GO Transit Georgetown South Corridor Service Expansion and Airport Transportation Link between Lester B. Pearson Airport and Union Station

Transcription

1 GO Transit Georgetown South Corridor Service Expansion and Airport Transportation Link between Lester B. Pearson Airport and Union Station Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference GO Transit Georgetown South Corridor Service Expansion and Airport Transportation Link between Lester B. Pearson Airport and Union Station Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference October 2006 Page i

2

3 GO Transit Georgetown South Corridor Service Expansion and Airport Transportation Link between Lester B. Pearson Airport and Union Station Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference TABLE OF CONTENTS October 2006 Page 1. INTRODUCTION Background Area Context Commuter Rail Service in the Georgetown Corridor Government of Ontario Places to Grow Policy Initiative GO Georgetown - Previous Studies Airport Transportation Link - Background and Previous Studies Initiation of the Air-Rail Link Project Outline of the Terms of Reference PURPOSE OF THE UNDERTAKING Purpose of the GO Transit Georgetown South Corridor Expansion Purpose of the Airport Transportation Link PRELIMINARY EA STUDY AREA OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Description of the Existing Environment Potential Environmental Effects Identification of Environmental Effects Mitigation PLANNING ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING) Description and Statement of Rationale for Alternatives Planning Alternatives GO Transit Improvements Planning Alternatives Airport Transportation Link Assessment of Planning Alternatives GO Transit Improvements Airport Transportation Link Selection of the Preferred Planning Alternative DESIGN ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES METHODS OF CARRYING OUT THE UNDERTAKING) Process to Generate Design Alternatives Assessment and Evaluation of Design Alternatives Factor Specific Environmental Inputs to the Evaluation of Design Alternatives Preliminary Design, Analysis and Evaluation of the Undertaking EA CONSULTATION PLAN Preliminary Study Schedule Overall Process for Stakeholder Consultation During the EA Public Consultation During the EA Regulatory Agency and Municipal Consultation During the EA First Nations Engagement CONSULTATION DURING THE PREPARATION OF THE TOR...38 Page ii

4 GO Transit Georgetown South Corridor Service Expansion and Airport Transportation Link between Lester B. Pearson Airport and Union Station Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference 8.1 PRE-SUBMISSION REVIEW OF THE DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS IN THE EA TERMS OF REFERENCE OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Coordination MONITORING DOCUMENTATION...44 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1-1: GO Transit System Map Exhibit 2-1: Historical and Forecast GO Transit Georgetown Ridership Exhibit 3-1: Preliminary EA Study Area Exhibit 5-1: Schematic of the Steps in this EA Study TABLES Table 2-1: Examples of Airport Rail Transit Services Table 5-1: Evaluation Criteria and Measures for the Airport Transportation Link Table 6-1: Environmental and Technical Considerations during the Generation of Alternatives Table 8-1: Summary of Public Meetings Table 8-2: Summary of Advisory Committee Meetings APPENDICES Appendix A Glossary of Terms SUPPORTING DOCUMENT Supporting Document A Consultation Record (under separate cover) Supporting Document B Preliminary Schedule October 2006 Page iii

5 1. INTRODUCTION GO Transit the Province of Ontario s interregional public transit agency for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton areas has initiated an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA), in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA), for the Georgetown South Corridor Service Expansion and Airport Transportation Link between Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) and Union Station. One component of this study is to examine alternatives within and outside the Georgetown South corridor to determine if improved rail infrastructure within this corridor is the best alternative to meet increasing and long term demands for GO Transit service between Peel Region and the City of Toronto. The other component is to examine alternatives both within and outside of the Georgetown South Corridor for an Airport Transportation Link between Union Station and LBPIA. If the preferred alternative for this component is outside of this corridor, GO Transit will refer that planning alternative to the appropriate agency or jurisdiction for further review and action. If the preferred alternative for this component is the Air-Rail Link in the Georgetown corridor (see Section 1.1.6), the Union Pearson AirLink Group (UPAG) will be the proponent for operating that service. GO Transit will be the proponent for any required infrastructure upgrades within the Georgetown Corridor. The OEAA requires proponents to examine two types of alternatives. The first types of alternatives are Alternatives to the Undertaking. These are defined as functionally different ways of addressing an identified problem or opportunity. For the purpose of this Terms of Reference (ToR) and subsequent EA, these types of alternatives will be referred to as Planning Alternatives. The second types of alternatives are Alternative Methods (e.g., specific design and location alternatives). These are defined as different ways of carrying out the undertaking once a Preferred Planning Alternative has been considered. For the purpose of this ToR and subsequent EA, these types of alternatives will be referred to as Design Alternatives. Although these project components serve distinct purposes and objectives, they are being planned together in recognition that the Preferred Planning Alternatives could result in infrastructure improvements and service operations within the same corridor. Given that the project components serve different and distinct purposes and objectives, the range and types of Planning Alternatives to be considered are also different. As such, the initial stages of planning will be undertaken in separate streams. If the Preferred Planning Alternatives for both components result in the same corridor, the examination of Design Alternatives will be undertaken as one project and follow the process identified in this ToR. Additional details on the various project steps are outlined in this ToR. This ToR outlines what will be studied in the EA to address the information requirements set out in Section 6.1(2) of the OEAA. The ToR is being prepared in accordance with Section 6(2)(c) of the OEAA. This IEA is also being co-ordinated with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 1

6 1.1 BACKGROUND Area Context The portion of GO Transit s Georgetown commuter rail service in this study (the Georgetown South Corridor) uses the CN Weston Subdivision rail line from Union Station in the City of Toronto to just north of LBPIA in Peel Region. Travelling in a northwest direction from Union Station, this route passes through several municipal jurisdictions including the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipality of Peel, and the City of Mississauga. The land usage adjacent to the Georgetown South Corridor varies from section to section. In the City of Toronto, land use includes residential as well as a variety of light to medium industrialcommercial areas. In the City of Mississauga, the rail corridor goes through a mainly industrial area Commuter Rail Service in the Georgetown Corridor The GO Transit commuter rail system began with a single route on the Lakeshore line in 1967, and was immediately successful in meeting the growing mobility needs of Toronto area commuters. Subsequent expansion of service and routes led to the creation of one of the largest commuter rail systems in North America. Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the physical extent of the current GO Transit (train and bus) network. Exhibit 1-1: GO Transit System Map McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 2

