Arup FOI PDF

Karen Thorburn
From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>

Sent: May-20-16 9:22AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Contract
Hi Karen,
Could you let me know when would be a good time to give you a call to have a quick chat about the contract, please?
(I'm free untillO:OOam and then from 1:30pm onwards)
Thanks!
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Associate I Transportation Consulting
Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W 1A8 Canada
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business

systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
Page 1 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Karen Thorburn

Sent: July-22 -16 1:08PM
To: 'Felipe Camargo'
Subject: Contract
Hi Felipe,
Just wanted to check in regarding closing out the billing for the work ARUP did on the transit expansion business cases.
Happy to discuss.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Senior Advisor, Corporate Initiatives
Strategic & Corporate Policy Division
City Manager's Office, City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392-2720
Email: karen.thorburn@toronto.ca
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and
obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an
intended recipient is unauthorized. lfyou receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 2 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>

Sent: May-11-16 12:19 PM
To: James.Fraser@ttc.ca; Paui.Millet@ttc.ca; Rick.Thompson@ttc.ca
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Mike Logan
Subject: Cost inputs for business cases
Attachments: Cost inputs sheet.xlsx
James, Paul, Rick,
Following up on yesterday's conversation, please find attached the worksheet that we will use in the business case
spreadsheet for cost inputs. We've tried to keep it as simple as possible, but please let us know if this template doesn't
work for you. The project options listed on the left hand side of the table correspond to the naming convention used in
the tables that the City team has circulated.
As I mentioned yesterday, the values we're after are the incremental costs of the options vs the base, however, we've
included the base options in the worksheet in case that's more convenient for you . Our preference would be to have
the incremental numbers only.
Regarding Recapitalization costs, would it be correct to assume that these would only apply to the base options? (and
therefore the net impact of these would be to reduce the incremental cost of options?)
Thank you all for your help,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 3 of 1092
Costs 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Costs
ST -1
ST- 2
ST- 3
RL- 1
RL- 2
RL - 3
SSE -1
SSE- 2A
SSE- 2B
SSE- 2C
EELRT- 1
EELRT- 2
EELRT- 3
Recapitalization Costs
ST -1
ST- 2
ST- 3
RL- 1
RL- 2
RL- 3
SSE -1
SSE- 2A
SSE- 2B
SSE- 2C
EELRT -1
EELRT- 2
EELRT - 3
O&MCosts
ST -1
ST- 2
ST- 3
RL - 1
RL - 2
RL- 3
SSE- 1
SSE- 2A
SSE- 2B
SSE- 2C
EELRT -1
EELRT- 2
EELRT- 3
Page 4 of 1092
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Page 5 of 1092
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039
Page 6 of 1092
2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048
Page 7 of 1092
2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057
Page 8 of 1092
2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066
Page 9 of 1092
2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075
Page 10 of 1092
2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084
Page 11 of 1092
2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091
Page 12 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Subject: For 10:30 call
Attachments: Economic Case Comparison.docx
Karen Thorburn
Senior Corporate Management & Policy Consultant
Strategic & Corporate Policy, City Manager's Office
City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392-2720, Email: kthorbu@toronto.ca
intended recipient is unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 13 of 1092
Economic Case Meas ures Compari son
EGWLRT RERmc
Benefit Metric
PV of Travel Time Benefit Travel Time Impact (savings and delays to both new Travel Time Savings (existing and new users) Value of time savings for existing transit users
and existing users) Value of time savings for new transit users
Journey Time Benefits PV of Journey Time Benefits

by income band
PV of Journey Time Benefits
by travel time change band
PV of Crowding Relief Same as congestion relief?? Same as congestion relief??
Crowding Relief
Benefit
PV of Fare Savings Benefits
PV of Revenue Impacts N/A New Fare Revenue
Fare Savings
PV of Fare Savings Benefits
by income band
Reliability/Quality Savings (Existing Transit
Users)
Auto operating cost savings (due to mode shift from Vehicle Operation Savings (Auto Switch) Reduction in automobile operating costs
auto to transit)
Emissions Savings (Auto Switch)
Same as crowding reHef Congestion Relief (due to mode shift from auto to Congestion Reduction (Auto Switch) Same as time savings for road users below?
above? transit)
Collison Reduction (due to mode shift from auto to Collision Reduction (Auto Switch) Safety benefits (reduction in road accidents)
transit)
Environmental Benefits
Value of time savings for road user in rush hour
Value of time savings for road users outside rush
hour
Overall Indicators Benefi t to Cost Ratio Benefi t to Cost Ratio Benefi t to Cost Ratio Benefit to Cost Ratio
Net Present Value Net Present Value Net Present Val ue Net Present Value
Page 14 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: June-06-16 4:37PM
Subject: Can you send the ST Economic Case outputs?
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Email: kthorbu@toronto.ca
This e-mail may be privileged and/or corifidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and
Page 15 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: call
Hi Karen,
I've been calling your office number but haven't been able to reach you. Please let me know when you're available and
I'll call you (or if you have another number I could try).
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 16 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-10-16 11:12 AM
To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Jim Fraser
Subject: Apologies I will be there in a minute
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.
Page 17 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Subject: are you available to have a quick call?
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
intended recipient is unauthorized. lf you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 18 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-10-16 10:32 AM
To: 'Felipe Camargo'; 'James.Fraser@ttc.ca'; Paui.Millett@ttc.ca; Rick.Thompson@ttc.ca
Cc: Mike Logan
Subject: Agenda Items for 11am
Hello,
For this morning at 11 am.
1. overview of economic case measures and methodology

2. cost estimate development
3. next steps
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 19 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Cc: Peter Notaro
Subject: Additional Runs
Hi Felipe,
As mentioned today. I've briefed up and there is a request to do some additional runs. I'm meeting
with Planning first thing in morning to determine next steps. Will update you asap.
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and ,
obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the iriformation it contains by other than an
Page 20 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain
Subject: Accessibility numbers for RL
Hi Felipe
We will have new numbers for the accessibility calculator. Mike Wehkind copied will be sending an email with
the updated assumptions on the RL headways.
Thanks
Karen
Page 21 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-16-16 2:02PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Accessibility modelling
Hi Felipe,
Can you please let me know how the accessibility modelling is going, and when we can expect to see draft results?
Thanks!
Mike logan, MCIP RPP

Senior Transportation Planner
Transit Implementation Unit I City Planning
416.338.5568
100 Queen Street West
21 st Floor, East Tower
Page 22 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Ka ren Thorburn

Sent: April-27-16 11:45 AM
Subject: Friday-3:30pm
Hi Felipe,
Unfortunately, I can't make schedules work for 10:30am or 1:30pm on Friday.
Would 3:30pm at City Hall be an option?
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
intended recipient is unauthorized. lf you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 23 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Subject: RE: Cost inputs for business cases
Hi Felipe ,
Thanks for sending this around. As discussed yesterday, for SSE, the economic case will only assess
options 1 (McCowan 3 stop) and option 2A (McCowan Express). Therefore , do you need TTC to
populate the other SSE options?
STand EgE costs the City will have to obtain for you.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com]

Sent: May-11-16 12:19 PM
To: James.Fraser@ttc.ca; Paui.Millet@ttc.ca; Rick.Thompson@ttc.ca
James, Paul, Rick,
Following up on yesterday's conversation, please find attached the worksheet that we will use in the business
case spreadsheet for cost inputs. We've tried to keep it as simple as possible, but please let us know if this
template doesn't work for you . The project options listed on the left hand side of the table correspond to the
naming convention used in the tables that the City team has circulated.
As I mentioned yesterday, the values we're after are the incremental costs of the options vs the base, however,
we've included the base options in the worksheet in case that's more convenient for you . Our preference would
be to have the incremental numbers only.
Regarding Recapitalization costs, would it be correct to assume that these would only apply to the base
options? (and therefore the net impact of these would be to reduce the incremental cost of options?)
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W lA8 Canada
1
Page 24 of 1092
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore in nO\ ation in the huilt environment on Doggerel
Page 25 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo @arup.com >

To: James.Fraser@ttc.ca; Rick.Thompson @ttc.ca; Paui.Millett@ttc.ca
Dear all,
A quick clarification on the spreadsheet : Since it's been decided that we will not be assessing the economic case for SSE
options 2B and 2C, we won't be needing costs for them so please ignore the lines for those two options. (Thanks for
pointing that out Karen)
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Felipe Camargo

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:19 PM
To: 'James.Fraser@ttc.ca'; 'Paui.Millet@ttc.ca'; 'Rick.Thompson@ttc.ca'
Cc: 'Karen Thorburn'; Mike Logan
James, Paul, Rick,
Following up on yesterday' s conversation, please find attached the worksheet that we will use in the business case
spreadsheet for cost inputs. We've tried to keep it as simple as possible, but please let us know if this template doesn't
work for you. The project options listed on the left hand side of the table correspond to the naming convention used in
the tables that the City team has circulated .
As I mentioned yesterday, the values we're after are the incremental costs of the options vs the base, however, we've
included the base options in the worksheet in case that's more convenient for you . Our preference would be to have
the incremental numbers only.
Regarding Recapitalization costs, would it be correct to assume that these would only apply to the base options? (and
therefore the net impact of these would be to reduce the incremental cost of options?)
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
Page 26 of 1092
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 27 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: James.Fraser@ttc.ca
To: Felipe.Cama rgo@arup.com; Rick.Thompson @ttc.ca; Paui.Millett@ttc.ca
Felipe,
Thanks for the spreadsheet.
My understanding is we (TIC) are only providing the capital construction costs, O&M and recapitalization costs for SSE
and RL.
Jim
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup.com]

Sent: May-11-16 12:19 PM
To: Fraser, James; Paui.Millet@ttc.ca; Thompson, Rick
James, Paul, Rick,
template doesn't work for you . The project options listed on the left hand side of the table correspond to the
naming convention used in the tables that the City team has circulated .
we've included the base options in the worksheet in case that's more convenient for you. Our preference would
be to have the increment al numbers only.
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
1
Page 28 of 1092
www.arup.com
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any
action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is
strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts
no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of
information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer
is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Page 29 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo@arup.com >

Sent: May-12-16 8:39 AM
To: James.Fraser@ttc.ca; Rick.Thompson@ttc.ca; Paui.Millett@ttc.ca
Thanks, yes, that's correct. Karen has confirmed that the City team will provide SmartT rack and Eglinton East costs.
Cheers,
Felipe
From: James.Fraser@ttc.ca [mailto :James.Fraser@ttc.ca]

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:26AM
To: Felipe Camargo; Rick.Thompson@ttc.ca; Paui.Millett@ttc.ca
Cc: kthorbu@toronto.ca; mlogan@toronto .ca
Felipe,
Thanks for the spreadsheet.
My understanding is we (TIC) are only providing the capital construction costs, O&M and recapitalization costs for SSE
and RL.
Jim
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com ]

Sent: May-11-16 12:19 PM
To: Fraser, James; Paui.Millet@ttc.ca ; Thompson, Rick
James, Paui,.Rick,
template doesn't work for you. The project options listed on the left hand side of the table correspond to the
naming convention used in the tables that the City team has circulated.
we've included the base options in the worksheet in case that's more convenient for you. Our preference would
be to have the incremental numbers only.
Page 30 of 1092
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited .
If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and
security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-
mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this
e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any
manner.
Page 31 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: July-22-16 2:47 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Contract
Hi Karen,
Thanks, yes, we need to do this asap. I'm currently waiting for a time transfer to be finalized here (because we started
out without a contract we put time down to 'ad min' codes and for some reason it takes a lot of time to get things
moved over) before I can prepare the invoice, but it should happen soon.
Could you let me know when you're at your office and I'll give you a call?
Thanks!
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:Karen .Thorburn@toronto.ca]

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Contract
Hi Felipe,
Happy to discuss.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Email: karen. thorburn@toronto.ca
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any
distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is
unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 32 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: July-22-16 4:30PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Contract
Hi Felipe let's connect monday
I've been in meetings most of the afternoon

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 2:47 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Contract
Hi Karen,
Thanks, yes, we need to do this asap. I'm currently waiting for a time transfer to be finalized here (because we started
out without a contract we put time down to 'admin' codes and for some reason it takes a lot of time to get things
moved over) before I can prepare the invoice, but it should happen soon.
Could you let me know when you're at your office and I'll give you a call?
Thanks!
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:Karen.Thorburn@toronto.ca]

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 1:08PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Contract
Hi Felipe,
Happy to discuss.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Email: karen. thorburn@toronto.ca
Page 33 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: April-26-16 5:51PM
Cc: Peter Notaro
Subject: RE: City of Toronto: Transit Business Case Support
Sensitivity: Confidential
Great, I will call your number (416-515-0915) at lOam tomorrow. I may also have someone from City Planning
on the call as well.
I would like to talk through:
1. Scope (including required inputs from the City such as ridership)

2. Schedule
3. Budget
4. Procurement
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: City of Toronto: Transit Business Case Support
Hi Karen,
lOam works great.
Thanks,
Felipe
On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:01PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
How about lOam?

Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:16 PM
To: Karen Thorburn; Peter Notaro
1
Page 34 of 1092
Cc: Maureen Elliott
Hi Karen,
No worries, a call tomorrow would be perfect. Other than 12-1pm, I'm available any time
tomorrow.
Thanks,
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo; Peter Notaro
Cc: Maureen Elliott
Subject: RE: City of Toronto : Transit Business Case Support
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for following up. I work for Peter Notaro and will be project managing for the
City Manager's Office. Apologies for the delay in responding , I was away for the last
week without access to email. If possible, could we arrange to have a call tomorrow or
Thursday to discuss the terms of reference and procurement related matters for this
work. I have attached for your information the final approved list of options we are
developing business case analysis for.
Please advise , and I will look into arranging a time.
Thanks,
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related
rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error,
please advise me.
Page 35 of 1092
To: Peter Notaro
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Peter,
Just checking in to see if there's been any progress at your end on this.
Thanks,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, April20, 2016 1:18PM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Cc: 'Karen Thorburn'; Ryan Falconer
Hi Peter,
Further to the email I sent you on Monday and following a conversation with Mike Logan in
City Planning (who Project Managed our work on the connectivity analysis a few months ago), I
suggest we all have a call first thing tomorrow (Thursday) to talk through the priorities for each
business case in terms of the greatest impacts/benefits.
It would also be great if you could share with us the latest list of options for each of the business
cases, in advance of tomorrow's call, if you're happy to go ahead with it.
The call and the options list will help us plan for how we will structure our work.
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
3
Page 36 of 1092
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Monday, April18, 2016 2:34PM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Cc: 'Karen Thorburn '; Ryan Falconer
Hi Peter,
We've reviewed the scope of work and have some minor suggested modifications (please see
attached). Additionally, we'd like to note that given the very schedule, availability of input
information, particularly estimates or assumptions of costs and option descriptions, within the
first days of the study is essential.
Ideally we'd like to get started as soon as possible so, if you agree, we would like to start liaising
with the Project Team this week to make sure we have a clear understanding of the options and
agree and, when the time for the kick-off meeting comes next week, we're able to discuss and
agree a proposed evaluation framework.
Regarding the client side team, would you be the Project Manager? And would I be correct in
assuming that the Project Team will be made up of members of the Transit Implementation
Team?
Regards ,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I A8 Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Monday, April18, 2016 8:01 AM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Ryan Falconer
Page 37 of 1092
Hi Peter,
Thank you for forwarding the scope of work. I can anticipate that we're still in a good position
to do the work and are ready to mobilize the team but we will review and will get back to you
later today to let you know of any concerns or comments.
Yes, we have been supporting Metrolinx for the last year and a half, working with them and
Leeds University on developing the Business Case Development Handbook. Amongst other
work done as part of this contract, we ' ve developed the Accessibility Toolkit that will be used to
help inform some of the benefits estimates for the Transit Business Cases.
Regards ,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W IA8 Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Peter Notaro [mailto :pnotaro@toronto.ca ]

Sent: Friday, Aprill5, 2016 5:45 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Subject: City of Toronto: Transit Business Case Support
Hi Felipe
Thanks for the proposal submitted on March 19, 2016 to our City Planning Division (Tim
Laspa). The City Manager's Office is leading the coordination of business case development as
it involves a number of city divisions and external partners. We have developed a scope of work
for the services required, and would appreciate your review. Given the significant time
constraints, we are looking to retain consulting services on an expedited basis to support the
City's business case development for a number of projects. In particular with focus on the
economic case analysis. I understand ARUP has significant experience in this area, and in
particular utilizing the Metrolinx Business Case Methodology, which the City is adopting.
If you could advise if ARUP is still in a position to support this work, it would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Peter Notaro
Executive Director, Strategic and Corporate Policy

5
Page 38 of 1092
City Manager's Office
416.392.8066
Page 39 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: April-26 -16 6:00PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Peter Notaro
Ok, that sounds good. Though it may be better to dial my direct line: 647 260 3474.
Cheers,
Felipe
On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:50PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote :
Great, I will call your number (416-515-0915) at lOam tomorrow. I may also have someone from City
Planning on the call as well.
I would like to talk through:
1. Scope (including required inputs from the City such as ridership)
2. Schedule
3. Budget
4. Procurement
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup.com ]
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
lOam works great.
Thanks,
Felipe
On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote :
Hi Felipe
How about lOam?


1
Page 40 of 1092
To: Karen Thorburn; Peter Notaro
Cc: Maureen Elliott
Subject: RE : City of Toronto: Transit Business Case Support
Hi Karen,
No worries, a call tomorrow would be perfect. Other than 12-1pm, I'm available any
time tomorrow.
Thanks,
Felipe

Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:11PM
To: Felipe Camargo; Peter Notaro
Cc: Maureen Elliott
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for following up. I work for Peter Notaro and will be project managing for the
City Manager's Office. Apologies for the delay in responding, I was away for the last
week without access to email. If possible, could we arrange to have a call tomorrow or
Thursday to discuss the terms of reference and procurement related matters for this
work. I have attached for your information the final approved list of options we are
developing business case analysis for.
Please advise, and I will look into arranging a time .
Thanks,
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any
related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the
information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you
receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
To: Peter Notaro
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE : City of Toronto : Transit Business Case Support
Hi Peter,
Thanks,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:18 PM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
2
Page 41 of 1092
Further to the email I sent you on Monday and following a conversation with Mike
Logan in City Planning (who Project Managed our work on the connectivity analysis a
few months agoL I suggest we all have a call first thing tomorrow (Thursday) to talk
through the priorities for each business case in terms of the greatest impacts/benefits.
It would also be great if you could share with us the latest list of options for each of the
business cases, in advance of tomorrow's call, if you're happy to go ahead with it.
Thanks,
Fel ipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m : +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore innovation in the bu ilt environment on Doggerel
From : Fe"lipe Camargo
To: 'Peter Notaro '
Hi Peter,
We've reviewed the scope of work and have some minor suggested modifications
(please see attached). Additionally, we'd like to note that given the very schedule,
availability of input information, particularly estimates or assumptions of costs and
option descriptions, within the first days of the study is essential.
Ideally we' d like to get started as soon as possible so, if you agree, we would like to
start liaising with the Project Team this week to make sure we have a clear
understanding of the options and agree and, when the time for the kick-off meeting
comes next week, we' re able to discuss and agree a proposed evaluation framework.
Regarding the client side team, would you be the Project Manager? And would I be
correct in assuming that the Project Team will be made up of members of the Transit
Implementation Team?
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Sent: Monday, April18, 2016 8:01 AM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
3
Page 42 of 1092
Thank you for forwarding the scope of work. I can anticipate that we're still in a good
position to do the work and are ready to mobilize the team but we will review and will
get back to you later today to let you know of any concerns or comments.
Yes, we have been supporting Metrolinx for the last year and a half, working with them
and Leeds University on developing the Business Case Development Handbook.
Amongst other work done as part of this contract, we've developed the Accessibility
Toolkit that will be used to help inform some of the benefits estimates for the Transit
Business Cases.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m : +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Sent: Friday, April15, 2016 5:45 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe
Thanks for the proposal submitted on March 19, 2016 to our City Planning Division (Tim
Laspa) . The City Manager's Office is leading the coordination of business case
development as it involves a number of city divisions and external partners. We have
developed a scope of work for the services required, and would appreciate your review.
Given the significant time constraints, we are looking to retain consulting services on an
expedited basis to support the City's business case development for a number of
projects. In particular with focus on the economic case analysis. I understand ARUP has
significant experience in this area, and in particular utilizing the Metrolinx Business Case
Methodology, which the City is adopting.
If you could advise if ARUP is still in a position to support this work, it would be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Peter Notaro
416.392.8066
Page 43 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com >

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: call
Hi Karen,
No worries, I just wanted to updated you on where we are, but we can use the call that Michael Hain is arranging for
that.
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: call
Hi Felipe
Sorry I had meetings most of yesterday.
I'll try to reach you at 10 if your available or this afternoon is looking pretty flexible
From my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: call
Hi Karen,
I've been calling your office number but haven't been able to reach you . Please let me know when you're available and
I'll call you (or if you have another number I could try).
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Page 44 of 1092
Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 45 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Fel ipe Camargo
Subject: Re: call
Hi Felipe
Sorry I had meetings most of yesterday.
I'll try to reach you at 10 if your available or this afternoon is looking pretty flexible
From my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: call
Hi Karen,
I've been calling your office number but haven't been able to reach you . Please let me know when you' re available and
I'll call you (or if you have another number I could try) .
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 46 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: June-01-16 5:39 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: As discussed
Ok, 9:30am works for me (I have a short internal meeting at lOam, though)
On Jun 1, 2016, at 5:37PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote :
No worries .
Lets connect tomorrow I have a meeting until 9:30am. So after?
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com )
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re : As discussed
Hi Karen,
Sorry I only just heard your message (was on my way to Metrolinx when you called).
I'll give you a call as soon as I get off the train; if I can't find you I'll give you a call first thing tomorrow
(at what time are you normally in?)
Thanks,
Felipe
On Jun 1, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote :
Hi Felipe,
Confidential draft attached . Same password as before .
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392 -2720, Email: kthorbu@toronto.ca
Page 47 of 1092

systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viru ses
Page 48 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: As discussed
Thanks Karen,
I'll give you a call tomorrow morning to update you on where things are at by then.
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:40PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: As discussed
Importance: High
Hi Felipe,
Confidential draft attached. Same password as before.
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 49 of 1092
Page 50 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Subject: RE: As discussed
No worries.
Lets connect tomorrow I have a meeting until 9:30am. So after?

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: As discussed
Hi Karen,
Sorry I only just heard your message (was on my way to Metrolinx when you called).
I'll give you a call as soon as I get off the train; if I can't find you I'll give you a call first thing tomorrow (at what time are
you normally in?)
Thanks,
Felipe
On Jun 1, 2016, at 3:39PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe,
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 51 of 1092
please advise me.

Page 52 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Peter Notaro
Subject: Re: Additional Runs
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the update. We'll be standing by.
Cheers,
Felipe
On Jun 7, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote:
Hi Felipe,
As mentioned today. I've briefed up and there is a request to do some additional runs . I'm meeting with
Planning first thing in morning to determine next steps. Will update you asap.
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720

Page 53 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Accessibility numbers for RL
Hi Karen,
Ok, sounds good. We'll make the changes and set the runs as soon as we get the assumption updates.
Thanks,
Felipe
On Jun 14, 2016, at 5:08PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto .ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
We will have new numbers for the accessibility calculator. Mike Wehkind copied will be
sending an email with the updated assumptions on the RL headways.
Thanks
Karen

Page 54 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

To: Peter Moore
Cc: Felipe Camargo; Karen Thorburn
Subject: Population and Employment Projection Data
Hello Peter,
As you know, we are undertaking business cases for all of our current priority transit projects. As part of this work, ARUP
Canada Inc. is undertaking accessibility modelling, as well as translating benefits and costs into benefit/cost ratios as per
the Metrolinx business case guidance .
For the accessibility modelling, ARUP needs to use the SmartTrack population and employment forecasts . I'm expecting
that ARUP will need to sign a data usage agreement before we provide the data. Would you be able to send this to me,
or directly to Felipe, copied on this email?
Thanks!

Transit Implementation Unit I C ity Planning
416.338.5568
Page 55 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-31-16 10:24 PM
Subject: Output timing
Hi Felipe
I was wondering what the timing is for receiving the outputs for economic case numbers on SSE and RL and
the one EgE option that has cost numbers assigned to it?
As mentioned before I would like to set up a briefing to go through numbers that are available.
Pis advise.
Thanks
Karen
Page 56 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Subject: Meeting with TTC on Cost Estimates for SSE and RL
Hi Felipe,
I'm following up to set up a meeting with TTC to discuss how the cost estimates will input to the
economic case for SSE and RL.
I think next week is likely the earliest we can schedule a meeting given the events of this week. Are
there any days that are particularly difficult for you?
Monday is unfortunately not an option for me.
Please advise.
Thanks,
Karen
2-270
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 57 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-24-16 12:16 PM
Cc: Peter Nota ro; Ch ri stina Hueniken
Subject: LOA-ARUP
Attachments: 2016-05-24 LOA for ARUP.docx
Importance: High
Hi Felipe,
I have discussed the proposed changes with both our Legal and Insurance & Risk Management
Group. The language is standard and I've been advised can't be changed.
If you wish to discuss please advise.
Thanks
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 58 of 1092
THIS AGREEMENT made in quadruplicate this 25th day of May 2016.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
:E
a: Hereinafter called the "City"
0
u.. :;1
0 "'
i:
0
1- c;; OF THE FIRST PART
(/)
< "'c:
~
c "'c:c: -and-
w
> <(
0 0
a: u.. ARUPCANADAINCOPORATED
c..
c..
< Hereinafter called the "Consultant''
OF THE SECOND PART
RECITALS:
WHEREAS the City wishes to retain a qualified consultant to undertake specialized economic business
case analysis for transit expansion projects as required by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS in accordance with Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 71 the City Manager may retain the
Consultant to provide the Services in connection with the Project in accordance with all the terms and
conditions herein at a total cost not in excess of $113,000.00 inclusive of applicable taxes; and
WHEREAS the Consultant has agreed to perform certain professional services for and in connection with
the Project at a fee therefore, and upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1. THE SERVICES:
(1) The Consultant shall supply, provide and perform, with all due and reasonable diligence,
professional skill and competence, to the satisfaction of the City Manager as represented by
the designated City representative for the Project {the "Project Manager''), those
professional services more particularly set forth in Schedule "A" hereto attached {hereinafter
called the "Services"), all in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Consultant
agrees that the Services shall be completed within the time frames identified in Schedule
"A" unless otherwise approved by the Project Manager.
(2) The Consultant represents , warrants and covenants to the City (and acknowledges that the
City is relying thereon) that any deliverables resulting from or to be supplied or developed
under this Agreement will be in accordance with the City's requirements and will provide the
required basis for undertaking further analysis, studies, assessments and work as described
in Schedule "A" .
(3) The Consultant shall perform all of the Services notwithstanding that the value of the time
spent by the Consultant in performance thereof exceeds its maximum estimate based on an
hourly, daily or other time based rate. In particular, neither such rate nor any provision of
this Agreement shall relieve the Consultant from performing all the Services or reduce its
obligation to one of performing only some proportionate or other part of the Services unless
Page 59 of 1092
-2 -
approved by the Project Manager.
2. NON-EXCLUSIVITY:
This Agreement with the Consultant shall not be a guarantee of exclusivity.
3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR:
The relationship of the City and the Consultant is one of owner and independent contractor and
not one of employer-employee. Neither is there any intention to create a partnership, joint
venture or joint enterprise between the Consultant and the City.
4. PERSONNEL AND PERFORMANCE:

(1) The Consultant shall commence performance upon receipt of written instructions from the
City's Project Manager.
(2) The Consultant shall provide, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, all skilled workers,
subconsultants (as approved by the City), as appropriate, and must be able to provide the
necessary materials , tools, machinery and supplies required in performing the Services .
The Consultant shall designate an individual to act as the Consultant's manager for the
Project and main point of contact with respect to the obligations of the Consultant under this
Agreement, and to coordinate the work of the Consultant and subconsultants .
(3) The Consultant shall be responsible for its own staff resources and for the staff resources of
any subconsultants and third-party service providers .
(4) The Consultant will ensure that its personnel (including those of approved subconsultants) ,
when using any City buildings, premises, equipment, hardware or software shall comply
with all security policies, regulations or directives relating to those buildings, premises,
equipment, hardware or software.
(5) Personnel assigned by the Consultant to perform or produce the Services or any part of it,
(including those of approved subconsultants) may, in the sole discretion of the City, be
required to sign Non-Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Agreement(s) and provide other
assurances satisfactory to the City before being permitted to perform such services under
this Agreement.
5. APPROVED SUBCONSULT ANTS:

(1) The Consultant shall obtain the prior written approval of the Project Manager for the
employment, engagement or retaining of any subconsultant, except for any assistance
rendered by the City.
(2) The Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of any and all subconsultants
employed, engaged or retained by the Consultant for the purpose of assisting it in the
discharge of its obligations under this Agreement.
(3) The Consultant shall co-ordinate the services of all subconsultants employed , engaged or
retained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement and the Consultant shall be liable to
the City for costs or damages arising from acts , omissions, negligence or wilful misconduct
of such subconsultants or any of them .
(4) The Consultant shall ensure that its subconsultants are bound by the terms of this
Agreement related to confidentiality and conflict of interest.
Page 60 of 1092
-3-
6. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES:

(1) The City will pay the Consultant in the amounts and manner and at the times as set out in
Schedule "B" attached hereto.
(2) The Consultant will , even it the payment set forth in Schedule "B" , attached hereto, is based
on an hourly, daily or other time-based rate , perform all of the Services notwithstanding that
the value of the time spent by the Consultant in performance thereof exceeds the maximum
amount specified in the Schedule, on the basis that neither such rate nor any provision of
this Agreement shall relieve the Consultant from performing all the Services or its
undertakings and obligations under this Agreement.
(3) The City will also pay to the Consultant tor such of the items and services provided by it and
incurred in the performance of the Services in accordance with this Agreement, which, in
the opinion of the City Manager are necessary in connection with the Services and which
have been confirmed in advance and in writing by the City Manager. It the Consultant
receives such confirmation, it shall proceed forthwith to supply the additional services in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the terms of the authorization provided by
the City Manager, and the hourly rates set out in Schedule "B" .
(4) No tees or reimbursable expenses shall become payable to the Consultant pursuant to the
Agreement tor the Services other than pursuant to Schedule "B".
(5) The Consultant shall submit invoices in such detail as may be required by the City and in
accordance with Schedule B, and the City reserves the right to require further proof or
documentation from the Consultant in respect of services performed or expenses incurred
by the Consultant and the Consultant shall provide, without delay, such further proof or
documentation.
(6) If the City does not approve of the Services which are the subject of the invoice, the City
shall advise the Consultant in writing of the reasons tor non-approval and the Consultant
shall remedy the problem at no additional cost to the City before the City shall be obliged to
pay the invoice or any part of it, as the case may be.
(7) The Consultant shall be solely responsible tor the payment of all personnel costs including
statutory and otherwise (including without limitation subconsultants and suppliers and their
respective personnel) made available by it and used tor performance of any of the Services.
7. OWNERSHIP OF DELIVERABLES:
(1) All plans, designs, models, drawings, details , specifications , reports , calculations and all
other documents and information prepared by the Consultant or its subconsultants pursuant
to this Agreement shall be and become the sole and absolute property, including intellectual
property rights , of the City without the payment of any additional compensation whatsoever
therefore by the City to the Consultant, and the same shall be delivered to the City upon the
request of the City and/or completion of the Services to be performed by the Consultant
under this Agreement as may be required by the Project Manager and shall be used by the
City in connection with the Project.
(2) The City will own all intellectual property rights, including (without lim itation) copyright, in
and to all deliverables provided by the Consultant and its subconsultants, or, where
applicable , shall have an unlimited license to use the deliverables.
(3) The Consultant shall not incorporate into any deliverables anything that would restrict the
Page 61 of 1092
-4 -
right of the City to modify, further develop or otherwise use the deliverables in any way that
the City deems necessary, or that would prevent the City from entering into any contract
with any contractor other than the Consultant for the modification , further development of or
other use of the deliverables.
(4) The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that all products, deliverables, reports and
information supplied by the Consultant under this Agreement will be made available publicly
(including by incorporating part or all of the deliverables, reports and information to Toronto
City Council in a public report) .
8. THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS:

(1) Where the City is in possession of software containing or constituting confidential
proprietary information belonging to third parties, the Consultant shall not, except in the
usual incidental manner genuinely necessary for the intended use of such software on the
equipment of the City,
(a) analyze , copy, decompile, disassemble , translate , convert, reverse engineer or

duplicate any physical embodiment or part thereof, or permit any person to do so;
or
(b) divulge to any unauthorized person the ideas, concepts or techniques , or make
any other improper use, of such software.
(2) The Consultant shall fully defend , save harmless and indemnify the City from and against
any loss or damages suffered by the City as a result of any failure by the Consultant, its
officers , directors, partners , contract personnel , agents and employees or any of them to
comply with the provisions hereof.
(3) Should the Consultant include third party components within the deliverables, the
Consultant must secure the rights to use and repackage third party components and pass
on those licensing rights to the City without additional charges.
9. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:
(1) The City, at its own cost and expense and upon being requested by the Consultant so to do,
will provide such information as is in the opinion of the City's Project Manager is necessary
in connection with the Services. The Consultant shall treat as confidential and proprietary to
the City all information , documentation, models or materials of any kind which are provided
by the City or come to the attention of the Consultant in the course of carrying out the
Services and shall not use or disseminate such information or materials for any reason
without the express written permission of the City.
(2) Any documents, data or other information obtained from the City or prepared by the
Consultant for the City shall be disclosed only to those of the Consultant's employees ,
agents or subconsultants who have a "need to know" for purposes of assisting the
Consultant in the performance of the Services .
(3) The Consultant shall not use, disclose, disseminate or reproduce or in any way making
known to third parties or to the public any confidential information of the City communicated
to or acquired by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the Services , except:
(a) as may be strictly required for the purposes of carrying out the Services , or as
expressly permitted in advance by the City in writing , or
Page 62 of 1092
- 5-
(b) as may be required by law to be disclosed pursuant to a court or tribunal order or

other legal compulsion and , if so compelled, the Consultant shall only furnish the
portion of the City confidential information that it is legally required to furnish .
(4) Where the Consultant is required by law to disclose any such documents, data or
information , the Consultant shall promptly notify the Project Manager upon such legal
requirement being imposed to permit the City an opportunity to seek an order or other
remedy to prohibit or restrict such disclosure.
(5) The Consultant shall deliver to the Project Manager, upon completion of the Services, any
computer data or program used by the Consultant in performing the Services and paid for
by the City, subject to any third party proprietary rights with respect to any computer data or
program used by the Consultant but which was developed by a third party with resources
unrelated to th is Agreement wh ich may be purchased or licensed directly by the City, at the
City's option.
(6) The Consultant shall return forthwith and without demand all Confidential Information of the
City as may be in documentary form or recorded electronically or otherwise upon the
term ination of its Services.
(7) Any reports or other documentation delivered to the City by the Consultant shall become the
property of the City and may be subject to disclosure under the terms of the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M .56 (the "MFIPPA").
While the City is not responsible for the interpretation of any of the provisions of MFIPPA, if
the Consultant believes that any part of the reports or other documentation delivered to the
City reveals any trade secret, intellectual property right or any scientific, technical ,
commercial , financial or other similar information belonging to the Consultant and the
Consultant wishes the City to attempt to preserve the confidentiality of the trade secret,
intellectual property right or information, the trade secret, intellectual property right or
information must be clearly and specifically designated as confidential.
(8) In performing the Services for the City, the Consultant shall only collect, use, disclose, retain
and dispose of Personal Information and Personal Health Information in accordance with
applicable privacy law, including the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, R.S .O. 1990, c. M-56 ("MFIPPA"), and the Personal Health Information
Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004, c. 3 (PHIPA) respectively, as amended.
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

(1) The Consultant shall : (a) avoid any Conflict of Interest in the performance of its contractual
obligations; (b) disclose to the City without delay any actual or potential Conflict of Interest
that arises during the performance of its contractual obligations; and (c) comply with any
requirements prescribed by the City to resolve any Conflict of Interest. In addition to all
other contractual rights or rights available at law or in equity, the City may immediately
terminate the Contract upon giving notice to the Consultant where: (a) the Consultant fails
to disclose an actual or potential Conflict of Interest; (b) the Consultant fails to comply with
any requirements prescribed by the City to resolve a Conflict of Interest; or (c) the
Consultant's Conflict of Interest cannot be resolved.
(2) The City Manager shall have the right to decide in consultation with the City Solicitor
whether such interest constitutes a Conflict of Interest such that the City shall have the right
to terminate the services being provided by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.
Page 63 of 1092
- 6-
(3) A "Conflict of Interest'' for this purpose means in relation to the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, the Consultant's other commitments, relationships or
financial interests (i) could or could be seen to exercise an improper influence over the
objective, unbiased and impartial exercise of its independent judgement; or (ii) could or
could be seen to compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of
its obligations under this Agreement.
(4) The absence of any disclosure of interest under this provision shall be treated as a
representation and warranty by the Consultant that no such potential Conflict of Interest
exists. This section 10 shall survive any termination or expiry of this Agreement.
(5) The Consultant shall not hire any current or former officer or employee of the City to perform
any services covered by this Agreement, unless approved by the City.
11. TERMINATION:
(1) Upon giving the Consultant not less than 30 days' prior written notice , the City may, at any
time and without cause , cancel the Agreement, in whole or in part. In the event of such
cancellation , the City shall not incur any liability to the Consultant apart from the payment for
the goods , material , articles , equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily
delivered or performed by the Consultant at the time of cancellation.
(2) Failure of the Consultant to perform its obligations under the Agreement shall entitle the City
to terminate the Agreement upon ten (1 0) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant if a
breach which is remediable is not rectified in that time. In the event of such termination , the
City shall not incur any liability to the Consultant apart from the payment for the goods,
material, articles , equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily delivered or
performed by the Consultant at the time of termination .
(3) All rights and remedies of the City for any breach of the Consultant's obligations under the
Agreement shall be cumulative and not exclusive or mutually exclusive alternatives and may
be exercised singularly, jointly or in combination and shall not be deemed to be in exclusion
of any other rights or remedies available to the City under the Agreement or otherwise at
law.
(4) No delay or omission by the City in exercising any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver
of them or of any other right or remedy, and no single or partial exercise of a right or remedy
shall preclude any other or further exercise of them or the exercise of any other right or
remedy.
(5) Upon termination, all originals and copies of data, plans, specifications , reports, estimates,
summaries, photographs , and other documents that have been accumulated and/or
prepared by the Consultant in performance of the Agreement shall be delivered to the City
in a clean and readable format.
12. INSURANCE:
(1) The Consultant shall , at the Consultant's expense (including payment of deductibles) , for
the duration of this Agreement, maintain in a form and with an insurer acceptable to the
City, the following policies of insurance:
(A) Professional Liability (errors and omissions coverage) for the performance of
Services by the Consultant providing that the policy is:
Page 64 of 1092
-7-
(i) in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1 ,000,000);
(ii) not to be construed as a limit of the liability of the Consultant in the performance by
the Consultant of the Services under the Agreement;
(iii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, kept in full
force and effect for a period of time ending no sooner than TWO YEARS after the
completion of the Services.
(B) Comprehensive General Liability provided that the policy:
(i) is in the amount of not less than two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00), per occurrence;
(ii) adds the City of Toronto as additional insured;
(iii) is extended to infringement of copyright and other intellectual property, including

misuse of trade secrets if applicable;
(iv) has provisions for cross-liability as between the Consultant and the City of Toronto,
broad form contractual liability, owner's/contractor's protective liability, contingent
employer's liability, employers liability, non owned automobile liability and personal
injury liability; and
(v) provides for thirty (30) days' prior written notice of cancellation or material change.
(C) Automobile Liability provided that the policy shall have a minimum limit of
$1,000,000 for all owned or leased licensed motorized vehicles used in the
performance of the Services.
(2) The Consultant shall provide at the time of execution of this Agreement evidence of such
insurance coverage in the form of an original signed Certificate of Insurance satisfactory to
the City's Chief Financial Officer (the "CFO"); and from time to time, as such coverage expires
or is replaced , shall provide original signed Certificates evidencing renewals or replacements
thereof satisfactory to the CFO, all of which Certificates may be permanently retained by the
City.
(3) The provisions of this section 12 shall in no way limit the requirements and obligations
imposed on the Consultant elsewhere in this Agreement, nor relieve the Consultant from
compliance therewith and fulfilment thereof.
13. INDEMNIFICATION:
(1) The Consultant will, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, well and truly save, keep
harmless and fully indemnify the City of Toronto, and its Mayor, members of Council, officers,
employees and agents, (the "lndemnitees") from and against all actions, claims and demands
whatsoever which may be brought against or made upon the lndemnitees, or any of them , of,
from and against any and all losses, liens, charges, claims, demands, suits, proceedings,
recoveries and judgments (including legal fees and costs) which the lndemnitees, or any of
them, may sustain, suffer or be put to resulting from or arising from the Services done by it,
or by reason of, or on account of, or resulting from or arising out of the performance or
rendering of, or the failure to perform or render, or the failure to exercise reasonable care,
skill or diligence in the performance or rendering of any work or Service required hereunder
to be performed or rendered by the Consultant, its agents , servants , employees or
Page 65 of 1092
-8 -
subconsultants or any of them , including the breach of any confidentiality obligation under
this Agreement.
(2) The Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless the lndemnitees from and against any
losses, liens, charges , claims, demands, suits , proceedings, recoveries and judgments
(including legal fees and costs) arising from infringement, actual or alleged, by any of the
deliverables developed or provided or supplied under or used in connection with the Services
(including the provision of the Services themselves) , of any Canadian, American or other
copyright, moral right, trade-mark, patent, trade secret or other thing with respect to which a
right in the nature of intellectual/industrial property exists .
(3) Upon assuming the defence of any action covered under this section 13 the Consultant shall
keep the City reasonably informed of the status of the matter, and the Consultant shall make
no admission of liability or fault on the City's part without the City's written permission.
(4) Nothing under this Agreement shall render the City responsible for any employment, benefit
or termination liability (including those under or in connection with the Workplace Safety and
Insurance Act, 1997 or any successor legislation), whether statutorily required, at common
law or otherwise, resulting from Services supplied under this Agreement by persons employed
or otherwise engaged by the Consultant. In the event that employment related costs, or other
related responsibility falls to the City for any reason whatsoever, the Consultant agrees to
indemnify the City for such costs.
14. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW:

The Consultant will be required to comply with all federal, provincial and municipal laws and
regulations in performing any Services including City of Toronto By-laws and policies applicable to
the City's Consultants and to provide to the City, upon request, periodic reports confirming such
compliance.
15. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT:

(1) The Consultant shall in particular comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O.,
1990 c.0.1 and all regulations thereunder, as amended from time to time (collectively the
"OHSA").
(2) Nothing in this section 16 shall be construed as making the City the "employer" (as defined
in the OHSA) of any workers employed or engaged by the Consultant for the Services, either
instead of or jointly with the Consultant.
(3) The Consultant agrees that it will ensure that all subcontractors engaged by it are qualified to
perform the Services and that the employees of subcontractors are trained in the health and
safety hazards expected to be encountered in the Services.
(4) The Consultant acknowledges and represents that:
(a) The workers employed to carry out the Services have been provided with training
in the hazards of the Services to be performed and possess the knowledge and
skills to allow them to work safely;
(b) The Consultant has provided, and will provide during the course of the Agreement,
all necessary personal protective equipment for the protection of workers;
(c) The Consultant's supervisory employees are competent, as defined in the OHSA,
Page 66 of 1092
-9-
and will carry out their duties in a diligent and responsible manner with due
consideration for the health and safety of workers;
(d) The Consultant has in place an occupational health and safety, workplace violence
and workplace harassment policies in accordance with the OHSA; and
(e) The Consultant has a process in place to ensure that health and safety issues are
identified and addressed and a process in place for reporting work-related injuries
and illnesses.
(5) The Consultant shall provide, at the request of the Project Manager or his designate, the
following as proof of the representations :
(a) documentation regarding the training programs provided or to be provided during

the Services (i.e. types of training , frequency of training and re-training); and
(b) the occupational health and safety policy.
(6) The Consultant shall immediately advise the Project Manager or his designate in the event of
any of the following :
(a) A critical injury that arises out of Services that is the subject of this Agreement;
(b) An order(s) is issued to the Consultant by the Ministry of Labour arising out of the
Services that is the subject of this Agreement;
(c) A charge is laid or a conviction is entered arising out of the Services that is the
subject of this Agreement, including but not lim ited to a charge or conviction
under the OHSA, the Criminal Code , R.S.C 1985, c. C-46, as amended and the
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A, as
amended.
(7) The Consultant shall be responsible for any delay in the progress of the Services as a result
of any violation or alleged violation of any federal , provincial or municipal health and safety
requirement by the Consultant, it being understood that no such delay shall be a force
majeure or uncontrollable circumstance for the purposes of extending the time for
performance of the Services or entitling the Consultant to additional compensation , and the
Consultant shall take all necessary steps to avoid delay in the final completion of the Services
without additional cost to the City.
(8) The parties acknowledge and agree that employees of the City, including senior officers , have
no authority to direct, and will not direct, how employees, workers or other persons employed
or engaged by the Consultant do work or perform a task that is the subject of this agreement.
16. WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE ACT:

(1) The Consultant shall secure, maintain and pay all costs for Workplace Safety and Insurance
Board ("WSIB") workers' compensation coverage for its employees providing Services under
this Agreement, whether required statutorily or not under the Workplace Safety and Insurance
Act, 1997.
(2) The Consultant represents and warrants that it shall be in good standing with the WSIB
throughout the term of this Agreement. Prior to supplying the Services and prior to receiving
Page 67 of 1092
- 10-
payment, the Consultant shall produce a Clearance Certificate issued by the WSIB confirming
that the Consultant has paid its assessment based on a true statement of the amount of its
current payroll in respect of the Services and that the City is relieved of financial liability.
Thereafter, throughout the period of Services being supplied , a new Clearance Certificate will
be obtained from the WSIB by the Consultant and provided to the City every 90 days or upon
expiry of the Certificate's validity period whichever comes first.
(3) The Consultant shall ensure that any and all persons , including but not limited to volunteers ,
students, subcontractors and independent contractors, providing services under this
agreement, have secured WSIB coverage , whether requ ired statutorily or not, for the term of
this agreement.
17. ACCESSIBILITY:
The Consultant must ensure that all deliverables conform to the requirements of the Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 and that its personnel obtain applicable accessibility
training .
18. NO ASSIGNMENT:
(1) This Agreement shall not be assigned by the Consultant without the prior written consent of
the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld . However, such written consent
shall not under any circumstances relieve the Consultant of its liabilities and obligations under
this Agreement.
(2) This Agreement and everything herein contained shall respectively enure to the benefit of and
be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and (where permitted) assigns ,
respectively.
(3) The obligations set out in this Agreement regarding confidentiality and indemnity shall
continue to bind the Consultant notwithstanding the completion of all or part of the Services
and payment therefore in accordance with this Agreement.
19. AUDIT:
The City may audit all financial and related records associated with the terms of this Agreement
including timesheets, reimbursable out of pocket expenses , materials, goods , and equipment
claimed by the Consultant. The Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, and
for a period of 2 years following completion of this Agreement, keep and maintain records of the
work performed pursuant to this Agreement. This shall include proper records of invoices ,
vouchers, timesheets, and other documents that support actions taken by the Consultant. The
Consultant shall at its own expense make such records available for inspection and audit by the
City at all reasonable times.
20. FURTHER ASSURANCES:

The Consultant agrees that it will do all such acts and execute all such further documents,
conveyances , deeds , assignments, transfers and the like, and will cause the doing of all such acts
and the execution of all such further documents (including waivers of moral rights) as are within its
power to cause the doing or execution of, as the City may from time to time reasonably request, in
writing , and as may be necessary or desirable to give full effect to this Agreement.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT:

The body of this Agreement and Schedules shall be deemed to constitute the whole Agreement
Page 68 of 1092
- 11 -
between the parties and shall supersede any previous agreements, discussions or negotiations.
All expressions defined in this Agreement shall have the same meanings in such Schedules. In the
event of a conflict between the Schedules and the body of this Agreement, the body of this
Agreement shall take precedence. No verbal arrangement or agreement relating to the Services
will be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by duly authorized representative(s)
of the City.
22. GOVERNING LAW:

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada,
as applicable. Any action or other legal proceeding arising under or with respect to this Agreement
(including any motion or other interlocutory proceeding) shall be brought in a Court or a tribunal,
whichever may be applicable, sitting in Toronto, Ontario. In the event that there is no applicable
Court or tribunal sitting in Toronto, the proceeding shall be brought in the court (or other forum) of
competent jurisdiction nearest to the City of Toronto within the Province of Ontario. The Consultant
and the City each irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of
Ontario in relation to this Agreement.
23. NOTICE:
(1) Any demand or notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be duly and properly made
and given if made in writing and either delivered to the party for whom it is intended to the
address as set out below or sent by prepaid registered mail addressed to such party as
follows:
(a) In the case of the City:
City of Toronto
100 Queen Street West,
11th floor, East Tower
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2
Attention: City Manager
(b) In the case of the Consultant:
ARUP CANADA INCORPORATED

2 Bloor Street East, Suite 2400
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1A8
Attention: Felipe Camargo, Associate
or to such other addresses as the parties may from time to time notify in writing, and any
demand or notice so made or given shall be deemed to have been duly and properly made
or given and received on the day on which it shall have been so delivered or, if mailed, then,
in the absence of any interruption in postal service in the City of Toronto affecting the delivery
or handling thereof, on the day following three (3) clear business days following the date of
mailing.
(2) The City's Project Manager with respect to this Agreement and the operational matters related
to the provision of the Services is: Karen Thorburn, Senior Corporate Policy & Management
Consultant, Strategic & Corporate Policy
Page 69 of 1092
- 12-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above.
SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED CITY OF TORONTO
Peter Wallace , City Manager
ARUPCANADAINCORPORATED
Authorized by Division Head pursuant to Municipal Code

Chapters 71 . Name:
Title :
1/We have the authority to bind the company.
Page 70 of 1092
- 13-
SCHEDULE "A"
TERMS OF REFERENCE
TRANSIT EXPANSION BUSINESS CASES: SCOPE OF WORK
1. Overview
The City is developing an initial business case for the following transit expansion projects:
Relief Line
Scarborough Subway Extension; and
Eglinton East LRT Extension
The City is also jointly working with Metrolinx on the initial business case for SmartTrack, including
Eglinton LRT West extension. More detailed descriptions and maps of the options for each transit
expansion project will be provided to the Consultant. The descriptions will include:
Infrastructure requirements and location

Route alignments
Stop locations
Operating speeds or times between stops
Headways
Associated surface transit changes
The business cases will be developed following the method described in the Metrolinx Business Case
Development Handbook (BCDH). The BCDH specifies that four components or 'cases' make up the
business case:
The Strategic Case;

The Financial Case;
The Economic Case; and
The Deliverability and Operations Case.
The City's Feeling Congested? Framework has been included within the Strategic Case of the overall
business case methodology. A business case template has been developed by the City and will be
shared with the consultant.
2. Roles and Responsibilities
The business case development process will be led by the City Manager's Office, working in partnership
with City Planning, Corporate Finance, TTC, and Metrolinx. The City Manager's Office will appoint a Project
Manager for the project, who is the primary point of contact for the Consultant. Meetings between the
Consultant and the Project Teams will take place in person or by phone bi-weekly, or more frequently as
required, to address specific aspects of the analysis.
The Consultant will be responsible for carrying out technical work in support of the development of specific
components of the business case for each individual project. The deliverables produced by the Consultant
Page 71 of 1092
- 14-
will be provided in a format appropriate for inclusion in the project business cases. The City will be
responsible for compiling all data into the final business case.
The Consultant will also provide guidance to the Project Team to ensure that the analysis is generally
consistent with the method described in Metrolinx's draft Business Case Development Handbook (BCDH) .
3. Consultant Deliverables
The primary role of the Consultant will be in the development of the Economic Cases for each of the projects
identified , in the following order of priority:
SmartTrack including Eglinton West LRT Extension (approx .. 3 options)

Scarborough Subway Extension (approx. 4 options)
Relief Line (approx. 3 options)
Eglinton LRT East Extension (approx . 3 options)
The Consultant will endeavor to complete the development of the Economic Cases for all options in the
time available , following the above order of priority, however, it is understood that the schedule is tight
and it may not be possible to complete all options. The Consultant will develop an approach to these
cases in consultation with the Project Manager that is consistent with the methodology for Economic
Case development used by Metrolinx.
The Consultant will also provide guidance to the Project Team in the development of the Strategic Case ,
Financial Case and the Deliverability and Operations Cases. This guidance will include comments on the
consistency of the City's approach , objectives, outputs and measures of success with that typically
followed by Metrolinx or its consultants in the completion of previous business cases.
The Connectivity Calculator will be used to calculate transit accessibility for each of the options. The
Consultant will be responsible for creating a network that corresponds to each option to be tested, that
reflects the network assumptions used by the City in ridership modelling . The network will include the
intervention and any associated local street or transit connections. Parameters and assumptions used in
running the Connectivity Calculator, including but not limited to travel time threshold , wait time weight,
transfer penalty and demographic information will be determined in consultation with the City.
The specific deliverables include:
1. Memorandum on the methodology and approach to developing the Economic Case for discussion with
the Project Manager and Project Team to be provided in the first week.
2. Documentation of quality assurance steps taken to ensure reasonable accuracy of each network
created and quality control metrics and results to ensure reasonable accuracy of Connectivity
Calculator results
3. For each option modelled using the Connectivity Calculator:

a. The network (TransCAD file)
b. Graphical representation of the network (AI or PSD file)
c. People-job connections
d. People-people connections
Page 72 of 1092
- 15-
e. Graphical representation of changes in connections between each network and its

corresponding base network
f. Travel time tables (raw data)
4. Report for each transit project on the Economic Case. The report wi ll include the following elements:
Outline the methodology, measures and assumptions used in the analysis , and adherence to
Metrolinx Business Case Development methodology.
Include a summary table that includes the outputs for each measure for each option under
assessment. This includes, monetized transportation user benefits , monetized environmental
benefits, and key metrics (Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)) , total present value of benefits and costs ,
etc) .
Provide a comparative analysis of the options from the Economic Case perspective
The Consultant will provide completed reports for the Economic Cases for each transit project in Microsoft
Word format suitable for inclusion in the overall Business Case reports .
5. Provide a memorandum commenting on the consistency of the overall Business Cases with those
typically produced by Metrolinx or its consultants and identifying areas of weakness and suggestions
of ways of strengthening the Business Cases.
6. Tabular and graphic outputs produced as part of the analysis, including and spreadsheet models and
GIS layers produced as part of the study.
4. Data Collection
The City will provide to the Consultant the information and data pertaining to the transit projects to be
analyzed as it becomes available including, but not limited to:
ridership and revenue forecasts based on runs from GTAModel V4;
travel time impacts based on runs from GT AModel V4; and
Capital and Operating Costs information and/or assumptions .
+Additional inputs identified.
The Consultant may be required to augment the information and data provided to support the analysis by
obtaining or collecting additional information and data related the measures of success proposed for the
Economic Case. The need for any other data collection will be finalized in discussions with the Project
Team during the preparation of the Study Design.
In this context, data collection refers to requests for data from third parties and not the collection of field
data or the coding of large amounts of data, excepting the coding of transit options for the Connectivity
Calculator or development of analysis spreadsheets .
5. Project Schedule
A project kick-off meeting will be scheduled for the week of May 4, 2016 in consultation between the
Consultant and the Project Manager. The work shall be completed by June 1, 2016 in order to be
incorporated into a report for the June meeting of the Executive Committee . There will be a requirement to
provide interim draft deliverables throughout the process as the analysis is developed and completed .
Page 73 of 1092
- 16-
Meetings between the Consultant and the Project Manager will take place in person or by phone bi-weekly,
or more frequently as required , to address specific aspects of the analysis. These bi-weekly emails will be
supplemented by weekly status update meetings . The Consultant will share results with the Project
Manager as soon as they become available .
6. Project Budget
The upper limit of the contract is $100,000, excluding HST, and will bill on the basis of the flat fees set out
in Schedule B for each component of the Services.
Page 74 of 1092
- 17-
SCHEDULE "B"
FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS
A. Fees for Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement will not exceed $100,000 plus 13%
HST, for a total of $113,000.00, which shall include labour, profit, other overhead , materials,
equipment, licences , analysis, travel, accommodations , communication, transportation and
delivery costs (courier, long distance charges , and so on) , staff time, City/Consultant
meetings (as and where deemed required by the City) , disbursements and any/all other
operational costs and fees associated with the Services. The City shall not be responsible for
any additional costs. The Consultant agrees that labour or direct expenses incurred by the
Consultant over and above this amount shall not be charged to the City.
B. The Consultant's flat fees and disbursements are comprised of the following :
Task Cost
1. SmartTrack/Eglinton West Economic 20 ,000

Case
2. SSE Econom ic Case 20 ,000
3. Relief Line Economic Case 20,000
4. Eglinton East LRT Economic Case 20 ,000
5. Business Case Methodology Review 20,000
HST 13,000
Total CAD 113,000
Hourly rate for additional services, if any are

required
ARUP Staff member Hourly rate (exc. HST and expenses)
Felipe Camargo - Project Manager
Leo Eyles - Expert Advisor
Ana Graovac- Transportation Planner
Adrien Friesen- Graduate Transportation

Consultant
Section 14(1) applied
Page 75 of 1092
- 18 -
DISBURSEMENTS
The City will reimburse the Consultant for approved disbursements made as required in order to
undertake the Services as defined in this Agreement, at the Consultant's cost, with no mark-up.
The total amount to be paid for disbursements under this Agreement is included in the total
amount above.
SUBMISSION OF INVOICES
Invoices should be submitted on a monthly basis, in a format acceptable to, and in such detail as
may be required by, the City.
All invoices shall clearly identify details of the work performed by the Consultant and
subconsultants , how much time was spent, how much was charged for each individual, and the
amount and type of disbursements charged against the file and shall be payable by the City
within sixty (60) days of receipt by the City of a satisfactory invoice . At the Project Manager's
request, the Consultant shall provide invoices relating to such disbursements , including copies of
receipts, invoices or other documentation as required by the Project Manager to verify the
amounts charged.
All invoices must clearly show HST as a separate value and a HST "registrant" number.
If the City does not approve of the Services which are the subject of the invoice , the City shall
advise the Consultant in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the invoice of the reasons for
non-approval and the Consultant shall remedy the problem at no additional cost to the City before
the City shall be obliged to pay the invoice or any part of it, as the case may be .
All original invoices must be addressed and be sent DIRECTLY to:
City of Toronto
Accounting Services Division
Corporate Accounts Payable
55 John Street
14 Floor, Metro Hall
Toronto, ON
M5V 3C6
lnvoice/s submitted to the City must have complete ship to information including :
I. The City Division's contact name and phone number (the person ordering or picking up
the goods and/or services): Karen Thorburn, Senior Corporate Policy & Management
Consultant, Strategic & Corporate Policy Division, 416-392-2720
II. Delivery location of goods and/or services (excluding pick-up order): City Hall, 100 Queen
Street West, East Tower, 10h Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2,
Ill. Purchasing document information on the invoice (blanket contract number, contract
release order number (CRO) purchase order (PO) or Divisional Purchase Order (DPO)
must be clearly indicated on the invoice.
Invoices that do not contain the required billing information may be returned without payment to
the Consultant for correction.
Page 76 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Cc: Peter Notaro; Christina Hueniken; Helen Kakamousias
Subject: Letter of Agreement- ARUP
Attachments: 2016-05-25 LOA for ARUP.docx; conflict_of_interest_declaration_form.docx
Importance: High
Hi Felipe,
Please find attached the updated LOA, with the amendments accepted. Please return four hard
copies signed.
Also required is the signed Conflict of Interest form and proof of insurance certificate.
Thanks,
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 77 of 1092
THIS AGREEMENT made in quadruplicate this 25th day of May 2016.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
:E
a: Hereinafter called the "City"
0
u.. :;1
0 "'
i:
0
1- c;; OF THE FIRST PART
(/)
< "'c:
~
c "'c:c: -and-
w
> <(
0 0
a: u.. ARUPCANADAINCOPORATED
c..
c..
< Hereinafter called the "Consultant''
OF THE SECOND PART
RECITALS:
1. THE SERVICES:
the designated City representative for the Project {the "Project Manager''), those
professional services more particularly set forth in Schedule "A" hereto attached {hereinafter
in Schedule "A" .
hourly, daily or other time based rate. In particular, neither such rate nor any provision of
Page 78 of 1092
-2 -
2. NON-EXCLUSIVITY:

subconsultants (as approved by the City), as appropriate, and must be able to provide the
necessary materials , tools, machinery and supplies required in performing the Services .
when using any City buildings, premises, equipment, hardware or software shall comply
this Agreement.
5. APPROVED SUBCONSULT ANTS:

the City for costs or damages arising from acts , omissions, negligence or wilful misconduct
Page 79 of 1092
-3-

(2) The Consultant will , even it the payment set forth in Schedule "B" , attached hereto, is based
(3) The City will also pay to the Consultant tor such of the items and services provided by it and
have been confirmed in advance and in writing by the City Manager. It the Consultant
(4) No tees or reimbursable expenses shall become payable to the Consultant pursuant to the
Agreement tor the Services other than pursuant to Schedule "B".
documentation.
shall advise the Consultant in writing of the reasons tor non-approval and the Consultant
(7) The Consultant shall be solely responsible tor the payment of all personnel costs including
respective personnel) made available by it and used tor performance of any of the Services.
(1) All plans, designs, models, drawings, details , specifications , reports , calculations and all
(2) The City will own all intellectual property rights, including (without lim itation) copyright, in
applicable , shall have an unlimited license to use the deliverables.
Page 80 of 1092
-4 -
(4) The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that all products, deliverables, reports and
City Council in a public report) .

(a) analyze , copy, decompile, disassemble , translate , convert, reverse engineer or

or
any other improper use, of such software.
officers , directors, partners , contract personnel , agents and employees or any of them to
the City all information , documentation, models or materials of any kind which are provided
to or acquired by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the Services , except:
Page 81 of 1092
- 5-

other legal compulsion and , if so compelled, the Consultant shall only furnish the
portion of the City confidential information that it is legally required to furnish .
unrelated to th is Agreement wh ich may be purchased or licensed directly by the City, at the
City's option.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M .56 (the "MFIPPA").
Privacy Act, R.S .O. 1990, c. M-56 ("MFIPPA"), and the Personal Health Information

(1) The Consultant shall : (a) avoid any Conflict of Interest in the performance of its contractual
Page 82 of 1092
- 6-
11. TERMINATION:
time and without cause , cancel the Agreement, in whole or in part. In the event of such
the goods , material , articles , equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily
delivered or performed by the Consultant at the time of cancellation.
City shall not incur any liability to the Consultant apart from the payment for the goods,
material, articles , equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily delivered or
law.
remedy.
(5) Upon termination, all originals and copies of data, plans, specifications , reports, estimates,
summaries, photographs , and other documents that have been accumulated and/or
12. INSURANCE:
Page 83 of 1092
-7-
(i) in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1 ,000,000);
(ii) not to be construed as a limit of the liability of the Consultant in the performance by
(iii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, kept in full
(i) is in the amount of not less than two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00), per occurrence;
(ii) adds the City of Toronto as additional insured;
(iii) is extended to infringement of copyright and other intellectual property, including

misuse of trade secrets if applicable;
(iv) has provisions for cross-liability as between the Consultant and the City of Toronto,
(v) provides for thirty (30) days' prior written notice of cancellation or material change.
the City's Chief Financial Officer (the "CFO"); and from time to time, as such coverage expires
or is replaced , shall provide original signed Certificates evidencing renewals or replacements
City.
(1) The Consultant will, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, well and truly save, keep
harmless and fully indemnify the City of Toronto, and its Mayor, members of Council, officers,
from and against any and all losses, liens, charges, claims, demands, suits, proceedings,
them, may sustain, suffer or be put to resulting from or arising from the Services done by it,
Page 84 of 1092
-8 -
this Agreement.
losses, liens, charges , claims, demands, suits , proceedings, recoveries and judgments
(including the provision of the Services themselves) , of any Canadian, American or other
right in the nature of intellectual/industrial property exists .
no admission of liability or fault on the City's part without the City's written permission.
or otherwise engaged by the Consultant. In the event that employment related costs, or other

compliance.

(1) The Consultant shall in particular comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O.,
"OHSA").
Page 85 of 1092
-9-
(d) The Consultant has in place an occupational health and safety, workplace violence
(e) The Consultant has a process in place to ensure that health and safety issues are
and illnesses.
following as proof of the representations :

subject of this Agreement, including but not lim ited to a charge or conviction
under the OHSA, the Criminal Code , R.S.C 1985, c. C-46, as amended and the
amended.
(8) The parties acknowledge and agree that employees of the City, including senior officers , have

Act, 1997.
Page 86 of 1092
- 10-
agreement, have secured WSIB coverage , whether requ ired statutorily or not, for the term of
this agreement.
17. ACCESSIBILITY:
training .
18. NO ASSIGNMENT:
the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld . However, such written consent
this Agreement.
be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and (where permitted) assigns ,
respectively.
19. AUDIT:
including timesheets, reimbursable out of pocket expenses , materials, goods , and equipment
work performed pursuant to this Agreement. This shall include proper records of invoices ,

conveyances , deeds , assignments, transfers and the like, and will cause the doing of all such acts
writing , and as may be necessary or desirable to give full effect to this Agreement.

Page 87 of 1092
- 11 -
of the City.
22. GOVERNING LAW:

(including any motion or other interlocutory proceeding) shall be brought in a Court or a tribunal,
whichever may be applicable, sitting in Toronto, Ontario. In the event that there is no applicable
competent jurisdiction nearest to the City of Toronto within the Province of Ontario. The Consultant
23. NOTICE:
follows:
City of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2

Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1A8
or to such other addresses as the parties may from time to time notify in writing, and any
mailing.
Page 88 of 1092
- 12-
above.

Chapters 71 . Name:
Title :
1/We have the authority to bind the company.
Page 89 of 1092
- 13-
SCHEDULE "A"
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. Overview
Relief Line

Route alignments
Stop locations
Headways
Development Handbook (BCDH). The BCDH specifies that four components or 'cases' make up the
business case:
The Strategic Case;

The Financial Case;
with City Planning, Corporate Finance, TTC, and Metrolinx. The City Manager's Office will appoint a Project
required, to address specific aspects of the analysis.
Page 90 of 1092
- 14-
consistent with the method described in Metrolinx's draft Business Case Development Handbook (BCDH) .
identified , in the following order of priority:

Eglinton LRT East Extension (approx . 3 options)
The Consultant will also provide guidance to the Project Team in the development of the Strategic Case ,
running the Connectivity Calculator, including but not limited to travel time threshold , wait time weight,
Calculator results

Page 91 of 1092
- 15-

4. Report for each transit project on the Economic Case. The report wi ll include the following elements:
benefits, and key metrics (Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)) , total present value of benefits and costs ,
etc) .
Word format suitable for inclusion in the overall Business Case reports .
4. Data Collection
Capital and Operating Costs information and/or assumptions .
Calculator or development of analysis spreadsheets .
5. Project Schedule
provide interim draft deliverables throughout the process as the analysis is developed and completed .
Page 92 of 1092
- 16-
supplemented by weekly status update meetings . The Consultant will share results with the Project
Manager as soon as they become available .
6. Project Budget
Page 93 of 1092
- 17-
SCHEDULE "B"
equipment, licences , analysis, travel, accommodations , communication, transportation and
delivery costs (courier, long distance charges , and so on) , staff time, City/Consultant
Task Cost
1. SmartTrack/Eglinton West Economic 20 ,000

Case
2. SSE Econom ic Case 20 ,000
4. Eglinton East LRT Economic Case 20 ,000
HST 13,000
Total CAD 113,000

required
Felipe Camargo - Project Manager
Leo Eyles - Expert Advisor
Ana Graovac- Transportation Planner
Adrien Friesen- Graduate Transportation

Consultant
Page 94 of 1092
- 18 -
DISBURSEMENTS
amount above.
subconsultants , how much time was spent, how much was charged for each individual, and the
within sixty (60) days of receipt by the City of a satisfactory invoice . At the Project Manager's
receipts, invoices or other documentation as required by the Project Manager to verify the
amounts charged.
If the City does not approve of the Services which are the subject of the invoice , the City shall
City of Toronto
55 John Street
Toronto, ON
M5V 3C6
II. Delivery location of goods and/or services (excluding pick-up order): City Hall, 100 Queen
Street West, East Tower, 10h Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2,
Page 95 of 1092
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION
IN THE MA TIER BETWEEN
(Company Name
-AND-
City of Toronto
I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in the Province of
(Name) (City/Town/Village)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , declare that:
(Province/State) (Country)
I am the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (the "Company")

(Title) (Company Name)
and, as such, have full authority to bind the Company to my responses in this declaration.
TheCompanyisa _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___
(insert "Sole Proprietership" or "Parternship" or "Corporation" as appropriate)
with its head office located at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(Full Business Address of the Company)
Conflicts of Interest
The vendor must disclose to the City any potential conflict of interest that might compromise the performance of the
Work. If such a conflict of interest does exist, the City may, at its discretion , refuse to consider or cancel the sole
source contract. If such a potential conflict of interest exists or arises during the evaluation process or the negotiation
of the Agreement, the City may also, at its discretion , withhold the awarding of any Agreement to the vendor until
the matter is resolved to the City's sole satisfaction.
The vendor must also disclose whether they are aware of any City employee, Council member or member of a City
agency, board or commission or employee thereof, having a financial interest in the vendor and the nature of that
interest.
If, during the sole source contract process or the negotiation of the Agreement, the vendor is retained by another
client giving rise to a potential conflict of interest, then the vendor will so inform the City. If the City requests, then
the vendor will refuse the new assignment or will take such steps as are necessary to remove the conflict of interest
concerned.
Vendors are cautioned that the acceptance of their agreement may preclude them from participating as a vendor in
subsequent projects where a conflict of interest may arise. The successful vendor for this project may participate in
subsequent/other City projects provided the successful vendor has satisfied qualification requirements of the contract
, if any, and in the opinion of the City, no conflict of interest would adversely affect the performance and successful
completion of an Agreement by the successful vendor.
Page 96 of 1092
2
[PLEASE CROSS OUT THE BOLD ED WORDS THAT DO NOT APPLY AND COMPLETE ALL BLANK
SPACES]
1. I AM I AM NOT aware of potential conflict(s) of interest that might compromise the performance of the
work that the City plans to sole source to the Company (the "Ensuing Agreement").
2. I AM I AM NOT aware of City employee(s), Council member(s) or member(s) of a City agency, board or
commission or employee(s) thereof having a financial interest in the Company or who would otherwise
financially gain as a result of the Ensuing Agreement.
3. I DO I DO NOT understand that if a financial interest were to exist or arise prior to entering into this
Ensuing Agreement, the City may, at its discretion, refuse to enter into the Ensuing Agreement until the
matter is resolved to the City's sole satisfaction.
4. I DO I DO NOT further understand that if the City enters into this Ensuing Agreement, the Company may
be precluded from bidding on subsequent projects where a conflict of interest or unfair advantage may
arise .
5. By entering into and performing the Ensuing Agreement, the Company IS I IS NOT conflicting with,
compromising, or conveying any appearance of impropriety with respect to any other contract or matter
with the City.
6. The Company HAS I HAS NOT been given an unfair advantage by being awarded this Ensuing
Agreement.
7. The Company IS I IS NOT involved currently in any litigation or arbitration against the City.
8. The Company IS I IS NOT aware of any other circumstances that could be perceived as a conflict of
interest.
I make this Declaration for the purpose of being eligible for consideration for the Sole Source procurement,
DECLARATION MADE ON THE DAY of _ _ _ __ 20_
Authorized Official for Company
Page 97 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Subject: June 28 Executive Committee
Hi Felipe,
Further to my previous email. I'm wondering if you may be available June 281h, to help support staff
with questions that may arise on the economic case.
Lets discuss when you have an opportunity.
Thanks
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the iriformation it contains by other than an
Page 98 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Fwd: Population and Employment Projection Data
Hi Mike,
Please let me know if the form is fine to sign as it is and I'll get is signed at our end.
Cheers,
Felipe
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Moore <pmoore@toronto.ca >

Date: May 16, 2016 at 5:08:38 PM EDT
To: Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto.ca >
Cc: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com >, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto .ca >
Subject: RE: Population and Employment Projection Data
Hi Mike and Felipe,

A Client Use acknowledgement is attached . Please let me know if it needs to be changed at all.
Peter
From: Mike Logan
To: Peter Moore
Hello Peter,
As you know, we are undertaking business cases for all of our current priority transit projects. As part of
this work, ARUP Canada Inc. is undertaking accessibility modelling, as well as translating benefits and
costs into benefit/cost ratios as per the Metrolinx business case guidance.
For the accessibility modelling, ARUP needs to use the SmartTrack population and employment
forecasts. I'm expecting that ARUP will need to sign a data usage agreement before we provide the
data. Would you be able to send this to me, or directly to Felipe, copied on this email?
Thanks!
Mike Logan, MCIP RPP
416.338.5568
2P1 Floor, East Tower
Page 99 of 1092
Page 100 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: June-28-16 8:11AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: I'll be at City hall at 845
Sorry bit behind
I have a touchdown spot available for you
Page 101 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Michael Hain
Cc: Mike Logan; Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: DRAFT SSE Numbers
Thanks Michael
From: Michael Hain [mailto :mhain@toronto.ca]

Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 4:34 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: DRAFT SSE Numbers
Hello Felipe,
These are updated numbers for the Express SSE . We will get the travel time savings calculations to you as soon as we
can .
M.

Page 102 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: 'Felipe Camargo '
Subject: RE: Tomorrow.
Thanks Felipe.
No problem. Appreciate the very fast turn around. I will try to get time in the afternoon with Peter.

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Tomorrow.
Hi Karen,
Yes, I'm availabl.e tomorrow. Preferably in the afternoon but could shift th ings around if the morning works better for
you.
Thanks for forwarding the EgE full alignment capital costs, I'll update the numbers first thing tomorrow (I just left my
office).
I'll also send you the hours spent first thing tomorrow, hope that's not too late !
Felipe
On Jun 6, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote:
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for sending over results. Noticed EgE capital cost for full alignment was not in
there. Please see attached .
Peter Notaro has requested a briefing tomorrow if your available to get an

understanding of the results. Would you be able to advise.
Senior staff are eager to have a discussion in the next couple of days on these results. I
think we may also need to discuss if any additional analysis is required; given some of
the assumptions made. If you could advise on the current number of hours that have
been utilized in your contract it would be appreciated .
Thanks
Karen
Page 103 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
please advise me.

Page 104 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: June-27-16 10:34 AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Today
Hi Karen, I'm at the lOth floor but I think I'm at the wrong floor
>On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:04AM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto .ca> wrote :
>
>There is
>
>Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the THUS network.
> Original Message
>From : Felipe Camargo
>Sent : Monday, June 27, 2016 8:53 AM
>To : Karen Thorburn
>Subj ect: RE : Today
>
>
>HI Karen,
>
>I 've forwarded the invite to Leo Eyles because I think he can help answer questions and clarify things for you and the
others . I'll set up a dial-in number but I just wanted to check if there's a phone in the meeti ng room .
>
>Thanks,
>
>Felipe
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From : Karen Thorburn [mailto :kthorbu@toronto.ca]
>Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:37AM
>To : Felipe Camargo
>Subject : Re: Today
>
>Yes . It's confirmed
>
>Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.
> Original Message
>From : Felipe Camargo
>To : Ka ren Thorburn
>Subject: Today
>
>
>Hi Karen,
Page 105 of 1092

>
>Just wanted to check if we are still meeting today? (I have it in my calendar marked as 'Hold')
>
>Thanks,
>
>Felipe
> _______________________________________________________
> Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and
viruses
>
Page 106 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Today
Yes. It's confirmed

Original Message
From : Felipe Camargo
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:32 AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Today
Hi Karen,
Just wanted to check if we are still meeting today? (I have it in my calendar marked as 'Hold')
Thanks,
Felipe
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and
viruses
Page 107 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re:Today
Ok, I'll see you there
>On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:37AM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:

>
>Yes. It's confirmed
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.
> Original Message
>From: Felipe Camargo
>To: Karen Thorburn
>Subject: Today
>
>
>Hi Karen,
>
>Just wanted to check if we are still meeting today? (I have it in my
>calendar marked as 'Hold')
>
>Thanks,
>
>Felipe
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems
> are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
>
Page 108 of 1092

Vivien Leun.g

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE:Today
HI Karen,
I've forwarded the invite to Leo Eyles because I think he can help answer questions and clarify things for you and the
others. I'll set up a dial-in number but I just wanted to check if there's a phone in the meeting room .
Thanks,
Felipe
-----Original Message-----
From : Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:37AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Today
Yes. It's confirmed

Original Message
To : Karen Thorburn
Subject : Today
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
viruses
Page 109 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Today
There is

Original Message
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Today
HI Karen,
I've forwarded the invite to Leo Eyles because I think he can help answer questions and clarify things for you and the
others. I'll set up a dial-in number but I just wanted to check if there's a phone in the meeting room .
Thanks,
Felipe
-----Original Message-----
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Today
Yes . It's confirmed

Original Message
Sent : Monday, June 27, 2016 7:32AM
To : Karen Thorburn
Subject : Today
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Page 110 of 1092

Felipe
viruses
Page 111 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-05-16 10:29 AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Summary and Follow Up- ARUP Economic Cases
Sure, llam is fine.

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 10:23 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Sorry Felipe
Can we make it 11?
very sorry.
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen, 10:30 is perfect
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto .ca ]

Sent: Thursday, May OS, 2016 9:33AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Summary and Follow Up- ARUP Economic Cases
Hi Felipe
I'll give you a call at 10:30
Thks for making time

To: Karen Thorburn
1
Page 112 of 1092

Tomorrow morning works well for me. I should be at my desk all morning so feel free to give me a ring whenever is
convenient for you.
On May 4, 2016, at 5:19PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote:
Thanks Felipe this document is very helpful.
If you have time tomorrow morning, I was hoping we could chat quickly about the attached and the
meeting with TTC.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Logan; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); Michael Hain
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated version of the note we circulated on Monday, now including tables
listing the required inputs and the outputs and descriptions of system-wide accessibility metrics that we
propose to generate, for discussion.
Regards,
Felipe

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 4:48 PM
To: 'Karen Thorburn'
Cc: 'Mike Logan'; 'Diana Chu'; 'Hilary Holden'; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); 'Michael Hain'
Subject: RE : Summary and Follow Up- ARUP Economic Cases
Hi Karen,
We're not finished with the note or table yet, but in the interest of time I'm forwarding you a draft
version of a short note that includes both a description of the methodology and a list of inputs and
outputs (though not yet in table format).
We're working on defining accessibility metrics that we could use that will give us a number for the
whole region (in addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have) .
We've also incorporated in the note some of the adjustments we've made based on conversations with
Michael Hain and Friday's meeting.
Page 113 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 9:59AM
Cc: Mike Logan; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden
Hi Karen,
Thanks for this summary of actions, we'll circulate a table and updated methodology as soon as possible
(aiming for later today) .
Felipe

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:58PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Summary and Follow Up- ARUP Economic Cases
Hello,
In follow up to the meeting today. Here are agreed to next steps :
1. Felipe: Provide table showing output economic case measures and summary of methodology
2. Mike: Set up meeting between Felipe and Mike Wehkind and Eric Miller for next week
3. Karen : Set up meeting between Felipe and TIC staff involved in costing the RL and SSE for next week.
Thanks for meeting this afternoon. Have a great weekend everyone!
Karen
Page 114 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 115 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-02 -16 9:59AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks for this summary of actions, we'll circulate a table and updated methodology as soon as possible (aiming for
later today).
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
In follow up to the meeting today. Here are agreed to next steps:
1. Felipe : Provide table showing output economic case measures and summary of methodology
3. Karen: Set up meeting between Felipe and TIC staff involved in costing the RL and SSE for next week.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel : 416-392-2720, Email : kthorbu@toronto.ca
Page 116 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-02-16 10:06 AM
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Felipe,
Can you please send me a succinct list of issues you'd like to resolve re. the 4-stage model? We'd like to ensure that a
single meeting will cover off all of the issues, as it can be hard to get a meeting with Eric.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com)

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
(aiming for later today).
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto.ca )

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:58 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
3. Karen: Set up meeting between Felipe and TTC staff involved in costing the RL and SSE for next
week.
Page 117 of 1092

Karen
Karen Thorburn
City ofToronto
Page 118 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-02-16 11:32 AM
To: Mike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi Mike,
Thanks for helping facilitate a meeting with Eric Miller. The key issues to discuss are:
Separating crowding penalty and fares from 'traditional' journey time components (walk, wait, in-vehicle and
transfer penalties)
Model Value of Time vs . economic evaluation value of time
His views on 'counterintuitive' results (e.g. 00 pairs where generalized cost increases but demand increases
too)
It may well end up being a very short chat so we could set it up as a conference call, if that suits.
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.ca]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 10:06 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Felipe,
Can you please send me a succinct list of issues you'd like to resolve re. the 4-stage model? We'd like to ensure that a
single meeting will cover off all of the issues, as it can be hard to get a meeting with Eric.
Thanks,
Mike

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
later today).
Page 119 of 1092

Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392-2720, Email : kthorbu@toronto.ca
Page 120 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-03-16 10:27 AM
Cc: Mike Logan; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Michael
Hain; Peter Notaro
Thanks Felipe,
This is helpful. We will review and provide response.
I'm still questioning the 'fare savings' measure and how the output wil l be interpreted. There is a
much larger discussion happening around fares right now. I would like to consult some staff internally
before we agree to use that measure in the business case.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Logan; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Michael Hain
Subject; RE: Summary and Follow Up- ARUP Economic Cases
Hi Karen,
We're not finished with the note or table yet, but in the interest of time I'm forwarding you a draft version of a
short note that includes both a description of the methodology and a list of inputs and outputs (though not yet in
table format).
We're working on defining accessibility metrics that we could use that will give us a number for the whole
region (in addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have).
We've also incorporated in the note some of the adjustments we've made based on conversations with Michael
Hain and Friday's meeting.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
1
Page 121 of 1092

t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup. com

Hi Karen,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
3. Karen: Set up meeting between Felipe and TIC staff involved in costing the RL and SSE for next
week.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 122 of 1092

Page 123 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Logan; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden; Michael Hain; Peter Notaro
Hi Karen,
Section 7 applied
Thanks, that would be great.
Hope this helps,
Felipe

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Logan; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Michael Hain; Peter Notaro
Thanks Felipe,
This is helpful. We will review and provide response.
I'm still questioning the 'fare savings' measure and how the output will be interpreted . There is a much larger discussion
happening around fares right now. I would like to consult some staff internally before we agree to use that measure in
the business case.
Thanks,
Karen
Page 124 of 1092

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
We're not finished with the note or table yet, but in the interest of time I'm forwarding you a draft version of a short
note that includes both a description of the methodology and a list of inputs and outputs (though not yet in table
format) .
We're working on defining accessibility metrics that we could use that will give us a number for the whole region (in
addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have).
We've also incorporated in the note some of the adjustments we've made based on conversations with Michael Hain
and Friday's meeting.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup .com

Hi Karen,
later today) .
Felipe
Page 125 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel : 416-392-2720, Email : kthorbu@toronto.ca
distribution use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is
Page 126 of 1092

Vivien Leung

If you have time tomorrow morning , I was hoping we could chat quickly about the attached and the
meeting with TTC.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated version of the note we circulated on Monday, now including tables listing the
required inputs and the outputs and descriptions of system-wide accessibility metrics that we propose to
generate, for discussion.
Regards,
Felipe

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 4 :48 PM
Hi Karen,
We're not finished with the note or table yet, but in the interest of time I'm forwarding you a draft version of a
short note that includes both a description of the methodology and a list of inputs and outputs (though not yet in
table format).
We're working on defining accessibility metrics that we could use that will give us a number for the whole
region (in addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have).
Page 127 of 1092

We've also incorporated in the note some of the adjustments we've made based on conversations with Michael
Hain and Friday's meeting.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Hi Karen,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
week.
Page 128 of 1092

Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 129 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-04-16 6:03 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Tomorrow morning works well for me . I should be at my desk all morning so feel free to give me a ring whenever is
convenient for you .
On May 4, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote:

meeting with TIC.
Thanks,
Karen
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Regards,
Felipe
Cc: 'Mike Logan '; 'Diana Chu'; 'Hilary Holden'; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); 'Michael Hain'
Hi Karen,
outputs (though not yet in table format) .
whole region (in addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have).
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m : +1647 537 4665
1
Page 130 of 1092

www.arup.com
Hi Karen,
Thanks for this summary of actions, we'll ci rculate a table and updated methodology as soon as possible
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
In follow up to the meeting today. Here are agreed to next steps :
2. M ike: Set up meeting between Felipe and Mike Wehkind and Eric M iller for next week
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392-2720, Email : kthorbu@toronto.ca
Page 131 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-05-16 9:33 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe
From: Felipe camargo

To: Karen Thorburn
convenient for you.

meeting with TIC.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe .Camargo@arup.com ]
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Regards,
Felipe
Hi Karen,
outputs (though not yet in table format).
Page 132 of 1092

whole region (in addition tables of results or maps, which is what we' d currently have) .
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Hi Karen,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 133 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 6:04PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re : Summary and Follow Up- ARUP Economic Cases
convenient for you.
meeting with TTC.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
1
Page 134 of 1092

Hi Karen,
Regards,
Felipe

Hi Karen,
outputs (though not yet in table format) .
whole region (in addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have) .
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

2
Page 135 of 1092

Hi Karen,
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto :kthorbu@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
3. Karen: Set up meeting between Felipe and TTC staff involved in costing the RL and SSE for next week.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel : 416-392-2720, Email : kthorbu@toronto .ca
Page 136 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-05-16 10:23 AM
Sorry Felipe
Can we make it 11 ?
very sorry.
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup .com]

To: Karen Thorburn

Sent: Thursday, May OS, 2016 9:33AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe

To: Karen Thorburn
convenient for you.
On May 4, 2016, at 5:19PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto .ca > wrote:
Page 137 of 1092

If you have time tomorrow morning , I was hoping we could chat quickly about the
attached and the meeting with TTC.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated version of the note we circulated on Monday, now including
tables listing the required inputs and the outputs and descriptions of system-wide accessibility
metrics that we propose to generate, for discussion.
Regards,
Felipe

Hi Karen,
We're not finished with the note or table yet, but in the interest of time I'm forwarding you a
draft version of a short note that includes both a description of the methodology and a list of
inputs and outputs (though not yet in table format) .
We're working on defining accessibility metrics that we could use that will give us a number for
the whole region (in addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd current! y have).
We ' ve also incorporated in the note some of the adjustments we' ve made based on
conversations with Michael Hain and Friday's meeting.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Can1argo MSc

Page 138 of 1092

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Hi Karen,
Thanks for this summary of actions, we'll circulate a table and updated methodology as soon as
possible (aiming for later today).
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto :kthorbu@toronto .ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Logan ; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden
Hello,
1. Felipe: Provide table showing output economic case measures and summary of
methodology
2. Mike: Set up meeting between Felipe and Mike Wehkind and Eric Miller for next
week
3. Karen: Set up meeting between Felipe and TTC staff involved in costing the RL and
SSE for next week.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
3
Page 139 of 1092

City of Toronto
rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the iriformation it
please advise me.
Page 140 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Status update
Hi Karen,
Apologies for the delayed response, I've been out of the office all day and have only been able to read and
respond to messages sporadically.
We don't have the planning data yet, but I think we will be receiving it very soon.
Michael Hain was confident that he could provide VKT data and we've set up the appraisal spreadsheet so that
it uses it as an input. So we should be able to get that.
I'm going to give him a call tomorrow morning to check on things because we have no model outputs yet.
I'll update you tomorrow on where we're at after I speak to Michael.
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 17, 2016, at 7:52AM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto .ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
Just wanted to check in.

