2.0 Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment · WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL...

WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT

2.0 Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment

An understanding of the baseline condition (defined as 2008) infrastructure capacity is necessary to evaluate the potential issues associated with future growth intensification in the City, and to establish the extent of infrastructure rehabilitation. The following section outlines the analyses completed for the water, sanitary, storm and transportation networks.

2.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

2.1.1 Approach

The approach involved building upon the Regions trunk-level hydraulic water model (H2OMapWater) to include the smaller diameter local watermains provided by the City. The Regions model is an extended period simulation model that runs over a 24 hour period that includes existing average day and maximum day demands. Diurnal patterns representing different land uses are included in the model and operational controls are utilized to control the supply system (valves, tanks, pumps, etc.). The existing model contains large scale demand polygons assigned to the skeletonized model nodes. The study area is located within Pressure Zone Waterloo 4 that generally operates with a hydraulic grade line target of 381 m.

As described in Section 2.0, given the nature of the baseline GIS data, it was deemed more efficient to develop the model by manually digitizing the watermain links and nodes directly in the base Region model by utilizing the watermain atlas and using the underlying wMain shapefile as a guide. Nodes were input at pipe intersections, location of physical pipe attribute change, and significant elevation differential. Since the Region model primarily contains the trunk infrastructure, new node connection points to existing links required manual pipe splits. Ground elevations at nodes were inferred from the contour mapping in GIS. Approximately 287 pipes and 190 nodes were added to the Regions model within and around the uptown Waterloo core area.

To populate the hydraulic loading in the updated local-level model, a more detailed demand polygon structure was needed to distribute water demands to the new and existing nodes. Approximately 86 new demand polygons were created manually that captured the address points closest to the demand node. The water billing records were overlayed with the newly created demand polygons and water meter records were aggregated to a demand node. The newly created demands were then adjusted to match the previous Region demands within the model. The results of the demand allocation provided the same quantity of water demand within the uptown Waterloo core as did the Regions model but provided a more detailed distribution increasing the demand nodes from approximately 16 to 86. This allowed a more detailed and accurate analysis of the uptown core.

Figure 2.1 presents the modeled demand polygons for the baseline water distribution system.

I 49 Frederick StreetKitchener ON Canada N2H 6M7Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733

W:\act

ive\161

110917

_waterl

oo_ser

vice_ca

pacity\p

relimin

ary\an

alysis\g

is\mxd\

Final R

eport\fi

g2-1_b

aseline

-water-

demand

s.mxd

COLUMBIA ST

E IY ATISVERBEARIN

GER RD

UNVE E

UNIVE

RSITY

AVEW

COLUMBIA ST

W

DGEPORT R

D E

I ERB STE

BR

WEBE STBRIDGEPORT RD W R

S

WEBER ST N

CAROLINE ST N KING ST N

T WB S KIER NG ST S

KING ST WSDR

NOM

ALBERT ST EST

U T

W

WES GRAHAM WAY

NDRHAGEY BLVD

MTNU

OEST

W

www.stantec.com

Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported toStantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property ofStantec. Reproduction of use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

Consultants

Legend Study AreaPressure Zone Boundary

Diameter (mm)100 - 299300 - 900 Water Demand Polygon

Note: Polygons coloured for differentiation only.

W A T E R L O OP R E S S U R EZ O N E 4

Incorporate City Comments DFE SZ 11.07.21 Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD

Draft Final Report - For Comments DFE SZ 11.03.08 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD File Name:

Dwn. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD

Permit-Seal

Client/ProjectCITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA IASSESSMENTNFRASTRUCTURE Title WatPo er Demand lygons Project No. Scale 50 0 50 100 161110917 1:12,500 m Figure No. Sheet Revision 2.1 of 1

http:YY.MM.DDhttp:YY.MM.DDhttp:11.03.08http:YY.MM.DDhttp:11.07.21http:www.stantec.com

WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment September 2011

2.1.2 Water Distribution Design Criteria

The design criteria used to assess the water distribution system is summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Water Distribution System Design Criteria1

PARAMETER CRITERIA REFERENCE Operating Pressure

Maximum Day Flow Conditions 350 kPa (51 psi) to 550 kPa (80 psi)

MOE (2008)

Peak Hour Not less than 275 kPa (40 psi) MOE (2008)

Maximum Pressure 700 kPa (100 psi) MOE (2008)

Simultaneous Maximum Day Flow and Fire Flow

Not less than 140 kPa (20 psi) MOE (2008)

Fire Flow Capacity

Residential Not less than 100 L/s Fire Underwriters Survey

Employment Varies. Not less than 100 L/s Fire Underwriters Survey

Velocity Maximum Not greater than 5.0 m/s Region (2011) 1. Taken from Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services - Part B: Design Guidelines, revised January, 2011.

