Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

RELIEF LINE Public and Stakeholder Consultation
Phase 3 Summary Report
RELIEF LINE
PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Public and Stakeholder Consultation
DRAFT
October 2015

DRAFT – October 2015 2
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................3
Background..................................................................................................................................................3
Purpose of Report........................................................................................................................................3
2. CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................4
Communication and Promotional Tactics....................................................................................................4
Consultation Resources ...............................................................................................................................6
Consultation Activities.................................................................................................................................7
3. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK......................................................................................................9
Results of the Potential Station Location Evaluation................................................................................ 10
Potential Corridors.................................................................................................................................... 12
4. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP ............................................................................................................ 15
5. NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A – June 9 SAG Meeting Minutes
Appendix B – Public Comments

1. INTRODUCTION
Background
The City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) are conducting the Relief Line Project
Assessment to identify a preferred alignment and station locations for a new subway line connecting
downtown to the Bloor-Danforth Subway east of the Don River, between Broadview and Coxwell Stations.
The Project Assessment process is divided into four phases:
1A. Setting the stage / Opportunity and Rationale
2. Long List of Options
3. Short List of Options
4. Recommended Option
Purpose of Report
This report summarizes the communications and consultation activities that were used, as well as the
feedback from stakeholders and the public that were received as a result of those activities, during the first
consultation period within Phase 3 of the RLPA. The first consultation period considered the results of the
potential station area evaluation (completed in Phase 2) and potential Relief Line corridors. The second part
of Phase 3 is anticipated to take place in September, 2015, and will consider an evaluation of the potential
corridors as well as potential alignments within the preferred corridor(s).
This report combines the comments received at the public and stakeholder meetings, through an online
survey, and directly through correspondence. It will form part of the public record, and all public input will
be considered as the study proceeds.
The communication and consultation activities used within Phase 3 of the Project Assessment:
 Provided updates on the Relief Line study, reviewing the need and rationale for the Relief Line as
well as the project assessment and process;
 Presented a synopsis of work completed to date (background studies, existing and future conditions,
evaluation criteria, analysis of station locations, proposed corridors, etc.); and
 Solicited input on the results of the station location evaluation and four potential corridors.
Communication materials were designed to:
 Present information clearly, and in formats that are engaging and accessible to a variety of
audiences;
 Continue building relationships with key stakeholders and the community; and
 Demonstrate transparency, accountability and a spirit of collaboration throughout the project
assessment and process.

The public meeting included interactive
elements that were mirrored online.
2. CONSULTATION PROCESS OVERVIEW
The City has committed to engaging the public in a way that is transparent, collaborative, inclusive and
authentic. The City wants to make it easy for the public to get involved and invites feedback at every stage
of the process – in person and online. Phase 1A of the study engaged the public in the Spring of 2014 on the
development of the Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan that are guiding the study. Phases 1B
and 2 were combined in the winter of 2015, and focused
on the Problem Statement, Rationale for the Project and
a “long list” of potential station area options, and the
development of evaluation criteria.
This report relates to Phase 3 which focused on the
results of the potential station area evaluation and the
development of four potential corridors based on those
results. The public will be further engaged in Phase 4, to
identify a preferred corridor and preferred alignment
with station locations. All of this work is anticipated to be
completed during the winter of 2016.
The process is governed by the City Council approved
Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan. For
Phase 3, key activities included:
 eight public meetings across the city (which
focused on four major transit planning initiatives
underway);
 online engagement; and
 meetings with stakeholders.
Aiming to lower barriers to participation, all in-person consultation was mirrored online through the project
website. Public information and education was extensive, with detailed information provided on the project,
process, study area, evaluation criteria, results of the station location evaluation and four potential
corridors.
Feedback on the four potential corridors and the results of the potential station area evaluation was
received through a sticker-dot exercise, in writing at the public meetings and through an online survey.
Comments were also received by email, phone and mail.
Communication and Promotional Tactics
As part of the public consultation plan for the RLPA, a number of activities were carried out to notify and
promote the project, provide up-to-date information, seek input on the current phase of the study and
answer the public questions.

Project Website
The project website (www.reliefline.ca) has formed the foundation of the communications and consultation
program. The website mirrored face-to-face consultations at public events, with all material displayed and
presented posted online as well as background reports and public notices. For Phase 3 of the study, the
website hosted an online survey to solicit feedback on the potential corridors and the results of potential
station area evaluations including connections to the downtown and Bloor-Danforth subway line.
Newspapers (print and online);
Media advertising, newspapers both print and online, public notices, invitations and media coverage were
used to notify the public about consultation meetings and inform the public about the status of the RLPA
study.
Media Date
Traditional Newspaper Advertisements
Metro News (commuter daily) May 29
24 Hours (commuter daily) May 29
Beach-Riverdale Mirror (local weekly) June 4
East York Mirror (local weekly) June 4
Etobicoke Guardian (local weekly) June 4
Sing Tao (Chinese language weekly) June 4
Senthamarai (Tamil language weekly) June 4
Uthayan (Tamil language weekly) June 4
Scarborough Mirror (local weekly) June 11
Media Releases
City of Toronto, Metrolinx and the TTC hosting joint transit information
sessions
June 10
Toronto seeks input into important transit planning decisions June 22
Councillors
18 Councillors provided with wording to distribute to constituents via e-
blast or blog post
Various dates
TTC System
One-stop Screens June 12-25
2500 postcard fliers distributed at Bloor-Yonge and Scarborough Centre
Stations
June 24-25
Project Email Lists
Relief Line Project Assessment June 8 & 19

Media Date
Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessment June 8 & 19
Social Media
@CityPlanTO – various messages Started on June 12
Various Facebook Groups Started on June 10
Stakeholders
Over 200 stakeholder groups, agencies and community leaders asked to
promote consultation
June 1
Fliers
1600 fliers distributed to businesses along Danforth Ave June 1
Over 200 schools asked to distribute fliers June 1
All Toronto Libraries, Community Centres and other public buildings such
as Civic Centres asked to post flier
June 1
Existing Networks and Mailing Lists;
An email contact list was developed during Phase 1A and Phase 1B/2 consultations. Additional email
contacts were collected during the public open houses. The project team also utilised existing emailing lists
from the Councillors. These email contact lists were used to invite the public to take part in the open
houses.
Online Engagement (social media);
Facebook: The Relief Line is already a topic of discussion for multiple Facebook groups and the City actively
interacted with those existing networks via Facebook.
Twitter: The City did not create a dedicated Twitter handle (user name / account) instead, broadcast key
messages and answer questions via existing City handles including @CityPlanTO and @GetInvolvedTO. A
project-specific hashtag was developed to coordinate conversations on Twitter; #reliefline.
The City has established a Relief Line Project Assessment email list. The public can subscribe and
unsubscribe to this list by visiting the project web page. The City will communicate news about the study
approximately monthly. Updates will include key information about the progress of related TTC and
Metrolinx work, and how the City is collaborating with these agencies. Some feedback was received by email
and is included in this report.
Consultation Resources
The following tools were utilised both at in-person public meetings and were available online.
 Discussion Boards
 Overview Presentation

Stakeholder Advisory Group members
participated in a table mapping exercise
 Public Meeting Panels and Four Corridor Maps
 Feedback Comment Form
Consultation Activities
Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
On June 9, 2015 at the Metropolitan United Church, City
consultants and experts presented a recap of the study to
date, results of the evaluation of potential station
locations, and four potential corridors. Members had the
opportunity to discuss and provide feedback on the
potential corridors and station locations through a small
group table mapping exercise. Meeting minutes are
included in this report in Appendix A.
Public Meetings
Eight public meetings were held across the city focused on coordinated transit planning initiatives currently
underway. The four projects presented included GO Regional Express Rail/SmartTrack Background Study,
SmartTrack Eglinton West Feasibility Study, Scarborough Subway Extension Project Assessment and Relief
Line Project Assessment. Three of the eight public meetings were held in the Relief Line study area.
Date Location
June 13, 2015 Burnhamthorpe Collegiate Institute - 500 The West Mall
June 15, 2015 Estonian House - 958 Broadview Avenue
June 17,2015 Spring Garden Baptist Church - 112 Spring Garden Avenue
June 18, 2015 Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School - 99 Humber Boulevard South
June 20, 2015 Hyatt Regency Hotel, Regency Ballroom - 370 King Street West
June 22, 2015 Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute - 2239 Lawrence Avenue East
June 24, 2015 Scarborough Civic Centre - 150 Borough Drive
June 25, 2015 Riverdale Collegiate Institute - 1094 Gerrard Street East
Each of the public open houses included the following activities and materials:
o Evaluation Discussion Boards
Discussion boards provided detailed information on ‘What We Heard During the March
Consultations’, station location evaluation results, results of the evaluation criteria mapped in colour
codes on three separate boards for Downtown Stations, West and East of the Don, and Connection
to Danforth Subway. These boards asked meeting participants to participate in a sticker-dot exercise
on whether they agreed with the results of the evaluation (yes/no) and to provide comments on
why or why not.