7 GO Transit service in the Georgetown Corridor was introduced in April 1974; with 3 weekday morning trains inbound to Union Station in Toronto, returning in the afternoon. This was expanded to 4 trains in April Current service now includes the 4 peak period trains, an additional A.M train from Bramalea at the end of the morning peak period, and two additional afternoon trains one from Union Station to Brampton (before peak) and one to Bramalea (after peak). Additional mid-day service between Union Station and Bramalea was recently announced by GO Transit. The train service is supplemented by a GO Bus service during off-peak periods (mid-day, evenings and weekends) when there is no rail service Government of Ontario Places to Grow Policy Initiative On June 13, 2005, the Places to Grow Act, 2005 received Royal Assent. The Act is a long-term growth planning and infrastructure renewal instrument that provides a legal framework for the Government of Ontario to designate any geographic area of the province as a growth plan area and to develop a growth plan, in consultation with local officials and stakeholders, which creates jobs, attracts investment and protects the environment. The Act enables the government to plan for population growth, economic expansion and the protection of the environment, agricultural lands and other valuable natural resources in a coordinated and strategic way. The expressed purposes of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 are: (a) to enable decisions about growth to be made in ways that sustain a robust economy, build strong communities and promote a healthy environment and a culture of conservation; (b) to promote a rational and balanced approach to decisions about growth that builds on community priorities, strengths and opportunities and makes efficient use of infrastructure; (c) to enable planning for growth in a manner that reflects a broad geographical perspective and is integrated across natural and municipal boundaries; and (d) to ensure that a long-term vision and long-term goals guide decision-making about growth and provide for the co-ordination of growth policies among all levels of government. On June 16, 2006, the Government of Ontario released the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) ( the Plan ) as the first plan adopted under the Places to Grow Act, The Plan encompasses the cities of Toronto, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes, Guelph, Peterborough, Barrie, Orillia, and Brantford, the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, Durham, Waterloo and Niagara and the counties of Haldimand, Brant, Wellington, Dufferin, Simcoe, Northumberland and Peterborough. The rationale for the Plan stems from the fact that the GGH is the fastest growing urban area in Canada and the third fastest growing in North America. By 2031, close to 4 million more people and almost 2 million more jobs are forecast for this region and there is a recognized need for implementation of a strategic, coordinated growth plan. The Plan: Establishes coordinated population and job growth forecasts for municipalities as the basis for planning; Encourages revitalization of downtowns and city centers, making them more vibrant, people-oriented and attractive; McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 3

8 Reduces development pressures on agricultural lands and natural areas by directing more growth to existing urban areas; Ensures that new development is planned to create complete communities that offer more choices in housing, better transit and a range of amenities like shops, schools, entertainment and services that are closer to where people live; Identifies 25 downtown locations in the GGH that will be focal points for accommodating people and jobs, through initiatives that offer attractive new living options within easy access to shops and services. These centres will also support transit and the economy of the surrounding area; Complements the province s Greenbelt Plan that protects 1.8 million acres of valuable farmland and natural areas at the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe; Establishes an integrated transportation network that will offer more transportation choices for getting from place to place, reducing congestion on our roads; and Links planning for growth with planning for infrastructure, so that the roads, sewers, schools and other infrastructure is in place to meet the needs of growing communities. The Plan sets out policies for infrastructure development and renewal to support growth; these policies include those governing transportation infrastructure. Some of the key imperatives and concepts of the transportation component of the Plan include: Offering balanced transportation choices that reduce reliance upon any single mode; Providing connectivity amongst transportation modes for moving people; Reducing car dependency and traffic congestion; Contributing to better air quality; Spurring transit investment; Encouraging the most financially and environmentally appropriate mode for trip-making; and Providing for the safety of system users. Relationship to this Environmental Assessment Within the context of this environmental assessment, the Plan also provides guidance to decision-makers for the development, optimization, and/or expansion of new or existing transportation corridors, including: ensuring that corridors are identified and protected to meet current and projected needs for various travel modes; consideration of increased opportunities for moving people and goods by rail; and the separation of modes within corridors. With respect to moving people, the Plan states that all decisions on transit planning and investment will be made according to a set of criteria that includes consistency with a strategic framework for investment in an integrated transportation system, shown graphically in the Plan as Schedule 5. Schedule 5 includes Improved Higher Order Transit in the CN Rail Weston McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 4

