Evaluation process and criteria june 2 2015 final
0 likes5,651 views
The document outlines the evaluation process for the Relief Line project, which consists of four main steps: identifying station area options, assessing them against criteria, developing corridors, and refining alignments and locations. It emphasizes the importance of an evaluation framework to capture various aspects of city-building, addressing social equity, public health, and supporting economic development. Feedback from stakeholders will help refine the evaluation process and criteria throughout the assessment stages.
Evaluation process and criteria june 2 2015 final
- 1. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015
- 2. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 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.
- 3. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 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.
- 4. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 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.
- 5. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria 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
- 6. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 6 Principle Criteria Description Measure 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
- 7. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 7 Principle Criteria Description Measure 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
- 8. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 8 Principle Criteria Description Measure 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
- 9. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 9 Principle Criteria Description Measure 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
- 10. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria 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
- 11. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 11 Principle Criteria Description Measure Step 2: 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
- 12. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 12 Table 4 – Evaluation Criteria for Corridors/Alignments Principle Criteria Description Measure Step 3: 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
- 13. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 13 Principle Criteria Description Measure Step 3: 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
- 14. RELIEF LINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT Evaluation Process and Criteria June 2015 14 Principle Criteria Description Measure Step 3: 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