o Open House Displays
Open house displays available at the public
meetings focused on each of the four transit
planning initiatives named above and the public
was given the opportunity to freely explore each
of the projects. Subject matter experts were also
present to engage in one-on-one and small group
discussions and answer questions.
o Presentation
The meetings opened with an overview
presentation on each of the key transit studies.
The portion of the presentation that focused on
the Relief Line provided an overview of the study
process and status, key feedback received during
March consultations, an explanation of the
evaluation results of the potential stations and
an explanation of the proposed corridors for
public consideration.
o Questions of Clarification
Following the presentation there was an opportunity for the public to ask questions about the
coordinated transit planning initiatives and the Relief Line study process. Notes summarizing the
questions and answers at each meeting are provided at reliefline.ca.
o Potential Corridors Feedback
The public provided feedback on the potential corridors by participating in a sticker-dot exercise and
by providing comments on table-sized maps or individual worksheets. The final cumulative total of
the sticker-dot exercise following the 8 public meetings is depicted below. These questions were
mirrored online using a survey embedded in the project website.

o Station Locations Feedback
The public provided feedback on the station locations by providing comments on table-sized maps,
display panels, or individual worksheets and via online comments. These questions were mirrored
online using a survey embedded in the project website.
3. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
Many comments and questions were received during Phase 3 of the RLPA through the various consultation
tools and activities demonstrating a great deal of community and stakeholder interest in the Relief Line
Project Assessment study. In reviewing this feedback, there was general agreement with the results of the
potential station location evaluation and there is a strong interest in a route that connects to the Danforth
subway line at Pape Avenue (Corridor B and D). A detailed summary of participant feedback is provided
below.

Results of the Potential Station Location Evaluation
A total of 45 potential station areas were identified and sorted into the following geographical categories:
 Potential Downtown Connections
 Potential Danforth Connections
 Potential Connections East and West of the Don River
The results of the potential station location evaluation were presented and participants were asked whether
they agree with the findings and why or why not. Overall, majority of participants indicated agreement with
the findings for each of the geographical categories.
With respect to the Downtown potential station areas:
 There is support for both King and Queen as potential stations connecting to the Yonge line,
however it was noted that both stations are currently overcrowded.
 There was no consensus on whether there should be a connection to Union station; there are
concerns with existing congestion at Union.
 There was support for a station along Bay St with a tunnel connection an existing station(s) on the
Yonge-University line.
 Consideration of future west subway expansion is a priority.
 Increasing points of access to stations at street level is important.
o A station at Bay Street with entrances/exits to the east and west sides, to the street and
connections within the underground , and to other subway stations was suggested.
With respect to the Danforth potential station areas:
 There was general consensus that a station at Pape is preferred as it accommodates future northern
transit expansion and access to the Greenwood TTC yard, has a large catchment area of riders, and
accommodates a potential station at Gerrard Square.
 There was interest in a station connection further east on the Danforth (e.g. Donlands).
With respect to potential stations east and west of the Don Valley:
 Stations with connections to existing and future transit lines were supported in order to create an
integrated network.
 There was support for stations serving Gerrard Square, Regent Park, St. Lawrence Market, the
Distillery District, West Don Lands, the Unilever site and the Portlands.
 There was support for stations that serve new and future residential and commercial developments.
Comments that were in disagreement with the results of the potential station area evaluation are provided
in the tables below and organized by geographic area. Responses from the study team are included beside
each comment to indicate how they have been considered in the study.

Evaluation Results
Comment Study Team Response
Potential Downtown Stations
A connection at King Station should be shown to have
higher potential (in comparison to Queen Station) as it
is closer to the financial district and Union Station. The
King Street corridor would also better service the West
Don Lands and Unilever site while relieving the
overcrowded King streetcar.
In the Preliminary evaluations, King and Queen
street stations both performed well. Public
feedback reflected this as well: Queen Street was
preferred station at Yonge and King Street was
preferred at University. Further analysis will be
carried out on potential alignments and
conclusions shared for public comment.
The downtown stations should be equidistant between
Union Station and the Bloor line; the potential stations
located further north should be weighted higher than
the potential stations located further south.
Potential station areas, corridors and alignments
are identified using a number of criteria and will
be subject to a comprehensive evaluation to
determine the best route and stations.
Alignment along Wellington is preferred in order to
allow streetcar routes to continue operating during
construction.
This is included as an important consideration in
the evaluation of stations. Mitigation strategies
will be developed in coopration with TTC and
Transportation Services to address all construction
impacts to traffic.
The results of the potential station area evaluation
should have included PATH connections and the
rectangular platform sizes of existing and potential
stations.
This level of detail will be provided when potential
alignments and their stations are being considered
during the next study phase.
Potential Danforth Stations
A connection at Broadview is not supported because:
 it is too close to the Yonge line to provide
adequate relief
 construction may cause disruption to the
critical streetcar service along Broadview.
 Initial technical work indicates that both
Broadview and Pape Stations would provide
desired diversion from the Line 1 south of
Bloor Street. A final evaluation of potential
corridors will be informed by detailed travel
demand modelling that will estimate how
many people would use the Relief Line in each
corridor.
 This is included as an important consideration
in the evaluation of stations. Mitigation
strategies will be developed in cooperation
with TTC and Transportation Services to
address all construction impacts to traffic.
A connection further east on the Danforth line should
be considered:
 as it has better potential for reducing traffic
congestion and would create a more
integrated transit network that will support
long-term development.
 Donlands is currently underused and there is
potential for growth and development around
the station. Donlands also provides a more
direct future connection to Thorncliffe Park.
The evaluation showed that the development
potential around Donlands Station is less than
around Pape Station. There are also significant
barriers to developing the Relief Line south of
Donlands Station. Stations further east, including
Coxwell, do not allow for a future northern
extension to serve Thorncliffe Park. The primary
goal of the Relief Line is to provide maximum relief
at Yonge-Bloor interchange station, therefore
there are better opportunities to capture more

Evaluation Results
 Broadview and Pape stations are already too
congested.
 It would benefit more people and the subway
is already full at Coxwell
passengers at Pape and Broadview.
Potential Stations East and West of the Don Valley
There may be more opportunities for station areas
east of the railway line.
45 potential station areas were considered and
included five potential stations east of the rail
corridor. These 5 generally did not perform as well
as stations nearer to and west of the corridor.
Connecting to Line 2 east of Donlands precludes
the opportunity to extend the Relief Line north to
serve Thorncliffe Park in the future.
Specific station locations should only be determined
after a preferred corridor is selected.
Potential station locations were considered first to
specifically address the anchor points in
downtown and along Danforth. We also evaluated
key activity nodes which might be appropriate
station locations. This process ensures that this
transit investment is positively contributing to the
development of the city by providing transit
service to appropriate locations. Once potential
alignments are developed, station locations will be
adjusted.
A station at Dundas St. and Sumach St. is too far north
to be compatible with the potential corridors.
This station is located within Corridor A.
Neighbourhoods will become congested if stations are
added to established residential areas.
There is no intent to change policies in the OP that
protect the character of stable neighbourhoods.
The evaluation of potential station areas generally
shows these potential station areas as not
performing as well as potential stations in areas
that are currently undergoing change.
There should be more station areas with high potential
in Riverdale/Leslieville
Potential station areas in these neighbourhoods
tend to have less potential due to lower existing
and projected population and employment
densities and less development potential due to
Heritage Conservation Districts and less land
designated for intensification.
Potential Corridors
Four potential corridors were identified and displayed on maps at the public and stakeholder meetings as
well as online in the feedback survey. Participants were asked to indicate their preference for each corridor
on a scale of one to five, with one indicating low preference for the corridor and five indicating high

preference for the corridor. Most participants had a preference for Corridors B and D, and least preferred
Corridors A and C. The results are shown in Appendix B.
The significant comments on each of the potential corridors are provided in the tables below and organized
by potential corridor. Responses from the study team are included beside each comment to indicate how
they have been considered in the study.
Evaluation Results
Corridor A – Broadview to Queen/Richmond
Corridor A would have the shortest route and
therefore the lowest cost.
Rough estimates have been used and will be
refined as the alignment options are developed.
Barriers to construction, property requirements
and environmental mitigation strategies are
examples elements that could cost more.
There are environmental concerns with a route
constructed close to the Don Valley.
The natural environment is an important
consideration in the evaluation of corridors. City
staff have been reviewing the corridors with
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to
understand the environmental concerns and
mitigation strategies that would be appropriate.
Broadview is already well serviced by streetcar routes
and therefore the relief line would be redundant.
The purpose of the Relief Line is to divert as many
riders from Line 1 as possible. The Relief Line
would divert significantly more riders than the 504
Streetcar due to its speed and frequency. There
are no intentions to change surface routes at this
time.
Corridor A does not provide a connection to
SmartTrack. Lack of regional transit connectivity is a
concern.
This is an important consideration in the
evaluation of the potential corridors.
Corridor B – Pape to Queen/Richmond
Alignment along Queen Street better serves tourist
destinations (Eaton Centre, City Hall, Four Seasons
Centre for the Performing Arts, etc.) while still being
close to the financial district.
All types of destinations served will be considered
in the potential corridor evaluation.
Corridor B provides greater social equity benefits
(access to Regent Park) of the two Pape alignment
corridors.
Service to Neighbourhood Improvement Areas is
an important consideration in the evaluation of
potential corridors.
Corridor B is more equidistant between Bloor and
Union, and accommodates future northern transit
expansion.
Destinations served will be considered in the
potential corridor evaluation.
Corridor B is further from the lake and may have
technical benefits in terms of tunnel construction.
Constructability is an important consideration in
the evaluation of potential alignments.

