Metrolinx Rail Corridor East Community Advisory Committee Meeting #8 - Vibration Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Cooper Koo Family Cherry Street YMCA, 461 Cherry Street, Community Meeting Room 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

MEETING SUMMARY

On Tuesday September 4, 2018, 18 people attended the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting #8 regarding the vibration portion of the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment (RBNVA). See Attachment A for the list of participants.

This meeting is the second of three meetings to discuss the results of the RBNVA. The purpose of the meeting was to present the vibration monitoring results and mitigation options, review the Structural Condition Assessment, and review the Insurance and Claims process (see Attachment B for the meeting agenda).

Nicole Swerhun, independent facilitator for the USRC East CAC, opened the meeting with updates on several items including: deadlines for feedback on the Pedestrian and Cycling Connectivity Study (PCCS) Terms of Reference (TOR); the draft Meeting Summary from CAC Meeting #7; the Summary of Noise Mitigation Options/Matrix; the Environmental Project Report; the draft Commitment Letter from Metrolinx; responses to community questions regarding air quality in the USRC; and the progress on the closure of the northern access road.

James Hartley (Metrolinx, Environmental Programs and Assessment Manager) and Alan Oldfield (AECOM) presented the vibration assessment results from the RBNVA and discussed the mitigation options. Jeff Price (Morrison Hershfield) presented the findings from the Structural Conditions Assessment followed by Genefer Behamdouni (Metrolinx, Risk and Insurance Manager) who reviewed the insurance and claims process (see Attachment C for the presentation slide deck). Participants asked questions of clarification throughout the presentation and a facilitated discussion took place after the presentation.

The questions, feedback, advice, and considerations shared by participants are captured in this summary. This meeting summary was written by Jacky Li and Nicole Swerhun from the Swerhun third-party facilitation team. 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. The Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) and Electrification B. Vibration Results and Mitigation Options from the RBNVA C. Structural Condition Assessment D. Claims process E. Additional Feedback, Suggestions, and Considerations F. Suggested edits to the menu

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 1 of 9 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 descriptions provided in the rest of this summary.

• The vibration results from the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment (RBNVA) do not reflect the experiences of local residents. In particular, the vibration levels deemed “just perceptible” were hard to accept by some members. A participant shared stories of office furniture shifting in the house and glassware falling off of tables due to vibration, and the RBNVA results are not consistent with that experience. Metrolinx representatives confirmed that both the vibration generated by noise (airborne) and the vibration generated through the ground were both taken into account during the RBNVA, and they are comfortable that the data collected is an accurate reflection of the vibration being experienced.

• These conversations continue to be challenging. Some members of the CAC expressed their discomfort in operating on the good faith of Metrolinx; they continue to request that any Metrolinx commitments that go above-and-beyond regulatory obligations (such as noise mitigation, Pedestrian and Cycling Connections Study, vibration mitigation, etc.) be included in the TPAP Environmental Project Report (EPR). Staff explained that the TPAP framework is tied to new infrastructure and is not the regulatory tool for addressing concerns with current Metrolinx service. They reaffirmed Metrolinx’s commitment to implementing those initiatives not tied to provincial regulations, including the RBNVA, PCCS, and long-term noise monitoring, all of which are responding to feedback received from the CAC.

• Many CAC members have concerns about the USRC East Enhancements TPAP assessments and EPR public consultation process. With the September 17, 2018 deadline for comments on the USRC East Enhancement Projects TPAP quickly approaching, some members of the CAC shared their surprise in learning that there were no objections filed with the Ministry of the Environment related to the System-Wide GO Transit Electrification Study TPAP during its 30-day public review period – particularly because representatives of the USRC East community have been sharing their concerns related to the electrification work for some time. Members requested that Metrolinx staff provide a clear description on how to properly file an objection to the USRC East Enhancements Project with the Ministry, which Metrolinx agreed to provide. Several CAC members reinforced the point (also made previously at other meetings) that the regulatory framework provided by the TPAP/Environmental Assessment process is not adequate at addressing community concerns related to Metrolinx activities in the USRC East corridor.

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 2 of 9 II. Detailed Summary by Topic

The meeting was programmed to discuss the vibration results from the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment, review the findings from the Structural Condition Assessment, and review the insurance and claims process from Metrolinx. Members of the CAC also shared concerns about the recommendations in the TPAP throughout the meeting.