9 Subdivision and a Proposed Higher Order Transit to 2031 link between the CN Rail Weston Subdivision and LBPIA. Higher order transit is defined as transit that generally operates in its own dedicated right-of-way, outside of mixed traffic, and therefore can achieve a frequency of service greater than mixed-traffic transit; and can include heavy rail, light rail and buses in dedicated rights-of-way. Also germane to the proposals under consideration in this environmental assessment is the Plan s inclusion of Downtown Toronto and Downtown Brampton in the 25 designated Urban Growth Centres. The Plan states that the Downtown Toronto Core will continue to be the primary centre for international finance and commerce of the GGH. The Plan also states that Urban Growth Centres will be planned: a) as focal areas for investment in institutional and region-wide public services, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses; b) to accommodate and support major transit infrastructure; c) to serve as high density major employment centres that will attract provincially, nationally or internationally significant employment uses; and d) to accommodate a significant share of population and employment growth; and sets out gross population and employment density targets that are intended to support and ensure the viability of existing and planned transit service levels. The Downtown Toronto and Downtown Brampton Urban Growth Centres are both located on the GO Transit Georgetown rail corridor and are the only such designated nodes on this corridor GO Georgetown - Previous Studies In the early 1980 s, numerous transportation planning initiatives were underway within and around Metro Toronto. These studies included potential rapid transit (e.g. subway or light rail) system expansion by Metro Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission, and the provincial GO-ALRT program. The GO-ALRT program envisioned an Advanced Light Rail Transit system stretching from Hamilton to Oshawa, with both a Northern and a Lakeshore branch through Metro Toronto and Mississauga. In this context, the potential role of GO Transit s commuter rail system was considered, and alternatives ranging from provision of full service on all routes to system expansion to new routes were contemplated. These questions led to a series of studies in the years between 1985 and 1991 which form the backdrop to the current study. Northwest Corridor GO Study (May 1985) CN Rail, at the request of GO Transit, reviewed the track requirements necessary to accommodate 20 minute service headway bi-directional peak hour GO Train service, with hourly off-peak trains on the Georgetown line. A basic criterion was the protection of the existing facilities and freight and passenger operating capabilities, which led to CN s conclusion that a three track corridor was needed between Keele Street and Georgetown, and a two track corridor between Union Station and Keele Street (along with sidings, passing tracks, connecting tracks, etc. as required). A schematic track plan was developed at a pre-feasibility level of detail, and a report outlining the track needs was published on May 10, McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 5

10 Richmond Hill and Georgetown Review (March 1986) With the cancellation of the GO-ALRT program in 1985, increased emphasis on conventional GO Transit service led GO Transit to make a preliminary assessment of the physical and operational feasibility and order-of-magnitude capital costs for implementing increased service on the Georgetown line. Possible additional stations were identified and various operational options were examined in detail. The study formed part of the Richmond Hill and Georgetown Review, Summary Report, published in March 1986, and among its conclusions were a number of recommendations for further study in the areas of service levels, train schedules, rolling stock needs, road system impacts, ridership potential, etc. CN Full Service Track Study (September 1990) In 1990, GO Transit requested CN Rail to identify, at a conceptual level, the track requirements to allow the provision of full (two-way all day) service on all of the CN routes used by GO Transit, including the Georgetown line. These plans were to be at a greater level of detail than produced in CN s 1985 study. A set of plans was subsequently generated by the CN Transit Expansion Program Report in September 1990, entitled Preliminary Full Service Track Plant for GO Transit s Accelerated Planning Program. These plans provided necessary input to the Georgetown Corridor Full Service Study subsequently carried out by GO Transit. GO Train Expansion Program Georgetown Corridor Full Service Study (January 1991) This study was carried out by GO Transit. The Full Service Study built on the conclusions of the previous studies, in which the technical and operational feasibility of expanding GO Train service on the Georgetown line was established. The purpose of the Full Service Study was to look more closely at the physical characteristics and the potential environmental impacts of the proposal, and review in greater detail any operational constraints, which may exist. The product of the study included a report documenting a functional track work design on 1:2000 scale plans, structural plans and requirements, station plans (including potential new stations), train layover site plans, property requirements, and cost estimates associated with the proposed work. GO Transit, upon reviewing the Full Service Study Final Report, decided that adequate technical feasibility and rationale existed to proceed to the next stage in the process - the preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR). GO Transit Georgetown Corridor Full Service Study Environmental Study Report (February 1994) This Class EA study was commenced in 1992 by GO Transit as a follow-up to the previous Full Service Study. The study progressed through the Public Consultation process, including the identification of a preferred alternative. The draft report was prepared but never filed on the public record due to funding cutbacks at the time. These cutbacks restricted GO Transit s ability to undertake the major expansion required to implement full service on the Georgetown line. GO Transit Georgetown Corridor Planning Study Final Report (February 2002) This assignment, carried out by GO Transit, was a technical update to the 1994 Full Service study and considered various staging options for the project. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 6

11 1.1.5 Airport Transportation Link - Background and Previous Studies There has been an interest in improved transit connections to LBPIA since the late 1980s. This interest has been manifested in a number of studies undertaken since that time and listed below. Transit Access to Lester B. Pearson International Airport final Report (July 1989) This study was undertaken by the Toronto Area Coordinating Office of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. The purpose of the study was to develop and evaluate options for better integration between regional / local public transit and the intra-airport transit system as well as to identify options for improved transit access to LBPIA made possible by expansion of local and regional transit services and to provide input to the planning of regional gateway facilities in the general area. The study provided a discussion of the LBPIA transportation situation as well as an overview of development plans and parking facilities. It also included a description and assessment of the existing roadway network and transit services providing access to and from the airport. The travel characteristics of daily travel generated by LBPIA were outlined. Finally the study provided a general assessment of a range of options for improved transit service to the airport and conclusions and recommendations regarding improved transit services. Overview of a GO Transit Connection, Pearson International Airport to Downtown Toronto (February 1990) This study was prepared for the Special Advisor to the Premier Waterfront Development; the purpose was to investigate the potential to provide access to LBPIA through a connection to the CN Weston Subdivision corridor. The study provides a general assessment of different types of transit technology and operational strategies, the general upgrading requirements for the corridor and options for a connection from the CN rail corridor to the airport terminals. The study identified the travel time for each of these links to the airport and comments on the major concern with the services as the unreliability of travel time due to traffic conditions encountered by buses traveling in mixed traffic. The study discusses the need to upgrade the rail corridor to accommodate reasonably frequent airport service and identifies the major improvements as a rail to rail grade separation at the West Toronto Junction, double tracking of the line to the Halwest Junction and a new station for the alternatives involving a transfer connection to the airport. Preliminary capital costs estimates are provided for this upgrading. The study provides preliminary suggestions for stations on the rail corridor and routing suggestions for the alternatives to the airport terminals. Lester B. Pearson and Area Transportation Study, Subway Connection Kipling Station to Lester B. Pearson Airport Review Paper (November 1991) This is a relatively brief paper prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) as input to the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Area Transportation Study. The purpose of the paper was to provide a general review of two corridors that could be used for a future transit link between the Kipling Station on the TTC Bloor Subway and LBPIA. The scope was limited to this specific connection and two possible corridors, namely Highway 427 and the Richview Manby Hydro corridor. It was intended as an assessment of a potential opportunity to provide improved public transit service to LBPIA. A comparison of the corridor alignment options and different types of transit technology was provided based on transportation service, impacts, McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 7