I have legal reviewing proposed changes to the agreement. Hope to get it back to you today.
Have you received required data yet from city planning and ttc?
I'm going to send over the costs we have for smarttrack and Eglinton West lrt.
We have very rough numbers for Eglinton East but not cash flow. I will try to connect with you
to discuss once I send the material over.
I was also wondering what the likelihood is of being able to calculate the measures related to
vkt. You mentioned that you may be able to pending conversation with ridership modelling staff.
I'm hoping we can present the results of the economic case analysis to date to the DCM next
week. Please advise if you have any concerns.
Thanks
Page 141 of 1092

Karen

Page 142 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Remaining Inputs
Ok, lOam is perfect.
On May 24, 2016, at 8:23PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote :
lOam?
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen
That sounds good, thanks. I'll give you a call in the morning, what time's good for you?
On May 24, 2016, at 8:14PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe,
I should be able to provide cost estimates end of day tomorrow for input. Lets also
touch base on the LOA in the morning if possible.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto

Page 143 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Felipe Camargo
9:40?
I have a mtg until 9:30 and may run over

Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:37AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Remaining Inputs Non-Responsive Information Removed
Hi Karen,
so if it's ok with you I'll call you at

9:30am instead. If not, I should be back at my office by noon so I can call you then.
In any case I was able to speak to our legal team yesterday and it's ok for us to sign the contract as it is with only one
suggested amendment: the second clause under Professional Liability insurance talks about infringement of copyright
and intellectual property. We have that covered under our Comprehensive General Liability insurance but not under PL,
so the request would be to move that clause to the CGL section.
Thanks,
Felipe
On May 24, 2016, at 8:23 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote :
lOam?
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen
That sounds good, thanks . I'll give you a call in the morning, what time's good for you?
Hi Felipe,
I should be able to provide cost estimates end of day tomorrow for input. Lets also
touch base on the LOA in the morning if possible.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
1
Page 144 of 1092

City of Toronto

Page 145 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-18-16 3:42 PM
To: Peter Moore
Subject: RE: Population and Employment Proj ection Data
Hi Peter,
Who should we be expecting to receive the data from?
Thanks,
Felipe
From: Peter Moore [mailto :pmoore@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Here it is with my signature too.
Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions about the data.
Peter
Peter Moore,
Project Manager, City Planning,
City of Toronto,
55 John St, 22"ct Floor,
Toronto, ON, M5V 3Cl.
416-392-8806
pmoore@toronto.ca

To: Peter Moore; Mike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE : Population and Employment Projection Data
Peter, Mike,
Page 146 of 1092

Please find attached the signed form.
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Peter Moore [mailto:pmoore@toronto.ca ]

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike and Felipe,
Peter
From: Mike Logan

To: Peter Moore
Hello Peter,
the Metrolinx business case guidance.
For the accessibility modelling, ARUP needs to use the SmartTrack population and employment forecasts. I'm expecting
that ARUP will need to sign a data usage agreement before we provide the data . Would you be able to send this to me,
Thanks!

416.338.5568
21'1 Floor, East Tower

Page 147 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Peter Moore

To: Mike Logan
Attachments: Client Use Acknowledgment ARUP Canada.docx
Hi Mike and Felipe,
A Client Use acknowledgement is attached. Please let me know if it needs to be changed at all.
Peter
From: Mike Logan

To: Peter Moore
Hello Peter,
Thanks!

416.338.5568
Page 148 of 1092

Client Use Acknowledgment for
Information supplied by City Planning Division, City of Toronto
In consideration for the supply of: Population and Employment projections by Traffic Zone for the GTAH
contained in the file 'Pop and Emp GTAH TZs Dec 18' ("the Data'')
I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , on behalf of ARUP Canada Inc ("the Client")
HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE:
1. the Data has been received by the Client; _ _ (initial)
2. that the Data will be used only for the following internal business purposes as described below, and
for no other purpose whatsoever and shall ensure that all of its employees and agents comply with this
condition:
For accessibility modelling for proposed City of Toronto transit projects;

_ _ (initial)
3. that the Client will not, except with express written consent of the Executive Director, City Planning
Division or his or her designate, disclose, sell, license or otherwise distribute the Data; _ _ (initial)
4. that the Client agrees and understands that the data may be modified at any time and that it is the
Client's responsibility to check with the City Planning Division for the most current version of the data
before using it after the date specified in this agreement; _ _ (initial)
5. that in no event will the Client in making use of the Data distribute or disclose information by which
individual persons, properties, businesses, organizations or other entities are identifiable; _ _ (initial)
6. that although the City Planning Division has attempted to ensure the accuracy of the Data, given the
limitations inherent in the collection of the Data, no warranty is provided as to its content, completeness,
accuracy or quality nor that the Data is suitable for any particular purpose, express or implied, including
the purposes identified above; _ _ (initial)
7. that the entire risk as to the results and performance of the City's Data is assumed by the Applicant
and the City shall have no liability for reliance placed upon the Data by the Applicant or any other person
or entity; _ _ (initial)
8. that the Client will attribute credit for the Data to the City Planning Division, and other sources as
appropriate; _ _ (initial)
9. that the data is protected by copyright of which the City is the sole owner, and that the Client will not
necessarily have exclusive use of the Data;
10. that at the conclusion of their business purposes for this Data that the Client will destroy all received
copies of this Data or return all received copies of this Data to the City Planning Division. _ _ (initial)
Signed: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Peter Moore

(Client) (City Planning Division)
I have the authority to bind Client
Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Title: Project Manager. SIPA
Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Page 149 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Cc: Karen Thorburn
Attachments: Client Use Acknowledgement form - Arup signed.pdf
Peter, Mike,
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Peter Moore [mailto :pmoore@toronto.ca]

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike and Felipe,
Peter
From: Mike Logan

To: Peter Moore
Hello Peter,
Thanks!

1
Page 150 of 1092

416.338.5568
2l't Floor, East Tower
Page 151 of 1092

Client Use Acknowledgment for
Information supplied by City Planning Division, City of Toronto
In consideration for the supply of: Population and Employment projections by Traffic Zone for the GTAH
contained in the file 'Pop and Emp GTAH TZs Dec 18' ("the Data")
I, Andrew McAlpine, on behalf of ARUP canada Inc ("the Client'')
HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE:
1. the Data has been received by the Client; ~ (initial)

2. that the Data will be used only for the following internal business purposes as described below, and
for no other purpose whatsoever and shall ensure that all of its employees and agents comply with this
condition:
For accessibility modelling for proposed City of Toronto transit projects; . . J t \initial)
3. that the Client will not, except with express written consent of the Executive Director, City Plaqnjng
Division or his or her designate, disclose, sell, license or otherwise distribute the Data; _~_.;v'
_\ (initial)
4. that the Client agrees and understands that the data may be modified at any time and that it is the
Client's responsibility to check with the City Planning Division for the most current version of tht}\ d,Pta
before using it after the date specified in this agreement; -Pel v,
__ (initial)
5. that in no event will the Client in making use of the Data distribute or disclose information by r' ich
individual persons, properties, businesses, organizations or other entities are identifiable; ~\(initial)
6. that although the City Planning Division has attempted to ensure the accuracy of the Data, given the
limitations inherent in the collection of the Data, no warranty is provided as to its content, completeness,
accuracy or quality nor that the Data is suitable for any particular purpose, express or implied,Airy::p ding
the purposes identified above; ~ (initial)
7. that the entire risk as to the results and performance of the City's Data is assumed by the Applicant
and ~e City shall have no liability for reliance placed upon the Data by the Applicant or any~rson
or ent1ty; (initial)
8. that t_he Client will attribute credit for the Data to the City Planning Division, and other so4~S.J!S
appropnate; fV \ (initial)
9. that the data is protected by copyright of which the City is the sole owner, and that the Client will not
necessarily have exclusive use of the Data;
10. that at the conclusion of their business purposes for this Data that the Client will destro:Jf;. r EJfeived
copies of this Data or return all received copies of this Data to the City Planning Division. I / \ (initial)
Signed: -A.Jv\c L?Al~ Peter Moore

(Client) il (City Planning Division)
I have the authority to bind Client
Name: Andrew McAioine, Principal Title: Project Manager, SIPA
Date: May 18, 2016 Date: ___________________________
Page 152 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Peter Moore
Hi Peter,
Who should we be expecting to receive the data from?
Thanks,
Felipe
From: Peter Moore [mailto:pmoore@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Here it is with my signature too .
Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions about the data .
Peter
Peter Moore,
City of Toronto,
55 John St, 22"d Floor,
Toronto, ON, M5V 3Cl.
416-392-8806
pmoore@toronto.ca

Cc: Karen Thorburn
Peter, Mike,
Page 153 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
From: Peter Moore [mailto:pmoore@toronto.ca ]

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike and Felipe,
Peter
From: Mike Logan

To: Peter Moore
Hello Peter,
Thanks!

416.338.5568
21st Floor, East Tower

Page 154 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Cc: Karen Thorburn
It looks OK to me. They will release all of the data associated with SmartT rack- 5 scenarios of population and
employment growth.
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe .Camargo@arup.com]

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Mike,
Cheers,
Felipe
Begin forwarded message :
From: Peter Moore <pmoore@toronto.ca>

Date: May 16, 2016 at 5:08:38 PM EDT
To: Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto.ca >
Cc: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca >
Hi Mike and Felipe,
Peter
From: Mike Logan

To: Peter Moore
Page 155 of 1092

Hello Peter,
As you know, we are undertaking business cases for all of our current priority transit projects. As part of
this work, ARUP Canada Inc. is undertaking accessibility modelling, as well as translating benefits and
costs into benefit/cost ratios as per the Metrolinx business case guidance.
For the accessibility modelling, ARUP needs to use the SmartTrack population and employment
forecasts. I'm expecting that ARUP will need to sign a data usage agreement before we provide the
data . Would you be able to send this to me, or directly to Felipe, copied on this email?
Thanks!

Transit Implementation Unit 1 City Planning
416.338 .5568

Page 156 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Felipe Camargo < Fel ipe.Camargo@arup.com >

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Population and Employment Projection Data
Non-Responsive Information Removed
Hi Mike,
Andrew McAlpine, our office leader, is the person who can sign at our end, but he's been in meetings all
day but we should have it signed, I'm told, tomorrow morning.
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 17, 2016, at 9:25AM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto.ca > wrote:
It looks OK to me. They will release all of the data associated with SmartTrack- 5 scenarios of
population and employment growth .
Mike
To: Mike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Mike,
Cheers,
Felipe
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Moore <pmoore@toronto.ca>

Date: May 16, 2016 at 5:08:38 PM EDT
To: Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto .ca >
Cc: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>, Karen Thorburn
<kthorbu@toronto.ca >
Hi Mike and Felipe,

A Client Use acknowledgement is attached. Please let me know if it needs to be
changed at all.
Peter
From: Mike Logan
Sent: May-16-16 3:29 PM
To: Peter Moore
Page 157 of 1092

Hello Peter,
As you know, we are undertaking business cases for all of our current priority transit
projects. As part of this work, ARUP Canada Inc. is undertaking accessibility modelling,
as well as translating benefits and costs into benefit/cost ratios as per the Metrolinx
business case guidance .
For the accessibility modelling, ARUP needs to use the SmartT rack population and
employment forecasts . I'm expecting that ARUP will need to sign a data usage
agreement before we provide the data. Would you be able to send this to me, or
directly to Felipe, copied on this email?
Thanks!
416.338.5568

Page 158 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Subject: RE: Output timing
Ok,
I'll follow up with Michael Hain.
I wouldn't mind seeing what you have in terms of the PV of the financial case numbers.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
I've updated the costs for the options you sent me information for in the appraisal spreadsheet model, but I
haven't received 2041 numbers from Michael Hain yet.
I was waiting for Michael's number before updating the summary slides but I can send you a draft version
based on the numbers I currently have within the next half an hour or so.
Michael said we could expect to have his numbers by "midweek" which I'm assuming to be today.
Please let me know if you'd like to see a first draft of the results today or if you'd prefer to wait until we have
the 2041 numbers from Michael.
I should be available all day today so feel free to give me a call either at my office or my cellphone.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 159 of 1092

Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 10:24 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe
Pis advise.
Thanks
Karen

Page 160 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
rn: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore in no\ ation in the built environment on Doggerel

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe
Page 161 of 1092

Pis advise.
Thanks
Karen

Page 162 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Peter Moore

To: 'Fel ipe Camargo'
Attachments: ARUP client acknowledgement signed.pdf
Hi Felipe,
Here it is with my signature too.
Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions about the data.
Peter
Peter Moore,
City of Toronto,
55 John St, 22"d Floor,
Toronto, ON, M5V 3C1.
416-392-8806
pmoore@toronto.ca

Cc: Karen Thorburn
Peter, Mike,
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Peter Moore [mailto :pmoore@toronto .ca ]

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike and Felipe,
Page 163 of 1092

Peter
From: Mike Logan

To: Peter Moore
Cc: Felipe Camargo; Karen Thorburn .
Hello Peter,
Thanks!

416.338 .5568
Page 164 of 1092

Page 165 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
I'm updating the numbers now so once I'm done all that will be missing will be the STand Eglinton East costs.
If we have those by tomorrow morning, then I think Friday should be fine.

Sent: Wednesday, June 01 , 2016 11:45 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks Felipe.
I'll wait until you have the next version ready and set up a briefing to go through the numbers.
Is Friday morning too early for a briefing?

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi Karen,
The attached powerpoint file has the latest numbers, including costs data for RL, Eglinton East to UTSC and
SSE Express.
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 10:25 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Page 166 of 1092

Ok,

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Please let me know if you'd like to see a first draft of the results today or if you ' d prefer to wait until we have
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe
Page 167 of 1092

Pis advise.
Thanks
Karen

Page 168 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Meeting with TTC on Cost Estimates for SSE and RL
Nevermind ... I just saw on the invite that you'll be coming too.
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto :kthorbu@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: RE : Meeting with TIC on Cost Estimates for SSE and RL
Hi Felipe,
Sorry, there was an error. They would like to move this Tuesday may lOth at 11am
Is that ok for you?

Sent: May-04-16 2:56 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Meeting with TIC on Cost Estimates for SSE and RL
Yes, that works for me

To: Felipe Camargo
Are you available to meet TIC at 10 am on Wednesday May 11th at North York Centre

Sent: May-04-16 12:17 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
thanks for the update!
With regards to Arup actions from last week, I'll be sending you a table with the outputs that we'll be generating later
today.
Page 169 of 1092

Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:52 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
TTC is trying to coordinate a time that works for all three staff members involved. I've suggested Tuesday-Thursday.
Will let you know.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Monday and Friday next week aren't good for me, but the rest of the week is looking pretty open.
Thanks,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Meeting with TIC on Cost Estimates for SSE and RL
Hi Felipe,
I'm following up to set up a meeting with TIC to discuss how the cost estimates will input to the economic case for SSE
and RL.
I think next week is likely the earliest we can schedule a meeting given the events of this week. Are there any days that
are particularly difficult for you?
Monday is unfortunately not an option for me.
Page 170 of 1092

Please advise .
Thanks,
Karen
2-270
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel : 416-392-2720, Email: kthorbu@toronto.ca
Page 171 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Attachments: 2016-06-01 Summary of Economic Impacts v3.pptx
Hi Karen,
SSE Express.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Ok,

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
I've updated the costs for the options you sent me information for in the appraisal spreadsheet model , but I
haven ' t received 2041 numbers from Michael Hain yet.
Please let me know if you'd like to see a first draft of the results today or if you ' d prefer to wait until we have
Page 172 of 1092

I should be available all day today so feel free to give me a call either at my office or my cell phone.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup .com

Sent: Tuesday, May 31,2016 10:24 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe
Pis advise.
Thanks
Karen

Page 173 of 1092

SmartTrack Option and Base Cases for Evaluation
Scenarios
ReliefLineOpt. 2 ReliefLineOpt.3 Eglinton EastLRT 2
SmartTrack SmartTrack SSE Eglinton EastLRT3
SubwayviaQueen SubwayviaEastern ApprovedEA
IntegrationOptionC IntegrationOptionD McCowan Express ShortLRTtoUTSC
St Ave extension
GO RER
SmartTrack STOptionC
STOptionD
InterventionsincludedintheBaseCase
EAApproved

Eglinton Option
WestLRT SpeedandAccess
Balance
Line1imp.Surface
transitonQueen
andKing
ReliefLine SubwayviaQueen
St
SubwayviaEastern
Ave
McCowan 3Stop
SSE
McCowan Express
Bus
Eglinton East ApprovedEA

LRT extension
ShortLRTtoUTSC
BaseCase1 BaseCase2 BaseCase3
Example of how this matrix is read: The SmartTrack Integration Option C and D options are evaluated against a base case that includes GO RER, the EA Approved option for Eglinton West LRT, line 1
improvements to transit on Quen and King Streets, McCowan 3-stop Scarborough Subway Extension and buses along Eglinton East LRT corridor.
Page 174 of 1092

SmartTrack Integration Option C
UserBenefits
TravelTimeSaving
FareSavings
CrowdingRelief
SubtotalUserBenefits
ProducerBenefits
IncrementalFareRevenue
SubtotalProducerBenefits
ExternalBenefits
GHGEmissions
CACEmissions
AccidentPrevention
RoadDecongestion
RailSafety
AutoCosts
SubtotalExternalBenefits
TotalPVofBenefits(PVB)
Costs
OperatingCost
CapitalCosts
TotalPVofCosts(PVC)
Base case for evaluation: Base Case 1
Main Benefits are crowding relief and auto operating cost reduction, followed by transit travel time savings OverallImpacts
NPV(PVB PVC)
Substantial benefit from fare savings mainly due to integrated fare
BCR(PVB/PVC)
Small positive increase in fare revenue suggests that increase in demand is sufficient to offset reduced fare
Section 7 applied
Page 175 of 1092

SmartTrack Integration Option D
UserBenefits
TravelTimeSaving
FareSavings
CrowdingRelief
ProducerBenefits
ExternalBenefits
GHGEmissions
CACEmissions
AccidentPrevention
RoadDecongestion
RailSafety
AutoCosts
Costs
OperatingCost
CapitalCosts
TotalPVofCosts(PVC)
As with Integration Option C, the main Benefits are crowding relief and auto operating cost reduction, followed OverallImpacts
by transit travel time savings. However transit travel time savings account for a much larger proportion of the NPV(PVB PVC)
benefits, and are approx., 50% greater than for Int. Option C BCR(PVB/PVC)
Substantial benefit from fare savings mainly due to integrated fare
Road decongestion benefits are significant, and double those estimated for Int. Option C.
Small positive increase in fare revenue suggests that increase in demand is sufficient to offset reduced fare
Section 7 applied
Page 176 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2 Subway via Queen St
UserBenefits
TravelTimeSaving
FareSavings
CrowdingRelief
ProducerBenefits
ExternalBenefits
GHGEmissions
CACEmissions
AccidentPrevention
RoadDecongestion
RailSafety
AutoCosts
Costs
OperatingCost
CapitalCosts
RecapitalizationCosts
TotalPVofCosts(PVC)
The Relief Line option via Queen St. generates substantial travel time savings, which dominate the economic benefits; the OverallImpacts
second largest benefit is road decongestion, representing approximately 1/10 of the transit travel time benefit NPV(PVB PVC)
Surprisingly, there is a small crowding disbenefit, which suggests that the Relief Line attracts transit trips to segments of the BCR(PVB/PVC)
network where capacity is insufficient.
Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately n
The Net Present Value results in negative , with a Benefit Cost Ratio of
Section 7 applied
Page 177 of 1092

Relief Line Option 3 Subway via Eastern Avenue
UserBenefits
TravelTimeSaving
FareSavings
CrowdingRelief
ProducerBenefits
ExternalBenefits
GHGEmissions
CACEmissions
AccidentPrevention
RoadDecongestion
RailSafety
AutoCosts
Costs
OperatingCost
CapitalCosts
TotalPVofCosts(PVC)
The Relief Line option via Eastern Ave. generates approximately double the economic benefits of the Queen St. option, with OverallImpacts
a similar distribution of benefits (i.e. dominated by transit travel time savings, with smaller benefits from the other NPV(PVB PVC)
components. BCR(PVB/PVC)
As was the case with the Queen St option, there is a crowding disbenefit, but it is much more substantial for the Eastern
Avenue option
Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately
Section 7 applied
Page 178 of 1092

Scarborough Subway Extension Express
UserBenefits
TravelTimeSaving
FareSavings
CrowdingRelief
ProducerBenefits
ExternalBenefits
GHGEmissions
CACEmissions
AccidentPrevention
RoadDecongestion
RailSafety
AutoCosts
Costs
OperatingCost
CapitalCosts
TotalPVofCosts(PVC)
The SSE Express option shows a significant amount of transit travel time benefit OverallImpacts
A large proportion of the these benefits are, however, offset by the disbenefits, mainly driven by an increase in NPV(PVB PVC)
crowding on the transit system BCR(PVB/PVC)
Compared to the Base Case, which includes the McCowan 3-stop subway option, theres a reduction in costs of
almost (PV 2015$)
Overall, this option has a positive net present value of approximately (2015$). The benefit to cost ratio is
not meaningful in this case, since the Present Value of Costs is negative.
Section 7 applied
Page 179 of 1092

Eglinton East LRT Option 2 Approved EA alignment
UserBenefits
TravelTimeSaving
FareSavings
CrowdingRelief
ProducerBenefits
ExternalBenefits
GHGEmissions
CACEmissions
AccidentPrevention
RoadDecongestion
RailSafety
AutoCosts
Costs
OperatingCost
CapitalCosts
TotalPVofCosts(PVC)
OverallImpacts
NPV(PVB PVC)
BCR(PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
Page 180 of 1092

Eglinton East LRT Option 3 Shortened alignment to UTSC
UserBenefits
TravelTimeSaving
FareSavings
CrowdingRelief
ProducerBenefits
ExternalBenefits
GHGEmissions
CACEmissions
AccidentPrevention
RoadDecongestion
RailSafety
AutoCosts
Costs
OperatingCost
CapitalCosts
TotalPVofCosts(PVC)
[Bus changes for this option are being re-studied by City Planning, the reason being that the current assumptions OverallImpacts
result in a worsening of the transit system, so the results in this sheet may not be representative of the Eglinton NPV(PVB PVC)
East LRT project] BCR(PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
Page 181 of 1092

Sensitivity Tests Value of Time
Page 182 of 1092

Sensitivity Tests Length of Appraisal Period
10
Page 183 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Thanks Felipe .
I'll wait until you have the next version ready and set up a briefing to go through the numbers.
Is Friday morning too early for a briefing?

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
SSE Express.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Ok,
I wouldn 't mind seeing what you have in terms of the PV of the financial case numbers.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup .com )

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen ,
Page 184 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe
Pis advise.
Thanks
Karen
Page 185 of 1092


Page 186 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Michael Hain; 'Felipe Camargo'; Mike Logan
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: Re: Options Summary
I would like to be a part of the call if possible. If not Diana can attend if she is available
From: Michael Hain

To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Mike Logan; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: RE: Options Summary
I would like to schedule a phone call to confirm the assumptions for ARUP's work related to the business cases. Karen 's
schedule is marked as busy until11 :30. Felipe, do you have any time between 11:30 and 1 or after 4? Or could Diana
substitute for Karen?
M.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe .Camargo@arup .com]
To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
Ok, thanks, that's actually news to us so we'll need to rerun the accessibility models for some of the options (because
they currently include GO-RER instead of Option C).
It may be useful to have a quick call with Mike tomorrow morning. I'm available anytime between 8:30am and 10:30am.
It may be useful to include Karen to make sure she's up to speed with the assumptions.
Thanks,
Felipe
From: Michael Hain [mailto :mhain@toronto.ca ]
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: RE : Options Summary
Mike confirmed that SmartTrack Option C is in the base for the non-SmartTrack business cases. If we still need a phone
call, tomorrow morning is pretty close to open for both of us. I have a brief meeting at 10. Let us know,
M.
From: Michael Hain
Subject: FW: Options Summary
From: Diana Chu
To: Michael Hain
Subject: Options Summary
Diana Chu
Research Associate
1
Page 187 of 1092

Strategic and Corporate Policy, City Manager's Office
City of Toronto
dchu2@toronto.ca; 416-397-0888
Confidentiality Notice: this e-mail and attachment(s) may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mai l, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies .
Any distribution or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be
illegal.

Page 188 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Michael Hain; Mike Logan; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Hi Michael,
I'm in meetings from 10:30am to ll:OOam and from 1:30pm to 2:30pm. Otherwise I'm available .
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo; Mike Logan; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
I would like to schedule a phone call to confirm the assumptions for ARUP's work related to the business cases. Karen's
schedule is marked as busy until11 :30. Felipe, do you have any time between 11:30 and 1 or after 4? Or could Diana
substitute for Karen?
M.

To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
Ok, thanks, that' s actually news to us so we'll need to rerun the accessibility models for some of the options (because
they currently include GO-RER instead of Option C).
It may be useful to have a quick call with Mike tomorrow morning. I'm available anytime between 8:30am and 10:30am.
It may be useful to include Karen to make sure she's up to speed with the assumptions.
Thanks,
Felipe
From: Michael Hain [mailto:mhain@toronto.ca ]

Page 189 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Mike confirmed that SmartTrack Option Cis in the base for the non-SmartTrack business cases. If we still need a phone
call, tomorrow morning is pretty close to open for both of us. I have a brief meeting at 10. Let us know,
M.
From: Michael Hain

Subject: FW: Options Summary
From: Diana Chu

To: Michael Hain
Subject: Options Summary
Diana Chu
Research Associate
Strategic and Corporate Policy, City Manager's Office
City of Toronto
dchu2@toronto.ca; 416-397-0888
Confidentiality Notice: this e-mail and attachment(s) may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies.
Any distribution or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be
illegal.

Page 190 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: June 28 Executive Committee
Hi Karen,
Sorry, I've been away from my desk for the last couple of hours, but I'm back here now, and will be for the rest of the
day.
I should be fine for June 28th.
Cheers, Non responsive information removed
Felipe

Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 1:41 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: June 28 Executive Committee
Hi Felipe,
Further to my previous email. I'm wondering if you may be available June 28th, to help support staff with questions that
may arise on the economic case.
Lets discuss when you have an opportunity.
Thanks
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 191 of 1092

Page 192 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: In committee room
I'm here ...
Sure these are the last few

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:45PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Sorry, my laptop crashed so took a bit longer to pack things up. Should I wait until the
deputations are finished? (This guy's the last one, right?)
Do you mind sitting in gallery?

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:33 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Do you want me there or should I wait up here?
Hi Felipe
We will be moving to questions once cttee starts
I'm downstairs 2nd floor cttee room 1

Page 193 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
No, that's fine, I'll be right down

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe

Page 194 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Sorry, my laptop crashed so took a bit longer to pack things up. Should I wait until the deputations are finished?
(This guy's the last one, right?)
On Jun 28,2016, at 1:36 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe

Page 195 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: I'll be at City hall at 845
Hi, just arrived, I'll be outside by the entrance to the cafe (it's too wann in there)
On Jun 28, 2b16, at 8:34AM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Ok ill meet you in cafe in ch

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:13AM
To: Karen Thorburn
No worries, my train is a few minutes late so I won't be there much earlier.
See you in a few minutes.
On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:12AM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu @toronto .ca> wrote:
Sorry bit behind

Page 196 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:12AM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Sorry bit behind

Page 197 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Felipe Camargo
Ok ill meet you in cafe in ch

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:13 AM
To: Karen Thorburn
On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:12AM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Sorry bit behind

Page 198 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Friday-3:30pm
Hi Karen,
Friday at 3:30pm works fine . And I spoke to Leo and he'd be able to dial in too so we're all good.
Thanks,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:45 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Friday-3:30pm
Hi Felipe,
Unfortunately, I can't make schedules work for 10:30am or 1:30pm on Friday.
Would 3:30pm at City Hall be an option?
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 199 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Follow up
Hi Karen,
My key questions would be:
What model has been used to estimate the user and external benefits of the SmartTrack options?
If the model used is elasticity-based, does it take into account demand at new stations? How does it consider
the impact of new stations on the rest of the network (i.e. new connections)?
Could you share the stop to stop travel time assumptions for the base (GO RER) and test (ST options C and D)
scenarios?
I think answers to these would help us understand the differences in the results. We'd probably have to ask follow-up
questions, but these will at least allow us to confirm what model is being used and more or less how it's working.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Follow up
Could you provide a list of your questions for MX

Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 5:47PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Logan; Michael Hain; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Diana Chu
Subject: RE : Follow up
Page 200 of 1092

Hi Karen,
Yes, it was a useful chat, thanks for organizing.
I suggest that before the briefing with senior staff we try to speak to someone at Metrolinx so that we know for sure
where the numbers in the Metrolinx business come from.
If the numbers come from the elasticity-based model then perhaps Michael Hand I could meet with Phil Orr to get
more details about the model.
Have a good weekend!
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W lAS Canada
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 5:22 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Logan; Michael Hain; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Karen Thorburn; Diana Chu
Subject: Follow up
Confidential Draft- Not for Distribution
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for the meeting today. It was very useful to start getting an understand of what the outputs will look like.
In follow up:
- Attached are the confidential draft capital cost estimates for Eg E LRT. Password is the same as last. We don't have
O&M numbers for this project unfortunately.
- City Planning is to provide the updated ridership numbers for you as soon as possible (Monday morning latest?)
- Set up a briefing to go through full results of economic case with key senior staff. I will look to get a time set up for end
of day Tuesday or early Wednesday.
- Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required , based on availability of other
inputs, time and resources .
Thanks and have a great weekend.
Page 201 of 1092

Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720

Page 202 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Follow up
Could you provide a list of your questions for MX

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Logan; Michael Hain; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Diana Chu
Hi Karen,
Yes, it was a useful chat, thanks for organizing.
I suggest that before the briefing with senior staff we try to speak to someone at Metrolinx so that we know for sure
where the numbers in the Metrolinx business come from .
If the numbers come from the elasticity-based model then perhaps Michael H and I could meet with Phil Orr to get
more details about the model.
Have a good weekend!
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Follow up
Hi Felipe,
1
Page 203 of 1092

In follow up:
-Attached are the confidential draft capital cost estimates for Eg E LRT. Password is the same as last. We don't have
O&M numbers for this project unfortunately.
-City Planning is to provide the updated ridership numbers for you as soon as possible (Monday morning latest?)
-Set up a briefing to go through full results of economic case with key senior staff. I will look to get a time set up for end
of day Tuesday or early Wednesday.
-Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required, based on availability of other
inputs, time and resources .
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720

Page 204 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Kristin Olson

Cc: Mike Logan; Diana Chu; Karen Thorburn
Subject: updated accessibility numbers
Hi Felipe,
I understand you are updating the accessibility numbers for the RL. Can you cc' me when you send results back to Mike?
(Mike is in meetings for most of today).
I just spoke with Mike Wehkind about the modelling numbers that his team is updating. They are still working on them,
and will have them ready later today.
. Karen, Felipe- I'm not sure where this leaves the economic case. Hopefully
someone else in Arup can cover, or perhaps Felipe can send the working spreadsheet to Karen.
Kristin Olson MA BSc RPP Non-Responsive Information Removed

Transportation Planner
City of Toronto
City Hall, 21 51 Floor, East Tower
100 Queen St West
Toronto, ON , M5H 2N2
T: (416) 397-0041
Page 205 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: 'Fel ipe Camargo'
Subject: update
Hi Felipe,
We would like to test some additional scenarios on RL. Lets discuss tomorrow when you have a
chance. Planning is developing the runs and should be able to provide the data on Friday afternoon.
Separately, I was wondering if you could assist by providing additional write up on how to interpret
the SSE Express against the base case SSE 3 stop. The fact there is no BCR is causing some
confusion. Is there a BCR that could be produced that we could explain. A couple of paragraphs on
the SSE economic case analysis in particular would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 206 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Today
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
viruses
Page 207 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Cc: Diana Chu; Peter Notaro; Mike Logan
Subject: Summary of call on Business Case Work
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for the call this morning. I just wanted to summarize next steps quickly.
Felipe/ARUP:
1. Send hourly rates
2. Provide table outlining what measures will be used and the required
information/inputs/assumptions from the City/TTC
3. Submit any questions/comments regarding the set-up of the options under assessment that need
to be addressed
Karen/CMO:
4. Update terms of reference document and obtain necessary procurement documents for ARUP to
sign
5. Set up meeting on Friday to discuss following items: base case/scenarios; inputs and assumptions;
schedule
I will follow up with a meeting appointment shortly.

Thanks for taking time to discuss this morning.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
intended recipient is unauthorized. Ifyou receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 208 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Karen Tho rburn

Sent: April - 29-16 5:58PM
Cc: Mi ke Logan; Diana Chu; Hilary Holden
Hello,
3. Karen: Set up meeting between Felipe and TIC staff involved in costing the RL and SSE for next
week.
Thanks for meeting this afternoon . Have a great weekend everyone!
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 209 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Status update
Hi Felipe
Just wanted to check in.

I have legal reviewing proposed changes to the agreement. Hope to get it back to you today.
Have you received required data yet from city planning and ttc?
I'm going to send over the costs we have for smarttrack and Eglinton West lrt.
We have very rough numbers for Eglinton East but not cash flow. I will try to connect with you to discuss once
I send the material over.
I was also wondering what the likelihood is of being able to calculate the measures related to vkt. You
mentioned that you may be able to pending conversation with ridership modelling staff.
I'm hoping we can present the results of the economic case analysis to date to the DCM next week. Please
advise if you have any concerns.
Thanks
Karen
Page 210 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: James Perttula; Felipe Camargo; Mike Logan; Michael Hain; Mike Wehkind
Subject: Start meeting at 2:40 instead
Hi
A number of us are in a mtg that may run a bit long
May I suggest starting at 2:40
Page 211 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Karen Tho rburn

Sent: June-10-16 2: 57 PM
To: 'Felipe Cama rgo '
Cc: M ichael Ha in; M ike Wehkind; M ike Logan
Subject: RL Ridersh ip Runs -
Hi Felipe,
You will be receiving the additional ridership and travel time inputs on Monday morning for Relief
Line.
If that is a problem, please advise.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 212 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-10-16 3:38 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: request
Hi Karen,
I have a quick favour to ask. To set up an internal project number before we have a signed contract we need a written
'notice to proceed' from the project manager on the client side .
Would you be able to do that (an email is all we'd need) without having to wait for the paperwork to be sorted out at
your end?
Thanks!
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 213 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Subject: Remaining Inputs
Hi Felipe,
I should be able to provide cost estimates end of day tomorrow for input. Lets also touch base on the
LOA in the morning if possible.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 214 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo @arup.com >

To: Michael Hain
Subject: RE: Updated SSE IBC information - Draft -June 27
Thanks Michael
From: Michael Hain [mailto :mhain@toronto .ca]

Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Updated SSE IBC information - Draft - June 27
Hello Felipe,
Here are the SSE numbers with SRT in the base case. Please let me know if you have any questions.
M.

Page 215 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Updated results
sure
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Friday, June 17, 20161 :44 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Updated results
Can I call now

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Kristin Olson; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula ; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles
( Eyles204@ btinternet.com )
Hi Karen,
I'll be out between 2:00pm and about 3:30pm . Otherwise, I'm available (calling my cellphone might be best).
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Friday, June 17, 20161:08 PM
Page 216 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Kristin Olson; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles
(Eyles204@ btinternet.com )
Subject: RE : Updated results
Thanks Felipe. Appreciate the turn around .
A couple of us are going to get together to review the results, and may want to discuss with you. Are you around this
afternoon?
Thanks,
Karen

Sent: June-17-1612 :44 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
( Eyles204@ btinternet.com )
Subject: Updated results
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated powerpoint file with the summary results of the economic assessment of all tested
options, now including the latest model outputs provided by the City Planning team last night and this morning.
In addition to the changes made to the relief line options, there is a very small change in the Eglinton East LRT numbers
that result from adjusting the assumed opening year to 2025, in line with the assumption for SSE Express. The NPV and
BCR for Eglinton East don't change as a result of this.
In the interest of time we have not yet updated the sensitivity test charts that are included in the last couple of sl ides.
But please let me know if you'll need them and we will update and forward those too .
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 217 of 1092

Page 218 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: update
Hi Karen,
I'll give you a call in the morning to discuss. And yes, we can help with a short write up for SSE Express and we' ll think
about a way of estimating a number (perhaps something like what Metrolinx did to explain things as an impact on the
BCR of the base case or something like that).
Talk tomorrow,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:42 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: update
Hi Felipe,
We would like to test some additional scenarios on RL. Lets discuss tomorrow when you have a chance. Planning is
developing the runs and should be able to provide the data on Friday afternoon .
Separately, I was wondering if you could assist by providing additional write up on how to interpret the SSE Express
against the base case SSE 3 stop. The fact there is no BCR is causing some confusion. Is there a BCR that could be
produced that we could explain . A couple of paragraphs on the SSE economic case analysis in particular would be very
helpful.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 219 of 1092


Page 220 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Subject: RE: Transit Business Cases
Hi Felipe ,
1Qth floor east tower.
I'm extension 2-2720

Sent: April-29-1610:41 AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks, this sounds great, good idea to summarize the methodology to provide some context on what a
business case is, and specifically the economic case.
Yes, I'm able to meet you at 3pm, so I'Il see you at that time. Should I head to the 101h floor?
And thanks for forwarding the draft note with comments and the Feeling Congested? measures.
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:31 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Transit Business Cases
Hi Felipe,
I circulated the table of data points required and measures from your last email to key staff.
For discussion this afternoon. I think a walk through the methodology would be very helpful as staff
are coming from different levels of knowledge and perspective on what is a business case and what
is included in the economic case.
City Planning has some comments/questions which you will see noted in the attached document. I
have also inserted information for you on costing and project in service year.
1
Page 221 of 1092

City Planning has also requested I share the measures they are using through Feeling Congested?.
We can have further discussion this afternoon.
If you're free before the 3:30pm, and available to meet in advance of our meeting with the larger
group, I would like to talk through administrative matters and provide you an overview of our overall
business case development process to provide you context. If your free at 3pm , please advise.
Thanks,
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 222 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks, this sounds great, good idea to summarize the methodology to provide some context on what a business case
is, and specifically the economic case.
Yes, I'm able to meet you at 3pm, so I'll see you at that time . Should I head to the 101h floor?
And thanks for forwarding the draft note with comments and the Feeling Congested? measures.
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:31 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
For discussion this afternoon. I think a walk through the methodology would be very helpful as staff are coming from
different levels of knowledge and perspective on what is a business case and what is included in the economic case.
City Planning has some comments/questions which you will see noted in the attached document. I have also inserted
information for you on costing and project in service year.
City Planning has also requested I share the measures they are using through Feeling Congested? . We can have further
discussion this afternoon .
If you're free before the 3:30pm, and available to meet in advance of our meeting with the larger group, I would like to
talk through adm inistrative matters and provide you an overview of our overall business case development process to
provide you context. If your free at 3pm, please advise .
Thanks,
Karen
2-2720
Page 223 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel : 416-392-2720, Email: kthorbu@toronto.ca
Page 224 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Mike Logan
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Michael Hain; Diana Chu
Subject: RE: Transit Business Case work - Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Thanks for the summary Felipe . We will follow up.

To: Karen Thorburn; Mike Logan
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Michael Hain
Subject: Transit Business Case work- Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hi Karen, Mike,
As a follow-up to yesterday's teleconference, below is a summary of the status of the study:

Base Case: During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe Camargo, it was found
that there was some confusion between the teams regarding the definition of a 'base case'. At the
meeting held on April 29 1h, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, which
included GO RER as the base for SmartTrack. However, the City Planning team was working under the
assumption that ST Option C would be included in the base case for all other projects.
Karen is confirming with senior management what base case they feel is most appropriate to present
Accessibility/connectivity Analysis: All options have been coded in the accessibility model and runs are
complete for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base Case' . The runs,
which take approximately 48 hours for all the scenarios, should be complete tonight.
o Input Data:
Population and employment data has not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this
email.
Economic Benefits: An evaluation spreadsheet to estimate benefits as described in the methodology
note circulated earlier has been prepared and is ready to receive inputs.
o Input Data:
Strategic model outputs have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this email.
Costs information for the options have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this
email.
Opening year assumptions for the projects have not been provided by the city as of the date/time
of this email.
Please note that although we are making our best efforts to have results ready by the end of May, if we don't
have the missing information by close of Tuesday 24 May it will not be possible to generate outputs within the
timescales.
Regards,
Felipe
Page 225 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc
Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 226 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Michael Hain
Cc: Diana Chu; Mike Logan; Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Transit Business Case work - Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Thanks Michael
On May 20, 2016, at 1:08PM, Michael Hain <mhain@toronto.ca > wrote:
Hello Felipe,
A Maplnfo layer of the population and employment projections is attached. Please let me know if you
have any questions.
M.
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); Michael Hain; Diana Chu
Thanks for the summary Felipe. We will follow up.
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); Michael Hain
Hi Karen, Mike,
Base Case: During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe Camargo, it was
found that there was some confusion between the teams regarding the definition of a 'base
case'. At the meeting held on April 29 1h, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for
all options, which included GO RER as the base for SmartT rack. However, the City Planning team
was working under the assumption that ST Option C would be included in the base case for all
other projects.
Karen is confirming with senior management what base case they feel is most appropriate to
present
Accessibility/connectivity Analysis: All options have been coded in the accessibility model and
runs are complete for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base
Case'. The runs, which take approximately 48 hours for all the scenarios, should be complete
tonight.
o Input Data:
Population and employment data has not been provided by the city as of the date/time
of this email.
Economic Benefits: An evaluation spreadsheet to estimate benefits as described in the
methodology note circulated earlier has been prepared and is ready to receive inputs.
o Input Data:
Strategic model outputs have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this
email.
Costs information for the options have not been provided by the city as of the
Page 227 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: April-27-16 3:22 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Summary of call on Business Case Work
Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Karen,
Yes, it was very productive conversation, thanks for arranging it. With regards to next steps, below are a table with team
member hourly rates, a list the key indicators to be measured and a table with the initial list of inputs needed for the
work.
We will get back to you if there are any questions around the options and for Friday, we'll do a bit of thinking and will
bring a proposed way forward for discussion.
Team hourly rates:
Staff member Hourly rate (exc. HST and expenses)

Felipe Camargo- Project Manager $ Section 14(1) applied
(
Leo Eyles -Expert Advisor $
Michael Sutherland* -Expert Advisor $
Ana Graovac- Transportation Planner $
Adrien Friesen - Graduate Transportation $
Consultant
. His involvement in the study is envisaged to be (

limited to the definition of the overall methodology and advising city staff on the overall development of the business
cases.
Key indicators to be evaluated (as a top priority, more will be added if there is time available}:
Journey Time benefits
Fare savings (for SmartTrack options, where changes in fares are defined as part of the options}
Revenue impacts
Crowding relief
Accessibility impacts
o Access to jobs (base and future year}
o Access to labour force (base and future year}
Page 228 of 1092

The top four (i.e . all excluding accessibility impacts) will be monetized and combining these with project costs we will
estimate the Benefit Cost Ratio and Net Present Value of each option, compared to the base case. Accessibility impacts
will be reported separately.
Data requirements:
For the base scenario, as well as each option :
Variable Level of detail Form Source

Ridership Transit segment Table or em me network? GTAModel
Service Frequency Route Table GTAModel
Vehicle type or capacity (tbc) Route Table tbc
Transit demand 0-D Pair Matrix GTAModel
Generalized Journey Time 0-D Pair Matrix GTAModel
Average Fare 0-D Pair Matrix GTAModel
Capital costs Project Table
Operating and Maintenance costs Project Table
Project opening year
Data applicable to all scenarios

Base year population Census DA Table Census
Future year population Census DA Table City
Base year employment tbc Table City
Future year employment tbc Table City
We're writing up a short methodology note that provides a bit more context which we will circulate later this week .
.cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
2
Page 229 of 1092

Subject: Summary of call on Business Case Work
Hi Felipe,
Tha.nks for the call this morning. I just wanted to summarize next steps quickly.
Felipe/ ARUP:
1. Send hourly rates
2. Provide table outlining what measures will be used and the required information/inputs/assumptions from the
City/TTC
3. Submit any questions/comments regarding the set-up of the options under assessment that need to be addressed
Karen/CMO:
4. Update terms of reference document and obtain necessary procurement documents for ARUP to sign
5. Set up meeting on Friday to discuss following items: base case/scenarios; inputs and assumptions; schedule
I will follow up with a meeting appointment shortly.

Thanks for taking time to discuss this morning.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 230 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: June- 28-16 9:56PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Thank you
Hi Felipe
Thanks for being at executive committee today.
. When you have a moment let's connect about the

invoicing.
Karen
Page 231 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Subject: Tomorrow.
Attachments: Copy of EELRT Cost Estimate- DRAFT.XLSX
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for sending over results. Noticed EgE capital cost for full alignment was not in there. Please
see attached.
Peter Notaro has requested a briefing tomorrow if your available to get an understanding of the
results. Would you be able to advise.
Senior staff are eager to have a discussion in the next couple of days on these results. I think we may
also need to discuss if any additional analysis is required; given some of the assumptions made. If
you could advise on the current number of hours that have been utilized in your contract it would be
appreciated.
Thanks
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 232 of 1092

Dist ribution of Caopltat COst sprudout 0\ltr a construction period o14 yurs
2015$ fKotbtedC.pltotl Conwuct lon Caplt oti Cru.t VurlyC.pltotl

Option llt!Krlptlon Option
!Millions) Begins Ob! ributlonl%1 ,~,
l tn&th lbwco~t 13 ot~umk1g l 2. 1 5km lnlength@560.5M/I<M 1<>10 1819.948 18

""
, ..., $4M uch ~umln83U r t r ~ln~ (4 5 vdllde~ purehued) to xhltvt 4 min htotdwotys ,
45Vdliclu
" "' n,.., ningM28 kptr
1874.546 Yur 2
""' "
lo-t 5S<I M few an MSF at Mt . Otnni~~ roUj\hfy $50M few ;an tnd of line 09f:r;ations
Modified MSF ECUIT
bullding,I<Ct IOU!I!,MldS!ew"f!t \r;!ltb
1988.706 Yur4 2>% ..

l,D19 ""~lmat h of Hne 4 S vehldll s modlf~MSf Total Capital Cost I 1,91
Total Raw
1,155 otssu~lm&thof llnt 4 5vehkles+ newmedlumMSF 1010 206 1.932

""
low end cost
"
l - - - l - - - - - - < i - - - - - 1 ots.slll'nts S'!lolntreaseon rw forpr~tyxqul "tlon
Yurl ,,.
"'" 2187.5()1
lowmdcost 1013 2253.129 Ytotr4 2>% S6

l'roftssionotl
"''"' l'ri&htndcost Tot,al(ot pltotiCort I 2.17
f---- f---------jf------1::::::
'"
6A lowendcos.t
Contir1gendes lntrtotst on r~w ~ propen vxqul~tlon + profusionaiservice, few
68 highendCMI 40 1
'""'
Page 233 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: SSE Results
Hi Karen,
Here are the SSE results, in case you need them:

Benefits SSE- McCowan 3 SSE- McCowan Ex
User Benefits
... ..I.~.~y-~_l _ !._i_~-~..?.-~Y.i .~~ ......................... ................................................................................................................................................. ?..~.~-~.0..?.. .~.!~ . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?.~.~-~-~ .?.!.~. .. .
. . f.~.:.~. .~-~~-i-~-~-~............................................................................................................................................................................ ............ .........~.~.?..~.~-~~~- . . . . . .. ....... . . . . .... .. ... . . . . . . . .. . ... .?.~.~-~-~-~-~-~.. .
. .....S.~C?.Y~.~-i-~~ . ~-~-~-i.~.f ................................................ ......................... .................................................................... ......................................~.?.:?.?..~. ~-~-~.!. .. . . . . . . . .. ...................... . ... . . . . . . .~.~.? ~.9..~.Q -~-Q....
. ?..l!.e.~.~.c:?..~'?.!..l!..~.~-~:..~.~~!.~.f!.~~-ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ,.:?.~ ~. ~?~.:.g?.,,,,,,,,. , "'"'"' """"""''"'""""' '"'"""" '''~!.~'~'~'?.?..,,,.,
" " " ' " ' " ' ' " ' " ' " ' ' , ..
Producer Benefits
lncremen1al Fare Revenu e -$49,897 -519,777
. ~.~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-. F.'.~.-.~ .~.C!.C..~ t. . ~.~-'!..~{1~~--- .................................................................................................................................. ................... ~:$.:.~~-~-~!.................... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ~.~-~?~..!.?"..!.......
External Benefits
GHG Emiss ions $2,300 S2.428
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
CAC Emissions 5460 ~86
Accident Preven1ion $16,103 $16,9518
Road Decon~est i on 5.209 . 133 $244,111
Auto Costs 5.179 .450
''""""''"'"'""'' ' ''''''''''''"'"""'''"'""'''"''"'""''"''"'""''"'"''"''"''"'''''"'"'"''''' '' """"'"'""'"''''"'"'"''"'"'"''''''''"'""'"""''""''" ' " ' "' 'a ''""''"' a "'"'"'" " '"'"''"' a "'"""'' a' ' '' ''''"'a' ' '"''''" a '' ' '''' ' '"a"'"""""""'""''"""'"''" ' ''''''''''' "' "'"''''' " ''''''' '' ''
5194.570
Sub-toto / externa l Benefits $.407, 447 .5458,59.3
Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $1 ,444,952 $1 ,L53,778
Costs
......9..P.~.:..~.~ -~-~~ . S.'?..~~..........................................................................................................................................................................................~.~}.~.S..?..~.... .... . . ..... . ........ . . . . ...... . . . ................ ?..3..g9.~.?.~.~. . .
... . S.~P.~~-~-~. S.~.~-~-~...................................................................................................................................................................... . .... . . . ...... ...?.~.~.?~.~- ~-~-~. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ..?.~.~.?~.~-~_g.?.~. .
Recap ii ali zai i on Co sis 5.810 .110 5.558 . 0~2
Total PV of Costs (PVC) $4,449 ,464 $3,084,758
Overall Impacts
. ~-~Y...WY..~. ::. .~.Y..~.L................... . . . . .................................................................................................................. . . ................. .... . . . . J.~.~-9..9.4!.~.~ -~- . .. . . ..... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . J.~.!..~}.9..!.~.~-9..
BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.3 0.4
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
Page 234 of 1092

t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup .com

Page 235 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: SSE Express text
Non responsive information removed
Hi Karen,
Here's some text to help explain the SSE Express results. Please have a look and let us know if this is more or less what
you were looking for:
Of course, feel free to adjust the naming and descriptions of the options as you see fit . Section 7 applied
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 236 of 1092

Page 237 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-26-16 5:2 5 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: voicemail
Will do, thanks
Hi Felipe,
Please send to my attention at City Hall 10th Floor East Tower.
Thanks,
Karen
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: voicemail
Hi Karen,
Andrew McAlpine (our office leader) came back earlier than expected from the SmartCities event and
has just signed the LOA. Who should I send these to, and to what address?
Thanks!
Felipe
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:04 PM
Subject: FW: voicemail
Hi Karen, Non responsive information removed
To keep you in the loop (in case you haven't been updated by the Planning team) regarding options,
model runs, etc., Kristin Olson mentioned this morning that new model runs will be needed (for both
the demand model and the accessibility model) because of adjustments made to the speed assumptions
for the SSE Express (now assumed to run at 50km/h).
We should have outputs from both models ready by midday tomorrow.
Cheers,
Felipe
PS: Our office leader has been out yesterday and today so I haven't been able to get his signature for
the LOA. I think we should be able to catch him tomorrow, and as soon as we have the signed copies I'll
send them over.
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 238 of 1092

To: Mike Logan; Felipe Camargo; Kristin Olson
Cc: Ana Graovac
Yes, we will be producing updated tables . They should be ready mid-day tomorrow.
M.
From: Mike Logan
To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Kristin Olson
Cc: Ana Graovac; Michael Hain
Felipe,
Thanks for making this change . Yes, the GTA model has already been run (over last night) to reflect this
speed change for the SSE Express options.
Michael- can you send Felipe/Ana the updated tables they need for the economic benefits work?
Mike
To: Kristin Olson
Cc: Mike Logan; Ana Graovac
Hi Kristin,
Sure, we can do that. The coding shouldn't take very long, not more than one hour, but run time would
be about 24 hours (3 scenarios x 2 time periods x 4 hours per run), plus perhaps another hour or so of
post-processing time.
So starting right now, if all goes well, we should have results for the SSE and Eglinton East LRT with the
express section of the subway running at 50km/h by around lunchtime tomorrow.
Please let us know if you want us to go ahead with this.
Cheers,
Felipe
PS: Will the GTA Model be run again with these changes? Or actually my question would be, should we
be expecting revised numbers for the economic benefits estimation for the three scenarios that include
SSE Express?
From: Kristin Olson [mailto:kolson@toronto.ca ]
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Logan
Subject: voicemail
Hi Felipe,
Just left you a voicemail about correcting the speed coded for SSE and re-running the model.
It's an urgent request (of course!)
When do you think we might be able to get new numbers?
Thanks, talk to you soon,
Kristin Olson MA BSc RPP
City ofToronto
City Hall, 21 51 Floor, East Tower
100 Queen St West
Toronto, ON, MSH 2N2
2
Page 239 of 1092

T: (416) 397-0041
*My normal office hours are 8:00am-4:00pm

Page 240 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Andrew McAlpine (our office leader) came back earlier than expected from the SmartCities event and has just signed
the LOA. Who should I send these to, and to what address?
Thanks!
Felipe

Hi Karen,
To keep you in the loop (in case you haven't been updated by the Planning team) regarding options, model runs, etc.,
Kristin Olson mentioned this morning that new model runs will be needed (for both the demand model and the
accessibility model) because of adjustments made to the speed assumptions for the SSE Express (now assumed to run at
50km/h).
Cheers,
Felipe
PS: Our office leader has been out yesterday and today so I haven't been able to get his signature for the LOA. I think we
should be able to catch him tomorrow, and as soon as we have the signed copies I'll send them over.
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 241 of 1092

Cc: Ana Graovac
Yes, we will be producing updated tables. They should be ready mid-day tomorrow.
M.
From: Mike Logan

Subject: RE : voicemail
Felipe,
Thanks for making this change. Yes, the GTA model has already been run (over last night) to reflect this speed change
for the SSE Express options.
Michael- can you send Felipe/ Ana the updated tables they need for the economic benefits work?
Mike

To: Kristin Olson
Hi Kristin,
Sure, we can do that. The coding shouldn't take very long, not more than one hour, but run time would be about 24
hours (3 scenarios x 2 time periods x 4 hours per run), plus perhaps another hour or so of post-processing time.
So starting right now, if all goes well, we should have results for the SSE and Eglinton East LRT with the express section
of the subway running at SOkm/h by around lunchtime tomorrow.
Cheers,
Felipe
PS: Will the GTA Model be run again with these changes? Or actually my question would be, should we be expecting
revised numbers for the economic benefits estimation for the three scenarios that include SSE Express?
From: Kristin Olson [mailto:kolson@toronto.ca]

Page 242 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Logan
Subject: voicemail
Hi Felipe,

City of Toronto
City Hall, 21st Floor, East Tower
100 Queen St West
T: (416) 397-0041

Page 243 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Hi Felipe ,
Please send to my attention at City Hall 1Q1h Floor East Tower.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Andrew McAlpine (our office leader) came back earlier than expected from the SmartCities event and has just
signed the LOA. Who should I send these to, and to what address?
Thanks!
Felipe

Hi Karen,
To keep you in the loop (in case you haven't been updated by the Planning team) regarding options, model
runs, etc., Kristin Olson mentioned this morning that new model runs will be needed (for both the demand
model and the accessibility model) because of adjustments made to the speed assumptions for the SSE Express
(now assumed to run at 50km/h).
We should have outputs from both models ready by midday tomorrow .
Cheers,
Felipe
Page 244 of 1092

PS: Our office leader has been out yesterday and today so I haven't been able to get his signature for the LOA. I
think we should be able to catch him tomorrow, and as soon as we have the signed copies I'll send them over.
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I AS Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Cc: Ana Graovac
M.
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-26-16 2:29 PM
Felipe,
Mike

To: Kristin Olson
Hi Kristin,
Sure, we can do that. The coding shouldn't take very long, not more than one hour, but run time would be about
24 hours (3 scenarios x 2 time periods x 4 hours per run), plus perhaps another hour or so of post-processing
time.
2
Page 245 of 1092

So starting right now, if all goes well, we should have results for the SSE and Eglinton East LRT with the
express section of the subway running at 50km/h by around lunchtime tomorrow.
Cheers,
Felipe
PS: Will the GTA Model be run again with these changes? Or actually my question would be, should we be
expecting revised numbers for the economic benefits estimation for the three scenarios that include SSE
Express?

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Logan
Subject: voicemail
Hi Felipe,

City of Toronto
City Hall , 21 51 Floor, East Tower
100 Queen St West
Toronto, ON, M5H 2N2
T: (416) 397-0041

Page 246 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Subject: RE: Updated summary outputs - Preliminary
Thanks Felipe.
I'm having some trouble reading the charts. Is there a way to adjust the font sizes/scale?

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Subject: Updated summary outputs- Preliminary
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated version of the powerpoint with the summary business case outputs. It now
includes four new Relief Line sheets, the two that show the results when compared vs the base that does NOT
include SmartTrack Option C, plus two with the numbers for the RL going all the way to Sheppard.
These are based on model outputs for 2041 provided by the Planning team. We've assumed that the benefits
would grow between 2031 and 2041 for the two new conditions (i.e. vs Base w/o Opt C and Relief Line to
Sheppard) in the same way as it does for the assessment that was done previously.
We expect these will change so I didn't add any commentary to the added slides, but generally speaking, they
show that the benefits of the 'short' Relief Line when evaluated with a base that excludes SmartTrack are
similar to the evaluation assuming SmartTrack and hence the value for money assessment is not great (BCRs
between 0.2 and 0.3).
The longer Relief Line does show significantly greater benefits, but without costs information we only have a
partial picture.
Hope this helps!
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 247 of 1092


Page 248 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Fel ipe Camargo < Fel ipe.Cama rgo@arup.com >

To: Kristin Olson; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles
(Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi Kristin,
The fare savings component is calculated based on the difference in the average fares between every 0-D pair in the 'Do
Something' compared to a 'base'. So when we test SmartTrack, there's a large amount of OD pairs which without
SmartTrack would include a GO fare but once STat TIC fares is introduced the average fare is reduced. This average fare
is based on a set of 'feasible' paths that travelers would take, according to the model, in each scenario.
This is why you see a large 'fare savings benefit' in the ST options.
Does that help clarify?
Felipe
From : Kristin Olson [mailto:kolson@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi all,
This is my first time seeing any of outputs for the economic analysis.
Could someone clarify what is meant by fare savings? I had thought we were assuming TIC fares on SmartTrack.
Kristin

Sent: June-17-1612 :44 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
options, now includ ing t he latest model outputs provided by the City Planning team last night and this morning.
Page 249 of 1092

In the interest of time we have not yet updated the sensitivity test charts that are included in the last couple of slides.
But please let me know if you'll need them and we will update and forward those too.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 250 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: Updated results
Can I call now

To: Karen Thorburn
( Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi Karen,
I'll be out between 2:00pm and about 3:30pm. Otherwise, I'm available (calling my cellphone might be best).
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks Felipe. Appreciate the turn around.
A couple of us are going to get together to review the results, and may want to discuss with you. Are you around this
afternoon?
Thanks, Non responsive information removed
Karen
Sent: June-17-1612:44 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Cheers,
Felipe
Page 251 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc
Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 252 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Kristin Olson; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu;
Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi Karen,
I'll be out between 2:00pm and about 3:30pm. Otherwise, I'm available (calling my cellphone might be best).
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks Felipe. Appreciate the turn around .
A couple of us are going to get together to review the results, and may want to discuss with you . Are you around this
afternoon?
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Page 253 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Electronic mail messages enteri ng and leaving Arup business

Page 254 of 1092

Page 255 of 1092
Hi Michael,
We've updated our spreadsheet with your outputs (thanks again for sending them last week) and have a couple of quick
questions/comments:
The data you provided is for 2031, is your plan still to extract data for 2041?
The Eglinton East test is described as "Option C with Express with ... ", this is inconsistent with all the other tests
which have McCowan 3 as the base.
The results for Eglinton East 'Full LRT' look a little bit odd; essentially it makes things worse. The 'shortened LRT'
option performs better which suggests to us that there could be something wrong with how this option is set up
in the model.
I'll give you a call later this morning to discuss.
Thanks,
Felipe

Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:12PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); Karen Thorburn; Mike Logan
Subject: RE: Transit Business Case work- Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hello Felipe,
Unfortunately, we were not able to finish extracting all of the travel time savings numbers. Attached are what we have
been able to pull so far and blank tables to show what we will fill in on Tuesday. I hope it is enough to get you started .
I believe that once we have sent you a completed version of this table we will have sent you all of the inputs you need
from the Regional Travel Demand Model. VKT reductions and fare revenue were included in the spreadsheet I sent you
on Wednesday.
Please let me know if you think there are any other outstanding measures.
Michael

Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); Michael Hain; Peter Notaro
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the updates/responses, we've started to incorporate the new information and will be ready to start
generating outputs from the Accessibility Model as soon as the base case assumptions are confirmed.
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that's coming out of the GTA Model that Michael and
his team are generating (i.e. travel time benefit, crowding benefit, fare savings, fare revenue and change in VKT). Sorry, I
realize I could've been clearer!
2
Page 256 of 1092

Catching up on Tuesday sounds good, would noon work for you?
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo; Mike Logan
Subject: RE : Transit Business Case work - Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hi Felipe,
Please see response below in red.
Thanks,
Karen

Hi Karen, Mike,

Base Case : During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe Camargo, it was found that
there was some confusion between the teams regarding the definition of a 'base case'. At the meeting held on
April 29th, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, which included GO RER as the base
for SmartTrack. However, the City Planning team was working under the assumption that ST Option C would be
included in the base case for all other projects.
Karen is confirming with senior management what base case they feel is most appropriate to present. Will
confirm by end of day.
Accessibility/connectivity Analysis : All options have been coded in the accessibility model and runs are complete
for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base Case'. The runs, which take
approximately 48 hours for all the scenarios, should be complete tonight.
o Input Data:
Population and employment data has not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this email.
Sent by Michael Hain 05/20.
Economic Benefits: An evaluation spreadsheet to estimate benefits as described in the methodology note
circulated earlier has been prepared and is ready to receive inputs.
Page 257 of 1092

o Input Data:
Strategic model outputs have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this email. Would you
be able to advise what is meant by "Strategic Model Outputs"?
Costs information for the options have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this email.
Will send confidential draft capital costs under separate cover. EgE may be delayed- high level cost
breakdown is available but not cash-flow over construction period. City Planning is following up on
assumptions that could be used to determine the basis for cash flow. O&M costs for SSE and RL to be
provided Tuesday morning by TIC.
Opening year assumptions for the projects have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of
this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE .
Please note that although we are making our best efforts to have results ready by the end of May, if we don't have the
missing information by close of Tuesday 24 May it will not be possible to generate outputs within the timescales. Lets
touch base on Tuesday to assess schedule for outputs based on the inputs you have received.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup .com

systems are scanned fo r acceptability of content and viruses
Page 258 of 1092

Page 259 of 1092
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m : +1647 537 4665
www,arup .com

Subject: RE : Transit Business Case work- Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen

Subject: Transit Business Case work - Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hi Karen, Mike,
As a follow-up to yesterday' s teleconference, below is a summary of the status of the study:

there was some confusion between the teams regarding the defin ition of a 'base case'. At the meeting held on
April 29 1h, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, which included GO RER as the base
for SmartT rack. However, the City Planning team was working under the assumption that ST Option C would be
Page 260 of 1092

Accessibility/connectivity Analysis: All options have been coded in the accessibility model and runs are complete
o Input Data:
Sent by Michael Hain 05/20 .
o Input Data:
breakdown is available but not cash-flow over construction period . City Planning is following up on
provided Tuesday morning by TTC.
this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup .com

Page 261 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

To: Karen Thorburn; 'Felipe Camargo'
Cc: Michael Hain; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Diana Chu
Attachments: RE: Cost Assumptions - Eglinton West LRT
Section 11(c) applied Section 11(d) applied

Karen,
See attached email.
We could use these assumptions as a placeholder. It's up to CMO whether or not to include this.
Mike

Subject: Follow up
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for the meeting today. It was very useful to start getting an understand of what the outputs
will look like.
In follow up:
Attached are the confidential draft capital cost estimates for Eg E LRT. Password is the same as
last. We don't have O&M numbers for this project unfortunately.
City Planning is to provide the updated ridership numbers for you as soon as possible (Monday
morning latest?)
Set up a briefing to go through full results of economic case with key senior staff. I will look to get
a time set up for end of day Tuesday or early Wednesday.
Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required, based on
availability of other inputs, time and resources.
Karen
Page 262 of 1092

2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 263 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

It will be middle of the week before we can send you the 2041 numbers.
M.

To: Michael Hain
Thanks Michael,
Yes, I agree, the bus route changes will need to be reviewed. However, the fact that the results are so dependent
on the buses
Do you have an ETA for the 2041 numbers?
Cheers, Section 7 applied
Felipe
From: Michael Hain [mailto:mhain@toronto.ca]

Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 2:48PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: RE : DRAFT SSE Numbers
Hello Felipe,
Here are the travel time savings calculations.
M.
From: Michael Hain

Hello Felipe,
Page 266 of 1092

These are updated numbers for the Express SSE. We will get the travel time savings calculations to you as soon as we
can.
M.

Page 267 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Michael Hain

Subject: Updated SSE IBC information - Draft- June 27
Attachments: Addition SSE data - TT Savings - June 27 DRAFT.xlsx; Additional SSE Business Case -
June 27 2016 - DRAFT.xlsx
Hello Felipe,
Here are the SSE numbers with SRT in the base case. Please let me know if you have any questions.
M.
Page 268 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
IBase is 2041 Option C with SRT

Travel Time
Savings in Savings in Monetary
mins hours Value
AM 105781 1763
MD 5987 100
McCowan3 PM 123378 2056
EV 1169 19
All Day 3900 $ 62,400
AM 105573 1760
Express MD 4241 71
without LRT PM 158824 2647
East EV 1668 28
All Day 4500 $ 72,000
Page 269 of 1092

SSE Business case 2041
Daily Transit Ridership

Scenario Total Ridership
2041 Option C with SRT 2,917,307
2041 Option C with McCowan 3 2,923,864
2041 Option C with Express 2,922 ,126
Daily Auto Mode Share

Scenario Auto Share
2041 Option C with SRT 0.5480
2041 Option C with McCowan 3 0.5476
2041 Option C with Express 0.5478
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
2041 Option C with SRT $ 3,482,141
2041 Option C with McCowan 3 $ 3,447,730
2041 Option C with Express $ 3,465,340
Page 270 of 1092

AM Peak Hour Volume @ South of Bloor
Scenario Volume
2041 Option C with SRT 36,315
2041 Option C with McCowan 3 38,530
2041 Option C with Express 38,125
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
2041 Option C with SRT 174,537,520
2041 Option C with McCowan 3 174,437,360
2041 Option C with Express 174,404,090
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 4,263,042
$ 4,280,544
$ 4,274,194
Page 271 of 1092

AM Peak Hour Transfers @ WB to SB at Bloor
Scenario Transfers
2041 Option C with SRT 6,269
2041 Option C with McCowan 3 7,764
2041 Option C with Express 7,334
Average Transfers - Daily

Scenario Avg Transfers
2041 Option C with SRT 1.808
2041 Option C with McCowan 3 1.810
2041 Option C with Express 1.805
Page 272 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Hi Karen, Mike,
As afollow-up to yesterday's teleconference, below is a summary of the status of the study:

Base Case: During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe Camargo, it was found that
for SmartT rack . However, the City Planning team was working under the assumption that ST Option C would be
for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base Case' . The runs, which take
o Input Data:
Economic Benefits : An evaluation spreadsheet to estimate benefits as described in the methodology note
o Input Data:
this email.
missing information by close of Tuesday 24 May it will not be possible to generate outputs within the timescales.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup .com
Page 273 of 1092

Page 274 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Hain
Attachments: 2016-05-04 FileNote Economic Indicators v3 .docx
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated version of the note we circulated on Monday, now including tables listing the required
inputs and the outputs and descriptions of system-wide accessibility metrics that we propose to generate, for
discussion.
Regards,
Felipe

Cc: 'Mike Logan'; 'Diana Chu'; 'Hilary Holden'; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); 'Michael Hain'
Hi Karen,
format).
addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have).
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
1
Page 275 of 1092

m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: 'Karen Thorburn '
Hi Karen,
later today) .
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 276 of 1092

Page 277 of 1092

File Note ARUP
2 Bloor Street East t+14165150915
Suite 2400
Toronto ON M4W 1A8
Canada
www.arup.com
Project title City of Toronto Transit Project Business Case Support Job number
cc Karen Thorburn, Hilary Holden, Mike Logan Michael File reference
Hain, Diana Chu, Peter Notaro
Prepared by Felipe Camargo Date
Leo Eyles May 2, 2016

Subject DRAFT- Analysis Framework
Following an initial review of the transit project options being assessed and discussions with the City
Project Team, it was concluded that the projects all share the following key objectives:
Increase the overall capacity of the city's transportation system, thus relieving crowding
Provide additional and/or more convenient connections between key areas of the city
Generate additional economic activity be enhancing 'developability' of sites and improving
labour market reach .
In light of this, we recommend that the calculation of the following economic benefits is given the
highest priority in the assessment:
Journey Time Benefits
Crowding Relief
Additionally, a key difference between the SmartTrack options being assessed is the fare being paid.
Therefore, for the evaluation of these options, we propose to also include user Fare Savings and
revenue impacts for operators.
It should be noted that prioritizing these impacts means that an evaluation is not exhaustive and care
should be taken in comparing outputs and options, particularly in relation to option costs.
The analysis will follow, in general terms, Metrolinx ' s business case guidance as set out in the latest
available draft version of their Business Case Development Handbook. However, it should be noted
that given time constraints for this work, the evaluation will not be exhaustive, and not all benefits will
be assessed. In consequence, the overall outputs that are generally produced as an outcome of the
C:\USEASIVLEUNGl \APPOAT A\LOCAL\MICROSOFnWINOOWS\TEMPORARY INTE RNET FIL ES\CQNTENT.OUTLOOK\IY32CIXL\201&-05-04 FILENOTE ECONOMIC INDICATORS V3.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I FO. 15 Page 1 of7
Page 278 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
Economic Case of the business case, the Benefit to Cost Ratio and the Net Present Value will not be
directly comparable to those produced by comprehensive business cases.
Present Values of the benefits and costs will be estimated, applying Metrolinx's recommended
parameters and assumptions with regards to appraisal period length, discount rates, inflation, GOP
growth rates, etc.
A brief description of how each of the indicators will be evaluated, required inputs and the outputs
produced for each indicator, is included below.
Transit User Journey Time Benefits
Journey Time Benefits will be evaluated following the methodology described in Metrolinx's draft
Business Case Development Handbook and seeks to answer the question "What is the value of the total
travel time savings (if any) resulting from the intervention?"'.
The analysis is based on zone to zone Generalized Journey Time estimates extracted from the city's
GTAModel by city staff. Generalized Journey Times include factors for walking and waiting and
transfer penalties, and represent users' perceived travel time, as opposed to actual elapsed time.
Journey time benefits are monetized by converting time into dollars using travelers ' perceived value of
travel time savings.
Key inputs:
0-D transit demand, extracted from GTA Model
0-D Generalized Journey Time, extracted from GTA Model
Journey time benefit for modelled time period (estimated by City Team directly in GTA
Model)
Outputs:
Overall Present Value (PV) of Journey Time Benefits
PV of Journey Time Benefits by income band (if time allows)
PV of Journey Time Benefits by travel time change band (if time allows)
Crowding Relief
The methodology for the estimation of crowding relief benefits will be developed within the first week
of the study.
The city's forecasting model (GTAModel) takes into account crowding in the assignment of passengers
to services. To do this, it includes crowding curves which work in a similar fashion to the table shown
1
Business Case Development Handbook Tier 2 v 0.31, pg 29. Metrolinx.
C:\USERSWLEUNG1\APPDATA\LCX::Al\MICROSOFT\W INOOWS'oTEMPOAARY INTE RN ET F ILES\CONTENT .OUTL~ IY32C IXL\2016-05-04 FIL ENOTE ECONOMIC INDICA TORS V3.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc . I F0.15 Page 2 of7
Page 279 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
above; depending on the level of occupancy of the vehicles, multipliers are applied to the in-vehicle
time to represent users' dislike of crowding.
If possible, the average crowding 'cost' for travel between all 0-D pairs, as estimated by the model ,
will be extracted by City staff. This crowding cost, in minutes, will be monetized and the relative
change will be estimated for options in comparison with the base case.
If it's not possible to extract the crowding cost separately, this cost will be included in the Journey
Time Benefit. This is because the GTA Model estimates a perceived journey time that includes, in
addition to all the ' traditional' components of travel time (walk time, wait time, in-vehicle time and
transfer penalties), a crowding penalty that is calculated based on the number of passengers and the
capacity of the route.
Key inputs:
0-D crowding penalty time, extracted from GTA Model
Crowding relief benefit for modelled time period (estimated by City Team directly in GTA
Model)
Outputs:
Overall PV of Crowding Relief Benefits
Fare Savings and Revenue Impacts
Fare Savings will be estimated based on the change in fare paid by users to travel between zones and
the number of transit users travelling between them. The revenue impacts for operators will also be
calculated, to permit an understanding of the trade-off between user impacts and producer (operator)
finances.
Key inputs:
0-D average fare
System-wide fare revenue
Key outputs
Overall PV of Fare Savings Benefits
Overall PV of Revenue Impacts
PV of Fare Savings Benefits by income band (if time allows)
Accessibility Impacts
C:\USERS\Vl EUNG1\A PPOA TA\LOCALIMICAOSOFl\W INOOWS'.TEMPORARY INTE RNET FIL ES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\IY32CIXL\20 16- 05-04 FILENOTE ECONOMIC INDICAT ORS V3.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I F0. 15 Page 3 of7
Page 280 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
The improved connectivity that the transit projects are likely to bring has impacts on social equity, by
providing better, more affordable and ideally easier to use options to those who need it; as well as
impacts on the economy, by enabling better access to jobs for residents and increasing the size and
diversity of the labour-force available to existing or potential employers.
To assess these impacts we will evaluate two variables:
Access to Jobs
Access to Labour Force
For the evaluation we will use existing and forecast jobs and population. An evaluation on existing
values helps visualize the impacts on figures that are known and highly reliable. The evaluation on
forecast values helps understand the impacts once changes in land use are taken into account; large
developments that don't exist today, for instance, would be (at least partly) taken into account in the
forecasts. Forecasts, however, have a significant component of uncertainty.
For access to jobs, the distance-decayed jobs within 60 minutes of each home zone will be averaged
over the whole region, weighted by the zone population. For labour force we will estimate the changes
in the number of people within an acceptable travel time of key employment and development centers
(to be agreed with the city Project Team) for all scenarios against the base scenario. As with jobs
within reach of the population, a single regional value for the average labour force within range of
employment locations will be calculated for each scenario. The third indicator to be calculated for each
scenario will be the average travel time between origins and destinations, weighted by both the
population at origins and the employment at destinations.
Access to Jobs can be measured for different sectors of the population across all of the GTHA and
statistics on relative changes with respect to the base scenario will be estimated .
The sectors of the population for which this will be done will be agreed with the Project team, but an
initial suggestion would be to aggregate by the following income bands, as suggested in Metrolinx 's
draft guidance:
Lowest 20th percentile
Middle 60th percentile
Top 20th percentile
Key inputs:
Existing jobs
Current population
Forecast jobs
Forecast population
Existing transit network (available in the accessibility toolkit)
Future transit network details
Key Outputs:
C :\USE ASIVLEUNG1\APPDAT A\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WIN OOWS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FIL ES\CONTENT .OUTLOOK\IY32CIXL\201S..OS..04 FILENOTE ECONOMIC IN DICATORS V3.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I F0.15 Page 4 of7
Page 281 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
Change in average Jobs within range of population

Change in average size of Labour Force within range of employment
Change in average Travel Time between jobs and labour force
Jobs within range by income band (if time allows)
Overall Indicators
In addition to the individual indicators listed above, a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) and Net Present
Value will be estimated for each project option. As has been mentioned previously, it should be noted
that the list of benefits assessed as part of this study is not exhaustive so direct comparisons with other
studies should be done with this consideration in mind.
The Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) is calculated as PVB/PVC, where PVB is the Present Value of
Benefits (the sum of the indicators listed above, including the impacts on the service provider) and
PVC is the Present Value of Costs of the project option, including capital and operating & maintenance
costs.
The Net Present Value (NPV) is calculated as NPV =PVB- PVC.
C:\USERS\VlEUNGt\APPDAT A\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOAAAY INT ERNET FILES\CONTENT .OUTLOOK\IY32CIXL\2016-05-04 FILENOTE ECONOM IC INDICATORS V3.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I F0.15 Page 5 of7
Page 282 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
Summary of Inputs and Outputs

The tables below list the inputs required and outputs produced as part of the work.
Inputs
For each scenario, as well as the base, when relevant:
Variable Level of detail Form Source Basis

Transit demand 0-D Pair Matrix GTAModel Absolute
Generalized Journey Time 0-D Pair Matrix GTAModel Absolute
Crowded penalty time 0-D Pair Matrix GTAModel Absolute
Average Fare 0-D Pair Matrix GTAModel Absolute
Generalized Journey Time Benefit System-wide Single value GTAModel Relative to Base
(minutes)
Crowding relief benefit (minutes) System-wide Single value GTAModel Relative to Base
Fare savings for users ($) System-wide Single value GTAModel Relative to Base
Fare Revenue ($) System-wide Single value GTAModel Absolute
Capital costs Project Table TTC Absolute
Operating and Maintenance costs Project Table TIC Absolute
Project opening year Project Single value TIC
Future transit network detail s Project Emme files City Planning
Data applicable to all scenarios:

Base year population Census DA Table Census
Future year population Census DA Table City Planning
Base year employment tbc Table City Planning
Future year employment tbc Table City Planning
C:\USERSWLEUN G11APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOAAAV INTERNET FILES\CON TENT.OUTL OOK\IY32C1Xl \20 16--0&04 FILENOTE ECONOMIC INDICATORS V3.00CX
Arup Canada lnc. 1F0. 15 Page 6 of7
Page 283 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
Outputs
Benefit Metric Priority Level Comments

PV of Travel Time Benefit High
PV of Journey Time Low To be estimated if time
Benefits by income band allows
PV of Journey Time Low To be estimated if time
Benefits by travel time allows
change band
PV of Crowding Relief High
Crowding Relief
Benefit
PV of Fare Savings High
Benefits
Fare Savings PV of Revenue Impacts High
PV of Fare Savings Low To be estimated if time
Benefits by income band allows
Change in average Jobs High Not monetized
within range of population
Change in average size of High Not monetized
Labour Force within range
of employment
Change in average Travel High Not monetized
Time between jobs and
labour force
Jobs within range by Low To be estimated if time
income band allows
Benefit to Cost Ratio High
Overall Indicators
Net Present Value High
Note that all Present Values will be presented in 2015 dollars.
DOCUMENT CHECKING (not mandatory for File Note)

Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Felipe Camargo

Signature
C:\USEAS\V LEUNG1\APPDAT A\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FllES\CONTENT .OUTLOOK\IY32CIXL\201S.o&04 FILENOTE ECONOMIC INDICATORS V3.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I F0. 15 Page 7 of7
Page 284 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: 'Fel ipe Camargo '
Does 4:30 today work?

From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe .Camargo@arup .com]
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE : Tomorrow.
Hi Karen,
Hours up to the end of May were:
Team Member Hours Hourly rate Total cost

....~.~9..~.Y.~~-~...................................................... J?.:.~ .................................... .................................... .........
....~.~!!.P..~S~.~-~~~9. .........................................~~~. g................................... ................................... .........
...~.~~--~~~9.~.~-~ ...............................................~~}:.?................................... ...................................?. ........
Adrien Friesen 39.5 $ $
TOTAL $59,405
I should be able to get hours for last week later this morning.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 285 of 1092

Thanks Felipe.
No problem . Appreciate the very fast turn around . I will try to get time in the afternoon with Peter.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Cama rgo@arup.com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Yes, I'm available tomorrow. Preferably in the afternoon but could shift things around if the morning works better for
you.
office).
I'll also send you the hours spent first thing tomorrow, hope that's not too late!
Felipe
On Jun 6, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto .ca > wrote:
Hi Felipe,
there. Please see attached.

been utilized in your contract it would be appreciated.
Thanks
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 286 of 1092

please advise me.

Page 287 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Great. It will be at City Hall. 101h floor east boardroom. Would you be able to send in advance the
updated document with the Eg E numbers?
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup.com)

To: Karen Thorburn
Yes, that works (I'm open from 2pm onwards)

To: Felipe Camargo

From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com )
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,

~-~~---~.Y.~~-~...................................................... J?.:.~ ........................... ......... ................................... . -
-~-~!.i.P..~.~~-~-~:.~?. .........................................~~~. g ................................... . ......... Section 14(1) applied
... !.\~~--~:.~.?.~.~-~ ............................................. }.?.~:.?................................... ................................... . ........
TOTAL $59,405
Page 288 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W l A8 Canada
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks Felipe.
No problem. Appreciate the very fast turn around. I will try to get time in the afternoon with Peter.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup .com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
you.
office).
Felipe
On Jun 6, 2016, at 6:19PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote:
Hi Felipe,
Page 289 of 1092

think we may also need to discuss if any additional analysis is required ; given some of
Thanks
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
please advise me.