2.1.3 Baseline (2008) Results

Scenarios for maximum day and maximum day + fire flow were simulated in the model. In general, the model indicates the following:

There are no major water distribution system issues or constraints, as there is a high degree of looping and interconnectivity within the Core Area.

Greater than 100 L/s fire flows are generally achieved throughout the system, except at small diameter dead-end locations. It is not anticipated that future residential or ICI growth will significantly alter the fire flow distribution.

The pressures within Waterloo Zone 4 are maintained by the Laurel tank. As the water level in the tank fluctuates so do the system pressures. At a target HGL of 381 m pressures generally meet MOE guidelines of 350 kPa (50psi) to 550 kPa (80psi). Under peak hour conditions and as the tank water levels lower, slightly lower pressures are experienced in the northwest portion of the study area near the University lands and drop below 350 kPa (50psi). This is primarily due to ground elevations and lowered tank

rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.3


levels during peak hour. The Region is considering shifting pressure zone boundaries to improve pressures within this area.

The baseline 2008 water distribution modeling results for pressure and fire flow are presented in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 respectively.

2.2 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM

2.2.1 Approach

The overall model approach was developed for a planning-level analysis only. It is understood that there is no local recent sanitary sewer flow monitoring data or previous model results available, and therefore model calibration could not be performed. For the purposes of this study, theoretical input parameters based on the available GIS physical sewer and population data, along with dry and wet weather flow parameters derived from the 2002 Sanitary Sewer System Update Master Plan (SSMP), were deemed adequate to assess system capacity constraints. It is noted that this is a local system analysis only; effects of the Laurel Trunk sanitary sewer are not evaluated as part of this project since upgrades are currently underway and/or planned for the near future. Therefore, external areas that do not flow through the local sewer system are not evaluated as part of this study.

For the analysis, a static hydraulic model was run using H2OMap-Sewer by Innovyze. This software allows for GIS integration and scenario management.

Drainage Areas

The study area is located on the eastern side of Waterloo, and intersects with several local sanitary sewersheds that drain to the Laurel Trunk sewer (see Figure 2.4). The result is an extensive upstream area to the west that contributes to flows through the study area, primarily to the Laurel Trunk sewer. As noted above, external areas that do not flow through the local sewers are excluded from the analysis, thus are not accurately representing flows in the Laurel Trunk Sewer. This Trunk sewer is currently being upgraded as per the SSMP recommendations, and considers the upstream drainage area in its design. Given the concentrated scope and timeline of this study, only a lumped modeling exercise could be performed on those external subcatchments that are tributary to the local system.

Local drainage area subcatchments were delineated for the study area based on parcel fabric with consideration to location of building and open space. As the area is used to define the infiltration and inflow component of flow, overestimation of drainage area size relative to the receiving sewer can produce erroneously high peak flows. Generally, the subcatchments were assigned to the upstream manhole of the adjacent sewer line. Some interpretation was required for parcels where sewer bifurcation occurred, in order to represent the anticipated direction of flow in the system.


I 49 Frederick StreetKitchener ON CanadaN2H 6M7Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733

W:\act

ive\161

110917

_waterl

oo_ser

vice_ca

pacity\p

relimin

ary\an

alysis\g

is\mxd\

Final R

eport\fi

g2-2_b

aseline

-water-

pressu

re.mxd

E

COLUMBIA ST

E IY ATISVERBEARIN

GER RD

UNVE

UNIVE

RSITY

AVEW

COLUMBIA ST

W

RDDGEP

ORTE

I ERB STE

BR


S

STWEBER

N


WTB S KIER NG ST S

KING ST WSDRT

NOST

ESTALBERT

WM U

WES GRAHAM WAY

NDR

HAGEY BLVD

MTNU

OEST

W

www.stantec.com


Consultants

Legend Study AreaPressure Zone Boundary

Diameter (mm)100 - 299 300 - 900

Pressure Surface Contour (psi)< 40.00 40.00 - 50.00 50.00 - 80.00 80.00 - 100.00 > 100.00

W A T E R L O OP R E S S U R EZ O N E 4




Permit-Seal

Client/ProjectCITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTUREASSESSMENT Title2008 ConditionPeak Hour Pressure Results Project No. Scale 50 0 50 100 161110917 1:12,500 m Figure No. Sheet Revision 2.2 of 1


