usrc east cac meeting #7 summary - metrolinx engage...peter reassured the community that metrolinx...

CAC #7 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Noise Results and Mitigation Options) of 8

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor East Community Advisory Committee Meeting #7 Tuesday, August 14, 2018 Cooper Koo Family Cherry Street YMCA, 461 Cherry Street, Community Meeting Room 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

MEETING SUMMARY

On Tuesday August 14, 2018, 30 people attended the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting #7 regarding the noise portion of the draft Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment (RBNVA). Attendees included: CAC members, community members, the community’s Member of Provincial Parliament, and staff from Metrolinx, the City of Toronto, and AECOM (the firm contracted by Metrolinx to undertake the RBNVA) (see Attachment A for the list of participants). The purpose of the meeting was to present the noise evaluation results from the draft RBNVA and to discuss potential noise mitigation options for the USRC East community (see Attachment B for the meeting agenda).

Peter Zuk, Metrolinx’s Chief Capital Officer, opened the meeting and thanked the CAC and community members for their continued engagement with the Metrolinx team. Peter identified that the USRC East community is unlike any other community along the 250+ km of the Metrolinx rail network due to its close proximity to the USRC and the associated impacts of corridor operations, construction, and maintenance. He suggested that the CAC take the noise mitigation options discussed at this meeting to their respective communities for feedback. Peter reassured the community that Metrolinx is working on a commitment letter that will reinforce the understanding and agreements between Metrolinx and the USRC East community.

James Hartley (Metrolinx, Environmental Programs and Assessment Manager) and Alan Oldfield (AECOM) presented the noise evaluation results from the RBNVA report as well as some potential receptor-based noise mitigation options (see Attachment C for the presentation deck). A facilitated discussion took place after the presentation on measured noise levels, the noise mitigation options presented, advice and other considerations for Metrolinx, and other comments and issues raised by CAC members.

This meeting summary was written by Jacky Li and Nicole Swerhun from the third-party facilitation team, Swerhun Facilitation. It reflects the main points shared by participants during the meeting and is not intended to be a verbatim transcript. A draft of this summary was shared with participants prior to being finalized.

This summary is organized into the following sections: I. Overall Summary of Discussion

II. Detailed Summary by Topic: A. Noise Evaluation Results from the RBNVA B. Noise Mitigation Options from the RBNVA C. Additional Suggestions and Considerations

III. Wrap-up, Next Steps and Action Items

Attachments: Attachment A: Participant List; Attachment B: Meeting Agenda; and Attachment C: Metrolinx Presentation Slide Deck.


I. Overall Summary of Discussion

The following emerged as key points of discussion from the meeting. These points are meant to be read alongside the more detailed description provided in the rest of this summary.

• Participants would like to see a summary or menu of noise mitigation options being assessed. It would be helpful to the participants if all of the solutions being assessed in the RBNVA were laid out in an easy-to-read format that indicates all possible options for each location with information about what configurations are technically feasible in maximizing mitigation benefits. Metrolinx and AECOM committed to producing this piece of information by Friday August 24, 2018.

Post-meeting note: The noise mitigation options menu is currently being developed. Metrolinx anticipates sharing it with the CAC for review by August 31, 2018.

• The Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment will be peer-reviewed. Members of the CAC requested Metrolinx to provide funding for the CAC to hire a third-party consultant to conduct its own noise and vibration assessments. Peter Zuk declined this request and offered to have the RBNVA peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant instead. The RBNVA will be peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant, who are currently reviewing Metrolinx's noise policies and strategies.

• Metrolinx is looking for advice and feedback on making the business case to secure funding for mitigation options. CAC members suggested a number of points to cover in the business case to represent the experiences of the community such as: using nighttime baselines in the noise evaluations; adding ground floor and laneway assessments to the evaluation; and exploring if there are complementary benefits (e.g., potential air quality improvements) with the options assessed.

• CAC members had several questions about implementation of the Commitment Letter. Peter Zuk assured participants that Metrolinx, the corporation, is committed to staying true to the promises in the letter. Given the unique challenges in the USRC East, Metrolinx is committed to going beyond regulatory requirements to address longstanding issues and concerns raised by the community.

II. Detailed Summary by Topic

The majority of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the noise evaluation results and potential mitigation options from the draft Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment. Metrolinx is looking for the community’s feedback on this report in order to inform the business case which will be used to request funding for mitigation for the USRC East community. Metrolinx needs to provide their senior management team with a clear scope, justification, and cost estimates in order to put together a proposal for funding. Feedback provided by CAC and community members will inform Metrolinx’s review of mitigation options and identification of preferred mitigation measures in time for the second meeting focused on proposed noise mitigation, which is currently scheduled for September 18, 2018.

The following sections capture the questions of clarification, feedback, and advice shared by participants by topic area. Responses by staff from Metrolinx and AECOM, where provided, are noted in italics.


