Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update (Oct. 30 PIE).

Welcome

Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update

Public Information Event (PIE)October 30, 2017

View display boards and speak one-on-one with project team staff

2

Purpose of PIE

• Present details of alternative solutions for Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Update

• Present the evaluation of alternatives

• Present the Preliminary Preferred Solution

• Hear from you as a stakeholder

Please, complete your comment sheet so your comments are properly recorded

Your input is important

3

Study Purpose and Objectives

PURPOSE:• Develop a comprehensive Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan, to

service current, planned and future developments along Toronto’s waterfront to 2041

OBJECTIVES• Assess the existing system for adequacy and constraints, and recommend

upgrades and/or modifications• Make “best use” of existing and proposed facilities• Provide servicing for new development without increasing the number and

volume of combined sewer overflows• Identify operational efficiencies• Build on the 2012 Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan

4

The Study and Municipal Class EA Process

Phase 1Problem or Opportunity

• Identify problem or opportunity

Phase 2Alternative Solutions

• Identify alternative solutions

• Inventory environment

• Identify impacts and mitigation measures

• Evaluate alternatives

• Select preferred solution

Phase 3Alternative Design

Concepts Preferred Solution• Identify alternative

design concepts• Detail inventory

environment• Evaluate

alternative designs

• Select preferred design

• Preliminary finalization

Phase 4Environmental Study Report

• Complete ESR• ESR on public

record• Notice of

Completion

Phase 5Implementation

• Contract drawings and tender documents

• Construction and operation

• Monitor

We are here

5

Study Area

6

Waterfront Sanitary Master Plan Update is Linked with Other City Initiatives

Related studies completed since 2012 Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan include:• Don River and Central Waterfront Project: Strategy for combined sewer

overflow control in Don River and Central Waterfront.

• Integrated Pump Station (IPS): Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant “M” and “T” Pumping Station replacement.

• Waterfront Servicing: Multiple projects addressing local sanitary servicing for the waterfront development precincts.

• Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project: EA addressing re-naturalization of mouth of Don River.

• Port Lands + South of Eastern Transportation & Servicing Master Plan EA: EA for the Port Lands area.

7

What has Changed Since 2012?

• Completion of other EA studies in particular Don River and Central Waterfront project, and new Integrated Pump Station at Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant.

• Growth estimates have increased since 2012 master plan. Now estimating 146,000 more residents and 166,000 more jobs within the study area.

• Managing risk associated with operating levels along the Mid-Toronto Interceptor.

• Timeline of demand for servicing capacity and more advanced Precinct Plans.

• Wet-weather flow reduction initiative in Scott Street Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) service area.

• Changes in local servicing (Cherry Street sewer and SPS, East Bayfront sewer).

8

The Problem and Opportunity

• 312,000 residential and employment population growth in the study area.

• Sustainable long-term servicing strategy required.• Address immediate need for sanitary servicing. • Opportunities to maximize the use of existing

infrastructure (local sewers, interceptors and pumping stations).

• Opportunity to reduce dependence on pumping.

9

Evaluation Process

Screen alternatives for feasibility and ability to meet requirements of Problem Statement. Eliminate infeasible or non-compliant

alternatives

Compare and evaluate alternative solutions using criteria which include technical considerations, as well as our natural, social,

cultural and economic environment

Identify Preliminary Preferred Alternative/Solution for public and stakeholder review

Identify Preferred Alternative/Solution for 30-day review

10

Evaluation Criteria

Cultural Environment•First Nations lands, archaeological sites•Cultural / heritage features

Natural Environment•Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife•Aquatic vegetation and wildlife•Groundwater•Soil and geologySocio-Economic Environment•Long term community impacts•Construction impacts•Need for property acquisitionServicing New Development•Ability to meet short term servicing needs•Adaptability to change in growth•Design adaptability

Sustainability•Energy efficiency•Green house gas emissions•Climate change adaptability

Technical Considerations•Sewer system overflows and flooding risk•Constructability and risk •Contaminated materials disposal•Long term system reliability/resilience•System operational complexity•Operational redundancy and flexibility

Financial Considerations•Capital cost •O&M costs •Lifecycle costs

11

Overview of Alternative SolutionsDO NOTHING • Service new growth though existing sewer systems, no upgrades

ALTERNATIVE 1 CENTRAL 1 + PORT LANDS• Upgrade Scott Street SPS (990 L/s), install Scott Street SPS gravity bypass• Yonge Street and Lower Jarvis sanitary sewer upgrades• New Port Lands SPS (977 L/s) with forcemain to Carlaw Ave. interconnect to MTI• New Port Lands collection sewers

ALTERNATIVE 2 CENTRAL 2 + PORT LANDS• Install Scott Street SPS gravity bypass• New Lower Yonge Precinct SPS (830 L/s) with forcemain to Scott-Victoria interconnect to MTI• Harbour Street and Lower Jarvis sanitary sewer upgrades• New Port Lands SPS (977 L/s firm capacity) with forcemain to Carlaw Ave. interconnect to MTI• New Port Lands collection sewers

