Preliminary Design Study and Environmental Assessment
Highway 417 (Ottawa Queensway), from Highway 416 to Anderson Road
G.W.P. 663-93-00   C.A. 4005-A-000090

Preliminary Alternatives Report
Volume 1 of 2

March 2004

---

3.   Assessment and Evaluation Methodology

3.1  EA Classification

This project is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements for a Group "B" Project, under the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities, 2000. As shown on Figure 2, the generation and evaluation of alternatives will use a two-phase process. The initial planning phase involves the review of "Alternatives to" the undertaking. (Note that the MTO class document uses the term "Planning Alternatives" instead of the term "Alternatives to the undertaking" used in the EA Act. In this report the term "Alternatives to" the undertaking will be used.) The second, preliminary design phase will include a detailed review of "Alternative Methods" for carrying out the undertaking and the selection of the Technically Preferred Alternative for the project. (Note that the MTO class document uses the term "Design Alternatives" instead of "Alternative Methods". In this report the term "Alternative Methods" will be used.)

Figure 2: Evaluation Flow Chart

Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities, 2000
Exhibit 3.7: Overview of Class EA Process for Group A Projects

3.2   Transportation Goals and Objectives

Before the assessment and evaluation methodology can be identified, transportation goals and objectives must be established as the basis for identifying a range of alternatives and for selecting the preferred. To assist in the development of the specific goals and objectives for the Highway 417 Preliminary Design Study, relevant provincial and municipal documents were considered.

3.2.1  Provincial and Municipal Policies

The transportation vision articulated in provincial and municipal documents recognise the benefits of improved transportation, as well as the need to minimize the negative impacts that result from these improvements. In MTO's Statement of Environmental Values (SOEV), its commitment to the environment is noted in its strategic direction statement "Implement and support activities which promote sustainable development and are sensitive to environmental concerns as related to broader government activities." (Section B, SOEV)

In addition documentation arising from the provincial smart growth initiative includes Shape the Future: Eastern Ontario Smart Growth Panel Final Report, December 2003. In this document transportation infrastructure is characterized as the "lifeblood of the economy and of communities" but automobile dependence, increased truck traffic and increased congestion are identified as concerns. The report notes that transportation must be both efficient and environmentally friendly. Especially in the City of Ottawa, public transit needs to play a large role in the transportation system. (Shape the Future, page 8)

In the January 2002 draft report, Eastern Ontario Strategic Transportation Directions (EOSTD), MTO identified four key themes and objectives:

• Fiscal management
  • Maximize use of existing facilities
  • Consider innovative approaches to finance improvements to transportation systems and services
  • Promote and support efficient and cost-effective transportation systems
• Economic development
  • Support provincial and regional economic development through the efficient movement of people and goods
  • Support the economic competitiveness of Ontario industry, including resource industries and tourism
  • Promote the integration of transportation systems
  • Support the efficient operation of international and interprovincial trade corridors and gateways
• Safety and user needs
  • Recognize the need for mobility through the development of an integrated transportation system that is safe, efficient and provides reasonable choice and accessibility
  • Ensure that safety is an important element in all aspects of transportation
  • Provide appropriate transportation choices to travellers
• Environmental quality
  • Support Smart Growth principles related to land use
  • Promote a balanced transportation system that reduces energy consumption and vehicle emissions (EOSTD page 2)

The National Capital Region was identified as one of the key transportation market areas of Eastern Ontario. (EOSTD, page 5)

The Ottawa 20/20 – Transportation Master Plan, June 2003, (TMP) described the transportation vision and principles for the City. The keys to success were identified as land use planning, transportation demand management, transportation supply management and new infrastructure and services (TMP, page 29). The TMP noted that "motor vehicle volumes will grow even if the City successfully achieves this plan's ambitious objectives to reduce automobile modal split and preserve automobile occupancy levels." (TMP, page 34). The TMP recognized the ongoing studies by MTO on Highway 417 and made no assumptions about recommendations resulting from this work. The TMP did note that "the City would likely favour actions to improve road safety and reduce emissions, but is not likely to favour actions that have substantial neighbourhood impacts or increase congestion on parallel or intersecting City streets." (TMP page 65)

Municipal and provincial goals and objectives are complementary and consistent in their purpose and direction.

3.2.2  Goals and Objectives for this Study

With consideration for the transportation policies of the province and municipality and with consideration for the need to address the specific problems and opportunities identified for the area under study, the following goals and objectives are suggested for the "Alternatives to" the undertaking for the Highway 417 Preliminary Design Study.

1. Promote the Safe, Effective and Efficient Use of the Transportation System for the Movement of People and Goods;
2. Support Alternatives to Travel;
3. Support Measures by the City and Province to Manage Transportation through Land Use Planning, Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Supply Management and New Infrastructure and Services.

The following relates these goals to objectives and the identified problems and opportunities.