A. Noise Evaluation Results from the RBNVA

Questions of Clarification:

1. When are daytime and nighttime noise levels assessed? For regular operations, including background contributions from highways and roads, daytime noise levels are assessed across 16 hours from 7 am to 11 pm. Nighttime noise levels are assessed across 8 hours from 11 pm to 7 am. Exterior noise levels were recorded between March 10 to 15, 2018. The noise logging was undertaken to provide a record of current typical noise levels from corridor operations and background from other sources, including road and aircraft.

2. When were the ambient noise levels measured? In addition to the noise logging, short-term measurements were taken of individual equipment and activities on four (4) different days: March 10, 11, April 21 and May 26, 2018.The short-term ambient noise was measured to capture the background noise in the absence of construction and machine equipment.

3. What is the purpose of ambient noise measurements? The short term ambient noise levels were measured during the attended measurements to determine how loud the equipment is in reference to the background noise. This is necessary to understand whether background noise was contributing to the noise levels measured with equipment operating. It is appreciated that the difference between equipment noise levels and the underlying background will be greater at night-time.

4. Please clarify why the baseline noise levels are different between the TPAP and the RBNVA. The baselines are different because the regulatory review of rail service requires that both existing and future noise levels are predicted using methods acceptable to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). The assessment of rail service captured in the TPAP does not consider the impacts of ongoing maintenance and construction, which is what makes the USRC East a unique situation. The TPAP assesses noise averaged across the entire day and night periods and specifically looks at future rail operations. The RBNVA, however, focuses on current noise produced by construction and maintenance equipment as well as idling trains in the corridor.

CAC Feedback:

• Use nighttime ambient noise levels as the baseline for RBNVA. Since Metrolinx has already acknowledged that construction will occur at nighttime, a participant suggested that using nighttime ambient noise levels as the baseline for noise assessments will show a greater difference in noise increases in the corridor and would better reflect the experiences of USRC East community members. This difference may add to the business case Metrolinx is putting together.

• Find a way to illustrate the noise impacts of multiple pieces of construction equipment operating at one time, which is usually the case.

• Let the appropriate ministries know that the noise baseline in the USRC has already incrementally increased and has been above daytime/nighttime thresholds for a long time. Participants expressed concerns about the 5 dB threshold triggering TPAP mitigation requirements; if noise has incrementally increased (e.g. by 4 dB) with each operational change, then noise levels have been creeping towards unacceptable levels without mitigation.


• Include assessments from Tom Longboat Lane in the RBNVA since this space is used by residents for social gathering and by children as a playground. This may also add to the need and justification in Metrolinx’s business case.

Post-meeting note: The summary/menu of possible noise mitigation options will include anticipated effectiveness of these options at reducing noise in the laneway.

• It would be helpful to have the results from the TPAP and RBNVA next to each other.

• Consider adding auguring equipment to the list of rail equipment on Slide 10 since it is anticipated that this machinery will be required for installing the Overhead Contact System (OCS) poles for electrification.

B. Noise Mitigation Options from the RBNVA

Questions of Clarification:

Complementary and cumulative mitigation benefits

1. Are multiple noise mitigation solutions that provide cumulative benefits being considers? Yes, this is on the table for discussion.

2. Would any of these mitigation options also mitigate air quality impacts? If there are complementary benefits, this can be another a point in the business case. There is some potential for air quality improvements for the units in keeping out the particulate matter emitted by diesel trains.

Post-meeting note: Noise walls can shield residents immediately behind the noise wall from the air pollution emanating from the rail corridor. This benefit will be at its peak when wind direction is perpendicular to the noise wall.

Noise walls

3. Why aren’t noise walls as effective for the 3rd and 4th floors? Noise walls need to block the line of sight to the source of the noise in order to be effective. If there is a clear line of sight to the source of noise or the difference in sound path length with and without the barrier is shorter (as on the 3rd and 4th floors), the noise wall is less effective.

4. What about the 9 metre noise wall? We would like to see all of the options before you dismiss them. We mention this in the report. A 9 metre noise wall will be challenging to build due to the foundation required and the quality of soil that currently exists.

5. Will the noise wall be on the same level as the corridor? The noise wall will be offset from the rail tracks to accommodate safety clearances for trains and the OCS poles. The noise wall will be built at track level or on the embankment, depending on local grading.

6. Is the cost of $3-5 million for one noise wall stretching east to west? We will have to build two separate noise walls because we will not be able to build over the Lower Sherbourne bridge. The cost is estimated at $3-5 million for 5 m height noise walls between Lower Jarvis Street and Lower Sherbourne Street, between Lower Sherbourne Street and Parliament Street, and to 75 m east of Parliament Street.

Windows


7. Does secondary window glazing mean a window replacement or adding another glazing to the existing window? Secondary window glazing would involve adding a secondary frame with another sheet of glass. Typically, a secondary frame performs better than a window replacement with standard double glazing.

8. Would the secondary window glazing still allow the windows to open? Yes, they can be built so that the windows are still openable.

