CN’s Milton Intermodal Terminal: The Wrong Yard in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS CN’s Milton Intermodal Terminal: The Wrong Yard in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT MANY RAIL/TRUCK INTERMODAL TERMINALS, SUCH AS THE ONE CN’S PROPOSING FOR MILTON, MAY START SMALL, BUT THEY INEVITABLY GET MUCH LARGER. Please read the June 11, 2018 press release first: here

Rail-based intermodal freight is a modern, innovative and environmentally superior form of transportation – but not when it is used as a means to build a company’s real estate profits at the expense of a community, its residents and their visionary official plan.

CN’s proposed Milton terminal fits this category to a T, despite what the railway says publicly. While the community has been promised that this truck-to-rail terminal will only serve four Halifax-Chicago freight trains, this is just a foot in the door. Unstated is the fact that CN’s Brampton Intermodal Terminal is a poorly designed and poorly located holdover from the 1970s that no longer fully meets its operating needs. On the other hand, it would yield a real estate bonanza if it could be replaced by a more efficient terminal elsewhere – such as Milton. A question that must be asked is why CN has acquired 405 hectares for its Milton terminal when it says it only requires 162. That massive cushion of extra land could easily swallow all of the current Brampton intermodal operation, which sits on 81 hectares of valuable real estate that has rising redevelopment potential.

As well as violating the land use planning objectives of the Town of Milton and Halton Region, an intermodal terminal on the site CN has assembled will ultimately fail to even meet its own objectives, if it intends to be an efficient and shipper-responsive rail service provider.

From a railway operating perspective, the Milton site works reasonably well. The extra-long intermodal trains of today would smoothly enter and depart this yard, which is not the case at the current CN Brampton terminal. It is a cramped, stub-ended yard that cannot provide for easy train access or container loading and unloading. And it can’t be expanded.

But CN’s Milton site is badly flawed for another and more serious reason.

Ideally, new intermodal terminals must be built beyond the road congestion generated by the large urban regions they serve, allowing the trucks carrying the containers to move in and back out of the core as easily as possible. Putting a new terminal this close to the worst of the region’s congestion on a frequently-gridlocked highway corridor is doomed to failure.

CN is avoiding the fact that it actually requires two intermodal terminals, one on either side of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. One should be built just east of Oshawa – which it has investigated – adjacent to the 401, close to the 407 and alongside CP’s Toronto-Montreal main line, where it could be shared advantageously by the two railways.

CN’s western terminal should be built farther west on its main line, close to the junction of the 401 and 403 near Woodstock, on land zoned for industrial use. This has been recommended in a soon-to-be-released report on improved rail service in Southwestern Ontario.

Also weighing against the proposed CN Milton terminal is its impact on local road congestion and costs. While it would be close to the 401 and 407, it will generate heavy truck traffic that will inflict substantial damage on the local roads leading to those main highways. The cost will come out of the citizens’ taxes.

Furthermore, emissions and noise from these terminals have become major issues in many other locations. An intermodal terminal project in Los Angeles was rejected recently under the strict requirements the state and local public agencies are now applying to these operations. CN’s plan falls far short of meeting these California environmental standards or those of various other public agencies across North America.

In short, CN has either not done its homework or is not telling Milton residents the real impacts of its proposed terminal and the alternatives available. A full and transparent environmental assessment that addresses all these issues is an absolute necessity before it proceeds.

Greg Gormick is a nationally-known rail consultant and government policy advisor on transportation issues. In 1989-1991, he was CN’s assistant manager of intermodal research. From 1998 to 2001, he advised CN on strategic communications, including its first attempt to build the Milton Intermodal Terminal.

HHS Public Access Author manuscript

Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Environ Author Manuscript Health. Author Author Manuscript manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Published in final edited form as: J Environ Health. 2014 September ; 77(2): 8–17.

Experiences of a Rail Yard Community: Life Is Hard

Rhonda Spencer-Hwang, MPH, DrPH, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University

Susanne Montgomery, PhD, School of Behavioral Health, Loma Linda University

Molly Dougherty, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University

Johanny Valladares, MBA, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University

Sany Rangel, MA, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University

Peter Gleason, PhD, and School of Public Health, Loma Linda University

Sam Soret, MPH, PhD School of Public Health, Loma Linda University

Abstract Community groups and local air pollution control agencies have identified the San Bernardino Railyard (SBR) as a significant public health and environmental justice issue. In response, the authors conducted a comprehensive study with community members living in close proximity to the rail yard. The purpose of this article is to share the community's perceptions about the rail yard and ideas on sustainable change. A qualitative study using key informant interviews and focus group discussions was conducted and resulted in four emerging themes. Themes emerged as follows: “health as an unattainable value,” “air quality challenges,” “rail yard pros and cons,” and “violence and unemployment ripple effect.” Community participants expressed concern for poor air quality, but other challenges took priority. The authors' findings suggest that future mitigation work to reduce air pollution exposure should not only focus on reducing risk from air pollution but address significant cooccurring community challenges. A “Health in All Policies” approach is warranted in addressing impacted communities in close proximity to the goods movement industry.

Introduction The transportation of goods can both promote and adversely impact health. Goods movement activities can promote health, for example, by enabling access to employment

Corresponding Author: Rhonda Spencer-Hwang, Assistant Professor, Loma Linda University School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health and Geoinformatics Sciences, Nichol Hall, Room 1201, Loma Linda, CA 92354. [email protected]. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 2

and better services. Transportation of goods, however, can also degrade quality of life and Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript be health damaging because of various environmental and societal impacts such as air pollution, climate change, injuries, noise, landscape disruption, loss of sense of community, stress, and anxiety (Mindell, Watkins, & Cohen, 2011). Environmental health scientists are beginning to elucidate the linkages between the air pollution from international trade and goods movement and health (Hricko, 2006, 2008).

Mounting research indicates that persons living near transportation hubs and corridors are exposed to higher levels of airborne pollutants, including diesel exhaust and other emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has determined that diesel exhaust is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation (National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, 2009).” Health impacts from the air pollution associated with goods movement include respiratory illnesses, increased premature death, risk of heart disease, cancer risk, adverse birth outcomes, effects on the immune system, multiple respiratory effects, and neurotoxicity (Attfield et al., 2012; Brauer et al., 2007; California Air Resources Board [CARB], 2005; Chen, Schreier, Strunk, & Brauer, 2008; Edwards, Walters, & Griffiths, 1994; Hoffmann et al., 2009; Jerrett et al., 2005; Mack, 2004; Salam, Islam, & Gilliland, 2008; Silverman et al., 2012). Furthermore, the strengths of associations described for traffic-related exposures are directly related to the proximity to major roadways (Margolis et al., 2009; Newcomb & Li, 2008). Children are especially vulnerable and those living near freeways have shown to have substantial deficits in lung function and development as well as asthma exacerbations (Gauderman et al., 2007; Gruzieva et al., 2013; Perez et al., 2009; Schultz et al., 2012; Spira-Cohen, Chen, Kendall, Lall, & Thurston, 2011); others have linked traffic exposure to increased risk of low birth weight and premature birth (Brauer et al., 2008).

Growing emissions from trucks and trains in regions that contain major segments of the goods movement network can add to existing air quality problems and impact specific local communities. In the city of San Bernardino, California, one such community is located in close proximity to a major freight rail yard. We identified this as the San Bernardino Railyard (SBR). The SBR is one of the busiest facilities of its kind in California and a major inland hub for goods shipped from the ports of Los Angeles (Figure 1). The city of San Bernardino and the railroads have been interlinked throughout the nearly 200-year history of the city, with railroad operations changing to predominately freight-based operations since the 1990s. With operations running 24/7, the SBR is a crucial hub for freight and shipping for the entire U.S. Given the nature and intensity of the work performed at the SBR, it is not unrealistic to think air pollution levels in the immediately surrounding areas would be higher relative to other locations within the city. The potential health impacts could also be significant since the facility is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and other sensitive receptors such as daycare facilities and an elementary school located within 500 yards of the rail yard.

Based on the risk assessments conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the SBR facility ranks among the top five most polluting rail yards in California and first in terms of community health risk due to the large population living in the immediate vicinity (CARB, 2008). Table 1 summarizes the key sociodemographic indicators of the community

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 3

members residing within one half-mile of the surrounding rail yard, obtained through Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Census 2010 data and modeled with GIS software. The population immediately around the SBR is defined primarily by young (including a large proportion of children), low income, and largely Latino members. Available health outcomes data suggest tremendous health disparities between the region's African-Americans and Latinos and the Caucasian population. While the overall county's poverty rate is 15.8%, the rate for Latinos stands at 34.9%, which far exceeds the overall poverty rate for the state (14.2%), the nation (12.4%), and even California's Latino poverty rate of 28% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Further limiting available support for community members was the 2012 bankruptcy of the city of San Bernardino, which made this one of the area's poorest municipalities, with a disproportionate number of neighborhoods facing a host of economic, educational, health, and environmental challenges.

Fueled by the CARB report on the potential health effects for residents, some community members voiced an urgent call to action to the city's mayor, politicians, and local researchers to address these environmental justice issues. In response, researchers, in collaboration with residents and a local community-based organization, formed the Environmental Railyard Research Impacting Community Health (ENRRICH) Project. Using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) agenda, ENRRICH aimed to explore the health risks of residents living in close proximity to the rail yard and to support the development of a community response plan. While the overall study goals involve quantitative community and child assessments, the initial research phase used qualitative methods to better understand the context of risk experienced by the residents. As a CBPR study, ENRRICH emphasizes the significant role of community input, ownership, and concerted actions in risk reduction to produce appropriate, innovative, and practical solutions that are cost-effective and sustainable (Israel, Eng, Schulz, Parker, & Satcher, 2005). We therefore conducted a qualitative study to gain community member's perspectives about life near the rail yard.

Methods We conducted this qualitative inquiry using inductive grounded theory (GT) methods that included participant and site observations that were carefully documented. A GT approach was selected because this method gives participants a “voice,” allowing them to share their reality and in fact creating a “theory of their lives,” grounded in their self-described reality. Rather than following up on our own “expert” thoughts, this approach best enabled discovery of the participants' main concerns and how they try to solve the challenges, without any prior preconceived hypothesis influencing the results. Founded on GT methods, we collected resident feedback about their perceptions on life near the rail yard through the conduct of semistructured key informant interviews (N = 12) that were coded and themed. The results were then used to design the validation focus groups (N = 5 with 8–13 participants each). The focus groups were conducted by trained bilingual facilitators and lasted 60–90 minutes. Participants were selected using theoretical sampling to assure triangulation to present a broad variety of perspectives (politicians, community organizers, business owners, and community members representing the local community makeup and in ethnicity breakdowns). More specifically we asked residents about their lives, exploring their perceived quality of life and health challenges, including their perceptions of the

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 4

potential effects of air pollution on themselves and their children, and their thoughts on the Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript nearby rail yard. Four of the focus groups (two in Spanish with monolingual Latino residents, one each in English with Latino and African-American residents) were conducted at a community center near the SBR, while one (conducted in English) was convened at a nearby homeless shelter. Each participant signed informed consent forms that were approved by the Loma Linda University's institutional review board. All interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Once transcribed, the text was coded for emergent codes and a final codebook was developed. Transcripts were read and coded independently by several research assistants, using the coding in conjunction with a constant comparison method; emergent themes were then determined.

Results A total of 65 adults participated in the key informant interviews and focus groups. Participants included male and female community members ranging in age from 18 to 60+. Four major themes emerged and are described below: 1) violence and unemployment ripple effect, 2) air quality challenges, 3) rail yard pros and cons, and 4) health as an unattainable value. Further analysis of themes led to the integration of all four into one core concept: Experiences of the rail yard community: Life is hard. Table 2 includes a sample of quotes from the community members surrounding each of the identified themes.

Violence and Unemployment: the Ripple Effect Even though we discussed other community issues and challenges in the context of air pollution and concerns regarding the rail yard it is noteworthy that the high levels of violence, homelessness, and unemployment experienced by many members in this community emerged as a primary issue. At numerous points during the group discussions, the conversation turned to these topics as they clearly affected almost everyone in the community. Drug use and distribution, gang violence, and robberies were cited as daily occurrences, and the safety of family and friends was a top priority. Associated with high unemployment and prominent in the conversations were reports of increasing numbers of individuals and entire families that were homeless. Together these reports paint a picture of a struggling community plagued with violence and poverty, conditions that some participants felt would not improve. Indeed, this affected the way many residents felt about their exposure to polluted air; while they recognized it as negative, they clearly placed it further down their list of priorities compared to daily survival.

Adding to concerns about these pressing community problems was the fear that their children would become just another violence statistic. Participants said that families are increasingly headed by a single parent who must provide for the entire family, and as a result the children and youth often do not have the necessary supervision required. Many saw this as a contributing factor to an increase in youth-related crime and gang violence. Interviewees expressed a concern about the lack of alternatives and programs for young people in the community. The local community center was identified as the one remaining safe and fun place to take their kids; the lone asset. Overall, safety for themselves and their

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 5

families was found to be a top priority for participants, with many expressing desperation Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript and a general lack of control over improving the level of community violence.

Community infrastructure was cited as a contributing factor in the level of violence. Since the economic downturn, the few remaining community businesses in the area included liquor and convenience stores, auto shops, bail bondsmen, payday loan stores, and nightclubs, most of which were not viewed as supportive of a healthy lifestyle or environment by the community members. Participants also reported serious problems in the city's infrastructure, such as the lack of sidewalks, faulty or nonexistent street lights, increasing numbers of abandoned houses, empty lots with overgrown weeds, poorly maintained parks and community centers, and businesses that increasingly relocated out of the city, all of which negatively impacted their already struggling community.

As mentioned earlier we had conducted ethnographies and observed community life as part of our qualitative inquiry. When comparing the neighborhoods surrounding the rail yard with other nearby communities, a tangible difference existed in the environment. The area is eerily gray and dusty and feels abandoned despite its high population density. This, in combination with the ever-present clanging noises of the rail yard, creates a feeling of an industrial desert in which residents are somewhat hidden, quickly entering and exiting their homes that provide them some respite from the dust, heat, and noise. Many community members considered moving away from the area because of this, but the low cost of living compared to surrounding communities keeps them there. Residents felt torn between keeping their families in an area that exposes them to many health and safety hazards they can afford living in versus moving to a healthier but more costly area beyond their financial means.

Air Quality Challenges A second emergent theme, air quality, was woven into the experiences of people living in the area already known for its poor air quality. The majority of participants reported that their adult families or friends often experience poor health and disease, but few saw a potential link between the air pollution and poor health. For children, respiratory illnesses such as asthma, allergies, and chronic cough were reported as common ongoing health problems, with many acknowledging that the surrounding environment likely affects their child's condition. Some community participants pointed out children's particular vulnerability, voicing growing concerns that poor air quality may be affecting their children's health. Even so, during the discussion about air quality, the conversation often returned to the issue of violence and safety as more urgent. Many interviewees acknowledged the air quality was not the best but felt that poor air quality was the least of their worries. They seemed resigned to their lack of control on the air quality issue, and that they are simply trying to “get by” and coexist with the problem.

Rail Yard Pros and Cons A third emergent theme, rail yard pros and cons, was centered on interviewees' shared perceptions about life near a major rail yard. For them, the rail yard was seen as both an asset and a barrier to their ability to live a better life. Participants felt that the rail yard had a

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 6

positive reputation and was highly valued for the jobs and economic growth it provides. It Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript was also perceived, however, as a major contributor to both the surrounding poor air quality as well as the noise pollution. Several participants believed that living in such close proximity to the rail yard had caused ailments in family, friends, and neighbors, as well as themselves. Despite the fact that none of our respondents reported working, having worked, or having a relative or a friend work for the rail yard, however, none of the community members participating in our study wanted the rail yard to close or relocate. Their own experience with unemployment made them value the potential for jobs for others even if they themselves couldn't benefit. Many expressed a strong desire for the rail yard to “step up,” be a good neighbor and make reasonable changes to help protect the surrounding community from the noise and air pollution it generates. Attendees felt that the rail yard did not listen to suggestions (e.g., alternate routes, more updated equipment) from residents about ways to reduce the impact their facility has on the surrounding community. Some participants felt that they have sacrificed for the benefit of the rail yard and were concerned about the health impact of life near such a busy rail yard, especially for their children.

More noted than air pollution, a recurring comment from community members was the unrelenting noise emanating from the rail yard, where operations are conducted 24/7. Community members voiced annoyance with the noise, specifically citing the noise of trains and associated semitrailer trucks, whistles sounding in the night, and boxcars crashing up against one another. Community members reported that the noise affected their sleep, causing side effects such as tiredness and lack of concentration at school for the kids and on the job for themselves. Many also noted that in addition to the noise, the physical “rattling and shaking” has affected them as well as their homes.

In addition, the semitrailer trucks driving in and out of the rail yard to load and unload freight were seen as major contributors to rail yard pollution. Residents noted that despite posted signs for parking prohibition and idling in residential areas, trucks continue to do so near homes and the community park. They report that little to no enforcement of these posted rules occurs, a fact that was validated during our ethnographies.

Health as an Unattainable Value Our final theme centered on the idea that our participants felt that for them personally as adults, achieving optimal personal health and gaining access to health care are for the most part out of their reach— “unattainable”—as they are far from what they can realistically expect for themselves. They have, however, not yet given up hope that their children will live a better and healthier life that includes access to routine medical services. The reality for our participants is that despite their needs for medical care, few have health insurance or the financial resources to take their children to the physician for either regular exams or when they are sick. Many parents interviewed reported that they saw their children and a large proportion of the children in the community as chronically ill, especially with respiratory illnesses, and that they saw it as inevitable that more and more will develop chronic respiratory illnesses.

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 7

Interrelationships Among the Themes Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Our four emergent themes, while separate, are also clearly interwoven into a single core concept—Experiences of the rail yard community: Life is hard. The “life is hard” theme sums up the experiences of the residents who live adjacent to the rail yard. While no one raised the issue of fairness, the residents seem somewhat resigned to their situation, especially for themselves as adults; the only resistance to the status quo came when discussing their children's health. The theme of violence and unemployment was directly linked with the theme of health as an unattainable value, since many community participants reported that lack of jobs translates into a lack of health care access for themselves and their families. Adding to the challenge of not having access to health care is the fact that living in close proximity to the rail yard negatively impacts the respiratory health of children, exacerbating problems and further increasing the need for health care services, clearly a less than ideal situation for raising a healthy family.

Discussion Our findings indicate that members residing near the rail yard live in a community that has multiple significant barriers to their quality of life, with many factors interrelated and stemming from the economic downturn. The major concerns voiced by our participants centered on the high level of community violence; serious economic problems; homelessness; rail yard–related noise exposure; and lack of access to health care, especially for their children, many of whom suffer from poor respiratory health. Public health scientists are beginning to point to the linkages between the way that goods and services are accessed and distributed across the nation and various environmental and societal impacts such as air pollution, noise, stress and anxiety, and loss of land and planning blight that can burden local communities (Mindell et al., 2011). Increasing evidence mentioned by the governor's environmental action plan, that communities near goods movement ports are subsidizing the movement of goods with their own health, highlights the need for continued intervention and policy advancement aimed at diesel exposure reduction to protect the health of the public (Hricko, 2006).

The health of this community, particularly the more vulnerable subpopulations (e.g., children and elderly), is of great concern given the environment in which they live, their lack of access to health care, and stresses related to violence. It has been well documented that neighborhood-level conditions have a strong impact on individual health status including morbidity and mortality (Cubbin, LeClere, & Smith, 2000; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Schulz et al., 2000). Additionally, research suggests that disadvantaged populations who suffer from chronic stressors experience even greater susceptibility to environmental hazards (Gee & Payne-Sturges, 2004). In our target community, 27.6% of residents live below the poverty line and FBI crime statistics report a per capita violent crime rate nearly 2.5 times the national average. This “double jeopardy” of life stress and pollution-related stressors points to an even greater potential vulnerability for this underserved and overlooked community.

Researchers have identified a strong association between ambient air pollution and other sociodemographically related stressors and adverse health outcomes. Clougherty and co-

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 8

authors (2007) have reported the synergistic effect of traffic-related air pollution and Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Chen and co-authors (2008) have reported that chronic trafficrelated air pollution and stress interact to predict biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma that are stronger than either factor alone. Research conducted in Southern California indicates that children from stressful households are more susceptible to the negative effects of traffic-related air pollution on respiratory health (Islam et al., 2011; Shankardass et al., 2009). Clearly, living in an area in which the adverse health effects associated with air pollution are magnified in the presence of other non-pollution-related stressors highlights a critical need for routine medical services and additional support for positive community change.

In our inquiry it became clear that many of the community members felt overwhelmed with the day-to-day challenges of simply surviving and providing for their families in this challenged community; everyday challenges often outweighed their concern about the poor air quality that all acknowledged as existing. Indeed, a few times during the focus groups some members were irritated with the discussion of air quality and suggested focusing on more pressing issues. Only a small number of participants were vocal about the health effects associated with air pollution while many others had resigned themselves to coexisting with the poor air quality. The internal pressures of day-to-day living for a person can greatly influence their perception of the surrounding community environment and their subsequent behavior, especially given the severity of the daily burdens just to survive (Balcetis & Dunning, 2007). In light of the daily challenges faced by the residents, it is not difficult to understand why air quality might rank lower on their list of priorities.

One notable exception was the parents' deep concern for the health of their children. Some awareness existed that the number of asthma cases are increasing and many believed that most children in the area either already have asthma or will develop it in the future. Only a few parents, however, connected increased asthma incidence with exposure to pollution from the nearby rail yard. As this line of discussion continued, it became apparent that some parents were angry that air pollution from the rail yard may be jeopardizing their children's health or the health of children in their community. They found it deeply upsetting that rail yard–related air pollution may not only increase their child's risk of developing asthma, but may exacerbate the asthma symptoms of children already diagnosed with the condition, in essence increasing the need for medical services that many families already find difficult or impossible to access. During the discussions it became evident that their children's health was a unifying issue for the community and potential mobilization point.

Implications for Change In addition to the participant feedback about their experiences we were also able to identify suggestions for improvements for this dire situation that involved things that could be done by the rail yard and by other local agencies, businesses, institutions, and medical centers. The suggestions focused on improvements that included increased access to medical services and routine health screenings, development of a more extensive vegetation barrier and community-wide tree planting campaign, relocation of the entry gate to the rail yard to remove truck traffic and related idling, and provision of safe and pollution “freer” places for

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 9

children to play in. Other efforts discussed included bringing upgraded air filters to local Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript schools and implementation of community noise and pollution reduction programs. Table 3 describes the suggested changes for the area in promoting a healthier community. A report by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) to the U.S. EPA titled, “Reducing Air Emissions Associated With Goods Movement: Working Towards Environmental Justice” contains advice and recommendations about how U.S. EPA can most effectively promote strategies in partnership with federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies and other stakeholders to identify, mitigate, or prevent the disproportionate burden on communities of air pollution resulting from goods movement (NEJAC, 2009). The NEJAC report encourages a sense of urgency in developing strategies and taking action and advocates for additional research with strong community involvement and community capacity building. For this underserved community an immediate and great need exists for sustainable community improvements that address the air quality issues but also consideration for the other pressing needs identified by community participants as well (Bell & Standish, 2005).

The health and environmental challenges faced by this community are most likely a common phenomenon faced by communities in close proximity to major goods movement facilities across the nation. Given the gravity of the situation and their challenges, the needs of this community and similar communities should be addressed by policy leaders and advocates taking a Health in All Policies Approach (HiAP). According to the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), HiAP is a change in the systems that determine how policy decisions are developed and implemented to ensure that policy decisions do not negatively impact determinants of health, but rather strive for beneficial effects (NACCHO, 2013). HiAP is an innovative and strategic approach through which policies are created and implemented, emphasizing the need for input and collaboration across industry and sectors to ultimately achieve common health goals. The enormity and complexity of the desperate conditions faced by the community residents call for the use of a HiAP approach in addressing their health and environmental challenges. Only through a coordinated effort from numerous surrounding key government, business, and institutional agencies will positive improvements be implemented and sustained. Linking community planning to goals of increasing population health and decreasing exposure to harmful risk factors can be successfully implemented and sustained (Morland, Wing, Diez Roux, & Poole, 2002; Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003). A combined approach focusing on the goods movement communities and prevention that addresses the multitude of factors determining their health will get at the heart of the problem that is drastically and negatively influencing the health trajectory of the community members (Bell & Standish, 2005).

Limitations Given the qualitative nature of our study, some noteworthy limitations are present. The information we gained is the opinions of a sample of our target community and may not represent the views of all community members. We conducted systematic, theoretical sampling to recruit participants from each community stratum to accurately represent community demographics, however. As a result we managed to recruit an ethnically diverse

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 10

group of community participants, from varying educational backgrounds and work profiles, Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript including the unemployed and homeless.

Conclusion Our inquiry was successful in providing important insights into the life of community members who live adjacent to a rail yard that has been identified as a major source of pollution. Our findings suggest that future efforts to reduce exposure to air pollution must take into consideration other major community challenges, including increased access to health care and a reduction in community violence. Most importantly a need exists for a coordinated effort of governmental and private entities to strategically address these challenges and provide support for this truly underserved and isolated community. A systematic approach should be taken by policy leaders and advocates with policy development grounded in a HiAP addressing communities across the nation that are impacted by the goods movement industry. As we all are the beneficiaries of inexpensive goods shipped through this and other container yards, we have an ethical obligation to support positive community improvements for those who carry an undue health burden as a side effect of our access to inexpensive goods.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the South Coast Air Quality Management District/BP West Coast Products Oversight Committee, LLC, grant # 659005 and also supported by National Institutes of Health #1P20MD006988.