ALTERNATIVE 3 CENTRAL 3 + PORT LANDS• Decommission Scott Street SPS, divert flow to new Lower Yonge Precinct SPS (1,040 L/s) with

forcemain to Scott-Victoria interconnect to MTI• New gravity sewer from Scott SPS to new SPS • Lower Jarvis sanitary sewer upgrades• New Port Lands SPS (977 L/s firm capacity) with forcemain to Carlaw Ave. interconnect to MTI• New Port Lands collection sewers

ALTERNATIVE 4 INTERCEPTOR TUNNEL• New interceptor trunk sewer to service the entire area following alignment of future Inner Harbour Wet

Weather Tunnel• Elimination of four local SPS (Skydome, Simcoe, Scott, Cherry)• New SPS (2,240 L/s) at tunnel terminus west of IPS discharging to MTI/LLI or HLI tunnel• Short term services required – Scott SPS bypass; Scott SPS Upgrade (990 L/s); Yonge Street and Lower

Jarvis sewer upgrades; New Port Lands SPS (550 L/s) and Commissioners Street sewer

12

Do NothingPROS• Lowest Capital and

Lifecycle costs

CONS• Does not provide

adequate sanitary servicing

• Results in overloading of existing sanitary sewers.

• Will result in an increase in combined sewer overflows

• More complex operation to manage flow

COSTS• No Cost • No increase in

operational costs

13

Alternative 1PROS• Lowest Capital and

Lifecycle costs• Lowest Capital and

Lifecycle costs• Low impact on natural

environment• Some adaptability to

changing conditions.

CONS• Additional stress on the

Scott Street SPS• Higher annual operation

and maintenance costs

COSTS• $84.8 Million

Capital Cost• $214 Million

Life Cycle (100 year)

14

Alternative 2PROS• More adaptable to

changing conditions• Less disruption to the

community (Yonge Street)

• Provides capacity relief to existing Scott Street SPS

• Similar to Alternative 1

CONS• Additional sewage

pumping station• Higher annual operation

and maintenance costs

COSTS• $103 Million



15

Alternative 3PROS• More adaptable to

changing conditions• Allows Scott Street SPS

to be decommissioned

CONS• Higher annual operation

and maintenance costs• Greater community

disruption (Yonge Street)

• Higher costs than Alternatives 1 or 2




x

16

Alternative 4PROS• Reduces number of

pumping stations to one station at the end of the interceptor

• Very adaptable to changing development

CONS• High capital costs• High life cycle costs• Requires short term

servicing• Coordination with other

projects• Land requirements




17

Evaluation Matrix - Alternative Scoring

Criteria Do NothingAlternative 1

Central 1 + Port Lands

Alternative 2Central 2 + Port

Lands


Lands

Alternative 4Interceptor

Tunnel

1 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 10 6 6 6 6

2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 8 12 12 12 12

3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 11 13 9 9 7

4 SERVICING NEW DEVELOPMENT 3 11 11 11 13

5 SUSTAINABILITY 2 6 6 6 10

6 TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 14 16 18 18 24

TECHNICAL SCORE TOTAL 48 64 62 62 72*PIE Handout provides more detailed information on criteria and scoring

18

Evaluation Matrix - Alternative Scoring

Cost MetricsAlternative 1

Central 1 + Port Lands


Lands


Lands

Alternative 4Interceptor

Tunnel

1 CAPITAL COST $84,800,000 $102,900,000 $111,600,000 $263,600,000

2 ANNUAL O&M COSTS $770,000 $810,000 $840,000 $240,000

3 LIFE CYCLE COSTS (100 YR) $214,100,000 $227,000,000 $239,900,000 $319,800,000

1 CAPITAL COST SCORE 5 3 3 1

2 ANNUAL O&M COSTS SCORE 3 1 1 5

3 LIFE CYCLE COSTS (100 YR) SCORE 5 3 3 1

FINANCIAL SCORE TOTAL 13 7 7 7

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE SCORINGTECHNICAL 64 62 62 72

FINANCIAL 13 7 7 7

TOTAL SCORE 77 69 69 79

19

Alternatives Evaluation

• Alternative 4 has the “highest” Technical score, at the “highest” cost.

• Alternative 1, 2 and 3 have comparable Technical scores, with Alternative 1 having the highest Financial score.

• Alternative 4 implementation timeline requires short-term infrastructure improvements that are effectively the same as Alternative 1.