I 49 Frederick StreetKitchener ON CanadaN2H 6M7Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733

W:\act

ive\161

110917

_waterl

oo_ser

vice_ca

pacity\p

relimin

ary\an

alysis\g

is\mxd\

Final R

eport\fi

g2-3_b

aseline

-fireflow

.mxd

E

COLUMBIA ST

E IY ATISVERBEARIN

GER RD

UNVE

UNIVE

RSITY

AVEW

COLUMBIA ST

W

RDDGEP

ORTE

I ERB STE

BR


S

STWEBER

N


WTB S KIER NG ST S

KING ST WSDRT

NOST

ESTALBERT

WM U

WES GRAHAM WAY

NDR

HAGEY BLVD

MTNU

OEST

W

www.stantec.com


Consultants

Legend Study AreaParcel FabricPressure Zone Boundary

Diameter (mm)100 - 299 300 - 900

Available Fire Flow (L/s)> 300 (18000L/min)100-300 (6000-18000L/min)50-100 (3000-6000L/min)< 50.00 W A T E R L O OP R E S S U R EZ O N E 4




Permit-Seal

Client/ProjectCITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTUREASSESSMENT Title2008 ConditionMaximum Day + Fire Flow Results Project No. Scale 50 0 50 100 161110917 1:12,500 m Figure No. Sheet Revision 2.3 of 1


I

E

E E

E

E E

E E

E

E E

E E

E E

E

E

E

49 Frederick StreetKitchener ON Canada N2H 6M7Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733 www.stantec.com


Consultants

Legend Study AreaWatercourse Local Sewer Drainage AreaTrunk Sewershed Boundary

Local Sewershed Boundary1 (External Laurel STS)

2 (Marshall/Weber) 3 (University East)

4 (CNR/Columbia)

5 (South, to Peppler Outlet)

6 (Brighton)

7 (Weber/Lincoln)

8 (CNR/University)

9 (Seagram/CNR)

10 (Bridgeport/Peppler) 11 (Willis Way)

12 (William/Regina)

13 (Bridgeport/Moore)

14 (Peppler/Erb)

15 (CNR)

Existing Trunk Sewer Existing Local Sewer ExE

W:\act

ive\161

110917

_waterl

oo_ser

vice_ca

pacity\p

relimin

ary\an

alysis\g

is\mxd\

Final R

eport\fi

g2-4_s

an-dra

inage-

areas.

mxd erna

Note:Local sewershed defined by discharge point into trunk sanitary

Revision Incorporate City Comments

sewer

By DFE

Appd. YY.MM.DD SZ 11.07.21

Issued Draft Final Report - For Comments

File Name: By

DFE

Dwn. Chkd.

Appd. YY.MM.DD SZ 11.03.08

Dsgn. YY.MM.DD

t l Drainage Flow Path

Permit-Seal

VICTORIA ST S WEBE

R ST W

GLASGOW ST

KING ST WWESTM

OUNT

RDWGLAS

G

E

E

WEBER

STNALB

ERTST

ERB ST E

KING S

T N

ERB ST W

ERBSV

ILLE R

D

BRIDGEPORT RD E

WEST

HILL D

R

UNIVERSITY

AVE W

KING ST S

CONESTOGA PKY

BEARINGER RD

UNIVERSITY AVE E

COLUMBIA ST W

WESTMOUNT RD N

WEBER ST S

WESTM

OUNT

RD S

FISCHER-HALLMAN RD

LEXINGT

ON RD

ERBSV

ILLE C

RT

OW ST

WES G

RAHAM

WAY

FISCH

ER-HA

LLMAN

RDN

CAROLI

NEST

N

HAGE

Y BLVD

KING S

T N

WESTMOUNT RD N

CLAIR

LAUREL2

LAUREL 1

FORWELL

MAPLEHILL

KEATSWAY

CEDAR

UNIVERSITY

WILLIAMWESTVALE

WILLOWOOD LAURELWOOD

LEE 2

GLENRIDGE

LEE1

Note: Large External Drainage Area Flows Through Study Area; majority via Laurel Creek Trunk

Client/ProjectCITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA IASSESSMENTNFRASTRUCTURE

Title SanitDra ary inage Areas Project No. Scale 50 0 50 100 161110917 1:20,000 m Figure No. Sheet Revision 2.4 of 1

http:www.stantec.com


Loading

Limited flow data was available on the local collection system. For the purposes of this high level assessment, data from the SSMP, water meter billing records, and Region of Waterloo Population and Land Use Model (Plum) Zones were used in the estimation of dry-weather and wet weather loadings.