Evaluation Results
Corridor B would serve more areas that are visited
outside of the peak commuting time (e.g. Eaton’s
Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital) compared to Corridor D.
Corridor C – Broadview to King/Wellington
There are environmental concerns with a route
constructed close to the Don Valley.
The natural environment is an important
consideration in the evaluation of potential
corridors. City staff have been reviewing the
corridors with Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority to understand the environmental
concerns and mitigation strategies that would be
appropriate.
Broadview is already well serviced by streetcar routes
and therefore the relief line would be redundant.
The purpose of the Relief Line is to divert as many
riders from Line 1 as possible. The Relief Line
would divert significantly more riders than the 504
Streetcar due to its speed and frequency. There
are no intentions to change surface routes at this
time.
Corridor C is shorter and would provide a more direct
link to the downtown core; however the areas it serves
would be limited.
The evaluation of potential corridors will use a
wide range of measures to determine the
preferred corridor.
Corridor C enables future transit expansion to areas in
need further west including Liberty Village.
Future phases of the Relief Line will be An
important consideration in the evaluation of
potential corridors.
Corridor C is too close to the Yonge line and would
only draw ridership from the east side of Broadview
Station.
All potential corridors will be modelled to help us
understand how each would impact the transit
network.
Corridor D – Pape to King/Wellington via Queen Street
Corridor D adds service to areas of the city that are
currently not served by transit and has potential for
connecting to existing and future transit lines (e.g.
SmartTrack Waterfront East LRT).
How each alignment would improve access to
transit, including connectivity between services,
will be carefully considered.
Corridor D has the potential for stations serving future
development and intensification areas (e.g. Unilever
site, Portlands, West Don Lands, waterfront).
Development potential and opportunities to
support the city's growth strategy are an
important consideration in the comparison of
corridors.
Corridor D has potential for future west expansion to
high density development areas (e.g. Liberty Village,
CityPlace).
Both the King and Queen corridors have the
potential to extend west, but more detailed
technical analysis will inform the evaluation of
corridors
Corridor D connects to the highest employment
density in the downtown core, providing the most
relief during peak commuting hours.
Further technical work will consider which is the
optimal downtown corridor – employment density
will be a strong factor in this work

Evaluation Results
Corridor D provides access to key destinations such as
St. Lawrence Market, Distillery District, and George
Brown College.
Additional Comments
Additional comments and suggestions for the Relief Line corridor and station location analysis include:
 There was strong support for timely completion of the Relief Line Project.
 The Relief Line needs to support long-term growth of the city and consider future planning and
development needs. The route should also be considered in the context of a regional and integrated
transit network.
 Minimizing disruption to existing streetcar service during construction is an important consideration.
It is suggested that construction under Queen and King Street be avoided.
 It was suggested that the Relief Line incorporate express service to the downtown core with
decreased travel time during peak hours.
 Concern was expressed for increased property values/rents in close proximity to the potential
stations. The social cost in terms of impacts to affordable housing in Regent Park should be
considered.
 There was concern for the impacts of the Relief Line on existing residential areas (e.g. noise,
congestion, pollution, property values).
The terminus of the Relief Line should be aligned to allow for expansion West and further South to serve
destinations such as Rogers Centre and the Island Airport pedestrian access before turning North to relieve
Line 2.Please see a full list of all verbatim comments received in Appendix B.
4. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP
The Relief Line Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) is made up of local community leaders (residents, business
and institutions) as well as issue experts. A SAG meeting was held on June 9, 2015 in the Metropolitan
United Church Community Room. 24 participants attended.
At the meeting, the project team gave a presentation summarizing the work to date, the results of the
potential station area evaluation and the four potential corridors. After the presentation, there was a
chance for participants to ask questions.
Participants were then divided into small groups to discuss their preferred corridor, and potential
alignments within that corridor. Groups were given large scale maps of the study area, as well as tools to
help them draw potential alignments – these included scale curve radii and station boxes, radii to show the
catchment area of stations, etc.
See Appendix A for the detailed SAG Meeting Minutes.

5. NEXT STEPS
The consultation period for Phase 4 is anticipated to take place in November 2015. This consultation period
will focus on:
1. Analysis and evaluation of the potential corridors, including the identification of a preferred corridor
2. Identification of potential alignments and station concepts
The preferred corridor will have the highest potential to address the full range of project objectives and city-
building criteria. The potential alignments and their stations will be further evaluated to identify a
recommended alignment.

RELIEF LINE Potential Station Areas
Summary of Preliminary Evaluation Results
RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Appendix A:
June 9 SAG Meeting Minutes

Relief Line Project Assessment Phase 3
Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)
Meeting #2
Tuesday, June 9, 2015 | 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Metropolitan United Church |56 Queen St. East
Meeting Summary - DRAFT
Participants
Craig Nichol Advisory Committee on Accessible Transit
Carlos Benzecyi Bloor-East Neighbourhood Association
Linda Brett Bloor-East Neighbourhood Association
Briar de Lange Bloor-Yorkville BIA
Amin Ali City Youth Council of Toronto
Cameron MacLeod CodeRedTO
Ole Calderone Corktown Residents and Business Association
Stephen Wickens Danforth East Community Association
Berni Campbell Degrassi/Wardell Neighbourhood Group
Lana MacInnes Degrassi/Wardell Neighbourhood Group
Evan M. Weinberg Financial District BIA
Bennet MacNeil First Gulf
Keith Viera Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association
Nicole Beayni Greater Toronto Civic Action Alliance
Marcus Bowman Metrolinx
Gilles Durot The Pocket
Nic de Salaberry Ryerson University
Al Smith St. Lawrence Market Neighbourhood BIA
Laurie Naylor St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
Marion Wingson St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
Jessica Mustachi Toronto Women's City Alliance
Karl Junkin Transport Action Ontario
Mario Silva Toronto District School Board
Suhail Barot TTC Riders
Ryan Kichler Yonge-Dundas Square
Taylor Raths Yonge-Dundas Square
Project Staff
Tim Läspä Director, Transportation Planning
Paul Millett Chief Project Engineer, Engineering, Construction and Expansion
Section, TTC
Stella Gustavson Program Manager, Transit Implementation Unit
1

David Cooper Transit Implementation Unit
Michael Hain Transit Implementation Unit
Charissa Iogna Transit Implementation Unit
Kate Kusiak Transit Implementation Unit
Mike Logan Transit Implementation Unit
Hans Riekko Transit Implementation Unit
Project Consultant Team
Natalia Banoub Argyle Communications
Jim Faught LURA Consulting
Andrew O'Connor HDR Inc.
Nick Shaw HDR Inc.
Brodie Vissers LURA Consulting
Leah Winter LURA Consulting
Mary Zajac Argyle Communications
Also Invited (Meeting minutes will be circulated)
519 Church Street Community Centre
BILD GTA
Cabbagetown South Residents' Association
Cadillac Fairview
Church of the Holy Trinity
Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer
Associations in Toronto
Danforth Mosaic BIA
Distillery Historic District
Downtown Yonge BIA
Eastview Community Centre
Evergreen
Garden District Residents' Association
George Brown College
Gerrard East Community Organization
Gerrard India Bazaar BIA
Gerrard Square
Greek Community of Toronto
GreekTown on the Danforth BIA
Kempton Howard Community Association
Leslieville BIA
Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change
Oxford Properties
Pembina Institute
Regent Park Community Health Centre
Riverside District BIA
Social Planning Toronto
South Riverdale Community Health Centre
The Danforth BIA
Toronto Association of Business Improvement
Areas
Toronto Catholic District School Board
Toronto Centre for Active Transportation
Toronto Region Board of Trade
Urban Land Institute - Toronto
Woodgreen Community Services
Yonge-Bloor-Bay Business Association
1. Agenda Review, Opening Remarks and Introduction
Stella Gustavson, Program Manager, Transportation Planning, City of Toronto welcomed participants to
the second Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting for the Relief Line Project Assessment. The
purpose of the meeting was to report on the results of the potential station area evaluation and seek
input on potential corridors. Mike Logan, Senior Transportation Planner, provided an overview of the
meeting agenda and facilitated a round of introductions. David Cooper, Senior Transportation Planner,
provided an overview of transit planning initiatives and a recap of the study to date. Andrew O’Connor,
HDR Inc., presented the results of the potential station area evaluation and potential corridors.
Participants had the opportunity to ask questions of clarification as well as provide feedback through a
2