References Attfield MD, Schleiff PL, Lubin JH, Blair A, Stewart PA, Vermeulen R, Coble JB, Silverman DT. The diesel exhaust in miners study: A cohort mortality study with emphasis on lung cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2012; 104(11):869–883. [PubMed: 22393207] Balcetis E, Dunning D. Cognitive dissonance and the perception of natural environments. Psychological Science. 2007; 18(10):917–921. [PubMed: 17894610] Bell J, Standish M. Communities and health policy: A pathway for change. Health Affairs. 2005; 24(2):339–342. [PubMed: 15757917] Brauer M, Hoek G, Smit HA, de Jongste JC, Gerritsen J, Postma DS, Kerkhof M, Brunekreef B. Air pollution and development of asthma, allergy, and infections in a birth cohort. The European Respiratory Journal. 2007; 29(5):879–888. [PubMed: 17251230] Brauer M, Lencar C, Tamburic L, Koehoorn M, Demers P, Karr C. A cohort study of traffic-related air pollution impacts on birth outcomes. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2008; 116(5):680–686. [PubMed: 18470315] California Air Resources Board. Public health impacts Draft emission reduction plan for ports and international goods movement. 2005. Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/ dec1plan/chapter3.pdf California Air Resources Board. Health risk assessment for the BNSF San Bernardino railyard. 2008. Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/bnsf_sb_final.pdf Chen E, Schreier HM, Strunk RC, Brauer M. Chronic traffic-related air pollution and stress interact to predict biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2008; 116(7): 970–975. [PubMed: 18629323] Clougherty JE, Levy JI, Kubzansky LD, Ryan PB, Suglia SF, Canner MJ, Wright RJ. Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007; 115(8):1140–1146. [PubMed: 17687439]

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 11

Cubbin C, LeClere FB, Smith GS. Socioeconomic status and injury mortality: Individual and Author Manuscript Author Manuscriptneighbourhood Author Manuscript determinants. Author Manuscript Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2000; 54(7):517– 524. [PubMed: 10846194] Donovan G, Prestemon J. The effect of trees on crime in Portland, Oregon. Environment and Behavior. 2010; 44(1):3–30. Edwards J, Walters S, Griffiths RK. Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool children: Relationship to major roads in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Archives of Environmental Health. 1994; 49(4):223–227. [PubMed: 7518223] Fan Y, Zhiyi B, Zhujun Z, Jiani L. The investigation of noise attenuation by plants and the corresponding noise-reducing spectrum. Journal of Environmental Health. 2010; 72(8):8–15. [PubMed: 20420048] Gauderman WJ, Vora H, McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland F, Thomas D, Lurmann F, Avol E, Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Peters J. Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: A cohort study. Lancet. 2007; 369(9561):571–577. [PubMed: 17307103] Gee GC, Payne-Sturges DC. Environmental health disparities: A framework integrating psychosocial and environmental concepts. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2004; 112(17):1645–1653. [PubMed: 15579407] Gruzieva O, Bergström A, Hulchiy O, Kull I, Lind T, Melén E, Moskalenko V, Pershagen G, Bellander T. Exposure to air pollution from traffic and childhood asthma until 12 years of age. Epidemiology. 2013; 24(1):54–61. [PubMed: 23222555] Hill C, Zurakowski D, Bennet J, Walker-White R, Osman JL, Quarles A, Oriol N. Knowledgeable neighbors: A mobile clinic model for disease prevention and screening in underserved communities. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102(3):406–410. [PubMed: 22390503] Hoffmann B, Moebus S, Kröger K, Stang A, Möhlenkamp S, Dragano N, Schmermund A, Memmesheimer M, Erbel R, Jöckel KH. Residential exposure to urban air pollution, ankle- brachial index, and peripheral arterial disease. Epidemiology. 2009; 20(2):280–288. [PubMed: 19194299] Hricko A. Global trade comes home: Community impacts of goods movement. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2008; 116(2):A78–81. [PubMed: 18288306] Hricko AM. Ships, trucks, and trains: Effects of goods movement on environmental health. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006; 114(4):A204–205. [PubMed: 16581521] Islam T, Urman R, Gauderman WJ, Milam J, Lurmann F, Shankardass K, Avol E, Gilliland F, McConnell R. Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure on children's lung function. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2011; 184(7):822–827. [PubMed: 21700914] Israel, B.; Eng, E.; Schulz, AJ.; Parker, EA.; Satcher, D. Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005. Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Pope CA 3rd, Krewski D, Newbold KB, Thurston G, Shi Y, Finkelstein N, Calle EE, Thun MJ. Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology. 2005; 16(6):727–736. [PubMed: 16222161] Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior. 2001; 33(3):343–367. Mack, T. Cancers in the urban environment. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Press; 2004. Manuel J. Clamoring for quiet: New ways to mitigate noise. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2005; 113(1):A46–49. [PubMed: 15631960] Margolis HG, Mann JK, Lurmann FW, Mortimer KM, Balmes JR, Hammond SK, Tager IB. Altered pulmonary function in children with asthma associated with highway traffic near residence. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 2009; 19(2):139–155. [PubMed: 19370464] Mindell, JS.; Watkins, SJ.; Cohen, JM., editors. Health on the move 2 Policies for health promoting transport. Stockport, UK: Transport and Health Study Group; 2011. Morani A, Nowak DJ, Hirabayashib S, Calfapietraa C. How to select the best tree planting locations to enhance air pollution removal in the MillionTreesNYC initiative. Environmental Pollution. 2011; 159(5):1040–1047. [PubMed: 21168939]

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 12

Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, Poole C. Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location Author Manuscript Author Manuscriptof Author Manuscript food stores and food Author Manuscript service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002; 22(1):23– 29. [PubMed: 11777675] National Association of County and City Health Officials. Health in all policies. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.naccho.org/topics/environmental/HiAP/ National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Reducing air emissions associated with goods movement: Working towards environmental justice. 2009. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ environmentaljustice/resources/publications/nejac/2009-goods-movement.pdf Newcomb P, Li J. Predicting admissions for childhood asthma based on proximity to major roadways. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2008; 40(4):319–325. [PubMed: 19094146] Nowak, D. Tree species selection, design, and management to improve air quality. 2000. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/docs/Nowak_Trees%20for%20air %20quality.pdf Nowak D, Crane D, Stevens JC. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2006; 4:115–123. Onder S, Kockbeker Z. Importance of the green belts to reduce noise pollution and determination of roadside noise reduction effectiveness of bushes in Konya, Turkey. World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology. 2012; 66(6):11–14. Painter K, Farrington D. Evaluating situational crime prevention using a young people's survey: Part II making sense of the elite police voice. The British Journal of Criminology. 2001; 41(2):266–284. Perez L, Künzli N, Avol E, Hricko AM, Lurmann F, Nicholas E, Gilliland F, Peters J, McConnell R. Global goods movement and the local burden of childhood asthma in southern California. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99(Suppl. 3):S622–628. [PubMed: 19890167] Pucher J, Dijkstra L. Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons from The Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health. 2003; 93(9):1509–1516. [PubMed: 12948971] Roe JJ, Thompson CW, Aspinall PA, Brewer MJ, Duff EI, Miller D, Mitchell R, Clow A. Green space and stress: Evidence from cortisol measures in deprived urban communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013; 10(9):4086–4103. [PubMed: 24002726] Salam MT, Islam T, Gilliland FD. Recent evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic sources on asthma. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine. 2008; 14(1):3–8. [PubMed: 18043269] Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997; 277(5328):918–924. [PubMed: 9252316] Schultz ES, Gruzieva O, Bellander T, Bottai M, Hallberg J, Kull I, Svartengren M, Melén E, Pershagen G. Traffic-related air pollution and lung function in children at 8 years of age: A birth cohort study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2012; 186(12):1286– 1291. [PubMed: 23103735] Schulz A, Williams D, Israel B, Becker A, Parker E, James SA, Jackson J. Unfair treatment, neighborhood effects, and mental health in the Detroit metropolitan area. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2000; 41(3):314–332. [PubMed: 11011507] Shankardass K, McConnell R, Jerrett M, Milam J, Richardson J, Berhane K. Parental stress increases the effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood asthma incidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009; 106(30):12406–12411. [PubMed: 19620729] Silverman DT, Samanic CM, Lubin JH, Blair AE, Stewart PA, Vermeulen R, Coble JB, Rothman N, Schleiff PL, Travis WD, Ziegler RG, Wacholder S, Attfield MD. The diesel exhaust in miners study: A nested case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2012; 104(11):855–868. [PubMed: 22393209] Spira-Cohen A, Chen LC, Kendall M, Lall R, Thurston GD. Personal exposures to traffic-related air pollution and acute respiratory health among Bronx schoolchildren with asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2011; 119(4):559–565. [PubMed: 21216722] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 13 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Figure 1. Aerial Map of the San Bernardino Railyard and Surrounding Community

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 14

Table 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Community Residing Within One-Half Mile Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptSurrounding Author Manuscript the San Bernardino Author Manuscript Railyard

Sociodemographic Variable Value Total population 7,172 Households 1,895 % African-Americans 9.0 % Hispanics 82.3 % Children <5 years of age 11.7 % Children 5–17 years of age 27.5 Median age (yrs.) 25.2 Average household size (persons) 3.9 Median household income $28,214

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 15

Table 2 Community Participant Responses on the Thematic Topics Regarding Life Near A Major Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptRail Yard Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Violence and Employment Challenges Community violence and unemployment rates affected residents' feelings about their exposure to polluted air, ranking it lower than other, more immediate priorities related to day-to-day survival. 1) “Oh. There's a little bit of everything…. People trying to rob you…. You just can find yourself in the wrong place, who knows…you might came up on a nice pair of shoes and this dude comes along with a gun and they will be his.” —Male 2) “…. There's more to worry about than the actual air.”—Hispanic Male 3) “We were at the park…next thing you know, my girls are seeing a stabbing and they, they don't need to see that….”—Female 4) “….Trust me, I want good health, I want good air, I want the city to be awesome by the time my great-grandkids live here, you know what I mean? But by the same token, I think other things need to be fixed beside that.”—Male 5) “…If you're in San Bernardino and you're in the slum ain't nothing gonna change.”—Male Participants reported feeling powerless to reduce the level of violence in their area, and high levels of concern for their children's safety. 6) “I'm worried about the safety of my children…you can't just have them outside….”—Female 7) “I think for the youths, they don't have nothing to do…there's a lot of youngsters from all different areas that hang out right there…these kids need something to do with their lives.”—Female Empty lots with overgrown weeds and businesses that have relocated out of the city: these are some of the factors negatively impacting the health and vitality of their community. 8) “…There is just too many abandoned buildings…”—Female 9) “I've seen this community go from a family neighborhood to run-down or abandoned houses, empty lots, and growing weeds.”—Male 10) “Most of the businesses are leaving San Bernardino for other cities in the area. We used to have a mall down the street; it's all gone now.” —Male Community members said they would like to move out of the area, but couldn't afford to. 11) “I do not like this place, but we chose it because it was the place we could afford. I have lived here for seven years and the city is cheap; we are here because we don't have more resources to be in another area.”—Caucasian Female 12) “Unfortunately this is one of the most economical places to live, but the consequences for living here is too great, not for what you pay financially, but that your health is seriously affected.”—Hispanic Female

Air Quality Challenges

Participants pointed out that children are most vulnerable and voiced a growing concern that poor air quality may be affecting their children's health. 13) “I have a nephew and he has allergies awfully bad and it's like blowing his nose and stuff 24 hours a day; every time I see him he blowing his nose and it seems like the air is more toxic and makes it worse.”—Hispanic Female 14) “The people more affected are the kids because they go to school and are breathing contaminated air inside and outside the classroom… here we have one school, less than half a mile from the rail yard, and the number of asthma cases is increasing.”—Hispanic Female Some community participants noted the difference in air quality at different times of the day and seasons. 15) “I'll wake up in the mornings, like, I can't breathe.”—Hispanic Female 16) “When the weather is the hottest, that is when we have the most kids that are sick, with little kids getting sick with a horrendous cough, like a smoker's cough.”—Hispanic Female

Rail Yard Challenges

Members understand that semitrailer truck movement around the rail yard is necessary but are frustrated by spotty enforcement of truck idling laws. 17) “… They're idling in their trucks and there are signs out there saying ‘do not park your vehicles there.’”—African-American Female 18) “They'll park their trucks wherever they wanna park it, and there is nothing to be said about it. You got to go to the right places and get to the right people to respond, because if you don't, they ain't gonna do nothing about it.”—African-American Male Noise pollution causes sleep disturbances and other stressors, including physical “rattling and shaking” of nearby homes caused by rail yard activities. 19) “I guess it was naïve of me to think that when the traffic dies down so will the noise, but there is still a lot of noise happening within the night. I know that it's affecting me and it's also affecting others in the community because they report hearing this especially when they are sleeping.”—Hispanic Female 20) “Yeah it's pretty loud. You hear it in the middle of the night, BOOM it wakes you up. I live about two blocks away and you can still hear it real loud.”—African-American Female 21) “The noise bothers me too much. I live in a mobile home and when the train passes by my house, the whole house shakes. That's where I live and it's a house that I am paying for and that is the sacrifice we are all doing.”—Hispanic Female

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 16

Violence and Employment Challenges Participants felt that they have sacrificed overall quality of life for the benefit of the rail yard, and are concerned about health impacts on their Author Manuscriptfamilies, Author Manuscript especially their children. Author Manuscript Author Manuscript 22) “I think we like the package from where we live, what we do not like is that the railway is so close because that affects us. My husband has symptoms of asthma, and then allergies follow. My youngest daughter also gets the flu and bronchitis. We would like for the rail yard to be more careful.”—Hispanic Female 23) “I want to say that the contamination that the train brings and the type of fuel that it uses is reflected in the kids' health; for me it is obvious that they go hand in hand.”—Hispanic Female 24) “ …because they continue to use dirty equipment, then that pollutes the air, which harms the neighbors. So all we want is really for them to be good neighbors; to be responsible.”—Hispanic Female 25) “Companies are the masters of the nation and they do not listen to our concerns because for all the calls that have been done to tell them to maintain and update their equipment it appears that we have not done the petition correctly.”—Caucasian Female

Health Care Challenges

Community participants view health and access to health care as an unattainable value for themselves, but haven't given up hope of obtaining it for their children. 26) “The community worries me, but first I have to worry about my family. Many of us have no health insurance and these diseases, tumors, asthma, having to constantly go to the doctor is expensive, that worries the mom, dad, children, and the whole family.”—Hispanic Female 27) “I am a grandmother to six kids and I don't matter much, but the little ones do.”—Hispanic Female 28) “The situation with children in this community is very bad. My granddaughter was not sick so often, but since she moved and lives with me she constantly gets sick.”—Hispanic Female

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 17

Table 3 Community Challenges and Suggestions for Positive Change Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Community Challenge Suggestions for Improvement Noise • Our research team suggests that a larger vegetation border surrounding the entire rail yard perimeter would help to reduce noise pollution and strategic plant selection has been proven effective for noise reduction (Fan, Zhiyi, Zhujun, & Jiani, 2010; Onder & Kockbeker, 2012). The rail yard has contributed funding for a vegetation border on a nearby street, and a larger border would be even more beneficial. • Better insulation and thicker windows would reduce noise, especially for those residents living within a few blocks of the rail yard. Quiet Solutions, a California-based soundproofing manufacturer, has developed a product line that can be applied to existing walls to reduce transmission of sound (Manuel, 2005). Since most noise complaints were associated with close residential proximity to the rail yard, one recommendation was that the San Bernardino Railyard (SBR) support and assist nearby residents with the cost of improved insulation and new windows for their homes. • Participants requested that the rail yard consider adjusting rail yard schedules to decrease overnight traffic, when most residents are sleeping. • Our research team suggested universities and research institutions possibly conduct systematic assessments to monitor noise pollution around the rail yard and throughout the community and identify steps to mitigate impact and improve community health and quality of life.

Poor air quality • Currently a small vegetation border exists between the rail yard and some homes. To improve air quality and reduce noise, a carefully planned, robust vegetation border should be planted to surround the perimeter of the rail yard, especially in areas where homes share a retaining wall with the rail yard. With strategic planning, urban vegetation has been shown to reduce atmospheric pollutants (Morani, Nowak, Hirabayashib, & Calfapietraa, 2011; Nowak, 2000; Nowak, Crane, & Stevens, 2006). • Community members suggested moving the entrance of the SBR to a location farther away from homes. Community participants reported that this has been requested many times but has not been implemented. The relocation of the entrance to the SBR should be reevaluated and a top priority. • Community participants suggested that the rail yard should take an active role in monitoring and reducing the idling of semitrailer trucks in residential areas. • Participants requested increased use of less polluting, “clean engines” at SBR. Though these engines are increasingly used at the SBR, they rotate through all the company's facilities nationwide, potentially spending less time at SBR, which is the rail yard most closely located to a densely populated residential area. No official reporting on their use is available. The National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC) report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advocates for accelerated introduction of existing cleaner technologies and systems by providing needed resources using incentives, regulatory actions, and technical assistance (NEJAC, 2009). • The research team recommends an increase in air quality monitoring throughout the residential area near the SBR and additional health research to better understand exposures and to inform strategies for exposure mitigation. The NEJAC report advocates for additional research with strong community involvement to accelerate exposure reduction activities (NEJAC, 2009). • Policy development and exposure mitigation strategies are needed for schools and child care facilities currently residing in close proximity to a major goods movement source.

Lack of health services • Local medical institutions and the county public health department should help provide care specifically targeting the rail yard community. One recommendation is to provide more regular and long-term mobile clinics offering free services, especially for children. Even reduced or sliding scale fees may cost more than many families can afford. Of note, recent efforts by our collaborative have brought a mobile clinic to the community on a regular basis, and though this is a step in the right direction, it does not fully address the health needs of local residents. Mobile clinics are effective in reaching underserved communities and providing cost-effective preventive health services (Hill et al., 2012).

Violence • Participants have requested the community center offer more programs to provide young people with activities and recreation, reducing the time they spend on the streets. With San Bernardino's bankruptcy filing, however, it will take major outside funding to support the infrastructure changes needed (i.e., more community programs, repaired sidewalks, increased lighting, etc.). • Participants suggested increased lighting as a way to reduce crime and make people feel more comfortable in their surroundings. Researchers have identified positive effects in use of lighting to reduce crime (Painter & Farrington, 2001). • Participants suggested a tree planting campaign to help encourage people to spend more time outside, making their community aesthetically pleasing and providing much-needed shade. Published studies

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 18

Community Challenge Suggestions for Improvement suggest a potential association between trees in public areas and lower crime rates as well as reduced

Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscriptstress levels Author Manuscript (Donovan & Prestemon, 2010; Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; Roe et al., 2013).

J Environ Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 1914-1941; doi:10.3390/ijerph110201914 OPEN ACCESS International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ISSN 1660-4601 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Article Global Trade, Local Impacts: Lessons from California on Health Impacts and Environmental Justice Concerns for Residents Living near Freight Rail Yards

Andrea Hricko 1,*, Glovioell Rowland 1, Sandrah Eckel 1, Angelo Logan 2, Maryam Taher 3 and John Wilson 3

1 Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 N. Soto Street, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA; E-Mails: [email protected] (G.R.); [email protected] (S.E.) 2 East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, 2317 Atlantic Boulevard, Commerce, CA 90040, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Spatial Sciences Institute, Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, University of Southern California, AHF B55, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA; E-Mails: [email protected] (M.T.); [email protected] (J.W.)

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-323-442-3077; Fax: +1-323-442-3272.

Received: 18 September 2013; in revised form: 19 November 2013 / Accepted: 18 December 2013 / Published: 10 February 2014

Abstract: Global trade has increased nearly 100-fold since 1950, according to the World Trade Organization. Today, major changes in trade are occurring with the advent of mega-ships that can transport thousands more containers than cargo ships now in use. Because global trade is expected to increase dramatically, the railroad industry—in the U.S. alone—has invested more than $5 billion a year over the past decade to expand rail yards and enhance rail routes to transport goods from ports to retail destinations. This article describes cancer risks for residents living in close proximity to rail yards with emissions of diesel particulate matter pollution from locomotives, trucks and yard equipment. The article examines the demographics (income, race/ethnicity) of populations living in the highest estimated cancer risk zones near 18 major rail yards in California, concluding that the majority are over-represented by either lower-income or minority residents (or both). The authors also describe a review of the news media and environmental impact reports to determine if rail yards are still being constructed or expanded in close

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1915

proximity to homes and schools or in working class/working poor communities of color. The paper suggests policy efforts that might provide more public health protection and result in more “environmentally just” siting of rail yards. The authors conclude that diesel pollution from rail yards, which creates significant diesel cancer risks for those living near the facilities, is an often overlooked public health, health disparities and environmental justice issue in the U.S. The conclusions are relevant to other countries where international trade is increasing and large new intermodal rail facilities are being considered.

Keywords: air pollution; diesel exhaust; environmental health; environmental justice; exposure; health disparities; international trade; land use; particulate matter; race/ethnicity; rail

Abbreviations

BNSF: BNSF Railway Company, formerly Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway CA: California CARB: California Air Resources Board CSX: CSX Corporation DPM: diesel particulate matter EJ: environmental justice HRA: Health Risk Assessment IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer ICTF: intermodal container transfer facility UP: Union Pacific Railroad U.S.: United States

1. Introduction

In the U.S., major freight railroads are making record investments in infrastructure, with more than a dozen new rail yard facilities built or proposed during the past few years across the country in anticipation of increased international trade [1]. Part of the railroads’ impetus in these investments is the Panama Canal expansion, expected to be completed in 2015, which will allow the world’s largest container ships, for the first time, to pass through the Canal. Many ports are expanding their operations or even dredging their harbors so that they can be competitive in attracting the larger ships, especially from Asia, once the new locks on the Canal are finished [2]. In response, the largest freight railroad companies are building or expanding major rail facilities both near ports and further inland to handle the transfer of containers filled with goods, made mostly in China and other Asian countries, between one mode of transportation (e.g., trucks) to another (e.g., trains)—a process referred to as “intermodal” rail [3]. Ports and rail operations are expanding in other countries, as well, in anticipation of mega-container ships and increased trade potential [4].

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1916

Intermodal rail facilities employ significant amounts of diesel-fueled equipment, including line-haul (cross-country) locomotives, switch engines (which stay in the rail yards), cranes, and yard equipment. After arriving from Asia on ships, containers most often are trucked by heavy-duty diesel trucks emitting diesel particulate matter or moved by trains with diesel-fueled locomotives to their destinations. Concerns about the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust emissions have been raised for decades [5]. In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) diesel assessment stated that “long-term (i.e., chronic) inhalation exposure is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard to humans, as well as damage the lung in other ways depending on exposure [6]”. In 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, went further by classifying diesel engine exhaust as “carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer [7]”. A recent study estimated that 6% of all lung cancer deaths in the U.S. and United Kingdom are related to diesel exhaust exposure, including in the workplace and general population [8]. Some rail yards in the U.S. were built decades (or even a century) ago; others were built more recently or within the past 30 years. Today, many residents live in close proximity to many of these older yards, raising concerns about exposure to traffic-related air pollution, including from diesel- fueled trucks hauling containers in and out of rail yards. A recent study in the southeastern United States found that rail yard emissions led to increases of particulate matter and black carbon (as a marker for diesel emissions) [9]. A study of a rail yard in northern California found emissions of particulates, sulfur dioxide, metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [10]. Meanwhile, the body of research evidence is growing that shows adverse health effects from living or going to school in close proximity to traffic-related air pollution. These include effects such as reduced lung function in exposed children [11], increased asthma prevalence and incidence [12–14]; effects in pregnant women [15] and their offspring (e.g., premature births [16]); harmful effects in adults and the elderly including possibly cognitive decline [17] and heart attacks [18]; and more. Because of such studies and concerns raised by residents and community groups, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed guidelines for siting new residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities (i.e., sensitive receptors) near certain types of operations, including highways and rail yards, among others. The guidelines state the following about rail yards: “We recommend doing everything possible to avoid locating sensitive receptors within the highest risk zones at ports and rail yards… Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches [19].” The CARB guidelines operate in only one “direction” when land use decisions are made. They suggest how far away schools and other “sensitive receptors” (e.g., facilities for children, the elderly and the ill) should be located from ports/rail yards/highways. But they do not make recommendations for land use decisions that would site new highway, port or rail facilities near these same types of sensitive land uses, such as schools. The guidelines specify that one should avoid siting a school near a rail yard, but are silent on whether it is acceptable to site a rail yard in close proximity to a school, with CARB deferring to local government authorities on that issue. Thus, railroads are able to claim that the CARB guidelines do not pertain to them when siting new intermodal facilities in California.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1917

Community-based groups and residents in California have been calling for stricter regulations on locomotive and rail yard pollution for nearly 10 years [20]. Although California has been more active than other states in trying to reduce diesel exhaust from rail yards, in that state only voluntary agreements have been negotiated between the freight railroads and CARB to reduce diesel particulate matter pollution [21], with CARB arguing that Federal laws protect the railroads from state regulations. Language in a 2005 agreement required CARB to produce a HRA for each of the 18 major rail yards in the state, based on emissions inventories provided by the major freight railroads. In CA, these railroads include only BNSF and UP, which are the two largest freight railroads in the country. CARB completed the last of the rail yard HRAs in 2008 [22]. The state’s largest rail yards are located in southern California, and these have been the focus of significant attention by residents, environmental and community organizations and a community-academic collaborative called THE Impact Project [23,24], all calling for a reduction in diesel emissions to protect public health [25]. Some of the community-based groups in southern California have held educational rallies to inform others about the diesel cancer risks [26] and have called for stricter regulation of diesel locomotives and for rules on rail yard emissions [27]. Members of these groups express concern about disproportionate impacts and “environmental justice” (EJ), which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines as: “... the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies [28].” Many investigators have conducted EJ research, examining whether specific groups are more highly exposed to pollution when compared to other racial/ethnic/income groups [29–31]. Some studies in California have looked at environmental justice and air toxics [32]; EJ and drinking water contamination [33]; and the disproportionate presence of liquor stores in certain neighborhoods [34]. This is the first published study, to our knowledge, to assess issues of race and income near California’s 18 major rail yards and to determine if residents are correct about their perceived claims of disproportionate impacts for lower-income and minority residents living near the facilities. The authors review the HRAs for the state’s 18 major rail yards and analyze the demographics of residents living near them, which were not examined by CARB staff, in order to assess potential racial and economic disparities. Ten years ago, an analysis was commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support its locomotive engine rule. That analysis investigated the populations living in close proximity to a representative sample of 37 U.S. rail yards, including three yards in California [35]. We also review news media and trade journal articles to determine whether environmental justice and disproportionate impacts, as well as proximity to homes and schools, are considerations in the siting of new rail yard facilities around the country, and we offer some alternatives for what might constitute “environmentally just” siting. Overall, our objectives in this paper are to: ● Describe the number of California residents who live in the zones of highest diesel cancer risk near existing rail yards in the state and determine if there are racial/ethnic and income disparities among them;

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1918

● Determine through a review of the news media and trade journals whether new or expanding rail yards are taking into consideration the proximity of schools and homes to the newly proposed sites, as well as the potential for disproportionate impacts; and ● Offer insights into what makes an intermodal rail yard unique in terms of industrial facilities and what types of considerations are needed to help ensure that rail yard siting or expansion takes community, public health and environmental justice concerns into account.