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

A. The Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) and Electrification

CAC Feedback:

• Clearly describe how to register an objection to the Ministry on EPR during 30-day public review period. Members of the CAC shared their concerns about the 30-day public review period regarding filing objections. A member was surprised to find no objections were filed for the previous GO Transit Electrification Study. Members of the CAC shared that they, along with their constituents, sent many letters and e-mails to the Minister of Environment and the Premiere objecting different parts of the project. Members are unclear as to how the Ministry concluded that there are zero objections.

Metrolinx representatives confirmed that community concerns regarding the System-Wide Electrification had been received, documented, and responded to through the TPAP process. References to “no objections filed” relate specifically to the fact that the Ministry of Environment reported that no objections were filed with the Ministry during the 30-day public review period.

Response provided after the meeting: A description of the objection process is described in Section 2.3 of the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Guide.

The TPAP Guide can be found at the following link: https://www.ontario.ca/page/guide- environmental-assessment-requirements-transit-projects

• Uncertainty about electrification, other train operators, and the new provincial government. A member of the CAC expressed concern that the new provincial government has not communicated any commitment or non-commitment to finishing the electrification of the GO Network. Other concerns included the possibility of increased operations of USRC tracks by diesel locomotives from and the . Metrolinx representatives at the meeting shared that they have not been directed to make any changes to the GO Electrification plans. Metrolinx staff also shared that these increases in service by VIA and Northlander would be dependent on the upgrades within the USRC.

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 3 of 9 B. Vibration Results and Mitigation Options from the RBNVA

Questions of Clarification:

1. How far in the future do the predicted operational impacts represent? This assessment considers the conditions in the next 10 years.

2. Do the models look at construction and maintenance equipment? The charts in the powerpoint presentation are from the TPAP and represent the vibrations impacts from train operations (train pass-by). In the RBNVA, we looked at the worst-case scenario and assessed idling trains and the most disruptive construction and maintenance equipment. The TPAP concluded that the vibration impacts from future train operations is not significant.

3. Please clarify why mitigation requirements stop west of Portneuf Court as identified in the TPAP.

Response provided after the meeting: As per the MECP/GO Transit Protocol, vibration impacts are determined based on a comparison of future and existing vibration velocities. The objective is the higher of the existing train pass-by vibration velocity or 0.14 mm/s. When the predicted future vibration velocity at a point of vibration assessment exceeds the objective by 25%, the requirement to mitigate will be evaluated based on administrative, operational, economic and technical feasibility.

In this location, the mitigation investigation is triggered by the relative proximity of future track E0 compared with the setback of the existing track E1. The future track E0 is relatively closer to the adjacent residential buildings towards the east end of Tom Longboat Lane. A 30% vibration impact was predicted at the east end of this residential area (receptor R06 in the TPAP Noise and Vibration report). Moving west from Parliament Street, the tracks are further from the buildings; the difference between track setback distances is less significant so the vibration impact is lower. West of Portneuf Street predicted vibration impacts are below 25% so mitigation investigation is not warranted according to the MECP/GO Transit Protocol.

4. Does a break in the ballast mat make it less effective that one continuous ballast mat?

Response provided after the meeting: Ballast mats will be continuous from Jarvis Street to Parliament Street under E0 track.

Unlike noise walls, which block the path of sound to a receptor, ballast mats reduce vibration from the track directly under which it is located, i.e. at source. If there is a break in ballast mats directly adjacent to a receptor then this would be less effective compared to a continuous ballast mat at the same receptor. To provide effective mitigation at a specific receptor, the ballast mat would be located adjacent to it and extend for a certain distance beyond it in each direction along the track. Extending the ballast mat further provides no additional benefit for the receptor that the ballast mat is designed to mitigate.

5. What is the lifespan of a ballast mat?

Response provided after the meeting: It is expected that the ballast mats will be effective for at least 50 years.

6. Is there a difference between daytime and nighttime ambient vibration? No.

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 4 of 9 7. Would it make a difference if there were 3 to 5 trains idling compared to 1? Probably not. The number of trains idling does not change the vibration results. It may seem more disruptive because it would be noisier. This assessment captures both ground-born and air- born vibration.

8. Do electric trains cause less vibrations compared to diesel trains? No because they are very similar in terms of weight. Diesel trains are slightly heavier.

9. Are the assessments based on the average vibration across the day or peak-levels at each event? The vibration assessments measures vibration at each worst-case event. We do this so that we can compare the results back to a regulatory standard to determine if we need more extensive mitigation options. The vibration assessments do not consider the amount of disruptions that occur throughout the day.

