Lavalin, the Investment Management Corporation of BC and the Caisse de Depot, Quebec



Tax increment financing is a public finance technique used by local government jurisdictions to fund infrastructure initiatives and stimulate economic development in designated geographic areas. TIFs work by leveraging future tax revenue increases to finance current infrastructure projects through the dedication of the incremental tax revenue between the assessed value of designated areas (“TIF zones”) prior to the development and its assessed value after the developments are completed. By doing this, future tax gains are leveraged to finance the present costs of eligible improvements in designated areas. The increment value available for funding the Project is determined by the difference between the baseline CVA and any increase in assessed valuations in the TIF (Shaded Yellow land area) zone solely attributable to the construction of the EglintonScarborough Crosstown and Sheppard Extension lines. The incremental CVA is made up of two components, each of which is highlighted in the estimate of potential TIF revenues: • the tax increment uplift in existing property values; and • the tax increment from new development in the TIF zones that has been accelerated and presumed to be incremental.


P3s are a long-term performance-based approach for procuring public infrastructure where the private sector assumes a major share of the responsibility in terms of risk and financing for the delivery and the performance of the infrastructure, from design and structural planning, to long-term maintenance.


Public owns facilities and maintains governance and enters into lease agreement with a private partner, which the P3 industry refers to as “concession agreements.” The private partner accepts the responsibilities and risks of the design, construction, financing and maintenance aspects of the Project. In return, the private partner will receIve periodic lease payments, based on performance. Lease payment to private partner would be lower than if project were partially financed/operated by the agency. This model is neither a sale of assets, nor a privatization. City retains ownership of all assets.



Development charges are one-time, upfront fees levied on land development projects by the City in an effort to help fund the costs of capital infrastructure (e.g., roads, transit, sewers, emergency medical services, etc.) required to service growth. These charges are applied to all new developments within City limits and the revenues flow directly to the City. The City has already implemented a similar arrangement to help fund the Spadina line and it has been assumed that the Project will benefit from the same special treatment afforded by the Province with respect to the Development Charges Act as the TYSSE in terms of being exempted from the historical service cap and the 10% statutory reduction for transit projects.

Public owns facilities and maintains governance, enters into lease agreement with a private entity that is responsible for operations, maintenance, financing, and construction. TIF, DC and other revenue tools are “assigned” to the private partner over a defined period for use in raising private financing; • revenue tools are assumed to be transferred to the private sector. Private sector accepts the responsibilities and risks of the design, construction, financing and maintenance aspects of the Project. • As with P3 availability payment model, this model is neither a sale of assets, nor a privatization. City retains ownership of all assets.


Under the traditional delivery method, the design, governance, operations and management remains with the public sector. The City would be responsible for procurement of build/construction firms and implementing revenue tools to pay for the costs of construction during the construction period.


This is an economy and jobs issue. The Federal and Provincial Government should be partners in the high-speed rail transit infrastructure needs for Toronto and Greater Toronto Area to ensure competitiveness with other jurisdiction around the world. The Federal and Provincial Government should be prepared to contribute a significant portion of the HST on the sale of the condos to the I-METRO-E project until the I-METRO-E capital debt is retired.



JULY 2012




Major technological investments in tunnel-building were amortized early and over large projects resulting in more efficient use of major capital equipment (e.g. expensive tunnel boring machines).