Dry Weather Flow

Dry weather flow is comprised of two distinct factors: the population-derived sewage generation, and the groundwater infiltration (GWI).

Average urban municipalities indicate that 80 to 90% of domestic water use is returned to the wastewater collection system. Therefore, sewage generation can be estimated based on this representative fraction of the water use. In discussion with the City of Waterloo, the value of 90% was agreed to for this project. Since a large portion of the study area is non-residential use, i.e. industrial, commercial or institutional use (ICI), the water use relationship may not hold up depending on whether large fractions of water are exported off site. For this level of study, this distinction could not be made and therefore the base sewage generation rate for all land uses is 90% of water consumption.

The billing records present a level of uncertainty as well in that the average annual value was used to establish the litre per second rate. Missing records, or periods where properties were unoccupied result in a reduction in the average flow. To evaluate these uncertainties, population data was reviewed by way of regional transportation planning projections (Plum Zones) to compare the overall per capita rate calculated. The Regions Water-Wastewater Annual Reports were also referenced for per capita rates received at the Waterloo Wastewater Treatment Plant. Table 2.2 summarizes how the water billing per capita rate compares against the Region Annual Report and the SSMP.



Table 2.2: Comparison of Per Capita Sewage Generation Rates

Source Population DWF Per

Capita (L/c/d)

Area (ha)

Adjusted Per Capita Less Design GWIf

2008 Water Billing Records & 2006 Plum Zone Populatione 35,256 5,304 m

3/d 151 399 151

2002 Sanitary Master Plan (EarthTech) Design Valuec

CNR Trunkd Middle Laurel @ Bridged

University Trunkd William Trunkd

-6,250 68,450 10,140 4,760

-20 L/s 190 L/s 33 L/s 19 L/s

270 277a 240a 281a 345a

79 853 135 40

0.15 L/s/ha 113 L/c/d 78 L/c/d 109 L/c/d 236 L/c/d

Region Annual Report (Waterloo WWTP) 2002 2007 2008

105,390 120,055 121,413

42,235 m3/d 41,358 m3/d 47,562 m3/d

401b 345b 392b

n/a n/a

a. Includes GWI base flow b. Includes GWI & WWF c. Section 4.3.1, page 46 d. Table 4.5: Existing Conditions Dry Weather Peak Flows (L/s) Data represents measured DWF e. Calculated for subcatchments within Study Area only (i.e. excluding external subcatchments) f. Design GWI = 0.15 L/s/ha

From Table 2.2, the average water billing records appear to underestimate the population-derived sanitary sewage per capita rate, however a direct comparison is difficult given the variation in flow components considered (i.e. GWI and WWF). The SSMP does not clearly distinguish the GWI component from the trunk sewer monitoring data, and only references the blanket design value of 0.15 L/s/ha for dry weather conditions. Therefore to extract the GWI, in the absence of flow monitoring data, the 0.15 L/s/ha design value was applied to the SSMP measured flows to derive a modified per capita rate. Comparing these values, the per capita rate generated falls in line with those previously measured in the trunk system. It is therefore concluded that the water billing records, along with the applied design GWI rate, are suitable for this assessment. As will be seen, it is wet weather flow that will define the system capacity.

To account for the dynamic effects of the diurnal wastewater flow pattern, the Harmon Peaking Factor was applied to the average flow, excluding GWI. The peaking factor is dependent on the contributing population, which was also input into the model for each node receiving flow from a subcatchment. Residential and ICI sewage flow patterns are typically different. Based on the SSMP, ICI usage was assumed a constant peaking factor of two (2) independent of upstream equivalent population. Population estimates for each subcatchment are based on the associated water billing records within the drainage area and the per capita rate of 151 L/c/d.

Wet Weather Flow

The fraction of extraneous flow that enters the sanitary sewer during wet weather events is highly variable and difficult to estimate without good, sustained flow monitoring data. While there is no such data available for the local system, the SSMP provides their interpretation of infiltration and inflow (I/I) quantities from flow monitoring of the trunk sewer system. For the rmc w:\active\161110917_waterloo_service_capacity\preliminary\report\client\final\rpt_waterloo_caia_final_110915.docx 2.9


purposes of this study, these unit rates derived in the SSMP were applied to the local sewer system.