Building/unit impacts

9. What is Quietrock? It is essentially a double layer of drywall with a damping layer inside, used to lessen sound transfer between walls. It will likely add between half to one inch to the existing wall.

10. If you are considering removing the existing AC units, are you considering replacing them with ductless options? Yes.

11. Regarding Slide 24, the south facing units at 37 Longboat Ave. all have sliding glass doors. The unit you measured had a standing wave. Would different units with different configurations have different recommendations? We have not looked at every unit. Different configurations may not have the standing wave, but would still benefit from mitigation to the sliding door configuration.

12. These are all options for existing buildings. In our neighbourhood, there are two residential buildings being proposed. How are these new buildings being considered? Metrolinx has a third-party reviewer who provides feedback to developers to inform them about setbacks and other requirements.

Post-meeting note: The contact for Metrolinx Third Party Projects Reviews is:

BRANDON GAFFOOR, B.E.S. Junior Analyst, Third Party Projects Review Metrolinx 20 Bay Street | Suite 600 | Toronto | M5J 2E3 T: 416.202.7294 C: 647.289.1958

CAC Feedback:

• Provide a summary or menu of all of the possible noise mitigation options. Participants were unsure if the noise mitigation options presented at the meeting were the only options available to the community. It was suggested that Metrolinx and AECOM produce a simple one-pager that summarizes all possible options and configurations for noise mitigation. This summary/menu should illustrate the configurations required to achieve the maximum potential for mitigation benefits. In response to CAC concerns about the extents of noise mitigation options available and whether it is possible to fund another consultant to assess noise levels, Peter Zuk suggested that the RBNVA could be peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant. To address other types of noise mitigation, Alan explained that noise masking technologies would not be effective in the USRC East due to the types of noise in the corridor and the scale of technical equipment that would be required. In terms of building treatments, a brick wall upgrade would require a significant amount of heavy construction.


• Provide cross sectional drawings of the corridor with the OCS poles and potential noise walls. Participants would like to visualize how close the noise walls will be to the existing buildings.

• Consider exploring the window systems used at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel by Pearson Airport and 401 Queens Quay. A participant said the windows at these locations are effective at mitigating noise and vibration in proximity to the airports.

Post-meeting note: AECOM visited the Sheraton Gateway hotel and determined the bedroom windows to have a 6 mm glass/25 mm gap /6 mm glass configuration, which is a relatively deep double glazing configuration. For the replacement window option AECOM have assessed a higher performance configuration of 12.5 mm glass/25 mm gap/6 mm glass with acoustic laminate glass. In most cases adding secondary glazing to the existing windows is a better option because there is significant benefit from a deeper air space between the existing windows and the new glazing. However, at Location 2, the existing windows have relatively high leakage at the framing and lack of seals, so the replacement window option may be slightly better performance (but only by up to around 1 dB difference in comparison to adding secondary glazing).

• Provide visuals of what a secondary window glazing would look like in their units.

• Consider implementing anti-graffiti measures to noise walls if they are to be installed.

C. Additional Suggestions and Considerations

Questions and/or feedback about topics outside of the RBNVA noise results and mitigation options are organized below by topic.

Commitment Letter

1. How do we implement the promises from the Commitment Letter? Metrolinx is creating the Commitment Letter as a document that solidifies these promises. We are interested in establishing a long-term, meaningful relationship with the community. Metrolinx understands that in this case, we need to do things differently given the unique situation of the USRC East community.

2. Add to the commitment letter that Metrolinx will share its learnings and process with VIA Rail, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) and other rail partners. A participant suggested that Metrolinx should share its findings with other rail partners and encourage them to switch to Tier 4 locomotives.

3. The Commitment Letter should identify that Metrolinx is the owner and operator of the USRC. Metrolinx should also post this letter to the USRC East webpage.

Business cases and procurement

4. Who are we making a business case to? Will we have to go to the province for resources? Metrolinx has a group that will review this and make the decision to spend the funds for mitigation options.

Bridges and the PCCS

5. What happens to the bridges after the commitment letter is signed? What is the significance of “2022-2025” and “2041+”? The plan is to meet the goals of SmartTrack


and GO Expansion (otherwise known as Regional Express Rail (RER)). The design of the bridge extensions will help improve current conditions in the corridor. The Pedestrian and Cycle Connections Study (PCCS) will provide recommendations on the long-term plan for the bridges.

Post meeting note for further clarification: The 2022-2025 timeline is based on the construction schedule for the USRC East early works (to be completed in 2021), and the Go Expansion implementation timeline (2025). The USRC East early works must be completed before construction on any improvements identified in the PCCS could potentially be implemented. 2041+ was selected in relation to the Regional Transportation Plan (formerly known as the “Big Move”) planning horizon, however, any implementation timelines for long-term solutions also need to take into account the useful life of the bridges (i.e. ~40 years).