10. How effective are ballast mats? Ballast mats can provide about 5 to 15 dB of vibration reduction for passing trains. We will have contractors design the mats to mitigate vibration to current baseline levels. Ballast mats can be made from recycled tire materials or foam polymer. Some manufacturers can produce profiled multi-layer mats. We will put specifications into our contracts, and the contractors will find suppliers to provide these.

Note provided after the meeting: Metrolinx is in the process of reviewing its noise and vibration policies to further explore how to minimize impacts to public while maximizing construction efficiency.

CAC Feedback:

• The figures presented in the vibration do not reflect the experience of living beside the USRC. Members of the CAC expressed concern about using extrapolated figures from a modeled Track E0. They felt that the figures do not represent the real experiences of local residents and offered anecdotes of shifting office furniture and falling glassware. Members also said that they find it hard to accept that the vibration levels are “just perceptible”. Staff explained that the RBNVA encompasses both ground-born and air-born vibration, and that it is the combination of low frequency noise and vibration that is may create a more disruptive circumstance.

Response provided after the meeting: The noise and vibration measurement data presented in the draft RBNVA report provide a benchmark of current worst-case conditions, with equipment operating at E0 at Location 1 and E1 at Locations 2-4. The final report will also include the unmitigated results extrapolated for future track conditions (with track E0 extended adjacent to all locations). Note that the mitigation investigation has accounted for the future track alignments (i.e. with track E0 extended adjacent to all locations).

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 5 of 9 C. Structural Condition Assessment

Questions of Clarification:

1. What is the point of this assessment? We commissioned this assessment due to the feedback from the community. We heard concerns from the community asking if vibrations from the USRC caused damage to the buildings in this area. This report also provides documentation of all of the existing cracks in these buildings. If a large crack appears in the future that is not documented in this report, we have more information to feed into our assessment of whether vibration from the USRC could be contributing to the damage. The level of vibration from trains passing are well below the threshold for building damage, even with more trains being operated within the USRC. The damage currently identified in the buildings is very typical for brick houses and other relevant structures.

2. What kind of damage would typical be seen if it was caused by vibration? Cracks caused by vibration would be wide due to the constant movement. Sometimes you may see leakage through these cracks. We did not find this type of damage in these buildings. The minor cracks in concrete are due to the nature of the materials. Other minor cracks are due to the movement of the bricks, different thermal points, and stress loads on corners (such as windows and door frames).

CAC Feedback:

• The photos used in the presentation do not represent the Caroline Co-op. It was identified that the buildings in the presentation slide deck are buildings further along Longboat Avenue and are not a part of the Caroline Co-op. The Caroline Co-op buildings have exterior carports.

Note added after the meeting: The photos from the Caroline Co-op buildings with open car ports are available in the Structural Condition Assessment. Metrolinx will distribute this report to the CAC. Since the meeting, the presentation has been updated with corrected photo references (see attached).

D. Claims process

Questions and/or feedback from the CAC:

• We’ve had instances where cracks in the walls for some of our residents do not show up in the photographs that Metrolinx put on record. If resident’s feel wish to escalate their claims, they can submit this at [email protected] and ask that the claim be reviewed by the Manager of Risk and Insurance. We were asked to look into 2 locations, in particular, and the conclusions remain the same.

• At Caroline Co-op, we are working to renovate our carports. How should we document the work we have done? After the job is finished you, you should photograph all of the work done. Then document again after every year. You can expect some movement due to the building settling.

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 6 of 9 E. Additional Feedback, Suggestions, and Considerations

Questions of Clarification:

1. What is the status of the 24-hr call centre? It is unacceptable to be woken up in the middle of the due to the noise and vibration disruptions in the USRC. The call centre is on the top of the radar in the Chief Capital Officer’s Office. We are trying to figure out, operationally, how to staff this call centre with someone who can influence the contractors at that instance. It would be useless to create a call centre that has no line of sight or ability to influence the activity that is being done at that moment.

2. Is there a construction schedule you can share with the CAC? Not at the moment. These details will be developed once the contract has been awarded. We have a high-level schedule for the USRC East enhancements which is to work on the bridge extensions, then the retaining walls, and then track infrastructure. This work will start in spring 2019.

3. Is it possible to schedule construction work during times that would be less disruptive to the community? We are limited to do construction and maintenance work at night because of daytime operations in the USRC. We recognize that there are other concurrent streams of work in the USRC and are looking to leverage this efficiency.