small group discussion and mapping exercise. Approximately 24 participants attended the meeting
representing a variety of stakeholder groups.
2. Questions of Clarification
A summary of the Question and Answer period following the presentation is provided below. Questions
are noted with Q, responses are noted by A, and comments are noted by C. Answers were provided by
Stella Gustavson, Tim Läspä (Director, Transportation Planning, City of Toronto) and Paul Millett (Chief
Project Engineer, Engineering, Construction and Expansion Section, TTC).
Questions of Clarification on Station Locations:
Q. What was the methodology used for defining the station area?
A. We used a 500 m radius to define existing and future population and employment. A station could
impact a larger area; we take that into consideration in different ways for different criteria.
Q. At the last SAG meeting we talked about potential routing further north near Dundas and
Gerrard which could serve important destinations such as Ryerson and the Eaton’s Centre. Why
are you only proposing options that are further south?
A. The study area has been focused on the southern part of the downtown core near the financial
district which is the centre of highest employment density. The intention is to provide the
greatest relief function, and part of that is to build the Relief Line closest to the destination of
most riders. The centre of employment density and trip generation is in the area from Queen to
Union.
Q. Is it the intention to take Bloor/Danforth riders and bring them downtown via another corridor?
Broadview station during peak hours is very crowded. Putting another line there would be
confusing. The relief is needed east of Broadview.
A. Ridership modelling is still being finalized. The modelling results will be a significant factor in
determining the preferred corridor.
C. Routing at Broadview station would also provide relief to the surface streetcar network.
Q. One of the concerns in my community is that you can’t get on the trains in the morning at
Woodbine and Coxwell. Broadview is too far west to provide significant relief. Why was the
Donlands area not further considered?
A. As shown in the evaluation tables, Donlands has some issues. We want to restrict construction to
existing rights-of-way as much as possible to avoid impacts to private property. Donlands Ave.
ends at Danforth in a "T" intersection so there would be property impacts south of Danforth as
the tunnel realigns onto a public right-of-way. There is also landfill in the Donlands area. When
doing tunnel boring we have to be cautious of geotechnical constraints and the potential for gases
originating from the landfill.
Q. Has the evaluation framework been updated since the Feeling Congested exercise in the Official
Plan update? There were never any follow up meetings to discuss how the public input was
considered. I am concerned that the evaluation framework was used as a starting point because
there are a lot issues with the framework itself, especially with respect to Social Equity.
3

A. The evaluation framework was developed through the Official Plan review process and it is not
within the scope of the Relief Line project to revisit it. The evaluation criteria presented and
consulted on in Phase 2 were developed specifically for this project based on a broad array of
technical considerations and stakeholder input, using the Feeling Congested framework as a
starting place. Social and gender equity issues are addressed very broadly, not just within the
"social equity" set of criteria. The evaluation criteria developed for the Relief Line Project
Assessment are considered final for this project.
Questions of Clarification on Potential Corridors:
Q. You mentioned corridor A is the shortest route. What are the distances of the potential
corridors?
A. The corridor areas are quite broad. Depending on the alignment that is identified, the distances
would vary.
The following distances were provided after the meeting
Corridor Approximate Length (from Danforth
Terminus to University Avenue)
A 4.6 – 5.1 km
B 5.7 – 6.6 km
C 5.5 km
D 5.8 – 6.6 km
Q. Some of the potential corridors overlap with the Queen Street and King Street streetcar
network. Is the implication that streetcars will be eliminated as a result of a new line?
A. There is no intent to eliminate any streetcar service as part of the Relief Line project.
C. The overlap with existing streetcar routes has not been framed as an advantage or
disadvantage in the routing evaluation. It seems redundant to overlap the Relief Line with
existing streetcar routes, but it could be an opportunity to somewhat reduce the need for
service on some streetcar lines and deploy some of the streetcars to other lines that are in need
across the city.
Q. Are the network impacts during and after construction considered in this corridor selection
process?
A. In the assessment we have considered the potential for impacts to surface transit and traffic
during construction. Depending on the construction methods that are most appropriate, as well
as the preferred alignment that is identified, there may be more or less impact at street level.
Q. There are some proposed projects that would be competing for the same ridership. How do you
protect the service for the users who are already there?
A. Network impacts will continue to be incorporated and we will be providing more detail in the next
phase of the project as the modelling results become available. In terms of the network, we will
be looking at how the corridors impact other lines and proposed projects and how service areas
could overlap.
4

Q. How do these corridors relate to the debate about the Gardiner East? We don’t know the result
of the decision yet, but the decision could result in significant new developments and potential
for construction overlap.
A. The evaluation did take into account the impact of future transit lines and improvements, but we
did not look at how the Relief Line may impact use on the Gardiner. From a strategic perspective,
there is a potential for changing modal split. That is being considered at a broad and strategic
level in the Gardiner study.
Q. If the Gardiner East is replaced and there is more development along the existing corridor,
which potential corridor would best serve those new developments?
A. While the corridors that connect to King/Wellington would probably be better than the ones that
connect to Queen/Richmond, there is a difference between corridors and alignments. At this
stage, we are introducing corridors which are broad bands connecting the Danforth to downtown.
Within each corridor, the potential for the various potential alignments and stations to serve
existing and future development opportunities will need to be considered.
3. Facilitated Small Group Discussion and Mapping Exercise
Participants engaged in small group facilitated discussions on the potential corridors. Each group was
asked to come to a consensus on a preferred corridor. Participants were then given large maps of the
preferred corridor and invited to discuss and illustrate possible alignments and station locations within
that corridor. A summary of key feedback by participants is provided below:
Preferred Corridors:
• Overall, most groups had preference for either Corridor B (Pape to Queen/Richmond) or
Corridor D (Pape to King/Wellington via Queen Street). Both of these corridors include a station
at Pape/Danforth which facilitates a potential northern expansion and provides an efficient link
with the public right-of-way.
• One group table showed a preference for Corridor A (Broadview to Queen/Richmond) and one
table showed a preference for Corridor C (Broadview to King/Wellington).
Preferred Stations:
• Some participants were in support of having two downtown stations that connect to both the
Yonge and University lines while others felt that one centrally located downtown station with
multiple access points would be sufficient.
• There was consistent support for a station at Gerrard Square, providing a connection to
SmartTrack, streetcar, and future development opportunities.
• There was consistent support for stations at Sherbourne and Cherry/Sumach.
• There was some support for a station at the Unilever site.
Top Considerations in Corridor Discussions:
• Providing greatest relief to the transit network
• Access to employment areas
• Connections to other transit routes
• Train operations (speed, curve radius)
• Access to key destinations
5

• Serving areas with development potential
Additional Feedback from Small Group Discussion on Potential Corridors and Potential Stations:
Corridor A:
• Alignment on Adelaide was suggested to provide better access to both the financial
employment district and destinations further north.
• Adelaide alignment would also reduce impacts to existing surface transit.
• Stations on Adelaide at both Yonge and University were suggested.
• A station at Sherbourne/Adelaide was suggested, serving George Brown College and St.
Lawrence Market.
• A station near Sumach/Richmond was suggested.
• A station at Sumach/Dundas was suggested to serve the Regent Park community.
• An elevated crossing over the Don River was suggested.
Corridor B:
• A station on Queen at Bay (or between Bay and Yonge) was suggested, with underground
connections to the Yonge and University lines.
• Alignment along Queen was preferred to increase access to destinations further north (Ryerson,
Eaton’s Centre, hospital, City Hall) while still providing access to the King employment areas.
• A station at Sherbourne/Queen was suggested which would serve George Brown College.
• A station near Regent Park was suggested (near Parliament or Sumach).
• A station at the Unilever site was suggested, in addition to extension of the Broadview streetcar
to the site, to create an interconnected transit hub.
• A station at Queen/Broadview was suggested providing connection to the Queen and Broadview
streetcars.
• There was consistent support for a station at Gerrard Square due to potential connection to
Smart Track.
Corridor C:
• A station at Bay/Wellington was suggested to provide access to key destinations such as Union
Station, UPX, the financial district, Rogers Centre, etc.
• Alignment of corridor C has the potential to serve future development south of Front St. and
along the waterfront.
• Stations at Queen/Broadview, Front/Cherry, and Front/Sherbourne were suggested.
• A station at Broadview/Gerrard would allow streetcar connection opportunities to Ryerson,
hospitals, Gerrard Square, etc.
Corridor D:
• A station between Yonge and Bay on King was suggested.
• A station between Yonge and Bay on Wellington was suggested.
• A station between University and John was suggested.
• A station at King/Sherbourne was supported. It was suggested that the station be located
between King and Front, providing pedestrian access from both King and Front.
• A station at Front/Cherry was supported, providing better access to the Distillery District.
6

• A station at the Unilever site was supported to connect with future employment and
development opportunities, however there were concerns with flooding. Shifting the station to
Eastern Ave was also suggested.
• Some participants showed support for a station at Queen/Carlaw while others showed support
for Queen/Pape.
• A station at Gerrard Square was supported due to potential connection to Smart Track.
4. Wrap Up and Next Steps
The potential corridors presented at the meeting will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria. SAG and
public feedback obtained during the upcoming eight public meetings will inform the evaluation process.
Once a preferred corridor is determined, the project team will be identifying potential alignments for
public review comment in the fall of 2015.
7

Phase 1B/2 Summary Report
RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Appendix B:
Public Comments