Page 290 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re: Thank you
Hi Karen,
It was interesting to be there, actually. And it's great to have been involved in this work.
. I'll give you a call. (<
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
Thanks for being at executive committee today.

f . When you have a moment let's connect
about e mvmcing.
Karen

Page 291 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: 'Felipe Cama rgo'
Cc: 'James.Fraser@ttc.ca '; Eric Arm
Subject: Methodology Q
Hi Felipe,
We were wondering if you might have some insight on this. When calculating the 60 year lifecycle
costs. Do you typically start from the in-service date of the project? Or is it ok that we have developed
costs for 2015-2074?
Thanks,
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 292 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: April-18-16 8:01AM
To: Peter Notaro
Hi Peter,
Thank you for forwarding the scope of work. I can anticipate that we're still in a good position to do the work and are
ready to mobilize the team but we will review and will get back to you later today to let you know of any concerns or
comments.
Yes, we have been supporting Metrolinx for the last year and a half, working with them and Leeds University on
developing the Business Case Development Handbook. Amongst other work done as part of this contract, we've
developed the Accessibility Toolkit that will be used to help inform some of the benefits estimates for the Transit
Business Cases.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Peter Notaro [mailto:pnotaro@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe
Thanks for the proposal submitted on March 19, 2016 to our City Planning Division (Tim Laspa). The City Manager's
Office is leading the coordination of business case development as it involves a number of city divisions and external
partners. We have developed a scope of work for the services required, and would appreciate your review. Given the
significant time constraints, we are looking to retain consulting services on an expedited basis to support the City's
1
Page 293 of 1092

business case development for a number of projects. In particular with focus on the economic case analysis. I
understand ARUP has significant experience in this area, and in particular utilizing the Metrolinx Business Case
Sincerely,
Peter Notaro
416.392 .8066

Page 294 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Peter Notaro
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Peter,
Thanks,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:18PM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
Further to the email I sent you on Monday and following a conversation with Mike Logan in City Planning (who Project
Managed our work on the connectivity analysis a few months ago), I suggest we all have a call first thing tomorrow
(Thursday) to talk through the priorities for each business case in terms of the greatest impacts/benefits.
It would also be great if you could share with us the latest list of options for each of the business cases, in advance of
tomorrow's call, if you're happy to go ahead with it.
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

1
Page 295 of 1092

To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
We've reviewed the scope of work and have some minor suggested modifications (please see attached) . Additionally,
we ' d like to note that given the very schedule, availability of input information, particularly estimates or assumptions of
costs and option descriptions, within the first days of the study is essential.
Ideally we'd like to get started as soon as possible so, if you agree, we would like to start liaising with the Project Team
this week to make sure we have a clear understanding of the options and agree and, when the time for the kick-off
meeting comes next week, we're able to discuss and agree a proposed evaluation framework.
Regarding the client side team, would you be the Project Manager? And would I be correct in assuming that the Project
Team will be made up of members of the Transit Implementation Team?
Regards,
Felipe
Fel ipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:01 AM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
comments .
2
Page 296 of 1092

developed the Accessibility Toolkit that will be used to help inform some of the benefits estimates for the Transit
Business Cases.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore innovation in the bu ilt environment on Doggerel
From: Peter Notaro [mailto:pnotaro@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Subject: City of Toronto : Transit Business Case Support
Hi Felipe
Sincerely,
Peter Notaro
Page 297 of 1092

416.392.8066
Page 298 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Attachments: Table.xlsx
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 299 of 1092

24-Apr-16 01-May-16
Meetings and Management 1.5 1
Methodology 1.5 2
Leo Eyles Economic Benefits (spreadsheet) 0 0
Accessibility modelling 0 0
SUBTOTAL Leo Eyles 3 3
Meetings and Management 1.5 1
Methodology 6 11
Felipe Camargo Economic Benefits (spreadsheet) 6 13.5
Accessibility modelling 10 4
SUBTOTAL Felipe Camargo 23.5 29.5
Meetings and Management 0 0
Methodology 0 0
Ana Graovac Economic Benefits (spreadsheet) 0 0
Accessibility modelling 13.5 23 .5
SUBTOTAL Ana Graovac 13.5 23.5
Meetings and Management 0 0
Methodology 0 0
Adrien Friesen Economic Benefits (spreadsheet) 0 0
Accessibility modelling 20.5 10
SUBTOTAL Adrien Friesen 20.5 10
TOTAL
Page 300 of 1092

-lours by Week Hourly Rate
TOTAL
08-May-16 15-May-16 22-May-16 $/hr TOTAL COST
0 0 0 2.5
1 2 0 6.5
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 2 0 9 $ $ Section 14(1) applied
1 2 1.5 7
2 19
16 10.5 10 56
7.5 10 8 39.5
26.5 22.5 19.5 121.5 $ $
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
21 17 19.5 94.5
21 17 19.5 94.5 $ $
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
9 0 0 39.5
9 0 0 39.5 $ $
264.5 $48,907.50
Page 301 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Thanks Felipe. Appreciate the turn around.
A couple of us are going to get together to review the results, and may want to discuss with you. Are
you around this afternoon?
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated powerpoint file with the summary results of the economic assessment of all
tested options, now including the latest model outputs provided by the City Planning team last night and this
morning.
In addition to the changes made to the relief line options, there is a very small change in the Eglinton East LRT
numbers that result from adjusting the assumed opening year to 2025, in line with the assumption for SSE
Express. The NPV and BCR for Eglinton East don 't change as a result of this.
In the interest of time we have not yet updated the sensitivity test charts that are included in the last couple of
slides. But please let me know if you'll need them and we will update and forward those too.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
Page 302 of 1092

l: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
Explore innovation in the huilt environment on Doggerel

Page 303 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Kristin Olson

To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles
Hi all,
Kristin

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated powerpoint file with the summary results of the economic assessment of all
tested options, now including the latest model outputs provided by the City Planning team last night and this
morning.
In addition to the changes made to the relief line options, there is a very small change in the Eglinton East LRT
numbers that result from adjusting the assumed opening year to 2025 , in line with the assumption for SSE
Express. The NPV and BCR for Eglinton East don't change as a result of this.
In the interest of time we have not yet updated the sensitivity test charts that are included in the last couple of
slides. But please let me know if you'll need them and we will update and forward those too.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
1
Page 304 of 1092


Page 305 of 1092

date/time of this email.
Opening year assumptions for the projects have not been provided by the city as of the
date/time of this email.
Please note that although we are making our best efforts to have results ready by the end of May, if we
don't have the missing information by close of Tuesday 24 May it will not be possible to generate
outputs within the timescales.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 306 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Felipe Cama rgo <Felipe.Camarg o@ arup. com >

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Summary Sl ides
Attachments: 2016-06-14 Summary of Eco nomic Impacts v10.pptx
Hi Karen,
We haven't received any new outputs from the model runs that the Plann ing guys are working on, so in the meantime
I'm sending you the summary slides, now including additional information with assumptions. Please have a look and let
us know if this helps or if there' s any additional information (or any changes) that could help you better explain the
assumptions.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Su ite 2400 Toronto ON M4W 1A8 Canada
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

systems are scanned for acceptabi lity of content and viruses
Page 307 of 1092

~o
.+;:..~ en
~~
c
~
~ ~
n
~
~
(!)
N ~
0
~
0\
s
s
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
r;n
0 ~
~
Hj
~
m ~
a ~
(D
0 ~
~ <
0 (D
~
~
~ ~
sa
0
~
n r;n
~
r;n
(D
Page 308 of 1092

Outline
1. Introduction to Transportation Project Business Cases

2. Description of Options and Base Cases
3. Summary of Results
1. SmartTrack and Relief Line Options evaluated against Base Case 1
2. Relief Line Options and Scarborough Subway Express evaluated against
Base Case 2
3. Eglin ton East Options evaluated against Base Case 3
4. Sensitivity Tests
Page 309 of 1092

Page 310 of 1092
Questions a Transportation Business Case looks to
answer
Strategic Case: Is a project is supported by a robust case for change that fits
with wider public policy objectives?
Economic Case: Can it be demonstrated that the project shows good
value for money?
Financial Case: Is the project financially affordable?
Deliverability and Operations Case: Is the project achievable?
4 AWP
Page 311 of 1092

Where does the business case fit in the overall
process?
Identification of problem
--
I Option development
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Decision-making process
Implementation
Monitoring and evaluation
Page 312 of 1092

The Economic Case
Identify the impacts of options and assess the resulting value for money
Impacts considered should include all impacts which have an effect on societal welfare,
including:
- User benefits (e.g. Travel time savings, travel cost savings, crowding relief, travel time
reliability, etc.)
- Financial impacts (e.g. fare revenue)
- External impacts (e.g. Road decongestion, emissions reductions, accident prevention, etc.)
- Economic development impacts (e.g. Agglomeration, indirect tax revenue, land value uplift,
etc)
- Social and community impacts (e.g. Accessibility and distributional impacts)
The outcome is consolidated to determine the extent to which a project's benefits

outweigh its costs (capital and operating). However, it's worth noting that not all benefits
can be monetized (e.g. social and community impacts) nor are they all additive (e.g.
land value uplift).
6 A~P
Page 313 of 1092

Developing the economic case for the City
I GTA Model v4.0
I
~ ~ ~ ~
0-D 0-D 0-DAvg 0-DAvg Fare
Transit Generalized Fare Crowding Revenue
demand Journey Time
I I
I I
User Benefits:

Value of Journey Time Benefits
Time Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
I Benefit to Cost Ratio

I Costs I Net Present Value
Notes :
Monetization of user benefits is based on the concept of 'consumer surplus' which is essentially what a user would be willing to pay for a
service and what it actually costs- benefits (or disbenefits) are the change in consumer surplus between the option and a 'do-minimum'
BCR and NPV are estimated for a 60yr evaluation period, using Metrolinx recommended values for economic parameters such as discount
rates, inflation, etc. (details provided in the next slide)
7 AWP
Page 314 of 1092

Economic Case Assumptions
Parameters
Parameter Value Source I Comments
Discount Year 2015 Business Case Development Handbook (BCDH), Metrolinx
Discount Rate 3.50% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg44, section 10.3.4
Appraisal period (yrs) 60 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg23, section 6.2.2
Auto operating cost savings ($/veh-km) $0.63 Metrolinx recommended value
Auto operating cost savings annual growth (%) 0.7% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section 10.5.1
Accident value ($/veh-km) $0.07 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section 10.5.1
Accident value annual growth(%) 0.0% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section 10.5.1
Greenhouse Gas ($/veh-km) $0.Ql0 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg48, section 10.5.2
Greenhouse Gas annual growth(%) 0.0% Assumed (Value not specified in BCDH)
Air Quality ($/veh-km) . $0.002 BCDH Tier 2 v0.3, pg42, table 10.1.5 (not specified in v0.2)
Air quality value annual growth(%) 0.0% Assumed (Value not specified in BCDH)
Annualization factor 300 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg44, section 10.3.3
Value of Time- Non-working (Commuting)$ per hour $16.13 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg46, section 10.4.2
Value of Time growth (pa) 1.600% BCDH Tier 2 Draft 0.2, pg46, section 10.4.2
Costs Real or Nominal Nominal
Inflation 2.0% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg22, section 6.2.1
Benefits Buildup
Appraisal Year Buildup
1 35 %
2 70%
3 100%
4 100%
5 100%
6 100%
7 100%
8 100%
9 100%
10 100%
s AWP
Page 315 of 1092

Page 316 of 1092
Options and Base Cases for Evaluation
The options evaluated in the analysis are:
S martTrack
Option C
Option D
Relief Line
Queen Alignment to Pape
Queen Alignment to Sheppard
Eastern Avenue Alignment to Pape
Eastern Ave. to Sheppard
Scarborough Subway
Express
Eglinton East LRT
Full, EA approved alignment
EA approves alignment, shortened to terminate at UTSC instead of Sheppard
The Economic Case for each one of these options has been assessed one or more 'base cases'. In addition to assuming a state of
good repair for the existing network, each 'base case' assumes several future transit interventions are in place, as described in
the following table:
GORERI Eglinton West Relief Line Scarborough Eglinton East

SmartTrack LRT Subway LRT
Improved surface
Base Case 1 GO RER EA approved option transit on Queen McCowan 3-stop I Bus
and King
SmartTrack
Base Case 2 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1
Option C
SmartTrack
BaseCase3 I
I ! As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 McCowan Express As Base Case 1
Option C
Page 317 of 1092

Scenario Options and Base Cases for Evaluation
Each option has been assessed against one or more base cases, as described in the following table
Base Case 1 Base Case 2 Base Case 3
Option C I ./
SmartTrack
Option D ./
-- I
-- -
Queen St. Alignment to Pape ./ ./
Queen St. Alignment to ./

Sheppard
Relief Line
'I
Eastern Ave. Alignment to Pape ./ [, ./
Eastern Ave. Alignment to ./

Sheppard
SSE McCowan Express ./
-
-- .- fl
----- -
EA Approved, full ./
Eglinton East LRT ,,
EA Approved, to UTSC II '' ./
ARUP
Page 318 of 1092

Page 319 of 1092
GO RER/ SmartTrack
GORER
Malton Elobicake North

Scarborough -Stations (Kitchener - Stouffville line) at: Kitchener, Guelph, Acton, Georgetown , Mount
Pleasant, Brampton, Bramalea, Malton, Etobicoke North, Weston, Mount Dennis, Bloor,
Union , Danforth, Scarborough, Kennedy, Agincourt, Milliken, Unionville, Centennial,
Markham, Mount Joy, Stouffville, Lincolnville.
- All day, two-way service, running every 15 minutes.
SmartTrack Option C:
- Includes GO RER stations plus St. Clair West, Liberty Village, Unilever, Gerrard, Lawrence,
Ellesmere, Finch.
Scarborough - Assumes modifications are made to TTC buses where they meet the route (Princess Margaret,
Malton Etobicoke North
.Weston East Mall , Birchmount, Brimley, Lawrence, Huntingwood, Commander buses affected)
Mount Denni Danforth - TTC Fare
Gerrard
unaever
Uberty
RERIST: ST Option 0:
- Includes GO RER stations plus St. Clair West, Liberty Village, Unilever, Gerrard.
Scarborough
Malton Etobicoke North - Assumes modifications are made to TTC buses where they meet the route (Princess Margaret,
.Weston
East Mall, Birchmount, Brimley, Lawrence, Huntingwood, Commander buses affected)
Mount Denni'
- TTC Fare
Page 320 of 1092

Page 321 of 1092
Relief Line
Relief Line: Queen:
New subway line on Pape-Queen corridor with stops at

Bloor/Pape, Gerrard!Pape, Queen/Broadview, Queen/Sumach,
Queen/Sherbourne, Queen/Yonge, and Queen/University
(Osgoode).
Frequency: Approx. 20 trains per hour
No modifications to buses assumed
Relief Line: Eastern
New subway line on Pape-Eastern-Queen corridor with stops at

Bloor/Pape, Gerrard/Pape, Queen!Pape, Eastern/Broadview,
King/Sumach, Queen/Sherbourne, Queen!Yonge, and
Queen/University (Osgoode).
Frequency: Frequency: Approx. 20 trains per hour
ARUP
Page 322 of 1092

Scarborough Subway Extension
Three-stop:
Scarborough Town Centre
SRT line decommissioned, Subway Line 2 extended to Sheppard
with stops at Lawrence East, Scarborough Town Centre (STC),
and Sheppard.
Lawrence East Runs at an average speed of 40krnlh , between Kennedy and
Frequency as per Bloor line
Modifications to TIC buses to terminate at the new subway
stations (Bellamy, Markham, McCowan, Middlefield,
Huntingwood, Brimorton, Steeles buses affected)
Express:
SRT line decommissioned, Subway Line 2 extended to STC (one
station)
Subway runs at an average speed of 50krnlh, between Kennedy
and Scarborough Town Centre
TIC bus 54 split into two routes at STC, buses 95 and 131 routed
to terminate at STC
ARUP
Page 323 of 1092

Eglinton East
Eglinton East: Full EA:
Eglinton line extended via Eglinton, Kingston, Morningside to

Sheppard.
Frequency as per Eglinton LRT (between 2tph and 4tph)
Modifications to TIC buses 86, 116, 114 where they intersect
with the LRT line
Univerity of Toronto
Scarborough
Eglinton East: To UTSC:
As Eglinton East Full EA but with the LRT line terminating at

Uoff Scarborough instead of Sheppard.
ARUP
Page 324 of 1092

Page 325 of 1092
3.1. SmartTrack and Relief Line
Options evaluated against Base Case 1
ARUP
Page 326 of 1092

SmartTrack - Integration Option C
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-total User Benefits
Producer Benefits
Incremental Fare Revenue
Sub-total Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Sub-total External Benefits
Total PV of Benefits (PVB)
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Total PV of Costs (PVC)
Base case for evaluation: Base Case l
Benefits are driven by crowding relief, travel time savings and auto operating cost reduction Overall Impacts
Substantial benefit from fare savings mainly a result of TIC fare assumed for SmartTrack NPV (PVB - PVC)
Increase in fare revenue suggests that increase in demand is sufficient to offset reduced fare BCR (PVB/PVC)
The Net Present Value results in approx. , with a Benefit Cost Ratio of Notes:
Costs fig ures provided by C ity of Toronto Staff
GTA Model outputs used to estimate user, producer and
ex ternal benefits have been provided by C ity of Toronto
Section 7 applied Staff
ARUP
Page 327 of 1092

SmartTrack - Integration Option D
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
Incrementa I Fare Revenue
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Distribution of benefits are similar to Option C, driven by crowding relief, travel time savings and auto operating cost
reduction Overall Impacts
However, Option D shows lower transit travel time saving but higher crowding relief and road decongestion benefits than NPV (PVB - PVC)
Option C BCR (PVB/PVC)
Notes:
Costs figures provided by City of T oronto Staff
The Net Present Value resu lts in approx. , with a Benefit Cost Ratio of GTA Model outputs used to estim ate user , prod ucer and
external benefits have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Section 7 applied
Page 328 of 1092
Relief Line - Subway to Pape via Queen St
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Total PVof Benefits (PVB)
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Overall Impacts
NPV (PVB - PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
Notes:
Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Staff
GTA Model outp uts used to esti mate user, producer and
Staff
ARUP
Page 329 of 1092

Relief Line- Subway to Pape via Eastern Avenue Section 7 applied
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Bene/Its
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Base case for evaluation: Base Case I
Overall Impacts
NPV (PVB - PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
Notes:
Staff
Page 330 of 1092

3 .2. Relief Line Options and
Scarborough Subway Express evaluated
against Base Case 2
ARUP
Page 331 of 1092

2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
Incremental Fa re Revenue
External Benefits
GHG Emission s
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Ra il Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits
Base case for evaluation: Base Case 2 (i.e. including ST Option C)
The benefits of the Relief Line option via Queen St. are driven by transit travel time savings, crowding relief Overall Impacts
and road decongestion. NPV (PVB - PVC)
Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately BCR (PVB/PVC)
The Net Present Value results in negative , with a Benefit Cost Ratio of Notes:
Costs figures provided by Ci ty of T oronto Staff
GTA M odel outputs used to esti mate user, prod ucer and
ex tern al benefi ts have been provided by City of T oronto
Page 332 of 1092

Relief Line- Subway to Pape via Eastern Avenue
2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
Sub-toto/ Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Ra il Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
The Relie f Line option via Eastern Ave. generates approx imately double the economic benefits of the Queen St. option, with Overall Impacts
the largest increments, compared to the Queen St option, being the transit travel time savings, road decongestion and fare NPV (PVB - PVC)
savings BCR (PVB/PVC)
This option, however, shows crowding disbenefits - possibly as a result of attracting large numbers of passengers from
Notes:
slower but less crowded servi ces to fas ter but busier services
Total incremental costs of this opti on are of approximately
GTA M odel outputs used to estimate user, producer and
The Net Present Value results in negati ve , with a Benefit Cost Ratio external benefits have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Section 7 applied
Page 333 of 1092

Relief Line - Subway to Sheppard via Queen St
2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Sub-toto/ External Benefits
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
OVerall Impacts
Section 7 applied NPV (PVB - PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
Notes:
Costs fig ures provided by City of Toronto Staff
GTA Model outputs used to estimate user, prod ucer and
extern al benefits have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
Page 334 of 1092

Relief Line- Subway to Sheppard via Eastern Avenue
2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
OVerall Impacts
BCR (PVB/PVC)
Notes:
GTA Model outputs used to esti mate user, producer and
external benefi ts have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 335 of 1092

Scarborough Subway Extension - Express
2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
The SSE Express option shows a significant amount of transit travel time disbenefit Overall Impacts
The only positi ve benefits are a small crowding relief benefit and a small increase in fare revenues NPV (PVB - PVC)
Compared to the Base Case, which includes the McCowan 3-stop subway option, there are costs savings of BCR (PVB/PVC)
almost $ N otes:
Costs fi g ures provided by City of T oronto Staff
GT A M odel outputs used to estim ate user , producer and
external benefits have been provided by City of T oronto
Staff
ARUP
Section 7 applied
Page 336 of 1092
~ w
(Jq
~
w

~
~ tn
rJJ
~ (Jq
~
co ~
~
~ ~
rJJ 0
(D
~
n tn
~ ~
rJJ rJJ
(D ~
w 0
~
~
~
0
~
rJJ
(D
<
~
~
~
~
~
(D
0..
>
~
~
Page 337 of 1092
Eglinton East LRT Option 2 -Approved EA alignment
2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
I Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs

The benefits of the Eglin ton East (full alignment) are mainly driven by crowding relief and road decongestion Overall Impacts
benefits. There is a transit travel time disbenefit, suggesting that users may trade off longer travel times for NPV (PVB PVC)
lower crowding and fares (i.e. switching from GO) BCR (PVB/PVC)
Total costs are estimated to be approximately Notes:

The Net Present Value results in negative , with a Benefit Cost Ratio of Costs fig ures provided by City of Toronto Staff
Staff
Section 7 applied
Page 338 of 1092

Eglinton East LRT Option 3 - Shortened alignment to UTSC
2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Cap ita I Costs
The benefits of the Eglinton East to UTSC are mainly driven by crowding relief, followed by road decongestion Overall Impacts
and travel time savings. All other benefits are relatively marginal. NPV (PVB - PVC)
Total costs are estimated to be approximately $ BCR (PVB/PVC)
The Net Present Value results in a negative n, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of Notes:
external benefits have been provided by City of T oronto
ARUP
Page 339 of 1092

Page 340 of 1092
Sensitivity Tests- Value of Time
Benefit to Cost Ratio - SmartTrack Benefit to Cos t Ratio - DRL and SSE Benefit to Cost Ratio - Eglinton East LRT
7.00 0<0 0.18
016
--------------
:BS
"'"
5.00
030
014
(Ill
.;._:c u:s
OJ
15
m 300
g :>ZC 5
=ooa
015
00<
""' 010
""'
1.00 c;:s 0"
0.00 coo
51!~ $1300 Stc OC 515 CO Sl61Y.l 517 OtJ 515.00 $19 00 sz: JC 5!1.00 SZ2 ':0 SU 00 513 00 Sl.;; 00 SlS 00 516 CC 517.00 518 OC 519.00 $!0.00 SZl 00 $22.00 51:! 00 513 OC Sl<: 00 $15 00 51~ 00 517 00 $18.00 519 00 SZO 00 521 CC S:!l.OO
Ve ueof - .me 1$1 Va ut ot - me {S ) Va'ue of~ me tS)
- sr-z s~. 3 - ~L - 5 Rt:! - sS-z..c. - Ewr-z EE.u:< 3
Net Present Value- SmartTrack Net Present Value- DRL and SSE Net Present Value- Eglinton East LRT
S6.000.00C S2,COO.OOCI 50
$5,{:00,00~
51 ~OC.OOO
SSOO.COO
50
SA.CC~.OO:
51,000,000
~ -51.0000!:(1
~ 53.000.:10-: > g
~ SlOOOX<I
Sl 500.000
52.ctO.CO~
53000.0..."{)
52 000.000
Sl .~.OOC
-s,;..m~
50 -55000.::0 -Sl,50C,OOO
SlZ o.: 513 OC 514.00 515 ':10 516.00 517 00 515 00 519.00 510 00 511 atl 521 00 51:! 00 SU Ct' 51-' 00 515 OG 516 00 517 00 SlS 00 519.00 520.00 521 O:l S22.X Sl200 SBOC Sl!OO 515.00 $16.00 S17ct SHOO 51900 510.00 SllOO 512.00
Va ueo:-.me (S) VB ue o'..,. me !Sl V11 ve o-T me tSl
- sr-2 s~ 3 - :fL-3 RL2 - .SY:-2A - Efllr EEllf"-3
32 ARUP
Page 341 of 1092

Sensitivity Tests- Length of Appraisal Period
Benefit to Cost Ratio -SmartTrack Benefit to Cost Ratio- DRL and SSE Benefit to Cost Ratio - Eglin ton East LRT
6::0 0 3~ ~14
S. ~
0.30 ou
C25 010
.: ~c
0~
;ccs
~l:JC 5
= 015 0~
20:;
OlC 0~
l:J-!)
CC?
0.00
'"
o:>: ooc
!~ ~c ~= w .:o w m so s:.
10
Appre sa
30
P~r odl~nrth (yrs)
70 10
" ''
Appa sa Pu cdl.enrth (yrs1
;<)
" 20
" 40
Appa sa l Per od LM~r-~ 1yrs1 "
- )-~ s-., - Pll Rll - S~:ZA - EEl.RT-2 H!Jr'
::
55.000.00~
$4.000.000
s~.ooo.cc~
sz.oco.oce
~ Sl.OOO.OQO
z
so
51.000.000
Net Present Value- SmartTrack
-- S2.000.COO
51,000,000
~ 51000.000
>
~
so
SZOOO.OOC
-53 000.000
Net Present Value - DRL and SSE
~
5>00.000
$()
-51.000,000
51 SOC.~
Net Present Value - Eglin ton East LRT
---
Sl.OOO,C;OC
52.000.000 -540CC,OOO ~--------...,..,======:::==
-s1.m.ooc
10 .., SS.OOC.OCD
so
Sl.SO!l.Ct:O
., ...
20 lJ
.t.ppra sa Per'~ Len(th jyrs)
"' " " 10 20 lO
.cl,ppra s&;Per cdU:nith "' ivrs) "' 70 IJ
" Appra se PNodlen.r.h ('t'rs)
50
"' 10
- s--2 ST-3 - ::-t-3 RLl - sst"-2:. - HlR'""2 - ~ElJr."'
33 ARUP
Page 342 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Summary slides (draft)
Hi Karen,
As promised this morning, please find attached an example of what the economic case summary slides will look like. For
the time being they're based on 2031 numbers extracted from the city's model and assume a 2% annual growth for all
benefits, which is assumed to be 0% from 2041 onwards, and of course exclude costs.
The idea is that once all the inputs are complete we could use this type of output to help communicate the results to
senior managers.
I haven't added anything on methodology, but we could include the slides that I showed you a few weeks ago, which
describe the methodology in fairly basic terms. (plus we will need to add a front cover and section dividers, etc)
Hope this is helpful,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 343 of 1092

SmartTrack- Option and Base Cases for Evaluation
SmartT rack
GORER
ST Option C
, , , , ,
ST Option D
Eglinton West
EA Approved
Option
, , , , , , ,
LRT Speed and
Access Balance
Line 1 imp.
Surface transit
on Queen and
, , , , , , ,
King
Relief Line
Subway via
Queen St
Subway via
Eastern Ave
McCowan 3
Stop
,I
, , , ;J , I.
,
SSE
McCowan , ,
Express
Bus
I
- -- , - , .-
, --
II
- , I , ,; , ,
Eglinton East Approved EA
LRT extension
Short LRTto
UTSC
1 ARUP
Page 344 of 1092

Benefits and Costs. ST 2
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
.
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs

Main Benefits are crowding relief and auto operating cost reduction, fo llowed by transit travel time
savi ngs
Substanti al benefi t fro m fare savings mainl y due to integrated fare Overall Impacts
Small positi ve increase in fare revenue suggests that increase in demand is suffi cient to offset NPV (PVB PVC)
reduced fare BCR (PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 345 of 1092

SmartTrack- Integration Option D
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer BenefitS
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits

As with Integration Option C, the main Benefits are crowding relief and auto operating cost
reduction, followed by transit travel time savings. However transit travel time savings account for a
much larger proportion of the benefits, and are approx., 50% greater than for Int. Option C Overall Impacts
Substantial benefit from fare savings mainly due to integrated fare NPV (PVB- PVC)
Road decongestion benefits are significant, and double those estimated for Int. Option C. BCR (PVB/PVC)
Small positive increase in fare revenue suggests that increase in demand is sufficient to offset
reduced fare
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 346 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2 - Subway via Queen -St
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
-
- - --
Crowding Relief
--
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
--
-- -\. -
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
----.r
--~--
Rail Safety
---
Auto Costs ----
---
Costs
Operating Cost :
-
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits - -

The Relief Line option via Queen St. generates substantial travel time savings, which dominate the
economi c benefits; the second largest benefi t is road decongesti on, representing approximately
1110 of the transit travel time benefit -
OVerall Impacts
Surprisingly, there is a small crowding dis benefit, whi ch suggests that the Relief Line attracts NPV (PVB- PVC)
transit trips to segments of the network where capacity is insufficient. BCR (PVB/PVC)
- - -
-- - - -- -
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 347 of 1092

Relief Line Option 3 - Subway via Eastern Avenue
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings ..
Crowding Relief
---
-
Producer BenefitS
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion --
Rail Safety
--
Auto Costs
-- - --
Costs
-
Operating Cost - - - --.
Capita I Costs
Costs Benefits -
-
The Relief Line option via Eastern Ave. generates approximately double the economic benefits of
the Queen St. opti on, with a similar di stribution of benefi ts (i.e. dominated by transit travel time
savings, with smaller benefits from the other components. Overall Impacts
As was the case with the Queen St option, there is a crowding disbenefit, but it is much more NPV (PVB PVC)
substantial for this option BCR (PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
Page 348 of 1092

User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits

The Scarborough Subway Extension, when compared with the McCowan 3-stop option, has a
small amount of transit travel time and road decongestion benefits, which are offset by disbenefits,
resulting in an overall negative (but close to negligible) amount of economic benefits. OVerall Impacts
NPV (PVB - PVC)
Section 7 applied BCR (PVB/PVC)
ARUP
Page 349 of 1092

User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings _I --
Crowding Relief
Sub-total User Benefits i
Producer Benefits
Sub-total Producer Benefits - ..
External Benefits -
GHG Emissions
- - -
CAC Emissions -- _.,_
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion :-::__:_~_y~--
Rail Safety
Auto Costs Jl -
- -- - Sub-total External Benefits
;
- ---
Costs
-- ----. I --
Operating Cost
---- .J. -
Capital Costs
Costs Ben efits -- I--
-
Overall Impacts
NPV (PVB PVC)
Section 7 applied BCR (PVB/PVC)
-
- '
ARUP
Page 350 of 1092

Benefits and Costs - EELRT- 3
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
- -
Fare Savings
- - L
Crowding Relief
- - i
Sub-total User Benefits -- - - --
Producer Benefits
- I
'-
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
-
CAC Emissions -Jr.:
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion ~-_-jl=
Rail Safety
Auto Costs r=-
r
-----
Costs
Operating Cost :
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits - I
"
Overall Impacts
NPV (PVB - PVC)
Section 7 applied l __
BCR (PVB/PVC)
-
ARUP
Page 351 of 1092

Page 352 of 1092
Page 353 of 1092
Vivien Leung
From: Michael Hain

Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Karen Thorburn; Mike Logan
Attachments: TraveiTimeSavings - DRAFT - May20.xlsx
Hello Felipe,
Unfortunately, we were not able t o fi nish extracting all of the travel time savings numbers. Att ached are what we have
been able to pull so far and blank tables to show what we will fill in on Tuesday. I hope it is enough to get you started .
I believe that once we have sent you a completed version of this table we will have sent you all of t he inputs you need
f rom the Regional Travel Demand Model. VKT redu ctions and fare revenue were included in the spreadsheet I sent you
on Wednesday.
Plea se Jet me know if you th in k the re are any other outstand ing measures.
M ich ael

Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Michael Hain; Peter Notaro
Hi Karen,
generating outputs from the Accessibility Model as soon as the base case assumptions are confumed.
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that's coming out of the GTA Model that
Michael and his team are generating (i.e. travel time benefit, crowding benefit, fare savings, fare revenue and
change in VKT). Sorry, I realize I could've been clearer!
Cheers,
Felipe

Page 354 of 1092

Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen

Hi Karen, Mike,

that there was some confusion between the teams regarding the definition of a 'base case' . At the
meeting held on April 29th, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, whkh
Karen is confirming with senior management what base case they feel is most appropriate to present.
Will confirm by end of day.
complete for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base Case' . The runs,
o Input Data:
email. Sent by Michael Hain 05/20.
Economic Benefits : An evaluation spreadsheet to estimate benefits as described in the methodology

o Input Data:
Strategic model out uts have not been rovided by the city as of the date/time of this email.
Would you be able to advise what is meant by "Strategic Model Outputs'".
email. Will send confidential draft capital costs under separate cover. EgE may be delayed- high
level cost breakdown is available but not cash-flow over construction period. City Planning is
following up on assumptions that could be used to determine the basis for cash flow . O&M costs
for SSE and RL to be provided Tuesday morning by TIC.
of this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE.
timescales. Lets touch base on Tuesday to assess schedule for outputs based on the inputs you have received.
Regards,
2
Page 355 of 1092

Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 356 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
Base for Option C/0 Business case is 2031 Base (REA)

o ,_,,,_u ...,._,.,., _. ..,. u_.,, ..,.,_
Travel Time Fare Congestion

Savings in Savings in Monetary Savings in Savings in Monetary Savings in Savings in Monetary
Option Time Period
mins hours Value mins hours Value mins hours Value
AM 153666 2561 149961 2499 345960 5766
MD 84873 1415 41102 685 39970 666
Option C + 14 PM -36595 -610 100500 1675 576522 9609
EV 9257 1 1543 48257 804 -2146 -36
All Day 4900 $ 78400 5700 $ 91 200 16000 $ 256000
AM 300577 5010 172798 2880 217781 3630
MD 94620 1577 42801 713 41838 697
Option C +8 PM 130733 2179 100681 1678 446523 7442
EV 82272 1371 49108 818 11684 195
All Dav 10100 $ 161 600 6100 $ 97600 12000 $ 192000
AM 205521 3425 155753 2596 334077 5568
MD 8611 9 1435 43158 719 40022 667
Option D + 14 PM 75001 1250 100667 1678 498621 8314
EV 89585 1493 49933 832 1905 32
All Day 7600 $ 121 ,600 5800 $ 92,800 14600 $ 233,600
Base for RL business case is Option C + 14

........ ... -- - -
_.
AM 71552 1193 -17230 -287 100481 1675
MD 51088 851 20573 343 2814 47
Option C + 14
PM 435785 7263 3150 53 -121497 -2025
+AO
EV 14612 244 34921 582 5359 89
All Day 9600 $ 153,600 700 $ 11200 -200 -$ 3,200
AM 486413 8107 4819 80 -181600 -3027
MD 71615 11 94 68023 1134 3333 56
Option C + 14
PM 560374 9340 8753 146 -103440 -1724
+EO
EV 24612 410 77331 1289 3347 56
All Day ---
19100 $ 305 600 2600 $ 41,600 -4600 -$ 73,600
Base for SSE business case is Option C + 14 {which includes McCowan 3)

- --- - ---
AM -20022 -334 -11280 -186 -4663 -78
Option C + 14 MD 32512 542 -6483 -108 -7288 -121
+ SSE Express PM 17289 288 -26411 -440 -59979 -1000
(No LRT East) EV 15172 253 -5610 -94 -4313 -72
All Day 700 $ 11200 ---- -800 -$- _1_:1,~ L _ __ _ _ _ _ _ -1300 -$20,800
Base for LRT East business case is Option C + 14 +Express
TravelTime
. -- --
Fare
- --- Congestion
AM 0 0 0
Option C + 14
MD 0 0 0
+ SSE Express
PM 0 0 0
+ LRT East to
EV 0 0 0
UTSC
All Day 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
AM 0 0 0
Option C + 14
MD 0 0 0
+ SSE Express
PM 0 0 0
+ LRT East to
EV 0 0 0
Malvern
All Dav 0 $ 0 $ - 0 $
Page 357 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
* Base for Option C/D Business Case is 2031 Base (RER)

t Savmgs- 0 1p11on
A uo f C/D
Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM 40084 668
MD 2915 49
Option C + 14 PM 119896 1998
EV -4005 -67
All Day 2600 $ 41,600
AM 103281 1721
MD 2920 49
Option C + 8 PM 189331 3156
EV -4448 -74
All Day 4900 $ 78,400
AM 92704 1545
MD 2087 35
Option D + 14 PM 234488 3908
EV -2841 -47
All Day 5400 $ 86,400
* Base for RL business case is Option C + 14

At
uo Savmgs- RL
Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM 0
MD 0
Option C + 14
PM 0
+ B1A
EV 0
All Day 0 $ -
AM 0
MD 0
Option C + 14
PM 0
+ 82
EV 0
All Day 0 $ -
* Base for SSE business case is Option C + 14 (which includes McCowan 3)

Auto Savings - SSE
Page 358 of 1092

Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM 0
Option C + 14 MD 0
+ SSE Express PM 0
(No LRT East) EV 0
All Day 0 $ -
*Base for LRT East business case is Option C + 14 +Express

A uo
t Savmgs- SSE
Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM 0
Option C + 14
MD 0
+ SSE Express
PM 0
+ LRT East to
EV 0
UTSC
All Day 0 $ -
AM 0
Option C + 14
MD 0
+ SSE Express
PM 0
+ LRT East to
EV 0
Malvern
All Day 0 $ -
Page 359 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Michael Hain

Sent: May-24-16 2:33 PM
Cc: 'Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)'; Karen Thorburn; Mike Logan
Attachments:
-
TraveiTimeSavings - DRAFT - May24.xlsx
.....____-
Hello Felipe,
Here is the completed table. We are going to dig deeper into the results for the Eglinton East LRT.
M.
From: Michael Hain

Sent: May-24-16 10:11 AM
Cc: Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Karen Thorburn; Mike Logan
Hello Felipe,
Sorry, I didn't realize that you needed 2041 for your method too. We will pull those numbers as soon as we can but it
won't be today.
The Eglinton East LRT is only being proposed in the case of the Express subway being built, which is why the Express is
used in the base for that case.
. As a quick alternative, we also tested the LRT without changing any of the bus
routes. I haven't seen all of the numbers from those runs yet but they appear to move in a more logical way. We should
be able to send those to you with the completed spreadsheet for 2031.
M.
Section 7 applied
To: Michael Hain
. Cc: Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com ); Karen Thorburn; Mike Logan
Hi Michael,
We've updated our spreadsheet with your outputs (thanks again for sending them last week) and have a couple
of quick questions/comments:
The Eglinton East test is described as "Option C with Express with ... ", this is inconsistent with all the
other tests which have McCowan 3 as the base.
Page 360 of 1092

Section 7 applied
Thanks,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
been able to pull so far and blank tables to show what we will fill in on Tuesday. I hope it is enough to get you started.
on Wednesday.
Michael

To: Karen Thorburn; M ike Logan
Hi Karen,
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that's coming out of the GT A Model that
Cheers,
Felipe
Page 361 of 1092

Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen

Hi Karen, Mike,

meeting held on April 291h, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, which
complete for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base Case'. The runs,
o Input Data:

o Input Data:
Would you be able to advise what is meant by "Strate ic Model Outputs"?
following up on assumptions that could be used to determine the basis for cash flow. O&M costs
Page 362 of 1092

for SSE and RL to be provided Tuesday morning by TTC.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 363 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
* Base for Option C/0 Business Case is 2031 Base (RER)

A uot Savmgs- 0 'P'IOn
f C/D
Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM 40084 668
MD 2915 49
Option C + 14 PM 119896 1998
EV -4005 -67
All Day 2600 $ 41 ,600
AM 103281 1721
MD 2920 49
Option C + 8 PM 189331 3156
EV -4448 -74
All Day 4900 $ 78,400
AM 92704 1545
MD 2087 35
Option D + 14 PM 234488 3908
EV -2841 -47
All Day 5400 $ 86,400

uo Savmgs- RL
At
Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM 8619 144
MD 1185 20
Option C + 14
PM 126685 2111
+AQ
EV 803 13
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
AM 41867 698
MD 1907 32
Option C + 14
PM 88876 1481
+ EQ
EV 2556 43
All Day 2300 $ 36,800

Auto Savings - SSE
Page 364 of 1092

Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM -9125 -152
Option C + 14 MD -587 -10
+ SSE Express PM 65527 1092
(No LRT East) EV -1721 -29
All Day 900 $ 14,400
* Base for LRT East business case is Option C + 14 + Express

Auot Savmgs- SSE
Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM 48081 801
Option C + 14
MD -81 -1
+ SSE Express
PM 1902 32
+ LRT East to
EV -3501 -58
UTSC
All Day 800 $ 12,800
AM -79604 -1327
Option C + 14
MD 135 2
+SSE Express
PM 10839 181
+ LRT East to
EV 217 4
Malvern
All Day -1100 -$ 17,600
Option C + 14 AM -93045 -1551

+ SSE Express MD 47 1
+ LRT East to
PM -77542 -1292
UTSC without
removing EV -630 -11
busses
All Day -2900 -$ 46,400
Page 365 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Michael Hain; Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Mi ke Logan; Peter
Nota ro
Ok, thanks Karen
On May 20, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca > wrote:
Hi Felipe
A discussion happened with senior staff and we will proceed with including smarttrack option c in the
base case for the non smarttrack projects.
Thanks
Karen

To: Michael Hain
Subject: Re: Transit Business Case work- Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hi Michael,
This looks great, thanks. I'll update the spreadsheet over the weekend . We'd have to modify these if the
assumptions for the base case change, but for now we'll use these.
Have a good weekend,
Felipe
On May 20, 2016, at 5:12PM, Michael Hain <mhain@toronto.ca > wrote:
Hello Felipe,
Unfortunately, we were not able to finish extracting all of the travel time savings
numbers. Attached are what we have been able to pull so far and blank tables to show
what we will fill in on Tuesday. I hope it is enough to get you started .
I believe that once we have sent you a completed version of this table we will have sent
you all of the inputs you need from the Regional Travel Demand Model. VKT reductions
and fare revenue were included in the spreadsheet I sent you on Wednesday.
Page 366 of 1092

Michael
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the updates/responses, we've started to incorporate the new information
and will be ready to start generating outputs from the Accessibility Model as soon as
the base case assumptions are confirmed.
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that' s coming out of
the GTA Model that Michael and his team are generating (i.e. travel time benefit,
crowding benefit, fare savings, fare revenue and change in VKT). Sorry, I realize I
could've been clearer!
Cheers,
Felipe

Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen
Hi Karen, Mike,
As a follow-up to yesterday's teleconference, below is a summary of the status of the
study:
Base Case: During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe
Camargo, it was found that there was some confusion between the teams
regarding the definition of a 'base case'. At the meeting held on April 291h, it
was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, which included
GO RER as the base for SmartTrack. However, the City Planning team was
working under the assumption that ST Option C would be included in the base
case for all other projects .
Karen is confirming with senior management what base case they feel is most
appropriate to present. Will confirm by end of day.
Accessibility/connectivity Analysis: All options have been coded in the accessibility
model and runs are complete for the GO-RER base case, and currently
underway for the 'Option B Base Case'. The runs, which take approximately 48
hours for all the scenarios, should be complete tonight.
o Input Data:
Population and employment data has not been provided by the city as
of the date/time of this email. Sent by Michael Hain 05/20 .
Page 367 of 1092

Economic Benefits: An evaluation spreadsheet to estimate benefits as described in
the methodology note circulated earlier has been prepared and is ready to
receive inputs.
o Input Data:
Strategic model outputs have not been provided by the city as of the
date/time of this email. Would you be able to advise what is meant b
"Strategic Model Outputs"?
Costs information for the options have not been provided by the city as
of the date/time of this email. Will send confidential draft capital costs
under separate cover. EgE may be delayed- high level cost breakdown is
available but not cash -flow over construction period. City Planning is
following up on assumptions that could be used to determine the basis
for cash flow. O&M costs for SSE and RL to be provided Tuesday
morning by TIC.
Opening year assumptions for the projects have not been provided by
the city as of the date/time of this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City
Planning to confirm for EgE.
Please note that although we are making our best efforts to have results ready by the
end of May, if we don't have the missing information by close of Tuesday 24 May it will
not be possible to generate outputs within the timescales. Lets touch base on Tuesday
to assess schedule for outputs based on the inputs you have received.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 368 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Subject: Updated summary outputs - Preliminary
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated version of the powerpoint with the summary business case outputs. It now includes
four new Relief Line sheets, the two that show the results when compared vs the base that does NOT include
SmartTrack Option C, plus two with the numbers for the RL going all the way to Sheppard .
These are based on model outputs for 2041 provided by the Planning team. We've assumed that the benefits would
grow between 2031 and 2041 for the two new conditions (i.e. vs Base w/o Opt C and Relief Line to Sheppard) in the
same way as it does for the assessment that was done previously.
Hope this helps! Section 7 applied
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 369 of 1092

Page 370 of 1092
(])
rJJ
~
rJJ
~ u
0
~
u
~
~
~
(])
s
0
>
~
~
(]) 0
~ u
~ ~
~
~
~
~ 0
rJJ
~ ~
~
~
~
~ s \0
s
~
0
~ C"-l
~ C)
~ ~ :::: ~
u [/J
~
;......~
QO\
~
Page 371 of 1092
answer
value for money?
3 AWP
Page 372 of 1092

process?
Option development
Implementation
4 AWP
Page 373 of 1092

Developing the Business Case
Step 1:
Step 2a: Define

/ Problem
Statement
Step 2b Specify
Objectives Outputs
~
Step 3: Define a base case

l
Step 4: Develop a
future base line
1
Step 5: Develop
options
Step 6a:

Steps 6b and 6c: Step 6d: Deliverability
Contribution to Calculate lifecycle and operational
strategic objectives costs and benefits solutions
1
~ Step 7: Assemble
a Business Case
/
Iterate Steps 5 to 8 until
~
Step 8: Support governance
Final Approval and decisio n making

Step 9: Project
Implementation
- Step 10: Post in
service
Business Case
Rev1ew
s AWP
Page 374 of 1092

The Economic Case
including:
reliability, etc)
- External impacts (e.g. Road decongestion, emissions reductions, accident prevention, etc)
etc)

land value uplift).
6 AWP
Page 375 of 1092

~ GTA Model v4.0
I Accessibility
~ ~ ~ ~ Calculator
0-D 0 -D 0-DAvg 0-DAvg Fare
Transit
demand
Generalized
Journey Time
Fare Crowding Revenue l
I I I I Detailed point to
point travel times
...
User Benefits: I
Value of
Time

Fare Savings
,--
! t---------1 -l
Crowding Relief Population I Access Access to

and r--J.
'
to Jobs Labour
Employment Force I
,L-..---------- - - --------------- -'I
I Costs J Net Present Value
Notes:
BCR and NPV are estimated for a 60yr evaluation period, using Metrolinx recommended val ues for economic parameters such as discount
rates, GDP growth, etc.
Accessibility benefits are calculated and reported for the base year (i.e. what would be the benefit if the project initiated operations today) and a
future year
Page 376 of 1092

Page 377 of 1092
SmartTrack- Option and Base Cases for Evaluation
Scenarios
Relief Lme Opt. 2 Relief Line Opt. 3 Eglinton East LRT 2
SmartT rack SmartT rack SSE Egl!nton East LRT 3
Subway v1a Queen Subway v1a Eastern Approved EA
Integration Option C Integration Option D McCowan Express Short LRT to UTSC
St Ave extension
GO REA .,/ .,/

-- --- - - ----- - -- ---- -- ' --
SmartTrack ST Option C .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/
STOption D
EA Approved .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/

Option
Speed and Access

Balance
Line 1 imp. Surface

transit on Queen .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/
and King
Subway via Queen

St
Subway via Eastern

Ave
-- I
- -- - -
McCowan 3 Stop .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/
McCowan Express .,/ .,/
Bus .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/ .,/
Approved EA
extension
Short LRT to UTSC
Example of how thi s matrix is read: The SmartTrack integrati on Option C and D options are eva lu ated against a base case th at in cludes GO RER, the EA Approved opti on for Eglin ton West LRT, line I
improvements to transit on Quen and King Streets, McCowan 3-stop Scarborough Subway Extension and buses along Eglinton East LRT corridor.
9 AWP
Page 378 of 1092

Page 379 of 1092
User Benefits
Travel Tim e Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Benefits are driven by crowding reli ef, travel time savings and auto operating cost reduction Overall Impacts
Substantial benefit from fare savings mainly a result of integrated fare NPV (PVB - PVC)
The Net Present Value results in approx. , with a Benefit Cost Ratio of
ARUP
Section 7 applied
Page 380 of 1092

User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits
DistJibution of benefits are similar to Option C, driven by crowding relief, travel time savings and auto operating cost
However, Option D shows lower transit travel time saving but higher crowding relief and road decongestion benefits than NPV (PVB- PVC)
OptionC BCR (PVB/PVC)
Total benefits are of the same order as those of option C, however, due to lower costs, overall results (NPV and BCR) are
better for Option D
The Net Present Value results in approx. n, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of
ARUP
Section 7 applied
Page 381 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2 - Subway via Queen St
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
--
- - 'L -
Crowding Relief
-
--
Producer Benefits
~.---
Sub-total Producer Benefits rl
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
'1-' -
CAC Emissions
-- - --
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
---[
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
--=:Jc=
Total PV of Benefits (PVB) J~~
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
I
Recapitalization Costs :
Overall Impacts

- II---
BCR (PVB/PVC) I
ARUP
Page 382 of 1092

Relief Line Option 3- Subway via Eastern Avenue
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
--
Sub-total Producer Benefits I
-
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
- -
- --
Accident Prevention
-~,
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
- ---,-.---
Auto Costs --
Total PV of Benefits (PVB) I
Costs
~-- - --
- - --
Operating Cost
-- - - - '
Capital Costs
-
.-
--
--- --
Overall Impacts
Section 7 applied
NPV (PVB - PVC)
- . -
BCR (PVB/PVC)
ARUP
Page 383 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2- Subway via Queen St (vs Base w Opt C)
User Bene/its
Travel Time Saving
r
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benerlts
Sub-total Producer Benefits -
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions L
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
- IL-
Rail Safety
---If
Auto Costs I!
--.
---
Costs
Operating Cost r
-
Cap ita I Costs
Costs Benef~s
-
and road decongestion. NPV (PVB PVC)
Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately BCR (PVB/PVC)
The Net Present Value results in negative n, with a Benefit Cost Ratio
Section 7 applied
Page 384 of 1092

Relief Line Option 3 -Subway via Eastern Avenue (vs Base w Opt C)
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-toto/ User Benefits
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Costs Benef~s
The Relief Line option via Eastern Ave. generates approximately doub le tbe economic benefits of the Queen St. option, with Overall Impacts
the largest increments, compared to the Queen St option, being the transit travel time savings, road decongestion and fare NPV (PVB PVC)
savi ngs BCR (PVB/PVC)
This option, however, shows crowding dis benefits- possibly as a result of attracting large numbers of passengers from
slower but Jess crowded services to faster but busier services
Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately
The Net Present Value results in negative with a Benefit Cost Ratio of
Section 7 applied
Page 385 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2- Subway to Sheppard via Queen St (vs Base w Opt C)
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings 'I
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
---
Sub-total Producer Benefits I
---
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions - --
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion -
--
--
I
_j'_ _ _
-
Ra il Safety
Auto Costs -~~J:~
Sub-total External Benefi ts
I
- -.-
Costs
Operating Cost
-- -
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits
-
Section 7 applied
-
Overall Impacts
NPV (PVB - PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
ARUP
Page 386 of 1092

Relief Line Option 3 - Subway to Sheppard via Eastern Avenue (vs Base w Opt C)
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings I
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
1(--
Sub-total Producer Benefits ! ___
-
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions ~
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion ---~ JL ----~
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
----,-
_,I. -
- - --
-
- -- -
- - -- -
Costs
Operating Cost
- - - -
Capital Costs
Costs Benefits - ---
Recapitalization Costs -- --
Base case for evaluation: Base Case 2 (i.e. including ST Option C) Section 7 applied
Overall Impacts
NPV (PVB - PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
ARUP
Page 387 of 1092

User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
Increment al Fa re Revenue
External Benefits
GHG Emission s
CAC Emission s
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost _
Cap ita I Costs
Costs Benef~s
The SSE Express option shows a significant amount of transit travel time disbenefit Overall Impacts
The only positive benefits are a small crowding relief benefit and a small increase in fare revenues NPV (PVB - PVC)
Compared to the Base Case, which includes the McCowan 3-stop subway option, there are costs savings of BCR (PVB/PVC)
almost n (PV 2015$)

Overall., this option has a positive net present value of approximately (2015$). The benefit to cost ratio
is not meaningful in this case, since the Present Value of Costs is negative.
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 388 of 1092

User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
-- --
~-
Fare Savings - -- -
Crowding Relief
- I --
--
Producer Benefits
Sub-total Producer Benefits - l__
External Benefits
-
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions I
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
--r--
-----
Rail Safety
Auto Costs _j[
---r-- -
Total PVof Benefits (PVB) -- -
I
----- -
Costs
Operating Cost -- -~~~
Capital Costs
Costs Benef~s

I
Base case fo r evaluation: Base Case 3 I
The benefits of the Eglin ton East (full alignment) are dominated by crowding relief and road decongestion Overall Impacts
-----.----
benefits. There is a transit travel disbenefit, suggesting that users may trading off longer travel times for lower NPV (PVB PVC)
---- ---
crowding and fares BCR (PVB/PVC)
Total costs are estimated to be approximately n

ARUP
Section 7 applied
Page 389 of 1092

User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
External Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Ra il Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost _ __
Capital Costs
Costs Benef~s
The benefits of the Eglin ton East to UTSC are mainly driven by crowding relief, followed by road decongestion Overall Impacts
and travel time savings. All other benefits are marginal. NPV (PVB - PVC)
Total costs are estimated to be approximately BCR (PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
Page 390 of 1092

Page 391 of 1092
---------
Benefit to Cost Ratio - SmartTra ck Benefrt to Cost Ratio - DRL and SSE Benefit to Cost Ratio - Eglinton East LRT
700
6CC
''"
.,35
"'
ore
OJ:.
030
S.CG
012
c~
15 '""
1:1300
g 0::!:> ~
=00!
01
OlS
006
200
010
Oil'
1.00 0.05 0C2
0.00 CCC
SUOO SU!XI Sl40C 51500 51600 S11DC 51!!.00 Sl9!le sz:oc 52100 52200 512.00 SB 00 $14 00 515 00 Sl6.0C 517.00 SIS OC' 519.00 520.00 5~1 00 522.00 51:! :t! 513 X 51~ 00 SlS.OO 515 00 517 00 51!.00 519 00 S::O 00 521 00 5:!.2.00
Yau~of - .m~I SI va ue c' - -me {SJ Va ue of- me tS)
- sr-: s--3 - !::L-3 RL-2 - SSfJO.. - EELJIT -2 EELR'"" !
Net Present Value - SmartTr ack Net Present Value- DRL and SSE Net Present Value - Eglinton East LRT
se.coc.ooc S2~':'C - ~C
,
~
ss.coo.occ
S4.cct.OOC
~ 53.00D.OOC
S."!.OCO.COO
------------- ~ -s~
i
st ::t oc~
"
:ooooo
52 coo.:x:o
"'
:;;
-ssoo.oco
Sl.~C .OOO
Sl.S!iC.OOO
Sl.OOC.OOC
53.000.000
-s- :.oom
-s:ul~c.ooo -----
so -ssmx-: S2.5X,OC.O
511 CG Sl! OC $14.00 515 ~~ 516.00 517 00 51! OC 519.00 Slr X 5.!1 CC 512 :>0 Sl~X SBCC s.;..:x SHOC 51600 51700 SlBGC 51900 $2000 S11C'C S:!.!X Sl2 00 Sl3 CC Sl~ X SIS 'X S16 CO 517 CC 51! :C Sl9 OC S2C ct 521 OC SZ2.00
VII oJto:- .me {51 V11:ue of- me IS) 'J ueof """ me tS)
- s:-.2-s':'-! - =H3 - Pl1 - SSlA - EELI:f"" fEli'C!
23 ARUP
Page 392 of 1092

Benefit to Cost Ratio- SmartTrack Benefit to Cost Ratio - DRL and SSE Benefit to Cost Ratio - Eglin ton East LRT
600 0.35
'"
Ole 012
~-
'"'
~ex::
'" 01C
O:!C c ~s
~ HIO ~ ~
2>0 "'
D.lC
"'
cc.:
100 C05 ~::J
o.~,
10
" Appra
>0 .,
saP~r-odl~rth (~rs) " . 7C
ooc
0 lO ;?;::
App~a
30
'"
u-Per odlen.rtM (yrsJ
50
"' 10
000
0 1~ 00
~Ofa
"
u
-'C
Ptr odlenr.h {yrsl
so
"
;c
- sT-1 s., - Rl-3 Rl-2 - sSE-lA - EfLJr- 2 EfLRT'
Net Present Value - SmartTrack Net Present Value - DRL and SSE Net Present Value - Eglinton East LRT
S5 000.000 52 OOC.COO s:
~
s.: ooooc~ Sl OOO.CCO
-sm.~
HOCO_OCO
so
SlOOO.OCC
a ~ Sl.COOm
~
Sl.OOO.Co-t~
~------
~ Sl.OOO.OCO >
~ S1Z.JO.OOC
z so SlS.<JoO.OCIJ
-S3COC.OC.O
S1.000.00C
S2CCC,UC
-S~.oot:.OOO S.C.O'JC.O'X'I
~
$3.0CC 000 SS,COO.OOO s1 soo.cc-c
!0 :~
"
lloppra-sa P~rodLenrth {yrs) "' "' " 10
~pre
l:i
se:Per "'
cdl.rnt~h tfrs! " "' 70 10
" :.Pcra sa" Pt-~
"
odlenfth hrsl " " "0
- ~--1 -s~-s - N-3 - ~<L-1 - sst:-2~ - EHir'l - EHil"3
24 ARUP
Page 393 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 394 of 1092

Page 395 of 1092
C)
rJJ.
cj
rJJ.
~ u
0
~
u
~
~
~
C)
s
0
>
~
~
C) 0
~ u
~ ~
~
~
~
~ 0
rJJ.
~ ~
cj ~
cj
~ s \0
. . . -1
s
0
N
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ;::::3
u C/).
Cl:$~
;.....['"-
Q......-1
Outline

Base Case 2
3. Eglin ton East Options evaluated against Base Case 3
Page 396 of 1092

Page 397 of 1092
answer
value for money?
4 AWP
Page 398 of 1092

process?
--
I Option development
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I .. _ -
I
I
Implementation
5 AWP
Page 399 of 1092

The Economic Case
including:
reliability, etc.)
etc)

land value uplift).
Page 400 of 1092

I GTA Model v4.0
I
~ ~ ~ ~
0-D 0-D 0-DAvg 0 -DAvg Fare
demand Journey Time
l I
I I
User Benefits:

Time Fare Savings
Crowding Relief

Notes:
7 AWP
Page 401 of 1092

Parameters
Parameter Value Source I Comments
Discount Rate 3.50% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg44, section 10.3.4
Appraisal period (yrs) 60 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg23 , section 6.2.2
Auto operating cost savings ($/veh-km) $0.63 Metro Jinx recommended value
Auto operating cost savings annual growth(%) 0.7% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section 10.5. 1
Accident value ($/veh-lcm) $0.07 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section 10.5.1
Accident value annual growth(%) 0.0% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section 10.5.1
Greenhouse Gas ($/veh-lcm) $0.010 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg48, section 10.5.2
Air Quality ($/veh-km) $0.002 BCDH Tier 2 v0.3, pg42, table 10.1.5 (not specified in v0.2)
Air quality value annual growth(%) 0.0% Assumed (Value not specified in BCDH)
Annualization factor 300 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg44, section 10.3.3
Value of Time- Non-working (Commuting)$ per hour $16.13 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg46, section 10.4.2
Value of Time growth (pa) 1.600% BCDH Tier 2 Draft 0.2, pg46, section 10.4.2
Inflation 2.0% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg22, section 6.2.1
Benefits Buildup
I 35 %
2 70%
3 100%
4 100%
5 100%
6 100%
7 100%
8 100%
9 100%
10 100%
Page 402 of 1092

Page 403 of 1092
SmartTrack
Option C
Option D
Relief Line
Scarborough Subway
Express
Eglinton East LRT
EA approves alignment, shortened to terminate at UTSC instead of Sheppard
GORERI Eglinton West Relief Line Scarborough Eglinton East

SmartTrack LRT Subway LRT
Improved surface
I
Base Case 1 GO RER EA approved option transit on Queen McCowan 3-stop I Bus
_, and King
~- -
SmartTrack
Base Case2 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1
Option C
SmartTrack
Base Case3 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 McCowan Express As Base Case 1
Option C I
ARUP
Page 404 of 1092

, Base Case 1 Base Case 2 Base Case 3
Option C ~
SmartTrack
Option D ~
Queen St. Alignment to Pape 'I ~ II ~
Queen St. Alignment to

~
Sheppard
Relief Line
Eastern Ave. Alignment to Pape ~ ~
Eastern Ave. Alignment to ~

Sheppard
- --
~ -- ~ - -
SSE McCowan Express ,I ~
'I
' ---- ----
EA Approved, full ~
Eglinton East LRT

EA Approved, to UTSC ,,
I II
,, ~
ARUP
Page 405 of 1092

GO RER/ SmartTrack
GORER
Molton Etobicoke North

Scarborough -Stations (Kitchener - Stouffville line) at: Kitchener, Guelph, Acton, Georgetown, Mount
Weston
MountDennl Danforth
Union, Danforth, Scarborough, Kennedy, Agincourt, Milliken, Unionville, Centennial,
Ellesmere, Finch.
Scarborough - Assumes modifications are made to TTC buses where they meet the route (Princess Margaret,
Molton Etobicoke North
"Weston East Mall, Birchmount, Brimley, Lawrence, Huntingwood, Commander buses affected)
MountDenni
\
- TTC Fare
St. Clair West GerrOI'd
Assumed In-Service Date: 2021
unnever
RERJST: ST Option D:
Scarborough
Molton Etobicoke North - Includes GO RER stations plus St. Clair West, Liberty Village, Unilever, Gerrard.
.Wes ton
- Assumes modifications are made to TTC bu ses where they meet the route (Princess Margaret,
Gerrard
East Mall , Birchmount, Brimley, Lawrence, Huntingwood, Commander buses affected)
Unllever - TTC Fare
Page 406 of 1092

Relief Line
Relief Line: Queen:

Bloor/Pape, Gerrard/Pape, Queen/Broadview, Queen/Sumach,
Queen!Sherboume, Queen/Yonge, and Queen/University
(Osgoode).

B Ioor/Pape, Gerrard/Pape, Queen!Pape, Eastern/Broadview,
King/Sumach , Queen!Sherbourne, Queen/Yonge, and
ARUP
Page 407 of 1092

Three-stop:
with stops at Lawrence East, Scarborough Town Centre (STC),
and Sheppard.
Lawrence East Runs at an average speed of 40krnlh , between Kennedy and
Modifications to TTC buses to terminate at the new subway
Express:
station)
Subway runs at an average speed of 50krnlh, between Kennedy
TTC bus 54 split into two routes at STC, buses 95 and 131 routed
to terminate at STC
ARUP
Page 408 of 1092

Eglinton East

Sheppard.
with the LRT line
Univerity of Toronto
Scarborough

ARUP
Page 409 of 1092

Page 410 of 1092
3 .1. SmartTrack and Relief Line
ARUP
Page 411 of 1092

Benefits and Costs - ST - 2 2015 OOOs
_User Benefits
Travel Time Saving $1,247,171
7.000 , -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
External Fare Savings $551,104
Costs:
benefits: Crowding Relief $1,182,911
G.ooo I $l1bA Producer $l.Sbn 1
Sub-total User Benefits $2,981, 186
u;
~5. 000 U~t!,.-
.
1
..---- -
~ Producer Benefits
-
I() Incremental ~are Revenue $300,906
~, Sub-total Producer Benefits $300,906
i,,..
a;
.. I
c==- I External Benefits

GHG Emission s $21,435
CAC Em issions $4,287
"' .000
2 I
Accident Prevention $150,043
Road Decongestion $292,961
1,000 Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $1,644,385
Sub-total External Benefits $2,113,111
.,
c"' ~ "'c
"'
.,c
.1:: c
0 .,c
.1:: "'c
"' :::>
.,c ~ ~0 2l
a:z Total PVof Benefits (PVB) $5,395,203
8"'
;;; -.; ., .,
~ 0::: ;;; .,
tl ;;
.,> 8 0
"'
c
"'
(/)
CD
~ "'c
CD
"'
(/)
0::: .,c Iii .,"'c
E ~
~ .2! .,8 ~ 1n
0
a_
F
e "'
u. "'
(/) 0 E 8 ~
"'
u.
"'
-~ "'
0 .,
~
Costs
~ 0 -o c a_
0
Iii
a_ tj 8'
e 0
~ "'
0 .s ~ Operating Cost $133,105
0::: ;;
c ~ .,rl 0
w <( 0::: Capital Costs $1,700,000
Costs 1 Benefits
Recapitalization Costs $0
Total PV of Costs (PVC) $1,833,105
Base case for evaluation: Base Case J
Benefits are driven by crowding relief, travel time savings and auto operating cost reduction Overall Impacts
Substantial benefit from fare savings mainly a result ofTTC fare assumed for SmartTrack NPV (PVB - PVC) $3,562,098
Increase in fare revenue suggests that increase in demand is sufficient to offset reduced fare BCR (PVB/PVC) 2.9
The Net Present Value results in approx. $3.5bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 2.9 Notes:
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is very good value for money (i.e. the benefits are Costs figures provided by C ity of Toronto Staff
significantly greater than the costs)
external benefi ts have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 412 of 1092

Benefits and Costs - ST - 3 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving $919,129
7.000 ,,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
External Producer Costs: Fare Savings $557,206
benefits: benefits: $l.lbn Crowding Relief $1,339,256
6.000 .-- -- --'- -------, Sub-total User Benefits $2,815,591
"'
~00
-
~
I
' Producer Benefits
[)._
LD
benefits: Incremental Fare Revenue $357,054
~.000 ~--- Sub-total Producer Benefits $357,054
::l;;
~ r-- - 1
., External Benefits
~3 . 000
>
c.,
(IJ
c\:2.000 I
1.000 +-1-===-~
~
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
$22,582
$4,516
$158,071
$443,352
$0
Auto Costs $1,721,30S
Sub-total External Benefits $2,349,827
.,
.,."'
c: ~
IJ)
.,.
0> ~
c:
0 a:'., (/)
"' ::J tl "'

ts J!l a:z Total PVof Benefits (PVB) $5,522,472
., 8"'
Q; c: c c c: c:
iii :;; 8 0
Ql 0:
0> "' &l "'c:
0) rn "'
(/)
"'
>
"' c
()
1
E c (/)
;:. 0: ...,
0 .,"'
c
~
e "'
o; .,
0
0 ~ ts
e "'
o.
.,~
F
e "'
u. (/) 0 E 8 "'
u.
.!::!
1 "'
()
Costs
~ () '0 c a.
0 13 8'
~ "'
0 e 0
-c:
0. e Operating Cost $81,087
r 0: :;;
c
B::J
~., i5
w <t 0: Capital Costs $1,000,000
Costs Benefits
Distribution of benefits are similar to Option C, driven by crowding relief, travel time savings and auto operating cost
However, Option D shows lower transit travel time saving but higher crowding relief and road decongestion benefits than NPV (PVB- PVC) $4,441,385
Option C BCR (PVB/PVC) 5.1
Total benefits are of the same order as those of option C, however, due to lower costs, overall results (NPV and BCR) are Notes:
better for Option D Costs figures provided by City of T oronto Staff
The Net Present Value results in approx. $4.4bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 5.1 GTA Model outputs used to estimate user, producer and
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is very good value for money (i.e. the benefits are significantly greater external benefits ha ve been provided by City of Toronto
than the costs) Staff
ARUP
Page 413 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- RL- 2 vRER 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Trave l Time Saving $666,521
7.000
Fare Savings -$992
Crowding Relief $428,096
5.000 Sub-total User Benefits $1,093, 625
u;
., External
0 User Producer Benefits
t:
a.3.000
benefits: Ornd..LorAr rn~ .
a>t:n .... ~... Incremental Fare Revenue $31,905
0.0 $0.2bn benefits: $4.6bn
0 $1.1bn -~ Sub-total Producer Benefits $31,905
"'::!' <$O.lbn
r-
I _,.
..
- '
~1 .000
.,::> . - - External Benefits
~ GHG Emissions $800
u
c
:g1.000 ' - CAC Emissions $160
~ ~$3.3bn
a. Accident Prevention $5,602
,.....---,_ Road Decongestion $141,706
-3 ,000 ~
.- -
Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $62,294
Sub-total External Benefits $210,563
-5 .000 .,
"'
c Q;
OJ
UJ
"'c .,
.t: c
0
.,
~c
.,
UJ
"' c .,::>c
.l!l
UJ ~0 tl a:z Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $1,336,093
~ 0:: ;; c tl ;; 8 () 8
"' &l "' >
"'
c (/)
"'
c
OJ (/)
"'
0::
c
:sa. .,"'c
~ ~
:?;- 0
~ 8 ~
~
F ~ "' "'
'\;;
"' "' 8 ~ N
"' ~
OJ e
()
LJ. (/) 0
'0
E
c a. "'
LJ.
:sa.
()
tJ 8-"'
Costs
> e 0 0
~ 0"'
0:: .> B -c
rJ
~
i5
Operating Cost $540,392
c ::>
Costs
w <(
Benefits
"'
0:: Capital Costs $3,295,952
Recapitalization Costs $752,375
Base case for evaluation : Base Case 1
Benefits of the Relief Line via Queen are mainly driven by travel time savings and crowding relief. Overall Impacts
Total benefits are of approximately $1.3bn, which equates to approximately one quarter of the benefits NPV (PVB- PVC) -$3,252,626
estimated for the Sma.rtTrack options. BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.3
The Net Present Value results in negative $3 .3bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.3. Notes:
Based on the economic costs and benefi ts, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs are greater than Costs fig ures provided by City of Toron to Staff
lhe benefits) ex ternal benefits have been provided by C ity of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 414 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- RL - 3 vRER 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
7.000 - ~
Fare Savings $133,733

5 000 1-- - Sub-total User Benefits $1,274,709
External
.,
Iii
User benefits:
Producer Costs:
0
c:
0..3 .000 r-
.... . ~n .... benefits: $S.Obn Producer Benefits
<~o.lbn Incremental Fare Revenue $56,084
"'
0
$1.3bn I
L , Sub-total Producer Benefits $56,084

- I r
"'::l;
!!!;1 ,000
., -n
I
- - II
- -
:J External Benefits
'<:
u
al1 .000 CAC Emissions $131
~ -:S3.Sbn
a. Accident Prevention $4,600
-3 .000 -- ~ -
L_j Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $51,378
-5 .000 I ., Sub-total External Benefits $162,912
C)
~ "'c: .,c:
iE c:
~c: "'c: J!l "'
Ill
tl a:z Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $1,493,706
c:
. 1lS
C) 0 C) :J
:;; Q;
cr :;; 'jjl ., s; .,c: Ill
8 0
8
J!l "' d! CD "' .,> ()
..
C)
C) (/) (/) c: 2 C)
c: c: cr., ...,
c:
~ 1::- 0
.,8 c""
..
~ 1lS . c li
j 8 "" ~
F "'
~
Oi
e "'
lL (/) 0 "'
E "'
lL
2
N ()
Costs
] () '0 c:
e 0
a.
,_; a. 'ti ~
~ "'0 s; E ~
~ Operating Cost - $625,599
cr c: 15 Q)
i5
w <{ cr Capital Costs $3,566,310
Costs Ben efits
Benefits of the Relief Line via Eastern Ave. are mainly driven by travel time savings and crowding relief. Overall Impacts
Total benefits are of approximately $ 1.5bn, approximately 10% greater than those of the Queen St option, NPV (PVB - PVC) -$3,530,718
however costs are also approximately 10% greater BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.3
as is the case for the Queen St option, equate to approximately one quarter of the benefits estimated for the Notes:
SmartTrack options. Costs figures provided by City of Toron to Staff
The Net Present Value results in negative $3.5bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.3.
.
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs are greater than
. . .
external benefits have been pro vided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 415 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- RL- 2 to Shepp 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
4.000
3,500
benefits: benefits : Sub-total User Benefits $1,941,238
User
$0.3bn $O.lbn
~. 000
-----'- Producer Benefits
-
~--
"
' t:: $1.9bn
_L .
Cl..
~2 . 500 --- Incremental Fare Revenue $19,318
-
0
"'::l; -- Sub-total Producer Benefits $19,318
~000
.,
~
::>
'E1 .5 00
.,
- $2.3bn
External Benefits
GHG Emissions $1,645
IJl CAC Emissions $329
a..,:'! 000 Costs:
tbc
500 Rail Safety $0
r - ___j_ -- --, Auto Costs $139,931
Sub-total External Benefits $340, 107
v c: ., 1/)
"'c:
IJl
"'
IE'
... 0 IE'... IJl
"' ::> l!l

1/) ~ u; itz Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $2,300,663
.,...>
~ c: c: c:
~ 0: :; c:
~
iil
... ...
c: s; 8 0
(.) 8
"' "'
CD "' c:
2
~ "'c: (f)
:?:
...
c:
~...
(f)
0: 0
a. "'c:
...,
j :'! .,8 11!
:'!
,p
"' .,~
F
2 "'
LJ_
't;;
(f) 0 E 8 "'
LJ_
N
2
"'
(.)
Costs
~ (.) '"C c: c.
0 0 a. ts 8'
~
1- "'
0
0: s;
2
c: ~
E
.,~
:'!
i5
Operating Cost tbc
w < 0: Cap ita I Costs tbc
Costs Benefits
Recapitalization Costs tbc
Total PV of Costs (PVC) tbc
The benefits are dri ven mai nly by transit travel time savings, fo llowed by road decongestion, crowding relief Overall Impacts
and auto operating cost savings NPV (PVB - PVC) $2,300,663
It's worth noting that the Relief Line opti ons to Sheppard have an assumed in-service date of 2041 ; since the BCR (PVB/PVC) tbc
benefits are di scounted to 2015 , the openening year assumptions affect the present value, so the later a scheme Notes:
is assumed to open, the lower the value of benefits/costs is when discounted to 2015 Costs fig ures provided by City of Toronto Staff
Staff
ARUP
Page 416 of 1092

Benefits and Costs - RL - 3 to Shepp 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
4.000
Producer Fare Savings $144,307
Extern !II
3.500
benefits: Crowding Relief $422,888
$0.2bn SO.lbn Sub-total User Benefits $2,087,081
User
~. 000 cenents:
Producer Benefits
-
0
-
't:
Cl. $2.1bn
Incremental Fare Revenue $47,93 1
~2. 500
0
"';::;;
~ . 000 1-- ~
I
- -
Sub-total Producer Benefits $47,931
~
"'
::>
c:1 .500
"'"'~ ~
n -
$2.4bn
I
I_
External Benefits
GHG Em ission s
CAC Emissions
$1,078
$216
(1_1.000 I
- Accident Prevention $7,S44
I
Costs:
tbc
500 Rail Safety so
----, Auto Costs $91,664
J Sub-total External Benefits $233,151
.,."'
c: ~ "'c:
.,."' ~
"'c:
c:
0 i3c: "'c:
"' "'::>c:
.,>
l'l "'
11l "'
1ii a:z Toti!ll PVof Benefits (PVB) $2,368,163
8"'
-.;
en"' a:: &I
.,
iil
"'
;;; 0
(.) 8
"'
c: en"' ;;;. "'
c:
CD
en"' "'
a:: c: : .,
."'
c:
~ : 0
"' .,8 11l a.
F ~ l;; 2 c:
8 "'l;; """' <U ~
en"' "' N
v> e lJ_
0 E lJ_
:
(.)
"' Costs
(.) '0
ro
c:
e 0
a.
0 a. ~
~
8"
~ 0
a:: ;;;
c: ~
E
.,
1'3 0
Operating Cost tbc
w <{ a:: Capita l Costs tbc
Costs ,. Benefits
The benefits are driven mainly by transit travel time savings, followed by crowding relief, with fare savings and Overall Impacts
road decongestion also contributing relatively significant benefits NPV (PVB - PVC) $2,368,163
It's worth noting that the Relief Line options to Sheppard have an assumed in-service date of 2041; since the BCR (PVB/PVC) tbc
benefits are discounted to 2015, the openening year assumptions affect the present value, so the later a scheme Notes:
is assumed to open, the lower the value of benefits/costs is when discounted to 2015 C osts fig ures provided by City of Toronto Staff
GTA Mode l outputs used to estimate user, producer and
Staff
ARUP
Page 417 of 1092

against Base Case 2
ARUP
Page 418 of 1092

Benefits and Costs - RL - 2 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
4.000
3.000 External Crowding Relief $199,220
User benefits: Producer Costs: Sub-total User Benefits $587,993
benefits: ~0.2bn ru-n,. fits .L
.....2.000 v
en $0.6bn
"'0 ,-- - $O.lbn
Producer Benefits
-
' t::
[)_ 1,000
"'
0
"'
::!:
r--l
-- n Incremental Fare Revenue
$44,134
$44,134
~
~1 . 000 1 I I
~$3.8bn
c_ External Benefits
~
~2 .000
I I I I
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
$833
$167
I 1-
I
-
~
[)_
I Accident Prevention $5,828
-3 ,000
~
L,
I '-
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
$96,052
$0
4 ,000
Auto Costs $68,059
-5 ,000 Sub-total External Benefits $170,939
0>
c: ~
en
0> -=., c:
0 ~.,c: "'0> "'c:
.,>
:;J
l!l en
1lS c1l ~ Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $803,066
v ., 8"'
;; c: c:
;; c: 'i.,ii 0
8 z
Q!l oc
"' s 0> ro
~
., ()
~ "'
c:
(/)
z. c:
l'it::
(/)
oc .,c:
.0 a.
l'i "'
..,
c:
~
~ .,8 1lS
~ "' .,~
I=
Qj
>
e
u
"'
u.. '*
(/) 0
'U
E
c:
u
0
0
0.
"'
u..
0
.!:!
l'i
a.
u"'
'ti 8- Costs
e
oc"'
~
f!_ 0
:;; B -c:
.,
~ i5
c: :;J
w <( oc Capital Costs $3, 295,952
Costs Benefits
and road decongestion. NPV (PVB - PVC) -$3,785,652
Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately $4.6bn BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.2
The Net Present Value results in negative $3.8bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.2 Notes:
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs are greater than Costs fig ures provided by City of Toronto Staff
the benefits) external benefits have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 419 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- RL - 3 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
4.000
External
r~.
3.000 User 7roducer
Crowding Relief -$126,805
w~ """'~'
$0.5bn $S.Obn Sub-total User Benefits $900,551
benefits: benefits:
_.
-
......2 .000
S0.9bn ~o;TDn
-
r ( I
en
"'0
c:
0..1 ,000
...-::-
' - r-1 Producer Benefits
Increme ntal Fare Revenue
I
- I
- $88,446
I
ll)
0
"':I;
~
~1 .000 External Bene/its
~
I I ~3.6~~ GHG Emissions $2,407
*2 .000 ,- CAC Emissions $481
~
0..
3 .000
I I LJ-~-
I I Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
$16,846
$251,243
4 .000
Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $192,474
-5 ,000 Sub-total External Benefits $463,451
c"' <; C/)
"' .,c
~ c
0 ~ en
01
c "'c=> ~
en "'
11! ti 0:z Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $1,452,449
:; Qj
0::
c
;;; iii "'c ~ "'> 8 u
0
8
b'l en"' &! "'c "'
[II
en
~ "'c ;:;. "' ~
"'
0::
c
..,
0 ~
c.. ..,"'
c
F ~
~
"' ~ .,8 c 1IS
8 "'(;; "'
.~ u"' ...~
LL en ~
Qj
>
~
2
u .
0
"0
0
0::
c
2
'!>
a.
0
B
lL
-
._;
c
~
'0..
rl...
tJ
~
i5
15 Costs
c =>
w <( 0:: Cap ita I Costs $3,566,310
Costs Benefits
The Relief Line option via Eastern Ave. generates approximately double the economic benefits of the Queen St. option, witb Overall Impacts
the largest increments, compared to the Queen St option, being the transit travel time savings, road decongestion and fare NPV (PVB - PVC) -$3,571,975
savings BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.3
This option, however, shows crowding dis benefits - possibly as a result of attracting large numbers of passengers from
Notes:
slower but less crowded services to faster but busier services
Costs fig ures provided by City of Toronto Staff
Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately $5 .0bn
The Net Present Value results in negative $3.6bn , with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.3 external benefits ha ve been provided by City of Toronto
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs are greater than the benefits) Staff
ARUP
Page 420 of 1092

Benefits and Costs - SSE- 2A 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
Travel Time Saving -$698,370
2.000 , -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
Fare Savings -$9,031
1.500 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Sub-total User Benefits -$657,013
.,., Costs:
-$1.5bn
0
' t: Producer BenefitS
Q.1 ,000
II) Incremental Fare Revenue $34,432
C)
"'
~ User
~
';;' 5oo 1 benefits:- ___ "~
~-,
::J External Benefits
$0.7bn
~ I GHG Emissions -$1,083
.,en
<:: r - ,
CAC Emissions -$217
~
Q. benefits: Accident Prevention -$7,578
-$0.2bn Road Decongestion -$90,360
-
-500
Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs -$85,302
J.------------------------------------------------------------ - Sub-total External Benefits -$184,539
-1 .000
en ., en en
~
~ <:: !l
"'c 0> ~ 0 ~c 0> ::J 1;j en a::z Total PVof Benefits (PVB) -$807,120
'> a;
oc
<::
'> <::
.,
iii ., c
;;; .,
<::
8 0
8
~ Ol en"' dl 0> CD
"'
en .,> <::
(.)
] 00
~
c z. c iii oc., 0 ...,
<::
2 ~
16en .,8 c 1IS
0
. o
.'"'
a.
"':;;;
f=
"'
u. ~
(.) ::! "'
'"
0 (.)
u. ] Costs
~ (.) 'U c
0
a.
0 a. t$ 8"
oc"'
~ 0 2 .!:: ~ Operating Cost -$252,078
1- ;;;
c
B::J .,rl i5
w <( oc Capital Costs -$999,743
Costs :. Benefits
Recapitalization Costs -$234,446
Total PV of Costs (PVC) -$1,486,267
The SSE Express option shows a significant amount of transit travel time disbenefi.t Overall Impacts
The only positive benefits are a small crowding relief benefit and a small increase in fare revenues NPV (PVB- PVC) $679,147
Compared to the Base Case, which includes the McCowan 3-stop subway option, there are costs savings of BCR (PVB/PVC) n/a
almost $1.5bn (PV 2015$) Notes:
Overall, this option has a positive net present value of approximately $0.75bn (2015$). The benefit to cost ratio Costs fig ures provided by Ci ty of Toron to Staff
GTA Model outpu ts used to estimate user, producer and
is not meaningful in this case, since the Present Value of Costs is negative. extern al benefits have been provided by C ity of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 421 of 1092

Page 422 of 1092
~
~
~ <
0)
~
~
~
~
~
>
0)
rJJ
~
0
~
~
8
~
('fJ
0)
rJJ rJJ
~ ~
~ u
~ 0)
0 rJJ
~
~
~
~
~
~
bi) ~
rJJ
~ ~
~
('fJ ~
bi)
('fJ ~
Eglinton East LRT Option 2 - Approved EA alignment
Benefits and Costs- EELRT - 2 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
-
1.000 -- User
benefits: External benefits: - - Ptoduter Fare Savings $1,924
<$0.1bn $0.2bn benefits: Costs:
~- ~ Crowding Relief $60,908
-
500
1 - - ... - -SO.lbn $2.4bn
u;
.,
c0
-
l
- ( 1
- ----'
Producer Benefits
$15,656
0..
0.0 Incremental Fa re Revenue -$26,208
0
<'I -500
I I 1 : Sub-total Producer Benefits -$26, 208
r _____________jl I ~2.2~~
::<
~
., External Benefits
~1 . 000
r----------~u
~ll I
> GHG Emissions $804
.,
1:'
CAC Emissions $161
"'
&:1 ,500 I
r-_ _ _ _ _ ___jl 1-1 I
Accident Prevention $S,628
2 .000 Rail Safety $0
L _ j- L_j
Auto Costs $66,166
-2 .500
.,
"'c: <; "'c:
"'
~ .,c: c:
0 .,c:
~ "'c:
"' :::>
.,>c:
J!l
"'
11S ~ a:z Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $234,394
., 8"'
;;; -.;
cYl oc ;;;
~
.,
iil s;
.,
0
() 8
"' "'
en., "'c:
(lJ
en"' oc c:
:s "'
E c: ?;- ., ~., .,0 a.
c:
F ~ (;; 'lii .,8 11S
8a. ~
"'
N "'
.p
.,~
] e lL en 0 E "'
lL
:sa.
()
Costs
() ""C c:
e 0 0 ts 8"
oc"'
~
~ 0
s;
c: .s:::> E
.,~ i5
w <{ oc Capital Costs $1,506, 289
Costs Benefits
$0
Base case for evaluation: Base Case 3 (i.e. including SSE Express)
The benefits of the Eglinton East (full alignment) are mainly driven by crowding relief and road decongestion OVerall Impacts
benefits. There is a transit travel time disbenefit, suggesting that users may trade off longer travel times for NPV (PVB - PVC) -$2,168,728
lower crowding and fares (i.e. switching from GO) BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.1
Total costs are estimated to be approximately $2.4bn Notes:
The Net Present Value results in negative $2.2bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.1 Costs fig ures provided by City of Toronto Staff
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs are greater than
external benefits have been provided by Ci ty of Toronto
the benefits) Staff
Page 423 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- EELRT- 3 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
1.000
User benefits: External benefits: Costs: Fare Savings $1,8SO
Producer
$O.lbn $O.~bn $2.lbn Crowding Relief $89,13S
benefits:
-
500
-$0.lbn Sub-total User Benefits $140,157
- -- I
"'"'
0
c:
n I ,---.-, Producer Benefits
0..
II) Incremental Fare Revenue -$20,205
0 I . - Sub-total Producer Benefits
.~ -.I-su~b,-
"' -500 -$20,205
::!:
~ I
"'
::J
~1 . 000 [ I External Benefits
GHG Emissions $289
c $58
"'"' . 500
~1 -1
CAC Emissions
-2 ,000 Ra il Safety $0
Auto Costs $21,662
-2 .500 Sub-total External Benefits $70,804
c: ~
"' ~
UJ
0>
.E ~ "'
0> ~ 0 0> "'::Jc: J!l ilS 0:z Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $190,756
"'s::: "'c: 8"'
o; .E c:
>
a: > tl Q) :;; Q)
0
(.) 8
J3 ~ >
Q)
0>
c: "'
(J) 0>
c:
CD
"'
(J)
a:"' c:
.., I 0>
s:::
~ j ~
~
~ 8 ~ ilS
~
.0 a. :0
~
t= "' Q)
8 "'
.!::! "'
-.; 2 LL.. "'
(J) 0 ~s::: "'
LL.. I
(.) Q)
Costs
> (.) "0
0
Q.
0 a. ~ 8'
a:"'
2 ~ $896,833
~ 0
:;;
s::: .s::J E rl 0
Operating Cost
w <{ a:"' Capital Costs $1,160,941
Costs Benefits
The benefits of the Eglin ton East to UTSC are mainly driven by crowding relief, followed by road decongestion Overall Impacts
and travel time savings. All other benefits are relatively marginal. NPV (PVB - PVC) -$1,867,019
Total costs are estimated to be approximately $2.1 bn BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.1
The Net Present Value results in a negative $1.9bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio ofO.l Notes:
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs are greater than Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Staff
the benefits) external benefits have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 424 of 1092

Page 425 of 1092
---
Benefit to Cost Ratio - SmartTrack Benefit to Cost Ratio - DRL and SSE Benefit to Cost Ra tio - Eglinton East LRT
:;!0 c 18
'"' :!S 016
6.00
c ,,
030
"''
oo =~
~1:!
OJ
e; ~ 0:!0 e;
CD lCO CD o.:;.3
015
006
""'
100
010
00'
005 00:2
o.co 000
S12JO SUOO 51400 SJSOV Slfro 51700 51!.00 519.00 52'.:00 Snoo S!l:JO Sll.OO SU 00 51 A00 SlS 00 516 OC 511 00 518 00 519 00 SZO.OO Sll 00 52:::!.00 Sl20C 51300 SJCOO 51~00 51600 51700 Sl!-00 51900 51000 52100 522 00
ve.ueof-.me lSI Va ue c'- me (S} Va'ut of me tS)
- sr-2 - s--3 - !::l-:! - RL-2 - ~SE - 2<1. - n ur-z Eur- 3
-----------
Net Present Va lue- SmartTr ack Net Present Value- DRL and SSE Net Present Valu e - Eglinton East LRT
S6.toO.OCC s z.:~o. ooc so
ss.cro.oo:= Sl'.:XXJ
5500.000
s:
S'.CCO.OOt
51 1m OOC
~ ~ HOOOY..(I
~ Sl.ooo.oo;: >
'i: 52.000.;):)0
~
-SlSOC .OOO
----
Sl.OCO.OOC
Sl!lOO.OCO
S20CC.OOO
Sl.OOO.OOC
SAOOO.m
so -ss oooooc -s2.;x.ooc

512 X 513 ~;:: 514.00 515 ;;~ S16.:1C Sn 00 SIS X 519 00 S~C X S~l.t-0 Sl2 ::.0 w ro m~~ocmocmoom~mocmocill oc mx=oo SlHlO SBOC Sl~OO SlS:>C 516'.:{) 517:-: 51:>0 SBCC S:OOCC S21C~ S2:200
va <Je o 1 :-.,..e !SI Ve ve o 1 - me tS) .auto' - ~ 'S l
- sr-2 -- s- -3 - ~l-3 - ~L-2 - sSE-:O A - Ewr-2 EW:f""-3
32 ARUP
Page 426 of 1092

Benefit to Cost Ratio - Sm artTrac k Benefit to Cost Ratio- DRL and SSE Benefit to Cost Ratio - Eglin ton East LRT
Olti.
'"' 0"
5.~
030 OlZ
OlS OlD
: ~D
020 ot:<a
~3.00 g 15
015 :r. OC6
LOO
100 .
OlC
.,
oc.:
002
0.~:
10 30
A,pora sal .,er
-'0
odlenath (yrs) "' .. "
00:
10 2;; ,
'"
Appra sa t Per odt.fnath (yrst "' 60 70
ooc
10 '0 3C
"'
Appra sa Per :xll..tnr.h lYTSl
;o
" "
- s~-.2-s - -3 - fit! Rt-:z - sse-lA - EEI.fr!. -mF-3
Net Present Va lue- SmartTrack Net Present Value - DRL and SSE Net Present Value - Eglin to n East LRT
55 000.000 52 000.000
"'
~
54 000.000 Sl 000.000
-SiOO.~
S3,000,0CO
;o
S2 OCO.OGC -Sl.OOO.OCC
~ ~ ilC<:O.O:O
g
~----
~ Sl,OOO.OCO >
~ 52000.000
z so -Sl 500.000
53.000.0CO
-Sl.OOO.OC.O
52 OOO.COC
-5:!.000,000 >'OC'C.OOO
~
S~.JOCOOO
20 ..:c
"' " "
SS,OOC.:X:O
10 <0 ;o
-S2SOO.OCC
10 , :"0
10
"
A,ppra sa Per :ldltnr.h jyrs)
1C 30
Appra sa Per cd Lt;nr;h iY"s1
60 70 20
"' '"
Appra sa Ptod l en(th (yrsl "
- s~ -2 - ~--3 - ;:>L-3 RLl - s5f-VI - EH~ - 2 EEL'r3
33 ARUP
Page 427 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: April-29-16 10:3 1 AM
Attachments: ARUP_Economic Case Input Requirements_Draft_mh_kt.docx; Measures.xlsx
Hi Felipe ,
For discussion this afternoon. I think a walk through the methodology would be very helpful as staff
are coming from different levels of knowledge and perspective on what is a business case and what
is included in the economic case.
City Planning has some comments/questions which you will see noted in the attached document. I
have also inserted information for you on costing and project in service year.
City Planning has also requested I share the measures they are using through Feeling Congested?.
We can have further discussion this afternoon.
If you're free before the 3:30pm, and available to meet in advance of our meeting with the larger
group, I would like to talk through administrative matters and provide you an overview of our overall
business case development process to provide you context. If your free at 3pm, please advise.
Thanks,
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392-2720, Email: kthorbu @toronto.ca
intended recipient is unauthorized. Ifyou receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 428 of 1092

Transit Business Case- Economic Case Analysis
As of April 27, 2016
From : ARUP
Commented Jmhl]: City Planning has a longer list of

/ARUP has identified the following key indicators to be evaluated (as a top priority, more will /
proposed measures on which we would like ARUP's
be added if there is time available):______________ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ _ ' feedback. (See separately attached spreadsheet.)
I. lToumey Time benefit~ , ' Commented [mh2]: The generalized time that GTAModel
2. f are savings (for SmartTrack-options: where
changes in-fares are
defined as part-
of the--- calculates includes the effects of crowding. We believe that
the crowding effect in the model represents both a real
options , travel time impact and a perceived travel time impact
3. Revenue impacts resulting from reduced comfort of t ra vell ing in a crowded
4. f rowding relief L__J - _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ _ ___________ ..: vehicle. It would be possible to separate the crowding
effect as a whole, but the resulting separate travel time and
s. ,\<\cc~ssi~~~t~s!~~f~~; (bas_e_alid future yeiff ----------------------- ---- ~:~,\ congestion effects will sometimes move in counter-intuitive
directions.
o Access to labour force (base and future yeart _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _',I ,
It is desirable to use values of t ime in this calculation for
crowding and val ue of time which are consi stent with those
The top four (i.e. all excluding accessibility impacts) will be monetized and combining these 'I
I. used in the model. We do not have the ability to separate
with project costs we will estimate the Benefit Cost Ratio and Net Present Value of each option , II I
II
transit or auto users into different classes.
compared to the base case. Accessibility impacts will be reported separately. I I
til I Measures whi ch rely on model outputs will be easier and
[Data requiremen~:__ _ -- ----- - --------------------

,,, '
t't I
Ill I
faster to calcu late within the model structure as much as
possible rather than exporting unprocessed data for others
I tit I
to manipulate.
For the base scenario, as well as each option: I til I
II
Variable level of detail Form Source

I'II Commented [mh3]: It is not clear that this is a real
economic benefit. It represents a redistribution of
I I'
Ridership Transit segment Table or emme network? GTAModel resources from non-transit riders to transit riders through
an increase subsidy requirem ent. Al so, fares are already
I I'
considered in the generalized time coming from GTAModel.
Service Frequency Route Table GTAModel II I
I II
II II Commented [mh4]: See previ ous note about Journey
Veh icle type or capacity (tbc) Route Table tbc II
Time Benefits
I
Commented [mhS]: How can these be monetized?
Transit demand 0 -D Pair Matrix GTAModel I
Commented [mh6]: The details of how these would be

Generalized Journey Time 0 -D Pair Matrix GTAModel I
quantified should be confirmed, particularly if considering
them from a social equity perspective. It would be difficult
Average Fare 0 -D Pair Matrix GTAModel to incorporate a future social equity lens.
Commented [mh7]: The data.requirements pertaining to

