Evaluation Criteria Consultation FAQ

The evaluation frameworks address the prioritization of projects of the same types – i.e. evaluating new roads and road widening projects relative to one another, and evaluating transit projects relative to one another.

When will residents be able to provide input on the allocation of funding between different project types?

• Within the TMP Part 2, the City expects to develop two or three alternative network investment scenarios to meet future travel demand. These scenarios will consider the City’s climate change, mode share objectives, as well as affordability. The network investment alternatives would feature different levels of funding for different project types.
• The alternative network scenarios will be shared with the public once the Origin-Destination Survey has been completed and the City has analyzed future travel needs.

In the Roads evaluation framework, why is “Mobility Needs” weighted so much higher than “City Building”?

• The framework is designed to identify the new road and road widening projects critical for access to development and congestion reduction (i.e. mobility needs). If a project does not meet a mobility need, it should not be constructed.
• Once the mobility need is established, projects will rank better or worse based on their ability to support key City Building objectives, including their impact on natural systems, support for transit and healthy streets, and impact on equity.
• Projects that provide access to new development are expected to score the highest.
• Projects will score higher on the congestion metric if the corridor is already congested today, compared to projects that address anticipated future congestion.

What else is new in the Roads evaluation framework, compared to the 2013 TMP?

• The framework includes a minimum threshold. Not all candidate road projects are expected to be included in the Ultimate Network.
• We are proposing a separate evaluation process for complete street enhancements to existing roads. In the last TMP, there were only a few road projects that were of this type, as most complete street projects were intended to be implemented as part of other projects (such as road renewal). In the new TMP, we expect to consider more of these types of projects as stand-alone initiatives.

Why isn’t there a scoring rubric for complete street enhancements to existing roads?

• Before presenting a detailed scoring rubric with weightings, we would like to test the framework against a list of sample projects.
• The TMP team will be working on the scoring rubrics and a list of sample projects in the coming months. In the meantime, residents are welcome to provide feedback on the proposed bullet points in the Road Project Evaluation Framework document (pages 4-5).
• What is new within the transit project evaluation framework, compared to the 2013 TMP? The framework is designed to identify the transit projects that are most critical to encouraging mode shift, attracting new riders and improving service for existing riders.
• A a new type of equity metric for transit projects is proposed: expected number of transit riders using the corridor/project who live in an (Equity) Priority Neighbourhood.
• A new category of projects, called “isolated priority measures” has been added, focused on specific intersections or bottlenecks.

Is there overlap between some of the criteria such as Ridership Growth and Service Improvement?

• There is some “double counting” in the framework – projects that score highly on Ridership Growth are also expected to score well on Service Improvement and Major Destinations & Economic Development. However, we think all three criteria are required as they capture slightly different aspects of a project’s value.
• For example, Service Improvement captures the number of existing riders who will benefit from a project, while Major Destinations & Economic Development focuses on the need to provide high-quality transit service to destinations that support economic development and regional services.

Why are you consulting on this aspect of the TMP Part 2 now?

• It is important to get public feedback on the project evaluation frameworks before bringing them to Council for approval, since the evaluation frameworks will lead to the prioritization of different projects across the City.
• The TMP team would like to get Council approval of the project evaluation frameworks in Q1 2023 at the same time as the TMP Part 1 policies are approved, before applying the approved evaluation frameworks in Part 2. This is similar to the approach used for the new Official Plan, where the evaluation framework for expansion lands was considered by Council and approved before it was applied.
• The City is exploring how the project evaluation frameworks could be used to inform the next Development Charge Bylaw update.
• This component of the TMP Part 2 does not rely on the Origin-Destination Survey. The proposed evaluation frameworks are based on the new Official Plan and draft Transportation Master Plan policies.
• Establishing the evaluation frameworks now will help us set up our tools and models for efficient analysis within the TMP Part 2, once the Origin-Destination Survey is complete.

When will you be consulting on the other aspects of the TMP Part 2?

• Public engagement on Origin-Destination Survey results and existing travel patterns is expected to occur in Spring 2023.
• Public engagement on project priorities and proposed road and transit networks is expected to occur in Spring 2024.