Comments on the Results of Potential Station Location Evaluation
1
Comment Theme Source Response
Downtown Station Areas
Disagreement I appreciate that Queen St. appears to be the most favourable route due to its proximity to St. Michael's
Hospital, offices at Yonge and Queen, Hudson's Bay, The Eaton Centre, City Hall and the Sheraton Centre.
However, I am concerned it is too far from the heart of the Financial District and Union Station. The King
Streetcar also has higher ridership than the Queen Streetcar. There must be stations that connect to the
Yonge and University portions Line 1. Maybe placing a station between Bay and Yonge would eliminate the
need for stations in both places.
King Online survey In the Preliminary
evaluations, King and
Queen street stations
both performed well.
Public feedback
reflected this as well:
Queen Street was
preferred station at
Yonge and King Street
was preferred at
University. Further
analysis will be carried
outon potential
alignments and
conclusions shared for
public comment.
Why is a connection at King Station not shown to have as much potential as Queen Station? King St. is a
popular streetcar route and the relief line could better service the West Don Lands and Unilever site if it were
to run along King St.
King Online survey
The study indicates that the Osgoode-Queen alignment has the highest potential. I'm leaning towards that
alignment as my preferred route. However, I believe the King streetcar has higher ridership, and a St. Andrew-
King alignment would therefore do more in relieving congestion.
Queen or King Online survey
I believe the analysis unfairly deprecates Richmond/Adelaide as corridors even though they provide a
practical alternative for King/Queen, c.f. the Bloor Danforth running north of its namesake roads. If downtown
is the destination, then Bloor-Yonge style transfers at line intersections aren't really necessary -- people won't
be heading back north, so a walking transfer like at Spadina could work.
Adelaide/Richmond Online Survey Richmond is included in
the Queen St Corridor
and Adelaide is included
in the King Corridor.
Potential alignments will
consider these routes.
I believe the survey results unfairly deprecate the value of using Adelaide/Richmond as a downtown corridor
and that these options should still be considered even if not ideal.
Adelaide/Richmond Online Survey
I think the Wellington route makes more sense, as I have seen what chaos it causes building a subway on
roads above - Eglinton - and want the streetcar to keep working in the meantime.
Wellington Online survey This is included as an
important consideration
in the evaluation of
stations. Mitigation
strategies will be
developed in
cooperation with TTC
and Transportation
Services to address all
construction impacts to
traffic.
The more equidistant the relief line is between Union and the Bloor line, the better, so the furthest north
stations should be weighted more than the further south ones.
Equal distance
between Bloor and
Union
Online survey Potential station areas,
corridors and
alignments are
identified using a
number of criteria and
will be subject to a
comprehensive
evaluation to determine
the best route and
Connecting to the YUS line closer to the middle between Union and the BD line would make for a better
network.
Equal distance
between Bloor and
Union
Online survey

2
stations.
The analysis doesn't appear to capture that 1. all locations along Bay and Yonge interface with the PATH
which provides connections into the core and 2. the graphic do not show the limits of the subway stations on
Yonge and University (nor the reach that a DRL platform will have to service either Bay and Yonge (with a
single station). A circle was probably not the appropriate shape. A series of rectangles (the size of a subway
platform) may result in different conclusions.
Presentation of
analysis results
Online survey This level of detail will
be provided when
potential alignments
and their stations are
being considered during
the next phase of study.
Stations are actually long rectangles, not circles, so it makes only partial sense to use circles to evaluate
locations.
Presentation of
analysis results
Public Meeting
Display
Circles represent station
areas, which will include
station boxes, entrances
and other station
components.
I think most of the pros and cons have been adequately assessed Agreement with
evaluation results
Online Survey Noted
Except connecting to Union could be very difficult. Union Online survey Noted
Connectivity with Union Station is key Union Online Survey Noted
Avoiding Union station is a good idea Union Online Survey Noted
Connection into Union would cause too much traffic going through that area and most city commuters head
out of the immediate area.
Union Online Survey Noted
Proximity to Union Station would be beneficial to help relieve pressure on this hub. Union Online Survey Noted
Union Station is the best station for the new line to connect because it's the most direct interchange for GO
train and buses to the subway.
Union Station connection is important, critical. Union Public Meeting
Display
Noted
The alignment should connect to Union station or be as close as possible to maximize connections to VIA rail,
GO train and UP express. Also think about the avenues that would be created from density.
Lots of trains being east/west of Union so need to connect north of Union Union Public Meeting
Display
Noted
I think the downtown portion should cross as far north of Union as possible. The employment area will
expand north of the current high density area we know now.
Union Mail, Handed In Noted
A Relief Line station under Wellington between Bay and Yonge would connect with King Station, so there are
three dots on the map but effectively one interchange stations.
Wellington Public Meeting
Display
Noted
I would encourage the use of Wellington for the corridor and station, with entrances at Bay and York (and the
platform box between). Further, I prefer keeping the downtown stations disconnected from existing Yonge-
University stations. This would minimise disruption to existing services during construction, allow the PATH to
do the work of pedestrian connectivity, and ensure service is resilient to any disruptions or crises that may
affect Line 1. I'd suggest a station named "Exchange" at Wellington and Bay/York, and a "Market" station at
Front and Jarvis/Church. Ideally, in future the LRTs that serve the waterfront could be extended north from
Union to meet Exchange Station. The terminus of phase 1 should be aligned to allow for expansion West and
Wellington Online Survey Noted

3
further South to serve destinations such as Rogers Centre and the Island Airport pedestrian access before
turning North to relieve Line 2.
Stop asking questions and get shovels into the ground! Deadly full subways in the AM. King/Wellington are
best.
King/Wellington Online Survey Noted
Greater demand at King/Wellington than Queen and for service west (Liberty Village). King/Wellington Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Queen St. is not a better destination than King St. Much more employment and connectivity on
King/Wellington.
King/Wellington Public Meeting
Display
Noted
I think that the King street alignment would the preferred option. As stated in the evaluation it has the
highest employment density and the King 504 streetcar is the busiest surface route on the TTC. Also it
provides for future expansion West into Liberty village - another high employment area. King street East is
also intensifying as an employment area as companies have recently located there as well as the intensifying
residential construction. City Hall, St. Michael's hospital and the Eaton centre are already well served by
subway. City Hall is within walking distance of two stations (Osgoode and Queen) and St. Michael's hospital is
1 block east of Yonge - a station would not be located at Victoria street with a Queen street alignment
anyway. In all three cases (City Hall, St. Mike's and Eaton centre, a transfer would be required from a
King/Yonge interchange. Regent Park would be much better served by an improved 505 Dundas streetcar
rather a Queen street subway alignment because of higher population density and community amenities
along and north of Dundas street. Crowding at King/Yonge speaks to the greater demand for transit at that
location. An interchange there would ease crowding at Union station. The King street alignment would best
serve the Distillery, St. Lawrence market, George Brown College as well.
King Online Survey Noted
I think King is a happy midway point that makes getting to the lake quick by foot and reaching north of Queen
is not a big deal. Queen is almost too far north to make walking to the lake easy for everyone. Also getting
people off the King car would be helpful.
A connection through King Street is best for stops through West Donlands, Distillery, St. Lawrence and for
future expansion westward through CityPlace and Liberty Village.
King and Yonge would appear to be a highest potential station. King Online Survey Noted
King corridor seems to serve more employment/residential (better option than Queen). King Public Meeting
Display
Noted
there is more development planned along king st than queen st and the king streetcar is only going to get
busier compared to queen
I think the downtown destination might be better at King. It's an easy walk to Union or Queen from there,
and fully underground and accessible if necessary.
I prefer this – I think a relief line would be best on King Street – amongst the taller buildings of the financial
district – and eventually lead to Liberty Village – who really needs it. I do not prefer building a subway on
Queen Street – Queen Street is so cultural and organic –the construction process would destroy the
businesses that are there. Riding the Queen streetcar is a great experience that allows riders to see the street
culture of a great street – travelling underground would lose that experience.
For the connection with the Yonge line, consideration needs to be given to the access to existing sites, and
then look at the potential to connect to other sites in the future. King St, rather than Queen St., seems to have
more potential.

4
A line that serves Queen or King/Wellington is ideal. King/Wellington,
Queen
Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Alignment along King or Queen would be ideal, both access major hubs, whether being jobs or tourist
attractions.
King, Queen Online survey Noted
Queen good location King good location Union Station ideal but agree it's congested King, Queen, Union Online Survey Noted
It seems like a King interchange downtown makes the most sense for direct connection to downtown
buildings (PATH), but isn't there already an interchange station partially built (roughed in) at Queen & Yonge?
That could save money. Either one is great.
King, Queen Online Survey Noted
King Station is already overcrowded. Queen would be much better. Queen also provides more from a social
justice perspective by providing great access for people located in the downtown east around queen. St.
Michael’s hospital and the Eaton center are very high volume destinations for residents. Queen street would
provide very needed relief for the Queen car in the downtown areas.
Queen Online survey Noted
I think queen area makes sense to allow reasonable distance for walking from the subway from either front
(line 1), queen (relief line), or Bloor (line 2).
Queen Online Survey Noted
Queen St. is correct option. King is too close to Union. Queen Public Meeting
Display
Noted
I think Queen is the better choice based on the results and the fact that it is not as gentrified as King east of
Yonge so building a subway here can help change that
Why does everything have to go to Union Station? – Have you actually stood and watched the mass of
humanity rushing between Union Station and the downtown core in the morning – For God’s sake; do it right
and run the downtown relief line along Queen Street! – It will provide better service for those that work
somewhere other than south of King Street – In fact, it will provide a second option for those traveling to King
and Bay – Those that need to get to Union Station will still be able to get there via the existing Yonge and
Spadina/University lines – For those that work north of King Street, a Queen Street subway will result in a
more efficient (and far less crowded and stressful trip)
Queen Online
Survey/Email
Noted
I would prefer a line that would provide more connectivity between the area around the Distillery District to
the Queen/Yonge node. By linking to Queen/Yonge, all passengers can still connect to Union in 2 more stops
if they transfer; this way, City Hall, Eaton Centre, Ryerson and the hospital and government related jobs in the
area north of Queen/Yonge can be well serviced
I like the idea of Queen/Richmond crossing. Queen/Richmond Public Meeting
Display
Noted
The Bay/King and Bay/Queen seem most appropriate as Bay St. stations. I suggest that consideration be given
to both of these stations having east and west entrances, such that the east entrances link relatively closely to
the Yonge/Queen and Yonge/King stations of the Yonge Street line. Indeed, if the Queen Street route is
chosen for the Yonge/University link, I suggest considering no station on Bay and ensuring there is a west end
exit from the Yonge/Queen station that directs patrons to Bay Street (not a long walk - or distance to travel in
a wheelchair assuming that the funds are spent on an essential elevator and accessible exit and entrance)
Bay/King,
Bay/Queen
Online Survey Noted
I think the Line 1 transfer should be at Queen over King -I also like the idea of 1 single station at bay with
walking connections to The Yonge Line and University Line. This would logically save a ton of money.
Bay/Queen Online Survey Noted
Prefer to add a new station and to locate it on Bay Street with a tunnel link to an existing station similar to the
Spadina station (linking line one and two). Bay/King with a tunnel link to King station or at Bay/Wellington
Bay/King,
Bay/Wellington
Online Survey Noted

5
with a tunnel under Bay to Union subway station. I would prefer the Bay/Wellington location because
Wellington is not served by surface public transit and it can be extended further west with a potential station
at John and Wellington serving the Entertainment district, Rogers Centre and Metro Hall. There is potential
intensification and new development nearby on the Metro Convention Centre site and on a deck over the
railway corridor. This location would also align up with stations at Front/Sherbourne (St Lawrence Market)
and at Front/Cherry(Distillery District, Pan Am Athletes village, East Bayfront and the Portlands)
Wellington is best (by far) to me. I would turn Bay & Wellington into a massive interchange to the south-end
of the King Station box/platforms, and a Bay/PATH connection to Union for transit interchange! West of there
is up to you, but can there be a track connection to St. Andrew on University to swap transit between lines??
Bay/Wellington Mail, Handed In Noted
I think a logical route west of the Don River would be for trains to run under Richmond (westbound) and
Adelaide (eastbound), therefore stations can service Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, and King Sts equally,
increasing points of access from street level.
Richmond/Adelaide Online survey Noted
Having an alignment running under Richmond St (westbound) and Adelaide (eastbound) would allow for the
stations west of The Don service Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, and King Sts equally providing multiple access
points at street level.
Richmond/Adelaide Online Survey Noted
Is there a possibility of partially using the Adelaide corridor to avoid some of the issues of contributing to
pedestrian congestion along King? => I think it is important that the west end of the initial phase leave the
possibility of future extension along King Street toward Liberty Village area - we need to get back to
incremental expansion and this could be an important future incremental expansion This might also provide a
connection to streetcars from the Queensway line to bring people downtown faster and create more
potential to increase ridership on that dedicated LRT corridor from the Lakeshore / Mimico area.
Adelaide, future
western transit
expansion
Online Survey Noted
Need to serve condos and businesses at south of Richmond Connection south
of Richmond
Mail, Handed In Noted
The relief line should terminate at the Yonge Street station rather than extending to University: a couple of
transfers are preferable to spending millions on a Yonge-University connection, especially one so near Union
station.
Connection to
Yonge
Online Survey Noted
Sirs/Madams Having attended the June 15th meeting at Estonia House, I seemed to be getting mixed
messages re the potential future western extension of the relief line; namely it was stated that the need for
the western extension was questionable, but the evaluations of the various options included references to it.
Regardless, it seems more reasonable to terminate this relief line at selected Yonge St. Station, rather than
extending it to the University Ave section. If / when the Western relief line is built, it should terminate at
University Ave. Having a Queen - Osborne connection with a station at City Hall might be convenient for
Councillors, but would give the Rob Fords of Toronto added ammunition to denounce the relief line as really
being built for the 'downtown elites', rather than for East-enders and, hopefully in the near future, citizens in
Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks.
Connection to
Yonge
Online Survey Noted
The potential for extending the line and placement under high employment density areas are both important
and should definitely influence station choice.
Future transit
expansion,
employment
density
Online Survey Noted
Whatever is easy to extend west should be considered. Future transit
expansion
Public Meeting
Display
Noted

6
University potential not relevant until you look at west end relief. Future transit
expansion
Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Consider connecting to the Yonge-University line at Queen and St. Andrew, to allow for extension west along
King street to better serve Liberty village.
Future western
transit expansion
Online Survey Noted
Relief I think is a key word so let me try with this: Most potential to receive Yonge use a subway line from Don
Mills Station to St. Andrew for offloading some Yonge riders. A shorter approach from Pape Station on the
east side of Don river to St Andrew would I believe relief Yonge and Danforth line at Yonge Bloor. Also U from
Danforth subway through downtown and back up to Bloor Street also from the Kennedy Station where there
is a Go station would I think also help for relief as we need to think Golden Horseshoe area as one area into
the heart and out of Toronto. There is a penalty for doing nothing over the years and when it comes to
funding there is history where major projects like St. Lawrence seaway was funded by the Bank of Canada
with no interest. This still exists in the Bank of Canada Charter.
Maximum relief Online Survey Noted
My primary concern about the Relief line is that we place the connection to the YUS line at the point that
does the most good. That where ever it is put it draws the maximum number of people off of the eastern part
of the BD line.
I have not enough knowledge or experience with the issue to offer a meaningful judgement – Experts opinion
should prevail
Expertise required Mail, Handed In Noted
Having a station at King/Bay or Queen/Bay poses a potential security threat. King/Bay has the Toronto Stock
Exchange and First Canadian Place. Queen/Bay has City Hall and Old City Hall.
Security concerns
along Bay
Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Queen's Park and College stations also have a large amount of traffic, and can be hectic especially during rush
hour times.
College Online Survey Noted
Is ridership on Queen & King streetcar, heavy east or west of Yonge? Streetcar Ridership Mail, Handed In The number of people
entering downtown on
the King and Queen
Streetcar corridors is
approximately the same
from the east (at
Jarvis/Church) and the
west (at Spadina) during
the AM peak period
Perhaps the best way to decide between the Queen and King corridors is to plot out viable routes for each,
taking into account right-of-way, and note which routes would best hit the critical station areas. I believe that
90 degree turns should be avoided if possible.
Technical feasibility
of routes
Online Survey Noted
Danforth Station Areas
Disagreement The stations on Line 2 are already too close together; constructing the interchange where there is not an
existing station would require a new station and make the ride even slower for most commuters, not to
mention the extra expense.
Connection to
existing station
Online Survey A walking or pedestrian
connection would be
required from the
existing Line 2 to a new

7
station on the Relief
Line.
I am extremely disappointed that a spot further east in the Danforth line was not shortlisted. The heavy
volumes of users start much further east of Pape. Pape is only a problem because the subways are already full
at Coxwell. Broadview is the worst option. The users in this location are already practically downtown.
Broadview is not visionary. Broadview is not long-term. Broadview provides almost no development potential
and doesn't integrate with the GO or SmartTrack. Only options that integrate with other lines should be
selected. It is critical to benefit the whole grid, not just a corridor. An integrated grid will get more people out
of cars. The further east the option, the higher number of people will leave their cars at home; and it will
increase the number of people who consider bicycling to the station. The further east, the more people will
benefit.
Station further
east
Online Survey The evaluation showed
that the development
potential around
Donlands Station is less
than around Pape
Station. There are also
significant barriers to
developing the Relief
Line south of Donlands
Station. Stations further
east, including Coxwell,
do not allow for a future
northern extension to
serve Thorncliffe Park.
I think the Danforth Line connection should be as far east as possible. Broadview is only half populated as the
line would follow the DVP. Increased density will happen throughout the east neighbourhoods, especially after
the relief line is built so we might as well put it there the centre of a full target area.
Station farthest
east
Mail, Handed In
Stations further east (Greenwood/Coxwell) would be great as it is a half way point to Kennedy. Station further
east
Online Survey
Broadview just seems too close to the final downtown destinations to provide the flexibility that this line is
meant to.
Station further
east
Online Survey
The further east along the line, the better. There's no point in running a line down Broadview when it's so
close to the Yonge Line. The people who are at Broadview Station already have it easy enough. What is the
goal? 1. Yes, to help with the congestion, but it should also be: 2. To make the commute faster/ easier for
those further away from the Yonge line.
Station further
east
Online Survey
By considering Coxwell, there is more potential in connecting the city to the Beaches and the Beaches to the
city. By extending the potential subway line as farthest east as possible there is more potential in reducing
traffic and congestion from areas that have less transit connectivity.
Station further
east: Coxwell
Online Survey
I believe that the relief line should extend as far east as possible for two main reasons: 1) Those are the areas
that have lower-income households and they are the main users of transit. By having a stop at Broadview or
Pape, all that we will accomplish is to drive up the property values for people who need transit the least. 2)
The reduction in commute times is amplified the further east that the relief line is placed.
Station further
east
Online Survey
Pape & Danforth is far too congested already and NOT a good choice for an interchange station. Donlands
Station is a better choice / better sounding name for the station, i.e. "Don Lands" - Donlands Station is
currently underused and there is potential for growth around that station, unlike Pape Station which is already
vastly congested - Donlands Avenue has a direct route to Thorncliffe Park. (ps: your map is incorrect. Jones
Avenue does not extend above Danforth Avenue.)
Donlands Online Survey
For the eastern arm of the line, Donlands is physically the best station to start the alignment downtown as
well as for its future extension towards Scarborough due to its location as an intersection in the Toronto grid,
thus providing roughly even spacing between stations in terms of diagonal point to point.
Greatest number of stations, serving the most number of transit customers. I would start this corridor even
further east, possibly at Donlands or Greenwood (Access to Greenwood Yards, growing population density
along the Danforth East corridor)
Should include a Donlands destination corridor given potential to connect/utilize current yard for new line. Donlands Online Survey