Goal A: Promote the Safe, Effective and Efficient Use of the Transportation System for the Movement of People and Goods

Goal B: Support Alternatives to Travel

Goal C: Support Measures by the City to Manage Transportation through Land Use Planning, Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Supply Management and New Infrastructure and Services

The above goals will be used during the assessment and evaluation of "Alternatives to" the undertaking. Potential impacts on the environment are considered at a general level of detail during the assessment, commensurate with the level of detail available for the "Alternatives to" the undertaking themselves. The assessment and evaluation of the "Alternatives to" the undertaking are provided in Section 4 of this report.

The assessment and evaluation of Alternatives Methods will be considered at a greater level of detail, commensurate with the level of detail available to those alternatives. The evaluation processes are described in more detail below.

3.3   Evaluation Principles

In accordance with the environmental assessment process, the evaluation of alternatives is based on five key principles:

• Comprehensive;
• Understandable;
• Traceable;
• Replicable; and
• Participatory.

There will be opportunities for public involvement throughout the evaluation process, including three rounds of Public Information Centres and public review of the Transportation Environmental Study Report. The evaluation process must recognize public and agency input as well as Ministry standards and requirements.

There are various methods available for the assessment and evaluation of alternatives and the selection of an evaluation method to be used is usually dependent on the group of alternatives being evaluated. The evaluation of "Alternatives to" the undertaking will be done using a qualitative (reasoned argument) approach, commensurate with the level of detail available for these alternatives. The evaluation of alternative methods will be done using both the reasoned argument approach (to provide a textual description and context) and a quantitative (arithmetic) approach (to minimize the degree of subjectivity). The two methods proposed for use on this project are described below.

3.4   Qualitative (Reasoned Argument) Method

The reasoned argument (tradeoff) method highlights the differences in net impacts associated with the various alternatives. Based on these differences, the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are identified. The relative significance of the impacts is examined to provide a clear rationale for the selection of a preferred alternative. The rationale that favours the selection of one alternative over all others will be derived from the following sources:

• Government legislation, policies and guidelines;
• Municipal policy (i.e. Official Plans);
• Issues and concerns identified during consultation with ministries and agencies, municipalities, interest groups and the general public; and
• Project team expertise.

3.5   Quantitative (Arithmetic) Method

The Arithmetic evaluation component will incorporate both the level of importance of each factor/sub factor (referred to as the weight) and the magnitude of the impact (or benefit) associated with an alternative (referred to as the score). Numerical values are derived for both the level of importance (weight) and the magnitude of the impact (score) associated with each alternative. The weight is multiplied by the score to obtain a total. The totals for each alternative are compared to determine the preferred alternative. This common quantitative method is called the "Weighted Additive, Multi- Attribute Trade-off Method".

The arithmetic evaluation includes the following steps:

1. Development of the long list of factors and sub-factors (performance measures).
2. Development of a long list of potential alternatives. The long-list of alternatives consists of all reasonable alternatives that can address the identified deficiencies.
3. Establish utility functions.
4. Collection of data/environmental inventories to provide input to the assessment and evaluation.
5. With consideration for each group of alternatives being assessed, screening of the long list to generate a short list of factors.
6. Scoring of the remaining factors.
7. Weighting of factors and sub-factors.
8. Rating of alternatives.
9. Sensitivity testing by selecting other weights.
10. Selection of Technically Preferred Alternatives (TPAs).
11. TAC and MTO Senior Management Review.
12. MTAC, PAC and Public Review.
13. Recommendations and presentation of a Recommended Plan.

3.6   Groups of Alternatives for Evaluation Purposes

For this study, a two-step process will be utilized for the evaluation of "Alternative Methods". First, the requirements for mainline Highway 417 will be assessed (i.e. widening or no widening) by section as follows:

• Highway 416 to Carling Avenue;
• Carling Avenue to Kent Street; Kent Street to Nicholas Street;
• Nicholas Street to Ottawa Road 174; and
• Ottawa Road 174 to Anderson Road.

Once the mainline cross section has been determined, interchange alternatives will be assessed.

3.7   Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors

The initial task in the evaluation is to develop a long list of factors that can be used to assess the alternatives and make comparisons with consideration for the broad definition of the environment as provided in the EA Act. This is broken down into a two-step process that includes the identification of factor areas followed by the selection of a number of factors and sub-factors under the factor areas.

The factor areas were presented to the public at the first round of public consultation. Following this consultation, these factor areas were accepted as describing the broad definition of the environment to be evaluated. Factor areas for this study include:

• Traffic and Transportation;
• Natural Environment;
• Social and Cultural Environment; Land Use and Property Impacts; and
• Cost.

These factor areas are the starting point for the development of a comprehensive list of factors and subfactors. Factors reflect the various components of that segment of the environment (natural, social, etc.). Sub-factors are the individual descriptors for the evaluation. The selection of the sub-factors is important to the decision-making process because they must adequately describe the issue to be evaluated. During the evaluation, one or more factors/sub-factors could be screened out if it was determined that there was not a meaningful, measurable difference among the alternatives being assessed for that factor.

For each sub-factor, a measure must be identified to indicate how the evaluation team will assess the alternatives.

The long-list of factors and sub-factors developed for the project, along with the measurement and the utility function, is provided in Table 1. Further details on the utility functions are provided in Section 3.8 of this report.