~apital costs Project
~~~ ----------------------~ outputs from GTAModel should be revisited to perform as
much of the calculation as possible within the model
p perating and Maintenance costs Project Tabl~ ______________________ , '',, framework.
I
(Project opening yea ( ______________________________________________ \ Commented [KTS]: TIC is developing capital Cost
1 estimates for SSE and RL.. Eglin ton East LRT, we have HDR
I I
I I providing co nsultant support to look at potential cos t
I estimates.
I
Data applicable to all scenarios Commented [KT9]: TIC is developing O&M cost
estimates for SSE and Relief Line. We will need to obtain
Variable level of detail Form Source information from M etrolinx on O&M assumptions for
Eglinton E LRT, but may also be able to draw from
Base year population Census DA Table Censu s assumptions used in EgW LRT Busi ness Case MX has
I
developed.
I
Future year population Census DA Table City Commented [KTlO]: Relief Line is assumed to open in
2031
SSE is assumed to open in 2025
Page 429 of 1092

A full write up on the methodology will be provided by ARUP by end of week.
Page 430 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-02-16 12:48 PM
Attachments: ARU P_Economic Case Input Requ i rements_Draft_ CityComments.docx
Hi Felipe ,
Please see attached.

Sent: May-02-16 10:02 AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: FW: Summary and Follow Up- ARUP Economic Cases
Hi Karen,
Sorry, forgot to mention that the version of the note we looked at on Friday that lists the indicators and data
requirements has more comments than the one you forwarded last week. Could you send us the latest one,
please?
Thanks!
Felipe

To: 'Karen Thorburn '
Hi Karen,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
1
Page 431 of 1092

Hello,
week.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392-2720, Email: kthorbu @toronto.ca
Page 432 of 1092

Transit Business Case- Economic Case Analysis
As of April27 , 2016 Commented [mhl): City Planning has a longer Jist of
I
proposed measures on which we would like ARUP's
From : ARUP I feedback. (See separately attached spreadsheet.)
I
Commented [mh2): The generalized time that GTAModel
~RUP has identified the following key indicators to be evaluated (as a top priority, more will 1 I
1
be added if there is time available).______________________________________ ~ ~ I / 1
calculates includes the effects of crowding. We believe that
the crowding effect in the model represents both a real
I travel time impact and a perceived travel time impact
I. ~ourney Time benefit~ L_________ _ ___________ ____ _____ ___ ...,' resulting from reduced comfort of travelling in a crowded
2. II"' are savings (for SmartTrack options, where changes in fares are defined as part of the vehicle. It would be possibl e to separate the crowding
options i _ _____ ____ __. __. _____ __ __ __________ _____ _ effect as a whole, but the resulting separate travel time and
congestion effects will sometimes move in counter-intuit ive
3. Revenue impacts \, directions.
4. ~row ding relief L__ _________________ _________________________ ',
It is desirable to use values of time in this calculation for
S. cc~ssi~~~t:s~~~f~~s (bas-e-and future year)------ ---- ---- --- -------- --- -::1\ crowding and value of time which are consistent with those
~ I I used in the model. We do not have the ability to separate
o Access to labour force (base and f uture yearA... _____________________ _ ~ ',1 1 transit or auto users into different classes.
I I
1\\ I
Measures which rely on model outputs will be easier and
The top four (i .e. all excluding accessibility impacts) will be monetized and combining these ',\', ',
1 faster to calculate within the model structure as much as
with project costs we will estimate the Net Benefit to Cost Ratio and Net Present Value of each 1\', ', 1 possible rather than exporting unprocessed data for others
option, compared to the base case. Accessibility impacts will be reported separately. ',\', \ to manipulate.
Ill I
!Data requiremen~:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1,' ', I
1
I Commented [AG3): Can we clarify th at it includes time
I 1\1
I
1 1 I savings for transit users as well as road users?
For the base scenario, as well as each option : \ ',
I '/, Commented [mh4]: It is not clear that this is a real
I Ill
Variable Level of detail Form Source I II I
economic benefit. It represents a redistribution of
I II I resou rce s from non-transit riders to transit riders through
1 11
Ridership Transit segment Table or emme network? GTAModel I an increase subsidy requ irement. Also, fa res are already
I II I
I I II considered in the generalized t ime coming from GTAModel.
1I
Service Frequency Route Table GTAModel \ II Commented [mhS): See previous note about Journey
I II
Time Benefits
I
Vehicle type or capacity (tbc) Route Table tbc I
I
Commented [mh6): How ca n these be monetized?
Transit demand 0 -D Pair Matrix GTAModel Commented [mh7): The details of how these would be
I
quantified should be confirmed, particularly if considering
Generalized Journey Time 0 -D Pair Matrix GTAModel I them from a social equity perspective. It would be difficult
I
to incorporate a future social equity lens.
I
Average Fare 0 -D Pair Matrix GTAModel
Commented [mh8]: The data requirements pertaining to
outputs from GTAModel should be revisited to perform as
Capita I costs Project Table much of the calculation as possible with in the model
framework.
Operating and Maintenance costs Project Table
Commented [DC9): TTC is developing Capital Cost
estimates for SSE and Rl, Eglinton East LRT, we have HDR
Project opening year
providing co nsultant support to look at potential cost
estimates.
Commented [DClO): TTC is developing O&M cost

Data applicable to all scenarios estimates for SSE and Relief line. We will need to obtain
information from Metrolinx on O&M assumptions tor
Variable Level of detail Form Source Eglinton E LRT, but may also be able to draw from
assumptions used in EgW LRT Busi ness Case MX has
Base year population Census DA Table Census developed .
Future year population Census DA Table City Commented [DCll]: Relief line is assumed to open in
2031
SSE is assumed to open in 2025
Page 433 of 1092

A full write up on the methodology wi ll be provided by ARUP by end of week.
Page 434 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-02-16 4:48 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Hain
Attachments: 2016-05-02 FileNote Economic Indicators v2.docx
Hi Karen,
format).
addition tables of results or maps, which is what we'd currently have) .
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Hi Karen,
later today).
Page 435 of 1092

Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto :kthorbu@toront o.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello,
3. Karen: Set up meeting between Felipe and TTC staff involved in costing the RL and SSE for next week.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 436 of 1092

File Note ARUP
2 Bloor Street East t+14165150915
Suite 2400
Toronto ON M4W 1A8
Canada
www.arup.com
Project title City of Toronto Transit Project Business Case Support Job number
cc Karen Thorburn, Hilary Holden, Mike Logan Michael File reference
Hain, Diana Chu
Prepared by Felipe Camargo Date
Leo Eyles May 2, 2016

Subject DRAFT- Analysis Framework
Following an initial review of the transit project options being assessed and discussions with the City
Project Team, it was concluded that the projects all share the following key objectives:
Increase the overall capacity of the city's transportation system, thus relieving crowding
Provide additional and/or more convenient connections between key areas of the city
Generate additional economic activity be enhancing 'developability' of sites and improving

labour market reach.
In light of this, we recommend that the calculation of the following economic benefits is given the
highest priority in the assessment:

Crowding Relief
Additionally, a key difference between the SmartTrack options being assessed is the fare being paid.
Therefore, for the evaluation of these options, we propose to also include user Fare Savings and
revenue impacts for operators.
It should be noted that prioritizing these impacts means that an evaluation is not exhaustive and care
should be taken in comparing outputs and options, particularly in relation to option costs.
The analysis will follow, in general terms, Metrolinx ' s business case guidance as set out in the latest
available draft version of their Business Case Development Handbook. However, it should be noted
that given time constraints for this work, the evaluation will not be exhaustive, and not all benefits will
be assessed. In consequence, the overall outputs that are generally produced as an outcome of the
C:IUSERS\VLEUNG 1\APPDAT A\LOCAL\MICROSOFnWJNDQINS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FllES\CONTENT .OUT LOOK\IY32CIXl\20 16-o&02 FILENOT E ECONOMIC INDICATORS V2.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I F0.15 Page 1 of 5
Page 437 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
Economic Case of the business case, the Benefit to Cost Ratio and the Net Present Value will not be
directly comparable to those produced by comprehensive business cases.
Present Values of the benefits and costs will be estimated, applying Metrolinx ' s recommended
parameters and assumptions with regards to appraisal period length, discount rates, inflation, GDP
growth rates, etc.
A brief description of how each of the indicators will be evaluated, required inputs and the outputs
produced for each indicator, is included below.
Transit User Journey Time Benefits
Journey Time Benefits will be evaluated following the methodology described in Metrolinx's draft
Business Case Development Handbook and seeks to answer the question "What is the value of the total
travel time savings (if any) resulting from the intervention?"'.
The analysis is based on zone to zone Generalized Journey Time estimates extracted from the city's
GTAModel by city staff. Generalized Journey Times include factors for walking and waiting and
transfer penalties, and represent users' perceived travel time, as opposed to actual elapsed time.
Journey time benefits are monetized by converting time into dollars using travelers' perceived value of
travel time savings.
Key inputs:
0-D Generalized Journey Time, extracted from GTA Model
Journey time benefit for modelled time period (estimated by City Team directly in GTA
Model)
Outputs:
Overall Present Value (PV) of Journey Time Benefits
PV of Journey Time Benefits by income band (if time allows)
PV of Journey Time Benefits by travel time change band (if time allows)
Crowding Relief
The methodology for the estimation of crowding relief benefits will be developed within the first week
of the study.
The city's forecasting model (GTAModel) takes into account crowding in the assignment of passengers
to services. To do this, it includes crowding curves which work in a similar fashion to the table shown
1
Business Case Development Handbook Tier 2 v 0.31 , pg 29. Metrolinx.
C:\USERS\VL EUNG1\APPOATA\LOCALIM ICROSOFT\W INDOWSITEMPOAARY INT ERNE T FILES\CONTENT .OUTL OOK\IV32ClXL\20 16-0&02 FILENOTE ECONOMIC INDICAT ORS V2.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I F0.15 Page 2 of 5
Page 438 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
above; depending on the level of occupancy of the vehicles, multipliers are applied to the in-vehicle
time to represent users' dislike of crowding.
If possible, the average crowding 'cost' for travel between all 0-D pairs, as estimated by the model ,
will be extracted by City staff. This crowding cost, in minutes, will be monetized and the relative
change will be estimated for options in comparison with the base case.
If it's not possible to extract the crowding cost separately, this cost will be included in the Journey
Time Benefit. This is because the GT A Model estimates a perceived journey time that includes, in
addition to all the 'traditional' components of travel time (walk time, wait time, in-vehicle time and
transfer penalties), a crowding penalty that is calculated based on the number of passengers and the
capacity of the route.
Key inputs:
0-D crowding penalty time, extracted from GTA Model
Crowding relief benefit for modelled time period (estimated by City Team directly in GTA
Model)
Outputs:
Fare Savings and Revenue Impacts
Fare Savings will be estimated based on the change in fare paid by users to travel between zones and
the number of transit users travelling between them. The revenue impacts for operators will also be
calculated, to permit an understanding of the trade-off between user impacts and producer (operator)
finances.
Key inputs:
0-D transit demand, including demand generated by lower fare levels (for example)
0-D average fare
System-wide fare revenue
Key outputs
PV of Crowding Relief Benefits by income band (if time allows)
Overall PV of Revenue Impacts (if time allows)
C:\USEASIVLEUNG 1\APPOATAILOCAL\MICROSOFT\W INDOWS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FllES\CONTENT .OUT LOOK\IY32CIXl\2016-05-02 FILENOTE ECONOMIC INDICATORS V2.DOCX
Arup Ca nada Inc . I F0. 15 Page 3 of 5
Page 439 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
The improved connectivity that the transit projects are likely to bring has impacts on social equity, by
providing better, more affordable and ideally easier to use options to those who need it; as well as
impacts on the economy, by enabling better access to jobs for residents and increasing the size and
diversity of the labour-force available to existing or potential employers.
To assess these impacts we will evaluate two variables:
Access to Jobs
Access to labour-force
For the evaluation we will use existing and forecast jobs and population. An evaluation on existing
values helps visualize the impacts on figures that are known and highly reliable. The evaluation on
forecast values helps understand the impacts once changes in land use are taken into account; large
developments that don't exist today, for instance, would be (at least partly) taken into account in the
forecasts. Forecasts, however, have a significant component of uncertainty.
Access to Jobs will be measured for different sectors of the population across all of the GTHA and
statistics on relative changes with respect to the base scenario will be estimated.
The sectors of the population for which this will be done will be agreed with the Project team, but an
initial suggestion would be to aggregate by the following income bands, as suggested in Metrolinx's
draft guidance 2 :
Lowest 20th percentile
Middle 60th percentile
Top 20th percentile
For access to labour force we will estimate the changes in the number of people within an acceptable
travel time of key employment and development centers (to be agreed with the city Project Team) for
all scenarios against the base scenario.
Key inputs :
Existing jobs
Current population
Forecast jobs
Forecast population
Existing transit network (available in the accessibility toolkit)
Future transit network details
Key Out uts:

tbc
2 Business Case Development Handbook Tier 3 v0.2, pg 66. Metrolinx. September 2015 .
C:\USERSWLEUNG1\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICAOSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOAAA Y INTE RNET FILES\CONTENT .OUTLOOK\IY32C1Xl\2016-06-02 FILENOTE ECONOMIC INDICATORS I/2.DOCX
Arup Ca nada Inc. I F0. 15 Page 4 of 5
Page 440 of 1092

File Note
May 2, 2016
Overall Indicators
In addition to the individual indicators listed above, a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) and Net Present
Value will be estimated for each project option. As has been mentioned previously, it should be noted
that the list of benefits assessed as part of this study is not exhaustive so direct comparisons with other
studies should be done with this consideration in mind.
The Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) is calculated as PVB/PVC, where PVB is the Present Value of
Benefits (the sum of the indicators listed above, including the impacts on the service provider) and
PVC is the Present Value of Costs of the project option, including capital and operating & maintenance
costs.
The Net Present Value (NPV) is calculated as NPV = PVB- PVC.
DOCUMENT CHECKING (not mandatory for File Note)

Prepared by ~hecked by ~pproved by
Name felipe Camargo

Signature
C:\USERS\VlEUNGl \APPDATA\lOCAL\MICAOSOFnWINDOWS\TEMPORAAY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT .OUTLOOK\IY32CIXL\2016-05-02 FllENOTE ECONOMIC INDICATORS V2.DOCX
Arup Canada Inc. I F0. 15 Page 5 of 5
Page 441 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Fel ipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo @arup.com >

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: SSE Results

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: SSE Results
Thanks Felipe
It looks like presentation, deputants, then questions
I'll come back up after presentation
Sent f rom my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Page 442 of 1092

Ben efits SSE- McCowan 3 SSE - McCowan Ex
User Benefits
Producer Bene.fits
I crem e tal Fare Re ven e
- ~-- -- -- - - -
Sub -toto/ Producer Benefits

..- - -..--- ..
-$49,897
~ - - -- - - - .,.- ~
-$49,897
_-S19J77
.......,_,,,.,.. ...,,._,.,,,,._ , .. , ..
-$19, 777
........., ......_......,._ ,,,..,,._........~-- --- -~~- - ..---~ --. - -.,-.. --~- ..--- ..- - ~ ~-- ---- - ..- ""''"'""'" '-..-"-........._... ,.. , ..
-
Extemal Benefirs
GHG Emis.sio s $2.300 S2A28
CAC Emissio s $486
Accid-e nt Preventi on 516,103 $16,993
Road Decono,estion 5209,133 $244,111
---~-~.t?..f9.~~-~- - - - -- - -- --- - - --- - -..-- ?.1.:!~.!.:::?..9.. _. . . . .... . . . . ,_....... _ ..... . _ ........_$.~.~~!.?.?9..... .

SuL1 -totol Extem o l Benefits $4.07,447 $458,.593
Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $1,444.952 $1.253,778
Costs
____<?P ~~~~-~~Z_S_?st- . -- - -- - - ..- ...- ........- -..... ...- ...... - . .. .- ......- .....?4 ~.3..~~3..~-- . - .......- . -J.~QQ'-.?.54......
-.. S.~E.i~-~-S..~~--- - --- . -- . - . .-.. -... . . .- - ----- -. -- -. - ?..?.:.?~?.:e~.~.?_... . . .........-........_. ............. ~3.~.:?..:?..~'- 9.!~. .
Reca pitali za tiQ n Cost s $810,110 $5581 32
Total PV of Costs (PVC) $4.449,464 $3.0:84.758
Ove rall Impacts
~.f.'.'{..if.'.'!..~. .J:Y9. . .- ... . - ....- . .. . . -.. . . -.. . . .-.. . . . -.. . . -... . . -... ..._. . . . _. ..._...._... ... . ..... .-.:~~.:.Q9.:!:. ?..~.L -- . - -- :!~-~-~~9.!~g_
BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.3 0.4
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 443 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: SSE Results
Thanks Felipe
It looks like presentation, deputants, then questions
I'll come back up after presentation
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network. _______________ _____

"

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Page 444 of 1092

Ben efits SSE - McCowan 3 SSE - McCowan Ex
User Benefits
Producer Benefits
Externa l Benefits
GHG Emissions $2,300 $2,428
Accid'ent Prevention $16,103 $16,998

Ro.ad Deconges+ion $209,133 $244,111
.....A.. l!.!.C?...f.S'.~~- - -- ---- ---- -- ---- - -- ?..!?~.!.~.9...._... . ---- -- -- -.?.~~!. ?.?..9...... .

Sub-toto! Extemo / S,enefits $407,.447 $458;593
Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $1,444,952 $1.253,778
Costs
Recap italization Cos-+s $81 ,110

Total PV of Costs (PVC) $4,449,464 $3,084.758
Overall Impacts
-S 1,830,980
.... ..
~ - -~
0.4
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
rn: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup .corn

Page 445 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Ka ren Tho rburn

Cc: Diana Chu; Eric Arm
Subject: RE: SSE Express text
Thanks Felipe .
Appreciate it. We're starting to write up section, and trying to make sure we don't misrepresent
information. Notes from you will be helpful.
Thanks
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Yes, I agree, setting out the assumptions clearly is going to be very important. We've started putting something
together describing all the assumptions, parameters and base case definition.
We're starting to set it up as a set of tables, bullet points and possibly simple maps. It's kind of tricky because
there are assumptions that cover everything (e.g. all the economic parameters), then there are assumptions for
each base case and the scenarios evaluated against them, and finally there are assumptions for each individual
option.
We're thinking it may work best if we include this in the powerpoint file, as opposed to a written note, mainly
because a note could potentially become very confusing. Whereas if we split it into slides we think we might be
able to make it clearer. We'll sec how it looks a bit later today, and will forward you a first draft once we have
something so we can discuss.
For now, I'm sending you the powcrpoint file with the larger font size for the charts.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 J3loor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W Ji\.8 Canada
1
Page 446 of 1092

t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup. com
Explore innova-tion in the built environment on Doggerel
From: Karen Thorburn [mai lto: kthorbu@to ronto .ca ]

Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 8:55AM
To: Felipe Camargo
cc: Diana Chu; Eric Arm
Subject: Re : SSE Express text
Thanks for clarifying. In order to assist the reader will you also have a chart of the assumptions behind how
each va lue is calculated? I'm concerned about the number of variations of numbers that will be presented and
the reader m isinterp reting what they mean . The methodology write up will be important. Perhaps it 's build ing
on the original briefing note you prepared several weeks ago
Thanks
Karen

Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Sorry, I just realized I got things wrong in my email; the costs were estimated as 'SSE 1 Stop At Grade' minus
'SSE 3 stop At Grade' costs, so that would be consistent with what you need.
We'll adjust font sizes now . Apologies for the confusion.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Page 447 of 1092

Thanks for clarifying. I forgot we gave you two sets of SSE numbers depending on the STC station
configuration. We have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE. My apologies.
Would you be able to adjust in the model?
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: [WARNING: MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]RE: SSE Express text
Hi Karen,
We calculated the incremental costs of SSE Express over McCowan 3 by subtracting the 'SSE 3 Stop Stacked'
costs from the 'SSE 1 stop Stacked' costs. (See highlighted rows in the attached spreadsheet)
And we understand these figures to be nominal costs so we adjusted for inflation assuming 2% per annum and a
then applied a discount rate of 3.5 % p.a.
Are you getting different results?

Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 2:49PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: RE : SSE Express t ext
Thanks Felipe.
Cou ld you send the assumptions that were used when determining the PV of benefits and costs?
We're trying to reconcile numbers.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorb urn
Cc: Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com )
3
Page 448 of 1092

Hi Karen,
Here's some text to help explain the SSE Express results. Please have a look and let us know if this is more or
less what you were looking for :
Of course, feel free to adjust the naming and descriptions of the options as you see fit.
Section 7 applied
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toron to ON M4W lA8 Canada
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore in nova tion in the built environment on Doggerel

Page 449 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Kare n Thorburn

Sent: Ju ne-09-1 6 2:49P M
To: 'Feli pe Camargo'
Cc: Dia na Chu
Subject: RE: SSE Exp re ss text
Thanks Felipe .
Could you send the assumptions that were used when determining the PV of benefits and costs?
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe .Camargo@arup.com]

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: SSE Express te xt
Hi Karen,
less what you were looking for:
Of course, fee l free to adj ust the naming and descriptions of the options as yo u see fi t. Section 7 applied
Page 450 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Associate j Transportation Consulting
Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 451 of 1092

Vivien Leung .

Sent: June-09 -16 9:20PM
Subject: RE : SSE Express text
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for clarifying . I forgot we gave you two sets of SSE numbers depending on the STC station
configuration . We have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE . My apologies.
Would yo u be able to adjust in the model?
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe .Camargo@arup .com]

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: [WARNING: MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]RE: SSE Express te xt
Hi Karen,
then applied a discount rate of 3.5 % p.a.
Arc you getting different results?

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Cou ld you send the assumptions that were used when determining the PV of benefits and costs?
Page 452 of 1092

We' re trying to reconcile numbers.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Fe li pe. Camargo@arup.com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Leo Eyles (Eyles204_@btin ternet .com )
Hi Karen,
less what you were looking for :
Of course, fee l free to adjust the naming and descriptions of the options as you see fit. Section 7 applied
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street Iiast Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4 W J A8 Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

2
Page 453 of 1092

Page 454 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo @a rup.com >

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Dian a Chu; Eric Arm
Hi Karen,
No problem, we will update the numbers and will also adjust the font sizes in the powerpoint charts. We'll send you a
new version by mid-morning.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for clarifying. I forgot we gave you two sets of SSE numbers depending on the STC station configuration. We
have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE. My apologies.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
. Cc: Diana Chu
Hi Karen,
We calculated the incremental costs of SSE Express over McCowan 3 by subtracting the 'SSE 3 Stop Stacked' costs from
the 'SSE 1 stop Stacked' costs. (See highlighted rows in the attached spreadsheet)
And we understand these figures to be nominal costs so we adjusted for inflation assuming 2% per annum and a then
applied a discount rate of 3.5% p.a.
1
Page 455 of 1092


To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Here's some text to help explain the SSE Express results . Please have a look and let us know ifthis is more or less what
you were lookin~ for:
2
Page 456 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Associate I Transportation Con sulting
Arup
2 Bloo r Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W 1A8 Canada
t : +1416 515 09;15 d: +1 647 260 3474
m : +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 457 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Sorry, I just realized I got things wrong in my email; the costs were estimated as 'SSE 1 Stop At Grade' minus 'SSE 3 stop
At Grade' costs, so that would be consistent with what you need.
We'll adjust font sizes now. Apologies for the confusion.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE. My apologies.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe .Camargo@arup.com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Hi Karen,
Page 458 of 1092

And we understand these fi gures to be nominal costs so we adjusted for inflation assuming 2% per annum and a then

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Here's some te xt to help explain the SSE Express results . Please have a look and let us know if this is more or less what
2
Section 7 applied
Page 459 of 1092

Of course, feel free to adjust the naming and descriptions of the option s as you see fit .
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 460 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Re: SSE Express text
Thanks for clarify ing. In o rder to assist the reader wi ll you also ha ve a chart of the assumptions beh ind how
each value is ca lculated? I'm concerned about the number of variations of numbers that will be presented and
t he r eader misinterpreting what they mean. The methodology write up wil l be important. Perhaps it's building
on t he origina l briefing note yo u prepared several weeks ago
Thanks
Karen
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 sm artphone on the TELUS network.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Thursday, june 09, 2016 9:20 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE . My apologies.
Thanks,
Karen
To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: [WARNING : MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]RE: SSE Express text
Hi Karen,
Page 461 of 1092

applied a discount rate of 3.5 % p.a .

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe .Camargo@arup.com)
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Here's some text to help explain the SSE Express results. Please have a look and let us know if this is more or less what
Cheers, Section 7 applied
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 09:15 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup .com
Page 462 of 1092

Page 463 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Dian a Chu

Sent: Ju ne-10-16 12:43 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe,
Is it possible to provide a BCR for the express SSE expressed as a reduction of th e three-stop base case?
Diana
To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks for clarifying. In order to assist the reader w ill you also have a chart of the assumptions behind how
each value is calculated? I'm concerned about the number of variations of numbers that will be presented and
the rea der misinterpreting what they mean. The methodology write up will be important. Perhaps it's building
Thanks
Ka ren

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Sorry, I just realized I got things wrong in my email; the costs were estimated as ssE 1 Stop At Grade' minus
'SSE 3 stop At Grade' costs, so that would be consistent with what you need.
Cheers,
Felipe
Page 464 of 1092

From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto .ca ]
To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: RE: SSE Express te xt
HiFelipe,
Thanks for clarifying. I forgot we gave you two sets of SSE numbers depending on the STC station
configuration. We have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE. My apologies.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: [WARNING : MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]RE: SSE Express te xt
Hi Karen,
And we understand these figures to be nominal costs so we adjusted for inflation assuming 2c1o per annum and a
then applied a discount rate of 3.5% p.a.
From: Karen Thorburn [m ailto:kthorbu@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: RE: SSE Express te xt
Thanks Felipe.
Thanks,
2
Page 465 of 1092

Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mai lto:Felipe. Camargo @a rup .co m]

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Leo Eyles (Evles204 @bti nternet.com )
Subject: SSE Expre ss text
Hi Karen,
less what yo u were looking for:
Of course, feel free to adjust the naming and descriptions of the options as you see fit. Section 7 applied
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 cl: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup .com
Page 466 of 1092

Page 467 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Cama rgo @arup.com >

To: Diana Chu
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Diana,
We'd thought of potentially doing that, but then realized that we haven't estimated a BCR for the three-stop .
From: Diana Chu [mailto:dchu2@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe,
Is it possible to provide a BCR for the express SSE expressed as a reduction of the three-stop base case?
Diana
To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks for clarifying. In order to assist the reader will you also have a chart of the assumptions beh ind how
the reader misinterpreting what they mean. The methodology write up will be important. Perhaps it's building
on t he original briefing note you prepared several weeks ago
Thanks
Ka re n

To: Karen Thorburn
Page 468 of 1092

Hi Karen,
At Grade' costs, so that would be consistent with what you need .
We'll adjust font sizes now. Apologies for the confusion .
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE . My apologies.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Hi Karen,
Page 469 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [ma ilto:Fel ipe.Camargo@arup.com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Here's some text to help explain the SSE Express results . Please have a look and let us know if this is more or less what
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

3
Page 470 of 1092

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W 1A8 Canad a
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup .com

systems are scanned fo r acceptability of content and vi ruses
Page 471 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: 'Felipe Camargo '; Diana Chu
Is it difficult to estimate a BCR for the three stop based on the information that you have? Or do you
require a different base case to assess the 3 stop BCR?

To: Diana Chu
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Diana,
We' d thought of potentially doing that, but then realized that we haven't estimated a BCR for the three-stop.
From: Diana Chu [mailto:dchu2@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe,
Is it poss ible to provide a BCR fo r the express SSE expressed as a red uction of th e three-stop base case?
Diana
To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks for clarifying. In order to assist the reader w il l you also have a chart ofthe assumptions behind how
the reader misinterpreting what they mean . The methodology write up will be important. Perhaps it's building
Thanks
Karen
Page 472 of 1092


To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Sorry, I just realized I got things wrong in my email; the costs were estimated as 'SSE 1 Stop At Grade' minus
'SSE 3 stop At (Jrade' costs, so that would be consistent with what you need.
We'll adjust fo nt sizes now. Apologies for the confusion.
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [rnailto:kthorbu@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for clarifying . I forgot we gave you two sets of SSE numbers depending on the STC station
configuration. We have decided to use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE. My apologies .
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: [WARNING : MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]RE: SSE Express text
Hi Karen,
then applied a discount rate of 3.5% p.a.
2
Page 473 of 1092

Arc you getting differe nt results?
From: Karen Thorburn [ma ilto:kthorbu @toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Cou ld you send the assumptions that were used when determ ining the PV of benefits and costs?
Than ks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mai lto :Felipe .Camargo@arup.com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Leo Eyles (Eyles204 @btintern et. co m )
Hi Karen,
Here ' s some text to help explain the SSE Express results. Please have a look and let us know if this is more or
less what you were looking for:
3 Section 7 applied
Page 474 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street F::ast Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W ] A8 Canada
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup .com
Explore innovation in the buill environme nt on Doggerel

Page 475 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn; Diana Chu
Yes, we'd need to have a base case that doesn' t include the 3-stop
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto .ca]

To: Felipe Camargo; Diana Chu
Is it difficult to estimate a BCR for the three stop based on the information that you have? Or do you require a different
base case to assess the 3 stop BCR?

To: Diana Chu
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Diana,
We'd thought of potentially doing that, but then realized that we haven't estimated a BCR for the three-stop .
From: Diana Chu [mailto :dchu2@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe,
Is it possible to provide a BCR for the express SSE expressed as a reduction of the three-stop base case?
Diana
To: Felipe Camargo
Page 476 of 1092

Thanks for clarifying. In order to assist the re ad er will you also have a chart of the assumptions behind how
t he reader misinterpreting what they mean. The methodology write up will be important. Perhaps it's building
on the original briefing note you prepared severa l wee ks ago
Thanks
Karen
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS netw ork.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
We'll adjust font sizes now. Apologies for the confusion .
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mai lto :kt horb u@toronto .ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
have decided to use th e at-gra de STC station scenario for SSE. My apologies.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Fel ipe .Cama rgo@arup. com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Page 477 of 1092

Cc: Diana Chu
Hi Karen,

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Could you send the assumptions that were used when determ ining the PV of benefits and costs?
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup .com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Here's some t ext to help explain the SSE Express results . Please have a look and let us know if this is more or less what
3
Section 7 applied
Page 478 of 1092

Of course, feel free to adjust the naming and descriptions of the options as you see fit .
Section 7 applied
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Associate I Transportation Consultin g
Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 479 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Thanks!

To: Karen Thorburn
Yes, I' 11 be able to send you the updated powerpoint around lunchtime.
See you this afternoon,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Great. It will be at City Hall. 1Qth floor east boardroom . Would you be able to send in advance the
updated document with the Eg E numbers?
Thanks,
Karen

To: Karen Thorburn
Yes, that works (I'm open from 2pm onwards)

Page 480 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
From : Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com ] Non responsive information removed

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,

....~.~~.~.Y.~~.~......................................................J ?.:9...................................... ............................... .
....~.~!.i.P..f!:.~~.':!"!.?.~~~ .........................................~~~:.9................................... ................................... ........ Section 14(1) applied
...~.~~..~~~?.~~.~ ...............................................~~.~:.?................................. ...................................?. .........
TOTAL $59,405
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 41 6 515 09 15 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 6:30PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks Felipe.
No problem . Appreciate the very fast turn around. I will try to get time in the afternoon with Peter.

Page 481 of 1092

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
you.
office).
Felipe
Hi Felipe,

Thanks
Karen
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
please advise me.
Page 482 of 1092

Page 483 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Peter Notaro
Attachments: 2016-04-15 Consultant SOW Arup.docx
Hi Peter,
We've reviewed the scope of work and have some minor suggested modifications (please see attached) . Additionally,
we'd like to note that given the very schedule, availability of input information, particularly estimates or assumptions of
costs and option descriptions, within the first days of the study is essential.
Ideally we' d like to get started as soon as possible so, if you agree, we would like to start liaising with the Project Team
this week to make sure we have a clear understanding of the options and agree and, when the time for the kick-off
meeting comes next week, we're able to discuss and agree a proposed evaluation framework.
Regarding the client side team, would you be the Project Manager? And would I be correct in assuming that the Project
Team will be made up of members of the Transit Implementation Team?
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Monday, April18, 2016 8:01AM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
comments.
Page 484 of 1092

developed the Access ibility Toolkit that w ill be used t o help inform some of the benefits estimates for the Transit
Business Cases.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup .com
From: Peter Notaro [mailto:pnotaro@toronto .ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe
partners. We have developed a scope of work for the services required, and would appreciate your review . Given the
If you could advise if ARUP is still in a position to support this work, it would be appreciated .
Sincerely,
Peter Notaro
2
Page 485 of 1092

416.392 .8066

Page 486 of 1092

1. Overview
Relief Line
Scarbrough Subway Extension ; and
The City is also jointly working with Metrolinx on the initial business case for SmartTrack,
including Eglin ton LRT West extension.
More detailed descriptions and maps of the options for each transit expansion project will be
provided to the Consultant. The descriptions will include:
Route alignments
Stop locations
Headways
The business cases will be developed following the method described in the Metrolinx Business
Case Development Handbook (BCDH). The BCDH specifies that four components or 'cases '
make up the business case:
The Strategic Case;
The Financial Case;
The City's Feeling Congested? Framework has been included within the Strategic Case of the
overall business case methodology . A business case template has been developed by the City and
will be shared with the consultant.
The business case development process will be led by the City Manager's Office, working in
partnershjp with City Planning, Corporate Finance, TIC, and Metrolinx. The City Manager's
Office will appoint a Project Manager for the project, who is the primary point of contact for the
Consultant. Meetings between the Consultant and the Project Teams will take place in person or
by phone bi-weekly, or more frequently as required, to address specific aspects of the analysis.
The Consultant will be responsible for carrying out technical work in support of the development
of specific components of the business case for each individual project. The deliverables
produced by the Consultant will be provided in a format appropriate for inclusion in the project
business cases. The City will be responsible for compiling all data into the final business case.
l of4
Page 487 of 1092

The Consultant will also provide guidance to the Project Team to ensure that the analysis is
generally consistent with the method desctibed in Metrolinx's draft Business Case Development
Handbook (BCDH).
The primary role of the Consultant will be in the development of the Economic Cases for each of
the projects identified, in the followin g order of priority:
SmartTrack including Eglinton West LRT Extension (approx.. 3 options)
Scarborough Subway Extension (approx.7 options)
Eglinton LRT East Extension (approx. 2 option s)
The Consultant will endeavor to complete the development of the Economic Cases for all options+- -- -{ Formatted: Report Text
~~~~~~----------------~
in the time available. following the above order of priority. however. it is understood that the
schedule is tight and it may not be possible to complete all options. The Consultant will develop
an approach to these cases in consultation with the Project Manager that is consistent with the
methodology for Economic Case development used by Metrolinx. The analysis will give priority
to 'big ticket items' with the objective of advancing. as much as possible, the economic cases of
the options.
The Consultant will also provide guidance to the Project Team in the development of the
Strategic Case, Financial Case and the Deliverability and Operations Cases. This guidance will
include conunents on the consistency of the City's approach, objectives, outputs and measures of
success with that typically followed by Metrolinx or its consultants in the completion of previous
business cases.
The Connectivity Calculator will be used to calculate transit accessibility for each of the options.
Arup will be responsible for creating a network that corresponds to each option to be tested, that
reflects the network assumptions used by the City in ridership modelling. The network will
include the intervention and any associated local street or transit connections. Parameters and
assumptions used in running the Connectivity Calculator, including but not limited to travel time
threshold, wait time weight, transfer penalty and demographic information will be determined in
consultation with the City.
I. Memorandum on the methodology and approach to developing the Economic Case for
discussion with the Project Manager and Project Team to be provided in the first week.
2. Documentation of quality assurance steps taken to ensure reasonable accuracy of each
network created and quality control metrics and results to ensure reasonable accuracy of
Connectivity Calculator results

2 of4
Page 488 of 1092

4. Report for each transit project on the Economic Case. The report will include the following
elements:
Outline the methodology, measures and assumptions used in the analysis, and
adherence to Metrolinx Business Case Development methodology .
Include a summary table that includes the outputs for each measure for each option
under assessment. This includes, monetized transportation user benefits, monetized
environmental benefits, and key metrics (Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)), total present
value of benefits and costs, etc).
The Consultant will provide completed reports for the Economic Cases for each transit project in
Microsoft Word format suitable for inclusion in the overall Business Case reports.
5. Provide a memorandum commenting on the consistency of the overall Business Cases with
those typically produced by Metrolinx or its consultants and identifying areas of weakness
and suggestions of ways of strengthening the Business Cases.
6. Tabular and graphic outputs produced as part of the analysis, including and spreadsheet
models and GIS layers produced as part of the study.
4. Data Collection
The City will provide to the Consultant the information and data pertaining to the transit projects
to be analyzed as it becomes available including, but not limited to:
travel time impacts based on runs from GTAModel V4; and
Capital and Operating Costs information and/or assumptions.
The Consultant may be required to augment the information and data provided to support the
analysis by obtaining or collecting additional information and data related the measures of
success proposed for the Economic Case. The need for any other data collection will be
finalized in discussions with the Project Team during the preparation of the Study Design.
In this context, data collection refers to reguests for data from third parties and not the collection
of field data or the coding of large amounts of data, excepting the coding of transit options for
the Connectivity Calculator or development of analysis spreadsheets.
5. Project Schedule
A project kick-off meeting will be scheduled for the week of April25, 2016 in consultation
between the Consultant and the Project Manager. The work is expected to be completed by May
26, 2016 in order to be incorporated into a report for the June meeting of the Executive
Committee. There will be a requirement to provide interim draft deliverables throughout the
process as the analysis is developed and completed.
3 of4
Page 489 of 1092

Meetings between the Consultant and the Project Manager will take place in person or by phone
bi-weekly, or more frequently as required, to address specific aspects of the analysis. These bi-
weekly emails will be supplemented by weekly status update meetings. The Consultant will
share results with the Project Manager as soon as they become available.
6. Project Budget
The upper limit of the contract is $100,000, excluding HST. The consultant will provide an
hourly rate for each member of the project team.
4 of4
Page 490 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: April-26 -16 4:11PM
To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Peter Notaro
Cc: Maureen Elliott
Attachments: 2016-04-15 Consultant SOW Arup.docx; 2016-04-25 FINAL options descriptions.docx
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for following up. I work for Peter Notaro and will be project managing for the City Manager's
Office . Apologies for the delay in responding, I was away for the last week without access to email. If
possible, could we arrange to have a call tomorrow or Thursday to discuss the terms of reference and
procurement related matters for this work. I have attached for your information the final approved list
of options we are developing business case analysis for.
Please advise , and I will look into arranging a time.
Thanks,
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto

To: Peter Notaro
Page 491 of 1092

Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Peter,
Just checking in to see if there' s been any progress at your end on this .
Thanks,
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:18 PM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
Further to the email I sent you on Monday and following a conversation with Mike Logan in City Planning
(who Project Managed our work on the connectivity analysis a few months ago), I suggest we all have a call
first thing tomorrow (Thursday) to talk through the priorities for each business case in terms of the greatest
impacts/benefits.
It would also be great if you could share with us the latest list of options for each of the business cases, in
advance of tomorrow's call, if you're happy to go ahead with it.
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: 'Peter Notaro'
2
Page 492 of 1092

Hi Peter,
We've reviewed the scope of work and have some minor suggested modifications (please see attached).
Additionally, we'd like to note that given the very schedule, availability of input information, particularly
estimates or assumptions of costs and option descriptions, within the first days of the study is essential.
Ideally we'd like to get started as soon as possible so, if you agree, we would like to start liaising with the
Project Team this week to make sure we have a clear understanding of the options and agree and, when the time
for the kick-off meeting comes next week, we're able to discuss and agree a proposed evaluation framework.
Regarding the client side team, would you be the Project Manager? And would I be correct in assuming that the
Project Team will be made up of members of the Transit Implementation Team?
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Monday, April18, 2016 8:01AM
To: 'Peter Notaro'
Hi Peter,
Thank you for forwarding the scope of work. I can anticipate that we're still in a good position to do the work
and are ready to mobilize the team but we will review and will get back to you later today to let you know of
any concerns or comments.
Yes, we have been supporting Metrolinx for the last year and a half, working with them and Leeds University
on developing the Business Case Development Handbook. Amongst other work done as part of this contract,
we've developed the Accessibility Toolkit that will be used to help inform some of the benefits estimates for
the Transit Business Cases.
Regards,
3
Page 493 of 1092

Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup. com

Sent: Friday, Aprill5, 2016 5:45 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe
Thanks for the proposal submitted on March 19, 2016 to our City Planning Division (Tim Laspa). The City
Manager's Office is leading the coordination of business case development as it involves a number of city
divisions and external partners. We have developed a scope of work for the services required, and would
appreciate your review. Given the significant time constraints, we are looking to retain consulting services on
an expedited basis to support the City's business case development for a number of projects. In particular with
focus on the economic case analysis. I understand ARUP has significant experience in this area, and in
particular utilizing the Metrolinx Business Case Methodology, which the City is adopting.
Sincerely,
Peter Notaro
416.392.8066
Page 494 of 1092

Page 495 of 1092

1. Overview
The City is developing an initial business case for the following transit expansion projects :
ReliefLine
Scarbrough Subway Extension; and
including Eglinton LRT West extension.
Route alignments
Stop locations
Headways
Case Development Handbook (BCDH). The BCDH specifies that four components or 'cases'
The Strategic Case;
The Financial Case;
overall business case methodology. A business case template has been developed by the City and
The business case development process will be led by the City Manager's Office, workin g in
partnership with City Planning, Corporate Finance, TIC, and Metrolinx. The City Manager's
by phone bi-weekly, or more frequently as required, to address specific aspects of the ana lysis.
business cases. The City will be responsible for compi ling all data into the final business case.
1 of 4
Page 496 of 1092

