PIC 1 Presentation

1. Prepared by LEA Consulting Ltd. 12016-03-23
PUBLIC MEETING #1:
Steeles Avenue East
Bridge Environmental
Assessment
“ K eeping St eeles Moving”

2. 2
Introduction (Project Team)
Project lead:
In partnership with:
2016-03-23

3. Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Study Context
3. Environmental Assessment Process
4. Study Purpose
5. Existing Conditions
6. Alternative Solutions
7. Evaluation Matrix
8. Preliminary Preferred Alternative
9. Next Steps (Alternative Designs, Construction Staging Plan)
10. Question and Answer
32016-03-23

4. Introduction (Context)
What is the study area?
• Rail crossing of Steeles Avenue East between Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue
42016-03-23

5. Introduction (Related Metrolinx Projects)
What else is going on in the area?
• Increased service along the Stouffville GO Rail Corridor
• Adding of a second track in the rail corridor between Unionville GO Station and
south of Kennedy GO Station
• Improvements to the Milliken GO Station and surrounding area
• Potential electrification of Stouffville GO Rail Corridor
52016-03-23

6. Introduction
What else is going on in the area?
Milliken Centre Secondary Plan*
Midland Avenue Extension EA
Redlea Ave Extension EA
McNicoll Bus Garage
Steeles-Redlea
Regeneration Area Study Metrolinx Milliken GO Station
Project and Station Area Plan
Silver Star Blvd Extension EA
62016-03-23
Note: * study boundaries subject to change during
the Secondary Plan review process

7. Introduction (Study Process)
What is an Environmental Assessment?
• Decision making process used by the City when
studying road and other infrastructure projects
• Ensures potential environment, heritage and social
impacts of the project are evaluated
• Separated into phases that require the project to
be considered in increasing levels of detail
72016-03-23

8. Introduction (Problem / Opportunity)
Why is this study needed?
• Identified in past studies for improvement
• Potential for conflicts between vehicles and train traffic is expected to increase with
future volumes
• Sidewalks, bike lanes, and the
number of traffic lanes are
inconsistent along Steeles Avenue
East
• Transit service is limited by
congestion in the area
82016-03-23

9. Introduction (Problem / Opportunity)
What will be considered in this study?
• Reducing delay for motorists and transit users
• Supporting transit service improvements
• Better accommodating all users along and across Steeles Avenue East
• Improving streetscape/public realm
• Improving safety for all users
92016-03-23

10. Existing Conditions (Transportation)
How do people get around?
• Significant amount of people take transit
• Many people walk and cycle to area transit stops
• Cyclists often feel more comfortable on the sidewalk
than on the road
• Vehicle traffic is congested through the four-lane
section of Steeles Avenue East
• Vehicle queue lengths at intersections are significant
during the peak hours
102016-03-23

11. Existing Conditions (Municipal Servicing / Utilities)
What utilities need to be accommodated?
• City of Toronto and City of Markham
• Watermains
• Storm Sewers
• Sanitary Sewers
• Bell Canada
• Rogers
• Enbridge Gas
• Toronto Hydro
112016-03-23

12. Existing Conditions (Environment)
What is the natural environment in the area?
• Plants and vegetation are non-native and generally
used for landscaping
• No significant wildlife habitats were found
• No Provincially Significant Wetlands, Areas of
Scientific Interest, or Environmentally Significant /
Sensitive Areas
122016-03-23

13. Existing Conditions (Built / Cultural Heritage)
What built / cultural heritage is in the area?
• No buildings or structures in the immediate area along Steeles Avenue East were
identified as heritage properties
• Outside of the immediate area 73 Old Kennedy Road and 4600 Steeles were
identified as heritage properties
• The Stouffville GO Rail Corridor was
identified as potentially having heritage
value
132016-03-23