4. How often will a track stabilizer be used in the USRC? A track stabilizer accelerates the settling process by going over the new track and vibrating it.

Response provided after the meeting: for the purposes of track maintenance on existing tracks, typically a single pass of the Dynacat stabilizer is required. The Dynacat program has been completed and is not anticipated to return to the area until 2020. When building new tracks, it is common to do 3 passes to ensure ballast and soils underneath are well compacted.

5. What other safety features will Metrolinx provide in the USRC? We have made a commitment to install a Jordan rail along Track E0. We will also upgrade the quality of the tracks to Class 5 Tracks, and we are looking to move towards positive train control, which is technology that looks to eliminate driver error. The proposed school has decided on building a crash wall because they will be developing functional space right up to the property line. The school board will be responsible for building the crash wall.

6. What happens if the Air Quality study concludes that Track E0 should not be built due to air pollution impacts to the community? The regulatory TPAP studies showed that air quality thresholds will not be exceeded. We’ve also moved idling trains away from residences and are exploring opportunities to incorporate long-term air quality monitoring. Once the corridor is electrified, the overall airshed will be improved. Currently, the large contributors to air pollution in the USRC comes from automobile traffic on the Gardiner Expressway.

7. Is the bridge extension contract separate from the design, build, finance, operate and maintain (DBFOM) GO Rail expansion contract? It would be helpful if the community and cycling community could meet with Metrolinx and the winning contractor to discuss cycling and pedestrian safety during the construction of bridge extensions and to learn more about construction timing and mitigation. Yes, the bridge extensions contract is separate from the DBFOM GO Rail expansion contract. The scope of the bridges contract is being evaluated at this time. We are still working closely with our partners at the

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 7 of 9 City of on their future transit plans involving the Cherry Street bridge. Metrolinx is open to discussing cycling and pedestrian safety requirements prior to the issuance of the construction contract to ensure appropriate safety and mitigation clauses are included.

CAC Feedback:

• New developments in proximity to the USRC should help pay for ballast mats and/or other mitigation efforts in the corridor. The CAC suggested that Metrolinx should share the CAC’s advice with their Third Party Projects Review team regarding incorporating requirements to help support mitigation efforts in and around the USRC East.

Note added after the meeting: Metrolinx has forwarded the advice from CAC to Metrolinx’s Third Party Projects Review division. An update will be provided once a response is received.

• Provide drawings or diagrams of what electrification infrastructure will look like. Members of the CAC want to visualize the proximity of the new track corridor and existing buildings, and they requested Metrolinx provide drawings and diagrams that show this.

• Ensure that overhead contact (OCS) poles in the USRC do not block sightlines. The CAC expressed that they would like to be consulted on the location of OCS poles in the corridor. The CAC shared that OCS poles should be placed in locations that do not disrupt the sightlines of local residents. Some locations may include across from elevator shafts, at the end of the street, and where there are no windows.

F. Suggested edits to the menu

Members of the CAC shared that they would like to see the following edits made to the Noise Mitigation Matrix:

• At location #2, Caroline Co-op (POR2), fill out the matrix with assumptions on mitigation impacts for filling the in-wall AC unit gaps. The location assessed did not have the in-wall gap, but a community shared that units in the build do, in fact, have these gaps.

• At location #3, LARA (POR3), show the combination a full height laminated window and a 5- metre noise wall

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 8 of 9 III. Wrap-up and Next Steps

Nicole Swerhun and James Hartley thanks participants for their patience and continued contribution to the CAC. James shared a few updates on ongoing tasks:

• The draft Commitment Letter will require some time before it can be finalized. Swerhun Inc. is working to compile the feedback shared by the CAC. The feedback will be reviewed by Metrolinx as there are significant resource implications associated with the commitments;

• Metrolinx is still working on the responses to CAC-submitted questions related to air quality. The CAC can expect answers to the questions within the next two days; and

• The closure of the northern access road is close to having confirmed the ability to remove it. Metrolinx is currently checking with associated emergency services.

The next meeting will talk about a plan for noise mitigation, which will lead towards the development of a business case to take to senior management for funding.

CAC #8 Meeting Summary – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page 9 of 9 Attachment A: Participant List

The following lists contain the participants who attended the USRC East Community Advisory Committee Meeting #8 on September 4, 2018.