12 flexibility, staging, and capital costs. The costs were intended as order of magnitude costs only as property acquisition and a number of likely construction requirement costs were not included. Eglinton West Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment Report (January 1993) This report was prepared for the TTC. The report examined alternative means of improving transportation service in the Eglinton West corridor as part of the TTC s Rapid Transit Expansion Program (RTEP) for the Toronto Transit Commission. This report provides data on travel trends in the general study area and an analysis of existing roadway levels of service. Analysis in the report indicates that a rapid transit facility in the Eglinton Corridor could attract additional transit trips and contribute to reducing capacity deficiencies. The study included an analysis and evaluation of transit technology and a functional design of the facilities. The EA report for this project was approved by the Ministry of the Environment. Construction on the proposed new subway from the Spadina Subway to York City Centre was commenced but was subsequently cancelled due to withdrawal of provincial funding support. Lester B. Pearson International airport Area Transportation Study, Final Report (January 1994) This study was carried out for the MTO and Transport Canada. The study was initiated in response to the proposed expansion of LBPIA as well as anticipated growth in the area surrounding the airport. The study examined the needs, justification, and timing for short-term, interim-term, and long-term transportation improvements that would address the anticipated growth in an area generally bounded by Highway 407 to the north, Highway 27 to the east, Highway 403/Eglinton Ave to the south and Hurontario St to the west. Preparation for this report was conducted in coordination with representatives of the surrounding municipalities and Regions as well as the TTC and GO Transit. The study scope included an assessment of transportation needs to year 2021 based on anticipated Airport and study area development, the development and screening of a variety of alternative transportation alternatives, the evaluation of alternative transit systems and identification of the preferred system, a staging strategy and a public consultation program. Rapid Transit Access Alternatives to Pearson International Airport (March 1994) This study was carried out for the MTO to investigate alternatives for creating a rapid transit link between LBPIA and Toronto that could be implemented in a comparatively short period of time. The study focused only on alternatives that would utilize the CN Weston Subdivision to provide a connection to the central area of Toronto as this corridor was identified as providing the only reasonable alternative for rapid transit within the short term (5 years). The rapid transit technologies considered consisted of a rail spur connection, a People Mover or Light Rail Transit. The study was also based on a required 15 minute all day headway for the service. The investigation and analysis was conducted at a relatively strategic level using information from other studies. The comparison of alternatives considered the compatibility with the GO Transit expansion program, transit service characteristics, capital costs and other factors. Rapid Transit Access to Lester B. Pearson International Airport (May 1999) This study was undertaken by Transport Canada to re-examine the feasibility of a rapid transit connection to LBPIA, with a focus on the CN Weston Subdivision which carries the GO Transit Georgetown line and the VIA Rail service between Toronto and destinations in southwestern Ontario. This study investigated existing transit mode share of passengers at the Airport and McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 8

13 transit demand for the future. A range of system options such as heavy rail, subway, LRT, Automated Guideway Transit, and buses were generated as possible technologies for the airport access. For each system option, possible route alternatives that could accommodate each technology were identified. A preliminary evaluation of these alternatives was conducted based on overall cost, feasibility, and desirability. The study developed possible alignments for the airport access using the Weston Subdivision as the preferred route alternative, and compared estimated capital costs between a heavy rail option and an Automated Guideway Transit option. Lester B. Pearson International Airport Air-Rail Link Study Traffic and Financial Projections (March 2001) This study was conducted on behalf of Transport Canada. Based on service parameters defined in the Rapid Transit Access to Lester B. Pearson International Airport report prepared in 1999, the report presented a traffic and financial analysis for the proposed Air-Rail Link between LBPIA and Union Station in Downtown Toronto. The analysis presented included assessment of the air travel passenger demand for a railway system, capital cost estimates, operating cost estimates, and financial projections for an operator of the Air-Rail Link Initiation of the Air-Rail Link Project Working with GO Transit in determining possible funding for proposed GO Transit expansion, Transport Canada identified an opportunity to use excess capacity within the Georgetown Corridor to provide enhanced transportation service from Union Station to LBPIA. The work to determine the interest and feasibility of an Airport Transportation Link from Union Station to LBPIA was initiated in April 2001 when Transport Canada released a Request for Expressions of Interest (EOI) specifically for a rail link from Union Station to the LBPIA. Subsequent to the EOI submissions, a Request for Business Case Proposal was issued by Transport Canada resulting in the selection of the Union Pearson AirLink Group (UPAG) to design, construct, operate, and maintain an express rail link service between the Toronto core area (Union Station) and LBPIA operating, in part, on the CN Weston Subdivision. The service was to be at minimum cost to the public, subject to receiving the required Environmental Assessment approval. The proposed level of service was intended to be similar to services offered in other major urban centres, with the diversion of trips from auto use providing tangible benefits to the road network operation and environment. The service would also produce operating revenues which would substantially offset operating costs and make the service attractive to private sector investors. Since GO Transit was already in the process of initiating a Class Environmental Assessment study for the required expansion in the Georgetown South Corridor, it became apparent that the required Environmental Assessment approvals for both projects in the same corridor should be included in the same study. Therefore, an Environmental Assessment was initiated under the approved GO Transit Class EA process to examine both the Georgetown South Corridor expansion and the Air-Rail Link service from Union Station to LBPIA. After the first phase of public participation, that process was reconsidered and GO Transit decided to carry out the study as an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) Study. The initial approach for the Air-Rail Link has been expanded to look at all reasonable options for an Airport Transportation Link and to include corridors both within and outside of the Georgetown South Corridor as part the Individual Environmental Assessment. Both the GO Transit Georgetown South Corridor Service Expansion and the Airport Transportation Link are McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 9

14 being considered in the same study as they cannot be planned or designed separately if the result of the IEA has both components in the same corridor sharing the same tracks. 1.2 OUTLINE OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE The preparation, submission, and approval of the ToR is a requirement under Section 6 (1) of the OEAA prior to commencing an Individual EA. Once approved by the Ontario Minister of the Environment, the ToR will provide the framework for preparing the EA and serve as a benchmark for reviewing the EA. It is the first statutory decision by the Minister in the EA planning and approval process. The ToR sets out the minimum requirements and describes the methodology for conducting the EA. In general, the EA will include the following components: A description of the purpose of the undertaking (Chapter 2 of this document); A description of alternatives to the undertaking (Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this document), and alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking (Chapter 6 of this document); A description of: The environment that will be affected or might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the undertaking, the alternatives to the undertaking, and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (Chapter 4 of this document); The effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment, by the undertaking, the alternatives to the undertaking, and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (Chapter 4 and Sections 5.2, 6.2 and 6.3 of this document); and The actions necessary or that may reasonably be expected to be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the effects upon or the effects that might reasonably be expected upon the environment, by the undertaking, the alternatives to the undertaking, and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (Chapter 4 and Sections 5.2, 6.2 and 6.3 of this document); An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking (Section 6.3 of this document ), the alternatives to the undertaking (Section 5.2 of this document), and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (Section 6.2 of this document); A description of consultation about the undertaking by the proponent and the results of the consultation (Chapters 7 and 8 of this document). In addition, the ToR outlines: A preliminary description of the study area and the existing environment; A description of the public and agency consultation undertaken during the ToR preparation; Other approval requirements; and A commitment to carry out compliance monitoring. It is recognized that this project will also require a review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The CEAA review process focuses on the specific 'project' that is identified following the evaluation of alternatives, and reviews the impacts of that project on the McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 10

15 'environment'. The scoping activity that the Federal Authorities will undertake under CEAA is done independent of the of the IEA process described in this ToR. 2. PURPOSE OF THE UNDERTAKING 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE GO TRANSIT GEORGETOWN SOUTH CORRIDOR EXPANSION GO Transit GO Transit is Canada's first, and Ontario's only, interregional public transit system, linking the City of Toronto with the surrounding regions of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). GO Transit carries 47 million passengers a year on an extensive network of train and bus services that is one of North America s premier transportation systems. Since GO Train service began in May 1967, more than one billion people have taken the GO Train or the GO Bus. Officially known as the Greater Toronto Transit Authority (GTTA), GO Transit provides safe, convenient, and efficient transportation to communities within the GTA. GO Trains and GO Buses serve a population of more than five million in an 8,000-square kilometre area extending from Downtown Toronto to Hamilton, Milton, and Guelph in the west; Orangeville, Barrie, and Beaverton to the north; Stouffville, Uxbridge, and Port Perry in the northeast; and Oshawa and Newcastle in the east. The GO Buses widen service as far as 100 kilometres from Downtown Toronto. GO Transit connects with every municipal transit system in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton areas, including the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). The GTA includes the City of Toronto and the surrounding Regions of Halton, Peel, York, and Durham. GO Transit also serves the neighbouring City of Hamilton, and reaches into Simcoe, Dufferin, and Wellington Counties. Through formal agreements, all of the municipalities served by GO Transit are expected to contribute a proportion of the capital costs of growth and expansion projects. GO Transit s seven train lines are Lakeshore West, Milton, Georgetown, Bradford, Richmond Hill, Stouffville, and Lakeshore East. At peak rush-hour periods, train service is available at all train stations. In weekday off-peak hours, trains operate only on the Lakeshore lines between Oshawa in the east and Burlington in the west, and on the Georgetown line between Union Station in the southeast and Bramalea in the northwest. On weekends, trains operate only between Pickering in the east and Oakville in the west. Bus connections extend the Lakeshore service to Newcastle in the east and Hamilton in the west. The Georgetown South Corridor GO Transit s Georgetown Corridor runs southeasterly from the town of Georgetown through Brampton, east of LBPIA, through west Toronto and continues south and east to terminate at Union Station in downtown Toronto. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 11

16 This study includes the Georgetown South Corridor from just north of LBPIA to Union Station in downtown Toronto. A separate GO Transit Class EA on the expansion requirements for the Georgetown North Corridor north of this study area has been completed. The Georgetown South Corridor (this study) utilizes the tracks of the Canadian National Railway (CN) Weston Subdivision, which vary between one and two mainline tracks that have to accommodate 1) GO Transit commuter rail service, 2) CN freight service, and 3) VIA passenger rail service. Because of both track capacity and operating restrictions, commuter rail service between Union Station and Georgetown is currently limited to four peak period trains in the peak direction with some off-peak bi-directional service. Over the course of a normal weekday, ten trains travel towards Union Station and nine trains make the trip in the reverse direction. Within the limits of this study, 4 existing stations are located at Malton, Etobicoke North, Weston and Bloor. Ridership demand on the Georgetown line has been growing steadily since 1974 and significant additional growth is forecast. This growth is the result of planned expansion of population in the service area, employment growth in central Toronto and increased transit modal share of all trips due to roadway (auto) congestion, improved service and new transit facilities. The present Georgetown service is at or near capacity, with standing room only on many trips. This capacity cannot be increased without significant rail infrastructure improvements in the corridor. As can be seen in Exhibit 2-1, GO Transit ridership on the Georgetown Corridor has grown from approximately 2,500 daily trips in 1985 to over 8,000 daily trips in This growth in ridership is now limited by track capacity in the corridor. GO Transit s long term plan is to expand its current peak period peak direction commuter train service in the Georgetown Corridor to full (all day, two-way) service to accommodate both the existing latent demand in the corridor as well as proposed growth over the next 30 years. It is expected that daily ridership demand over that time period will exceed 12,000 daily one-way boardings. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 12