14. Existing Conditions (Archaeological)
What are the archaeological interests in the area?
• Area developed as agricultural homesteads within the hamlet of Milliken
• No archaeological sites were found near the study area, while two (2) sites were
found within 1km
• Recent development has removed any
archaeological potential in the area
Historical Atlas of the County of York (Miles & Co., 1878)
142016-03-23

15. Alternative Solutions (Option 1)
• Option 1: Do Nothing
• Maintain existing condition
• Crossing at-grade with a 4 lane cross-section
• Baseline for comparison
152016-03-23

16. Alternative Solutions (Options 2a & 2b)
• Overpass Options 2a: 4-Lanes and 2b: 6-Lanes
• Steeles Avenue East Over the Rail Corridor
* Additional land required for bridge, other infrastructure and utilities to be further assessed in a subsequent phase of the EA Study
162016-03-23

17. Alternative Solutions (Options 3a & 3b)
• Underpass Options 3a: 4-Lanes and 3b: 6-Lanes
• Steeles Avenue East Under the Rail Corridor
* Additional land required for bridge, other infrastructure and utilities to be further assessed in a subsequent phase of the EA Study
172016-03-23

18. Evaluation Matrix
The following criteria were evaluated:
Land Use and Socio-Economic Impact
Archaeology / Built and Cultural Heritage
Traffic Congestion
Transit
Active Transportation
Natural Environment
Streetscape/Public Realm
Structural Engineering
Municipal Servicing
Cost
5-LEVEL SCALE
Rating of 5 best addresses problem/opportunity statement, may or may not have impacts
Rating of 4 best addresses problem/opportunity statement, may have some impacts
Rating of 3 somewhat address problem/opportunity statement OR has no impacts and does
not address the problem/opportunity statement
Rating of 2 does not address problem/opportunity statement and has significant impacts
Rating of 1 does not address problem/opportunity statement and has most impacts○
◕
●
◑
◔
182016-03-23

19. Evaluation Matrix (Land Use and Socio-Economic Impact)
Evaluation Criteria included:
• Property required
o Temporary requirement needed for construction activities
o Permanent requirement needed for road widening, bridge structure, and
utility relocation
• Impacts to existing / planned land uses
• Impacts to driveways
o Relatively less impact for all driveways with the underpass option
192016-03-23

20. Evaluation Matrix (Archaeology / Built and Cultural Heritage)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Impact on known features
• Impact on areas/resources of potential
202016-03-23

21. Evaluation Matrix (Natural Environment)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Impact to area ecology
• Affect on designated natural areas
• Impact on the tree inventory
• Change in vehicle emission levels
o Greater improvement as a result of reduced traffic delay when widened to 6-
lanes
• Change in noise levels
212016-03-23

22. Evaluation Matrix (Traffic Congestion)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Impact on intersection levels of service
o 6-lane options provide the greatest improvement to traffic flow
• Impact on convenience and connectivity
o Underpass will have less impacts to connectivity
• Impact on safety and comfort
o Conflicts at the GO Train Corridor are removed with the grade separation
222016-03-23

23. Evaluation Matrix (Transit)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Impact on convenience and connectivity
o Improved flow along Steeles Avenue East by removing conflicts at the rail
corridor and greater potential direct links to existing transit routes with an
underpass
• Impact on safety and comfort
o Reduced conflicts and improved reliability
232016-03-23

24. Evaluation Matrix (Active Transportation)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Accommodation of desired travel paths
o A dedicated (bridge or tunnel) north-south connection can be
accommodated with both over and underpass options at the rail corridor
• Impact on convenience and connectivity
o Greater potential connectivity for the underpass
• Impact on safety and comfort
o Potential physical separation between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists with
the underpass
242016-03-23

25. Evaluation Matrix (Streetscape/Public Realm)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Accommodation of streetscaping/public realm improvements
o 4-lane options provide more room for trees, lighting, and street furniture,
while the overpass creates a visual barrier between north and south of
Steeles Avenue East
• Consistency with Complete Streets Principles
o 6-lane options increase crossing distances for pedestrians and reduce space
for streetscape opportunities
252016-03-23