2. Background Information from the California Air Resources Board Health Risk Assessments

Between 2005–2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) published a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for each of the 18 major rail yards in California (CA) [36], using guidance from the California Office of Health Hazard Evaluation and Assessment (OEHHA) [37,38]. These HRAs looked at diesel particulate emissions from locomotives, cranes and yard equipment within the rail yard boundaries and also onsite and offsite emissions from heavy duty diesel-powered trucks that take containers to and from the rail yards.

2.1. Diesel Emissions at 18 California Rail Yards

The CARB HRAs evaluated (through modeling efforts) the potential health risks associated with diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions to those living nearby the rail yards, considering “the rail yard property emissions from locomotives, on-road heavy-duty trucks, cargo handling equipment, and off-road equipment used to move bulk cargo; also evaluated were mobile and stationary sources with significant emissions within a one-mile distance of the rail yard”. The estimates were based on 2005 emissions. Emissions from each individual yard ranged from a low of 1.7 annual tons to a high of 27.9 annual tons (Table 1, adapted from CARB HRA) [39]. CARB noted that residents of Commerce, CA, which has a population of 13,000, face particularly serious impacts because there are four rail yards located in that single community, with combined DPM emissions totaling more than 40 tons per year. Because of this, CARB decided to do a separate HRA for these four combined yards [40]. Both the railroad companies and the California Air Resources Board state that there has been a significant reduction in diesel particulate emissions at these four yards since the voluntary agreement and the HRAs were released in 2007–2008 [41]. In January 2014 CARB announced that it had decided to start using a different approach to try to obtain emission reductions at rail yards by no longer pursuing voluntary agreements with the railroad companies but instead developing a “Sustainable Freight Transport Initiative that will outline the needs and steps to transform California’s freight transport system to one that is more efficient and sustainable,” one that will “move goods more efficiently and with zero/near-zero emissions… and support healthy, livable communities” [42].

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1919

2.2. CARB’s Development of Isopleths (Contour Lines or Zones) for Diesel Cancer Risk around the Rail Yards

CARB developed isopleths for diesel cancer risk around the 18 rail yards. The agency defined an isopleth as a “line drawn on a map through all points of equal value of some measurable quantity; in this case, cancer risk”. That complicated statement translates, in this case, as a “contour line” or “zone” that delineates the estimated average potential cancer risk near the rail yard property boundaries, assuming a 70-year exposure [37,38]. Using one rail yard, the Union Pacific Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (UP ICTF), as an example, we show below the isopleths developed by CARB for the estimated average potential cancer risk of 100 chances per million in close proximity to the rail yard property boundaries [43], Figure 1. The risks decrease the further away from the rail yard one lives (with wind patterns taken into consideration). For example, as seen in Figure 1, residents who live three miles away from the rail yard are primarily within the 10 in a million to 25 in a million cancer risk zones or isopleths.

Figure 1. Estimated potential cancer risks (chances per million) associated with diesel particulate matter emissions at the Union Pacific Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (UP ICTF) in Wilmington, CA *.

100 in a million isopleth contour line for diesel cancer risk selected for our analysis

* Reproduced with permission of the California Air Resources Board.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1920

Table 1. Tons of annual diesel particulate matter emissions from the 18 rail yards in California by source of emissions, from Health Risk Assessments published by CARB during 2005–2008, listed in descending order by total emissions estimated in 2005 a.

Other Cargo On- (Off-Road Equipment, Total Rail Yard Locomotives Handling Road Transport Refrigeration Units, (Tons) Equipment Trucks Stationary Sources, etc.) Commerce: 4 yards 13.6 9.4 13.2 5.5 41.8 combined BNSF Barstow a 27.1 0.03 0.04 0.75 27.9 UP Roseville 25.1 N/A N/A N/A 25.1 BNSF Hobart b 5.9 4.2 10.1 3.7 23.9 UP ICTF/Dolores 9.8 4.4 7.5 2.0 23.7 BNSF San Bernardino 10.6 3.7 4.4 3.4 22.0 UP Colton 16.3 N/A 0.2 0.05 16.5 UP Commerce b 4.9 4.8 2.0 0.4 12.1 UP Oakland 3.9 2.0 1.9 3.4 11.2 UP City of Industry 5.9 2.8 2.0 0.3 10.9 UP LATC 3.2 2.7 1.0 0.5 7.3 UP Stockton 6.5 N/A 0.2 0.2 6.9 UP Mira Loma 4.4 N/A 0.2 0.2 4.9 BNSF Richmond 3.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 4.7 BNSF Stockton 3.6 N/A N/A 0.02 3.6 BNSF Commerce Eastern b 0.6 0.4 1.1 1.0 3.1 BNSF Sheila b 2.2 N/A N/A 0.4 2.7 BNSF Watson 1.9 N/A <0.01 0.04 1.9 BNSF San Diego 1.6 N/A 0.007 0.04 1.7 a Please note that this does not necessarily mean that the residents near these yards have the highest cancer risk of the 18 yards, because other yards may have residents living in closer proximity or have wind patterns that blow emissions into their communities. For example, the BNSF Barstow rail yard has the highest annual emissions, but the BNSF San Bernardino yard has the highest diesel cancer risk for nearby residents. b Railyards with this notation are located in the City of Commerce.

2.3. Exposed Populations (and Their Estimated Cancer Risks) near the Four Highest Priority Rail Yards in California

Based on its Health Risk Assessment analyses, the California Air Resources Board calculated the number of persons exposed at different diesel cancer risk levels at each of the 18 rail yards. From the 18 yards, CARB identified four with particularly high estimated diesel cancer health risks, as seen in Table 2 [44]. Table 2 shows the number of residents estimated to be exposed to certain levels of risk within the described zones of diesel cancer risk (isopleths) at these four yards. In addition, based on the HRAs, CARB identified residents of the City of Commerce as heavily impacted by diesel emissions and cancer risk because Commerce has four rail yards within its boundaries [40], so the combined four yards are also shown in the Table. All of these rail yards are in southern California and serve the Ports of Los Angeles (L.A.) and Long Beach, the largest ports in the U.S. Note the large

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1921 number of individuals exposed to greater than 500 in one million risk in both San Bernardino [39] and Wilmington [43]. Of all rail yards, the BNSF San Bernardino had the highest population exposure to rail yard emissions, due to significant emissions and the large number of residents living nearby. At this yard, CARB found that 3,780 residents had an estimated cancer risk averaging 980 chances per million, meaning that if residents near the yard were exposed to diesel emissions at that level for a 70-year lifetime, 500 in a million would be expected to develop cancer [39]. Table 2 also shows the estimated diesel cancer risk for residents near the four combined yards in the City of Commerce, where an estimated 5,200 residents have a potential cancer risk averaging 690 in a million [40].

2.4. Proximity of Homes and Schools to the Top Four Highest Priority Rail Yards in California

For its HRAs, the California Air Resources Board used GoogleMaps to determine whether homes, parks and/or schools were in close proximity to the 18 rail yards. The text below describes the “sensitive receptors” (homes, schools, hospitals) that CARB described as being near the four rail yards in California with the highest levels of diesel cancer risk and population exposed. UP Commerce Rail Yard: Within two miles of this yard, there are 27 sensitive receptors, including 19 schools, four child care centers and four hospitals. Four of these sensitive receptors are within the 100 in a million cancer risk range. Homes are adjacent to the rail yard fence, and an elementary school is located less than two blocks away [45]. BNSF Hobart Yard, Commerce: CARB looked at sensitive receptors within a two-mile distance of the yard and found 28, including eight schools, 12 child care centers and eight hospitals. Within the 100 in a million cancer risk range, there were 19 sensitive receptors identified [46]. UP ICTF, Wilmington: The UP ICTF is just 400 feet away from a middle school and homes that are located in west Long Beach, CA. There are seven sensitive receptors in the 100 in a million cancer risk range and 20 sensitive receptors all located within one mile of the rail yard [43]. BNSF San Bernardino: Homes are located directly across the street from this yard. Within a one-mile distance of the yard, there are 41 sensitive receptors, including seven hospitals/medical centers, 19 childcare centers and 15 schools. When considering a 100 in a million cancer risk range, there are 19 sensitive receptors [39].

Table 2. Estimated exposed populations associated with different cancer risk levels (assuming a 70 year exposure) near the most impacted rail yards in California, listed in order by the highest number of residents exposed to a cancer risk of greater than 500 in one million *. Estimated Population Exposed to Estimated Population Exposed to Rail Yard Cancer Risk of Greater than 100 Cancer Risk of Greater than 500 Chances in a Million Chances in a Million 4 yards in Commerce combined 82,000 5,200 BNSF, San Bernardino 39,580 3,780 UP ICTF, Wilmington 33,540 1,200 BNSF Hobart, Commerce 48,200 100 UP, Commerce 12,000 100 * Data compiled from individual California Air Resources Board’s Health Risk Assessments.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1922

3. Study Methods

As published, the HRAs contained no analysis of demographic information about residents living in the vicinity of the rail yards. We employed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to study the demographics of residents facing high calculated diesel cancer risks in close proximity to the 18 rail yards, and we compared them to demographics of the entire county in which the residents live. To accomplish this, we examined each HRA’s estimates of population exposure, as well as cancer risk isopleths (contours) showing areas where residents are at greater risk of exposure to diesel particulate emissions (DPM) and diesel cancer risk as calculated by CARB. For cancer impacts, CARB plotted total risk isopleths for facilities in the HRAs at potential cancer risk intervals of 1, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, etc. in a million. We selected the 100 in a million risk as our definition of impacted nearby residents, because most (but not all) rail yards had residents living within that risk isopleth. At higher risk levels (250 or 500 in a million), some rail yards had few residents within the isopleths. In doing this, we were able to have consistent risk levels to compare across most of the 18 rail yards. Figure 1 shows an example of an isopleth (contour) from an HRA. Using the isopleths and maps in the HRAs, which we digitized, we focused on the race/ethnicity and annual incomes of residents within isopleths that had high cancer risks (which we defined as “100 or more chances in a million”) and compared them to the same variables within the county of residence. We retrieved and analyzed data from the 2000 census at the census block group level to look at race, ethnicity and income levels, in an effort to determine if there were diesel cancer risk disparities and environmental justice concerns at any of the 18 major rail yards in California. Where needed (i.e., when isopleths crossed two or more counties), we apportioned the results between two counties. Finally, we extracted and used the estimates provided by Ethington and colleagues [47] for these same characteristics for the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility and Dolores Railyard in 1980 for our case study, which involves a rail facility proposed in 1982 [48], built in 1986, and proposed for expansion in 2005. Ethington et al. used the 1970–1980–1990 correspondence tables published by the California Department of Finance in 1996 [47] to reassign the census variables from the first two censuses to 1990 Census units, and we then used spatial analysis tools inside ArcGISTM (ESRI, Redlands, California, USA) to assign these totals to 2000 Census units. Using a two-sided Pearson’s chi-square test, we tested whether the proportion of non-white residents in a given risk isopleth was equal to the proportion of non-white residents in the county in which the rail yard was located (“population proportion”). White was defined as non-Hispanic white. To further understand racial/ethnic differences, we calculated the proportion of African-American (non-Hispanic Black or African American) and the proportion of Hispanic residents in an isopleth and graphically compared these values (along with their 95% confidence intervals) to the corresponding population proportions. Next, we used a two-sided Pearson’s chi-square test to test whether the proportion of low income households (<$30,000/year) in each isopleth was equal to the population proportions. We plotted these estimated proportions by rail yard, along with their 95% confidence intervals. For 16 of the 18 rail yards, we used 100 in a million risk isopleths. No demographic data was available in the 100 in a million risk isopleth for UP Roseville and UP Mira Loma, likely due to the small number of residents in these small isopleths. Instead, we used a 50 in a million risk isopleths for these rail yards.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1923

Many of these 18 rail yards were sited decades ago, so it is difficult to determine whether the existing rail yards were built first or if the community might have settled there before the yard was built. One of the rail yards, the Union Pacific ICTF, was proposed in 1982 [48] and opened in 1986, so we were able to examine the demographics around that yard using Census data for 1980. In 2005, Union Pacific announced that it wanted to expand its existing ICTF [49], so we also examined more recent demographics using 2000 Census data. Finally, we conducted a review of the news media and key industry trade journals from 2009 to the present to identify new intermodal rail facilities proposed to be built or recently constructed in the U.S. We reviewed the articles to determine if any of the rail facilities that were recently built or proposed to be built are sited in close proximity to homes and schools or adjacent to neighborhoods that are lower-income and minority.

4. Study Site

Our primary study site was California, with a focus on southern California. Figure 2 shows the location of the 18 major rail yards in California, for which CARB conducted HRAs. Figure 3 shows an inset map for rail yards in the Los Angeles area [36].

Figure 2. Map* showing locations of the 18 rail yards in California for which CARB conducted HRAs.

* Reproduced with permission of the California Air Resources Board.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1924

Figure 3. Map* showing locations of the rail yards in the Los Angeles area of California for which CARB conducted HRAs.

* Reproduced with permission of the California Air Resources Board.

5. Results

At just the three highest priority rail yards in CA coupled with the four combined rail yards in Commerce, more than 167,000 residents had an estimated diesel cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million, Table 2. With regard to race/ethnicity, 17 of the 18 yards had a statistically significantly higher percentage of non-white residents in the high risk cancer isopleths near the rail yard than the population percentage in the respective county (p < 0.0001). Of these, 16 had demographic data for the 100 in a million isopleth risk zone and one (UP Mira Loma) only for the 50 in a million ispopleth risk zone. For UP Roseville, using a 50 in a million risk isopleth, the percentage of non-white residents was statistically significantly lower than the population percentage in the County (23% vs. 38%, p < 0.0001). Our analysis found that the percentage of Latino residents in close proximity to a rail yard was generally much higher than the corresponding population percentage in the respective county, while the pattern was less consistent for African-American residents, Figure 4. For several rail yards (e.g., BNSF Hobart) the percentage Latino in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was extremely high (BNSF Hobart: 97%), resulting in a percentage African-American in the risk isopleth that was lower than the population percentage African American in the county (BNSF Hobart: percentage in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was 0.3% while population percentage in the county was 9.4%). For UP Oakland, the percentage Latino in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was similar to the population percentage (100 in a million risk isopleth: 19%, county: 19%), but the percentage African-American in close proximity was strikingly higher than the population percentage in the respective county (100 in a million risk isopleth: 64%, county: 14%). For UP Roseville, the percentages Latino and African- American were lower in close proximity to the rail yard than the corresponding population percentages (50 in a million risk isopleth: 12%, county: 14%; and 50 in a million risk isopleth: 2%, county: 8%,

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1925 respectively). See Table S1 for County population percentages non-white and Table S2 for demographic details and 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 4. Estimated proportion 1 of African American or Hispanic/Latino 2 residents living in close proximity to rail yards, where proximity is defined by a 50 in a million risk isopleth or 100 in a million risk isopleth, compared to the corresponding population proportions in the county in which the rail yard is located, Table S1. The rail yards are listed in decreasing order of population percentage non-white in the County, 3 Table S2.

1 Point estimates are plotted along with 95% confidence intervals, though for most isopleths the sample size is large enough that the confidence intervals are very narrow and not visible at this scale. 2 We use Latino and Hispanic interchangeably in this paper. 3 UP ICTF is the only rail yard in the state that also has a high percentage of Asian/Asian Pacific Islanders in the nearby population, compared to the percentages in the county, which is not reflected in this figure.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1926

With regard to income, as shown in Figure 5, the estimated percentage of low income households in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was higher than the population percentage of the county for 14 of the 16 rail yards (p < 0.0001 for the 11 rail yards where the 95% confidence intervals did not overlap with the population proportion, p = 0.04 for BNSF Watson, p = 0.15 for BNSF Commerce Eastern, and p = 0.37 for BNSF Sheila). For example, near UP Mira Loma (based on 50 in a million risk isopleth), the percentage of low income households in close proximity to the rail yard was 81% vs. 34% in the county; near UP Oakland the percentage of low income households in close proximity to the rail yard was 66% vs. 26% in the county. Only two rail yards (UP City of Industry and UP Roseville) had a smaller proportion of low income households in close proximity to the rail yards than in the County as a whole (statistically significantly lower, p < 0.0001).

Figure 5. Estimated proportion 1 of low income households (<$30,000/year) living in close proximity to rail yards, where proximity is defined by a 50 in a million risk isopleth or 100 in a million risk isopleth, compared to the corresponding population proportions for the county in which the rail yard is located, with the rail yards listed in decreasing order of population proportion non-white in the County.

1 Point estimates are plotted along with 95% confidence intervals, though for most isopleths the sample size is large enough that the confidence intervals are very narrow and not visible at this scale.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1927

5.1. Which Came First, Siting of the Rail Yards or the Lower-Income Minority Populations Living in the Area? A Brief Case Study

Site selected for the Union Pacific ICTF in the 1980s. Many of the California rail yards were sited decades ago, making it difficult to determine whether the existing rail yards were built first or if the community might have settled there before the yard was built. One California rail yard, however, the UP ICTF, was approved and constructed within the past 30 years [49], so we conducted a demographic analysis of the population near that yard based on the 1980 census. Our results show that the nearby residents at the time the facility was debated and then approved were predominantly lower-income and minority, Figure 6. The figure shows that the estimated population percentage near the proposed UP ICTF based on 1980 Census data was only 32% White, while the White population percentage in Los Angeles County at that time was 53%, Figure 7. To look at it another way, at the time the rail yard project was approved, 68% of the nearby population was minority compared to 47% in the County as a whole. In addition, Figure 6 shows that the population percentage for African-Americans in the 1980 census was 25% near the proposed UP ICTF, higher than the percentage of African-Americans (12%) in Los Angeles County, Figure 7.

Figure 6. Demographics of the population in west Long Beach in close proximity to the ICTF rail yard, 1980 Census data a,b.

ICTF

Non‐Hispanic White alone 19% 32% Non‐Hispanic Black or African American Hispanic or Latino 24% Some other non‐ 25% Hispanic race alone

a Race/ethnicity percentages listed in decreasing order. Demographics by race/ethnicity listed in order of highest percentage. b We used the 100 in a million diesel cancer risk isopleths for this calculation. The footprint of the ICTF has not changed since 1980, so to be consistent with our other analyses we considered “in close proximity” to the ICTF to be residents living within the current ICTF 100 in a million isopleth.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1928

Figure 7. Demographics of the population in Los Angeles County, 1980 Census data.

Los Angeles County

7% Non‐Hispanic White alone 12% Hispanic or Latino

Non‐Hispanic Black 53% or African American 28% Some other non‐ Hispanic race alone

In Figures 6 and 7 there are large differences between the area near the proposed UP ICTF and the County in the demographic category called “some other non-Hispanic race alone” from the 1980 census. Because the census at the time did not differentiate among Asians and Pacific Islanders, the large number of Filipino, Thai, Samoan, Tongan and other Asian Pacific Islanders living in west Long Beach in 1980 were combined into this generic category. The analyses showed that median income in the area of west Long Beach near the proposed UP ICTF, according to the 1980 Census, was $8,616 while the median income for Los Angeles County residents as a whole was more than twice this amount, $19,486. Thus, when the ICTF was built in 1986, the nearby community was also significantly lower-income than Los Angeles County as a whole. In summary, at the time that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach—and the railroad (at the time, Southern Pacific, today Union Pacific)—made the site selection for the ICTF, the demographic data were clear that the rail yard facility would be constructed adjacent to a working class/working poor community of color. The community was established in the location before the UP ICTF was built. Issues of race and income of nearby residents were not mentioned in comments and letters submitted when the environmental impact reports were being prepared, but some residents of a nearby mobile home park (which still exists) raised concerns about future air pollution from the rail yard. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 1986 concluded that: “Air quality impacts of the ICTF on adjacent residential areas are anticipated to be insignificant [48]”. Just 22 years later, CARB estimated that the UP ICTF was one of the four most polluting rail yards in the State of California, creating an estimated diesel cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million for more than 33,540 nearby residents, Table 2.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1929

Proposed UP ICTF expansion, 2005. In 2005 Union Pacific announced that it wanted to expand the ICTF [49]. By that time, the population demographics had changed somewhat both near the ICTF and in Los Angeles County, but remained predominantly people of color, when compared to the County of Los Angeles as a whole (Figures 8 and 9). In the 2000 census, only 11% of the residents living near the rail yard were White compared to 31% of Los Angeles County residents. In other words, the population around the ICTF when Union Pacific proposed to expand its rail yard in 2005, was 89% minority, compared to 69% of the County as a whole. The Union Pacific ICTF also has a significantly higher percentage of Asian Pacific Islanders near the yard, compared to the County as a whole (compare Figures 8 and 9). For the area near the proposed UP ICTF, Asians/Asian Pacific Islanders comprised 28% of the nearby population in 2000, compared to 12% for the County.

Figure 8. Demographics of the population in west Long Beach in close proximity to the ICTF rail yard, 2000 Census data and in Los Angeles County as a whole at the time that the railroad announced that it wanted to double its capacity; 2000 census data.

Hispanic or Latino 0% 3% 0% Non‐Hispanic Asian alone 4%

11% Non‐Hispanic Black or 40% African American Non‐Hispanic White 17% alone Two or more non‐ Hispanic races

Non‐Hispanic Native 25% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander ICTF

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1930

Figure 9. Demographics of the population in Los Angeles County at the time that Union Pacific announced it wanted to expand the UP ICTF rail yard, 2000 census data.

0% Hispanic or Latino 0% 3% 0%

Non‐Hispanic White alone 9%

Non‐Hispanic Asian alone 12% 45% Non‐Hispanic Black or African American Two or more non‐Hispanic races

31% Non‐Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native Non‐Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Los Angeles County Some other non‐Hispanic race alone \

A decision has not yet been made on expansion of the UP ICTF expansion project. The possible expansion is still being discussed by a Joint Powers Authority of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and is in the early environmental review process [49].

5.2. Construction of New Intermodal Facilities in the U.S. and Health/Environmental Concerns Raised by Residents

By reviewing the news media and industry trade journals, we identified multiple new intermodal rail facilities proposed to be built or recently constructed in the U.S. We looked at examples from the four largest Class I freight railroads in the country: Union Pacific (UP) (case study above); BNSF; CSX; and Norfolk Southern (NS). We discovered that siting rail yards close to homes and schools (a public health concern) or in lower-income minority communities (a public health and EJ concern) is not an historic artifact that ended decades ago; it is continuing today at some, although not all, new or proposed rail yards. Some examples where residents have raised questions about siting decisions, in addition to the UP ICTF already described, include: ● A proposed BNSF intermodal facility in Wilmington, CA (part of the City of Los Angeles) that would be located within 1,000 feet of schools, a daycare center and a housing complex and that would bring in thousands of trucks a day to the yard, which is four miles from the local ports; emissions and truck traffic would again impact the lower-income minority community of west

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1931

Long Beach. The project, called the Southern California International Gateway (BNSF SCIG) was proposed in 2005 and had several iterations of an environmental impact report (EIR) between then and its final EIR in 2013 [50]. The location of this proposed rail yard is immediately south of the UP ICTF. Community residents and others raised public health and environmental justice concerns about building another rail yard in the same vicinity as the ICTF and in close proximity to homes and schools [51,52], urging that the rail yard be sited on-dock at the industrial ports rather than adjacent to a residential community. The Long Beach Unified School District [53] and others, including public health experts, also raised concerns about both of the proposed rail yards and their proximity to schools. Although BNSF Railway argues that the new rail yard would reduce regional pollution [54], an environmental report issued by the Port of Los Angeles on the project, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) stated that the impacts of localized air pollution from the rail yard: “... would fall disproportionately on minority and low-income populations because the census block groups adjacent to the point of impact (the eastern edge of the Project site) constitute minority populations, and ... all or parts of [the adjacent] census tracts ... constitute low-income populations [55].” In 2013 the BNSF SCIG was approved by the Port of Los Angeles Harbor Commissioners and the City of Los Angeles [56]; there are multiple lawsuits against the project [57,58]. The new rail yard, if constructed, would be the second BNSF intermodal facility within 20 miles of the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach. BNSF’s Hobart Yard, Figure 10, located in Commerce, is the largest intermodal rail facility in the U.S.

Figure 10. BNSF Hobart Yard, Commerce, CA with downtown Los Angeles in the background. Photo courtesy of Angelo Logan.

Selected other rail yard proposals or recently completed projects are described below: ● A Norfolk Southern (NS) rail yard newly constructed in Alabama that is immediately adjacent to an elementary school [59]; ● A NS rail yard that is expanding by buying homes near its yard in a Chicago community called Englewood, home to mostly African-Americans [60]; ● A CSX rail yard proposed in Baltimore, Maryland, that is estimated to bring 30–40 future trucks a day through a residential community [61]; and

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1932

● A NS rail yard proposed in a small town in Tennessee in close proximity to an elementary school, which prompted the following sketch, Figure 11, in a local newspaper as an indication of residents’ concerns [62].

Figure 11. Sketch by Marihelen Ballard, Strawberry Plains, Tennessee, of a school in close proximity to a freight train traveling to a rail yard; reprinted with permission of the Jefferson County Post in New Market TN.

The health concerns of residents near intermodal rail facilities are not limited to the U.S. In New South Wales, Australia, residents have raised concerns and protested plans to build a large intermodal rail facility at Moorebank to serve Port Botany (Figure 12). Port Botany is the second largest port in Australia, located 12 miles south of Sydney, with Moorebank being 22 miles southwest of Sydney. Residents in nearby Liverpool say they are concerned about truck traffic congestion, diesel emissions and noise that may come with the new intermodal rail yard [63].

Figure 12. Australian residents in Liverpool protest proposal to build a freight terminal in nearby Moorebank, New South Wales (NSW).