The “gateway” approach taken in Madrid suggests that interchange points can have a primarily transportation role. Moreover, they help to create an environment where parallel urban intensification can occur and transportation-supportive revenues can be derived from those collateral benefits. Transport infrastructure projects can be divided easily into manageable parts. Each section of the project can be designed simultaneously and all construction contracts can be awarded simultaneously, so that any manageable contract worth up to (euro)150 million, for example, can be completed within three years. Even enormous tunneling projects such as the Channel Tunnel have been excavated in this timescale. Therefore, provided that funds are available, any lineal project such as a metro can be designed and built in 40 to 45 months, as we have demonstrated. Re-evaluate the Yonge Street extension E/A to look at tunneling deeper, avoiding all the obstacles just below the road and reducing costs. Station architecture is an important factor, too. It should never be handed over to worldrenowned architects. A transport project is a serious engineering work that should not be confused with a museum or an emblematic building for a city. Several million passengers/ day may move through metro stations, so their design must take into account this fact by giving easy access from the street to the trains, via wide escalators and corridors and shallow station platforms. Design should be centered on the needs of the users, and not on the beauty of the design, the materials, or the name of the architect. Interestingly, the Madrid public transportation (subway) infrastructure achievements (1995-2007) were financed by a level of investment (C$10.7B) similar to the value of the Ontario Government’s own-share commitment to Move Ontario 2020 (C$11.5B). In just twelve years, that level of investment in Madrid produced nearly 150 kms. of subway lines and 120 subway stations, at a per kilometre cost of less than C$90M/km. Although political and managerial credit for the success and popularity of Madrid’s transit plan was shared by the Mayor of Madrid and political leadership of the regional transportation authority, the intellectual credit for the initial scheme and its overall delivery was universally attributed to an internationally renowned Madrid engineering professor, Dr. Manuel (Manolo) J. Melis (Maynar), who is Professor of Railways at the Madrid Politechnical University (and Professor of Soil Mechanics at Coruna University) and who also now serves as the President of the Madrid Metro (subway system). Madrid’s approach to construction and environmental impacts avoided many of the commercially and socially disruptive aspects of conventional engineering practices. To avoid adverse impacts on neighborhoods and commercial enterprises, as well as to avoid buried utilities and structural foundations, tunnel-boring was done at a very deep level. Deep tunnels also permitted the subway system (Metro) to intersect more easily with established lines above and below the new tunnel alignment, including both subterranean urban regional rail lines (GO equivalent) and other subway lines. These measures combined to create an atmosphere of sustained, predictable investment in public infrastructure, especially in the field of transportation, and competitive, economiesof-scale practices in the construction industry and in project financing. Need to cut costs by 2/3 for metros per km and deliver 15-20 kms a year of subways. An expert management team required to deliver 150-250 kms of below/above grade metro subway systems in the next 10 years.

A culture and practice of practical on-site, non-hierarchical construction issue-resolution seemed to reduce Spain’s costs of pre-engineering and client’s engineering oversight. Being able to rely on these practices on an on-going basis seemed to contribute to better bid prices and more efficient resolution of disagreements that would otherwise produce project delays and additional costs.


Alternative financing techniques figured prominently in the rapid and extensive construction of regional and interurban expressways, often using a toll-road format or joint-investment / jointbenefits model for “hubs” and transit lines.


Linking of construction “promises” to specific municipal terms. Each major program of construction was organized in a fashion that allowed municipal leaders to specify the intended cost and completion targets for their projects, and to be held accountable for that implementation performance at the end of the term of each council.


If the private sector knows its financial contribution is a pre-condition to advancing a crucial or potentially attractive transportation project, they will participate financially.

Measures that included the use of innovative technology (automatic train control, fully automated operation), efficient design features (parallel platform-side doors) or enhanced value-capture often contributed to the general success of these ventures.


Initial, dramatic upswing in ridership across the metropolitan area came about as a result of the new regional authority introducing a low-cost, universal zoned-fare system, employing an integrated fare card.

JULY 2012



CityVal is a medium capacity, fully automated system designed to improve flexibility, performance, and efficiency. CityVal smartly inserts into city architecture, permits modularity of 1-6 car trains and can carry up to 30,000 pphpd Maximum passenger comfort & safety. CityVal provides the Operator with an ability to adapt real time traffic to actual traffic demands.



JULY 2012

• • • • • • • • • • Main task is generate interest from multiple stakeholders, including the private sector I-METRO-E can be implemented with minimal capital investment compared to other projects, stakeholder interest should be high. I-METRO-E is ready for Development and redevelopment Existing Population and the potential population growth over the 25-30 years along this line supports I-METRO-E Developing the business case to move forward on the I-METRO-E concept Incorporate the I-METRO-E in Markham’s Strategic Transportation Strategy Work with Toronto Council and various stakeholders Do comprehensive station and land use planning studies to identify the strategy for growth for the next 50 years to support the I-METRO-E line concept Hire a world class transit dependant development planner with experience in developing and implementing multiple transit communities along an urban transit express line Plan all proposed rail transit communities for full build-out on 407-Transitway, Peterborough and I-METRO-E lines and before Markham completes their Official Plan Update

Business Adamson IBI ARUP Delcan Lang Marketing Bombardier Siemens Torti Gallas and Partners Morrissey Consulting Powerstream Peter Calthorpe & Associates Siemens Canada Ltd. AECOM Carillion Financial Remington Tridel Markham Development Corp King Square Cadillac Fairview Green Park Loblaws Metrus Daniels Group Condor LEA Consultant Ltd. Malone Given Parsons Markham Centre Development Government City of Toronto Town of Markham Region of York Province of Ontario Federal Government Metrolinx – GO-Transit TTC George Brown College Government of Canada