6. Are there commitments by Metrolinx to fund the outcomes of the PCCS? Metrolinx has committed to funding the study itself. The study will include functional designs and high-level costing for potential improvements, which will be used to support the business case and discussion of shared funding agreements between Metrolinx and the City of Toronto. There is currently no committed funding for implementing the recommendations of the PCCS. Metrolinx will be meeting with the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto on August 21 to discuss the PCCS Terms of Reference. Metrolinx will provide an update on the draft Terms of Reference with the CAC for review after the meeting. The consultants will not do any work until the CAC has had a chance to review and comment on the Terms of Reference for the PCCS. The CAC can expect an update on this next week.

Post meeting note: the draft PCCS Terms of Reference was emailed to the CAC for review on August 24, 2018.

Air quality

7. What about the air quality monitoring program? We have received comments from the CAC about this and are working on responses to your questions. The idea is to talk to the CAC about the scope of work before we have the consultants begin their work.

North access road

8. What is happening with the access road just south of Tom Longboat Lane? We are in the process of talking to interested parties at Metrolinx and the City, including Emergency Services, before we can propose its closure. If we can close it, we will make landscaping and the noise wall in this area consistent with the rest of the corridor. If we cannot close it, we may build a staggered noise wall.

Construction

9. When will the construction staging area by the south side of the corridor be phased out? This area will be cleared once the new tracks are put in and the bridges have been built out. This may take a few years.

10. Do we have a construction schedule? Construction will begin in early 2019. This will include the east bridge, signalling program, and the new package of work through 2021. We cannot guarantee the number of days during the week construction will take place.

Electrification’s Overhead Contact System (OCS)


11. Given that E0 will have diesel trains operating on it, will the OCS poles be north or south of this track? The OCS poles will be north of track E0.

12. Is a 3-metre space between the OCS poles and the noise walls necessary? Are there other ways to prevent people from climbing the poles that do not require this 3-metre buffer? We can consider this at the design phase.

Post-meeting note: The 3 metre buffer is the minimum horizontal clearance from a 27.6kV wire requirement in the Ontario Electrical Safety Code. The code doesn’t allow for any special reduction.

III. Wrap-up, Next Steps and Action Items

Participants were provided with a proposed schedule of future CAC meetings and topics. The next meeting will discuss vibration mitigation options from the RBNVA. The meeting after that will discuss the solutions for noise mitigation based on CAC and other feedback.

CAC members can expect a summary/menu of noise mitigation options as well as an update on the PCCS by Friday August 24, 2018. Peter Zuk thanked all of the participants and noted that he will have the RBNVA peer-reviewed.

CAC members were encouraged to share their discussion about noise mitigation options with the broader community for feedback.

Post meeting note: the noise mitigation options menu is currently being developed. Metrolinx anticipates sharing it with the CAC for review by August 31, 2018.

Attachments – RBNVA (Noise Results and Mitigation Options) Page i

Attachment A: Participant List

The following lists contain the participants who attended the USRC East Community Advisory Committee Meeting #7 on August 14, 2018.

Community Advisory Committee:

Name Affiliation

Anne Dywan Cathedral Court Co-op

Maggie Breau Cathedral Court Co-op

Chris Drew Cycle Toronto

Michael Brewer Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association

Sabina Sormova Longboat Area Residents Association

Chris Glover Member of Provincial Parliament - Spadina-Fort York

Suzanne Kavanagh St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association

Cindy Wilkey West Don Lands Committee

Community Members:

Name Affiliation

James Burchell CAC in Scarborough

Rhonda Parto Caroline Co-op

Brigitte Beneteau Caroline Co-op

Peter Allen Cathedral Court Co-op

David Bell Longboat Area Residents Association

William Meneray Ward 21 Candidate

City of Toronto Staff:

Name Affiliation

Vera Gavrilova Project Coordinator, Major Capital Infrastructure

Shalin Yaboah Senior Project Manager, Major Capital Infrastructure

AECOM

Name Affiliation

Alan Oldfield Manager, Senior Acoustic Engineer

Atif Bohkari Acoustic Engineer

Attachments – RBNVA (Noise Results and Mitigation Options) Page ii

Metrolinx Staff: Capital Projects

Name Affiliation

Peter Zuk Chief Capital Officer

Tom Aylward Nally Peter Zuk’s Office

Mike Bogias Manager, Union Station Rail Corridor Infrastructure

Environmental Assessment Team

Name Affiliation

James Hartley Manager, Environmental Programs and Assessment

James Francis Project Manager, Environmental Programs and Assessment

Communications

Name Affiliation

Rawle Agard Manager, Communications & Stakeholder Relations, Communications & Public Affairs

Anthony Irving Director, Community Relations and Communications

Suzanne Schofield Senior Advisor, Communications and Stakeholder Relations

Design Excellence

Name Affiliation

John Potter Manager, Design Excellence

Rail Operations

Name Affiliation

Rob Andrews Senior Manager, Rail Operations

Facilitation Team:

Name Affiliation

Nicole Swerhun Swerhun Facilitation

Jacky Li Swerhun Facilitation

Attachments – RBNVA (Noise Results and Mitigation Options) Page iii

Attachment B: Meeting Agenda

Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East CAC Meeting #7 – Receptor Based Noise and Vibration Assessment Tuesday, August 14, 2018 Cherry Street YMCA, 461 Cherry Street, Community Meeting Room, 2nd Floor 6:30 – 9:00 pm

*Note there will be a minimum of 3 cordless microphones available to support the meeting

PROPOSED AGENDA

This is the first of three CAC meetings to discuss the results of the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment. As shared through emails leading up to this meeting, the proposed meeting plan is to share information and seek CAC feedback as follows:

• CAC Meeting #7 (Tues, Aug 14, 2018) will review the results of the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment, with a focus on noise. Includes review of mitigation options, initial Metrolinx assessment of options.