Photo courtesy of Jim McGoldrick, Liverpool, Australia.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Analyses by the California Air Resources Board, as estimated in the Rail Yard Health Risk Assessments, demonstrate that living in close proximity to rail yards with high levels of diesel exhaust

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1933 emissions conveys a higher risk of cancer from diesel exhaust exposure than living a greater distance away from the source of pollution. The analyses allowed CARB to estimate differences in health risks among the rail yards, by drawing isopleths at various distances away from the yards to indicate differing risk levels. Besides distance, the isopleths took into account the direction and speed of the wind. Through that work, CARB was able to identify a number of yards in California that present particularly high diesel cancer risks for nearby residents. CARB also identified the City of Commerce as having seriously impacted residents, with four rail yards in one small community. We conclude that the siting of rail yards near sensitive receptors is a significant public health concern. Our research utilized the CARB isopleths, 2000 Census data and GIS techniques to demonstrate significant diesel exposure disparities by race and income among residents living in close proximity to most of the 18 major freight rail yards in California where CARB has estimated high diesel cancer risks. We conclude that the location of existing or newly proposed rail yards in lower-income (working class/working poor) communities of color is a significant public health and environmental justice concern. The analysis commissioned by EPA to support its locomotive engine rule investigated the populations living in close proximity to a representative sample of 37 U.S. rail yards, including three yards in California [64]. The EPA study found a large number of rail yards around the country with disproportionate impacts from diesel particulate matter at rail yards. For example, the EPA analysis states that “in Chicago the population living adjacent to the Barr Rail Yard, which has the greatest exposure to diesel emissions from that yard, is 97 percent African American, while the general metropolitan area of Chicago is only 18 percent African American [65]. Rail yards were also a topic of discussion by the Goods Movement Work Group (Work Group) for U.S. EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC), which issued a report in 2009 [66]. The Work Group report concluded that “environmental pollution from the movement of freight is becoming a major public health concern at the national, regional and community levels,” and its report cited a U.S. EPA Inspector General’s report on the need to reduce air pollution for populations living near large diesel emission sources such as major roadways, rail yards, and ports, which are likely to experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall U.S. population, exposing them to greater health risk [67]. In addition, Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) are a relatively new public health tool to assess impacts of proposed projects or policies [68]. The first HIA of an intermodal rail facility was recently published by the National Center for Healthy Housing; it examined the potential impacts of an expanded CSX rail facility to be constructed near the Port of Baltimore [69].

7. Recommendations

To protect residents, school children and EJ communities from environmental health impacts related to rail yards, we offer six policy recommendations for consideration: 1. Research. Conduct more epidemiologic research on the health and community impacts of rail yard facilities on nearby communities, additional exposure assessment studies, and evaluation of zero emission technologies for locomotives, trucks and rail yard equipment.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1934

2. Best practices. Encourage the U.S. EPA to develop a best practices database for how to reduce air pollution at rail yards, including the availability of alternative technologies such as electric trucks and electric cranes, as recommended in the NEJAC Working Group report [66]. 3. Siting and land use. a. Whenever feasible, site rail yards servicing marine ports “on-dock” (that is, right at the marine terminals) in order to make the yards as efficient as possible and minimize the use of diesel-fueled drayage trucks. b. Require minimum distances between rail yards and schools/homes and other sensitive receptors when choosing sites for new or expanded rail yards, taking into account CARB and other land use guidelines [19]. 4. Environmental justice considerations. a. Require that newly proposed rail yard facilities comply with Environmental Justice (EJ) Executive Orders and the EJ requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and any state EJ directives, as relevant [70]. b. Discontinue to site rail yards in lower income, minority communities in favor of more suitable locations, including on-dock rail and purely industrial locations, in order to protect public health and uphold environmental justice principles. 5. Environmental reviews. a. Require full Environmental Impact Statements under federal law or full reviews under state law, rather than simple Environmental Assessments when evaluating the impacts of major intermodal rail facilities. b. Consider conducting Health Impact Assessments of any new rail yard facilities that are within one mile of homes and schools. c. Require that all environmental reviews include a comparative demographic analysis (including race/ethnicity/income/educational attainment levels) of the neighborhoods within one mile of a proposed rail yard and the city/county as a whole and that the results of this analysis be included in the environmental statement or report. d. Require that any environmental reviews of rail yard proposals include accurate forecasts for future truck and locomotive volumes; accurate assessments of projected emissions from trucks, locomotives and yard equipment; accurate assumptions in modeling of the near-roadway air pollution exposures; and an evaluation of alternative technologies; and that new projects adhere to what was promised in the environmental review reports. 6. Regulatory agencies. a. Require that regulatory agencies with responsibility for air pollution from rail yard facilities (including locomotives and other equipment) have mandatory mechanisms in place to reduce public health risks when analyses or HRAs show elevated cancer or other health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust or other pollutants. b. Update EPA’s assessment of diesel exhaust exposure’s health effects to reflect IARC’s designation of diesel exhaust as a “human carcinogen”. Other promising policies and solutions that can be considered to reduce air pollution emissions from rail yards are described in a report by THE Impact Project, including (1) strengthening federal

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1935 regulation of locomotives, with a goal toward zero-emission technologies; (2) seeking federal authority to allow additional state and local authority to address air pollution from rail yards; (3) allowing rail yards to be regulated as stationary sources so that local air regulators have the ability to demand emission reductions and idling control; and (4) requiring that the equipment used at rail yards use the maximum achievable air pollution control technology to reduce diesel emissions [71].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the California Air Resources Board and its staff for the major effort in conducting and publishing Health Risk Assessments for 18 major rail yards in California, which have very been useful to both academic and community-based groups. Our study was supported in part by the The Kresge Foundation (Andrea Hricko and Angelo Logan), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant 5P30ES007048 (Andrea Hricko, John Wilson, Maryam Taher, Sandrah Eckel), NIEHS grant T32 ES013678 and NCI grant T32 CA009492 (Glovioell Rowland), The California Wellness Foundation (Andrea Hricko) and The California Endowment (Andrea Hricko and Angelo Logan). The authors thank Marrall Bagerdjian, Carla Truax and Amanda Shreim for manuscript support. Finally, we thank our other partners in THE Impact Project, including the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma and the Urban and Environmental Policy Institute at Occidental College in Los Angeles, as well as environmental, community and environmental justice groups outside of southern California who are making efforts to protect their communities by reducing diesel pollution related to freight rail yards and whose work has helped inform this study. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences or other funders.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References and Notes

1. Some examples include: Union Pacific: Santa Teresa, New Mexico; Wilmington, California. BNSF: Memphis, Tennessee; Edgerton, Kansas; Wilmington, California. CSX: Baltimore, Maryland; North Baltimore, Ohio. Norfolk Southern: McCalla, Alabama; New Market, Tennessee; Charlotte, North Carolina; Greencastle, Pennsylvania; Prichard, West Virginia; Memphis, Tennessee. Norfolk Southern: Englewood (Chicago), Illinois; Norfolk Southern and Pan Am Railway: Upstate NY. 2. Hricko, A. Progress and pollution: Port cities prepare for the panama canal expansion. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, A470–A473. 3. Matsuoka, M.; Hricko, A.; Gottlieb, R.; DeLara, J. Global Trade Impacts: Addressing the Health, Social and Environmental Consequences of Moving International Freight through Our Communities. 2011. Available online: http://scholar.oxy.edu/uep_faculty/411 (accessed on 15 November 2013).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1936

4. Wyss, J.; Charles, J.; Whitefield, M. Latin American ports ready for Panama Canal expansion. Miami Herald, 23 November 2012. Available online: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/23/ 3110087/latin-american-ports-ready-for.html (accessed on 15 November 2013). 5. Garshick, E.; Schenker, M.B.; Muñoz, A.; Segal, M.; Smith, T.J.; Woskie, S.R.; Hammond, S.K.; Speizer, F.E. A case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust exposure in railroad workers. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1987, 135, 1242–1248. 6. Diesel Exhaust and Cancer. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Website. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/diesel/health_effects.html (accessed on 15 November 2013). 7. IARC: Diesel Engine Exhaust Carcinogenic; World Health Organization: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2012. Available online: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media- centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 8. Vermuelen, R, Silverman DT, Garshick E, Vlaanderen J, Portengen L, Steenland K. Exposure- response estimates for diesel engine exhaust and lung cancer mortality based on data from three occupational cohorts. Environ Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 172–177. 9. Galvis, B.; Bergin, M.; Russell, A. Fuel-based fine particulate and black carbon emission factors from a railyard area in Atlanta. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2013, 63, 648–58. 10. Cahill, T.A.; Cahill, T.M.; Barnes, D.E.; Spada, N.J.; Miller, R. Inorganic and organic aerosols downwind of California’s roseville railyard. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1049–1059. 11. Gauderman, W.J.; Vora, H.; McConnell, R.; Berhane, K.; Gilliland, F.; Thomas, D.; Lurmann, F.; Avol, E.; Kunzli, N.; Jerrett, M.; et al. Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: A cohort study. Lancet 2007, 369, 571–577. 12. McConnell, R.; Berhane, K.; Yao, L.; Jerrett, M.; Lurmann, F; Gilliland, F.; Künzli, N.; Gauderman, J.; Avol, E.; Thomas, D.; et al. Traffic, susceptibility, and childhood asthma. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 114, 766–772. 13. Gauderman, W.J.; Avol, E.; Lurmann, F.; Kuenzli, N.; Gilliland, F.; Peters, J.; McConnell, R. Childhood asthma and exposure to traffic and nitrogen dioxide. Epidemiology 2005, 16, 737–743. 14. McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; Jerrett, M.; Lurmann, F.; Gilliland, F; Gauderman, J.; Avol, E.; Künzli, N.; Yao, L.; et al. Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home and school. Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118, 1021–1026. 15. Green, R.S.; Malig, B.; Windham, G.; Fenster, L.; Ostro, B.; Swan, S. Residential exposure to traffic and spontaneous abortion. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 1939–1944. 16. Wu, J.; Ren, C.; Delfino, R.J.; Chung, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Ritz, B. Association between local traffic- generated air pollution and preeclampsia and preterm delivery in the South Coast air basin of California. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 1773–1779. 17. Ranft, U.; Schikowski, T.; Sugiri, D.; Krutmann, J.; Krämer, U. Long-term exposure to traffic-related particulate matter impairs cognitive function in the elderly. Environ. Res. 2009, 109, 1004–1011. 18. Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Mittleman, M.A.; Meisinger, C.; Hörmann, A.; Kuch, B.; Wichmann, H.E. Triggering of acute myocardial infarction by different means of transportation. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2013, 20, 750–758.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1937

19. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective; California Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 20. The Modesta Avila Coalition. 2005. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/ p2comments/set2/modesta_avila_coalition.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 21. Statewide Rail Agreement. California Air Resources Board. Signed 2005. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/ryagreement/ryagreement.htm (accessed on 15 November 2013). 22. Railyard Health Risk Assessments and Mitigation Measures; California Air Resources Board. Completed 2006–2008. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/hra.htm (accessed on 15 November 2013). 23. Trade, Health, Environment: Making the Case for Change. THE Impact Project, 2009. Available online: http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/index.html (accessed on 15 November 2013). Note: The Community Outreach and Engagement Program (COEP) of the Southern California Environmental Health Science Center, based at Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern CA, is one of two academic partners in this community/academic collaborative. Author Andrea Hricko directs the COEP. Author Angelo Logan, director of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, is a community partner in the collaborative. All of THE Impact Project partners have publicly participated in responding to requests for verbal and written comments on the public health impacts that might result from various proposed rail yard projects by the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and an entity called the Joint Powers Authority. 24. Garcia, A.P.; Wallerstein, N.; Hricko, A.; Marquez, J.N.; Logan, A.; Nasser, E.G.; Minkler, M. THE (Trade, Health, Environment) Impact Project: A community-based participatory research environmental justice case study. Environ. Justice 2013, 6, 17–26. 25. Minkler, M.; Garcia, A.P.; Rubin, V.; Wallerstein, N. Community-Based Participatory Research: A Strategy for Building Healthy Communities and Promoting Health through Policy Change; PolicyLink, 2012. Available online: http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97C6D565-BB43- 406D-A6D5-ECA3BBF35AF0%7D/CBPR.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 26. Sorba, M.J. California Group Protests BNSF Rail Yard Pollution. 20 April 2010. Available online: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=29990 (accessed on 15 November 2013). 27. The Need for Locomotive and Rail Yard Regulations; East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, 2009. Available online: http://eycej.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/FS_LocomotiveRY.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 28. Environmental Justice Website. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice (accessed on 15 November 2013). 29. Wing, S.; Cole, D.; Grant, G. Environmental injustice in North Carolina’s hog industry. Environ. Health Perspect. 2000, 108, 225–231. 30. Miranda, M.L.; Edwards, S.E.; Keating, M.H.; Paul, C.J. Making the environmental justice grade: The relative burden of air pollution exposure in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 1755–1771. 31. Wilson, S.M.; Fraser-Rahim, H.; Williams, E.; Zhang, H.; Rice, L.; Svendsen, E.; Abara, W. Assessment of the distribution of toxic release inventory facilities in metropolitan Charleston: An environmental justice case study. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102, 1974–80.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1938

32. Morello-Frosch, R.; Pastor, K., Jr.; Porras, C.; Sadd, J. Environmental justice and regional inequality in southern California: Implications for future research. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 149–154. 33. Balazs, C.L.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Hubbard, A.E.; Ray, I. Environmental justice implications of arsenic contamination in California’s San Joaquin Valley: A cross-sectional, cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinking water systems. Environ. Health 2012, 11, 84, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-11-84. 34. Romley, J.A.; Cohen, D.; Ringel, J.; Sturm, R. Alcohol and environmental justice: The density of liquor stores and bars in urban neighborhoods in the United States. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2007, 68, 48–55. 35. Age, Income, and Racial/Ethnic Composition of Populations Exposed to DPM in the Vicinity of Rail Yards and Terminals, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Available online: http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/resources/Map/Railyards/EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190-0752.8.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 36. California Air Resources Board. Rail Emission Reduction Program. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/railyard.htm (accessed on 15 November 2013). 37. ARB Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Rail Yard and Intermodal Facilities; California Air Resources Board, 2006. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/1107hra_guideline.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 38. Air Dispersion Modeling in Risk Assessment: Overview. In Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis; Chapter 2. Available online: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/ air/hot_spots/pdf/2012tsd/Chapter2_2012.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2012). 39. Health Risk Assessment for the BNSF Railway San Bernardino Railyard, Table II-1; California Air Resources Board, 2008. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/ bnsf_sb_final.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 40. Health Risk Assessment for the Four Commerce Railyards; California Air Resources Board, 2007. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/4com_hra.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2013). 41. California Air Resources Board. Update on the Implementation of the 2005 ARB/Railroad Statewide Agreement. 2006. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/ryagreement/ 072006rpt.pdf , accessed on 2 December 2013). 42. California Air Resources Board. Sustainable Freight Transport Initiative. 2014. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/sfti/sfti.htm (accessed on 1 February 2014). 43. Health Risk Assessment for the UP Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and Dolores Railyards (Wilmington); California Air Resources Board, 2008. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/up_ictf_hra.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 44. 2010 Commitments to Further Reduce Diesel PM Emissions at Four High Priority Railyards; California Air Resources Board, 2010. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/ commitments/commitments.htm (accessed on 15 November 2013). 45. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Commerce Railyard; California Air Resources Board,, 2007, Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/up_com_hra.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1939

46. Health Risk Assessment for BNSF Hobart Yard (Commerce); California Air Resources Board, 2008. Available online: (accessed on 15 November 2013). 47. Ethington, P.J.; Koistra, A.; DeYoung, E. Los Angeles County Union Census Tract Data Series, 1940–1990. University of Southern California User’s Guide, 2000. Available online: http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/history/historylab/LAPUHK/Maps/Animated_Census/Data_Set/V1 01_USERS_GUIDE_2.htm (accessed on 15 November 2013). 48. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports for the ICTF. Los Angeles Harbor Department and Long Beach Harbor Department. 1982-1986. Available online: http://www.ictf-jpa.org/ document_library.php (accessed on 15 November 2013). 49. The Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) website. Available online: http://www.ictf-jpa.org/ (accessed on 15 November, 2013). 50. Final Environmental Impact Report, BNSF Southern California International Gateway. Available online: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/SCIG/FEIR/feir_scig.asp (accessed on 15 November 2013). 51. Schoch, D. Proposed Rail Yard Angers Residents of Nearby Long Beach Community. Foes Say Diesel-Spewing Trucks Carrying Cargo to the Site Would Worsen Air Pollution. Railway Promises a “Green” Facility. Los Angeles Times, 6 October 2005. Available online: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/06/local/me-rail6 (accessed on 15 November 2013). 52. Wyenn, M. Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard Staff Blog. Community Members Speak out against BNSF’s Proposed Los Angeles-area SCIG Rail Yard. 19 October 2012. Available online:http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mwyenn/community_members_speak_out_ag.html (accessed on 15 November 2013). 53. Matsumoto, C.M. Public Comment Letter to the Joint Powers Authority of the Union Pacific ICTF; Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), 2009. Available online: http://www.ictf-jpa.org/ publiccomment/Letters/LBUSD-022309.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). Note: The LBUSD is also a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Port of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles on the BNSF SCIG. 54. BNSF Connects. A Website Devoted to the BNSF SCIG. Available online: http://www.bnsfconnects. com/content/home (accessed on 15 November 2013). 55. Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on the BNSF Southern California International Gateway. Chapters 3, 4 and 6. September 2012. Available online: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/ EIR/SCIG/RDEIR/rdeir_scig.asp (accessed on 15 November 2013). 56. Weikel, D. Controversial Port Rail Yard Wins Approval of L.A. City Council. Governing, 9 May 2013. Available online: http://www.governing.com/news/local/mct-new-railyard-wins-approval- of-la-city-council.html (accessed on 15 November 2013). 57. Pacific Maritime Online. Three More Groups Sue over SCIG Project. Available online: http://www.pmmonlinenews.com/2013/06/three-more-groups-sue-over-scig-project.html (accessed on 15 November 2013).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1940

58. Peterson, M. Environmentalists, City of Long Beach, Air Regulators All File CEQA Challenges to Proposed Rail Transfer Yard. KPCC-FM. 8 June 2013. Available online: http://www.scpr.org/ blogs/environment/2013/06/08/13931/environmentalists-city-of-long-beach-air-regulator (accessed on 15 November 2013). Note: East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Directed by Angelo Logan, is One of the Plaintiffs in the Case. 59. Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Birmingham Regional Intermodal Facility, Undated. Available online: http://www.thefutureneedsus.com/images/uploads/BHamFactSheet_Proof_1.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2013). 60. Brozdowski, J. Containing an Expansion. South Side Weekly, 9 October 2013. Available online: http://southsideweekly.com/containing-an-expansion/ (accessed on 15 November 2013). 61. Shen, F. Small Community in the Path of Rail Project with Big Political Momentum. Available online: http://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/09/20/small-community-in-the-path-of-rail-project- with-big-political-momentum/ (accessed on 15 November 2013). 62. Jefferson County Tomorrow Retains Hurley Law Firm. Jefferson County Post, 27 May 2013. Available online: http://jeffersoncountypost.com/?p=9653 (accessed on 15 November 2013). 63. McGoldrick, J. No freight intermodal. Available online: http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/ showPost.cfm?bid=20614&mycomm=WCwww.nointermodal.com (accessed on 15 November 2013). 64. ICF International. Estimation of diesel particulate matter concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas and rail yards: Appendix H, Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 03, Contract Number EPC06094, September 2007. Memo available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR- 20030190. 65. Age, Income, and Racial/Ethnic Composition of Populations Exposed to DPM in the Vicinity of Rail Yards and Terminals; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190- 0752.8, 2003. Available online: http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/resources/Map/Railyards/EPA- HQ-OAR-2003-0190-0752.8.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 66. Reducing Air Emissions Associated With Goods Movement: Working Towards Environmental Justice (PDF), November 2009; EPA Response to Recommendations of the Goods Movement Work Group of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, July 2010. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/nejac/recommendations.html (accessed on 15 November 2013). Note: Authors Andrea Hricko and Angelo Logan were U.S. EPA appointees to this Goods Movement Work Group. 67. EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports; U.S. EPA Inspector General, 09P0125, 23 March 2009. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/ 20090323-09-P-0125.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013). 68. Cole, B.L.; Fielding, J.E. Health impact assessment: A tool to help policy makers understand health beyond health care. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2007, 28, 393–412. 69. National Center for Healthy Housing. Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment. 2013. Available online: http://www.nchh.org/Policy/HealthImpactAssessment/ BaltimoreWashingtonRailIntermodalFacilityHIA.aspx (accessed on 15 November 2013).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 1941

70. EPA Insight Policy Paper: Executive Order #12898 on Environmental Justice. Citing “Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”—February 11, 1994 by President Clinton. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/executive_order_12898.htm (accessed on 15 November 2013). 71. Vivar, J.; Vallianotos, M. The Impact Project Policy Brief Series. January 2012. Available online: http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/pdfs/Rail%20issue%20brief.%20January%202012.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2013).

© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

GUIDELINES for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations

PREPARED FOR THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES AND THE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

May 2013

Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations

May 2013

These guidelines were developed through the collaboration of the Railway Association of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, who work together through the FCM/RAC Proximity Initiative. For further information, please visit our joint website at www.proximityissues.ca, or contact:

The Railway Association of Canada Federation of Canadian Municipalities 99 Bank Street, Suite 901 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9 Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5P3

Tel : (613) 567-8591 Tel : (613) 241-5221 Fax : (613) 567-6726 Fax : (613) 241-7440

COVER PHOTOS COURTESY OF THE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA FCM/RAC Proximity Initiative

May, 2013

We are very pleased to present the new Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations.

These new guidelines are intended to replace and build on the FCM/RAC Proximity Guidelines and Best Practices Report, which was originally prepared and published in 2004 and reprinted in 2007. Since that time, there have been significant changes in both federal legislation and some provincial land use acts. The original guidelines have been reviewed, edited, and updated with the help and participation of stakeholders from railways, municipalities, and government to reflect the new legislative framework as well as to add a new section of guidelines and best practices that can be applied when converting industrial/commercial property into residential use when in proximity to railway operations.

The Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations is intended for use by municipalities and provincial governments, municipal staff, railways, developers, and property owners when developing lands in proximity to railway operations. They are meant to assist municipal governments and railways in reviewing and determining general planning policies when developing on lands in proximity to railway facilities, as well to establish a process for making site specific recommendations and decisions to reduce land-use incompatibilities for developments in proximity to railway operations. A key component is a model review process for new residential development, infill, and conversions in proximity to railways.

The guiding philisophy of this document is that, by building better today, we can avoid conflicts in the future.

Sincere Regards,

Sean Finn Doug Reycraft

FCM-RAC Proximity Co-Chair FCM-RAC Proximity Co-Chair Executive VP Corporate Services Mayor, Southwest Middlesex, ON and Chief Legal Officer, CN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS//

These guidelines and best practices were developed by the FCM/RAC Proximity Initiative with the help and participation of stakeholders from government, freight, passenger, and commuter railway operators, municipal councillors and mayors, municipal urban planners, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Railway Association of Canada.

I would like to especially acknowledge the members of the Guidelines Working Group who gave their time, expertise, and insight in vetting the research, developing the format, and editing the product from start to finish.

Adam Snow (Chair) Third Party Projects Officer - GO Transit Nick Coleman Manager, Community Planning & Development, CN Orest Rojik Right-of-Way Representative, CPR Giulio Cescato Planner, City of Toronto

And also Daniel Fusca of DIALOG who worked with the team.

The project was initiated and approved through the Steering Committee of the FCM/RAC Proximity Initiative:

Doug Reycraft - FCM Co-chair, Mayor, Southwest Middlesex, Ontario Frank Butzelaar - President & CEO, Southern Railway BC Ltd.

Sean Finn - RAC Co-chair, Executive VP & Chief Legal Officer, CN Louis Machado - Vice-président adjoint Exploitation, AMT

Mike Lowenger - VP, Operations & Regulatory Affairs, RAC Randy Marsh - Director, Government & Public Affairs, CP

Daniel Rubinstein - Research Officer, FCM Adam Snow - Third Party Projects Officer - GO Transit

John Corey - Manager, Rail Investigations, CTA Heath Slee - Director, East Kootenay RD

Jim Feeny - Director, Regional Public & Govt. Affairs, CN Ranjan Kelly - Project Manager, Data Bases & Websites, RAC

Cynthia Lulham - Project Manager, FCM/RAC Proximity Initiative Lynda Macleod - Manager, Legislative Affairs, CN

Cameron Stolz - City Councillor, Prince George, BC Paul Goyette - Director, Communications & Public Affairs, RAC

Steve Gallagher - Manager, Ontario Rail Operations, Cando Rail Malcolm Andrews - Senior Manager, Corporate Communications, VIA

Pauline Quinlan - Mairesse, Ville de Bromont, QC Mee Lan Wong - Policy Advisor, Transport Canada

Gary Price - City Councillor, Cambridge, ON Nick Coleman - Manager, Community Planning & Development, CN

We gratefully acknowledge their valued input and support.

Cynthia Lulham Project Manager, FCM/RAC Proximity Initiative CONTENTS//

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.0 // INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 // Purpose of the Report 8 1.2 // Sources 8 1.3 // Intended Audience 9 1.4 // Understanding Stakeholder Roles 9

2.0 // COMMON ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS 13 2.1 Safety 18 2.2 Noise and Vibration 19 2.3 Standard Mitigation 19 2.4 Challenges Associated With New Residential Development 20

3.0 // GUIDELINES 23 3.1 Principles for Mitigation Design 26 3.2 Consultation with the Railway 26 3.3 Building Setbacks 27 3.4 Noise Mitigation 28 3.5 Vibration Mitigation 33 3.6 Safety Barriers 36 3.7 Security Fencing 41 3.8 Stormwater Management and Drainage 42 3.9 Warning Clauses and Other Legal Agreements 42 3.10 Construction Issues 45 4.0 // IMPLEMENTATION 47 4.1 // Implementation Mechanisms 50 4.1.1 // Model Review Process For New Residential Development, Infill & Conversions In Proximity to Railway Corridors 50 4.1.2 // Mitigation Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy 52 4.2 // Advancing Stakeholder Roles 52 4.3 // Dispute Resolution 57

5.0 // CONCLUSION 65

A // APPENDICES 71 APPENDIX A // Development Viability Assessment 72 APPENDIX B // Sample Rail Classification System 76 APPENDIX C // Noise & Vibration Procedures & Criteria 78 APPENDIX D // New Rail Facilities & Significant Rail Expansions in Proximity to Residential or Other Sensitive Uses 92 APPENDIX E // Best Practices 94 APPENDIX F // Glossary 104 APPENDIX G // Links & Other Resources 106 APPENDIX H // List of Stakeholders Consulted 108 APPENDIX I // References 110

CONTENTS // vii As cities in Canada continue to urbanize, and as they place a greater emphasis on curbing urban sprawl, demand for new forms of infill development is growing, including on sites in proximity to railway corridors. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In particular, commercial and industrial properties in proximity to railway operations, and in some cases the buildings situated on those properties, are increasingly being converted to residential uses. At the same time, both the passenger and freight operations of railways are growing steadily, leading to an increasing potential for conflicts between rail operations and adjacent land uses.