JULY 2012



• • • • Additional stations need be considered where cross town bus lines are travelling eliminating the need for huge bus terminal requirements and eliminate deadheading from the bus transit route Transit Dependent Development (TDD) Integrated Community design – strive for net zero in energy, emissions and waste – LEEDs Platinum Communities Ensure the Metrolinx E/A incorporates the planning and Design of TDD communities All Grade Separations should be incorporated into TDD communities • (Subway stations costs $300 million plus while grade separations cost between $10-25 million. There are exceptions – like Steeles Avenue) • lowering the profile of the grade separation (i.e. sinking the track) or removing the double deck GO-Train cars of this track • Technology – DMU/DEMU, Electric or Maglev on this corridor • Electrifying the Stouffville I-METRO-E line is a high priority Use holistic planning approach for economic development and the rail transit requirements Operational within 1-2 years by twinning sections of the track and use lay byes techniques Interfacing with existing and planned subway stops – Sheppard, Eglinton, Bloor, Downtown Relieve Subway Line, 407 Rail Transitway, Lakeshore GO-Line Lakeshore GO-Station & Union Station considerations Investigate technology – trains, intelligent grid management and RFID fare system similar to your cell phone/407 transponder (Octopus Fare Collection System in Hong Kong) • Seamless Intelligent Transit Grid Network Systems – need track standardization • Integrated regional fare collection system • RFID Integrating Fares and Parking – Basic and distance charging system • Labor dependencies and inefficiencies out of the system • GTA Economic benefits of a seamless integrated grid network systems Consider P3 Financing model (need the best economic, technical and financial solution) Implications and benefits of Offloading the Yonge Subway • Economic Benefits, local and GTA wide • CO2, Climate Change, global warming effects • Energy integration solutions and savings • Reduction of vehicle kilometers travelled • Maybe not the urgency for platform improvements at Bloor & Yonge, Avenue Road & Bloor Planning “China City” at Steeles/Kennedy as a major destination stop – Integrating Nodal City Designations Getting through Unionville …. 4 grade separations are needed Question is do we stop at Main Street Unionville? Townhall 2012 Lecture Series on Transit Dependent Development to the public 3-5 day Transit and Transit Dependent Development Charrette Last Mile planning considerations like PRT Business Case justification of moving forward on “I-METRO-E” plan • • • Tie in Buttonville development in the “I-METRO-E” The Big MOVE 2020 Plan - needs to be re-evaluated: • For the LRT down McCowan Road to Scarborough Town Centre • For VIVA BRT route from Unionville Hub to the Sheppard Subway Station Need Markham to plan all their TDD Communities and Stations • Major MacKenize Green Park /Town of Markham • Mount Joy Green Park/Town of Markham • 16th Avenue Green Park/Town of Markham • Main Street Markham Town of Markham • Centennial - McCowan Cadillac Fairview/Town of Markham • Highway 7 Times Development/Town of Markham • Markham Centre Town of Markham • 14th Avenue Remington Group/ Metrus /Town of Markham • Denison/Kennedy Road Remington Group/Town of Markham • Steeles Avenue Town of Markham/City of Toronto Need to gear our approach to the economy and job creation Environment - need to plan the best solutions and then mitigate the environment Plan stations – land use, design, seamless integration for users and transit infrastructure Seamless transit use interfaces to the streets (buses and other rail transit lines) Principle of connection and mobility for the transit users Respect transit user’s travel time Need to video tape the existing line for reference purposes Need to develop a I-METRO-E Line model I-METRO-E Line is ready for Development or to be re-developed Develop all Costing and revenue projections for the Stouffville line Involving Markham and Toronto Councils and staff working together • Need a political steering committee made up of York Region/Markham and Toronto Politicians (including MPPs and MPs) Need to examine role of GO-Transit /Municipal Transit Systems • Toronto turned their back on GO-lines (not their fault – Ontario Government focused on Union Station for the surrounding regions Need to upgrade and modernize the E/A process for Transit …. must be more open, transparent, include TTD , financial justification and educational process Goal is planning and designing for a 80% modal split once the grid concept is fully implemented across the GTA Funding methodology needs to be standardized Environmental Assessment process needs to be open &educate the public with subject matter experts

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • •