Evaluation process and criteria june 2 2015 final

RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT

Evaluation Process and Criteria

June 2015

RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria

June 2015 2

Evaluation Process

The proposed evaluation process for the Relief Line Project Assessment has four main steps. First,

potential station area options will be identified. Next, potential station area options will be assessed

against evaluation criteria. Then, preliminary corridors for the Relief Line will be developed, connecting

the best-performing station areas. Finally, alignments and station locations within the preferred

corridor will be evaluated in greater detail and refined in order to identify a preferred alignment.

At all stages of the Relief Line Project Assessment Evaluation, potential stations and alignments will be

evaluated using the evaluation framework developed as part of the Review of the City's Official Plan

Transportation Policies City's ("Feeling Congested?"), as summarized in Table 1. The evaluation

framework captures the many aspects of city-building, all of which are important to the future of

Toronto.

The evaluation process and criteria will be refined and finalized based on feedback received from

stakeholders and the public through Phase 1B/2 consultation.


June 2015 3

Table 1 – Evaluation Framework *

Principles Objectives

Serving People Choice Develop an integrated network that connects different modes to provide for more travel options

Experience Capacity to ease crowding / congestion; reduce travel times; make travel more reliable, safe and enjoyable

Social Equity Do not favour any group or community over others; allow everyone good access to work, school and other activities

Strengthening Places

Shaping the City Use the transportation network as a tool to shape the residential development of the City

Healthy Neighbourhoods

Changes in the transportation network should strengthen and enhance existing neighbourhoods; promote safe walking and cycling within and between neighbourhoods

Public Health and Environment

Support and enhance natural areas; encourage people to reduce how far they drive; mitigate negative impacts

Supporting Prosperity

Affordability Improvements to the transportation system should be affordable to build, maintain and operate

Supports Growth Investment in public transportation should support economic development: allow workers to get to jobs more easily; allow goods to get to markets more efficiently

* Evaluation Framework developed as part of the review of the City's Official Plan Transportation Policies ("Feeling Congested?").

Evaluation Criteria

Step 1 - Identifying Potential Station Areas

A long list of potential station area options has been identified within the study area, with three areas of

focus: within downtown, along the Danforth, and key activity areas within the rest of the study area.

Primary considerations for potential station locations within downtown and along the Danforth are the

ability to support future connections of the Relief Line west and north and to provide connections to the

existing and planned transit system.

The full range of city building criteria were also taken into account, including the ability to support the

planning policy framework as set out in the City’s Official Plan, the potential to serve existing and future

population and employment, and consideration of opportunities for redevelopment and intensification.


June 2015 4

Step 2 - Assessment of Potential Station Areas

Each of the potential station areas will be assessed for its ability to meet the evaluation criteria outlined

in Table 2 and Table 3 under the column “Station Screening”. The results of this evaluation will inform

the development of potential corridors. The evaluation criteria are consistent with those developed as

part of the City of Toronto’s “Feeling Congested?” initiative.

Step 3 - Developing and Evaluating Corridors and Stations

Following evaluation of potential station areas, potential corridors will be identified to connect the

Downtown station areas and the Danforth station areas having the greatest potential to address the

project objectives and evaluation criteria.

The potential corridors will be evaluated based on both characteristics of the corridor (such as potential

ridership, the ability to reduce crowding and congestion within the existing transit system, and the

crossing of the Don River) and characteristics of the station areas within the corridor (based on the

findings of the assessment of potential station areas complete in Step 2).

The criteria for assessment of the potential corridors are outlined in Table 4.

The output of this step is a preferred corridor connecting Downtown to the Danforth.

Step 4 - Developing and Evaluating Alignments and Stations

Alternative alignments and station locations within the preferred corridor will be developed to a finer

level of detail to consider both physical and operational constraints and/or features. The criteria in

Tables 2, 3, and 4 will be used to guide the evaluation of alternative alignments and station locations.

The criteria evaluated in earlier steps will be considered in greater detail and precision as the alignments

and station locations become more refined.

The output of this step is a preferred alignment and station locations for the Relief Line.


June 2015 5

Table 2 – Evaluation Criteria for Station Locations

Principle Criteria Description Measure

Step 2:

Station

Screening

Step 3:

Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Choice Connectivity to Surface Transit Routes What is the ability to connect to existing and planned bus

and streetcar routes?

Quantitative – number of connections to existing and planned

surface transit routes

Quantitative – number of people who use the station to transfer

to and from surface routes where modeling results are available;

where modeling results are not available, number of transit

riders passing by the potential station location

X X X

Connectivity to Walking and Cycling

Routes

What is the ability to connect to existing and planned walking

and cycling routes?

Qualitative – Describe opportunities to connect with existing and

planned walking and cycling routes

X X X

Connectivity to Higher-Order Transit

Services

What is the ability to connect to existing and planned higher-

order TTC Subway, Metrolinx LRT, GO Transit, and

SmartTrack services?

Qualitative - potential for connectivity with higher-order transit

services

X X X

Supporting Transportation

Infrastructure

What is the availability of land at the station location to

provide supporting transportation infrastructure (e.g. bus

bays/lay-bys/terminals, taxi stands, PPUDOs, bicycle racks,

secure bicycle parking facilities, and commuter parking if

applicable)?

Qualitative: assessment of land or roadway space available for

bus stops, pick-up/drop-off activity, bicycle racks, etc.

X X X

Experience Proximity to Key Destinations including

community services and facilities such

as libraries, schools, community centres

and care facilities

What is the ability to provide transit service to key

destinations (hospitals, daycare centres, seniors/ retirement

homes, other care facilities, education facilities, libraries,

community centres, recreation centres, major employment

centres, shopping malls, attractions, government offices,

social service centres, transit hubs, etc.)?

Quantitative - Number of key destinations within 500 m radius of

the station

List the key destinations served and describe their scale

X X X

Relief to Surface Transit Network (inline

only)

What is the ability to relieve congested surface transit

routes?

Ability to relieve demand from surface transit routes based on

proximity to existing routes, connectivity to the same major

destinations, crowding and ridership.

Superseded by corridor-based model output at “corridor

evaluation” and “alignment evaluation” stages.

X

Social Equity Improving Service to Neighbourhood

Improvement Areas

What is the ability to serve the City's disadvantaged

residents?

Quantitative – City of Toronto Neighbourhood Equity Score

weighted by population within a 500 m radius of the potential

station area

X X X


June 2015 6


Step 2:

Station

Screening

Step 3:

Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Attracting Public and Private

Investment Benefiting Residents Living

in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas

What is the ability and/or opportunity of the project to

attract public and private investment benefiting residents

living in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (e.g. affordable

housing, employment, social services, grocery stores, etc.)?

Qualitative – describe the likelihood and opportunity to attract

public or private investment benefiting residents living in

Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (e.g. affordable housing,

employment, social services, grocery stores, etc.) as a result of

the station's construction, and what supporting measures or

policies may be required to achieve this benefit

X X

Supporting Equity in Mobility by

Gender, Income, Family Status, and Age

Class

Does the option improve transit access and support broad

transit mobility needs of genders, income groups, family

statuses and age groups in consideration of the objective to

improve equity for all groups?

Qualitative – demographic analysis to identify concentrations of

households with low income, unemployment, single parents

(female headed households), seniors and youths

Qualitative – describe how options may support greater equity in

terms of gender, class, family status and age groups

X X

Opportunities for Community Benefits

Agreements

Does the option create opportunities for community benefits

to disadvantaged residents?

Qualitative – describe the kinds of opportunities to make short-

and long-term commitments to local community benefits such as

employment that construction and operation of a station at this

location may create for disadvantaged residents living in the local

station area

X

Shaping the City Serving Areas of Existing Population What is the ability to serve people within station area? Quantitative - number of people within 500 m radius of each

station

X X X

Serving Areas of Planned Population

Growth

What is the ability to serve areas of planned population

growth?

Quantitative – forecast future number of people within 500 m

radius of each station (reflecting physical barriers)

X X X

Compatibility with City Planning

Policies

Does the option support the city’s planning policies? Qualitative – Descriptive of whether the option supports the

growth intentions of the official plan or relevant planning studies

within the station area (i.e. is the station located within the

Downtown, Central Waterfront, or a Centre, Avenue or

Employment District in the urban structure?)

Quantitative – percentage of land within 500 m radius of stations

designated as mixed-use area

X X X

Existing Physical Barriers Are there any physical barriers (such as highways, valleys, rail

corridors, disconnected street networks, retaining walls,

fences, etc.) that impact connectivity or limit the future

ability to implement transit-oriented development around

the station?

Qualitative – Discussion of potential barriers, % of walk-up

catchment area (i.e. 500 m radius of stations) lost, barriers to

station entrances from people/jobs

X X X

Supporting City-Building Opportunities Does the option support new, planned or proposed

development or opportunities for place-making?

Qualitative – Describe opportunities to support development

areas, improve connectivity or enhance sense of place, with

consideration for built form and development potential, area of

potential opportunity sites

X X X


June 2015 7


Step 2:

Station

Screening

Step 3:

Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Partnership Opportunities for Transit-

Oriented Development

What are the development partnership opportunities

available at the station location to encourage integration of

station entrances with new mixed-use, transit-oriented

development connecting development to transit, and

participate in the cost-sharing of infrastructure such as

station entrances?

Qualitative – assessment of soft sites within potential station

areas / areas identified for station entrance buildings and other

infrastructure

X X X

Healthy

Neighbourhoods

Compatibility with Existing

Neighbourhoods

Are there opportunities to enhance existing neighbourhoods

through improved connectivity or place-making? Are there

potential impacts to existing stable residential

neighbourhoods?

Qualitative – Describe opportunities for neighbourhood

improvement within 500 m radius of rapid transit station, with

consideration for transition areas and integration of the station

facilities with adjacent properties and surrounding

neighbourhoods.

List private residences potentially impacted by construction and

long-term operations

X X X

Opportunities for context-sensitive integration of the station facilities with adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhoods

Are there opportunities for context-sensitive integration of

the station facilities with adjacent properties and the

surrounding neighbourhoods, and within existing buildings?

Qualitative – describe opportunities to integrate the station and

station facilities with the existing neighbourhood

X X X

Improving Access to Community

Services and Facilities

Does the option improve access to schools, places of

worship, and community service providers?

Does the option impact schools, places of worship and other

community service providers?

Qualitative – List the key institutions and services to which access

will be improved;

List the institutions and services potentially

impacted by the construction or long term operations

X X X

Impacts on Cultural / Heritage /

Archaeological Features

Are there cultural / heritage / archaeological features that

might be affected?

Qualitative – Describe the potential impacts or benefits to

cultural/ heritage or archaeological features if any

X

Public Health and

Environment

Impacts and Compatibility with the

Natural Environment

Does the option create opportunities for improvement to the

natural environment?

Is there potential for temporary or permanent impacts

natural features?

Qualitative – list species (flora and fauna) that may be affected by

the option

Qualitative – assessment of whether station is located within an

Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), a Heritage Conservation

District (HCD), a Natural Heritage System (NHS) or an area of

archaeological potential (or near to registered archaeological

sites)

Qualitative – opportunities for station construction to result in

improvement to the natural environment

X

X

X

Ability to Mitigate Natural Impacts Are there ways to mitigate the natural impacts arising from

this option?

Qualitative – ability to mitigate flooding risks or impacts to flora

and fauna in the study area

X

X

X


June 2015 8


Step 2:

Station

Screening

Step 3:

Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Compatibility with Parks and Public

Spaces

Does the option create an opportunity to enhance parks and

public spaces?

Is there potential for temporary or permanent impacts to

parks?

Qualitative – Describe the opportunities to enhance parks and

public spaces;

List parks potentially impacted by the construction or long term

operations

X X X

Affordability Engineering Feasibility Is the option possible to construct and how difficult will it be

in comparison to other options?

Qualitative - List key technical challenges associated with station

construction such as:

Geotechnical conditions / flooding characteristics

Compatibility with other major infrastructure projects (i.e.

Coxwell Bypass sewer, flood protection landform at the West

Donlands, etc.)

Availability of laydown / staging areas

X X X

Construction Impacts

Construction Impacts to Existing Transit Services

Traffic Impacts during Construction

What is the ability to maintain existing transit service during

construction (e.g. maintaining service on streetcar lines,

subway station closures required, etc.)?

What are the traffic impacts to local and arterial streets and

intersections during the construction of the option?

Qualitative – assessment of number of transit routes to be

affected, ridership on affected routes, impact to existing subway

stations and ease of re-routing surface transit routes

Qualitative - assessment of impacts to vehicular traffic based on

the City of Toronto’s roadway classification system (i.e. Major

Arterial, Minor Arterial, etc.)

X X X

Construction Cost How expensive will the option be? Qualitative - discussion on impacts to costs (at screening level)

Quantitative - order-of-magnitude estimates on the alignment

alternatives within the preferred corridor

X X

Utility Impacts Are there potential conflicts with existing utilities, challenges

in re-locating utilities (temporarily or permanently) or

scheduling constraints?

Qualitative – statement on extent of utility impacts X

Minimize Property Acquisition Costs How many properties will be impacted or need to be

purchased to support the option?

Qualitative –Property Impacts, with consideration for platforms,

primary and secondary access/egress, vertical circulation

elements (VCE’s), and service rooms.

General description (high / medium / low) to be provided within

the station screening.

Number of properties affected to be provided within the

alignment evaluation.

X X X

Supports Growth Serving Areas of Existing Employment What is the ability to connect to employment areas? Quantitative – number of existing jobs within 500 m radius of

station (reflecting physical barriers)

X X X


June 2015 9


Step 2:

Station

Screening

Step 3:

Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Serving Areas of Planned Employment

Growth

What is the ability for station to serve areas of new, planned

and proposed commercial and employment development?

Quantitative – forecast number of potential jobs within 500 m

radius of station

X X X

Supporting and Strengthening Existing

Businesses and Industry

Does the option support existing local businesses and

industry by improving accessibility?

Is there potential for temporary or permanent impacts on

businesses, such as displacement and reductions in parking?

Qualitative – Describe the nature of businesses within 500 m

radius of rapid transit station;

List businesses potentially impacted by the construction or long

term operations

X


June 2015 10

Table 3 – Additional Evaluation Criteria for Specific Locations

Principle Criteria Description Measure Step 2:

Station

Screening

Step 3:

Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Danforth Station Locations

Choice Directness of Transfer to the

Bloor/Danforth Subway

How direct is the connection to the Bloor/Danforth Subway

Line?

Quantitative – Approximate distance and journey time between existing

Bloor-Danforth subway station and proposed new Relief Line station

X X X

Experience Relief to Existing Subway

Network

How much relief will the option provide to the Yonge Subway

Line, Yonge-Bloor Station and the Bloor/Danforth subway,

compared to other options?

Qualitative - Proximity to Bloor-Yonge Station, representing catchment

area for diversion

Quantitative – Number of existing daily riders entering the station

X X X

Interchange Station Design What is the ability for the station layout/design to function well

as a new interchange station?

Qualitative – assessment of features at existing subway stations, such as

bus loops, accessibility features, number of existing entrances, etc.

X X X

Proximity to key destinations for

potential future northern

extension

What is the future ability to serve customers and key

destinations such as Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park?

Qualitative – comment on the ability to provide stations on the future

alignment which would serve people and destinations north of the

Danforth, based on population and employment

X X X

Affordability Ease of Providing Connection to

Storage Facility

How many properties will be affected to connect to a storage

facility?

Quantitative – Identify the approximate number of properties affected

Qualitative – Comment on constructability and impact to TTC operations

from engineering perspective

X X X

Ease of Constructing Future

Northern Extension

How possible will it be to cross the Don Valley to the north in

comparison to other options?

Qualitative – Comment on future potential extension across the Don

Valley from constructability perspective, with consideration for property

impacts

X X X

Impact on Existing Danforth

Subway

How much disruption will the option cause to the existing

Danforth Subway?

Qualitative – comment on extent of disruption and modifications that

would be required to Danforth subway stations and tunnels

X

Downtown Stations

Choice

Compatibility with the PATH

network

What is the ability to support the expansion and/or integrate

with the downtown PATH network?

What is the ability to improve pedestrian flow within the PATH

network?

Qualitative – comment on connectivity to PATH and potential for

improved pedestrian flow

X X X

Ability to reduce passenger

crowding at existing stations

What is the ability to reduce passenger crowding at existing

stations?

Quantitative – existing passenger volumes at existing downtown subway

stations

X X X

Downtown Pedestrian Network

Impacts

What is the ability to reduce pedestrian crowding at existing

downtown stations and at street level?

Qualitative – comment on connectivity and potential for improved or

worsened pedestrian flow at existing downtown stations and at sidewalk

level

X X X


June 2015 11


Station

Screening

Step 3:

Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Directness of Transfer to the

Yonge-University-Spadina

Subway

How direct is the connection to the Yonge-University-Spadina

Subway Line?

Quantitative – Approximate distance and journey time between existing

Yonge-University-Spadina subway station and proposed new Relief Line

station

X X X

Experience Relief to Existing Subway

Network

How much relief will the option provide to the Yonge Subway

Line, Yonge-Bloor Station, Union Station and the Bloor/Danforth

subway, compared to other options?

Qualitative – Proximity to the centroid of employment density,

representing ability to divert trips from existing subway network

Quantitative – existing boardings and alightings at downtown subway

stations, serving as an indicator of transit demand

X X X

Interchange Station Design What is the ability for the station layout/design to function well

as a new interchange station?

Qualitative – assessment of features at existing subway stations, such as

bus loops, accessibility features, number of existing entrances, etc.

X X X

Proximity to key destinations as

the line is extended west

What is the future ability to serve customers and destinations

west of the downtown such as Liberty Village, Parkdale and

Roncesvalles?

Qualitative – comment on the ability to provide stations on the future

alignment which would serve people and destinations west of the

downtown, based on population and employment

X X X

Affordability Impact on Existing Downtown

Subway Stations

How much disruption will the option cause to downtown

stations?

Qualitative – comment on extent of modifications that would be

required to downtown subway stations and the disruption of service

that may result

X

Ease of Constructing Future

Western Extension

Are there constructability constraints associated with extending

the Relief Line west of downtown?

Qualitative – comment on future potential extension from

constructability perspective, with consideration for property impacts

X X X


June 2015 12

Table 4 – Evaluation Criteria for Corridors/Alignments


Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Choice Rapid Transit Network

Connectivity and Flexibility

How good are the connections between this alignment and the existing subway

lines?

How well will this alignment be able to handle shutdowns of the Bloor/Danforth

or Yonge line?

Qualitative statement on the ability to connect to the existing

subway network and flexibility of the RL to handle shutdowns of

the BD subway and/or Yonge subway.

X

Service Area What is the degree of duplication the corridor/alignment provides with other

existing/planned higher-order transit services (e.g. Regional Express Rail,

SmartTrack)?

Qualitative – assessment of degree to which service areas overlap

between the Relief Line and other existing/planned higher-order

transit services

X X

Experience Travel Time How long will it take to get from the Danforth to the downtown? Quantitative – Estimated travel time from Danforth to Downtown,

which will vary based on distance, number of stations and

alignment

X X

Relief to Yonge Subway Line How much relief will the alignment provide to the Yonge Subway line? Quantitative - Reduction in AM peak hour ridership southbound on

Yonge Subway south of Bloor

X* X*

Relief to Yonge-Bloor Station How much relief will the alignment provide to the Bloor/Yonge Station? Quantitative - Reduction in passengers transferring in AM peak

hour between BD Subway (westbound) and Yonge Subway

(southbound)

X* X*

Relief to Union Station

How much relief will the alignment provide to Union Station?

Quantitative - Reduction in passengers using Union Station in AM

peak hour

X* X*

Relief to Bloor-Danforth Subway

Line

How much relief will the alignment provide to the Bloor/Danforth line?

Quantitative - Reduction in AM peak hour ridership westbound on

BD Subway west of Sherbourne

X* X*

Relief to Surface Transit Routes How much relief will the option provide to surface routes? Quantitative – Improvement to surface routes with capacity

deficiencies (measured by improvement to volume-to-capacity

ratios for routes with capacity deficiencies)

X* X*

Relief Line Ridership

How much ridership will this alignment attract?

Quantitative - AM peak period total boardings on the Relief Line

X* X*

Total Transit Ridership How much total ridership can be expected on transit routes with this alignment? Quantitative - Total transit ridership within model area during the

AM Peak Period

X* X*

Passenger Comfort What is the length of the corridor/alignment on which tight curve radii cause

passengers to experience discomfort from vehicle movement/vibration/noise?

Quantitative – length of tight curve radii X

Healthy

Neighbourhoods

Compatibility with Existing

Neighbourhoods

What are the opportunities and impacts on the neighbourhood arising from

infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts, emergency

exit buildings, etc.)?

Qualitative – List residential properties impacted by the

construction area

X

Improving Access to Institutions

and Services

What are the opportunities for and impacts on institutions and services arising

from infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts,

emergency exit buildings, etc.)?

Qualitative – List institutions and services impacted by the

construction area

X


June 2015 13


Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Impacts on Cultural / Heritage /

Archaeological Features

What are the opportunities for and impacts on cultural / heritage /

archaeological features arising from infrastructure required for the tunnels

(launch and extraction shafts, emergency exit buildings, etc.)?

Qualitative – Descriptive analysis of potential impacts X

Eliminating Barriers within

Neighbourhoods

Will the alignment eliminate existing or result in new barriers in existing

neighbourhoods?

Qualitative - Discuss potential barriers or additional permeability

created by alignment

X

Public Health and

Environment

Compatibility With the Natural

Environment

Does the alignment create opportunities for improvement to the natural

environment?

Is there potential for temporary or permanent impacts natural features?

Qualitative – list species (flora and fauna) that may be affected, and

opportunities for improvement

X

Compatibility with Parks and

Public Spaces

What are the opportunities for and impacts on parks arising from infrastructure

required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts, emergency exit buildings,

etc.)?

Qualitative - List parks impacted by the construction area X

Encouraging People to use Public

Transit and Drive Less

How much less will people drive as a result of this alignment?

Quantitative – reduction in total vehicle kilometres travelled during

the AM Peak Period

Quantitative – reduction in auto mode share

X* X*

Noise/Vibration Impacts during

Operation

What are the anticipated ongoing/long-term noise and vibration impacts to

neighbourhoods, land uses and sensitive receptors during operations? Are there

ways to mitigate these impacts?

Qualitative – statement on anticipated impacts X

Noise, Vibration and Other

Environmental Impacts during

Construction

What are the anticipated impacts from noise, vibration, dust emissions,

contaminated soil exposure and other pollutants/designated substances to

sensitive receptors and land uses during construction? What is the ability to

mitigate these impacts?

