Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study Kitchener Corridor

GO Rail Network Electrification Project

03-Dec-2020

Prepared by:

Contract: QBS-2014-IEP-002 Revision DC

Authorization

X X Alain Carriere Amber Saltarelli Senior Project Manager / Associate Project Manager

X Andrew Gillespie Program Manager

REVISION HISTORY

Revision No. Date Purpose of Submittal Comments

DA 04-Sep-2020 Draft Submission to Metrolinx N/A

DB 22-Oct-2020 Metrolinx comments addressed N/A

DC 03-Dec-2020 Final Draft Submission N/A

This submission was completed and reviewed in accordance with the Quality Assurance Process for this project.

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020

Executive Summary

Metrolinx and Hydro One (as co-proponents) jointly completed the GO Rail Network Electrification Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) in 2017 to convert six Metrolinx-owned Rail Corridors from diesel to electric propulsion. The 2017 Environmental Project Report (EPR) assessed the environmental effects associated with new infrastructure and associated rail traffic increases. Since 2017, Metrolinx has developed a more detailed design and schedule for how increased passenger service will be delivered for the GO Rail Expansion Program in the future, involving further infrastructure and rail traffic changes. These proposed changes require a reassessment of potential noise and vibration effects as part of an addendum to the 2017 EPR. RWDI was retained to complete an updated environmental noise and vibration assessment for the GO Rail Network to support the addendum to the 2017 EPR. The objective of this study was to assess how noise and vibration levels will change from existing operations (2015) to the proposed future operations, and to determine whether mitigation measures may be required. The methodology for noise and vibration studies for Metrolinx rail infrastructure projects as part of a TPAP follows guidance provided in the “Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment” in December 1995 (the “MOEE/GO Protocol”). Existing and future noise and vibration levels were predicted to assess potential effects according to the applicable guidelines. In areas where predicted levels were found to be above the applicable guidelines, mitigation options were investigated and will be considered by Metrolinx. This report addresses potential noise and vibration effects along the Kitchener (KT) Rail Corridor west of the UP Express Pearson International Airport spur at Highway 427. The portion of the KT Rail Corridor east of the UP Express Pearson International Airport spur has been assessed as part of the Addendum to the 2014 UP Express Electrification TPAP. Other Corridors were evaluated in separate Noise and Vibration Study reports. Cost Benefit Assessment Metrolinx has expanded the scope of its OnCorr TPAP reports on Noise and Vibration to include detailed assessment of the constructability and cost benefit of any mitigation to be investigated in accordance with the MOEE/GO Protocol. In the past, constructability and cost benefit were addressed at the detailed design stage of a project, rather than at the environmental assessment stage. For a quantitative assessment of constructability and cost benefit, the mitigation measure is defined as a solid noise wall with a nominal vertical dimension of 5 to 7 m, a minimum surface density of 20 kg/m2, and, where necessary, a noise-absorptive surface. The assessment was carried out jointly by a team of expert acoustics and civil engineering teams. The acoustics team provided the preliminary location and height of each potential noise wall. The civil engineering team determined the constructability, precise location, design and cost of each potential noise wall. The acoustics team then determined the number of receptors that benefit from the wall design by 5 dB or more, and the average noise reduction (insertion loss) achieved at the benefitting receptors. The following cost benefit measure was then used to determine the optimal locations of noise walls, where the maximum number of receptors will benefit from a measurable noise reduction: 퐶표푠푡 Cost Benefit = 푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 퐵푒푛푒푓푖푡푖푛푔 푅푒푐푒푝푡표푟푠 × 퐴푣푒푟푎푔푒 푁표푖푠푒 푅푒푑푢푐푡푖표푛 This approach, which provides an objective method to allocate Metrolinx noise mitigation resources to those locations where total achievable noise mitigation benefits are greatest, was applied to each potential noise wall identified in the preliminary acoustical assessment. The resulting set of feasible

i Revision DD 03-Dec-2020 noise walls (minimum acoustic benefit of 5 dB, constructible and economically feasible) are recommended for implementation. Operational Noise Assessment Adjusted Noise Impacts were determined in accordance with the MOEE/GO Protocol. Adjusted Noise Impacts at all first row receptors with direct line of sight to the Rail Corridor were deemed noticeable (i.e., between 3 dB and 4.99 dB) or significant (i.e., between 5 dB and 9.99 dB). Mitigation was investigated for areas with significant impacts and determined to be technically and economically feasible for 2 barriers spanning a total length of approximately 1 km. For electric traction power facilities, the predicted noise levels at nearby receptors were below the applicable limits. Therefore, noise mitigation for electric traction power facilities was not required. Operational Vibration Assessment Predicted vibration effects of some trackwork and switches were found to meet the MOEE/GO Protocol limits. No vibration mitigation was recommended. Separate Assessment of Construction and Operation Phase Noise and Vibration Impacts Due to the exceptional size and complexity of the GO Expansion program, Metrolinx assessed the Noise and Vibration impacts of the construction and operation phases of the Project in individual separate reports. The construction phase reports deal only with the construction phase of the individual infrastructure component at a given location and are written independently by experts, (e.g., grade separation, bridge improvement, pedestrian tunnel). The operation phase reports deal with the noise and vibration impacts of the regular operation of trains on each expanded and improved rail corridor that is part of the GO Expansion program. They also address construction-related impacts for relatively minor construction projects including the electrification infrastructure. The construction phase noise and vibration impacts of new layover facilities are addressed in a separate, stand-alone report. These provisions are described in the Metrolinx work plan for the noise and vibration study of GO Expansion program, which was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) prior to the commencement of the study. The operation phase reports address the noise and vibration impacts of train operations per planned “maximum” service levels (10% addition to planned levels during peak periods) on the expanded and improved rail network - fully accounting for every relevant element of the infrastructure – including the new grade separations, new/improved bridges, and layover facilities. Hence, the rail noise and vibration implications of the proposed infrastructure are accounted for in the operation phase report of each corridor, to provide a more consistent and efficient assessment process. The potential noise and vibration impacts of any change in road traffic conditions resulting from grade separation and other component projects were not assessed, since these impacts are expected to be insignificant (much less than 5 dB) and generally positive (a noise reduction). Construction Noise and Vibration Assessments The Bramalea PS is in an industrial area sufficiently set back from adjacent buildings such that no exceedances are expected for either noise or vibration. No receptors were identified within the zones of influence. Recommendations for implementing a number of mitigation measures and monitoring are outlined in Table 10 and should be considered as best practices for the nearest receptors located outside of the Zones of Influence.

ii Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... i Documents...... vii Glossary of Terms ...... viii Abbreviations ...... x 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Scope ...... 1 1.2 Project Assessment Approach ...... 2 1.3 Enhancement of Previous Project Assessment Methodology ...... 3 Diesel Locomotive Silencer Installation ...... 3 Maximum Height of Noise Barriers...... 3 Economic Feasibility and Constructability of Noise Barriers ...... 3 1.4 Separate Assessment of Construction and Operation Phase Noise and Vibration Impacts ...... 4 2 Study Description ...... 5 2.1 Study Area ...... 5 2.2 Proposed Changes ...... 7 2.3 Key Assumptions ...... 8 3 Operational Noise Assessment ...... 10 3.1 Applicable Criteria ...... 10 Rail Operations ...... 10 Electric Traction Power Facility ...... 11 3.2 Receptors ...... 11 Operational Rail ...... 11 Electric Traction Power Facility ...... 12 3.3 Existing Barriers ...... 12 3.4 Ambient Sound Levels...... 13 Along the Rail Corridors ...... 13 Electric Traction Power Facilities ...... 13 3.5 Rail Activity Modelling ...... 13 Model Selection ...... 13 Rail Source Types ...... 14 Source Height ...... 14

iii Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

Source Emissions ...... 14 Topography ...... 14 Rail Traffic Movements ...... 14 GO Trains ...... 14 Freight Trains ...... 15 Other Rail Sources ...... 15 Rail Yard and Maintenance Facility ...... 15 Idling Trains ...... 15 Road Crossing Signals (applicable to all trains) ...... 15 Engine Bells from Trains (applicable to all trains)...... 15 Crossovers and Switches (applicable to all trains) ...... 15 Wheel Squeal (applicable to all trains) ...... 16 Pantograph (applicable to electric trains only) ...... 16 Electric Traction Power Facility (applicable to electric trains only) ...... 16 3.6 Modelling Results ...... 16 Adjusted Noise Impact ...... 16 Electric Traction Power Facilities ...... 17 3.7 Investigation of Mitigation Methodology ...... 18 Preliminary Noise Wall Specifications ...... 18 Civil Engineering Consultant Evaluation of Noise Wall ...... 18 Economic Feasibility ...... 19 3.8 Mitigation Investigated ...... 19 Technical Feasibility ...... 20 Economic Feasibility ...... 20 4 Operational Vibration Assessment ...... 24 4.1 Applicable Vibration Criteria ...... 24 4.2 Receptors ...... 24 4.3 Methodology and Key Inputs ...... 25 4.4 Results ...... 27 5 Construction Noise and Vibration Assessments ...... 28 5.1 Applicable Criteria ...... 28 5.2 Assessment Methodology ...... 30 Electrification Noise ...... 30 Vibration ...... 31 Receptors ...... 31

iv Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

5.3 Modelling Results ...... 31 Electrification Noise ...... 31 Electrification Vibration ...... 32 5.4 Recommendations ...... 33 6 Recommendations for Noise and Vibration Mitigation ...... 34 7 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 37

Tables

TABLE 1: Receptor Locations and Descriptions (Malton GO to West of Bramalea GO) TABLE 2: Summary of Adjusted Noise Impacts TABLE 3: Predicted Sound Levels from Electric Traction Power Facilities TABLE 4: Summary of Barrier Feasibility TABLE 5: Summary of Technically Feasible Barrier Characteristics TABLE 6: Summary of Barrier Performance and Economic Feasibility TABLE 7: Construction Noise Criteria TABLE 8: Noise By-Law Construction Prohibitions TABLE 9: Vibration Exposure Limits Regarding Public Annoyance and Building Damage TABLE 10: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Recommendations Figures

FIGURE 1: Current Metrolinx Corridors FIGURE 2: Current Study Area FIGURE 3: Summary of Existing (2015) and Future Rail Volumes FIGURE 4: Predicted Unmitigated Post-Project Sound Level Contours Near Mitigation Barrier 04 and Barrier 07 – Daytime FIGURE 5: Predicted Mitigated Post-Project Sound Level Contours Near Mitigation Barrier 04 and Barrier 07 – Daytime FIGURE 6: Comparison of Vibration Levels for GO and Freight Trains With and Without Switches FIGURE 7: Predicted Vibration Propagation for GO and Freight Trains FIGURE 8: Electrification Infrastructure Construction Sound Levels FIGURE 9: Electrification Infrastructure Construction Vibration Levels (PPV)

v Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Appendices

APPENDIX A: Transportation Sound Basics APPENDIX B: List of Assumptions APPENDIX C: Information Provided APPENDIX D: Modelling Inputs APPENDIX E: Operational Noise Modelling Results APPENDIX F: Operational Noise Measurements at Switches APPENDIX G: Operational Noise Mitigation APPENDIX H: Operational Vibration Modelling Results APPENDIX I: Construction Modelling Inputs

vi Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Documents

Title Reference MOEE/GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (Jan n/a 1995, Draft #9)

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/electrification/electri Metrolinx: GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP c.aspx

Metrolinx Work Plan: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the GO n/a Expansion OnCorr Project, 2019 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP), https://www.ontario.ca/page/environmental- Environmental Noise Guideline – Stationary and Transportation Sources – noise-guideline-stationary-and-transportation- Approval and Planning (NPC-300) sources-approval-and-planning Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Sound from Trains n/a Environmental Analysis Method (STEAM), 1990 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/ Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (FTA), docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise- Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2018 and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta- report-no-0123_0.pdf Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (FRA), https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/noise- High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, vibration/guidance-assessing-noise-and- 2012 vibration-impacts International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Standard ISO 9613-1:1994, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation n/a Outdoors. Part 1: Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere, 1994 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Standard ISO 9613-2:1996, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation n/a Outdoors. Part 2: General Method of Calculation, 1996 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Greater Toronto Area https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-government- Digital Elevation Model 2002, 2016 licence-ontario Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), ORNAMENT Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method for Environment and Transportation, Technical n/a Publication, 1989 International Journal of Rail Transportation Vol. 3, Iss. 3, Recent Developments in the Prediction and Control of Aerodynamic Noise from n/a High-Speed Trains, David J. Thompson, Eduardo Latorre Iglesias, Xiaowan Liu, Jianyue Zhu, Zhiwei Hu, 2015 http://www.metrolinx.com/en/electrification/docs/ Metrolinx, UP Express Electrification EA – Noise and Vibration Assessment AppendixF_UPExpressElecEA_NoiseVibrationA Report, February 2014 ssessRpt_Final.pdf Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Noise Pollution Control NPC-115 Construction n/a Equipment, 1977 Commission Regulation of the European Union, EU Regulation 1304/2014, The Technical Specification for Interoperability Relating to the Subsystem http://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/1304 ‘rolling stock — noise’, November 2014

City of Toronto – Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 591, Noise, 2019 n/a

City of Mississauga – The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Noise http://184.150.237.247/file/COM/noiseupdate.pdf Control By-Law 360-79, 2008

City of Brampton, Noise By-Law 93-84, To prohibit and regulate noise and to https://www.brampton.ca/en/City- repeal By-Law 15-75, 2014 Hall/Bylaws/All%20Bylaws/Noise.PDF

vii Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Glossary of Terms

See Appendix A for an additional summary of noise terminology and basic concepts.

Word Definition Sound existing at a receptor in the absence of all noise from GO Rail Network. Ambient Sound Levels Includes noise from road traffic and existing industry. The composition of a train, including type and number of locomotives and number Consist of cars. Electric Traction Power Facility A traction substation, paralleling station, or switching station. The equivalent continuous sound level in A-weighted decibels equivalent to the Equivalent Sound Level total sound energy measured over a stated period of time. Existing Operations Rail operations as of 2015, the Pre-project scenario.

Express Rail Service GO train movements that do not stop at every GO Station along the Corridor.

Freight Switcher Trains Freight trains with consists of 1 freight locomotive and 6 freight rail cars. Rail operations corresponding to the Ultimate Capacity schedule, the Post-project Future Operations scenario. Local Rail Service GO train movements that stop at every GO Station along the Corridor. A mechanical facility for the maintenance, repair, and inspection of engines and Maintenance Facility railcars. Actions or objects that remove or alleviate, to some degree, the negative effects Mitigation Measure associated with the implementation of an alternative. The acronym for Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks, formerly referred to as the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change MECP (MOECC), Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) or just Ministry of the Environment (MOE). GO and VIA train movements that do not carry passengers. These movements Non-Revenue Trains typically occur between layovers or maintenance facilities and GO Stations. OCS is comprised of: 1. The aerial supply system that delivers 2x25 kV traction power from traction power substations to the pantographs of Metrolinx electric trains, comprising the catenary system messenger and contact wires, hangers, associated supports and structures including poles, portals, head spans and their foundations), manual Overhead Contact System (OCS) and/or motor operated disconnect switches, insulators, phase breaks, section insulators, conductor termination and tensioning devices, downguys, and other overhead line hardware and fittings. 2. Portions of the traction power return system consisting of the negative feeders and aerial static wires, and their associated connections and cabling. Device on the top of a train that slides along the contact wire to transmit electric Pantograph power from the catenary to the train. An installation which helps boost the OCS voltage and reduce the running rail return current by means of the autotransformer feed configuration. The negative feeders and the catenary conductors are connected to the two outer terminals of Paralleling Station (PS) the autotransformer winding at this location with the centre terminal connected to the traction return system. The OCS sections can be connected in parallel at PS locations. The scenario following the implementation of the future infrastructure and rail Post-project operations. A possible or probable (noise or vibration) effect of implementing a particular Potential Effect alternative. The existing scenario of rail operations. In this study, the existing scenario is the Pre-project year 2015.

viii Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Word Definition GO or VIA train movements that carry passengers between Stations. These trains Revenue Trains do not stop at layovers or maintenance facilities. Electric Traction Power Facility that transforms the utility supply voltage of 230 kV Traction Power Substation to 50 kV and 25 kV for distribution to the trains via catenary and negative feeders. SWS is an installation where the supplies from two adjacent traction power substations are electrically separated and where electrical energy can be supplied Switching Station (SWS) to an adjacent but normally separated electrical section during contingency power supply conditions. It also acts as a paralleling station. VIA Trains Passenger trains that travel through portions of the Metrolinx Corridors. Area containing all receptors that will require mitigation for the construction to meet Zone of Influence assumed criterion.

ix Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Abbreviations

Acronym or Abbreviation Definition APTA American Public Transportation Association AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association Cadna/A Noise propagation model CN Canadian National Railway CP Canadian Pacific Railway dB or dBA Decibels (or “A-weighted” decibels) EA Environmental Assessment EPR Environmental Project Report ESR Environmental Study Report FRA Federal Rail Administration (US Department of Transportation) Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, High-Speed Ground FRA Protocol Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment FTA Federal Transit Administration (US Department of Transportation) Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, High-Speed Ground FTA Protocol Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System KT Kitchener

LEQ Equivalent Sound Level MECP Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Metrolinx Work Plan: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the GO Expansion Metrolinx Work Plan OnCorr Project MOEE/GO Protocol MOEE/GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (1995) OCS Overhead Contact System PPV Peak Particle Velocity Future rail service levels, schedules and technologies expected to capture worst-case “Predictable worst-case scenario” effects from sound and vibration; the basis for the GO Rail Network Electrification Addendum PS Paralleling Station RMS Root Mean Square ROW Right-of-Way STEAM Sound from Trains Environmental Analysis Method SWS Switching Station TPAP Transit Project Assessment Process TPF Electric Traction Power Facility Ultimate Capacity Schedule Train Service Schedule developed to represent the predictable worst-case scenario UPE Union Pearson Express US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

x Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

1 Introduction

Metrolinx and Hydro One (as co-proponents) jointly completed the GO Rail Network Electrification Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) in 2017 to convert six Metrolinx-owned Rail Corridors from diesel to electric propulsion. The 2017 Environmental Project Report (EPR) assessed the environmental effects associated with: • The increase in rail traffic associated with the conversion from diesel to electric propulsion; • Infrastructure improvements; and • Installation of proposed traction power supply and power distribution components. Key project components such as stations, layovers, and rail traffic volumes included in the study are described in section 2.1 and 2.2. The TPAP received a Notice to Proceed and Metrolinx issued a Statement of Completion in December 2017. Since December 2017, Metrolinx developed a reference concept design that details how increased passenger service will be delivered for the GO Rail Expansion Program in the future. This work led to further proposed changes to rail infrastructure and a revised future train service schedule, referred to as “Ultimate Capacity”, including descriptions of train type, (diesel locomotive, electric locomotive), and train consists. These proposed changes required reassessment of potential noise and vibration effects and the associated consideration of mitigation measures. As a result of these proposed changes the 2017 EPR must be amended. Existing and future sound and vibration levels associated with these changes were predicted to assess potential effects in accordance with the applicable guidelines. In areas where predicted effects were found to be above the applicable guidelines, mitigation options were investigated and will be considered by Metrolinx. 1.1 Project Scope The noise and vibration analysis addresses changes to rail infrastructure and the new Ultimate Capacity train service schedules, which represent Metrolinx’ vision for the year 2037. The Ultimate Capacity train service schedules include descriptions of train type (diesel locomotive, electric locomotive) and train consists. Future train service will be delivered by a mix of diesel and electric trains. The scope includes seven Metrolinx-owned Rail Corridors: • Union Station • Lakeshore West (including the Canpa Subdivision) • Kitchener (from the UP Express Pearson Airport spur to the Halton Subdivision) • Barrie • Stouffville • Lakeshore East • Richmond Hill (up to Mile 4.38 (Pottery Road)) Note that the electrification of the Richmond Hill Corridor is not being assessed as part of the GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP; however, changes in infrastructure on the Richmond Hill Corridor are being assessed as part of the New Track & Facilities TPAP. Although not within the scope of the study, all traffic associated with the entire Richmond Hill Corridor and Milton Corridor are considered within the study where appropriate (e.g., where these trains enter into or leave from Union Station).

1 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Revised noise and vibration studies have been provided for each of the above corridors. All current Metrolinx Corridors are shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 CURRENT METROLINX CORRIDORS 1.2 Project Assessment Approach The methodology for noise and vibration studies for Metrolinx rail infrastructure projects as part of a TPAP follows guidance provided in the “Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment” in December 1995 (the “MOEE/GO Protocol”). For the work associated with the addendum to the 2017 Electrification EPR, Metrolinx developed a draft internal document entitled, “Work Plan: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the GO Expansion OnCorr Project” (Metrolinx Work Plan). This document describes in detail the scope and approach of the current work and provides information that furthers the approach of the MOEE/GO Protocol. Notably, the Metrolinx Work Plan describes a detailed methodology for assessing proposed noise barriers according to administrative, operational, economic and technical criteria, which the MOEE/GO Protocol refers to but does not define in detail. Overall, the methodology used in the assessment of sound and vibration effects related to this project is based on numerical modelling and the comparison of sound and vibration levels between an existing scenario (or baseline) and a future scenario after implementation of the project and associated increases in rail traffic. Measurements of sound and vibration levels can be used to inform the modelling, (e.g., to confirm sound and vibration emissions from train wheels impacting a rail switch), but the assessment itself is based on a comparison of sound and vibration levels predicted by modelling both existing and future scenarios (i.e., a consistent model-to-model comparison). Following the MOEE/GO Protocol, the assessments of sound and vibration effects are based on the difference in predicted levels from existing to future scenarios. When defined thresholds are reached or exceeded, this triggers the investigation of possible mitigation. For sound levels, this threshold is a predicted 5 dB increase in average sound levels relative to existing levels or MECP noise exposure objectives, whichever are higher, at nearby points of reception (i.e., residences) as a result of the project. For vibration, the threshold is a predicted 25% or more increase in pass-by RMS vibration velocity relative to existing vibration velocity or 0.14 mm/s, whichever is higher, at a point of vibration assessment. Any proposed mitigation for both sound and vibration effects must meet administrative, operational, economic and technical criteria. Sound mitigation typically involves proposing walls or barriers to block receptors (i.e., houses) from the sound of trains, but can also involve reducing sound levels at the source (e.g., quieter trains) or at the receptor location (e.g., more sound-proof windows). Barriers effectively reduce effects of all rail

2 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor operations on existing and new tracks. Vibration mitigation typically involves installing technologies such as ballast mats under new rails or switches, which absorb vibration energy and reduce the effects on nearby receptors. In the case of this assessment for Kitchener (KT) Corridor, noise mitigation was triggered for operational noise along the entirety of the study area in any location where sensitive receptors were in proximity to the corridor. Vibration mitigation was not recommended for the Kitchener Corridor. Construction sound and vibration effects are temporary but may last for a considerable time in one location. For this project, the assessment of major construction projects – including new grade separations, pedestrian tunnels, bridge reconstruction, etc., – was assigned to other consultants. The assessment of sound and vibration effects for construction of new layovers is presented in a separate report. 1.3 Enhancement of Previous Project Assessment Methodology For this specific EPR Addendum, three significant enhancements to the previous project assessment methodology have been integrated, compared to the methodology used for the original 2017 EPR: • Metrolinx has committed to the implementation of a silencer retrofit program on all existing diesel locomotives and silencer installation on any future diesel locomotives, reducing future diesel locomotive sound by 3 dB; • Where a 5 m barrier is not predicted to achieve the desired noise mitigation objective, (typically at least a 5 dB reduction), a maximum barrier height up to 7 m may be considered; and • More detailed noise mitigation evaluation to assess economic feasibility and constructability of proposed barriers. Diesel Locomotive Silencer Installation To decrease sound from existing and future diesel locomotives included in the train fleet, engine exhaust silencers will be installed on all diesel locomotives. Measurements completed in 2013 were used to conservatively determine the effect on total locomotive noise emissions as a result of the silencer installation. A silencer is estimated to reduce diesel locomotive sound by 3 dB at idling and at all speeds. Further details on this analysis are included in a memo in Appendix D. Maximum Height of Noise Barriers In the 2017 EPR, noise barriers above 5 m in height were not considered. If a barrier of 5 m in height did not achieve at least a 5 dB reduction in noise at the first row of affected receptors, it was deemed not technically feasible. For this assessment, in cases where a 5 m barrier does not achieve technical feasibility, barriers up to 7 m in height will be investigated. This height was chosen as a reasonably constructible barrier. If a barrier of 7 m in height does not achieve technical feasibility, it is unlikely a barrier above this height would achieve it. This results in more barriers deemed technically feasible and more receptors receiving protection from noise. Economic Feasibility and Constructability of Noise Barriers Metrolinx has expanded the scope of its OnCorr TPAP reports on Noise and Vibration to include detailed assessment of the constructability and cost benefit of any mitigation to be investigated in accordance with the 1995 MOEE/GO Transit Draft Protocol. In the past, constructability and cost benefit were addressed at the detailed design stage of a project, rather than at the environmental assessment stage. For a quantitative assessment of constructability and cost benefit, the mitigation measure is defined as a solid noise wall with a nominal vertical dimension of 5 to 7 m, a minimum surface density of 20 kg/m2,

3 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor and, where necessary, a noise-absorptive surface. The assessment was carried out jointly by a team of expert acoustics and civil engineering teams. The acoustics team provided the preliminary location and height of each potential noise wall. The civil engineering team determined the constructability, precise location, design and cost of each potential noise wall. The acoustics team then determined the number of receptors that benefit from the wall design by 5 dB or more, and the average noise reduction (insertion loss) achieved at the benefiting receptors. The following cost benefit measure was then used to determine the optimal locations of noise walls, where the maximum number of receptors will benefit from a measurable noise reduction: 퐶표푠푡 Cost Effectiveness Index = 푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 퐵푒푛푒푓푖푡푖푛푔 푅푒푐푒푝푡표푟푠 × 퐴푣푒푟푎푔푒 푁표푖푠푒 푅푒푑푢푐푡푖표푛 The CEI was developed following the completion of the 2017 EPR. Metrolinx worked with a team of experts to develop this methodology based on economic feasibility criteria from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), other agencies in Canada, and the United States were considered. The CEI is very similar to methods used in various U.S. jurisdictions, adjusted for a Canadian context. This approach, which provides an objective method to allocate Metrolinx noise mitigation resources to those locations where total achievable noise mitigation benefits are greatest, was applied to each potential noise wall identified in the preliminary acoustical assessment. The resulting set of feasible noise walls (minimum acoustic benefit of 5 dB, constructible and economically feasible) are recommended for implementation. 1.4 Separate Assessment of Construction and Operation Phase Noise and Vibration Impacts Due to the exceptional size and complexity of the GO Expansion program, Metrolinx assessed the Noise and Vibration impacts of the construction and operation phases of the Project in individual separate reports. The construction phase reports deal only with the construction phase of the individual infrastructure component at a given location and are written independently by experts, (e.g., grade separation, bridge improvement, pedestrian tunnel). The operation phase reports deal with the noise and vibration impacts of the regular operation of trains on each expanded and improved rail corridor that is part of the GO Expansion program. They also address construction-related impacts for relatively minor construction projects including the electrification infrastructure. The construction phase noise and vibration impacts of new layover facilities are addressed in a separate, stand-alone report. These provisions are described in the Metrolinx work plan for the noise and vibration study of GO Expansion program, which was submitted to MECP prior to the commencement of the study. The operation phase reports address the noise and vibration impacts of train operations per planned “maximum” service levels (10% addition to planned levels during peak periods) on the expanded and improved rail network - fully accounting for every relevant element of the infrastructure – including the new grade separations, new/improved bridges, and layover facilities. Hence, the rail noise and vibration implications of the proposed infrastructure are accounted for in the operation phase report of each corridor, to provide a more consistent and efficient assessment process. The potential noise and vibration impacts of any change in road traffic conditions resulting from grade separation and other component projects were not assessed, since these impacts are expected to be insignificant (much less than 5 dB) and generally positive (a noise reduction).

4 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

2 Study Description

This assessment supports the addendum to the 2017 Electrification EPR for the KT Corridor portion west of the UP Express spur servicing the Pearson International Airport. Other corridors were evaluated in separate Noise and Vibration Study reports. Existing and future noise and vibration levels associated with the revised future scenario were predicted to assess potential effects in accordance with the MOEE/GO Protocol and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks’ (MECP) Publication NPC-300, as applicable. In areas where predicted effects were above the applicable criteria, mitigation options were investigated. 2.1 Study Area The KT Corridor Study Area begins at UP Express Pearson International Airport Spur and ends at the Bramalea GO station, approximately 7 kilometers in length. The Study Area is shown in Figure 2. GO Transit, a division of Metrolinx, operates the commuter transportation services along the KT Corridor Weston Subdivision, west of the UP Express Pearson International Airport spur. There are two existing Stations within the Study Area: • Malton GO Station in Mississauga; and • Bramalea GO Station in Brampton. In addition to the GO Stations, one traction power facility (TPF) (west of Bramalea GO) is included in the Study Area.

5 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURE 2: CURRENT STUDY AREA

6 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

2.2 Proposed Changes Existing daily service levels based on maximum service levels in 2015, as previously assessed in the 2017 EPR consist of: • 30 revenue diesel trains; • 4 non-revenue diesel trains; and In the Ultimate Capacity scenario for Year 2037, the GO train fleet will be diesel. Travelling on the KT Corridor on a daily basis will be: • 164 revenue diesel trains. There are no non-revenue diesel trains in the study area in the Ultimate Capacity scenario. A summary of this data is presented in Figure 3.

Note: 1DL12 = 1 Diesel Locomotive + 12 cars 1DL6 = 1 Diesel Locomotive + 6 cars 2DL12 = 2 Diesel Locomotives + 12 Cars FIGURE 3: SUMMARY OF EXISTING (2015) AND FUTURE RAIL VOLUMES

7 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Current revenue trains on the KT provide both regular and express services. Current non-revenue trains on the KT Corridor typically travel between stations and layovers and therefore do not travel along the entirety of the Corridor. In the future, KT GO Transit operations will provide local service only with diesel trains servicing Malton GO Station and Bramalea GO Station. In addition to the GO Transit trains, CN freight switcher trains are also in operation along the KT Rail Corridor and were included in the modeling. There are no major infrastructure changes within the study area of the KT Corridor. The locations of stations are shown in broadly in Figure 2. The stations are shown in more detail in Appendix D Figures D.1.1 to D.1.2. To accommodate future increases in rail traffic, an additional 700 m of track will be added just east of Highway 407. There are 15 new switches along the Corridor as described in drawings provided by Metrolinx included in Appendix C. As part of the electrification of the GO Rail Network, one paralleling station will be constructed in the vicinity of the Bramalea GO Station (Bramalea PS). The location of the Bramalea PS is unchanged from the 2017 EPR. The location is shown broadly in Figure 2, and in more detail in Appendix D Figure D.1.2. 2.3 Key Assumptions Metrolinx provided pertinent information, such as existing and future train volumes, trip log data including throttle and speed profiles, and track diagrams, for incorporation within this assessment. Where information was not available, assumptions were documented for approval by Metrolinx. All Metrolinx-approved modelling assumptions are included in Appendix B. Relevant information provided and used as part of this assessment is included in Appendix C. The predictable worst-case scenario is based on the minimum infrastructure requirements to achieve a service goal. If the existing infrastructure does not allow expanded service, then new infrastructure must be considered. Service goals represent long term planning upon which infrastructure plans are developed. Regulations and policies based on operational and safety considerations limit the service levels that can be achieved for a given infrastructure design. Current rail regulations are principally governed by Transport Canada and the U.S. Federal Rail Administration. Rail policy has also been developed by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Metrolinx, Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) have also established additional operational policies, standards, and rules to ensure safe and reliable service. Collectively, these regulations and policies dictate how railways are designed, operated and maintained. To expand rail service, the regulations and policies have to be considered. Train schedules representative of the predictable worst-case scenario were developed for this assessment. The Ultimate Capacity schedules were based on the 2037 predicted operations, which were provided by Metrolinx in April 2020 and are included in Appendix C. The Ultimate Capacity schedules were developed by modifying the 2037 predicted operations with the following adjustments: • 2037 predicted volumes were increased by 10% during peak periods; • The peak period increases would be achieved with diesel trains; and • Train consists would be locomotive driven not electric multiple units (which are quieter). The intention of these adjustments was to capture the range of actual scenarios that may be implemented in the future to deliver the required service levels.

8 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Where specific or detailed input data was not available, assumptions were made in a conservative manner. This included things such as: • Assuming higher train speeds (the track speed limit) where speeds were unknown; and • Assuming no elevated sound levels from roadways or other industries. Details regarding modelling assumptions used in this assessment are included in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.

9 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

3 Operational Noise Assessment

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) and GO Transit developed a joint assessment methodology, the MOEE/GO Protocol (MOEE, 1995). This document was used as the primary guideline document for assessment of the rail sound and vibration levels. For the work associated with the addendum of the 2017 EPR, Metrolinx developed an internal document entitled, “Work Plan: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the GO Expansion OnCorr Project”. This document describes in detail the scope and approach of the current work and provides details that complement the approach of the MOEE/GO Protocol. In addition, the MECP’s noise guidelines were applied to the traction power facilities that are proposed as part of the electrification project, as these facilities are not subject to the MOEE/GO Protocol. 3.1 Applicable Criteria The sound from rail-related operations, layover sites and traction power facilities are each assessed against different criteria. All of the criteria used in this assessment are equivalent sound levels (LEQ) over time periods varying from 1 hour to 16 hours. The equivalent sound level reflects the average exposure to sound over a specified time period and is considered to be a good, single number descriptor of human response to sound. The instantaneous maximum sound level that would be experienced from a train pass-by is not assessed against these criteria, but its effect is included in the LEQ. Further details are provided in the following sections and in Appendix A. Rail Operations The desirable objective as defined in the MOEE/GO Protocol is that the daytime (16-hr, 0700h-2300h) equivalent sound level (LEQ ) produced by future rail service operation of the project should not exceed the higher of: • Daytime Pre-project noise: ambient sound level, combined with the sound level from existing rail activity; or

• 55 dBA LEQ (16-hr).

Furthermore, the nighttime (8-hr, 2300h-0700h) LEQ should not exceed the higher of: • Nighttime Pre-project noise: ambient sound level, combined with the sound level from existing rail activity; or

• 50 dBA LEQ (8-hr). The MOEE/GO Protocol states that effects from sound at a receptor shall be expressed in terms of the Adjusted Noise Impact. The Adjusted Noise Impact is based on the difference between the objective and Post-project noise (i.e., including ambient sound and sound from Post-project rail). In the context of this assessment, the Post-project noise is the future scenario with the implementation of new rail infrastructure and Ultimate Capacity traffic volumes. According to the MOEE/GO Protocol, the Adjusted Noise Impacts associated with the rail operations shall be rated with respect to the objectives as follows: • Insignificant: Adjusted Noise Impacts between 0 and 2.99 dB; • Noticeable: Adjusted Noise Impacts between 3 and 4.99 dB; • Significant: Adjusted Noise Impacts between 5 and 9.99 dB; and • Very significant: Adjusted Noise Impacts above 10 dB.

10 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

In cases where the Adjusted Noise Impact at a receptor is considered “Significant” or “Very significant”, the potential to mitigate the sound levels shall be evaluated and mitigation solutions (i.e., typically noise barriers) assessed based on administrative, operational, economic and technical criteria. Where all criteria are met, the mitigation solutions will be recommended. At the detailed design stage, recommended barriers should also be re-evaluated on the basis of these criteria. Electric Traction Power Facility Electric traction power facilities are stationary sources and are subject to the MECP environmental noise guideline, NPC-300 (MECP, 2013). Sound received at receptors due to electric traction power facilities, which include traction power substations, paralleling stations, and switching stations, shall not exceed the higher of:

• The exclusion (default) limit values for LEQ (1-hr); or • The minimum background sound levels that occurs near a receptor. NPC-300 has default limit values for outdoor receptors and bedroom plane window receptors in Class 1 Areas (i.e., urban areas), Class 2 Areas (i.e., suburban areas) and Class 3 Areas (i.e., rural areas). Receptors near traction power facilities along the KT Rail Corridor are in areas considered Class 1; therefore, Class 1 Area exclusion limits values are used. For outdoor receptors, the default limits by time period are defined in NPC-300: • 50 dBA during the daytime and evening, 0700-2300h. For the bedroom plane of window receptors, the default limits are: • 50 dBA during the daytime and evening, 0700 – 2300h; and • 45 dBA during the nighttime, 2300 – 0700h. 3.2 Receptors Operational Rail Receptors for this assessment include the following sensitive land uses: • Residences; • Hotels, motels and campgrounds; • Schools, universities, libraries and daycare centres; • Hospitals and clinics, nursing / retirement homes; • Churches and places of worship; • Planned residential developments with approved building permits from the City of Toronto; and • Vacant lots that are currently zoned for residential use. Receptors within the Study Area are mainly residential buildings located adjacent to the KT Rail Corridor. In general, areas of receptors were identified using publicly available address point databases or through visual identification using publicly available satellite aerial images. In the 2017 EPR, vacant lots were only assessed for residential developments with approved building permits. In this addendum, all vacant lots that are zoned for residential use (with or without building permits) were included in the assessment. Data was provided by the City of Toronto on approved building permits for new residential uses, and zoning information. This information was reviewed and included in the assessment. All vacant residential lots within the Study Area were considered. Since

11 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor mitigation would not be recommended for a commercial or institutional vacant lot, they were not assessed. Representative receptors were chosen to simplify the presentation of results for a much larger number of receptors assessed. The representative receptors are summarized in Table 1 and shown in detail in Appendix D Figures D.1.1 to D.1.2. The representative receptors presented in this report do not correspond to the representative receptors presented in the 2017 EPR. To capture the full extent of receptors, sound level contours (isopleths of equal sound level) were generated and are included in Appendix E. The MOEE/GO Protocol considers both daytime and nighttime receptors. Daytime receptors are to be placed in the front yard or backyard of a residential property, whichever is most exposed to the rail operations. Nighttime receptors are to be placed at the plane of the bedroom window that is most exposed to the rail operations. Residences are mainly located in an urban area where front and backyards have small surface areas. For simplicity, the daytime and nighttime receptors were collocated at a single horizontal position, at the most exposed façade of the dwelling. Generally, this approach should give representative results for the most exposed outdoor area for each receptor. Exceptions would be for very deep lots where the building façade is well-removed from the property line closest to the rail corridor. The receptor height used differed between daytime and nighttime. Daytime sound levels were assessed at a height of 1.5 m above local grade. Nighttime sound levels were assessed at the bedroom window height, assumed to be 4.5 m above ground (i.e., the second storey bedroom window). For apartment buildings and high-rise condominium receptors, receptors were placed at a representative worst-case location on the building. This approach is consistent with MECP guidelines. TABLE 1: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS (Malton GO to West of Bramalea GO) Receptor Distance from Track Section Receptor ID[1] Figure Description Nearest Track (m) R01 D.1.1 Single Detached Dwelling 180 R02 D.1.1 Single Detached Dwelling 30 Malton GO to Bramalea GO R03 D.1.1 Single Detached Dwelling 50 R04 D.1.1 Single Detached Dwelling 30 R05 D.1.1 Single Detached Dwelling 60 West of Bramalea GO R06 D.1.2 Single Detached Dwelling 440 [2]

Notes: [1] Each receptor was assessed at two locations, daytime was assessed outdoors at a height of 1.5 m above grade, and nighttime was assessed on the façade at a height of 4.5 m above grade. [2] Receptor R06 represents the worst-case receptor location for the Bramalea PS, which is west of the Bramalea Station. The distance presented represents the distance to the Bramalea PS, as the receptor is more than 1 km from the closest trackwork. Electric Traction Power Facility The definition of a receptor, as described in the NPC-300, is similar to the definition described in the MOEE/GO Protocol. Therefore, receptors assessed as part of the electric traction power facility assessments were selected from the receptors identified as part of the rail assessment, based on their proximity to the proposed electric traction power facility. 3.3 Existing Barriers Existing noise barriers are defined as barriers built as of August 2019 or planned barriers identified during Environmental Assessments completed prior to August 2019. Existing barriers do not include barriers triggered by the 2017 EPR.

12 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Existing barriers were reviewed through publicly available aerial photography and street-level imagery, and Metrolinx’s RailView software. This information was supplemented with design drawings for upgrades to the corridor, which are included in Appendix D. There were no existing barriers identified in the study area. 3.4 Ambient Sound Levels Along the Rail Corridors The sound level objective along the Rail Corridors is the higher of the ambient sound level, combined with the sound level from existing rail activity or as a default, 55 dBA LEQ (16-hr) for daytime, and 50 dBA LEQ (8-hr) for nighttime. The ambient sound level is defined as the sound existing at a receptor in the absence of the rail activity. Where ambient (or “background”) noise levels are already high, the sound level objective may in some cases be less stringent, that is, higher (louder) than the default 55 / 50 dBA levels. Ambient sound levels exclude sound from aircraft and other railways (i.e., adjacent rail operations not owned by Metrolinx). At the majority of the nearest receptors along the KT Rail Corridor, the ambient sound was assumed to be significantly lower than the default 55 / 50 dBA objective levels and was therefore not assessed. This assumption is expected to be conservative given proximity to major roads. Additionally, the existing rail traffic sound levels were modeled above the objective levels for the most impacted receptors, thereby lessening the effective contribution of ambient sound. Along the KT Rail Corridor, there are no instances where receptors most effected by the Rail Corridor are also in close proximity to a major highway. Therefore, modelling of the sound from the highway traffic was not assessed. This choice will give a conservative assessment since the addition of the highway on the ambient sound levels would only reduce the Adjusted Noise Impact further. Electric Traction Power Facilities Conservatively, the default (or exclusion) limits were assumed to be higher than the minimum ambient sound levels at receptors near the traction power facilities. Therefore, the default limits were adopted as the desired sound level objectives. 3.5 Rail Activity Modelling Model Selection The MOEE/GO Protocol stipulates the use of a model known as Sound from Trains Environmental Analysis Method (STEAM) for predicting rail traffic sound levels. STEAM was developed by the MECP (MOE, 1990). As a result of consultations with Metrolinx, the noise modelling for the 2017 EPR and for the current assessment deviated from this guidance in that the rail traffic sound levels were modelled using the “Federal Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (the “FTA Protocol”; FTA, 2018) and the “Federal Railroad Administration High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (the “FRA Protocol”; FRA, 2012). The FTA and FRA algorithms are included in Cadna/A, a software package used in the assessment. Cadna/A also includes the stationary source algorithms in ISO 9613 (ISO 1994, ISO 1996) used in the assessment. A comparison of results from the FTA algorithms implemented in Microsoft Excel and the FTA algorithms implemented in Cadna/A was completed as part of the GO Rail Network Electrification EPR. These results demonstrated that Cadna/A FTA results aligned with those generated from the FTA algorithms, sample calculations are summarized in Table D.2.1 with the detailed calculations in tables D.2.2 to D.2.4 of Appendix D. Although the propagation algorithms of the two models (STEAM and FTA/FRA) are very comparable, the use of the FTA/FRA model in Cadna/A allows for more detailed and comprehensive modelling. Additionally, the outputs of FTA/FRA modelling in Cadna/A are more visual and thus more effective for

13 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor presentation to stakeholders. Further details regarding the implications of using of FTA/FRA in lieu of STEAM are outlined in the GO Rail Network Electrification EPR (Metrolinx, 2017). Rail Source Types Sources associated with GO rail activity include: • Moving trains (applicable to all trains); • Idling trains at each Station (applicable to all trains); • Road crossings signals such as horns and whistles (applicable to all trains); • Engine bells from trains at each Station (applicable to all trains); • Crossovers and Switches (applicable to all trains); • Wheel squeal (applicable to all trains); and • Pantograph (applicable to electric trains only). Source Height As per the FTA, the diesel locomotive was modelled with a source height of 2.4 m (8ft). The sound from a diesel locomotive is dominated by the engine (located at approximately 2.4 m above the rail) with a lesser contribution from the wheels (located at approximately 0.6 m above the rail). For all sources, it was conservatively assumed that the rail would be 0.3 m above ground. Source Emissions Modelling of locomotives will use the standard FTA and FRA Sound Exposure Levels (SELs) for all trains except future diesel locomotives. Metrolinx has committed to ensure any new or existing diesel locomotives will include an engine combustion exhaust silencer in the future scenario. This silencer is estimated to reduce diesel locomotive sound by 3 dB at idling and at all speeds. Topography Topography was included in the Cadna/A model to take into consideration the elevation differences of the railway, receptors and the intervening terrain. The topographical features were assumed to be the same in the existing and future scenarios. High-resolution (i.e., 0.5 m) topographical information was obtained from public databases (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016). Rail Traffic Movements All rail traffic on the track infrastructure used by GO Transit is considered in the Pre-project and Post-project assessments. Rail traffic along the KT Rail Corridor includes GO Transit, and freight activity. Detailed rail traffic volumes are summarized in Appendix D in Tables D.1.1, and D.1.2. GO Trains Existing GO train traffic volumes were provided by Metrolinx (last updated October 29, 2015). To determine daytime/nighttime distribution, information was taken from the online GO schedule as posted January 2016. Future Ultimate Capacity rail traffic volumes were provided by Metrolinx on April 16, 2020. Sample trip log data provided by Metrolinx on November 19, 2015, were used to develop throttle settings and speed profiles for regular and express trips. These throttle settings and speed profiles are included in Appendix D. Included with the throttle and speed profiles are the corresponding sound exposure levels at 15 m from the railway for the Pre-project and Post-project consists. In the Post-project scenario, train consists have the potential to accelerate faster as they have either two locomotives, or less rail cars. Due to the absence of detailed data, this potential for increased acceleration could not be included in the assessment. However, the potential increase in sound emissions is not expected to be significant or change the results of the assessment.