The I/I unit rates are stated as quite high at 1 to 4 L/s/ha. Given the propensity for trunk sewer unit I/I flow rates to be higher than the local system (primarily due to location of the sewer at greater depths than feeder sewers), there was some question as to whether the unit rates calculated in the SSMP were applicable to assessment of the local system. Upon further evaluation through a rough sensitivity analysis, it was determined that the base subcatchment areas defined in some large ICI parcels were excessively large compared to the realistic influence the area has on the receiving sewer. Therefore, for these large subcatchments the effective area contributing to I/I was reduced to be more representative. It is noted that for simplicity, the I/I flows for the large external drainage area representing the upstream contributions directly to the Laurel Creek Trunk sewer at Father David Bauer Drive were excluded from the analysis at this time.

2.2.2 Sanitary Sewer Design Criteria

The design criteria used to assess the sanitary collection system is summarized in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Sanitary Sewer System Design Criteria1

PARAMETER CRITERIA REFERENCE Slope

Minimum Varies by pipe size, to meet velocity criteria MOE (2008)

Full Flow Velocity

Minimum Not less than 0.6 m/s MOE (2008)

Maximum Not greater than 3.0 m/s MOE (2008)

Pipe Capacity

Peak Flow to Full Flow Ratio

Qpeak/Qfull not greater than 1.0; less than 0.8 preferred where feasible

Project Specific

1. Taken from MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (2008).

2.2.3 Baseline (2008) Results

The modeling results were evaluated for peak design flow versus pipe capacity (q/Q ratio), as presented in Figure 2.5. It was evident from the review that there are locations of pinch-points, or bottlenecks, based on the physical layout of the sewer system. While the best information available was used for this analysis, there remains some uncertainty in the results. An incorrect invert can have a large impact on the sewer slope, and hence its capacity. Therefore, prior to any system improvements, additional field investigation including topographic survey is required to verify the assumptions applied in this project.



From the modeling analysis, several key locations of pinch-points or bottlenecks are noted. These are typically associated with the downstream portion of local collector sewers as they enter into the trunk. An area of influence based on the sanitary sewershed has been used to define eight (8) sanitary clusters as described below, and shown in Figure 2.6:

1. Columbia at Philip

2. University at Weber

3. Bridgeport at Moore

4. Weber at Lincoln

5. Uptown (King N. of Bridgeport)

6. Seagram at the C.N.R.

7. Uptown (King S. of Erb)

8. Uptown (to Peppler Street outlet at trunk sewer)

The following summarizes the findings of the baseline sanitary sewer modeling:

Eight (8) priority locations where existing or potential capacity constraints have been identified

Several areas have adequate baseline condition capacity, revealing opportunities for growth with limited need for capital investment

While suitable for the purposes of initial capital planning, the assumptions for I/I and GWI rates have a great influence on the sanitary system and therefore should be validated through flow monitoring


E

E

W:\act

ive\161

110917

_waterl

oo_ser

vice_ca

pacity\p

relimin

ary\an

alysis\g

is\mxd\

Final R

eport\fi

g2-5_b

aseline

-san-re

sults.m

xd

COLUMBIA ST

E IY A

VERSIT

BEARINGER R

D

UNVE E

UNIVE

RSITY

AVEW

COLUMBIA ST

W

DGEPORT R

D E

I ERB STE

BR

WEBEBRIDGEPORTRD W R

SST

WEBER ST N


B ST W

KI STER NG

S

KING ST WSDR

NOM

ALBERT ST EST

U T

W

WES GRAHAM WAY

NDRTNU

O

HAGEY BLVD

M

EST

W

I 49 Frederick StreetKitchener ON Canada N2H 6M7Tel. 519.579-4410 Fax. 519.579-6733 www.stantec.com


Consultants

Legend Study AreaParcels Sanitary Sewer Drainage Area I/I Rate=4.0 (L/s/ha)I/I Rate=1.5 (L/s/ha)Watercourse (GRCA) Existing Trunk Sanitary Sewer

Baseline (2008) Sanitary Results Available Capacity (=100%)Ext l Laurel Creek STS Draernainage Area

Notes:1. External Laural Creek Subcatchment I/I notincluded in results 2. I/I Rate for remaining local subcatchments= 1.0 L/s/ha

Updated Sanitary Data DFE SZ 11.09.21 Incorporate City Comments DFE SZ 11.07.21 Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD

External Laurel Creek STS Dra Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD File Name:

inage Area (see Note 1) Dwn. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD Permit-Seal