Table 1: Long List of Factors and Sub-Factors

3.8   Factor and Sub-Factor Weights

The selection of initial weights for the factor areas and the factors will be based on assessments by the Evaluation team. Each team member will assign a weight to each factor area and then further sub-divide the weight, as they deem appropriate, to the various factors within that factor area. The initial weights will be the average weights assigned by the members of the evaluation team.

Weights are subject to modification depending on the issues, constraints and concerns associated with the group of alternatives under consideration.

Although this step has not yet been done for this project, an example is provided in Figure 3. The initial weights selected for this project may be different from this example.

Figure 3: Sample Weighting of Factor Areas

The sum of all the percentage weights for all of the factor areas totals 100%. Table 2 provides an illustration of the possible distribution of weights among sub-factors. Again, the initial weights elected for this project may be different from this example.

Table 2: Example of Possible Weighting of Factors and Sub-Factors within the Natural Environment Factor Area

Factors and Sub-Factors	Factor Area Weight	Factor Weight
Natural Environment	9%	-
· Wildlife - Loss of wildlife habitat	-	20%
· Surface Water - Stormwater Management	-	20%
· Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat - Impact on fish habitat	-	30%
· Air Quality	-	30%

There is usually a degree of subjectivity in deciding which is the most important factor and which is the least important factor. In order to help ensure that the weighting reflects a range of values, sensitivity testing is undertaken. This is described in Section 3.9 below.

3.9   Measures and Scoring

Following the confirmation of sub-factors and measures to be used in the evaluation, the measures applicable to each alternative will be generated using topographic plans, field surveys, and numerical modeling.

For this project, the relationship between the measure and its score will be determined using a graph developed for each measure. The graph will relate the range of units to a dimensionless score ranging from 0 to 1. A dimensionless score is required because the evaluation involves comparison of measures listed in Table 1 and those measures have many different units (m², good/fair/poor, number affected, average speed, etc.). Utility function graphs (also known as performance functions) make it possible to compare all the measures for all the alternatives by reducing them to a common scale (0 to 1). The graphs for calculating scores are developed in consultation with the Evaluation Team.

Examples of the Utility Functions for the 'Impact on cold water fish habitat' and the 'Average vehicle travel speed' and the 'Compatibility with future transit initiatives' sub-factors are shown below.

In-water construction required at Coldwater Crossing

A "dichotomous" utility function (yes/no) enables the decision-maker to establish conditions that present an "either-or" situation (desirable or undesirable, negative or positive, present or absent). If it were decided beforehand that a "yes" answer is desirable, then a score of one would be assigned to the "yes" condition, and a score of zero would be assigned to the "no" condition. Only a one or a zero is the available option, no other score is available.

Average Vehicle Travel Speed (km/h)

A "linear" function is used to convert scores for sub-factors that have varying measurements. Given a measurement, a score between zero and one can be assigned to a sub-factor. The slope of the linear function can be negative or positive depending on desirability of the impact. The score of 1 must always represent a desirable condition, while a score of 0 must always represent an undesirable condition.

Physical Impact on Planned/Proposed Transit Initiatives

A "step" function enables the decision-maker to differentiate between several discrete levels of impact, e.g. good/fair/poor or major/moderate/minor/none. As with the other types of functions, a score of 1 is always assigned to the most desirable condition while a score of 0 is always assigned to the least desirable condition. Conditions that fall between the two extremes are assigned scores between 0 and 1.

The utility function (or performance) graphs for the identified sub-factors are provided in Appendix A: Function Forms.

3.10   Sensitivity Testing Program

The assessment and evaluation process for the selection of preferred alternatives recognizes that the determination of weights to be applied to factor areas and factors is a matter of personal and professional judgment. Accordingly, it is essential to conduct sensitivity testing to determine the effect of changing the assigned weights. Sensitivity-testing is undertaken to determine if the result would have changed if different weights were used. This results in greater confidence in the selection process and the results.

As noted previously, initial weights will be based on input from the evaluation team. Other weighting scenarios will be based on input from MTAC and PAC. Questionnaires focused on establishing the relative weights that MTAC and PAC participants feel should be given to each environmental attribute will be utilized during the second round of consultation activities. This will provide the evaluation team with an understanding of community values with respect to the relative importance of each environmental factor.

The results of the sensitivity testing will be reviewed and compared to the results of the initial assessment and evaluation. This information will be incorporated into the decision-making process before the technically preferred alternatives are selected.

A more detailed discussion of the calculation of the weighted scores for the Weighted Additive, Multi- Attribute Trade-off Method is provided in Appendix B: Calculation of Weighted Score.

3.11   Selection of the Technically Preferred Alternative

The Technically Preferred Alternative (TPA) identifies the preferred alternative by taking into account the technical analysis, environmental considerations and comments of study participants.

The TPA will be selected using the evaluation methodology discussed above, with the results presented to the public and external stakeholders at the second round of Public Involvement Centres. This provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the components of the Technically Preferred Alternative prior to the commencement of preliminary design.

Contents | Introduction | Problems & Opportunities | Assessment Methodology
Alternatives to the Undertaking | Alternative Methods