• CAC Meeting #8 (tentatively scheduled for Tues, Sep 4, 2018) will review the results of the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment, with a focus on vibration, as well as the Structural Integrity Study results and the Claims process.

• CAC Meeting #9 (tentatively scheduled for Tues, Sep 18, 2018) will review Metrolinx’s proposed approach to mitigating impacts (based on feedback received from the CAC at Meetings #7 and #8), including proposed approach to implementation of mitigation, rough timing, working with residents, etc.

6:30 pm Land Acknowledgement, Introductions & Agenda Review

Nicole Swerhun, USRC East CAC Facilitator, Swerhun Inc.

6:35 Receptor Based Noise and Vibration Assessment Results (RBNVA) – Noise James Hartley, Metrolinx (with Alan Oldfield from AECOM as a resource)

• Noise levels measured

• Noise mitigation options identified (noise wall and receptor-based options)

• Metrolinx approach to considering noise mitigation options

7:30 Facilitated Discussion

1. Do you have any thoughts or comments on the noise levels measured? 2. Are there any major gaps or red flags in the list of noise mitigation options? 3. What are the factors that you would like Metrolinx to consider when selecting

the noise mitigation option(s) for USRC East? Are they reflected in the current approach, or are there considerations to add or emphasize?

4. Do you have any other advice for Metrolinx as they consider their approach to noise mitigation in USRC East?

8:30 Other Comments, Issues, or Advice from CAC members

Attachments – RBNVA (Noise Results and Mitigation Options) Page iv

8:55 Next Steps

9:00 pm Adjourn

Please send any additional feedback and advice you have regarding noise mitigation in the USRC East within one week of the meeting (by Tuesday, August 21, 2018) to Jacky Li ([email protected]) from Swerhun or call at (416)572-4365.

Proposed CAC Meeting Schedule:

Tues, Aug 14, 2018 CAC Meeting #7, Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration

Assessment (RBNVA), with a focus on Noise (1 of 2)

Tues, Sep 4, 2018 CAC Meeting #8, RBNVA, with a focus on Vibration

Tues, Sep 18, 2018 CAC Meeting #9, RBNVA, with a focus on Noise (2 of 2)

Tues, Sep 25, 2018 CAC Meeting #10, Bridges and Pedestrian and Cycle

Connections Study (PCCS)

Tues, Oct 9, 2018 CAC Meeting #11, Public Realm

Tues, Oct 16, 2018 CAC Meeting #12, Air Quality

Additional CAC Meetings related to PCCS work to be scheduled.

mailto:[email protected]

Attachments – RBNVA (Noise Results and Mitigation Options) Page v

Attachment C: Metrolinx Presentation Slide Deck

Refer to the following pages for Metrolinx’s presentation slide deck

CCoommmmuunniittyy AAddvviissoorryy CCoommmmiitttteeee

CAC Meeting #7

August 14, 2018

Union Station Rail Corridor East

AAGGEENNDDAA

22

• USRC East is Unique in the 250+km GO network

• Noise Evaluation Results

• Mitigation

• Next CAC Meetings

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

UUSSRRCC EEAASSTT IISS UUNNIIQQUUEE IINN TTHHEE 225500++ KKMM GGOO NNEETTWWOORRKK

33

SSttaannddaarrdd pprroocceessss ffoorr nnooiissee mmiittiiggaattiioonn:: • Evaluating impact of proposed new infrastructure as per GO Transit/MECP protocol • Conclusions:

• Future electric / diesel RER service levels: <5 dB change in operational noise (USRC East Enhancements) • Future RER service levels with diesel trains only: <5 dB change in operational noise (Electrification Study) • Technical requirements - No noise mitigation required

UUSSRRCC EEaasstt iiss nnoott ssttaannddaarrdd:: • Large amount of particularly complex track infrastructure in a small area

• High operational intensity • Significant maintenance requirements

• Very short distance between tracks and housing • Maintenance and construction work that need to happen at night given service schedule • Significant impacts of operations, maintenance and construction pre-date the 10-year GO Expansion Program

and will not disappear after it is complete

To obtain funding for noise mitigation, Metrolinx needs to submit a business case to the Senior Management, which requires finalized scope, justification and cost estimates