17 Exhibit 2-1: Historical and Forecast GO Transit Georgetown Ridership Therefore,, the purpose of GO Transit expansion in the Georgetown South Corridor is to determine the planned infrastructure improvements required to accommodate forecast GO Transit ridership growth over the next years. These infrastructure improvements will seek to not only provide additional service within the Georgetown South Corridor, but to re-enforce the overall GO transit network. Given that the time frame normally associated with planning approvals, design, construction and operational testing of new rail infrastructure is in the order of 5-7 years, it is important that any proposed improvements proceed expeditiously. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 13

18 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION LINK There are presently over 28 million passenger movements to and from LBPIA on an annual basis. This number is expected to grow to close to 50 million annual passenger movements by Of those trips, approximately 18% start or end their trip within the Toronto Central Area (2002 Halcrow Revenue and Ridership Study - Section 1.6). Aside from a large residential base, downtown Toronto is also a major financial, sports, cultural and convention destination attracting a large market of business/convention travellers and tourists. While there is existing private and public bus transit service to and from the airport, those services are subject to the same daily delays experienced by all road vehicles in the morning and evening peak periods in the Toronto area. This has the effect of the reducing the attractiveness and competitiveness of the downtown area for the aforementioned markets, with the potential for resultant socio-economic penalties or disbenefits to the City of Toronto and the GTA as a whole. There is currently no frequent, rapid, reliable transportation connection between LBPIA and Union Station, the two busiest and fastest growing transportation hubs in the GTA. Similar to other major cities (See examples in Table 2-1 below (2002 Halcrow Revenue and Ridership Study)), the availability of a fast, convenient and reliable transportation link between the major city centre and its major airport is recognized as having a positive impact on the economic competitiveness of the region. The major markets for these services are visitors (tourism and convention travel) and the daily downtown business travellers as well as workers within the LBPIA area. Benefits related to the Airport Transportation Link include the support of initiatives to increase transit use in order to enhance accessibility, while reducing vehicle emission, reducing congestion on adjacent roads, and minimizing the disruption on the built and natural environment. There appears to be opportunities to provide such a link to satisfy existing and projected demands between these transportation hubs and to complement existing public transit services, including establishing connections among the various transportation systems. As such, the purpose of this component of the study is to examine alternatives, both within and outside of the Georgetown South Corridor, in order to identify a preferred alternative to provide a frequent, rapid, reliable transportation connection between two of the busiest and fastest growing transportation hubs in the GTA (Union Station and LBPIA). Although the primary purpose of the study is to identify a preferred alternative to provide a frequent, rapid, reliable transportation connection between Union Station and LBPIA, the opportunity to derive local transportation benefits from the proposed services, where feasible, will also be examined. These opportunities include enhanced local transit connections (e.g., community has previously suggested additional stops) and will be developed when generating and evaluating alternatives. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 14

19 Table 2-1: Examples of Airport Rail Transit Services Airport Rail Time Rail Frequency Total Rail Time Taxi Time Ratio Rail/Taxi Rail Share (%) Oslo Zurich London Stansted Munich Rome Amsterdam London Heathrow Frankfurt Paris CDG London Gatwick Brussels Dusseldorf Paris Orly Barcelona Vienna Manchester Sydney Washington Nat l Atlanta Chicago - Midway Chicago O Hare St. Louis Cleveland Philadelphia McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 15

20 3. PRELIMINARY EA STUDY AREA The preliminary EA study area as shown below has been selected to include both the GO Georgetown South Corridor as well as a potential Airport Transportation Link between Union Station and the LBPIA. Exhibit 3-1 shows the study area bounded by Yonge Street in the east to west of Highway 427 (including LBPIA) in the West and from the Lakeshore in the south to north of Finch Avenue in the north. Exhibit 3-1: Preliminary EA Study Area McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 16

21 4. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed EA Study will utilize a study process that seeks to avoid, minimize or prevent adverse environmental effects to the extent possible. For the purposes of this study, the term "environment" reflects the definition in the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, which includes natural, social, economic and cultural features. Specific mitigation measures and the approaches for management of environmental effects will be developed and addressed during the EA. 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Secondary source environmental research has been undertaken during the course of preparing the EA ToR. This information has led to a basic understanding of the existing environment and major environmental features in the Georgetown South Corridor study area. The following summarizes the notable environmental features in the broader area. The area is situated within the City of Toronto and the Region of Peel and includes the City of Mississauga. The population of Toronto is 2,481,494 (Stats Canada, 2001 Census). Peel Region is comprised of three local municipalities with a total population of 988,948, which includes the City of Mississauga with a population of 612,925 (Stats Canada, 2001 Census). Both Toronto and Peel have Official Plans that provide the long-term vision for growth and the policies for implementing future growth. From a socio-economic perspective, the City of Toronto and Region of Peel are part of a larger region called the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The area spans west to Burlington, north to Lake Simcoe and east to Oshawa. With a variety of industries and many opportunities for employment, the GTA has a significant economic role in Ontario and Canada. The City of Toronto is Canada s largest city and is unique both economically and culturally. The concentration of economic activity has made Toronto a major business centre and a strong competitor in the global business world. The central business district, comprised of major financial services and other professional services, is a large importer of labour from surrounding areas. It is also the centre of many major cultural, entertainment, sports and convention activities and facilities. As such it attracted over 18.5 million visitors in 2004 and spending of almost $4 billion supporting the local economy. (Tourism Toronto 2004 Key Facts) LBPIA is located within the City of Mississauga and is Canada s largest airport, serving some 28 million air passengers annually. Totalling alone over 70,000 on-site employees, the airport contains diverse employment opportunities ranging from the airlines to aviation support, passenger services, retail, food and beverage, and federal government services. The airport also has a strong economic relationship with businesses in its vicinity, as well as serving the surrounding hotel market. The area is also crossed by many main highways that connect the region with other parts of eastern Canada and to the United States. These highways include the 401, QEW, 400, and 427. The Toronto Transit Commission and Mississauga Transit provide the area s residents with bus, McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 17