Client/ProjectCITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA IASSESSMENTNFRASTRUCTURE Title2008 Sanitary Sewer Capacity Results

Final Report DFE SZ 11.09.21 Draft Final Repor t DFE SZ 11.03.08 t - For Commen s

Project No. Scale 50 0 50 100 161110917 1:12,500 m Figure No. Sheet Revision 2.5 of 2

http:11.03.08http:11.09.21http:YY.MM.DDhttp:YY.MM.DDhttp:YY.MM.DDhttp:11.07.21http:11.09.21http:www.stantec.com

W:\act

ive\161

110917

_waterl

oo_ser

vice_ca

pacity\p

relimin

ary\an

alysis\g

is\mxd\

FinalR

eport\fi

g2-6_b

aseline

-san-c

lusters

_rev.m

xd

I

Consultants

Copyright ReservedThe Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DONOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported toStantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property ofStantec. Reproduction of use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

49 Frederick StreetKitchener ON CanadaN2H 6M7Tel. 519.579-4410 www.stantec.com Fax. 519.579-6733

1

2 Legend

Study AreaParcels Baseline Capacity Constraint Existing Trunk Sanitary Sewer

Baseline (2008) Sanitary ResultsAvailable Capacity (=100%)

5 4

6 3

7 8

By Appd. YY.MM.DDRevision

By Appd. YY.MM.DDIssued

Dwn. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD File Name:

Permit-Seal

DFE SZ 11.07.21Incorporate City Comments

Draft Final Report - For Comments DFE SZ 11.03.08Final Report DFE SZ 11.09.21

DFE SZ 11.09.21Updated Sanitary Data

1. Columbia at Philip2. University at Weber3. Bridgeport at Moore4. Weber at Lincoln5. Uptown (King N. of Bridgeport)6. Seagram at the C.N.R.7. Uptown (King S. of Erb)8. Uptown (to Peppler Street outlet at trunk sewer)

Areas of Capacity Issues

50 0 50 100 m

2.6 Project No. Figure No. Sheet Revision

Scale

of 2 161110917 1:12,500

Client/Project

Title

CITY OF WATERLOO CORE AREA IASSESSMENTNFRASTRUCTURE

2008 Sanitary SystemCapacity Constraint Clusters

COLUMBIA ST

E IY A

VERSIT

BEARINGER R

D

UNVE E

UNIVE

RSITY

AVEW

COLUMBIA ST

W

RDDGEP

ORTE

I ERB STE

BR

WEBEBRIDGEPORTRD W R

SST PEPPLER ST

G

UNIONST E

SPRUCE ST WB ST KI

STWEBER

N

WCAROLINE ST N

ILLIAKING ST N

M ST W

ER N ST S

KING ST WSDRT

U

MST

ESTALBERT

WO N

WES GRAHAM WAY

NDRTNU

OHAGEY BLVD

M

EST

W

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment2.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM2.1.1 Approach2.1.2 Water Distribution Design Criteria2.1.3 Baseline (2008) Results

2.2 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM2.2.1 Approach2.2.2 Sanitary Sewer Design Criteria2.2.3 Baseline (2008) Results

2.3 STORM SEWER SYSTEM2.3.1 Approach2.3.2 Storm Sewer System Design Criteria2.3.3 Baseline (2008) Results

2.4 TRANSPORTATION2.4.1 Approach2.4.2 Baseline Results

3.0 Future Intensification Assessment3.1 PLANNING PROJECTIONS3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE LOADING3.4 INTENSIFICATION CAPACITY ASSESSMENT3.4.1 Water3.4.2 Sanitary3.4.3 Transportation3.4.5 Storm

3.5 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT MEASURES3.5.1 Water3.5.2 Sanitary3.5.3 Storm3.5.4 Transportation

4.0 Infrastructure Prioritization4.1 PRIORITIZATION THEORY AND METHODOLOGY4.1.1 Application of the Expert Choice Methodology to the Core Area4.1.2 Criteria and Scoring

4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL PRIORITIES 4.2.1 Water4.2.2 Sanitary4.2.3 Storm4.2.4 Transportation

4.3 PROJECT CLUSTER DEFINITION AND RANKING4.5 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST4.6 HIGH PRIORITY CLUSTERS 4.7 NORTHDALE

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

2.0 Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment · WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL...

Documents

Transcript of 2.0 Baseline Condition Capacity Assessment · WATERLOO CORE AREA INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FINAL...