MEMO
Date:
January 2, 2008
To:
Chris Caers P.Eng.
From:
Roland Karl P.Eng., MBA
Project:
2007-5273.03.21
Subject:
Toronto Watermain Route Study - Kennedy Road
File:
The purpose of this memo is to provide a preliminary, comparative traffic assessment of four alternative routes for a
proposed new watermain installation. All options (Routes A, B, C and D) provide connection between the Scarborough
Pumping Station (on Fishleigh Drive near Glen Everest Road) and existing facilities located near the intersections of
Midland Avenue and St Clair Avenue East and are illustrated on the attached “Kennedy Road – Short Listed Routes”
figure.
The following table highlights some of the principal characteristics of each route option and its sub-sections.
The traffic volume figures quoted above are based upon 2001 through 2005 traffic count information as published by the
City of Toronto, Traffic Data Centre and Safety Bureau. The ‘Exposure Factor’, shown in the last column, is the result of
multiplying the average volume per lane within each sub-section by the approximate length of the subsection. No
adjustments for road classification, adjacent land use character or existence of transit routes has been included in this
calculation at this time. . In addition, no adjustment has been included for roadway ‘crossings’ which may add to the
indicated traffic impacts depending upon the method of construction employed.
On the basis of the above ‘Exposure Factor’, Route B appears to represent the option which presents the least traffic
impact. This result is directly attributable to the routes’ use of local roadways and ‘off-road’ routings. While the larger scale
Memo To: Chris Caers P.Eng.
January 02, 2008
-2impacts may in fact be minimized by this route choice, it must also be observed that this routing may present itself as the
‘most intrusive’ with respect to local impacts. Resident immediately adjacent to the construction may be faced with limited
or no vehicular access during phases of the installation (depending on both final design and construction methods. In
addition, much of the construction related traffic will, of necessity, be drawn into the neighbourhood streets to access the
construction works.
Route “C”, with the next lowest ‘exposure factor’, also exhibits the potential to result in significant local impacts for the
portion of the route located south of Kingston Road.
Route “A”, representing the existing watermain route, presents itself as a slightly more ‘mixed’ routing. While significant
portion of the route still make use of local, interior neighbourhood roadways, Kennedy Road itself is somewhat different in
nature. Although officially classified as a ‘local’ roadway, it is a direct extension of a major arterial route to the north and is
utilized as a transit route. As such, it may be considered as more of a boundary roadway than those previously discussed.
Finally, “Route D”, is shown to exhibit a substantially higher ‘exposure factor’ in comparison to the other alternatives.
Without doubt, Kingston Road is a major arterial roadway that carries a significant traffic volume (resulting in its high
exposure rating). However, while the previously discussed routes may be understating the traffic impacts associated with
their choice, in this case, the relative impacts may be considerably overstated.
Within the area being reviewed, Kingston Road is a 6 lane divided roadway flanked by strip commercial development. The
road right-of-way associated with this type of roadway may allow for positioning any new watermain in such a manner as
to minimize the impacts to the adjacent traffic, potentially avoiding the existing paved surface altogether. This type of
flexibility would not be available along local roadways.
Even if this ‘ideal’ situation cannot be realized, it would not be unreasonable to assume that any proposed alignment
would likely parallel Kingston Road and remain on the same ‘side’ for the duration of the project. As a divided roadway,
the project would therefore likely only impact one side of the roadway (and half of the traffic) resulting in an ‘exposure
factor’ much more comparable to that presented by Routes “A” and “C”. The other ‘advantage’ of this route is that
construction access should be limited to arterial roadways, thus avoiding residential intrusions.
In conclusion, while the results presented in the above table seem to provide a clear indication of a ‘winning route’ and a
‘losing route’ this is not the case as this assessment requires a means of evaluating and comparing ‘big picture’ vs. ‘local’
impacts. In addition, design options which may be available along major arterial routes may not be available along local
routings. As a result, further development of the various options may be required before a clear ‘traffic impact’ winner can
be determined.