26. Evaluation Matrix (Structural Engineering)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Constructability / Staging
o Less impact during construction with 4-lane options
• Soil Excavation / Fill
o Underpass options require excavation between 40,000 – 50,000 cubic metres
o Overpass options require between 100,000 – 120,000 cubic metres of fill
• Maintenance requirements
o Underpass options require more maintenance due to the pumping station
• Appearance
262016-03-23

27. Evaluation Matrix (Municipal Servicing)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Potential for Utility Relocations
• Accommodation of storm events
o 6-lane options will have an increased amount of non-permeable surfaces
(e.g. concrete, asphalt)
o Underpass options will require a pumping station for drainage
• Accommodation of future sanitary needs
o No option precludes the opportunity to upsize the sanitary sewers
272016-03-23

28. Evaluation Matrix (Cost)
Evaluation Criteria included
• Potential construction costs
• Potential operating / maintenance costs
• Cost
4-lane Overpass: $ 33.75 Million
6-lane Overpass: $ 36.25 Million
4-lane Underpass: $ 24.75 Million
6-lane Underpass: $ 27.25 Million
Note: costs do not include utility relocations, property requirements, road and rail detour, etc.
these costs will be further assessed in a subsequent phase of the EA Study
* Additional land required for bridge, other infrastructure and utilities to be further assessed in a subsequent phase of the EA Study
282016-03-23

29. Evaluation Matrix
Highlights of the Evaluation Matrix is illustrated on the board
Alternative Solutions
Do Nothing Overpass – Road over Rail Underpass – Road under Rail
Option 1: 4-lane Option 2a: 4-lane Option 2b: 6-lane Option 3a: 4-lane Option 3b: 6-lane
Land Use and Socio-
Economic Impact ◐ ○ ○ ◔ ◔
Archaeology / Built and
Cultural Heritage ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐
Natural Environment ◐ ◕ ● ◕ ●
Traffic Congestion ○ ◔ ◕ ◐ ●
Transit ○ ◐ ● ◐ ●
Active Transportation ○ ◕ ◕ ● ●
Streetscape/Public Realm ◐ ◔ ○ ● ◕
Structural Engineering ◐ ○ ○ ◔ ◔
Municipal Servicing ◐ ◕ ◐ ◔ ○
Cost ● ◔ ○ ◕ ◐
Overall Rating ○ ◔ ◐ ◕ ●
292016-03-23

30. Preliminary Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is Option 3b: 6-lane underpass
The 6-lane underpass option provides improvements in the following areas identified in
the problem and opportunity statement:
• Remove train and vehicle conflicts
• Improve roadway inconsistency and lack of active transportation facilities
• Reduce delay for all road users
• Support transit expansions and Regional Express Rail
• Accommodate east-west and north-south flows for all street users
• Improve safety for all modes of transportation
Alternatives Do Nothing Road Over Rail [Overpass] Road Under Rail [Underpass]
Option 1: 4-lane Option 2a: 4-lane Option 2b: 6-lane Option 3a: 4-lane Option 3b: 6-lane
Overall
Rating ○ ◔ ◐ ◕ ●
302016-03-23

31. Preliminary Preferred Alternative Solution
312016-03-23

32. Next Steps
Confirm Preferred Alternative Solution after PIC #1
Alternative Designs (Summer/Fall)
• Determine bridge foundation type
• Refine bridge design
• Determine cross-section along corridor and utility relocations
• Refine multi-use ramp
• Refine cost estimate
Construction Staging Plan (Fall)
• Determine road and rail detours based on bridge design and construction
requirements
• Develop a construction staging plan
Public Information Centre #2
• Fall 2016
322016-03-23

33. Thank You!
Please provide any comments to Maogosha Pyjor by April 8th, 2016.
Maogosha Pyjor
Senior Public Consultation Coordinator
Public Consultation Unit
City of Toronto
P: 416.338.2850
E: mpyjor@toronto.ca
332016-03-23