For more information, see http://reliefline.ca Do not include any personal information as all posted material on this site is considered to be part of a public record as defined by section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments. Please see Terms of Use for City of Toronto Social Media Sites at http://www.toronto.ca/e-updates/termsofuse.htm.

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