Community Advisory Committee: Name Affiliation Catherine Wilson Caroline Co-op Jon Callegher Caroline Co-op 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 Suzanne Kavanagh St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association John Wilson West Don Lands Committee

Community Members: Name Affiliation Charles Palmer Cathedral Court Co-op

AECOM Name Affiliation Alan Oldfield Manager, Senior Acoustic Engineer

Morrison Hershfield Name Affiliation Jeff Price Structural Restoration Specialist

CAC #8 – Attachments – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page i Metrolinx Staff: Capital Projects Name Affiliation Tom Aylward Nally Peter Zuk’s Office

Environmental Assessment Team Name Affiliation James Hartley Manager, Environmental Programs and Assessment James Francis Project Manager, Environmental Programs and Assessment Liz Trenton Project Coordinator, Environmental Programs & Assessment

Communications Name Affiliation Rawle Agard Manager, Communications & Stakeholder Relations, Communications & Public Affairs James Burchell Community Relations & Issues Specialist, USRC

Insurance and Claims Name Affiliation Genefer Behamdouni Manager, Risk and Insurance

Facilitation Team: Name Affiliation Nicole Swerhun Swerhun Facilitation Jacky Li Swerhun Facilitation

CAC #8 – Attachments – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page ii Attachment B: Meeting Agenda

Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East CAC Meeting #8 – Receptor Based Noise and Vibration Assessment Cherry Street YMCA, 461 Cherry Street, Community Meeting Room, 2nd Floor Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 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 second of three CAC meetings to discuss the results of the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment (RBNVA). The meeting plan to share information and seek CAC feedback is as follows:

• CAC Meeting #7 (Tues, Aug 14, 2018) reviewed the results of the RBNVA, with a focus on noise. Included review of mitigation options, initial Metrolinx assessment of options.

WE • CAC Meeting #8 (Tues, Sep 4, 2018) will review the results of the RBNVA, with a focus on ARE vibration, as well as the Structural Condition Assessment results and the Claims process. HERE • 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 Metrolinx Updates James Hartley, Metrolinx

6:45 Presentation: Vibration Results, Structural Condition Assessment & Claims James Hartley, Metrolinx

1. Receptor Based Noise and Vibration Assessment Results – Vibration (with Alan Oldfield from AECOM as a resource)

• Vibration levels measured and vibration mitigation options identified • Metrolinx approach to considering vibration mitigation options

2. Structural Condition Assessment (with Jeff Price from Morrison Hershfield as a resource)

• Which buildings were assessed and how deficiencies were identified • Results and findings

3. Review of Claims Process (with Genefer Behamdouni from Metrolinx Risk and Insurance as a resource)

CAC #8 – Attachments – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page iii 7:15 Facilitated Discussion

8:55 Next Steps

9:00 pm Adjourn

If you have additional feedback or advice about vibration mitigation in the USRC East please share it with Jacky Li at [email protected] or (416) 572-4365 by September 11, 2018.

Proposed CAC Meeting Schedule:

Tues, Aug 14, 2018 CAC Meeting #7, Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration (COMPLETE) Assessment (RBNVA), with a focus on Noise (1 of 3)

Tues, Sep 4, 2018 CAC Meeting #8, RBNVA, with a focus on Vibration (2 of 3)

Tues, Sep 18, 2018 CAC Meeting #9, RBNVA, with a focus on Noise (3 of 3)

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.

CAC #8 – Attachments – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page iv Attachment C: Metrolinx Presentation Slide Deck

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

CAC #8 – Attachments – RBNVA (Vibration Results and Mitigation Options) Page v AGENDA

• Introduction to Vibration • USRC East Enhancements TPAP Vibration Results Union Station Rail Corridor East • Receptor Based Noise and Vibration Assessment • Structural Integrity Assessment update • Claims Process • Vibration Monitoring • Next Steps Community Advisory Committee

CAC Meeting #8

September 4, 2018

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2

INTRODUCTION TO VIBRATION VIBRATION ASSESSMENT REQUIRED FOR EAS

• Vibration has a significant effect on only those • Metrolinx undertakes vibration modeling when evaluating the impact of new receptors that are less than 40 m away from the source infrastructure of vibration. • The human perception threshold for vibration in terms • For EAs, regulators expect us to follow the MOEE (MECP) – GO Transit Protocol of peak velocity is 90 dB (relative to 10 nm/s), using the units of the Receptor Based Study Report (see • Vibration mitigation needs to be investigated when the model predicts that Figure 3.1). vibration will increase by 25% or more • Vibration is affected by:

• Soil type and conditions • Suspension system of • Rail condition vehicle • Wheel condition • Track bed (e.g., concrete, • Speed of vehicle ballast) • Weight of vehicle • Distance between source and receiver Figure 3.1 Human Sensitivity to Vibration (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983)

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4

VIBRATION ASSESSMENT REQUIRED FOR EAS PREDICTED OPERATIONAL VIBRATION IMPACTS

Predicted Vibration Level, RMSV Miti gation I nvestigation Predicted Vibration Level, Predicted Vi bration ID Po int of Reception (mm/s) Requirement • Protocol also states Metrolinx will not increase vibrations to the point it causes RMSV (mm/s) Ex isting Impact (%) Future (Wi th Pro ject) (Yes/No)

structural damages R1 # 55 Bremner Boulevard (Multi-storey residential 0.34 0.34 0% No building)

R2 #1 The Esplanade (Multi-storey residential building) 2.12 2.12 0% No • City of Toronto By-Law 514 – 2008 is used to determine when vibrations cause R3 #2 Church Street (Multi-storey residential building) 0.19 0.19 0% No structural damage. R4 #1 Market Street (Multi-storey residential building) 0.48 0.48 0% No

R5 #91 Henry Lane Terrace (Multi-storey residential 0.96 1.45 51% Yes • The By-Law sets vibration limits of 8 – 25 mm/s, depending on vibration building) frequency. R6 #133 Longboat Avenue (Townhouse) 0.41 0.53 30% Yes R7 #70 Distillery Lane (Multi-storey residential building) 0.17 0.19 13% No

R8 Planned Mixed/Residential Development (as per West 0.34 0.34 0% No Don Lands Precinct Plan)

R9 Potential School location (as per West Don Lands 0.20 0.33 69% Yes Precinct Plan)

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 5 INSERT FOOTER 6

MODEL VIBRATION RESULTS OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES

• Increase vibration impacts above 25% are predicted at three • Other steps Metrolinx is going to minimize vibration impacts locations (see below) • continuously welded rail

• wheel grinding • Metrolinx plans to install ballast mats to mitigate operational vibration. • track grinding

• Vibration related structural damage due to construction is avoided by

managing the zone of influence of construction activity to not encompass

sensitive receptors.

• The zone of influence is the area in which vibration is expected to be 5 mm/s (114 dB ref. 10 nm/s) or greater, which is a conservative threshold; receptors beyond this point are considered to be outside the zone of influence.

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 7 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 8 MODEL VIBRATION RESULTS RECEPTOR BASED NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

• Metrolinx will install ballast matting under the existing E0 Track • AECOM Canada Ltd. conducted outdoor and indoor noise and vibration measurements according to established standards on March 10, 11, April 21 and May 26, 2018. • Not a EA requirement

Location 4 Location 1 (Caroline Co-op) (Cathedral Court Co-op) Room: Bathroom Room: Living Room/Kitchen Location 2 Location 3 (15 Scadding Buildings) (LARA) Room: Bedroom Room: Bedroom/Bathroom USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 9 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 10

RECEPTOR BASED NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT RECEPTOR BASED NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

Study goal: to determine existing noise and vibration levels due to rail corridor activities and provide mitigation recommendations Rail equipment measured: • One tri-axial accelerometer was placed on the foundation structure at each receptor location to measure vibration Vehicle Photo 9: Tri-axial Hydraulic Backup Accelerometer on Idling train Spiker Porch Foundation Beeper (10 Princess Street, 15 Scadding Buildings)

Stabilizer Rail Saw Vacuum Truck

Ballast Photo 7: Tri-axial Accelerometer on Photo 14: Tri-axial Accelerometer on Spiker Tamper Concrete Slab of Underground Concrete Slab of Garage on Grade (69 Dump Parking (85 Henry Lane Terrace, Longboat Avenue, LARA) Cathedral Court Co-op)

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 12 RECEPTOR BASED NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT RECEPTOR BASED NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT - VIBRATION RESULTS MEASURED VIBRATION LEVELS • All equipment operated at the worst-case location where possible (e.g. on Vibration (peak, dB, ref. 10 nm/s) the track nearest to the residences). Activity Type Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4

Ambient 53 45 50 52 Idling train* 71 52 65 68 • Rail Saw 65 53 71 59 Where equipment could not operate at worst case location, measurements Back-up Beeper 58 54 67 64 were adjusted to represent the worst case. Normal Spiker 72 76 81 79 Hydraulic Spiker 65 54 64 64 Tamper 58 52 65 61 Ballast Dump* 69 61 72 66 Vacuum Truck* 72 84 67 86 • This is important because most of the time the community is not Stabilizer (Harsco) 87 84 93 82 Stabilizer (Plasser) 88 93 98** 93 experiencing the worst case conditions. Metrolinx prefers this conservative Regulator 70 55 62 64 approach because when mitigation is designed to deal with the worst case Note: conditions, it improves the experience at all other times as well. *Applied distance adjustment (idling for Location 1 and others for all locations); Vibration level may not represent actual level and would be lower than the vibration level in the table.

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

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 13 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 14

RECEPTOR BASED NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT - VIBRATION RESULTS STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT MEASURED VIBRATION LEVELS Vibration (peak, dB, ref. 10 nm/s) Results: • Morrison Hershfield Limited completed a structural condition assessment of the

Activity Type Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 • Existing vibration levels below structural residential buildings south of Henry Lane Terrace and Long Boat Avenue. damage threshold at all locations • The assessment was completed by visual review from grade. Ambient 53 45 50 52 • Most significant vibration source: stabilizer Idling train* 71 52 65 68 • Also included a visual review of the exterior foundation walls along the south face Rail Saw 65 53 71 59 • Vibration levels due to the stabilizer are of the below grade parking garage at Henry Lane Terrace. Back-up Beeper 58 54 67 64 Normal Spiker 72 76 81 79 clearly perceptible at all assessed locations Hydraulic Spiker 65 54 64 64 Tamper 58 52 65 61 Notes: Ballast Dump* 69 61 72 66 • “peak” refers to peak vibration level rather than the time- Vacuum Truck* 72 84 67 86 average vibration level • -8 Stabilizer (Harsco) 87 84 93 82 10 nm/s corresponds to 10 m/s Stabilizer (Plasser) 88 93 98** 93 Regulator 70 55 62 64

Note: *Applied distance adjustment (idling for Location 1 and others for all locations); Vibration level may not represent actual level and would be lower than the vibration level in the table.

** Measured level at 69 Longboat Avenue (Location 3 for Plasser (DYNACAT) stabilizer test only). General view of the Back of the Building Along Henry Lane Terrace General view of the Front of the Houses Along Longboat Avenue

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 15 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULTS – STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULTS – CAROLINE CO-OP/L.A.R.A TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING (SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING) Summary of structural deficiencies Summary of structural deficiencies • Step cracking in the brick mortar joints • Mortar at the lower level of the brick wall at the garage door • 2 locations on south face of building (Photo 3) openings was missing at a number of locations (Photo 9) • 1 location on the north face of building • Step cracking in the brick mortar joints (20 locations along the • Vertical cracks in the concrete parapet walls (Photo 4) laneway) • Bricks with significant deterioration (Photo 5) • Concrete threshold at garage door entrances had significant Photo 9: Mortar at Lower Bricks missing scaling and concrete delamination (4 garage locations along the laneway) (Photo 12) • Delaminated concrete areas at the base of the foundation walls (2 locations at the access ways between buildings) • Cracks in concrete (2 locations in the foundation walls) • Caulking around the garage door entrances is cracked and debonded (2 locations) Photo 3: Typical Cracking in Brick Photo 4: Vertical Crack In Concrete Photo 5: Face of Brick Deteriorated Photo 12: Concrete threshold at and Mortar Joints Parapet Walls Note: Additional photos can be found in the Morrison Hershfield Structural Condition Assessment Report Garage has concrete deterioration

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 17 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 18

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS – CAROLINE CO-OP STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS – CATHEDRAL COURT CO-OP (NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING) Summary of structural deficiencies

Summary of structural deficiencies South side • The mortar at the lower level of the bricks at the front entrance stairs was missing at a number of locations • Step cracking in the brick mortar joints and brick units (47 locations) • Step cracking in the brick mortar joints and brick units was observed (20 locations) • Delaminated concrete areas on the slab edges, concrete walkway and concrete beams • The face of the bricks had significant deterioration at the face of the building at 2 locations supporting the walkway (20 locations) • Severe scaling was noted to the concrete slab at the unit entrance to the building at 2 locations North side • Delaminated concrete areas were noted at the base of the foundation walls at 4 locations. • Step cracking in the brick mortar joints and brick units (27 locations) • Cracks in the concrete were noted at 1 location in the foundation walls of the building. • Delaminated concrete areas on the slab edge (4 locations above the windows) • The timber retaining walls at the front entrance stairs are out of plumb and leaning away from the South Wal l of Parking Garage buildings at 4 unit locations. (Photos 22) • Vertical cracks in the south reinforced concrete foundation wall (4 locations) (Photo 35) • The timber edge board of the balcony at unit 35 is deteriorated and should be replaced. • Delaminated concrete areas in the concrete beams supporting the garage roof slab Photo 22: Timber retaining wall unstable and shifted from (2 locations). building • Delaminated concrete areas along the concrete foundation wall (2 locations). Photo 35: Vertical Crack In Garage Foundation Wall • Previous patched areas (6 locations along the concrete foundation walls.

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 19 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 20 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

Deficiency Summary • The remaining deficiencies identified in the report were not as frequently Brick Mortar The cracking at site was typically noted at A/C unit, window and door openings in the wall and Brick Unit structure. This type of cracking between the bricks is very typical for a building of identified at the site and only minor repairs would be required. Cracking this construction. Crack occurs from thermal and moisture changes in the brick wall causing • The timber retaining walls are more of a concern and should be repaired as soon as expansion and contraction effects. These changes cause cracking in the mortar joints and possible. individual brick units. The cracking reviewed at site does not appear to be from the effects of being located close to a train corridor but rather normal brickwall • MH concluded that the deterioration of the building envelope items and cracking that occurs in typical buildings. structural deficiencies identified were not caused by the proximity of the Mortar Joint At a number of locations the mortar joint material is missing between the bricks. Salt and buildings to the train corridor or its operation. Deterioration snow has deteriorated the mortar at the lower level of the brick wall to the point that the bricks are fully unsupported at some locations. Repairs to the brick and mortar joints at • The restoration items noted in the report are typically building maintenance these locations should be completed as soon as possible to maintain the stability of the brick façade. This deterioration of the brick mortar was not affected by the proximity to a items that need to be completed as a building ages and exposure to the train corridor. elements. Concrete Delaminated concrete was noted along the exposed concrete slab edges, concrete beams Delaminations and concrete walkway slabs on the buildings. These delaminations appear to be caused from rust development of the reinforcing steel from exposure to the elements. The deterioration of the concrete at the walkway slabs is quite severe at some locations and should be repaired as soon as possible to maintain the structural integrity of the concrete walkways. USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 21 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 22

CLAIMS PROCESS CLAIMS PROCESS

• Claimants may appeal rejected claims by submitting any new or additional information for • Metrolinx can only pay out claims based on the recommendations from a 3rd party licensed adjuster consideration.

• Adjusters are licensed under the Insurance Act and are retained to provide objective • If a claimant does not agree with the adjuster’s assessment or position, the claimant can submit assessments of the damages in question. a reason in writing to the claims department at Metrolinx.

• Adjusters ensure that claims are investigated to the extent able based on the information • If the claimant wishes to escalate their claim, they can send it to the available. [email protected] email address and ask that the claim be reviewed by the

Manager of Risk and Insurance. • If Adjuster recommends compensation, then Metrolinx compensates.

• If Adjuster concludes Metrolinx didn’t cause damage then claim is rejected.

USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 23 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 24 LONG TERM MONITORING – NOISE / VIBRATION NEXT STEPS

• Worst Case vibration testing results are significantly lower than vibration that causes structural damage • September 18: CAC Meeting #9 Noise Part 2

• vibration decays extremely quickly with distance. • September 25: CAC Meeting #10 Bridges and PCCS Part 1 • “generic: long-term monitoring locations would be expected to result in significant differences between the • October 9: CAC Meeting #11 Public Realm measured level at the “generic” location and the maximum being experienced by a structure. • October 16: CAC Meeting #12 Air Quality • All work in the corridor will adhere to the requirements of the City of Toronto by-law 514-2008 (Construction Vibration) • USRC East Enhancements TPAP: • By-law requires a vibration zone of influence to be determined for a given activity o Notice of Completion: August 16, 2018 • If the zone of influence extends beyond the corridor boundary then a vibration monitoring plan would be prepared and implemented. o 30-Day Public review period: August 17-September 17, 2018 § Final Environmental Project Report and technical reports posted online • Therefore considering long term Noise monitoring but not vibration monitoring o 35-Day Minister review period: September 18-October 22, 2018 o Statement of Completion: October 22, 2018 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 25 USRC EAST COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 26