Areas in proximity to railway operations are challenging • establish an effective approvals process for new settings for new development, and in particular, for residential development, infill, and conversions from residential development. It is often difficult to reconcile industrial/commercial uses that allows municipal the expectation and concerns of residents with railway planners to effectively evaluate such proposals with operations. For this reason, developments must be an eye to ensuring that appropriate sound, vibration, carefully planned so as not to unduly expose residents and safety mitigation is secured; and to railway activities as well as not to interfere with the • enhance the quality of living environments in close continued operation of the corridor itself, or the potential proximity to railway operations. for future expansion, as railways play an important economic role in society that must be safeguarded. The report builds on the 2004 FCM/RAC Proximity Guidelines and is intended for use by municipalities This report strongly recommends that municipalities should and provincial governments, municipal staff, take a proactive approach to identifying and planning railways, developers, and property owners when new for potential conflicts between rail operations and new developments in proximity to railway operations are developments in proximity to railway corridors. Prior proposed. Information has been assembled through a to the receipt of an application for a specific project, the comprehensive literature/best practices review from municipality should have already have identified key sites national and international sources as well as a consultation for potential redevelopment, conversion, or future rail process involving planners, architects, developers, and crossings, and will have generated site-specific policies to other professionals from across Canada, the USA, and manage such future change. Australia, as well as members of RAC and FCM. To further assist municipalities and other stakeholders, In addition to the detailed guidelines, the report offers this report provides a comprehensive set of guidelines a set of implementation tools and recommendations for use when developing on lands in proximity to railway that are meant to establish a clear framework for the operations. The intent of the guidelines is to: dissemination, promotion, and adoption of the guidelines; • promote awareness around the issues (noise, as well as suggested improvements to the development vibration, safety) and mitigation measures associated approval process. A key recommendation is for a new with development near railway operations, development assessment tool, called a Development particularly those associated with residential Viability Assessment, which will allow municipal development; planners to better evaluate proposals for residential development in areas where standard mitigation cannot • promote greater consistency in the application of be accommodated due to site constraints. relevant standards across the country;

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY // 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report 1.2 Sources 1.3 Intended Audience 1.4 Understanding Stakeholder Roles

SECTION 1 GUIDELINES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS

1.0 // INTRODUCTION Cities are the economic engines of Canada, and our quality of life and economic competitiveness depend on strong municipalities and sustainable municipal growth and development.

INTRODUCTION // 5 Equally important to the economy of Canada, railways ensure the efficient movement of goods and people. In so doing, railways make a vital contribution to the Canadian economy and to the success of Canadian communities. As cities across Canada begin to realize the benefits of curbing urban sprawl, and as consumer demand for more housing in urban centres grows, the push to intensify existing built-up areas, including sites in proximity to railway operations, has grown steadily stronger. At the same time, increased demand for rail service, the high cost of transport fuel, and new sustainability objectives have added new pressure to the railway industry, which is expanding rapidly. When issues related to proximity to railway operations are not properly understood and addressed, the resulting problems can often be intractable and long lasting.

Rail/municipal proximity issues typically occur in a report identifying best practices and guidelines for three principle situations: land development near rail new developments in proximity to railway operations operations; new or expanded rail facilities; and road/rail (reprinted 2007). This document is intended to update and crossings. The nature and integrity of railway corridors replace that original document, and includes additional and yards need to be respected and protected. In addition best practices and guidelines dealing specifically with to noise and vibration, safety, trespass, drainage, and/or residential conversion or infill projects on former blocked crossings are other inherent issues generated industrial or commercial lands. The intent of this report when both commnuities and railways grow in proximity is to provide municipalities with the necessary tools to to one another. The lack of a comprehensive set of facilitate decision-making, and to provide a framework for proximity management guidelines, applied consistently ensuring that new development in proximity to railway across municipal jurisdictions, has greatly amplified corridors is suitably configured to address the various these proximity issues in recent years, resulting in some risks and constraints present in railway environments. cases in (real and perceived) social, health, economic, and Additionally, this report is intended to address the safety issues for people, municipalities, and railways. variable nature in the delivery of mitigative measures In 2003, the FCM and RAC began an important partnership for new developments in proximity to railway to develop common approaches to the prevention and operations across Canadian jurisdictions. A site-specific resolution of issues arising from development occurring process is identified whereby the specific site conditions in close proximity to railway corridors and other rail related to a proposed development can be assessed operations. Under a Memorandum of Understanding by municipalities in order to determine the mitigation (MOU) agreed to by both parties, a Community-Rail measures most appropriate for that site, especially Proximity Initiative was established and a Steering in locations where standard mitigation cannot be Committee was formed with a mandate to develop accommodated in a reasonable manner. Additionally, and implement a strategy to reduce misunderstanding when a development application involves a residential and avoid unnecessary conflicts arising from railway- component, the process will help municipalities to decide community proximity. The result was a framework for whether the site is appropriate for such a use. When it a proximity initiative, with the following areas requiring comes to safety, all parties must be aware that there action: are inherent safety implications associated with new developments in proximity to a railway line, and that • develop commonly understood proximity guidelines; these implications can often be mitigated, but typically • improve awareness among all stakeholders not entirely eliminated. The goal is to establish a common, regarding the need for effective planning and standardized process, whereby potential impacts to management; and safety in the context of development applications in proximity to rail corridors can be assessed. • develop dispute resolution protocols to guide concerned parties when issues emerge. Finally, it is desirable for municipalities to take a proactive approach to identifying and planning for potential rail In 2004 the FCM and RAC Proximity Initiative published -oriented conflicts prior to the receipt of an application PHOTO SOURCE: RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

INTRODUCTION // 7 for a specific project. In the context of creating municipal needs and the desire of municipalities to facilitate and secondary plans, it behooves planners to identify residential and other intensification in existing key sites for potential redevelopment, conversion, or built-up areas; future rail crossings, and to generate site-specific policies • inform and influence railway and municipal planning to manage this future change. practices and procedures through the provision of guidelines that ensure planning systems and 1.1 // PURPOSE OF THE REPORT development approval processes more effectively The main objective of this report is to provide a set of anticipate and manage proximity conflicts; guidelines that can be applied to mitigate the impacts • promote greater consistency in the application of of locating new development in proximity to railway guidelines across the country; operations. It is important to note that these guidelines are not intended to be applied to existing locations • identify strategies to enhance the quality of living where proximity issues already exist, as these locations environments while reducing incompatibility; and present their own unique challenges which must be • inform and influence federal and provincial addressed on site specific basis. governments with respect to the development and The report will: implementation of applicable policies, guidelines, and regulations. • provide a framework to better facilitate municipal and railway growth; 1.2 // SOURCES • develop awareness around the issues associated The information in this report has been derived from with new development along railway corridors, two primary sources: including residential conversion or infill projects, particularly in terms of noise, vibration, and safety; • a thorough review of academic literature as well as municipal, state, provincial, and federal policy • provide model development guidelines, policies, and documents from Canada, the USA, and Australia; and regulations, and illustrate best practices for use and adaptation as appropriate by all stakeholders, most • extensive stakeholder interviews with municipal particularly railways, municipalities, and land developers; planners, railways, provincial and state bureaucrats, developers, and professionals with expertise in a variety • establish a mechanism that allows municipal of fields including property law, noise and vibration planners to effectively evaluate the appropriateness mitigation, and crash wall and berm construction. of an application to convert industrial or commercial lands in proximity to railway corridors to residential A full list of references is provided at the end of this uses, and of other residential infill projects near report (Appendix I), in addition to a list of organizations railway corridors; consulted as part of the stakeholder interview process (Appendix H). • establish a balance between the railway operational FIGURE 1 // OUTCOMES OF THE GUIDELINES FOR VARIOUS STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.

1.3 // INTENDED AUDIENCE 1.4.1 Federal

This report is intended to be used by: The federal government regulates the activities of CN, CPR, and VIA Rail Canada, and some short line railways • Municipalities and Provincial Governments, to create that operate interprovincially or internationally. These or update their policies, regulations, and standards federal railways are regulated by such legislation as the related to new development along railway corridors, Railway Safety Act (RSA), and the Canada Transportation in order to create more consistency across the Act (CTA). Applicable legislation, regulations, and country. guidelines are available from the respective websites. • Municipal staff, as a tool to better understand the safety, vibration, noise, and other issues related to 1.4.2 Provincial new development along railway corridors, and to Provinces provide the land use regulatory framework more effectively evaluate and provide feedback for municipalities through Planning Acts, Provincial on development proposals, particularly when they Policy Statements or Statements of Provincial Interest, involve a residential component. Environmental Assessment Acts, and air quality and • Railways, to update their internal policies regarding noise guidelines (such as the Ontario Ministry of the development in proximity to railway corridors, Environment Noise Assessment in Land Use Planning particularly residential infill development and documents). This legislation generally provides direction conversions, and to provide opportunities for on ensuring efficient and appropriate land use allocation collaboration with stakeholders. and on tying land use planning to sound transportation and planning principles. Generally, provinces also have • Developers and property owners, of sites in jurisdiction to establish land use tribunals to adjudicate proximity to railway corridors to better understand disputes, although the approach taken by provinces with the development approval process and the types of respect to establishing and empowering such tribunals mitigation measures that might be required. varies across the country. Additionally, some provinces regulate shortline railways. 1.4 // UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDER ROLES 1.4.3 Municipal The research associated with this report has revealed the complexity of interaction between public and Municipalities are responsible for ensuring efficient and private agencies and individuals. It further indicated effective land use and transportation planning within their that a lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities territory, including consultation with neighbouring property has contributed to the problems identified. This owners (such as railways), in carrying out their planning section provides a brief overview of these roles. responsibilities. Municipal planning instruments include Recommendations for how each stakeholder can assist in various community-wide and area plans, Zoning By-law/ the advancement of the goal of reducing proximity issues Ordinances, Development Guidelines, Transportation Plans, are found in Section 4.2 Advancing Stakeholder Roles. Conditions of Development Approval, and Development

INTRODUCTION // 9 PHOTO SOURCE: RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA Agreements to secure developer obligations and 1.4.5 Land Developer / Property Owner requirements. Municipal governments have a role to play Land developers are responsible for respecting land in proximity issues management by ensuring responsible use development policies and regulations to achieve land use planning policies, guidelines, and regulatory development that considers and respects the needs of frameworks, as well as by providing a development surrounding existing and future land uses. As initiators approvals process that reduces the potential for future of urban developments, they also have the responsibility conflicts between land uses. to ensure that development projects are adequately 1.4.4 Railway integrated in existing environment.

Federally regulated railways are governed, in part, by 1.4.6 Real Estate Sales / Marketing the requirements of the Canada Transportation Act and Transfer Agents (CTA). Under the CTA, railways are required to obtain an approval from the Canadian Transportation Agency Real estate sales people and property transfer agents for certain new railway construction projects. Through (notaries and lawyers) are often the first and only this process, railways must give notification and consult contacts for people purchasing property, and therefore with interested parties. For existing railway operations, have a professional obligation to seek out and provide the CTA requires that railways make only such noise and accurate information to buyers and sellers. vibration as is reasonable, taking into consideration their operational requirements and the need for the railway 1.4.7 Academia and Specialized Training Programs to meet its obligation to move passengers and the goods Academic institutions provide training in all fields entrusted to it for carriage. Additionally, federal railways related to land use planning, development, and railway are required to adhere to the requirements of the Railway engineering. Safety Act (RSA), which promotes public safety and the protection of property and the environment in the 1.4.8 Industry Associations operation of a railway. Railways also typically establish formal company environmental management policies Industry associations include bodies such as the RAC, and participate in voluntary programs and multi-party FCM, Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators initiatives such as Direction 2006, Operation Lifesaver, (CAMA), Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), provincial TransCAER, and Responsible Care®. planning associations, the Canadian Acoustical Association (CAA), and land development groups such as Both CN and CPR, as well as VIA Rail Canada, and many short the Urban Development Institute. line railways across the country, have established guidelines for new development in proximity to their railway corridors, and they have a significant role to play in providing knowledge and expertise to municipal and provincial authorities, as well as developers and property owners.

INTRODUCTION // 11

2 COMMON ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS

2.1 Safety 2.2 Noise and Vibration 2.3 Standard Mitigation 2.4 Challenges Associated with New Residential Development

SECTION 2 GUIDELINES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS

2.0 // COMMON ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS The practice of developing land in close proximity to rail operations, as well as the expansion of rail operations in urban areas, have generated a variety of opportunities...

COMMON ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS // 15 ...as well as challenges for municipalities, developers, and railways, who must work together to balance a variety of sometimes competing goals and aspirations, including:

• the desire to promote excellence in urban design; proximity can be broadly categorized as follows:

• the need, in some cases, to preserve employment 1. Inadequate communication - both formal and lands and protect them from encroaching residential informal notification and consultation is lacking development; between and among stakeholders.

• the growing demand for infill development that 2. Lack of understanding and awareness of promotes the principles of sustainability and smart rail/municipal proximity issues - the issues growth; and regulations affecting rail operations and municipal land use decisions are complex and • the need to provide sufficient noise and vibration involve every level of government. Individual mitigation and safety measures; stakeholders are not always familiar with • the desire of developers for consistency and clarity the mandate and operating realities of other in the development process; stakeholder agencies. Rail/municipal proximity issues only arise infrequently for many • the desire of developers and municipalities to see municipalities, particularly smaller ones, and an improved and streamlined development review staff may not be aware of required or appropriate process for residential projects in proximity to mitigation measures. railway corridors; and 3. Absence of comprehensive or consistent • the necessity of recognizing the significant economic development review - policies, regulations, and contributions of the railways, and of ensuring approaches for dealing with land use decisions their continued ability to provide their services involving rail proximity issues vary greatly from unimpeded. municipality to municipality, and are lacking In addition, it is important to recognize that areas in detail in most cases. In particular, there is a need proximity to railway operations are challenging settings for a new development review process that for new development, and in particular, residential deals specifically with residential development development. Railway operations can generate concerns, proposals, especially those involving a such as blocked crossings, dangers to trespassers, as well conversion from commercial or industrial uses, as impacts on the quality of life of nearby residents due or which are to be located on tight infill sites. to the effects of inherent noise, vibration, and railway In addition to these common constraints, there are a incidents . Conversely, developments must be carefully number of very specific issues which, in some cases, planned so as not to interfere with the continued are a result of the constraints, and in others, fuel them. operation of railway activities, or the potential for future These include issues around safety, noise, vibration, the expansion, as railways play an important economic role accommodation of safety mitigation measures, and the in society that must be safeguarded. accommodation of residential development near railway The most significant constraints related to railway corridors. Following is a brief summary of some of the PHOTO SOURCE: RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

COMMON ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS // 17 more specific issues associated with new development As part of that objective, railways have, since the early in proximity to railway operations. 1980s, promoted mitigation in the form of a standard setback and berm. These measures have been developed 2.1 // SAFETY based on a detailed analysis of past incidents and derailments. Together, they contain the derailed cars Safety is a concern which has been expressed by and allow a derailed train enough room to come to a residents living in proximity to railways. In Stronger complete stop. In addition, setbacks and berms also Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety (2007), a allow for the dissipation of noise and vibration, and have report commissioned as part of a review of the Railway typically been effective at ameliorating the proximity Safety Act, it is noted that rail is one of the safest modes concerns perceived by residents living near railway of transportation, and that Canada's railways are among operations. While these measures are recommended for the safest in North America. When accidents do occur, all types of new development in proximity to railway the vast majority are non-main track collisions and operations, they have typically only been considered derailments occurring primarily in yards or terminals. by the railways as a mandatory requirement for Only slightly more than 10 percent of railway accidents residential development. Nevertheless, in some cases are collisions or derailments that occur on track between where conversion or infill sites are small and cannot stations or terminals, including branch and feeder lines, accommodate standard setbacks, reduced setbacks may although these are the accidents with the greatest be possible under certain conditions (for example, if consequences in terms of property and environmental the railway line is located in a cut), but in the majority damage. Additionally, the number of accidents involving of cases, an alternate form of safety barrier (such as a the transportation of dangerous goods has been falling crash wall) will be required. steadily since 1996, even as rail transport of regulated dangerous goods has grown by as much as 60 percent. Most jurisdictions across Canada have yet to establish By far, the greatest number of annual fatalities resulting a formal requirement for rail corridor building setbacks. from railway accidents involves trespassers or vehicle In some cases, minimum setback requirements are occupants or pedestrians being struck at crossings.1 As considered to be too onerous, and are either ignored a result, trespassing is at least as great, if not greater a or subjectively reduced. Ontario, which mandates the safety concern than is derailment. involvement of railways on any development proposal in proximity to railway facilities, is the only province 2.1.1 Train Derailments where standard setbacks are typically achieved. This creates a perception that developers in that province are The desire to ensure safety and promote a high quality treated differently since they bear the additional costs of life for people living and working in close proximity associated with implementing safety mitigation, whereas to railway corridors is a principal objective of railways. developers in other provinces do not. In reality, this is simply an outcome of Ontario's stronger regulatory 1 Railway Safety Act Review Secretariat. (2007). Stronger ties: A shared framework for dealing with development in railway commitment to railway safety. Retrieved from the Transport Canada environments. website: www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/RSA_Review-Examen_LSF Earthen Berm

FIGURE 2 // STANDARD MITIGATION FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO A MAIN LINE RAILWAY

2.1.2 Crossings Freight rail yard noises tend to be frequent and of longer duration, including shunting cars, idling locomotives, As urban areas grow in proximity to railway corridors, wheel and brake retarder squeal, clamps used to secure road traffi c at existing crossings increases and can containers, bulk loading/unloading operations, shakers, lead to demands for improvements to such crossings, and many others. demands for additional crossings, or demands for grade separations to accommodate the fl ow of the traffi c from Beyond the obvious annoyance, some studies have the new development to areas on the other side of the found that the sleep disturbance induced by adverse railway. Conversely, Transport Canada and the railways levels of noise can affect cardiovascular, physiological, strive to reduce the number of at-grade crossings and mental health, and physical performance.3 However, since each new crossing increases the risk exposure there is no clear consensus as to the real affects of for potential vehicle/train and pedestrian accidents, as adverse levels of noise on health. well as the related road traffi c delays. Grade-separated Ground borne vibration from the wheel-rail interface crossings address both these issues, but are expensive passes through the track structure into the ground and to construct. Safety at railway crossings is a concern for can transfer and propagate through the ground to nearby all stakeholders and planning is necessary to consider buildings. Vibration is more diffi cult to predict and alternatives to creating new grade crossings, including mitigate than noise and there is no universally accepted upgrading and improving safety at existing crossings method of measurement or applicable guidelines. and grade-separated crossings. Vibration evaluation methods are generally based on the human response to vibration. The effects of vibration 2.2 // NOISE AND VIBRATION on occupants include fear of damage to the occupied Noise and vibration from rail operations are two of the structure, and interference with sleep, conversation, and primary sources of complaints from residents living near other activities. railway corridors. Airborne noise at low frequencies (caused by locomotives) can also induce vibration 2.3 // STANDARD MITIGATION in lightweight elements of a building, which may be In order to reduce incompatibility issues associated with perceived to be ground-borne vibration. locating new development (particularly new residential There are two sources of rail noise: noise from pass-by development) in proximity to railway corridors, the trains, and noise from rail yard activities, including railways suggest a package of mitigation measures that shunting. Pass-by noise is typically intermittent, of have been designed to ameliorate the inherent potential limited duration and primarily from locomotives. Other required to sound their whistles for at least 400 metres before sources of pass-by noise include whistles at level entering a public crossing, unless relief has been granted in crossings2, and car wheels on the tracks. accordance with the regulatory process. 3 Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., & Schwela, D. H., eds. (1999). Guidelines for community noise [Research Report]. Retrieved from World Health 2 Applicable to federally regulated railways and some provincially Organization website: http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/ regulated railways (notably in Quebec and Ontario). Trains are guidelines2.html

COMMON ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS // 19 for the occurrence of safety, security, noise, vibration, and dealing with the maintenance of mitigation infrastructure. trespass issues. These mitigation measures (illustrated In some cases, as is the current practice in Saskatoon, the in FIGURE 2) include a minimum setback, earthen berm, municipality takes on this responsibility. Increasingly, acoustical and/or chain link security fence, as well as however, this is seen as an undue burden on municipal additional measures for sound and vibration attenuation. coffers, particularly within the current difficult budgetary climate. In Ontario, there was a time when the railways It should be noted that many of these measures are most occasionally took possession of the portion of the berm effective only when they are implemented together beyond the fence facing onto the railway corridor, but as part of the entire package of standard mitigation this land attracted property taxes at residential rates. As measures. For example, the setback contributes to such, this practice has largely ended. Commonly, property mitigation against the potential impact of a railway owners maintain ownership of this portion of land, and incident as well as noise and vibration, through distance are expected to maintain the mitigation infrastructure separation. The earthen berm, in turn, can protect against themselves. This strategy can work for commercial or the physical components of a derailment (in conjunction industrial developments, or in the case of condominium with the setback), and provides mitigation of wheel and developments, where the land becomes part of the common rail noise, reduces the masonry or wood component areas of the condominium and maintenance becomes the (and cost) of the overall noise barrier height, and offers responsibility of the corporation. In the case of freehold an opportunity for the productive use of foundation developments, however, where the responsibility for excavations. Implementation of the entire package of maintenance lies with individual property owners, it is mitigation measures is, therefore, highly desirable, as virtually impossible for them to easily access the side of it provides the highest possible overall attenuation the berm facing onto the railway corridor, and would be of incompatibility issues. It should also be noted that dangerous for them to do so in any case. Recommendations implementation of such measures is easiest to achieve regarding a Mitigation Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy for new greenfield development. For this reason, these are included in Section 4.1.2 of this report. measures are not intended as retrofits for existing residential neighbourhoods in proximity to railway operations. As well, challenges may be encountered 2.4 // CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH NEW in the case of conversions or infill projects on small or RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT constrained sites, and any implications related to the use Residential development is particularly challenging of alternative mitigation measures need to be carefully in the context of a railway environment. As noted evaluated. above, safety, noise, and vibration issues become more significant when dealing with residential development. 2.3.1 Maintenance Partly, this is because people are more sensitive to A common issue that emerged through this process was these issues in the context of their own homes than in that of the responsibility for maintaining mitigation other contexts (work, leisure, etc.). It is also because the infrastructure. Currently, there is no standard approach to negative effects of noise and vibration become more pronounced when they disturb normal sleeping patterns. outcomes across the country. In particular, municipalities will need to carefully consider the viability of sites for When residential development in proximity to railway conversion to residential uses, based on criteria such as: corridors occurs on large greenfield sites, dealing with existing contextual land use, size of site, appropriateness these issues is typically not a challenge, as standard of high-density development, and the demonstrated mitigation measures can be easily accommodated, and effectiveness of alternative mitigation measures. are quite effective. Residential development becomes Recommendations regarding a Model Review Process significantly more challenging, however, when the context for Residential Development, Infill, and Conversions is a small infill site, such as those typically associated with Adjacent to Railway Corridors can be found in Section the conversion of commercial or industrial properties. In 4.1.1 of this report. addition to their small size, these sites are also often oddly shaped, and do not easily accommodate standard mitigation measures such as a setback and berm. In addition, existing commercial buildings that are typically associated with conversions to residential use may not meet current residential building code specifications and for this reason it is very important that proper mitigation measures are implemented for these buildings.

In the case of high-density development, crash walls and extensive vibration isolation become economically feasible, negating the problems associated with small sites. However, where high-density development is not appropriate given the site context, these solutions are not financially feasible for the developer, and a different approach is required. Across Canada, there have been inconsistencies in the way these sites are dealt with, and in some cases, residential development has been allowed with little to no mitigation, which could present proximity issues and concerns to residents in the future.

A major contributing factor with respect to inconsistencies in the application of mitigation measures across Canada is the lack of a clear development approval process for residential development in proximity to railway corridors in most jurisdictions outside of Ontario. A new approach is required that will ensure more consistent

COMMON ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS // 21

3GUIDELINES

3.1 Principles for Mitigation Design 3.2 Consultation with the Railway 3.3 Building Setbacks 3.4 Noise Mitigation 3.5 Vibration Mitigation 3.6 Safety Barriers 3.7 Security Fencing 3.8 Stormwater Management and Drainage 3.9 Warning Clauses and Other Legal Agreements 3.10 Construction Issues SECTION 3 GUIDELINES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS SECTION 3 GUIDELINES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS

3.0 // GUIDELINES The intention of these guidelines is to provide a level of consistency in the approach to the design of buildings and their context in proximity to railway corridors, and the type of mitigation that is provided across the country.

GUIDELINES // 25 FIGURE 3 // THE DEVELOPMENT VIABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL IS TO BE USED WHERE STANDARD MITIGATION MEASURES CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED

The main objective is to mitigate railway-oriented impacts such as noise, vibration, and safety hazards, to ensure that the quality of life of a building’s residents and users is not negatively affected. The guidelines are intended to be applied primarily to new residential development but may be useful for all other types of new development as well.

3.1 // PRINCIPLES FOR MITIGATION DESIGN of proceeding. Key issues or concerns that may need to be addressed will be identified. The following principles for mitigation design should be considered when applying the guidelines below. They • Early contact between the proponent and the are an expression of the intent of the guidelines, and both railway (preferably in the project's early design developers as well as municipalities should have regard phase), is highly recommended, especially for for them when designing or assessing new residential sites in close proximity to railway corridors. This development in proximity to a railway corridor. consultation is important in order to determine:

1. Standard mitigation measures are desired as a »» the location of the site in relation to the rail minimum requirement. corridor;

2. In instances where standard mitigation measures »» the nature of the proposed development; are not viable, alternative development solutions »» the frequency, types, and speeds of trains may be introduced in keeping with the Development travelling within the corridor; Viability Assessment process (SEE FIGURE 3). »» the potential for expansion of train traffic within 3. All mitigation measures should be designed to the the corridor; highest possible urban design standards. Mitigation solutions, as developed through the Development »» any issues the railway may have with the new Viability Assessment process, should not create development or with specific uses proposed for an onerous, highly engineered condition that the new development; overwhelms the aesthetic quality of an environment. »» the capacity for the site to accommodate standard mitigation measures; 3.2 // CONSULTATION WITH THE RAILWAY »» any suggestions for alternate mitigation measures Consultation with all stakeholders, including the railways, that may be appropriate for the site; and at the outset of a planning process is imperative to » the specifications to be applied to the project. building understanding and informing nearby neighbours. » In addition, initiating a conversation with railways can confirm the feasibility of a project and the practicality FIGURE 4 // INCORPORATING A CRASH WALL INTO A DEVELOPMENT CAN REDUCE THE RECOMMENDED SETBACK.

