scarborough subway extension - draft evaluation criteria

SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION

21

Scarborough Subway Extension

Draft Terms of ReferenceSCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION

21


Draft Terms of Reference


21



Scarborough Subway Extension Draft Evaluation Criteria


21



21




21



Scarborough Subway Extension Detailed Evaluation Criteria

1 of 4

Criteria Sub-Criteria Measures Descriptions

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

A.1.1. Speed, reliability and comfort of subway from Kennedy Station to Sheppard Avenue

A.1.1.1. Travel time from Kennedy Station to Sheppard Avenue Estimated travel time (min.)

A.1.1.2. Comfort for subway passengers

Length of curves with radii less than 457 m (radius and length)Length of curves with radii between 457 m and 750 m (radius and length)

A.1.2. Capacity to ease crowding / congestion to address existing and future travel demands

A.1.2.1. Capacity to ease crowding / congestion during construction

Qualitative assessment of the ability of the corridor / route to ease congestion and reduce crowding during construction

A.1.2.2. Capacity to ease crowding / congestion within the transit system (i.e. connecting subway lines, Sheppard LRT and on bus routes) during operations

Qualitative assessment of the ability of the corridor / route to ease congestion and reduce crowding on the transit network

Choice – develop an integrated network that connects different modes to provide for more travel options

A.2.1. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that mitigates the impacts to existing users of SRT

A.2.1.1. Is the route optimally located to provide a direct connection to Scarborough Centre?

Subjective (yes/no) with description of proximity to Scarborough Centre

A.2.1.2. Impacts to service for existing SRT riders

Number of months without SRT service during construction of the subway (#, lower number is preferred)

A.2.1.3. Impacts to SRT passengers using existing line stations

Lawrence East Station –qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengersLawrence East Station –change in travel time for bus passengersEllesmere Station – qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengersEllesmere Station – change in travel time for bus passengersMidland Station – qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengersMidland Station – change in travel time for bus passengersMcCowan Station- qualitative assessment of impact to existing walk in passengersMcCowan Station – change in travel time for bus passengers

A.2.2. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that improves access and integration by providing convenient connections with local transit routes

A.2.2.1. Transfer time from bus to subway platform at all stations

Walking time based on 1.2 m/s + 10 second premium for every vertical movement measured from centre of bus platform to centre of subway platform (min.)

A.2.2.2. Opportunities for connections to other contemplated rapid transit initiatives

Direct connection to Sheppard East LRT – Y/NConnections to Big Move and other regional transit projectsProximity to existing and planned stations on other higher order transit lines (m)

A.2.3. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that improves access and integration by providing convenient connections with inter-regional transit routes

A.2.3.1. Transfer time from other inter-regional travel modes to subway platforms

Walking time based on 1.2 m/s +10 sec premium for vertical movement from Eglinton Cross Town LRT platform to subway platform at Kennedy Station (min.)Walking time based on 1.2 m/s +10 sec premium for vertical movement from middle of bus terminal to subway platform at Kennedy Station (min.)Walking time based on 1.2 m/s +10 sec premium for vertical movement from middle of GObus terminal to subway platform at Scarborough Station (min.)

A.2.4. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that promotes seamless pedestrian connections through subway station location and design (including below-ground, at surface, and/or above ground pedestrian connections)

A.2.4.1. Opportunities to provide taxi stand, PPUDO at all stations, commuter parking, ambulatory / non- ambulatory disabled persons, etc.)

Qualitative assessment of opportunity to use existing or accommodate new location

A.2.4.2. Opportunities to provide bus terminals at the stations

Qualitative assessment of opportunity to use existing or accommodate new bus terminal location


21



21




21




2 of 4

Criteria Sub-Criteria Measures DescriptionsA.2.4.3. Quality of pedestrian connections near station locations and integration with surrounding neighbourhood

Qualitative assessment of the quality of pedestrian connections within a 500 m radius of each station

A.2.5. Locate and design subway stations in a manner that promotes seamless connections for customers cycling to the stations throughsubway station location and design

A.2.5.1. Opportunities to provide bike racks at all stations

Qualitative assessment of land availability to provide bike racks

A.2.5.2. Quality of connections with existing cycling routes in the vicinity of proposed stations

Number of designated bike path / bike lanes from the City’s cycling map adjacent to proposed stations

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

A.3.1. Strengthen and enhance existing neighbourhood improvement areas

A.3.1.1. Drive public and private investment to designated neighbourhood improvement areas (formerly known as “priority neighbourhoods”) (Design)

Is the station located in or within 500 m of a neighbourhood improvement area? (yes/no, including description)

A.3.2. Provide high quality transit service to all residents of the City

A.3.2.1. Improve transit access for the City's disadvantaged residents

Weight the population within 500 m radius of each station by the Neighbourhood Equity Score (a proxy for proportion of population which is disadvantaged).