14 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Existing GO trains were assumed to be comprised of one diesel locomotive and 12 cars (1DL12). In the future scenario, the Ultimate Capacity schedule two consists: • 1 diesel locomotive with 6 cars (1DL6); • 2 diesel locomotives with 12 cars (2DL12); Freight Trains Existing freight traffic along the KT rail Corridor consists of up to three switcher trains per day based on traffic information provided by Metrolinx (last updated October 29, 2015). It was assumed that the increase of future freight traffic volumes is negligible. Rail freight speed limits were provided by Metrolinx in the document entitled “CN Eastern Canada Region – Time Table 43”, dated September 15, 2015. In the absence of detailed data, it was assumed that the freight traffic travels at the rail freight speed limit, at a constant throttle setting and modelling does not include stops along the KT Rail Corridor, as they are infrequent and unpredictable. Freight switcher consists were assumed to be comprised of one locomotive and six cars. Freight straight- through trains do not travel on any of the GO Metrolinx Corridors; therefore, they were not included in the assessment. Other Rail Sources Rail Yard and Maintenance Facility There are no rail yard or maintenance facilities located along the KT Corridor. Idling Trains GO trains were assumed to idle for 1.5 minutes at each Station in the Corridor for existing, and future operations. Idling of freight trains was not assessed, as freight trains do not stop at GO Stations within the Corridor. Road Crossing Signals (applicable to all trains) Along the KT Rail Corridor, there are no at-grade crossings where whistles are blown by GO trains, UPE trains or freight trains, as indicated by the GO-CN Kingston Subdivision track diagrams (August 2012). Therefore, sound from whistles at road crossings was not included in the assessment. Engine Bells from Trains (applicable to all trains) As GO trains arrive and depart Stations, the locomotive sounds engine bells as a warning to passengers at the Station. These bells sound for a short duration of time (arrival and departure from the Station) in a small geographical area. As compared to other sources of sound at GO Stations, the time-averaged sound levels of engine bells are relatively quiet. Therefore, sound from engine bells at Stations were considered insignificant and not included in the assessment. Crossovers and Switches (applicable to all trains) Crossovers and switches include points where tracks converge and overlap; hence, they inherently include gaps in the tracks that can generate sound when a wheel crosses the gap. Sound level measurements were taken by RWDI in February 2016 of a train travelling over a switch on the Kitchener Corridor. Sound level meters were set up, approximately 100 m apart, to separately capture train travel over the switch and train travel away from a switch. The results indicated no appreciable difference in overall sound level between the two locations, as the results were dominated by the rolling noise and train movements. Therefore, sound from crossovers and switches was not included in the assessment. Additional details of the measurements and sensitivity analysis are included in Appendix F.

15 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Switch heaters operate intermittently and irregularly and have low sound levels with respect to rail activity. As sound is evaluated over a 16-hour and 8-hour time period, the intermittent and irregular operation results in insignificant impacts from these sources. Wheel Squeal (applicable to all trains) Wheel squeal is a high-pitched sound that can occur on curved sections of track due to lateral friction between the wheel and top of rail. It usually happens on curves with a radius of less than 300 m or where the radius is smaller than ten times the wheel base. It was not included in this assessment because curves of radius less than 300 m do not occur in the KT Rail Corridor. Pantograph (applicable to electric trains only) The pantograph is the device on the top of the electric train that slides along the contact wire to transmit electric power from the catenary to the train. The most notable sound associated with the pantograph is due to the interaction of the airflow over the extension of the pantograph along the top of the train, potentially forming a cavity susceptible to aero-acoustic excitation. The aero-acoustic sound emanating from the pantograph is significant for higher speed trains travelling at speeds of about 300 km/hr, such as the Shinkansen trains in Japan; however, the sound levels decrease significantly at lower train speeds (Thompson, 2015). As GO trains are expected to travel at speeds no higher than 150 km/hr, the sound from pantographs was assumed to be insignificant in comparison to the sound from other train sources and was therefore not included in the assessment. Electric Traction Power Facility (applicable to electric trains only) Electric traction power facilities, which include traction power substations, paralleling stations, and switching stations, were assessed separately from the rail noise source. The sound levels from these facilities were evaluated against NPC-300 exclusion limits, explained in detail in section 3.1.2. In some cases, electric traction power facilities are accompanied by a transmission tap. The transmission tap is not considered a source of noise and therefore, is not considered in the assessment. One electric traction power facility is required along the KT Rail Corridor: • Bramalea Paralleling Station (PS); The location of the TPF is shown broadly in Figure 2, and in more detail in Appendix D Figure D.1.2. Generally, the traction power substations are comprised of two power transformers and a control / switchgear room and the paralleling stations and switching stations are comprised of two autotransformers and a control / switchgear room. The sound power level generated by a typical 10 MVA transformer, estimated at approximately 87 dBA (Metrolinx, 2014), was used as an estimate for the power transformers at the traction power substations and the autotransformers at the switching stations. The MECP requires that a 5 dB tonal penalty be applied to sources exhibiting a humming characteristic. As transformers are known to exhibit such tonal hum, the 5 dB penalty was applied to all the transformers. 3.6 Modelling Results The Pre-project, and Post-project sound levels were modelled for the entire Study Area. Results at each discrete receptor were used to establish the Adjusted Noise Impact. Adjusted Noise Impact The predicted Adjusted Noise Impacts for the project are summarised in Table 2, and outlined in detail in Table E.1 in Appendix E. The locations of the “segments” are presented in Figure 2 with further details and representative receptors presented in Figures D.1.1 through D.1.2 of Appendix D. Sound level

16 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor contours generated for the entirety of the Corridor for Pre-project sound, Post-project sound, and Adjusted Noise Impact are included in Appendix E. Impact ratings for the evaluated 5 representative receptors for the rail operations listed in the table can be summarised as follows: • 4 daytime Adjusted Noise Impacts were classified as significant (i.e., between 5 and 9.99 dB); • 1 daytime Adjusted Noise Impacts were classified as noticeable (i.e., between 3 and 4.99 dB);and • 5 nighttime Adjusted Noise Impacts were classified as significant (i.e., between 5 and 9.99 dB). Mitigation measures were investigated for all receptors where the Adjusted Noise Impacts were predicted to be significant or very significant. Mitigation measures are discussed in Sections 3.7 and 3.8. Representative Receptor R06 is for the Electric Traction Power Facility and is discussed in section 3.6.2 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ADJUSTED NOISE IMPACTS

Average Objective Average Adjusted (dB)[2] Noise Impact (dB) Adjusted Investigate Segment Impact Rating[1] Mitigation? [4] Daytime[3] Nighttime[3] Daytime[3] Nighttime[3]

Very Significant - - - - Significant 57.4 53.9 7.7 6.8 Malton GO to Bramalea GO Yes Noticeable 55.0 - 4.8 - Insignificant - - - -

Notes: [1] Ratings are quantified as: Insignificant – Less than 3 dB, Noticeable – 3 dB to 4.99 dB, Significant – 5 to 9.99 dB [2] The objective is the higher of either the Pre-project sound level or the 55 / 50 dBA default day/night sound levels. [3] Daytime is a 16-hour period (i.e., from 0700h to 2300h) and Nighttime is an 8‑hour period (i.e., from 2300h to 0700h). [4] The potential to mitigate is considered when a significant (or greater) impact is predicted. This is equivalent to an increase of 5 dB or greater, relative to the objective level, as per the MOEE/GO Protocol. An adjusted noise impact greater than 5 dB requires the investigation of mitigation. Electric Traction Power Facilities The predicted sound levels from the electric traction power facility, were evaluated at nearby receptors and are summarized in Table 3, with full results included in Table E.2 in Appendix E. Sound level contours were generated and are included in Figure E.7.2 in Appendix E. The predicted sound levels from the electric traction power facilities at nearby receptors were below the applicable limits; therefore, no mitigation measures were investigated for these facilities.

17 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

TABLE 3: PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS FROM ELECTRIC TRACTION POWER FACILITIES

Electric Predicted Applicable Compliance with Receptor Evaluation Traction Period Sound Levels Limit Applicable Limit ID Location Power Facility (dBA) (dBA) (Yes/No) Daytime\Evening 31 50 Yes Plane of Window Bramalea PS R06 Nighttime 31 45 Yes Outdoor Area Daytime\Evening 30 50 Yes 3.7 Investigation of Mitigation Methodology An investigation of noise mitigation measures is required when the predicted levels exceed the applicable criteria. The MOEE/GO Protocol includes the mitigation guidance, outlined as follows: • Mitigation should be implemented where technically feasible. At the detailed design phase, other considerations, such as engineering and economic feasibility should be evaluated. • If deemed feasible, the mitigation measures shall ensure that the predicted sound level from the GO Transit rail project is as close to, or lower than, the rail service objective. Metrolinx has developed a process to evaluate the technical feasibility (acoustics and constructability) and the economic feasibility of the noise barriers investigated. During the preliminary noise mitigation analysis, barriers were modelled at the right-of-way to determine if they achieve a reduction of 5 dB (acoustical technical feasibility). The barriers deemed technically feasible were then reviewed by the Civil Engineering Consultant (CEC) for constructability. Once final barrier locations were confirmed to be technically feasible (acoustics and constructability) with the CEC, an economic feasibility assessment was completed to determine if the barriers are economically reasonable to construct. Further details on each stage of the mitigation investigation are outlined in the following section. Preliminary Noise Wall Specifications Mitigation was limited to noise barriers on the edge of the GO Transit right-of-way. To be considered feasible, the mitigation measures should achieve at least a 5 dB sound level reduction at the first row of affected receptors. GO Transit will typically use barriers with a height of 5 m for all new or replacement noise barriers. In cases where a 5 m barrier did not achieve technical feasibility, barriers up to 7 m were investigated. The replacement of recently built or planned noise barriers was not considered as part of this assessment. However, filling in of gaps between existing noise barriers and horizontal extensions of these barriers were investigated, subject to technical and economic feasibility. Noise barriers can be formed of earthen berms, engineered noise walls, or some combination of the two. Where earthen berms are used, side slopes of 3:1 should be used for drainage and erosion control and right-of-way maintenance. Where noise walls are to be used, they should be free of gaps and cracks, and have a minimum surface density (mass per unit of face area) of 20 kg/m2. It is preferable that barriers are sound absorptive at least on the railway side, and this is mandatory in situations where non- absorptive barriers would have the potential to increase sound levels at nearby receptors (i.e., where there are barriers on both sides of the tracks, or where there are noise sensitive receptors across the tracks from the barrier). Civil Engineering Consultant Evaluation of Noise Wall The role of the CEC included: • Review the constructability of the barrier at the Right-of-Way (i.e. interference with access or existing structures);

18 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

• Provide alternative barrier locations where required (i.e., closer to track, roadway access, etc.); • Provide costing for barrier construction and maintenance over a 30 year period. Review of constructability of the barrier was completed to identify any physical conflicts for construction of the barrier (i.e., setbacks from roadways, setbacks for electrical infrastructure). RWDI worked closely with the CEC in developing alternative locations for barriers where construction at the right-of-way was not feasible. If the final barrier location was still technically feasible from an acoustical perspective (i.e., still achieved a 5 dB reduction), the CEC provided costing for the barrier for inclusion in the economic feasibility analysis of the barrier. In some cases, 7 m barriers were not technically feasible, (i.e., they achieved less than 5 dB reduction), due to topographical characteristics surrounding the rail right-of-way and first row receptors. In these cases, the non-technically feasible barriers were reviewed by the CEC to advise whether a preferable location (i.e., closer to the track) would be possible, potentially resulting in a technically feasible barrier. Economic Feasibility The assessment of the economic feasibility is an additional step in the investigation of mitigation that was not considered as part of the 2017 EPR. Following the completion of the 2017 EPR, Metrolinx worked with a team of experts to develop a methodology to assess the economic feasibility of mitigation. To develop this method, economic feasibility criteria from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), other agencies in Canada, and the United States were considered. The methodology selected by Metrolinx, called the Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI), considers the cost of the barrier, the number of benefitting receptors (receptors receiving a reduction of at least 5 dB), and the average noise reduction achieved with the barrier. The average reduction of the barrier is calculated by averaging the maximum reduction achieved at each benefitting receptor (typically achieved at-grade). A proposed barrier is considered cost-effective if the CEI calculation demonstrated that the barrier cost would be equal to or less than the Metrolinx defined CEI threshold. 3.8 Mitigation Investigated Along the Kitchener Corridor, the investigation of mitigation was triggered in areas where residencies are adjacent to rail within study area, as discussed in Section 3.6.1. A summary of all the barriers investigated and the results of the technical feasibility, constructability and economic feasibility studies can be found in Table 4. Details regarding the reasoning for a barrier being identified as not-constructible by the CEC are included in Appendix G. Figures G.1 and G.2 in Appendix G shows the locations of all barriers investigated. Figures 4 and 5 show unmitigated and mitigated sound contours.

19 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF BARRIER FEASIBILITY Technical Economic Overall Barrier Figure Feasibility Constructability Feasibility Feasibility (5 dB Reduction) Mit_BARR_01 G.1.1 Yes No[1] N/A No Mit_BARR_02 G.1.1 No N/A N/A No Mit_BARR_03 G.1.1 No N/A N/A No Mit_BARR_04 G.1.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Mit_BARR_05 G.1.1 Yes Yes No No Mit_BARR_06 G.1.1 Yes Yes No No Mit_BARR_07 G.1.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Summary Number of "Yes" 5 4 2 2 Number of "No" 2 1 2 5 Number "Not Assessed" 0 1 3 0

Notes: [1] Cannot obstruct access on east end of barrier. Shortening barrier results in non-technically feasible barrier. Predicted sound level contours for these areas prior to the investigation of mitigation are presented in Figures E.3.1 through E.3.2 and E.4.1 through E.4.2 for daytime and nighttime, respectively. Technical Feasibility As noted in sub-section 3.7.1, the noise barrier must achieve a minimum reduction of 5 dB to be considered technically feasible (from an acoustics perspective). To achieve a 5 dB reduction at receptors, a 5 m preliminary noise barrier was modelled at the ROW between the rail and receptors. If the 5 dB reduction was not achieved a 6 m then 7 m barrier was considered. In consultation with the CEC, barrier locations were adjusted to account for interference with the rail infrastructure, access roads, and the inability to continue barriers across overpasses. Tables 5 summarizes the technical feasibility details of the barriers. TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS

Infrastructure Modification Community Side Triggering Closest Approximat Height to Existing - Barrier ID Served by of the Mitigation Station e Length (m) (m) Planned Noise Barrier Track Investigation Barrier [1]

Mit_BARR_05 Rail Operations Malton Malton GO North 304 5 No Mit_BARR_04 Rail Operations Malton Malton GO South 340 5 No

Mit_BARR_06 Rail Operations Malton Malton GO North 256 5 No

Mit_BARR_07 Rail Operations Malton Malton GO South 417 5 No

Notes: [1] Modification indicates that barrier is an extension of or ties into an existing barrier. Complete retrofit of existing barriers was not considered for mitigation Economic Feasibility The cost of the barrier, including maintenance over a 30 year period, was provided by the CEC and is included in Appendix G. A summary of the results is included in Table 6.

20 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF BARRIER PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Economically Source-Barrier Average Number of Absorptive Feasible? Barrier Name Setback Reduction from Benefitting Sides Required Distance (m) Barrier Receptors [1,2]

Mit_BARR_05 11.1 Yes 7.8 8 No Mit_BARR_04 7.9 Yes 12.1 19 Yes Mit_BARR_06 12.0 Yes 9.2 8 No Mit_BARR_07 7.7 Yes 13.3 19 Yes

Notes: [1] Benefitting receptors are defined as receptors receiving a reduction of at least 5 dB. [2] Count is of all receptors in the barriers zone of influence, not just the representative receptors

The Post-project unmitigated sound contours are shown in Figure 4 and the Post-project mitigated sound contours are shown in Figure 5 for barriers Mit_BARR_04 and Mit_BARR_07. The adjusted impacts are similar during the daytime and nighttime, therefore daytime only was shown. A total of 2 barriers, Mit_BARR_04 and Mit_BARR_07, covering approximately 1 km, were found to be technically and economically feasible.

21 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURE 4: PREDICTED UNMITIGATED POST-PROJECT SOUND LEVEL CONTOURS NEAR BARRIER 04 AND BARRIER 07 - DAYTIME

22 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURE 5: PREDICTED MITIGATED POST-PROJECT SOUND LEVEL CONTOURS NEAR MITIGATION BARRIER 04 AND BARRIER 07 – DAYTIME

23 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

4 Operational Vibration Assessment

Although it is possible that vibration effects from existing infrastructure and rail operations may already exceed desired objectives at some receptors, the assessment focus is on changes to vibration effects resulting from the project. Where vibration mitigation is considered it addresses new trackwork only, as it is usually impractical to remove and replace existing trackwork on operating rail lines to install mitigation technologies. The scope of this vibration assessment includes ground-borne vibration only, as defined in the MOEE/GO Protocol; it does not include the assessment of ground-borne noise, or noise- or vibration- induced rattles (such as the rattling of dishes, doors, or windows). These latter potential effects are normally also addressed in meeting perception thresholds and generally cannot be assessed without detailed design information since they are highly building-specific. They could be assessed on a case- by-case during detailed design where existing concerns arise. The MOEE/GO Protocol outlines desired objectives for vibration levels from GO Transit Projects. The requirement to investigate vibration mitigation focuses on the change between the existing vibration levels and the future vibration levels. A change in vibration levels may occur under the following circumstances: change in track alignment or addition of track (e.g., where train operations will be closer to residential receptors), and addition of special track work (such as switches). Vibration effects are a function of the intensity of the vibrational energy reaching a receptor, not on how often vibration from trains passing can occur. Since vibration is evaluated on a pass-by basis (i.e., the effect of a single train passing by), results are associated with the characteristics of individual trains (especially the weight of the locomotive). Vibration effects are therefore not related to the increased rail traffic associated with the Ultimate Capacity service levels. 4.1 Applicable Vibration Criteria The desirable objective of the MOEE/GO Protocol is that the RMS velocity of vibration produced by the future GO Transit operations at a receptor should not exceed: • 0.14 mm/s; or • The existing vibration levels where existing operations already produce vibration that exceeds 0.14 mm/s. Furthermore, the MOEE/GO Protocol stipulates that the requirement to evaluate mitigation is triggered when the RMS velocity exceeds the objective by 25% or more (i.e., the greater of 0.175 mm/s, or a 25% increase over existing levels). 4.2 Receptors The proximity of all receptors within the KT Corridor to changes in track alignment or special trackwork was assessed. The following areas were identified as areas of investigation for operational vibration: • An additional 700 m of new track just east of Highway 407; • 15 new switches along the Corridor as described in the drawings included in Appendix C. Receptors for vibration include the same sensitive land uses as described in Section 3.2.1. The exception to this is locations designated for future development that did not yet have approval for residential uses were not included, as the residential development would be required to ensure appropriate vibration levels with the future rail infrastructure in place. The point of evaluation is defined

24 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor as 5 to 10 m from the building foundation in a direction parallel to the tracks (i.e., with equivalent setback distance between foundation and rail). 4.3 Methodology and Key Inputs Vibration effects were predicted in accordance with the methods of the United States Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018). Vibration levels were assessed in terms of root-mean-square (RMS) velocity in the vertical direction, which is the dominant axis for vibration generated from mobile sources such as trains and most closely correlated with human annoyance and perceptibility. The FTA vibration level predictions were calibrated by measuring existing vibration levels at a small selection of locations in the vicinity of the GO Rail Network. The measurements resulted in a custom special trackwork adjustment that was approximately 50% higher than the default FTA adjustment for special trackwork. The adjustment factors in the FTA vibration calculations account for: • Vehicle speed; • Track type and track conditions; • Special trackwork (i.e., switches); • Type of locomotive power; • Condition of wheels (i.e., wheel wear); • Proximity of rail to receptors; and • Soil conditions (i.e. shallow bedrock). In the FTA algorithms, increasing vehicle speed results in increased vibration levels. The effect of train speed, train type (i.e., GO or Freight), and the inclusion of a switch (special trackwork) are presented in Figure 6

10

1

RMS RMS (mm/s) -

0.1

0.01 GO trackwork

Vibration Level at 15 m GO switch

0.001 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Train Speed (km/h) FIGURE 6: COMPARISON OF VIBRATION LEVELS FOR GO AND FREIGHT TRAINS WITH AND WITHOUT SWITCHES

25 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

The MOEE/GO Protocol evaluates the change in vibration between the Pre-project and Post-project scenarios. Modelling is used to estimate both the Pre-project and Post-project vibration levels. Measurements are not used for Pre-project vibration levels since a direct comparison cannot be made to modelled Post-project levels. However, measurements may be used to adjust modelled factors, such as the special trackwork adjustment noted above. At the detailed design stage, verification measurements will be conducted at key receptors to validate the Post-project vibration levels. A literature review was conducted to compare the gross weight of the existing GO diesel locomotive (MP40) and an electric locomotive with a similar horsepower rating. The difference in locomotive weight was not significant enough to affect the vibration levels; therefore, the predicted vibration levels apply to both diesel trains and electric trains. The vibration modelling assumed that generic FTA soil conditions are representative in the Corridor and did not account for sub-surface features, such as shallow bedrock, that could enhance vibration propagation locally. Generic FTA soil conditions are typically associated with competent soils such as sands, silty clays, or weathered rock. Geological conditions that are associated with efficient propagation of vibration include: shallow bedrock, consolidated clayey soils, or consolidated sand and gravel. However, since no change is expected in the sub-surface ground features arising from the project, and since vibration effects are evaluated based on the change between Pre-project and Post-project vibration levels, the influence of sub-surface ground conditions will be negated, so the ground type assumption is not expected to affect the conclusions. Additionally, as part of the detailed design, verification measurements will be conducted at key receptors to validate the calculations and assumptions. Figure 7 shows the predicted propagation of vibration for both GO and Freight trains travelling at 100 km/h, assuming generic FTA soil conditions. Vibration levels drop off quickly in close proximity to the tracks, and more slowly as the distance from the track increases. For these conditions, perceptible vibration (i.e., more than 0.14 mm/s) from GO trains is only a concern within about 20 m of the track. 1.4

RMS 1.2 -

1

0.8

0.6(mm/s)

0.4 GO Train Freight Train

0.2 Vibration Level for Speed Train km/h 100

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Distance from Railway (m) FIGURE 7: PREDICTED VIBRATION PROPAGATION FOR GO AND FREIGHT TRAINS

26 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Details on the locations of new trackwork and special trackwork (i.e. switches) were provided by Metrolinx in the following: • “CN Weston Subdivision” track diagrams (GO Transit, August 2012) (trackwork as of 2015); and • RCD RCUS 4.1 drawings dated March 31, 2020 (Future trackwork). These documents provide information on anticipated future changes in track alignment associated with the Ultimate Capacity service expansion in this Corridor. Otherwise, track geometries and special trackwork will remain unchanged from current conditions. In lieu of completing FTA calculations at representative receptors, the FTA algorithms were used to determine setback distances from new trackwork and switches beyond which the GO/MOEE Protocol vibration limits would be met. These areas of influence were calculated for both GO trains and freight trains using the track speed limits and geometries. The area of influence approach allowed every receptor in the study area to be evaluated. Where receptors were identified within areas of influence, the requirement for investigation of vibration mitigation is triggered. To supplement the areas of influence, sample calculations using the FTA algorithms for specific receptors are included in Appendix H. 4.4 Results There are no areas where operational vibration levels are expected to exceed the MOEE/GO Protocol vibration limits at receptors are presented in Figures H.1.1 and H.1.2 in Appendix H. Where sensitive receptors fall within these areas, mitigation is recommended. The full results are summarized in Table H.1 of Appendix H. Sample calculations of the FTA algorithms used are provided in table H.2 of Appendix H.

27 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

5 Construction Noise and Vibration Assessments

Construction activities associated with the electrification of the KT Rail Corridor were assessed and presented in this section. Assessment of construction impacts is a shared effort between multiple consultants/technical advisors. For KT, the scope of this assessment includes the entire corridor from the UPE spur to Bramalea and enabling works as no other major infrastructure projects are necessary. As part of the draft internal document entitled, “Work Plan: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the GO Expansion OnCorr Project”, Metrolinx developed a recommended management approach to construction noise and vibration as well as applicable criteria. The Metrolinx Work Plan uses United States’ Federal Highway Administration and FTA references to establish relevant construction-related criteria, which are also used to establish acceptable sound and vibration levels for various equipment. These criteria have been used in conjunction with Section 8 of the “Environmental Guide for Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” developed by RWDI and approved by Metrolinx (Metrolinx, 2019). Construction noise and vibration impacts are temporary in nature, and largely unavoidable. On average for linear components, construction activities are expected to continuously advance and are not expected to remain at one location for more than a week. Layovers are considered major construction projects and are expected to last more than one month and thus were assessed in greater detail than projects related to the electrification of the corridor, which were assessed qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. With adequate controls, impacts can be minimized. This report covers the analysis of the minor construction activities, the assessment of sound and vibration effects for construction of new layovers is presented in a separate report. 5.1 Applicable Criteria Construction sound levels are assessed against their own set of criteria based on the nature of the receptor, time of day, and the duration of the assessment period. Table 7 summarizes the noise exposure limits that are provided in the Metrolinx Work Plan and used for this assessment. TABLE 7: CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA

[1] LEQ (dBA) LEQ (15-min) (dBA) LMAX (dBA) Land Use Day Night Day Night Day Night [2] [3] [2] [3] [2] [3] Residential - Louder of: 75 Louder of: 65 85 75 90 80 Weekday or Baseline+5 or Baseline+5 Residential – Louder of: 70 Louder of: 60 Weekend & 75 65 90 80 or Baseline+5 or Baseline+5 Holiday Louder of: 70 Louder of: 60 Institutional 75 65 90 80 or Baseline+5 or Baseline+5 Louder of: 80 Commercial None None None None None or Baseline+5 Louder of: 85 Industrial None None None None None or Baseline+5

Notes: [1] Weekday LEQ (day) and LEQ (night) are over a 16-hour and an 8-hour period, respectively. Weekend and Holiday LEQ (day) and LEQ (night) are over a 14-hour and a 10-hour period, respectively. [2] Weekday daytime period is 0700 – 2300h, while Weekend and Holiday daytime period is 0900 – 2300h. [3] Weekday nighttime period is 2300 – 0700h, while Weekend and Holiday nighttime period is 2300 – 0900h.

28 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

MECP stipulates limits on noise emissions from individual items of equipment contained in the Publication NPC-115 – “Construction Equipment” (MOE, 1977). However, the Metrolinx Work Plan provides an expanded list of equipment with more stringent equipment limitations that will be applied to the project and that are used in this assessment. The municipalities that lie along the study area have their own noise guidelines found in the noise control by-laws as listed below: • City of Mississauga – The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Noise Control By-Law 360-79 • City of Brampton – City of Brampton Noise By-Law 93-84 The noise By-laws include general prohibitions and “time and place prohibitions” mainly related to construction. These are briefly summarized in Table 8 below. TABLE 8: NOISE BY-LAW CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITIONS

By-Law Criteria City of Mississauga • Quiet Zone Prohibition: between 1700h and 0700h, except all day Sundays and Statutory Holidays • Residential Area Prohibition: between 1900h and 0700h weekdays and Saturday, and all day Sundays and Statutory Holidays. • Exemptions permitted. City of Brampton • Prohibition of operating construction equipment daily before 0700h and after 2300h. • Road work undertaken by or behalf of the Ministry of Transportation or the Region of Peel are permitted. • Exemptions permitted.

Although provincial agencies, such as Metrolinx and Hydro One, are not subject to municipal By-laws, Metrolinx has endeavoured to adhere to these local bylaws as a best practice, including limiting nighttime noisy activities where practical. The By-law intents were also considered in the development of the construction noise criteria summarised in Table 7 (e.g., weekend and holiday limits). Vibration is assessed against two sets of criteria, one for annoyance and one for damage as provided in the Metrolinx Work Plan and outlined in Table 9. Although the projects assessed within this scope are outside the City of Toronto, the building damage criterion developed by the City of Toronto is widely used as guidance in jurisdictions where no such guidance exists and is aligned with current best practices for vibration assessment. These criteria are expressed on a different basis, with annoyance criteria linked to root mean square (RMS) vibration levels (i.e., representative of the “average” over time) and damage criteria being based on instantaneous peak vibration levels. Annoyance criteria are typically the limiting condition compared to building damage since people usually detect perceptible vibrations at levels below where damage occurs. Both need to be considered however, since a very brief intense vibration event may exceed building damage criteria and not be readily perceptible. TABLE 9: VIBRATION EXPOSURE LIMITS REGARDING PUBLIC ANNOYANCE AND BUILDING DAMAGE Target of Guidance/Criteria Source of Guidance/Criteria Description of Criteria Vibration Velocity not to exceed 0.14 mm/s or current Annoyance[1] 1995 MOEE/GO Transit Protocol conditions (whichever is higher) by more than 25%

Vibration Velocity to be limited to 8 – 22 mm/s Building Damage[2] City of Toronto By-Law 514-2008 depending on vibration frequency.

Notes: [1] Vibration is assessed as root-mean-square velocity. [2] Vibration is assessed as peak-particle velocity.

29 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

For historical buildings, a criterion of 5 mm/s was used. This criterion is below the lowest of the building damage criteria of 8 mm/s provided in Table 9 and is in line with Category III structures (Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings) noted in Table 7-5 of the FTA Protocol, which is expected to be representative of the most susceptible buildings along the KT corridor. Fragile, or buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage (Category IV) are not expected along the corridor. If fragile buildings do occur along the corridor, they should be reviewed to ensure the criteria are appropriate for them. Chapter 7 of the California Department of Transportation “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual”, a widely accepted document, notes that for “historic and some old buildings” a maximum PPV of 0.25 in/sec (6.35 mm/s) shall be used for continuous/frequent and intermittent sources, which is higher than the 5 mm/s criterion. 5.2 Assessment Methodology Various aspects of the project construction will generate noise and vibration. Both will be temporary in nature and will be staged along the corridor. The categories of minor construction are as follows: • The preparation and creation of TPFs (includes paralleling, switching and supply substations); • The installation of Overhead Contact System (OCS) support foundation structures; • The OCS wiring; and • The installation of bridge safety barriers. Two of the four categories (i.e., creation of TPF and installation of bridge safety barriers) listed above will be localized to specific areas, while the other two will be completed along the majority of the corridor. Electrification Noise Information used to assess the minor construction activities, including anticipated equipment inventories and staging plans, are provided in Appendix I. Sound power and vibration levels for major sources were estimated based on a combination of information provided in the Metrolinx Work Plan, RWDI database and common literature. One TPF is proposed for the KT Rail Corridor. The major activities associated with the construction of these facilities are site preparation and construction of the infrastructure. The site preparation involves the use of bulldozer, excavator, grader and haul truck. The construction of the equipment and building structure is likely to be completed using some of the above equipment along with a crane. Support foundations will need to be created for each structure required as part of the OCS. These will be created along the entire railway corridor as well as at all the TPF location. The major activities associated with the foundations are the auguring of the holes or excavation with an excavator, removal of extra material by means of haul truck, filling holes via cement truck and the use of crane for lifting structures into place. If rock is encountered during auguring, then rock drilling equipment may be used. For this conservative analysis rock drilling has been included for this activity, as it involves a higher sound emission level. After the foundations and the OCS support structures have been installed, the OCS wire will need to be run the entire length of the corridor. A work train consisting of one locomotive and three cars, or a rail mounted work unit generally runs the wire. In addition, there will be two large haul trucks with wire reels on flatbeds with one for payout of the wire and other to take up the tag line. Safety barriers are installed on pedestrian and road bridges crossing over the rail corridor. These barriers are not designed for sound reduction, but to ensure public safety from the energized equipment associated with the OCS passing under the bridge. The height of the barriers will be sufficient to extend beyond any electrical wires running underneath the bridge to ensure public safety. The major

30 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor construction noise associated with the barrier construction includes drills and air compressors for dowel preparation as well as cranes for lifting into place. The equipment noted for each category above was assigned an appropriate sound level based on the Metrolinx Work Plan. The equipment was assumed to be operating simultaneously and propagation curves were estimated for each category using propagation methodology provided in the FTA Protocol. The distance at which the decay curves met the criteria was determined to be the Zone of Influence. Vibration Minimum setback distances to achieve the applicable criteria were estimated for the largest pieces of equipment based on the decay of the vibration source levels. The vibration level decay was based on the following equation found in the FTA Protocol: 7.62 1.5 푃푃푉 = 푃푃푉 ( ) 푒푞푢푖푝 푟푒푓 퐷 where:

푃푃푉푒푞푢푖푝 = the peak particle velocity of the equipment adjusted for distance (mm/s); 푃푃푉푟푒푓 = the source reference vibration at 7.62 m (mm/s); and 퐷 = distance from the equipment to the receptor (m).

The RMS values needed for the assessment of annoyance were extrapolated from the peak particle velocity (PPV) values using applicable crest factor of 4, as per Section 7.2 of the FTA Protocol, and compared against criteria noted in Table 9 to estimate the applicable Zones of Influence. Reference equipment vibration levels for the construction equipment were obtained from the FTA Protocol. The levels assumed for each piece of equipment are provided in Appendix I. Receptors Receptors located within the following land uses were considered: • Residential; • Institutional; • Commercial; and • Industrial. Receptor locations were identified using publicly available zoning databases and aerial imagery. Vacant lands were also included and assessed following Publication NPC-300 guidance for vacant lot receptors. Receptor types were assigned based on the permitted land uses per the relevant by-law and using data available through parcel databases and Open Data GIS shapefiles. Where land was zoned for mixed uses aerial imagery and business listings were reviewed to identify the current use. A building/receptor was considered to be impacted if any portion of it was within the worst-case Zone of Influence. 5.3 Modelling Results Electrification Noise A screening level analysis of potential construction sound level emissions was conducted for the Bramalea PS and the anticipated maximum sound level are shown at various distances Figure 8. The graph shows the anticipated decrease in LEQ construction sound level as distance to the receptor increases. For the purposes of the analysis, LEQ (15h) was selected as this averaging period as per Section 8 of the “Environmental Guide for Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (Metrolinx, 2019) as

31 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor well as the one referenced in the FTA Protocol. This represents a conservative averaging time that is comparable to the 16-hour weekday average in Table 7, as the current construction work day is expected to be 12 hours long and no weekend and holiday construction is currently expected. Metrolinx expects the use of a 14-hour averaging period if work is expected during weekends and holidays. This time period is a more stringent averaging period for weekends and holidays as not only the applicable limits (residential only) are lower but also the same amount of acoustical energy will be expanded but over a shorter time period thus forcing construction crews to operate equipment at lower duty cycles or work shorter periods. The figure shows a rapid decay and no criteria are predicted to be exceeded within 99 m of the noted construction activity. Construction sound level criteria are predicted to be met for institutional and residential receptors more than 99 m, and 59 m away from the construction activity, respectively.

90

85

80 , dBA) ,

75 EQ(15hr)

70

Sound Level Level Sound(L 65

60

55 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Receptor Distance from Construction Activity (m) Installation of Traction Power Facilities Installation of OCS Suport Foundation Structure OCS Wiring Installing Safety Barriers on Bridges Institutional Limit Residential Limit Commercial Limit Industrial Limit FIGURE 8: ELECTRIFICATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION SOUND LEVELS The screening-level calculations indicated that some land uses near these construction sites will experience elevated sound levels. These events are expected to be temporary in nature. Electrification Vibration Construction activities will vary temporally and spatially as the project progresses. Vibration levels from construction at a given receptor location will also vary over time as different activities take place, and as those activities change location within the right-of-way. Since detailed construction plans are not available, the predicted PPV versus distance of the expected worst-case equipment was determined in order to estimate its Zone of Influence. The decay of PPV with distance is shown in Figure 9 for this equipment.

32 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

100

10

1

VibrationPPV (mm/s) 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distance from Activity (m)

Jackhammer Hoe Ram / Large Bull Dozer Annoyance Criteria Building Damage Criteria

FIGURE 9: ELECTRIFICATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS (PPV) Vibration levels have the potential to cause annoyance at nearby residences that are within 20 m of construction activities. However, they are predicted to remain below the lowest building damage criterion of 5 mm/s PPV for sensitive heritage buildings at all locations greater than 5 m from the construction vibration source. Other building structures made of materials such as non-engineered timber and masonry or engineered concrete and masonry or reinforced-concrete, steel or timber can withstand higher construction vibration levels. Therefore, the applicable Zone of Influence for annoyance is 20 m and the Zone of Influence for building damage is 5 m. As previously noted in Section 6.1, the 5 mm/s criterion is expected to be representative of the most susceptible buildings along the KT corridor. Fragile buildings and buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage (Category IV as per the FTA Protocol) are not expected within the KT corridor study area. If such buildings do occur along the corridor, the criteria should be confirmed as part of the future detailed design and monitoring. The Bramalea PS is in an industrial area sufficiently set back from adjacent buildings such that no exceedances are expected for either noise or vibration. 5.4 Recommendations The Bramalea PS is in an industrial area sufficiently set back from adjacent buildings such that no exceedances are expected for either noise or vibration. No receptors were identified within the zones of influence. Recommendations for implementing a number of mitigation measures and monitoring are outlined in Section 6, and should be considered as best practices for the nearest receptors located outside of the Zones of Influence.

33 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

6 Recommendations for Noise and Vibration Mitigation

This section provides a discussion of general approaches that could be taken into consideration in the development of mitigation options to reduce noise and vibration impacts on the Kitchener Corridor. Table 10 provides a summary of the key project components/activities, potential effects, mitigation measures, and proposed monitoring activities to future work associated with the GO Rail Network Electrification Project.

34 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

Environmental Potential Effect Mitigation Measure(s) Monitoring Component Operational Noise Environmental noise may Mitigation per TPAP Study Report (Noise Barriers): • Monitor air-borne and air-borne noise as part of an annual ”Noise and Vibration Survey” at representative receptors across the (Trains) cause annoyance, disturb • Deploy the noise barriers defined in the Noise and Vibration Study Reports GO Rail Network Electrification Project, 2020 (RWDI). sleep and other activities, corridor to confirm compliance with Operation Noise and Vibration requirements of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and and affect human health. • Maintain noise barriers so as to ensure their continued effectiveness in noise reduction. • If deviating from the assessments made in the Noise and Vibration Study Reports GO Rail Network Electrification Project, 2020 Parks, other provincial and federal requirements, and Metrolinx If operations are projected (RWDI), comply with the noise impact and assessment criteria in the Metrolinx Guide for Noise and Vibration Assessment (2020). requirements. Representative receptors will be selected per the to cause a 5-dB increase following criteria: or greater in the average Mitigation at the Source: o Location subject to highest rail related noise and vibration energy equivalent noise • Deploy vehicle and track technology and related maintenance measures to maintain compliance with the noise and vibration o Location representative of a significant number of receptors (referred to as “LEQ”) exposure criteria defined below. o Location housing highly noise and/or vibration sensitive relative to the existing Mitigation Criteria: activity or equipment noise level or the MECP o Locations approximately equally distributed along the length • Meet the following long-term daytime/ nighttime maximum noise exposure objectives at all noise sensitive receptors across the of the corridor objective of 55 dBA for system, where background noise levels allow their realization: daytime and 50 dBA for • Assess the condition and performance of locomotives, coaches, o 10-year objective: 70/60 dBA DMUs and EMUs with respect to noise emissions as part of nighttime, whichever is maintenance to ensure continued compliance with manufacturer higher, then mitigation is o 20-year objective: 60/50 dBA o 25-year objective: 55/50 dBA specifications required. • Assess the condition and performance of the rail tracks and • Meet the airborne noise exposure criteria in the 1995 MOEE/GO Transit Draft Noise and Vibration Protocol. switches with respect to noise as part of maintenance to ensure • Meet the ground-borne (vibration induced) noise exposure criteria in the 1995 MOEE/GO Transit Draft Noise and Vibration Protocol. continued compliance with manufacturer specifications • Meet any additional future criteria or guidance developed by regulatory agencies, as applicable.

Construction and Environmental noise may • Prior to commencement of construction, the Constructor will develop and submit a detailed Construction Noise Management Plan to The Construction Noise Management Plan will incorporate the following Maintenance-related cause annoyance, disturb Metrolinx for review and approval. requirements related to monitoring of noise and noise related complaints: • The Construction Noise Management Plan shall: Noise sleep and other activities, • The Constructor will monitor noise where the Construction Noise and affect human health. o Document and commit to all measures to be taken for meeting the noise exposure limits documented in the Metrolinx Guide for Noise and Vibration Assessment (2020) at every directly exposed sensitive receptor and throughout the entire project. Management Plan indicates that noise exposure limits may be The severity of the noise o Determine the Zone of Influence (ZOI) for construction related noise based on the noise exposure limits outlined in the exceeded. At these locations, the Constructor will monitor noise effects resulting from Metrolinx Guide for Noise and Vibration Assessment (2020) and taking into consideration the construction site, staging and continuously at each geographically distinct, active construction site construction projects laydown sites and hauling routes, each stage of the construction (including demolition), the overall construction schedule along with one monitor located strategically to capture the highest varies, depending on: with the schedule of each major component and associated major construction processes and equipment usage. exposure level based on planned construction activities and the number, geographic distribution and proximity of noise sensitive • Scale, location and o Identify all sensitive receptors that fall within the ZOI for construction related noise. Mitigation measures will be proposed for receptors. The Constructor will submit weekly reports to Metrolinx complexity of the project these sensitive receptors, and the effects of the proposed mitigation measures will then be evaluated using noise modelling. If describing the monitoring conducted and summarizing the data • Construction methods, results of the modelling indicate that any sensitive receptors still remain within the ZOI for construction related noise, then the collected for the reporting period. The reports will include but not be processes and following shall apply: limited to the number and duration of any incident during which any equipment deployed ✓ Additional mitigation is proposed and subsequently modelled until the sensitive receptor does not fall within the ZOI; or of the noise exposure limits documented in the Metrolinx Guide for • Total duration of ✓ If mitigation strategies are deemed by Metrolinx to be not viable, receptor based mitigation will be proposed. Noise and Vibration Assessment (2020) were exceeded, the construction near probable cause of each exceedance, the incident-specific • The Construction Noise Management Plan will include the temporary/permanent noise barriers indicated in the applicable noise and sensitive noise receptors measure(s) implemented, the resulting mitigated noise levels and vibration construction impact assessment report (2020). Where additional work sites are identified which were not assessed as part of • Construction activity the complaints investigation procedure. the applicable noise and vibration construction impact assessment report (2020), or where construction activities at any given site periods (days, hours, • Establish a Communications Protocol and a Complaints Protocol in time period) differ from those considered in this report, the Constructor will conduct modelling to evaluate the need for additional noise barriers and submit results and recommendations as part of the Construction Noise Management Plan. accordance with the Project Agreement. • Number and proximity of noise-sensitive sites to construction area(s) Operational Vibration can cause Mitigation per TPAP Study Report: • Monitor air-borne and air-borne noise as part of an annual ”Noise and Vibration Survey” at representative receptors across the Vibration (Trains) annoyance, interfere with • Deploy mitigation recommended in the OnCorr Noise and Vibration Study Report (RWDI). Review and update the vibration human activity and affect corridor to confirm compliance with Operation Noise and Vibration assessment during the design of new infrastructure at representative receptor locations to ensure compliance with the vibration requirements of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and human health. It may also exposure criteria in the MOEE/GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (1994). Parks, other provincial and federal requirements, and Metrolinx cause building damage. Mitigation at the Source: requirements. Representative receptors will be selected per the A change in vibration following criteria: levels may occur where • Deploy vehicle and track technology and related maintenance measures to maintain compliance with the noise and vibration o Location subject to highest rail related noise and vibration exposure criteria defined below. there are changes in track o Location representative of a significant number of receptors alignment, addition of new o Location housing highly noise and/or vibration sensitive track, and changes to or Mitigation Criteria: activity or equipment

35 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Environmental Potential Effect Mitigation Measure(s) Monitoring Component addition of special track • Meet the ground-borne vibration criteria in the 1995 MOEE/GO Transit Noise and Vibration Protocol. o Locations approximately equally distributed along the length work. of the corridor Vibration levels may also • Assess the condition and performance of locomotives, coaches, DMUs and EMUs with respect to noise emissions as part of change with changes in maintenance to ensure continued compliance with manufacturer rail vehicle specifications specifications and operating conditions. • Assess the condition and performance of the rail tracks and switches with respect to noise as part of maintenance to ensure continued compliance with manufacturer specifications Construction and Exposure to vibration may • Adhere to the following vibration exposure limits: The Construction Vibration Management Plan will incorporate the Maintenance-related result in public annoyance o Vibration, as a human irritant, is assessed in terms of its average level. Vibration velocity should not exceed 0.14 mm/s or following requirements related to monitoring of vibration and vibration Vibration and complaints. Vibration current conditions (whichever is higher) by more than 25%. related complaints: may also cause damage to o As a threat to buildings, vibration is assessed in terms of its peak value. The ZOI for vibration shall be the area where structures • The Constructor is to monitor vibration continuously at structures buildings and other are expected to experience vibration peak particle velocities that exceed 5 mm/s. Vibration velocity should be limited to 8-22 where the Construction Vibration Management Plan indicates that structures. mm/s, depending on vibration frequency. These limits are prescribed by the City of Toronto By-Law No. 514-2008 for typical structures are deemed to be within the ZOI for construction related structures (not building with special needs). vibration or at additional structures as requested by Metrolinx. • Adhere to the ground-borne (vibration induced) noise exposure criteria in the US FTA Report No. 0123, Transit Noise and Vibration • The type of Vibration Monitoring Program that is established is Impact Assessment Manual (2018). based on the vibration ZOI, the project location, duration, presence • Develop and implement a detailed Construction Vibration Management Plan for Metrolinx review and approval with minimum of night-time activity, and receptor proximity. The monitoring types requirements outlined below: include: o Complete a detailed construction related vibration assessment prior to the commencement of construction that includes o Type 1: Monitoring continuously throughout the project (for assessment of the vibration ZOI. The ZOI for vibration shall be established by using the methodology and input data provided in receptors within the ZOI). Section 7.2 of the US FTA Report No. 0123 (2018), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018). o Type 2: Monitoring during most impactful phases of the project o Complete pre-construction condition surveys for properties within the vibration ZOI of the planned work to establish their only (for receptors outside of the ZOI but within 50 m of the condition and establish a baseline prior to any work beginning. boundary of the construction site). o Identify any heritage structures and other sensitive structures, buildings or infrastructure vulnerable to vibration damage, assess o Type 3: Monitoring in response to complaints only (for requirements and, if necessary, develop mitigation measures. receptors outside of the ZOI and beyond 50 m of the boundary of the construction site). o Identify buildings, where vibration sensitive activities such as sound recording or medical image processing take place, assess requirements and, if necessary, develop mitigation measures. • Establish a Communications Protocol and a Complaints Protocol in accordance with the Project Agreement. o Establish a 15-metre setback distance between the construction vibration source and nearby buildings, where possible, to minimize impacts. If this is not possible, then monitor the vibration levels associated with the activity. o Select construction/maintenance methods and equipment with the least vibration impacts. o In the presence of persistent complaints and subject to the results of a field investigation, identify alternative vibration control measures, where reasonably available.

*Notes: Regulations, standards and guidance documents referenced herein are current as of the time of writing and may be amended from time to time. If clarification is required regarding regulatory requirements, the Constructor is encouraged to consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies.

36 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

7 Conclusions and Recommendations

Operational Noise Assessment Adjusted Noise Impacts were determined in accordance with the MOEE/GO Protocol. Adjusted Noise Impacts along most of the study area was either significant (i.e., between +5 dB and + 10 dB) or very significant (i.e., greater than +10 dB). Mitigation was investigated for these areas and determined to be technically and economically feasible for 2 barriers, spanning approximately 1 km. For electric traction power facilities, the predicted noise levels at nearby receptors were below the applicable limits. Therefore, noise mitigation for electric traction power facilities was not required. Operational Vibration Assessment Predicted vibration effects of some trackwork and switches were found to meet the MOEE/GO Protocol limits. No vibration mitigation was recommended. Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment The Bramalea PS is in an industrial area sufficiently set back from adjacent buildings such that no exceedances are expected for either noise or vibration. No receptors were identified within the zones of influence. Recommendations for implementing a number of mitigation measures and monitoring are outlined in Table 10, and should be considered as best practices for the nearest receptors located outside of the Zones of Influence.

37 Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX A: Transportation Sound Basics

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020

A. TRANSPORTATION SOUND BASICS

A.1 Sound Levels

Sound is, in its simplest form, a dynamic, fluctuating pressure, in a fluid medium. That medium can be air, other gases, or liquids such as water. These fluctuations are transmitted by pressure waves through the medium from the source to the receiver. For the majority of transportation engineering purposes, the primary interest is with sound waves in air, with human beings as the receptor. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The standard practice within the acoustical industry is to use these two terms interchangeably.

A.1.1 Decibels

A decibel (dB) is a logarithmic ratio of a value to a reference level. The general mathematical format is:

Level in dB = 10 log (Value / Reference)

Any value can be expressed in decibels. Decibels are very useful in performing comparisons where there are huge ranges in levels. For example, an acoustical engineer can expect to deal with acoustical energy values ranging from 0.00001 W to 100 W (sound power), and pressures ranging from 0.002 Pa to 200 Pa (sound pressure).1 For completeness, decibels should always be stated with their reference level (e.g., 20 dB re: 20 µPa). However, in practice the reference level is often left out.

A.1.2 Sound Pressure Level

Sound pressure level is what humans experience as sound. Sound waves create small fluctuations around the normal atmospheric pressure. These pressure fluctuations come into contact with eardrums and create the sensation of sound. Sound pressure is measured in decibels, according to the following equation:

2 2 Sound Pressure Level, dB = 10 log (p / po )

Where: p = root mean square (r.m.s.) sound pressure, in Pa

po = reference sound pressure, 20 µPa

The reference pressure represents the faintest sound that a “typical” human being can hear. The typical

abbreviation for sound pressure level is SPL, although Lp is also often used in equations. “Sound level” or “noise level” are also sometimes used.

A.2 Octave Bands

Sounds are composed of varying frequencies or pitches. Human sensitivity to noise varies by frequency, with a greater sensitivity to higher frequency sounds. The propagation of sound also varies by frequency. The unit of frequency is Hertz (Hz), which refers the number of cycles per second (number of wave peaks per

1 Equivalent to Sound Power Levels ranging from 70 to 140 dB and Sound Pressure Levels ranging from 20 dB to 140 dB rwdi.com Page 1

second of the propagating sound wave). The typical human hearing response runs from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Frequencies below 20 Hz are generally inaudible, although response is variable, and some individuals may be able to hear or perceive them.

Sound is typically analysed in octave bands or 1/3-octave bands. An octave band is defined as a band or range of sound frequencies where the frequency range doubles for succeeding octave (alternately, the highest frequency in the range is twice the value of the lowest frequency). Octave band and 1/3-octave band frequencies of interest frequencies of interest are shown in the table on the following page. Road and rail transportation noise sources tend to be broadband in nature, having roughly equal sound energy in many octave bands. Heavy rail traffic and heavy truck traffic may produce significant noise in lower frequencies < 200 Hz.

Conventional Pavement - 90 km/h 80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45 Lmax Sound Level (dB) Level Sound Lmax 40

35

30 20 50 80 125 200 315 500 800 12.5 31.5 1250 2000 3150 5000 8000 12500 20000 1/3-Octave Centre Frequency (Hz)

Cars and Light Trucks Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks

Figure 1: Typical Frequency Spectra of Traffic Noise - Vehicle Pass-bys at 90 km/h

rwdi.com Page 2

Table 1: Octave Band Frequencies of Interest

Centre-Frequency Frequency (Hz) Band Range No. 1/3- 1/1- (Hz) Octave Octave 12.5 16 16 N/A 11 to 22 20 25 Low Frequency Range: <200 Hz 31.5 31.5 0 22 to 45 40 “Rumbly” sounds 50

63 63 1 45 to 89

80 Normal range of human hearing: 100 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz 125 125 2 89 to 177 160 Normal range of 1/1-octave band 200 frequencies considered in acoustical 250 250 3 177 to 345 analysis: 63 Hz to 8000 Hz 315 400 500 500 4 345 to 707 Mid Frequency Range: 200 Hz to 630 2000 Hz 800 707 to 1,000 1,000 5 1,414 1,250 1,600 1,414 to 2,000 2,000 6 2,828 2,500 3,150 2,828 to 4,000 4,000 7 High Frequency Range: >2000 Hz 5,657 5,000 6,300 5,657 to 8,000 8,000 8 11,314 “Hissy” sounds 10,000 12,500 11,314 to 16,000 16,000 N/A 22,627 20,000

Note: Per ISO 266-1975

rwdi.com Page 3

A.3 A-Weighting

When the overall sound pressure level is expressed as a single value (i.e., not expressed in frequency band levels) the variation in human frequency response must be accounted for. People do not hear low frequency noise as well as noise in mid or high frequencies. To account for this, frequency-weighting networks have been developed to better account for human hearing response. The most frequently used networks are the A-Weighting and C-Weighting.

The A-Weighting network was developed to correspond to how humans hear low to medium levels of noise. The A-Weighting is the most frequently used scheme, and the majority of noise guidelines are expressed in A-Weighted decibel values, denoted as “dBA” levels. C-Weighted “dBC” values are sometimes used in assessing low-frequency noise impacts, which are generally not of concern in transportation noise impact assessment. The A-Weighting and C-Weighting values are shown in the following table and figure.

Table 2: A- and C-Weighting Values

1/1-Octave Frequency A-Weighting Value C-Weighting Value (Hz) (dB) (dB) 31.5 -39.4 -3.0 63 -26.2 -0.8 125 -16.1 -0.2 250 -8.6 0 500 -3.2 0 1,000 0 0 2,000 1.2 -0.2 4,000 1.0 -0.8 8,000 -1.1 -3.0

Frequency Response of A and C Weighting Networks 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 Frequency (Hz)

A-Weighting C-Weighting

Figure 2: A-Weighting and C-Weighting Networks

rwdi.com Page 4

A.4 Ranges of Sound Levels

People experience a wide range of sound levels in their daily activities. The table below presents a graphical comparison of “typical” noise levels which might be encountered, and the general human perception of the level.

Table 3: Ranges of Sound Levels

Sound Levels Human SPL, Sources of Noise Perception in dBA 125 Sonic booms 120 Threshold of Feeling / Pain Deafening 115 Maximum level, hard rock band concert 110 Accelerating Motorcycle at a few feet away 105 Loud auto horn at 3 m (10 ft) away Very 100 Dance club / maximum human vocal output at 1 m (3 ft) distance Loud 95 Jack hammer at 15 m (50 ft) distance 90 Indoors in a noisy factory 85 Heavy truck pass-by at 15 m (50 ft) distance 80 School cafeteria / noisy bar; Vacuum Cleaner at 1.5 m (5 ft) Loud 75 Near edge of major Highway 70 Inside automobile at 60 km/h 65 Normal human speech (unraised voice) at 1 m (3 ft) distance 60 Typical background noise levels in a large department store 55 General objective for outdoor sound levels; typical urban sound level Moderate 50 Typical suburban / semi(24h)-rural sound level (24h) 45 Typical noise levels in an office due to HVAC; typical rural levels (24h) 40 Typical background noise levels in a library 35 Faint 30 Broadcast Studio 25 Average whisper 20 Deep woods on a very calm day 15 Very 10 Faint 5 Human breathing 0 Quietest sound that can be heard

Sound levels from 40 to 65 dBA are in the faint to moderate range. The vast majority of the outdoor noise environment, even within the busiest city cores, will lie within this area. Sound levels from 65 to 90 are perceived as loud. This area includes very noisy commercial and industrial spaces. Sound levels greater than 90 dB are very loud to deafening, and may result in hearing damage.

Transportation noise events, which vary with time, can also be considered in terms of their maximum noise

level (Lmax) during a vehicle pass-by, as shown in the following table:

rwdi.com Page 5

Table 4: Typical Pass-By Noise Levels at 15 m from Noise Source

Event Range of Noise Levels (dBA) at 15 m

Semi-Trailer Trucks 75 - 85 Aircraft 69 – 85 [1]

Conventional Light Rapid Transit (Streetcars) 72 – 80 [2]

Large Trucks 71 - 78 Street Motorcycle 76 Diesel or Natural Gas Bus 70 - 78 Trolley Bus 69 - 73 Small Motorcycle 67 General Busy Auto Traffic 66 - 70 Individual Automobiles 63 - 69 Notes: Source: BKL Consultants Ltd. [1] Aircraft flyover not at 15 m distance [2] Based on data provided for the Calgary, Edmonton and Portland LRT systems.

A.5 Noise Descriptors – LEQ Values

At this time, the best available research indicates that long-term human responses to noise are best

evaluated using energy equivalent sound exposure levels (LEQ values), in A-Weighted decibels (LEQ values in dBA)2, 3 including adjustments to account for particularly annoying characteristics of the sounds being analyzed.

Sound levels in the ambient environment vary each instant. In a downtown urban environment, the background noise is formed by an “urban hum”, composed of noise from distant road traffic and from commercial sources. As traffic passes near a noise receptor, the instantaneous sound level may increase as a vehicle approaches, and then decrease as it passes and travels farther away. The energy equivalent sound

exposure level LEQ is the average sound level over the same period of time with same acoustical energy as the actual environment (i.e., it is the average of the sound energy measured over a time period T). As a

time-average, all LEQ values must have a time period associated with them. This is typically placed in

brackets beside the LEQ tag. For example, a thirty-minute LEQ measurement would be reported as an

LEQ (30 min) value.

The LEQ concept is illustrated in Figure 3, showing noise levels beside a small roadway, over a 100 second time period, with two vehicle pass-bys:

2 Berglund and Lindvall, Community Noise, 1995. 3 ISO 1996:2003(E), Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures. rwdi.com Page 6

95

Car Pass-by Heavy Truck Pass-by Dog Barking 85

75

Sound Level 65 Leq (100 s)

Sound Level (dBA) 55 Background Urban Hum

45

35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s)

Figure 3: Example of the LEQ Concept

In this example, the background “urban hum” is between 47 and 53 dBA. A car passes by at 20 seconds. As it approaches, the noise level increases to a maximum, and then decreases as it speeds away. At 45 seconds, a heavy truck passes by. Near 75 seconds, a dog barks three times. The maximum sound level

(Lmax) over the period is 80 dBA and the minimum is 47 dBA. For almost 50% of the time, the sound level is lower than 55 dBA.

The LEQ (100s) for the above example is 67 dBA, which is much higher than the statistical mean sound level

of 55 dBA. This illustrates that the LEQ value is very sensitive to loud noise events, which contain much more sound energy (as sound is ranked on a logarithmic scale) than the normal background. It is also sensitive to the number of events during the time period, and the duration of those events. If only the truck had passed

by during the measurement (no car and no dog barks), the LEQ (100s) would be 66 dBA. If only the car and

dog barks had occurred, the LEQ (100s) would have been 61 dBA. This shows that the truck pass-by is the dominant event in our example, due to its level and duration.

The ability of the LEQ metric to account for the three factors of level, duration and frequency of events makes it a robust predictor of human response to noise. It is for this reason that the vast majority of noise

standards are based on LEQ values.

rwdi.com Page 7

A.6 Typical Durations for LEQ Analyses

For transportation noise impact analyses, the following durations are typically used:

LEQ (24h) – The sound exposure level over then entire 24-hour day

LEQ Day – Either: LEQ (15h), from 7am to 10 pm; or

LEQ (16h), from 7am to 11 am

LEQ Night – Either: LEQ (9h), from 10 pm to 7 am; or

LEQ (8h), from 11 pm to 7 am

Ldn – A special LEQ (24h) value with a 10 dB night-time penalty applied to overnight sound levels (10pm to 7am)

LEQ (1-h) – The sound exposure over a 1-hour time period

LEQ (24h) values are appropriate for examining impacts of transportation noise sources with small changes in sound exposure levels over the 24-hour day. For example, freeway noise levels are generally consistent

over the 24-hour day. Therefore, for freeways, there is little difference between LEQ (24h) values and the

corresponding LEQ Day and LEQ Night values.

LEQ Day values, covering off the AM-peak and PM-peak travel periods, are generally appropriate for examining the impacts of non-freeway highways and municipal arterial roadways. The vast majority of noise associated with these sources is concentrated in the daytime hours, where typically, 85% to 90% of the daily road traffic will occur.4 Thus, if reasonable sound levels occur during the daytime (and appropriate guideline limits are met), they will also occur (and be met) at night.

To account for increased annoyance with noise overnight in a single value, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed the Ldn metric. It is a special form of the LEQ (24h) with a +10 dB

night-time penalty. Ldn values and a related metric, the day-evening-night level (Lden) are also used in some

European guidelines. Ldn values are not used in Canadian Provincial jurisdictions in evaluating

transportation noise. Instead, guideline limits for separate LEQ Day and LEQ Night periods are generally used.

LEQ (1-h) values are the average sound levels over a one-hour time period. These tend to fluctuate more

over the day, as traffic levels can fluctuate significantly hour to hour. LEQ (1-h) values are useful in assessing the impact of transportation sources which also vary hourly, and which may vary in a different manner than the background traffic. These values are often used to assess haul route noise impacts, for example.

Some transportation noise sources may have significant traffic levels occurring over-night. For example, freight rail traffic in heavily used corridors can be shifted to over-night periods, with daytime track use being reserved for freight switcher traffic and passenger traffic. In situations such as this, an assessment of both daytime and night-time noise impacts may be appropriate.

4 Based on research conducted by Ontario Ministry of Transportation, and provided in the MTO Environmental Office Manual Technical Areas – Noise. Daytime refers to a 16 hour day from 7am to 11 pm. rwdi.com Page 8

A.7 Decibel Addition

Decibels are logarithmic numbers, and therefore have special properties of addition. Decibel values must be added logarithmically. If two sources, each emitting the same amount of sound energy, are placed side- by-side, then the total increase in sound level will only be 3 dB. If the difference in sound energy emitted is greater than 10 dB, then effectively the sound level will be the same as for the loudest unit (i.e., the increase in noise will be less than a decibel). This is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Decibel Addition Chart

dB Difference Of dB Value to Add to Highest Number 0 3.0 1 2.5 2 2.1 3 1.8 4 1.5 5 1.2 6 1.0 7 0.8 8 0.6 9 0.5 10 0.4

This affects transportation noise from projects, as noise emission is logarithmically related to traffic volume. Doubling the traffic volume (essentially the same as adding a source with the same sound emission) will only result in a 3 dB increase over the original levels. The decibel increase in noise due to the increase in traffic volume, assuming all other factors remain the same, can be estimated by:

dB increase = 10 log (new volume / original volume).

A.8 Human Response to Changes in Sound Levels

The human ear does not interpret changes in sound level in a linear manner. The general subjective human perception of changes in sound level is shown in the following table.

rwdi.com Page 9

Table 6: Subjective Human Perception of Changes in Sound Level 5,6

Change in Broadband Sound Level Human Perception of Change (dB) < 3 Imperceptible change 3 Just-perceptible change 4 to 5 Cleary noticeable change 6 to 9 Substantial change > 10 and more Very substantial change (half or twice as loud) > 20 and more Very substantial change (much quieter or louder)

Notes: Adapted from Bies and Hansen, p53, and MOE Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites, 1998. Applies to changes in broadband noise sources only (i.e., increases or decreases in the same noise or same type of noise only). Changes in frequency content or the addition of tonal or temporal changes would affect the perception of the change.

The previous table is directly applicable to changes in sound level where the noise sources are of the same general character. For example, existing road traffic noise levels can be directly compared to future road traffic noise levels, using the above relationships. In comparing road traffic noise to road plus rail traffic noise, the different frequency and temporal nature of the noise means that the rail noise may be more noticeable. Adjustments for the nature of the new sound can be applied to better account for temporal and frequency differences.

For transportation noise sources, research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicates that a 5 dB change in sound levels is required to trigger a change in large-scale community response to noise. This correlates to a clearly noticeable increase in noise levels.

A.9 Decay of Noise with Distance

Noise levels decrease with increasing distance from a source of noise. The rate of decay is partially dependent on the nature of the ground between the source: whether it is hard (acoustically reflective) or soft (acoustically absorptive). Transportation noise sources in general act as line sources of sound. For line sources, the rate of decay is approximately:

• Hard ground: 3 dB for each doubling of distance from the source • Soft ground: 5 dB for each doubling of distance from the source

This is shown graphically in Figure 6, based on a reference distance of 15 m from the source:

5 Bies, D.A., and C.H. Hansen 1988. Engineering Noise Control – Theory and Practice, 2nd Ed. E & FN Spon, London, p 53. 6 Ontario Ministry of the Environment 1998. Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. rwdi.com Page 10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0

-2

-4

-6

-8 Hard Ground

-10 Soft Ground

-12

-14 Changein Sound (dB) Level -16

-18 Distance From Noise Source (m)

Figure 4: Decay of Noise Versus Distance for Line Sources

rwdi.com Page 11

GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX B: List of Assumptions

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 Item Corridor Description Rationale 1 All Sound levels of electric locomotives, and rail cars will be drawn from FTA default values. Conservatively chosen as future train sound levels are unknown. Sound levels of existing diesel locomotives will be drawn from FTA default values. All future diesel locomotives will have an Details regarding how this assumption was determined will be included as a memo in the Appendices of each 2 All exhaust silencer installed which will reduce the base sound level (SEL) by 3 dB. report and provided to Metrolinx once prepared. Sound levels of EMUs will be modelled using FRA implemented in Cadna/A, with SEL values corresponding the EU train noise 3 KT Conservatively chosen as future train sound levels are unknown. emissions standard. 4 All except RH Pre-project (2015) train volumes and consists (GO, VIA, and Freight) will be unchanged from the 2017 Electrification study This maintains consistency between this addendum and the original study. SV, BR, RH, Post-project train volumes and consists (GO) will be drawn from the TSS1-Apr2020 Schedules provided on April 7, 2020. This schedule is the ultimate capacity schedule that Metrolinx is seeking to approval for. Further description in 5 and LSW These schedules will be modified based on the email comments received with the schedules. report. Speed and throttle profiles for post-project service will be assumed to be the same as profiles used in the 2017 6 All This is representative of typical operations. Electrification Noise and Vibration Study, except where new stations or layovers are included. Typical GO operation of ‘engine east’ where the locomotive is located on the east end of the train (south end on Barrie 7 All This is representative of typical operations. trains, north end on Stouffville trains) will not change for the post-project scenario. 8 All For consists with two locomotives (either Electric or Diesel) one locomotive is assumed to be at each end of the consist. This is representative of typical operations. Where trip logs provided do not reflect the stopping schedule of trains (such as VIA, GO Express, Non-Revenue) profiles will be constructed using reasonable deceleration/acceleration profiles from other stops in the trip log, and top speeds as 9 All Speed limits modeled conservatively. Otherwise reflects operations in other areas. indicated by passenger speed limit (provided in the CN Eastern Canada Region Time Table 43 document). It is assumed trains will be cruising with throttle setting of 5. For the pre-project scenario: Continue to use GO Protocol for horns (as was done in the GO Milton and GO Stouffville 10 All Studies: if the speed is greater than 70 km/hr the horn is blown 400 m before the crossing; otherwise the horn is blown for This is representative of typical pre-project operations. 20 seconds.)

For the post-project scenario: List of locations where whistles will be sounded in the future scenario has been provided as 11 All This forms part of the post-project operating conditions. key document 11 as reviewed by Metrolinx.

12 All For road crossings by CN trains (i.e., freight), the horn was assumed to be blown for a distance of 400 m prior to the crossing. This is consistent with typical rail operations. 13 All Whistles are not blown at farm crossings. This is consistent with typical rail operations. All except 14 All trains idle at stations for 1.5 minutes Based on 2017 Electrification Noise and Vibration Study. USRC This assumption reflects the daily average idling time for USRC as developed through detailed analysis done by 15 USRC All trains idle at Union Station for an average of 9 minutes the air quality team. 16 All Existing modelled stations will be unchanged from the 2017 Electrification Study This is representative of typical pre-project operations. Existing and planned noise barriers will be unchanged from the 2017 Electrification study with the exception of There are no other project that would have resulted in additional noise barriers since the 2017 Electrification 18 All modifications for Stouffville and Barrie listed below. Study. Future planned barriers will be modified to incorporate the modified barriers from the "AECOM GO Stouffville - Advanced There are no other project that would have resulted in additional noise barriers since the 2017 Electrification 19 SV Grading Area Noise Assessment Update - Rev 3" dated June 5, 2015. Study. Future planned barriers will be modified to incorporate barriers in the Early Works Contracts: "Barrie Rail Corridor Expansion There are no other project that would have resulted in additional noise barriers since the 2017 Electrification 20 BR Project - Maple GO Noise Barrier Optimization Report" dated November 13, 2019 and "Barrie Rail Corridor Expansion - Study. Treelawn Parkway Noise Barrier Assessment" dated April 18, 2018.

Switch heaters operate intermittently and irregularly and have low sound levels with respect to rail activity. As sound is evaluated over a 16-hour and 8-hour time period, the intermittent and irregular operation results in 21 All Noise from switch heaters is considered insignificant and is not assessed. insignificant impacts from these sources. This assumption was included in the 2017 Electrification study, and reviewed by the MECP.

GO express, VIA, Freight, and non-revenue trains will be assumed to run on the centre track, where there are three tracks, or 22 All This assumption has a negligible effect on the noise results, and is representative of typical operations. equally on the two inner tracks, where there are four. Assumption from 2017 Electrification study.

23 All except KT UPE non-revenue traffic is deemed insignificant. Same as 2017 Electrification Study Insignificant contributor.

24 All Pre-project track alignments are unchanged from the 2017 Electrification study This is representative of the pre-project conditions. 25 All Post-project track alignments are from the RCD RCUS 4.1 drawings provided on March 31, 2020. These are the expected post-project alignments. Future layovers include: Walker's Line (LSW), Don Valley (RH), Resources Road (KIT), Unionville (SV), Bradford (BR), and Split of consist types in each layover will be based on "RERSO-NETW-026 - TSS1 Layover Requirements 2020-04- 26 All Midland (LSE) 09 - Attachment.xlsx"

27 LSW Beach Spur Layover will be used for electric powered locomotives only. Based on "RERSO-NETW-026 - TSS1 Layover Requirements 2020-04-09 - Attachment.xlsx"

28 KIT Resources Road Layover will be used for electric powered locomotives only. Based on "RERSO-NETW-026 - TSS1 Layover Requirements 2020-04-09 - Attachment.xlsx" Detailed noise assessment of new trackwork will only be completed if trackwork is of a significant length, moving closer to 29 All This assumption has a negligible effect on the noise results. receptors, and is expected to result in an increase in sound level. Location of Don Yards Paralelling Station, Scarborough Switching Station, Mimico Switching Station, and Lincolnville 30 All Paralleling station have changed, as described in drawings provided. All other traction power station locations are This reflects the updated expectations for the post-project scenario. unchanged from the 2017 EPR. 31 All The assessment of maintenance facilities will be unchanged from the 2017 assessment Actual operations. Sensitive receptors will be selected based on the "Environmental Guide for Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" prepared by RWDI for Metrolinx, dated April 9, 2019. Vacant lots will be assessed per the method agreed upon by Metrolinx Contour plots of the Adjusted Noise Impact (change in sound levels from pre-project to post-project) will be 32 All and RWDI in the Friday July 26th, 2019 meeting. This will include assessing in detail vacant lots zoned Residential, but not produced that will cover off the entirety of the corridor. Commercial or Institutional. The evaluation of noise barriers will follow the procedure outlined in the Metrolinx document "Work Plan: Noise and 33 All Vibration Impact Assessment for the GO Expansion OnCorr Project", dated September 5, 2019 and the RWDI Memo Defined methodology. "Assumptions on Location of Noise Barriers", dated April 7, 2020. The economic feasibility of barriers will be assessed using the cost effectiveness index as outlined in RWDI's Noise and 34 All Defined methodology. Vibration Workplan. 35 All All results will be presented in the MTM zone 10 coordinate system. Consistent with information received and other Metrolinx corridors assessed. 36 All Pre-project layovers will be unchanged from 2017 Electrification Study This is representative of the pre-project conditions. If mitigation is triggered, a 5 m noise barrier would be assessed. If the 5 m barrier meets the technical feasibility 37 All requirement as outlined in the Protocol (a reduction of at least 5 dB), no further investigation will be completed. If technical 6m and 7m heights will also be subject to economic feasibility. feasibility is not acheived, a 6 m noise barrier would be assessed, and then a 7 m barrier, if warranted.

For the vibration assessment, new trackwork and and switches will be identified as the differences between the RCD RCUS 38 All This is included for the vibration assessment. 4.1 drawings provided on March 31, 2020 and the existing track diagrams provided as part of the 2017 assessment.

39 All except RH Pre-project (2015) train volumes and consists (GO, VIA, and Freight) will be unchanged from the 2017 Electrification study This is representative of the pre-project conditions. 40 All except RH Post-project VIA train volumes and consists will be unchanged from the 2017 Electrification study. This reflects the expectations for the post-project scenario. Generally it will be assumed that trains will run on the right-hand track (relative to the direction of travel) where there are 41 All two tracks available (e.g., for non-Express trains, the outside right-hand track, for Express trains, the right-hand inner track if Representative of typical operations. there are four tracks). Assumption from 2017 Electrification study. 42 RH It is assumed that no VIA trains operate on the RH line 2x weekly southbound Canadian is deemed insignificant 43 RH Pre-project throttle settings and train speed data will be unchanged from the 2017 Electrification Noise and Vibration Study This is representative of the pre-project conditions. To post-process the schedules provided, the expansion in service numbers were applied to the consists based on the distribution of consists in the schedule. For example, if the schedule had 20 D1L6 trains and 40 D2L12 trains, an additional 6 45 RH & BR This reflects the expectations for the post-project scenario. trains would be added as 2 D1L6 and 4 D2L12. Note that this does NOT apply to the peak adjustments which were all implemented as D1L6 trains. CANPA Sub: There are no train movements on this corridor in the existing scenario. In the future, there will be 5 movements 46 LSW This reflects the expectations for the post-project scenario. of D2L12 trains in each direction between Willowbrook and the Milton Corridor. GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX C: Information Provided

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

DRAWINGS PROVIDED

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020

GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

ULTIMATE CAPACITY SCHEDULE

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 D1L6 D2L12 Station Route DAY NIGHT DAY NIGHT REVENUE GO Eastbound Local 41 5 28 8 Bramalea to Malton GO Westbound Local 41 5 29 7 GO Eastbound Local 41 5 28 8 Malton to Pearson Junction GO Westbound Local 41 5 29 7 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX D: Modelling Inputs

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 Table D.1.1: Existing Rail Traffic Data Used in the Assessment Number of Trains [1] Section Train Type Consist Daytime [2] Nighttime [2] Eastbound Regular GO Train (Revenue) 1DL12 11 2 Eastbound Express GO Train (Revenue) 1DL12 3 0 Malton GO to Eastbound GO Train (Non-Revenue) 1DL12 0 1 Bramalea GO Westbound Regular GO Train (Revenue) 1DL12 14 14 Westbound GO Trains (Non-Revenue) 1DL12 0 3 Eastbound/Westbound CN Freight Switchers 1DL12 2 0 Notes: [1] The Total Number of Trains per Day was taken from Metrolinx in a spreadsheet called "Total Equipment Trips Operated", October [2]29, 2015.Daytime is between 0700h and 2300h and nighttime is between 2300h and 0700h. Table D.1.2: Diesel RER Service Rail Traffic Data Used in the Assessment Number of Trains [1] Section Train Type Train Type Daytime [2] Nighttime [2] 1DL6 41 5 Eastbound Regular GO Train (Revenue) 2DL12 28 8 Malton GO to Bramalea GO 1DL6 41 5 Westbound Regular GO Train (Revenue) 2DL12 29 7 Eastbound/Westbound CN Freight Switchers Freight Switcher 3 - Notes: [1] The Total Number of Trains per Day was taken from Metrolinx TSS1+ Schedules, provided April 23, 2020. [2] Daytime is between 0700h and 2300h and nighttime is between 2300h and 0700h. [3] GO Milton, Barrie, and UPE spur lines occur between stations; therefore train volume listed may not travel the entire segment as listed. Table D.2.1: Summary of FTA Calculations compared to FTA Implementation in Cadna/A Diesel or Leq @ Receptor (dBA) Electric Speed (mph) Throttle FTA Cadna/A Diesel 5 1 63.4 63.3 Low Speed, Throttle = 1 Electric 5 N/A 44.8 44.6 Diesel 76 1 58.8 58.6 High Speed, Throttle = 1 Electric 76 N/A 60.1 59.9 Diesel Throttle = 8 Diesel 31 8 61.7 61.6 Table D.2.2: Low Speed, Throttle = 1, FTA Calculations compared to FTA Implementation in Cadna/A Diesel Electric Input Description Locomotive Locomotive Rail Cars SELref Reference sound level 89 90 82 dBA N Number of locos/cars 2 2 12 K -10 for diesel, +10 for electric -10 10 20 CT Throttle - 0 for T<=6, 2(T-5) for T>6 1 1 1 V traffic volume (per hour) 1 1 1 S speed 5 5 5 mph

LeqL (h) Hourly Leq @ 50 ft - Component 66.4 47.4 37.2 From Table 6.4 in FTA Manual

Diesel Consist Electric Consist Leq @ 50ft Hourly Leq @ 50 ft - Consist 66.4 47.8 dBA From Section 6.3.1 in FTA Manual G Ground Absorption 0 0 D Receptor distance 100 100 ft Leq @ Receptor Pressure level at receptor - FTA 63.4 44.8 dBA Leq @ Receptor Pressure level at receptor - Cadna/A 63.3 44.6 dBA Table D.2.3: High Speed, Throttle = 1, FTA Calculations compared to FTA Implementation in Cadna/A Diesel Electric Input Description Locomotive Locomotive Rail Cars SELref Reference sound level 89 90 82 dBA N Number of locos/cars 2 2 12 K -10 for diesel, +10 for electric -10 10 20 CT Throttle - 0 for T<=6, 2(T-5) for T>6 1 1 1 V traffic volume (per hour) 1 1 1 S speed 76.25 76.25 76.25 mph

LeqL (h) Hourly Leq @ 50 ft - Component 54.6 59.2 60.9 From Table 6.4 in FTA Manual

Diesel Consist Electric Consist Leq @ 50ft Hourly Leq @ 50 ft - Consist 61.8 63.1 dBA From Section 6.3.1 in FTA Manual G Ground Absorption 0 0 D Receptor distance 100 100 ft Leq @ Receptor Pressure level at receptor - FTA 58.8 60.1 dBA Leq @ Receptor Pressure level at receptor - Cadna/A 58.6 59.9 dBA Table D.2.4: Diesel Throttle = 8, FTA Calculations compared to FTA Implementation in Cadna/A Diesel Input Description Locomotive Rail Cars SELref Reference sound level 89 82 dBA N Number of locos/cars 2 12 K -10 for diesel, +10 for electric -10 20 CT Throttle - 0 for T<=6, 2(T-5) for T>6 8 1 V traffic volume (per hour) 1 1 S speed 31.25 31.25 mph

LeqL (h) Hourly Leq @ 50 ft - Component 64.4 53.1 dBA From Table 6.4 in FTA Manual

Diesel Consist Leq @ 50ft Hourly Leq @ 50 ft - Consist 64.7 dBA From Section 6.3.1 in FTA Manual G Ground Absorption 0 D Receptor distance 100 ft Leq @ Receptor Pressure level at receptor - FTA 61.7 dBA Leq @ Receptor Pressure level at receptor - Cadna/A 61.6 dBA 600 Southgate Drive Tel: +1.519.823.1311 Guelph ON Canada Fax: +1.519.823.1316 N1G 4P6 E-mail: [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 2020-04-21 RWDI Reference No.: 1500999

TO: Toros Topaloglu, Metrolinx EMAIL: [email protected]

CC: James Hartley, Metrolinx EMAIL: [email protected] Amber Saltarelli, Gannett Fleming [email protected] Gillian Redman, RWDI [email protected] Ben Coulson, RWDI [email protected]

FROM: Alain Carrière EMAIL: [email protected]

RE: Incorporation of Diesel Locomotive Engine Exhaust Silencers into Noise Modelling Metrolinx Electrification EA Addendum

INTRODUCTION

This memo is intended to document and outline the noise modelling methodology to incorporate the installation of engine exhaust silencers on all diesel locomotives. As part of the addendum of the 2017 Environmental Assessment, Metrolinx has committed to the retrofit installation of silencers on existing diesel locomotives and inclusion of silencers on any new diesel locomotives. This memo discusses the methodology used to determine the effect of the engine exhaust silencer on the noise emissions of the diesel locomotive and the modifications to the FTA noise standards to implement this effect into the modelling.

ANALYSIS INPUTS – AKOUSTIK ENGINEERING LIMITED MEASUREMENTS

Sound measurements of Metrolinx diesel locomotives with three different engine exhaust silencers were completed by Akoustik Engineering Limited in April 2013. The report of their findings is included as Attachment A. The Akoustik Engineering report was used to determine the approximate reduction in sound level resulting from the installation of the silencers.

This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document format available upon request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America. rwdi.com Toros Topaloglu Metrolinx RWDI#1500999 April 21, 2020

Measurements were taken at a variety of locations at four different throttle settings for a stationary locomotive with and without silencers installed. For the purposes of this assessment, the measurements that captured the total noise of the locomotive from the side were used. Measurements from the front and back of the locomotive were excluded as the exposure of receptors to train noise is pre-dominantly from the side of the locomotive as the engine passes. Measurements that only considered the engine exhaust noise (i.e. no other sources of noise associated with the locomotive) were also excluded from this assessment.

Presented in Figure 1 is a comparison of the resulting reduction in sound for a stationary locomotive as a result of each of the three silencers tested. It was noted that the measured data from Silencer 1 (Universal) seemed inconsistent. In some cases, the installation of the Silencer 1 increased the sound levels, which did not align with what would be expected. Therefore, the data from Silencer 1 was excluded from this analysis.

Figure 1: Average Reduction from Silencers at Four Different Throttle Settings

The average reduction of Silencers 2 and 3 was 4 dB. However, Silencer 2 and Silencer 3 saw reductions as low as 3 dB at different throttle settings. Therefore, the effect of the exhaust noise silencer was conservatively assumed to be an overall reduction of stationary locomotive noise by 3 dB for all throttle settings.

Page 2 Toros Topaloglu Metrolinx RWDI#1500999 April 21, 2020

ADJUSTMENT TO FTA MODEL

The FTA model’s locomotive noise is based on three key inputs:

• The “base” Sound Exposure Level (SEL): defined in FTA by train type (i.e. diesel locomotive, electric locomotive, rail car, etc.); • Train speed; and • Throttle setting (1-8).

The 3 dB adjustment determined from the 2013 measurements was for a stationary locomotive and therefore did not include the influence of wheel-rail noise from the locomotive. The FTA model does not separately calculate the noise from the locomotive engine and the noise from the wheel-rail interaction of the locomotive.

Calculations were completed to estimate the contribution of the wheel-rail noise to the total predicted noise of the locomotive in FTA. As rail cars do not have engines, their noise is generated from wheel- rail interaction only. Therefore, it was assumed that the FTA modelled sound from a single rail car would be similar to the wheel-rail noise from a locomotive. A comparison of the FTA predicted diesel locomotive sound levels and estimated wheel-rail sound levels are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Comparison of Diesel Locomotive to Rail Car Noise

The wheel-rail noise is predicted to be significantly lower than the total locomotive noise for both low and high speeds. Even at high speeds, the wheel-rail noise remains 5 dB below the diesel locomotive noise at the lowest throttle setting. Based on the results presented in Figure 2, it was concluded that the engine noise dominates the noise emanating from the diesel locomotive, even at top speeds.

Page 3 Toros Topaloglu Metrolinx RWDI#1500999 April 21, 2020

Therefore, the 3 dB reduction found from stationary measurements was determined to be appropriate to approximate the silencer reduction for a moving locomotive. This adjustment will be implemented by reducing the FTA standard diesel locomotive SEL by 3 dB.

Although the locomotive sound is reduced, the sound of the rail car component of the train consist is not affected. As a consequence, the total sound of a train consist is reduced by 3 dB at low speeds, but at high speeds, the cumulative noise of the rail cars dominates, and there is less effect from the silencer. A consist of one diesel locomotive with six cars was modelled with the standard FTA SEL and the adjusted SEL and is presented in Figure 3 below. To provide context to this adjustment, a consist of one electric locomotive with six rail cars is also presented.

Figure 3: Comparison of Six Car Consists (Locomotive at Throttle 0 to 5)

CONCLUSION

RWDI has assessed the effect of the installation of the diesel engine exhaust silencers. The silencers will reduce the sound of the locomotives by 3 dB. This reduction will applied directly to the SEL of the diesel locomotive in the FTA modelling.

Page 4

1258 Aubin Rd. Windsor, ON N8Y 4E5 Phone: (519)903-7193 Fax: (800) 241-9149

May 09, 2013 Mr. Joseph Mason MotivePower Inc. 4600 Apple Street Boise Idaho email: [email protected] Phone: 208-947-4910

Re: Acoustic Assessment Report of GO Transit Locomotive Silencer Testing & Analysis

Dear Mr. Mason,

Please find enclosed a noise report of the measurement results and analysis of the data collected at the VIA Rail Toronto Maintenance Centre between April 02 and April 09, 2013, for several silencer designs. Also measured were the sound levels of the existing benchmark levels for the same locomotive for comparison.

I trust that the enclosed information meets your requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Colin Novak PhD, PEng.

Introduction

This report is an acoustic assessment of locomotive exhaust noise for three silencer designs, including a comparison to the existing benchmark noise emissions of the same locomotive. The measurements were made at the VIA Rail Toronto Maintenance Centre between April 02 and April 09, 2013. All measurements were conducted on Locomotive 611. Included in the analysis are overall linear and A-weighted sound levels, loudness (given to better predict the resulting perception of the different measurements) as well as narrow band frequency results using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). For each silencer case, the exhaust noise was evaluated with the stationary locomotive operating at notches 3, 6, 7 and 8. From the presented data, an overall best silencer design will be chosen based on noise emission criteria.

Experiment Set-up & Conditions

Noise measurements were made for each silencer case at specified exhaust Q-points, 100 feet fore and aft of the locomotive as well as at distances of 100 and 328 feet to one side of the locomotive. The microphone ID numbers and there respective locations are given below in Figure 1. Photos illustrating the microphones at the Q-points are given in Figure 2a and 2 b. It should be noted that only two Q-points were used for all silencer cases except the Universal silencer, which had a total of six Q-points (microphone locations 1 through 6). In other words, no noise data was collected at microphone location 3 through 6 for the other silencer cases.

The data was collected using a Bruel & Kjaer LAN-XI and PULSE Labshop data acquisition system. PULSE LabShop software is a real-time acquisition and multi-analysis platform and the LAN-XI acquisition hardware is a multi channel front end. A list of hardware used for the measurements is given in Table 1.

During all noise measurements, weather conditions, including wind speed and direction, temperature and humidity levels were monitored. The measured weather parameter, for each corresponding silencer design case is given in Table 2. It should be noted that high quality wind screens were used on all microphones to minimize any adverse impact from wind or exhaust flow at the Q-point measurement locations.

Figure 1: Experimental Set-up Illustrating the Microphone Locations with respect to the Test Locomotive

Figure 2a: Q-Point Microphones – Close Up

Figure 2b: Q-Point Microphones – End View

Table 1: List of Acquisition Equipment used for the Noise Measurements

Model Description Serial Number Type 3050-A-060 LAN-XI Acquisition Module 100247 Type 3160-A-042 LAN-XI Acquisition Module 105070 Type 3660-C LAN-XI 5-Slot Frame 100120 Type 4231 Microphone Calibrator 3001803 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849662 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849663 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849664 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849665 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849666 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849667 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849668 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849669 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2849670 Type 4189-A-021 Microphone 2779823 Kestrel 4500 Wind and Weather Meter N/A

Table 2: Dates and Respective Weather Conditions

Weather Parameter Case Date Wind Speed (km/h) Temperature (°C) Humidity (%) & Direction Baseline 1 (4/3/13) 18 NW 4.3 23.1 Baseline 2 (4/4/13) 12 SW 2 50.5 Universal (4/5/13) 9.5 NW 4.6 56.4 Harco (4/8/13) 11 SE 9.6 48.3 Phillips & Temro (4/9/13) 5.1 W 9.9 68.4

Measurement Results

The acoustic parameters Included in the analysis of the various silencer designs are the overall linear and A-weighted sound levels, loudness and narrow band frequency results using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). For each silencer case, the exhaust noise was evaluated with the stationary locomotive operating at notches 3, 6, 7 and 8. The overall levels are a good comparative indication of how each silencer performed from the perspective of all energy across the audible frequency spectrum. The same is true for the overall A-weighted level with the A- weighted adjustment accommodating the response of the human auditory system. In order to gain a better understanding of the perceptional significance of a decibel increase or decrease, Table 3 is included to illustrate the change in perceived loudness for selected changes in sound level. The loudness results are a good correlation of how a person will perceive and rank the relative sound qualities of the different silencers. Finally, the intent of the FFT data is to provide a detailed look at the spectral characteristics of the data up to approximately 6000 Hz. From this, a better understanding of how each design compares across the frequency range, including relative amplitudes and position of fundamentals and harmonics, is achieved. It should be noted that the graphed data is active when viewed as a Word file. In order to view and interact with the active graphs, a B&K plug-in program must be downloaded and installed on the PC. The download can be found at: http://www.bksv.com/servicecalibration/support/downloads/i- deas%20test%20software/reporter%20viewer%20software.aspx

Further information and instructions on using active graphs can be found in the following downloadable Word document (first link): http://www.bksv.com/search.aspx?searchText=active+view&page=&category=&it emsPerPage=20

It is important to note that during the testing of the Phillips and Temro silencer on the last measurement day, the location 10 microphone cable was damaged under a rail spike which resulted in the loss of some data for this silencer at this location.

Table 3: Change in Sound Level Relation to Change in Perceived Loudness

Change in Sound Change in Perceived Loudness Level (dB) 1-3 Not usually perceptible 5 Noticeable difference 10 Twice (or 1/2) as loud 15 Large change 20 Four times (or 1/4) as loud

The overall linear sound levels for notches 3, 6, 7 and 8 are given in Tables 4a, b, c and d respectively. From these tables, the noise measurements for all silencer designs are significantly less than the unattenuated baseline noise data. However, the Universal silencer proved to be the best performer for the overall linear noise level data at all measurement locations.

Table 4a: Notch 3 Overall Level Analysis – Linear [dB]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 129 129 N/A N/A N/A N/A 97.3 98.4 101 91 Universal 114 114 116 116 114 116 82.2 82.5 92 86.1 Harco 125 124 N/A N/A N/A N/A 95.1 94.1 95.4 84.3 Phillips & Temro 119 120 N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.5 92.6 93.9 N/A

Table 4b: Notch 6 Overall Level Analysis – Linear [dB]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 124 125 N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.2 88.9 94.4 89.9 Universal 117 117 119 119 115 113 85 83.4 91.7 82.4 Harco 122 122 N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.5 85.5 91.6 82.5 Phillips & Temro 120 120 N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.4 83.2 90.5 N/A

Table 4c: Notch 7 Overall Level Analysis – Linear [dB]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 122 123 N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.8 89.5 94.5 86 Universal 115 114 118 117 115 112 86.7 84.9 90.6 83.1 Harco 120 119 N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.2 84.8 90.7 82.3 Phillips & Temro 117 117 N/A N/A N/A N/A 87.6 83.3 90.4 N/A

Table 4d: Notch 8 Overall Level Analysis – Linear [dB]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 124 123 N/A N/A N/A N/A 89.3 87.1 95.6 86.2 Universal 116 115 119 119 116 113 87.7 84.3 89.7 81.9 Harco 121 119 N/A N/A N/A N/A 89.8 84.7 90.8 84 Phillips & Temro 116 116 N/A N/A N/A N/A 86.9 85.5 91.3 82.2

The overall A-weighted sound levels for notches 3, 6, 7 and 8 are given in Tables 5a, b, c and d respectively. As was the case for the un-weighted overall levels, the Universal silencer proved to be the best overall performer for this noise metric, with the Phillips and Temro design being a close second.

Table 5a: Notch 3 Overall Level Analysis - A-weighted [dBA]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 105 107 N/A N/A N/A N/A 73.7 74.5 77.3 67.1 Universal 93.8 92.8 95.8 94.8 97.1 97 65.5 65.2 72 63.7 Harco 101 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 71.7 69.4 72.4 62.2 Phillips & Temro 98.7 98.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 69.2 69.7 72.3 N/A

Table 5b: Notch 6 Overall Level Analysis - A-weighted [dBA]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 113 114 N/A N/A N/A N/A 80.2 74.3 84.1 74.2 Universal 102 103 104 104 109 107 74.9 71.5 85.4 70.7 Harco 109 108 N/A N/A N/A N/A 77.7 71.6 82.1 67.9 Phillips & Temro 107 106 N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.6 72 81.2 N/A

Table 5c: Notch 7 Overall Level Analysis - A-weighted [dBA]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 117 119 N/A N/A N/A N/A 81.6 77.6 88.2 75.3 Universal 104 104 106 104 111 109 77.6 76.1 84.8 74.8 Harco 111 111 N/A N/A N/A N/A 80.2 75.5 84.8 71.4 Phillips & Temro 108 109 N/A N/A N/A N/A 76.9 74 82.8 N/A

Table 5d: Notch 8 Overall Level Analysis - A-weighted [dBA]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 119 119 N/A N/A N/A N/A 82.9 75.2 90.3 78.2 Universal 107 104 108 107 112 111 77.8 76.7 84.1 71 Harco 113 110 N/A N/A N/A N/A 81.5 75 86.7 75.4 Phillips & Temro 110 109 N/A N/A N/A N/A 76.8 77 86.2 73.5

Given in Tables 6a, b, c and d are the loudness results for the notch 3, 6, 7 and 8 measurements respectively. Inspection of the loudness results again proves the Universal silencer design to be the best overall acoustic performer, and a significant improvement over the unattenuated baseline measurements. As in the other data, the Phillips and Temro design is the second best, with some measurements at the 328 foot distance being marginally better, but not enough to be a notable improvement.

Table 6a: Notch 3 Loudness [sone]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 498.2 514.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 43.67 47.31 65.09 31.67 Universal 143.9 141.6 164.9 160.8 168.2 166.3 22.92 21.74 35.09 19.66 Harco 306.3 271.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 37.71 31.37 43.17 18.3 Phillips & Temro 220.1 231.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 28.56 29.49 37.95 N/A

Table 6b: Notch 6 Loudness [sone]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 463.1 497.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 54.33 41.96 84.97 41.55 Universal 221.2 224.3 253.6 254.4 275.1 248 37.22 29.7 59.6 28.85 Harco 357.3 331.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 50.23 30.28 55.88 28.1 Phillips & Temro 296.7 303.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 42.7 32.76 55.11 N/A

Table 6c: Notch 7 Loudness [sone]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 528.2 559 N/A N/A N/A N/A 57.78 49.49 85.97 45.72 Universal 236.9 226.5 270.8 256.2 300 276 41.23 32.65 62.61 32.88 Harco 373 348.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 52.66 35.55 63.81 30.84 Phillips & Temro 291 289.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 41.62 36.44 59.84 N/A

Table 6d: Notch 8 Loudness [sone]

Case Signal # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Baseline 585.2 597.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 66.08 47.29 85.87 46.48 Universal 261.3 248.5 302.7 293.3 319.6 296.4 45.27 37.61 64.15 33.95 Harco 399.4 377.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 55.28 38.65 67.71 35.74 Phillips & Temro 311.2 296.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 43.33 39.41 65.67 33.63

The frequency results are given in the appendix for each measurement scenario and silencer design. The comparative conclusion from these are the same as that from the overall linear results since they are derived from the same metric, only here broken into narrow band levels up to 6 kHz.

A comment should be made to the application of the Q-point data compared to the data measured at the further distances. The purpose of the Q-point data is to allow for a controlled comparison of the sound of a given silencers design to another. However, given that the Q-point locations are within the acoustic near field region of the exhaust, care should be exercised in the use of this data for the evaluation of perceived noise at a far field location. Such a relation is difficult to make given that near field noise propagation is not the same as far field propagation. That is, the Q-point data should be used only for the direct comparison of different silencer designs and the 100 and 328 feet measurements should be used to predict human perception of the noise from a train pass-by.

While care was taken during all measurements, it should be further noted that for the Harco silencer results, the data at notch 3, microphone location 7, resulted in levels that exceeded the Baseline measurements. This was likely due to the uncontrolled background noise caused from nearby train movements, and road traffic noise.

Conclusions

The acoustical performance of three locomotive silencer designs under four notch conditions were compared to baseline measurements using several acoustical parameters. Based on this data, it is concluded that the Universal silencer was the most effective. This conclusion is based on the parameters of overall, loudness and FFT analysis. Based on these analyses, the Universal silencer outperformed the other designs in all three areas of analysis. In comparison to the Baseline measurements, the Universal silencer reduced the loudness level significantly at all points measured. This reduction was greater than a factor of two at the Q-points (signals 1 and 2). For the different silencers at the far distance points (100 and 328 feet), the reduction in loudness between the different silencers was much closer; however, examining the overall level analysis, confirmed that the Universal was still the best performer overall. Based on the A- weighted overall analysis for locations 9 and 10, the Universal Silencer resulted in an attenuation of more than 6 dB for notch 8 when compared to the Baseline measurements. Such a decrease in decibel level is considered significant and would be clearly audible by a nearby observer. A similar conclusion is given by the 12 sone decrease in loudness from the Baseline measurement to the Universal silencer design results. Again, such a decrease in loudness value is significant and demonstrates a noticeable improvement in overall perceived sound quality. The same conclusion can be made for the Universal design at the other notches evaluated. Finally, the outcomes from the FFT analysis also concluded that the Universal provided the highest sound attenuation for both the linear and A-weighted analyses.

For

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Peter D’Angela, BASc., EIT Colin Novak, Ph.D., PEng

GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES D.1.1 TO D.1.2: Representative Receptor Locations

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing)

Receivers 4842000 !' 4842000 Mile Markers

Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west)

Rail Centreline (Other)

Electric Traction Facilities

Buildings 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

R01

!' 12 Malton GO 13 R05 R03 Station 14 !' !' 15 !'!' !' R02 R04 4840500 4840500 4840000 4840000

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of 4839500 Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 4839500 USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

0 250 500 750m

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Representative Receptor and Existing Barrier Locations True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: D.1.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing)

Receivers 4842000 !' 4842000 Mile Markers

Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west)

Rail Centreline (Other)

Electric Traction Facilities

Buildings 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

R05R03 !' 16 !' R04!'!' !' R02 4840500 4840500

Bramalea R06 GO Station !'

12 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, 4839500 HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US 4839500 Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

0 250 500 750m

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Representative Receptor and Existing Barrier Locations True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: D.1.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES D.2.1 TO D.2.3: Speed Throttle Profiles

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 Speed & Throttle Profiles with SPLs at 15 m Drawn by: MPP Figure: D.2.1 Eastbound Local Project #: 1500999

Kitchener Date: 2020-11-18 Speed & Throttle Profiles with SPLs at 15 m Drawn by: MPP Figure: D.2.2 Eastbound Express Project #: 1500999

Kitchener Date: 2020-11-18 Speed & Throttle Profiles with SPLs at 15 m Drawn by: MPP Figure: D.2.3 Westbound Local Project #: 1500999

Kitchener Date: 2020-11-18 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX E: Operational Noise Modelling Results

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 Table E.1: Adjusted Noise Impacts Predicted Project Noise Adjusted 5 dB or Objective Adjusted Investigate Receptor ID Period [1] Levels (dBA) [1] Noise Impact Greater (dBA) [2] Impact Rating Mitigation? Pre-Project Post-Project (dB) Increase? [3] Daytime 51.5 59.8 55.0 4.8 Noticeable No R01 Yes Nighttime 46.5 56.6 50.0 6.6 Significant Yes Daytime 59.4 66.6 59.4 7.2 Significant Yes R02 Yes Nighttime 57.1 63.0 57.1 5.9 Significant Yes Daytime 55.8 63.8 55.8 8.0 Significant Yes R03 Yes Nighttime 53.1 60.3 53.1 7.2 Significant Yes Daytime 59.5 67.6 59.5 8.1 Significant Yes R04 Yes Nighttime 57.1 64.2 57.1 7.1 Significant Yes Daytime 55.5 63.8 55.5 8.3 Significant Yes R05 Yes Nighttime 52.7 60.4 52.7 7.7 Significant Yes Daytime N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No R06 [5] No Nighttime N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Notes:

[1] The LEQ (Day) is evaluated for a 16-hour period (i.e., from 0700h to 2300h) and the LEQ (Night) is evaluated for an 8‑hour period (i.e., from 2300h to 0700h). [2] The objective is the higher of the ambient sound level, combined with the existing rail activity, or 55 dBA (Daytime) / 50 dBA (Night-time).

[3] The potential to mitigate is considered when a significant (or greater) impact is predicted. This is equivalent to an increase of 5dB or greater, relative to the objective level, as per the MOEE / GO Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessments. An adjusted noise impact greater than 5 dB requires the investigation of mitigation.

[4] Mitigation not investigated due to existing barrier on the Metrolinx Right-of-Way. [5] This receptor is only assessed for the Electric Traction Power Faclities Table E.2: Traction Power Facility Noise Impacts Predicted Noise Compliance with Receptor Evaluation Limit Applicable Limit Nearby Period [1] Levels Applicable Limit ID Location Classification (dBA) (dBA) (Yes/No) Daytime\Evening 31 50 Yes Façade R06 Bramalea PS Nighttime 31 Class 1 45 Yes Outdoor Area Daytime\Evening 30 50 Yes Notes: [1] Daytime occurs from 0700-1900h. Evening occurs from 1900h-2300h. Nighttime occurs from 2300-0700h. GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES E.1.1 TO E.1.2: Predicted Existing Sound Level Contours - Daytime

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Buildings 4842000 !' Receivers Sound Level Contours (dBA) 4842000 55 - 60 Mile Markers 60 - 65

Rail Centreline (Other) 65 - 70

Rail Centreline 70 - 75 (Kitchener, west) > 75

Electric Traction 4841500 4841500 Facilities 4841000 4841000

R01

!' 12 Malton GO 13 R05 R03 Station 14 !' !' 15 !'!' !' R02 R04 4840500 4840500 4840000 4840000 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 0 250 500 750m USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Predicted Existing Sound Level Contours - Daytime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.1.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Buildings 4842000 !' Receivers Sound Level Contours (dBA) 4842000 55 - 60 Mile Markers 60 - 65

Rail Centreline (Other) 65 - 70

Rail Centreline 70 - 75 (Kitchener, west) > 75

Electric Traction 4841500 4841500 Facilities 4841000 4841000

R05R03 !' 16 !' R04!'!' !' R02 4840500 4840500

Bramalea R06 GO Station !'

12 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, 0 250 500 750m US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Predicted Existing Sound Level Contours - Daytime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.1.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES E.2.1 TO E.2.2: Predicted Existing Sound Level Contours - Nighttime

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 !'

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Buildings 4842000 !' Receivers Sound Level Contours (dBA) 4842000 50 - 55 Mile Markers 55 - 60

Rail Centreline 60 - 65 (Kitchener, west) 65 - 70 Rail Centreline (Other) > 75

Electric Traction 4841500 4841500 Facilities 4841000 4841000

R01

!' 12 Malton GO 13 R05 R03 Station 14 !' !' 15 !'!' !' R02 R04 4840500 4840500 4840000 4840000 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 0 250 500 750m USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Predicted Existing Sound Level Contours - Nighttime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.2.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 !'

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Buildings 4842000 !' Receivers Sound Level Contours (dBA) 4842000 50 - 55 Mile Markers 55 - 60

Rail Centreline 60 - 65 (Kitchener, west) 65 - 70 Rail Centreline (Other) > 75

Electric Traction 4841500 4841500 Facilities 4841000 4841000

R05R03 !' 16 !' R04!'!' !' R02 4840500 4840500

Bramalea R06 GO Station !'

12 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, 0 250 500 750m US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Predicted Existing Sound Level Contours - Nighttime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.2.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES E.3.1 TO E.3.2: Predicted Future Sound Level Contours - Daytime

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Buildings 4842000 !' Receivers Sound Level Contours (dBA) 4842000 55 - 60 Mile Markers 60 - 65

Rail Centreline 65 - 70 (Kitchener, west) 70 - 75 Rail Centreline (Other) 75 - 80

Electric Traction 4841500 80 - 85 4841500 Facilities > 85 4841000 4841000

R01

!' 12 Malton GO 13 R05 R03 Station 14 !' !' 15 !'!' !' R02 R04 4840500 4840500 4840000 4840000

!' 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 0 250 500 750m USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Predicted Future Sound Level Contours - Daytime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.3.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Buildings 4842000 !' Receivers Sound Level Contours (dBA) 4842000 55 - 60 Mile Markers 60 - 65

Rail Centreline 65 - 70 (Kitchener, west) 70 - 75 Rail Centreline (Other) 75 - 80

Electric Traction 4841500 80 - 85 4841500 Facilities > 85 4841000 4841000

R05R03 !' 16 !' R04!'!' !' R02 4840500 4840500

Bramalea R06 GO Station !'

12 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station !' 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, 0 250 500 750m US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Predicted Future Sound Level Contours - Daytime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.3.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES E.4.1 TO E.4.2: Predicted Future Sound Level Contours - Nighttime

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Sound Level Contours (dBA) 50 - 55 4842000 !' Receivers 4842000 55 - 60

Mile Markers 60 - 65

Rail Centreline (Other) 65 - 70 70 - 75 Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west) 75 - 80

80 - 85 Electric Traction 4841500 4841500 Facilities > 85

Buildings 4841000 4841000

!' R01 R05 13 12 !' !' R03 15 14 R04!'!' !' R02 4840500 4840500 !' 4840000 4840000 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 0 250 500 750m USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Predicted Future Sound Level Contours - Nighttime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.4.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Sound Level Contours (dBA) 50 - 55 4842000 !' Receivers 4842000 55 - 60

Mile Markers 60 - 65

Rail Centreline (Other) 65 - 70 70 - 75 Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west) 75 - 80

80 - 85 Electric Traction 4841500 4841500 Facilities > 85

Buildings 4841000 4841000

R05 !' 16 !' R03 R04!'!' !' R02 4840500 4840500 !'

R06 !'

12 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, 0 250 500 750m US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Predicted Future Sound Level Contours - Nighttime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.4.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES E.5.1 TO E.5.2: Predicted Adjusted Noise Impact Contours - Daytime

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Electric Traction Facilities 4842000 !' Receivers 4842000 Buildings Mile Markers Sound Level Contours (Δ dBA)

Rail Centreline 0 - 5 (Kitchener, west) 5 - 10

Rail Centreline (Other) > 10 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

R01

!' 12 Malton GO 13 R05 R03 Station 14 !' !' 15 !'!' !' R02 R04 4840500 4840500

!' 4840000 4840000 4839500 4839500 Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/ 0 250 500 750m NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan,

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Predicted Adjusted Noise Impact Contours - Daytime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.5.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Electric Traction Facilities 4842000 !' Receivers 4842000 Buildings Mile Markers Sound Level Contours (Δ dBA)

Rail Centreline 0 - 5 (Kitchener, west) 5 - 10

Rail Centreline (Other) > 10 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

R05R03 !' 16 !' R04!'!' !' R02 4840500 4840500

Bramalea R06 GO Station !'

12 !' 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station 4839500 4839500 Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, 0 250 500 750m NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Predicted Adjusted Noise Impact Contours - Daytime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.5.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES E.6.1 TO E.6.2: Predicted Adjusted Noise Impact Contours - Nighttime

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Electric Traction Facilities 4842000 !' Receivers 4842000 Buildings Mile Markers Sound Level Contours (Δ dBA)

Rail Centreline 0 - 5 (Kitchener, west) 5 - 10

Rail Centreline (Other) > 10 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

R54 R01 !' 12 Malton GO 13 R58R56 14 R05 15 Station !' !' R03 R57!'!' !' R55 R04R02 4840500 4840500

!' 4840000 4840000 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 0 250 500 750m USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Predicted Adjusted Noise Impact Contours - Nighttime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.6.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Electric Traction Facilities 4842000 !' Receivers 4842000 Buildings Mile Markers Sound Level Contours (Δ dBA)

Rail Centreline 0 - 5 (Kitchener, west) 5 - 10

Rail Centreline (Other) > 10 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

R58R56 R05 !' R03 16 !' R57!'!' !' R55 R04R02 4840500 4840500

Bramalea R59 GO Station !' R06!'

12 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, 0 250 500 750m US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Predicted Adjusted Noise Impact Contours - Nighttime True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.6.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURE E.7.1 to 7.2: Predicted Sound Level Contours – Electric Traction Power Facilities

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Buildings 4842000 !' Receivers Sound Level Contours (dBA) 4842000 45 - 50 Mile Markers 50 - 55 Rail Centreline (Kitchener, 55 - 60 west) 65 - 70 Rail Centreline (Other) > 70 4841500 Electric Traction Facilities 4841500 4841000 4841000

R01

!' 12 13 R05R03 14 !' !' 15 !'!' !' R02 R04 4840500 4840500

!' 4840000 4840000 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 0 250 500 750m USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Predicted Sound Level Contours - Electric Traction Facilities True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.7.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) Electric Traction Facilities 4842000 !' Receivers Buildings 4842000

Mile Markers Sound Level Contours (dBA)

45 - 50 Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west) 50 - 55

Rail Centreline (Other) 55 - 60 65 - 70 4841500 4841500 > 70 4841000 4841000

R05 R03 !' 16 !' !'!' !' R02 R04 4840500 4840500

R06 !'

12 !' 4840000 4840000

Bramalea Paralleling Station 4839500 4839500

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, 0 250 500 750m US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Predicted Sound Level Contours - Electric Traction Facilities True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: E.7.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX F: Operational Noise Measurements at Switches

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 Legend: - Straight Track

- Switch Locations of GO Train Noise Measurements (on GO Kitchener Line) Drawn by: KAMH Appendix: F1 Near Victoria St N and Frederick St Approx. Scale: N/A GO Metrolinx Project #1500999 Date Revised: April 08 2016

Appendix F2: Raw Noise Data (Sound Exposure Levels) from Train Passing over Switch

Train 1 (At Crossover) Train 1 (After Crossover) Train 2 (At Crossover) Train 2 (After Crossover) Time SEL (dB) Time SEL (dB) Time SEL (dB) Time SEL (dB) 6:45:00 PM 54.0 6:45:00 PM 54.2 7:47:45 PM 53.6 7:47:45 PM 55.7 6:45:01 PM 56.1 6:45:01 PM 53.8 7:47:46 PM 54.6 7:47:46 PM 55.4 6:45:02 PM 55.1 6:45:02 PM 54.8 7:47:47 PM 55.6 7:47:47 PM 55.4 6:45:03 PM 52.8 6:45:03 PM 56.1 7:47:48 PM 62.9 7:47:48 PM 55.2 6:45:04 PM 53.0 6:45:04 PM 54.8 7:47:49 PM 72.4 7:47:49 PM 55.4 6:45:05 PM 52.6 6:45:05 PM 55.3 7:47:50 PM 75.7 7:47:50 PM 56.8 6:45:06 PM 52.2 6:45:06 PM 54.6 7:47:51 PM 76.3 7:47:51 PM 56.9 6:45:07 PM 52.4 6:45:07 PM 55.1 7:47:52 PM 76.6 7:47:52 PM 59.4 6:45:08 PM 52.7 6:45:08 PM 55.0 7:47:53 PM 75.6 7:47:53 PM 66.0 6:45:09 PM 53.0 6:45:09 PM 55.1 7:47:54 PM 76.1 7:47:54 PM 70.1 6:45:10 PM 53.0 6:45:10 PM 55.3 7:47:55 PM 76.6 7:47:55 PM 70.7 6:45:11 PM 53.7 6:45:11 PM 55.3 7:47:56 PM 76.4 7:47:56 PM 68.9 6:45:12 PM 53.6 6:45:12 PM 55.1 7:47:57 PM 76.6 7:47:57 PM 68.8 6:45:13 PM 54.2 6:45:13 PM 54.9 7:47:58 PM 76.8 7:47:58 PM 69.6 6:45:14 PM 55.4 6:45:14 PM 55.5 7:47:59 PM 79.0 7:47:59 PM 68.5 6:45:15 PM 55.4 6:45:15 PM 55.4 7:48:00 PM 87.0 7:48:00 PM 68.5 6:45:16 PM 55.2 6:45:16 PM 54.7 7:48:01 PM 92.2 7:48:01 PM 69.4 6:45:17 PM 55.2 6:45:17 PM 54.4 7:48:02 PM 87.4 7:48:02 PM 70.2 6:45:18 PM 56.5 6:45:18 PM 54.3 7:48:03 PM 81.1 7:48:03 PM 75.7 6:45:19 PM 54.8 6:45:19 PM 54.7 7:48:04 PM 74.8 7:48:04 PM 88.2 6:45:20 PM 54.7 6:45:20 PM 55.0 7:48:05 PM 69.9 7:48:05 PM 92.2 6:45:21 PM 54.8 6:45:21 PM 54.7 7:48:06 PM 72.5 7:48:06 PM 85.9 6:45:22 PM 54.9 6:45:22 PM 54.3 7:48:07 PM 69.1 7:48:07 PM 80.0 6:45:23 PM 57.9 6:45:23 PM 55.9 7:48:08 PM 65.8 7:48:08 PM 75.4 6:45:24 PM 66.9 6:45:24 PM 55.7 7:48:09 PM 64.6 7:48:09 PM 71.3 6:45:25 PM 76.2 6:45:25 PM 55.7 7:48:10 PM 62.5 7:48:10 PM 68.4 6:45:26 PM 78.6 6:45:26 PM 56.9 7:48:11 PM 62.2 7:48:11 PM 66.5 6:45:27 PM 78.4 6:45:27 PM 56.2 7:48:12 PM 59.1 7:48:12 PM 64.2 6:45:28 PM 78.0 6:45:28 PM 58.7 7:48:13 PM 58.9 7:48:13 PM 62.4 6:45:29 PM 77.7 6:45:29 PM 59.4 7:48:14 PM 57.6 7:48:14 PM 63.9 6:45:30 PM 77.0 6:45:30 PM 64.6 7:48:15 PM 56.1 7:48:15 PM 63.7 6:45:31 PM 76.0 6:45:31 PM 70.1 7:48:16 PM 55.8 7:48:16 PM 61.6 6:45:32 PM 75.8 6:45:32 PM 78.1 7:48:17 PM 56.7 7:48:17 PM 60.9 6:45:33 PM 76.0 6:45:33 PM 78.6 7:48:18 PM 54.2 7:48:18 PM 60.0 6:45:34 PM 75.6 6:45:34 PM 74.7 7:48:19 PM 54.4 7:48:19 PM 59.4 6:45:35 PM 76.2 6:45:35 PM 77.3 7:48:20 PM 54.0 7:48:20 PM 57.8 6:45:36 PM 80.2 6:45:36 PM 73.9 6:45:37 PM 93.9 6:45:37 PM 70.2 6:45:38 PM 92.9 6:45:38 PM 70.5 6:45:39 PM 84.8 6:45:39 PM 72.9 6:45:40 PM 77.9 6:45:40 PM 70.4 6:45:41 PM 73.5 6:45:41 PM 71.1 6:45:42 PM 70.4 6:45:42 PM 78.0 6:45:43 PM 71.0 6:45:43 PM 87.9 6:45:44 PM 67.5 6:45:44 PM 93.0 6:45:45 PM 63.6 6:45:45 PM 85.9 6:45:46 PM 60.8 6:45:46 PM 78.7 6:45:47 PM 60.6 6:45:47 PM 76.8 6:45:48 PM 59.9 6:45:48 PM 76.6 6:45:49 PM 58.0 6:45:49 PM 71.9 6:45:50 PM 58.0 6:45:50 PM 67.9 6:45:51 PM 57.2 6:45:51 PM 67.0 6:45:52 PM 56.0 6:45:52 PM 63.5 6:45:53 PM 55.0 6:45:53 PM 59.6 6:45:54 PM 54.0 6:45:54 PM 59.8 6:45:55 PM 54.4 6:45:55 PM 59.6 6:45:56 PM 56.0 6:45:56 PM 60.2 6:45:57 PM 54.7 6:45:57 PM 59.9 6:45:58 PM 54.1 6:45:58 PM 59.4 6:45:59 PM 54.1 6:45:59 PM 57.9 Appendix F3: Cumulative SEL (Sound Exposure Levels) from Train Passing over Switch Train 1 Cumulative SEL (dB) * Train Over Switch 97.4 Train After Switch 95.5 Switch Only (logarithmic subtraction of Train After 92.8** Switch from Train Over Switch)

Train 2 Cumulative SEL (dB) Train Over Switch 95.3 Train After Switch 94.8 Switch Only (logarithmic subtraction of Train After 86.2 Switch from Train Over Switch) * Cumulative SEL is the total sound energy level over the entire time of passage of the train ** Train 1 value used in sensitivity analysis Appendix F4: Sample analysis of Noise Levels of Switch

Predicted SPL at Predicted SPL at Increase in SPL at Total Predicted SPL Receptor Distance to Receptor Distance to Receptor from Receptor from Train Receptor from at Receptor Closest Track Closest Switch Switch Noise Only Noise Only Switch Noise (dBA) (m) (m) (dBA) (dBA) (dB) Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night 50 58 61.9 59.6 34.9 34.0 61.9 59.6 0.0 0.012 25 33 58.3 55.4 29.1 28.3 58.3 55.4 0.0 0.008 39 44 67.9 64.0 36.8 35.5 67.9 64.0 0.0 0.006 [1] Sample analysis was based on future train volumes on the Lakeshore West line (71 Trains during the day, 26 during the night) 600 Southgate Drive Tel: +1.519.823.1311 Guelph ON Canada Fax: +1.519.823.1316 N1G 4P6 E-mail: [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 2020-11-26 RWDI Reference No.: 1500999

RE: Assessment of Potential Noise from Trains Passing over Switches and Crossovers Metrolinx – GO Rail Network Electrification Project

As part of the evaluation of noise for the Metrolinx GO Rail Network Electrification Project, a detailed assessment of the potential noise from crossovers and switches was conducted. Crossovers and switches include points where tracks converge and overlap; hence, they inherently include gaps in the tracks that can generate sound when a wheel crosses the gap. Sound level measurements were taken on two occasions by RWDI at two different locations along the Rail Corridor Network. These measurements were used as inputs in a Cadna/A model using the FTA algorithms to determine the potential effect at receptors. The measurements and modelling determined that sound from trains passing over crossovers and switches was an insignificant contributor of noise at receptors.

January 2016 Measurements – Lakeshore West Corridor

Sound level measurements were conducted on the Lakeshore West Corridor by RWDI personnel in January 2016. Measurements were taken in close proximity to the track at three locations: two locations immediately adjacent to crossovers and one location approximately 60 m from any crossovers. These measurements indicated that the sound exposure level (SEL) from a train passing over a crossover was not higher than a train travelling on trackwork without a crossover.

February 2016 Measurements – Kitchener Corridor

Following the measurements in January 2016, additional measurements were conducted to confirm the results. Measurements were conducted in February 2016 of a train passing over a switch on the Kitchener Corridor. Sound level meters were set up, approximately 100 m apart, to separately capture train travel over the switch and train travel away from a switch. Details of these are included as Attachments F1 and F2.

In reviewing the time history graph of these measurements (shown in Figure 1), it can be seen that the switch does increase the sound of rail cars as the pass over the switch. However, the sound level of the locomotive is higher than that of the cars, and passing over the switch therefore has no impact on its sound level. As the locomotive dominates the train sound level, the small increase in sound from the switch has little impact on the sound level of the train consist.

This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document format available upon request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America. rwdi.com

(a) Train pass-by on trackwork without switch

(b) Train pass-by on trackwork with switch Figure 1: Train Sound Level Measurements With and Without Switch

Sound Level Modelling in Cadna/A

Although the measurements did not indicate that sound from switches or crossovers was significant, the February 2016 measurements were used to determine a sound power level for the switch to complete detailed modelling as an additional confirmation. During the Febrary 2016 measurements, there was a small increase in the sound exposure level (SEL) sound level noted. The largest increase between the switch and away from switch SELs was used to generate a sound power level for the switch. Details of this calculation are included in Attachment F3. The switch noise was modelled as a point source in Cadna/A with a duration of one minute for each train passby. The predicted increase with the switch was predicted to be 0.01 dB or less. Details are included in Attachment F4. Therefore, noise from trains passing over switches and crossovers was deemed insignificant for this study.

Page 2

GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX G: Mitigation Modelling Results

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 TABLE G.1: CEC Resoning For Non-constructible Barriers Barrier Figure Reasoning Cannot obstruct access on east end of barrier. Mit_BARR_01 G.1.5 Shortertening barrier results in non-technicaly feasible barrier. GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES G.1.1 TO G.1.2 : Mitigation Barriers Investigated

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 0250500750m

292400 292600 292800 293000 293200 293400 293600 293800

Legend

4841000 GO Stations (Existing) 4841000 !' Receivers Mile Markers

Existing Barriers (not on ROW)

Existing Barriers (on ROW)

Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west)

Rail Centreline (Other)

4840800 Mitigation Barriers 4840800 (Unfeasible) R01 Mitigation Barriers !' (Feasible)

Electric Traction Facilities

Buildings

R05 !' R03

4840600 !' M it_B A R R _0 1 4840600 M it_B A R R _0 3 M it_B A R R _0 6 M it_B A R R _0 5 M it_B A R R _0 2 Malton GO M it_B A R R _0 4 M it_B A R R _0 7 Station R04 !' !' R02 4840400 4840400

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

0 100 200 300m 4840200 4840200

292400 292600 292800 293000 293200 293400 293600 293800

Representative Receptor and Mitigation Barrier Locations True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: G.1.1 Kitchener0250500750m [ Approx. Scale: 1:4,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 18, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999

GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

Appendix H: Operational Vibration Modelling Results

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 Table H.1: Operational Vibration Results Speed Limit Over Track Area of Influence Setback Receptors in Area of New Infrastructure Mitigation Location (km/h) (m) Influence? Assessed Required? GO & VIA Freight GO & VIA Freight GO & VIA Freight Switch Mile 21.78 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 21.79 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 21.88 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 21.89 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 26.11 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 26.14 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 26.21 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 26.25 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 26.53 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 27.45 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 27.53 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 27.57 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 27.63 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 27.75 129 40 82 85 No No No Switch Mile 27.77 129 40 82 85 No No No New Track 700 m 700 m East of Highway 407 to Highway 407 East of Highway 129 40 19 23 No No No 407 to Highway 407 Table H.2.1: Summary of FTA Vibration Sample Calculations Speed Distance to Closest Predicted Vibration % Above Mitigation Infrastructure Over Track [2] Objective Objective Train Type Assessed Receptor Switch? Level Required? Assessed Track Existing Future Existing Future (mm/s) (%) [3] (km/h) (m) (m) (mm/s) (mm/s) Go Train Residences on York 129 None 0.056 0.062 0.140 N/A No New trackwork 48 44 Freight Train Street 40 None 0.054 0.060 0.140 N/A No New Switches **This was not assessed as there are no new switches within 1 km of sensitive receptors U.S. DoT Federal Transit Administration - "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" "FTA Vibration Screening Model"

Table H.2.2: FTA Vibration Sample Calculations Existing Track with Freight Train

1a. Define Train Resulting Train Type F (F) reight, (L)RT/Rapid Transit, (B)us Adjustments Train Speed 40 km/h -6.1 Stiff Suspension? n Vertical resonance frequency greater than 15 Hz (y/n, usually n) 0 Resilient Wheels? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0 Worn wheels? n Worn wheels or wheels with flats (y/n, usually no for new or well maintained system) 0 1b. Define Track Type Rail Type CWR Jointed Track (J) or Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) 0 Worn or Corrugated track? n Worn track (y/n, usually n for new or well maintained system) 0 Special Trackwork? n Crossovers, diamonds, frogs, etc. (y/n) 0

Mitigation Features Floating slab trackwork? n Concrete floating slab on spring isolators (y/n) 0 High Resilience Fasterners? n Used with concrete track slabs (y/n) 0 0 Resiliently Supported Ties? n Concrete ties on rubber blocks, with resilient fasteners (y/n) 0 Ballast mats? n Rubber mat placed over concrete, under the ballast (y/n) 0

TTC Streetcar System Only (Based on RWDI Measurements W07-5120C) New Track Tech. Max vibration n For maximum vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) Mutually exclusive choices 0 New Track Tech., Avg Vibration n For average vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) May also both be "n" 0

Other Path Features Elevated Structure? n On berm or bridge (y/n) 0 In open cut? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0

Subway Systems Only Relative to bored tunnel: Station n 0 Cut and Cover n 0 Rock-Based n 0

Base Vibration Level at 3 m 94.5 VdB, FTA base curve levels at 3 m from track Total Train and Track Type -6.1 VdB Adjustments Adjusted Vibration Level at 3 m 88.4 VdB, including train type and track type adjustements above.

2. Define Path Efficient propagation in soil n Accounts for clay soils or other mediums with efficient propagation (y/n) Mutually exclusive choices 0 Propagation in rock layer n Accounts for lower attenuation with distance in rock versus soil (y/n) May also both be "n" 0.0 Total Path Type Adjustments 0.0 VdB

3a. Vibration Level at Given Receptor Source-Receiver distance 48 m, from track to receptor (DISTANCE should be less than 100 m) -21.8 Total distance and -21.8 VdB path adjustments Vibration Level at distance 66.6 VdB 0.054 mm/s r.m.s.

Notes: The above value can be used in general for rail vibration assessment, and represents the "free field" value of vibration at the foundation. Vibration levels within the structure will depend on ground coupling to the building foundation, and effects within the structure (resonances, etc.). For typical residential houses (woodframe buildings), these generally cancel out. (-5 VdB for coupling, -2 dB for 2nd storey, +6 dB for resonances = -1 VdB for typical bedroom) For commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals, etc., these effects can be significant. U.S. DoT Federal Transit Administration - "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" "FTA Vibration Screening Model"

Table H.2.3: FTA Vibration Sample Calculations Future Track with Freight Train

1a. Define Train Resulting Train Type F (F) reight, (L)RT/Rapid Transit, (B)us Adjustments Train Speed 40 km/h -6.1 Stiff Suspension? n Vertical resonance frequency greater than 15 Hz (y/n, usually n) 0 Resilient Wheels? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0 Worn wheels? n Worn wheels or wheels with flats (y/n, usually no for new or well maintained system) 0 1b. Define Track Type Rail Type CWR Jointed Track (J) or Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) 0 Worn or Corrugated track? n Worn track (y/n, usually n for new or well maintained system) 0 Special Trackwork? n Crossovers, diamonds, frogs, etc. (y/n) 0

Mitigation Features Floating slab trackwork? n Concrete floating slab on spring isolators (y/n) 0 High Resilience Fasterners? n Used with concrete track slabs (y/n) 0 0 Resiliently Supported Ties? n Concrete ties on rubber blocks, with resilient fasteners (y/n) 0 Ballast mats? n Rubber mat placed over concrete, under the ballast (y/n) 0

TTC Streetcar System Only (Based on RWDI Measurements W07-5120C) New Track Tech. Max vibration n For maximum vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) Mutually exclusive choices 0 New Track Tech., Avg Vibration n For average vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) May also both be "n" 0

Other Path Features Elevated Structure? n On berm or bridge (y/n) 0 In open cut? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0

Subway Systems Only Relative to bored tunnel: Station n 0 Cut and Cover n 0 Rock-Based n 0

Base Vibration Level at 3 m 94.5 VdB, FTA base curve levels at 3 m from track Total Train and Track Type -6.1 VdB Adjustments Adjusted Vibration Level at 3 m 88.4 VdB, including train type and track type adjustements above.

2. Define Path Efficient propagation in soil n Accounts for clay soils or other mediums with efficient propagation (y/n) Mutually exclusive choices 0 Propagation in rock layer n Accounts for lower attenuation with distance in rock versus soil (y/n) May also both be "n" 0.0 Total Path Type Adjustments 0.0 VdB

3a. Vibration Level at Given Receptor Source-Receiver distance 44 m, from track to receptor (DISTANCE should be less than 100 m) -20.9 Total distance and -20.9 VdB path adjustments Vibration Level at distance 67.5 VdB 0.060 mm/s r.m.s.

Notes: The above value can be used in general for rail vibration assessment, and represents the "free field" value of vibration at the foundation. Vibration levels within the structure will depend on ground coupling to the building foundation, and effects within the structure (resonances, etc.). For typical residential houses (woodframe buildings), these generally cancel out. (-5 VdB for coupling, -2 dB for 2nd storey, +6 dB for resonances = -1 VdB for typical bedroom) For commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals, etc., these effects can be significant. U.S. DoT Federal Transit Administration - "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" "FTA Vibration Screening Model"

Table H.2.4: FTA Vibration Sample Calculations Existing Track with GO Train

1a. Define Train Resulting Train Type L (F) reight, (L)RT/Rapid Transit, (B)us Adjustments Train Speed 129 km/h 4.1 Stiff Suspension? n Vertical resonance frequency greater than 15 Hz (y/n, usually n) 0 Resilient Wheels? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0 Worn wheels? n Worn wheels or wheels with flats (y/n, usually no for new or well maintained system) 0 1b. Define Track Type Rail Type CWR Jointed Track (J) or Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) 0 Worn or Corrugated track? n Worn track (y/n, usually n for new or well maintained system) 0 Special Trackwork? n Crossovers, diamonds, frogs, etc. (y/n) 0

Mitigation Features Floating slab trackwork? n Concrete floating slab on spring isolators (y/n) 0 High Resilience Fasterners? n Used with concrete track slabs (y/n) 0 0 Resiliently Supported Ties? n Concrete ties on rubber blocks, with resilient fasteners (y/n) 0 Ballast mats? n Rubber mat placed over concrete, under the ballast (y/n) 0

TTC Streetcar System Only (Based on RWDI Measurements W07-5120C) New Track Tech. Max vibration n For maximum vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) Mutually exclusive choices 0 New Track Tech., Avg Vibration n For average vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) May also both be "n" 0

Other Path Features Elevated Structure? n On berm or bridge (y/n) 0 In open cut? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0

Subway Systems Only Relative to bored tunnel: Station n 0 Cut and Cover n 0 Rock-Based n 0

Base Vibration Level at 3 m 81.5 VdB, FTA base curve levels at 3 m from track Total Train and Track Type 4.1 VdB Adjustments Adjusted Vibration Level at 3 m 85.6 VdB, including train type and track type adjustements above.

2. Define Path Efficient propagation in soil n Accounts for clay soils or other mediums with efficient propagation (y/n) Mutually exclusive choices 0 Propagation in rock layer n Accounts for lower attenuation with distance in rock versus soil (y/n) May also both be "n" 0.0 Total Path Type Adjustments 0.0 VdB

3a. Vibration Level at Given Receptor Source-Receiver distance 48 m, from track to receptor (DISTANCE should be less than 100 m) -18.7 Total distance and -18.7 VdB path adjustments Vibration Level at distance 66.9 VdB 0.056 mm/s r.m.s.

Notes: The above value can be used in general for rail vibration assessment, and represents the "free field" value of vibration at the foundation. Vibration levels within the structure will depend on ground coupling to the building foundation, and effects within the structure (resonances, etc.). For typical residential houses (woodframe buildings), these generally cancel out. (-5 VdB for coupling, -2 dB for 2nd storey, +6 dB for resonances = -1 VdB for typical bedroom) For commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals, etc., these effects can be significant. U.S. DoT Federal Transit Administration - "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" "FTA Vibration Screening Model"

Table H.2.5: FTA Vibration Sample Calculations Future Track with GO Train

1a. Define Train Resulting Train Type L (F) reight, (L)RT/Rapid Transit, (B)us Adjustments Train Speed 129 km/h 4.1 Stiff Suspension? n Vertical resonance frequency greater than 15 Hz (y/n, usually n) 0 Resilient Wheels? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0 Worn wheels? n Worn wheels or wheels with flats (y/n, usually no for new or well maintained system) 0 1b. Define Track Type Rail Type CWR Jointed Track (J) or Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) 0 Worn or Corrugated track? n Worn track (y/n, usually n for new or well maintained system) 0 Special Trackwork? n Crossovers, diamonds, frogs, etc. (y/n) 0

Mitigation Features Floating slab trackwork? n Concrete floating slab on spring isolators (y/n) 0 High Resilience Fasterners? n Used with concrete track slabs (y/n) 0 0 Resiliently Supported Ties? n Concrete ties on rubber blocks, with resilient fasteners (y/n) 0 Ballast mats? n Rubber mat placed over concrete, under the ballast (y/n) 0

TTC Streetcar System Only (Based on RWDI Measurements W07-5120C) New Track Tech. Max vibration n For maximum vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) Mutually exclusive choices 0 New Track Tech., Avg Vibration n For average vibration from TTC new track tech (apply no other mit feature) May also both be "n" 0

Other Path Features Elevated Structure? n On berm or bridge (y/n) 0 In open cut? n No effect on vibration, included to match standard (y/n) 0

Subway Systems Only Relative to bored tunnel: Station n 0 Cut and Cover n 0 Rock-Based n 0

Base Vibration Level at 3 m 81.5 VdB, FTA base curve levels at 3 m from track Total Train and Track Type 4.1 VdB Adjustments Adjusted Vibration Level at 3 m 85.6 VdB, including train type and track type adjustements above.

2. Define Path Efficient propagation in soil n Accounts for clay soils or other mediums with efficient propagation (y/n) Mutually exclusive choices 0 Propagation in rock layer n Accounts for lower attenuation with distance in rock versus soil (y/n) May also both be "n" 0.0 Total Path Type Adjustments 0.0 VdB

3a. Vibration Level at Given Receptor Source-Receiver distance 44 m, from track to receptor (DISTANCE should be less than 100 m) -17.9 Total distance and -17.9 VdB path adjustments Vibration Level at distance 67.7 VdB 0.062 mm/s r.m.s.

Notes: The above value can be used in general for rail vibration assessment, and represents the "free field" value of vibration at the foundation. Vibration levels within the structure will depend on ground coupling to the building foundation, and effects within the structure (resonances, etc.). For typical residential houses (woodframe buildings), these generally cancel out. (-5 VdB for coupling, -2 dB for 2nd storey, +6 dB for resonances = -1 VdB for typical bedroom) For commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals, etc., these effects can be significant. GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

FIGURES H.1.1 to H.1.2: Areas of Influence and New Infrastructure Requiring Mitigation

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) New Tracks No Mitigation Required 4842000 Mile Markers 4842000 Mitigation Required New Switches New Track Setbacks No Mitigation Required (Freight Trains) Mitigation Required Rail Centreline (Other) New Switch Setbacks (Freight Trains) Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west) 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

12

13 14 15 4840500 4840500 !' 4840000 4840000

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Toronto, Province of 4839500 Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, 4839500 USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks

0 250 500 750m

293000 293500 294000 294500 295000 295500 296000 296500 297000 297500 298000

Vibration Assessment: Areas of Influence and New Infrastructure Requiring Mitigation True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: H.1.1 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Legend

GO Stations (Existing) New Tracks No Mitigation Required 4842000 Mile Markers 4842000 Mitigation Required New Switches New Track Setbacks No Mitigation Required (Freight Trains) Mitigation Required Rail Centreline (Other) New Switch Setbacks (Freight Trains) Rail Centreline (Kitchener, west) 4841500 4841500 4841000 4841000

16 4840500 4840500 !'

12 4840000 4840000

Service Layer Credits: Road Label Service Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, 4839500 HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, 4839500 US Census Bureau, USDA, NRCan, Parks Canada

0 250 500 750m

288000 288500 289000 289500 290000 290500 291000 291500 292000 292500 293000

Vibration Assessment: Areas of Influence and New Infrastructure Requiring Mitigation True North Drawn by: DJHFigure: H.1.2 Kitchener [ Approx. Scale: 1:14,000

Map Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS MTM 10 Date Revised: Nov 19, 2020

M a pMetrolinx D o c u m e n t: C :\G IS T- e mKitchener p - C o p y \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 \K itc h e n e r_v 2 \1 5 0 0 9 9 9 _N o is e _K itc h e n e r_v 2 .a p rx Project #: 1500999 GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Draft Noise and Vibration Study – KT Corridor

APPENDIX I: Construction Modelling Inputs

Revision DC 03-Dec-2020 Table I.1: Equipment Sound Power and Vibration Levels for Anticipated Construction Activities

Duty Cycle (Operating Name of Unit Sound Power Level [1] per Time, mins) PPV at 7.62 m Anticipated Construction Activities Quantity unit (mm/sec)[2] Per 15 (dBA) Per 15 hrs mins Excavator (330C 247hp) 1 - 116.5 - Large Bulldozer 1 - 116.5 2.3 Preparation and Creation of TPS Facilities CAT 16H Grader 1 - 116.5 - Crane 1 - 113.0 - Haul Truck 1 - 115.5 1.9 Rock Drill / Hoe Ram 1 - 116.5 2.3 Haul and Cement Truck 2 - 115.5 1.9 Installation of OSC Support Foundation Structures Excavator (330C 247hp) 1 - 116.5 - Crane 1 - 113.0 - Wiring Train 1 - 96.0 [3] - OSC Wiring Haul Truck 2 - 115.5 1.9 Compressor (250cfm) and drill 2 - 116.5 - Installation of Bridge Safety Barriers Crane 2 - 113.0 - excavator with crushing jaws 2 7.5 240 116.5 - Bulldozer 2 15 240 116.5 2.3 Haul trucks for removal material 15 /day 15 240 115.5 1.9 Grader 1 15 240 116.5 - Demolition Backhoe 1 15 240 111.5 - Generator (25 kW) 2 15 240 101.5 - Saw Cut for steel buildongs 2 10 240 121.5 - Jackhammer 2 6 240 116.5 0.9 excavator (CAT 336) 2 15 240 116.5 - Bulldozer 2 15 240 116.5 2.3 Haul trucks for removal material 15 /day 15 240 115.5 1.9 Grader 1 15 240 116.5 - Backhoe 1 15 240 111.5 - Excavation Caisson drills 2 15 240 116.5 2.3 Generator (25 kW) 2 15 240 101.5 - Compactor 1 7.5 240 111.5 - Concrete pump 1 15 240 113.5 - Concrete Mixer 1 15 240 116.5 - Vacuum excavator 1 15 240 116.5 - Construction of Layover Site excavator (CAT 336) 1 15 240 116.5 - Backhoe 1 15 240 111.5 - Haul trucks for removal material 2 15 240 115.5 1.9 Mobile Crane 2 7.5 240 116.5 - Ballast Tamper 1 15 240 116.5 - Ballast Equalizer 1 15 240 113.5 - Generator (25 kW) 2 15 240 101.5 - Track and Building Construction Loader (for ballast) 1 10 240 111.5 - Haul Trucks for Ballast 15 /day 15 240 115.5 1.9 Compactor 1 7.5 240 111.5 - Tie Inserter 1 15 240 116.5 - Pneumatic tools 4 6 240 116.5 - Pavers 1 15 240 116.5 - Truck (Haul) 15 /day 15 240 115.5 1.9 Roller 2 15 240 116.5 5.3 Truck (Haul) 2 /day 15 240 115.5 1.9 Roller 2 15 240 116.5 - Finish Work and Landscaping Pneumatic tools 2 6 240 116.5 - Generator (25 kW) 2 15 240 101.5 -

Notes: [1] Data are based on similar measured equipment, except where noted. [2] Vibration levels based on FTA. Only the most impactful sources included. [3] Sound power level calculated based on FTA.