Qualitative – statement on anticipated impacts X

Impacts to Groundwater and

Other Water Resources

What is the ability to mitigate impacts to stormwater, drainage, erosion,

sedimentation, surface impermeability, groundwater discharge and recharge,

and hydraulic changes to watercourses? What is the need for significant

dewatering during construction and in the long term?

Qualitative – statement on impacts and mitigation strategies X

Affordability Engineering Feasibility Is the option possible to construct and how difficult will it be in comparison to

other options?

Qualitative - List key technical challenges associated with tunnel

construction such as:

Geotechnical conditions / flooding characteristics

Compatibility with other major infrastructure projects (i.e.

Coxwell Bypass sewer, flood protection landform at the West

Donlands, etc.)

Availability of laydown / staging areas

X X


June 2015 14


Corridor

Evaluation

Step 4:

Alignment

Evaluation

Construction Impacts

Construction Impacts to Existing Transit Services

Traffic Impacts during Construction

Maintaining Access during Construction

What is the ability to maintain existing transit service during construction (e.g.

maintaining service on streetcar lines, subway station closures required, etc.)?

What are the traffic impacts to local and arterial streets and intersections during

the construction of the option?

What is the ability to maintain access to neighbourhoods and properties during

construction?

Qualitative – assessment of number of transit routes to be affected,

ridership on affected routes, impact to existing subway stations and

ease of re-routing surface transit routes

Qualitative - assessment of impacts to vehicular traffic based on the

City of Toronto’s roadway classification system (i.e. Major Arterial,

Minor Arterial, etc.)

Qualitative – assessment of potential for roadway closures that will

restrict access to neighbourhoods and properties during

construction

X

Construction Cost

How much will it cost?

Qualitative – high level cost estimate (corridor evaluation will be

based on $250M/km and $150M/station, plus special

circumstances where known; alignment evaluation will include

additional unit cost pricing where quantities can be calculated)

X X

Track Alignment Does the alignment conform with TTC Design Standards? Qualitative – statement on conformity with TTC Design Standards

(i.e. radii for horizontal curves, tangent distances, etc.)

X

Utility Impacts Are there any potential conflicts with existing utilities, challenges for re-locating

utilities (temporarily or permanently) or scheduling constraints?

Qualitative – statement on extent of utility impacts X

Minimize Property Acquisition

Costs

What are the property impacts associated with this alignment? Quantitative - discussion on impacts to costs on a per-km and per

station basis (at corridor level)

Quantitative - order-of-magnitude estimates on the alignment

alternatives within the preferred corridor, with respect to

associated infrastructure (launch and extraction shafts, emergency

exit buildings, etc.) and number of property acquisitions required

X

Connecting to the Storage Facility How easy will it be to connect to a storage facility? Quantitative – General description of property requirements and

construction complexity for providing connection to a Storage

Facility, beyond those established in the evaluation of the

Bloor/Danforth Station location

X X

Ease and Speed of Construction Does the option increase the speed of construction/minimize construction

timelines?

Qualitative – high-level assessment of construction timeline

associated with each option

X

Operating / Maintenance Cost What is the ongoing annual operating and maintenance cost for the option? Qualitative – high-level assessment of ongoing operating and

maintenance cost for the option, considering the length of tunnel,

number of stations, additional infrastructure (such as emergency

exit buildings) and any fleet size implications

X X

Supports Growth Supporting and Strengthening

Existing Businesses and Industry

What are the opportunities for and impacts on businesses arising from

infrastructure required for the tunnels (launch and extraction shafts, emergency

exit buildings, etc.)?

Qualitative – List businesses impacted by the construction area X

*Based on modelling results; analysis at alignment stage will rely on modelling work undertaken for corridors

Government & Nonprofit

Evaluation process and criteria june 2 2015 final