generally consistent with the method described in Metrolinx's draft Business Case Development
Handbook (BCDH).
the projects identified, in the following order of priority:
SmartTrack including Eglinton West LRT Extension (approx.. 3 options)
Scarborough Subway Extension (approx.7 options)
Relief Line (approx . 3 options)
Eglinton LRT East Extension (approx. 2 options)
The Consultant will endeavor to complete the development of the Economic Cases for all options-- -- -{ Formatted: Report Text
~~~~~~----------------~
in the time available. following the above order of pdority. however, it is understood that the
schedule is tight and it may not be possible to complete all options. The Consultant will develop
an approach to these cases in consultation with the Project Manager that is consistent with the
methodology for Economic Case development used by Metrolinx. The analysis will give priority
to 'big ticket items' with the objective of advancing, as much as possible. the economic cases of
the options.
Strategic Case, Financial Case and the Deliverability and Operations Cases . This guidance will
include comments on the consistency of the City's approach, objectives, outputs and measures of
business cases.
I. Memorandum on the methodology and approach to developing the Economic Case for
2. Documentation of quality assurance steps taken to ensure reasonable accuracy of each
network created and quality control metrics and results to ensure reasonable accuracy of
Connectivity Calculator results

2 of4
Page 497 of 1092

elements:
Outline the methodology , measures and assumptions used in the analysis, and
adherence to Metrolinx Business Case Development methodology.
and suggestions of ways of strengthening the Business Cases .
4. Data Collection
In this context. data collection refers to requests for data from third parties and not the collection
of field data or the coding of large amounts of data, excepting the coding of transit options for
the Connectivity Calculator or development of analysis spreadsheets.
5. Project Schedule
A project kick-off meeting will be scheduled for the week of April 25, 2016 in consultation
3 of4
Page 498 of 1092

6. Project Budget
The upper limit of the contract is $ 100,000, excluding HST. The consultant will provide an
4 of4
Page 499 of 1092

Transit Expansion Business Cases -Finalized List of Options
As of April19, 2016
Background:
Business cases are being developed for transit expansion projects in Toronto. The City is leading the development of business cases for the Relief
Line, Scarborough Subway Extension, and Eglinton LRT. Business cases for the SmartTrack/RER integration options, including stations, and
Eglinton West LRT options are being jointly developed with Metrolinx.
This document presents the finalized list of options for the business cases.
1
DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 500 of 1092

SMARTTRACK / GO RER Business Case
(including Eglin ton West LRT)
2
Page 501 of 1092

SmartTrack I GO RER Inte~:ration Options
Lead: City and Metrolinx Joint Business Case Development (ARUP doing economic case for City)
OPTION 1 (Base) OPTION 2 OPTION 3

Summary GO RER (2-way, ali-day express rail on 5 GO RER + SmartTrack on Kitchener and GO RER + SmartTrack on Kitchener and
Description out of 7 GO lines) Stouffville corridors +Approved Eglinton Stouffville corridors+ Approved Eglinton
WestLRT WestLRT
Maps Map needed Integration option C Integration option D
Map needed Map needed
Corridor& 5 out of 7 GO lines: Kitchener, Stouffville, GO RER GO RER
Alignment Barrie, Lakeshore West and Lakeshore SmartTrack on Kitchener and Stouffville SmartTrack on Kitchener and Stouffville
East Eglinton West LRT between Mount Dennis Eglinton West LRT between Mount
and Airport terminals Dennis and Airport terminals with no
grade separations
Length of Not yet measured Not yet measured Not yet measured
Alignment LRT has no grade separations LRT has no grade separations
Station Locations Existing stations within the City of Base GO stations Base GO stations
Toronto plus planned new stations: + 7 SmartTrack stations: Finch Ellesmere + the 4 with the highest ridership from
Milliken Agincourt Kennedy Lawrence GerrardiCarlaw Unilever the long list of stations in SmartTrack
Scarborough Danforth Union Bloor Liberty Village St Clair W Option 2
Mount Dennis (planned) Weston + 17 EgWLRT stations (14+3 to airport) + 17 EgWLRT stations (14+3 to airport)
Etobicoke North
Service Concept Peak period 6-10 minute service; Off-peak GO RER I SmartTrack service is: Peak period GO RER I SmartTrack service is: Peak
15 minute service 5.5-10 minute service; Off-peak 15 minute period 5.5-10 minute service; Off-peak 15
service minute service
Eglinton West LRT is: Same as Eglinton Eglinton West LRT is: Same as Eglinton
Crosstown Crosstown
Fare GO fare TTC fare offered at SmartTrack stations TTC fare offered at SmartTrack stations
Additional Based on preliminary analysis: Nominal identified in preliminary analysis. Nominal identified in preliminary
Infrastructure Modifications to existing stations New SmartTrack stations. analysis.
Requirements Grade separations Eglinton West LRT extension New SmartTrack stations.
Electrification LRT stations Eglinton West LRT extension
2nd track on Stouffville (EA already LRT fleet LRT stations
approved) Assume no maintenance and storage facility LRT fleet
EMU Fleet for LRT Assume no maintenance and storage
facility for LRT
Outstanding: Service conce11t refinements to options 2 and 3 to inclu.fkpeals_period at 5 minutes

3
Page 502 of 1092

E~:linton
West LRT Business Case Options
Lead: Metrolinx with City/TTC input (ARUP not doing economic case)
OPTION 1 (Base) OPTION 2

Summary Description EA Approved Option with stations located at major Speed and Access Balance with stations at major intersections
intersections and mid-blocks; with North-South routes connections; approximately 1.3 to 1.6
Consistent with Eglinton Crosstown LRT at-grade station times Eglinton Crosstown LRT at-grade station spacing; no net
spacing; loss of traffic lanes.
Transit Signal Priority;
No net loss of traffic lanes.
Corridor & Alignment Eglinton, At-Grade Eglinton, At-Grade
Length of Alignment N/A N/A
Number of Stations 14 Stations + 3 (into Pearson Airport); 640m average station 8 Stations+ 3 (into Pearson Airport); !,100m average station
spacing spacing
Station Locations Jane Jane
Scarlett Scarlett
Mulham Royal York
Royal York Islington
Russell/Eden Valley Kipling
Islington Martin Grove
Wincott/Bemersyde East mall
Kipling + 3 (Convair, Silver Dart, Pearson)
Widdicombe Hill/Lloyd Manor
Martin Grove
East Mall
Rangoon
Renforth
Commerce
+ 3 (Convair, Silver Dart, Pearson)
Service Concept Eglinton Crosstown Service Levels Eglinton Crosstown Service Levels
Infrastructure Requirements TBD TBD
4
Page 503 of 1092

Page 504 of 1092
>-
.....:l
z
0
z
0.......
en
en
:::::;,
u
en
.......
Relief Line Business Case Options
Lead: City and TTC (ARUP to do economic case)
Summary Continue with planned improvements to Relief Line subway between Pape and Relief Line subway between Pape and
Description Line 1 and surface transit network on downtown via Queen Street downtown via Eastern Avenue
Queen and King Sts
Maps Map needed Alignment map needed Alignment map needed
Corridor& Queen Street alignment Eastern Avenue alignment
Alignment
Length of N/A Not yet measured Not yet measured
Alignment All underground All underground
Station N/A 7 stations 8 stations
Locations Pape Station (ijc with Line 2) Pape Station (i/c with Line 2)
Pape -Gerrard or Pape-Carlaw (potential Pape -Gerrard or Pape-Carlaw (potential
ijc with ST) ijc with ST)
Queen-Broadview Queen-Pape
Queen-Sumach Broadview-Eastern
Queen-Sherbourne Queen-Sumach
Queen-Yonge (ijcwith Line 1line) Queen-Sherbourne
Queen-University (i/c with Line 1) Queen-Yonge (i/c with Line 1line)
Queen-University (i/c with Line 1)
Service Concept Maintain current service frequency on Peak: 3 minute service frequency Peak: 3 minute service frequency
Yonge line? Off Peak: 4.5 minutes service frequency Off Peak: 4.5 minutes service frequency
Maintain current service frequency on
surface transit network?
Fare assumption TTC fare TTC fare TTC fare
Additional New surface fleet? Tunneling X km Tunneling X km
Infrastructure Automatic train control? 7 stations 8 stations
Requirements Fleet Fleet
Yard/MSF? Yard/MSF?
Signaling systems? Signaling systems?
Other? Other?
- - -- - --- -
Outstanding: .Background material on King corridor analysis
6
Page 505 of 1092

Scarborough Transit Network Business Case
Preferred options from the business case analysis for the Scarborough Subway Extension and Eglin ton East LRT will inform the
recommended Scarborough Transit Network
7
Page 506 of 1092

ScarborouKh Subway Extension Business Case Options 1
OPTION 1 (Base) OPTION 2A OPTION 28* OPTION 2C*
Summary 3 STOP: Extension of Line 2 EXPRESS: Extension of Line 2 EXPRESS: EXPRESS:

Description along McCowan between along McCowan between via Midland via SRT corridor
Kennedy and Sheppard Kennedy and Scarborough
Centre
Maps Map needed Map needed Map needed Map needed
Corridor& McCowan McCowan Midland SRT corridor
Alignment
Length of Xkms tunneled Xkms tunneled Xkms tunneled Xkms tunneled
Alignment Xkms surface
Station 1. Lawrence 1. STC 1. STC 1. STC
Locations 2. STC
3. Sheppard
Service Concept Continuation of all Line 2 Continuation of all Line 2 Continuation of all Line 2 Continuation of all Line 2
services services services services
Fare TTC fare TTC fare TTC fa r e TTC fare
Additional Tunneling X km Tunneling X km Tunneling X km Tunneling X km
Infrastructure 3 new subway stations 1 new subway station 1 new subway station 1 new subway station
Requirements
2 new bus stations Fleet Fleet Fleet
Subway fleet Yard/MSF? Yard/MSF? Yard/MSF?

Signaling systems? Signaling systems? Signaling systems?
Yard/MSF? Other? Other?
Signaling systems?
Other?
Other?
The cost of bus service replacement requirements to implement these options will be factored into the financial case analysis.
1Benefits and costs of Eglin ton East LRT options and Scarborough Subway Extension options will be combined to determine preferred Scarborough
network solution,
8
Page 507 of 1092

E~linton East LRT Business Case Options
Summary Bus service along Eglinton from Kennedy Approved EA extension to Sheppard from Kennedy Shortened LRT Eglin ton East LRT option to
Description station to Sheppard Station along Eglin ton Avenue East UTSC
Maps Map needed Map needed Map needed
Corridor& Eglinton Avenue Eglinton and Kingston Eglinton and Kingston
Alignment
Length of N/A LRT Xkms on street LRT Xkms on street
Alignment
Station Existing TTC bus stops 18 Stops 17 or fewer LRT stops
Locations
Service Concept Current bus service levels Continuation of Crosstown LRT Continuation of Crosstown LRT
Fare assumption TTC Fare TTC fare TTC fare

Add itional None Tunneling X km Tunneling X km
Infrastructure LRT Fleet LRT Fleet
Requirements Includes MSF at Sheppard/Conlands, per EA Signaling systems?
Signaling systems? Other?
Other?
- - -- - --- --
Note: Cost for option to extend Eglinton East LRT to Malvern Town Centre will be included in analysis, but not as separate options
assessment.
9
Page 508 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Helen Kakamousias
Subject: RE: Agreement for Review and Signature- Transit Business Case Consultant Support
Attachments: 2016-05-11 LOA for ARUP Review and Signature- Arup Amended.docx
Hi Karen,
Thank for forwarding these documents. Our legal team has reviewed the agreement and would like to request the City
to consider the suggested amendments that have been included as tracked changes in the attached file.
Thanks,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Helen Kakamousias
Subject: Agreement for Review and Signature- Transit Business Case Consultant Support
Hi Felipe,
Please find attached for review and signature the legal agreement. Please return to my attention 4 signed hard copies of
the document. I will then have it signed and a version sent back to you for your records.
The City also requires the following:

Conflict of Interest Form (see attached)
Proof of insurance
As mentioned on the phone, if we could do weekly submission of the hours spent and the activities completed it would
be appreciated .
Thanks,
Karen .
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 509 of 1092

Page 510 of 1092

THIS AGREEMENT made in quadruplicate this 11 1h day of May 2016.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
:!:
a:
0 Hereinafter called the "City''
u.. :;;:
en
0 ;;:
0
1- 1il
OF THE FIRST PART
(/)
< "'
c
;,;;:
:f
~
0
"'cc l
c -and-
w
> <(
0 0
a: lL ARUPCANADAINCOPORATED
0..
0..
< Hereinafter called the "Consultant'
OF THE SECOND PART
RECITALS:
1. THE SERVICES:
the designated City representative for the Project (the "Project Manager"), those
professional services more particularly set forth in Schedule "A" hereto attached (hereinafter
in Schedule "A" .
hourly, daily or other time based rate . In particular, neither such rate nor any provision of
Page 511 of 1092

-2-
2. NON-EXCLUSIVITY:

(2) The Consultant shall provide, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense , all skilled workers,
subconsultants (as approved by the City), as appropriate , and must be able to provide the
necessary materials , tools, machinery and supplies required in performing the Services.
when using any City buildings , premises , equipment, hardware or software shall comply
with all security policies, regulations or directives relating to those buildings, premises ,
this Agreement.
5. APPROVED SUBCONSUL T ANTS:

employed , engaged or retained by the Consultant for the purpose of assisting it in the
the City for costs or damages arising from acts, omissions , negligence or wilful misconduct
Page 512 of 1092

-3-

Schedule "8" attached hereto.
(2) The Consultant will , even if the payment set forth in Schedule "8" , attached hereto, is based
amount specified in the Schedule , on the basis that neither such rate nor any provision of
(3) The City will also pay to the Consultant for such of the items and services provided by it and
have been confirmed in advance and in writing by the City Manager. If the Consultant
the City Manager, and the hourly rates set out in Schedule "8".
(4) No fees or reimbursable expenses shall become payable to the Consultant pursuant to the
Agreement for the Services other than pursuant to Schedule "8".
accordance with Schedule 8, and the City reserves the right to require further proof or
by the Consultant and the Consultant shall provide , without delay, such further proof or
documentation.
shall advise the Consultant in writing of the reasons for non-approval and the Consultant
(7) The Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of all personnel costs including
respective personnel) made available by it and used for performance of any of the Services.
(1) All plans, designs, models, drawings, details, specifications, reports, calculations and all
(2) The City will own all intellectual property rights, including (without limitation) copyright, in
and to all deliverables provided by the Consultant and its subconsultants , or, where
applicable, shall have an unlimited license to use the deliverables.
Page 513 of 1092

-4-
(4) The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that all products, deliverables , reports and
City Council in a public report).

proprietary information belonging to th ird parties , the Consultant shall not, except in the
(a) analyze , copy , decompile, disassemble, translate , convert, reverse engineer or

duplicate any physical embodiment or part thereof , or permit any person to do so;
or
(b) divulge to any unauthorized person the ideas , concepts or techniques, or make
any other improper use , of such software .
officers, directors , partners , contract personnel , agents and employees or any of them to
(3) Should the Consultant include third party components within the deliverables , the
the City all information , documentation , models or materials of any kind which are provided
(2) Any documents , data or other information obtained from the City or prepared by the
to or acquired by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the Services, except:
Page 514 of 1092

- - - - - -- - - - - - - --
-5-

other legal compulsion and , if so compelled , the Consultant shall only furnish the
portion of the City confidential information that it is legally required to furnish.
unrelated to this Agreement which may be purchased or licensed directly by the City, at the
City's option.
(6) The Consu ltant shall return forthwith and without demand all Confidential Information of the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O . 1990, c.M.56 (the "MFIPPA").
intellectual property right or information , the trade secret, intellectual property right or
Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-56 ("MFIPPA"), and the Personal Health Information

(1) The Consultant shall: (a) avoid any Conflict of Interest in the performance of its contractual
Consultant's Conflict of Interest cannot be resolved .
Page 515 of 1092

-6-
exists . This section 10 shall survive any termination or expiry of this Agreement.
11. TERMINATION:
(1) Upon giving the Consultant not less than 30 days' prior written notice, the City may, at any
time and without cause, cancel the Agreement, in whole or in part. In the event of such
the goods, material, articles, equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily
delivered or performed by the Consultant at the time of cancellation .
to terminate the Agreement upon ten {1 0) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant if a
breach which is remediable is not rectified in that time. In the event of such term ination , the
City shall not incur any liability to the Consultant apart from the payment for the goods ,
material , articles, equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily delivered or
law.
remedy.
(5) Upon termination, all originals and copies of data, plans , specifications, reports , estimates,
summaries, photographs, and other documents that have been accumulated and/or
12. INSURANCE:
the duration of this Agreement, maintain in a form and with an insurer acceptable to tho
Gity,the following policies of insurance:
Page 516 of 1092

- 7-
(i) in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1 ,000,000) ;
(ii) oxtondod to infringement of copyright and other intellectual property, including

misuse of trade secrets;
(iii) not to be construed as a limit of tho liability of the Consultant in tho performance by
tho Consultant of tho Services under tho Agreement;
(iv) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, kept in full
completion of the Services .
(8) Comprehensive General Liability provided that the policy:
(i) is in the amount of not less than two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00), per occurrence ;
(ii) adds the City of Toronto as additional insured ;
(iii) has provisions for cross-liability as between the Consultant and the City of Toronto,
(iv) provides for thirty (30) days' prior written notice of cancellation or material chango .
the City's Chief Financial Officer (the "CFO") ; and from time to time, as such coverage expires
or is replaced, shall provide original signed Certificates evidencing renewals or replacements
City.
(3) Any premiums due on any insurance policy under this section 12 but not paid by the
Consultant may be paid directly to the insurer(s) or broker(s) by the City, which shall be
entitled to deduct the amount of same, along with its reasonable costs in so doing, from any
monies otherwise due to the Consultant by the City under this Agreement or otherwise .
.(_The provisions of this section 12 shall in no way limit the requirements and obligations
imposed on the Consultant elsewhere in this Agreement, nor rel ieve the Consultant from
f41(5) Notwithstanding any other term of this Agreement and to the fullest extent permitted by
law. the City and Consultant each waive any right to consequential damages and the City
agrees that the total liability of the Consultant under or in connection with this Agreement.
whether in contract. tort. negligence. breach or otherwise. shall be limited to the amount of
insurance specifically identified and required to be maintained by the Consultant in this
section 12 of this Agreement.
Page 517 of 1092

-8 -
(1) The Consultant will, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, well and truly save , keep
harmless and fully indemnify the City of Toronto, and its Mayor, members of Council , officers,
from and against any and all losses, liens, charges , claims , demands, suits , proceedings ,
them , may sustain , suffer or be put to resulting from or arising from the Services done by it,
this Agreement.
losses, liens , charges, claims , demands , suits , proceedings , recoveries and judgments
(including legal fees and costs ) arising from infringement, actual or alleged, by any of the
(including the provision of the Services themselves) , of any Canadian , American or other
right in the nature of intellectual/industrial property exists.
no admission of liabi lity or fault on the City's part without the City's written permission .
Insurance Act, 1997 or any successor legislation), whether statutorily required , at common
or otherwise engaged by the Consultant. In the event that employment related costs , or other

compliance.

(1) The Consultant shall in particular comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S .O.,
"OHSA").
Page 518 of 1092

-9 -
consideration for the health and safety of workers ;
{d) The Consultant has in place an occupational health and safety, workplace violence
(e) The Consultant has a process in place to ensu re that health and safety issues are
and illnesses.
following as proof of the representations:

the Services (i .e. types of training , frequency of training and re-training); and
subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to a charge or conviction
under the OHSA, the Criminal Code , R.S .C 1985, c. C-46, as amended and the
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched . A, as
amended.
Page 519 of 1092

- 10-
(8) The parties acknowledge and agree that employees of the City, including senior officers, have

Act, 1997.
agreement, have secured WSIB coverage, whether required statutorily or not, for the term of
this agreement.
17. ACCESSIBILITY:
training .
18. NO ASSIGNMENT:
the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, such written consent
this Agreement.
be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and (where permitted) assigns,
respectively.
19. AUDIT:
including timesheets, reimbursable out of pocket expenses, materials, goods, and equipment
work performed pursuant to this Agreement. This shall include proper records of invoices,
vouchers, timesheets , and other documents that support actions taken by the Consultant. The
Page 520 of 1092

- 11 -

conveyances , deeds , assignments, transfers and the like , and will cause the doing of all such acts
writing, and as may be necessary or desirable to give full effect to this Agreement.

of the City.
22. GOVERNING LAW:

(including any motion or other interlocutory proceeding) shall be brought in a Court or a tribunal ,
whichever may be applicable , sitting in Toronto, Ontario. In the event that there is no applicable
competent jurisdiction nearest to the City of Toronto within the Province of Ontario . The Consultant
23. NOTICE:
follows:
City of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2

Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1A8
Page 521 of 1092

- 12-
or to such other addresses as the parties may from time to time notify in writing , and any
mailing .
above .
SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED ) CITY OF TORONTO

)
)
Chapters 71, )
)
)
) Peter Wallace , City Manager
)
)
) ARUPCANADAINCORPORATED
)
)
)
) Name:
) Title:
)
) 1/We have the authority to bind the company.
)
Page 522 of 1092

- 13-
SCHEDULE "A"
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. Overview
Relief Line
Scarborough Subway Extension ; and
Eglinton LRT West extension . More detailed descriptions and maps of the options for each transit

Route alignments
Stop locations
Headways
Development Handbook (BCDH) . The BCDH specifies that four components or 'cases' make up the
business case:
The Strategic Case;

The Financial Case ;
with City Planning, Corporate Finance , TTC, and Metrolinx. The City Manager's Office will appoint a Project
required , to address specific aspects of the analysis.
Page 523 of 1092

- 14-
consistent with the method described in Metrolinx's draft Business Case Development Handbook (BCDH).
identified, in the following order of priority:

time available, following the above order of priority, however, it is understood that the schedule is tight
The Consultant will also provide guidance to the Project Team in the development of the Strategic Case,
consistency of the City's approach, objectives, outputs and measures of success with that typically
running the Connectivity Calculator, including but not limited to travel time threshold, wait time weight,
Calculator results

a. The network {TransCAD file)
b. Graphical representation of the network {AI or PSD file)
Page 524 of 1092

- 15-

4. Report for each transit project on the Economic Case. The report will include the following elements:
Outline the methodology, measures and assumptions used in the analysis, and adherence to
benefits, and key metrics (Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)), total present value of benefits and costs,
etc).
Word format suitable for inclusion in the overall Business Case reports.
4. Data Collection
+ Additional inputs identified.
Calculator or development of analysis spreadsheets.
5. Project Schedule
provide interim draft deliverables throughout the process as the analysis is developed and completed.
Page 525 of 1092

- 16-
supplemented by weekly status update meetings. The Consultant will share results with the Project
Manager as soon as they become available.
6. Project Budget
in Schedule B for each component of the Services .
Page 526 of 1092

- 17-
SCHEDULE "B"
HST, for a total of $113,000.00, which shall include labour, profit, other overhead, materials,
equipment, licences , analysis, travel, accommodations , communication , transportation and
delivery costs (courier, long distance charges, and so on), staff time, City/Consultant
B. The Consultant's flat fees and disbursements are comprised of the following:
Task Cost
1. SmartTrack!Eglinton West Economic 20,000

Case
2. SSE Economic Case 20,000
3. Relief Line Economic Case 20 ,000
4. Eglinton East LRT Economic Case 20,000
HST 13,000
Total CAD 113,000

required
Felipe Camargo - Project Manager $
Leo Eyles - Expert Advisor $ Section 14(1) applied

Adrien Friesen- Graduate Transportation $

Consultant
Page 527 of 1092

- 18-
DISBURSEMENTS
amount above.
Invoices should be submitted on a monthly basis , in a format acceptable to , and in such detail as
subconsultants , how much time was spent, how much was charged for each individual , and the
within sixty (60) days of receipt by the City of a satisfactory invoice. At the Project Manager's
receipts , invoices or other documentation as required by the Project Manager to verify the
amounts charged.
If the City does not approve of the Services wh ich are the subject of the invoice , the City shall
City of Toronto
55 John Street
Toronto, ON
M5V 3C6
lnvoice/s submitted to the City must have complete ship to information including:
the goods and/or services) : Karen Thorburn , Senior Corporate Policy & Management
Consultant, Strategic & Corporate Policy Division , 416-392-2720
II. Delivery location of goods and/or services (excluding pick-up order) : City Hall , 100 Queen
Street West, East Tower, 1Oh Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2 ,
Page 528 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Cc: Helen Kakamous ias
Subject: Agreement for Review and Signature- Trans it Business Case Consultant Support
Attachments: 2016-05 -11 LOA for ARUP Review and Signatu re.docx;
confl ict_of_interest_declaration_form.docx
Hi Felipe,
Please find attached for review and signature the legal agreement. Please return to my attention 4
signed hard copies of the document. I will then have it signed and a version sent back to you for your
records.
The City also requires the following:

Conflict of Interest Form (see attached)
Proof of insurance
As mentioned on the phone , if we could do weekly submission of the hours spent and the activities
completed it would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Karen.
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 529 of 1092

THIS AGREEMENT made in quadruplicate this 11 th day of May 2016.
BETWEEN :
CITY OF TORONTO
~
a:
0 Hereinafter called the "City"
u.
0
..... OF THE FIRST PART
(/)
ct
c -and -
w
>
0
a: ARUPCANADAINCOPORATED
a..
a..
ct Hereinafter called the "Consultant''
OF THE SECOND PART
RECITALS:
conditions herein at a total cost not in excess of $113,000.00 inclusive of applicable taxes ; and
the Project at a fee therefore , and upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth ;
1. THE SERVICES:
(1) The Consultant shall supply, provide and perform, with all due and reasonab le diligence,
the designated City representative for the Project (the "Project Manager"), those
professional services more particularly set forth in Schedule "A" hereto attached (hereinafter
required basis for undertaking further analysis, studies , assessments and work as described
in Schedule "A" .
hourly, daily or other time based rate . In particular, neither such rate nor any provision of
this Agreement shall relieve the Consultant from perform ing all the Services or reduce its
Page 530 of 1092

-2 -
2. NON-EXCLUSIVITY:

subconsultants (as approved by the City) , as appropriate, and must be able to provide the
necessary materials, tools, machinery and supplies required in performing the Services.
Agreement, and to coordinate the work of the Consultant and subconsultants.
any subconsultants and third-party service providers.
(4) The Consultant will ensure that its personnel (including those of approved subconsultants),
when using any City buildings, premises , equipment, hardware or software shall comply
this Agreement.
5. APPROVED SUBCONSULTANTS:
the City for costs or damages arising from acts, omissions, negligence or wilful misconduct
of such subconsultants or any of them.
Page 531 of 1092

-3-

(2) The Consultant will, even if the payment set forth in Schedule "B", attached hereto, is based
on an hourly, daily or other time-based rate, perform all of the Services notwithstanding that
(3) The City will also pay to the Consultant for such of the items and services provided by it and
have been confirmed in advance and in writing by the City Manager. If the Consultant
(4) No fees or reimbursable expenses shall become payable to the Consultant pursuant to the
Agreement for the Services other than pursuant to Schedule "B".
documentation.
shall advise the Consultant in writing of the reasons for non-approval and the Consultant
pay the invoice or any part of it, as the case may be .
(7) The Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of all personnel costs including
respective personnel) made available by it and used for performance of any of the Services.
7. OWNERSHIP OF DELIVERABLE$:
(1) All plans , designs, models, drawings, details, specifications, reports, calculations and all
property rights, of the City without the payment of any additional compensation whatsoever
(2) The City will own all intellectual property rights, including (without limitation) copyright, in
applicable, shall have an unlimited license to use the deliverables.
Page 532 of 1092

-4 -
with any contractor other than the Consultant for the modification, further development of or
(4) The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that all products , deliverables , reports and
City Council in a public report).

(a) analyze , copy, decompile, disassemble, translate , convert, reverse engineer or

or
any other improper use, of such software .
officers, directors, partners, contract personnel , agents and employees or any of them to
the City all information, documentation, models or materials of any kind which are provided
Consultant for the City shall be disclosed only to those of the Consultant's employees,
Consultant in the performance of the Services.
to or acquired by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the Services, except:
(a) as may be strictly required for the purposes of carrying out the Services, or as
expressly permitted in advance by the City in writing, or
Page 533 of 1092

-5-

other legal compulsion and, if so compelled, the Consultant shall only furnish the
portion of the City confidential information that it is legally required to furnish.
(4) Where the Consultant is required by law to disclose any such documents , data or
information, the Consultant shall promptly notify the Project Manager upon such legal
unrelated to this Agreement which may be purchased or licensed directly by the City, at the
City's option .
termination of its Services.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O . 1990, c .M.56 (the "MFIPPA").
City reveals any trade secret, intellectual property right or any scientific, technical,
commercial, financial or other similar information belonging to the Consultant and the
(8) In performing the Services for the City, the Consultant shall only collect, use , disclose, retain
Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c . M-56 ("MFIPPA"), and the Personal Health Information
Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004 , c. 3 (PHIPA) respectively, as amended.

(1) The Consultant shall: (a) avoid any Conflict of Interest in the performance of its contractual
Page 534 of 1092

-6-
11. TERMINATION:
time and without cause, cancel the Agreement, in whole or in part. In the event of such
the goods , material , articles, equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily
delivered or performed by the Consultant at the time of cancellation .
City shall not incur any liability to the Consultant apart from the payment for the goods ,
material , articles , equipment, work or Services that have been satisfactorily delivered or
law.
remedy.
(5) Upon termination, all originals and copies of data, plans, specifications , reports, estimates ,
summaries , photographs , and other documents that have been accumulated and/or
12. INSURANCE:
(1) The Consultant shall , at the Consultant's expense (including payment of deductibles), for
Page 535 of 1092

-7-
(i) in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1 ,000,000) ;
(ii) extended to infringement of copyright and other intellectual property, including

misuse of trade secrets;
(iii) not to be construed as a limit of the liability of the Consultant in the performance by
(iv) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, kept in full
(i) is in the amount of not less than Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) , per occurrence ;
(ii) adds the City of Toronto as additional insured ;
(iii) has provisions tor cross-liability as between the Consultant and the City of Toronto,
(iv) provides tor thirty {30) days' prior written notice of cancellation or material change .
$1 ,000,000 for all owned or leased licensed motorized vehicles used in the
the City's Chief Financial Officer (the "CFO"); and from time to time , as such coverage
expires or is replaced , shall provide original signed Certificates evidencing renewals or
replacements thereof satisfactory to the CFO , all of which Certificates may be permanently
retained by the City.
(3) Any premiums due on any insurance policy under this section 12 but not paid by the
Consultant may be paid directly to the insurer(s) or broker(s) by the City, which shall be
entitled to deduct the amount of same , along with its reasonable costs in so doing, from any
monies otherwise due to the Consultant by the City under this Agreement or otherwise.
{1) The Consultant will , from time to time , and at all times hereafter, well and truly save, keep
harmless and fully indemnify the City of Toronto, and its Mayor, members of Council ,
officers, employees and agents, {the "lndemnitees") from and against all actions , claims and
demands whatsoever which may be brought against or made upon the lndemnitees, or any
of them , of, from and against any and all losses , liens, charges, claims, demands, suits ,
proceedings, recoveries and judgments (including legal fees and costs) which the
Page 536 of 1092

-8 -
lndemnitees, or any of them, may sustain, suffer or be put to resulting from or arising from
the Services done by it, or by reason of, or on account of, or resulting from or arising out of
the performance or rendering of, or the failure to perform or render, or the failure to exercise
reasonable care, skill or diligence in the performance or rendering of any work or Service
required hereunder to be performed or rendered by the Consultant, its agents, servants,
employees or subconsultants or any of them, including the breach of any confidentiality
obligation under this Agreement.
losses, liens, charges , claims, demands, suits , proceedings , recoveries and judgments
deliverables developed or provided or supplied under or used in connection with the
Services (including the provision of the Services themselves), of any Canadian, American or
other copyright, moral right, trade-mark, patent, trade secret or other thing with respect to
which a right in the nature of intellectual/industrial property exists .
(3) Upon assuming the defence of any action covered under this section 13 the Consultant
shall keep the City reasonably informed of the status of the matter, and the Consultant shall
make no admission of liability or fault on the City's part without the City's written permission.
law or otherwise , resulting from Services supplied under this Agreement by persons
employed or otherwise engaged by the Consultant. In the event that employment related
costs, or other related responsibility falls to the City for any reason whatsoever, the
Consultant agrees to indemnify the City for such costs .

regulations in performing any Services including City of Toronto By-laws and policies applicable
to the City's Consultants and to provide to the City, upon request, periodic reports confirming
such compliance.

(1) The Consultant shall in particular comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act,
R.S.O ., 1990 c.0.1 and all regulations thereunder, as amended from time to time
(collectively the "OHSA").
in the OHSA) of any workers employed or engaged by the Consultant for the Services ,
either instead of or jointly with the Consultant.
(3) The Consultant agrees that it will ensure that all subcontractors engaged by it are qualified
to perform the Services and that the employees of subcontractors are trained in the health
and safety hazards expected to be encountered in the Services.
Page 537 of 1092

-9 -
(b) The Consultant has provided, and will provide during the course of the
Agreement, all necessary personal protective equipment for the protection of
workers;
(d) The Consultant has in place an occupational health and safety, workplace
violence and workplace harassment policies in accordance with the OHSA; and
(e) The Consultant has a process in place to ensure that health and safety issues
are identified and addressed and a process in place for reporting work-related
injuries and illnesses.
following as proof of the representations:

(6) The Consultant shall immediately advise the Project Manager or his designate in the event
of any of the following:
subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to a charge or conviction
under the OHSA, the Criminal Code, R.S.C 1985, c. C-46, as amended and the
amended.
of any violation or alleged violation of any federal, provincial or municipal health and safety
Consultant shall take all necessary steps to avoid delay in the final completion of the
Services without additional cost to the City.
(8) The parties acknowledge and agree that employees of the City, including senior officers,
have no authority to direct, and will not direct, how employees, workers or other persons
employed or engaged by the Consultant do work or perform a task that is the subject of this
agreement.

Page 538 of 1092

- 10-
Board ("WSIB") workers' compensation coverage for its employees providing Services
under this Agreement, whether required statutorily or not under the Workplace Safety and
Insurance Act, 1997.
payment, the Consultant shall produce a Clearance Certificate issued by the WSIB
confirming that the Consultant has paid its assessment based on a true statement of the
amount of its current payroll in respect of the Services and that the City is relieved of
financial liability. Thereafter, throughout the period of Services being supplied , a new
Clearance Certificate will be obtained from the WSIB by the Consultant and provided to the
City every 90 days or upon expiry of the Certificate's validity period whichever comes first.
agreement, have secured WSIB coverage, whether required statutorily or not, for the term
of this agreement.
17. ACCESSIBILITY:
training.
18. NO ASSIGNMENT:
the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, such written consent
shall not under any circumstances relieve the Consultant of its liabilities and obligations
under this Agreement.
(2) This Agreement and everything herein contained shall respectively enure to the benefit of
and be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and (where permitted) assigns,
respectively.
19. AUDIT:
including timesheets, reimbursable out of pocket expenses, materials, goods, and equipment
claimed by the Consultant. The Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement,
and for a period of 2 years following completion of this Agreement, keep and maintain records of
the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. This shall include proper records of invoices ,

conveyances, deeds, assignments, transfers and the like, and will cause the doing of all such
acts and the execution of all such further documents (including waivers of moral rights) as are
Page 539 of 1092

- 11 -
within its power to cause the doing or execution of, as the City may from time to time reasonably
request, in writing, and as may be necessary or desirable to give full effect to this Agreement.

All expressions defined in this Agreement shall have the same meanings in such Schedules . In
the event of a conflict between the Schedules and the body of this Agreement, the body of this
of the City.
22. GOVERNING LAW:

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada ,
as applicable . Any action or other legal proceeding arising under or with respect to this
Agreement (including any motion or other interlocutory proceeding) shall be brought in a Court or
a tribunal , whichever may be applicable , sitting in Toronto, Ontario. In the event that there is no
applicable Court or tribunal sitting in Toronto, the proceeding shall be brought in the court (or
other fo rum) of competent jurisdiction nearest to the City of Toronto within the Province of
Ontario. The Consultant and the City each irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of the Province of Ontario in relation to this Agreement.
23. NOTICE:
(1) Any demand or notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be duly and properly
made and given if made in writing and either delivered to the party for whom it is intended to
the address as set out below or sent by prepaid registered mail addressed to such party as
follows :
City of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2
Attention : City Manager

Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1A8
or to such other addresses as the parties may from time to time notify in writing , and any
or given and received on the day on which it shall have been so delivered or, if mailed, then ,
in the absence of any interruption in postal service in the City of Toronto affecting the
delivery or handling thereof, on the day following three (3) clear business days following the
date of mailing.
Page 540 of 1092

- 12 -
(2) The City's Project Manager with respect to this Agreement and the operational matters
related to the provision of the Services is: Karen Thorburn, Senior Corporate Policy &
Management Consultant, Strategic & Corporate Policy
above.
Chapters 71 ,
Name:
Title:
lf\Ne have the authority to bind the company.
Page 541 of 1092

- 13-
SCHEDULE "A"
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. Overview
Relief Line

Route alignments
Stop locations
Headways
Development Handbook (BCDH) . The BCDH specifies that four components or 'cases' make up the
business case:
The Strategic Case;

The Financial Case;
with City Planning, Corporate Finance, TTC, and Metrolinx. The City Manager's Office will appoint a
Project Manager for the project, who is the primary point of contact for the Consultant. Meetings between
the Consultant and the Project Teams will take place in person or by phone bi-weekly, or more frequently
as required , to address specific aspects of the analysis.
The Consultant will be responsible for carrying out technical work in support of the development of
specific components of the business case for each individual project. The deliverables produced by the
Page 542 of 1092

- 14-
Consultant will be provided in a format appropriate for inclusion in the project business cases. The City
will be responsible for compiling all data into the final business case.
consistent with the method described in Metrolinx's draft Business Case Development Handbook
(BCDH).
The primary role of the Consultant will be in the development of the Economic Cases for each of the
projects identified , in the following order of priority:

Scarborough Subway Extension (approx . 4 options)
The Consultant will also provide guidance to the Project Team in the development of the Strategic Case,
reflects the network assumptions used by the City in ridership modelling. The network will include the
intervention and any associated local street or transit connections . Parameters and assumptions used in
running the Connectivity Calculator, including but not limited to travel time threshold, wait time weight,
Calculator results

Page 543 of 1092

- 15-

4. Report for each transit project on the Economic Case. The report will include the following elements:
assessment. This includes, monetized transportation user benefits, monetized environmental
benefits, and key metrics (Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)), total present value of benefits and costs,
etc).
Word format suitable for inclusion in the overall Business Case reports.
4. Data Collection
Calculator or development of analysis spreadsheets.
5. Project Schedule
incorporated into a report for the June meeting of the Executive Committee. There will be a requirement
to provide interim draft deliverables throughout the process as the analysis is developed and completed .
Page 544 of 1092

- 16-
Meetings between the Consultant and the Project Manager will take place in person or by phone bi-
weekly, or more frequently as required , to address specific aspects of the analysis. These bi-weekly
emails will be supplemented by weekly status update meetings. The Consultant will share results with
the Project Manager as soon as they become available.
6. Project Budget
Page 545 of 1092

- 17-
SCHEDULE "B"
A. Fees for Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement will not exceed $100 ,000 plus 13%
equipment, licences , analysis, travel , accommodations, communication , transportation and
delivery costs (courier, long distance charges, and so on), staff time, City/Consultant
any additional costs . The Consultant agrees that labour or direct expenses incurred by the
Task Cost
1. SmartTrack/Eglinton West Economic 20,000

Case
2. SSE Economic Case 20,000
4. Eglinton East LRT Economic Case 20,000
HST 13,000
Total CAD 113,000

required
Felipe Camargo - Project Manager $
Leo Eyles - Expert Advisor $

Adrien Friesen- Graduate Transportation $

Consultant
Page 546 of 1092

- 18 -
DISBURSEMENTS
The City will reimburse the Consultant tor approved disbursements made as required in order to
The total amount to be paid tor disbursements under th is Agreement is included in the total
amount above .
All invoices shall clearly identity details of the work performed by the Consultant and
subconsultants, how much time was spent, how much was charged tor each individual, and the
amount and type of disbursements charged against the tile and shall be payable by the City
within sixty (60) days of receipt by the City of a satisfactory invoice. At the Project Manager's
receipts , invoices or other documentation as required by the Project Manager to verity the
amounts charged.
It the City does not approve of the Services which are the subject of the invoice , the City shall
advise the Consultant in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the invoice of the reasons tor
the City shall be obliged to pay the invoice or any part of it, as the case may be.
City of Toronto
55 John Street
Toronto, ON
M5V 3C6
II. Delivery location of goods and/or services (excluding pick-up order): City Hall , 100 Queen
Street West, East Tower, 10h Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2 ,
the Consultant tor correction.
Page 547 of 1092

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION
IN THE MA ITER BETWEEN
(Company Name
-AND-
City of Toronto
I, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in the Province of
(Name) (City/TownNillage)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ , declare that:
(Province/State) (Country)
I am the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of the _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (the "Company")

(Title) (Company Name)
and, as such, have full authority to bind the Company to my responses in this declaration.
The Company is a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

(insert "Sole Proprietership" or "Parternship" or "Corporation" as appropriate)
with its head office located at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(Full Business Address of the Company)
Conflicts of Interest
The vendor must disclose to the City any potential conflict of interest that Illight comprolllise the performance of the
Work. If such a conflict of interest does exist, the City may, at its discretion , refuse to consider or cancel the sole
source contract. If such a potential conflict of interest exists or arises during the evaluation process or the negotiation
of the Agreement, the City may also, at its discretion, withhold the awarding of any Agreement to the vendor until
the matter is resolved to the City's sole satisfaction.
The vendor must also disclose whether they are aware of any City employee, Council member or member of a City
agency, board or comlllission or employee thereof, having a financial interest in the vendor and the nature of that
interest.
If, during the sole source contract process or the negotiation of the Agreement, the vendor is retained by another
client giving rise to a potential conflict of interest, then the vendor will so inform the City. If the City requests, the n
the vendor will refuse the new assignment or will take such steps as are necessary to remove the conflict of interest
concerned.
Vendors are cautioned that the acceptance of their agreement may preclude them from participating as a vendor in
subsequent projects where a conflict of interest may arise. The successful vendor for this project may participate in
subsequent/other City projects provided the successful vendor has satisfied qualification requirements of the contract
, if any, and in the opinion of the City, no conflict of interest would adversely affect the performance and successful
completion of an Agreement by the successful vendor.
Page 548 of 1092

2
[PLEASE CROSS OUT THE BOLDED WORDS THAT DO NOT APPLY AND COMPLETE ALL BLANK
SPACES]
I. I AM I AM NOT aware of potential conflict(s) of interest that might compromise the performance of the
work that the City plans to sole source to the Company (the "Ensuing Agreement").
2. 1 AM I AM NOT aware of City employee(s), Council member(s) or member(s) of a City agency, board or
commission or employee(s) thereof having a financial interest in the Company or who would otherwise
financially gain as a result of the Ensuing Agreement.
3. I DO I DO NOT understand that if a financial interest were to exist or arise prior to entering into this
Ensuing Agreement, the City may, at its discretion, refuse to enter into the Ensuing Agreement until the
matter is resolved to the City's sole satisfaction.
4. I DO I DO NOT further understand that if the City enters into this Ensuing Agreement, the Company may
be precluded from bidding on subsequent projects where a conflict of interest or unfair advantage may
arise .
5. By entering into and performing the Ensuing Agreement, the Company IS I IS NOT conflicting with,
compromising, or conveying any appearance of impropriety with respect to any other contract or matter
with the City.
6. The Company HAS I HAS NOT been given an unfair advantage by being awarded this Ensuing
Agreement.
7. The Company IS I IS NOT involved currently in any litigation or arbitration against the City.
8. The Company IS I IS NOT aware of any other circumstances that could be perceived as a conflict of
interest.
I make this Declaration for the purpose of being eligible for consideration for the Sole Source procurement,
DECLARATION MADE ON THE DAYof __________ , 20__
Authorized Official for Company
Page 549 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Peter Notaro

To: felipe.camargo@arup.com
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Attachments: 2016-04-15 Consultant SOW.docx; 2016-03-16 CoT Transit Business Cases Proposal
Letter v1 (2).docx
Hi Felipe
Thanks for the proposal submitted on March 19, 2016 to our City Planning Division (Tim Laspa) . The City Manager's
Sincerely,
Peter Notaro
416.392.8066
Page 550 of 1092

1. Overview
Relief Line
Scarbrough Subway Extension; and
including Eglinton LRT West extension.
Route alignments
Stop locations
Headways
Case Development Handbook (BCDH). The BCDH specifies that four components or 'cases'
The Strategic Case;
The Financial Case;
overall business case methodology. A business case template has been developed by the City and
The business case development process will be led by the City Manager's Office, working in
partnership with City Planning, Corporate Finance, TTC, and Metrolinx. The City Manager's
by phone bi-weekly, or more frequently as required, to address specific aspects of the analysis.
business cases. The City will be responsible for compiling all data into the final business case.
I of 3
Page 551 of 1092

generally consistent with the method described in Metrolinx's draft Business Case Development
Handbook (BCDH).
the projects identified, in the following order of priority:
Scarborough Subway Extension (approx .7 options)
The Consultant will develop an approach to these cases in consultation with the Project Manager
that is consistent with the methodology for Economic Case development used by Metrolinx.
Strategic Case, Financial Case and the Deliverability and Operations Cases. Thi s guidance will
include comments on the consistency of the City's approach, objectives, outputs and measures of
business cases.
1. Memorandum on the methodology and approach to developing the Economic Case for
2. Documentation of quality assurance steps taken to ensure accuracy of each network created
and quality control metrics and results to ensure accuracy of Connectivity Calculator results

elements:
2 of3
Page 552 of 1092

Outline the methodology, measures and assumptions used in the analysis, and
adherence to Metrolinx Business Case Development methodology.
and suggestions of ways of strengthening the Business Cases.
4. Data Collection
ridership and revenue forecasts based on runs from GT AModel V4;
5. Project Schedule
A project kick-off meeting will be scheduled for the week of April 25, 2016 in consultation
6. Project Budget
The upper limit of the contract is $100,000, excluding HST. The consultant will provide an
3 of 3
Page 553 of 1092

ARUP
Your ref
Ourref 60125649
File re f
Strictly Private & Confidential 2 Bloor Street East

Suite 2400
Tim Laspa Toronto ON M4W IA8
Director Canada
Transportation Planni ng t +1 416 515 0915
City Planning Division f +I 41 6 515 1635
City of Toronto fe lipe.camargo@arup.com
www.arup.com
tlaspa @toronto.ca
March 19, 2016
Dear Tim,
Transit Intervention Business Case Support
Please find below our proposal for support on the preparation of Business Cases for
potential transit interventions in the City of Toronto.
Our support will include the preparation of key components of the Financial and Economic
Case of a Business Case, following Metrolinx 's draft Business Case Development
Handbook.
1 Proposed Methodology and Deliverables

We understand that the Department of City Planning wishes to develop Business Cases for
transit projects currently being considered, with the objective of contributing evidence to
the decision making process.
As has been discussed with City Staff, we propose to follow Metrolinx's draft Business
Case Development Handbook (BCDH). The BCDH specifies that four components or
'cases ' make up the business case:
The Strategic Case;
the Financial Case;
the Economic Case; and
the Deliverability and Operations Case.

City staff will develop the Strategic Case and it is assumed that at thi s stage of planning the
Deliverability and Operations Case is not yet required.
Consequently, our work will focus on the Financial and Economic Cases, with particular
emphasis on the Economic Case. However, given time constraints and the number of
options to be analyzed, we will set out, based on the BCDH, a list of Financial and
Economic Impacts and will prioritize them in terms of the expected level of impact they
Arup North Ame rica Ltd
Page 554 of 1092

60125649
March 19, 2016
Page 2 of 5
could have. This prioritization will be undertaken at the outset of the study in collaboration
with the client team.
We will work through this prioritized list and complete the evaluation of each type of
Financial and Economic Impact for all interventions being considered (see list in section 2)
before moving to the next. Note that as part of the prioritization work, we will identify
which Impacts could be assessed simultaneously.
It is envisaged that the estimation of Impacts will be based on outputs extracted from two
key sources:
GTAModel: Ridership and revenue forecasts, with runs undertaken by City staff
Accessibility Toolkit: Travel time impacts, with runs undertaken by Arup staff
At the end of May, work on Impacts estimates will stop and focus will turn to finalizing the
reporting to make sure that the outcomes that have been estimated are presented clearly
and concisely. This reporting will also include commentary to support the interpretation of
the results, as needed.
2 Assumptions
1. The transit interventions to be studied are, in the quoted lump sum fee for initial
work, limited to the following nine (9) interventions :
SmartTrack/GO RER- Integration Option C (TIC Fare)
SmartTrack/GO RER- Integration Option D (TTC Fare)
Downtown Relief Line- Queen Street Alignment
Downtown Relief Line- Eastern Avenue Alignment
Scarborough Subway Extension - Three Stop (McCowan? City to Confirm)
Scarborough Subway Extension- Express
Scarborough Subway Extension- One-stop plus ECLRT East
ECLRT East
ECLRT West
2. It is assumed that descriptions of the above listed transit interventions to be
assessed will be provided by the City team at the start of the study. The descriptions
shall include, for all interventions:
Key infrastructure location (stops, railways, etc.)
Route definitions (stop by stop)
Operating speeds (or times between stops)
Frequency of service
Page 555 of 1092

60125649
March 19, 20 16
Page 3 of 5
Required modifications to other routes

3. The analysis will be undertaken for one time period, consistent with the transit
interventions descriptions provided, as per the list included in assumption 1.
4. Demand modelling will be undertaken by City staff and outputs provided to the
consultant team as they become available.
5. Capital and Operating Costs information and/or assumptions will be provided by
the client team
6. Economic parameters to be used will be those specified in the draft Business Case
Development Handbook
3 Deliverables
Our proposal includes the following deliverables :
A note summarizing the outcomes of the analysis written in the form of a
memorandum, and provided in MS Word format with the ex ectation that City staff
will assemble a report to be submitted to the xecutive Committee and which will
include Business Case components developed directly by City staff (i.e. the
Strategic Case)
Tabular and graphical outputs produced as part of the analysis , including any
spreadsheet models and GIS layers produced as part of the study.
4 Schedule
The work is expected to be completed by the end of May 2016, with the date for
submission of the Report for the xecutive Committee by the 14th of June.
During the time of execution of the study, we propose the following milestones:
Weekly: Short email-based update on progress

Bi-weekly: one hour meeting with City ' s nominated Project Manager to discuss
progress and any issues that may have arisen
Results will be shared with the client team as soon as they become available to make sure
that work progresses fluidly.
5 Study Team
The proposed Arup team will include:
Project Manager - Felipe Camargo

Felipe, who has 17 years of experience in transportation planning and analysis will project
manage the study and will provide technical direction. Felipe has been involved in the
development of a large number of business cases throughout his career and is currently
involved in work being undertaken by Arup for Metrolinx in support of the development of
Page 556 of 1092

60125649
March 19, 2016
Page 4 of 5
the Business Case Development Handbook. Additionally, Felipe has extensive experience
in accessibility analysis and modelling studies, including recent work undertaken for the
City of Toronto, and has been in charge of the development of Connectivity Analysis
Toolkit that will be used in the study.
Transportation Planner - Ana Graovac

Ana is a Transportation Planner, with approximately three years of transportation planning
experience. She has a technical background having been involved in demand modelling,
spatial analysis and business case development for projects in Ireland, the United Kingdom
and Canada.
Transportation Planner - Rishi Lukka

I[_Qen ic]
Expert Advisor and Peer Reviewer- Leo Eyles

Leo Eyles, transportation economist with 28 years of experience will be providing advice
and will act as internal peer reviewer.
. He is
currently acting as Peer Reviewer of the Business Case Development Handbook.
6 Fee Proposal
The upper limit fee for work undertaken within the timescales and methodology described
above, is of $97,112, excluding HST.
Any additional work would be agreed in advance and charged at the following hourly
rates:
Grade Hourly rate (ex c. HST and expenses)

Associate Principal (Leo Eyles) $
Associate (Felipe Camargo) $
Senior Transportation Consultant $
Transportation Consultant (Ana Graovac, $
Rishi Lukka)
Graduate Transportation Consultant $
Page 557 of 1092

601 25649
March 19,20 16
Page 5 of 5
Yours sincerely
~~e. Cz_,?"
Felipe Camargo
Associate
Page 558 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen

Hi Karen, Mike,

meeting held on April 29th, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, which
o Input Data:

o Input Data:
Strategic model outputs have not been rovided by the city as of the date/time of this email.
Would you be able to advise what is meant by "Strate ic Model Outputs".
Page 559 of 1092

for SSE and RL to be provided Tuesday morning by TTC.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 560 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Hi Karen,
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that' s coming out of the GTA Model that Michael and
his team are generating (i.e. travel time benefit, crowding benefit, fare savings, fare revenue and change in VKT). Sorry, I
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Friday, May 20, 20161 :26 PM
Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen

Subject : Transit Business Case work - Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hi Karen, Mike,

1
Page 561 of 1092

included in the base case for all other projects .
o Input Data:
o Input Data:
be able to advise what is meant by "Strategic Model Outputs".
breakdown is available but not cash-flow over construction period. City Planning is following up on
assumptions that could be used to determine the basis for cash flow . O&M costs for SSE and RL to be
this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

2
Page 562 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-20-16 3:15 PM
Dear all,
Just a quick clarification question. With regards to population and employment forecasts, we'd agreed to use Low
population and Medium employment, however for each of these, there are forecasts for 'without SmartTrack', 'with
SmartT rack' and 'All Boats Rise'.
For the sake of simplicity of interpretation I'd suggest that we use the 'without SmartTrack' growth scenario for all
options, but we'd like to confirm that you all agree with this. The reason for using the without SmartTrack scenario
being that alternative growth scenarios for the other transit options don't exist (or haven't been made available) .
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet .com); Michael Hain; Peter Notaro
Hi Felipe,
Please see response below in red .
Thanks,
Karen
Page 563 of 1092

Hi Karen, Mike,

o Input Data :
o Input Data :
this ema il. SSE : 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE .
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
2
Page 564 of 1092

www.arup.com

Page 565 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Mike Logan

To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Karen Thorburn
Felipe,
For consistency with our Travel Demand modelling, you'll need to use the "with SmartTrack" forecasts for all scenarios
that include ST. The only exception is the ST base network (with GO RER only), which should use the "w ithout
SmartTrack " forecast.
Mike

Dear all,
Just a quick clarification question. With regards to population and employment forecasts, we' d agreed to use
Low population and Medium employment, however for each of these, there are forecasts for 'without
SmartTrack' , ' with SmartTrack' and 'All Boats Rise'.
For the sake of simplicity of interpretation I'd suggest that we use the 'without SmartTrack' growth scenario for
all options, but we'd like to confirm that you all agree with this. The reason for using the without SmartTrack
scenario bei ng that alternative growth scenarios for the other transit options don't exist (or haven't been made
available).
Thanks,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 566 of 1092


Hi Felipe ,
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup.com )

Hi Karen, Mike,

o Input Data: .

o Input Data:
Would you be able to advise what is meant b "Strategic Model Outputs"?
Page 567 of 1092

Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W J A8 Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 568 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Fel ipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo@arup.com >

To: Michael Hain
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Ka ren Thorburn; Mike Logan
Subject: Re: Transit Business Case work - Follow-up to May 19th teleconferen ce
Hi Michael,
This looks great, thanks. I'll update the spreadsheet over the weekend . We'd have to modify these if the assumptions
for the base case change, but for now we'll use these.
Felipe
On May 20, 2016, at 5:12PM, Michael Hain <mhain@toronto.ca > wrote :
Hello Felipe,
Unfortunately, we were not able to finish extracting all of the travel time savings numbers. Attached are
what we have been able to pull so far and blank tables to show what we will fill in on Tuesday. I hope it
is enough to get you started .
I believe that once we have sent you a completed version of this table we will have sent you all of the
inputs you need from the Regional Travel Demand Model. VKT reductions and fare revenue were
included in the spreadsheet I sent you on Wednesday.
Michael
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the updates/responses, we've started to incorporate the new information and will be ready
to start generating outputs from the Access ibility Model as soon as the base case assumptions are
confirmed .
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that's com ing out of the GTA Model
that Michael and his team are generating (i.e. travel time benefit, crowding benefit, fare savings, fare
revenue and change in VKT). Sorry, I realize I could've been clearer!
Cheers,
Felipe

Hi Felipe,
1
Page 569 of 1092

Thanks,
Karen
Hi Karen, Mike,
Base Case: During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe Camargo, it was
case'. At the meeting held on April 29th, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for
all options, which included GO RER as the base for SmartTrack. However, the City Planning team
other projects.
present. Will confirm by end of day.
Accessibility/connectivity Analysis: All options have been coded in the accessibility model and
runs are complete for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base
Case'. The runs, which take approximately 48 hours for all the scenarios, should be complete
tonight.
o Input Data:
of this email. Sent by Michael Hain 05/20.
o Input Data:
email. Would you be able to advise what is meant by "Strategic Model Outputs"?
date/time of this email. Will send confidential draft capital costs under separate cover.
EgE may be delayed- high level cost breakdown is available but not cash-flow over
construction period. City Planning is following up on assumptions that could be used to
determine the basis for cash flow. O&M costs for SSE and RL to be provided Tuesday
morning by TIC.
date/time of this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE.
outputs within the timescales . Lets touch base on Tuesday to assess schedule for outputs based on the
inputs you have received.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
2
Page 570 of 1092

www.arup.com

Page 571 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-20-16 6:02 PM
To: Felipe Camargo; Michael Hain
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com); Mike Logan; Peter Notaro
Hi Felipe
A discussion happened with senior staff and we will proceed with including smarttrack option c in the base case for the
non smarttrack projects.
Thanks
Karen
From: Felipe camargo

To: Michael Hain
Subject: Re: Transit Business Case work- Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Hi Michael,
This looks great, thanks. I'll update the spreadsheet over the weekend. We'd have to modify these if the assumptions
for the base case change, but for now we'll use these.
Felipe
On May 20, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Michael Hain <mhain@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hello Felipe,
Unfortunately, we were not able to finish extracting all of the travel time savings numbers. Attached are
what we have been able to pull so far and blank tables to show what we will fill in on Tuesday. I hope it
is enough to get you started.
I believe that once we have sent you a completed version of this table we will have sent you all of the
inputs you need from the Regional Travel Demand Model. VKT reductions and fare revenue were
included in the spreadsheet I sent you on Wednesday.
Michael
Se~:Ma~2~162~6PM
Page 572 of 1092

Hi Karen,
Thanks for the updates/responses, we've started to incorporate the new information and will be ready
to start generating outputs from the Accessibility Model as soon as the base case assumptions are
confirmed.
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that's coming out of the GTA Model
that Michael and his team are generating (i.e. travel time benefit, crowding benefit, fare savings, fare
revenue and change in VKT). Sorry, I realize I could've been clearer!
Cheers,
Felipe

Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen
Hi Karen, Mike,
Base Case : During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe Camargo, it was
case' . At the meeting held on April 29 1h, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for
all options, which included GO RER as the base for SmartTrack. However, the City Planning team
other projects.
present. Will confirm by end of day.
Accessibility/connectivity Analysis: All options have been coded in the accessibility model and runs
are complete for the GO-RER base case, and currently underway for the 'Option B Base Case'.
The runs, which take approximately 48 hours for all the scenarios, should be complete tonight.
o Input Data :
of this email. Sent by Michael Hain 05/20.
o Input Data:
email. Would you be able to advise what is meant by "Strategic Model Outputs".
date/time of this email. Will send confidential draft capital costs under separate cover.
EgE may be delayed- high level cost breakdown is available but not cash -flow over
Page 573 of 1092

construction period. City Planning is following up on assumptions that could be used to
determine the basis for cash flow. O&M costs for SSE and RL to be provided Tuesday
morning by nc.
date/time of this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE.
outputs within the timescales. Lets touch base on Tuesday to assess schedule for outputs based on the
inputs you have received.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 574 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
We've updated our spreadsheet with your outputs (thanks again for sending them last week) and have a couple of quick
questions/comments:
The Eglinton East test is described as "Option C with Express with ... ", this is inconsistent with all the other tests
which have McCowan 3 as the base.

Section 7 applied
Thanks,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
been able to pull so far and blank tables to show what we will fill in on Tuesday. I hope it is enough to get you started.
on Wednesday.
Michael

1
Page 575 of 1092

Hi Karen ,
generating outputs from the Accessibility Model as soon as the base case assumptions are confirmed .
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that's coming out of the GTA Model that Michael and
his team are generating (i .e. travel time benefit, crowding benefit, fare savings, fare revenue and change in VKT) . Sorry, I
Cheers,
Felipe

Hi Felipe,
Thanks,
Karen

Hi Karen, Mike,

there was some confusion between the teams regarding the definition of a 'base case' . At the meeting held on
April 29th, it was agreed that a single base case would be used for all options, which included GO RER as the base
for SmartT rack. However, the City Planning team was working under the assumption that ST Option C would be
Page 576 of 1092

o Input Data:
Sent by Michael Hain 05/20 .
o Input Data:
be able to adv1se what is meant by "Strategic Model Outputs"?
assumptions that could be used to determine the basis for cash flow . O&M costs for SSE and RL to be
this email. SSE: 2025; RL: 2031; City Planning to confirm for EgE .
touch base on Tuesday to assess schedule for outputs based on the inputs you have received .
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 577 of 1092

Vivien Leung
From: Michael Hain

Sent: May-24-16 10:11 AM
Hello Felipe,
Sorry, I didn't realize that you needed 2041 for your method too. We will pull those numbers as soon as we can but it
won't be today.
The Eglinton East LRT is only being proposed in the case of the Express subway being built, which is why the Express is
used in the base for that case.
. As a quick alternative, we also tested the LRT without changing any of the bus
routes. I haven't seen all of the numbers from those runs yet but they appear to move in a more logical way. We should
be able to send those to you with the completed spreadsheet for 2031.
M.
Section 7 applied

To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
We've updated our spreadsheet with your outputs (thanks again for sending them last week) and have a couple
of quick questions/comments:
The Eglinton East test is described as "Option C with Express with . ..", this is inconsistent with all the
other tests which have McCowan 3 as the base.
The results for Eglinton East 'Full LRT' look a little bit odd; essentially it makes things worse. The
'shortened LRT' option performs better which suggests to us that there could be something wrong with
how this option is set up in the model.
Thanks,
Felipe
Page 578 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
Unfortunately, we were not able to finish extract ing all of the travel t ime savings numbers. Atta ched are wh at we have
been able to pull so far and blank tables to show what we will f ill in on Tuesday. I hope it is enough to get you started.
I believe that once we have sent you a complet ed version of th is t able we will have sent yo u all of the inputs you need
from th e Regional Travel Demand Model. VKT reductions and fare reven ue were inclu ded in the spreadsheet I sent you
on Wednesday.
Please let me know if you think there are any other outstanding measures .
Michael

Hi Karen,
What I meant by "Strategic Model Outputs" was the information that's coming out of the GT A Model that
Catching up on Tuesday sounds good, would noon work for yo u?
Cheers,
Felipe

Hi Felipe ,
Page 579 of 1092

Thanks,
Karen

Hi Karen, Mike,

Karen is confuming with senior management what base case they feel is most appropriate to present.
o Input Data:

o Input Data:
Strategic model out12uts have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this email.
Would you be able to advise what is meant by "Strategic Model Out uts"?
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

3
Page 580 of 1092

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 1400 Toronto ON M4W lA8 Canada
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 581 of 1092

Principle Criterion Measure Rationale Description Project Comments
People Experience Transit Ridership Change The 2031 forecasted change in the number of transit riders travelling over the course of a day. FC? Modified
People Experience Change in Auto Jobs Accessibility Index The change in the time it takes to access jobs using automobiles . Feeling Congested?
People Experience Change in Transit Jobs Accessibility Index The change in the time it takes to access jobs using transit. Feeling Congested?
People Experience Ability to distribute demand to transit services with Projected rel ief to congested points (V/C>.85) of the transit network (e.g. Yonge Subway south of Bloor Station, BD modified Linked to the relief at Yonge-Bioor
available capacity. West of Sherbourne, Union Station, surface routes) .
People Experience Impact on Yonge Subway The 2031 forecasted change in the peak hour, peak point ridership on the Yonge subway. A diversion of riders to FC? Modified
other routes will improve user experience.
People Experience Impact on Yonge Subway The 2031 forecasted change in the peak hour, peak point number of transfers from BD Westbound to YUS new
Southbound .
People Experience Change in Transit Trip Lengths Projected change in Average distance travelled on transit modified This measure should be clarified . Is an increase positive or negative? Is the
goal to shorten trips overall, move more travelling to transit (particularly
longer trip), make transit paths more direct, make transit trips faster?
People Experience Change in Transit Travel Times The change in the average transit travel time (using the subset of trips affected bythe intervention). new This measure should be clarified based on discussion of transit trip length
measure.
People Choice Change in average number of transfers made The 2031 forecasted change in the average number of transfers required to complete a trip during the AM peak Feeling Congested?
period. Fewer transfers are better.
People Choice Change in number of transfer stations The number of stations on the line with transfers available to other rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) lines. Feeling Congested?
More transfer stations increases choice.
People Choice Change in number of connections available The number of opportunities to transfer to other rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) routes. Feeling Congested?
People Choice What is the ability to connect to existing and planned Qualitative- Describe opportunities to connect with existing and planned walking and cycling routes RL This measure does not seem decision relevant. Walking and cycling routes can
walking and cycling routes? be established to better serve any of the options.
People Social Equity Change in disadvantaged residents served The number of disadvantaged residents (defined by the population weighted by the Neighbourhood Equity Score) Feeling Congested? Do we have better information about low income residents now that we could
the who live within walking distance (500m) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) (measured in terms of use instead of the population weighted by NES?
people per kilometre of transit) .
People Social Equity Change in disadvantaged jobs accessibility index A change in the time it takes for disadvantaged residents (defined by the population weighted by the Feeling Congested? Do we have better information about low income residents now that we could
differential Neighbourhood Equity Score) to access jobs using transit compared to the average for residents of the city. use instead of the population weighted by NES?
People Social Equity Increase in coverage Additional percentage of the City's land area within walking distance (500m) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, Go Feeling Congested?
Rail) .
People Social Equity Change in Transit Mode Share Transit mode share of residents in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas. modified An increase would reflect an improvement in transit conditions because of the
structure of the model.
Places Shaping the City Service to residential growth areas The proportion of the land within walking distance (500m) of the line which is designated for population growth. Feeling Congested?
Places Shaping the City Projected population growth The projected growth in population to 2031 with in walking distance (500m) of the line (measured in terms of Feeling Congested?
average growth per kilometre of transit) .
Places Shaping the City Existing population density The number of people who live within walking distance (500m) of the proposed line (measured in terms of people Feeling Congested?
per kilometre of transit) .
Places Shaping t he City Location relative to parcels of land with Is the station located near sites with intensification potential? Area/degree of potential uplift. modified How robust a data set do we have for this information?
intensification potential
Places Healthy Neighbourhood Impact Proportion of the land within walking distance (SOOm) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) that is not Feeling Congested?
Neighbourhoods designated as stable residential neighbourhoods.
Places Healthy Population Employment Balance The diversity of uses within walking distance (500m) of the line, calculated as the ratio of population to Feeling Congested? Should this be measured for the network as a whole? Local area within the
Neighbourhoods employment. A more balanced ratio is desirable. network?
Places Healthy Transit Convenience Index A comparison of the total travel time (including time to get to a transit station, t ime waiting for a vehicle to arrive, Feeling Congested? Do we need to rethink this measure given how transit capacity affects in-
Neighbourhoods boarding time and in-vehicle time) to in-vehicle travel time only. vehicle travel time?
Places Healthy Change in active mode share. Projected change in the mode share of Walking and Cycling modified What does this tell you? The increase could come from auto or transit. Do we
Neighbourhoods want to build a transit line that decreases transit use?
Places Public Health & Change in vehicle kilometres travelled The 2031 forecasted change in total vehicle kilometres travelled by cars during the AM peak hour as a result of the Feeling Congested?
Environment construction of the line. (also a proxy for GHGs and other pollutants)
Places Public Health & Change in auto mode share The 2031 forecasted difference in the percentage of trips using cars. A lower percentage is desirable. Feeling Congested?
Environment
Places Public Health & Ability to support and provide connections to natural Area of natural heritage areas within 250 m of stations modified Thi s measure should be clarified . Is a higher number positive or negative?
Environment heritage areas (Design)
Prosperity Supports Growth Service to employment growth areas The proportion of the land within walking distance (500m) of t he line which is designated for employment growth . Feeling Congested?
Prosperity Supports Growth Projected employment growth The projected growth in employment to 2031 within walking distance (SOOm) of the line (measured in terms of Feeling Congested?
average growth per kilometre of transit).
Page 582 of 1092

Prosperity Supports Growth Existing employment density The number of jobs within walking distance (SOOm) of the proposed line (mea sured in terms of number of jobs per Feeling Congested?
kilometre of t ransit) .
Prosperity Affordability Life-cycle cost per Rider Total life-cycle cost (capital, maintenance and operating costs) of the line divided by the 2031 forecasted increase in Feeling Congested ? If all measures are normalized by cost, th is measure would be a duplicate
total ride rship .
Prosperity Affordability Cost recovery of transit system Change in subsidy (and subsidy per rider) required . modified
Em me General Notes:
Accessibility Tool Physical barriers and the st reet network should be taken into account for any measures making use of distance from a station.
GIS/ non-model Con sider notmalizing all measures by the cost
Page 583 of 1092

Principle Criterion Measure Rationale Description Project Comments
People Experience Transit Ridership Change The 2031 forecasted change in the number of transit riders travelling over the course of a day. FC? Modified Strategic Case.
People Experience Change in Auto Jobs Accessibility Index The change in the time it takes to access jobs using automobiles. Feeling Congested? Strategic Case. Consider together
People Experience Change in Transit Jobs Accessibility Index The change in the time it takes to access jobs using transit. Feeling Congested?
People Experience Ability to distribute demand to transit services with Projected relief to congested points (V/C>.85) of the transit network (e.g. Yonge Subway south of Bloor Station, BD mod ified Strategic Case. Combine. Will need to think more about how to do this. Want
available capacity. West of Sherbourne, Union Station, surface routes) . utilization of transit services to be close to 1.
People Experience Impact on Yonge Subway The 2031 forecasted change in the peak hour, peak point ridership on the Yonge subway. A diversion of riders to FC? Modified
other routes will improve user experience.
People Experience Impact on Yonge Subway The 2031 forecasted change in the peak hour, peak point number of transfers from BD Westbound to YUS new
Southbound .
People Experience Change in Transit Travel Times The change in the average transit travel time. new Economic Case . The calculation of this measure requires significant further
thought. Partially tied to the accessibility calculations.
People Choice Change in average number of transfers made The 2031 forecasted change in the average number of transfers required to complete a trip during the AM peak Feeling Congested? Strategic Case.
period. Fewer transfers are better.
People Choice Change in number of transfer stations The number of stations on the line with transfers available to other rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) lines. Feeling Congested? Strategic Case. Consider together
More transfer stations increases choice.
People Choice Change in number of connections available The number of opportunities to transfer to other rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) routes. Feeling Congested? I
People Choice Connections to major existing and planned walking Qualitative- Describe opportunities to connect with major existing and planned walking and cycling routes . Minor RL Strategic Case . I
and cycling routes routes will be established for all stations and are generally not decision relevant.
People Social Equity Change in disadvantaged residents served The number of disadvantaged residents (defined by the population weighted by the Neighbourhood Equity Score) Feeling Congested? Strategic Case . Do we have better information about low income residents
the who live within walking distance (500m) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) (measured in terms of now that we could use instead of the population weighted by NES? Includes
people per kilometre of transit). some double counting with residents served but represents a more important
population to serve.
People Social Equity Change in disadvantaged jobs accessibility index A change in the time it takes for disadvantaged residents (defined by the population weighted by the Feeling Congested? Strategic Case. Do we have better information about low income residents
differential Neighbourhood Equity Score) to access jobs using transit compared to the average for residents of the city. now that we could use instead of the population weighted by NES? Includes
some double counting with residents served but represents a more important
I population to serve.
People Social Equity Increase in coverage Additional percentage of the City's land area within walking distance (500m) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, Go Feeling Congested? Strategic Case.
Rail) .
Places Shaping the City Service to residential growth areas The proportion of the land within walking distance (500m) of the line which is designated for population growth . Feeling Congested? Strategic Case. Consider together
Places Shaping the City Projected population growth The projected growth in population to 2031 within walking distance (SOOm) of the line (measured in terms of Feeling Congested?
average growth per kilometre of transit) .
Places Shaping the City Existing population density The number of people who live within walking distance (500m) of the proposed line (measured in terms of people Feeling Congested? Strategic Case.
per kilometre of transit) .
Places Healthy Neighbourhood Impact Proportion of the land within walking distance (500m) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) that is not Feeling Congested? Strategic Case.
Neighbourhoods designated as stable residential neighbourhoods. City policy protects these areas from development so most
impacts are not decision relevant.
Places Public Health & Change in vehicle kilometres travelled The 2031 forecasted change in total vehicle kilometres travelled by cars during the AM peak hour as a result of the Feeling Congested? Strategic Case or Economic Case. Consider together. Low weight in analysis
Environment construction of the line. (also a proxy for GHGs and other pollutants) because roads w ill backfill with new trips. In reality, this represents potential
for new trips.
Places Public Health & Change in auto mode share The 2031 forecasted difference in the percentage of trips using cars. A lower percentage is desirable. Feeling Congested?
Environment
Places Public Health & Significant Environmental Challenges Associated with Qualitative- Describe significant environmental challenges associated with the project (i.e. those for which new Strategic Case.
Environment the Project mitigation will be a challenge). Environmental impacts which can be mitigated are generally not decision relevant.
Prosperity Supports Growth Service to employment growth areas The proportion of the land within walking distance (500m) of the line which is designated for employment growth . Feeling Congested? Strategic Case. Consider together
Prosperity Supports Growth Projected employment growth The projected growth in employment to 2031 within walking distance (500m) of the line (measured in terms of Feeling Congested?
average growth per kilometre of transit).
Prosperity Supports Growth Existing employment density The number of jobs within walking distance (500m) of the proposed line (measured in terms of number of jobs per Feeling Congested? Strategic Case .
kilometre of transit).
Prosperity Affordability Life-cycle cost per Rider Total life-cycle cost (capital, maintenance and operating costs) of the line divided by the 2031 forecasted increase in Feeling Congested? Financial Case
total ridership.
Prosperity Affordability Cost recovery of transit system Change in subsidy (and subsidy per rider) required . modified Financial Case
Em me General Notes:
Accessibility Tool Physical barriers and the street network should be taken into account for any measures making use of distance from a station.
GIS/non-model Consider notmalizing all measures by the cost
Page 584 of 1092

Principle Criterion Sub-Criterion
People Experience N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Social Equity N/A
Places Shaping the City N/A
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods N/A
Places Public Health and Environment N/A
Prosperity Supports Growth N/A
Prosperity Affordability N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
People Choice N/A
Page 585 of 1092

People Experience 2.A.l. Speed, reliability and comfort of subway from Kennedy Station to Sheppard Avenue
People Experience 2.A.2. Capacity to ease crowding I congestion to address existing and future travel demands
People Choice 2.B.l. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that mitigates the impacts to existing users of SRT
People Choice 2.B.2. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that improves access and integration by providing convenient connections with local transit routes
People Choice 2.B.3. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that improves access and integration by providing convenient connections with inter-regional transit routes
People Choice 2.C.l. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that promotes seamless pedestrian connections through subway station location and design (including below-grc
People Choice 2.D.l. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that promotes seamless connections for customers cycling to the stations through subway station location and d
People Choice 2.D.l. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that promotes seamless connections for customers cycling to the stations through subway station location and d
People Social Equity 3.A.l. Strengthen and enhance existing neighbourhood improvement areas
People Social Equity Provide high quality transit service to all residents of the City
Places Shaping the City l.C.l. Opportunity to encourage transit oriented development in the vicinity of all station sites
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods l.D.l. Create opportunities to improve the public realm in station areas, including streets, parks, plazas and other public spaces
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods l.D.l. Create opportunities to improve the public realm in station areas, including streets, parks, plazas and other public spaces
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods 3.A.l. Strengthen and enhance existing neighbourhoods
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods 3.B.l. Mitigate impact to existing neighbourhoods associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods 3.B.l. Mitigate impact to existing neighbourhoods associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods 3.B.2. Mitigate property impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods 3.B.2. Mitigate property impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Public Health & Environment 3.A.l. Strengthen and enhance existing natural heritage areas
Places Public Health & Environment 3.A.2. Change in air quality associated with the construction and operation of the project
Page 586 of 1092

Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.3. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, noise impact on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and operat
'Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.3. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, noise impact on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and opera!
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.3 . Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, noise impact on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and opera!
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.3. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, noise impact on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and opera!
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.4. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, vibration impact on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and op
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.5. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, electromagnetic interference associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.6. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, the impact of soil contamination on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the con!
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B .8. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on natural heritage features I areas associated with the construction and operation of the proje
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.9. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on surface water associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.10. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on groundwater associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.12. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on geology and soils associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.12. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on geology and soils associated with the construction and operation of the project
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.13. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes associated with the construction a
Places Public Health & Environment 3.B.13. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes associated with the construction a
Prosperity Supports Growth l.A.l. Ability to integrate subway stations with existing and planned land uses
Prosperity Supports Growth l.B.l. Station location relative to designated growth areas, including Centres, Mobility Hubs, Avenues and/or Mixed Use Areas
Prosperity Supports Growth l.C.l. Opportunity to encourage transit oriented development in the vicinity of all station sites
Prosperity Supports Growth l.C.l. Opportunity to encourage transit oriented development in the vicinity of all station sites
Prosperity Supports Growth 3.B. 7. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any business disruptions associated with the construction and operation of the project
Prosperity Supports Growth 3.B.7. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any business disruptions associated with the construction and operation of the project
Prosperity Supports Growth 3.B .7. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any business disruptions associated with the construction and operation of the project
Prosperity Affordable A. Optimize cost effectiveness in terms of both capital and operating costs
People Choice Connectivity to Surface Transit Routes

People Choice Connectivity to Walking and Cycling Routes
People Choice Connectivity to Higher-order Transit Services
People Choice Supporting Transportation Infrastructure
People Choice Directness of Transfer to the Bloor/Danforth Subway
People Choice Directness of Transfer to the Yonge-University-Spadina Subway
People Choice Compatibility with the PATH network
People Choice Ability to reduce passenger crowding at existing stations
People Choice Downtown Pedestrian Network Impacts
People Choice Rapid Transit Network Connectivity and Flexibility
People Choice Service Area
People Experience Proximity to Key Destinations
People Experience Relief to Existing Subway Network (Bioor-Danforth)
People Experience Interchange Station Design
People Experience Proximity to key destinations for potential future northern extension
People Experience Relief to Existing Subway Network (Downtown)
Page 587 of 1092

People Experience Proximity to key destinations for potential future western extension
People Experience Travel Time
People Experience Relief to Yonge Subway Line
People Experience Relief to Yonge-Bioor Station
People Experience Relief to Union Station
People Experience Relief to Bloor-Danforth Subway Line
People Experience Relief to Surface Transit Routes
People Experience Relief Line Ridership
People Experience Total Transit Ridership
People Experience Passenger Comfort
People Social Equity Improving Service to Neighbourhood Improvement Areas
People Social Equ ity Attracting Public and Private Investment Benefiting Residents Living in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas
People Social Equity Supporting Equity in Mobility by Gender, Income, Family Status, and Age Class
People Social Equity Opportunities for Community Benefits Agreements
Places Shaping the City Serving Areas of Existing Population
Places Shaping the City Serving Areas of Planned Population Growth
Places Shaping the City Compatibility with City Planning Policies
Places Shaping the City Existing Physical Barriers
Places Shaping the City Supporting City-Build ing Opportunities
Places Shaping the City Partnership Opportunities for Transit-Oriented Development
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Compatibility with Existing Neighbourhoods (Stations)
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Compatibil ity with Existing Neighbourhoods (Alignment)
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Opportunities for context-sensitive integration of the station facilities with adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhoods
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Improving Access to Community Services and Facilities
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Impacts on Cultural I Heritage I Archaeological Features (Station)
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Impacts on Cultural I Heritage I Archaeological Features (Alignment)
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Improving Access to Institutions and Services
Places Healthy Neighbourhoods Eliminating Barriers within Neighbourhoods
Places Public Health & Environment Compatibility With the Natural Environment (Station)
Places Public Health & Environment Compatibility With the Natural Environment (Alignment)
Places Public Health & Environment Ability to Mitigate Natural Impacts
Places Public Health & Environment Compatibility with Parks and Public Spaces (Station)
Places Public Health & Environment Compatibility with Parks and Public Spaces (Alignment)
Places Public Health & Environment Encouraging People to use Public Transit and Drive Less
Places Public Health & Environment Noise/Vibration Impacts during Operation
Places Public Health & Environment Noise, Vibration and Other Environmental Impacts during Construction
Places Public Health & Environment Impacts to Groundwater and Other Water Resources
Prosperity Afford ability Engineering Feasibility (Stations)
Prosperity Affordability Engineering Feasibility (Alignment)
Prosperity Affordability Minimize Property Acquisition Costs (Station)
Prosperity Afford ability Minimize Property Acquisition Costs (Alignment)
Prosperity Afford ability Construction Costs
Prosperity Affordab ility Operating I Maintenance Cost
Prosperity Affordability Construction Impacts-Construction Impacts to Existing Transit Services-Traffic Impacts during Construction-Maintaining Access during Construction
Prosperity Affordability Utility Impacts
Prosperity Affordability Geotechnical Conditions
Prosperity Affordability Connecting to the Storage Facility
Prosperity Afford ability
Page 588 of 1092

Prosperity Affordability Ease of Constructing Future Northern Extension
Prosperity Affordability Ease of Constructing Future Western Extension
Prosperity Afford ability Impact on Existing Danforth Subway
Prosperity Afford ability Impact on Existing Downtown Subway Stations
Prosperity Afford ability Track Alignment
Prosperity Affordability Ease and Speed of Construction
Prosperity Supports Growth Serving Areas of Existing Employment
Prosperity Supports Growth Serving Areas of Planned Employment Growth
Prosperity Supports Growth Supporting and Strengthening Existing Businesses and Industry (Stations)
Prosperity Supports Growth Supporting and Strengthening Existing Businesses and Industry (Alignment)
Page 589 of 1092

Measure
Transit Ridership Change
Impact on Yonge Subway
Change in Auto Jobs Accessibility Index
Change in Transit Jobs Accessibility Index
Change in average number of transfers made
Change in number of transfer stations
Change in number of connections available
Change in disadvantaged residents served
Change in disadvantaged jobs accessibility index differentia l
Increase in coverage
Service to residential growth areas
Projected population growth
Existing population density
Neighbourhood Impact
Population Employment Balance
Transit Convenience Index
Change in vehicle kilometres travelled
Change in auto mode share
Service to employment growth areas
Projected employment growth
Existing employment density
Life-cycle cost per Rider
Attractiveness of transit as a viable transportation mode choice for residents.
Impact to transit users making a diverse range of trip types on the transit system reflecting varied needs of transit users
Ability for transit users to optimize their transit trip by using different components of the transit network.
Ability for transit users to optimize their transit trip by using different components of the transit network
Ability for transit users to optimize their transit trip by using different components of the transit network.
Ability to distribute demand to transit services with available capacity.
Impact on customer travel time and distance of travel.
Impact on customer travel time and distance of travel.
Customer experience and convenience in using the fare structure.
Financial impact of fare structure on members of equity-seeking populations (vertical equity) .
Fairness of the fare structure for transit trips of comparable value (horizontal equity) .
Fairness of the fare structure for transit trips of comparable value (horizontal equity) .
Fairness of the fare structure for transit trips of comparable value (horizontal equity).
Long-term ability of the fare option to support Official Plan vision, goals and policies for residential growth integrated with transportation capacity in the City.
Long-term ability of the fare option to support provincial and regional land use and growth management policies.
Impact of the fare structure on active transportation choices.
Impact of the fare structure on active transportation choices.
Impact of the fare structure on automobile use and the resulting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
Impact of the fare structure on automobile use and the resulting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
Long-term financial impact of fare structure option on local transit agencies and municipal governments.
Long-term financial impact of fare structure option on local transit agencies and municipal governments.
Impact on cost-recovery ratio for transit services.
Impact of transitional capital costs.
Impact of transitional capital costs.
Page 590 of 1092

Ability of businesses in key employment areas to access labour markets by tran sit.
Long-term ability of the fare option to support Official Plan vision, goals and policie s for employment growth in the City.
Improving transit acce ss to economically depressed areas.
2.A.l.l. Travel time from Kennedy Station to Sheppard Avenue
2.A.1.2. Comfort for subway passengers
2.A.1.2 . Comfort for subway passengers
2.A.2.1. Capacity to ease crowding I congestion within the transit system (i .e. connecting subway lines, Sheppard LRT and on bus routes)
2.8.1.1. Is the route optimally located to provide a direct connection to Scarborough Centre?
2.8.1.2 . Impacts to service for existing SRT riders
2.8.1.3. Impacts to SRT passengers using existing line stations
2.8.2.1. Transfer time from bus to subway platform at all stations
2.8.2.2 . Opportunities for connections to other contemplated rapid transit initiatives
2.8.2.2. Opportunities for connections to other contemplated rapid transit initiatives
2.8.2.2. Opportunities for connections to other contemplated rapid transit initiatives
2.8.3.1. Transfer time from other inter-regional travel modes to subway platforms
2.8.3 .1. Transfer time from other inter-regional travel modes to subway platforms
2.8.3 .1. Transfer time from other inter-regional travel modes to subway platforms
2.C.l.l. Opportunities to provide taxi stand, PPUDO at all stations, commuter parking, ambulatory I non- ambulatory disabled persons, etc.)
2.C.1.2 . Opportunities to provide bus terminals at the stations
2.C.1.3. Quality of pedestrian connections near station locations and integration with surrounding neighbourhood
2.D.l.l. Opportunities to provide bike racks at all stations
2C2 .1 Quality of connections with existing cycling routes in the vicinity of proposed stations
3.A.1.2. Drive public and private investment to designated neighbourhood improvement areas (formerly known as "priority neighbourhoods") (Design)
Improve transit access for the City's disadvantaged residents
l.C.l.l. Location relative to parcels of land with intensification potential
l.C.1.2 . Proximity of stations to major destinations (existing and planned), e.g. schools, civic and community centres and hospital
l.C.1.3 . Existing population density within 500 m of subway stations
l.C.1.4. Future population within 500 m walking distance of subway stations
l.C.1.5. Potential to achieve provincial minimum population and employment density targets for transit supportive development[2]
l.D.l.l. Opportun ity to improve existing public realm
l.D.1.2. Compliance with the City of Toronto's Urban Design Guidelines
3.A.l.l. Impacts on existing apartment neighbourhoods (Design)
3.A.l .l. Impacts on existing apartment neighbourhoods (Design)
3.A.1.3. Improve transit access to community services and facilities (Design)
3.A.1.4. Support existing commercial businesses (Design)
3.8.1.1. Impacts on existing stable neighbourhoods (Design)
3.8.1.2. Potential displacement of community facilities (Design)
3.8.2.1. Property and easement acquisition requirements (Design)
3.8.2.1. Property impacts brought about by the construction of stations, vent shafts and commuter facilities (Design)
3.A.1.5. Ability to support and provide connections to natural heritage areas (Design)
3.A.2.1. Impacts due to replacement of surface vehicle traffic with subway operations (Design)
3.8.11.1. Localized impacts due to vehicles using commuter facilities (i.e . bus terminals and commuter parking lots) at stations (Design)
3.8.11.2. Impact of dust emission from construction activities (Construction)
Page 591 of 1092

3.8.3.1. Potential impact of subway and commuter facilities (Design)
3.8.3.1. Potential impact of subway and commuter facilities (Design)
3.8.3.2 . Impacts due to operation of construction equipment (Construction)
3.8.3.2. Impacts due to operation of construction equipment (Construction)
3.8.4.1. Impacts due to vibration produced by underground train movements and buses and vehicles using commuter facilities (Design)
3.8.4.1. Impacts due to vibration produced by underground train movements and buses and vehicles using commuter facilities (Design)
3.8.4.2. Impacts due to operation of construction equipment (i.e. due to tunneling, piling and dewatering activities) (Construction)
3.8.4.2. Impacts due to operation of construction equipment (i.e. due to tunneling, piling and dewatering activities) (Construction)
3.8.5.1. Impacts due to operation of subway (Design)
3.8.6.1. Impacts due to excavation and disposal of contaminated soils (Design)
3.8.8.1. Number of important natural heritage features I areas within the zone of influence of the subway extension (Design)
3.8.9.1. Stormwater management and drainage patterns (Design)
3.8.9.2. Impact of creek crossings, erosion and sedimentations (Design)
3.8.9.3 . Changes in hydraulic characteristics of watercourses (Design)
3.8.10.1. Impacts to groundwater resources due to construction I dewatering activities (Construction)
3.8.12.1. Potential erosion of exposed of slopes (Design)
3.8.12.2. Disturbance of bedrock (Design)
3.8.13.1. Number of 8HRs and CHLs disrupted I displaced (Design)
3.8.14.1. Number of archaeological features disrupted I displaced (Design)
l.A.l.l. The extent to which the station location and orientation create opportunities for integration with existing and planned _land uses (to minimize impacts to lands
1.8.1.1. Station location relative to designated Avenue or Mixed Use Area
l.C.l.3 . Existing employment density within 500 m of subway stations
l.C.1.4. Future employment within 500 m walking distance of subway stations
3.8.7.1. Displacement of local businesses (Design)
3.8.7.2. Modified vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns (Design)
3.8.7.3. Reduced visibility of store fronts and signs (Design)
3.8.7 .4. Reduction in parking (Design)
3.8.7.5. Patron inconvenience due to temporary construction debris, noise and dust (Construction)
4.A.l.l. Capital cost
4.A.l.2 . Property acquisition costs
4.A.l.3. Other construction related costs (i .e. bus shuttle service during construction)
4.A.2.1. Annual operating and maintenance costs
4.A.3.1. Associated cost increases I decreases to service the supporting transit network once in operation
What is the ability to connect to existing and planned bus and streetcar routes?
What is the abi lity to connect to existing and planned walking and cycling routes?
Does the alignment connect with current and future higher-order transit?
What is the availability of land at the station locations to provide supporting transportation infrastructure (e.g. bus bays/lay-bys/terminals, taxi stands, PPUDOs, bicycle
How direct is the connection to the 81oor/Danforth Subway Line?
How direct is the connection to the Yonge-University-Spadina Subway Line?
What is the ability to support the expansion and/or integrate with the downtown PATH network?What is the ability to improve pedestrian flow within the PATH networ
What is the ability to reduce passenger crowding at existing stations?
What is the ability to reduce pedestrian crowding at existing downtown stations and at street level?
How good are the connections between this alignment and the existing subway lines?How well will this alignment be able to handle shutdowns of the Bloor/Danforth c
What is the degree of duplication the alignment provides with other existing/planned higher-order transit services (e .g. Regional Express Rail, SmartTrack)?
What is the ability to provide transit service to key destinations (hospitals, daycare centres, seniors/ retirement homes, other care facilities, education facilities, librarie
How much relief will the option provide to the Yonge Subway Line, Yonge-81oor Station and the 81oor/Danforth subway, compared to other options?
What is the ability for the station layout/design to function well as a new interchange station?
What is the future ability to serve customers and key destinations such as Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park?
How much relief will the option provide to the Yonge Subway Line, Yonge-81oor Station, Union Station and the 81oor/Danforth subway, compared to other options?
Page 592 of 1092

What is the future ability to serve customers and destinations west of the downtown such as Liberty Village, Parkdale and Roncesvalles?
How long will it take to get from the Danforth to the downtown?
How much relief will the alignment provide to the Yonge Subway line?
How much relief will the al ignment provide to the Bloor/Yonge Station?
How much relief will the alignment provide to Union Station?
How much relief will the alignment provide to the Bloor/Danforth line?
How much relief will the option provide to surface routes?
How much ridership will this alignment attract?
How much total ridership can be expected on transit routes with this alignment?
What is the length of the corridor/alignment on which tight curve radii cause passengers to experience discomfort from vehicle movement/vibration/noise?
What is the potential of this corridor to serve the City's disadvantaged residents?
What is the ability and/or opportunity of the project to attract public and private investment benefiting residents living in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (e .g. aff<
Does the option improve transit access and support broad transit mobility needs of genders, income groups, family statuses and age groups in consideration of the obj1
Does the option create opportunities for community benefits to disadvantaged residents?
What is the ability to serve people w ithin station area?
What is the ability to serve areas of planned population growth?
Does the option support the city's planning policies?
Are there any physical barriers (such as highways, valleys, rail corridors, disconnected street networks, retaining walls, fences, etc.) that impact connectivity or limit the
Does the option support new, planned or proposed development or opportunities for place-making?
What are the development partnership opportunities available at the station location to encourage integration of station entrances with new mixed-use, transit-orient
Are there opportunities to enhance existing neighbourhoods through improved connectivity or place-making? Are there potential impacts to existing stable residential
What are the opportunities and impacts on the neighbourhood arising from infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts, emergency exit buildi
Are there opportunities for context-sensitive integration of the station fac ilities with adjacent properties and the surrounding neighbourhoods, and within existing bui ll
Does the option improve access to schools, places of worship, and community service providers?Does the option impact schools, places of worship and other communi
Are there cultural I heritage I archaeological features that might be affected?
What are the opportunities for and impacts on cultural I heritage I archaeological features arising from infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction sl
What are the opportunities for and impacts on institutions and services arising from infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts, emergency eJ
Will the alignment eliminate existing or result in new barriers in existing neighbourhoods?
Does the option create opportunities for improvement to the natural environment?ls there potential for temporary or permanent impacts to natural features?
Does the alignment create opportunities for improvement to the natural environment?ls there potential for temporary or permanent impacts natural features?
Are there ways to mitigate the natural impacts arising from this option?
Does the option create an opportunity to enhance parks and public spaces?ls there potential for temporary or permanent impacts to parks?
What are the opportunities for and impacts on parks arising from infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts, emergency exit buildings, etc.)?
How much less will people drive as a result of this alignment?
What are the anticipated ongoing/long-term noise and vibration impacts to neighbourhoods, land uses and sensitive receptors during operations? Are there ways tom
What are the anticipated impacts from noise, vibration, dust emissions, contaminated soil exposure and other pollutants/designated substances to sensitive receptors
What is the ability to mitigate impacts to stormwater, drainage, erosion, sedimentation, surface impermeability, groundwater discharge and recharge, and hydraulic ch
Is the option possible to construct and how difficult will it be in comparison to other options?
Is the option possible to construct and how difficult will it be in comparison to other options?
How many properties will be impacted or need to be purchased to support the option?
What are the property impacts associated with this alignment?
How much will it cost?
What is the ongoing annual operating and maintenance cost for the option?
What is the ability to maintain existing transit service during construction (e.g . maintaining service on streetcar lines, subway station closures required , etc.)?What are t
Are there any potential conflicts with existing utilities, challenges for re-locating utilities (temporarily or permanently) or scheduling constraints?
How are the geotechnical conditions, particularly at the Don River crossing?
How many properties will be affected to connect to a storage facility?
How easy will it be to connect to a storage facility?
Page 593 of 1092

How possible will it be to cross the Don Valley to the north in comparison to other options?
Are there constructability constraints associated with extending the Relief Line west of downtown?
How much disruption will the option cause to the existing Danforth Subway?
How much disruption will the option cause to downtown stations?
Does the alignment conform with TTC Design Standards?
Does the option increase the speed of construction/minimize construction timelines?
What is the ability to connect to employment areas?
What is the ability for station to serve areas of new, planned and proposed commercial and employment development?
Does the option support existing local businesses and industry by improving accessibility?ls there potential for temporary or permanent impacts on businesses, such as
What are the opportunities for and impacts on businesses arising from infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts, emergency exit buildings, E
Page 594 of 1092

Description Measure Type Project
The 2031 forecasted change in the number of transit riders travelling during the AM peak period N/A Feeling Congested?
The 2031 forecasted change in the peak point ridership on the Yonge subway during the AM peak period . A diversion of riders to other routes will improve user experience N/A Feeling Congested?
The change in the time it takes to access jobs using automobiles. N/A Feeling Congested?
The change in the time it takes to access jobs using transit. N/A Feeling Congested?
The 2031 forecasted change in the average number of transfers required to complete a trip during the AM peak period. Fewer transfers are better N/A Feeling Congested?
The number of stations on the line with transfers available to other rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) lines. More transfer stations increases choice . N/A Feeling Congested?
The number of opportunities to transfer to other rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) routes. N/A Feeling Congested?
The number of disadvantaged residents (defined by the population weighted by the Neighbourhood Equity Score) the who live within walking distance (500m) of rapid tran sit (Subway, l N/A Feeling Congested?
A change in the time it takes for disadvantaged residents (defined by the population weighted by the Neighbourhood Equity Score) to access jobs using tran sit compared to the average 1N/A Feeling Congested?
Additional percentage of the City's land area within walking distance (500m) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, Go Rail). N/A Feeling Congested?
The prop<;>rtion of the land within walking distance (500m) of the line which is designated for population growth. N/A Feeling Congested?
The projected growth in population to 2031 within walking distance (500m) of the line (measured in terms of average growth per kilometre of transit) N/A Feeling Congested?
The number of people who live within walking distance (500m) of the proposed line (measured in terms of people per kilometre of transit). N/A Feeling Congested?
Proportion of the land within walking distance (500m) of rapid transit (Subway, LRT, BRT, GO Rail) that is not designated as stable residential neighbourhoods. N/A Feeling Congested?
The diversity of uses within walking distance (500m) of the line, calculated as the ratio of population to employment. A more balanced ratio is desirable N/A Feeling Congested?
A comparison of the total travel time (including time to get to a transit station, time waiting for a vehicle to arrive, boarding time and in-vehicle time) to in-vehicle travel time only N/A Feeling Congested?
The 2031 forecasted change in tota l vehicle kilometres travelled by cars during the AM peak hour as a result of the construction of the line N/A Feeling Congested?
The 2031 forecasted difference in the percentage of trips using cars. A lower percentage is desirable. N/A Feeling Congested?
The proportion of the land within walking distance (500m) of the line which is designated for employment growth . N/A Feeling Congested?
The projected growth in employment to 2031 within walking distance (500m) of the line (measured in terms of average growth per kilometre of transit) . N/A Feeling Congested?
The number of jobs within walking distance (500m) of the proposed line (measured in terms of number of jobs per kilometre of transit) . N/A Feeling Congested?
Total life-cycle cost of the line divided by the 2031 forecasted increase in total ridership. N/A Feeling Congested?
Projected change in the transit ridersh ip across the system for each fare structure option . Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in the number of transit trips Of a short distance (<5 km) Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in the number of transit trips of a medium distance (5-20 km) Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in the number of transit trips of a long distance (>20 km) Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in the number of trips which include a transfer Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in the number of trips which use multiple transit mode ~ Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Qualitative assessment of the customer's perception of the transit network as an integrated system. Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Change in cost of transit trips for users Transferring between routes Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Change in cost of tran sit trips for users Using different service types on one triJ: Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in passenger volumes at peak load points in the transit network experiencing greater than 85% volume/capacity utilization in the peak 30 minutes (e.g. Yonge Subway~ Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in Average travel time for transit trips in response to a fare change Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in Average distance travelled on transit in response to a fare change Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Qualitative assessment about the legibility or understandability of the fare structure compared to other fare structures that are being considered Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in the number of transit trips made by residents below the Statistics Canada Low Income Measure and Toronto Living Wage Amount Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Maximum increase and decrease in fares for transit trips currently made within the jurisdiction of a single transit agency Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Ratio of the transit fare to the value provided by the transit trip (relative to speed, distance travelled, comfort level of travel, etc.). Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Projected transit mode share of residents below the Statistics Canada Low Income Measure and Toronto Living Wage amount. Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Change in transit fare for average trip distance travelled by residents below the Statistics Canada Low Income Measure and Toronto Living Wage Amount Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Predictability of total transit expenditures (ability to balance household budget) . Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Transit mode share of residents in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas to key destinations such as employment, recreation and social services, given the proposed fare structure Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Proportionality between the transit fare and the cost of providing the transit service consumed . Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Difference in transit fare for trips of a similar distance made within and across a municipal boundary. Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Qualitative assessment about the ability of the fare structure option to direct new residential growth to areas of the urban structure identified for accommodating significant residential Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Qualitative assessment about the projected change in urbanized land area in the region and the ability of the fare structure option to contain urban sprawl and discourage commuter tri1 Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in Walk mode share for trips less than 2 km Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in Cycling mode share for trips less than 5 km Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in vehicle kilometres travelled resulting from the implementation of the fare structure. Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Projected change in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the implementation of the fare structure Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Change in subsidy (and subsidy per rider) required to provide the level of transit service demanded by transit users under a proposed fare structure Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Change in subsidy (and subsidy per rider) required to achieve incremental public good benefits and social policy objectives from the transit system Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Change in fare revenue accruing to a local transit agency from the implementation of the fare structure option . Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Number of tran sit trip s re-distributed to transit services with lower and higher marginal costs. Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Change in operating cost accruing to a local transit agency as a result of transit users shifting to transit services with a lower or higher marginal cost Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Transitional capital costs arising from changes in customer behaviour in response to changes to the fare structure (e.g. need to acquire more buses to accommodate a modal shift from r Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Capital cost and value-for-money of fare infrastructure assets needed to implement the fare structure option . Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Page 595 of 1092

Transit mode share of residents to key employment areas, given the proposed fare structure. Critical Decision-Relevant Criteria Fare Integration
Qualitative assessment about the ability of the fare structure option to direct new employment growth to areas of the urban structure identified for accommodating a significant numbe Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Change in transit fares to economically depressed areas. Supporting Criteria Fare Integration
Estimated travel time (min .) N/A SSE
Length of curves with radii less than 457 m (radius and length) N/A SSE
Length of curves with radii between 457 m and 750 m (radius and length) N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of the ability of the corridor I route to ease congestion and reduce crowding on the transit network N/A SSE
Subjective (yes/no) with description of proximity to Scarborough Centre N/A SSE
Number of months without SRT service during construction of the subway(#, lower number is preferred) N/A SSE
Lawrence East Station- qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengers N/A SSE
Lawrence East Station- change in travel time for bus passengers N/A SSE
Ellesmere Station- qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengers N/A SSE
Ellesmere Station -change in travel time for bus passengers N/A SSE
Midland Station- qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengers N/A SSE
Midland Station- change in travel time for bus passengers N/A SSE
McCowan Station- qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengers N/A SSE
McCowan Station- change in travel time for bus passengers N/A SSE
Walking time based on 1.2 m/s + 10 second premium for every vertical movement measured from centre of bus platform to centre of subway platform (min .) N/A SSE
Direct connection to Sheppard East LRT- Y/N N/A SSE
Connections to Big Move and other regional transit projects N/A SSE
Proximity to existing and planned stations on other higher order transit lines (m) N/A SSE
Walking time based on 1.2 m/s +10 sec premium for vertical movement from Eglington Cross Town LRT platform to subway platform at Kennedy Station (min.) N/A SSE
Walking time based on 1.2 m/s +10 sec premium for vertical movement from middle of bus terminal to subway platform at Kennedy Station (min.) N/A SSE
Walking time based on 1.2 m/s +10 sec premium for vertical movement from middle of GO bus terminal to subway platform at Scarborough Station (min .) N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of opportunity to use existing or accommodate new location N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of opportunity to use existing or accommodate new bus terminal location N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of the quality of pedestrian connections within a 500 m radius of each station N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of land availability to provide bike racks N/A SSE
Number of designated bike path I bike lanes from the City's cycling map adjacent to proposed stations N/A SSE
Is the station located in or within 500 m of a neighbourhood improvement area? (yes/no, including description) N/A SSE
Weight the population within 500 m radius of each station by the Neighbourhood Equity Score (a proxy for proportion of population which is disadvantaged). N/A SSE
Is the station located near sites with intensification potential?[1] (yes/no, with a description of the rationale) N/A SSE
Number and description of major destinations within a 500 m walk (#) N/A SSE
Existing number of people within a 500 m radius of main entrance (people/hal N/A SSE
Future number of people within a 500 m radius of main entrance (people/hal N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment based on analysis of development potential and existing density (high, medium, low) N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment N/A SSE
Subjective (yes/no) N/A SSE
Is the station located in or within 500 m of an apartment neighbourhood? (yes/no) N/A SSE
Is the station location likely to stimulate the development of new amenities to serve residents in apartment neighbourhoods? (yes/no) N/A SSE
Is the station located in or within 500 m of major community facilities I services? (yes/no, including description) N/A SSE
Number of commercial businesses that rely on pedestrian traffic within 500 m of stations N/A SSE
Number of residential properties above and adjacent to the route and stations N/A SSE
Number of community facilities displaced(#, lower number is preferred) N/A SSE
Number and qualitative assessment of easement requirements N/A SSE
Number of properties directly affected N/A SSE
Number of natural heritage areas within 500 m of stations N/A SSE
Change in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) N/A SSE
Meet MOECC guidelines I requirements? (Yes or No) N/A SSE
Qualitative (impacts to sensitive receivers) N/A SSE
Page 596 of 1092

Qualitative metrics (distance setbacks and types of land uses I receptors) N/A SSE
Sound levels (dBA) N/A SSE
Sound levels (dBA) N/A SSE
Vibration levels N/A SSE
Qualitative Assessment based on proximity of adjacent vibration sensitive properties (distance setbacks and types of land uses I receptors) N/A SSE
Vibration levels N/A SSE
Proximity to the alignment (m, higher number is preferred) N/A SSE
Area of route and stations within areas of moderate-high potential for contamination N/A SSE
#of important natural heritage features I areas along routes I station areas N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of the ability to treat stromwater N/A SSE
Number of creek crossings and qualitative assessment of impact to erosion prone areas N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of potential hydraulic impacts to watercourses N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment on impacts to wells, groundwater discharge and recharge areas and potential for significant dewatering requirements N/A SSE
#(lower number is preferred) N/A SSE
#(lower number is preferred) N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment based on proposed station location and orientation relative to existing land uses, any proposed development and potential redevelopment pan N/A SSE
Is the station located within a designated growth area? (yes/no, with a description of the context) N/A SSE
Existing number of jobs within a 500 m radius of main entrance (jobs/ha) N/A SSE
Future number of jobs within a 500 m radius of ma in entrance (jobs/ha) N/A SSE
#of local businesses displaced (#, lower number is preferred) N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of changes in access to business (additional travel distance and routing to business areas) N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment changes in visibility to store fronts and signs N/A SSE
#of parking spaces displaced(#, lower number is preferred) N/A SSE
Qualitative assessment of potential patron inconvenience during construction N/A SSE
$ (lower cost is preferred) N/A SSE
$(lower cost is preferred) N/A SSE
$ (lower cost is preferred) N/A SSE
$I proxy such as number of subway trains required to service the extension N/A SSE
$ increases I decreases to service the supporting transit network N/A SSE
Qualitative- List exising and planned surface transit routes that could be connected in this alignment optionQuantitative- number of people who use the station to tra N/A RL
Qualitative- Describe opportunities to connect with existing. and planned walking and cycling routes N/A RL
Qualitative- List exising and planned higher order transit routes that could be connected in this alignment option N/A RL
Qualitative: assessment of land or roadway space available for bus stops, pick-up/drop-off activity, bicycle racks, etc. N/A RL
Quantitative- Approximate distance and journey time between existing Bloor-Danforth subway station and proposed new Re lief Line station N/A RL
Quantitative- Approximate distance and journey time between existing Yonge-University-Spadina subway station and proposed new Relief Line station N/A RL
Qualitative- comment on connectivity to PATH and potential for improved pedestrian flow N/A RL
Quantitative- existing passenger volumes at existing downtown subway stations N/A RL
Qualitative- comment on connectivity and potential for improved or worsened pedestrian flow at existing downtown stations and at sidewalk level N/A RL
Qualitative statement on the ability to connect to the existing subway network and flexibility of the RL to handle shutdowns of the BD subway and/or Yonge subway. N/A RL
Qualitative- assessment of degree to which service areas overlap between the Relief Line and other existing/planned higher-order transit services N/A RL
Qualitative- list and count "Key Destinatons" that fall within 500 m radius of alignment stations N/A RL
Qualitative- Proximity to Bloor-Yonge Station, representing catchment area for diversionQuantitative- Number of existing daily riders entering the station N/A RL
Qualitative- assessment of features at existing subway stations, such as bus loops, accessibility features, number of existing entrances, etc. N/A RL
Qualitative- comment on the ability to provide stations on the future alignment which would serve people and destinations north of the Danforth, based on populatioN/A RL
Qualitative- Proximity to the centro id of employment density, representing ability to divert trips from existing subway networkQuantitative- existing boardings and ali N/A RL
Page 597 of 1092

Qualitative- comment on the ability to provide stations on the future alignment which would serve people and destinations west of the downtown, based on populati N/A RL
Quantitative- Estimated travel time from Danforth to Downtown, which will vary based on distance, number of stations and alignment N/A RL
Quantitative- Number of existing daily riders entering the station N/A RL
Quantitative- Reduction in passengers transferring in AM peak hour between BD Subway (westbound) and Yonge Subway (southbound) N/A RL
Quantitative- Reduction in passengers using Union Station in AM peak hour N/A RL
Quantitative- Reduction in AM peak hour ridership westbound on BD Subway west of Sherbourne N/A RL
Quantitative -Improvement to surface routes with capacity deficiencies (measured by improvement to volume-to-capacity ratios for routes with capacity deficiencies) N/A RL
Quantitative- AM peak period total boardings on the Relief Line N/A RL
Quantitative- Total transit ridership within model area during the AM Peak Period N/A RL
Quantitative -length of tight curve radii N/A RL
Quantitative- City of Toronto Neighbourhood Equity Score weighted by population within a 500 m radius of the potential station area N/A RL
Qualitative- does the corridor preclude future alignments that would service Toronto's NIA?
Qualitative- describe the likelihood and opportunity to attract public or private investment benefiting residents living in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (e.g. affo1 N/A RL
Qualitative- demographic analysis to identify concentrations of households with low income, unemployment, single parents (female headed households), seniors and N/A RL
Qualitative- describe the kinds of opportunities to make short- and long-term commitments to local community benefits such as employment that construction and OJ N/A RL
Quantitative- number of people within 500 m radius of alignment stations (reflecting physical barriers) N/A RL
Quantitative- forcast future number of people within 500 m radius of alignment stations (reflecting physical barriers) N/A RL
Qualitative- Descriptive of whether the option supports the growth intentions of the official plan or relevant planning studies within the station area (i .e. is the station N/A RL
Qualitative- Discussion of potential barriers to the corridor,% of walk-up catchment area (i .e. 500 m radius of stations) lost, barriers to station entrances from people/ N/A RL
Qualitative- Describe opportunities to support development areas, improve connectivity or enhance sense of place, w ith consideration for built form and developmen N/A RL
Qualitative- assessment of soft sites within potential station areas I areas identified for station entrance buildings and other infrastructure N/A RL
Qualitative- Describe opportunities for neighbourhood improvement with in 500 m radius of rapid transit station, with consideration for transition areas and integratio N/A RL
Qualitative- List residential properties impacted by the construction area N/A RL
Qualitative- describe opportunities to integrate the station and station facilities with the existing neighbourhood N/A RL
Qual itative- List the key institutions and services to which access will be improved;List the institutions and services potentially impacted by the construction or long terN/A RL
Qualitative- Describe the potential impacts or benefits to cultural/ heritage or archaeological features if any N/A RL
Qualitative- Descriptive analysis of potential impacts (of tunnels and auxilery infrastructure) N/A RL
Qualitative- List institutions and services impacted by the construction area N/A RL
Qualitative - Discuss potential barriers or additional permeability created by alignment N/A RL
Qualitative -list species (flora and fauna) that may be affected by the option Qualitative- assessment of whether station is located within an Environmentally Sensitive N/A RL
Qualitative -list species (flora and fauna) that may be affected, and opportunities for improvement N/A RL
Qualitative- ability to mitigate flooding risks or impacts to flora and fauna in the study area N/A RL
Qualitative- Describe the opportunities to enhance parks and public spaceslist parks potentially impacted by the construction or long term operations N/A RL
Qualitative- List parks impacted by the construction area N/A RL
Quantitative- reduction in total vehicle kilometres travelled during the AM Peak PeriodQuantitative- reduction in auto mode share N/A RL
Qualitative- statement on anticipated impacts N/A RL
Qualitative- statement on anticipated impacts N/A RL
Qualitative- statement on impacts and mitigation strategies N/A RL
Qualitative- List key technical challenges associated with station construction such as :- Geotechnical conditions I flooding characteristics- Compatibility with other majc N/A RL
Qualitative- List key technical challenges associated with tunnel construction such as :lll Geotechnical conditions I flooding characteristicslll Compatibility with other maj N/A RL
Qualitative- Property Impacts, with consideration for platforms, primary and secondary access/egress, vertical circulation elements (VCE's), and service rooms . Numbe N/A RL
Quantitative- discussion on impacts to costs on a per-km and per station basis (at corridor levei)Quantitative- order-of-magnitude estimates on the alignment alternati N/A RL
Qualitative- high level cost estimate (corridor evaluation will be based on $250M/km and $150M/station, plus special circumstances where known; alignment evaluati N/A RL
Qual itative- high-level assessment of ongoing operating and maintenance cost for the option, considering the length of tunnel , number of stations, additional infrastn N/A RL
Qualitative- assessment of number of transit routes to be affected, ridership on affected routes, impact to existing subway stations and ease of re-routing surface tran~ N/A RL
Qualitative- statement on extent of utility impacts N/A RL
Qual itative- statement on geotechnical conditions N/A RL
Quantitative- Identify the approximate number of properties affectedQualitative- Comment on constructability and impact to TTC operations from engineering persp1 N/A RL
Quantitative- General description of property requirements and construction complexity for providing connection to a Storage Facility, beyond those established in th N/A RL
Page 598 of 1092

Qualitative- Comment on future potential extension across the Don Valley from constructability perspective, with consideration for property impacts N/A RL
Qualitative- comment on future potential extension from constructability perspective, with consideration for property impacts N/A RL
Qualitative- comment on extent of disruption and modifications that would be required to Danforth subway stations and tunnels N/A RL
Qualitative- comment on extent of modifications that would be required to downtown subway stations and the disruption of service that may result N/A RL
Qualitative- statement on conformity with TIC Design Standards (i .e. radii for horizontal curves, tangent distances, etc.) N/A RL
Qualitative- high-level assessment of construction timeline associated with each option N/A RL
Quantitative -average of existing employment density within 500 m of stations on alignment (reflecting physical barriers) N/A RL
Quantitative - average of projected future employment density within 500 m of stations on alignment (reflecting physical barriers) N/A RL
Qualitative- Describe the nature of businesses within 500 m radius of rapid transit station list businesses potentially impacted by the construction or long term operati N/A RL
Qualitative- List businesses impacted by the construction area N/A RL
Page 599 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Cc: Michael Hain; Karen Thorburn; Gary Papas; Ana Graovac
Subject: RE: Maps and accessibility stats
Felipe,
In the fall we calculated and reported access weighted by Neighbourhood Improvement Area. They may be an easier
thing to calculate.
Mike

To: Kristin Olson; Mike Logan
Hi Kristin,
That was one of the outputs that we marked as 'if there's time' but there hasn't been time to do it yet. But once
we finalize the updated to the accessibility statistics we can work on that, if it's something you need.
Income data in census is only available at Census Tract level so it would be at that level of detail.
Let us know if this is a key number for you and we'll add it to our to-do list.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
Page 600 of 1092

From: Kristin Olson [mailto :kolson@toronto.ca ]
To: Mike Logan; Ana Graovac; Felipe Camargo
Cc: Michael Hain; Karen Thorburn; Gary Papas
Subject: RE : Maps and accessibility stats
One more question : Are we still calculating jobs/pop accessibility for lowest income quintile?
Kristin
From: Mike Logan

To: 'Ana Graovac'; Felipe Camargo
Cc: Michael Hain; Karen Thorburn; Gary Papas; Kristin Olson
Ana, Felipe,
We are integrating these results into the Strategic Case documents.
Can you please clarify:

You have used a 60 minute travel time threshold . Does this imply that you are using the calculation based on
the gravity function rather than an absolute threshold?
It appears that you have provided unweighted people-job and people-people connections. Can you perform the
calculation to weight these by DA population?
Your future calculations show results that are significantly different than your calculations using 2011 data.
Could you please explain how your calculations show that people would be able to reach fewer jobs using future
job estimates than they could using existing jobs, even though there will be more jobs in the future?
Thanks,
Mike
From: Ana Graovac [mailto:ana .graovac@arup.com ]

To: Mike Logan; Felipe Camargo
Cc: Michael Hain; Karen Thorburn
Here are the completed accessibility results. All scenarios show an benefit relative to their corresponding base
case subject to present population and employment. With future population and employment, the two scenarios
that focus on speed instead of coverage show a dis-benefit, likely due to intensification near the corridors'
potential stops.
From: Mike Logan [mailto :mlogan@toronto.ca ]

Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 14:21
To: Felipe Camargo
Page 601 of 1092

Cc: Michael Hain; Karen Thorburn; Ana Graovac
Felipe - Can you advise as to when we will be able to see the accessibility results?
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Subject: Re: Maps and accessibility stats
Hi Mike,
Ok, we can do that . Coding shouldn't take very long but we'll need to rerun the SmartTrack, Eglinton West and Relief
Line tests, which will take about 40hrs (computer time). We can generate numbers and maps (if needed) as each test is
completed, though.
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto .ca> wrote:
Thanks for clarifying, Felipe.
We will need you to run the model assuming a 40 kph speed from Sheppard East to Kennedy for the 3-
stop subway.
TIC has updated their assumptions as I described: 40 kph for 3-stop, 50 kph for express.
I have attached the email outlining these assumptions produced by Gary Carr of TIC last week.
M ike

Sent: May-30-16 4:45 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Apologies for the delay, we were at our weekly team meeting.

3
Page 602 of 1092

We did a little bit more digging and in the model the speed works out to be closer to 52krn/h (we
code times, not speeds). The times we used come from the attached TIC tables.
These are the times between stops:

From To Total TIC Time (minutes)
Kennedy McCowan Lawrence 3.58
McCowan Lawrence McCowan St 2.75
McCowan St Sheppard McCowan 2.25
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Can you tell me where you got the 58 kph speed for McCowan 3?
I just talked this over with MH. We feel that we will likely need to re-run the McCowan-3 scenarios to
get numbers we are comfortable with. The McCowan-3 speed should be 40kph and Express should be
SOkph.
The travel time benefit is integral to the benefit of the Express subway over the 3-stop.
Overall, it looks like we won't be able to use the accessibility data in our public meetings coming up. Let
me know if you want to discuss.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Page 603 of 1092

Felipe,
Our assumptions for speed of the McCowan-3 are 40 kph, McCowan Express 50 kph .
The McCowan-3 speed matches average speed for Line 2.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Subject: Maps and accessibility stats
Hi Mike,
A quick update following our phone call:
SSE Express:
The speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TTC
estimates that we got last December is of 58km/h (on average), which is faster than the 50km/h
assumption for the Express. In actual fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds.
The benefits around the fringes of the area all result from changes to the buses assumed with
SSE Express.
Union (SmartTrack Options):

My mistake, I used the All Day times for the base, which is why we were getting some small
benefits. We're updating the numbers and redoing those two maps.
City Hall:
Investigating .. .
Accessibility stats: Updated file attached
Felipe Camargo MSc

Associate ITransportation Consulting
Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 604 of 1092

Explore innoYation in the built environment on Doggerel

Page 605 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Ana Graovac
Thanks, Felipe,
For the strategic case, it would be helpful for us to be able to report average people-job and people-people connections
for Torontonians and residents of NIAs, as per my previous email.
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan; Ana Graovac
Hi Mike,
To answer your fust two questions, yes, the 'region-wide' summary stats are estimated based on the gravity
function and they are weighted by DA population (at the origin end). We can add similar stats using the
absolute threshold. It'll take a few hours but it's not a problem.
With regards to the jobs decreasing in the future we've used 2011 jobs by Census Tract (used for the
accessibility analysis last Fall) and for the future years we used the data by TAZ that you sent us. We think the
reason why we see job reductions is that the different geographies result in slightly different aggregations when
we convert them to Dissemination Areas.
What we're doing now is to update the Base year numbers to use the 2011 jobs (and population) by TAZ. We
will send you the updated results as soon as they're available.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
Page 606 of 1092

t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Ana Graovac; Felipe Camargo
Ana, Felipe,

You have used a 60 minute travel time threshold. Does this imply that you are using the calculation based on
Thanks,
Mike
From: Ana Graovac [mailto:ana.graovac@arup.com ]

case subject to present population and employment. With future population and employment, the two scenarios
potential stops.

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 607 of 1092

Felipe- Can you advise as to when we will be able to see the accessibility results?
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Subject: Re : Maps and accessibil ity stats
Hi Mike,
Ok, we can do that. Coding shouldn't take very long but we'll need to rerun the SmartTrack, Eglinton West and Relief
completed, though .
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto.ca> wrote :
stop subway.
TIC has updated their assumptions as I described: 40 kph for 3-stop, SO kph for express.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
We did a little bit more digging and in the model the speed works out to be closer to 52km/h (we
code times , not speeds). The times we used come from the attached TIC tables.
3
Page 608 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 64 7 260 34 74
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
I just talked this over with MH . We feel that we will likely need to re-run the McCowan-3 scenarios to
get numbers we are comfortable with . The McCowan-3 speed should be 40kph and Express should be
SOkph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Page 609 of 1092

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
estimates that we got last December is of 58kmlh (on average), which is faster than the 50km/h
SSE Express.

City Hall:
Investigating ...
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
l: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 610 of 1092

Page 611 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Kristin Olson

Hi Felipe
We're finalizing the reports now, so I don't there's time.
I'm wondering if you (or Karen perhaps?) could confirm what outputs we are still expecting to see? i.e. will the
isochrones maps be available or are we leaving that behind due to time constraints?
Kristin

Hi Kristin,
That was one of the outputs that we marked as 'if there's time' but there hasn ' t been time to do it yet. But once
we finalize the updated to the accessibility statistics we can work on that, if it' s something you need .
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 612 of 1092

Kristin
From: Mike Logan

Ana, Felipe,

It appears that you have provided unweighted people-job and people-people connections . Can you perform the
Thanks,
Mike

Here are the completed accessibili ty results. All scenarios show an benefit relative to their corresponding base
case subject to present popul ation and employment. With future population and empl oyment, the two scenarios
potential stops.
From: Mike Logan [mailto :mlogan@toronto .ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 613 of 1092

Cc: Michael Ha in; Karen Thorburn; Ana Graovac
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Subject: Re : Maps and accessibility stats
Hi Mike,
Ok, we can do that. Coding shouldn 't take very long but we'll need to rerun the SmartTrack, Eglinton West and Relief
completed, though .
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto.ca> wrote:
stop subway.
TIC has updated their assumptions as I described: 40 kph for 3-stop, SO kph for express.
Mike

Se~:Ma~3~164ASPM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,

3
Page 614 of 1092

code times, not speeds). The times we used come from the attached TTC tables.

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
SOkph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-30-16 3:27 PM
Page 615 of 1092

Felipe,
M ike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
SSE Express.

City Hall:
Investigating ...
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 616 of 1092

Explore innm at ion in the huilt environment on Doggerel

Page 617 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Hi Kristin, Mike,
We're currently working on the average people-people and people-jobs averages by NIA as requested by Mike earlier
and are recalculating the region-wide figures using the TAZ based 2011 employment and population .
Regarding catchment maps, my understanding was that they were needed for the public consultation but since there
were changes made to the speed in the base scenario there wasn't enough time to include them. So we haven't created
new ones but they can be generated if needed . It would take a few hours, though .
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 3:59PM
Hi Felipe
We're finalizing the reports now, so I don't there's time.
I'm wondering if you (or Karen perhaps?) could confirm what outputs we are still expecting to see? i.e. will the
isochrones maps be available or are we leaving that behind due to time constraints?
Kristin

Hi Kristin,
That was one of the outputs that we marked as 'if there's time' but there hasn't been time to do it yet. But once we
finalize the updated to the accessibility statistics we can work on that, if it's something you need.
Page 618 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Kristin Olson [mailto :kolson@toronto.ca ]

Kristin
From: Mike Logan

Ana, Felipe,

Thanks,
Mike
Page 619 of 1092

From: Ana Graovac [mailto:ana.graovac@arup.com]
Here are the completed accessibility results. All scenarios show an benefit relative to their corresponding base case
subject to present population and employment. With future population and employment, the two scenarios that focus
on speed instead of coverage show a dis-benefit, likely due to intensification near the corridors' potential stops.

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Line tests, which will take about 40hrs (computer time) . We can generate numbers and maps (if needed) as each test is
completed, though.
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto.ca> wrote :
Page 620 of 1092

stop subway.
TTC has updated their assumptions as I described: 40 kph for 3-stop, 50 kph for express.
I have attached the email outlining these assumptions produced by Gary Carr of TTC last week.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
We did a little bit more digging and in the model the speed works out to be closer to 52km/h (we code
times, not speeds) . The times we used come from the attached TTC tables.
These are the times between stops :
From To Total TTC Time (minutes)

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 621 of 1092

50kph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Cc: Michael Ha in; Karen Thorburn
Felipe,
Our assumptions for speed of the McCowan-3 are 40 kph, McCowan Express 50 kph.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
The speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TIC estimates that
we got last December is of 58km/h (on average), which is faster than the 50km/h assumption for the
Express. In actual fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds . The benefits around the
fringes of the area all result from changes to the buses assumed with SSE Express.

My mistake, I used the All Day times for the base, which is why we were getting some small benefits.
We're updating the numbers and redoing those two maps.
City Hall:
Investigating .. .
Page 622 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 623 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Hi Felipe,
Mike is referring to these assumptions for use in EgE LRT. I've asked our TTC group to take a look at
the assumptions. We may just have a gap in the Eg E LRT analysis depending on confidence in
using the same assumptions that were used for the EgW LRT analysis. Will get back to you on this.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Mike Logan; Karen Thorburn
Hi Mike,
We're not working on the economic case for Eglinton West, is the idea to include it now?
Thanks,
Felipe
From: Mike Logan [mailto :mlogan@toronto.ca]

To: Karen Thorburn; Felipe Camargo
Cc: Michael Hain; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Diana Chu Section 11(c) applied
Subject: RE : Follow up
Section 11(d) applied
Karen,
See attached email.
Page 624 of 1092

Mike

Subject: Follow up
Hi Felipe,
will look like.
In follow up:
last. We don't have O&M numbers for this project unfortunately.
morning latest?)
Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required , based on
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 625 of 1092


Page 626 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Ana Graovac <ana.graovac@arup.com >

The revised runs of the RER and SmartT rack scenarios are nearly finished and we will have a tabular summary for those
later today. The remaining revised scenarios (Eglinton West 8-stop and Relief Lines) will continue to run overnight, with
at least partial results expected tomorrow.

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Ok, we can do that. Coding shouldn 't take very long but we'll need to rerun the SmartTrack, Eglinton West and Relief
completed, though .
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto .ca> wrote :
Page 627 of 1092

stop subway.
Mike

Se~:Ma~3~164ASPM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
times, not speeds). The times we used come from the attached TIC tables.

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m : +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 3A7 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Page 628 of 1092

50kph .
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
A quick update following our phone call :
SSE Express:
we got last December is of 58km/h (on averageL which is faster than the 50km/h assumption for the
Express . In actual fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds . The benefits around the

We' re updating the numbers and redoing those two maps.
City Hall:
Investigating ...
Page 629 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 630 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Hi Kristin,
That was one of the outputs that we marked as 'if there's time' but there hasn't been time to do it yet. But once we
finalize the updated to the accessibility statistics we can work on that, if it's something you need.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

One more question: Are we still calculating jobs/pop accessibility for lowest income quintile?
Kristin
From: Mike Logan

Page 631 of 1092

Ana, Felipe,

Thanks,
Mike
From: Ana Graovac [mailto :ana .graovac@arup.com ]

From: Mike Logan [mailto :mlogan@toronto .ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Fel ipe .Camargo@arup.com ]

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Page 632 of 1092

Ok, we can do that. Coding shouldn't take very long but we 'll need to rerun the SmartT rack, Eglinton West and Relief
completed, though.
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto .ca> wrote :
stop subway.
TIC has updated their assumptions as I described : 40 kph for 3-stop, 50 kph for express.
Mike

Sent: May-30-16 4:45 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
times, not speeds) . The times we used come from the attached TIC tables.

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Page 633 of 1092

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
I just talked this over with MH . We feel that we will likely need to re-run the McCowan-3 scenarios to
SOkph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Page 634 of 1092

SSE Express:
Express . In actual fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds. The benefits around the

We're updating the numbers and redoing those two maps .
City Hall:
Investigating ...
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 635 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Ana Graovac <ana.graovac@arup.com>

Attachments: Accessibility Summaries v3 .xlsx

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
completed, though .
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto .ca > wrote:

1
Page 636 of 1092

stop subway.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
times, not speeds). The times we used come from the attached TIC tables.

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 637 of 1092

get numbers we are comfortable with . The McCowan-3 speed should be 40kph and Express should be
SOkph.
Overall, it looks like we won 't be able to use the accessibility data in our public meetings coming up. Let
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Our assumptions for speed of the McCowan-3 are 40 kph, McCowan Express SO kph .
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
we got last December is of 58km/h (on average}, which is faster than the SOkm/h assumption for the
Express. In actual fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds. The benefits around the

City Hall:
3
Page 638 of 1092

Investigating ...
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com

Page 639 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Attachments: Accessibility Summaries v3 .xlsx
Here is an updated summary with the revised SmartTrack scenarios. The remaining 6 scenarios have started running
now.

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Subject: Re : Maps and accessibility stats
Hi Mike,
completed, though.
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto .ca > wrote :
Page 640 of 1092

stop subway.
TIC has updated their assumption s as I described: 40 kph for 3-stop, 50 kph for express.
Mike

Sem : Ma~3~164~5PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
times, not speeds) . The times we used come from the attached TTC tables.

Ke nnedy McCowan Lawrence 3.58
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 641 of 1092

50kph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
T.he speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TIC estimates that
Express. In actual fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds . The benefits around the

City Hall:
Investigating...
Page 642 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www .arup.com

Page 643 of 1092

Scen ario Avg_Weighted_Jobs Avg_Weighted_Pop {by pop)
OptionlBaseAM 114345.7843 3207S2.22SS Average No. of Jobs within 60 minutes of any DA Average Populatio n within 60 minutes of any DA
Option1BaseAIIOay 108289.6022 297880.0016 Time Period Scenario 10 Description Absolute Value A over Base % Ch ange over base Absolute Value A over Base % Change over base
RERST2AM 114977.0162 323194.763 AM Pea k Base (RER) Base- RER 114,346 320,7S2
RERST2AII Oay 109379.6537 301383.7907 ST 2 SmartTrack Integration Option C 114,977 631 0.6% 323,19S 2,443 0.8%
RERST3AM 114532.9847 322129 .4942 ST 3 SmartTrack Integration Option 0 114,S33 187 0.2% 322,129 1,377 0.4%
RERST3AII Oay 108803.270S 299798.3903 EWLRT-2 EWLRT Speed and Access Ba lance 0 -114,977 100.0% 0 323,19S 100.<J%
Base2-EgWestOpt2AM RL 2 Subway via Queen St 0 -114,977 - 100.0% 0 -323,19S 100.0%
Base2-EgWest0pt2AII Oay RL 3 Subway via East ern Ave 0 -114,977 100.0% 0 -323,19S 100.0%
Base2-R elief0pt2AM SSE 2A McCowan Express 115,455 478 0.4% 32S,466 2,272 0.7%
Base2-ReliefOpt2AII Oay EELRT 2 Approved EA extension 116,124 668 0.6% 329,263 3,796 1.2%
Base2-Reli ef0pt3AM EELRT- 3 Short LRT to UTSC 116,0SO S9S 0.5% 328,829 3,362 1.0%
Base2-Re liefOpt3AII Oay ~ ay Base (RER ) Ba se- RER 108,290 297,880
Base2-Scar0pt2AM 11S4SS. 2792 32S466.49S ST 2 SmartTrack Integration Option C--- -- 109,380~ -- ~ ---- ~ - - -301,384 3,S04 1.2%
Base2-Scar0pt2AIIOay 110198.0481 303733.1469 ST 3 SmartTrack Integration Opt ion D 108,803 S14 0.5% 299,798 1,918 0.6%
Base2v2- EgEastOpt2AM 116123 672S 329262.6S64 EW LRT EWLRT Speed and Access Balan ce 0 109,380 100.0% 0 -301,384 100.0%
Base2v2-EgEastOpt2AII Day 110982 .69 13 308032 .149 RL 2 Subway via Quee n St 0 109,380 100.0% 0 -301,384 100.0%
Base2v2-EgEastO pt3AM 116049.7989 328828.971S RL 3 Subway via Eastern Ave 0 -109,380 100.0% 0 301 ,384 -100.0%
Base2v2-EgEast0pt3AI IOay 110890.775 30 75 10.0384 SSE 2A McCowan Express 110,198 818 0.7% 303,733 2,349 0.8%
EELRT - 2 Approved EA extension 110,983 78S 0.7% 308,032 4,299 1.4%
EELRT - 3 Short LRT to UTSC 110,891 693 0.6% 307,S10 3,777 1.2%
Populat ion and Jobs are calculated based on linear distance decay funct ion w ith a max imum t ime of 60 minutes and su bseque nt ly a weigh ted
average is estimated for t he GTHA, weight ing by DA populationat t he origin end.
Page 644 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Ana, Felipe,

Your future calculations show results that are significantly different than your calculations using 2011 data .
Thanks,
Mike

case subject to present popul ation and employment. With future population and employment, the two scenarios
that focus on speed instead of coverage show a di s-benefi t, likely due to intensification near the corridors'
potential stops.

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike
Page 645 of 1092

Sent: May-30-16 6:20 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
completed, though.
Cheers,
Felipe
stop subway.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,

I From ITo I Total TIC Time (minutes)
2
Page 646 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto .ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
50kph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Page 647 of 1092

Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
SSE Express.

City Hall:
Investigating .. .
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: + 1 416 515 0915 d: + 1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 648 of 1092

Page 649 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Kristin Olson

To: Mike Logan; 'Ana Graovac'; Felipe Camargo
Kristin
From: Mike Logan

Ana, Felipe,

You have used a 60 minute travel t ime threshold. Does this imply that you are using the calculation based on
It appears that you have provided unweighted people-job and people-people connect ions. Can you perform the
Your future calculations show results that are significantly different than your calculations using 2011 data .
Thanks,
Mike
From: Ana Graovac [ma ilto:ana .graovac@arup .com ]

case subject to present population and employment. Wi th future popul ation and employment, the two scenarios
that focus on speed instead of coverage show a dis-benefit, li kely due to intensification near the corridors'
potential stops.
Page 650 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike

Sent: May-30-16 6:20 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
completed, though.
Cheers,
Felipe
On May 30, 2016, at 6:04PM, Mike Logan <mlogan@toronto .ca> wrote:
stop subway.
Mike

Sent: May-30-16 4:45 PM
To: Mike Logan
Page 651 of 1092

Hi Mike,
Apologies for the delay, we were at our weekl y team meeting.

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
SOkph .
Overall, it looks like we won 't be able to use the accessibility data in our public meetings coming up. Let
Mike
Page 652 of 1092

From: Mike Logan
Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
The benefits around the fri nges of the area all result from changes to the buses assumed with
SSE Express.

City Hall:
Investigating . ..
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
4
Page 653 of 1092

t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 654 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Hi Mike,
To answer your first two questions, yes, the 'region-wide' summary stats are estimated based on the gravity function
and they are weighted by DA population (at the origin end) . We can add similar stats using the absolute threshold. It'll
take a few hours but it's not a problem.
With regards to the jobs decreasing in the future we've used 2011 jobs by Census Tract (used for the accessibility
analysis last Fall) and for the future years we used the data by TAZ that you sent us. We think the reason why we see job
reductions is that the different geographies result in slightly different aggregations when we convert them to
Dissemination Areas.
What we're doing now is to update the Base year numbers to use the 2011 jobs (and population) by TAZ. We will send
you the updated results as soon as they're available.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Ana Graovac; Felipe Camargo
Ana, Felipe,
Page 655 of 1092

Thanks,
Mike


To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Page 656 of 1092

completed, though .
Cheers,
Felipe
stop subway.
TIC has updated their assumptions as I described : 40 kph for 3-stop, 50 kph for express.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
times, not speeds). The times we used come from the attached TIC tables .

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
Page 657 of 1092

t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
50kph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Page 658 of 1092

SSE Express:

We're updating the numbers and redoing those two maps .
City Hall:
Investigating...
Fel ipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 659 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

I just talked this over with MH. We feel that we will likely need to re-run the McCowan-3 scenarios to get numbers we
are comfortable with . The McCowan-3 speed should be 40kph and Express should be 50kph .
Overall, it looks like we won't be able to use the accessibility data in our public meetings coming up. Let me know if you
want to discuss.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
The speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TIC estimates that we got
last December is of 58kmlh (on average), which is faster than the 50kmlh assumption for the Express. In actual
Page 660 of 1092

fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds. The benefits around the fringes of the area all result
from changes to the buses assumed with SSE Express.

My mistake, I used the All Day times for the base, which is why we were getting some small benefits. We're
updating the numbers and redoing those two maps.
City Hall:
Investigating ...
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W 1AS Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 661 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

To: Mike Logan; 'Felipe Camargo'
Cc: Karen Thorburn
The McCowan3 speed matches the speed we have historically assumed for the east end of the BD line (faster than the
average of the line as a whole) . At one time, the TIC told us to use 40km/h for the extension.
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
The speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TIC estimates that we got
last December is of 58krnfh (on average), which is faster than the 50krnfh assumption for the Express. In actual
fact, there is very small dis benefit of about 45 seconds. The benefits around the fringes of the area all result

My mistake, I used the All Day times for the base, which is why we were getting some small benefits. We' re
City Hall:
Investigating ...
Page 662 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 663 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Subject: RE: Model Numbers for BCs
Attachments: TraveiTimeSavings - DRAFT- June 6.xlsx
Hello Felipe,
This attachment includes draft numbers for the Relief Line extension up to Sheppard and for the small J without
SmartT rack . We only have 2041 runs for those so far. Hopefully that is enough to get a sense of what the benefits
numbers would be.
As usual, let me know if you have any questions,
M.
Page 664 of 1092

SSE- McCowan Alignment- Estimated Tra ve l Time Ca lculation
Operatin g Pa rameters I Estimated Travel Time

I 6 lminuta(sll
Station Dwe ll Time 1 15 secon ds 1Note: "Error 1" indicates the new speed limit is too high and must be lowered 6 second(s)
as there is insufficient distance t o the next speed restriction t o achieve the new
I
Trai n Acceleratio n
Train Dece leration
Tra in Length
I
I
I
0.9 m/ s/ s
0.9 m/s/s
150m
speed
I A....... SpMCI
58 I kmlh I I
Travel Time
Sum
366
Trip New Speed Limit Speed Change Ca lculated Acceleration Cal culations Dece lerat ion Calculations Constant Speed Calculati ons Travel Time
Element Descriptio n km/h m/s Chain age Chaina ge End Chainage Time Distan ce Sta rt Chaina ge Ti me Di stance Start Chainag_e End Chai nage Time Distan ce Per Element
1 Depart Ken nedy Station 50 13.889 10+000 10+000 10+107 15 107 15
2 Travel @SOkm/h th rough Ce ntre Track Curves so 13.889 10+107 10+500 28 393 28
3 Depart Ce ntre Track Speed Restriction 80 22.222 10+350 10+500 10+667 9 167 9
4 Trave l @80km/h along Eglint on 80 22.222 10+667 11+116 20 449 20
5 Enter Eglinton/Danforth Curve 64 17.778 11+215 11+215 11+116 5 99 5
6 Trave l @64km/h alo ng Eglinton/Danforth Curve 64 17.778 11+215 11+810 33 59 5 33
7 Depart Eglinton Danfort h Curve 80 22.222 11+660 11+810 11+909 5 99 5
8 Travel @80km/h al ong Danforth and McCowan 80 22.222 11+909 13+246 60 1337 60
'
9 Stop for Lawre nce East Stat ion 0 0 13+520 13+520 13+246 25 274 25
10 Dwe ll at Lawrence East Sta t ion 0 0 15 15
11 Depart Lawrence East Station 80 22.222 13+520 13+520 13+794 25 274 25
12 Trave l @80km/h al ong McCowan 80 22.222 13+794 15+352 70 1558 70
13 Enter SCC Crossover (X-ove r) 33 9.167 15+580 15+580 15+352 15 228 15
14 Travel @33km/h along SCC X-over and Station 33 9.167 15+580 15+853 30 273 30
15 Stop for SCC Station 0 0 15+900 15+900 15+853 10 47 10
16 0 0
17 0 0
18 0 0
2015-03-02, Draft 01 TTC - ECE- Engineering - Alignment Page 1 of 1
Page 665 of 1092

Input
Valueofllme 16
Base lor Option C/0 Business Case is 2041 Base {RER)

Transit savinas - Option C/D
Trawl Time Fare Congestion
Savings in Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary
Option Time Period
mins hours Value mins hours Value mlns hours Value
AM 502890 8382 178097 2968 158800 2647
MD 126175 2 103 55602 927 56559 943
OptionC +14 PM 7820 10 13034 141 570 2360 200853 3348
EV 102209 1703 62080 1035 97241 1621
Al Day 25200 $ 403,200 7300 $ 11 6.800 8600 $ 137,600
AM 475383 7923 189913 3165 198155 3303
MD 137357 2289 57583 960 59339 989
OplionC + 8 PM 1003881 16731 147174 2453 16552 276
EV 107652 1794 64147 1069 94747 1579
AHDay 28700 $ 459,200 7600 $ 121 ,600 6100 $ 97,600
AM 475782 7930 174283 2905 2 10955 3516
MD 127659 2128 56967 949 55194 920
Oplion D + 14 PM 227869 3798 135242 2254 609893 10 165
EV 100819 1680 64744 1079 96494 1608
AI Day 15500 $ 248,000 7200 $ 115,200 16200 $ 259,200
Base lor Rl busi ness case Is Option C + 14 (WITH UPDATED PAPE BUSSES)
Transit savings - Rl

Savings In Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary
With Papo Busses mlns hours Value m lns hours Value mins hours Value
AM 137823 2297 -6199 -103 84584 1410
MD 61748 1029 26379 440 7260 121
Option C + 14
PM 58994 983 -3059 51 145528 2425
+AO
EV 14124 235 39394 657 8831 147
AU Day 4500 $ 72,000 900 $ 14,400 4100 $ 65,600
AM 467299 7788 -10474 -175 -122938 2049
MD 95138 1586 95208 1587 9751 163
Option C + 14
PM 232489 3875 -13851 -231 -3671 61
+EO
EV 41430 691 102137 1702 0
AI Day 13900 $ 222,400 2900 $ 46,400 1900 -$ 30,400
Base is Option C + 14 (With Updated Pape Busses)

TravelTime Fare Congestion
Savings in Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary
With Papo Busses mins hours Value mlns hours Value m ins hours Value
AM 1005952 16766 331 15 552 -203369 -3389
Option C + 14 MD 241 346 4022 27420 457 11843 197
+ AOto PM 305177 5086 -18683 -311 470434 7841
Sheppard EV 115171 1920 39729 662 16384 273
AU Day 27800 $ 444 ,800 1400 $ 22,400 4900 $ 78,400
AM 949323 15822 24339 406 -28432 -474
OptiooC+ 14 MD 271497 4525 98306 1638 20230 337
+ EQ to PM 44907 1 7485 -4637 -77 387524 6459
S~rd EV 126730 2 11 2 103 142 1719 -2464 41
AIDII)' 29900 $ 478,400 3700 $ 59,200 6300 #lf###U# i
Base is 2041 Base with Pape Busses

Savings In Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary
With Papo Busses mins hours Value m lns hours Value m lns hours Value
AM 190 190 3170 7103 118 104907 1748
MD 72533 1209 -1679 -28 2156 36
2041 Base +
PM 116484 1941 -10665 -178 158466 284 1
AQ
EV 43579 726 -2149 -36 3549 59
AlDay 7000 $ 11 2,000 -100 -$ 1,600 4500 $ 72,000
AM 27 1649 4527 23650 394 43300 722
MD 89409 1490 29008 483 7246 12 1
2041 Base +
PM 356964 5949 47 124 785 -8760 -146
ea EV 58489 975 20787 346 544 9
AlDay 12900 $ 206,400 2000 $ 32.000 700 $ 11 ,200
Base for SSE business case Is Option C + 14 (which includes McCowan 3)

Transit savings - SSE
Updated with 50kmlh TravelTime Fare Congestion

Saving s In Savings in Monetary Savings In Savings in Monetary Savings In Savings In Monetary
With Bus Fix - June 6 mlns hours Value mlns hours Value m ins hours Value
AM -309240 -5 154 20188 -336 201532 3359
OptiooC +14 MD -1131 -19 -4639 -77 -5504 -92
+ SSE Expl'ess PM -567389 -9456 -33042 -551 3 11412 5 190
(No LRT East) EV -3175 53 -437 1 -73 -7650 -128
Al Day -14700 ~ 235,200 -1000 -$ 16,000 8300 #i#IHH### It
Base for LRT East bus iness case Is Option C + 14 + Express

Transit savings - LRT East
Updated w ith 50kmlh Travel Time Fare Congestion

Savings in Savings in Monetary Savtngs In Savings in Monetary Savings In Savings in Monetary
.. With Bus Fix - June 6 mins hours Value m ins hours Value mins hours Value
AM 27 1126 4519 17531 292 -25 1464 -41 91
Option C + 14
MD -50719 -845 565 -9 1439 24
+ SSE Express
PM -257453 -4291 7657 128 318449 5307
+ LAT East 1o
EV -17793 -297 125 2 5276 88
UTSC
AUDay -900 $ 14,400 400 $ 6,400 1200 $ 19,200
AM 179794 2997 17140 286 -178186 -2970
Option C + 14
MD -51888 -865 630 -11 1785 30
+ SSE Express
PM 492707 8212 11141 186 -348590 -5810
+ LRT East 1o
EV -34363 -573 395 7 4667 78
Malvern
AllDay 9800 $ 156 ,800 500 $ 8,000 -8700 ######### #
Page 666 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
*Base for Option C/D Business Case is 2041 Base (RER)

Auto Savings- Option C/D
Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM -36981 -616
MD -9993 -167
Option C + 14 PM 338524 5642
EV -18990 -317
All Day 4500 $ 72,000
AM -28376 -473
MD -12200 -203
Option C +8 PM 295952 4933
EV -19414 -324
All Day 3900 $ 62,400
AM -14838 -247
MD -10831 -181
Option D + 14 PM 298678 4978
EV -18898 -315
All Day 4200 $ 67,200
*Base for RL business case is Option C + 14 (WITH UPDATED PAPE BUSSI

Auto Savings - RL
Travel Time
* With Pape Busses mins hours Value
AM 27909 465
Option C + 14
MD 340 6
+AQ PM 85299 1422
EV 2277 38
All Day 1900 $ 30,400
AM 88074 1468
MD 2279 38
Option C + 14
PM 175473 2925
+EO EV 4500 75
All Day 4500 $ 72,000
Page 667 of 1092

*Base is Option C + 14 (With Updated Pape Busses)
Travel Time
AM 124066 2068
Option C + 14 MD 2941 49
+ AQto PM 245188 4086
Sheppard EV 4142 69
All Day 6300 $ 100,800
AM 101447 1691
Option C + 14 MD 4959 83
+ EQto PM 294765 4913
Sheppard EV 6118 102
All Day 6800 $ 108,800
* Base is 2041 Base with Pape Busses

Travel Time
*With Pape Busses mins hours Value
AM 76268 1271
MD 947 16
2041 Base+
PM 17937 299
AQ
EV -1106 -18
All Day 1600 $ 25,600
AM 23097 385
MD 2192 37
2041 Base+
PM 113560 1893
EQ
EV -300 -5
All Day 2300 $ 36,800

t Savmas-
A uo . SSE
*Updated with 50km/h Travel Time
*With Bus Fix- June 6 mins hours Value
AM -205 -3
Option C + 14 MD -1732 -29
(No LRT East) EV 492 8
All Day 600 $ 9,600
Page 668 of 1092

Auto Savings- LRT East

* With Bus Fix- June 6 mins hours Value
AM 23027 384
Option C + 14
MD 773 13
+ SSE Express
PM -178373 -2973
+ LRT East to
EV -3974 -66
UTSC
All Day -2600 -$ 41 ,600
AM -6363 -106
Option C + 14
MD 304 5
+ SSE Express
PM -65425 -1090
+ LRT East to
EV -3282 -55
Malvern
All Day -1200 -$ 19,200
Page 669 of 1092

Page 670 of 1092
Input
Value of Time 16
* Base for Option C/D Business Case is 2031 Base (REA)

Auto Savings - Option C/D
Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM 40084 668
MD 2915 49
Option C + 14 PM 119896 1998
EV -4005 -67
All Day 2600 $ 41 ,600
AM 103281 1721
MD 2920 49
Option C + 8 PM 189331 3156
EV -4448 -74
All Day 4900 $ 78,400
AM 92704 1545
MD 2087 35
Option D + 14 PM 234488 3908
EV -2841 -47
All Day 5400 $ 86,400

Auto Savings - RL
Travel Time
* Without Pape Bus mins hours Value
AM 8619 144
MD 1185 20
Option C + 14
PM 126685 2111
+AQ
EV 803 13
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
AM 41867 698
MD 1907 32
Option C + 14
PM 88876 1481
+EQ
EV 2556 43
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
Travel Time
Page 671 of 1092

AM -67850 -1131
MD 1284 21
Option C + 14
PM 66488 1108
+AO
EV 480 8
All Day 0 $ -
AM 62391 1040
MD 2433 41
Option C + 14
PM 89409 1490
+ EQ
EV 1085 18
All Day 2600 $ 41 ,600

Auto Savings - SSE
Travel Time
Old Speed assumptions mins hours Value
AM -9125 -152
Option C + 14 MD -587 -10
+SSE Express PM 65527 1092
All Day 900 $ 14,400
Auto Savings - SSE

Travel Time
* Updated with 50km/h mins hours Value
AM 19883 331
Option C + 14 MD -79 -1
All Day 300 $ 4,800

Auto Savings - LRT East
Travel Time
AM 48081 801
Option C + 14 MD -81 -1
+SSE Express
PM 1902 32
+ LRT East to
,_ UTSC EV
,_ -3501 -58
Page 672 of 1092

All Day 800 $ 12,800
AM -79604 -1327
Option C + 14
+SSE Express MD 135 2
+ LRT East to PM 10839 181
Malvern EV 217 4
All Day -1100 -$ 17,600
Option C + 14 AM -93045 -1551
+ LRT East to PM -77542 -1292
UTSC without EV -630 -11
removing All Day -2900 -$ 46,400
Travel Time
*Updated with 50km/h mins hours Value
AM -12108 -202
Option C + 14
MD -84 -1
+SSE Express
PM 63505 1058
+ LRT East to
EV 802 13
UTSC
All Day 900 $ 14,400
AM -23937 -399
Option C + 14
MD -110 -2
+SSE Express
PM 101100 1685
+ LRT East to
EV 264 4
Malvern
All Day 1300 $ 20,800
Page 673 of 1092

Page 674 of 1092
Karen Thorburn
From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Cama rgo@arup.com >

Sent: May-30-16 4:45 PM
To: Mike Logan
Attachments: 3-station McCowan.pdf; McCowan 4 stop - KEN -SE.pdf
Hi Mike,
We did a little bit more digging and in the model the speed works out to be closer to 52km/h (we code times, not
speeds). The times we used come from the attached TIC tables.

From To Total TIC Time (m inutes)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
I just talked this over with MH . We feel that we will likely need to re-run the McCowan-3 scenarios to get numbers we
are comfortable with. The McCowan-3 speed should be 40kph and Express should be SOkph .
Page 675 of 1092

The travel time benefit is integral to the benefit of the Express subway over the 3-stop .
want to discuss.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
The speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TIC estimates that we got last
December is of 58km/h (on average), which is faster than the SOkm/h assumption for the Express. In actual fact, there is
very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds. The benefits around the fringes of the area all result from changes to the
buses assumed w ith SSE Express.

My mistake, I used the All Day times for the base, which is why we were getting some small benefits. We're updating
the numbers and redoing those two maps.
City Hall:
Investigating ...
Page 676 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc
Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 677 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-27-16 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: Questions and graphic output request
Attachments: City Hall - RL Queen v Opt C.jpg; Union - Opt C v BaseJpg; Union - Opt D v Opt C.jpg
Hi Mike,
First transit catchment maps attached ... the remaining four will be with you soon.
Note that there are some interpolation artifacts that we'd need to mask in the Union Station maps (the green area in
the islands and on the lakeshore in Mississauga). These appear when the isochrones are created.
Felipe

To: Ana Graovac
Cc: Felipe Camargo; Michael Hain; Karen Thorburn
Thank you Ana.
I just spoke to Felipe on the phone about these maps, based on the first one you sent. To summarize, we've decided to
NOT show these access to jobs maps yet given that you have not had the chance to do your due diligence on the results.
We'll focus on the isochrones, and work on the access to jobs maps for our reporting in a few weeks.
Mike

Sent: May-27-16 1:07 PM
To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo
Here is the first of the access to jobs maps. Let us know if there is something about the format that you would like to
change as we start generating the rest of the maps.

Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:43
To: Felipe Camargo
Page 678 of 1092

Cc: Karen Thorburn; Michael Hain; Ana Graovac
Since we're using absolute threshold, I think we should be consistent and use total jobs within the catchment.

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,
One further clarification question, for the incremental Access to Jobs maps would you like to base them on total jobs
within the catchments or 'factored' jobs (using the linear distance decay function)?

Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:18 AM
To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
We should be able to produce these by the end of the day (but will try to have them done sooner), with the exception of
Eglinton East, which is still running.
Re Eglinton East, last night's run failed half-way through (at around 3:00am) so we lost a few hours; it's running again
now, and Eglinton East Opt 2 will be finished soon, but the Option 3 runs won't be done until later tonight.
Can you confirm which time periods you need these maps for? the AM Peak or All Day or both?
Assumptions:
Time estimated as 'elapsed time', i.e. no weightings or penalties, with the wait time capped at 30 minutes
Maximum walk time allowed = 15 minutes
Travel time thresholds:
o 45 minutes for 'absolute' catchment estimate
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function. (Factor= 1 at time =0, Factor 0 at time
= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Page 679 of 1092

Arup
t : +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m : +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Michael Hain
Subject: Questions and graphic output request
Hi Felipe,
We are finalizing our public consultation materials and have a few urgent requests for you . We need these graphics
ASAP- today if at all possible - but I understand that you are still updating SSE Express scenarios, so please let me know
when you could provide .
1. lsochrones
SSE- showing difference in extent of travel from Scarborough Centre Station between Express and 3-stop (i.e.
base case)
Eglinton East LRT- showing difference in extent of travel from UTSC between LRT to UTSC and base case
Eglinton West LRT - showing difference in extent of travel from Pearson Airport between LRT and base case AND
showing difference extent of travel from MACC (Renforth Station) between LRT and base case
SmartTrack- showing difference in extent of travel from Union Station between Option C and base case AND
Option D and base case
Relief Line- showing difference in extent of travel from City Hall between Relief Line Queen-Eastern and base
case
2. Access to Jobs
We need maps showing the incremental access to jobs by dissemination area for each pair of scenarios
SSE- express v. 3-stop (i.e. base case)
Eglinton East LRT- LRT to UTSC v. base case
Eglinton West LRT- LRT v. base case
SmartT rack- Option C v. base case AND Option D v. base case
Relief Line- Queen -Eastern v. base case
Could you please also provide us with the following assumptions that you have made in your modelling?
Travel time threshold

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Any other similar assumptions
Page 680 of 1092

Thanks,

{Acting) Program Manager
416.338.5568
21 51 Floor, East Tower

Page 681 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

To: 'Ana Graovac'
Thank you Ana.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo
Subject: RE : Questions and graphic output request
Here is the first of the access to jobs maps. Let us know if there is something about the format that you would
like to change as we start generating the rest of the maps.

Sent: Friday, May 27, 201611:43
To: Felipe Camargo

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,
One further clarification question, for the incremental Access to Jobs maps would you like to base them on total
jobs within the catchments or 'factored' jobs (using the linear distance decay function)?
Page 682 of 1092

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
We should be able to produce these by the end of the day (but will try to have them done sooner), with the
exception of Eglin ton East, which is still running.
Re Eglinton East, last night's run failed half-way through (at around 3:00am) so we lost a few hours; it's
running again now, and Eglinton East Opt 2 will be finished soon, but the Option 3 runs won't be done until
later tonight.
Assumptions:
Time estimated as 'elapsed time', i.e. no weightings or penalties, with the wait time capped at 30
minutes
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function. (Factor = 1 at time =0, Factor 0
at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 683 of 1092

Hi Felipe,
We are finalizing our public consultation materials and have a few urgent requests for you. We need these graphics
when you could provide.
1. lsochrones
base case)
Egl inton West LRT- showing difference in extent of travel from Pearson Airport between LRT and base case AND
SmartT rack - showing difference in extent of travel from Union Station between Option C and base case AND
case
2. Access to Jobs
SmartTrack- Option C v. base case AND Option D v. base case
Relief Line- Queen-Eastern v. base case

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

(Acting) Program Manager
416.338.5568

Page 684 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Ana Graovac
A couple of things:
Can we crop the images to show generally the extent of the TIC subway system?
The dark green area in the legend should be referred to with proper names- e.g. "Relief Line" or "Scarborough
Subway Extension"
Refer to the light green option as the "No Relief Line" etc.
You've provided a map of ST C v. STD. It may be my fault, but we actually need ST C v. RER and ST D v. RER.
Thanks,
Mike

Hi Mike,
First transit catchment maps attached .. . the remaining four will be with you soon.
Note that there are some interpolation artifacts that we'd need to mask in the Union Station maps (the green
area in the islands and on the lakeshore in Mississauga). These appear when the isocbrones are created.
Felipe

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana .
Page 685 of 1092

Mike

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo

To: Felipe Camargo

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: M ike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Michael Ha in; Ana Graovac
Mike,

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
Page 686 of 1092

later tonight.
Assumptions:
minutes
o 45 minutes for 'absolute ' catchment estimate
at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 41 6 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup. com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
when you could provide .
1. lsochrones
base case)
Eglinton West LRT- showing difference in extent of travel from Pearson Airport between LRT and base case AND
Page 687 of 1092

SmartTrack - showing difference in extent of t ravel from Union Station between Option C and base case AND
case
2. Access to Jobs
SSE- express v. 3-stop (i.e . base case)
Eglinton West LRT -LRT v. base case

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568

Page 688 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Attachments: Scarborough Centre- SSE Express v Opt C.jpg; City Hall - RL Eastern v Opt C.jpg
Two more attached.
The access to Pearson maps don't really work with the data we've generated because of the location of the DA centroid
right in the middle of the Airport (and a long way away from the nearest transit stop). We could generate a matrix of
transit times to a node located at the terminal over the weekend and use that for mapping instead.
And we're checking the Eglinton West to Renforth now before we send it over.
Let us know your thoughts on these and once we have your suggested amendments we'll tidy them up (legends,
perhaps zoom in a bit, etc)

To: 'Mike Logan'; Ana Graovac
Hi Mike,
Felipe

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana.
I just spoke to Felipe on the phone about these maps, based on the first one you sent . To summarize, we've decided to
Page 689 of 1092

We'll focus on the isochrones, and work on the access to jobs maps for our reporting in a few weeks .
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo
Here is the first of the access to jobs maps . Let us know if there is something about the format that you would like to

Sent: Friday, May 27, 201611 :43
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Michael Ha in; Ana Graovac

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,

To: 'Mike Logan '
Hi Mike,
Eglinton East, which is still running .
Page 690 of 1092

Assumptions :
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function . (Factor= 1 at time =0, Factor 0 at time
= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
ASAP- today if at all possible- but I understand that you are still updating SSE Express scenarios, so please let me know
1. lsochrones
base case)
case
3
Page 691 of 1092

2. Access to Jobs

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568
2Pt Floor, East Tower

Page 692 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-29-16 12:22 PM
To: Mike Logan
Attachments: City Hall - RL Eastern v Opt C v3.jpg; Pearson - Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C.jpg; Renforth -
Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C v2.jpg; Scarborough Centre- SSE Express v Opt C v2.jpg;
Union - Opt C v Base v3.jpg; Union - Opt D v Base v2.jpg; UTSC - Eglinton E Opt 3 v SSE
Express.j pg
Hi Mike,
Attached are updated versions of all the maps, plus the UTSC and Pearson maps that were pending. We should have a
bit of tomorrow morning for some minor changes, if needed, so please let us know if there are any further adjustments
to make.
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 8:27AM
To: Felipe Camargo; Ana Graovac
Subject: Re: Questions and graphic output request
Thanks for these, Felipe,
I'm sorry that I didn't have a chance to look at these in detail last evening. We'll have until noon on Monday to
get them on to our panels for public consultation.
First, we're missing maps centred on UTSC showing the impacts of the Eglinton East LRT and centred on
GTAA showing impacts of Eglinton West LRT.
Otherwise, here are comments map-by-map:
Renforth:
Title: Renforth Gateway 45 minute transit catchment

Light Green: Without Eglinton West LRT
Dark Green: With Eglinton West LRT
Scarborough Centre:
1
Page 693 of 1092

Title OK
Light Green: With 3-stop Subway
Dark Green: With Express Subway
RL Eastern:
Title OK
Light Green: Without Relief Line
Dark Green: With Relief Line
RL Queen :
DELETE
Un ion Option D:
Title OK
Light Green: Without SmartTrack D
Dark Green: With SmartTrack D
Union Option C:
Title OK
Light Green : Without SmartTrack C
Dark Green: With SmartTrack C
NEW Pearson Airport
Title: Pearson Airport 45 minute transit catchment

NEW Un iversity of Toronto, Scarborough Campus
Title : UTSC 45 minute transit catchment

Light Green: Without Eglinton East LRT
Dark Green: With Eglinton East LRT
Page 694 of 1092

From: Felipe Camargo <Felipe .Camargo@arup.com >
Sent: May 27, 2016 4:51PM
Hi Mike,
Updated versions attached .
I think it would help if you gave us the description you'd like to include in the 'base' for each map (just take into account
that there's a 20 character limit for the items in the map legend, though)

A couple of things:
Subway Extension "
Thanks,
Mike

Hi Mike,
Felipe
Page 695 of 1092

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana.
Mike
From: Ana Graovac [mailto:ana .graovac@arup.com]

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo

To: Felipe Camargo

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,
Page 696 of 1092

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
Re Eglinton East, last night' s run failed half-way through (at around 3:00am) so we lost a few hours; it's running again
Assumptions :
Travel t ime thresholds:
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function . (Factor = 1 at time =0, Factor 0 at time=
60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Page 697 of 1092

1. lsochrones
base case)
Relief Line- showing difference in extent of travel from City Hall between Relief Line Queen-Eastern and base case
2. Access to Jobs

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568

Page 698 of 1092

ity Hall - 45 minute transit catc
With Relief Line
Without Relief line
0 3 6
----------------------------------~~~
2014CALIPER
Kilometers
Page 699 of 1092

Renforth Gateway - 45 minute transit catcl
With Eglinton W LRT
No Eglinton W LRT
0 3.3 6.7 10
Kilometers
$)2Q14 CALIPER 1 not including UP Express
Page 700 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Attachments: Business Case Output June 9 2016-DRAFT.XLSX
Here they are.

M.

To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
Do you have the total VKTs and Fare Revenues for these?
Thanks!
Felipe

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:07 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
SmartTrack. We only have 2041 runs for those so far. Hopefully that is enough to get a sense of what the benefits
numbers would be .
M.

Page 701 of 1092

Relief Line Business Case- 2041

2041 Base 2,865,376
Base with AQ 2,872,264
Base with EQ 2,876,360

Scenario Auto Share
2041 Base 0.5505
Base with AQ 0.5502
Base with EQ 0.5501
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
2041 Base $ 3,408,080
Base with AQ $ 3,398,742
Base with EQ $ 3,398,786
* Note, all of these runs include the fix to the Pape busses
Page 702 of 1092

Scenario Volume
2041 Base 42,583
Base with AQ 39,515
Base with EO 41,015
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
2041 Base 175,278,160
Base with AQ 175,255,800
Base with EQ 175,252 ,400
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 4,151,528
$ 4,172,418
$ 4,182,392
Page 703 of 1092

Scenario Transfers
2041 Base 10,364
Base with AO 7,641
Base with EO 9,257
Average Transfers- Daily

2041 Base 1.824
Base with AO 1.796
Base with EO 1.794
Page 704 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
The speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TTC estimates that we got
last December is of 58km/h (on average), which is faster than the 50km/h assumption for the Express. In actual
fact, there is very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds. The benefits around the fringes of the area all result

My mistake, I used the All Day times for the base, which is why we were getting some small benefits. We're
City Hall:
Investigating ...
Felipe Camargo MSc

1
Page 705 of 1092

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I AR Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com

Page 706 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-27 -16 11:35 AM
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Michael Hain; Ana Graovac; Kristin Olson
Thanks Felipe!
Let's produce the maps for the AM peak networks- using the absolute travel time threshold.
Thanks,
Mike

Sent: May-27-16 11:18 AM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
exception of Eglinton East, which is still running.
later tonight.
Assumptions:
minutes
at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Page 707 of 1092

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
1. lsochrones
SSE- showing difference in extent of travel from Scarborough Centre Station between Express and 3-stop (i.e .
base case)
SmartT rack- showing difference in extent of travel from Union Station between Option C and base case AND
case
2. Access to Jobs

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Page 708 of 1092

Thanks,

416.338.5568

Page 709 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-30-16 11:41 AM
Hi Felipe- are we on track to get these changes by noon?
Mike
From: Mike Logan

First, we're missing maps centred on UTSC showing the impacts of the Eglinton East LRT and centred on GTAA
showing impacts of Eglinton West LRT.
Renforth:

Scarborough Centre:
Title OK
RL Eastern:
Title OK
Page 710 of 1092

RL Queen:
DELETE
Union Option D:
Title OK
Light Green : Without SmartTrack D
Union Option C:
Title OK
Light Green: Without SmartTrack C
NEW Pearson Airport

NEW University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus
Title: UTSC 45 minute transit catchment

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: May 27, 2016 4:51 PM
Hi Mike,
Updated versions attached.
Page 711 of 1092

I think it would help if you gave us the description you'd like to include in the 'base' for each map (just take
into account that there's a 20 character limit for the items in the map legend, though)

A couple of things:
Subway Extension"
Thanks,
Mike

Hi Mike,
area in the islands and on the lakeshore in Mississauga). These appear when the isochrones are created.
Felipe

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana.
Page 712 of 1092

Mike

Sent: May-27-16 1:07 PM
To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo

To: Felipe Camargo
Since we're using absolute threshold, I think we should be consistent and use total jobs within the catchment .

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,
jobs within the catchments or 'factored ' jobs (using the linear distance decay function)?

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
Page 713 of 1092

Re Eglinton East, last night' s run failed half-way through (at around 3:00am) so we lost a few hours; it's
later tonight.
Assumptions:
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function. (Factor= 1 at time =0, Factor 0
at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
ASAP - today if at all possible - but I understand that you are still updating SSE Express scenarios, so please let me know
1. lsochrones
base case)
SmartTrack - showing difference in extent of travel from Union Station between Option C and base case AND
5
Page 714 of 1092

2. Access to Jobs
Relief Line - Queen-Eastern v. base case

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568

Page 715 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-27-16 11:18 AM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Assumptions :
= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Page 716 of 1092

1. lsochrones
base case)
case
2. Access to Jobs

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568
2Pt Floor, East Tower

Page 717 of 1092

( -r
Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
Assumptions:
Travel time thresholds :
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function . (Factor= 1 at time =0, Factor 0 at time
= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
1
Page 718 of 1092

m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
1. lsochrones
base case)
case
2. Access to Jobs

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,
Page 719 of 1092

416.338.5568

Page 720 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-27-16 11:43 AM

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,

Sent: Friday, May 27, 201611:18 AM
To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike:
Re Eglinton East, last night' s run failed half-way through (at around 3:00am) so we lost a few hours ; it' s
later tonight.
Assumptions:
minutes
Page 721 of 1092

at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
1. lsochrones
base case)
case
2. Access to Jobs
We need maps showing the incremental access to jobs by d,issemination area for each pair of scenarios
2
Page 722 of 1092


Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568

Page 723 of 1092

Vivien Leung

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: RE: Summary Slides
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the update.
And to update you on my availability the rest of the week, as I mentioned the other day

Cheers,
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto :kthorbu@toronto .ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks Felipe .
I'll review.
Mike's team has found a potential error in the assumptions which is impacting the RL numbers. They are testing it and
should know by this afternoon. I will give you an update in a couple of hours on tim ing to receive info.
From : Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com ]

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Summary Slides
Hi Karen,
We haven't received any new outputs from the model runs that the Planning guys are working on, so in the meantime
I'm sending you the summary slides, now including additional information with assumptions. Please have a look and let
us know if this helps or if there's any additional information (or any changes) that could help you better explain the
assumptions.
Cheers,
Felipe
Page 724 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc
Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 725 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Thanks Felipe.
I'll review.
Mike's team has found a potential error in the assumptions which is impacting the RL numbers. They
are testing it and should know by this afternoon. I will give you an update in a couple of hours on
timing to receive info.

To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Summary Slides
Hi Karen,
We haven't received any new outputs from the model runs that the Planning guys are working on, so in the
meantime I'm sending you the summary slides, now including additional information with assumptions. Please
have a look and let us know if this helps or if there's any additional information (or any changes) that could
help you better explain the assumptions.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W J A8 Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup .com

Page 726 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
To keep you in the loop (in case you haven't been updated by the Planning team) regarding options, model runs, etc.,
Kristin Olson mentioned this morning that new model runs will be needed (for both the demand model and the
accessibility model) because of adjustments made to the speed assumptions for the SSE Express (now assumed to run at
50km/h) .
Cheers,
Felipe
PS : Our office leader has been out yesterday and today so I haven't been able to get his signature for the LOA. I think we
should be able to catch him tomorrow, and as soon as we have the signed copies I'll send them over.
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Cc: Ana Graovac
M.
From: Mike Logan

1
Page 727 of 1092

Felipe,
Mike

To: Kristin Olson
Hi Kristin,
Sure, we can do that. The coding shouldn't take very long, not more than one hour, but run time would be about 24
hours (3 scenarios x 2 time periods x 4 hours per run), plus perhaps another hour or so of post-processing time .
So starting right now, if all goes well, we should have results for the SSE and Eglinton East LRT with the express section
of the subway running at SOkm/h by around lunchtime tomorrow.
Cheers,
Felipe
PS : Will the GTA Model be run again with these changes? Or actually my question would be, should we be expecting
revised numbers for the economic benefits estimation for the three scenarios that include SSE Express?

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Logan
Subject: voicemail
Hi Felipe,

City of Toronto
2
Page 728 of 1092

City Hall, 21 st Floor, East Tower
100 Queen St West
T: (416) 397-0041

Page 729 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-30-16 11:43 AM
To: Mike Logan
Cc: 'Felipe Camargo'
Subject: FW: Questions and graphic output request
Attachments: City Hall - RL Eastern v Opt C v3Jpg; Pearson - Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C.jpg; Renforth -
Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C v2Jpg; Scarborough Centre- SSE Express v Opt C v2.jpg;
Union - Opt C v Base v3Jpg; Union - Opt D v Base v2.jpg; UTSC - Eglinton E Opt 3 v SSE
Express.j pg

Sent: May-29-16 12:22 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
Attached are updated versions of all the maps, plus the UTSC and Pearson maps that were pending. We should
have a bit of tomorrow morning for some minor changes, if needed , so please let us know if there are any
further adjustments to make.
Cheers,
Felipe

Page 730 of 1092

Renforth:

Scarborough Centre:
Title OK
RL Eastern:
Title OK
RL Queen:
DELETE
Union Option D:
Title OK
Union Option C:
Title OK
Light Green : Without SmartTrack C
Dark Green : With SmartTrack C
NEW Pearson Airport

Page 731 of 1092

Light Green : Without Eglinton East LRT
Dark Green : With Eglinton East LRT

Sent: May 27, 2016 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: Questions and graph ic output request
Hi Mike,
I think it would help if you gave us the description you'd like to include in the 'base' for each map Uust take

A couple of things :
Subway Extension"
Thanks,
Mike

Sent: May-27-16 3:33 PM
Hi Mike,
Page 732 of 1092

Felipe

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo

To: Felipe Camargo

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Page 733 of 1092

Mike,

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
later tonight.
Assumptions:
at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

5
Page 734 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
1. lsochrones
base case)
2. Access to Jobs

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568
Page 735 of 1092

Page 736 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
I wonder if there's something odd in the SSE Express model; ridership numbers are a bit higher for the new run but
everything else seems to have gotten worse (mode share and revenue are down, car VKTs are higher).
Could something have gone wrong when extracting the outputs from the model?

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
can.
M.

Page 737 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Attachments: TraveiTimeSavings - DRAFT - May30.xlsx
Hello Felipe,
Here are the travel time savings calculations.
M.
Section 7 applied
From: Michael Hain
Hello Felipe,
can.
M.
Page 738 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Subject: Model Numbers for BCs
Attachments: TraveiTimeSavings - DRAFT - May30.xlsx; Business Case Output May 31 2016-
DRAFT.XLSX
Hello Felipe,
The 2041 numbers are now included in the attached versions of the model output spreadsheets . Please let me know if
you have any questions.
M.
Page 739 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
Base for Option C/0 Business Case Is 2031 Base (REA)

.. s
T-- -- - Ootion C/0
Savings in Savings in Monetary Savings In Savings in Monetary Savings In Savings in Monetary
Option Time Period
mine hours Value mina hours Value mine hours Value
AM 502890 8382 178097 2968 158800 2647
MD 126175 2103 55602 927 58559 943
Option C + 14 PM 782010 13034 141570 2380 200853 3348
EV 102209 1703 62080 1035 97241 1621
All Day 25200 $ 403,200 7300 $ 116,800 8600 $ 137,600
AM 475383 7923 189913 3165 198155 3303
MD 137357 2289 57583 960 59339 989
Option C + 8 PM 1003981 16731 147174 2453 16552 276
EV 107652 1794 64147 1069 94747 1579
All Day 28700 $ 459 ,200 7600 $ 121 ,600 6100 $ 97 ,600
AM 475782 7930 174283 2905 210955 35 16
MD 127659 2128 58967 949 55194 920
Option D + 14 PM 227869 3798 135242 2254 609893 10165
EV 100819 1680 64744 1079 96494 1608
All Day 15500 $ 248 ,000 7200 $ 115,200 16200 $ 259 ,200
Base for RL business case is Option C + 14
Travel Time
-- ---
Fare
- -
Congestion
Savings In Savings In Monetary Savi~in Savings in Monetary Savings in Savings in Monetary
mina hours Value mlna hours Value mlns hours Value
AM 240980 4016 -10225 -170 -30575 510
MD 54219 904 24387 406 4076 68
Option C + 14
PM -386895 -6448 -17266 288 478915 7982
+AO
EV 23531 392 38308 638 152 3
All Day -1100-$ 17,600 600 $ 9,600 7500 ###IIJI### #
AM 326131 5436 -20336 339 -44642 -744
MD 89658 1498 92104 1535 79t5 132
Option C + 14
PM -483266 -8054 -28275 -471 647618 10794
+EO
EV 43641 727 99684 1661 -1270 -2 t
All Day -400 -$ 6,400 2400 $ 38,400 10200 ###IIJI### #
Base for SSE business case is Option C + 14 (which includes McCowan 3)

Transit Savings - SSE
Updated with 50km/h

Savings in Savings in Monetary Savings In Savings in Monetary Savings In Savings in Monetary
mins hours Value mina hours Value mins hours Value
AM -330054 5501 19014 -317 143585 2393
Option C + 14 MD -42583 -7 10 -5668 -94 - 11232 -187
+ SSE Exp ress PM -839801 13997 42315 -705 446265 7438
(No LRT East) EV 1340 -22 -6179 -103 -13292 222
All Day -20200 -$ 323,200 1200-$ 19,200 9400 ###IIJI##N #
Base for LRT East business case Is Option C + 14 + Express

Transit Savi ngs - LRT East

Updated with 50km/h mlns hours Value mlna hours Value mlna hours Value
AM -136826 2280 5399 -90 133168 2219
Option C + 14
MD -44665 -744 -294 -5 3844 64
+ SSE Express
PM 222550 3709 2644 44 131597 2193
+ LRT East to
EV 17063 -284 1228 20 3800 63
UTSC
All Day 400 $ 6,400 0 $ 200 $ 3,200
AM -137109 -2285 -4683 78 133670 2231
Option C + 14
MD -44928 -747 -167 -3 4608 77
+ SSE Express
PM 322848 5381 4434 74 -216301 3605
+ LRT East to
EV -18114 -302 1068 18 7780 130
fv1a.tvem
All Day 2000 $ 32 ,000 0 $ 1200 -$ 19,200
Page 740 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
*Base for Option C/D Business Case is 2031 Base (RER)

Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM -36981 -616
MD -9993 -167
Option C + 14 PM 338524 5642
EV -18990 -317
All Day 4500 $ 72,000
AM -28376 -473
MD -12200 -203
Option C + 8 PM 295952 4933
EV -19414 -324
All Day 3900 $ 62,400
AM -14838 -247
MD -10831 -181
Option D + 14 PM 298678 4978
EV -18898 -315
All Day 4200 $ 67,200

Auto Savings - RL
Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM 66476 1108
MD 575 10
Option C + 14
+AQ PM -37329 -622
EV 1946 32
All Day 500 $ 8,000
AM 70881 1181
MD 2764 46
Option C + 14 PM 70898 1182
+ EQ
EV 1865 31
All Day 2400 $ 38,400
*Base for SSE business case is Option C + 14 (which includes McCowan 3)
Page 741 of 1092

Auto Savings- SSE
Travel Time
AM 14222 237
Option C + 14 MD -1486 -25
+ SSE Express PM -151529 -2525
All Day -2400 -$ 38,400
*Base for LRT East business case is Option C + 14 +Express

Travel Time
AM -17708 -295
Option C + 14
MD -1765 -29
+SSE Express
PM 44460 741
+ LRT East to
EV 660 11
UTSC
All Day 400 $ 6,400
AM -31809 -530
Option C + 14
MD -1962 -33
+ SSE Express
PM 213102 3552
+ LRT East to
EV 1336 22
Malvern
All Day 3000 $ 48,000
Page 742 of 1092

Page 743 of 1092
Input
Value of Time 16

Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM 40084 668
MD 2915 49
Option C + 14 PM 119896 1998
EV -4005 -67
All Day 2600 $ 41,600
AM 103281 1721
MD 2920 49
Option C + 8 PM 189331 3156
EV -4448 -74
All Day 4900 $ 78,400
AM 92704 1545
MD 2087 35
Option D + 14 PM 234488 3908
EV -2841 -47
All Day 5400 $ 86,400

Auto Savings - RL
Travel Time
mins hours Value
AM 8619 144
MD 1185 20
Option C + 14
PM 126685 2111
+AQ
EV 803 13
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
AM 41867 698
MD 1907 32
Option C + 14
PM 88876 1481
+EO
EV 2556 43
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
Page 744 of 1092

Auto Savings- SSE
Travel Time
AM -9125 -152
Option C + 14 MD -587 -10
All Day 900 $ 14,400
Auto Savings - SSE

Travel Time
AM 19883 331
Option C + 14 MD -79 -1
All Day 300 $ 4,800

Travel Time
AM 48081 801
Option C + 14 MD -81 -1
+ SSE Express
PM 1902 32
+ LRT East to
UTSC EV -3501 -58
All Day 800 $ 12,800
AM -79604 -1327
Option C + 14
Malvern EV 217 4
All Day -1100 -$ 17,600
Option C + 14 AM -93045 -1551
+ LRT East to PM -77542 -1292
Page 745 of 1092

Travel Time
AM -12108 -202
Option C + 14
MD -84 -1
+SSE Express
PM 63505 1058
+ LRT East to
EV 802 13
UTSC
All Day 900 $ 14,400
AM -23937 -399
Option C + 14
MD -110 -2
+SSE Express
PM 101100 1685
+ LRT East to
EV 264 4
Malvern
AIID~ 1300 $ 20,800
Page 746 of 1092

Option C/0 Business Case- 2031

2031 No REA 2,552 ,500
2031 GO REA 2,613,500
2031 Integration Option C 2,641,100
2031 Integration Option 0 2,642,700

Scenario Auto Share
2031 GO REA 0.5535
2031 Integration Option C 0.5525
2031 Integration Option 0 0.5523
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO TTC/SmartTrack
2031 GO REA $ 2,965,886 $ 3,817,636
2031 Integration Option C $ 2,916,791 $ 3,895,341
2031 Integration Option 0 $ 2,927,064 $ 3,897,497
Perceived Travel Times AM Peak Period

Scenario Total Passenger Minutes Average per Person
2031 GO REA 81,378,500 109.57
2031 Integration Option C 81 ,821,000 108.85
2031 Integration Option 0 81 ,918,500 108.85
Congestion Effects - AM
Scenario Volume
2031 GO REA 4,255,426
3,903,442
3,930,406
Page 747 of 1092

AM Peak Hour Volume@ South of Bloor AM Peak Hour Transfe1
Scenario Volume Scenario
2031 No RER 43,010 2031 No REA
2031 GO REA 39,980 2031 GO REA
2031 Integration Option C 36,100
2031 Integration Option D 36,260
Daily VKTs Average Tra1

Scenario VKTs Scenario
2031 No RER 156,477,000 2031 GO RER
2031 GO REA 156,416,010
2031 Integration Option C 155,921 ,910
2031 Integration Option D 155,880,730
Avera e V/C
0.472
0.433
0.436
Page 748 of 1092

rs @ WB to SB at Bloor
Transfers
10,874
10,243
7,439
7,686
nsfers - Daily
Avg Transfers
1.811
1.795
1.798
Page 749 of 1092

Option C/D Business Case - 2041

2031 No RER
2031 GO RER 2,864,500

Scenario Auto Share
2031 GO RER 0.5505
2031 Integration Option D 0.5476
Daily Revenue
2031 GO RER $ 3,404,123 $ 4,149,645
2031 Integration Option D $ 3,469,108 $ 4,281,733

2031 GO RER
2031 Integration Option C
2031 Integration Option D
Scenario Volume
2031 GO RER
Page 750 of 1092

2031 No RER 2031 No RER
203 1 GO RER 42 ,600 2031 GO RER
2031 Integration Option C 38 ,530
2031 Integration Option D 38 ,780
DailyVKTs Average Tra1

2031 No RER 2031 GO RER
2031 GO RER 175,292 ,610
2031 lnteQration Option D 174,445 ,030
Avera e V/C
Page 751 of 1092

Transfers
10,314
7,764
7,939
nsfers - Daily
Avg Transfers
1.823
1.810
1.813
Page 752 of 1092

SSE Business Case - 2031
Daily Transit Ridership AM Peak Hour Volume @ South of Bloor AM Peak Hour Transfers @ WB to SB at Bloor
Scenario Total Ridership Scenario Volume Scenario Transfers
2031 Option C no SSE 2,638,000 2031 Option C no SSE 34,060 2031 Option C no SSE 6,020
2031 Option C w McCowan3 2,641 ,100 2031 Option C w McCowan3 36,100 2031 Option C w McCowan3 7,439
2031 Option C w Express 2,642,500 2031 Option C w Express 35,640 2031 Option C w Express 6,861
Daily Auto Mode Share Daily VKTs Average Transfers - Daily

Scenario Auto Share Scenario VKTs Scenario Avg Transfers
2031 Option C no SSE 0.5540 2031 Option C no SSE 155,976,840 2031 Option C w McCowan3 1.795
2031 Option C w McCowan3 0.5525 2031 Option C w McCowan3 155,921 ,910 2031 Option C w Express 1.791
2031 OptionC_w Express 0.5524 2031 Option C w Express 155,943,630
Daily Revenue
2031 Option C no SSE $ 2,939,363 $ 3,887,900
2031 Option C w McCowan3 $ 2,916,791 $ 3,895,341
2031 Option C w Express $ 2,922,464 $ 3,898,583
Perceived Travel Times AM Peak Period- minutes

2031 Option C w McCowan3 81 ,821 ,000 108.85
2031 Option C w Express
Scenario Volume Hourly Capacity Average V/C
2031 Option C w McCowan3 3,903,442 4,419,663 43%
Page 753 of 1092

SSE Business Case- 2041
Daily Transit Ridership AM Peak Hour Volume@ South of Bloor AM Peak Hour Transfers @ WB to SB at Bloor
2031 Option C w McCowan3 2,923,900 2031 Option C w McCowan3 38,530 2031 Option C w McCowan3 7,764
2031 Option C w Express 2,920,900 2031 Option C w Express 38,110 2031 Option C w Express 7,301
Daily Auto Mode Share Daily VKTs Average Transfers- Daily

2031 Option C no SSE 0.5480 2031 Option C no SSE 174,497,750 2041 Option C no SSE 1.806
2031 Option C w McCowan3 0.5476 2031 Option C w McCowan3 174,437,360 2041 Option C w McCowan3 1.81 0
2031 Option C w Express 0.5478 2031 Option C w Express 174,489,110 2041 Option C w Express 1.803
Daily Revenue
2031 Option C no SSE $ 3,482,560 $ 4,257,329

Scenario Total Passenger Minutes Avera~er Person
2031 Option C w McCowan3
2031 Option C w McCowan3
Page 754 of 1092

Eglinton West Business Case- 2031

Scenario Ridership
2031 Option C with 14 2,641 ,100
2031 Option C with 8 2,642,900
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
2031 Option C with 14 155,921 ,910
2031 0_2_tion C with 8 155,919,31 0
Daily Revenue
2031 Integration Option C w 14 $ 2,916,791 $ 3,895 ,341
2031 Integration Option C w 8 $ 2,910,391 $ 3,901 ,171

2031 Integration Option C 81 ,821 ,000 108.85
2031 Integration Option C w 8 81 ,988,900 108.93
Scenario Volume
2031 Inte ration 0 tion C w 8 3,900,831
Page 755 of 1092

AM Peak Hour Volume @ South of Bloor AM Peak Hour Transfers @
2031 Option C with 14 36,100 2031 Option C with 14
2031 Option C with 8 36,210 2031 0 tion C with 8
Daily Auto Mode Share Average Transfer

Scenario Auto Share Scenario
2031 Option C with 14 0.5525 2031 Integration Option C
2031 Option C with 8 0.5524 2031 lnte ration 0 tion C w 8
Avera e V/C
0.433
0.433
Page 756 of 1092

WB to SB at Bloor
Transfers
7,439
7,459
s- Daily
Avg Transfers
1.795
1.796
Page 757 of 1092

Eglinton West Business Case- 2041

Scenario Ridership
2031 Option C with 14 2,923,900
2031 Option C with 8 2,924,500
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
2031 Option C with 14 174,437,360
2031 Option C with 8 174,458,160
Daily Revenue
2031 Integration Option C w 14 $ 3,447,730 $ 4,280,544

2031 Integration Option C w 8
Scenario Volume Houri
2031 Inte ration 0 tion C w 8
Page 758 of 1092


Avera e V/C
Page 759 of 1092

WB to SB at Bloor
Transfers
7,764
7,782
s- Daily
Avg Transfers
1.810
1.811
Page 760 of 1092

Eglinton East Business Case - 2031

Option C with Express 2,642,500
Option C with Express With Full LRT East 2,640,500
Option C with Express With Shortened LRT East 2,640,600

Scenario Auto Share
Option C with Express 0.5524
Option C with Express With Full LRT East 0.5525
Option C with Express With Shortened LRT East 0.5525
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
Option C with Express $ 2,922,464
Option C with Express With Full LRT East $ 2,920,226
0 tion C with Ex ress With Shortened LRT East $ 2,921,814

Scenario Total Passen er Minutes
Option C with Express
Option C with Express With Full LRT East
0 tion C with Ex ress With Shortened LRT East
Scenario Volume
Page 761 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Option C with Express 35,640
Option C with Express With Full LRT East 35,610
Option C with Express With Shortened LRT East 35,640
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,898,583
$ 3,894,812
$ 3,894,541
Avera e er Person
Avera e V/C
43%
43%
43%
Page 762 of 1092

Scenario Transfers

Page 763 of 1092

Eglinton East Business Case- 2041


Scenario Auto Share
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
Perceived Travel Times AM Peak Period - minutes

Scenario Volume
Page 764 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 4,269,182
$ 4,264,147
$ 4,263,843
Avera e V/C
Page 765 of 1092

Scenario Transfers

Page 766 of 1092

Relief Line Business Case - 2031

Option C 2,641,100
Option C with RL AQ 2,647,1 00
Option C with RL GQ 2,647,200
Option C with RL EO 2,651 ,900

Scenario Auto Share
Option C 0.5525
Option C with RL AQ 0.5522
Option C with RL GQ 0.5522
Option C with RL EQ 0.5520
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
Option C $ 2,916,791
Option C with RL AQ $ 2,915,565
Option C with RL GQ $ 2,911 ,316
Option C with RL EQ $ 2,904,846

Option C 81 ,821 ,000
Option C with RL AQ 81 ,806,200
Option C with RL GQ 81 ,797,800
Option C with RL EQ 81 ,829,800
Congestion Effects - AM Pee

Scenario Volume
Option C 3,903,442
Option C with RL AQ 3,979,644
Option C with RL GQ 3,981 ' 150
Option C with RL EQ 4,030,649
* This is a congestion calculation on the subway network. It is the sum of all r
hourly capacity on those segments.
Page 767 of 1092

AM Peak Hour Volume@ South of Bloor
Scenario Volume
Option C 36,100
Option C with RL AQ 33,920
Option C with RL GQ 34,780
Option C with RL EQ 35,320
DailyVKTs
Scenario VKTs
Option C 155,921 ,910
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,895,341
$ 3,913,671
$ 3,915,010
$ 3,930,623
Avera e er Person
108.85
108.61
108.59
108.43
Avera e V/C
0.433
0.413
0.417
0.418
>eak hour segment volumes divided by the sum of all
Page 768 of 1092

Scenario Transfers
Option C 7,439

Option C 1.795
Option C with RL EO 1.817
Page 769 of 1092


Option C 2,923,900

Scenario Auto Share
Option C 0.5476
Option C with RL EO 0.5472
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
Option C $ 3,447,730
Option C with RL AQ $ 3,452,239
Option C with RL GQ $ 3,459,393
Option C with RL EQ $ 3,455,734

Option C
Option C with RL AQ
Option C with RL GQ
Option C with RL EQ
Congestion Effects - AM Pea:

Scenario Volume
Option C
Option C with RL AQ
Option C with RL GQ
Option C with RL EQ
* This is a congestion calculation on the subway network. It is the sum of all ~
Page 770 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Option C 38,530
DailyVKTs
Scenario VKTs
Option C 174,437,360
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 4,280,544
$ 4,304,309
$ 4,302,311
$ 4,325,030
1k Hour
Houri Avera e V/C
Page 771 of 1092

Scenario Transfers
Option C 7,764

Option C 1.810
Option C with RL EQ 1.782
Page 772 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Subject: Model Numbers for BCs
Attachments: Business Case Output June 5 2016-DRAFT.XLSX; TraveiTimeSavings - DRAFT -June
3.xlsx
Hello Felipe,
The attached are corrected numbers for the Relief Line business case. We are working on pulling out numbers from the
other runs we talked about on Friday. We should get them to you later today.
M.
Page 773 of 1092

Eglinton East Business Case - 2031


Scenario Auto Share
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO

Scenario Volume
Page 774 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,898,583
$ 3,894,812
$ 3,894,541
Avera e er Person
Avera e V/C
43%
43%
43%
Page 775 of 1092

Scenario Transfers

Page 776 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
Base for Option C/D Business Case is 2031 Base (RER)

A S avmgs - 01pt1on C/D
uto
Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM 40084 668
MD 29 15 49
Option C + 14 PM 119896 1998
EV -4005 -67
All Day 2600 $ 41,600
AM 103281 1721
MD 2920 49
Option C + 8 PM 189331 3156
EV -4448 -74
All Day 4900 $ 78,400
AM 92704 1545
MD 2087 35
OptionD+ 14 PM 234488 3908
EV -2841 -47
All Day 5400 $ 86,400
Base for RL business case is Option C + 14 (WITH UPDATED PAPE BUSSES)

A uto Savmgs- R L
Trawl Time
Savings In Savings In Monetary
r :ithout Pape Bus mlns hours Value
AM 8619 144
MD 1185 20
Option C + 14
PM 126685 2111
+AO
EV 803 13
AllDay 2300 $ 36,800
AM 41867 698
MD 1907 32
OptionC+ 14
PM 88876 1481
+EO
EV 2556 43
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
Travel Time
With Pape Busses mins hours Value
AM -67850 -1131
MD 1284 21
Option C + 14
PM 66488 11 08
+ AO
EV 480 8
All Day 0 $
AM 6239 1 1040
MD 2433 41
Option C + 14
PM 89409 1490
+ EQ
EV 1085 18
All Day 2600 $ 41,600
Base for SSE business case is Option C + 14 (which includes McCowan 3)

A uto S avmgs- SSE
Travel Time
AM -9125 -152
Option C + 14 MD -587 -10
All Day 900 $ 14,400
A uo
t S avmgs- SSE
Travel Time
Updated with 50km/h mins hours Value
AM 19883 33 1
Option C + 14 MD -79 -1
+ SS E Exp ress PM 2692 45
All Day 300 $ 4,800
Base for LRT East business case is Option C + 14 + Express

Travel Time
Page 777 of 1092

Sav ings in Savings in Monetary
Old Speed assumptions m ins hours Value
AM 48081 801
OptionC + 14 MD -81 -1
+ SSE Express
PM 1902 32
+ LRT East to
UTSC EV -3501 -58
All Day 800 $ 12,800
AM -79604 -1327
Option C + 14
Malvem EV 217 4
All Day -1100-$ 17,600
Option C + 14 AM -93045 -1551
+ LRT East to PM -77542 -1292
removing All Day -2900-$ 46,400
Tr avel Time
Updated with 50kmlh mins hours Value
AM -12108 -202
Option C + 14
MD -84 -1
+ SSE Express
PM 63505 1058
+ LRT East to
EV 802 13
UTSC
All Day 900 $ 14,400
AM -23937 -399
Option C + 14
MD -110 -2
+ SSE Express
PM 101100 1685
+ LRT East to
EV 264 4
Malvern
All Day 1300 $ 20,800
Page 778 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Michael Hain; Mike Logan
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Karen Thorburn; Ana Graovac
Subject: RE: Accessibility numbers for RL
Hi guys,
Sorry, it seems I can't count. .. All8 runs should be complete at around midnight of Thursday, so we will be
able to get you all the results on Friday morning.
Apologies for the confusion!
Felipe

To: 'Michael Hain'; Mike Logan
Ok, we will set the runs without ST runs now and will start the with ST runs on Friday. They runs will take 16
hours to complete so they should probably finish at some point overnight. We can process them on the weekend
and send them over.
Felipe
PS: yes, 8 runs in total (2 scenarios x 2 base cases x 2 time periods)

Sent: Wednesday, June 15,2016 11 :00 AM
We would like the without SmartTrack runs as soon as possible (which sounds like Friday morning). How soon
after that can you get us the with SmartTrack runs? (Isn't it 8 runs in total?)
Thanks,
M.

Page 779 of 1092

Cc: Mike Wehkind; Karen Thorburn ; Ana Graovac
Hi Michael,
I'm afraid both Ana and I will be unavailable on Thursday (and this afternoon) so, even though the runs would
be faster we'd only be able to get you the results on Friday morning. So it would be either half the runs on
Friday morning or all four runs on Friday afternoon. Let us know what you prefer.
Felipe

Hello Felipe,
We are only interested in the Bl and B2 options for now. If you run the without ST options first could you get
those to us tomorrow instead of Friday?
Thanks,
M.

Hi all ,
The Relief Line options we've tested are consistent with what in the pdf are labelled as B 1 and B2, but there are
a few more options there.
Is the idea to only update what we have (i.e. redo B1 and B2) or do you want us to code and run the other
options too?
Redoing Bl and B2 should be fairly quick to code and would take about 32 hours to run (2 options x 2 time
periods x 2 base cases (with/without ST Opt C) x -4hrs/run) plus about another 2 hours of post-processing. So,
assuming computers cooperate we'd have results to share with you by Friday afternoon.
We haven't tested the other options before so they'd need to be coded from scratch, which would take longer
(maybe 2-3 hours to code, plus the additional run time).
Please advise,
Felipe
2
Page 780 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Karen Thorburn
Hello Felipe,
We have gone back to the original station to station travel time assumptions for the Relief Line for the portion
south of Danforth (attached, sorry for the scan). You might have these from the first time you calculated
accessibility numbers for us. The travel time assumptions for north of Danforth have not changed from what we
have sent you most recently.
The headways are being adjusted to 2min (peak) I 3min (off-peak).
We are shifting the station location in Emme to more correctly reflect its currently planned location north of
Danforth Ave.
Please let me know if you have any questions,

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
Thanks
Karen
Page 781 of 1092


Page 782 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
Frorn: Michael Hain

Sent June-14-16 5:44PM
Attachments: Scan from (Hostname).pdf
H-clld Felipe,
W e have gone back to the original station to station travel time assumptions for the Relief Line for the portion south of
C ;!nforth (attached, sorry for the scan). You might have these from the first time you calculated accessibility numbers
fGr us. The travel time assumptions for north of Danforth have not changed from what we have sent you most recently.
The headways are being adjusted to 2m in (peak) I 3m in (off-peak).
' o.Ne are shifting the station location in Emme to more correctly reflect its currently planned location north of Danforth
Ave.

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
sending an email with the updated assumptions on the RL head ways.
Thanks
Karen
Page 783 of 1092

.
Page 784 of 1092

Page 785 of 1092
Page 786 of 1092
Page 787 of 1092
Page 788 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

To: Michael Hain
Thanks Michael,
We'll set thi s up to run as soon as possible and will give you a call if any questions come up.
Cheers,
Felipe
On Jun 14, 2016, at 5:43PM, Michael Hain <mhain@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hello Felipe,
We have gone back to the original station to station travel time assumptions for the Relief Line
for the portion south of Danforth (attached, sorry for the scan). You might have these from the
first time you calculated accessibility numbers for us. The travel time assumptions for north of
Danforth have not changed from what we have sent you most recently.
We are shifting the station location in Emme to more correctly reflect its currently planned
location north of Danforth Ave.
M.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo @arup.com]
To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen ,
Ok, sounds good. We'll make the changes and set the runs as soon as we get the assumption
updates.
Thanks,
Felipe
On Jun 14, 2016, at 5:08PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu @toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
We will have new numbers for the accessibility calculator. Mike Wehkind copied
will be sending an email with the updated assumptions on the RL head ways .
Thanks
Karen
Page 789 of 1092

Page 790 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Hi all,
Is the idea to only update what we have (i.e. redo Bl and B2) or do you want us to code and run the other
options too?
Redoing B 1 and B2 should be fairly quick to code and would take about 32 hours to run (2 options x 2 time
We haven ' t tested the other options before so they'd need to be coded from scratch, which would take longer
Please advise,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
--)\'~Ys~f~fbe%tkoab}ll~Mtfllbi2JRffi$~k'kf}-~fW\h1't~~"e-i~ecLits.__cJurentL\LlllannedJncatiun_nortb_o:L_____
~qYs~f~fbe\1fkCWa}ll~Mtf1lbi2JRffi$~k'kf}-~fW\h1't~~"e-i~e.cLiL<LcJtrrentL\Lnlanne.dJncatiun_nortb_o:'-------
- -)Vrfe ~f&ffitqYs~f~fbe\1fkCWa}ll~Mtf1lbi2JRffi$~k'kf}-~fR\h1't~~"e-i~e.cLits.__cttrrentL\Llllanne.dJncatiun_nnrtb_o:'----_ __
Page 791 of 1092

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
Thanks
Karen

Page 792 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

To: 'Felipe Camargo '; Mike Logan
Subject: RE: Accessibil ity numbers for RL
Hello Felipe,
We are only interested in the B1 and B2 options for now. If you run the without ST options first could you get those to
us tomorrow instead of Friday?
Thanks,
M.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe .Camargo@arup.com)

Hi all,
The Relief Line options we've tested are consistent with what in the pdf are labelled as Bl and B2, but there are
Is the idea to only update what we have (i.e. redo Bl and B2) or do you want us to code and run the other
options too?
Please advise,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 793 of 1092

Hello Felipe,
We have gone back to the original station to station travel time assumptions for the Relief Line for the portion south of
Danforth (attached, sorry for the scan). You might have these from the first time you calculated accessibility numbers
for us. The travel time assumptions for north of Danforth have not changed from what we have sent you most recently.
The headways are being adjusted to 2min (peak) I 3min (off-peak) .
We are shifting the station location in Emme to more correctly reflect its currently planned location north of Danforth
Ave.

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Ok, sounds good. We'll make the changes and set the runs as soon as we get the assumption updates .
Thanks,
Felipe
On Jun 14,2016, at 5:08PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
Thanks
Karen

Page 794 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Hi Michael,
be faster we' d only be able to get you the results on Friday morning. So it would be either half the runs on
Felipe

Hello Felipe,
We are only interested in the B1 and B2 options for now. If you run the without ST options first could you get
Thanks,
M.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Carnargo@arup.com]

Hi all,
Is the idea to only update what we have (i.e. redo B 1 and B2) or do you want us to code and run the other
options too?
Page 795 of 1092

Please advise,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Wehkind ; Karen Thorburn
Hello Felipe,
south of Danforth (attached, sorry for the scan) . You might have these from the first time you calculated
accessibility numbers for us . The travel time assumptions for north of Danforth have not changed from what we
Danforth Ave.

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
Page 796 of 1092

Thanks
Karen

Page 797 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

To: 'Felipe Camargo '; Mike Logan
We would like the without SmartTrack runs as soon as possible (which sounds like Friday morning) . How soon after that
can you get us the with SmartTrack runs? (Isn't it 8 runs in total?)
Thanks,
M.

Hi Michael,
Felipe

Hello Felipe,
We are only interested in the B1 and B2 options for now. If you run the without ST options first could you get those to
us tomorrow instead of Friday?
Thanks,
M.

Hi all,
Page 798 of 1092

options too?
We haven ' t tested the other options before so they' d need to be coded from scratch, which would take longer
Please ad vise,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
We have gone back to the original station to station travel time assumptions for the Rel ief Line for the portion south of
Danforth (attached, sorry for the scan). You might have these from t he first time you calculated accessibility numbers
for us. The t ravel time assumptions for north of Danforth have not changed from what we have sent you most rece ntly.
The headways are being adjusted to 2min (peak) I 3min (off-peak) .
We are shifting the station location in Emme to more correctly reflect its currently planned location north of Danforth
Ave.

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
2
Page 799 of 1092

Felipe
Hi Felipe
Thanks
Karen

Page 800 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

and send them over.
Felipe
PS : yes, 8 runs in total (2 scenarios x 2 base cases x 2 time periods)

after that can you get us the with SmartTrack runs? (Isn't it 8 runs in total ?)
Thanks,
M.

Hi Michael,
Felipe
From: Michael Hain [mailto:mhain @toronto.ca]

Page 801 of 1092

Hello Felipe,
We are only interested in the B1 and B2 options for now. If you run the without ST options first could you get
Thanks,
M.

Hi all,
options too?
Redoing B1 and B2 should be fairly quick to code and would take about 32 hours to run (2 options x 2 time
We haven't tested the other options before so they' d need to be coded from scratch, which would take longer
(maybe 2-3 hours to code, plus the additional run time) .
Please advise,
Felipe
From: Michael Hain [mailto:mhain @toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
accessibility numbers for us . The travel time assumptions for north of Danforth have not changed from what we
Page 802 of 1092

Danforth Ave.

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
Thanks
Karen

Page 803 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Karen Thorburn; Ana Graovac
Subject: RE: Accessibility modelling
Hi Mike,
No worries, since we were setting up networks and runs we didn't need the data yet. But we will need it this week to
start generating results.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks Felipe- this sounds great.
I'll ask our Strategic Initiatives folks for the projection data. Sorry that has not happened yet. You'll need to sign a data
usage agreement much like you did back in December.
Mike

Sent: May-16-16 2:21 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
All nine scenarios (base+ eight options) were run over the weekend for the AM peak and All Day and we've started
reviewing results; based on a first inspection they look reasonable. We can prepare maps to show access to population
and/or jobs for you to review. We could circulate first drafts of these by end of tomorrow.
We will be working on setting up the calculations to give us 'region-wide' statistics for access to employment and labour
force (described in the methodology note) so that we can do the calculations towards the end of the week.
Page 804 of 1092

Note that we haven't yet received the future year population and employment data. We currently have 2011 population
by Dissemination Area (census) and 2011 employment by Census Tract, as used in the accessibility analyses we worked
on last year.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe,
Thanks!

416.338.5568

Page 805 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

and send them over.
Felipe
PS: yes, 8 runs in total (2 scenarios x 2 base cases x 2 time periods)

after that can you get us the with SmartTrack runs? (Isn't it 8 runs in total?)
Thanks,
M.

Hi Michael,
be faster we' d only be able to get you the results on Friday morning. So it would be either half the runs on
Felipe

1
Page 806 of 1092

Hello Felipe,
We are only interested in the Bl and B2 options for now. If you run the without ST options first could you get
Thanks,
M.

Hi all,
Is the idea to only update what we have (i.e. redo B 1 and B2) or do you want us to code and run the other
options too?
Redoing B1 and B2 should be fairly quick to code and would take about 32 hours to run (2 options x 2 time
Please advise,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
Page 807 of 1092

Danforth Ave.

M.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen ,
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
Thanks
Karen

Page 808 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
All nine scenarios (base+ eight options) were run over the weekend for the AM peak and All Day and we've started
reviewing results; based on a first inspection they look reasonable . We can prepare maps to show access to population
and/or jobs for you to review. We could circulate first drafts of these by end of tomorrow.
We will be working on setting up the calculations to give us 'region-wide' statistics for access to employment and labour
force (described in the methodology note) so that we can do the calculations towards the end of the week.
Note that we haven't yet received the future year population and employment data. We currently have 2011 population
by Dissemination Area (census) and 2011 employment by Census Tract, as used in the accessibility analyses we worked
on last year.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe,
Thanks!

416.338.5568
21't Floor, East Tower
Page 809 of 1092

Page 810 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Thanks Felipe- this sounds great.
I'll ask our Strategic Initiatives folks for the projection data. Sorry that has not happened yet. You'll need to sign a data
usage agreement much like you did back in December.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
All nine scenarios (base+ eight options) were run over the weekend for the AM peak and All Day and we've
started reviewing results; based on a first inspection they look reasonable. We can prepare maps to show access
to population and/or jobs for you to review. We could circulate first drafts of these by end of tomorrow.
We will be working on setting up the calculations to give us 'region-wide' statistics for access to employment
and labour force (described in the methodology note) so that we can do the calculations towards the end of the
week.
Note that we haven't yet received the future year population and employment data. We currently have 2011
population by Dissemination Area (census) and 2011 employment by Census Tract, as used in the accessibility
analyses we worked on last year.
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Karen Thorburn
Hi Felipe,
Page 811 of 1092

Thanks!

416.338.5568
l 00 Queen Street West

Page 812 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May- 27-16 10:44 AM
To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
1. lsochrones
base case)
case
2. Access to Jobs

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

1
Page 813 of 1092

416.338.5568
Page 814 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-30-16 11:30 AM
To: Michael Hain
Ok, yes, looking at the GO and TIC revenues and the VKTs, it does suggest that what could be happening is that the
faster subway is making a park & ride TIC trip more attractive than a GO trip.
And I just realized I was reading the mode share number as a transit mode share, so a reduction is actually a good thing.
Overall, though, in economic terms, the speed increase still makes things worse than with the slower test, because of
the increase in VKT and the reduced total revenue.
Interesting stuff.
From: Michael Hain [mailto:mhain@toronto .ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
We double checked the numbers and they appear correct. The revenue decrease makes sense since the change was an
increase in the speed of a lower cost option . The non-revenue shifts look very small to us.
M.

To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
I wonder if there's something odd in the SSE Express model; ridership numbers are a bit higher for the new run but
everything else seems to have gotten worse (mode share and revenue are down, car VKTs are higher).

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 815 of 1092

Hello Felipe,
can.
M.

Page 816 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Sent: May-30-16 10:08 AM
Hello Felipe,
We double checked the numbers and they appear correct. The revenue decrease makes sense since the change was an
increase in the speed of a lower cost option. The non-revenue shifts look very small to us.
M.

To: Michael Hain
Hi Michael,
I wonder if there's something odd in the SSE Express model ; ridership numbers are a bit higher for the new run
but everything else seems to have gotten worse (mode share and revenue are down, car VKTs are higher).

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
can.
M.

Page 817 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Michael Hain
Thanks Michael,
Yes, I agree, the bus route changes will need to be reviewed. However, the fact that the results are so dependent on the
buses suggests to me that the economic case for Eglinton East is not very robust
Do you have an ETA for the 2041 numbers?
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
Here are the travel time savings calculations. I think the numbers for the Eglinton East LRT confirm that we need to
reconsider the associated bus route changes.
M.
From: Michael Hain

Hello Felipe,
can .
M.

Page 818 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Trajce Nikolov
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Kristin Olson; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Karen
Thorburn; Diana Chu
Subject: RE: Confidential - Updated Travel Time Savings - Relief Line
Thanks Trajce,
There' s another set of tables that Michael has sent us before which include a summary of total VKTs and fare revenues
(files called "Business Case Output June xx 2016"), would you be able to send me those too, please?
For the 'to Sheppard' option I see in the spreadsheet we have only 2041 results. Will you be sending new numbers for
2031 for that option or should we just leave the numbers Michael sent us a few days ago?
In any case, we'll start updating the spreadsheet now.
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Trajce Nikolov [mailto:tnikolo@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Kristin Olson; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Karen Thorburn; Diana Chu
Subject: Confidential- Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief line
Felipe,
Attached are the most up-to-date travel time savings for the Relief Line, for both 2031 and 2041. Note that this doesn't
include SmartTrack. Let me know if there is anything else you need.
Trajce
Trajce Nikolov, BASe

Assistant Planner, Transportation
City Planning, City of Toronto
E-mail : tnikolo@toronto.ca
Phone: 416.338.2562
21st Floor, East Tower, City Hall

Page 819 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Trajce Nikolov

Thorburn; Diana Chu
Attachments: Additional RL Business Case -June 17, 2016 - DRAFT.xlsx
Hi Felipe,
Apologies for the slight delay! Attached is the VKTs and fare revenues tables that you asked for. We will call shortly to
discuss!
Trajce

To: Trajce Nikolov
Subject: RE: Confidential - Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief Line
Hi Tr~jce,
Sorry, got confused there. From a few days ago we only have 2041 numbers for the RL to Sheppard so we will
need 2031 numbers, or an assumption of growth between the two years, to be able to estimate the benefits.
Thanks,
Felipe

To: 'Trajce Nikolov'
Subject: RE: Confidential- Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief Line
Thanks Trajce,
There's another set of tables that Michael has sent us before which include a summary of total VKTs and fare
revenues (files called "Business Case Output June xx 2016"), would you be able to send me those too, please?
For the 'to Sheppard' option I see in the spreadsheet we have only 2041 results. Will you be sending new
numbers for 2031 for that option or should we just leave the numbers Michael sent us a few days ago?
Page 820 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Confidential - Updated Travel Time Savings - Relief Line
Felipe,
Trajce

E-mail: tnikolo@toronto.ca
Phone: 416.338.2562

Page 821 of 1092

Relief Una Buaineaa Caaa- 2031
Dally Transtt Ridership AM Peak Hour Volume Q South of Bloor AM Peak Hour Transfers @ WB to SB at Bloor
2031 Base 2,614,300 2031 Base 40,130 203 1 Base 10.336
AO 2.625.100 AO 34 ,230 AO 4,581
EO 2,627.900 EO 36,700 EO 7,327
Dally Auto Mode Share Dally VKTs Average Transfers- Dally

2031 Base 0.5535 2031 Base 156.429,830 2031 Base 1.811
AO 0.5531 AO 156.366,390 AO 1.776
EO 0.5531 EO 156,382,800 EO 1.775
Dally Revenue
203 1 Base 2,963,540 $ 3,819 ,838
AO 2,945,789 $ 3,850,982
EO 2,949,370 $ 3 857 ,550
Page 822 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: Trajce Nikolov
Thorburn; Diana Chu
Hi Trajce,
Sorry, got confused there. From a few days ago we only have 2041 numbers for the RL to Sheppard so we will need
2031 numbers, or an assumption of growth between the two years, to be able to estimate the benefits.
Thanks,
Felipe

Subject: RE : Confidential- Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief Line
Thanks Trajce,
There's another set of tables that Michael has sent us before which include a summary of total VKTs and fare revenues
(files called "Business Case Output June xx 2016"), would you be able to send me those too, please?
For the 'to Sheppard' option I see in the spreadsheet we have only 2041 results . Will you be sending new numbers for
2031 for that option or should we just leave the numbers Michael sent us a few days ago?
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Trajce Nikolov [mailto:tnikolo@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 823 of 1092

Felipe,
Trajce

City Planning, City ofToronto
E-mail: tnikolo@toronto.ca
Phone: 416.338.2562

Page 824 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

Subject: FW: Model Numbers for BCs
Attachments: TraveiTimeSavings - DRAFT- June 6.xlsx
This is what I would like to talk about tomorrow.
From: Michael Hain

Subject: RE : Model Numbers for BCs
Hello Felipe,
SmartTrack. We only have 2041 runs for those so far. Hopefully that is enough to get a sense of what the benefits
numbers would be.
M.
Page 825 of 1092

'lelutaln.M
....
' S... for Option CID ButnMot C-Is 201 Bne (REA)
TrMd s .,~ng,- Option CJD
T.-vtl Tlmt ,.._ C
s.::: M:":-'
Sftm~: ~ S.m~ In s.;::: M::.lrJ S.Vm~ In s.....,::
=
Option llmt Pw1od In In In ":',.""
~ =:: =~ ~~
OpltonC+ '" PM
~0..
AM
1,1)
782010
102209
47'5383
131367
13034
~~. ~200
7'9:n
2289
14 1570
62080
189913
67583
2360
=
3166
960
116900
200963
97241
196 156
&9339
3348
!::,,
3303
1189
Oc*JnC + 8 PM 1003881 16731 147174 ~&3 16662 276
~o.y ~= ~~~I
107652 64147
1 59200 =I 121600 IMt t 97.600
AM HS782 7930 174283 2V06 210956 3&18
ap.ono .. 14 PM
1,1)
~0.
127ti69
227869
100819
=.
2128
3798
248,000
56967
13S242
&'7 =
~
9-'9
s ll!i,200
66194
6011813
964
~
920
!Ole&
,;: : s 258200
"-for Rl ~lnnt c-Is Option C 14( WrTH UPOATEOPoiPE BUSSES)

Tr.,.it S.vinp Rl
Trr~tl n,, F- con ttlon
IWith PlfiPt au.... Sn,!:; In SaY!: In ~ Sftm~ In sw,::: u::_..,In Snmh~ 1n ~= 1n M~lrf
~ 137823 22i7 61119 103 8A6&4 141 0
OpiMJnC + H loll 61748 1029 26378 0 ntiO 121
+AO PM 58094 883 -:Kl69 -61 1~28 2425
~c.,
~
24
e1'299
..
77tiB
=: s nooo 39'394
- 1047 -175
: s .oo 8831
- 12210:1
.. :~
-2049
SM.eoo
apmc. MD 95138 see 96208 1&&7 97ft! 163

tEO ~ ~:: ~!; ;~~; ;: -3671 -6~
AIIOv 13900 s 222400 2900 s eoo -900 -s 304oo
I BMt OptlonC U
Is + (With Upcillt~od~P-~"':~-~~::.;;:;;;~;;;;~!;::;;;;;:t~;;;:;:::::l~~
J- T,_ytl Tlmt F- C tlon
w.,~au.... s.v~:~ s:~ M=-' S.Vm~kl '-"t!'::h M~"Y S.Vmln,!ln S=ln M::.lr)'
OplicnC H ~ 1= :: ~~;: :: -~ -~
+ ACI kl PM 306tn 60911 - 18683 -311 47'043ol 7841
!heppwd EV tt5 t7t uno 39729 se2 t6364 27.J
AllOr/ 27900 ' 44--4.800 1400 s 22,400 4900
M 949'323 15822 24338 406 -~32 -47<4
OplionC+l <l M:> 271 497 4525 96306 1638 20230 ~7
+ EO to PM 449071 7486 -4637 -n 387624 6459
Sheppwd e-:o.y 1267'30 ~ . <118400 103142 ~~ s 69200 -2464 ~
- ~~~1._w~P~aa~-~;:~~~::.;;;;;~;;;;~!;::;;,;;+~;;:;:::::j~~==
J- Tr.vt iTlrnt Fwt C loon
, With ~au.... Savm~: In ~:.~In M~~ s.vm~ In s.v.,:: M::_wrIn S.Vmln~ 1n s.vt!.': tn M=:r
~ 1901g() 3 170 7103 118 104907 1748
:l041 S... + t.l) 1'133 1209 -117t -28 2154!1 38
= =:
Nl PM 11$484 1841 10666 -178 156468 264 1
EV 43679 728 2149 -)II 3649 69
20'1 8 -
eo
loJO.V
~
~
AIO,y
2
~
7000
~:
~~
12900 S
s 112000
206400
~;!;
100 1
:
2000 S
1,600
32.000
.a== 4600
~
- ~:
100
s 7'1000
I ll.~
e... for SSEbutlnHt e... It Option c t (wt.kh IncUS.. MeCowwt 3)