8
Broadview station is a busy station but that is due the fact that it is currently the largest bus terminal (versus
Pape and Donlands) and as such, TTC directs most of its service to this location. Same can be said for Pape
versus Donlands (when Pape was under construction and buses went to Donlands, it was a busy station).
Donlands has the advantage that the yard is to the south which avoids the massive impact and cost associated
with a Wye connection from the DRL to one of the other lines. It also has the benefit that a northern
extension in the future to Thorncliffe Park is due north and affects very few houses north of O'Connor
The ‘experience’ criteria undervalues the benefit enjoyed by those west of the first Danforth connection. I
think Coxwell would be better for more.
Coxwell Public Meeting
Display
The primary goal of the
Relief Line is to provide
maximum relief at the
Yonge-Bloor interchange
station, therefore there
are better opportunities
to capture more
passengers at Pape and
Broadview stations.
Broadview is a good station for Relief interchange. Lots of mid-high density development potential, more
relief, more affordable
Broadview Online Survey Noted
follow the Don River / do not invade residential pockets - Broadview travels both north and south - Pape is far
too congested already
I think the less disturbance to eastern neighbourhoods should be considered. There is considerably more
space available at Broadview. Read my rating for more on that end.
Pape station would be the most logical choice in the instance of future expansion potential to continue
northward via Don Mills Rd.
Pape Online Survey Noted
Pape station more ideal in consideration of the fact of a future expansion North. Pape Online Survey Noted
I think it makes sense to put the relief line intersection with line 2 as far east as possible (Pape) to support
ongoing development in the east danforth area.
I think Pape is the better choice based on the results Pape Online Survey Noted
A connection at Pape Station would attract riders coming from the East and provide service to
neighbourhoods currently lacking. Broadview has a streetcar route and would not allow for optimal service to
the Financial District, West Don Lands and Unilever sites.
It should go through Pape station and up Don Mills Road to lessen the number of people going over to the
Yonge-University line.
Pape makes the most sense. Broadview is too far west, and tunnelling under Broadview would seriously
disrupt the critical streetcar lines
Pape would get people off Line 2 more easily Pape Online Survey Noted
Pape Station makes the most sense for an interchange, being far enough from Yonge to provide a time-saving
alternative and serve new destinations, but close enough to allow for many transferring passengers to have
boarded.
Broadview is already a very busy station. To make it worse would be silly. It's also a bit too close to the Yonge
line and entirely inaccessible on its western boundary thanks to the Don. Pape is ripe for a build-up and using
Pape would move the line further east increasing its catchment.

9
Pape is definitely the ideal Station option for both North and South Route options and will allow for
connection with RER at Gerrard and through major development area on Carlaw.
Yes Pape and Danforth Station ideal Pape Online Survey Noted
I'm less familiar with this part of the route, but Pape has always been seen as the natural choice for where the
connection should be ... not too far east or west.
I support the Pape alternative in order to move the line further east. Pape Online Survey Noted
Prefer to locate the station at Pape because it would enable a future northern extension along an Avenue
designation towards Thorncliffe Park. The station would also line up with a station at Pape/Gerrard (Smart
Track)
Go Pape - and then follow the Metrolinx recommendation and build up the Science Centre (Don Mills and
Eglinton) and then to Fairview Mall ( Don Mills and Sheppard) - it would be easier for me to go to work with no
car.
A line running NS on Broadview has a much smaller catchment area than one running along Pape. As well,
future expansion northwards across the Don Valley will require a longer structure using a Broadview line than
a Pape line.
Pape or somewhere east of Pape so more relief on existing subway. Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Pape (x2) Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
I have always felt Pape was the best option on the Danforth. Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Pape is probably a better interceptor of east end Danforth line users. Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Broadview crowded now with buses and streetcars. Pape is the best option. Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Pape is an ideal location, but it's a small station. Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Pape is better, more opportunity to advance north of Gerrard Square and connect to Portlands and Unilever. Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Broadview is ridiculous. It's too far east to be useful for most people east of the Don. Pape's more central
location will shorten the distance to the subway for many more people.
Pape Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Gerrard Square
Pape Station
Pape Mail, Handed In Noted
But Pape makes much more sense to me than Broadview Pape Mail, Handed In Noted
However, Broadview does not work (to me) as a route. Too close to valley, too late for easterners to consider
switching trains. Pape is far superior.
Pape Mail, Handed In Noted
Pape is Best Pape Mail, Handed In Noted
Pape Pape Mail, Handed In Noted
-I think the Line 2 transfer should be at Pape over Broadview Pape Online Survey Noted
This route serves, not only the Business District traffic, but also the nighttime entertainment traveller. Toronto
needs 24/7 service to reduce car usage... not just daytime workers. A connection at Pape Stn would make it

10
rival the Spadina and St. George interchanges and would relieve Yonge-Bloor Stn which is especially badly
designed for switching large volumes of passengers (pedestrians cross paths in every direction with almost no
option to redirect any pedestrian traffic.
im less concerned about the King or queen spot, but I feel strongly that Broadview will not service all the
people that the relief line is supposed to reach Pape is the better option
Broadview and Pape were the two possible connection points on the Bloor line. My preference is Papa since it
will help to relieve congestion earlier on the westbound leg.
The Pape station seems more desirable than the Broadview station as we already have overcrowding in
morning rush hour starting at Pape. Patrons at Pape, Chester and Broadview already have to wait occasionally
at times for more than one train to be able to access eastbound between 7:30 and 9:00 AM. This will only get
worse over time and the extension of the Bloor/Danforth line when it opens will make it even more
overcrowded. The best option by far is to provide the option for downtown-bound patrons to leave at Pape,
thus easing Pape, Chester and Broadview. In addition, given how urgent it is to provide this relief to the
already disastrous over-crowding at Yonge/Bloor, I suggest that there be a dual system along the relief line,
with one of the lines providing for express service to Yonge/King (or Queen) and St. Andrew/Bay (or Osgoode).
This express service would have greater drawing power than the regular service line the significantly given
decreased travel time. It may be that in the first decade or so, this express would only be needed during rush
hours, but it provides opportunity for further relief outside of rush hours in future if needed. It also could be
used as parking for the new multi-car trains overnight.
Pape, express
service to
downtown core
Online Survey Noted
Possibility for extension under right of ways is helpful, but I do worry about Pape Station's ability to handle
increased traffic. Also, additional costs to alter or expand Pape Station so shortly after funds were spent to
renovate station appears wasteful.
Pape, extension
under right of way
Online Survey Noted
Besides the narrow view of this study, we need to look at the bigger picture. Where will this line extend in the
future, where will it connect? The Relief Line must go to Eglinton. Without this context, we are studying
options in the dark. From Broadview, it doesn't work well. Only from Pape or Donlands a further extension is
possible, through Thorncliffe.
Pape or Donlands,
future transit
expansion
Online Survey Noted
Pape or Donlands! Broadview would require subway through Riverdale Park. Pape or Donlands Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Eventual routes to the north of the Danforth are an important consideration for taking traffic away from
Yonge & Bloor station.
Future transit
expansion
Online Survey Noted
The station along the BD line should be selected on the basis that a connection to Eglinton (and even beyond
that to Sheppard) will definitely be required for a useful network and relief. To not go north of BD means not
providing any relief to the Yonge line at all. What were the transit planners thinking?
Future transit
expansion
Online Survey Noted
for relief we need to think destinations like from Don Mills Station to St Andrew as one leg, another shorter
version Pape Station to St. Andrew and an underground U from the Danforth subway through downtown and
back up to Bloor line for yet even a shorter version...also the Kennedy station which also has a GO station to
Union should be studied also.
I think we need to also consider what the southern route will be and which station would best satisfy that as
well. For instance, it seems to me that Broadview might be tricky because the street goes East, but I know little
of this, so it is irrelevant.
Technical
considerations
Online Survey Noted
Where do people on Yonge Line get off most south of Bloor? What stations? The further north of Danforth you Current ridership Mail, Handed In Dundas is the busiest