NNOOIISSEE PPEERRCCEEPPTTIIOONN

44

• Human response to noise can be correlated to sound level increases above ambient/background sound levels


CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY AANNNNOOYYAANNCCEE WWIITTHH RRAAIILL NNOOIISSEE AAVVEERRAAGGEE NNOOIISSEE VVEERRSSUUSS EEPPIISSOODDIICC NNOOIISSEE

• A 2011 Report by the World Health Organization relates public annoyance to a • Noise can be described and assessed in a number of ways, including: composite day-night equivalent rail noise level, in which 10 dBA is added to the • Peak/instantaneous noise levels during short-term events night-time noise to emphasize its importance: • Energy-equivalent noise levels over exposure time period

Transient Noise over Exposure Time Period “T”

Equivalent Sound Level over Exposure Time Period “T”

Time

Soun

d Lev

el

T

Soun

d Lev

el

Leq,T

Same total area/ acoustic energy

Time

Soun

d Lev

el

2T

Equivalent Sound Level over Exposure Time Period “2T”

Leq,2T

Time T

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 55 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NNOOIISSEE && VVIIBBRRAATTIIOONN –– RREECCEEPPTTOORR BBAASSEEDD MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT NNOOIISSEE && VVIIBBRRAATTIIOONN –– RREECCEEPPTTOORR BBAASSEEDD MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT

• AECOM Canada Ltd. conducted outdoor and indoor noise and vibration measurements according to SSttuuddyy ggooaall:: to determine existing noise and vibration levels due to rail corridor established standards during four days in March-May, 2018. activities and provide mitigation recommendations

• Loudspeaker measurements conducted to determine performance of existing façade elements (e.g. wall construction, windows, doors, etc.)

• developed an outdoor-to-indoor nnooiissee ttrraannssmmiissssiioonn mmooddeell.

• Model is calibrated based on the existing outdoor and indoor equipment noise level measurements. The model can incorporate various mitigation options and predict future interior noise levels from the equipment.

LLooccaattiioonn 11 ((CCaatthheeddrraall CCoouurrtt CCoo--oopp)) RRoooomm:: LLiivviinngg RRoooomm//KKiittcchheenn LLooccaattiioonn 22 LLooccaattiioonn 33

((1155 SSccaaddddiinngg BBuuiillddiinnggss)) ((LLAARRAA))RRoooomm:: BBeeddrroooomm RRoooomm:: BBeeddrroooomm//BBaatthhrroooomm

LLooccaattiioonn 44 ((CCaarroolliinnee CCoo--oopp)) RRoooomm:: BBaatthhrroooomm


66

88

NNOOIISSEE && VVIIBBRRAATTIIOONN –– RREECCEEPPTTOORR BBAASSEEDD MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT

• The following exterior noise levels were recorded during the continuous monitoring from March 10 to March 15, 2018:


RRaaiill eeqquuiippmmeenntt mmeeaassuurreedd::

• The measurements represent the cumulative effects of road, rail and all other local sources.

VVeehhiicclleeHHyyddrraauulliicc BBaacckkuuppIIddlliinngg ttrraaiinn SSppiikkeerr BBeeeeppeerr

RRaaiill SSaaww VVaaccuuuumm TTrruucckkSSttaabbiilliizzeerr

BBaallllaassttTTaammppeerrSSppiikkeerr DDuummpp



• All equipment operated at the worst-case location where possible (e.g. on the track nearest to the residences).

• Where equipment could not operate at worst case location, measurements were adjusted to represent the worst case.

• This is important because most of the time the community is not experiencing the worst case conditions. Metrolinx prefers this conservative approach because when mitigation is designed to deal with the worst case conditions, it improves the experience at all other times as well.

NNOOIISSEE && VVIIBBRRAATTIIOONN –– RREECCEEPPTTOORR BBAASSEEDD MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT Note: Worst-case conditions were created by deliberately placing activities MMEEAASSUURREEDD NNOOIISSEE LLEEVVEELLSS as close to the measurement points as possible and by operating equipment at full load Activity Type Location 1

Out In

Sound (dBA, ref. 20 μPa) Location 2 Location 3

Out In Out In Location 4

Out In Ambient 66 39 59 31 - 40 64 37 Idling train* 92 60 74 39 - 61 79 53 Rail Saw 82 48 84 39 - 54 83 61 Back-up Beeper 77 44 68 37 - 47 71 45 Normal Spiker 92 57 85 55 - 58 86 61 Hydraulic Spiker 88 52 77 38 - 50 82 54 Tamper 85 47 80 36 - 69 79 54 Ballast Dump* 89 56 79 - - 62 80 -Vacuum Truck* 95 57 84 53 - 58 89 60 Stabilizer (Harsco) 89 59 81 57 - 58 85 56 Stabilizer (Plasser) 91 61 - 58 - 67** - 62 Regulator 89 67 - 55 - 69 - 57 Note:

Out = Outdoor; In = Indoor

*Applied distance adjustment (idling for Location 1 and others for all locations)