Tremlt S.Vhgt SSE
' Updll'tedwilh~ Tr...,tiTlme F- c on 1oo1

Sftlngtln S.Vhpln MontWy S.VIngtln S.VIrlgtln MOMt.-y SWirle-ln S8Ytnpkl Mon.t.-,
' With Bull Fix June I mint hour. Ytlue mint holrl Ytlue mnt hour. VtkM
~
~' -3092.40 -5 1S. -20188 a:JCI 201632 33511
OpiKlrlC '" -113 t - 19 -4639 -n -Sii()ol -rn
SSEExpren -567389 -9-t!if 33042 561 311 12 6190
(NoLATEu -3175 53 371 -n 1t60 -128
0. 1 700 $ n5200 1000 $ HI.OOO 9300
88-. tor LAT Ee.t bu1 ..... e- II Option C 1 ~~

Transit S~hff LRT E. .1
Upd.-.d with SOitm.tl Tr.v l Tim Fw1 Cong11tlon

S.VIngln S....np In Monlt:wy S.VIngln S.VIngt In MOMtwy S.VIngtln S.vlrlgtlrl Monetwy
W,., Bus Fix June f min houri VIllA> m~ tocM.n Y1lul mint nou,.. Vtue
OpknC+l4
.~~-:::
~ 271126
-~=~
4519
-~=~ ;:;
17531 292
1~
251464
31=
-4191
~
UTSC e-:'o.-t
OpknC14 :
:~~~PM
17793
~~=
492707
::: : .,
82 12
H400 125
~~:;
11141
4o! I
~
186
8.400 S278
17~=
-348690
-2i~
-6810
,:::
t.W~m ;;'O.v 34363 ~ I 156.800 396 ~I s,ooo 4687 -~ uuuu
Page 826 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16

Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM -36981 -616
MD -9993 -167
Option C + 14 PM 338524 5642
EV -18990 -317
All Day 4500 $ 72,000
AM -28376 -473
MD -12200 -203
Option C +8 PM 295952 4933
EV -19414 -324
All Day 3900 $ 62 ,400
AM -14838 -247
MD -10831 -181
Option D + 14 PM 298678 4978
EV -18898 -315
All Day 4200 $ 67,200

Auto Savings - RL
Travel Time
AM 27909 465
Option C + 14
MD 340 6
PM 85299 1422
+AO EV 2277 38
All Day 1900 $ 30,400
AM 88074 1468
Option C + 14
MD 2279 38
+ EQ PM 175473 2925
EV 4500 75
All Day 4500 $ 72 ,000
Page 827 of 1092

*Base is Option C + 14 (With Updated Pape Busses)
Travel Time
AM 124066 2068
Option C + 14 MD 2941 49
+AQto PM 245188 4086
Sheppard EV 4142 69
All Day 6300 $ 100,800
AM 101447 1691
Option C + 14 MD 4959 83
+ EQ to PM 294765 4913
Sheppard EV 6118 102
All Day 6800 $ 108,800
* Base is 2041 Base with Pape Busses

Travel Time
AM 76268 1271
MD 947 16
2041 Base+
PM 17937 299
AQ
EV -1106 -18
All Day 1600 $ 25,600
AM 23097 385
MD 2192 37
2041 Base+
PM 113560 1893
EQ
EV -300 -5
All Day 2300 $ 36,800

t Savmas-
A uo . SSE
* Updated with 50km/h Travel Time
*With Bus Fix- June 6 mins hours Value
AM -205 -3
Option C + 14 MD -1732 -29
(No LRT East) EV 492 8
All Day 600 $ 9,600
Page 828 of 1092


* With Bus Fix- June 6 mins hours Value
AM 23027 384
Option C + 14
MD 773 13
+SSE Express
PM -178373 -2973
+ LRT East to
EV -3974 -66
UTSC
All Day -2600 -$ 41 ,600
AM -6363 -106
Option C + 14
MD 304 5
+ SSE Express
PM -65425 -1090
+ LRT East to
EV -3282 -55
Malvern
All Day -1200 -$ 19,200
Page 829 of 1092

Input
Yatueotnrn.
"6owtorOplionCIOBV~MMC..e i2031S.M (RER)
o.~ ITI.... ~od S 1vln~ln S1Yin~ln

._....,
r ... nsit Savlnas Octlan C/0
SYinv-ln
,, ~
S1Yinv-ln N-tlory
t 'Oinu-lnrnln
C...
S:;.~ln
otiw
._.. ,
.
v.....
~ """
min hour hour
''""
~~ '"""
.,.,. "".,
I .ti S
149116 1
41102 ...
2000
"""'
30070 ""
... "'
84873
.." ""' ,,.,

Op~onc 1875 576522
14 1.1
v
"'" '"""
"'"
-2 1.t6 ""
""
..
, ,.
""n "" ' ""'
50>0 1727118
5700 S
""
g 1 200
21778 1
..
""'
""', '
.
MD 1577
OptmCt8 P IA
"'"" 2179 "'"
'""' "'
1678 ""'
.(46523 7442
JOey "'" 137 1

IOIOOS 16 1,600
49 108
"'
6tOO S 117,600 ""' "'
""' lll'2 ,000
,.,,
\M 20552>
""
ISS75:J
"" 334017
....
""
OplonO tl.t l~~
. ""' "'
43 158
&6119
.....
""' '"' '""' "'
"" "''"
~:~ ""' "' ' ""' "'' "
<0033
"" 121600
""
14600 S 2'33.600
wttt-~~tP
.
8.~
.._. .._
..._,
--
BIM for Rl bu~ne.. ci.. II Oplon C 4 14 ( WlT H UPOATEO PAPE SUSSES)
...... ":-
s:::,. ,...
TranaitSevln sRL
e.: s.::-.,, . =' ~-

... -...... -=.....""" -
-
.,.,.
.
>7230
~C 14 t E ""
. .......
'" .....'"' ""
::"
- HU4CI7
AQ ,...u:r
.:::., .... '"" .: : .. 3.200
~c., . E ...,,.
7 1116 .... .... ""' ..."
'"' ......,
-18=
""'se
eo
....
,v ..... 10~:. !Wi.MO
,..,
""
=~~eoo ''"
-.
1120
se ,....,
'~
~Yino-ln
Trev.!Tlme
S1Yin~ln .. _tlory S Yinv- ln Se'<inv-ln M- tlry
v. .... nln~ In min """:.~
5
~
In
,._tltY
v .....
...
'""' """
"WlthPIIJMBu s . . . min hoo.tre hour
17-
plia!Ct 14
AD
M
MD
PM
; ~Dey
......
"""'
>7383
'"'
''" ''"
1 121
22350
."
373
815
""'
600
3959 >
"'"
..,
.., 37
"'
"" '''" ""' ' ""' ""'
,.,..,c .... "" ' "'"'
.."
31H66 -71 522 -ll ll'2
.M
MD 17176
"" "" 71055
""
23
......
""
eo PM 501 727
''" ,..., 8832
"' >850
EV
""' '" ' '"' ""' "" S 4.t,800
D.,
'""
6oM for SSE bull,.... ctMIOpon C II (wt.lchinel\ldH Mec-1n 3)
2"6,000 2100 0 43.200
Transit Swings SSE
- -..... .
,,~
Trlvei TIINI
-. ...... 5
$1Yinpln S Yin u-ln .. _ tlfY S1Ying.tln SeYinv-ln M-tlry
:.:.~in .. _tlltY
.....,.
1Yin""lnmln1 v.....
04d SPMd assumption min
..,., ho" V1lue min hoo.lfl v .....
.,.
..... ....
II :leO
.,..
......
tEt":~, ,,., -121
"'" "' ..... ...
-2&1111 ><100
:0...
LATEIIII) 1517'2
"' ..~
__,.,., "'' """' ""'
Upd811tld wtlh SOkmlh
s .....,~ln
Trft!Tinw
S1Yin~ln
._,
.... . ~llinv-ln
min1
,,~
SYinv- ln
hO<H
M-tlry
V1 IU1
Snfn~ lnmlne
"""
S1Yin~ ln
~
houre
,._tlry
YIIUI
.....
min hout1
'"., ...,
~--C >O:~I
118812 -172533 -2876
""
'" '"'
-401 8
..., Ill
SSE._. M
lAT EMt) E ~ 0...
I 71707
""'
" U.MforLRTEntbu~MMUMII ()ptlonCII+ &:pre
""
'"
""'' ""'
22791
5023 ...
-400 -S
'"'
-74272
.71H
>238
.,
'"
._.., Trnsit Sevlnal LRT East
--.......
,,~
Truelr'""'
_-
......
~Yino;pln Sn1nu-ln S1Yin~ln
......,.
S1Yinv-ln M-tlry
S:.:.~ ln
,._tlry
- ...,...
,,....
:SYinv-lnmln
Old SDMC .ssumptlons hour v..... """' hou Yl"' v .....
......... ;O:a. ...... ..,

-... '"
-1711
~~~
......
723
.... ..,.
"'
..... ,..,"
"'
..:. ''" ::
....,..,
UTliC
............ , '"'
8.000
"'""'
......
......
~~" ._. ~ 103113 -1718
"' ""
.....
~c
- ._
O:a.
......
............ ..,,.
....
770
., : ..
...
......,
zuoo
'"'
...
11131
..:"'
'"
.....
-111270
7750
..... ....:! "'.eoo
--- ...... "

11172
liTSC-
v
"" "
....
11287
.,I ... ..." JIZ.~

!L""'
''"" ""' 300
.
Tr..,.IT.._ ,,~
~
.. _tlory ,._tlory
~Yinpln S Yinge ln S.Yin""ln S Yinv-ln M-tlry
S:.:.~in
..
'<in""lnmln
Upded wtth SOI!tmlh
~~ C + 1 4+
SSEEJ;Hea
MD
min
.,.,.
-24~0
houre
.,
-414 11
v ...... min
8575
... .
.
houre
13
.
Y1h.11
24163-4
..,..
"" ''"
""'"
Y1iw
..... -
111 8 255
"
.::, '"" ""'"
....
LATEalt to
liTSC 2152 1
"" ' '"'' "'
.,,
60.800
., . ... ' '"'
'"'
>SS
2200 S35,200
~~Ct14 +M~
200625
-43896 1077
2n325
'"'"
~~~~
Mlltlvem ',l ()ay
22502 .,.""
-6100 -S
12732
"'
2>2
s
""
-85819
10618
....
-1430
m
81.600
"
Page 830 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16

Auto Travel Time
Option Time Period
mins hours Value
AM 40084 668
MD 2915 49
Option C + 14 PM 119896 1998
EV -4005 -67
All Day 2600 $ 41,600
AM 103281 1721
MD 2920 49
Option C + 8 PM 189331 3156
EV -4448 -74
All Day 4900 $ 78,400
AM 92704 1545
MD 2087 35
Option D + 14 PM 234488 3908
EV -2841 -47
All Day 5400 $ 86,400

Auto Savings - RL
Travel Time
* Without Pape Bus mins hours Value
AM 8619 144
MD 1185 20
Option C + 14
PM 126685 2111
+AQ
EV 803 13
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
AM 41867 698
MD 1907 32
Option C + 14
PM 88876 1481
+EO
EV 2556 43
All Day 2300 $ 36,800
Travel Time
Page 831 of 1092

AM -67850 -1131
MD 1284 21
Option C + 14
PM 66488 1108
+AQ
EV 480 8
All Day 0 $ -
AM 62391 1040
MD 2433 41
Option C + 14
PM 89409 1490
+ EQ
EV 1085 18
All Day 2600 $ 41 ,600
*Base for SSE business case is Option C + 14 (which includes McCowan 3)

Auto Savings - SSE
Travel Time
AM -9125 -152
Option C + 14 MD -587 -10
All Day 900 $ 14,400
Auto Savings- SSE

Travel Time
AM 19883 331
Option C + 14 MD -79 -1
All Day 300 $ 4,800

Travel Time
AM 48081 801
Option C + 14 MD -81 -1
+ SSE Express
PM 1902 32
+ LRT East to
,_, UTSC EV -3501 -58
Page 832 of 1092

All Day 800 $ 12,800
AM -79604 -1327
Option C + 14
Malvern EV 217 4
All Day -1100 -$ 17,600
Option C + 14 AM -93045 -1551
+ LRT East to PM -77542 -1292
Travel Time
AM -12108 -202
Option C + 14
MD -84 -1
+SSE Express
PM 63505 1058
+ LRT East to
EV 802 13
UTSC
All Day 900 $ 14,400
AM -23937 -399
Option C + 14
MD -110 -2
+ SSE Express
PM 101100 1685
+ LRT East to
EV 264 4
Malvern
All Day 1300 $ 20,800
Page 833 of 1092

Page 834 of 1092
Karen Thorburn

Sent: May-30-16 11:43 AM
To: Mike Logan
Attachments: City Hall - RL Eastern v Opt C v3.jpg; Pearson - Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C.jpg; Renforth -
Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C v2.jpg; Scarborough Centre - SSE Express v Opt C v2.jpg;
Union - Opt C v Base v3.jpg; Union - Opt D v Base v2jpg; UTSC - Eglinton E Opt 3 v SSE
Expressjpg

Sent: May-29-16 12:22 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
have a bit of tomorrow morning for some minor changes, if needed, so please let us know if there are any
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Mike Logan [mailto :mlogan@toronto .ca]

Page 835 of 1092

Renforth:

Scarborough Centre:
Title OK
Light Green : With 3-stop Subway
RL Eastern:
Title OK
Light Green: Without Relief ~ine
Dark Green : With Relief Line
RL Queen:
DELETE
Union Option D:
Title OK
Dark Green : With SmartTrack D
Union Option C:
Title OK
NEW Pearson Airport

Light Green : Without Eglinton West LRT
Page 836 of 1092


Sent: May 27, 2016 4:51 PM
Hi Mike,
Updated versio ns attached.
I think it would help if you gave us the description you ' d like to include in the 'base' for each map Gust take

A couple of things:
The dark green area in the legend should be referred to with proper names - e.g. "Relief Line" or "Scarborough
Subway Extension"
You 've provided a map of ST C v. STD. It may be my fault, but we actually need ST C v. RER and ST D v. RER.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup .com ]

Sent: May-27-16 3:33 PM
Hi Mike,
Page 837 of 1092

Felipe

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana .
Mike
From: Ana Graovac [mailto:ana .graovac@arup.com]

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo

To: Felipe Camargo

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Page 838 of 1092

Mike,

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
later tonight.
Assumptions:
Maximum walk time allowed= 15 minutes
at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

5
Page 839 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
1. lsochrones
base case)
2. Access to Jobs
Relief Line- Queen -Eastern v. base case

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568
Page 840 of 1092

Page 841 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Subject: ARUP Business Case Inputs
Attachments: Business Case Output May 4, 2016- DRAFT.XLSX
Hello Felipe,
I've attached a spreadsheet with several of the inputs you need for the business cases. We are still working on pulling
out the different components of travel time savings (actual time, congestion, fare) and should be able to send them to
you by the end of the week.
The vectors and matrices you requested for plotting the distribution of benefits and the size of the benefits are being
exported at the same time. We will let you know if they are too big to upload.