3.3 // BUILDING SETBACKS FOR NEW • Setback distances must be measured from the DEVELOPMENTS mutual property line to the building face. This will ensure that the entire railway right-of-way is A setback from the railway corridor, or railway freight yard, protected for potential rail expansion in the future. is a highly desirable development condition, particularly in the case of new residential development. It provides »» Policy Recommendation a buffer from railway operations; permits dissipation of rail-oriented emissions, vibrations, and noise; and Municipalities should establish minimum setback accommodates a safety barrier. Residential separation requirements through a zoning bylaw amendment. distances from freight rail yards are intended to address the fundamental land use incompatibilities. Proponents are encouraged to consult with the railway early in the • Under typical conditions, the setback is measured as development process to determine the capacity of the site a straight-line horizontal distance. to accommodate standard setbacks (see below). On smaller • Where larger building setbacks are proposed (or sites, reduced setbacks should be considered in conjunction are more practicable, such as in rural situations), with alternative safety measures. Where the recommended reduced berm heights should be considered. setbacks are not technically or practically feasible due, for example, to site conditions or constraints, then a • Marginal reductions in the recommended setback of Development Viability Assessment should be undertaken up to 5 metres may be achieved through a reciprocal by the proponent to evaluate the conditions specific to increase in the height of the safety berm (see the site, determine its suitability for new development, Section 3.6 Safety Barriers) and suggest options for mitigation. Development Viability • Horizontal setback requirements may be Assessments are explained in detail in Appendix A. substantially reduced with the construction of a 3.3.1 Guidelines crash wall (see Section 3.6 Safety Barriers). For example, where a crash wall is incorporated into • The standard recommended building setbacks for a low-occupancy podium below a residential new residential development in proximity to railway tower, the setback distance may be measured as a operations are as follows: combination of horizontal and vertical distances, as »» Freight Rail Yard: 300 metres long as the horizontal and vertical value add up to the recommended setback. This concept is illustrated »» Principle Main Line: 30 metres in FIGURE 4.

»» Secondary Main Line: 30 metres • Where there are elevation differences between »» Principle Branch Line: 15 metres the railway and a subject development property, appropriate variations in the minimum setback »» Secondary Branch Line: 15 metres should be determined in consultation with the »» Spur Line: 15 metres affected railway. For example, should the railway GUIDELINES // 27 FIGURES 5 (LEFT) & 6 (RIGHT) // SETBACK CONFIGURATION OPTIONS FOR OPTIMUM SITE DESIGN Note that in both scenarios displayed in Figures 5 & 6, the presence of intervening structures between the railway and the outdoor amenity areas may negate the need for a sound barrier. Where a barrier is not required for noise, vegetative or other screening is recommended to provide a visual barrier to the sometimes frightening onset of a high speed passenger train.

tracks be located in a cut, reduced setbacks may be building retrofits, while the majority of the guidelines appropriate. below will apply, special attention should be paid to windows, doors, and the exterior cladding of the building. • Appropriate uses within the setback area include public and private roads; parkland and other 3.4.1 Guidelines outdoor recreational space including backyards, • Since rail noise is site-specific in nature, the level and impact swimming pools, and tennis courts; unenclosed of noise on a given site should be accurately assessed by gazebos; garages and other parking structures; a qualified acoustic consultant through the preparation of and storage sheds. a noise impact study. The objective of the noise impact Example setback configurations are illustrated inFIGURES study is to assess the impact of all noise sources affecting 5 AND 6. the subject lands and to determine the appropriate layout, design, and required control measures. Noise studies should 3.4 // NOISE MITIGATION be undertaken by the proponent early in the development process, and should be submitted with the initial proposal. Noise resulting from rail operations is a key issue with regards to the liveability of residential developments in proximity to railway facilities, and may also be »» Policy Recommendation problematic for other types of sensitive uses, including Municipalities should consider amending their schools, daycares, recording studios, etc. As well as being Official Plan or other appropriate legislation to a major source of annoyance for residents, noise can also require noise impact studies as part of any rezoning have impacts on physical and mental health, particularly or Official Plan amendment near railway operations. if it interferes with normal sleeping patterns.1 The rail noise issue is site-specific in nature, as the level and impact of noise varies depending on the type • The recommended minimum noise influence areas to be of train operations. (see Appendix B for a sample rail considered for railway corridors when undertaking noise classification system). Proponents will have to carefully studies are: plan any new development in proximity to a railway corridor to ensure that noise impacts are minimized as »» Freight Rail Yards: 1,000 metres much as possible. Generally, during the day, noise should »» Principal Main Lines: 300 metres be contained to a level conducive to comfortable speech communication or listening to soft music, and at night it »» Secondary Main Lines: 250 metres should not interfere with normal sleeping patterns.2 For »» Principal Branch Lines: 150 metres

1 Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., & Schwela, D. H., eds. (1999). Guidelines for »» Secondary Branch Lines: 75 metres community noise [Research Report]. Retrieved from World Health Organization website: http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/ » Spur Lines: 75 metres guidelines2.html » 2 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (1986). Road and rail noise: Effects on housing [Canada]: Author. FIGURE 7 // EFFECT OF A NOISE BARRIER ON THE PATH OF NOISE FROM THE RECEIVER TO THE SOURCE. A NOISE BARRIER REDUCES NOISE LEVELS IN THREE WAYS: BY DEFLECTING NOISE OFF OF IT, BY DAMPENING THE NOISE THAT IS TRANSMITTED THROUGH IT, AND BY BENDING, OR DIFFRACTING NOISE OVER IT. THE AREA RECEIVING THE MOST PROTECTION BY THE NOISE BARRIER IS TYPICALLY REFERRED TO AS THE "SHADOW ZONE".

• The acoustic consultant should calculate the external • It is recommended that proponents consult noise exposure, confirm with measurements if Section 2.4 of the Canadian Transportation Agency there are special conditions, and calculate the (CTA) report, Railway Noise Measurement and resultant internal sound levels. This should take Reporting Methodology (2011) for guidance on the into account the particular features of the proposed recommended content and format of a noise impact development. The measurements and calculations study. should be representative of the full range of 3.4.1.1 Avoiding Adverse Noise Impacts through trains and operating conditions likely to occur in Good Design the foreseeable future at the particular site or location. The study report should include details of Many of the adverse impacts of railway noise can be assessment methods, summarize the results, and avoided or minimized through good design practices. recommend the required outdoor as well as indoor Careful consideration of the location and orientation of control measures. buildings, as well as their internal layout can minimize the exposure of sensitive spaces to railway noise. Site • To achieve an appropriate level of liveability, design should take into consideration the location of and to reduce the potential for complaints due to the rail corridor, existing sound levels, topography, and noise emitted from rail operations, new residential nearby buildings. Noise barriers, acoustic shielding from buildings in proximity to railway operations should other structures, and the use of appropriate windows, be designed and constructed to comply with the doors, ventilation, and façade materials can all minimize sound level limits criteria shown in AC.1.4 (see the acoustic impacts of railway operations. Note that AC.1.6 for sound limit criteria for residential many of the design options recommended below have buildings in proximity to freight rail shunting yards). cost and market acceptability liabilities that should be Habitable rooms should be designed to meet the evaluated at the outset of the design process. criteria when their external windows and doors are closed. If sound levels with the windows or doors 3.4.1.2 Noise Barriers open exceed these criteria by more than 10 dBA, the • A noise barrier can effectively reduce outdoor rail design of ventilation for these rooms should be such noise by between 5dBA and 15dBA, although the that the occupants can leave the windows closed to largest noise reductions are difficult to achieve mitigate against noise (e.g. through the provision of without very high barriers. Noise barriers provide central air conditioning systems). significant noise reductions only when they block • In Appendix C, recommended procedures for the the line of sight between the noise source and the preparation of noise impact studies are provided, as receiver. Minimum noise barrier heights vary by well as detailed information on noise measurement. the classification of the neighbouring rail line.3 These should be observed. Though the required height will be determined by

3 Note that the height of a noise barrier can be achieved in combination with that of a berm, if present.

GUIDELINES // 29 FIGURE 8 // PRECEDENT IMAGERY DEMONSTRATING THE INCORPORATION OF URBAN DESIGN AND LIVING WALLS INTO NOISE BARRIERS SOURCES: (LEFT) WESTFIELD WINDBREAK BY WILTSHIREBLOKE. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. RETRIEVED FROM: HTTP://WWW.FLICKR.COM/PHOTOS/ WILTSHIREBLOKE/3580334228/. (MIDDLE) AUTUMN COLORS BY GEIR HALVORSEN. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. RETRIEVED FROM: HTTP://WWW.FLICKR.COM/PHOTOS/ DAMIEL/47160698/. (RIGHT) IMAGE BY DIALOG.

an acoustic engineer in a noise report, they are of any type are an unnecessary burden on future typically at least: residents.

»» Principal Main Line: 5.5 metres above top of rail • Consideration should be made to limiting the visual impact of noise barriers in order to maintain a high »» Secondary Main Line: 4.5 metres above top of rail level of urban design in all new developments, and »» Principal Branch Line: 4.0 metres above top of to discourage vandalism. This can be accomplished rail by incorporating public art into the design of the barrier, or through the planting of trees and shrubs »» Secondary Branch Line: no minimum on the side of the barrier facing the development, »» Spur Line: no minimum particularly where it is exposed to regular sunlight.

Differences in elevation between railway lands and • Alternatively, the barrier itself may be constructed development lands may significantly increase or as a living wall, which also has the benefit of decrease the required height of the barrier, which providing additional noise attenuation. FIGURE must at least break the line of sight. Thus, when not 8 provides some examples of how good design at the same grade, the typical barrier heights are practices may be incorporated into the design of measured from an inclined plane struck between the noise barriers. ground at the wall of the dwelling and the top of the N.B. New barriers constructed on one side of a railway highest rail. opposite an older neighbourhood without barriers may • In keeping with existing railway guidelines for new lead to concerns from existing residents about the developments, noise barriers must be constructed potential for noise increases due to barrier reflections. adjoining and parallel to the railway right-of-way It is common for the characteristics of the noise to with returns at each end. They must be constructed change due to frequency, duration, and time of onset, without holes or gaps and should be made of a which, combined, may be perceived as a significant durable material with sufficient mass to limit the increase in noise levels. However, this is not generally noise transmission to at least 10dBA less than supported through onsite measurement, as the train the noise that passes over the barrier,4 at least will act as its own barrier to any reflected noise during 20 kg per square metre of surface area. Masonry, pass-by. concrete, or other specialist construction is preferred 3.4.1.3 Building Location, Design Orientation, in order to achieve the maximum noise reduction and Room Layout combined with longevity. Well-built wood fences are acceptable in most cases. Poorly constructed fences While low-rise buildings may benefit from shielding provided by topography, barriers, or other buildings, 4 Rail Infrastructure Corporation. (November 2003). Interim guidelines high-rise buildings usually receive less noise shielding, for applicants: Consideration of rail noise and vibration in the and are, therefore, typically more exposed to noise from planning process. Retrieved from http://www.daydesign.com.au/ downloads/Interim_guidelines_for_applicants.pdf NOISY QUIET SIDE SIDE

NOISE Larger windows and SOURCE balconies away from Often used rooms where noise noise source must be minimal Rooms used (e.g.: bedrooms, living rm.) less often (e.g.: laundries/ Solid bathrooms) insulated walls with small penetrations against noise source

FIGURE 9 // LOCATING NOISE SENSITIVE ROOMS AWAY FROM RAIL NOISE IN FIGURE 10 // LOCATING NOISE SENSITIVE ROOMS AWAY FROM RAIL NOISE DETACHED DWELLINGS; AND FIGURE 10 (RIGHT) - LOCATING NOISE SENSITIVE IN MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM FIGURES 3.5 & 3.6 IN ROOMS AWAY FROM RAIL NOISE IN MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS. (SOURCE: THE DEVELOPMENT NEAR RAIL CORRIDORS AND BUSY ROADS - INTERIM ADAPTED FROM FIGURE 3.6 IN THE DEVELOPMENT NEAR RAIL CORRIDORS GUIDELINE BY THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA) AND BUSY ROADS - INTERIM GUIDELINE BY THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA)

rail operations. In either case, noise mitigation needs to »» Policy Recommendations be considered at the outset of a development project, during the layout and design stage. Urban Design Guidelines for development near railway corridors would be a valuable tool in • One of the most effective ways of reducing the suggesting building layout and design. Alternatively, impact of rail noise is through the use of a setback, municipal planners should pay close attention by increasing the separation between the source to these issues through a site planning process. of noise and the noise sensitive area. Generally, Jurisdictions that do not allow comprehensive site doubling the distance from the noise source to the planning may wish to consider amendments to their receiver will reduce the noise levels by between land use planning legislation. 3dBA and 6dBA.5 (See Section 3.3 Building Setbacks)

Comprehensive zoning for podiums would be a • The layout of residential buildings can also be valuable tool for areas in proximity to railway configured to reduce the impact of rail noise. For operations that municipalities have identified for example, bedrooms and other habitable areas should redevelopment. Urban Design Guidelines can also be located on the side of the building furthest from speak to appropriate built form, including podium the rail corridor. Conversely, rooms that are less design, setbacks, step backs etc. At a minimum, sensitive to noise (such as laundry rooms, bathrooms, municipal planners should secure podium massing as storage rooms, corridors, and stairwells) can be located part of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment. on the noisy side of the building to act as a noise buffer. This concept is illustrated in FIGURES 9 AND 10. Balconies can be regulated through zoning if administered comprehensively and can be secured as • Minimizing the number of doors and windows on part of a site-specific zoning by-law. Urban Design the noisy side of the dwelling will help to reduce Guidelines should also speak to appropriate balcony the intrusion of noise. In the case of multi-unit design (e.g. recessed versus protruding balconies). developments, a single-loaded building where the units are located on the side of the building facing Urban Design Guidelines should contain away from the rail corridor is another potential comprehensive information on best practices for solution for reducing noise penetration. landscape design, and appropriate types and species of plants. 3.4.1.4 Podiums

Urban Design Guidelines can speak to materiality. • Outdoor rail noise can be substantially reduced by Some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, allow building residential apartments on top of a podium municipalities to regulate external materials through or commercial building space. If the residential

the site plan process. This practice should be 5 State Government of New South Wales, Department of Planning. (2008). encouraged and jurisdictions that do not currently Development near rail corridors and busy roads - interim guideline. Retrieved from http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/rdaguidelines/ allow for this should consider making appropriate documents/DevelopmentNearBusyRoadsandRailCorridors.pdf amendments to their land use planning legislation. GUIDELINES // 31 FIGURE 11 // PODIUMS CAN HELP REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF NOISE THAT FIGURE 12 // USING ENCLOSED BALCONIES FACING A RAILWAY CORRIDOR REACHES RESIDENCES IF A SETBACK IS USED. (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM AS NOISE SHIELDS. (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM FIGURE 3.16 IN THE FIGURE 3.13 IN THE DEVELOPMENT NEAR RAIL CORRIDORS AND BUSY DEVELOPMENT NEAR RAIL CORRIDORS AND BUSY ROADS - INTERIM ROADS - INTERIM GUIDELINE BY THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES, GUIDELINE BY THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA). AUSTRALIA).

tower is set back, then the podium acts to provide exposed to the external noise. increased distance from the railway corridor, thus 3.4.1.8 Windows reducing the noise from the corridor and providing extra shielding to the lower apartments. This Acoustically, windows are among the weakest elements of a concept is illustrated in FIGURE 11. building façade. An open or acoustically weak window can severely negate the effect of an otherwise acoustically strong 3.4.1.5 Balconies façade.6 Therefore, it is extremely important to carefully • Providing enclosed balconies can be an effective consider the effects of windows on the acoustic performance means of reducing the noise entering a building. of any building façade in proximity to a railway corridor. Where enclosed balconies are used, acoustic louvres In addition to the recommendations below, proponents and possibly a fan to move air into and out of the are advised to familiarize themselves with the Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating system, which allows for a balcony space may be installed to address ventilation comparison of the noise reduction that different windows requirements. This concept is illustrated in FIGURE 12. provide.7 In order to successfully ensure noise reduction from 3.4.1.6 Vegetation windows, proponents should:

• While vegetation such as trees and shrubs does • ensure windows are properly sealed by using a flexible not actually limit the intrusion of noise, it has been caulking such as mastic or silicone on both the inside shown to create the perception of reduced noise of the window and outside, between the wall opening levels. Vegetation is also valuable for improving the and the window frame; aesthetics of noise barriers and for reducing the • use double-glazed windows with full acoustic seals. potential for visual intrusion from railway operations. When using double-glazing, the wider the air space 3.4.1.7 Walls between the panes, the higher the insulation (50 mm to 100 mm is preferable in non-sealed widows and 25mm • In order to reduce the transmission of noise into in sealed windows). It is also desirable in some cases to the building, it is recommended that masonry or specify the panes with different thicknesses to avoid concrete construction or another form of heavy sympathetic resonance or to use at least one laminated wall be used for all buildings in close proximity to lite to dampen the vibration within the window; railway corridors. This will aid in controlling the sound-induced vibration of the walls that rattles • consider reducing the size of windows (i.e. use punched windows, pictures, and loose items on shelving. windows instead of a window wall or curtain wall); Additionally, care should be taken to ensure that the insulation capacity of the wall is not weakened 6 State Government of New South Wales, Department of Planning. (2008). by exhaust fans, doors, or windows of a lesser Development near rail corridors and busy roads - interim guideline. Retrieved from http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/rdaguidelines/ insulation capacity. To improve insulation response, documents/DevelopmentNearBusyRoadsandRailCorridors. exhaust vents can be treated with sound-absorbing pdf material or located on walls which are not directly 7 The STC rating of a soundproof window is typically in the range of 45 to 54. • consider increasing the glass thickness; 3.5 // VIBRATION MITIGATION

• consider using absorbent materials on the window Vibration caused by passing trains is an issue that could reveals in order to improve noise insulation in affect the structure of a building as well as the liveability particularly awkward cases; of the units inside residential structures. In most cases, structural integrity is not a factor. Like sound, the effects • consider using hinged or casement windows or fixed of vibration are site specific and are dependent on the pane windows instead of sliding windows; soil and subsurface conditions, the frequency of trains • ensure window frames and their insulation in the wall and their speed, as well as the quantity and type of openings are air tight; and goods they are transporting.

• incorporate acoustic seals into operable windows for The guidelines below are applicable only to new building optimal noise insulation. construction. In the case of building retrofits, vibration isolation of the entire building is generally not possible. Note that window frame contributions to noise penetration However, individual elevated floors may be stiffened are typically less for aluminum and wood windows than for through structural modifications in order to eliminate vinyl frames, as above.8 low-frequency resonances. Vibration isolation is also 3.4.1.9 Doors possible for individual rooms through the creation of a room-within-a-room, essentially by floating a In order to ensure proper acoustic insulation of doors: second floor slab on a cushion (acting like springs), • airtight seals should be used around the perimeter and supporting the inner room on top of it.9 Additional of the door; information regarding vibration mitigation options for new and existing buildings can be found in the FCM/RAC • cat flaps, letter box openings, and other apertures Railway Vibration Mitigation Report, which can be found should be avoided; on the Proximity Project website. • heavy, thick, and/or dense materials should be used 3.5.1 Guidelines in the construction of the door;

• there should be an airtight seal between the frame • Since vibration is site-specific in nature, the level and the opening aperture in the façade; and impact of vibration on a given site can only be accurately assessed by a qualified acoustic or • windows within doors should be considered as vibration consultant through the preparation of a they exhibit a higher acoustic performance than the vibration impact study. It is highly recommended balance of the door material; and that an acoustic or vibration consultant be obtained • sliding patio doors should be treated as windows by the proponent early in the design process, as mitigation can be difficult. It is recommended when assessing attenuation performance.

8 Note that STC ratings should include the full window assembly with the 9 Howe, B., & McCabe, N. (March 15 2012). Railway vibration reduction frame, as frames have been shown to be a weak component, and study: Information on railway vibration mitigation [Ottawa, ON]: may not perform as anticipated from the glazing specifications. Railway Association of Canada. GUIDELINES // 33 FIGURE 13 // SHALLOW VIBRATION ISOLATION

that the consultant be used to determine whether • The important physical parameters that should be vibration mitigation measures are necessary and considered by the consultant for designing vibration what options are available given the particular control can be divided into the following four conditions of the development site in question. The categories: consultant will employ measurements to characterize »» Operational and vehicle factors: including speed, the vibration affecting the site in question. In the primary suspension on the vehicle, and flat or absence of a future rail corridor not yet operating, worn wheels. estimates based on soil vibration testing are required, although such sites are quite rare. »» Guideway: the type and condition of the rails and the rail support system.

»» Policy Recommendation »» Geology: soil and subsurface conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels Municipalities should consider amendments to of ground-borne vibration. Among the most their Official Plan, where necessary, to make important factors are the stiffness and internal vibration studies a requirement for any zoning damping of the soil and the depth of bedrock. by-law amendment and Official Plan amendment Experience with ground-borne vibration is that applications. vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff soils. Shallow rock (within a metre or two of the • The recommended minimum vibration influence area surface) seems to prevent significant vibration. to be considered is 75 metres from a railway corridor Additional factors such as layering of the soil and or rail yard. depth to the water table, including their seasonal fluctuation, can have significant effects on the • The acoustic consultant should carry out vibration propagation of ground-borne vibration. measurements and calculate the resultant internal vibration levels. This should take into account the »» Receiving building: the vibration levels inside particular features of the proposed development. a building depend on the vibration energy that The measurements and calculations should be reaches the building foundations, the coupling representative of the full range of trains and operating of the building foundation to the soil, and the conditions likely to occur at the particular site or propagation of the vibration through the building. location. The study report should include details of The general guideline is that the heavier a building the assessment methods, summarize the results, and is, the lower the response will be to the incident recommend the required control measures. vibration energy.

• See AC.2.5 for recommended procedures for the 3.5.2 Examples of Vibration Mitigation Measures preparation of vibration impact studies. These should Full vibration isolation requires a significant amount of be observed. specialist design input from both the acoustic consultant and the structural engineer, and is therefore more suited to results, however, the lining must be quite soft and larger developments, which exhibit greater economies of yet be able to withstand the lateral soil pressures scale. present on the foundation wall.

3.5.2.1 Low-rise Buildings 3.5.3.2 Deep Foundation Buildings

• Vibration isolation of lightweight structures is difficult • In the case of deep concrete foundations near rail but possible for below grade floors. Normally, the lines, the design of vibration isolation for the surface upper floors are isolated from the foundation wall wave should consider whether or not it is necessary and any internal column supports using rubber pads to isolate the base of the building columns and walls. designed to deflect 5 to 20mm under load. This Often, these structures are anchored well below the concept is illustrated in FIGURE 13. Additionally, the depth where the surface wave penetrates and there following factors should be taken into consideration are several levels of parking that the vibration must when designing vibration isolation for lightweight climb to reach a floor where vibration is of concern. structures: Therefore, unless the rail corridor is running in a tunnel, isolation of deep foundation buildings may »» Using hollow core concrete or concrete only require isolation of the foundation wall away construction for the first floor makes the isolation from the structure. problem easier to solve. • In severe cases, or locations where the foundation »» Thought must be given to temporary wind and is not deeper than the surface wave, vibration earthquake horizontal loads. isolation may also be required beneath the columns »» A seam is created around the foundation wall and their foundations, though it may only be that must be water sealed and insulated. necessary to isolate those portions of the structure located closest to the rail line. Consideration should »» Finishing components such as wood furring be given to the differential deflection from one cannot be attached either above or below the column row to the next, if only part of the building isolation joint. is vibration isolated. »» All of these special items would likely be carried • This is an unusual type of construction, which out by trades untrained in vibration control and requires considerable professional supervision. The therefore, a good deal of site supervision is required. design is usually a joint effort between the vibration • Minor vibration control (usually only a 30% and structural engineers. Some architectural reduction) can be achieved by lining the outside expertise is also needed, particularly for of the foundation walls with a resilient layer. This waterproofing the gap at the top of the foundation practice takes advantage of the fact that the waves wall below the grade slab and making sure that of vibration from surface rail travel mostly on the there are no inadvertent connections between surface, dying down with depth. To obtain reasonable internal walls on the parking slabs and the vibrating

GUIDELINES // 35 foundation wall, or between the grade slab and the lowest parking slab if the columns are isolated.

3.6 // SAFETY BARRIERS

Safety barriers reduce the risks associated with railway incidents by intercepting or deflecting derailed cars in order to reduce or eliminate potential loss of life and damage to property, as well as to minimize the lateral spread or width in which the rail cars and their contents can travel. The standard safety barrier is an earthen berm, which is intended to absorb the energy of derailed cars, slowing them down and limiting the distance they travel outside of the railway right-of-way. The berm works by intercepting the movement of a derailed car. As the car travels into the berm, it is pulled down by gravity, causing the car to begin to dig into the earth, and pulling it into the intervening earthen mass, slowing it down, and eventually bringing it to a stop.

3.6.1 Guidelines

3.6.1.1 Berms

• Where full setbacks are provided, safety barriers are constructed as berms, which are simple earthen mounds compacted to 95% modified proctor. Setbacks and berms should typically be provided together in order to afford a maximum level of mitigation. Berms are to be constructed adjoining and parallel to the railway right-of-way with returns at the ends and to the following specifications:

»» Principle Main Line: 2.5 metres above grade with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1

»» Secondary Main Line: 2.0 metres above grade with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1 FIGURE 14A // DEEP VIBRATION ISOLATION, COMBINED WITH CRASH WALL. FIGURE 14B // DEEP VIBRATION ISOLATION DETAIL, COMBINED WITH CRASH WALL.