** Measured level at 69 Longboat Avenue (Location 3 for Plasser (DYNACAT) stabilizer test only).


1100

1122

MMAAIINN MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN MMEEAASSUURREESS

1133

MMoovviinngg ttoo aann eelleeccttrriiffiieedd rraaiill ccoorrrriiddoorr • Electric trains at USRC speeds are quieter than diesel

RReeppoossiittiioonniinngg iiddlliinngg ttrraaiinnss

• Red/Green Zone strategy for idling trains is in development:

• Elimination of the morning spare train has been completed

• Afternoon spare train also has been relocated from USRC east

• Implementing plan to control short term idling (<30min): • Involves controlling locations where trains stop using signage

• Signs for parking trains have been ordered • Operating crews will be instructed on the use of the new signs • Installation of the new signs are anticipated for mid-September


MMAAIINN MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN MMEEAASSUURREESS

1144

CCoonnssttrruuccttiioonn // MMaaiinntteennaannccee:: 1. MX is developing noise control requirements for construction / maintenance contracts, which

will include:

a) Equipment noise emission standards;

b) Receptor based daytime and nighttime noise exposure limits; and

c) Noise monitoring requirements.

2. The receptor based noise limits will apply to all receptors and to all equipment/operations.

3. Contractors will be expected to plan their work and to apply appropriate noise mitigation

measures to comply with the noise exposure limits.

4. Monitoring will be used to assess compliance with the noise exposure limits and to address

promptly any complaint.


MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN:: WWHHAATT WWOOUULLDD MMAAKKEE AA SSTTRROONNGG BBUUSSIINNEESSSS CCAASSEE??

1155

• Minimum 5 dB noise reduction (significant reduction) • Impact to living conditions (e.g. bedroom vs. garage) • Safety impacts • Impacts on Metrolinx train operations • Impacts on RER program schedule • Avoid mitigation that require intrusive works on non-Metrolinx owned

property • Prefer mitigation to be located on Metrolinx owned property • Ease of design and construction • Technical feasibility • Avoidance of other negative effects • Cost



1166

NNooiissee WWaallll:: • Height: 5 m

• Engineering considerations: Soil conditions, space constraints • Other considerations: Landscaping, Public Realm


NNooiissee SSccrreeeenn EEffffeecctt ((ddBB,, rreeff.. 2200 μPPaa))

(Plasser)

55 MMEETTRREE NNOOIISSEE WWAALLLLSS –– MMEETTRROOLLIINNXX PPRREELLIIMMIINNAARRYY EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

1177

What we’ve heard: LARA and Caroline Co-op have requested a noise wall as mitigation.

Cathedral Court members do not favour a noise wall as mitigation.


CCrriitteerriiaa MMeettrroolliinnxx CCoommmmeennttss

Minimum 5 dB noise reduction (significant reduction)

Construction noise reduced by a minimum of 5dB at all locations with the exception of Level 4 at Location 1. Operational noise reduced by a minimum of 5dB at all locations with the exception of Level 3 (Location 1 only) and Level 4 (all locations).

Impact to living conditions (e.g. bedroom vs. garage)

Improved living conditions for all locations and levels with the exception of Levels 3 and 4 at Location 1.

Safety impacts Little to none. Depending on installation and maintenance.

Impacts on RER program schedule Design can be incorporated into the schedule without causing major delay.

Avoid mitigation that require intrusive works on non-Metrolinx owned property

Does not require intrusive works on non-Metrolinx owned property.

Prefer mitigation to be located on Metrolinx owned property

To be located on Metrolinx owned property.

Ease of design and construction Poor soil condition and space constraints may pose challenges.

Technical feasibility 5 m height wall is considered technically feasible.

Avoidance of other negative effects Allows for vegetation/landscaping

Cost $3-5M range.


1188

BBaallccoonnyy SSccrreeeenn:: • Height: 2.5 m

• Engineering considerations: Mounting method, additional loading on cantilevered walkway

• Other considerations: Building Code, Public Realm


BBaallccoonnyy ggllaazzeedd wwaallll

Stabilizer (Plasser)

BBAALLCCOONNYY SSCCRREEEENN AATT LLOOCCAATTIIOONN 11 –– MMEETTRROOLLIINNXX PPRREELLIIMMIINNAARRYY EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

1199

What we’ve heard: Cathedral Court residents requested this mitigation option be assessed.




Construction noise reduced by a minimum of 5dB at all levels. Operational noise may not be reduced by 5 dB at the lower levels when build-up of reflected noise is considered.


Improved living conditions for all levels.

Safety impacts Potential safety hazards depending on installation and maintenance.

Impacts on RER program schedule None.


Requires intrusive works on non-Metrolinx owned property.


Not located on Metrolinx owned property.

Ease of design and construction Complicated renovation, may be challenging to meet loading and building code requirements.

Technical feasibility Considered technically feasible.

