RER New Stations Initial Business Case BRESLAU STATION. Kitchener Corridor. July Draft

Transcription

1 RER New Stations Initial Business Case BRESLAU STATION Kitchener Corridor July 2016 Draft

2 Draft: v1.2 Metrolinx RER New Stations Initial Business Case BRESLAU Draft Prepared by: IBI Group 55 St. Clair Ave W. Toronto, ON MV4 2Y7 Prepared for: Metrolinx 97 Front Street West Toronto, ON M5J 1E6

3 RER New Stations Initial Business Case June 2016 Note to the reader: The Initial Business Case (IBC) represents a primary input into the evaluation and recommendation of New Stations. Final recommendation of new station site selection considers, in addition to the four cases of the IBC, network fit, and other strategic considerations including priorities of the various levels of government. Network fit addresses system-wide issues and impact on the overall performance of the rail corridor. IBC results do not represent the final recommendations of the GO RER New Stations Evaluation process. IBC results inform the process outlined in the GO RER New Stations Summary and Ranking Report, which is to be posted in the near future. For more information visit: The final list of recommended stations is included in the June 28, 2016 GO Regional Express Rail Update report to Metrolinx Board of Directors. 97 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E6 97, rue Front Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5J 1E6

4

5 Executive Summary Purpose of Initial Business Case (IBC) Studies Recent provincial planning and policy initiatives call for significant operational changes in GO rail services in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Regional Express Rail (RER) program will bring more train trips to every GO rail corridor, including increased weekday rush-hour and non-rush hour periods, evenings and weekends, and electric trains running every 15 minutes or better, all day and in both directions, within the most heavily travelled sections of the network. To address considerations emerging from the RER program, the City of Toronto s SmartTrack plan and other transit initiatives, Metrolinx initiated an examination of potential new station locations across the seven existing GO rail corridors. New stations should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, financial (affordability), economic, and operational and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base users. An initial identification of over 120 potential station sites was narrowed to 56 through a high-level evaluation of transport connectivity, planning and land use and technical feasibility. The 56 potential locations were then evaluated against 38 criteria and nine key criteria, yielding 24 sites on corridors that are subject to major infrastructure investment as part of the RER programme, to be examined in more detail using an initial business case (IBC) evaluation. The IBC uses a four-case structure with 34 criteria to evaluate potential new stations; Strategic, Financial, Economic, and Deliverability and Operations. Potential Breslau Station, Kitchener GO Rail Line This IBC report evaluates a potential Breslau station on the Kitchener GO rail line within the Township of Woolwich. The proposed station site is located approximately 1 kilometre (km) east of the Village of Breslau at Greenhouse Road, on lands that are part of a new subdivision proposed by Thomasfield Homes Ltd. The Georgetown to Kitchener Rail Expansion Environmental Assessment (EA) undertaken in 2009 identified this site as the preferred location for a potential station. The 4.6 hectare (ha) station site is currently vacant and designated Urban Area by the Township of Woolwich Official Plan and Proposed GO Station by the Breslau Secondary Plan. The Secondary Plan area is intended to accommodate a range of low to medium density residential and non-residential uses. Half of the lands within 800 metres (m) of the potential station will remain undeveloped as they are either designated Environmental Protection or they are outside of the Urban Settlement Boundary and designated Rural. The Breslau station is intended to serve large catchment area which covers portions of Waterloo Region and Wellington County. The preliminary Breslau station concept plan prepared for this IBC is largely based on the station layout from the 2009 EA. It includes two side platforms, a main station building, a secondary station entrance, a passenger pickup/drop-off (PPUDO) area, a surface parking lot with 1,000 spaces and a bus loop. Consultation with Grand River Transit will be necessary to determine if and how to integrate future local transit into the Breslau station site. The primary vehicular access is proposed at the north end of the station site where it connects into Street A of the proposed subdivision. A secondary vehicular access is proposed at the east end of the station site, requiring a southerly extension of Greenhouse Road. There may be opportunities to provide additional connections between the station and future development to the north and west. Summary of IBC Findings The IBC found that a Breslau station supports most of the Strategic, Financial, Economic and Operations and Deliverability Case criteria for new stations. The positive results, which include partial capital cost recovery, full

6 operating cost recovery and positive benefit-cost ratios, are largely attributed to the anticipated ridership levels, vehicle operating cost savings and decongestion on the road network. 1 The station is well-positioned to attract new customers to the Kitchener GO rail line, including future residents of the proposed transit-oriented development (TOD) in Breslau and other residents of the Township of Woolwich and adjacent municipalities who are not currently using GO because of the lack of parking at the Kitchener and Guelph stations. Details from the Case evaluations are provided below and a summary of the results can be found in Table ES-1. Summary of Strategic Case Evaluation The initial Strategic Case evaluation of the conformance of a potential Breslau station to long-term policy and planning objectives found: The station conforms to broad provincial, regional and local transportation and planning policies and aligns with the Township of Woolwich s vision for where growth and new rapid transit should be located; The anticipated future density of between 30 to 45 people and jobs per ha within 800 m of the station is below the minimum density target for Regional Rail identified in the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines for the GTHA, but the station is intended to serve a large catchment area; The station has no connections to high-order transit and currently there is no local transit in Breslau. The proposed TOD development will facilitate walking, cycling and PPUDO; and The station is anticipated to accommodate 1,034 daily trips by 2031, with approximately 85% of these trips being net new trips to the Kitchener GO rail line. Summary of Financial Case Evaluation The initial Financial Case evaluation of the financial viability of the Breslau station over a 60-year time horizon found the station would generate: A negative net present value (NPV) of -$36.3 million, which combines the capital costs and annual station and train operating costs and weighs these costs against fare revenue; A revenue-to-cost ratio of 0.58; and An operating cost recovery ratio of Summary of Economic Case Evaluation The initial Economic Case evaluation of the net economic benefits of a Breslau station to transportation users and society as a whole over a 60-year time horizon found the station would generate: A positive NPV of $390.1 million; A benefit-to-cost ratio of 6.0; and Time travel savings and other benefits such as a reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT), vehicle operating cost savings, decongestion on the road network, improved safety and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Summary of Deliverability and Operations Case Evaluation The initial Deliverability and Operations Case evaluation of the constructability of a Breslau station and its impacts on GO operations found: No complications anticipated with the acquisition of the station lands; Track geometry and alignment will need to be adjusted for the station but minimal constraints to the design and configuration of the station are anticipated; 1 Source: Metrolinx (May 3, 2016) Potential RER Stations Benefits Model with IBI Group inputs, V3.3.

7 Spacing between a new Breslau station and the adjacent Kitchener and Guelph stations is assumed to be appropriate for existing and future train technology, based on the outcome of the 2009 EA; Sufficient room appears to exist within the right-of-way to add a mainline track if necessary for a VIA trains to bypass a GO train stopping at the station; and A review of EA compliance should be carried out to determine whether or not an EA amendment is required.

8 Deliverability and Operational Case Economic Case Financial Case Strategic Case RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau draft Table ES-1. IBC Case Evaluation Results Criteria Summary Policy Alignment Supportive Development Potential and Intensification Neutral Real Estate Market Demand Supportive Natural Environment Supportive Operational System Supportive Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Neutral Station Access Supportive Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Neutral Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) 22.3 Fare Revenue (A) $50.7 Total Costs (B) $86.9 Capital Costs $77.4 Operating Costs (C) $9.6 Net Present Value (A-B) -$36.3 Revenue to Cost Recovery Ratio (A/B) 0.58 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) 5.29 Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person-Hours) 2.4 Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) 1,302.0 Benefits $467.6 Costs $77.5 Net Present Value $390.1 Benefit-Cost Ratio 6.0 Transportation User Impacts $463.4 Travel Time Savings $18.9 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $310.1 Decongestion on Road Network $100.8 Safety Impacts $33.7 Environmental Impacts $4.2 Constructability Supportive Stakeholder Impacts Supportive Room for Growth Supportive Approval/Permits Required Supportive Operating Impacts Supportive Other Key Risks and Impacts Supportive (Impacts over a 60-year period. Millions of 2015 $ Present Value, unless otherwise noted)

9 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Introduction Background Report Scope and Purpose Site Options and Scenarios Analyzed Cluster Screening Methodology Station Context and Concept Plan Strategic Case Strategic Case Summary Approach Rationale for a New Station Problem Statement Drivers for Change Station Objectives Constraints and Interdependencies Stakeholders Policy, Land Use and Development Policy Alignment Development Potential and Intensification Real Estate Market Demand Natural Environment Network, Connectivity, and Accessibility Operational System Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Station Access Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios Financial Case Financial Case Summary Approach Financial Criteria Capital Costs Station Operating and Maintenance Costs Incremental Train Operating Costs Incremental Fare Revenues Revenues from Other Sources Net Present Value Pa g e

10 5.3.7 Lifecycle Revenue to Cost Ratio Operating Cost Recovery Ratio Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios Economic Case Economic Case Summary Approach Economic Criteria Project Costs Capital Costs Station Operating and Maintenance Costs Incremental Train Operating Costs Transportation User Impacts Travel Time Savings Vehicle Kilometres Travelled Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Decongestion Impacts on Road Network Safety Impacts Environmental Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions Benefit-Cost Analysis Results Net Present Value Benefit-Cost Ratio Economic Development Impacts Wider Economic Benefits Economic Impacts Income / Distributional Impacts Property and Land Value Changes Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios Deliverability and Operations Case Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Approach Deliverability and Operations Criteria Constructability Stakeholder Impacts Room for Growth Approvals/Permits Required Operating Impacts Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenarios Conclusions and Findings Appendix A: Criteria Ranges Appendix B: Travel Time Savings Analysis Introduction Analysis Framework Assumptions Appendix C: Financial and Economic Case Baseline Assumptions... 49

11 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Potential Breslau Station Context Map... 2 Figure 2-1: Site Context around Potential Breslau Station... 5 Figure 3-1: Preliminary Breslau Station Concept Plan... 8 Figure 3-2: Station Property Requirements for the Potential Breslau Station... 9 Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use Permissions Surrounding Breslau Station Figure 4-2: Current Development Applications and Potential Soft Sites Figure 4-3: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Transportation Infrastructure Figure 4-4: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Active Transportation Infrastructure List of Tables Table 1-1: Initial Business Case Scenario Options for Potential Stations... 3 Table 4-1: Strategic Case Summary Results Table 4-2: Level of Conformity to Provincial, Regional and Local Land Use and Transportation Policy Table 4-3: Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios Table 5-1: Financial Case Summary Results (60-Year Period) Table 5-2: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (60-year period) Table 5-3: Additional Ridership and Fare Revenue (60-Year Period) Table 5-4: Financial Cost Sensitivity Scenario Table 6-1: Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (60-year period) Table 6-2: Travel Time Impacts (60 year period) Table 6-3: Changes in Auto Distances Traveled (60 year period) Table 6-4: Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios Table 7-1: Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Results Table 7-2: Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenario Table 8-1: IBC Case Evaluation Results... 42

12 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Recent provincial planning and policy initiatives call for significant operational changes in GO rail services in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Regional Express Rail (RER) program will bring more train trips to every GO rail corridor, including increased weekday rush-hour and non-rush hour periods, evenings and weekends, and electric trains running every 15 minutes or better, all day and in both directions, within the most heavily travelled sections of the network. To address considerations emerging from the RER program, the City of Toronto s SmartTrack plan and other transit initiatives, Metrolinx initiated an examination of potential new station locations across the seven existing GO rail corridors. New stations should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, financial (affordability), economic, and operational and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base users. To address considerations emerging from the RER program, the City of Toronto s SmartTrack plan and other transit initiatives, Metrolinx initiated an examination of potential new station locations across the seven existing GO rail corridors. New stations should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, financial (affordability), economic, and operational and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base users. An initial identification of over 120 potential station sites was narrowed to 56 through a high-level evaluation of transport connectivity, planning and land use and technical feasibility. The 56 potential locations were then evaluated against 38 criteria and nine key criteria, yielding 24 sites on corridors that are subject to major infrastructure investment as part of the RER programme, to be examined in more detail using an initial business case (IBC) evaluation. This IBC assesses a potential Breslau station within the Township of Woolwich, on the Kitchener GO rail line. The 4.6 hectare (ha) station site is located at approximately one kilometre (km) east of the Village of Breslau. The vacant lands are designated Proposed GO Station by the Breslau Secondary Plan and are part of a proposed transitoriented development (TOD) that is intended to accommodate 2,535 people and 2,830 jobs at full build-out. The station would also draw from a large catchment area and help address the lack of parking at the Kitchener and Guelph stations. 1.2 Report Scope and Purpose The scope of this IBC is to develop a high-level justification of the effectiveness of the potential Breslau station on the Kitchener GO rail corridor. This report provides an initial overview of how the station would contribute towards meeting Metrolinx s and other provincial, regional and local planning objectives (Strategic Case), the financial and economic performance of the station (Financial and Economics Cases), and deliverability and operational considerations (Deliverability and Operations Case). The IBC looks at how this single new station would perform when added to the existing GO network; combinations of potential new stations have not been reviewed at this stage. 1

13 The findings of this report will be compared against the findings of IBCs for other potential new stations to determine the relative performance of station options across the network, which would support recommendations on which stations should proceed toward nearer-term implementation. 1.3 Site Options and Scenarios Analyzed One site option for a potential Breslau station was considered in this IBC. The proposed station site is located on the north side of the rail corridor to avoid environmentally sensitive features to the south and west of Greenhouse Road. Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of the potential Breslau station on the Kitchener GO rail line. Options may exist to locate the station east of Greenhouse Road, but the location considered in this IBC reflects the preferred location for a potential station identified in the Georgetown to Kitchener Rail Expansion Environmental Assessment (EA) undertaken in 2009 and municipal planning documents. The Breslau Secondary Plan, which shows a potential GO station at Greenhouse Road, was recently approved. Thomasfield Homes has also submitted a Draft Plan of Subdivision application which identifies the same lands for a potential GO station. The potential Breslau station has been the subject of previous Metrolinx station studies. It was one of the 50+ station locations with supportive infrastructure investment brought forward for more detailed IBC evaluation. The RER New station Location Evaluation (2015) exercise considered rated the potential station as: High: travel time savings, construction affordability, ease of construction; Medium: policy alignment; and Low: connectivity and ridership, market potential, and development potential. 2 Figure 1-1: Potential Breslau Station Context Map Potential station Existing GO stations Planned GO stations 2 The 2015 RER New Station Location Evaluation considered a potential Breslau station at Fountain Street. 2

14 Table 1-1 shows the five sensitivity scenarios that are being considered with the RER New Stations IBCs. One main scenario, Option 1 (One New Station) with a 2E sensitivity has been analyzed in this IBC. As further detailed in Sections 4 through 7 of this report, only a situation similar to the 2D sensitivity may impact a potential Breslau station. Table 1-1: Initial Business Case Scenario Options for Potential Stations Scenario Options Description Base Case Scenario (Do Nothing) RER Network based on RER IBC Scenario 5.1 infrastructure and service levels; No new stations; No fare integration (existing fare policies); and 2031 ridership grown from 2013 population and employment. Scenario Option 1 (One New Station) RER Network based on RER IBC Scenario 5.1 infrastructure and service levels; One new station with 2 minute schedule impact; All trains stop at new station; Existing fare policies; and 2031 ridership grown from 2013 population and employment. Scenario Option 2A (Service Concept Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2B (Track Infrastructure Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Potential site-specific modifications to service concept (e.g. all train stop at the station). Additional of fifth track on Lakeshore East to Scarborough Junction. Additional delay identified at specific locations due to local context or track configuration. Scenario Option 2D (Fare Sensitivity) TTC-GO fare parity at stations in Toronto for trips fully within Toronto, including free transfers with bus, streetcar and subway. Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and Land Use Sensitivity) 2031 approved population/employment projections plus major development proposals. 3

15 2. Cluster Screening 2.1 Methodology For some GO rail lines, clusters of potential site options have been identified where the catchment area of individual sites of interest may overlap. In some cases, certain site options can be dropped early prior to detailed consideration in the IBC. The potential Breslau station site is the only site assessed in this IBC and as such a cluster screening was not performed. Figure 2-1 illustrates the context around the potential Breslau station. 4

16 Figure 2-1: Site Context around Potential Breslau Station 5

17 3. Station Context and Concept Plan The concept plan for the potential Breslau station is intended to provide insight on the site footprint, land requirements, station amenities, capital and operating costs, impact on operations and the overall feasibility of a station at this location. The preliminary concept plan was developed based on a desktop review of available aerial photography. Technical data such as topographic mapping and alignment of existing mainline tracks were unavailable at the time of preparing this IBC report. Consequently, additional analysis of the site conditions is required in order to confirm the feasibility of the station concept. As noted, the proposed station site is located on the north side of the rail corridor to avoid environmentally sensitive features to the south and west of Greenhouse Road. The preliminary concept plan for the potential Breslau station largely reflects the station concept from the 2009 EA, with some minor modifications. As shown in Figure 3-1, the concept includes: Two side platforms (with space for two additional RER tracks between the active tracks); A main station building; A secondary station access building; Three platform access points; Multi-modal site access points; A bus loop; A pick-up/drop-off (PPUDO) area; A 1,000-space surface parking lot; and Bicycle shelters. The 2009 EA adopted the standard GO Transit planning approach of identifying and protecting for a bus loop as part of the station functional requirement, if there is room for it. The EA assumed eight bus bays which reflected planning principles for GO rail stations at that time. Consultation with Grand River Transit will be necessary to determine if and how to integrate future local transit into the Breslau station site. As detailed in the EA and the Draft Plan of Subdivision application prepared by Thomasfield Homes, a southern extension of Greenhouse Road is required for the future development and the potential Breslau station. The Official Plan and Secondary Plan do not depict Greenhouse Road extending beyond the rail corridor and as such the station concept plan treats the intersection accordingly. If the potential Breslau station is to protect for the further extension of Greenhouse Road across the rail corridor, the type of crossing (at-grade, rail overpass or road overpass) would inform whether a setback from the roadway is necessary. While there is no standard within the Metrolinx Design Requirements Manual (DRM) that speaks to offset distance between the end of a platform and an at-grade crossing, 85m has been identified as a minimum. Separation and setback will need to be determined as part of future station planning and analysis. Two vehicular access points to the potential station are shown; one from the extended Greenhouse Road and the other to Street A of the proposed subdivision. The primary station building is located in the middle of the site in order to cater to both of the site access points. The Greenhouse Road access point contains a multi-use path, vehicular access as well as a dedicated bus lane leading to a bus loop. There is a bike parking shelter and a secondary station building that caters to pedestrian and cyclist users accessing the station from Greenhouse Road. The Street A access point contains two vehicular entry lanes and two vehicular egress lanes. There is potential for a multi-use path or cycle track at this entry point, depending on the ultimate configuration and development of the 6

18 subdivision. There is also potential for a multi-use path to extend from the west end of the station site to nearby residential areas. The potential Breslau station is located south of a wetland (Block 70), but it is separated by a 30 m buffer. The Draft Plan of Subdivision has allocated 2.7 ha west of the potential station for stormwater management (SWM) and mitigation against flooding originating from Hopewell Creek. The station concept plan does show a SWM pond, the necessity of which can be confirmed once the planned capacity of the SWM facilities intended serve the future TOD is determined. Figure 3-2 illustrates the land requirements for the potential Breslau station. The 4.6 ha lands are currently vacant. They are primarily designated Proposed GO Station by the Breslau Secondary Plan and the station site is shown on the Draft Plan of Subdivision. 7

19 Figure 3-1: Preliminary Breslau Station Concept Plan NOTE: conceptual design to be used for IBC evaluation purposes only. It illustrates one potential alternative that may be feasible on this site. The preferred station layout should be determined in consultation with internal and external Metrolinx stakeholders including municipalities. Station location and layout is subject to further feasibility analysis, environmental assessment, and design development. 8

20 Figure 3-2: Station Property Requirements for the Potential Breslau Station 9

21 RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau - draft 4. Strategic Case 4.1 Strategic Case Summary The Strategic Case evaluation found that a potential Breslau station supports five of the criteria for new stations (i.e. policy alignment, real estate market demand, natural environment, operational system, and station access) and is partially supportive or neutral for the other criteria. Table 4-1 summarizes the key findings of the Strategic Case evaluation. See Appendix A for an explanation of the criteria ranking approach. Table 4-1: Strategic Case Summary Results Strategic Case Criteria Policy Alignment Development Potential and Intensification Real Estate Market Demand Natural Environment Operational System Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Station Access Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Breslau Station conforms to provincial, regional and municipal transportation and land use policies, and aligns with the Breslau Secondary Plan. If the Thomasfield Homes subdivision is fully developed the density will not quite meet the meet minimum target for Regional Rail, but the station is intended to serve a large catchment area. Surrounding lands are largely rural and agricultural. High demand exists in Waterloo Region for residential development. No impact anticipated on natural heritage features. Adequate spacing between Kitchener and Guelph stations. No duplication of service. Estimated daily boardings: 1,034 (2031) Estimated net new daily boardings: 882 (2031) No direct connections to higher order transit. Area not currently served by local transit. Station would be accessible by all modes of transportation. Higher than average household incomes within local area. No existing low-income or social housing. 4.2 Approach The Strategic Case sets out the rationale for adding a new Breslau station, making the case for change at a policy and long-term planning level. It sets out the problem statement defining the station rationale, explains the objectives that are to be achieved, and outlines constraints or interdependencies that must be considered with this new station. The strategic policy context and the fit with wider public policy objectives are also explained. Other key criteria include relationship to market demand, social and environmental impacts, network connectivity and ridership. 10

22 RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau - draft 4.3 Rationale for a New Station The following criteria explore reasoning for implementing a new Breslau station; including how it could help address existing problems/challenges with the Kitchener GO rail line, drivers for change with respect to transit, stationspecific objectives, potential constraints and interdependencies and impacts on key stakeholders Problem Statement New stations should improve access to and egress from the GO rail network and meet strategic, affordability, economic, and deliverability objectives without significantly compromising the regional service objectives of GO and its base of users on opening day. Opportunities specific to the potential Breslau station include: An opportunity to address lack of parking at the Kitchener and Guelph stations; Support for improved network connectivity; Providing improved access to rapid transit for residents and workers in the Township of Woolwich and the larger Waterloo Region; and Facilitating TOD and local town plans Drivers for Change Several external and internal regional drivers for change exist for potential new GO stations across the network and a new station in Breslau: Recent investments in new transit infrastructure, including GO RER and Waterloo Region ION LRT, are increasing the capacity of the transit network and providing new rapid transit options within Waterloo Region and the GTHA; Congestion on roads and highways throughout Southern Ontario, which is expected to worsen as the region continues to grow and as opportunities for road and highway expansion are increasingly limited; Demographic changes and shifts within the region, including a younger generation that has a higher tendency to seek housing within proximity to transit and use a car less frequently, aging baby boomers who may not be able to drive as much as they used to, and people seeking more affordable housing either in more suburban car dependant areas or less sought after areas; The need for increased peak and off-peak capacity provided by the GO RER program to be matched with increased ridership so that the program s benefits can be realized. This increase in ridership will require an expansion of the travel market for the GO network from peak-period 905-to-Union travel to include more offpeak, contra-peak, and non-union travel, including increased travel within Southern Ontario and the GTHA and between the 905 and suburban and downtown shoulder areas of Toronto; and Stakeholder support for a Breslau station, with the Township recently approving a Secondary Plan for Breslau that identifies a potential GO station, and the recommendations of the 2009 EA Station Objectives The implementation of a new station should meet the following objectives: Improve service and add riders; Minimize impact on trip time for existing customers; Maintain appropriate station spacing for the vehicle technology; Support existing regional and municipal plan; and 11

23 RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau - draft Consider the different roles and needs of each location (e.g. adapt to the urban or suburban context) Constraints and Interdependencies The strategic, economic, financial, and operational performance of this potential Breslau station is affected by a number of constraints and interdependencies with other initiatives: The inclusion of other new stations will affect the ridership potential at this station. The additional travel time caused by the additional stops may decrease ridership between this station and other existing stations, while the additional potential origin-destination pairs served by this station and other new stations may increase station ridership; There is a cost associated with providing commuter parking, but there needs to be substantial parking in order to attract new users; While a new Breslau station may increase GO ridership, the high proportion of customers anticipated to arrive by car may place strain on the road network and intersection operations; and Ridership levels will depend on the full-build out of the Thomasfield Homes subdivision at the proposed densities and the ability of the commuter parking to attract new GO Transit users Stakeholders There are a number of internal and external stakeholders that need to be engaged with the planning of a potential new station at Greenhouse Road. These include, but are not necessarily limited to: Metrolinx Operations and Capital Projects Group Canadian National Railway Grand River Transit (GRT) Local Members of Parliament and Provincial Parliament (i.e. Kitchener-Conestoga) Region of Waterloo: Staff and Council Township of Woolwich: Staff and Council Grand River Conservation Authority Metis and First Nations Communities Surrounding Businesses and Property Owners Local Business Groups, and Chambers of Commerce Travellers (e.g. transit users, drivers, cyclists, pedestrians) 4.4 Policy, Land Use and Development The following sections examine how a potential Breslau station conforms to provincial, regional and local planning policy and the potential for a new station to positively impact the surrounding area, including facilitating TOD Policy Alignment The potential Breslau station conforms to broad provincial and regional land use and transportation policies. It also strongly aligns with the Township of Woolwich s vision for the Breslau area. Table 4-2 includes a summary of relevant policies and the level of conformity for the potential Breslau station site. 12

24 RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau - draft Table 4-2: Level of Conformity to Provincial, Regional and Local Land Use and Transportation Policy Policy Overview of Relevant Policies Level of Station Conformity Provincial Policy Statement (land use & transportation) Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (land use & transportation) Regional Transportation Plan Waterloo Region Official Plan Region of Waterloo Transportation Master Plan Township of Woolwich Official Plan Breslau Secondary Plan Land use patterns should support active transportation, be transit-supportive and based on opportunities for development/intensification particularly within existing settlement areas. Transportation systems should be provided which are safe, energy efficient, facilitate the movement of people and are appropriate to address projected needs. Expanding transit to areas that have achieved or will be planned to achieve transit-supportive residential and employment densities. Facilitating improved linkages from nearby neighbourhoods to urban growth centres, major transit station areas and other intensification areas. Build a comprehensive Regional Rapid Transit Network and increase transportation choices. Provide connections to regional urban growth centres. Introduce Mobility Hubs to create intensified mixed-use transit nodes around transit stations. Partner with the Province to improve the regional transit system, including inter-regional systems such as GO Transit. More compact, vibrant complete communities are to be built in Urban and Township Designated Greenfield Areas to help achieve more balanced growth. Improve inter-regional transit service. Promote higher modal shares than are currently achieved by transit. The proposed station lands and surrounding lands to the north, east and south are within the Urban Settlement Area and designated Urban Area. Some lands to the south and east are designated Restricted Area. A large portion of lands within 800 m of the potential station are designated Rural. Proposed GO Station and a variety of residential and non-residential uses are permitted on surrounding lands. Schedule C identifies a connecting corridor between Fountain Street North and lands that surrounds the proposed GO station area. Station would be part of the Breslau Secondary Plan Area and the proposed Thomasfield Homes TOD. Station would support active transportation and increase connectivity to rapid transit, using existing infrastructure (e.g. rail line). Station area is expected to almost achieve transit-supportive densities and will be also be supported by ridership from a large catchment area. Station will facilitate the usage of transit and movement of people within the larger region. Station will introduce rapid transit to an area where none currently exists and provide improved connections to Built-Up Areas and Urban Growth Centres. Opportunity exists to comprehensively plan and develop a new mobility hub in Breslau. Station will increase transportation choices and improve inter-regional connectivity (Map 5A does not show any new regional transit in Breslau). Station area and surrounding lands designated Urban Development Greenfield Area. Station will be within a TOD that proposes a mix of low, medium and higher density development. Breslau station is identified in Plan as having the ability to help reduce or eliminate capacity deficiencies at the Grand River screen lines. Urban Settlements are to contain a broad range of residential, commercial, service, recreational and industrial uses. The expansion of the Urban Settlement Area or conversion of additional Rural lands unlikely. Station is identified in Secondary Plan. The settlement area boundary is an inhibitor of growth around the station area. 13

25 RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau - draft Development Potential and Intensification In 2011, the population and employment density within 800 m of the potential Breslau station is estimated to be 0.1 people and jobs per hectare (P+J/ha). The lands surrounding the potential station are currently rural/agricultural and contain only a few houses, a church and a few businesses. Figure 4-1 illustrates the current land use permissions for the proposed station site and surrounding area. In 2006, an estimated 72 residents and 43 jobs were located within 800 metres of the potential Breslau Station. Projections from the Ministry of Transportation Greater Golden Horseshoe Model suggest that by 2031 the population and employment within the Station area may reach 334 and 209 respectively.[1] However, recent changes to policy and planning objectives have resulted in substantially higher population and employment forecasts for the Breslau area. Figure 4-2 shows where recent development has occurred and where development is anticipated within the Secondary Plan Area. The Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted to the Township by Thomasfield Homes shows that in addition to a new GO station, the following will be accommodated on its 94.9 net developable ha of land: 2,535 people; and 2,830 jobs (i.e acres Employment Land (2,450 jobs), 3.7 acres Commercial (116 jobs), 4.9 acres Mixed-Use Commercial (153 jobs) and 3 acres Institutional (40 jobs). According to Metrolinx s Mobility Hub Guidelines for the GTHA, density targets for mobility hubs with Regional Rail range from 50 to 200 P+J/ha. 4 Thomasfield Homes has proposed that the density within its new subdivision (i.e. lands within approximately 1km of the potential GO station) will reach 57 P+J/ha. In 2011, the Township of Woolwich had a total population of 32,536 and the population is expected to grow by 9,537 persons between 2011 and 2029 and by 3,179 households (i.e. Breslau: 726; Elmira: 2,094; St. Jacobs: 293 and Other: 66). The province anticipates that the following growth will occur between 2011 and 2031 in the City of Guelph, Wellington County and Waterloo Region: 449,000 new people (51,000 Guelph, 32,000 Wellington and 241,000 Waterloo); and 134,000 new jobs (21,000 Guelph, 16,000 Wellington and 97,000 Waterloo). Given that the potential Breslau station is located within an undeveloped area, there are no soft sites within 800 m of the potential station. Soft sites are considered to be parcels with a relatively high potential for change, such as parking lots and under-utilized sites given current zoning and the Official Plan designations. A new residential subdivision is being completed approximately one km east of the potential station site and considerable new development is underway or planned elsewhere within the Township and the larger Region of Waterloo. [1] The Ministry of Transportation Greater Golden Horseshoe Model, prepared in 2012, projects population and employment by traffic zone. The traffic zone in which the potential Breslau Station is located extends far beyond the 800 m Station area, encompassing 845 hectares. IBI Group prepared estimates of what proportion of the larger traffic zone s population and jobs could be located within 800 m of the potential Station. 4 Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (September 2011) 14

26 RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau - draft Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use Permissions Surrounding Breslau Station 15

27 Figure 4-2: Current Development Applications and Potential Soft Sites RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau - draft 16

28 4.4.3 Real Estate Market Demand Between 2011 and 2015, there were a total of 580 housing starts in the Township of Woolwich, with 446 of them being single detached homes. 5 Over half of these units (i.e. 353) were built within the Census tract in which the potential Breslau station is located (i.e. to the east, off of Fountain Street North). 6 According to the Ontario Economic Update 2016, the Region of Waterloo is anticipated to see a 6.7% increase in residential home sales in 2016, and a 5.2% increase in home sales in This forecasted increase in sales also coincides with an increase in the price of homes, with the average home price to rise to $375,000 by The Region is growing, and this will impact demand for housing in Breslau. The potential Breslau station site well suited for low and medium density residential. Kitchener-Waterloo has seen population and employment growth over the last ten years. Office construction in the Waterloo Region, particularly in suburban Waterloo, increased in Waterloo currently has over 6 million square feet (sq. ft.) of office, with an additional 270,000 sq. ft. under construction. Kitchener has over 4.5 million sq. ft. of office with 60,000 sq. ft. under construction. Breslau and the station site is not well-suited to attract major office development. Most new office development will be focused within the Region s larger municipalities and their downtown areas. Waterloo Region has an industrial inventory of over 110 million sq. ft. and approximately 170,000 sq. ft. is under construction (i.e. 66,000 sq. ft. in Kitchener and 104,000 sq. ft. in Cambridge). Vacancy rates for the Region range from 4.5% to 8.1%. 8 The Township of Woolwich is an attractive place for busineses to invest, with low asssessd employment land values and low business tax rates. The Breslau station site area may attract some new employment uses but a substantial supply of designated land and buildings exist in surrounding and competing municipalities (e.g. Kitchener, Cambridge and Guelph). The majority of future non-residential development in Breslau is likely to be service-office and commercial/retail to service the local residential population Natural Environment The Grand River Watershed drainage network runs parallel to the Greenhouse Road extension (west) and Grand River Conservation Authority drainage infrastructure is located south of the potential Breslau station site on the west end. The potential station site is located within 120 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland (adjacent land) with a buffer of only 30 m from the wetland. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual considers lands within a 120 m radius of Provincially Significant Wetlands to be adjacent land surrounding a natural heritage feature or area that would likely incur negative impact as a result of development or site alteration on such lands. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has designated Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) in close proximity to the station site. The network of wetlands surrounding the potential station site (to the east, west and south) are designated as Provincially Significant Wetland Evaluated, and Woodland designated areas. The Secondary Plan has designated these wetland areas as Natural Heritage Framework. The natural features in close proximity to the site (Hopewell Creek to the west and the wetland to the north) do not appear to be impacted by the Thomasfield Subdivision Plan, and flooding is being mitigated through a 30 m wetland buffer and SWM facilities. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) should be conducted if the potential Breslau station Site moves forward into detailed design. 5 CMHC Historical Starts by Dwelling Type, CMHC Housing Market Information Portal Data, , for Census Tracts , , and CBRE Waterloo Region Market Report Office Q CBRE Waterloo Region Market Report Industrial Q

29 4.5 Network, Connectivity, and Accessibility The following criteria examine how the new station will connect and interact with existing and planned transit and active transportation networks and surrounding land uses. Preliminary ridership forecasts are also described below Operational System The potential Breslau station is located 8.4 km east of the existing Kitchener station and 14 km west of the existing Guelph station. A Breslau station would have the potential to address the lack of parking at its neighbouring GO stations. There is minimal GO customer parking at the adjacent stations, with no stalls at Kitchener GO station and 12 at Guelph GO station. 10 The closest potential stations to Breslau is Heritage Road, approximately 50 km away between Georgetown GO station and Mount Pleasant GO station. There is no parallel transit service in the area Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Preliminary ridership estimates suggest that a total of 1,034 daily trips may start or end at the Breslau station by The station could generate 882 net new daily trips by This total includes all new ridership and excludes existing riders who will divert to the new station over their previous location (e.g. Kitchener or Guelph). It also factors in the anticipated loss of riders, as some existing upstream riders are anticipated to shift modes due to time travel delay resulting from the introduction of a Breslau Station. The RER Travel Time Savings Evaluation Model converts time delay (lost minutes) into loss of ridership and fare revenue, and assumes a shift to automobile use. See Appendix B for more details. The potential Breslau station does not directly connect to any higher-order transit modes. The 2009 EA adopted the standard GO Transit planning approach that a bus loop should be identified and protected for as part of the station functional requirements if there is room for it. This was the case for all station concept alternatives investigated in Guelph and Breslau. The EA assumed eight bus bays in each station concept alternative per typical planning principles for GO rail stations at that time. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is currently investigating the feasibility of high-speed rail between Windsor, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Toronto. The station location options being investigated in the Kitchener-Waterloo area are unknown at this time, but it is likely that a Downtown Kitchener site (e.g. the King/Victoria transit hub) will be considered. To accommodate any future high-speed rail operation through Breslau, additional mainline tracks will be required. Although the preliminary station concept for a Breslau station does not protect for any future express/highspeed trains to bypass local trains at the station, there are no known constraints that would preclude Metrolinx or the MTO to expand the station to accommodate express/high-speed operations through or at the station. Figure 4-3 illustrates that the GO Transit line is the only existing and planned transit serving the area. There are currently no cycling routes or trails within an 800 m radius of the potential new station location. However, just outside the 800 m radius is a regional on-road cycling route that travels down Fountain Street North from Victoria Street to Allendale Road. The Breslau Secondary Plan proposes that new cycling routes be created within the station area and surrounding area to improve connectivity. Figure 4-4 shows the existing and proposed pedestrian and cycling infrastructure within proximity to the potential Greenhouse station. The station site is currently in a rural area that lacks sidewalks or other pedestrian and cyclist amenities. These facilities are proposed as part of the Thomasfield Homes subdivision GO Transit Rail Parking and Station Access Plan 18

30 The potential station is not within 800 m of any key destinations, except for the Hopewell Worship Centre. The Village of Breslau is located approximately 1 km west. 19

31 Figure 4-3: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Transportation Infrastructure 20

32 Figure 4-4: Existing, Planned, and Suggested Active Transportation Infrastructure 21

33 4.5.3 Station Access The potential station provides multi-modal access, including pedestrian, cyclist, bus transit, pick-up/drop-off as well as parking. Approximately 1,000 parking spaces are proposed, with room for expansion if the forthcoming development generates a higher parking demand. The Station Concept Plan shows two access points, one from the extended Greenhouse Road and the other on the northern end of the station as part of the Thomasfield Homes subdivision ( Street A ). Bicycle access is provided at both access points and there is bicycle parking located in close proximity to both station buildings. The PPUDO provides space for approximately 50 vehicles. The Grand River Transit System currently has no service in the Township of Woolwich or community of Breslau. The closest bus to the potential Breslau station is the 34 Bingemans which runs from the Charles Street Terminal in downtown Kitchener along Victoria Street North to Kolb Park on the edge of the Grand River before looping back. The closest stop of the 34 Bingemans is approximately 2.5 km away from the potential Breslau station. The current condition of the area is not conducive to pedestrian access due to the lack of circulation, nearby amenities or residential areas. However, with the construction of the Thomasfield Development, the potential for walk up ridership should increase significantly as lands designated as Employment, Mixed Use Commercial and Residential are within in walking distance of the station. There is potential to construct a multi-use path west of the station site to connect pedestrians and cyclists from the residential areas to the station Social Inclusivity and Accessibility The average household total income for the station area is $117,556 a year. The adjacent census tracts have a range between $50,446 and $168,860 average household total income per year. In comparison, the average household income for the Township of Woolwich as a whole was $113,678. No low-income or social housing is located within an 800 m radius of the potential Breslau station. Metrolinx s Accessibility Model assesses improvements to the walking road network, the local transit network of routes and stops with headways, and a defined maximum walk distances to each type of transit (i.e., how far a customer is willing to walk to catch a local bus/streetcar route versus an LRT or subway). Neither of the model s two metrics, Access to Transit (ATT) nor the Accessibility Index (AI), was assessed for this location since very few residences are currently within an 800m radius of the proposed station. 22

34 4.6 Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios The Strategic Case for IBCs considers fives sensitivities which could affect new stations. Table 4-3 illustrates the scenario options and how they could impact the Strategic Case for a potential Breslau station. Table 4-3: Strategic Case Sensitivity Scenarios Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Strategic Case Scenario Option 2A (Service Concept Sensitivity) Potential site-specific modifications to service concept (e.g. all train stop at the station). Express stop not anticipated for the potential Breslau station. Scenario Option 2B (Track Infrastructure Sensitivity) Additional of fifth track on Lakeshore East to Scarborough Junction. Not applicable to a potential Breslau station Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2D (Fare Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and Land Use Sensitivity) Additional delay identified at specific locations due to local context or track configuration. TTC-GO fare parity at stations in Toronto for trips fully within Toronto, including free transfers with bus, streetcar and subway approved population/employment projections plus major development proposals. Not anticipated for a potential Breslau station. Co-fare already in place. TOD assumed for a potential Breslau station, based on the population and employment shown in the Thomasfield Homes Plan of Subdivision. If less TOD development is permitted/achieved, the station is likely to generate lower levels of ridership. 23

35 5. Financial Case 5.1 Financial Case Summary A Financial Case evaluation was performed to assess the financial viability of the potential Breslau station through net present value (NPV), revenue to cost ratio and operating cost ratio recovery analysis. The initial evaluation found that the potential Breslau station supports three of the Financial Case criteria for new stations (i.e. fare revenue, operating cost and operating cost recovery ratio) but it does not support one criteria (i.e. capital costs) and is neutral or partially supportive for the other criteria. The Financial Case for the potential Breslau station shows that the construction and operation of the new station generates a negative net present value of -$36.3 million over a 60-year time horizon ( ). The negative NPV combines the capital cost of the new station and ongoing operating costs, which are estimated at $86.9 million, and weighs the costs against anticipated fare revenue. 11 The IBC results suggest a revenue-to-cost ratio and operating cost ratio of 0.58 and 5.29, which means that the new station will generate enough revenue to cover approximately half of the capital and operating costs and enough revenue to cover all of the operating costs alone. Table 5-1 summarizes the key results of the financial case. Table 5-1: Financial Case Summary Results (60-Year Period) Financial Case Summary Results (2015 $ Million, PV) Breslau Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) 22.3 Fare Revenue (A) $50.7 Total Costs (B) $86.9 Capital Costs $77.4 Operating Costs (C) $9.6 Net Present Value (A-B) -$36.3 Revenue to Cost Ratio (A/B) 0.58 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) Approach The Financial Case compares the incremental capital expenditure, operating and maintenance costs and fare revenues for the new station relative to the base case scenario (i.e. without the new station). The assessment is based on 2031 ridership estimates and Travel Time Savings evaluation that factor in the TOD potential within Breslau and the opportunity for the Breslau station to draw from a large catchment area. 11 Metrolinx (May 2016) Potential RER Stations v3.3 with IBI Group inputs 24

36 The dollar figures for the 60-year evaluation period from the potential construction start date (2022) through to the end of 2081 are in nominal dollars (i.e. the dollar figure expected to be paid or received expressed in the year of the payment). Nominal dollars are calculated assuming an annual inflation rate of 2%. The annual costs and revenues are discounted back to a single value using a nominal discount rate of 5.5%. Once discounted, the total costs are compared against the incremental fare revenues to derive the NPV for the financial case as well as the lifecycle revenue to cost ratio and the operating cost recovery ratio. The Financial Case is developed on the basis of conventional public sector funding of the capital investment undertaken by Metrolinx. Potential partnership opportunities to reduce Metrolinx s capital investment will be explored in future work. Appendix C summarizes all the financial and economic baseline assumptions and data sources. 5.3 Financial Criteria The financial criteria consist of the financial implications of constructing and operating the potential Breslau station in terms of lifecycle costs and revenues for Metrolinx. Costs include the capital expenditure as well as incremental station and train operating costs. Incremental revenues may include fare revenue, advertising, and proceeds from disposal of assets. However, at this stage, the assessment only considers the additional fare revenues for GO. The dollar figures below are in present value (PV) terms, unless otherwise indicated. Station operating and incremental train operating costs were estimated by comparing the total system operating and maintenance costs with and without the new station using the RER Model Second Generation Capital Costs Preliminary capital cost estimates for the potential Breslau station are estimated at $77.4 million in present value terms. The capital cost includes all of the outlays associated with the development of the station including design, construction, project management, land acquisition and a 25% to 50% contingency depending on the item. Table 5-2 summarizes the capital costs by asset category, along with the operating costs which are described in Sections and below. Land/property acquisition costs are based on current real estate and market conditions. The rail and station construction cost estimates are based on recent Metrolinx station projects and reflect the station concept plan shown in Section 3 of this report. Examples of major cost items for the station include: Station building; Platforms, with tunnel access (each with elevators and stairs); Parking lot; Site works and utilities; Finishing and fixtures; and Land. The construction period for the station is assumed to start in 2022 for opening service at the beginning of The assessment also assumes a reinvestment halfway through the evaluation period, in The reinvestment is equal to 50% of the initial capital expenditure for the rail components and the site and building components. 12 Metrolinx (May 2016) New Stations Operation Expenditures 25

37 Table 5-2: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (60-year period) Capital and Operating Cost Estimates (2015 $ Million, PV) Breslau Capital Cost $77.4 SUBTOTAL Rail $7.2 SUBTOTAL Site/Building $60.9 Land/Property Acquisition $9.3 Station Operating Costs $7.1 Train Operating Costs $2.4 Total Costs $ Station Operating and Maintenance Costs The Breslau station operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $7.1 million in present value terms over the 60-year time horizon. The annual operation and maintenance costs consist of labour and station and ticketing machine operating and maintenance costs estimated based on the preliminary functional design assumptions. They were estimated by comparing the total system operating and maintenance costs with and without the new station. The station operating and maintenance costs are assumed to grow at a nominal rate of 2.05% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter Incremental Train Operating Costs Over the 60-year period, the Breslau station is expected to incur incremental train operating costs of $2.4 million. These costs consist primarily of crew costs, operations administration and management and wayside power. The assessment assumes that the train operating costs fluctuate at annual nominal rates varying between -2.8% and 2.8% until 2044 and remain constant thereafter Incremental Fare Revenues Preliminary ridership estimates suggest that a Breslau station may result in 882 net new trips on the Kitchener GO rail line by An estimated 221,000 new trips will be generated from the station on an annual basis (23.0 million over a 60-year period). Overall, the station is estimated to generate $50.7 million during the 60-year lifecycle of the project. The ridership information is based on 2031 totals where the station would expect near full utilization by passengers in the area. Average fares per category of riders were applied to the annual ridership estimates to derive the change in fare revenues. Table 5-3 summarizes the change in ridership and in fare revenues. Table 5-3: Additional Ridership and Fare Revenue (60-Year Period) Additional Riders (Millions) and Fare Revenue (Millions of 2015 $) Breslau Total Additional GO Ridership 22.3 New Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 22.4 New Through Riders Alighting at Station 0.0 Upstream Boardings -0.1 Total Additional GO Fare Revenue $

38 5.3.5 Revenues from Other Sources The potential Breslau station could possibly generate additional revenues from other sources. It provides an opportunity for Metrolinx to increase its advertising and concession and lease revenues. The footfall at the new station could also translate into interesting commercial opportunities. Other revenues include land sale opportunities for future development on any acquired lands. The assessment does not quantify these incremental revenues at this stage, although they may contribute to the project s financial feasibility Net Present Value Over the project s lifecycle, estimated total revenues amount to $50.7 million while total costs (capital and operating) amount to $86.9 million. The NPV is therefore negative and is estimated at -$36.3 million. In other words, the project is not deemed profitable on a strictly financial basis Lifecycle Revenue to Cost Ratio The lifecycle revenue to cost ratio is estimated at 0.58, therefore the station fare revenues do recover part of the project costs (i.e. 58%) Operating Cost Recovery Ratio The operating cost recovery ratio is estimated at 5.29 over the project s lifecycle, therefore the station fare revenues do recover the additional operating costs and generate extra revenue. 27

39 5.4 Financial Case Sensitivity Scenarios The Financial Case considers five sensitivities for new stations. Table 5-4 illustrates the scenario options and how they could impact the Financial Case of a potential Breslau station. Table 5-4: Financial Cost Sensitivity Scenario Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Financial Case Scenario Option 2A (Service Concept Sensitivity Scenario Option 2B (Track Infrastructure Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2D (Fare Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and Land Use Sensitivity) Potential site-specific modifications to service concept (e.g. all train stop at the station). Additional of fifth track on Lakeshore East to Scarborough Junction. Additional delay identified at specific locations due to local context or track configuration. TTC-GO fare parity at stations in Toronto for trips fully within Toronto, including free transfers with bus, streetcar and subway approved population/employment projections plus major development proposals Express stop not anticipated for the potential Breslau station. Not applicable to a potential Breslau station Not anticipated for a potential Breslau station. Not currently applicable to a potential Breslau station. Co-fare already in place. TOD assumed for a potential Breslau station, based on the population and employment shown in the Thomasfield Homes Plan of Subdivision. If less TOD development is permitted/achieved, the station is likely to generate lower levels of ridership and fare revenue. 28

40 6. Economic Case 6.1 Economic Case Summary An economic evaluation was performed to examine the project costs, the transportation user impacts and the environmental impacts of the potential Breslau station on the region. The initial evaluation found that the station supports most of the criteria for new stations. It is neutral or partially supportive for the travel time savings criteria. The initial Economic Case evaluation found that the potential Breslau station will generate travel time savings for the new riders, with a portion of these new riders shifting away from cars, thus reducing automobile usage in the area. The station would be near the beginning of the Kitchener GO rail line, so relatively few passengers upstream will be inconvenienced with travel time delay resulting from the additional stop. The transportation user and environmental impacts resulting from a potential Breslau station amount to an estimated benefit of $467.6 million in present value terms over the full 60-year evaluation period. Capital and operating costs for the new station are $77.5 million, resulting in a net gain of $390.1 million (note: the financial case applies a different discount rate in comparison to the economic case). In benefit-cost terms, it represents a benefit-cost ratio of 6.0. This means that for every dollar spent on the new station, transportation users and society as a whole would realize a benefit of six dollars. Table 6-1 summarizes the key results of the Economic Case. Table 6-1: Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (60-year period) Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results (2015 $ Million, PV) Breslau Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person-Hours) 2.4 Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) 1,302.0 Benefits $467.6 Costs $77.5 Net Present Value $390.1 Benefit-Cost Ratio 6.0 Transportation User Impacts $463.4 Travel Time Savings $18.9 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $310.1 Decongestion on Road Network $100.8 Safety Impacts $33.7 Environmental Impacts $4.2 29

41 6.2 Approach The Economic Case highlights the overall value generated by the proposed station option(s). The benefit-cost analysis documents and quantifies the project costs for the GTHA and Ontario, the transportation user impacts and the environmental outcomes which can be monetized and included in a cost-benefit analysis. The Economic Case does not consider incremental fare revenues because while they represent out-of-pocket costs to the users, they also represent a revenue gain to the transit operator, therefore offsetting each other overall. In other words, southern Ontario is no better or worse off overall as a result of the change in fare revenue. All costs and benefits are stated in 2015 dollars. Once monetized and discounted, the economic and environmental impacts are compared to the capital and operating costs to derive the NPV and the benefit-cost ratio for the new Breslau station. The dollar figures below are in present value terms, using a real discount rate of 3.5% per year. 6.3 Economic Criteria The economic criteria examined in the cost-benefit assessment include the project costs, the transportation user impacts and the environmental impacts. In addition to the monetized impacts, the Economic Case considers the economic development impacts associated with the new station. These are assessed qualitatively Project Costs The project costs are based on the same cost estimates used in the Financial Case (see 5.3.1) but discounted using a real discount rate of 3.5%. As noted in Section 5.3 of this report, the station operating and incremental train operating costs were estimated by comparing the total system operating and maintenance costs with and without the 13 new station using the RER Model Second Generation.1F Capital Costs The capital costs for a potential Breslau station are estimated at $68.1 million. These costs capture outlays associated with the procurement of the infrastructure including design, construction, and project management, with a 50% contingency. The assessment also considers a reinvestment halfway through the evaluation period, in 2053 for the refurbishment, replacement or renovation of track and building components. The reinvestment is equal to 50% of the initial capital expenditure for the track and related components and the site and building components. The economic assessment does not take into account land and property acquisition fees which are considered a transfer between economic agents Station Operating and Maintenance Costs The station operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $7.0 million in present value terms over the 60-year time horizon. The annual operation and maintenance costs consist of labour and station and ticketing machine operating and maintenance costs estimated based on the preliminary functional design assumptions. 13 Metrolinx (May 2016) New Stations Operation Expenditures. 30

42 Incremental Train Operating Costs Over the period, the new station is expected to incur incremental train operating costs of $2.4 million which consist primarily of crew costs, operations administration and management and wayside power Transportation User Impacts The transportation user impacts consist of the travel time impacts, auto operating cost savings, decongestion impacts on the road network and road safety outcomes resulting from the new station. These benefits are monetized, discounted and incorporated into the benefit-cost analysis, as shown in Table 6-1 above. All of the impacts from a potential Breslau station are positive Travel Time Savings Users of the Breslau station are anticipated to benefit from travel time savings of 9,250 minutes per day. Users boarding at the station may be new to the GO rail network or existing riders switching from other stations because they expect to save time (e.g. Kitchener or Guelph). For upstream existing riders, the station does introduce a time penalty (negative time savings) as the length of the trip is increased due to the additional stop. The travel time delay impacting upstream riders is estimated to total over 849 minutes per day. Over the 60-year time horizon, the Breslau station generates travel time savings of 2.4 million passenger-hours, which represents an economic gain of $18.9 million in 2015 prices. Table 6-2 shows the travel time gains combined with the travel time penalties for upstream riders due to the train service delay as well as the travel time savings for new riders to the GO rail network boarding at the new station. A significant proportion of the new passengers are expected to have origins within close proximity to the Breslau station, within the proposed transit-oriented development. The travel time impacts are based on the same modelling process used to assess the change in ridership described above. The impacts are monetized using a value of time of $16.71 per hour which is assumed to rise at a real growth rate of 1.6% per year until 2044 and remain constant thereafter. Table 6-2: Travel Time Impacts (60 year period) Travel Time Impacts (60-Year Period) Travel Time Savings (Million Passenger-Hours) Breslau Total Travel Time Savings 2.4 Upstream Users -0.2 Existing Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 0.2 New Riders Boarding or Alighting at Station 2.5 Existing Through Riders 0.0 New Through Riders 0.0 Total Travel Time Savings (2015 $ Million, PV) $ Vehicle Kilometres Travelled As mentioned above, the potential Breslau station generates a net gain in ridership for GO over the analysis period. Since only a small portion of the riders are expected to shift towards auto use, thereby decreasing distances driven by car in the GTHA, a total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) savings of 1,302.0 million is anticipated over a 60-year period. The results are based on the assumption that 20% of diverted trips will shift towards or away from auto. 31

43 The VKT savings translate into vehicle operating cost savings, decongestion impacts on the road network, safety benefits and environmental benefits. These impacts are monetized in the sections below. Table 6-3 summarizes the change in VKT per category of riders for the station. Table 6-3: Changes in Auto Distances Traveled (60 year period) Reduction in Auto Distances Traveled (Millions of VKTs) Breslau Upstream Users -6.8 Boarding or Alighting at New Station 1,308.8 Alighting Through 0.0 Total VKT Savings ($ Millions PV) 1, Vehicle Operating Cost Savings The net increase in VKTs savings results in vehicle operating cost savings of $310.1 million in present value terms over the time horizon. Vehicle operating costs consist of out-of-pocket costs borne by individuals driving their vehicle. They are estimated by applying a unit cost of 63 cents per VKT. The unit cost is assumed to rise at a real annual growth rate of 0.7% until 2044 and remain constant thereafter Decongestion Impacts on Road Network The decongestion impacts on the road network resulting from a reduction in auto usage represent an economic benefit of $100.8 million in present value over the period. The decongestion impacts are estimated by applying a unit cost of 16.7 cents per VKT. The assessment also assumes this value rises at a real annual growth rate of 1.6% until 2044 and remains constant thereafter Safety Impacts The new Breslau station is anticipated to have a positive impact on road safety outcomes estimated at a discounted value of $33.7 million over the period. Auto use carries a higher risk of death or injury than transit use. Consequently, any reduction in auto usage will result in a safety benefit. The safety benefits are monetized by applying a unit cost of eight cents per VKT to account for the accidents and collisions Environmental Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greater modal shifts towards transit reduce auto use and result in lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG emissions have an environmental cost associated with them. Hence the environmental benefit associated with the reduction in VKTs discussed above can be monetized by applying a unit cost of 1 cent per VKT. These impacts do not take into account the additional GHG emissions resulting from the additional train acceleration and deceleration at the new station. The positive environmental impacts associated with the potential Breslau station represent an economic benefit of $4.2 million over the project s lifecycle. 32

44 6.3.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis Results Net Present Value The potential Breslau station is estimated to generate an economic benefit of $467.6 million over the 60-year period. When combined with capital and operating costs of $77.5 million, the net economic value of the project amounts to an NPV of $390.1 million over the evaluation period Benefit-Cost Ratio The economic feasibility of the station can also be represented by the benefit/cost ratio of 6.0:1 for the project relative to the base case. This means that for every dollar spent on the new station, transportation users and society would realize a benefit of six dollars. The BCR is calculated by dividing total discounted benefits by total discounted costs (capital and operating). A ratio lower than 1 indicates that benefits do not cover costs over the lifecycle and that the option under consideration is destroying economic value. A ratio higher than 1 indicates that benefits exceed costs over the project s lifecycle and that the option under consideration is creating economic value Economic Development Impacts The Economic Case considers the following economic development impacts: wider economic benefits, economic impacts, income and distributional impacts and land and property value changes. These impacts are not entirely incremental to the appraisal benefits calculated under the transportation user impacts above. Also, substantial work is needed to quantify these benefits. Hence, they are only assessed qualitatively at this stage Wider Economic Benefits The positive transportation user impacts assessed are likely to result in positive wider economic benefits. Agglomeration economies, the main source of wider economic benefits, represent the potential of a new station to bring jobs and economic activity closer together, leading to knowledge spill-overs, improved employer-employee matching, and other impacts that reduce transaction costs and encourage firm growth. These economies arise when a new station results in a reduction in generalized travel costs (i.e. time savings, reduced auto operating costs and any road decongestion benefits which reduce the effective distance between economic activities). Minor wider economic benefits are anticipated as a result of the introduction of the potential Breslau station. Other wider economic benefits include the impact of the station on imperfect competition and increased labour supply. The impact on imperfect competition represents the benefits resulting from increased competition between firms, spurring efficiency, innovation, reduced prices and increased consumer welfare. The increased labour supply refers more specifically to the increased tax revenues from increased labour force participation through improved access to employment resulting from lower travel costs. While further work is needed to quantify these wider economic benefits, there are likely to be positive given the positive transportation user impacts Economic Impacts The economic impacts show how each dollar spent translates into direct and indirect output, employment and wages in the region. Impacts consist of both the temporary impacts expected to accrue as a result of the capital outlays to construct the new station and recurring annual impacts resulting from the operation of the station and additional train services. Hence, for the new station, the capital expenditure reported above is expected to create increased economic activity during the two-year construction period. In terms of operating expenditure, the impacts are expected to contribute only modestly to the region s employment, earnings and GDP. 33

45 Income / Distributional Impacts Adding a new station to the GO network can provide social/community benefits for different groups, including the elderly population, youth and lower income households. However, given the existing and anticipated future sociodemographic composition of Woolwich and the surrounding area, the station is not expected to provide significant benefits to special needs populations. Further work is needed to fully assess the distributional impacts at the station Property and Land Value Changes Investment in transit often results in changes in land value and property value given the time and cost savings which accrue to the adjacent area s transportation users. In addition, properties on streets which experience congestion relief as a result of the reduction in VKTs may also benefit from uplift in property values by virtue of becoming a more attractive residential or business location. Case study research has shown for the most part these changes are positive (i.e. increased property values) as lands become more desirable in their existing form and/or redevelop into higher density, higher order uses. Over the past few decades, construction of transit systems in Canada, the United States and Australia has been seen to result in property value increases ranging from 2% to over 60%. The larger increases in property values are generally tied to rail and subway systems. Additional work is required to fully quantify the potential impact of the potential Breslau station on property and land values. 34

46 6.4 Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios The Economic Case considers five sensitivities for new stations. Table 6-4 illustrates how the sensitivities may impact the economic impacts of a potential Breslau station. Table 6-4: Economic Case Sensitivity Scenarios Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Economic Case Scenario Option 2A (Service Concept Sensitivity Scenario Option 2B (Track Infrastructure Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time Sensitivity) scenario Option 2D (Fare Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and Land Use Sensitivity) Potential site-specific modifications to service concept (e.g. all train stop at the station). Additional of fifth track on Lakeshore East to Scarborough Junction. Additional delay identified at specific locations due to local context or track configuration. TTC-GO fare parity at stations in Toronto for trips fully within Toronto, including free transfers with bus, streetcar and subway approved population/employment projections plus major development proposals Express stop not anticipated for the potential Breslau station. Not applicable to a potential Breslau station Not anticipated for a potential Breslau station. Not currently applicable to a potential Breslau station. No current transit service, and co-fare already in place. Transportation user and economic benefits could also be realized if fewer people access the station by car (e.g. PPUDO or parking). TOD assumed for a potential Breslau station, based on the population and employment shown in the Thomasfield Homes Plan of Subdivision. If less TOD development is permitted/achieved, the station is likely to generate lower levels of ridership, less fare revenue and less transportation user and environmental benefits. 35

47 7. Deliverability and Operations Case 7.1 Deliverability and Operations Case Summary The initial evaluation found that a potential Breslau station is supportive of all Deliverability and Operations Case criteria for new stations. Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the Deliverability and Operations Case assessment. Table 7-1: Deliverability and Operations Case Summary Results Criteria Constructability Stakeholder Impacts Room for Growth Approvals/Permits Required Operating Impacts Other Key Risks and Impacts Breslau No major issues related to constructability anticipated. The 2009 EA indicated that sufficient grading can be completed on site to allow for construction of the station. No major negative impacts on stakeholders or the natural environment anticipated. No challenges anticipated with land acquisition. There may be room for future station expansion, depending on the ultimate plans of the landowner. Potentially no update required to the EA. No major operating impacts anticipated at this time. None. 7.2 Approach The Deliverability and Operations Case provides evidence of the ease of constructing the Breslau station, operating service through the station, and the further steps required before a station can be implemented. This case also outlines the project risks known at this stage, such as disruption during construction and potential operating changes that affect the performance of the station. 7.3 Deliverability and Operations Criteria Constructability For this IBC, development of the preliminary station concept and evaluation of the Deliverability and Operations Case were based on a desktop review of available aerial photography as well as pertinent information from the 2009 Georgetown to Kitchener Rail Extension Class EA (2009 EA). Technical data such as topographic mapping and alignment of existing mainline tracks in computer-aided design/drafting formats were unavailable during 36

48 preparation of this IBC report. Consequently, additional analysis of the site conditions is required in order to verify the findings of this Deliverability and Operations Case. Track and Structures The station platforms are proposed to be located on a relatively straight section of the rail corridor just to the west of Greenhouse Road, approximately at the same location as the platforms shown in the 2009 EA. The platform configuration is based on a two-track corridor as recommended in the EA. The addition of station platforms and a second mainline track will require adjustments in the current track geometry. It is assumed that the existing rail rightof-way can accommodate the anticipated changes associated with the preliminary station concept. The proposed side platforms are located such that they could be expanded and converted into island platforms in the future to accommodate additional mainline tracks; however an expansion of the right-of-way may be required as a result. Station Infrastructure Based on information available at this time, no major issues related to constructability of the proposed station infrastructure have been identified. The 2009 EA indicated that sufficient grading can be completed onsite to allow for construction of the station. Utility Relocation No information on existing overhead or buried utilities has been provided at the time of preparing this report. The 2009 EA anticipated no major impact on existing utilities. Other Infrastructure Primary vehicular access to the potential Breslau station may be contingent on the availability of a new north-south access road as part of a proposed residential development plan encompassing the proposed station site. In addition, a southerly extension of Greenhouse Road from Kramp Road to the rail corridor is also required in order to construct the proposed second vehicular access for the station. Staging Area With the exception of regulated wetlands to the north of the proposed station site as well as to the south of the rail corridor, there are no known issues at this time that will preclude Metrolinx from providing for construction staging in and around the station site. However, further analysis is required to confirm the size and location of the staging area required to support station construction. Construction Access A southerly extension of Greenhouse Road from Kramp Road to the rail corridor will be required in order to establish a primary construction access to the proposed station site. Property Requirement A total of 4.6 ha of land is required to accommodate the preliminary station concept. There is some room for growth of the station site, with additional land available to the north of the site for parking or other station facilities. The land to the south and east of the site is currently greenfield. There is a Grand River Watershed drainage network running parallel to the Greenhouse Road extensions to the east of the road, as well as Grand River Conservation Authority 37

49 drainage infrastructure south of the site on the west end. Further, there are Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) to the east, west and south of the site. Consequently, expansion to these areas is not recommended Stakeholder Impacts A variety of stakeholders benefit from the introduction a Breslau station, in terms of improved access to rapid transit, impacts on property values and stimulating changes in land use (e.g. intensification). Concerns of stakeholders (existing and future stakeholders moving to the Thomasfield Homes development) may include increased traffic, noise and vibration resulting from the construction and on-going operation of a new station and the impact on the natural environment and adjacent agricultural/rural land Room for Growth Further land acquisition for growth of the station may not be feasible, but is also not likely necessary. Lands to the south are constrained by natural heritage features and lands to the east and north are already planned for other uses as part of the Thomasfield Homes Plan of Subdivision Approvals/Permits Required The potential station in Breslau at Greenhouse Road was part of the recommendations in the 2009 GO Transit Class Environmental Assessment. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the EA document was prepared, its status and potential expiry need to be confirmed, and a review of the 2009 EA recommendations should be carried out under current conditions. The full list of environmental approvals and permits required in advance of construction can be found in the 2009 EA document Operating Impacts Spacing between a new Breslau station and the adjacent Kitchener and Guelph GO station is appropriate for existing and future train technology. The proposed station in Breslau was recommended in the 2009 EA as a future station. As such, any potential impact on operation is expected to be acceptable within GO Transit s operating practices. Although the preliminary station concept does not provide the capability for an existing VIA train to bypass a GO train stopping at the station, there appears to be sufficient room within the right-of-way to add a third mainline track if it is deemed to be a requirement for VIA operation. A prototypical train schedule, with a time-distance plot, can also be developed to determine whether or not a two-track corridor is sufficient to allow a VIA train to bypass a local train near Breslau. Currently available service concept for RER shows that express operation is not being planned for the Kitchener corridor between Kitchener and Bramalea GO stations, and it is unlikely that there will be express service operating through Breslau. 38

50 7.4 Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenarios The Deliverability and Operations Case considers five sensitivities for new stations. Table 7-2 illustrates how the sensitivities may impact the deliverability and operations of a potential Breslau station. Table 7-2: Deliverability and Operations Case Sensitivity Scenario Scenario Options Description Potential Impact on Deliverability and Operations Case Scenario Option 2A (Service Concept Sensitivity Potential site-specific modifications to service concept (e.g. all train stop at the station). Express stop not anticipated for the potential Breslau station. Scenario Option 2B (Track Infrastructure Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2C (Dwell Time Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2D (Fare Sensitivity) Scenario Option 2E (Horizon and Land Use Sensitivity) Additional of fifth track on Lakeshore East to Scarborough Junction. Additional delay identified at specific locations due to local context or track configuration. TTC-GO fare parity at stations in Toronto for trips fully within Toronto, including free transfers with bus, streetcar and subway approved population/employment projections plus major development proposals Not applicable to a potential Breslau station Not anticipated for a potential Breslau station. Not currently applicable to a potential Breslau station. No current transit service, and co-fare already in place with GRT. The timing of development on adjacent lands and the ultimate land use mix within proximity to the station may have impacts on the construction and operations of the station. 39

51 8. Conclusions and Findings Past studies have suggested that a Breslau station on the Kitchener GO rail line may: have the potential to address lack of parking at the Kitchener and Guelph GO stations; support improved network connectivity; provide improved access to rapid transit for residents and workers in Woolwich and the larger Waterloo Region; and, facilitate transit-oriented development and local town building. The initial assessment of a potential Breslau station found that the new station supports most of the Strategic, Financial, Economic and Operations and Deliverability criteria. The positive results, which include partial capital cost recovery, full operating cost recovery and positive benefit-cost ratios, are largely attributed to the anticipated ridership levels, vehicle operating cost savings and decongestion on the road network. 14 The station is positioned to attract new customers to the Kitchener GO rail line, including future residents of the proposed transit-oriented development (TOD) in Breslau and other residents of the Township of Woolwich and adjacent municipalities who are not currently using GO because of the lack of parking at the Kitchener and Guelph stations. Details from the four case evaluations are provided below and a summary of the results can be found in Table 8-1. Summary of Strategic Case Evaluation The initial Strategic Case evaluation of the conformance of a potential Breslau station to long-term policy and planning objectives found: The station conforms to broad provincial, regional and local transportation and planning policies and aligns with the Township of Woolwich s vision for where growth and new rapid transit should be located; The anticipated future density of between 30 to 45 people and jobs per ha within 800 m of the station is below the minimum density target for Regional Rail identified in the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines for the GTHA, but the station is intended to serve a large catchment area; The station has no connections to high-order transit and currently there is no local transit in Breslau. The proposed TOD development will facilitate walking, cycling and PPUDO; and The station is anticipated to accommodate 1,034 daily trips by 2031, with approximately 85% of these trips being net new trips to the Kitchener GO rail line. Summary of Financial Case Evaluation The initial Financial Case evaluation of the financial viability of the Breslau station over a 60-year time horizon found the station would generate: A negative net present value (NPV) of -$36.3 million, which combines the capital costs and annual station and train operating costs and weighs these costs against fare revenue; A revenue-to-cost ratio of 0.58; and An operating cost recovery ratio of Summary of Economic Case Evaluation The initial Economic Case evaluation of the net economic benefits of a Breslau station to transportation users and society as a whole over a 60-year time horizon found the station would generate: 14 Source: Metrolinx (May 3, 2016) Potential RER Stations Benefits Model with IBI Group inputs, V