GUIDELINES // 37 FIGURE 15 // NO BERM IS REQUIRED WHERE THE RAILWAY IS IN A CUT OF FIGURE 16 // GRADUALLY RETURNING TO GRADE FROM THE TOP OF THE BERM EQUIVALENT DEPTH AVOIDS CREATING UNUSABLE BACKYARD SPACE OR BLOCKING SUNLIGHT

»» Principle Branch Line: 2.0 metres above metres wide in the case of a property adjacent to grade with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1 a Principle Main Line). This concept is illustrated in FIGURE 17. »» Secondary Branch Line: 2.0 metres above grade with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1 • Where the standard berm and setback are not technically or practically feasible, due for example, »» Spur Line: no requirement to site conditions or constraints, then a Development N.B. Berms built to the above specifications will have Viability Assessment should be undertaken by the a full width of as many as 15 metres. proponent to evaluate the conditions specific to the site, determine its suitability for development, • Berm height is to be measured from grade at the and suggest alternative safety measures such as property line. Reduced berm heights are possible crash walls or crash berms. Development Viability where larger setbacks are proposed. Assessments are explained in detail in APPENDIX A. • Steeper slopes may be possible in tight situations, and should be negotiated with the affected railway. »» Policy Recommendation

• Where the railway line is in a cut of equivalent Urban Design Guidelines may be useful tools for depth, no berm is required (FIGURE 15). establishing specifications for the proper use and design of berms. • There is no requirement for the proponent to drop back to grade on the side of the berm facing the 3.6.1.2 Crash Berms subject development property. The entire grade of the development could be raised to the required Crash berms are reinforced berms – essentially a hybrid height, or could be sloped more gradually. This may of a regular berm and a crash wall. They are generally be desirable to avoid creating unusable backyard preferable to crash walls, because they are more effective space, due to the otherwise steep slope of the berm. at absorbing the impact of a train derailment. This results This concept is illustrated in FIGURE 16. from both the berm’s mass and the nature of the material of which it is composed. Crash berms are also highly cost • Marginal reductions in the recommended setback of effective and particularly useful in spatially constrained up to 5 metres may be achieved through a reciprocal sites where a full berm cannot be accommodated. increase in the height of the berm. In derailment scenarios other than a head-on or close • If applicable to the site conditions, in lieu of the to head-on interception, the standard earthen berm and recommended berm, a ditch or valley between the setback distance will be more effective in absorbing the railway and the subject new development property kinetic energy of the derailed train than a reinforced that is generally equivalent to or greater than the concrete crash wall. The reason for this is that anything inverse of the berm could be considered (e.g. a other than a 90 degree interception of the crash wall will ditch that is 2.5 metres deep and approximately 14 result in some deflection of the energy in the derailing PHOTO SOURCE: RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

GUIDELINES // 39 FIGURE 17 // A DITCH OR VALLEY OF EQUIVALENT DEPTH CAN BE USED IN PLACE OF A STANDARD BERM ADJACENT TO A MAIN LINE RAILWAY

train back towards the corridor, thus extending the time »» a location or key plan. This will be used to and distance of the derailment event. This extension of identify the mileage and subdivision, the derailment time and distance results in greater risk of classification of the rail line, and the maximum damage to private property along a longer section of the speed for freight and passenger rail traffic; rail corridor, to more lives, and results in more expensive »» a Geotechnical Report of the site; clean up and restoration work within the rail corridor. The preference therefore, is to design “crash berms” »» a site plan clearly indicating the property which are typically concrete wall structures retaining line, the location of the wall structure, and the more earth behind the wall that in-turn provide more centreline and elevation of the nearest rail track; energy absorption characteristics (see FIGURE 18). »» layout and structure details of the proposed crash 3.6.1.3 Crash Walls wall structure, including all material notes and specifications, as well as construction procedures Crash walls are concrete structures that are designed to and sequences. All drawings and calculations must provide the equivalent resistance in the case of a train be signed and sealed by a professional engineer; derailment as the standard berm, particularly in terms of its energy absorptive characteristics. The design of »» the extent and treatment of any temporary crash walls is dependent on variables such as train speed, excavations on railway property; and weight, and the angle of impact, which will vary from »» a crash wall analysis, reflecting the specified case to case. Changes in these variables will affect the track speeds for passenger and/or freight amount of energy that a given crash wall will have to applicable within the corridor, and which includes absorb, to effectively stop the movement of the train. In the following four load cases: addition, the load that a wall is designed to withstand will differ based on the flexibility of the structure, and i. Freight Train Load Case 1 - Glancing Blow: therefore, on how much deflection that it provides under three locomotives weighing 200 tonnes each impact. For these reasons, it is not possible to specify plus six cars weighing 143 tonnes each, design standards for crash walls. In keeping with existing impacting the wall at 10 degrees to the wall; guidelines developed by AECOM, the appropriate load ii. Freight Train Load Case 2 - Direct Impact: that a crash wall will have to withstand must be derived single car weighing 143 tonnes impacting the from the criteria outlined below. wall at 90 degrees to the wall; • When proposing a crash wall as part of a new iii. Passenger Train Load Case 3 - Glancing Blow: residential development adjacent to a railway two locomotives weighing 148 tonnes each corridor, the proponent must undertake a detailed plus 6 cars weighing 74 tonnes each impacting study that outlines both the site conditions as well as the wall at 10 degrees to the wall; and the design specifics of the proposed structure. This study must be submitted to the affected municipality iv. Passenger Train Load Case 4 - Direct Impact: for approval and must contain the following elements: Single car weighing 74 tonnes impacting the FIGURE 18 // EXAMPLE CONFIGURATION OF A CRASH BERM

wall at 90 degrees to the wall. disruptions to rail service.

• The crash wall design must include horizontal and 3.7.1 GUIDELINES vertical continuity to distribute the loads from the • At a minimum, all new residential developments in derailed train. proximity to railway corridors must include a 1.83 • To assist in designing the crash wall safety structure, metre high chain link fence along the entire mutual the following should be considered: property line, to be constructed by the owner i. The speed of a derailed train or car entirely on private property. Other materials may impacting the wall is equal to the specified also be considered, in consultation with the relevant track speed; railway and the municipality. Noise barriers and crash walls are generally acceptable substitutes ii. The height of the application of the impact force for standard fencing, although additional standard is equal to 0.914 m (3 feet) above ground; and fencing may be required in any location with direct iii. The minimum height of the wall facing the exposure to the rail corridor in order to ensure there tracks is equal to 2.13 m (7 feet) abovethe top is a continuous barrier to trespassing. of rail elevation. »» Policy Recommendation • For energy dissipation calculations, assume: Tresspass issues can be avoided through careful land i. Plastic deformation of individual car due use planning. Land uses on each side of a railway to direct impact is equal to 0.3 m (1 foot) corridor or yard should be evaluated with a view to maximum; minimizing potential trespass problems. For example, ii. Total compression of linkages and equipment schools, commercial uses, parks or plazas should not of the two or three locomotive and six cars is be located in proximity to railway facilities without equal to 3.05 m (10 feet) maximum; and the provision of adequate pedestrian crossings.

iii. Deflection of the wall is to be determined by the designer, which would depend on material, • Due to common increased trespass problems wall dimensions and stiffness of crash wall. associated with parks, trails, open space, community centres, and schools located in proximity to the railway right-of-way, increased safety/security 3.7 // SECURITY FENCING measures should be considered, such as precast Trespassing onto a railway corridor can have dangerous fencing and fencing perpendicular to the railway consequences given the speed and frequency of trains, property line at the ends of a subject development and their extremely large stopping distances, and property. every effort should be made to discourage it. This will save lives, reduce emergency whistling, and minimize

GUIDELINES // 41 PHOTO SOURCE: DIALOG

3.8 // STORMWATER MANAGEMENT • Drainage systems should be designed so that AND DRAINAGE stormwater is captured on site for reuse or diverted away from the rail corridor to a drainage system, Stormwater management and drainage infrastructure ensuring that existing drainage is not overloaded. associated with a development or railway corridor adjustments should not adversely impact on the function, • Building design should ensure that gutters and operation, or maintenance of the corridor, or should not balcony overflows do not discharge into rail adversely affect area development. infrastructure. Where drainage into the railway corridor is unavoidable due to site characteristics, 3.8.1 GUIDELINES discussion should be held early on with the • The proponent should consult with the affected railway. If upgrades are required to the drainage railway regarding any proposed development that system solely due to nearby development, the may have impacts on existing drainage patterns. costs involved should reasonably be met by the Railway corridors/properties with their relative proponent. All disturbed surfaces must be stabilized. flat profile are not typically designed to handle • Similarly, railways should consult with municipalities additional flows from neighbouring properties, where facility expansions or changes may impact and so development should not discharge or direct drainage patterns. stormwater, roof water, or floodwater onto a railway corridor. 3.9 // WARNING CLAUSES AND OTHER LEGAL • Any proposed alterations to existing rail corridor AGREEMENTS drainage patterns must be substantiated by a suitable drainage report, as appropriate. Warning clauses are considered an essential component of the stakeholder communication process, and ensure • Any development-related changes to drainage must all parties interested in the selling, purchasing, or leasing be addressed using infrastructure and/or other of residential lands in proximity to railway corridors are means located entirely within the confines of the aware of any property constraints and the potential subject development site. implications associated with rail corridor activity.

• Stormwater or floodwater flows should be designed 3.9.1 GUIDELINES to: • Municipalities are encouraged to promote the use of »» maintain the structural integrity of the railway appropriate specific rail operations warning clauses, if corridor infrastructure; feasible, in consultation with the appropriate railway, »» avoid scour or deposition; and to ensure that those who may acquire an interest in a subject property are notified of the existence »» prevent obstruction of the railway corridor as a and nature of the rail operations, the potential for result of stormwater or flood debris. increased rail activities, the potential for annoyance or disruptions, and that complaints should not be in the vicinity and regarding any applicable warning directed to the railways. Such warning clauses should clauses and mitigation measures. The site constraints be registered on title if possible and be inserted into and mitigation measures being implemented should all agreements of purchase and sale or lease for the be communicated through marketing and promotional affected lots/units. material, signage, website descriptions, and informed sales staff committed to full disclosure. • Municipalities are encouraged to pursue the minimum influence areas outlined in the report when using • Municipalities are encouraged to require appropriate warning clauses or other notification mechanisms. signage/documentation at development marketing and sales centres that: • Appropriate legal agreements and restrictive covenants registered on title are also recommended »» identifies the lots or blocks that have been to be used, if feasible, to secure the construction and identified by any noise and vibration studies and maintenance of any required mitigation measures, which may experience noise and vibration impacts; as well as the use of warning clauses and any other »» identifies the type and location of sound barriers notification requirements. and security fencing; • Where it is not feasible to secure warning clauses, »» identifies any required warning clause(s); and every effort should be made to provide notification to those who may acquire an interest in a subject »» contains a statement that railways can operate on property. This can be accomplished through a 24 hour a day basis, 7 days a week. other legal agreements, property signage, and/or Additionally, studies undertaken to assess and descriptions on websites associated with the subject mitigate noise, vibration, and other emissions should property. be released to potential purchasers for review in order • Municipalities should consider the use of to enhance their understanding of the site constraints environmental easements for operational emissions, and to help minimize future conflict. registered on title of development properties, to • Where title agreements, restrictive covenants, ensure clear notification to those who may acquire an and/or warning clauses are not currently interest in the property. Easements will provide the permitted, appropriate legislative amendments are railway with a legal right to create emissions over a recommended. This may require coordination at development property and reduce the potential for the provincial level to provide appropriate and/or future land use conflicts. improved direction to stakeholders. • Stronger and clearer direction is recommended for • Warnings and easements provide notice to real estate sales and marketing representatives, such purchasers, but are not to be used as a complete as mandatory disclosure protocols to those who alternative to the installation of mitigation measures. may acquire an interest in a subject property, with respect to the nature and extent of rail operations

GUIDELINES // 43 PHOTO SOURCE: DIALOG 3.10 // CONSTRUCTION ISSUES related infrastructure, should be submitted to the approval authority and the relevant railway. Planning for construction of new developments in proximity to railway corridors requires unique • Cranes, concrete pumps, and other equipment considerations that should aim to maintain safety while capable of moving into or across the airspace above avoiding disruptions to rail service. The efficiency of the railway corridors may cause safety and other issues operation of railway services should be maintained and if their operation is not strictly managed. This type no adverse impacts on the corridor or railway operations of equipment must not be used in airspace over the should occur during the design and construction of a new rail corridor without prior approval from the railway. development located in proximity to a railway corridor. • Existing services and utilities under a rail corridor 3.10.1 GUIDELINES must be protected from increased loads during the construction and operation of the development. • Prior to the start of construction of a new development, rail corridor-related infrastructure • Construction must not obstruct emergency access to must be identified and plans adjusted as required to the railway corridor. ensure that these features are not adversely affected by the proposed construction. Rail corridor-related infrastructure may include, but is not limited to:

»» trackage;

»» fibre optic cables;

»» retaining walls;

»» bridge abutments; and,

»» signal bridge footings.

• No entry upon, below, or above the rail corridor shall be permitted without prior consent from the railway.

• Appropriate permits and flagging are required for work immediately adjacent to railway corridors. The proponent is responsible for any related costs.

• Temporary fencing / hoarding is required, as appropriate, to discourage unauthorized access to the rail corridor. Plans illustrating proposed fencing / hoarding locations as well as any other construction

GUIDELINES // 45

IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 Implementation Mechanisms 4.2 Advancing Stakeholder Roles 4.3 Dispute Resolution 4

SECTION 4 GUIDELINES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS

4.0 // IMPLEMENTATION The following implementation recommendations are intended to provide specific guidance to municipal and provincial governments...

IMPLEMENTATION // 49 ...towards ensuring that the guidelines are consistently and effectively adopted in as many jurisdictions as possible. Processes are identified that may be employed to entrench these guidelines in policy.

4.1 // IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS This report, which is explained in detail in APPENDIX A, will provide a comprehensive assessment of the site conditions 4.1.1 Model Review Process For New Residential of the property in question, including an evaluation of any Development, Infill & Conversions in Proximity to potential conflicts with the new development that may Railway Corridors result from its proximity to the railway corridor. It will also OBJECTIVE: evaluate any potential impacts on the operation of the railway as a result of the new development, both during Establish a clear and effective process that ensures the construction phase and afterwards. It will take into consistent application of these Guidelines across all consideration details of the proposed development site, jurisdictions in Canada when dealing with new residential including topography, soil conditions, and proximity to the development, infill, and conversions. railway corridor; details of the railway corridor, including RECOMMENDATION: track geometry or alignment, the existence of junctions, and track speed; details of the proposed development, The Model Review Process for New Residential including the number of potential residents, proposed Development, Infill and Conversions in Proximity to collision protection in the event of a train derailment; Railway Corridors is outlined in FIGURE 19. It is meant construction details; and an identification of the potential to ensure clarity with respect to how railways are hazards and risks associated with development on that to be involved in a meaningful way at the outset of a particular site. Municipalities will use the Development planning process. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve a Viability Assessment to determine whether development much greater level of consistency in the way proposals is appropriate given the site conditions and potential for new residential development in proximity to railway risks involved. corridors are evaluated and approved across all Canadian provinces and territories. An important component of the new process is the requirement for pre-application consultation with the The proposed process recognizes that there will be many relevant railway. This will be a critical step towards sites that can easily accommodate the standard mitigation ensuring a smooth and expedited approval process, and recommended by the railways. In instances where this will be an important opportunity to have a frank discussion is the case, it is expected that standard mitigation will about development options, as well as to resolve any be proposed. In urban areas land values and availability potential conflicts. It will be during these pre-application have placed greater development pressure on smaller consultations that a decision will be made regarding the sites close to railway corridors. These sites are less likely capacity of the site to accommodate standard mitigation. to be able to accommodate a standard berm and setback. Where a Development Viability Assessment is required, In this case, a Development Viability Assessment report this will also be an important opportunity for the will be required.1

1 Again, this report does not recommend that all sites are appropriate based on criteria such as: existing contextual land use, size of for residential development. In cases where the standard setback site, appropriateness of high-density development, and the and berm cannot be accommodated, municipalities should carefully demonstrated effectiveness of alternative mitigation measures, as consider the viability of the site for conversion to residential, determined through the Development Viability Assessment. FIGURE 19 // MODEL REVIEW PROCESS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INFILL & CONVERSIONS IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY CORRIDORS

IMPLEMENTATION // 51 applicant to gain a better understanding of the process • In cases where a sound wall is erected, the portion associated with developing one. of the berm situated on the side adjoining the railway corridor should be maintained by the Once a development application has been submitted to railway. However, this should only occur if the the railway for review, it will have 30 days to respond (60 property under that part of the berm becomes the days in cases where a Development Viability Assessment property of the railway and has been exempted has been required), and indicate any conditions for from all municipal property taxes as a concession consideration and negotiation. The final decision as to to the railways for taking on a maintenance whether or not to impose those conditions will lie with responsibility. the approval authority (usually the municipality).

The Model Review Process for New Residential 4.2 // ADVANCING STAKEHOLDER ROLES Development, Infill & Conversions in Proximity to Railway Corridors should be adopted by provincial governments, OBJECTIVE: potentially through amendments to existing planning To establish clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities legislation, in order to ensure its consistent application of various stakeholders involved in reducing railway across all municipalities. However, in the absence of proximity issues. provincial interest, the process could be adopted as a bylaw at the municipal level. It is recommended that this RECOMMENDATIONS: process be applicable to any residential development 4.2.1 Federal located on land within 300 metres of a railway right-of-way where an official plan amendment, plan of • The federal government and the Canadian subdivision, or zoning bylaw amendment is required. Transportation Agency are encouraged to use and have regard for this report in proximity dispute 4.1.2 Mitigation Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy investigations with respect to new developments OBJECTIVE: built close to railway operations, and in the development and implementation of any related Ensure a consistent and sensible approach to the future guidelines, to facilitate a more comprehensive maintenance of mitigation infrastructure. approach that appropriately considers the land use RECOMMENDATION: planning framework for new developments along with the rail operations issues. Responsbility for the maintenance of berms, chainlink fences, and sound walls should be allocated as follows: 4.2.2 Provincial

• Landowners should be responsible for maintaining • Provincial Authorities should consider revising their the fence, the sound wall, and that portion of the land use planning legislation to incorporate mandatory berm contained within their site. requirements for early consultations between municipalities, railways, and landowners in advance of proposed land use or transportation changes, projects, »» door placement and materiality. or works within 300 metres of railway operations. The • Provincial Authorities should monitor compliance objective of doing so is to facilitate a collaborative with relevant regulations and sanction their breach. approach to site development. 4.2.3 Municipal • Provincial Authorities should consider requiring mandatory notice to railways in the case of • Municipalities, land developers, property owners proposed official plans or official plan amendments, and railways all need to place a higher priority on plans of subdivision, zoning by-laws, holding information sharing and establishing better working by-laws, interim control by-laws, and/or consent to relationships both informally and formally through sever lands, where the subject lands fall within 300 consultation protocols and procedures. metres of railway operations. • Municipalities should ensure that planning staff are • Provincial Authorities may also wish to empower aware of and familiar with any applicable policies their municipalities with stronger site plan controls for development in proximity to railway operations where appropriate, such as: (e.g. railway policies and/or guidelines).

»» control of materiality; • Municipalities are encouraged to provide clear direction and strong regulatory frameworks (e.g. »» site layout and design; and through District Plans, Official Plans, Official »» road widening and land conveyances. Community Plans, Zoning By-laws, etc) to ensure that land development respects and protects rail • Provincial Authorities should consider establishing infrastructure and will not lead to future conflicts. a provincial noise guideline framework that sets This may include: impact study requirements (how and when to assess noise sources), and establishes specific sound level »» Undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of land criteria for noise sensitive land uses. uses in proximity to railway operations, with a view to minimizing potential conflicts due • Provincial Authorities should consider amendments to proximity, including those related to safety, to their building codes that support extra mitigation vibration, and noise. For example, residential for developments near railway corridors, such as: development may not be appropriate in »» vibration isolation & foundation design, low-density areas where lot sizes preclude the possibility of incorporating standard mitigation »» balcony design, measures. Additionally, schools or commercial »» podium design, uses located across a railway corridor from residential uses are likely to result in trespassing »» drainage, issues if there are no public crossings in the »» appropriate fenestration, and immediate vicinity;

IMPLEMENTATION // 53 »» Establishing a clear process for evaluating the alternatives are possible, not just simply whether viability of development proposals on sites a crossing is technically feasible. that cannot accommodate standard mitigation • Municipalities are encouraged to use their planning measures, with a view to determining the policy and regulatory instruments (e.g. District appropriateness of the development, and Plans, Official Plans, Official Community Plans, identifying appropriate alternate mitigation Secondary Plans, Transportation Plans, Zoning measures. See Section 4.1.1 for recommendations By-laws/Ordinances, etc.) to secure appropriate on a Development Viability Assessment; railway consultation protocols as well as mitigation »» Establishing implementation mechanisms procedures and measures. for mitigation measures, including long-term • As soon as planning is initiated or proposals maintenance requirements if applicable (e.g. are known by municipalities, notification and legal agreements registered on title). See Section consultation should be initiated for: 4.1.2 for recommendations on a Mitigation Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy; »» Development or redevelopment proposals within 300 metres of rail operations, or for proposals »» Undertaking a comprehensive review of site for rail-serviced industrial parks; and access and railway crossings with a view to ensuring adequate site access setbacks »» Infrastructure works, which may affect a rail from at-grade crossings (to prevent vehicular facility, such as roads, utilities, etc. blockage of crossings), protecting at-grade road/ • Municipal Authorities should consider amendments rail crossing sightlines, implementing crossing to their municipal regulatory documents (e.g. Official improvements, and discouraging new at-grade Plan, Official Community Plan, etc.) as required to road crossings; implement mandatory noise and vibration studies »» Entrenching in policy the protection of railway for developments near railway operations, and to corridors and yards for the movement of establish specific sound and vibration level criteria freight and people, including allowing for future for sensitive land uses. expansion capacity, if applicable; • Municipal Authorities should consider zoning by-law »» Planning and protecting for future infrastructure amendments as required to implement aspects of improvements (e.g. grade separations and rail these guidelines, including securing appropriate corridor widenings); and mitigation measures.

»» Respecting safe transportation principles. For N.B. A note of caution is required for any systematic example, the assessment of new, at-grade rail zoning by-law amendment. Blanket zoning by-law crossings should consider safe community amendments should only be used to implement planning principles and whether other portions of this study in areas municipalities have already identified for redevelopment. This should be applied comprehensively and with study as to Urban Design Guidelines for infill development near their affect. For example, it makes little sense to railway corridors. This document already contains employ a 30 metre setback in areas that do not a number of suggestions on what such a document have lot depths which can support them. In many could include and how it could be usefully employed. cases, it may be more desirable for municipalities 4.2.4 Railway to secure mitigation measures in a site-specific manner, through the use of the Development • Municipalities, land developers, property owners Viability Assessment Tool. However, in employing and railways all need to place a higher priority on such an approach, Municipal Planners should be information sharing and establishing better working mindful to secure appropriate mitigation measures relationships both informally and formally through in a site-specific by-law. consultation protocols and procedures.

• Municipalities should consider and respect the plans, • As soon as planning is initiated or proposals are requirements, and operating realities of railways and known by railways, communication should be work cooperatively with them to increase awareness initiated to discuss: regarding the railway legislative, regulatory, »» transportation plans that incorporate freight and operating environment, and to implement transportation issues; and consultation planning protocols and procedures for land development proposals and applications. »» all new, expanded, or modified rail facilities.

• Municipalities should work with railways and other • Railways are encouraged to be proactive in levels of government to increase coordination identifying, planning, and protecting for the for development approvals that also require rail optimized use of railway corridors and yards. regulatory approvals (e.g. new road crossings) to • Railways are encouraged to develop and/or modify ensure that the respective approvals are not dealt company procedures and practices with respect to with in isolation and/or prematurely. increased consultation and formal proximity issues • Municipalities should be aware of and implement, management protocols with the following guidance: where feasible, Transport Canada’s safety »» Undertake consultation for projects prior to recommendations with respect to sightlines for seeking CTA approval; at-grade crossings. The recommendations include a minimum 30 metre distance between the railway »» When new facilities are built or significant right-of-way and any vehicular ingress/egress. In expansions are undertaken, implement on-going addition, trees, utility poles, mitigation measures, community advisory panel discussions with etc. are not to block sightlines or views of the regular meetings. Such panels typically include crossing warning signs or systems. representation from the railway, the municipality, the community, other levels of government, if • Municipal Authorities should consider developing applicable, and possibly industry; and,

IMPLEMENTATION // 55 »» Railway initiation of long-term business and 4.2.5 Land Developer/Property Owner infrastructure planning exercises, in consultation • Ideally, prospective land developers should consult with municipalities, can facilitate stronger and with the appropriate railway prior to finalizing any more effective relationships and partnerships. agreement to purchase a property in proximity to • Railways are encouraged to work with railway operations. Otherwise, property owners municipalities, landowners, and other stakeholders should consult with municipalities and railways in evaluating and implementing appropriate as early as possible on development applications mitigation measures, where feasible, with respect and proposals to ensure compliance with policies, to new rail facilities located in proximity to existing guidelines, and regulations, and in order to fulfill sensitive development. obligations of development approvals.

• Railways should work cooperatively with • Enter into agreements with municipalities and/or municipalities to increase awareness regarding railways as required to ensure proximity issues are the railway legislative, regulatory, and operating addressed now and into the future and comply with environment. those requirements.

• Railways should utilize opportunities to get involved • Property owners should be informed, understand, in land-use planning processes and matters. acknowledge, and respect any mitigation Municipal planning instruments can be effective maintenance obligations and/or warning clauses. tools in implementing, or at least facilitating the 4.2.6 Real Estate Sales/Marketing and Transfer Agents implementation, of long-term rail transportation planning objectives. • Real estate sales people and property transfer agents should ensure that potential purchasers are • Railways are encouraged to work with industry made fully aware of the existence and nature of associations and all levels of government to rail operations and are aware of and understand establish standardized agreements and procedures the mitigation measures to be implemented and with respect to all types of crossings. maintained. • Railways are encouraged to pursue implementation 4.2.7 Academia and Specialized Training Programs of the RAC Railroad Emission Guidelines (See AE.1.1 for more information). • These institutions should ensure that curriculums incorporate the latest research available to • Railways are encouraged to integrate transportation provide future land use planners, land developers, planning involving provincial, municipal, Port and railway engineers with better and more Authorities, and multiple railways, which is critical comprehensive tools and practices to anticipate and to balancing rail capacity upgrades, minimizing prevent proximity conflicts. community impacts, and ensuring that economic benefits occur. 4.2.8 Industry Associations 4.3.2 Local Dispute Resolution Framework

• FCM, having undertaken to produce these In most disputes, complainants and railways can guidelines, should continue to act as their steward. independently resolve matters by negotiating agreements As such, a comprehensive strategy should be amongst themselves. Stakeholders are encouraged established to disseminate them to provincial to have regard for and utilize, where applicable, the and municipal planners and regulatory bodies, Local Dispute Resolution Framework established by railways, developers, and other property owners. A the RAC/FCM Dispute Resolution Subcommittee. This component of this strategy may include integration dispute resolution process should be considered prior to at professional events and conferences. A key involving the Agency. objective will be to promote their integration into A. The following guiding principles should be regulatory policy frameworks. considered through the local dispute resolution • Other industry associations should ensure their process: membership is informed and involved in the 1. Identify issues of concern to each party. latest research and proactively engaged in raising awareness and educating their members through 2. Ensure representatives within the dispute seminars and other training programs. resolution process have negotiating authority. Decision making authority should also be 4.3 // DISPUTE RESOLUTION declared.