M.
Page 842 of 1092

2031 No RER 2,552,500
2031 GO RER 2,613,500

Scenario Auto Share
2031 GO RER 0.5535
2031 lnteQration Option D 0.5523
Daily Revenue
2031 GO RER $ 2,965 ,886 $ 3,817,636
2031 Integration Option D $ 2,927,064 $ 3,897,497

2031 GO RER 81,378,500 109.57
2031 Integration Option C 81,821 ,000 108.85
2031 Integration Option D 81,918,500 108.85
Scenario Volume
2031 GO RER 4,255,426
3,903,442
3,930,406
Page 843 of 1092

2031 No RER 43,010 2031 No RER
2031 GO RER 39,980 2031 GO RER
2031 Integration Option C 36,100
2031 lnteQration Option D 36,260
Daily VKTs Average Tra1

2031 No RER 156,477,000 2031 GO RER
2031 GO RER 156,416,010
2031 Integration Option C 155,921 ,910
Avera e V/C
0.472
0.433
0.436
Page 844 of 1092

Transfers
10,874
10,243
7,439
7,686
nsfers - Daily
Avg Transfers
1.811
1.795
1.798
Page 845 of 1092

2031 Option C w Express 2,641 ,600 2031 Option C w Express 35,420 2031 0Qtio_Q Q_ w Express 6,795

2031 Option C w Express 0.5525 2031 Option C w Express 155,916,1 60
Daily Revenue
2031 Option C no SSE $ 2,939,363 $ 3,887,900

2031 Option C w McCowan3 81 ,821,000 108.85
2031 Option C w Express 81 ,902,600 108.88
2031 Option C w_Exp_ress 3,798,856 4,359,663 43%
Page 846 of 1092

Scenario Ridership
2031 Option C with 14 2,641 ,100
2031 Option C with 8 2,642,900
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
2031 Option C with 14 155,921 ,910
2031 Option C with 8 155,919,310
Daily Revenue
2031 Integration Option C w 14 $ 2,916 ,791 $ 3,895,341
2031 Integration Option C w 8 $ 2,910 ,391 $ 3,901 ,171

2031 lnteQration Option C w 8 81,988,900 108.93
Scenario Volume Houri Ca acit
2031 Integration Option C 3,903,442 4,419,663
2031 Inte ration 0 tion C w 8 3,900,831 4,419,663
Page 847 of 1092


Avera e V/C
0.433
0.433
Page 848 of 1092

WB to SB at Bloor
Transfers
7,439
7,459
s- Daily
Avg Transfers
1.795
1.796
Page 849 of 1092

Option C with Express With Full LRT East 2,639 ,300

Scenario Auto Share
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
0 tion C with Ex ress With Shortened LRT East $ 2,919 ,502

Option C with Express 81 ,902 ,600
0 tion C with Ex ress With Shortened LRT East 81 ,771,400
Scenario Volume
0 tion C with Ex ress With Shortened LRT East 3,791,450
Page 850 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
Option C with Express With Shortened LRT East 155,905,31 0
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,895,269
$ 3,891 ,914
$ 3,892,511
Avera e er Person
108.88
108.84
108.85
Avera e V/C
43%
43%
43%
Page 851 of 1092

Scenario Transfers

Page 852 of 1092

Option C 2,641 '1 00
Option C with RL 81 A 2,647,100
Option C with RL 81 8 2,647,200
Option C with RL 82 2,651,900

Scenario Auto Share
Option C 0.5525
Option C with RL 81 A 0.5522
Option C with RL 81 8 0.5522
Option C with RL 82 0.5520
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
Option C $ 2,916,791
Option C with RL 81 A $ 2,915,565
Option C with RL 81 8 $ 2,911 ,316
Option C with RL 82 $ 2,904,846

Option C 81,821,000
Option C with RL 81 A 81 ,806,200
Option C with RL 81 8 81 ,797,800

Scenario Volume
Option C 3,903,442
Option C with RL 81 8 3,981 '150
Page 853 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Option C 36,100
Option C with RL 81 A 33,920
Option C with RL 81 8 34,780
Option C with RL 82 35,320
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
Option C 155,921 ,910
Option C with RL 81 8 155,850,630
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,895,341
$ 3,913,671
$ 3,915 ,010
$ 3,930,623
Avera e er Person
108.85
108.61
108.59
108.43
Avera e V/C
0.433
0.413
0.417
0.418
Page 854 of 1092

Scenario Transfers
Option C 7,439

Option C 1.795
Page 855 of 1092

Karen Thorburn
From: Michael Hain

Attachments: Business Case Output May 27 2016-DRAFT.xlsx
Hello Felipe,
can.
M.
Page 856 of 1092

2031 No RER 2,552,500 2031 No RER 43,010 2031 No RER 10,874
2031 GO RER 2,613,500 2031 GO RER 39,980 2031 GO RER 10,243
20311ntegration Option C 2,641 ,100 27,600 20311ntegration Option C 36 ,100 2031 Integration Option C 7,439
2031 Integration Option 0 2 642,700 29,200 .___:2:03
=1.;;1cn::t::;eq"'rr::;
.at,io::;nc.:O=ptti:on
::;"-"
0- - - - '36=2=.:60
:::...._. 2031 lnteqration Option 0 7686
Da ily Auto Mode Share Daily VKT s Average Transfers - Daily

Scenario Auto Share Scenario VKT s Scenario Avg Transfers
2031 GO RER 0.5535 2031 No RER 156,477,000 2031 GO RER 1.8 11
2031 Integration Option C 0.5525 2031 GO RER 156,416,010 2031 Integration Option C 1.795
2031 lntearation Ootion 0 0.5523 203 1 Integration Option C 155,921 ,910 2031 Integration Option 0 1.798
2031 Integration Option D 155 880 730
Da ily Revenue
2031 GO RER 2,965,886 $ 3,817,636
2031 Integration Option C 2,916,791 $ 3,895,341
2031 Integration Option 0 2 927 064 $ 3 897 497

2031 GO RER 81 ,378,500 109.57
2031 lntearation Ootion 0 81 918 500 108.85
Scenario Volume Hourly Capacity Averaqe V/C
2031 GO RER 4,255,426 4,4 19,663 0.472
2031 Integration Opt ion C 3,903,442 4,419, 663 0.433
2031 Integration Opt ion 0 3,930,406 4,419,663 0.436
Page 857 of 1092

2031 Option C w McCowan3 2,641 ,100 2031 Option C w McCowan3 36,100 2031 Option C w McCowan3 7,439
2031 Option C w Express 2,641 ,600 2031 Option C w Express 35,420 2031 Option C w Exoress 6,795

2031 Option C w Express 0.5525 2031 Option C w Express 155,916,160
Daily Revenue
2031 Option C no SSE $ 2,939,363 $ 3,887,900

Scenario Total PassenQer Minutes AveraQe per Person
2031 Option C w McCowan3 81,821,000 108.85
2031 Option C w Express 81 ,902,600 108.88
Scenario Volume Hourlv Capacitv Average V/C
2031 Option C w Express 3,798,856 4,359,663 43%
Page 858 of 1092

2031 Option C w Express 2,642,500 2031 Option C w Express 35 ,640 2031 Option C w Express 6,861
Daily Auto Mode Share Daily VKTs Average Transfers Daily

2031 Option C no SSE 0.5540 2031 Option C no SSE 155,976 ,840 2031 Option C w McCowan3 1.795
2031 Option C w Express 0.5524 2031 Option C w Express 155,943,630
Daily Revenue
2031 Option C no SSE $ 2,939,363 $ 3,887,900
Perceived Travel Times AM Peak Period minutes

2031 Option C w McCowan3 81 ,821 ,000 108.85
Congestion Effects AM
Page 859 of 1092

Scenario Ridership
2031 Option C with 14 2,641,100
2031 Option C with 8 2,642,900
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
2031 Option C with 14 155,921 ,910
2031 Option C with 8 155,919,310
Daily Revenue
2031 Integration Option C w 8 $ 2,910,391 $ 3,901 ' 171

2031 Integration Option C w 8 81,988,900 108.93
Scenario Volume
2031 lnte ration 0 tion C w 8 3,900,831
Page 860 of 1092

AM Peak Hour Volume @ South of Bloor AM Peak Hour Transfers@

Avera e V/C
0.433
0.433
Page 861 of 1092

WB to SB at Bloor
Transfers
7,439
7,459
s- Daily
Avg Transfers
1.795
1.796
Page 862 of 1092


Scenario Auto Share
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO

Scenario Volume
Page 863 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Op_tion C with Express With Shortened LRT East 35,400
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
Option C with Express W ith Full LRT East 155,927,580
Option C with Express With Shortened LRT East 155,905 ,310
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,895 ,269
$ 3,891 ,914
$ 3,892,511
Avera e er Person
108.88
108.84
108.85
Avera e V/C
43%
43%
43%
Page 864 of 1092

Scenario Transfers

Page 865 of 1092


Scenario Auto Share
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
0 tion C with Ex ress With Shortened LRT East $ 2,921 ,814

Scenario Volume
Page 866 of 1092

Scenario Volume
DailyVKTs
Scenario VKTs
Option C with Express With Shortened LRT East 155,932 ,680
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,898,583
$ 3,894,812
$ 3,894,541
Avera e er Person
Avera e V/C
43%
43%
43%
Page 867 of 1092

Scenario Transfers

Page 868 of 1092

Option C 2,641 '1 00

Scenario Auto Share
Option C 0.5525
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
Option C $ 2,916,791
Option C with RL 81 A $ 2,915,565
Option C with RL 81 8 $ 2,911 ,316
Option C with RL 82 $ 2,904,846

Option C 81,821,000

Scenario Volume
Option C 3,903,442
Option C with RL 81 8 3,981 '150
Page 869 of 1092

Scenario Volume
Option C 36,1 00
6,000 Option C with RL 81 A 33,920
6,1 00 Option C with RL 81 8 34,780
10,800 Option C with RL 82 35,320
~--_.--------------------~--~
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
Option C 155,921,910
Option C with RL 81 8 155,850,630
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,895,341
$ 3,913,671
$ 3,915,010
$ 3,930,623
Avera e er Person
108.85
108.61
108.59
108.43
:tk Hour
Avera e V/C
0.433
0.413
0.417
0.418
Page 870 of 1092

Scenario Transfers
Option C 7,439

Option C 1.795
Page 871 of 1092

Karen Thorburn

To: 'Felipe.Camargo@arup.com'
Thorburn; Diana Chu
Attachments: Addition RL data - TT Savings - June 16 DRAFT.xlsx
Felipe,
Attached are the most up-to-date travel time savings for the Relief Line, for both 2031 and 2041 . Note that this doesn't
Trajce

Phone: 416.338.2562
Page 872 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
!Base is 2041 Base with LowMed Employment

* With Pape Busses mins hours Value mins hours Value mins hours Value
AM 1257875 20965 70755 1179 -204673 -3411
MD 382676 6378 3158 53 -15101 -252
AQ extended to
PM 684903 11415 12870 215 410840 6847
Sheppard
EV 216606 3610 -5031 -84 21829 364
All Day 42400 $ 678,400 1400 $ 22,400 3500 $ 56,000
AM 1236389 20606 87481 1458 -106074 -1768
MD 385449 6424 40900 682 -2127 -35
EO extended to
PM 374974 6250 60421 1007 705459 11758
Sheppard
EV 224179 3736 22072 368 20703 345
All Day 37000 $ 592,000 3500 $ 56,000 10300 ######## #
Page 873 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16
IBase is 2041 Base with LowMed Employment

Travel Time
AM 103538 1726
MD 4913 82
AQ PM 160585 2676
EV 3766 63
All Day 4500 $ 72,000
AM 154373 2573
MD 3932 66
EO PM 32229 537
EV 3306 55
All Day 3200 $ 51,200
Page 874 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16

AM 179297 2988 10680 178 214067 3568
MD 138612 2310 -748 -12 6529 109
AQ PM 245659 4094 -10021 -167 225063 3751
EV 87552 1459 -2265 -38 2730 46
All Day 10900 $ 174,400 0 $ - 7500 ######## #
AM 294928 4915 30050 501 150879 2515
MD 157585 2626 35504 592 9177 153
EQ PM 184988 3083 50121 835 242934 4049
EV 112302 1872 24629 410 5066 84
All Day --
12500 $ 200,000 2J_9Q__! ~~800 6800 ######## #
Page 875 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16

Travel Time
AM 134944 2249
MD 1855 31
AQ PM 17368 289
EV 5142 86
All Day 2700 $ 43,200
AM 54265 904
MD 857 14
EQ PM 53192 887
EV 2065 34
All Day 1800 $ 28,800
Page 876 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16

AM 264976 4416 14516 242 115091 1918
MD 130086 2168 -937 -16 5449 91
AQ PM 241342 4022 -5903 -98 195347 3256
EV 87716 1462 -2210 -37 6533 109
All Day 12100 $ 193,600 100 $ 1,600 5400 $ 86,400
AM 286639 4777 23342 389 75250 1254
MD 142302 2372 26658 444 5338 89
EQ PM 288728 4812 31348 522 137828 2297
EV 95032 1584 18279 305 4044 67
All Day 13500 $ 216,000 1700 $ 27,200 3700 $ 59,200
Page 877 of 1092

Input
Value of Time 16

Travel Time
AM -12574 -210
MD 591 10
AQ PM 63293 1055
EV 3961 66
All Day 900 $ 14,400
AM 35267 588
MD 175 3
EQ PM 43455 724
EV 4816 80
All Day 1400 $ 22,400
Page 878 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Cc: Mike Logan; Michael Hatn; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Karen Thorburn; Diana Chu
Subject: Follow up
Attachments: Copy of EELRT Cost Estimate- DRAFT.xlsx
Hi Felipe,
will look like.
In follow up:
Attached are the confidential draft capital cost estimates for Eg E LAT. Password is the same as
last. We donlt have O&M numbers for this project unfortunately.
morning latest?)
Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required, based on
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 879 of 1092

,..............
-
~
~ribution ar tlpibl COSC spread out owet construction p~rriod of' "*'"
- OpllGio Desalpdooo
$
llllS$
~~
735 ....,..,.,. 12.15boo lnlt'Ctft ~.SI,VU4

O!ltlon ,_ EKotottd Copilot
Cost ......
Con.stnKtion t;.apiuiCOR
Disllillu'""'C!'I
s
haotyt;.ap;tot
COR
-
~ 1 Aow"* 20ZO 11".941 lur l 1~ liZ
VetidH , 45Voh;.jos $ liD

$41.1 uch ....,min aJ.<ar trains (45 Vlhidos i>UrdtiiOedl tolldllne """htod*'"V>o
........... ,.lph ~
..
:;: 2021 1J14-546 Year2 s 562
)A Modified M$1 (CUlT 5 104

$.$4M for tn MSF It Mt. k"l'lis fOUiNy $50M for anINI oftire operMions ~ 20ZZ 1930.7aJ Yell') 15" s 6'16
M$1
bull6nc. ...... . -.. ond ....... - ~
N... M$Fmo11-.slttd
! s
31 $ z~ atiiNtt $1(10.1501.1.""' "" Ml 2023 1HI.71J6 Ytlf4 25" 497
..
!
,...,_
1lA low..-.dcoot $ 1.019 _,..., 1ooct1t ollint 05 Vlhide modlllo<l MSF -~CM1 s 1.917
-
1-JI """......... $ 1.155 -~o~ .... u..-...... -MSJ 2020 2051.932 ,,., l 1~ s 206
"'-"'
Acquisition
....
41
lowtnd"*
ttish Mcost
s
$
Sl
Sl
ISSU!ftt:S S" lncre:ue on taw for PtOP'Irty KQ1.1dition
;;;-
2
!
s
2021
2022
21U790
2117.504
, , 1
Ytat J
-3~
$
$
637
766
! ..,.
-
J'rolosllonal
SA
51
"'
low .... . , .
t\ichendmsC
lowendmst
s
$
193
Zll
3$4
aswrnes 1"' lncrusa on raw &WOM:rty fCIQUisition. fat Ptofii:SalOftal Sti'Yia
_..,.._
asaHMS Z"' lncn. . (In taw+ Pli'OIM"Y aCQYis.iOn + .,-of~al MfVC.Eo for
f Z02J 2153.129 , 25"
, .... t.apltoiCost $
s 563
J,tn
--
Cont;,..nc;a
s
r
l
61
:tt-
"""'-""" - -
001
~
~
"
'S --.U l7
I .... I ~--
- -
' X
~_. ... , _ . . . . . . . MSI'. _ _ . . _ .......,_
T...
~..........-
.... ~-
l+Z+-
~ ~ ~ ..... -
s 1,.IR.
t
I - .
Page 880 of 1092

Distribution of Capital Cost spread out over a construction period of 4 years
Escalated Capital Cost Yearly Capital
Terminating at UTSC without MSF Construction
Option Year Capital Cost Distribution Cost
Begins
(Millions) (%) (Millions)
2015$
Item Option Description Comments 2020 1,498 Year 1 10% $ 150
(Millions)
\D
.-i
Length 1 Raw cost $ 635 assuming 10.5km in length@ $60.5M/KM 0 2021 1,543 Year 2 30% $ 463.
N
al
rn
rn
Vehicles 2 45 Vehicles $ 180
$4M each -assuming 3-car trains (45 vehicles purchased)
to achieve 4 min headways, running at 28 kph
-
....;
t:
0
2022 1,589 Year3 35% $ 556
u
'tl
roughly $50M for an end of line operations building, c:
w
Storage Tracks 3 Storage Tracks $ so ~
2023 1,637 Year4 25% $ 409i
access route, and storage tracks. 0
.....
Total
1-2 low end cost $ 815 assumes length of line + 45 vehicles + no storage tracks Nominal $ 1,578
Capital Cost I
Total Raw -
assumes length of line + 45 vehicles+ with storage
I 1-3 high end cost $ 865 2020 1,589 Year1 10% $ 159
I tracks
-
$
.-i
4A low end cost $ 41 I 0
N 2021 1,637 Year2 30% $ 491
Property al
.-i
assumes 5% increase on raw for property acquisition .:I;
Acquisition
48 high end cost $ 43 --"'
.-i
0
2022 1,686 Year3 35% $ 590
u
'tl
c:
w
SA low end cost $ 154 I ..c: 2023 1,737 Vear4 25% $ 434
.!!!'
Professional assumes 18% increase on raw+ property acquisition, for; :I:
Service Professional Service Total
58 high end cost $ 163 Nominal $ 1,674
Capital Cost
6A low end cost $ 282

assumes 28% increase on raw+ property acquisition+
Contingencies
professional service, for contingencies
6B high end cost $ 300
- - ~ ~
1+2+4a+5a+6 assumes total cost of raw +.vehicles+ property '
low end cost ~ $ 1,292
Total ~
a
.~ - - '
~ --
acquisition + professional service + contingencies
~
-~
-~
~
- ~
1+2+3+4b+Sb assumest ota\ cost of raw+ vehicles+ MSF +property

high end cost $ :1:,371
11 +6b. ~cqulsitiori + professional service +contingencies
- ~~- ... . ~ ~ _, I - - __...!II'- -~ _y - _..!::__ - - - _j
Page 881 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Attachments: Accessibility Summaries v3.xlsx
From: Mike logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks,
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.coml

To: Mike logan
Hi Mike,
line tests, which will take about 40hrs (computer time). We can generate numbers and maps (if needed) as each test is
completed, though.
Cheers,
Felipe
Page 882 of 1092

stop subway.
TTC has updated their assumptions as I described: 40 kph for 3 stop, 50 kph for express.
I have attached the email outlining these assumptions produced by Gary Carr of TTC last week.
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com J

Sent: May-30-16 4:45 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
times, not speeds). The times we used come from the attached TTC tables.
From To Total TTC Time (minutes)

McCowanSt Sheppard McCowan 2.25
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@to ro nto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 883 of 1092

I just talked this over with MH. We feel that we will likely need to re~run the McCowan-3 scenarios to
SOkph.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Felipe,
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo fmailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com]

Sent: May~30-161:34 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
we got last December is of 58km/h (on average), which is faster than the SOkm/h assumption for the

City Hall:
3
Page 884 of 1092

Investigating...
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 885 of 1092

~.
Scenario Avg_Weighted_Jobs Avg_Weighted_Pop (by pop)

Option1BaseAM 114345.7843 320752.2255 Average No. of Jobs within 60 minutes of any DA
Option1BaseAIIDay 108289.6022 297880.0016 Time Period Scenario ID Description Absolute Value L\ over Base %Change over base
RERST2AM 114977.0162 323194.763 AM Peak Base (RER) Base- RER 114,346
ST -2 SmartTrack Integration Option C 114,977
- --
631
-
0.6%
RERST2AIIDay 109379.6537 301383.7907
RERST3AM 114532.9847 322129.4942 ST -3 SmartTrack Integration Option D 114,533 187 0.2%
RERST3A11Day 108803.2705 299798.3903 EWLRT- 2 EWLRT Speed and Access Balance 115,115 138 0.1%
Base2-EgWestOpt2AM 115114.8629 323763.0545
- -
RL- 2
- Subway via Queen St 118,234 3,257 2.8%
Base2-EgWestOpt2AIIDay 109524.6647 301922.0817 RL- 3
-
Subway via Eastern Ave 117,804 2,827 2.5%
Base2 -Relief0pt2AM 118234.193 327451.2998 SSE- 2A McCowan Express 115,455 478 0.4%
Base2-Rel ief0pt2AII Day 112538.0398 305646.687 EELRT- 2 Approved EA extension 116,124 668 0.6%
Short LRT to UTSC 116,050
-595 ---
0.5%
Base2 -Relief0pt3AM 117803.8977 327438.45 EELRT- 3
Base2-Relief0pt3AII Day 112194.8149 305836.201 All Day Base (RER) Base- RER 108,290
Base2 -Sea r0pt2AM 115455.2792 325466.495 ST -2 SmartTrack Integration Option C 109,380 1,090 1.0%
110198.0481 303733.1469 SmartTrack Integration Option D 514 0.5%
Base2-Sea rOpt2AIIDay
Base2v2-EgEastOpt2AM 116123.6725 329262.6564
ST- 3
EWLRT
--
EWLRT Speed and Access Balance
~ --- 108,803
109,525 145 0.1%
Base2v2-EgEastOpt2AIIDay 110982.6913 308032.149 RL- 2 Subway via Queen St 112,538 3,158 2.9%
Base2v2-EgEastOpt3AM 116049.7989 328828.9715 RL- 3 Subway via Eastern Ave 112,195 2,815 2.6%
Base2v2-EgEastOpt3AIIDay 110890.775 307510.0384 SSE- 2A McCowan Express 110,198 818 0.7%
EELRT- 2 Approved EA extension 110,983 785 0.7%
EELRT- 3 Short LRT to UTSC 110,891 693 0.6%
Population and Jobs are calculated based on linear distance decay function with a maximum time of 60 minutes and subsequently a weighted
average is estimated for the GTHA, weighting by DA populationat the origin end.
AllDay% Change Over Ba
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%

1.0%
0.5%
0.0% Ill -
SmartTrackSmartTrack EWLRT Subway via Subway via Me
Integration Integration Speed and Queen St Eastern
Option C Option D Access Ave
E:
Balance
Average No. of Jobs within 60 minutes ot
Average Population within 60 minutes ot
Page 886 of 1092

Average Population within 60 minutes of any DA
Absolute Value .6. over Base % Change over base
320,752
323,195 2,443 0.8%
322,129 1,377 0.4%
323,763 568 0.2%
327,451 4,257 1.3%
327,438 4,244 1.3%
325,466 2,272 0.7%
329,263 3,796 1.2%
328,829 3,362 1.0%
297,880
301,384 3,504 1.2%
299,798 1,918 0.6%
301,922 538
- - 0.2% -
305,647 4,263 1.4%
305,836 4,452 1.5%
303,733 ~
2,349 0.8%
308,032 4,299 1.4%
307,510 3,777
- --- -1.2%
-
se
:Cowan Approved Short LRT

xpress EA to UT~C
extension
f any DA
fanyDA
Page 887 of 1092

-
Scenario Avg_Weighted_Jobs Avg_Weighted_Pop (by pop)
Option1BaseAM 111943.2296 385406.0795 Average No. of Jobs within 60 minutes of any DA
Option 1 BaseAIIDay 106412.3852 359399.123 Time Period Scenario ID Description Absolute Value .1. over Base % Change over base
RERST2AM 114633.2776 394768.4015 AM Peak Base (R~)- ~se _ - R_E_R- : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 111,943
-~~ -
RERST2AIIDay 109572.6616 369578.8602 ST- 2 SmartTrack Integration Option C 114,633 2,690 2.4%
RERST3AM 114175.7911 393479.9203 ST- 3 SmartTrack Integration Option D 114,176 2,233 2.0%
RERST3AIIDay 108968.3605 368092.134 EWLRT - 2 EWLRT Speed and Access Balance 112,969 -1,664 1.5%
Base2 -EgWestO pt2AM 112968.7795 388831.7792 ______ RL_-_2_ _ _ Subway via Queen St _ - 117,579 2,946 2.6%
Base2 -EgWestOpt2AII Day 107822.8757 363602.1813 Rl - 3 Subway via Eastern Ave 117,473 2,840 2.5%
Base2 -Relief0pt2AM 117579.2014 404296.9768 SSE- 2A McCowan Express 113,154 -1,479 -1.3%
Base2-ReliefOpt2AIIDay 112442.1985 378933.7561 _ _ _ _ _ _E _T_-_2_ _ ~pproved EA extension
_E_LR 115,748 2,594 2.3%
Base2 -Relief0pt3AM 117473.3026 403515.736 EELRT 3 Short LRT to UTSC 113,844 690 0.6%
Base2-Relief0pt3AIIDay 112393.8436 378514.3724 All Day Base (RER) Base - RER 106,412
Base2-Scar0pt2AM 113154.3137 390645.6408 ST- 2 SmartTrack Integration Option C 109,573 3,160 3.0%
Base2-ScarOpt2AUDay 108342.8108 365835.7968 ST- 3 SmartTrack Integration Option D _ 108,968 2,556 2.4%
Base2v2-EgEastOpt2AM 115747.8654 400619.988 ______ EW_ LRT ___ EWLRT Speed and Access Balance 107,823 -1,752_ _ -1.6%
Base2v2-EgEast0pt2AIIDay 111142.4476 376445.6564 RL 2 Subway via Queen St 112,442 2,870 2.6%
Base2v2-EgEastOpt3AM 113843.9331 393658.368 RL-3 Subway via Eastern Ave 112,394 2,821 2.6%
Base2v2-EgEastOpt3AIIDay 109136.743 369328.9449 SSE- 2A McCowan Express 108,343 -1,230 -1.1%
EELRT- 2 Approved EA extension 111,142 2,800 2.6%
EELRT -3 Short LRT to UTSC 109,137 794 0.7%
Population and Jobs are calculated based on linear distance decay function with a maximum time of 60 minutes and subsequently a weighted
average is estimated for the GTHA, weighting by DA populationat the origin end .
All Day % Change Over Base

4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0% ,.?J:....
~
(;
..... c.," ~ ....
~c. ~c.'li :f:o
~" tit~
..~r!'
,(:- ~'li
2.0"1rs.,~'1> c.,~ ~ ~
~~ ,io'll~
,i.'~ ~-0
~~" ,io-..J..
c.,~
c.,~
Average No. of Jobs within 60 minutes of an
Average Population within 60 minutes of an
Page 888 of 1092

Average Population within 60 minutes of any DA
Absolute Value ~ over Base % Change over base
3851406
3941768 91362 2.4%
393A80 81074 2.1%
3881832 -51937 . -1.5%
- -4041297
- 91529 2.4%
4031516 81747 2.2%
390,646 -4,123 -1.0%
400,620 9,974 2.6%
3931658 3,013 0.8%
359,399
3691579 101180 2.8%
368,092 8,693 2.4%
3631602 -51977 -1.6%
3781934 9,355 2.5%
3781514 81936 2.4%
365,836 -31743 -1.0%
376,446 10,610 2.9%
3691329 3A93 1.0%
I e~
~. . .s-"'~
o..:s. ~..._o
~<;
~ ~
~
r':f-0
yDA
yDA
Page 889 of 1092

.J
Vivien Leung

Attachments: For ARUP_ST Cost Inputs.docx
Importance: High
Hi Felipe,
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
Page 890 of 1092

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT- DISTRIBUTED TO ARUP UNDER CONFIDENTIAL
PROVISIONS IN LEGAL AGREEMENT.
For ST/RER Integration Only- Eg W is separate.
Table 1: Deliverability Screening Summary Table
Capital Costs ( $1,100-1,700 $700-1,000

$M 2014)*
Table 2: Business Case Summary Table
Total Nominal Capital $3,600 (does not

Costs ($M 2014)* include RER system +$1,100-1,700 +$700 -1,000
costs)
Nominal Annual
Operating Costs ($M $140 +$8.7 +$5.3
2031)
Nominal Annual
Revenue ($M 2031) $210 +$11.8 +$15.1
Cost Recovery Ratio

(2031) 150% 149% 155%
Net Benefits ($M PV) 4,100 ($1,100) ($400)

to
Kitchener-Stouffville to 1.37 to 1.64
Benefit Cost Ratio
Table 9: Economic Information Summary
not
include system costs)
Page 891 of 1092

Net Benefits (PV) $4,100 ($0.7) ($.2)
Benefit Cost Ratio 2.0 Negative Negative
GO RER K1tchener -
and Stouffville
corridors 2.0
Combined Benefit
Cost Ratio
Impact to
Kitchener I - 31% decrease to 1.37 18% decrease to 1.64
Stouffville RER
Benefit Cost Ratio
Table 10: Economic Benefits Breakdown
Benefits
Table 2: Table of economic assumptions for RER-SmartTrack analysis.
Economic Assumptions Value
General
Project Evaluation Period 60 years

Discount Rate 3.5%
Growth Cap - Year all growth set to 0% 2044
Page 892 of 1092

)

Value of Time Growth Rate 1.6%
Auto Operating Cost $0.63 $/km ($2015)
Auto Oper..~ting Cost Growth Rate 0.7%
Accident Reduction Benefit $0.08 $/km ($2015)
Accident Reduction Benefit Growth Rate 0%
Congestion Reduction 0.01 hrs/km
Congestion Reduction Growth Rate 0%
Environmental Benefits $0.01 $/km ($2015}
Environmental Benefit Growth Rate 0%
Eglinton West LRT
Approved EA: 14+3 stops

'
- ' ' .....
(2015 $billions)
Stops 14+3
Airport Allowance $0.28
Capital Cost $1.5to$1.8 ' -~~
-
Operating & maintenance $0.9 /"
costs
..
Optio n 1
Benefits 1.9
Costs (Lifecyle, NPV)
B enefit -C ost Ratio {BCR)
Page 893 of 1092

...
Breakdown of Benefits C
$3,500
en
c
_a
E $3,000
{:,17
~ $2,500
-"* $2,000
N
0
0
-gcu $1 ,500
2
t+=
~ $1 ,000
(])
co
$500
$-
B C
Page 894 of 1092

,I

Summary of Assumptions
Operati ng and Mai ntenance Costs:
Options 1-2 are not assumed to require parallel local bus service. Options 3-6 do assume continued operation of a local
bus service. The costs for this local bus service are based on the existing costs of the nc bus on the route. seaTed
down to reflect that the service would likely only operate to Mt. Dennis. Detailed analysis of local accessib~ity in future
work may indicate that a parallel bus service is aJ.so required in Option 2.
For the LRT option 0/M costs are based on standard Metrohnx assumptions for the Toronto LRT projects.
For the BRT option 0/M costs are based on the US National Transit base, converted to Canadian Dollars and ad'.rusted
to reflect typi~ TIC costs.
Lifecycle:
60Years
Escalation Factors:
value of Time escalation factors: 0.91% (2020-2024). 0.83% (2025-2043). and 0% {2044 and beyond)
PHT, VKT, Fare Revenue growth rates. 0.8% and 0%(.2044 and beyond}
In-Service Date:
Construdion start. 2020
Operational start 2024
Benefits Formulas:
tr thnh tnml tin~ l<11it1 ) ,.~ht.,l
1. 1 '''" tmwl tin,. hu!u.l

fn- l'tu t tat.,it ~m.ml U! uf all.,.)
Tnmslt tiuw dumpp (n.-w) =- (nn - llw) :-: ,,,
2 n ,t .ouh lrn>ot (f. uf tria,.)
Page 895 of 1092

Page 896 of 1092
Vivien Leung

Sent: May- 30-16 6:22 PM
Cc: Peter Notaro; Diana Chu
Subject As Discussed
Attachments: Cost inputs sheet TIC and CITY.xlsx
Importance: High
Confidential Draft Attachment- Not for Distribution
Hi Felipe,
As discussed. The attachment is password protected. I will give you a call.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidemial, and the sender does not waive any related rights and
Page 897 of 1092

Source Costs 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Capital Costs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
TIC RL-1 $0
TIC Rl-2 $6,283,860 $2,750 $64,180 $192,260 $318,570 $479,440 $1,410,590
TIC Rl- 3 $6,799,310 $2,970 $69,450 $208,030 $344,700 $518,770 $1,526,300
TIC SSE - 1 Station At Grade $3,159,004 $16,329 $59,810 $179,886 $250,519 $220,817 $361,629 $367,937 $417,403 $378,269 $268,620 $462,901 $112,126
TIC SSE - 1 Station Stacked $3,264,585 $16,329 $59,810 $179,886 $259,272 $226,059 $368,237 $367,892 $439,214 $372,402 $284,623 $498,676 $128,556
TIC SSE - 3 Station At Grade $4,604,650 $16,329 $59,810 $179,886 $372,886 $327,547 $550,515 $558,776 $675,847 $568,607 $370,985 $718,344 $130,256
CP/HDR EG-2 to UTSC (w/o MSF}-low $1,578,000 $150,000 $463,000 $556,000 $409,000
CP/HDR Eg-2 to UTSC (w/o MSF}- High $1,674,000 $159,000 $491,000 $590,000 $434,000
EG-3 to Sheppard
TIC RL-1 $0
TIC Rl- 2 $8,052,892
TIC RL 3 $8,888,348
TIC SSE -1 Station At Grade $4,788,161
TIC SSE - 1 Station Stacked $4,821,300
TIC SSE - 3 Station At Grade $6,738,377
O&MCosts
TIC RL-1 $0
TIC Rl-2 $3,511,743
TIC Rl- 3 $4,065,461
TIC SSE -1 Station At Grade $1,801,148 $21,295 $21,721
TIC SSE - 1 Station Stacked $1,801,148 $21,295 $21,721
TIC SSE - 3 Station At Grade $3,205,658 $37,901 $38,659
'
Page 898 of 1092

2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
$1,325,990 $1,151,050 $859,380 $395,040 $84,610

$1,434,750 $1,245,470 $929,870 $427,450 $91,550
$62,758
$63,629
$74,862
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,574 $0 $449 $0 $150,191 $0 $39,989 $0 $0 $59,131 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,570 $0 $514 $0 $162,142 $0 $48,839 $0 $0 $67,578 $0
$19,923 $0 $67 $0 $63,373 $0 $35,293 $0 $0 $8,777 $0 $0 $57,416 $0 $603,449 $0
$19,923 $0 $67 $0 $65,768 $0 $35,293 $0 $0 $8,777 $0 $0 $57,416 $0 $621,177 $0
$19,923 $0 $200 $0 $123,559 $0 $35,293 $0 $0 $26,332 $0 $0 $57,416 $0 $1,063,976 $0
$48,847 $49,824 $50,820 $51,837 $52,874 $53,931 $55,010 $56,110 $57,232 $58,377 $59,544 $60,735 $61,950 $63,189 $64,453 $65,742 $67,056
$56,549 $57,680 $58,834 $60,010 $61,210 $62,435 $63,683 $64,957 $66,256 $67,581 $68,933 $70,312 $71,718 $73,152 $74,615 $76,108 $77,630
$22,156 $22,599 $23,051 $23,512 $23,982 $24,462 $24,951 $25,450 $25,959 $26,478 $27,008 $27,548 $28,099 $28,661 $29,234 $29,819 $30,415 $31,023 $31,644 $32,277
$22,156 $22,599 $23,051 $23,512 $23,982 $24,462 $24,951 $25,450 $25,959 $26,478 $27,008 $27,548 $28,099 $28,661 $29,234 $29,819 $30,415 $31,023 $31,644 $32,277
$39,432 $40,221 $41,025 $41,846 $42,683 $43,537 $44,407 $45,295 $46,201 $47,125 $48,068 $49,029 $50,010 $51,010 $52,030 $53,071 $54,132 $55,215 $56,319 $57,446
Page 899 of 1092

Z047 Z048 Z049 zoso ZOSl zosz Z053 ZOS4 zoss Z056 Z057 zoss Z059 Z060 Z061 2062 Z063 Z064 Z065 2066
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
$0 $65,056 $0 $1,238,854 $0 $0 $809 $100,609 $29,176 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,134,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,218

$0 $79,454 $0 $1,346,682 $0 $0 $925 $122,875 $33,344 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,595,755 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,422
$0 $120 $88,794 $6,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,379,267 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,619 $0 $216 $0 $1,152,334 $0
$0 $120 $88,794 $6,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,384,515 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,619 $0 $216 $0 $1,160,103 $0
$0 $360 $88,794 $17,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,250,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,619 $0 $649 $0 $1,681,069 $0
$68,398 $69,766 $71,161 $72,584 $74,036 $75,516 $77,027 $78,567 $80,139 $81,741 $83,376 $85,044 $86,745 $88,480 $90,249 $92,054 $93,895 $95,773 $97,689 $99,642
$79,182 $80,766 $82,381 $84,029 $85,709 $87,424 $89,172 $90,956 $92,775 $94,630 $96,523 $98,453 $100,422 $102,431 $104,479 $106,569 $108,700 $110,874 $113,092 $115,354
$32,922 $33,581 $34,252 $34,937 $35,636 $36,349 $37,076 $37,817 $38,574 $39,345 $40,132 $40,935 $41,753 $42,588 $43,440 $44,309 $45,195 $46,099 $47,021 $47,961
$32,922 $33,581 $34,252 $34,937 $35,636 $36,349 $37,076 $37,817 $38,574 $39,345 $40,132 $40,935 $41,753 $42,588 $43,440 $44,309 $45,195 $46,099 $47,021 $47,961
$58,594 $59,766 $60,962 $62,181 $63,424 $64,693 $65,987 $67,307 $68,653 $70,026 $71,426 $72,855 $74,312 $75,798 $77,314 $78,860 $80,438 $82,046 $83,687 $85,361
Page 900 of 1092

2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
$0 $1,457 $0 $2,006,780 $0 $129,701 $0 $0

$0 $1,666 $0 $2,153,177 $0 $158,406 $0 $0
$114,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,672
$114,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,672
$114,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,672
$101,635 $103,668 $105,741 $107,856 $110,013 $112,214 $114,458 $116,747

$117,661 $120,014 $122,414 $124,862 $127,360 $129,907 $132,505 $135,155
$48,921 $49,899 $50,897 $51,915 $52,953 $54,012 $55,093 $56,194
$48,921 $49,899 $50,897 $51,915 $52,953 $54,012 $55,093 $56,194
$87,068 $88,810 $90,586 $92,398 $94,245 $96,130 $98,053 $100,014
Page 901 of 1092

Page 902 of 1092
\
',
Vivien Leung

To: Mike Logan
Attachments: 3-station McCowan.pdf; McCowan 4 stop- KEN-SE.pdf
Hi Mike,
We did a little bit more digging and in the model the speed works out to be closer to 52km/h (we code times, not
speeds). The times we used come from the attached TIC tables.

Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W lAB Canada
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com

To: Felipe Camargo
I just talked this over with MH. We feel that we will likely need to re-run the McCowan-3 scenarios to get numbers we
are comfortable with. The McCowan-3 speed should be 40kph and Express should be 50kph.
Page 903 of 1092

want to discuss.
Mike
From: Mike Logan

Sent: May-30-16 3:27 PM
Felipe,
Our assumptions for speed of the McCowan3 are 40 kph, McCowan Express 50 kph.
Mike

To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
SSE Express:
The speed that has been coded in the model for McCowan 3, which is based on the TIC estimates that we got last
December is of 58km/h (on average), which is faster than the SOkm/h assumption for the Express. In actual fact, there is
very small disbenefit of about 45 seconds. The benefits around the fringes of the area all result from changes to the
buses assumed with SSE Express.

My mistake, I used the All Day times for the base, which is why we were getting some small benefits. We're updating
the numbers and redoing those two maps.
City Hall:
Investigating..
Page 904 of 1092

Felipe Camargo MSc
Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Page 905 of 1092

SSE H~an Allgnmont ESII,.tod Travel Tlmo C.ltulollon
Oporaling Parameters 1 Islimllei!Trewlllme 1

II ti .~~;J
Station Dwell Time I 15 seCDICis - : "Enot 1"1ndloles 1M new Sllftdllnllt ls 100 hlih end must lwiDweRCI I li ~I
H theft b lrllulficMnt distance to tile nat SllftCI mtrldlon to adMw tile -
Trail\ Atuleration
Tra in Dtctleration I
0.9 mlsls
0.9 m/s/$
~.. . I
~ J~ .:
Awr~pSpeecl
t:ra=~
[rainltnath lSOrn
Trip Norw SPHCI limh I eonmnt Speed cakulotlons

SPHCIChlnlt C.lcubted "--tratlon C.lcubtlons Dtatleratlon C.kulatlons Travel Tome
Elem~:nt Dflcrlption km/h ml Chaina&t Chi~ EndChallloliP lime lllistence SlartChaiNp lime Distella! SartChalnOIII ,IndChalntte TIIM Dlstence Per Elftnoat
Deport Kennedy Station so 13.1189 10+000 100000 10+107 15 ~
I
1
2 Travel @SOkm/h lh,.,urh Centra Track Cu.-ws
Pepart Centre Track Speed Restridion
50 13.819
u.uz 10+350
107
10+107 10+500
l
21 393 -
~9
15
21
3

s
Travel ~80km/h alona Ellinton
Enter Ealinton/Dinforth Curve
80
80 22.222
10+500
11+215
I 10+167
' 167 I
i 11+116 s
10+167 U+U6 20 449 20
s
6 Travel ~64km/h olonr Elfinton/D1nforth CUtW
64
64
17.771
17.771
11+21S
11~ U+llO 11+!109 s

" 11+215 U+llO 3l 595 33
8
7
9
Pepart Elfinton D1nlortll CU<ve
Travel ~80km/h olona Danforth and McCowin
Stop lor Lawrance Eon Station
80
80
0
22.222
22.222
0 13+520 U+5lo I
" 13+246 25 274
~ 11+!109 13+246 60 1337
5
60
25
'
10 Dwell at Lawrence Eon Station 0 0 1S 15
11 Pepart Lawrance Eon S11tlan 80 22.222 13+520 13+520 13+794 I 25 274 25
12 Travel ~80km/h olon1 McCowan 80 22.222 ~ ~ L J13+794 15+352 70 1558 70
13 Enter sec CIO\scwer X-ovtrl 33 9.167 15+580 15+580 J 15+352 15 228 1S
14 Travtl033km/h olon1 sec X..,.,er and Station 33 !1.167 ~I
15+580 15+853 lO 273 lO
15 Stop lor sec station 0 0 15+900 15-t!IOO 1S+IS3 10 47 10
16 0 0
17
11
0
0
_.
- r
- ~
- 0
D
2015-0:J-02, Or&ft Ol TTC ea: E119in11rlng Alignmen t 1'19t J ol J
Page 906 of 1092

Ul l(ennedy to Sheppard EMt Stotlon EUtmoted Tr. .et Tlmt Colculltton
Operatlna Paramtttn ~T.-Il'llne I
Sta~on Dwd nmt I. 15 seconds ~Nacr. "Em>r 1"1n tt. TRnlllrne Ptr E'-nc cell Indium 1M MW speed
..,_,...IS
ltllitls too lllstlanot , _ ft there lslnsufllclent dlstata to 1M-
. :U' liio!lftlllllllbl;l
Train Acctltratlon
Train OeceleraUon t
T11 MICrO Lotded
o.a rn/sls
speed .-1ct1on to ldlleft the now _..t
I -.S~~Mt~
47.1 l bi/JI ' :
l I Tra:.,"""'
train LtnJth fuse Olf ustnr st&nallinl $PHd limits} 150m t Sll
Trip New S.-.1 Taraet S.-cfO>anre C.kulated Acalmtlon Qlculatlons Decelefatlon C.lculotlons o.nstant 5.-.1 calcW!IoM TravelTime
Elemtnt Oes<llptlon kmJh m/s O>alnoae O>a"WD_ Eno!O>a~ 11me ~ Start Chaln... nmc Dbta,.... ISiarta.aitun EndO>alnaae Time Distance PtrElement
1 Oep.an Kennti!y Sllltlon fSOI<m/h Umlt} so U.lll9 10+000 10+000 10+216 24 211 24
l TraYOiat SO~ Speed Um~ so U.l89 ~
" 10+216 10+510 21 lJ4 21
3 Now Speed Umk f80km/h} 63 17.5 10+360 10+510 lliOOZ 31 492 - 31
Travelot 80kmJh Speed Um~
'5 A~atOonfonhSilltlon
63
0
17.5
0 11+209 1l+l09 U.otl 22 191
UtOOZ U.otl 1 1& 1
n
6 Dwel tt Donforth Station 0 0 15 15
7 Otp.an Danforth Slllllon 65kmJh tim~} 61 16.944 U+l09 11+10S 49 596
I
9
trwelat&$\mJhSOeed u~
Now 5.-.1 um 180kmJhl
61
76
16.944
11.111 11695 11+145 u.uz 7Z l,ll7
11+105 U+MS 2 40 "2
72
10 trawlat80\mJh Speed u~ 76 11.111 u.n2 U.ZIZ 2 51 :z
11 A~ at U..rtnce East Station 0 a 13561 13+561 13+212 26 279 26
n Dwd 11 Lawrtn<t East Station 0 0 15 15
13 Dtp.art u-ence EaSI Sllltlon 80\m/h Umlt} 76 11.111 13+561 U+543 121 Dl2 111
14 TriW!I at 80km/h SOeed Um~ 76 11.111 - 15+543 ~ 5 111 5
15 ~at Scarl>orovah OIV cen!Je Sllllton 0 0 15+933 15+933 15+154 26 279 26
16 Dwd at Scarborouah OIV centre Sllltlon 0 0 n 15
17 Dtp.an Scarboro111h OIV centre Station (80kmJh Um~l 69 19.167 15+933 17+095 110 1112 110
Trwelat80~ SOeed Umit n
-
11 69 19.1&7 17+095 17+121 2 2
19 Enter Shtppord East Double l:ro<SCMI!r (3Jkm/h Umlt)_ 33 9.167 17+305 17+305 17+121 13 177 13
20 TravtlatllkmJh 33 Ul7 . 17+305 17+569 29 2&4 29
21 A~ at Shepp.ard East Sllltlon 0 0 17 622 c_l]~_ -. 11+569 11 53 u
20150&-U, Draft 01 TTC ECE E09inetrl"9 Alignment ,....loll
Page 907 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-30-16 11:43 AM
To: Mike Logan
Attachments: City Hall- RL Eastern v Opt C v3jpg; Pearson - Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt c.jpg; Renforth
Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C v2.jpg; Scarborough Centre - SSE Express v Opt C v2jpg;
Union- Opt C v Base v3jpg; Union- Opt D v Base v2Jpg; UTSC- Eglinton E Opt 3 v SSE
Expressjpg

Sent: May-291612:22 PM
To: Mike Logan
Hi Mike,
have a bit of tomorrow morning for some minor changes, if needed, so please let us know if there are any
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.ca)

Sent: Saturday, May 28,2016 8:27AM
First, we're missing maps centred on UTSC showing the impacts of the Eglin ton East LRT and centred on GTAA
Page 908 of 1092

Renforth :

Scarborough Centre:
Title OK
Dark Green : With Express Subway
RL Eastern:
Title OK
RL Queen:
DELETE
Union Option D:
Title OK
Union Option C:
Title OK
NEW Pearson Airport

Page 909 of 1092


Sent: May 27, 2016 4:51PM
To: Mike logan; Ana Graovac
Hi Mike,
I think it would help if you gave us the description you'd like to include in the 'base' for each map (just take
From: Mike Logan fmailto:mlogan @toronto.cal

A couple of things:
Subway Extension"
Thanks,
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo fmailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com]

To: Mike logan; Ana Graovac
Hi Mike,
Page 910 of 1092

Felipe
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.ca)

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana.
Mike
From: Ana Graovac fmaifto:ana.graovac@aruo.coml

Sent: May-27-161:07 PM
To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc:: Karen Thorburn; Michael Hain; Ana Graovac
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.co mJ

Sent: May-27-16 11:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Cc:: Karen Thorburn; Michael Hain; Ana Graovac
Page 911 of 1092

Mike,

Sent: Friday, May 27,201611:18 AM
To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
later tonight.
Assumptions:
o45 minutes for 'absolute' catchment estimate
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function. (Factor= 1 at time =0, Factor 0
at time= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W IAS Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
Explore innovation in the buill environment on Doggerel
From: Mike Logan (m ailto:mlggan@toron.tg,ca]

5
Page 912 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
1. lsochrones
base case)
z. Access to Jobs
SSE- express v. 3-stop {i.e. base case)

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568
21st Floor. East Tower
Page 913 of 1092

Page 914 of 1092

t
1
r
City Hall - 45 minute transit catchment

- With Relief Line
- Without Relief Line
n ~ ~ a
Page 915 of 1092

/
-a
CD
OJ
Cil
0 0
:s
~
..,-
WZ I
wll:E !
0 ;:; ~
m:rUI
~ ccm
r+ ~
0 :J
= = -3c
:J .....
cn~oCD
..... < :J
<..,
r- <,..
~ r- ~
-1 ~
.... ,..
-en
n
QJ
..
n
:::r
3
CD
::s
,..
Page 916 of 1092
*
'
+-
')
* \,
~ ,\, ~
\ \
Renforth Gateway 45 minute transit catchment*
0
=-
- With Egllnton W LRT
No Eglinton W LRT
3.3 6.7 10
Page 917 of 1092

1-"
"-.._ )
<.
Scarborough Centre - 45 minute transit catchment

- With Express Subway
__ With 3-stop Subway
n ~ ~ ~ 7 1n
Page 918 of 1092

+--
Y.
Union Station - 45 minute transit catchment

- With SmartTrack C
- Without SmartTrack C
n '\'\ ,;7 1n
Page 919 of 1092

~
~-
~-
__,
'
-
Union Station- 45 minute transit catchment
- With SmartTrack D
- Without SmartTrack D
'1{ n ~ ~ ~ 7 1n
Page 920 of 1092

c:
~ ~
(A
(")
~
.,., z :E 3
o ;:;: :r
m ~ c
cc m ....
: cc CD
:::J--
,.. - ....,...
0 ::s ~
::s .... -
:nmo::s
:s tA
rm~
:::0 ,... (")
-1 :am
-t(;
:r
D 3CD
::s
....
Page 921 of 1092
Vivien Leung

Sent: May-29-16 12:22 PM
To: Mike Logan
Attachments: City Hall - RL Eastern v Opt C v3Jpg; Pearson - Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt c.jpg; Renforth -
Eglinton W Opt 2 v Opt C v2Jpg; Scarborough Centre- SSE Express v Opt C v2Jpg;
Union - Opt C v Base v3.jpg; Union - Opt D v Base v2Jpg; UTSC - Eglinton E Opt 3 v SSE
Expressjpg
Hi Mike,
Attached are updated versions of all the maps, plus the UTSC and Pearson maps that were pending. We should have a
bit of tomorrow morning for some minor changes, if needed, so please let us know if there are any further adjustments
to make.
Cheers,
Felipe

Sent: Saturday, May 28,2016 8:27AM
First, we're missing maps centred on UTSC showing the impacts of the Eglinton East LRT and centred on
GTAA showing impacts ofEglinton West LRT.
Renforth:

light Green: Without Eglinton West LRT
Scarborough Centre:
1
Page 922 of 1092

Title OK
light Green: With 3-stop Subway
RL Eastern:
Title OK
Dark Green: With Relief line
RL Queen:
DELETE
Union Option D:
Title OK
light Green: Without SmartTrack 0
Dark Green: With SmartTrack 0
Union Option C:
Title OK
NEW Pearson Airport

light Green: Without Eglinton West LRT
NEW University ofToronto1 Scarborough Campus

Page 923 of 1092

Sent: May 27, 2016 4:51PM
Hi Mike,
I think it would help if you gave us the description you'd like to include in the 'base' for each map ijust take into account
that there's a 20 character limit for the items in the map legend, though)
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.cal

A couple of things:
Can we crop the images to show generally the extent of the TTC subway system?
Subway Extension"
Thanks,
Mike
From: Felipe Camargo fmailto:Feli oe.Camargo@arup.com]

Hi Mike,
Felipe
Page 924 of 1092

From: Mike Logan fmailto:mloga n@toronto.cal
To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana.
Mike
From: Ana Graovac [mailto :ana.graovac@arup.coml

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo
From: Mike Logan fmailto:mlogan @toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo @arup.com]

Sent: May-27-1611:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,
within the catchments or 'factored' jobs (using the linear distance decay function}?
Page 925 of 1092

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
Re Eglinton East, last night's run failed half~way through (at around 3:00am) so we lost a few hours; it's running again
Assumptions:
Maximum walk time allowed= 15 minutes
o 60 minutes for gravity catchment estimate, using linear function. (Factor= 1 at time =0, Factor 0 at time =
60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toro nto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
ASAP -today if at all possible ~ but I understand that you are still updating SSE Express scenarios, so please let me know
Page 926 of 1092

1. lsochrones
base case)
Eglinton West LRT showing difference in extent of travel from Pearson Airport between LRT and base case AND
SmartTrack showing difference in extent of travel from Union Station between Option C and base case AND
2. Access to Jobs
Could you please also provide us with the .following assumptions that you have made in your modelling?

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568
2P1 Floor, East Tower

Page 927 of 1092

:_;,-
~
J
ity Hall - 45 minute transit catchment

- With Relief Line
Without Relief Line
n '\ Q
.J',
"
Page 928 of 1092
....
'
Pearson Airport - 45 minute transit catchment*

- With Eglinton W LRT
- No Eglinton W LRT
0 3.3 6.7 10
Page 929 of 1092

.---
t -t
'
""'"
J/11"
"
-
Renforth Gateway - 45 minute transit catchment*
- With Eglinton W LRT
No Eglinton W LRT
0 3.3 6.7 10
Page 930 of 1092

\.
.....
)1,
I
Scarborough Centre - 45 minute transit catchment

- With Express Subway
- With 3-stop Subway
~ n -:t-:t F;7 1n
Page 931 of 1092

'-
..
-\'"'
... ~

- With SmartTrack C
- Without SmartTrack C
~ n ~'t 1\7 1n
Page 932 of 1092

\... \
\.\ '

- With SmartTrack D
- Without SmartTrack D
n ~ ~ ~ 7 1n
Page 933 of 1092

(
c:
-1
en
n
~
~z
o ;:;
:e 3:r
m :::r c::
ca m ....
=. cc CD
::s- ....
o ::s
-- ~
m
::s 0 ~
:nm::sUJ
rm=
;:a r n
-t ;o CJ
-t(f
:r
3
CD
~
...
Page 934 of 1092
Vivien Leung

Attachments: Scarborough Centre - SSE Express v Opt CJpg; City Hall - RL Eastern v Opt CJpg
Two more attached.
The access to Pearson maps don't really work with the data we've generated because of the location of the DA centroid
right in the middle of the Airport (and a long way away from the nearest transit stop). We could generate a matrix of
transit times to a node located at the terminal over the weekend and use that for mapping instead.
And we're checking the Eglinton West to Renforth now before we send it over.
Let us know your thoughts on these and once we have your suggested amendments we'll tidy them up (legends,
perhaps zoom in a bit, etc)

To: 'Mike Logan'; Ana Graovac
Hi Mike,
Note that there are some interpolation artifacts that we' d need to mask in the Union Station maps (the green area in
Felipe
From: Mike logan fmailto:mlogan@toronto.ca)

To: Ana Graovac
Thank you Ana.
Page 935 of 1092

Mike
From: Ana Graovac lmailto:ana.graovac@arup.com)

To: Mike Logan
Cc: Felipe Camargo
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlosan @toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo @arup.com )

Sent: May-27-1611:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,

Sent: Friday, May 27, 201611:18 AM
To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
Page 936 of 1092

Re Eglinton East, last night's run failed halfwway through (at around 3:00am) so we lost a few hours; it's running again
Assumptions:
= 60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Mike Logan [mailto:mlogan@toronto.caJ

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
ASAP- today if at all possible wbut I understand that you are still updating SSE Express scenarios, so please let me know
l.lsochrones
SSE- showing difference in extent of travel from Scarborough Centre Station between Express and 3wstop {i.e.
base case)
Eglinton West LRT wshowing difference in extent of travel from Pearson Airport between LRT and base case AND
SmartTrack wshowing difference in extent of travel from Union Station between Option C and base case AND
Relief Line- showing difference in extent of travel from City Hall between Relief Line QueenwEastern and base
case
3
Page 937 of 1092

z. Access to Jobs
Egllnton West LRT- LRT v. base case
SmartTrack- Option c v. base case AND Option 0 v. base case

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Thanks,

416.338.5568
21' t Floor, East Tower

Page 938 of 1092

,I
"
.. Scarborough Centre - 45 minute transit catchment
- SSE Exp To Scarb
lt.. i n
- Opt C To Scarb C
~;; 1n 1~;;
Page 939 of 1092

f
\ i
' I
J. City Hall - 45 minute transit catchment
- RL Eastern- ToCityH
Opt C- To City Hall
.. n " 1n 1"
Page 940 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: May-27-16 3:33 PM
Attachments: City Hall- RL Queen v Opt C.jpg; Union - Opt C v BaseJpg; Union - Opt D v Opt CJpg
Hi M ike,
First transit catchment maps attached... the remaining four will be with you soon.
Felipe

To: Ana Graovac
Cc:: Felipe Camargo; Michael Hain; Karen Thorburn
Thank you Ana.
Mike
From: Ana Graovac (mailto:ana.graovac@aruo .com ]

Sent: May-27-16 1:07 PM
To: Mike Logan
Cc:: Felipe Camargo
Here is the first of the access to jobs maps. let us know if there is something about the format that you would like to
From: Mike logan (mailto:mlogan@toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
Page 941 of 1092

From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.camargo@arup.com ]

Sent: May-27-1611:25 AM
To: Mike Logan
Mike,

To: 'Mike Logan'
Hi Mike,
Assumptions:
=
60)
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Page 942 of 1092

Arup
t : +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
From: Mike logan [mailto :mlogan@toronto.ca)

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
ASAP -today if at all possible - but I understand that you are still updating SSE Express scenarios, so please let me know
1. lsochrones
base case)
Egllnton East lRT- showing difference in extent of travel from UTSC between LRT to UTSC and base case
Eglinton West LRT- showing difference in extent of travel from Pearson Airport between lRT and base case AND
Relief line- showing difference in extent of travel from City Hall between Relief Line Queen-Eastern and base
case
2. Access to Jobs
Eglinton East LRT -lRT to UTSC v. base case
Eglinton West lRT- LRT v. base case
SmartTrack - Option C v. base case AND Option D v. base case
Relief line- Queen-Eastern v. base case

Wait time weight
Transfer penalty
Page 943 of 1092

Thanks,

416.338.5568
21't Floor, East Tower

Page 944 of 1092

,
"city Hall - 45 minute transit catchment

- RL Queen - ToCityH
- Opt C- To City Hall
~
n " 1n 11\
Page 945 of 1092

J
c
~
c:r
~
....en
m
0 (1)~
.11 "0 -4 (II
~
.. 0 3
n "0 -
I -
-4 c c~
o,S"
~c:-4,..
::) ::s 0 ""
- m
0 c: ~
:s =fn
0 -
:s ....
n
.... m
J1 ..
n
~
3 .
C\)
~ ~
...
Page 946 of 1092
I
..
...
c:::
::1
c:r
:::s
en
~
OJ
...s
~ ~ moU'I
I"C3
en
CD 0- -
I :::s
-t c
... o
~c:c:
otct...
::I ..,
- ::l OJ
0 -
:::J g :::sen
~
-
n
...J1 OJ
fr
:r
3
CD
:::s
~
Page 947 of 1092
Vivien Leung

Sent: June03-16 5:22PM
Subject: Follow up
Attachments: Copy of EELRT Cost Estimate - DRAFT.xlsx
Hi Felipe,
will look like.
In follow up:
last. We dont have O&M numbers for this project unfortunately.
morning latest?)
Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required. based on
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
City Managers Office, City of Toronto
Tel: 416-392-2720
Page 948 of 1092

intended recipielll is unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 949 of 1092

,........... ,~
-
DlWibutiOft of C..pitJI C'.olt 1pr11ad DUt Oft' a CDf\Stt\fetk)n period of 4 yean
aU$ lscaloltdC..,;ul C..nstN<tlon C.pltol COSt Yur1yC.pit.ll

Option
"""' Opllooo Descrlpllon
(-1
Yoor
COSt llqW\s Distribution I"I Cost
lenrth 1 Aow<OSI s 735 ..,..,.;. . U .lSionln ltorth S60.5M/l<M 2020 1119.948 Year 1 10% s 1U
Vehida 2 svehide:s s uo SUI tlth ......,;nl J.car trail\$ (45 vohida!l'lrchased) to ld\ltvo 4 rnln hoodways.
runnin11t 21 ~h
..
~ 2011 1171.5&6 Yat2 30!' s 562
MSf
:lA Modihd MSJ lCUIT $ IOl
SS4M for n MSF t Mt. Dennis rou~ $50M for an end oi i M .,.rlt:O.:
bu!lcSnc. acca.s route .,d storace tf'Kb.
~
~
....
2012 19J0.7D .
, ,, 15" s 51&
ll MIIW MSF I'Mdiufn..sbtd $ 240 ""'- $101)ol50M + -""' MlC

.5
~
Zotl Ull.7116 .....,.. :rnl s 197
, __ 1-:IA lowonda>SI $ 1,019 -.mesloorth o1Rne+45vohldos + - MSI' TobiC.pltoiCMt $ L917
1-:111 llitl>onda>SI $ I.1SS _.......,oflne+U-oa+..,.mediufnMSI' 2010 20&UU 'furl lOll $ 20&
;;;
ProOtrty
4A lowtnclcml $ 51
assvma S" lnaeu. an tiW for PtOPtrty acq"isit:ian
..
~ 2011 llU790 Year1 30!' $ 637
Ac:Qvi$ilion
~
a hlfhtndcml $ S8
s
!
2012 2117.50l Year) lS" s 7&&
S4 $ 1,) z: zan
Proltsslonol
lowtndmst
.uuma l"' inertas.t on taw+ prgperty ICQUbiCion.. for Profas.of\11 $tt'l4011

"'
ZUJ.129 Year4 25" $ 561
s.Mao
Sl $ JJI Tolll c.optat CMt $
Z.l~
....... ltftd COlt
_.___
6A low oncl cost s )54
assumes ~ inertst 01' raw + PtO""Y 1cqublli0n + ptOiesslonll s.tl"ritL 101
Continpndes
amtl"'endu
$ 401
" tliChtndmst
.--
I
""'"'
I-
~ ~2So+4o+i r
~ 1+2+JiiWit+
lowtncl-
I
I
~- ..

_,[
s
I
's
1,117
u:n
'
ft
~ --CGitoftiW+-+MSI+---+~
-""".....-
--
,I
I
I
i
~- ' 5II<A ,.....,........_~~----

-
Page 950 of 1092

Distribution of Capital Cost spread out over a construction period of 4 years
Escalated Capital Cost Yearly Capital

Terminating at UTSC without MSF Construction
Option Year Capital Cost Distribution Cost
Begins
(Millions} (%) (Millions)
2015$
Item Option Description Comments 2020 1,498 Year 1 10% $ 150
(Millions)
Ui
length 1 Raw cost $ 635 assuming 10.Skm In length @ $60.5M/KM ....
0 2021 1,543 Year2 30% $ 463
N
ID
m
1'11
....
Vehicles 2 45 Vehicles $ 180
$4M each - assuming 3-car trains (45 vehicles purchased)
to achieve 4 min headways, running at 28 kph
-.. 2022 1,589 Year 3 35% $ 556
u"'
0
-c
roughly* $SOM for an end of line operations building, c
w
Storage Tracks 3 Storage Tracks $ 50
3: 2023 1,637 Year4 25% $ 409
access route, and storage tracks. 0
--J
- - Total
1-2 low end cost $ 815 assumes length of line + 45 vehicles + ~ storage tracks Nominal $ 1,578
Capital Cost
Total Raw
assumes length of line + 45 vehicles +with storage
1-3 high end cost $ 865 2020 1,589 Year 1 10% $ 159
tracks
~
....
4A low end cost $ 41 0
N 2021 1,637 Year2 30% $ 491
Property
assumes 5% increase on raw for property acquisition ....
ID
Acquisition ~
48 high end cost $ 43 .."'

!:!.
0
2022 1,686 Year3 35% $ 590
u
-c
c
w
SA low end cost $ 154 .s::. 2023 1,737 Year4 25% $ 434
CID
Professional assumes 18% increase on raw + property acquisition, for x
Service Professional Service Total
58 high end cost $ 163 Nominal $ 1,674
Capital Cost
-
6A low end cost $ 282
assumes 28% increase on raw + property acquisition +
Contingencies
professional service, for contingencies
68 high end cost $ 300
r-~---.,.-..-r
I
... ?.'" ~ -~ ~~ -. -- -~
I
1+2+4a+5a+6 assumes total'cost of raw+ vehicles+ property I
~
a
low end cost $ 1,292 I
I
acquisition +'professional service+ contingencies
.
Total 'r I - ~
~
......- ...
1+2+3+4b+Sb I ~ssumes total cost of raw +vehicles+ MSF + property

hlgh,end cost iS 1,371!
~cquisltlon + professional service + contingencies
- I
+6b .
, ' - -----.........-...:~--....-
Page 951 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Attachments: For ARUP_ST Cost Inputs.docx
Importance: High
Hi Felipe,
Karen Thorburn
Senior Corporate Management & Policy Consu1tant
City of Toronto
Page 952 of 1092

For ST/RER Integration Only- Eg W is separate.
Table 1: Deliverability Screening Summary Table
Capital Costs ( $1,100-1,700 $700-1,000

$M 2014)*
Table 2: Business Case Summary Table
Total Nominal Capital $3,600 (does not

Costs ($M 2014)* include RER system +$1,100-1,700 +$700 - 1,000
costs)
Nominal Annual
Operating Costs ($M $140 +$8.7 +$5.3
2031)
Nominal Annual
Revenue ($M 2031) $210 +$11.8 +$15.1
Cost Recovery Ratio
(2031) 150% 149% 155%
Net-Benefits ($M PV) 4,100 ($1,100) ($400)
to 31%
Kitchener-Stouffville to 1.37 to 1.64
Benefit Cost Ratio
Table 9: Economic Information Summary
Base Case GO RER Option C: Committed RER Op tio n D: Committe d RER

Kitchen er+ Stou ffville frequ encies with slower frequencies, 4-5 new
Value (Compared w 1th Do - long -distance service. 7-8 stat ions
Minimum Scenario) new statio ns
' I I .. -
include system costs)
not I .I , I :
Page 953 of 1092

Net Benefits (PV) $4,100 ($0.7) ($.2)
Benefit Cost Ratio 2.0 Negative Negative
GO RER Kltchener -
. and Stouffville
corridors 2.0
Combined Benefit
Cost Ratio
Impact to - 31% decrease to 1.37 18% decrease to 1.64
Kitchener-
Stouffville RER
Benefit Cost Ratio
Table 10: Economic Benefits Breakdown
Benefits
Table 2: Table of economic assumptions for RER-SmartTrack analysis.
Economic Assumptions Value
Gen e ral
Project Evaluation Period 60 years
Discount Rate 3.5%

Growth Cap -Year all growth set to 0% 2044
Page 954 of 1092

Value of Time Growth Rate 1.6%
Auto Operating Cost $0.63 $/km ($2015)
Auto Operating Cost Growth Rate 0.7%
Accident Reduction Benefit $0.08 $/km ($2015)
Accident Reduction Benefit Growth 'Rate 0%
Congestion Reduction 0.01 hrs/km
Congestion Reduction Growth Rate 0%

Environmental Benefits $0.01 $/km ($2015)
Environmental Benefit Growth Rate 0%
Eglinton West LRT
Approved EA: 14+3 stops
(2015 $billions) '

",-,.
Stops 14 +3 , ...... '-
Airport Allowance $0.28 "'-

Capital Cost $1.5 to $1.8
Operating & maintenance $0.9
costs
-~
Option 1
Benefits 1.9
Costs (Lifecyle, NPV) 2.1
Benefit -Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.9
Page 955 of 1092

Breakdown of Benefits C
$3,500
en
c:
0
E $3,000
(;;17
~ $2,500
-"*
N
$2,000
0
u
-g
ro
$1,500
~
en
t+=
~ $1,000
Q)
(l)
$500
$
B C
Page 956 of 1092

Summary of Assumptions
Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Options 1-2 are not assumed to require parallel local bus 9eMce. Options 3-6 do assume continued operation of a local
bus service. The costs for this rocal bus service are based on the existing costs of the TIC bus on the route, scaled
down to reflect that the service would likely only operate to Mt. Dennis. Detailed analysis of local accessibHity in future
work may indicate that a parallel bus service is also required in Option 2.
For the LRT option 0/M costs are based on standard Metrolinx assumptions for the Toronto LRT projects.
For the BRT option 0/M costs are based on the USNational Transit base. converted to Canadian Dollars and a<fJUSted
to reflect typicat TIC costs.
Lifecycle ~
60Years
Escalation Factors:
Value of Time escalabon factors: 0 91% (2020-2024). 0.63% (2025-2043)-. and 0% (2044 and beyond)
PHT, VKT. Fare Revenue gror1h rates: 0.6% and 0% (2044 and beyond)
In-Servi ce Date:
Construction start 2020
Operational start 2024
Benefits Formulas:
Trttu~il thu rhnngt (txbHug) - uro x (ln - lro ) t, trnh lrn\>ltla"' (n ~~- 1 . ~ht'"' l
It Alii It tmwltiUII! I min. I
,., I - I t !l
Trllu!-oil. 1imn rlutUJ!.t' ( lli'W ) - ( n 1 1 - 11'1 n} :..: ", rt 4~ it lw ..ntl {til ~f ttil.,l
2 nI OUI II tlrmnr l (i- <If trlj ... )
Page 957 of 1092

Vivien Leung

Sent: Maya30-16 6:22PM
Cc: Peter Notaro; Diana Chu
Subject: As Discussed
Attachments: Cost inputs sheet TTC and CITY.xlsx
Importance: High
Confidential Draft Attachment- Not for Distribution
Hi Felipe,
As discussed. The attachment is password protected. I will give you a call.
Karen
Karen Thorburn
City of Toronto
obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it colllains by other than an
intended recipielll is unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me.
Page 958 of 1092

Source Costs 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Capital Costs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
TTC RL-1 $0
TTC RL- 2 $6,283,860 $2,750 $64,180 $192,260 $318,570 $479,440 $1,410,590
TTC RL- 3 $6,799,310 $2,970 $69,450 $208,030 $344,700 $518,770 $1,526,300
TTC SSE - 1 Station At Grade $3,159,004 $16,329 $59,810 $179,886 $250,519 $220,817 $361,629 $367,937 $417,403 $378,269 $268,620 $462,901 $112,126
TTC SSE -1 Station Stacked $3,264,585 $16,329 $59,810 $179,886 $259,272 $226,059 $368,237 $367,892 $439,214 $372,402 $284,623 $498,676 $128,556
TTC SSE - 3 Station At Grade $4,604,650 $16,329 $59,810 $179,886 $372,886 $327,547 $550,515 $558,776 $675,847 $568,607 $370,985 $718,344 $130,256
CP/HDR EG-2 to UTSC (w/o MSF)- Low $1,578,000 $150,000 $463,000 $556,000 $409,000
CP/HDR Eg-2 to UTSC (w/o MSF)- High $1,674,000 $159,000 $491,000 $590,000 $434,000
EG-3 to Sheppard
TTC RL - 1 $0
TTC RL 2 $8,052,892
TTC RL - 3 $8,888,348
TTC SSE- 1 Station At Grade $4,788,161
TTC SSE - 1 Station Stacked $4,821,300
TTC SSE - 3 Station At Grade $6,738,377
O&MCosts
TTC RL-1 $0
TTC RL- 2 $3,511,743
TTC RL-3 $4,065,461
TTC SSE -1 Station At Grade $1,801,148 $21,295 $21,721
TTC SSE -1 Station Stacked $1,801,148 $21,295 $21,721
TTC SSE - 3 Station At Grade $3,205,658 $37,901 $38,659
Page 959 of 1092

2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
$1,325,990 $1,151,050 $859,380 $395,040 $84,610

$1,434,750 $1,245,470 $929,870 $427,450 $91,550
$62,758
$63,629
$74,862
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,574 $0 $449 $0 $150,191 $0 $39,989 $0 $0 $59,131 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,570 $0 $514 $0 $162,142 $0 $48,839 $0 $0 $67,578 $0
$19,923 $0 $67 $0 $63,373 $0 $35,293 $0 $0 $8,777 $0 $0 $57,416 $0 $603,449 $0
$19,923 $0 $67 $0 $65,768 $0 $35,293 $0 $0 $8,777 $0 $0 $57,416 $0 $621,177 $0
$19,923 $0 $200 $0 $123,559 $0 $35,293 $0 $0 $26,332 $0 $0 $57,416 $0 $1,063,976 $0
$48,847 $49,824 -$50,820 $51,837 $52,874 $53,931 $55,010 $56,110 $57,232 $58,377 $59,544 $60,735 $61,950 $63,189 $64,453 $65,742 $67,056
$56,549 $57,680 $58,834 $60,010 $61,210 $62,435 $63,683 $64,957 $66,256 $67,581 $68,933 $70,312 $71,718 $73,152 $74,615 $76,108 $77,630
$22,156 $22,599 $23,051 $23,512 $23,982 $24,462 $24,951 $25,450 $25,959 $26,478 $27,008 $27,548 $28,099 $28,661 $29,234 $29,819 $30,415 $31,023 $31,644 $32,277
$22,156 $22,599 $23,051 $23,512 $23,982 $24,462 $24,951 $25,450 $25,959 $26,478 $27,008 $27,548 $28,099 $28,661 $29,234 $29,819 $30,415 $31,023 $31,644 $32,277
$39,432 $40,221 $41,025 $41,846 $42,683 $43,537 $44,407 $45,295 $46,201 $47,125 $48,068 $49,029 $50,010 $51,010 $52,030 $53,071 $54,132 $55,215 $56,319 $57,446
Page 960 of 1092

2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
$0 $65,056 $0 $1,238,854 $0 $0 $809 $100,609 $29,176 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,134,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,218

$0 $79,454 $0 $1,346,682 $0 $0 $925 $122,875 $33,344 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,595,755 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,422
$0 $120 $88,794 $6,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,379,267 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,619 $0 $216 $0 $1,152,334 $0
$0 $120 $88,794 $6,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,384,515 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,619 $0 $216 $0 $1,160,103 $0
$0 $360 $88,794 $17,070 so $0 $0 $0 $3,250,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,619 $0 $649 $0 $1,681,069 $0
$68,398 $69,766 $71,161 $72,584 $74,036 $75,516 $77,027 $78,567 $80,139 $81,741 $83,376 $85,044 $86,745 $88,480 $90,249 $92,054 $93,895 $95,773 $97,689 $99,642
$79,182 $80,766 $82,381 $84,029 $85,709 $87,424 $89,172 $90,956 $92,775 $94,630 $96,523 $98,453 $100,422 $102,431 $104,479 $106,569 $108,700 $110,874 $113,092 $115,354
$32,922 $33,581 $34,252 $34,937 $35,636 $36,349 $37,076 $37,817 $38,574 $39,345 $40,132 $40,935 $41,753 $42,588 $43,440 $44,309 $45,195 $46,099 $47,021 $47,961
$32,922 $33,581 $34,252 $34,937 $35,636 $36,349 $37,076 $37,817 $38,574 $39,345 $40,132 $40,935 $41,753 $42,588 $43,440 $44,309 $45,195 $46,099 $47,021 $47,961
$58,594 $59,766 $60,962 $62,181 $63,424 $64,693 $65,987 $67,307 $68,653 $70,026 $71,426 $72,855 $74,312 $75,798 $77,314 $78,860 $80,438 $82,046 $83,687 $85,361
Page 961 of 1092

2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
$0 $1,457 $0 $2,006,780 $0 $129,701 $0 $0

$0 $1,666 $0 $2,153,177 $0 $158,406 $0 $0
$114,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,672
$114,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,672
$114,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,672
$101,635 $103,668 $105,741 $107,856 $110,013 $112,214 $114,458 $116,747

$117,661 $120,014 $122,414 $124,862 $127,360 $129,907 $132,505 $135,155
$48,921 $49,899 $50,897 $51,915 $52,953 $54,012 $55,093 $56,194
$48,921 $49,899 $50,897 $51,915 $52,953 $54,012 $55,093 $56,194
$87,068 $88,810 $90,586 $92,398 $94,245 $96,130 $98,053 $100,014
Page 962 of 1092

..."'
ID
c:>
Page 963 of 1092

James Perttula

Sent: August-28-15 4:05PM
To: Hilary Holden
Cc: Rishi Lukka; James Perttula; Tim laspa
Subject: RE: WithinReach
Attachments: 2015-08-28 CoT Accessibility Analysis Proposal Letter vO.docx
Hi Hilary,
As promised, please find attached a draft version of the proposal letter (including the fee estimate) for a first review. Please let me know if it covers
what you were expecting.
While you review we will go through our internal approval process so that I can hopefully be able to send you a final version, together with an
agreed scope of work on Tuesday.
Have a great weekend!
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street E.t~t Suite 2--lOO Toronto ON M4W I AS Canada
1: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:42PM
1
Page 964 of 1092

To: 'Hilary Holden'
Cc: Rishi Lukka; James Perttula; Tim Laspa
Hi Hilary,
Attached is a slightly modified version of the scope of work. Generally speaking, the work looks fine, I would only suggest we extend the timescales
a little bit (to 8 weeks, but I think we could start giving you results by around week 4), if that works for you. The rest of the adjustments are on the
wording.
I'll start estimating a budget for the work and will finalize it once we agree the scope. I should be able to get you an initial estimate tomorrow so we
can start talking about that too.
For the fee proposal I will set up a short proposal letter including a brief description of the methodology, proposed team, rates and total fee and we
can attach to it the agreed ~cope of work.
Thanks,
Felipe
PS: Yes. it would be great to work together on defining the specified analysis areas. I will mention that in the methodology section.
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street Ea..,t Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I AS Can ..tda
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +I 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore innm ...I! ion in the bui It environment on Doggerel
From: Hilary Holden [mailto:hholden@toronto.ca)

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 8:56PM
To: Felipe Camargo
2
Page 965 of 1092

Cc: Rishi lukka; James Perttula; Tim laspa
Subject: Re: WithinReach
Yes Tuesday would be good for a final quote as I realize your internal sign off procedures. The sooner the better really. If you have any questions on the draft
scope perhaps we can do some too-ing and fro-ing over the next couple of days. We can help define the areas we specify, for example we have GIS layers for
NIAs.
Hilary
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, this is very exciting!
We'll have something for you probably around Tuesday, if that's ok.
On Aug 26, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Hilary Holden <hholden@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I have been figuring out how to procure this.
I am filling in the paperwork for a non-competitive procurement. To complete this I need for you:
1. To review the above draft scope and provide comment
2. To provide me with a quote for an agreed scope
3. To provide me with the details of the work done for Metrolinx at the kickoff of Within Reach that showed that there
were no pre-existing tools available to undertake this advanced connectivity analysis.
Thank Felipe
Hilary
Hilary Holden
Director, Transit & Sustainable Transportation
Transportation Planning, City Planning
City of Toronto
416 338 2577 I hholden@toronto.ca
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup .com]

Sent: August-25-15 11:25 AM
3
Page 966 of 1092

To: Hilary Holden
Cc: Rishi Lukka; Tim laspa
Hi Hilary,
It was good to see you last week. Thanks for inviting us to come over to talk about 'WithinReach', it was good to meet
the team you ' re working with. Looks like you guys are extremely busy!
Anyway, just a quick note to reiterate that if you or Tim have more specific ideas as to what analyses you need, let me
know and we can set up some examples of how the 'WithinReach' tools might help.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street Ea-.t Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I AS Canad,1
t: +I 416 515 0915 d: +I 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
Explore innovation in the buill environment on Doggerel
From: Hilary Holden [mailto:hholden@toronto.ca)

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 12:57 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Rishi Lukka; Tim Laspa
Brilliant. 2151 floor east tower.