22 streetcar and subway services. GO Transit operates buses and rail lines that radiate out from Union Station to Hamilton, Milton, Georgetown and Bradford. The Humber River watershed and the Mimico Creek watershed are the most prominent natural environment features in the area. Both watersheds are highly urbanized within the study area. These rivers drain into the Lake Ontario basin. Toronto and Peel Region are part of a larger biophysical region that is bordered to the north by the Oak Ridges Moraine, on the west by the Niagara Escarpment and to the south by Lake Ontario. From a cultural perspective the area has provided a home for many in the past 12,000 years, first for Aboriginal peoples, later for European explorers and settlers and, more recently, those from Asia and Africa. Its central location on the main trade route between Lakes Huron and Ontario made it a strategic location from early on. Due to the fact that the area has evolved as the focal point for specialized services for the whole region, in fields as diverse as education, health, culture, entertainment, tourism and retailing, the area will continue to play an important role in the region. The study area features many diverse neighbourhoods that are unique socially and physically. These neighbourhoods contain low density residential uses within lower scale buildings, as well as parks, schools, local institutions and small-scale stores and shops. There are also higher density apartment neighbourhoods composed largely of apartment buildings. There are also many industrial districts and suburban office parks that are considered employment areas. Further environmental investigations, including secondary source reviews and field investigations, will occur during the EA to inventory the existing environment as defined by the OEAA. 4.2 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Identification of Environmental Effects The EA will describe and identify the potential natural, social, economic and cultural environmental effects of the preferred undertaking and alternatives. In general, the identification of potential environmental effects will include an inventory or profile of existing conditions, a prediction of the effects for each alternative, identification of impacts and mitigation measures, and an evaluation of advantages and disadvantages. Two types of alternatives are required to be examined to meet the requirements of the OEAA; these include Planning Alternatives (alternatives to the undertaking) and Design Alternatives (alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking). These alternatives are fundamentally different in scope and nature. Planning Alternatives consider a number of different approaches to deal with a given problem or opportunity and once an approach has been decided upon, the Design Alternatives look at different ways of applying the chosen approach. To generate and assess these two types of alternatives, the EA will involve two phases. The first phase will focus on the purpose and rationale of the undertaking, the identification and assessment of Planning Alternatives and selection of the preferred Planning Alternative. The McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 18

23 second phase of the EA will involve the generation and assessment of Design Alternatives and selection of a preferred alternative for both components of the undertaking. The planning framework is based on a phased sequence of decision-making in which these two types of alternatives are assessed at an increasing level of detail as they become more focused. In the initial stages (Planning Alternatives), when the size, location or type of facility is not yet known, less detailed criteria are used (see Chapter 5). At this stage, impact assessment will be conducted at a more general and strategic level, based primarily on secondary source information and verified by air photo interpretation and reconnaissance level investigations. At the Design Alternative phase, when it becomes more difficult to differentiate between alternatives, more detailed information is required (see Chapter 6 for criteria). Once a Preferred Alternative Design is selected, more focused data will be collected. This process of collecting additional environmental data as the project becomes more focused ensures that current information is sought and used throughout the study process. Potential effects to be studied include positive and negative effects (i.e. advantages and disadvantages). Chapters 5 and 6 outline the specific factors to be examined for Planning Alternatives, Design Alternatives and the Preferred Alternative. During the EA, the Proponent will work closely with the affected agencies and the public to refine issues/concerns in an attempt to develop acceptable measures for resolving concerns Mitigation As part of the identification of potential impacts, mitigation measures will be identified to eliminate or minimize predicted negative environmental effects, to the extent possible, that have been identified for the undertaking and its alternatives. The identification of mitigation measures will be developed in the context of relevant technical guidelines and policies. As this process will be iterative as alternatives are developed and evaluated, opportunities to avoid or minimize impacts will be integrated wherever feasible. Appropriate technical and economically feasible mitigation measures will be developed for specific characteristics and sensitivities of the environmental features and the related significance (e.g. magnitude, duration, certainty) of the potential impact. Such measures may include, but are not limited to: Avoidance measures (i.e. design options to minimize impacts to or caused by construction and operations); Protection measures (e.g. water quality and quantity through appropriate facility routing and drainage design); and Identification of the recommended construction timing window, staging of work, etc. Mitigation measures will be developed in consultation with appropriate agency staff and stakeholders to confirm the environmental analyses, issues and impacts, and subsequently to review the impact assessment and mitigation measures. Mitigation measures will also include recommendations for a monitoring program. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 19

24 5. PLANNING ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING) The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives to the undertaking or functionally different ways of solving the identified problem or opportunity. 5.1 DESCRIPTION AND STATEMENT OF RATIONALE FOR ALTERNATIVES As noted previously, two primary purposes are being examined as part of the EA Study: Infrastructure improvements within the Georgetown Corridor to meet increasing demands for GO Transit service between Peel Region and the City of Toronto; and, Options for a frequent, rapid, reliable transportation link between Union Station and LBPIA, both within and outside of the Georgetown Corridor. Given the two different and distinct purposes, the range and types of Planning Alternatives to be considered are also different. The following subsections outline the range of alternatives that will be considered for each of the two primary purposes. Should other Planning Alternatives be identified during the EA process that are considered reasonable and have good potential to meet the project purposes, they too will be considered in the assessment of alternatives Planning Alternatives GO Transit Improvements The Planning Alternatives for the expansion of GO Transit service within the Georgetown Corridor will include: i. The Do Nothing Alternative; ii. Expanded GO Bus services; iii. Expansion of existing rail service between Union Station and Georgetown. Descriptions of these alternatives are included below: i) The Do Nothing Alternative maintains the current level of service within the Georgetown Corridor. No additional trains are added and therefore no additional infrastructure is required. ii) iii) Expanded GO Bus service would include additional services between Georgetown and Union Station, including integration with GO Inter-regional BRT and the proposed Brampton AcceleRide program. Services would also integrate with the existing TTC services. The expansion of GO Rail service within the existing Georgetown Corridor will require that the existing infrastructure be expanded. The rail infrastructure expansion for GO Transit services may include: McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 20