11
go, will there be more relief on all Yonge? How many years before connecting to #4 Sheppard Line?
- Go Lines are long distance destinations
- Smart Tracks is ½ & ½
- Broadview & Pape Stations renovated, others will too, soon
station between Union
and Bloor, with King
Station being next.
View online:
www.ttc.ca/PDF/
Transit_Planning/
Subway_ridership
_2014.pdf
Metrolinx has identified
a northern extension to
Sheppard but would
require further study to
determine timing,
alignments and stations.
Station Areas East and West of the Don Valley
Disagreement Station Density is too low No location
specified
Could be more opportunity east of the railway line Station areas east of
rail line
Mail, Handed In The five potential
stations east of the rail
corridor generally did
not perform as well as
stations nearer to and
west of the corridor.
Connecting to Line 2
east of Donlands
precludes the
opportunity to extend
the Relief Line north to
serve Thorncliffe Park in
the future.
This is the most confusing part, in that if you're asking about subway route, pinning the start and the end will
naturally make station location will make the stations in this section dependent upon the route, not the
other way around. Holy turd spheres that's a lot of circles with 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, or fully filled green balls. It has
the feel of 'we have to cover everything so no one can critique us for anything' indecisiveness. Quite
honestly, specific station locations should be dependent upon the route, not having them co-equal concerns.
As it seems Pape / Broadview and King / Queen are pinned as start and end points, and there are only 4
Study process Online Survey Noted

12
routes, once that is figured then and only then should talking about where stations could be put along that
line. I know it may be cheaper to ask about both at the same time, so you don't have to go through two
rounds of public consultation, but this is like trying to determine which should go first, the cart or the horse
at the same time as determining which is the cart and which is the horse.
Dundas and Sumach station is too far north to be useful for the corridors contemplated. Dundas and Shuter Online Survey This station is located
within Corridor A.
In all of Riverdale and Leslieville there is only one good spot for a station? Time to change the criteria. Evaluation criteria,
stations to serve
Riverdale/
Leslieville
Public Meeting
Display
Potential station areas
in these
neighbourhoods tend to
have less potential due
to
• lower existing and
projected
population and
employment
densities
• less development
potential due to
Heritage
Conservation
Districts and,
• less land
designated for
intensification.
These policies are
identified in the City's
Official Plan.
2 stations west of the Don River. Align the station box of Sherbourne west of the intersection so that it
reaches closer to George Street, thus better acting as a St. Lawrence Market stop as well (imagine west-end
of platform being stairs up to that short one-block walk to the market itself)
St. Lawrence
Market
Please have a stop at the St. Lawrence Market. Also, the east side needs excellent transfers with the Carlton
and Queen cars.
St. Lawrence
Market, streetcar
connections
Online Survey Noted
To me, these stations are best when chosen to build a better city, with new transit oriented development
that does not severely impact existing neighbourhoods. Stations should be few and curves generous to
maintain high speed service. They should also provide relief to congested streetcar routes. Stations at St.
Lawrence Market, the Distillery District, new neighbourhoods West and East of the Don River, and at a single
RER/SmartTrack interchange would be helpful.
St. Lawrence
Market, Distillery
District, East/West
Don Lands,
SmartTrack/RER
connection,
streetcar
connections
Online Survey Noted

13
I think running closer to Cherry, Distillery, Unilever would also facilitate more under accessible living working
space
Cherry, Distillery
District, Unilever
Online Survey Noted
Great opportunity to bring transit to the centre of Regent Park and open all the incredible new amenities up
to the larger community via transit - cricket field, new pool, skating rink etc.
Regent Park Online Survey Noted
Believe a station needs to be added in the Regent Park area, as well as the Sherbourne area, to support
growth and development, as well as equity, in the downtown east.
Regent Park,
Sherbourne
Online Survey Noted
Good thinking out of the box with Regent Park Regent Park Mail, Handed In Noted
A station serving George Brown or somewhere thereabouts could be good, but I don't think St. Lawrence is in
need of a stop or the Distillery, either.
George Brown Online Survey Noted
River/Oak Streets is a good location for a station. River/Oak Online Survey Noted
Given the number of current and planned development projects in the Downtown East/Lower Parliament
and Waterfront locales, any relief line proposals should meet at least some of the transportation shortfalls
that currently exist in this area.
Downtown east and
waterfront
development
Online Survey Noted
A station in the centre of the West Don Lands further south east of Cherry and Front would likely be in close
proximity to more commuter than other options considered.
West Don Lands Online Survey Noted
The stations on the West Don Lands/Distillery District area, and Sherbourne/St. Lawrence are the ones with
the most potential, I hope they end up being chosen.
West Don Lands,
Distillery District, St.
Lawrence Market
Online Survey Noted
With all the development in the West Don Lands, there needs to be additional lines to service this area.
There are already too many people waiting at Queen and River to board an already-jammed-packed 501
streetcar. Once the Canary District condos take occupancy and the new Riverside Square condo is built east
of the river, that area will be completely overwhelmed. It is all young professionals moving in here who
depend on TTC as their main mode of transportation. 501 is by far the busiest. The 505 and 504 are busy, but
manageable at current levels of ridership. On the AVERAGE winter day, I have to wait for at least one or two
completely full 501 streetcars to pass before there is one with room for me. More 502 rush hour streetcars
might help if there is no relief line in this area. I also want to mention that this "station area evaluation" is
not the easiest to understand, and I am a university-educated professional. Hopefully this doesn't hinder the
quality of feedback you receive.
West Don Lands Online Survey Noted
Important that consideration be given to the future housing and commercial development in the east and
west Donlands in selecting station(s) on either side of the Don River.
Future
development in
east/west Don
Lands
Online Survey Noted
Unilever
King Cherry
Unilever,
King/Cherry
Need to serve Pan Am, Distillery, and create development along Portlands area
Avoid parks and do not disrupt established communities
West Don Lands,
Portlands, Distillery
District
The relief line MUST run as far south as possible to serve future development in the west don lands, future
development in the Portlands and into the proposed development off lake shore in sunlight park. The
distillery district deserves service, especially as a tourist destination. Ultimately, future developments are
going to push south towards the lake and these areas need to be serviced with subway, especially if they are
West Don Lands,
Portlands,
Distillery District
Online Survey Noted

14
going to be large scale developments as expected.
Going through the Portlands under Commissioners Drive should be considered. This is where the maximum
development potential exists. The current evaluation is too timid and not forward looking enough. The City is
underestimating the need for central employment lands in the future
Portlands,
employment areas
Online Survey Noted
Either of these is fine but I think we need to provide support to the new developments in the south. And
provide better access to the Portlands
Portlands, serve
new development
Online Survey Noted
Providing a connection to the future Port Lands development is important. Portlands Online Survey Noted
Still consider the Portlands an alignment. Portlands Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Seems to me that the Unilever site station should be green based on the huge redevelopment which the city
should foster (not just consider). With Broadview extending south, this will be the station for the east
Portlands. Build for the future!
Unilever/Portlands Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Servicing the Unilever and Portlands area is very important in so far as managing future growth of the city. To
not have them serviced would be short sighted. Subways are long term projects that require vision. We once
built for a great future as in the Harrison filtration plant and the Bloor Viaduct. I think a subway should be
built with the same mindset. Cost savings and a lack of future vision would be a waste of opportunity. Don't
think small.
Unilever/Portlands Online Survey Noted
Are we sure the Unilever lands will be important once developed? It would be sad not to have a station there
if indeed it does work, there is a lot of potential; but if it doesn't, it would be a major (or mayor) boondoggle
and embarrassment. Please evaluate this thoroughly before reaching a decision.
Unilever Online Survey Noted
Make sure the Relief Line hits future development sites like Gerrard Square and the First Gulf site. Hitting the
Port Lands would be even better, but probably unrealistic.
Gerrard Square,
Unilever/Portlands
Online Survey Noted
A station at Queen/Broadview nicely intercepts 501 and 504 streetcar riders. Queen/Broadview Public Meeting
Display
Noted
All corridors should consider a Broadview / Queen station as this can provide an important transfer point
from DRL to King and Queen (and Broadview) Streetcars.
Queen/Broadview Online Survey Noted
Avoid Queen St & Degrassi St Opposition to
Queen/Degrassi
I do not think Queen Degrassi is a viable station location. I was told at the last public meeting that although it
still is orange on the report, that it is no longer being considered.
Opposition to
Queen/Degrassi
Online Survey Noted
Favour a station at Degrassi and Queen Queen/Degrassi Online Survey Noted
Would like to see a station at Queen and Carlaw Queen/Carlaw Online Survey Noted
Please do build a subway at queen/Carlaw My son's school is right there (Morse St.). The disruption would be
catastrophic. Thank you
Queen/Carlaw Online Survey Noted
Connections from Gerrard and Queen Streetcars to subway in east end, could help us get to work faster. Streetcar
connections
Online Survey Noted
Stops on Carlaw south of Gerrard are preferable to stops on Pape as Pape is a more quiet residential street
than Carlaw in this area
Carlaw/Gerrard Online Survey Noted
Gerrard Square is a must. Gerrard Square Public Meeting
Display
Noted
Gerrard/Pape to Dundas/Sumach To Queen/Richmond alignment seems most logical as it would service the Gerrard Square, Online Survey Noted

Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report

Ähnlich wie Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report (20)

Mehr von Toronto Public Consultation Unit

Mehr von Toronto Public Consultation Unit (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Relief Line Phase 3 Consultation Report