4to4.45pm.
Thanks for making the time.
4
Page 967 of 1092

Hilary Holden
City of Toronto
416 338 2.577 I hholden@toronto.ca
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com}

Sent: August-19-15 12:00 PM
To: Hilary Holden
Hi Hilary,
Good to hear from you! I hope everything's going well at the city and that you're now settled in.
Sounds very interesting, I'm busy but I can make time to be there today at 4pm. Just let me know where to find you and I'll be
there.
I can bring a couple of slides we prepared for the Arup event a few weeks ago and I can talk to the team about how it works and
what it could be used for.
Thanks,
Felipe
On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Hilary Holden <hholden@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
There is great interest here in Within Reach. If the City were to use it, the need is urgent.
We would need to look at all purchasing options ie leasing/buying or getting Arup to do the work.
Don't suppose you might be free at 4pm today to come in and present it to the team here?
Hope all is well with you guys
Hilary
s
Page 968 of 1092

<image001.jpg>Director, Transit & Sustainable Transportation
City Hall, Floor 21 East Tower
Toronto, ON MSH 2N2

<20 15-08-26 Draft Arup WithinReach scope for CoT v l.O.docx>
Page 969 of 1092

Your ref
Our ref
File ref
60125649
ARUP
Strictly Private & Confidential 2 Bloor Street East
Suite 2400
Hilary Holden Toronto ON M4W lAS
Director Canada
Transit and Sustainable Transportation t+14165150915
Transportation Planning, City Planning r+l4165151635
City of Toronto fclipe.camargo@ aru p.com
www.arup.com
hholdcn @toronto.ca
August 28, 2015
Dear Hilary,
Transit Improvement Accessibility Impacts Analysis
Following our conversation held on Wednesday 19 August, please find below our proposal
for the Analysis of Accessibility Impacts of various transit improvements in the City of
Toronto.
Study Objective
The objective of the study is to undertake a location and network impacts analysis of a set
of proposed transit improvements.
Proposed Methodology and Deliverables

To undertake the study we will use a Connectivity Analysis Toolkit that we have
developed in partnership with Metrolinx. The Toolkit is based on the TransCAD
transportation planning software package and consists of two components:
A Transit Network Builder, which allows the user to set up transit networks to be
used in the analysis. It uses General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) files, the
format used by Google Maps, as an input to generate an initial network and
subsequently combines this with manual coded interventions.
An Accessibility Calculator, which enables the user to estimate an 'Access to

Transit' score, representing the service density for any point in the GTHA; and an
'Access to Destinations' metric that enables the user to establish the number of key
destinations that are reachable from any number of origins, both of which, origins
and destinations, are user specified.
The tool allows the user to calculate 'absolute' values for scenarios as well as comparisons
between scenarios. When comparing against a base case, for instance, all options can be
evaluated against it to help provide information on their potential benefits.
Arup Nor1h America Ltd
Page 970 of 1092

601 25649
Augus1 28. 2015
Page 2 of 4
The first, and most labour intensive, part of the work will be the coding of the
transportation interventions to be tested. This will involve the manual coding of the
services that make up the intervention, including their stopping patterns, services
frequencies, operating speeds, etc. as well as the modifications to be done to other services
that may be adjusted or removed.
Once all services are coded we will proceed to group them into the ten scenarios specified
in the Scope of Work (please see attachment) and will run the Accessibility Calculator. In
this case we envisage that the key locations that have been specified will be set as the
origins and City of Toronto census dissemination areas will be used as destinations. This
way we will obtain three key outputs:
a matrix of values with the journey times between all key sites and all Census
Dissemination Areas;
the number of people within an acceptable journey time of each key destination;
and
the number of people, factored based on a distance decay function, within a

maximum journey time of each key destination.
There is an option in the Connectivity Analysis Toolkit that allows the user to select either
'elapsed time' or Generalized Time. We will discuss with your team what you would
prefer for the analysis. Generally speaking, however, elapsed time is the simpler, easier to
communicate value, whilst Generalized Time helps provide an understanding of how likely
people might be to travel, particularly when compared against another mode or another
option.
W ith these basic outputs it' ll be possible to generate illustrative maps that show the
absolute values, for each location and scenario, as well as the positive/negative changes in
terms of numbers of people within the catchment of each key site.
Deliverables
Our proposal includes the following deliverables:
The three key outputs described above, for each scenario in a format that is usable
by City Staff (csv, dbf or xlsx)
A geographic layer with all the points used in the analysis
A short imerpretation of results note
Schedule
The study will be carried out in eight weeks, with the following milestones:
Weekly: Short email-based update on progress
Bi-weekly: one hour meeti ng with City Project Manager to discuss progress and any issues
that may have arisen
Week 4 : First set of results for discussion with City Project Manager
Weeks 4- 8: Delivery of results for all scenarios
Page 971 of 1092

60125649
August 28, 2015
Page 3 of 4
Study Team
The proposed Arup team will include:
Project lVIanager ~ Felipe Camargo

Felipe, who has approximate 17 years of experience in transportation planning and analysis
will project manage the study and will provide technical direction. Felipe has been
involved in a large number of accessibility analysis and modelling studies throughout his
career and has been in charge of the development of Connectivity Analysis Toolkit that
will be used in the study.
Transportation Planner- Ana Gtaovac

Ana is a junior Transportation Planner, with approximately three years of transportation
planning experience. She has a technical background having been involved in demand
modelling, spatial analysis and business case development for projects in Ireland, the
United Kingdom and Canada.
Ana completed a Master's Degree in Transportation Engineering and Planning at the

University of Toronto in 2012.
GIS Analyst- Alexa Hinves

Alexa is a junior GIS Analyst who is completing a Master's Degree in Spatial Analysis at
Ryerson University. Her thesis is titled "Developing a Methodology for Measuring Access
to Services: A Case Study of Access to Food Retail Services in the City of Toronto".
Fee Proposal
The lump sum fee for the work described above is of $28,256, excluding HST. Any
additional work would be agreed in advance and charged at the following hourly rates:
Grade Hourly rate (exc. HST)
Associate Principal $
Associate $ Section 14(1) applied
Senior Transportation Consultant $
Transportation Consultant $
Graduate Transportation Consultant $
Arup Terms and Conditions

Our standard terms and conditions are appended to this letter.
Page 972 of 1092

60125649
Augus1 28 2015
Page4of4
Yours sincerely
Felipe Camargo
Associate
Page 973 of 1092

James Perttula

Sent June-17 16 12:44 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Kristin Olson; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Attachments: 2016-06-17 Summary of Economic Impacts vll.pptx
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated powerpoint file with the summary results of the economic assessment of all tested options, now including the latest
model outputs provided by the City Planning team last night and this morning.
In addition to the changes made to the relief line options, there is a very small change in the Eglinton East LRT numbers that result from adjusting
the assumed opening year to 2025, in line with the assumption for SSE Express. The NPV and BCR for Eglinton East don't change as a result of this.
In the interest of time we have not yet updated the sensitivity test charts that are included in the last couple of slides. But please let me know if you'll
need them and we will update and forward those too.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street Ea!->l Suite 2-WO Toronto ON M4W I AS Canada
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 974 of 1092

Page 975 of 1092

City Transit Interventions
Summary of Economic Case
Draft
17 June 2016
ARUP
Page 976 of 1092
Outline

Base Case 2
3. Eglinton East Options evaluated against Base Case 3
2 AWP
Page 977 of 1092

Page 978 of 1092
answer
value for money?
'
I
4
AWP
Page 979 of 1092

process?
--
1 Option development
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
Evaluation of in1pacts of options (business case)
Implementation
- -
s AWP
Page 980 of 1092

The Economic Case
including:
reliability, etc.)
etc)

land value uplift).
6 AWP
Page 981 of 1092

I GTA Model v4.0
I
! ! ! ! !
demand Journey Time
I I
I I
...
User Benefits:
Time Fare Savings
Crowding Relief

Notes:
7 AWP
Page 982 of 1092
Parameters
Parameter Value Source I Conunenls
Discount Rate 3.50% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg44, section I0.3.4
Appraisal period (yrs) 60 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg23, section 6.2.2
Auto operating cost savings ($/veh-km) $0.63 Metrolinx recommended value
Auto operating cost savings annual growth (%) 0.7% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section I 0.5. 1
Accident value ($/veh-km) $0.07 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section 10.5.1
Accident value annual growth (%) 0.0% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg47, section I 0.5. 1
Greenhouse Gas ($/veh-km) SO.OIO BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg48, section 10.5.2
Air Quality ($/veh-km) $0.002 BCDH Tier 2 v0.3, pg42, table 10. 1.5 (not specified in v0.2)
Air quality value annual growth (%) 0.0% Assumed (Value not specified in BCDH)
Annualization factor 300 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg44, section 10,3.3
Value of Time - Non-working (Commuting) $ per hour $16.13 BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg46, section 10.4.2
Value of Time growth (pa) 1.600% BCDH Tier 2 Draft 0.2. pg46, section 10.4.2
Inflation 2.0% BCDH Tier 2 v0.2, pg22, section 6.2. 1
Benefits Buildup
I 35%
2 70%
3 100%
4 100%
5 100%
6 100%
7 100%
8 100%
9 100%
10 100%
B AWP
Page 983 of 1092

Page 984 of 1092
SmartTrack
Option C
Option D
Relief Line
Scarborough Subway
Express
Eglinton East LRT
EA approves alignment, shortened to tenninate at UTSC instead of Sheppard
GO RER/ Eglinton West Relief Line Scarborough Eglinton East

SmarlTrack LRT Suhway LRT
Improved surface
BaseCasel GORER EA approved option transit on Queen McCowan 3-stop Bus
and King
SmartTrack
Base Case2 Option C
As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1
SmartTrack
BaseCase3 Option C
As Base Case 1 As Base Case 1 McCowan Express As Base Case 1
ARUP
Page 985 of 1092

Base C.tse 1 Base Case 2 Base Case 3
Option C ../
SmartTrack
Option D ../
Queen St. Alignment to Pape ../
Queen St. Alignment to

Sheppard
Relief Line
Eastern Ave. Alignment to Pape
Eastern Ave. Alignment to

Sheppard
SSE McCowan Express ../
EA Approved, full ../

Eglinton East LRT
EA Approved, to UTSC ../
ARUP
Page 986 of 1092
GO RER/ SmartTrack
GORER
-Stations (Kitchener- Stouffville line) at; Kitchener, Guelph. Acton, Georgetown, Mount
Union, Danforth, Scarborough, Kennedy, Agincourt, Milliken, Unionville, Centennial,
Ellesmere, Finch .
- Assumes modifications are made to TIC buses where they meet the route (Princess Margaret.
East Mall, Birchmount, Brimley, Lawrence, Huntingwood, Commander buses affected)
- TfCFare
- Assumed lnService Date: 2021
RERIST: ST Option 0 :
Malon - Includes GO RER stations plus St. Clair West, Liberty Village, Unilever, Gerrard.
- Assumes modifications are made to TIC buses where they meet the route (Princess Margaret,
East Mall, Birchmount, Brimley, Lawrence, Huntingwood. Commander buses affected)
-TIC Fare
- Assumed In-Service Date: 2021
-- -
: ARUP
Page 987 of 1092

Relief Line
Relief Line: Queen:

Bloor!Pape, Gerrard/Pape, Queen/Broadview, Queen/Sumach,
Queen/Sherbourne, Queen/Yonge, and Queen/University
(Osgoode).

B1oor/Pape, Gerrard!Pape, Queen!Pape, Eastern/Broadview,
King/Sumach, Queen/Sherboume, Queen/Yonge, and
-
ARUP
Page 988 of 1092
Three-stop:
with stops at Lawrence East, Scarborough Town Centre (STC).
and Sheppard.
Lawrence East Runs at an average speed of 40kmlh , between Kennedy and
Modifications to ITC buses to terminate at the new subway
Express:
station)
Subway runs at an average speed of 50kmlh, between Kennedy
ITC bus 54 split into two routes at STC, buses 95 and 131 routed
to terminate at STC
ARUP
Page 989 of 1092

Eglinton East

Sheppard.
with the LRT line

ARUP
Page 990 of 1092
Page 991 of 1092
3 .1. SmartTrack and Relief Line
ARUP
Page 992 of 1092
2015 ODDs
Benefits and Costs ST 2
User Benefits
TravelTime Saving $1,247,171
1000
External Fare Savings $551,104
Costs:
benefits:
6 000 $.3..11M lbod;~,n:'
$1.8bn
I Crowding Relief
$1,182,911
$1,98J,J86
li"
85 000 _ User
benefits:
L benefits:
I Producer BeMflts
I
11.
Incremental Fare Revenue $300,906
-
It')
$2.9bn
~000
~
..
~
-il 000
- I
flttemol Benefits
$300,906
>
..
l:
~000
$).5bn
l GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
$21,435
$4,287
l I
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
$150,043
$292,961
t 000 Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $1,644,385
0
01
.. .. ..
~ c .. .. ~ ;0 ~
Sub-toto/ ExtemoiBenefits $2,ll3,Jll
! ~
i!!!
.!:<
~ a:
01
....
c
:; c
ell ..
0
'iii ..
~
ID
01
c
;;
:J
c
! 8 0 8
Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $5,395,203
.. c
..
01
01 (/) (/)
a: ~ Ie
~
I=
c
le iii ~ ..8
c
~ ll
8 15
0
&>
~
...
IS.
..
......
e~
IL (/) 0 0 Costs
IL
e
l irl
Q.
0 ts
0
a:
0
0 ~ .. ~ Operating Cost $133,105
~ :;
w
Benelils<
a: Capital Costs $1,700,000
Costs
Total PV of COsts (PVC) $1,833,105
Dose case for evaluation: Base Case l
Benefits arc driven by crowding relicl: travel time savings and auto operating cost reduction overall Impacts
Substantial hcnelit from fare savings mainly a result ofTTC fare assumed for SmartTrack NPV (PVB PVC) $3,562,098
Increase in fare revenue suggests that increase in demand IS suftlcient to offset reduced fare BCR (PVB/PVC) Z.9
The Net Present Value results in approx. $~.5hn, with a Bene lit Cust Ratio of 2.9 Notes:
Bused on the economic costs and benefits, this option is very good value for money (i.e. the benefits arc Cosls figures provtded by Cily of Toronlo StarT
GTA Model ou1puts used to eslimale user, producer and
significantly greater than the costs) eluemal benefils have been provided by City of Toronto
StarT
. ARUP
Page 993 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- ST - 3 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
External Producer Costs: Fare Savings $557,206
benefits: benefits: $1.lbn Crowding Relief $1,339,256
~
.
6 ,000 S0.4bn I
Sub-total User Benefits $2,815,591
I
j I
:-:J
~.000 ....... .,...-
Produc~r Benefits
-
c
a.. benefits:
It> I Incremental Fare Re11enue $357,054
~ .000 $2.8bn J
~- Sub-total Producer Benefits $357,054
~
.. r - - - -1.- -- 1
L1 - - LJ Ext~ma/ Benefits
.2J 000 :-
~
"--------'
..
c
s.-.4bfl
GHG EmissiOO.i
CAC Emissions
$22,582
$4,516
.r.ooo
I - Accident Pre11entlon $158,071
1000 I J Rail Safety $0
I
"'
l :i .. ~ 5 ...
~ .."' ...."' f.! ~ f.!
1 Auto Costs
Sub-toto/ Extemol Benefits
$1,721.,305
$2,349,827
c
~
-.;
0::
Cl
..
c
:;; c
d! .,
1il
II)
c
..
c
'5:
....
c
> 8
c
0
0 8 I Total PV of Bent!fits (PVB) $5,522,472
"'
.
Q Ul
tiJ ]i
"'
~
F
c
te ..
~
u. f
c
.,8 ~
~
111
8
...
0::
Iii
i.!:! Q.
0
c
..
""e
j
~
0
(/)
.
0
...,
0
c
e 0
u.
...
s
1!
a
.,l'l
1j
~
B' Costs
0:: !lU ~ 0
0:: Capital Costs $1,000,000
Co!tS Benefitsce
Huse cuse ror e\uluution: Base Case I Total PV of Costs (PVC) $1,081,087
Distribution ofhcnefits ure similar to Option C, driven by crowding relief, tru\eltimc savings and auto opcmting cost
reduction OVerall Impacts
Howe\er, Option D shows lower tr.msit tmvel time snving but higher crowding relief und road decongestion benefits than NPV (PVB PVC) $4,441,385
OptionC BCR (PVB/PVC) 5.1
Total benefits urc of the same order us those of option C, however, due to lower co~ts. overnll result!> (NPV and BCR) are Notes:
bcuer for Option D Costs figures provi!lc!l by City of Toronto Staff
1l1e Net Present Value results in approx. $4.4bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 5.1 GTA Model outputs used to estimate user, producer and
Based on the economic costs and hcnefits, this option is very good value for money (i.e. the benefits are significantly greater external benefits have been provi!le!l by City of Toronto
than the costs) Staff
ARUP
Page 994 of 1092
2015 OOOs
Benefits and Costs RL 2 vRER
u~rBerw/lb
7,000
F;ue Savings -$992
..
.g
5.000
User
...........
External
benefits: -
Producer Benefits
$1,093,625
..,
0.3.000 ~ .
$0.2bn Incremental Fare Revenue $31,90S
benefits: $4.6bn
~
~
$1.1bn
I
--'-- --- <SO.lbn Sub-total Producer Bene/its $31,905
~1 .000
! I
I
..~
' --, I Externol Bene/lb

..
~1000

I .....;
$3.3bn l
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
$160
$5,602
I Road Decongestion $141,706
.J 000 - ......
Rail5afety $0
5 000
go
ia:
."'
=
~
C>
c
c
0
.,
(J!!
.,~
.,
...c c
.
::l
.
iii ; s.. ~
l Auto Costs
Subtotal External Benefits
Total PV of Benefib (PVB)
$62,294
$210,563
$1,3J6,093
~
iii ~ 8 0
0
8
~ dl ID t
"' c ~
~
"'
c
1E!
f/)
C>
li t
c
.
8 ~
Ill
111
a:
~ .
0
"" 'l5.
f..
.
j
~
0
11. f/)
....
0
0
a: ~
~
e
8Cl.
0
0
'S
u
"'
11.
.5
~
g
.
Q.
B
.."'"'
0
0
tl tS Costs
w a: Capital Costs $3,295,952
Coszs Benefits<
Benefits of the Relief Line \'ia Queen arc mainly driven by travel time savings and crowding relief. overall Impacts
Total hcnclits arc of approximately $1 .3bn, wh ich equates to approximately one quarlcr of the hcnelits NPV (PVB PVC) -$3,252,626
estimated for the Smar1Track options. BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.3
The Net Present Value rcsuiLc; in negative $3.3bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.3 . Notes:
Based on the economic costs and benefi ts. this option is nnt good value for money (i.e. the costs arc greater than Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Staff
the benefits) external benefits hnve been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 995 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- RL- 3 vRER 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
7,000
Travel Time Siiving $763,827
Filre savings $133,733
5,000 Sub-total User Benefits $1,274,709
Exter nal
Producer
User
.., benefits:
en ')l. n
benefits:
QIJ.lDn
Costs:
$S.Obn Producer Benefits
Incremental filre Revenue $56,084
$1.3bn
l SUb-total Producer Benefits $56,084
- -- - -- -- --
_I EJde171Q/Beneftts
GHG Emissions $657
-
-$3.5bn
CAC Emissions $131
Accldent Prevention $4,600
-J,OOQ
l J - L _ ]- - Road Decongestion $106,145
Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $51,378
-5 ,000
..... ."" ."' Sub- total External Benefits $162,912
.,.
., ., ~
..
1: .!!
~ ~ ~ Cl
tl0
"'
~ ~ Totill PV of Benefits (PVB) $1,493,706
D :::J
1: c
a: ~
1:
IB .,
iii 1: 1:
"j; 8 (,) 8
ID ~
~
F
c
'ie
.,
1/)
Iii
u.
~
.;
"'
1:
8., 1!1:
1/)
111
8a.
..
a:
li
c
0
:g
..!:!
~
-a
"'
"'
1:
.
~
....
0 ~ (,)
1/) u. 5 a- Costs
1 u
0
a:
w
1:
s:e
1:
0
~
<
..;
E
-a
B
Cl
a:
n
~ Operating Cost
Capital Costs
$625,599
$3,566,310
Costs Benefrts
Bene tits of the Relief Line via Eastern Ave. arc mainly driven by travel time savings and crowding relief. OVerall Impacts
Total bene !its arc of approximately $1.5bn, approximately IOt'k greater than those of the Queen St option, NPV {PVB PVC) $3,530,718
however costs arc also approximately 10% greater BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.3
as is the case for the Queen St option, equate to approxim<Jtcly one quarter of the benefits estimated for the Notes:
SmartTrack options. Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Staff
GTA Model outputs used to estimate user, producer anti
The Net Present Value results in negative $3.5bn, with a Benclit Cost Ratio of0.3.
external benefits have been provided by City ofToronlo
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs arc greater than s.niJ
ARUP
Page 996 of 1092
2015 OOOs
Benefits and Costs RL- 2 to Shepp
USB Benefits
4 000
F;m! Savings $55,945
r- Crowding Relief $145,690
3 500
benefits: benefits: Sub-total User Benefits $1,941,238
User
$0.3bn $0.1bn
iJOOO "-f+t~~
- -
0
c: $1.9bn Producer Benefits
11. 1
~.500
- c o - __
Incremental Fare Revenue $19, 318
-
~ - Sub-total Producer Benefits $19,318
~000
~
~1500 ~--~
~
- $2.3bn
-
.......
EJttemaiBenefits
GHG Emissions $1,645
CAC Emissions
~
$329
11.1000 ~ Accident Prevention $11,516
Costs:
500 -. tbc I Road Decongestion

Rail Safety
$186,686
$0
0
I
.. .. c: .."'
---
..
s
l Auto Costs
Sub-totol Extemol Benefits
$139,931
$340,107
E
m
'!a: Cl
'i
~
~
c
d! .."'
0
'i l ~
!!
"'c
"'
ii ..
c
i;
!!
8
~
0
(.) 8 ~ Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $2,300,663
~0
2'
1
(/)
; ..
~
'li
c:
..8 ~
(/)
lS
8
a:
..
~
c
0
?5
"!
..
D.
2'
iii
~
e
(J
u.. fl) 0
"20
a: -~
e~
Q.
0
0
~
..
II..
.5
.!:!
c;
aB
.. ..
t)
ts
li
Oi
~
costs
Operating Cost tbc
w a: Capital Costs tbc
Costs Benefits<
Base case for evnluotion: Base Case I
The bcnelits arc driven mainly hy transiltravcl time savings, followed by road decongestion, crowding relief averaa Impacts
and auto operating cost .savings NPV (PVB PVC) $2,300,663
It's worth noting that the Rl!licf Line options to Sheppard have an assumed in-service date of 2041 : since the BCR (PVB/PVC) tbc
bcnclits arc discounted to 2015, the opcnening year assumptions affect the present vuluc, so the later a .scheme Noles:
is assumed to open. the lower the value of benefits/costs is when discounted to 2015 Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Starr
GTA Model oulputs used to estimate user. producer and
e11temat benefits have been provided by City ofToronlo
Starr
-- - -
ARUP
Page 997 of 1092

Benefits and Costs- RL - 3 to Shepp 2015 OOOs
User Benefits
4,000 Travel Time Saving $1,519,886
External Producer Fare Savings $144,307
3,500 .. "' . benefits: Crowding Relief $422,888
$0.2bn SO.lbn Sub-total User Benefits $2,087,081
iJ.ooo
u
&.
I User
uenents:
$2.1bn
' Producer Bene/Its
~.500 Incremental Fare Revenue $47,931
0
N Sub-total Producer Benefits $47,931
:::10 IS!'II
-~-
-
n
t!<!,OOO
~ $2.4bn
EJttemal Benefits
~
t:1 ,500 - GHG Emissions $1,078
~
0..1 ,000 -;
r l l -
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
$216
$7,544
] Costs"
tbc J -
Road Oei:ongestlon
Rail Safety
$132,650
$0
1...
500
1
Auto Costs $91,664
0
~ .. ..
~ c0 ~
., .... ~ ~ ..
!I
a:z
~
"'t
0:
"'
co
c
j;
c
d! .,
ll
""
..
4>
c
III
""c
~
c
>
::>
. 8
c
0
u
13
8
go
Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $2,368,163
..
II) c II)
c 0:
~ li ~
~
..
0
F j
e
~
8
... ~
1ll
8<>. ~ 1il
~
Ci
"'
u .
"'f!
o;
> u
11. II)
..
0
c
e 0
u.
.; !! u 8'
Costs
!!
1-
0
0:
w
:s;
c:
0
~
Costs Benefits<
E
..ll
Ci
0:
~ Operating Cost
Capital Costs
tbc
tbc
RecapitaHzation Costs tbc
Total PV of Costs (PVC) tlK:
The benelits arc driven mainly hy transit traveltime savings, followed by crowding relief, with fare savings and Overall Impacts
road decongestion also contributing relativdy significant hcnclits NPV (PVB - PVCI $2,368,163
It's worth noting that the Relief Line options to Sheppard have an assumed in-service date of 204 1; since the BCR (PVB/PVC) tlK:
bcnclits arc discounted to 2015, the opcnening year assumptions affect the present value, so the later a scheme Notes:
is assumed to open. the lower the value of benefits/costs is when discounted to 2015 Costs ligures provided by City or Toronto Staff
external benefits have been provided by City or Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 998 of 1092
against Base Case 2
ARUP
Page 999 of 1092

Relief Line- Subway to Pape via Queen St
Benefits and Costs- RL - 2 2015 OOOs
User BeM/Its
4.000 Travel Time Saving $329,843
J.OOO
User
... .. Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
$58,931
$199,220
,.4,000
:l
benefits:
$0.6bn
benefits:
~0-~hn
Producer
~
SO.lbn
...... .....
Costs:
,
Sub-total User Benefits $587,993
-
1:! j Producer Bene/Itt
0..1 ,000
I(>
iii I
-- - - -
$44,134
$44, 134
~ 0
!!1 000 :- External Bene/Itt

~
ll2ooo i Sl.llbr!
L :-
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
$833
$167
-
~ 1 1 [ ......
3 000
...1 .000 Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $68,059
-5_000
ClO
~
.."' ..
~ I: ~
..
., .. ~ ~
Sub-total External Benefits $170..939
~
{:! Total PV of Benefits (PVB)
~
0
c: :> $803,066
0: ~
c: iii <::"' '50
c:
u 8 u
0
8.,
"' f/l
d! "'
"'
m "' "'
f/l
>
"' c:
.,c:
F
~
c:
ie ..
!
.... f
c:
.,B ~ 8
111
0:
..
!
0
1i t l'!
~
.~
u"'
....
~
u
UJ
..
..,0
0
0: ~
<::
e g
0
'S
u.
u
E
g
a
..
IJ
1:S
!
0
"'
8' Costs
w < 0: Capital Costs $3,295,952
Costs Benefits
The benefits of the Relief Line option via Queen St. arc driven by transit travel time savings, crowding rel ief Over;~lllmpiict5
and road decongestion. NPV (PVB- PVC) -$3,785,652

Total incremental costs of this option are of approximately $4.6bn BCR (PVB/PVC) o.z
The Net Prescm Value results in negative $3.8bn, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.2 Notes:
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs arc greater than Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Stnff
GTA Model outputs used lo estimate user, producer and
the benefits)
extcmnl benefits ha ve been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 1000 of 1092
2015 OOOs
Benefits and Costs RL 3
UserkMfits
4.000
Externa l
r ...... Crowding Relief -$126,805
3.000 u ser UCIICII\O o t'ri)()Ucer
$0.Sbn $S.Obn Sub-total User Benefits $90C1,551
benefits: be nefits:
-
~O.YIIn ;,u.1on - l
Product:r ~n~:flts
,.. Incremental Fare Revenue $88,446
~
""'
- Extt:r110l BeMflts
I
l l $3.6bn
-
GHG Emissions
CAC Emission$
$2,407
$481
I Accident Prevention $16,846
- .....
Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $192,474
It-
5 000
-~ ~. "' .
~ c .1!! ...., .,
~
.. "'
~
$463,451
$1,452,449
."'
..... 111 1ii
0
~ 0::
c
;;; c
d!
'fi
! ..
c
:s; "c~
.. 8 0
0 8
~ "'
c C/)
ii ~
c
..8 ~
C/)
a:
..
c0
~
.. r..
F j "'
8 :!! 1i
N I!
~
e
0
I.L C/) 0
.
..,
0
0:: ~
~
e ~
0
'S
I.L
E
u
~
a
lJ
0
0
.....
1:1
0
~
Costs
w 0:: Capital Costs $3,566,310
Costs Benefits<
Huse l>nse ror evnluation: Base Case 2 {i.e. including ST Option C)
The Relief Line option via Eastern A\e. generates approximately double the economic hcnelits of the Queen St. option. with overall Impacts
the largest increments. compared to the Queen St option, being the tmnsit travel time savings, road dccongcsuon and fare NPV (PVB PVC) -$3,571,975
savings BCR (PVI/PVC) 03
TI1is option. however, shows crowding dubenejils - possibly a..' a result of attracting largt: numbers of pa..~scngcrs from
NOles:
slowt:r hut le~s crowded services to faster hut busier services
Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Stall
Total incremental costs of this option arc of approximately $5.0bn GTA Model outputs used to estimate user, producer and
The Net Present Value results in negative $3.6hn. with a Benelit Cost Ratio ofO.J external benefits have been provided by City of Toronto
Based on the economic costs and henclits. this option is not good 'alue for money li.e. the co~ts arc greater than the benclits) Scaff
ARUP
Page 1001 of 1092

Scarborough Subway Extension- Express
Benefits and Costs- SSE- 2A 2015 OOOs
Us~r~M/its
2.00(1 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
Fare Savings $9,031
1,500 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Costs!
Sub-toto/ U5er Benefits -$657,013
i Sl.Sbn Producer ~ne/lts

::!
~1 .000 t---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
1(1 Incremental Fare Revenue $34,432
~ Sub-toto/ Producer Benefits $34,432
~ user
~ soo t------,~n~
e~ts~t-
- ----------------------------------------------------------~
~ $0.7bn $0.7bn
&temol Bf!M/its
i 0 ~::=::;=:::::;:::::~----~~--~
benefits:
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
-$1,083
-$217
11. Accident Prevention -$7,578
SO.lbn Road Decongestion -$90,360
-500
- Rail Safety
Auto costs
$0
-$85,302
1 .000
.,c:
~ c0
.... .. ,..c .
Sub-total External Benefits -$184,539
"'
.10:
~
~
"ii
0:
"'c:
..
C>
s
d! ."'
il
~
e
m
e"'
'i; >
..
.,
.!I
8
c
~
0
u
.!l
8"'
...
~ Total PV of Benefits (PVB) -$807,110
"'
.. .. 1
Ul (I)
c ...,
F
~
.,
j
c
e
f
u..
.,
):>
'li
Ul 0
.a
..,
~
~
t.i
8
...
0:
..
f N
0
::>
.
a
u
c
!!
.,
Costs
j; u c
u.
... 13
a ts 8-
e 0
tl'" . ~
~ -~
w
s<
E ['l
a:
0
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
-$252,078
-$999,743
Costs Benefits
Rec;~pitillilation Costs -$234,446
Total PV of CDsts (PVC) -$1,486,167
The SSE Express option shows a signilicant amount of transit traveltime dishrm efit Overall Impacts
The only positive benefits arc a small crowding rel ief hencfit and a small increase in fare revenues NPV (PVB PVC) $679,147
Compared to the Base Case, which includes the McCowan 3-stnp suhway option, there arc costs saving'i of BCR (PVB/PVC) n/a
almost $1.5bn (PV 2015$) Notes:
Overall, this option has a positive net present value of approx imately $0.75bn (2015$). The bcnelltto cost rat io Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Staff
GT A MoLle I outputs used to estimate user, producer and
is not meaningful in this case, since the Present Value of Costs is negative.
external benefits have hccn provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 1002 of 1092
3.3. Eglinton East Options evaluated
against Base Case 3
ARUP
Page 1003 of 1092

Benefits and Costs EELRT 2 2015 OOOs
User Bene/its
1 0:00 - user External benefits: - Producer --- -- Fare Savings $1,924
benefits: benefits; Costs:
$0.2bn Crowding Relief $60,908
<SO.lbn -~ O.lbn $2.4bn
500
...
~
r::::
Q.
0
( - 1
r-1 - --
Producer Benefits
$15,656
.... Incremental Fare Revenue $26,208

0
N 500
I I I ,...., Sub-total Producer Benefits -$26,208
::IE
..
I!!
::1
~l , OOO
[ I $2.2bn
-i
1
Eldernol Benefits
."'
1:
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
$804
$161
J:1 .500 - .- Accident Prevention $5,628
2 ,000 -
I - Road Decongestion $172,186
1
Rall Safety $0
Auto Costs $66,11!6
2 ,500
... :i . ~ c ~
.... .."' 4>
tl ; s ~
$244,945
$234,394
."'
Cl
~
0 ::J
~
..ii 8"'
c z
~
.5: ' c 0
j;
dl m ii t3 0
.
~
a'i5..
~
F
g>
1~
In
;;o
IL
~
"!;;
rn c
c
.a ~
~
rn
111
8
a:
..
:!! ..
g
:a
!:! 0
.. ."'
c,.
..
!!
COsts
I 0 .,
"C c Q,
IL
..;
g 11 e;
t-
0
a: ~
w
e 0
0
'5
c(
Cosls Benefits
.5
..
Q.
fl
a:
0
~ Operating Cost
capital Costs
$896,833
$1,506,289
$0
The benefits of the Eglin!on East (full alignment) arc mainly dri ven by crowding relief and road decongestion Overall Impacts
bcnelits. There is a tnmsit travel lime d isbcnelit, suggesting that users may trade off longer travel times for NPV (PVB PVC) $2,168,728
lower crowding and fares (i.e. switching from GO) BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.1
Total costs arc estimated to be approximately $2.4bn Notes:
The Net Present Value results in negative $2.2bn, with a Bcnclit Cost Ratio ofO.I CosiS ligures provided by City orToronto Starr
GTA Model outputs used to csti mate user, producer and
Ba'icd on the economic costs and benclits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs arc greater than
the benefits) Staff
'
i
ARUP
'
Page 1004 of 1092

2015 OOOs
Benefrtsand Costs EELRT + 3
u~rkne/lts
1,000
User benefits: External benefits: Costs: Fare Savings $1,850
Producer
SO.lbn S0.2bn benefits: $2.1bn Crowding Relief $89,13S
500
-$0.lbn Sub-total User Benefits $140,157
r - _l.
...,
ft
.u 0
I :::::1
l'roduur IHne/lts
.,a. Incremental Fare Revenue $20,205
~
,. -SOO 1~
' --....:l_ ~- Sub-total Producer Benefits -$20,205
..
!!!.
2 1000
~
; _f -
-~
External Benefits
..
t:
-$1.9br GHG Emissions $289
&:'soo - CAC Emissions

Acddent Prevention
Road Decongestion
$58
$2,020
$46,777
2 000 Rail Safety $0
Auto Costs $21,662
2 soo - ... .."' . c:
.... .,.c: .. -
. ~
Sub total External Benefits $70,804
c:
~
l
.,c:
0:
c:
j;
.!;!
c:
a! .""
0
1i!
.!;!
c:
CD
;; ....
:::J
c
>
fl
8
~
0
0
8 ~ Total PV of Benefits (PVB) $190,756
I j
In
~
..
1::
~ .8"' i
In
111
0:
~
c:
0
1il
1!
..
a. ..
"'
"'
""~
e '"
u. In 0
ee 8c.. u. ~ 0
..... e Cosu
1 0 -,;)
'"
0
0: -~
w
0
~
Benefits<
u
E
.....
..
13
0:
1j
0
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
$896,833
$1,160,941
Costs
RecapltaUzation Costs $0
The benefits of the Eghnlon East to UTSC arc mainly driven hy crowding relief, followed hy road decongc.,tion overall Impacts
and traveltime savings. All other bcnclits arc relatively marginal. NPV (PVB PVC) -$1,867,019
Total costs arc estimated to be approximately $2. 1hn BCR (PVB/PVC) 0.1
The Net Present Value results in a negative $1 .9bn. with a Benclit Cost Ratio of 0 . 1 Notes:
Based on the economic costs and benefits, this option is not good value for money (i.e. the costs arc greater than Costs figures provided by City of Toronto Starr
GTA Model outputs used 10 estimate user. producer and
the bcncfils) external benefits have been provided by City of Toronto
Staff
ARUP
Page 1005 of 1092

Page 1006 of 1092
Sensitivity Tests - Value of Time
'"'
Benefit to Cost Ratio Sm<JrtTrack
...,
Ul
Benefit to Cost llatio ()Ill anci5Sf
011
en
Benefit 1o Cosr Rallo Eglinton East lRT
"" os:
.....,
....
...
01!
ClS
.....
1S ~ 2 ~
.......
COl
JlJl
ou
.... 000
OCJ
OJ c
SUIX' SllOO U'm $15Cil Sum S17:C USCO UtQO S!:CII!I UlCO sum suc;x, suca 1u:10: UHIO su..ac suoo nua Utm s..~=-a s:t= szzcct UlCC SUCC U.UJ:: SUCIC ~ltgQ UHll SIIta SitCO S:~OG ~lS.tll S.U.IXI
V!ue effllt!t 1$1 Ylh"" otT,trt lSI Vl!w of T'.n-t fSl
- s11 -ST S
N~t Present Value Sm<~rtTrack Net Present Value ORLand SSE Net Present Value . Eg~nton East lRT
so
S~~
Sl.CIX.CICO
~
Jt,S.:Coa>
U.OCieCCXI
IC
suco suco nu:., su.co uc:o sn..oo s:tr:o utco ~= s.n:a u:ro
11-:m
SUCO SUOl SJ.&O) SUCO SliC:O S1Ttu SliCC UJCC s.nco S:li:O SU..Dl ="'"SUOC SU.CO st.& (I) SUIXI Sl,CO SUllO SlJDO SUCO C:CO SUCO SllCO
........ otr.f'Pit est va'Wc:.fnn ($J VaWol,tN ($J
- sT 2 - n 1 - a:tJ - utn l' -uurr 1
-- - -
32 ARUP
Page 1007 of 1092

Benefit to (o$t Ratio SmartTnck Benefit to Cost Ratio DRL and SSE Benefit to Cost Ratio Eglimon East LRT
en
"'' cs:
ti!S
a.::
!5
.....,
CllS
IJ 10 lO
" ~ , .., ,..
- 'U l - U J - m..IT: -uLr~" J
Net Present Value Smartlrack Net Present Value ORland SSE Net Present Value. Eglinton East LRT
n.=.~
$.lct'Q.CC;J
SJCUI,DC:Io - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sl.tt'C.IX::I
s: co:~. ceo -su:c::.cco
?: ~-n.cx::e_ccc
'llliCC.=
- 10
i $.!_==
SJ,tx:a..tt;C
. . . . - -- --- - - -====-=
SUXIO.CCO
U..ooa.ccc ~
UCO:.:CO
. su~...,
. .. "
-'~-~ -$11
__ _,.) - ttl.l1 l -ttLJT I
--
33 ARUP
Page 1008 of 1092

James Perttula

To: James Perttula
Subject: FW: SSE Express text

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Yes, I agree, setting out the assumptions clearly is going to be very important. We've started putting something together describing all the
assumptions, parameters and base case definition.
We're starting to set it up as a set of tables, bullet points and possibly simple maps. It's kind of tricky because there are assumptions that cover
everything (e.g. all the economic parameters), then there are assumptions for each base case and the scenarios evaluated against them, and finally
there are assumptions for each individual option.
We're thinking it may work best if we include this in the powerpoint file, as opposed to a written note, mainly because a note could potentially
become very confusing. Whereas if we split it into slides we think we might be able to make it clearer. We'll see how it looks a bit later today, and
will forward you a first draft once we have something so we can discuss.
For now, I'm sending you the powerpoint file with the larger font size for the charts.
Cheers,
Felipe
Page 1009 of 1092

Felipe Camargo t\lSL
Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I A8 Cunadu
l: +1416 515 0915 d: +I 647 260 3474
m: +l 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
E xplorc innova11on m the buill environment on Doggerel
From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:kthorbu@toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
Thanks for clarifying. In order to assist t he reader wiU you also have a chart of the assumptions behind how each value is calculated? I'm concerned
about the number of variations of numbers that will be presented and the reader misinterpreting what they mean. The methodology write up w ill
be important. Perhaps it's building on the original briefing note you prepared several weeks ago
Thanks
Karen
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TEL US network.

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Sorry, I just realized I got things wrong in my email ~ the costs were estimated as 'SSE l S top At Grade' minus 'SSE 3 stop At Grade' costs, so that
would be consistent with what you need.
2
Page 1010 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
From: Karen Thorburn fmailto:kthorbu@toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
Hi Felipe,
Thanks for clarifying. I forgot we gave you two sets of SSE numbers depending on the STC station configuration. We have decided to
use the at-grade STC station scenario for SSE. My apologies.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo l mailto:Felipe.Camareo @arup.com]

Sent: June0916 3:02 PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Diana Chu
Subject: (WARNING: MESSAGE ENCRVPTED]RE: SSE Express text
Hi Karen,
We calculated the incremental costs of SSE Express over McCowan 3 by subtracting the 'SSE 3 Stop Stacked' costs from the 'SSE 1 stop Stacked'
costs. (See highlighted rows in the attached spreadsheet)
Page 1011 of 1092

And we understand these figures to be nominal costs so we adjusted for inOation assuming 2% per annum and a then applied a discount rare of 3.5%
p.a.
From: Karen Thorburn [ mailto:kthorbu@toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Diana Chu
Thanks Felipe.
Thanks,
Karen
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo @arup.coml

To: Karen Thorburn
Hi Karen,
Here's some text to help explain the SSE Express results. Please have a look and let us know if this is more or less what you were looking for:
Page 1012 of 1092

Section 7 applied
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo \11Sc

Arup
1 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I A8 Can.tda
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +I 647 537 4665
www .arup.com

Page 1013 of 1092

City Transit Interventions
Summary of Economic Case
Draft
9 June 2016
ARUP
Page 1014 of 1092
Page 1015 of 1092
answer
value for money?
- -
3 AWP
Page 1016 of 1092
process?
Option development
Evaluation of itnpacts of options (business case)
Implementation
4 AWP
Page 1017 of 1092

Developing the Business Case
Step 1:
I / Problem
Statement
Step 2a: Define

Objectives
I Step 2b Specify
Outputs
I
-.......
1
..
Step 3: Define a base case y
Step 4: Develop a
future baseline
l
Step 5: Develop
options
Step 6a:
Contribution to
"
Steps 6b and 6c:
Calculate lifecycle
Step 6d: Dellverabllity
and operational
strategic objectives costs and benefits solutions
l
~ Step 7 : Assemble
a Business Case
/
I
Iterate Steps 5 to 8 until +

Step 8: Support governance
Final Approval and decision making
..
Step 9: Project
Implementation
- Step 10: Post In
service
Business case
Review
s AWP
Page 1018 of 1092

The Economic Case
including:
reliability, etc)
- External impacts (e.g. Road decongestion, emissions reductions, accident prevention, etc)
etc)

land value uplift).
I
6 AWP
Page 1019 of 1092

I GTA Model v4.0

I I Accessibility
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I
:
Calculator
Transit
demand
Generalized
Journey Time
Fare Crowding Revenue l
I I
I I Detailed point to
point travel times
User Benefits:
I
Value of Journey Time Benefits I I
Time Fare Savings
Crowding Relief Population Access
I
Access to
and to Jobs Labour
Employment Force

Notes:
rates, GOP growth, etc.
Accessibility benefits are calculated and reported for the base year (i.e. what would be the benefit if the project initiated operations today) and a
future year
--
7 AWP
Page 1020 of 1092

Page 1021 of 1092
SmartTrack - Option and Base Cases for Evaluation
Scenarios
-- - -
Relief Lme Opt 2 Re lief Lme Opt. 3 Eglinton East LRT 2

SmartTrack SmartTrack SSE Eglin ton East LRT 3
Subway v1a Queen Subway v1a Eastern Approved Ell
Integration Opt1on C Integ rat ion Opt1on D McCowan Express Short LRT to UTSC
St rwe extension
GO REA ~
,
SmartTI'ilck STOption C
STOption D
EAApproved
Option
Speed and Access

Balance
Line 1 imp. Surface

transit on Queen
and King
Subway via Queen

St
Subway v ~a Eastern
Ave
McCowan 3 Stop
McCowan Express , ./'
Bus ,/ , .{
Approved EA
extension
Short LRT to UTSC

Exnmple or how this mntri" is rend: The SmnrtTrnck Integration Option C nnd D options nre evaluated agninst n bnsc case that includes GO RER, the EA Approved option ror Eglinton West LRT, line I
improvements to transit on Quen and King Streets, McCowan 3-stop Scarborough Subway.Extension nnd buses along Eglinton Enst LRT corridor.
9 AWP
Page 1022 of 1092

Page 1023 of 1092
User lleM/its
Travel Time Saving
Fare savings
Crowding Relief
Product!r lleM/Its
Enema/ BeM/Ifs
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto COsts
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Total PV of COsts (PVC)
Dnsc case for evaluation: Base Cas(! I
Benefits arc driven by crowding relief, traveltime savings and auto operating cost reduction Overall Impacts
Substanlial hcnclit l'rom fare savings mainly a result of integrated fare NPV (PVB - PVC)
The Net Present Value results in approx. $ with a Benefit Cost Ratio of
Section 7 applied
ARUP I
Page 1024 of 1092

User Bene/Its
TravelTime Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Produur Btmeflts
EJtternol Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Tobl PV of Benefits (PVB)
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Recapltallzatlpn Costs
Distribution of benefits arc similar to Option C. driven hy crowding relief. tnnel time savings und auto opcmting cost
Howe\er. Option D shows lower tmnsit tr..t\'CI time saving hut higher crowding relief and road decongestion benefits than NPV (PVB PVC)
OptionC BCR jPVB/PVC)
Total benefits ;tre of the same order as those of option C. however. dul! to lower costs. overall results (NPV and HCR) are
better for Option D
The Net Present Value results in approx. , with a Benclit Cost Ratio of
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1025 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2 - Subway via Queen St
Us~riUn~
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub total User Benefits
Produc~r IUn~ts
Elltemol IUM/Its
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Total PV of Benefits (PVB~
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Total PV of Costs (PVC~
Overall 1mpam
NPV (PVB PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1026 of 1092
Relief Line Option 3 -Subway via Eastern Avenue
u~rBeM/its
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-total Us~r ~n~flts
Produc~r Ben~fits
Sub-total Produc~r Benefits
Eldemal Be~ts
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Sub-total Elttemof Benefits
Totill PV of Benefits (PVB)
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Duse cuse ror evuluution: Base Case I
OVerall Impacts
BCR (PVB/PVC)
ARUP
Page 1027 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2- Subway via Queen St (vs Base w Opt C)
Us~r Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-total Us~r Benefits
Produc~r Ben~ts

Elft~mal Benefits
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accldent Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Sub-total EKtemal Benefits
Total PV of Benefits (PVBJ
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Buse cuse for cvuluution: Base Case 2 (i.e. including ST Option C)
The hcnclits of the Relief Line option via Queen St. arc driven by transit travel time savings, crowding relief OVerall Impacts
and road decongestion. NPV (PVB- PVC)
Total incremental costs of this option arc of approximately $4.6bn BCR (PVB/PVC)
The Net Present Value results in negative with a Benefit Cost Ratio
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1028 of 1092
Relief Line Option 3 -Subway via Eastern Avenue (vs Base w Opt C)
User ~nejlts
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-total User /knejits
Produc:er Ben~ts
EJtternalflenejlts
GHG Emissions
CAC Emission~
A~ident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Ruse c.-use fur evnluation: Base Case 2 (i.e. including ST Option C)
The Relief Line option via Eastern A\'c. gencr.lles approximately double the economic bcnclits of the Queen St. option. with OVerall Impacts
the largest increments, compared to the Queen St option, being the tmnsit tmvcltime savings, road decongestion and fJre NPV (PVB PVC)
savings 8CR (PVB/PVC)
This opuon, howc\'er, shows crowding Jisbeuejits - possibl) as a result of auracting large numbers of passengers from
slower hut lc~~ crowded services to faster but busier scr. ices
Total incremental costs of this option arc of approximately
Tile Net Present Value n:'ults in negative S , with u Benefit Cost Ratio of
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1029 of 1092

Relief Line Option 2- Subway to Sheppard via Queen St (vs Base w Opt C)
User Ben~
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
EJrtemal Be~
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
OVerall Impacts
NPV (PVB PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1030 of 1092
Relief Line Option 3- Subway to Sheppard via Eastern Avenue (vs Base w Opt C)
U~rBttn~ts
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-total User lknejits
Producer Bl!n~ts
EJrtf!rnaiBt!-flts
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road DMongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Sub-total External Bent/its
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Recapitaliz:ation Costs
Ruse ~usc ror cvuluation: Base Case 2 (i.e. including ST Option C)
overall Impacts
NPV {PVB PVC)
BCft (PVB/PVC)
Section 7 applied
- -- -
ARUP
Page 1031 of 1092

User Benefits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-toto/ User Benefits
Producer Benefits
Extemo/Bene/lts
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Base cnse for cvaluution: Base Case 2
The SSE Express option shows a significant amount of transit travel time dishenejit OVerall Impacts
The only positive benefits arc a small crowding relief benefit and a small increase in fare revenues NPV (PVB PVC)
Compared to the Base Case, which includes the McCowan 3-stop suhway option, there arc costs savings of BCft (PVB/PVC)
almost (PV 20 15$)
Overall, this option has a positive net present value of approximately (2015$). The benefit to cost ratio
is not meaningful in this case, since the Present Value oi'CosL'i is negative.
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1032 of 1092
User BI!Mfits
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Sub-toto/ User Bf!nefits
Producer Bf!M/its
EKternaiBenqits
GHG EmissionJ
CAC Emlu,ions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rail Safety
Auto Costs
Sub-toto/ Extemol Benefits
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs

Bnse case for evaluation: Base Case 3
The hencfits of !he Eglinton Easl {full alignmenl) :arc dominated hy crowding relief and road dccongec;tion Ovena Impacts
hcncfits. There is a tmnl>it travel dishencfit, suggec;ting that uc;crs may trading off longer travel times for lower NPV (PVB PVC)
crowding and fare-; BCR {PVB/PVC)
Tolal costs arc estima1cd to be approximalcly n
The Net Present Value results in negative with a Bcnefil Cost Ratio of
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1033 of 1092

User Bene/Its
Travel Time Saving
Fare Savings
Crowding Relief
Producer Benefits
ElttertKII Bene/Its
GHG Emissions
CAC Emissions
Accident Prevention
Road Decongestion
Rall Safety
Auto Costs
Sub-total Extemaf Benefits
Tot<~ I PV of Benefits (PVB)
Costs
Operating Cost
Capital Costs
Base cuse for evuluution: Base Case ~
The bcnellts of the Eglinton East to UTSC arc mainly driven by crowding relief, followed by road decongestion Ove~lllmp;tds
and travel time savings. All other bcneliLo; arc marginal. NPV (PVB- PVC)
Total costs arc estimated to be approximately BCR IPVB/PVC)
The Net Present Value results in negative , with a Bencllt Cost Ratio of
Section 7 applied
ARUP
Page 1034 of 1092
Page 1035 of 1092
Sensitivity Tests -Value of Time
'""
Benefit to Cost Ratio - SmanTrack
... Benefit to Cost Ratio- ORland SSE
"'
Bellefit to Cost Ratio Eglinton E"a~t LRT
...'"" ...,
~II
014
lOO
..
f5 Dl
.,.
lOll
0.00
...
O.J3
O!ll
eoo
~
D
SUCCI SUOO SlCC SlSCO UUO Sl7.:0 SlJCCI SUCO S~CO S21CO SU:C S11CO SUCC lU O:. Sl~.lel ~16CC SUCC SUrtl S19CI' S~to Sll.CO s;!t:o !UOO Sur:c Sl.&OO SUtxl SltOO S17Cil ~1U:O Ugm $~Cil SllDC S.UCO
\11!ue: o~T1mt tS} VI ~lit 0' Tirt.t C~l Vl~;eotiltrt: 1$
- ST l - S l J - AI. J - IlL 2 - 12 l.l - uLJrT .: -nun 1
Net Present Value- Smartlra(k Net Present Value DRL and SSE Net Present Value Eslinton EastLRT
SUXXlaiO
~ ~ SUl,CJXXI
;- S3.0Cil"ll?Ol ,.
~ ~ 5J,QXI.co:l
!2.000.01)0
SUXIl.OO'J
so SI.QCIC.Qll SUOC.IXlO
U!OO SUIXJ UHO SlSt'O 51600 SU.aa SliOO SUCCI mco SllDC SlHO suoa sum S14-CG SUCX) st6Cl 517.00 uacc sttoo s..~::o s.:1oo u:.co su.t~:~ sum St&!XI sum ua:u su..co SlJm sum smm nu11 ~~~
vafut- ~fTirM n V.!vt!cfn"" 1$1 VahJolnJN 1$1
- s.tl-STi - Rt] - Rtl -~ l.\ - [niT l -uun s
n AWP
Page 1036 of 1092
Sensitivity Tests - Length of Appraisal Period
Benefilto Cost Ratro SmartTrack Benefil to Cost Ratio DRLand SSE Benefit to Cost Ratio Eslinton EastlRT
,.,
,.,
,., ""
::s
...,
100
" Ill
"
,, r.
"
- u 2 - nt l LJ _ ,~:.a - Utt'f .. -CttiT J
tlel Present Valup SmartTrack Net Ptes!nt Value DRL and SSE Net Present Value glinton East lRT
SJtU'.!C) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ -noa:ooo
~ SHUQXI
11.00:.0(1)
ll.DOO.OC!l ... =~
Sioxttm
0
~'"""-""'
I'
s.:.~.o:c
.,
10
'' 0
" 10
" "
- u:-srs - ttUTl -l~S
~ AWP
Page 1037 of 1092

Paula Pregent

Sent: May-10-16 3:42 PM
To: Tim Laspa
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Aimee Yang; larry Leung
Subject: RE: Park lawn TMP and Waterfront Transit Reset proposals
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your quick reply, we'll follow up with larry.
Felipe
From: Tim laspa [mailto:tlaspa@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Aimee Yang; Larry Leung
Subject: RE: Park Lawn TMP and Waterfront Transit Reset proposals
Felipe-
I understand Aimee is out of the office with no access to email at this time. You should contact Larry Leung, copied on
this email, to determine when Aimee will return and might be available to meet. My staff are prepared to assist
Purchasing staff if and as required.
Thx Tim

To: Tim laspa
Cc: Ryan Falconer
Subject: Park Lawn TMP and Waterfront Transit Reset proposals
Hi Tim,
In March we submitted proposals for the Park lawn Transportation Master Plan and Waterfront Transit Reset study.
Unfortunately we were unsuccessful on both, so we got in touch with the relevant procurement contact to request a
debrief in person as per the City's offer. The main point-of-contact was Aimee Yang in the City's procurement team.
Aimee acknowledged the request but considerable time has elapsed and no debriefs have been scheduled. We are very
keen to participate in a face-to-face debrief for each on the basis of the considerable time and effort that went into the
bids. It's important to us that we continue to have the opportunity to bid for work administered by the City but this
must be done in an informed way. We also see benefits for the City in terms of receiving higher-quality and better-
informed submissions from a broader range of consultants.
1
Page 1038 of 1092

Since these two projects are being run by Transportation Planning we were hoping that you might be able to help us
arrange an i n-person debrief to understand which areas of our proposal were weak and which were strong. I'm cc'ing
my colleague Ryan Falconer who led the Waterfront Transit Reset bid and is the person who has been in touch with
procurement regarding a debriefing.
Thanks for your help,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +1647 260 3474
m: +1647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 1039 of 1092

Paula Pregent
From: Tim laspa

Sent: May-10-16 3:40 PM
Cc: Ryan Falconer; Aimee Yang; Larry Leung
Subject: RE: Park lawn TMP and Waterfront Transit Reset proposals
Felipe-
I understand Aimee is out of the office with no access to email at this time. You should contact Larry Leung, copied on
this email, to determine when Aimee will return and might be available to meet. My staff are prepared to assist
Purchasing staff if and as required.
Thx Tim

To: Tim Laspa
Cc: Ryan Falconer
Subject: Park Lawn TMP and Waterfront Transit Reset proposals
Hi Tim,
In March we submitted proposals for the Park Lawn Transportation Master Plan and Waterfront Transit Reset
study. Unfortunately we were unsuccessful on both, so we got in touch with the relevant procurement contact to
request a debrief in person as per the City's offer. The main point-of-contact was Aimee Yang in the City's
procurement team.
Aimee acknowledged the request but considerable time has elapsed and no debriefs have been scheduled. We
are very keen to participate in a face-to-face debrief for each on the basis of the considerable time and effort
that went into the bids. It's important to us that we continue to have the opportunity to bid for work
administered by the City but this must be done in an informed way. We also see benefits for the City in terms of
receiving higher-quality and better-informed submissions from a broader range of consultants.
Since these two projects are being run by Transportation Planning we were hoping that you might be able to
help us arrange an in-person debrief to understand which areas of our proposal were weak and which were
strong. I'm cc'ing my colleague Ryan Falconer who led the Waterfront Transit Reset bid and is the person who
has been in touch with procurement regarding a debriefing.
Thanks for your help,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc
Page 1040 of 1092

.t -.l
Arup
2 Bloor Street Ea"l Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I A8 Canada
t: +1 41 6 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +I 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Page 1041 of 1092

Paula Pregent
From: Tim Laspa

To: 'Erin.Morrow@arup.com'
Cc: 'Felipe.Camargo@arup.com'; Nigel Tahair; Victoria Witkowski; Denise Gendron
Subject: Re: 2031 Projections
Erin-
Thanks for this. Let me look into this at my end. I will try to advise on what is immediately available or
otherwise by Wednesday morning.
Thx Tim
From: Erin Morrow [mailto:Erin.Morrow@arup.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 24,2016 03:09PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Tim Laspa
Cc: Felipe Camargo
Subject: 2031 Projections
Tim,
I have looked through our archives and have been unable to find block level data for 2031 for all the blocks that we
need for this round of study. It looks like we will have to add an item to develop this. We only need to establish the
percentage of trips to each block {our actual demand comes from the GO and TIC ridership numbers) so hopefully this
makes the data gathering easier.
I've attached a reference map below of the area and zones/sub-zones we are interested in. The data driving the
cofouration is from Streetlight Data (streetlightdata.com) and is something we could consider using either as an interim
solution or a full alternative. It is based on GPS data from mobile phone and vehicle navigation systems.
Best regards,
Erin
Erin Morrow AICP MCIP LEED AP

Product Director I MassMotion
2 Bloor St. East, Suite 2400

Toronto, ON, M4W lAS Canada
t +1416 515 0915 d +1416 847 9665
m +1416 560 4920
MassMotion
ARUP
1
Page 1042 of 1092

TOR_Union_OD_Test2 I GO_C~nchment I Average Weekday (M-Th) I Peak AM (6am-10am) I Person.
Colors rndlcate the StreetLght Tnp Index to each destlnauon Zone dunng the selected time period
lnsuffic lent Trips 499- t3975 (0 - 0 8%) 13976 - 42423 (0 8 - 2 3%) :....J 42424 - 81852 (2 3 - 4 5%)
81853-145238 (4 5-8%) [ ] 0r1g1n Zone

jl -'tl-
I

~6 .. st
3'-" \ -~
.... - ~-...--
0\l\"\ ., -
"~-~c;.~
Satellite
Map data 2.016 Gcogl& 500 ft ''----' Term of Uae Report

Page 1043 of 1092

Jennifer Keesmaat
From: Hilary Holden <Hilary.Holden@arup.com>

Sent June-10-15 9:26 AM
To: Jennifer Keesmaat; Daniel Fusca
Subject: Quick Thoughts #1
Role of the bus:
Congestion charging in London at least in the early years was sold that the revenue would go on expanding and
modernizing the bus network. There is now a comprehensive bus network. Many priority bus lanes and red routes
where you get towed if you park. The congestion charge slowed the rate of growth of congestion, initially easing
congestion, but congestion in London is now as bad if not worse than it was before the congestion charge was
introduced, but just think how many more people can get into London now as a result I And what the level of congestion
would have been like if nothing had been done to check it.
Getting more people throughout on roadways is the daily work of most transportation planners. Unfortunately the
micro modelling looks at movement of vehicles and how to set the lights etc and the lanes to make sure they move
efficiently. The macro modelling looks at trips and assigns them to vehicles according to a car occupancy assumption
and a vehicle mix assumption of passenger vs commercial vehicles. You can model HOV lanes, they just need a bit more
work as they are effectively a parallel corridor with different assumptions on car occupancy.
PsI checked with Eric miller yesterday to confirm that the models used for the Gardiner work do not allow for people to
change their time of day of travel so people are being artificially constrained to peak time travel if they travel in the
peak now.
HOV lanes
The great thing about HOV lanes is that they are also by definition bus lanes, hence they address the somewhat valid
concerns that purely bus lanes are a waste of valuable roads pace given a low frequency of buses.
The issue for the Gardiner east is who would an HOV lane work for? Yes, for car sharers, as there are carpool parking
lots further up the 404 and DVP plus HOV already on the corridor. Interestingly, GO uses this corridor a lot, bringing
people down from Markham etc.
There is also the EA done by Arup for Metrolinx a couple of years ago that looked at options for building bus bypass
lanes on the DVP. These would be new lanes.
Most new HOV lanes in North America are new lanes, something that is seen as politically necessary. The Gardiner
should not be new lanes, rather getting more out of the existing infrastructure by continuing the existing investment
and commitment to HOV and bus lanes further up the corridor.
At the heart of this is that fact that the Gardiner gives private vehicles all too easy access to the heart of downtown. This
is valuable real estate and we should not be providing for this. Parking cost is already high in downtown but people stilt
come, showing the value for some of the convenience. So we should milk the inelasticity of this demand and toll the
downtown off ramps in the peak. As a concession, we should not toll before say 7am. This is an incentive for people to
travel at other times, inducing a corporate culture change that will be necessary if we are to get better use of a two way
all day GO service and make the best use of our infrastructure and not just plan our infrastructure for the peak of the
peakiest peak which in my opinion is wasteful. This is behind my idea of freeb47 for transit, to warm people up to the
concept of demand management through price incentives.
Page 1044 of 1092

This is alii have done my my subway trip. I will write more policy examples of bus use and HOV use and other policy
levers after my 9.30 meeting.
Hilary
Sent from my iPad
viruses
Page 1045 of 1092

Page 1 of 1
8 Print This Paae Text View HTML VIew Close This Page
Thoughts#2
From: Hilary Holden
To: Jennifer Keesmaat; Daniel Fusca
Create Date: Jun 10, 201 5 9:54:41 AM

1. Road Space Reallocation : Roadway Design and Management To Support Transportation
Alternatives http : //www .vtpi .org/tdm/tdm56.htm
2. Local e:-:ample of roadspace reallocation. EA for Queens Quay strongly came out in favour of
roadspace reallocation from joint running to transit , walking/cycling and two fewer car lanes. Due
to open this month . Arup design . Arup EA . WT client. Ground breaking.
Hilary Holden
Associate Principal Head of Transportation Consulting in Canada
Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto Ontario H4W lAS Canada
t +1 416 515 0915 ext 24495 d +1 647 260 3495
f +1 416 515 1635 c +1 647 922 6357
www . arup.com<http : //www.arup.com/>
twitter @HilaryHolden
[http~//europecomms . arup . com/animatie/jpeg/part01.jpg]<http://video . arup . com / ?v1_cd3o3h25>

https://emailarchive.toronto.ca/SilverDaneWeblhelpContents/Help/Print.jsp?ihv=False 11/23/2016
Page 1046 of 1092

Jennifer Keesmaat
From: Hilary Holden <Hilary.Holden@arup.com>
Sent June-10-15 9:55AM
To: Jennifer Keesmaat Daniel Fusca
Subject Thoughts#2
1. Road Space Reallocation: Roadway Design and Management To Support Transportation Alternatives
http://www. vtpi.orgltdrnltdm56.htm
2. Local example of roadspace reallocation. EA for Queens Quay strongly came out in favour of roadspace
reallocation from joint running to transit, walking/cycling and two fewer car lanes. Due to open this month. Arup
design. Arup EA. WT client. Ground breaking.
Hilary Holden
Associate Principal I Head of Transportation Consulting in Canada
Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto Ontario M4 W I AS Canada
t +I 416 515 0915 ext 24495 d +I 647 260 3495
f +I 416 515 1635 c +I 647 922 6357
www.arup.com
h~itter @HilaryHolden
[!] = - -

Page 1047 of 1092

James Perttula

To: Kristin Olson; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles {Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi Kristin,
The fare savings component is calculated based on the difference in the average fares between every 0-D pair in the 'Do Something' compared to a
'base'. So when we test SmartTrack, there's a large amount of OD pairs which without SmartTrack would include a GO fare but once STat TTC
fares is introduced the average fare is reduced. This average fare is based on a set of 'feasible' paths that travelers would take, according to the
model, in each scenario.
This is why you see a large 'fare savings benefit' in the ST options.
Does that help clarify?
Felipe
From: Kristin Olson [maflto:kolson@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo; Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles (Eyles204@btinternet.com)
Hi all,
Kristin
Page 1048 of 1092

To: Karen Thorburn
Cc: Mike Wehkind; Michael Hain; Kristin Olson; Stella Gustavson; James Perttula; Diana Chu; Leo Eyles ( Eyles204@btinternet.com),
Hi Karen,
Please find attached an updated powerpoint file with the summary results of the economic assessment of all tested options, now including the latest
model outputs provided by the City Planning team last night and this morning.
In addition to the changes made to the relief line options, there is a very small change in the Eglinton East LRT numbers that result from adjusting
the assumed opening year to 2025. in line with the assumption for SSE Express. The NPV and BCR for Eglinton East don 't change as a result of this.
In the interest of time we have not yet updated the sensitivity test charts that are included in the last couple of slides. But please let me know if you' ll
need them and we will update and forward those too.
Cheers.
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSL

Arup
:! Bloor Street Ea..,t Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4 W I AS Canada
l: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
Explore mno\ .Ilion in lhc built cnvtronmcnl on Doggerel

2
Page 1049 of 1092

James Perttula

Sent: June-17 16 8:59AM
To: Trajce Nikolov
Subject: RE: Confidential ~ Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief Line
Hi Trajce,
Sorry, got confused there. From a few days ago we only have 2041 numbers for the RL to Sheppard so we will need 2031 numbers, or an assumption
of growth between the two years, to be able to estimate the benefits.
Thanks,
Felipe

Subject: RE: Confidential- Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief line
Thanks Trajce,
There's another set of tables that Michael has sent us before which include a summary of total VKTs and fare revenues (files called "Business Case
Output June xx 2016"), would you be able to send me those too, please?
For the 'to Sheppard' option I see in the spreadsheet we have only 2041 results. Will you be sending new numbers for 2031 for that option or should
we just leave the numbers Michael sent us a few days ago?
Page 1050 of 1092

Cheers,
Felipe
From: Trajce Nikolov [mailto:tnikolo@toronto.ca ]

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Confidential - Updated Travel Time Savings - Relief Une
Felipe,
Attached are the most up-to-date travel time savings for the Relief Line, for both 2031 and 2041. Note that this doesn't include SmartTrack. Let me know if there
is anything else you need.
Trajce

E mail: tnikolo@toronto.ca
Phone: 416.338.2562

Page 1051 of 1092

James Perttula

Subject: RE: Confidential- Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief line
Attachments: Additional RL Business Case- June 17, 2016- DRAFT.xlsx
Hi Felipe,
Apologies for the slight delay! Attached is the VKTs and fare revenues tables that you asked for. We will call shortly to discuss!
Trajce

To: Trajce Nikolov
Hi Trajce,
Sorry, got confused there. From a few days ago we only have 2041 numbers for the RL to Sheppard so we will need 2031 numbers, or an assumption
of growth between the two years, to be able to estimate the benefits.
Thanks,
Felipe

1
Page 1052 of 1092

Subject: RE: Confidential - Updated Travel Time Savings Relief line
Thanks Trajce,
Output June xx 2016"), would you be able to send me thoo;e too, please?
Cheers,
Felipe
From: Trajce Nikolov (mailto:tnikolo@toronto.cal

To: Felipe Camargo
Subject: Confidential - Updated Travel Time Savings Relief Line
Felipe,
Attached are the most up-to-date travel time savings for the Relief Line, for both 2031 and 2041. Note that this doesn't include SmartTrack. Let me know if there
Trajce

Phone: 416.338.2562
Page 1053 of 1092


Page 1054 of 1092


2031 Base 2,614,300
AQ 2,625,100
EQ 2,627,900

Scenario Auto Share
2031 Base 0.5535
AQ 0.5531
EQ 0.5531
Daily Revenue
Scenario GO
2031 Base $ 2,963,540
AQ $ 2,945,789
EQ $ 2,949,370
Page 1055 of 1092

Scenario Volume
2031 Base 40,130
AQ 34,230
EQ 36,700
Daily VKTs
Scenario VKTs
2031 Base 156,429,830
AQ 156,366,390
EQ 156,382,800
TTC/SmartTrack
$ 3,819,838
$ 3,850,982
$ 3,857,550
Page 1056 of 1092

Scenario Transfers
2031 Base 10,336
AQ 4,581
EQ 7,327
Average Transfers Daily

2031 Base 1.811
AQ 1.776
EQ 1.775
Page 1057 of 1092

James Perttula

To: Trajce Nikolov
Subject: RE: Confidential- Updated Travel Time Savings- Relief Line
Thanks Trajce,
Output June xx 2016"), would you be able to send me those too, please?
Cheers,
Felipe

To: Felipe Camargo
Felipe,
Attached are the most up-to-date travel time savings for the Relief line, for both 2031 and 2041. Note that this doesn't include SmartTrack. let me know if there
Page 1058 of 1092

Trajce

E mail: tnikolo@toronto.ca
Phone: 416.338.2562

Page 1059 of 1092

James Perttula

To: James Perttula
Subject: FW: Accessibility numbers for RL
FYI

Hi all,
The Relief Line options we've tested are consistent with what in the pdf are labelled as B I and 82, but there are a few more options there.
Is the idea to only update what we have (i.e. redo 81 and 82) or do you want us to code and run the other options too?
Redoing 8 1 and B2 should be fairly quick to code and would take about 32 hours to run (2 options x 2 time periods x 2 base cases (with/without ST
Opt C) x -4hrs/run) plus about another 2 hours of post-processing. So, assuming computers cooperate we'd have results to share with you by Friday
afternoon.
We haven't tested the other options before so they'd need to be coded from scratch, which would take longer (maybe 2-3 hours to code. plus the
additional run time).
Please advise,
Felipe
Page 1060 of 1092

To: Felipe Camargo
Hello Felipe,
We have gone back to the original station to station travel time assumptions for the Relief Line for the portion south of Danforth (attached, sorry for the
scan). You might have these from the first time you calculated accessibility numbers for us. The travel time assumptions for north of Danforth have not
changed from what we have sent you most recently.
The headways are being adjusted to 2min (peak) /3min (offpeak).
We are shifting the station location in Emme to more correctly reflect its currently planned location north of Danforth Ave.

M.
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.coml

Sent: June-1416 5:23PM
To: Karen Thorburn
Subject: Re~ Accessibility numbers for RL
Hi Karen,
Thanks,
Felipe
On Jun 14,2016, at 5:08PM, Karen Thorburn <kthorbu@toronto.ca> wrote:
Hi Felipe
We will have new numbers for the accessibility calculator. Mike Wehkind copied will be sending an email with the updated
assumptions on the RL headways.
2
Page 1061 of 1092

Thanks
Karen

Page 1062 of 1092

James Perttula

To: 'Felipe Camargo'; Mike logan
Hi Felipe,
Mike is referring to these assumptions for use in EgE LAT. 1ve asked our TTC group to take a look at the assumptions. We may just
have a gap in the Eg E LRT analysis depending on confidence in using the same assumptions that were used for the EgW LRT
analysis. Will get back to you on this.
Thanks,
Karen

To: Mike logan; Karen Thorburn
Hi Mike,
Thanks,
Felipe
Page 1063 of 1092

From: Mike logan fmailto:mlogan@toronto.ca ]
Karen,
We have been advised by MX that they have assumed O&M costs of $49 million/year (we assume 2015$, as all other assumptions they provided to us) for Phase
2 of the Eglinton West lRT, with a discount rate of 3.5%. See attached email.
Mike

Cc: Mike logan; Michael Hain; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Karen Thorburn; Diana Chu
Subject: Follow up
Hi Felipe,
In follow up:
Attached are the confidential draft capital cost estimates for Eg E LAT. Password is the same as last. We don't have O&M numbers
for this project unfortunately.
City Planning is to provide the updated ridership numbers for you as soon as possible (Monday morning latest?)
Page 1064 of 1092

Set up a briefing to go through full results of economic case with key senior staff. I will look to get a time set up for end of day
Tuesday or early Wednesday.
Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required, based on availability of other inputs, time
and resources.
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
Tel: 416-392-2720
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confideflfial, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or
copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an iflfended recipient is mw11thorized. If yo11 receive this e-mail in error, please
advise me.

Page 1065 of 1092

James Perttula

Sent: June-06-1610:01 AM
To: Mike Logan; Karen Thorburn
Hi Mike,
Thanks,
Felipe
From: Mike Logan (mailto:mlogan@toronto.ca]

Karen,
We have been advised by MX that they have assumed O&M costs of $49 million/year (we assume 2015$, as all other assumptions they provided to us) for Phase
2 of the Eglinton West LRT, with a discount rate of 3.5%. See attached email.
Mike
Page 1066 of 1092

Cc: Mike logan; Michael Hain; James Perttula; Peter Notaro; Karen Thorburn; Diana Chu
Subject: Follow up
Hi Felipe,
In follow up:
Attached are the confidential draft capital cost estimates for Eg E LAT. Password is the same as last. We don't have O&M numbers
for this project unfortunately.
City Planning is to provide the updated ridership numbers for you as soon as possible (Monday moming latest?)
Set up a briefing to go through full results of economic case with key senior staff. I will look to get a time set up for end of day
Tuesday or early Wednesday.
Based on outcome of briefing we may consider whether additional analysis is required, based on availability of other inputs, time
and resources.
Karen
2-2720
Karen Thorburn
2
Page 1067 of 1092

Tel: 416-3922720
This e~mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or
copying of this e~mail or the information it contains by other than an illfended recipient is wwutlwrized. If you receive this e~mail in error, please
advise me.

Page 1068 of 1092

James Perttula

To: Mike Logan
Cc: James Perttula
Subject: FW: Transit Business Case work - Follow-up to May 19th teleconference
Can we connect at 11 am to run through the list?

Cc: Ryan Falconer; Leo Eyles {Eyles204@btinternet.com); Michael Hain
Hi Karen, Mike,

Base Case: During a telephone conversation between Michael Haine and Felipe Camargo, it was found that there was some confusion
between the teams regarding the definition of a 'base case'. At the meeting held on April 291h, it was agreed that a single base case would be
used for all options, which included GO RER as the base for SmartTrack. However, the City Planning team was working under the
Accessibility/connectivity Analysis: All options have been coded in the accessibility model and runs are complete for the GO-RER base case,
and currently underway for the 'Option B Base Case'. The runs, which take approximately 48 hours for all the scenarios, should be complete
tonight.
o Input Data:
Economic Benefits: An evaluation spreadsheet to estimate benefits as described in the methodology note circulated earlier has been prepared
and is ready to receive inputs.
o Input Data:
Opening year assumptions for the projects have not been provided by the city as of the date/time of this email.
Page 1069 of 1092

Please note that although we are making our best efforts to have results ready by the end of May, if we don' t have the missing information by close
of Tuesday 24 May it will not be possible to generate outputs within the timescales.
Regards,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Associate I Transponation Consulting
Arup
2 Bloor Street Ea..,L Suite 2-lOO Toronto ON M4W I AS C.mad.1
l: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
Explore innovution 111 the huilt cn\'ironmclll on Doggerel

Page 1070 of 1092

James Perttula

To: Hilary Holden
Cc: Rishi lukka; James Perttula; Tim laspa
Attachments: 2015-08-27 Draft Arup WithinReach scope for CoT vll.docx
Hi Hilary.
Attached is a slightly modified version of the scope of work. Generally speaking, the work looks fine, I would only suggest we extend the timescales
a little bit (to 8 weeks, but I think we could start giving you results by around week 4), if that works for you. The rest of the adjustments are on the
wording.
I'll start estimating a budget for the work and will finalize it once we agree the scope. I should be able to get you an initial estimate tomorrow so we
can start talking about that too.
For the fee proposal I will set up a short proposal letter including a brief description of the methodology, proposed team. rates and total fee and we
can attach to it the agreed scope of work.
Thanks,
Felipe
PS: Yes, it would be great to work together on defining the specified analysis areas. I will mention that in the methodology section.
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street Ec1.-.t Suite 2400 Toronto ON M..J. W I A8 C.mad.t
l: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + l 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
1
Page 1071 of 1092

From: Hilary Holden [mailto:hholden@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Rishi lukka; James Perttula; Tim Laspa
Yes Tuesday would be good for a final quote as I realize your internat sign off procedures. The sooner the better really. If you have any questions on the draft
scope perhaps we can do some too-ing and froing over the next couple of days. We can help define the areas we specify, for example we have GIS layers for
NIAs.
Hilary
Sent from my iPad
Hi Felipe
3. To provide me with the details of the work done for Metrolinx at the kickoff of WlthinReach that showed that there
Thank Felipe
Hilary
Hilary Holden
2
Page 1072 of 1092

City of Toronto
416 338 2577 J hholden@toronto.ca
From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo @aruo.coml

To: Hilary Holden
Hi Hilary,
the team you're working with. Looks like you guys are extremely busy!
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street Ea~t Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W I A8 Canada
t: +1416 515 0915 d: +I 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
Page 1073 of 1092

From: Hilary Holden (mailto :hholden@toronto.ca)
Sent: Wednesday~ August 19, 2015 12:57 PM
To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Rishi lukka; Tim laspa
Brilliant. 2P1 floor east tower.

4to4.45pm.
H
Hilary Holden
City of Toronto
From: Felipe Camargo (rnailto:Felipe.Camargo @arup.coml

To: Hilary Holden
Hi Hilary,
there.
Thanks,
Felipe
Page 1074 of 1092

Hi Felipe
There is great interest here in WithinReach. If the City were to use it, the need is urgent.
Hilary
<imageOOl.jpg>Director, Transit & Sustainable Transportation

Toronto, ON MSH 2N2

<2015-08-26 Draft Arup WithinReach scope for CoT vl.O.docx>
Page 1075 of 1092

AmP Scope o!Worl!: mft VJ:rsizl.!U A!!wst 5:27 2015
The City ofToronto is seeking to procure the services of Arup to undertake a location and network
analysis of a number of proposed transit improvement projects using the Witl1iRResdl CBRAectivity
EillalliHefeonnl!divity Anahryis Toolkit t hP.v have developed. It will provide us with an additional layer of
information, strengthening the foundation for our evidence-based decision-making .
Non Competitive Procurement: ~e! !l JJtditionlg the AAner;,t.ioo of basic GIS

transit travel catchment maps to/from a single node~ it-the toolkit can also do advanced connectivity
analysis for the entire city region. It calculates the transil1ervke density ror :~nyg ivf' n M in! in the GTHA.
based on calculations ~ tw ee n approximate ly l S.QOO network nodes (sene rally compostd of ro-ad
lnternttions and t rans<t stops) as well as the charn::e ~In connectivity from am !Gt of pofnts
l!ll~~ILI!!!Jl.~tion Arf'a Ct!nlroids.Jor in~t ancq.l to any ~.!.l.l!Jt~.!Lnati.9.!!Jl1J.!!.t.!...i!.'"..!l.~ ealti.J
f3siti til'~, schg.pls, emolpyml'!n! an<~ 1 in t he G TI-IA~eda~M~ien&-a~5fioot~1HA
~~ . Arup has developed this tool and a similar tool is not
a\lailable from any other firm for the City to use within the timeframe that we need to apply its outputs.
Timescale: eight weeks. with Qrogressive delivm oU li .,.. e-e~~ results starting on week four
Deliverables: The calculator uses TransCAD software . The Transportation Planning team in City Planning
has no el!perience of using TransCAO but regularly uses ArcGIS. To speed up delivery, we ask that Arup
run the calculator and provide the City with the output matrices for input Into ArcGIS. We ask that they
are produced on a batch basis so that we can make a start mapping the data In our house style and to
inform our ongoing analysis.
Task 1: How do the following transit Improvements improve GTHA transit connectivity:
Rl
Rl+ SSE
RER vS.l
RERvS.l+ST
RERvS.l + ST +SSE
RERvS.l + ST +SSE + Rl
RERvS.l + ST + RL
RERvS.l + Rl
RERv5.2
RERv5.2 + Rl
Task 1: For all of the above network scenarios, who Is within reach of:
la. Top Priority:
UTSC
Scarborough Hospital (3030 Lawrence Ave. El
Page 1076 of 1092

Sea rborough Oistrict
Neighbourhood fmprovement Areas
Pearson Airport terminals
Airport Corporate Centre
Uberty Village
lb. Secondary Priority+
University ofToronto
UTM
York University
York University satellite campus at Markham
Ryerson
Union Stat ion
Fini!ndal Core
TOcore area
Appendix A: What Is WithiRRe11mThe Connectivity Anal ~sis Toolkit?
'Hitll i R~I'IThe Connectiv1ty Analysis Toolkit helps Identify service gaps by forecasting
geographic and demographic coverage. Jt hel~s identi!vpeportunities. to travel and j~ outputs, _-~-_ ~atted! Font Not Bold
wou ld be expected to_~e~red-.!!,~.!!,alongside forecast ridership_!W!.~.!I;l!nln~!!.r!.Q!.tl.: __ ~~,' Fonnalted! Font Not Bold, Italic
WithiAReechlt;e Connectivity Analysis Toolkit informs the foltowing questions: ', ,,, , fa nnatted: Font Not Bold
~
o Who benefits from new transit? And how much time do they save? ~'::,'
,, fonnatted: Font Not Bold
o Whal areas are well covered by transit?~e are there 'transit deserts'? ,,,,,. \
,, fonnalted: Font Not Bold

o Which and how many Aew-destinattons are within a reasonabte !user-specified! travel
,,
I
time of any !o~atlon in the GTI:JA? lf.or example, !towmaoy jobs are within Saof45 Fonnatted: Font Not Bold
I \
-
\
minutes travel lime, and how this chan,g,e with different network assump tions?!l I
Fonnatted: Font Not Bold
o How many ffiEiffi-people are within an acceptable travel time of major destinatiOns and FonnaUed: Font Not Bold
OOwdo_e!>!t com pare between scenarios? (for example, how many people are within 30
!!!.l!!..!:!..tes Ira nsit !!i!Y!!ltime of a hospit'!_l and how does it change with different network
assumptions?}
I) W ~lal i~ ~~~e impatt er a tJaRSfeF?
WithiAReachThe Connectivity Analysis Toolkit has been developed in partnership with MetroPnx
WithiRReechThe Connectivity Analysis Toolkit is a tool that allows M etrolinx lo undertake
consistent connectivity analyseis kHH!as part of the new Business Case guidance.
WithifllleeEh!!le t;_onnettivity Anai'C sis Toolkit is based on theuses TransCAO software and
generales ~tabu lar anQ.&~m!!b&outpu l! ~(~-an d data
tables and matrices)
Page 1077 of 1092

City Planning does not have experience ofTransCAO but the outputs could be provided to us in
database or ESRI Shape format for us to present
The base year transit network is built using current GTFS data (inputs to Google maps)
New transit lines can be added to represent an enhanced transit network
Population and employment growth is upscaled according to the forecast year
The base drive time comparisons can be created, but not future drive times as there is no
method of simulating future drivetimes.
The tool is g m ell!1v being <!Ebpte~ enhanced at lhe me~en.,..!or Metrolinx to ~
the impacts of various new fare integration ideas w. for example.-8* an idea of how far you can
travel within $ travel budgets or a single TTC token.
Page 1078 of 1092

James Perttula
From: Hilary Holden

Cc: Rishi Lukka; Tim Laspa; James Perttula
Attachments: 2015-08-26 Draft Arup WithinReach scope for CoT v1.0.docx
Hi Felipe
3. To provide me with the details of the work done for Metrolinx at the kickoff of WithinReach that showed that there were no pre-existing tools available
to undertake this advanced connectivity analysis.
Thank Felipe
Hilary
Hilary Holden
City of Toronto

To: Hilary Holden
Hi Hilary,
It was good to see you last week. Thanks for inviting us to come over to talk about 'WithinReach', it was good to meet the team you're working
with. Looks like you guys are extremely busy!
Page 1079 of 1092

Anyway, just a quick note to reiterate that if you or Tim have more specific ideas as to what analyses you need, let me know and we can set up some
examples of how the 'WithinReach' tools might help.
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo MSt

Arup
1 Bloor Street East Smtc 2400 Toronto ON M4W I A8 Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +1 647 260 3474
m: + 1 647 537 4665
www .arup.com
Explore innovation in the built cnvtronmcnl on Doggerel
From: Hilary Holden l maHto:hholden@toronto.ca]

To: Felipe Camargo
Brilliant. 21st floor east tower.

4 to4.4Spm.
H
Hilary Holden
City of Toronto
2
Page 1080 of 1092

From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camamo @arup.coml
Sent: August1915 12:00 PM
To: Hilary Holden
Hi Hilary,
Sounds very interesting, I'm busy but I can make time to be there today at 4pm. Just let me know where to find you and I'll be there.
I can bring a couple of slides we prepared for the Arup event a few weeks ago and I can talk to the team about how it works and what it could be used for.
Thanks,
Felipe
Hi Felipe
Hilary
<imageOOl.jpg>Director, Transit & Sustainable Transportation

Toronto, ON MSH 2N2
Page 1081 of 1092

Page 1082 of 1092

Arup Scope of Work: draft version 1.0 August 26 2015
The City of Toronto is seeking to procure the services of Arup to undertake a location and network
analysis of a number of proposed transit improvement projects using the WithinReach connectivity
calculator. It will provide us with an additional layer of information, strengthening the foundation for
our evidence-based decision-making.
Non Competitive Procurement: WithinReach can produce basic GIS transit travel catchment maps
to/from a single node but it can also do advanced connectivity analysis for the entire city region. It
calculates the increase in connectivity between 15,000 nodal intersections across the GTHA with and
without the proposed transit node. Arup has developed this tool and a similar tool is not available from
any other firm for the City to use within the timeframe that we need to apply its outputs.
Timescale: 3-6 weeks
Deliverables: The calculator uses TransCAD software. The Transportation Planning team in City Planning
has no experience of using TransCAD but regularly uses ArcGIS. To speed up delivery, we ask that Arup
run the calculator and provide the City with the output matrices for input into ArcGIS. We ask that they
are produced on a batch basis so that we can make a start mapping the data in our house style and to
inform our ongoing analysis.
Task 1: How do the following transit improvements improve GTHA transit connectivity:
Rl
Rl +SSE
RER vS.l
RER vS.l + ST
RERvS.l + ST +SSE
RERvS.l + ST +SSE+ RL
RERvS.l + ST + RL
RERvS.l + RL
RERv5.2
RERv5.2 + RL
Task 1: For all of the above network scenarios, who is within reach of:
la. Top Priority:
UTSC
Scarborough Hospital (3030 Lawrence Ave. E)
Scarborough District
Neighbourhood Improvement Areas
Pearson Airport terminals
Page 1083 of 1092

Airport Corporate Centre
Liberty Village
lb. Secondary Priority:
University of Toronto
UTM
York University
York University satellite campus at Markham
Ryerson
Union Station
Financial Core
TOcore area
Appendix A: What is WithinReach?
Wi t hinReach helps identify service gaps by forecasting geographic and demographic coverage to
be presented alongside forecast ridership.
WithinReach informs the fo llowing questions:
o Who benefits from new transit? And how much time do they save?
o Which new destinations are within a reasonable travel time? Say 45 minutes?
o How many more people are within an acceptable travel time of major destinations
o What is the impact of a transfer?
WithinReach has been developed in partnership with Met rotinx
WithinReach is a tool that allows connectivity analysis to be part of the new Business Case
guidance.
WithinReach uses TransCAD software to output GIS data (as maps and data matrices)
City Planning does not have experience ofTransCAD but the out puts could be provided to us in
database format for us to present
The base transit network is built using current GTFS data (inputs to Google maps)
New transit lines can be added to represent an enhanced transit network
Population and employment growth is upscaled according to the forecast year
The base drive time comparisons can be created, but not future drive t imes as there is no
method of simulating future drivetimes.
The tool is being adapted at the moment for Metrolinx to model the impacts of various new fare
integration ideas to get an idea of how far you can travel within$ travel budgets or a single TIC
token.
Data can be output as a map or a database.
Page 1084 of 1092

James Perttula
From: Hilary Holden

To: Felipe Camargo
Cc: Rishi Lukka; James Perttula; Tim Laspa
Yes Tuesday would be good for a final quote as I realize your internal sign off procedures. The sooner the better really. If you have any questions on the draft
scope perhaps we can do some too-ing and fro-ing over the next couple of days. We can help define the areas we specify, for example we have GIS layers for
NIAs.
Hilary
Sent from my iPad
Hi Felipe
3. To provide me with the details of the work done for Metrolinx at the kickoff of Within Reach that showed that there
Thank Felipe
Hilary
Page 1085 of 1092

Hilary Holden
City of Toronto
From: Felipe Camargo fmailto:Felipe.Camargo@arug .com]

Sent: August-2515 11:25 AM
To: Hilary Holden
Hi Hilary,
the team you ' re working with. Looks like you guys are extremely busy!
Cheers,
Felipe
Felipe Camargo l'vlSc

Arup
2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4\V I AS Canada
t: +1 416 515 0915 d: +I 647 260 3474
m: +1 647 537 4665
www.arup.com
E'\plorc tnnovation Ill the huilt environmenl on Doggerel
Page 1086 of 1092

From: Hilary Holden lmailto:hholden@toronto.cal
To: Felipe Camargo
Brilliant. 21st floor east tower.

4to 4.45pm.
H
Hilary Holden
City of Toronto
From: Felipe Camargo lmaiJto:FeUpe.Camargo @arup.com]

To: Hilary Holden
Hi Hilary,
there.
Thanks,
Felipe
Page 1087 of 1092

Hi Felipe
Hilary
<image001.jpg>Director, Transit & Sustainable Transportation

Toronto, ON MSH 2N2

<2015-08-26 Draft Arup WithinReach scope for CoT vl.O.docx>
"
Page 1088 of 1092
Page 1089 of 1092
Page 1090 of 1092
Page 1091 of 1092
Page 1092 of 1092

Arup FOI PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Arup FOI PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Karen Thorburn

From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>

Felipe Camargo MSc

Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel

Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business

From: Karen Thorburn

From: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>

James, Paul, Rick,

Thank you all for your help,

Felipe Camargo MSc

Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel

From: Karen Thorburn

Journey Time Benefits PV of Journey Time Benefits

From: Karen Thorburn

From: Felipe Camargo <Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>

Felipe Camargo MSc

Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel

Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business

From: Karen Thorburn

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.

From: Karen Thorburn

From: Karen Thorburn

For this morning at 11 am.

1. overview of economic case measures and methodology

From: Karen Thorburn

From: Karen Thorburn

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.

From: Mike Logan

Mike logan, MCIP RPP

From: Ka ren Thorburn

Unfortunately, I can't make schedules work for 10:30am or 1:30pm on Friday.

Would 3:30pm at City Hall be an option?

From: Karen Thorburn

From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com]

James, Paul, Rick,

Thank you all for your help,

Felipe Camargo MSc

Explore in nO\ ation in the huilt environment on Doggerel

From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo @arup.com >

From: Felipe Camargo

James, Paul, Rick,

Thank you all for your help,

Felipe Camargo MSc

Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel

Thanks for the spreadsheet.

From: Felipe Camargo [mailto :Felipe.Camargo@arup.com]

James, Paul, Rick,

Thank you all for your help,

Felipe Camargo MSc

Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel

From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo@arup.com >

From: James.Fraser@ttc.ca [mailto :James.Fraser@ttc.ca]

Thanks for the spreadsheet.

From: Felipe Camargo [mailto:Felipe.Camargo@arup.com ]

Felipe Camargo MSc

Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel

From: Felipe Camargo < Felipe.Camargo@arup.com>

From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:Karen .Thorburn@toronto.ca]

From: Karen Thorburn

Hi Felipe let's connect monday

I've been in meetings most of the afternoon

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network.

From: Karen Thorburn [mailto:Karen.Thorburn@toronto.ca]