25 Additional mainline track(s) between the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) connection and the north study limit Consideration of grade separations of existing at-grade road/rail crossings (West Toronto Diamond rail/rail grade separation project has been approved and is being implemented) Possible relocation of GO Stations or additional stations Widening of existing structures to accommodate additional tracks Modifications to existing stations to accommodate 12 car trains Planning Alternatives Airport Transportation Link The range of Planning Alternatives to be considered for the provision of a, frequent, rapid, reliable transportation connection between Union Station and LBPIA include the following: i. The Do Nothing Alternative; ii. Express bus service between Union Station and LBPIA using the Gardiner Expressway and Highway 427; iii. Surface rail service within the CN Weston corridor with a connection into the Airport (including several sub-options); iv. Rapid Transit service within the Eglinton corridor and a connection to the airport; v. Rapid Transit service utilizing the north-south hydro corridor or the Highway 427 corridor between the Kipling Subway Station and the Airport; vi. A Georgetown South Corridor subway; vii. A single technology rapid transit service utilizing the GO Lakeshore and Highway 427 corridors from Union Station to the airport Descriptions of the alternatives to be considered are included below. i) The Do Nothing Alternative maintains the status quo and does not add additional services between Union Station and LBPIA. Current transportation services to the airport include private vehicle, taxi and public transit (TTC). ii) Express Bus service between Union Station and LBPIA would include direct service from the GO Bus terminal, using the Gardiner Expressway and Highway 427 for travel to the airport. The existing roadway configuration would be maintained. Opportunities for dedicated lanes will be reviewed to improve travel time and reliability. iii) With respect to surface rail service, there are three potential options that might be considered: 1) Rapid rail service (Air-Rail Link as previously proposed by Transport Canada) within the CN Weston Corridor would include direct service from Union Station to the end of the Terminal 1 within LBPIA. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 21

26 2) Rapid rail service supplemented by some additional intermediate stations serving the adjacent communities. 3) GO Train service with a transit connection into the airport. iv) Rapid Transit service within the Eglinton Corridor would involve connections to the existing Yonge/Spadina Subway system at Eglinton Avenue. Service would run on an exclusive or semi-exclusive right-of-way at-grade or below grade to the Renforth/Eglinton intersection and access the airport from this point. Existing TTC subway services would be used between Eglinton Avenue and Union Station. v) Rapid Transit service within the north-south hydro corridor east of Highway 427 would commence at the TTC Kipling subway station and utilize the existing northsouth hydro corridor and then follow Eglinton Avenue. From Eglinton Avenue, service would access the Airport from the Renforth/Eglinton intersection. Service between Union Station and Kipling would be the existing TTC subway service. Within the hydro corridor, service would be either at-grade or below grade. This same type of service would also be explored using the Highway 427 corridor rather than the north-south Hydro corridor. vi) A Georgetown South Corridor subway would provide a single technology rapid transit service (mainly at the surface) from the Airport, along the Georgetown South Corridor and then along the GO Lakeshore corridor to Union Station. vii) This option would use a single transit technology from the Airport to Union Station following GO Lakeshore corridor in combination with the Highway 427 corridor. 5.2 ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ALTERNATIVES In order to assess the Planning Alternatives for the two identified primary objectives (the GO Transit interregional commuter expansion and the Airport Transportation Link), the EA decision making process will start out as a two-pronged decision tree as illustrated below in Exhibit 5-1. For the first phase of the process, the two sets of alternatives to will be assessed separately. A key component of the study process is the decision point after the evaluation of Planning Alternatives. Once this evaluation is complete, the selected Planning Alternative will be placed in one of the following five categories to determine the next steps: 1. If the Preferred Planning Alternative for both components is Do Nothing the EA process is complete and no further study will be initiated. 2. If the Preferred Planning Alternative for one component is Do Nothing and the Preferred Planning Alternative for the other is entirely within the jurisdiction of GO Transit or UPAG the EA process for the Do Nothing component is complete and no further study will be initiated. The EA process for the other component will continue and proceed to the Design Alternatives stage as outlined in this ToR document. 3. If the Preferred Planning Alternative for both components is a transportation mode or solution that is outside the jurisdiction of GO Transit or UPAG the current EA process will be halted; GO Transit will refer the Planning Alternative to the appropriate agency or jurisdiction for further review and action. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 22

27 4. If the Preferred Planning Alternative for one component is a transportation mode or solution that is outside the jurisdiction of GO Transit or UPAG and the Preferred Planning Alternative for the other component is entirely within the jurisdiction of GO Transit or UPAG - the current EA process for the component outside the jurisdiction of GO Transit or UPAG will be halted and GO Transit will refer the Planning Alternative to the appropriate agency or jurisdiction for further review and action. The EA process for the other component will continue and proceed to the Design Alternatives stage as outlined in this ToR document. 5. If the Preferred Planning Alternative for both components is within the jurisdiction of GO Transit and UPAG then the EA will continue to investigate the design options for developing both services within the Georgetown South Corridor. Exhibit 5-1: Schematic of the Steps in this EA Study Planning Alternatives provide an opportunity to examine fundamentally different ways of addressing transportation problems. In recognition of these fundamental differences among the Planning Alternatives, it is appropriate to examine the effectiveness of each type of alternative to address the problems and take advantage of opportunities at a functional level. McCormick Rankin Corporation October 2006 Page 23