Timeline EA Schedule

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Alternative 4 - Interceptor Tunnel

Interceptor Tunnel B Planning Design Construction In-Service

Terminus SPS B Planning Design Construction In-Service

Consolidation Sewers A+/B Planning Design Construction In-Service

Decommission SPSs

Short-Term Infrastructure

Scott Street I/I Initiative A+ Ongoing (Potential 100 L/s capacity restored)

Lower Jarvis Pipe upgrade

A+ Design In-Service

Scott Street by-pass A+ Design In-Service

Yonge Street upgrade A+ Design In-Service

Scott Street SPS upgrade to 990 L/s


Port Lands SPS (550 L/s) MESP/B Design In-Service

MESP‐Master Environmental Servicing Plan constitutes a municipal servicing plan (stormwater, wastewater, water and transportation) along with environmental management to support future development

Construction of Interceptor Tunnel can be deferred with Short-Term Servicing

Scott Street SPS, Lower Yonge Precinct, Don Lands, Unilever and Port Lands immediate capacity needs met with Short-Term Infrastructure

Alternative 4Implementation requires short-term infrastructure to meet immediate capacity needs.

20

Alternatives Evaluation

• Alternative 4 and 1 have similar total scores.

• However, Alternative 4 is approximately $178M more in capital costs.

• The high cost for Alternative 4 is not considered preferable as it does not necessarily provide additional benefits at this time.

• Many of the early upgrades associated with Alternative 4 include Alternative 1 system improvements and upgrades.

• Alternative 1 has the lowest costs and makes the best use of existing infrastructure.

• Overall, Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for Waterfront Sanitary Servicing.

21

Alternative 1 - Preferred Alternative

Timeline EA Schedule 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Alternative 1 – Upgrade Scott SPS, Scott St. Bypass, New Port Lands SPS

Scott Street I/I Initiative A+ Ongoing (Potential 100 L/s

capacity restored)

Lower Jarvis Pipe upgrade A+ Design In-

Service

Scott Street by-pass A+ Design In-

Service

Yonge Street upgrade A+ Design In-

Service

Scott Street SPS upgrade to 990 L/s


Port Lands SPS (550 L/s initialstage)

MESP/B Design In-Service Future expansion to ultimate 997 L/s

MESP‐Master Environmental Servicing Plan constitutes a municipal servicing plan (stormwater, wastewater, water and transportation) along with environmental management to support future development

Alternative 1

Implementation addresses short-term needs.

Future expansion of Port Lands SPS would be required and can be timed with growth.

Alternative does not preclude the Alternative 4 servicing strategy.

22


• Substantially lower capital cost.• Independent servicing strategy for Scott St. SPS service area.

Bypass to Scott-Victoria inter-connection will allow for gravity operation the majority of time.

• Independent servicing strategy for Port Lands can be implemented to meet servicing demand from Lower Don Lands and Unilever lands. Port Lands SPS capacity would be staged.

• Potentially the best approach to making future use of MTI via gravity conveyance by interconnecting sewers, once IPS and WWF tunnel system in place.

• Does not preclude future consideration of Alternative 4.

23


Approvals: Class EA Master Plan once complete will allow projects to proceed.Design/Construction:

• Implementation timeline will meet capacity requirements.

• Scott Street Bypass, Lower Jarvis Upgrade and Yonge Street Upgrade the highest priorities.

• Yonge St. Upgrade will have traffic and utility impacts. This project has the highest potential constructability risk and further detailed work is required to properly scope.

• Scott Street area I/I reduction program initiated. Success of program may delay the need for Scott St. SPS upgrade.

• Port Lands SPS timing needs to be coordinated with Lower Don Lands/Unilever and flood protection work.

• Avoids need for design/construction coordination with IPS and WWF tunnel project.

24

Preferred Alternative - Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Possible Construction Impact Mitigation ProposedNoise Adherence to City Noise By-Law.

Dust/Mud Tracking Use of dust suppressant, mud mats, street sweeping.

Site Safety Fenced, signed construction sites.

Traffic/Pedestrian Disruption Detailed traffic plan to be developed. Notices distributed, as necessary to inform of alternate routes.

Existing Utilities/Services Utility support and relocation. Temporary services provided, if necessary.

Natural Environment (trees, birds) Tree protection zones; tree replacement, if needed.

Cultural Environment (uncover artifacts) Unlikely. Protocols will be followed.

Pump Noise Long term monitoring of facility performance. Use of noise baffling.

Aesthetics New pump station exterior designed to bring aesthetic value to surroundings.

Odour Carbon-based odour control system.

25

Key Questions for Consideration Tonight

Do you have any comments or feedback regarding:• The alternative solutions considered• The evaluation criteria or process• The preliminary preferred solution• Other aspects of the study

26

Next Steps

When What

Tonight Present and receive input/feedback on the preliminary preferred solution

End-2017 Complete EA Report and submit for 30-day public comment period

PIE CONTACT INFORMATION

Mae Lee, City of Toronto

Telephone: (416) 392-8210

Tty: (416) 338-0889

Fax: (416) 392-2974

Email: [email protected]

Email your comments by Nov. 10th, 2017

Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update (Oct. 30 PIE).

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update (Oct. 30 PIE).