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

B.1.1. Opportunity to encourage transit oriented development in the vicinity of all station sites

B.1.1.1. Station location relative to designated Avenue or Mixed Use Area

Is the station located within a designated growth area? (yes/no, with a description of the context)

B.1.1.2. Proximity of stations to major destinations

Number and description of major destinations within a 500 m walk (#)

B.1.1.3. Existing population density within 500 m of subway stations

Existing number of people within a 500 m radius of main entrance (people/ha)

B.1.1.4. Future population within 500 m walking distance of subway stations

Future number of people within a 500 m radius of main entrance (people/ha)

B.1.1.5. Potential to achieve provincial minimum population density targets for transit supportive development[2]

Qualitative assessment based on analysis of development potential and existing density (high, medium, low)

Healthy Neighbourhoods – changes in the transportation network should strengthen and enhance existing neighbourhoods; promote safe walking and cycling within and between neighbourhoods

B.2.1. Create opportunities to improve the public realm in station areas, including streets, parks, plazas and other public spaces

B.2.1.1. Opportunity to improve existing public realm Qualitative assessment

B.2.1.2. Compliance with the City of Toronto’s Urban Design Guidelines

Subjective (yes/no)

B.2.2. Strengthen and enhance existing neighbourhoods

B.2.2.1. Impacts on existing apartment neighbourhoods (Design)

Is the station located in or within 500 m of an apartment neighbourhood? (yes/no)Is the station location likely to stimulate the development of new amenities to serve residents in apartment neighbourhoods? (yes/no)

B.2.2.2. Improve transit access to community services and facilities (Design)

Is the station located in or within 500 m of major community facilities / services? (yes/no, including description)

B.2.2.3. Support existing commercial businesses (Design)

Number of commercial businesses that rely on pedestrian traffic within 500 m of stations

B.2.3. Mitigate impact to existing neighbourhoods associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.2.3.1. Impacts on existing stable neighbourhoods (Design)

Number of residential properties above and adjacent to the route and stations

B.2.3.2. Potential displacement of community facilities (Design)

Number of community facilities displaced (#, lower number is preferred)

B.2.4. Mitigate property impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.2.4.1. Property and easement acquisition requirements (Design)

Number and qualitative assessment of easement requirements

B.2.4.2. Property impacts brought about by the construction of stations, vent shafts and commuter facilities (Design)

Number of properties directly affected

Public Health & Environment –support and enhance natural areas; encourage people to reduce how far they drive

B.3.1. Strengthen and enhance existing natural heritage areas

B.3.1.1. Ability to support and provide connections to natural heritage areas / parklands (Design)

Number of parks within 500 m of stations


21



21




21




3 of 4


B.3.2. Change in air quality associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.2.1. Impacts due to replacement of surface vehicle traffic with subway operations (Design)

Change in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT)

B.3.2.2. Localized impacts due to vehicles using commuter facilities (i.e. bus terminals and commuter parking lots) at stations (Design)

Meet MOECC guidelines / requirements? (Yes or No)

B.3.2.3. Impact of dust emission from construction activities (Construction)

Qualitative (impacts to sensitive receivers)

B.3.3. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, noise impact on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.3.1. Potential impact of subway and commuter facilities (Design)

Qualitative metrics (distance setbacks and types of land uses / receptors)

Sound levels (dBA)

B.3.3.2. Impacts due to operation of construction equipment (Construction)


Sound levels (dBA)

B.3.4. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, vibration impact on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.4.1. Impacts due to vibration produced by underground train movements and buses and vehicles using commuter facilities (Design)


Vibration levels

B.3.4.2. Impacts due to operation of construction equipment (i.e. due to tunneling, piling and dewatering activities) (Construction)