52 A positive NPV of $390.1 million; A benefit-to-cost ratio of 6.0; and Time travel savings and other benefits such as a reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT), vehicle operating cost savings, decongestion on the road network, improved safety and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Summary of Deliverability and Operations Case Evaluation The initial Deliverability and Operations Case evaluation of the constructability of a Breslau station and its impacts on GO operations found: No complications anticipated with the acquisition of the station lands; Track geometry and alignment will need to be adjusted for the station but minimal constraints to the design and configuration of the station are anticipated; Spacing between a new Breslau station and the adjacent Kitchener and Guelph stations is assumed to be appropriate for existing and future train technology, based on the outcome of the 2009 EA; Sufficient room appears to exist within the right-of-way to add a mainline track if necessary for a VIA trains to bypass a GO train stopping at the station; and A review of EA compliance should be carried out to determine whether or not an EA amendment is required. 41

53 Deliverability and Operational Case Economic Case Financial Case Strategic Case RER New Stations Initial Business Case: Breslau draft Table 8-1: IBC Case Evaluation Results Criteria Summary Policy Alignment Supportive Development Potential and Intensification Neutral Real Estate Market Demand Supportive Natural Environment Supportive Operational System Supportive Connectivity and Ridership Drivers Neutral Station Access Supportive Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Neutral Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) 22.3 Fare Revenue (A) $50.7 Total Costs (B) $86.9 Capital Costs $77.4 Operating Costs (C) $9.6 Net Present Value (A-B) -$36.3 Revenue to Cost Recovery Ratio (A/B) 0.58 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (A/C) 5.29 Travel Time Savings (Millions of Person-Hours) 2.4 Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) 1,302.0 Benefits $467.6 Costs $77.5 Net Present Value $390.1 Benefit-Cost Ratio 6.0 Transportation User Impacts $463.4 Travel Time Savings $18.9 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $310.1 Decongestion on Road Network $100.8 Safety Impacts $33.7 Environmental Impacts $4.2 Constructability Supportive Stakeholder Impacts Supportive Room for Growth Supportive Approval/Permits Required Supportive Operating Impacts Supportive Other Key Risks and Impacts Supportive (Impacts over a 60-year period. Millions of 2015 $ Present Value, unless otherwise noted) 42

54 Appendix A: Criteria Ranges Business Case Major Criteria Not Supportive Neutral Supportive Strategic Policy Alignment Does not support most policy Supports most policy Supports all policy Strategic Development Potential and Intensification < 50 P+J/ha (<10,000 P+J) P+J/ha (10,000-30,000 P+J) >150 P+J/ha (>30,000 P+J) OR P+J/ha with high development potential Strategic Real Estate Market Demand Low Existing Demand AND Low Future Demand Low Existing Demand AND Moderate Future Demand Moderate Existing Demand AND Significant Future Demand Strategic Natural Environment In a sensitive environmental feature Within 800 m of a sensitive environmental feature Outside of 800 m of environmental feature Strategic Operational System < 1.5 km to nearest existing station km to nearest existing station > 3km to nearest existing station Strategic Connectivity and Ridership Drivers < 0 Net new daily GO boardings 0 3,000 net new daily GO boardings > 3,000 net new daily GO boardings Strategic Station Access 2/5 modes 3/5 modes 4/5 modes Strategic Financial Social Inclusivity and Accessibility Incremental GO Ridership (Millions of Trips) Does not serve NIA Fully serves NIA Fully Serves NIA AND <3.5% Change in ATT OR >3.5% Change in ATT AND >3.5% Change in ATT < 0 0 to 40 > 40 Financial Fare Revenue (A) < $0M $0m to $50M > $50M Financial Total Costs (B) > $150M $150M to $50M < $50M Financial Capital Costs > $75M $75M to $25M < $25M Financial Operating Costs (C) > $35M $35M to $25M < $25M Financial Net Present Value < $50M $50M to $50M > $50M Financial Financial Revenue to Cost Ratio (A/B) Operating Cost Recovery Ratio < 0 (all-loss) 0 to 1 > 1 < 0 (all-loss) 0 to 2 > 2

55 Business Case Economic Economic Major Criteria Not Supportive Neutral Supportive Travel Time Savings (Millions of < 0 0 to 10 > 10 Person-Hours) Auto Distances Saved (Millions of VKTs) < 0 0 to 250 > 250 Economic Benefits < $0M $0M to $100M > $100M Economic Costs > $125M $125M to $50M < $50M Economic Net Present Value < $150M $150 to $10M > $10M Economic Benefit-Cost Ratio < 0 (all-loss) 0 to 1 > 1 Economic Transportation User Impacts < $0M $0M to $50M > $50M Economic Travel Time Savings < $0M $0M to $55M > $55M Economic Economic Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Decongestion on Road Network < $0M $0M to $75M > $75M < $0M $0M to $30M > $30M Economic Safety Impacts < $0M $0M to $10M > $10M Economic Deliverability & Operations Deliverability & Operations Deliverability & Operations Deliverability & Operations Deliverability & Operations Deliverability & Operations Environmental Impacts Constructability Stakeholder Impacts Room for Growth Approvals/Permits Required Operating Impacts Other Key Risks and Impacts < $0M $0M to $1M > $1M Track geometry compatible with Track geometry compatible with Track geometry not station AND station AND compatible with station Significant site constraints minimal site constraints Significant disruption to Minor to no construction noise, surrounding area during Construction noise and dust in dust, and street closure impacts construction including noise, high density area, possibility of and minor to no environmental dust, traffic, or environmental environmental impacts impacts impacts No ability for station to grow due Limited ability for station to grow Ability of growth with new track to track constraints and land due to track constraints and land layouts and land acquisition acquisition acquisition TPAP, normal permits, and two TPAP, normal permits, and one Only a TPAP and normal other unique permits or unique permit or approval construction permits approvals Major operating impacts Moderate operating impacts Minor operating impacts Significant unique situation Minor unique situation No other key risks or impacts

56 Appendix B: Travel Time Savings Analysis Introduction The analysis of alternative new stations relies upon a consideration of the changes in traveller behaviour that would occur in response to the presence of the proposed new stations. The stations provide new options for both existing GO Rail users and users of other transportation modes (other transit and auto). Existing GO Rail users may also be negatively impacted by the added stop at the new station. Examining travel time savings and delays associated with each new station is therefore the focal point of this analysis. The new stations can have both positive and negative effects on transit passenger travel times: Passengers who use the new stations save travel time. The station access or egress time is lower than it would be without the new station, when access/egress would have been to the next closest station. Passengers who do not use the new stations can experience a travel delay, due to the extra time required for the train trip to stop at the new station, typically 2-3 min. per station. As a result of the travel time savings and delays, some travellers may shift their route or mode of transportation. There will be both gains and losses of RER passengers due to these route and mode shifts. Some passengers may be attracted to RER by the new stations and shift from non-go routes to an RER trip or a combined RER+subway/bus trip. Other passengers may be diverted from RER due to the longer total travel time caused by the new station and shift from an RER trip to a subway/bus trip or a driving trip. To account for the impacts of these new stations on passengers, it is helpful to categorize the different types of passengers into the five groups shown in Table 2. Table 2: Segmentation of demand into five groups of passengers that experience a new station differently. Passenger Type Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Description Existing & unaffected GO Rail riders ( downstream or express riders) Existing upstream GO Rail riders (affected but do not change behaviour) Shift GO Rail access/egress station (existing but would prefer new station) Attracted to GO Rail (shift route/mode due to easier access/egress) Diverted from GO Rail (existing, shift route/mode due to delay) Would ride GO Rail without new station(s)? Note: downstream means locations closer to Union Station than the new station site. Would ride GO Rail with new station(s)? Effect of new station(s) on travel time? No Change (no delay or savings) Accesses/ egresses via new station(s)? Delayed Time Savings Time Savings Delayed

57 Combining these groups of passengers in different manners helps to understand what happens to overall GO Rail ridership at each new station: C + D = Gross riders that access/egress at the new station(s) D E = Net new riders on the GO Rail system due to the new station(s) B, C, D, E: all affected by addition of new stations, and experience either a positive or negative time impact. The impact is different for each group. The primary drivers of travel time savings benefits and offsetting impacts can be summarized as follows: Drivers of Travel Time Savings o o o High employment or full-time post-secondary institution within 1 km of the station (i.e., surrounding land uses attract AM peak alighting riders). New boarding riders within 1km of station (i.e., ability to walk to station). A through service stopping at the station after letting most passengers off at Union Station (i.e., very little or no upstream existing riders are delayed). Offsets to Travel Time Savings o o o High number of upstream passengers that are delayed with no express service option to bypass the new station. High delay at station (e.g., on slower accelerating diesel locomotive-hauled trip). Presence of an attractive parallel transit service (e.g., TTC subway) that may compete with the new station. Alighting riders and new boarding riders that are within 1km of a new station are generally the most significant drivers of benefits since these riders are dependent on walking and/or transit for station access/egress. Access/egress by these modes can be quite time consuming and a new station can offer significant time savings relative to the case without the station in place, depending on the geography and configuration of the local area transit network.

58 Analysis Framework A spreadsheet analysis framework was developed to provide estimates of travel time savings associated with each new station. The foundation for this analysis is observed 2013 GO Passenger Survey and Cordon Count data that is applied in an incremental manner for each new station. Although travel time savings is the focus of this analysis, the approach also generates estimates of vehicle kilometre reductions, ridership changes, and revenue estimates. An overview of the analysis approach is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of analysis approach The analysis builds off of observed 2013 data by primarily considering what would happen if each station existed in 2013 along with the RER express/local/through service structure and the speed improvements associated with electrification. New station boardings and alightings are estimated by considering existing ridership patterns and the boarding and alighting markets that each new station may serve in the AM peak. Observed ridership at similar benchmark stations is also examined to support the analysis where applicable. Travel time savings and delays associated with the new station are estimated by considering the access/egress times and the operating parameters of the RER services that serve and pass through each station. Next, annual line level ridership growth rates obtained from the Greater Golden Horseshoe Model (a four-stage regional travel demand model) are used to expand the 2013 metrics to a 2031 level. Finally, a dollar valuation of benefits and a 60-year cash flow analysis is conducted.