Avoidance of other negative effects Residents would lose open air balcony experience to reduce noise

Cost TBD


2200

NNeeww DDoooorr IInnssttaallllaattiioonn:: • Replace door frame, seals and leaf at Location 1 (Cathedral Court Co-op) • Effectiveness: reduction of up to 6 dB • considerations:

• Building codes • Public Realm


NNEEWW DDOOOORRSS AATT LLOOCCAATTIIOONN 11–– MMEETTRROOLLIINNXX PPRREELLIIMMIINNAARRYY EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

2211

What we’ve heard: No specific comments received on this mitigation option from residents at Location 1.




Reduction of up to 6 dB.


Improved living conditions for where installed.

Safety impacts Little to none.



Upgrading doors is not considered overly intrusive.



Ease of design and construction Considered to be simple and easy.


Avoidance of other negative effects Other negative effects are minimal; likely only annoyance to the resident during the installation.

Cost TBD


2222

SSeeccoonnddaarryy WWiinnddooww GGllaazziinngg aanndd ffiilllliinngg AA//CC ggaapp:: • Location 2 (15 Scadding buildings, 10 Princess Street) • Effectiveness: reduction of up to 6 dB • Engineering considerations: condition of existing

window sill, replacement A/C system • Other considerations:

• significant internal construction works

• Building codes


WWIINNDDOOWWSS AATT LLOOCCAATTIIOONN 22 –– MMEETTRROOLLIINNXX PPRREELLIIMMIINNAARRYY EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

2233

What we’ve heard: No specific comments received on this option from residents at Location 2.




Reduction of up to 6 dB.






Upgrading windows is not considered overly intrusive, however blocking of air conditioning opening and replacement of air conditioning may be intrusive



Ease of design and construction Design and construction may be challenging as condition of existing window sill may vary; A/C systems may also need replacement.


Avoidance of other negative effects Other negative effects are minimal; likely only annoyance to the resident during the installation.

Cost TBD


2244

SSlliiddiinngg ddoooorr ttoo wwiinnddooww // wwaallll:: • Location 3 (LARA, 37 Longboat Ave.) • Effectiveness: minimum reduction of 5 dB • Considerations:

• 10˚ angled wall geometry to address standing wave, space constraints

• significant internal construction works


AAnngglleedd wwaallll lliinniinngg

SSLLIIDDIINNGG DDOOOORR TTOO WWIINNDDOOWW AATT LLOOCCAATTIIOONN 33 –– MMXX PPRREELLIIMMIINNAARRYY EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

2255

What we’ve heard: Some LARA members (Location 3) indicated they are not interested in structural changes to the interior of

their homes




Reduction of minimum 5 dB where installed.









Ease of design and construction Complicated renovation, may be challenging to design and meet building code requirements.


Avoidance of other negative effects Other negative effects are probable including length of renovation / disturbance to residents

Cost TBD


2266

SSeeccoonnddaarryy wwiinnddooww ggllaazziinngg aanndd QQuuiieettrroocckk AApppplliiccaattiioonn::

• Location 4 (LARA, 87 Longboat Ave) • Effectiveness: reduction of up to 2 dB • 6-8 dB reduction with full wall

application of Quietrock • Considerations:

• Condition of existing sill and window opening

• Space constraints • Significant internal construction

works


QQuuiieettrroocckk aapppplliieedd aarroouunndd wwiinnddooww

WWIINNDDOOWWSS//QQUUIIEETTRROOCCKK AATT LLOOCCAATTIIOONN 44 –– MMEETTRROOLLIINNXX PPRREELLIIMMIINNAARRYY EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN

2277

What we’ve heard: Residents at Location 4 have supported installation of windows. No specific comments have been received

on Quietrock since this mitigation option has not yet been presented.




Window upgrades and quietrock installation on exposed wall surface only- This option provides reduction of up to 2 dB only. Window upgrades and full wall application of quietrock: 6-8 dB reduction.









Ease of design and construction Design and construction may be challenging as condition of existing window sill may vary; space constraints may also pose challenges. Quietrock installation would be considered a major renovation.


Avoidance of other negative effects Other negative effects are probable including length of renovation / disturbance to residents

Cost TBD

CCLLOOSSIINNGG AANNDD NNEEXXTT SSTTEEPPSS

2288

• Seeking CAC feedback on options presented

• Metrolinx staff will develop a business case for a preferred option for noise mitigation in cooperation with the CAC, and present to Metrolinx decision-makers


NNEEXXTT CCAACC MMEEEETTIINNGGSS

• September 4 [Date to be confirmed]: CAC Meeting #8 Vibration

• September 18 [Date to be confirmed]: CAC Meeting #9 Noise Part 2

• September 25 [Date to be confirmed]: CAC Meeting #10 Bridges and PCCS Part 1

• October 9 [Date to be confirmed]: CAC Meeting #11 Public Realm

• October 16 [Date to be confirmed]: CAC Meeting #12 Air Quality

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2299

usrc east cac meeting #7 summary - metrolinx engage...peter reassured the community that metrolinx...

Documents