Qualitative Assessment based on proximity of adjacent vibration sensitive properties (distance setbacks and types of land uses / receptors)

Vibration levels

B.3.5. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, electromagnetic interference associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.5.1. Impacts due to operation of subway (Design)

Proximity to the alignment (m, higher number is preferred)

B.3.6. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, the impact of soil contamination on the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.6.1. Impacts due to excavation and disposal of contaminated soils (Design)

Area of route and stations within areas of moderate-high potential for contamination

B.3.7. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on natural heritage features / areas associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.7.1. Number of important natural heritage features / areas within the zone of influence of the subway extension (Design)

# of important natural heritage features / areas along routes / station areas

B.3.8. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on surface water associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.8.1. Stormwater management and drainage patterns (Design)

Qualitative assessment of the ability to treat stormwater

B.3.8.2. Impact of creek crossings, erosion and sedimentations (Design)

Number of creek crossings and qualitative assessment of impact to erosion prone areas

B.3.8.3. Changes in hydraulic characteristics of watercourses (Design)

Qualitative assessment of potential hydraulic impacts to watercourses

B.3.9. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on groundwater associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.9.1. Impacts to groundwater resources due to construction / dewatering activities (Construction)

Qualitative assessment on impacts to wells, groundwater discharge and recharge areas and potential for significant dewatering requirements

B.3.10. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on geology and soils associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.10.1. Potential erosion of exposed of slopes (Design) Qualitative assessment

B.3.10.2. Disturbance of bedrock (Design) Qualitative assessment


21



21




21




4 of 4


B.3.11. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any adverse effects on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes associated with the construction and operation of the project

B.3.11.1. Number of BHRs and CHLs disrupted / displaced (Design)

# (lower number is preferred)

B.3.11.2. Number of archaeological features disrupted / displaced (Design)

# (lower number is preferred)

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

C.1.1. Ability to integrate subway stations with existing and planned land uses

C.1.1.1. The extent to which the station location and orientation create opportunities for integration with existing land uses

Qualitative assessment based on proposed station location and orientation relative to existing land uses (high, medium, low potential)

C.1.3. Opportunity to encourage transit oriented development in the vicinity of all station sites

C.1.3.1. Location relative to parcels of land with intensification potential and planned land uses (to minimize impacts to lands with development potential), particularly those creating employment

Is the station located near sites with intensification potential or any proposed development and potential redevelopment parcels?[1] (yes/no, with a description of the rationale)

C.1.3.2. Existing employment density within 500 m of subway stations

Existing number of jobs within a 500 m radius of main entrance (jobs/ha)

C.1.3.3. Future employment within 500 m walking distance of subway stations

Future number of jobs within a 500 m radius of main entrance (jobs/ha)

C.1.3.4. Potential to achieve provincial minimum employment density targets for transit supportive development[2]

Qualitative assessment based on analysis of development potential and existing density (high, medium, low)

C.1.4. Identify and to the extent possible, mitigate, any business disruptions associated with the construction and operation of the project

C.1.4.1. Displacement of local businesses (Design)

# of local businesses displaced (#, lower number is preferred)

C.1.4.2. Modified vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns (Design)

Qualitative assessment of changes in access to business (additional travel distance and routing to business areas)

C.1.4.3. Reduced visibility of store fronts and signs (Design)

Qualitative assessment changes in visibility to store fronts and signs

C.1.4.4. Reduction in parking (Design)

# of parking spaces displaced (#, lower number is preferred)

C.1.4.5. Patron inconvenience due to temporary construction debris, noise and dust (Construction)

Qualitative assessment of potential patron inconvenience during construction

Affordable – improvements to the transportation system should be affordable to build, maintain and operate

C.2.1. Optimize cost effectiveness in terms of both capital and operating costs

C.2.1.1. Capital cost $ (lower cost is preferred)

C.2.1.2. Property acquisition costs $ (lower cost is preferred)

C.2.1.3. Other construction related costs (i.e. bus shuttle service during construction)

$ (lower cost is preferred)

C.2.1.4. Annual operating and maintenance costs

$ / proxy such as number of subway trains required to service the extension

C.2.1.5. Associated cost increases / decreases to service the supporting transit network once in operation

$ increases / decreases to service the supporting transit network

scarborough subway extension - draft evaluation criteria

Government & Nonprofit