This document provides evaluation criteria for assessing proposals for the Scarborough Subway Extension project. It outlines criteria in two main categories: A) Serving People, which focuses on improving the passenger experience through reduced travel times, increased reliability and comfort, and enhanced connectivity between transit modes and destinations; and B) Delivering Value, which addresses issues like capital and operating costs, technical feasibility, and economic impacts. Under each criteria are sub-criteria and specific measures that will be used to evaluate different alignment and station location options for the subway extension.

1. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Scarborogh Subway Extension
Final Evaluation Criteria

2. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
A. Serving
People
1.
Experience
–
capacity
to
ease
crowding
and
congestion;
reduce
travel
times;
make
travel
more
reliable,
safe
and
enjoyable
A.1.1.
Speed,
reliability
and
comfort
of
subway
from
Kennedy
Station
to
Scarborough
Centre
A.1.1.1.
Travel
time
from
Kennedy
Station
to
Scarborough
Centre
Estimated
travel
time
(min.),
lower
number
is
preferred
A.1.1.2.
Comfort
for
subway
passengers
Note:
larger
radii
=
smoother
ride
Shorter
length
=
more
preferred
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
and
congestion
to
address
existing
and
future
travel
demands
A.1.2.1.
Impacts
to
service
for
existing
Line
3
riders
Number
of
months
without
Line
3
service
during
construction
of
the
subway(#,
lower
number
is
preferred)
Other
potential
disruptions
that
may
adversely
affect
Line
3
operations
(e.g.
dislocation
or
major
disruption
to
access
for
SC
bus
terminal
during
construction)
–
Qualitative
assessment
A.1.2.2.
Capacity
to
ease
traffic
congestion
during
construction
Corridor:
Qualitative
assessment
of
the
ability
of
the
corridor
/
alignment
to
minimize
construction
related
lane
restrictions
and
other
construction
related
congestion
Alignment:
Number
of
major
intersections
disrupted
during
construction
Number
of
arterial
road
lanes
disrupted
during
construction
Number
of
collector
intersections
disrupted
during
construction
Number
of
collector
road
lanes
disrupted
during
construction
2. 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
Line
3
A.2.1.1.
Is
the
route
located
to
provide
service
to
Scarborough
Centre?
Proximity
to
geographic
centre
of
Scarborough
Centre
(Secondary
Plan),
lower
number
is
preferred
A.2.1.2.
Impacts
to
Line
3
passengers
using
existing
line
stations
Lawrence
East
Station
–
new
station
within
walking
distance
(500
m)
of
existing
station?
(distance
from
station,
lower
number
is
preferred)
54
Lawrence
East
–
transfer
to
subway
(qualitative,
relative
to
current
interchange
with
Line
3)
Ellesmere
Station
–
new
station
within

3. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
walking
distance
(500
m)
of
existing
station?
(Y/N)
95
York
Mills
(Ellesmere)
–
transfer
to
subway
(qualitative,
relative
to
current
interchange
with
Line
3)
Midland
Station
–
new
station
within
walking
distance
(500
m)
of
existing
station?
(Y/N)
57
Midland
–
transfer
to
subway
(qualitative,
relative
to
current
interchange
with
Line
3)
Corridor:
McCowan
Station-­‐
new
station
within
walking
distance
(500
m)
of
existing
station?
(Y/N)
Alignment:
Walking
distance
increase
from
station
entrance
to
Scarborough
Town
Centre
Mall
(nearest
entrance)
relative
to
current
SC
Station
Walking
distance
increase
from
station
entrance
to
Scarborough
Civic
Centre
relative
to
current
SC
Station
Walking
distance
increase
from
station
entrance
to
Consillium
Place
relative
to
current
McCowan
Station
A.2.2.
Locate
and
design
subway
stations
in
a
manner
that
improves
access
and
integration
by
providing
convenient
connections
with
local
and
inter-­‐regional
transit
routes
A.2.2.1.
Opportunities
for
connections
to
existing
and
contemplated
rapid
transit
initiatives
Direct
connection
to
Sheppard
East
LRT
Direct
Connection
to
GO
Transit
RER
Stouffville
Corridor
Direct
Connection
to
GO
Transit
RER
Lakeshore
East
Corridor
Direct
Connection
to
Regional
bus
services
including
GO
Bus,
YRT
and
DRT
Direct
Connection
to
Eglinton
Cross
Town
LRT
Direct
connection
to
Scarborough
Malvern
LRT
Interaction
with
SmartTrack
A.2.2.2.
Transfer
time
from
bus
to
subway
platform
at
all
stations
Walking
time
based
on
1.2
m/s
+
10
second
premium
for
every
vertical

4. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
movement
measured
from
centre
of
bus
platform
to
centre
of
subway
platform
(mins)
A.2.2.3
Transfer
time
from
other
inter-­‐regional
travel
modes
to
subway
platforms
Walking
time
based
on
1.2
m/s
+
10
second
premium
for
vertical
movement
from
Sheppard
East
LRT
platform
to
subway
platform
(mins.
-­‐
Sheppard
East
Station
only)
Walking
time
based
on
1.2
m/s
+
10
second
premium
for
vertical
movement
from
middle
of
Interregional
(GO
bus
terminal)
to
subway
platform
at
Scarborough
City
Station
(mins.)
A.2.3.
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.2.3.1.
Opportunities
to
provide
bus
terminals
at
stations
Qualitative
assessment
of
opportunity
to
use
existing
or
accommodate
new
bus
terminal
location
A.2.3.2.
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
Qualitative
assessment
of
opportunities
to
improve
pedestrian
connections
within
500
m
radius
of
each
station
(poor,
moderate,
good,
excellent)
A.2.3.3.
Opportunities
to
provide
taxi
stand
and
PPUDO
at
all
stations
Qualitative
assessment
of
opportunity
to
use
existing
or
accommodate
new
location
A.2.3.4.
Opportunities
to
provide
commuter
parking
Qualitative
assessment
of
opportunity
to
use
existing
or
accommodate
new
location
A.2.4.
Locate
and
design
subway
stations
in
a
manner
that
promotes
seamless
connections
for
customers
cycling
to
the
stations
through
subway
station
location
and
design
A.2.4.1.
Opportunities
to
provide
bike
racks
at
all
stations
Qualitative
assessment
of
land
availability
to
provide
bike
racks
A.2.4.2
Opportunity
to
improve
cycling
conditions
and
connections
in
proximity
to
proposed
stations
Qualitative
assessment
of
opportunities
to
improve
cycling
conditions
around
proposed
stations,
including
by
building
new
bikeways
and
connecting
to
existing
bikeways
3. Social
Equity
–
do
not
favour
any
group
over
others;
allow
everyone
good
access
to
work,
school
and
other
A.3.1.
Strengthen
and
enhance
existing
neighbourhood
improvement
areas
A.3.1.1.
Serve
existing
and
drive
new
public
and
private
investment
to
designated
neighbourhood
improvement
areas
(formerly
Is
the
station
located
in
or
within
500
m
of
a
neighbourhood
improvement
area?
(yes/no,
including
description)

5. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
activities
known
as
“priority
neighbourhoods”)
A.3.2.
Provide
high
quality
transit
service
to
all
residents
of
the
City
A.3.2.1.
Improve
transit
access
for
other
City
areas
with
lower
Neighbourhood
Equity
Scores
Average
NE
Score
weighted
by
Neighbourhood
population
within
500
m
radius
of
each
station
(stations
serving
more
areas
with
lower
scores
are
preferred)
B. Strengthening
Places
1. 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
Corridor:
B.1.1.1.
Station
locations
relative
to
designated
Avenues
or
Centres
Alignment:
B.1.1.1.
Station
locations
relative
to
designated
Mixed
Use
Areas
Corridor:
Are
the
stations
located
within
a
designated
Avenue
or
Centre?
(yes/no,
with
a
description
of
the
context)
Alignment:
Is
the
station
located
within
a
designated
Mixed
Use
Area?
(yes/no
with
a
description
of
the
land
use
designations)
Corridor:
B.1.1.2.
Proximity
of
stations
to
major
destinations
(i.e.
Scarborough
Town
Centre
and
Scarborough
General
Hospital)
Corridor:
Stations
within
a
100
m
walk
(#,
higher
number
is
preferred)
Corridor:
B.1.1.3.
Existing
population
density
within
500
m
of
subway
stations
Alignment:
B.1.1.3.
Existing
and
future
population
density
within
500
m
of
subway
stations
Corridor:
Existing
population
density
within
a
500
m
radius
of
subway
stations
(people/hectares)
Alignment:
Existing
and
future
population
density
within
a
500
m
radius
of
subway
stations
(people/hectares)
Corridor:
B.1.1.4.
Connections
to
Metrolinx
Mobility
Hubs,
including
Kennedy
and
Scarborough
Centre
Alignment:
B.1.1.4.
Opportunity
to
develop
Mobility
Hub
at
Scarborough
Centre
per
Metrolinx
policies
Corridor:
Qualitative
assessment
of
connections
to
Metrolinx
Mobility
Hubs
Alignment:
Qualitative
assessment
of
opportunity
2. 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
Urban
Design
Policies
and
Guidelines
Qualitative
assessment
B.2.2.
Strengthen
and
enhance
existing
neighbourhoods
B.2.2.1.
Impacts
on
existing
apartment
neighbourhoods
Corridor
and
Alignment:
Is
the
station
located
in
or
within
500
m
of
an
apartment
neighbourhood?
(yes/no)

6. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
Alignment:
Is
the
station
located
in
or
within
200
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
Corridor
and
Alignment:
Is
the
station
located
in
or
within
500
m
of
major
community
facilities
/
services?
(yes/no,
including
description)
Alignment:
Is
any
station
entrance
located
within
200
m
of
any
existing
major
community
services
and
facilities
(yes/no,
number,
distance,
and
description
of
facilities)
Corridor:
B.2.2.3.
Support
existing
commercial
businesses
Alignment:
B.2.2.3.
Support
retail
activity
that
serves
local
residents
and
workers
Corridor:
Number
of
commercial
businesses
that
rely
on
pedestrian
traffic
within
500
m
of
stations,
higher
number
is
preferred
Alignment:
Anticipated
retail
GFA
within
500
m
of
stations
B.2.3.
Mitigate
impact
to
existing
neighbourhoods
associated
with
the
construction
B.2.3.1.
Impacts
on
existing
stable
neighbourhoods
Corridor:
%
of
residential
properties
above
and
adjacent
to
the
corridor
and
stations,
lower
number
is
preferred
(lower
length
of
residential
preferred)
Alignment:
Number
of
residences
within
100
m
of
work
to
be
undertaken
either
by
cut
and
cover
or
surface
(bus
terminals)
(Permanent
acquisitions)
Number
of
residences
that
will
have
temporary
property
impacts
(acquisitions)
during
construction
B.2.3.2.
Potential
displacement
of
community
facilities
Number
of
community
facilities
temporarily
displaced
during

7. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
construction
Number
of
community
facilities
permanently
displaced
due
to
subway
construction
B.2.4.
Mitigate
property
impacts
associated
with
the
construction
B.2.4.1.
Property
impacts
brought
about
by
the
construction
(stations,
tunnels,
etc.)
due
to
lane
and
road
closures
or
loss
of
access
to
the
property
Number
of
properties
directly
affected
temporarily
and
will
require
a
short
term
alternative,
lower
number
is
preferred
Number
of
properties
directly
affected
permanently
and
will
require
a
permanent
alternative,
lower
number
is
preferred
3. 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
Number
of
parks
within
500
m
of
stations,
higher
number
is
preferred
B.3.2.
Change
in
air
quality
associated
with
the
construction
and
operation
of
the
project
B.3.2.1.
Localized
impacts
due
to
vehicles
using
bus
terminals
and
commuter
facilities
at
stations
Qualitative
assessment
B.3.2.2.
Impact
of
dust
emission
from
construction
activities
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
Corridor:
B.3.3.1.
Noise
impact
due
to
train
and
bus
movement,
as
well
as
subway
and
commuter
facilities
Alignment:
B.3.3.1.
Noise
impact
due
to
train
and
bus
movement,
wheels
passing
over
special
track
work,
as
well
as
subway
and
commuter
facilities
Qualitative
metrics
(distance
setbacks
and
types
of
land
uses
/
receptors)
B.3.3.2.
Noise
Impacts
due
to
operation
of
construction
equipment
Qualitative
metrics
(distance
setbacks
and
types
of
land
uses
/
receptors)
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
Corridor:
B.3.4.1.
Vibration
Impacts
due
to
underground
train
movements,
as
well
as
buses
and
vehicles
using
commuter
facilities
Alignment:
B.3.4.1.
Vibration
Impacts
due
to
underground
train
movements,
including
those
over
special
track
work,
as
well
as
buses
and
vehicles
using
commuter
facilities
Qualitative
metrics
(distance
setbacks
and
types
of
land
uses
/
receptors)
B.3.4.2.
Vibration
Impacts
due
to
operation
of
construction
equipment
(i.e.
due
to
tunneling,
piling
and
dewatering
activities)
Qualitative
Assessment
based
on
proximity
of
adjacent
vibration
sensitive
properties
(distance
setbacks

8. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
and
types
of
land
uses
/
receptors)
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
Qualitative
assessment
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
B.3.6.1.
Impacts
due
to
excavation
and
disposal
of
contaminated
soils
Qualitative
assessment
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
Corridor:
B.3.7.1.
Number
of
important
natural
heritage
features
/
areas
within
the
zone
of
influence
of
the
subway
extension
Alignment:
B.3.7.1.
Type,
area
and
significance
of
terrestrial
and
aquatic
natural
heritage
features
displaced
on
site
Corridor:
#
of
important
natural
heritage
features
/
areas
along
routes
/
station
areas
Alignment:
Qualitative
and
quantitative
assessment
B.3.7.2.
Type,
area
and
significance
of
terrestrial
and
aquatic
natural
heritage
features
disturbed
on
adjacent
lands
Qualitative
and
quantitative
assessment
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
Qualitative
assessment
of
the
ability
to
treat
stormwater
B.3.8.2.
Impact
to
creek
crossings,
erosion
and
sedimentation
Number
of
creek
crossings
and
qualitative
assessment
of
impact
to
erosion
prone
areas,
lower
number
is
preferred
B.3.8.3.
Changes
in
hydraulic
characteristics
of
watercourses
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
B.3.9.1.
Impacts
to
groundwater
resources
due
to
construction
/
dewatering
activities
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
B.3.10.1.
Potential
for
construction
in
bedrock
Qualitative
assessment
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
Corridor:
B.3.11.1.
Number
of
Built
Heritage
Resources
(BHRs)
and
Cultural
Heritage
Landscapes
(CHLs)
within
each
corridor
alternative
Alignment:
B.3.11.1.
Number
of
Built
Heritage
#
(lower
number
is
preferred)
and
description

9. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
Resources
(BHRs)
and
Cultural
Heritage
Landscapes
(CHLs)
within
each
alignment/station
alternative
Corridor:
B.3.11.2.
Number
of
archaeological
features
disrupted
/
displaced
Alignment:
B.3.11.2.
Area
of
archaeological
potential
impacted
Corridor:
#
(lower
number
is
preferred)
and
description
Alignment:
Hectares
B.3.12.
Impact
on
safety
of
transportation
system
B.3.12.1.
Number
of
new
signalized
conflict
points
(total
change
increase/
decrease)
on
arterial
network
#
(lower
number
is
preferred)
and
description
B.3.12.1.
Number
of
new
un-­‐signalized
conflict
points
(total
change
increase/
decrease)
on
arterial
network
#
(lower
number
is
preferred)
and
description
C. Supporting
Prosperity
1. 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.
Opportunity
to
improve
transit
service
to
employment
areas
C.1.1.1.
Station
location
relative
to
parcels
of
land
that
are
designated
for
employment-­‐
related
growth
(i.e.
Employment
Areas
and
Institutional
Areas)
Is
the
station
located
within
a
designated
Employment
Area
or
Institutional
Area
(yes/no)
Corridor:
C.1.1.2.
Existing
employment
density
within
500
m
radius
of
the
station
Alignment:
C.1.1.2.
Existing
and
future
employment
density
within
a
500
m
radius
of
the
station
Corridor:
Existing
employment
density
within
a
500
m
radius
of
the
station
(job/hectares)
Alignment:
Existing
and
Future
employment
density
within
a
500
m
radius
of
the
station
(job/hectares)
C.1.1.3.
%
of
station
facilities
(not
including
station
entrances)
located
on
a
street
frontage
%
(lower
%
preferred)
C.1.1.4.
Cumulative
footprint
of
station
facilities
Hectares
C.1.2.
Ability
to
integrate
subway
stations
with
existing
and
planned
land
uses
C.1.2.1.
The
extent
to
which
the
station
location
and
orientation
create
opportunities
for
integration
with
existing
job-­‐generating
land
uses
Qualitative
assessment
based
on
proposed
station
location
and
orientation
relative
to
existing
job-­‐
generating
land
uses
(high,
medium,
low
potential)
C.1.2.2.
The
extent
to
which
the
station
location
and
orientation
create
opportunities
for
integration
with
planned
job-­‐generating
land
uses
Qualitative
assessment
based
on
proposed
station
location
and
orientation
relative
to
planned
job-­‐
generating
land
uses
(high,
medium,
low
potential)
C.1.3.
Identify
and
to
the
extent
possible,
C.1.3.1.
Displacement
of
local
businesses
#
of
local
businesses
displaced

10. SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY EXTENSION
2
Criteria
Sub-­‐Criteria
Measures
Descriptions
mitigate,
any
business
disruptions
associated
with
the
construction
and
operation
of
the
project
temporarily
due
to
the
construction
#
of
local
businesses
displaced
permanently
due
to
the
construction
C.1.3.2.
Reduction
in
parking
#
of
parking
spots
temporarily
reduced
due
to
construction
#
of
parking
spots
permanently
reduced
due
to
construction
C.1.3.3.
Patron
inconvenience
due
to
temporary
construction
debris,
noise
and
dust
Qualitative
assessment
2. 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
Area
of
private
property
required
(lower
hectare
is
preferred)
C.2.1.3.
Annual
operating
and
maintenance
costs
Proxy:
length
of
corridor
C.2.1.4.
Potential
impact
to
large
scale
infrastructure
(i.e.
major
gravity
systems
crossing
corridor,
hydro
towers
/
corridors,
major
water
feeder
line
>
750
mm,
etc.)
#
of
water
mains
impacted
#
of
storm
sewers
impacted
#
of
sanitary
sewers
impacted
#
of
hydro
towers
impacted
C.2.1.5.
Constructability
issues
that
may
increase
construction
cost
(i.e.
available
space
for
tunnel
construction,
proximity
to
multi-­‐
storey
buildings,
option
to
pass
over
Hwy
401,
flexibility
to
shift
station
to
mitigate
impacts
to
arterial
roads,
etc.)
Available
space
for
tunnel
construction,
yes/no
#
of
multi-­‐storey
buildings
in
close
proximity
to
construction
Flexibility
to
shift
station
to
mitigate
impacts
to
arterial
roads,
qualitative
assessment