4.3.1 Background 3. Establish in-person dialogue and share all relevant information among parties. In the vast majority of cases in Canada, railway company tracks and their stakeholder neighbours coexist B. Dispute Resolution Escalation Process seamlessly. However, disputes between railways and Municipal and railway representatives should attempt stakeholders can occasionally occur. These disputes resolution in an escalating manner as prescribed below, provide insight into the issues that some stakeholders recognizing that each of these steps would be time have experienced with noise, vibration, accidents, consuming for all parties. historical land use conflicts, and a variety of site-specific conditions that can result from railway operations. 1. Resolve locally between two parties using the These disputes are often expressed through letters of Generic Local Dispute Resolution Process. complaint directed to railway, municipal and federal 2. Proceed to third-party mediation/facilitation government officials, appeals to the Ontario Municipal support if resolution not achieved. Board, court cases, as well as complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency). 3. Proceed to other available legal steps.

IMPLEMENTATION // 57 7. Attempt compromise/jointly agreed solution. (If not proceed to step B2 above). C. Generic Local Dispute Escalation Process 8. For Jointly agreed solutions; determine necessary 1. Face-to-face meeting to determine specific process internal, external communication requirements steps to be used in resolution attempt. A Community and or requisite public involvement strategies for Advisory Panel formation should be considered at implementation of compromise. this point. 4.3.3 The Canadian Transportation Agency's Mandate 2. Determination of which functions and individuals on Noise & Vibration will represent the respective parties. Generally this would include the municipality, the railway, and 4.3.3.1 Agency Mandate Under the Canadian other appropriate stakeholders. Transportation Act CTA)

3. Issue identification: The Agency is a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal of the federal government that can assist individuals, a) Raised through community to railway. This type municipalities, railways, and other parties in resolving of issues could be the result of an unresolved disputes. outstanding proximity issue, operational modifications, or changes in rail customer operation The amendments to the Act now authorize the Agency to (misdirected to railway). resolve complaints regarding noise and vibration caused by the construction and operation of railways under its b) Planned railway development that may impact jurisdiction. community in the future. Section 95.1 of the CTA states that a railway shall cause c) Raised through the railway to community. This only such noise and vibration as is reasonable, taking type of issue could be the result of a municipal into account: government action (rezoning, etc.). • its obligations under sections 113 and 114 of the 4. Exploration of the elements of the issue. Ensure CTA, if applicable; each party is made aware of the other’s view of the issue – a listing of the various aspects/impacts • its operational requirements; and related to the issue. • the area where the construction or operation is 5. Consult any existing relevant proximity guidelines or taking place. related best practices (e.g. this report). If the Agency determines that the noise or vibration is 6. Face-to-face meetings between parties representing not reasonable, it may order a railway to undertake any the issue to initiate dialogue for dispute resolution change in its railway construction or operation that the process. Education, advocacy of respective positions. Agency considers reasonable to comply with the noise and vibration provisions set out in section 95.1 of the CTA. Agency decisions are legally binding on the parties • Direct communication shall be established among involved, subject to the appeal rights. the parties.

The amendments to the CTA also grant power to the • A meaningful dialogue shall take place. Agency to mediate or arbitrate certain railway disputes • Proposed solutions shall be constructive and feasible. with the agreement of all parties involved, and in some cases in matters that fall outside of the Agency’s • Facilitation and mediation shall be considered. jurisdiction. Mediation is a collaborative approach to solving disputes The Agency has developed Guidelines for the Resolution in which a neutral third party helps to keep the discussion of Complaints Concerning Railway Noise and Vibration focused and assists the parties in finding a mutually (Guidelines) They explain the process to be followed beneficial solution. The parties jointly make decisions to and include a complaint form, and can be found resolve the disputed issues and ultimately determine the through the following link: www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ outcome. The mediation process is described below. rail-noise-and-vibration-complaints. 4.3.4.1 Mediation 4.3.4 Collaborative Resolution of Complaints Mediation has successfully resolved disputes with major The CTA specifies that before the Agency can investigate rail and air carriers, airport authorities, and private a complaint regarding railway noise or vibrations, it citizens. It provides an opportunity for the parties must be satisfied that the collaborative measures set out involved to understand each other's perspective, identify in the Guidelines have been exhausted. facts, check assumptions, recognize common ground, and test possible solutions. Collaboration allows both complainants and railways to have a say in resolving an issue. A solution in which Mediation is an informal alternative to the Agency's both parties have had input is more likely to constitute formal decision-making process. It can be faster and less a long-term solution and is one that can often be expensive, with the opportunity to reach an agreement implemented more effectively and efficiently than a that benefits both sides. Mediation tends to work well in decision rendered through an adjudicative process. disputes involving several major transportation service providers. In fact, a number of carriers have mentioned Under the Agency's Guidelines, collaborative measures in recent years that they consider mediation their first are expected to be completed within 60 days of the alternative for dispute resolution. railway receiving a written complaint - unless the parties agree to extend the process (The railway must To initiate a mediation process, contact the Agency and respond to a written complaint within 30 days, and it will contact the other parties to determine if they agree on a date within the following 30 days to meet are willing to participate. If all parties agree to join the and discuss the resolution of the complaint). To satisfy process, an Agency-appointed mediator will manage the the collaborative measures requirements of the CTA, the process. Discussions will take place in an informal setting. following measures must be undertaken: Collectively, all of the conflicting issues are addressed in

IMPLEMENTATION // 59 an attempt to negotiate a settlement. is informed of the complaint and will seek its comments.

Mediation must take place within a 30-day statutory To avoid reviewing numerous complaints for the same deadline, which is much shorter than the 120-day deadline concern(s), the Agency encourages complainants to established in the CTA for the Agency's formal dispute- consult others potentially affected before filing a resolution process. The deadline can be extended if all complaint. This may save time and effort for all parties. parties agree. A settlement Agreement that is reached as For such group complaints, parties should confirm the a result of mediation may be filed with the Agency and, list of complainant(s) and who is represented under the after filing, is enforceable as if it were an Order of the group; provide contact information and evidence of Agency. A complete description of the mediation process authorization to represent; provide a list of the members can be found on the Agency’s web site. of the association and their contact information, where All mediation discussions remain confidential, unless there is an organization/association; provide, in the both parties agree otherwise. If the dispute is not settled case of an organization/association, the incorporation and requires formal adjudication, confidentiality will be documents and the a description of the organization/ maintained and the mediator will be excluded from the association and its members' interest in the complaint. formal process. The Guidelines for the Resolution of Complaints Concerning 4.3.4.3 Filing a Complaint with the Agency Railway Noise and Vibration are primarily meant to address noise and vibration disputes with regard to The Agency will only conduct an investigation or hear a existing railway infrastructure or facilities. For railway complaint once it is satisfied that the parties have tried construction projects that require Agency approval under and exhausted the collaborative measures set out above. subsection 98(1) of the CTA, railways must evaluate Should one of the parties fail to collaborate, the Agency various issues, including noise and vibration. may accept the filing of a complaint before the expiry of the above-noted 60 day collaborative period. 4.3.4.4 Formal Process

In cases where the parties are not able to resolve the In accordance with its General Rules, after receiving issues between themselves or by way of facilitation or a complaint, the Agency ensures that each interested mediation, a complaint may be filed with the Agency party has the opportunity to comment on the complaint requesting a determination under the formal adjudication and any disputed issues. In general, the Agency invites process. The complaint must include evidence that the the other interested parties to file their answer within parties have tried and exhausted, or that one of the 30 days, and then allows the complainant 10 days to parties has failed to participate in, the collaborative reply. measures set out above. Both complainants and railways are responsible for Formal complaints may be filed by individuals, institutions, presenting evidence to support their position before local groups, or municipalities. When the Agency reviews the Agency. The Agency may pose its own questions, a complaint, it will ensure that the municipal government request further information, and conduct a site visit FIGURE 20 // DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

IMPLEMENTATION // 61 investigation where necessary. 4.3.4.5 More Information

As an impartial body, the Agency cannot prepare or Canadian Transportation Agency document a complaint nor can it provide funding to Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N9 any party for the preparation of a complaint, answer, Telephone: 1-888-222-2592 or reply. The Agency reviews all evidence that it TTY: 1-800-669-5575 has obtained through its investigation to develop a Facsimile: 819-997-6727 comprehensive understanding of the circumstances E-mail: [email protected] of each case, before rendering its decision or Web site: www.cta.gc.ca determination. For more information on the CTA, the Agency and its The Agency strives to process complaints within 120 responsibilities, or Agency Decisions, and Orders, you days of receiving a complete application. However, can access the Agency’s web site at www.cta.gc.ca. given the complexities or the number of parties involved in some noise or vibration complaints, Web site addresses and information on the Agency are this goal may not always be met. In such cases, the subject to change without notice and were accurate Agency will act as expeditiously as possible. Parties at the time of publication. For the most up-to-date are encouraged to continue to work together to seek a information, visit the Agency’s web site. resolution even though a complaint may be before the Agency.

When the Agency has reached a decision, the Agency provides it to all parties of the case and posts it on its public web site. PHOTO SOURCE: RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

IMPLEMENTATION // 63

CONCLUSION5

SECTION 5 GUIDELINES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS

5.0 // CONCLUSION As the shift continues towards curbing urban sprawl and intensifying existing built-up areas, lands close to railway corridors will continue to become more desirable for development.

CONCLUSION // 67 PHOTO SOURCE: RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA The proximity guidelines provided here are intended to help anticipate potential conflicts, improve awareness of development issues around railway operations, and clarify the requirements for new development in proximity to railway operations and activities. They provide strategies that will help to reduce misunderstanding and avoid unecessary conflicts arising between railway operations and nearby new development. The guidelines further provide recommendations to promote a higher level of consistency nationwide with respect to new development approval processes as well as the design of new development projects in proximity to railway operations and their respective mitigation measures.

Topics covered include: Careful consideration has been given to provide a balanced approach to new development in proximity to • Common issues and constraints; railway corridors that provides a thoughtful response • A series of guidelines addressing mitigation design, to site-specific constraints, safety, and land-use consultation, setbacks, noise, vibration, safety compatibility. Ultimately it is in the interest of the public barriers, security fencing, stormwater management and all other parties involved to ensure that when new and drainage, warning clauses and other legal development is deemed to be appropriate near a railway agreements, and construction issues; corridor, the mitigation measures outlined in this report are taken to ensure they are both compatible and safe. • Understanding of stakeholder roles; and The various stakeholders identified are encouraged • Implementation. to review and establish or update, as necessary, their Additionally, the report appendices contain the following: respective planning instruments and company practices/ procedures. Opportunities should be explored to inject • A Development Viability Assessment; these guidelines into relevant curriculum at education • A sample rail classification system; institutions teaching land use planning, civil engineering, and railway engineering, as well as disseminating this • Noise and vibration procedures and criteria; information through relevant professional associations. • Recommendations for the evaluation of new rail facilities or significant expansions to existing rail facilities in proximity to residential or other sensitive land uses; and

• A series of national and international best practices.

CONCLUSION // 69

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Development Viability Assessment APPENDIX B Sample Rail Classification System APPENDIX C Noise & Vibration Procedures & Criteria APPENDIX D New Rail Facilities & Significant Expansions in Proximity to Residential or Other Sensitive Uses APPENDIX E Best Practices APPENDIX F Glossary APPENDIX G Links & Other Resources APPENDIX H List of Stakeholders Consulted APPENDIX I References APPENDIX A // DEVELOPMENT VIABILITY ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX GUIDELINES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS

AA.1 // INTRODUCTION site for development and in designing the appropriate mitigation to effectively address the potential impacts Development of residential structures in proximity to associated with building near railway operations. The railway corridors can pose many challenges, particularly development viability assessment exercise, which in terms of successfully mitigating the various vibration, should be carried out by a qualified planner or engineer noise, and safety impacts associated with railway in close consultation with the affected railway, must: operations. The standard mitigation measures, illustrated below, have been designed to provide proponents with i. identify all potential hazards to the operational the simplest and most effective solution for dealing with railway, its staff, customers, and the future these common issues. residents of the development;

However, in some cases, particularly in already built-up ii. take into account the operational requirements areas of the country's largest cities, development of the railway facilities and the whole life cycle proposals will be put forward for smaller or constrained of the development; sites that are not able to accommodate these measures, iii. identify design and construction issues that particularly the full setback and berm. In cases where may impact on the feasibility of the new municipalities have already determined that residential development; is the best use for these sites, such proposals will be subject to a Development Viability Assessment, the iv. identify the potential risks and necessary intent of which is to evaluate any potential conflicts that safety controls and design measures required to may result from the proximity of the development to reduce the risks to the safety and operational the neighbouring rail corridor, as well as any potential integrity of the railway corridor and avoid impacts on the operation of the railway as a result of the long-term disruptions to railway operations that new development, both during the construction phase would arise from a defect or failure of structure and afterwards. The proposed development will not be elements; and permitted to proceed unless the impacts on both the v. identify how an incident could be managed if it railway and the development itself are appropriately were to occur. managed and mitigated. It must be noted that the intention of the Development Viability Assessment It is strongly recommended that proponents consult with tool is not to justify the absence of mitigation in any the affected railway when preparing a Development given development proposal. Rather, it is to allow for Viability Assessment to ensure that all relevant matters an assessment based on the specific and inherent are addressed. characteristics of a site, and therefore, the identification This document establishes the minimum generic of appropriate mitigation measures. requirements that must be addressed as part of a As such, the Development Viability Assessment is a tool Development Viability Assessment accompanying to assist developers who cannot accommodate standard a development application for land in proximity to mitigation measures in assessing the viability of their railway operations. Proponents should note that there APPENDIX A // 73 may be additional topics that will need to be addressed i. track geometry and alignment (i.e. is the track in a Development Viability Assessment, depending straight or curved?); on the unique nature of the subject site and proposed ii. the existence of switches or junctions; development. These additional topics should be determined in consultation with the affected railway and iii. track speed, including any potential or local municipality. anticipated changes to the track speed;

Municipalities should use the results of the Development iv. derailment history of the site and of other sites Viability Assessment to determine whether proposed similar in nature; mitigation measures are appropriate. v. current and future estimated usage and growth The following sections outline basic content requirements in patronage (10-year horizon); for a standard Development Viability Assessment. vi. details of any future/planned corridor upgrades/ works, or any protection of the corridor for future AA.2 // SITE DETAILS expansion, where no plans are in existence; and

The Assessment must include a detailed understanding of vii. topography of the track (i.e. is it in a cut, on an the conditions of the subject site in order to generate a embankment, or at grade?). strong understanding of the context through which conflicts may arise. At a minimum, the factors to be considered are: AA.4 // DEVELOPMENT DETAILS i. site condition (cutting, embankments, etc.); Details of the development itself, including its design and ii. soil type, geology; operational components, are important in understanding whether the building has been designed to withstand iii. topography; potential conflicts as a result of the railway corridor, as iv. prevailing drainage patterns over the site; and well as ensuring that the new development will not pose any adverse impacts upon the railway operations and v. proximity to the railway corridor and other infrastructure. At a minimum, the following information railway infrastructure/utilities. must be provided:

AA.3 // RAILWAY DETAILS i. proximity of the proposed development to the railway corridor or other railway infrastructure; It is imperative that details of the railway corridor (or other facility) itself also be evaluated in order to properly ii. clearances and setbacks of the proposed determine the potential conflicts associated with a new development to the railway corridor; and development in close proximity to railway activities. At iii. any collision protection features proposed for a minimum, the factors to be considered are: the new development, to protect it in the case of a train derailment. AA.5 // CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ii. provide details of any planned demolition, excavation and retaining works within 30 While it is understood that construction details will not metres of the railway corridor and specify the be finalized at the development application stage, there type and quantity of works to be undertaken; are a number of impacts associated with construction on a site in proximity to a railway corridor that need iii. services and utilities - provide details of: to be considered prior to development approval. These a. whether any services or utilities will be construction impacts need to be considered as part of required to cross the railway corridor; and the Development Viability Assessment. This portion of the assessment is intended to ensure that the b. whether any existing railway services/ railway corridor, infrastructure, staff, and users can be utilities will be interfered with; and adequately protected from activities associated with iv. stormwater, drainage, sediment, and erosion the construction of the development. At a minimum, the control - provide details of how any temporary following information must be provided: stormwater and drainage will operate during i. corridor encroachment - provide details with construction, and how sediment and erosion regard to: control will be managed.

a. whether access to the railway corridor will be required; AA.6 // IDENTIFY HAZARDS AND RISKS

b. whether any materials will be lifted over Once details unique to the site, railway corridor, the railway corridor; development design, and construction have been determined, the individual risks must be identified and c. whether any temporary vehicle-crossing or evaluated with individual mitigation measures planned access points are required; and for each. Such risks may include injury or loss of life d. whether there will be any disruption to and damage to public and private infrastructure. At a services or other railway operations as a minimum, consideration must be given to: result of construction; i. the safety of people occupying the development Generally, encroachment within a railway corridor for and the potential for the loss of life in the event construction purposes is not permitted and alternative of a train derailment; construction options will need to be identified. ii. potential structural damage to the proposed i. provide details of how the security of the railway development resulting from a collision by a corridor will be maintained during construction, derailed train; and (i.e. by providing details about the type and iii. the ability of trespassers to enter into the height of security fencing to be used); railway corridor.

APPENDIX A // 75 APPENDIX B // SAMPLE RAIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The following table is a general sample classification of rail line types. Proponents are advised to consult with the relevant railway to obtain information on the classification, traffic volume, and traffic speed, of the railway lines in proximity to any proposed development. Contact information for railways is available from the Proximity Project's website (see APPENDIX G).

SAMPLE RAIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM* (*TO BE CONFIRMED BY RELEVANT RAILWAY)

• Volume generally exceeds 5 trains per day Main Line (typically separated into "Principal" and • High speeds, frequently exceeding 80 km/h "Secondary" Main Line) • Crossings, gradients, etc. may increase normal railway noise and vibration

• Volume generally has less than 5 trains per day • Slower speeds usually limited to 50 km/h Branch Line • Trains of light to moderate weight

• Unscheduled traffic on demand basis only • Slower speeds limited to 24 km/h Spur Line • Short trains of light weight

APPENDIX B // 77 APPENDIX C // NOISE & VIBRATION PROCEDURES & CRITERIA AC.1 // NOISE sound, if the sound level persisted over an equal time interval. This is the commonly used descriptor The rail noise issue is site-specific in nature, as the level for impact assessment purposes, and correlates well and impact of noise varies depending on the frequency with the effects of noise on people; and speed of the trains, but more importantly, the impact of noise varies depending on the distance of the • the Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) is the highest receptor to the railway operations. The distance from A-weighted sound level occurring during a single rail operations where impacts may be experienced can noise event. It is typically used in night-time vary considerably depending on the type of rail facility emission limits, as a means of ensuring sleep and other factors such as topography and intervening protection. structures. • the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) describes the sound level from a single noise event and is used AC.1.1 // SOUND MEASUREMENT to compare the energy of noise events which have The type of sound has a bearing on how it is measured. different time durations. It is equivalent to Leq but Typical sound level descriptors/metrics for non-impulsive normalized to 1 second; sound events are summarized as follows: • Statistical Sound Levels (Ln%) describe the percentage of time a sound level is exceeded, for • the A-weighted Sound Level (dBA) is an overall example L10%, L50%, etc measurement of sound over all frequencies - but with higher weighting given to mid- and • Percent Highly Annoyed (%HA) is an indicator higher-frequencies - and provides a reasonable developed by Health Canada to assess the health approximation of people's actual judgment of the implications of operational noise in the range of 45 loudness or annoyance of rail noise at moderate - 75 dB. It is suggested that mitigation be proposed sound levels. Generally, an increase of 10dBA if the predicted change in %HA at a specific receptor in sound level is equivalent to a doubling in the is greater than 6.5% between project and baseline apparent loudness of the noise;1 noise environments, or when the baseline-plus- project-related noise is in excess of 75 dB.2 • the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA), is an exposure-based descriptor that reflects a receiver’s cumulative noise exposure from all events over a specified period of time (e.g. 1 hour, 16 hour day, 8 hour night or 24 hour day). It is the value of the constant sound level that would result in exposure to the same total

sound energy as would the specified time varying 2 Health Canada. (2010). Useful information for environmental assessments. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/ 1 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (1986). Road and rail alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/eval/environ_assess-eval/environ_ noise: Effects on housing [Canada]: Author. assess-eval-eng.pdf

APPENDIX C // 79 FIGURE 21 - TYPICAL TRANSIT AND NON-TRANSIT SOURCES OF NOISE, AND THEIR ASSOCIATED DBA (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM FIGURE 2-11 IN TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION). AC.1.2 // SOURCES OF SOUND FROM RAILWAY 2. Where studies are not economically or OPERATIONS practically feasible, due for example to the scale of a development or the absence of an available Principal sources of noise from existing railway mechanism to secure a study, reasonable and infrastructure include: practical measures should be undertaken to • wheels and rails; minimize potential noise impacts, such as increased building setbacks, noise fencing, and • diesel locomotives – much of the noise is emitted building construction techniques (e.g. brick at the top of the locomotive and in some cases the veneer, air conditioning), etc. noise has a distinctive low-frequency character. Both of these factors make locomotive noise difficult 3. Obtain existing rail traffic volumes from railway. to control by means of barriers such as noise walls 4. Use most current draft plan/site plan and or earth mounds, because they have to be quite high grading plans for analysis. in order to break the line of sight, and therefore provide noise attenuation; 5. Escalate rail traffic volume data by 2.5% compounded annually for a minimum of 10 • special track forms, such as at switches, crossings, years, unless future traffic projections are diamonds, signals, and wayside detection available. equipment, cause higher levels of noise and vibration and tend to be more impulsive; 6. Conduct analysis at closest proposed sensitive receptor. The minimum setback distances based • bridges and elevated structures due to the on the classification of the rail line, as specified reverberation in the structures; and by the railway should be used for the analysis • other sources including brake squeal, curve squeal, (see Appendix B for a sample rail classification train whistling at railway crossings, bells at stations, system). If the closest proposed residential shunting of rail cars, coupling, idling locomotives, receptor is at the greater distance than the compression or “stretching” of trains, jointed vs. minimum setback distance, then the greater welded tracks, and track maintenance. distance may be used.

7. The analysis needs to be conducted at the AC.1.3 // RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE following locations: PREPARATION OF NOISE ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER SENSITIVE • Outdoor amenity area receptor. This is LAND USES IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY usually in the rear yard at a point that is 3 m away from the rear wall of the house. CORRIDORS This is typically a daytime calculation; 1. Studies should be undertaken by a qualified • 1st, 2nd, and 3rd storey receptor for consultant using an approved prediction model.

APPENDIX C // 81 low-rise dwellings. The nighttime calculation 11. Any topographical differences between the should be conducted at the façade where source and receiver should be taken into account. a bedroom could be located. The daytime 12. The attenuation provided by dense, evergreen calculation should be conducted at the forest of more than 50 m in depth can also be façade where the living/dining/family areas included in the analysis (assuming it will remain could be located; and intact). • If the building is a multi-storey building 13. Intervening structures that may provide some the calculations should be conducted at the barrier effect may also be included in the outdoor amenity areas and at the highest analysis. floor of the building. 14. The results of this analysis should be compared 8. The typical receptor heights are summarized to the applicable sound level limits listed in below. These are to be used as a guide only. AC.1.4 to determine the required mitigative If the actual receptor heights are known they measures for both the outdoor amenity areas should be used. and the dwelling. Mitigative measures could • Outdoor amenity area: 1.5 m above the include noise barriers, architectural and amenity area elevation; ventilation components (eg. brick veneer, air conditioning, forced air ventilation, window • 1st storey receptor: 1.5 m above the 1st glazing requirements, etc.) floor finished grade elevation; 15. The required sound barrier heights to achieve • 2nd storey receptor: 4.5 m above the 1st the guidelines at the outdoor amenity areas can floor finished grade elevation; and be determined using an appropriate model. The • 3rd storey receptor: 7.5 m above the 1st relative location with respect to the source and floor finished grade elevation. the receiver is required as well as the grades of the tracks, barrier location, and receptor. 9. The analysis should be conducted assuming a 16 hour day (LeqDay) and an 8 hour night 16. The sound barrier needs to be designed (LeqNight). taking into consideration the minimum safety requirements of the railway. 10. When no relief from whistling has been authorized they should be included in the 17. The architectural component requirements analysis to determine the mitigation measures must include the minimum requirements of the to achieve the indoor sound level limits. railways. The remainder of the components Whistles are not required to be included in the can be determined using the AIF procedures determination of sound barrier requirements. found in the CMHC publication, “Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing”, (NHA 5156 08/86) or the BPN 56 procedures found in the National • Top of barrier elevations; Research Council publication “Building Practice • Sample calculations with and without the Note 56, Controlling Sound Transmission into sound barrier; Buildings”, September 1995. • Sample calculations of how the architectural 18. In preparing the report all of the above requirements were determined; information must be included so that the report can be appropriately reviewed. In addition to the • Summary table of lots/blocks/units requiring above, the report should include the following: mitigation measures, including lots that require air conditioning and warning clauses; • Key plan; and • Site plan/draft plan; • Any other information relevant to the site • Summary of the rail traffic data, including the and the proposed mitigation. correspondence from the railways;

• Figure depicting the location of the sound barrier, including any extensions or wraparounds;

AC1.4 // RECOMMENDED NOISE CRITERIA FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER SENSITIVE LAND USES IN PROXIMITY TO FREIGHT RAILWAY CORRIDORS

OUTDOOR SOUND SOUND LEVEL LIMIT TYPE OF SPACE TIME PERIOD LEVEL LIMIT Leq* (dBA) Rail** Leq * (dBA)

Bedrooms 2300 to 0700 hrs 35 50

Living/dining rooms 0700 to 2300 hrs 40 55

Outdoor Living Area 0700 to 2300 hrs ***55 N/A

* Applicable to transportation noise sources only.

** The indoor sound level limits are used only to determine the architectural component requirements. The outside façade sound level limits are used to determine the air conditioning requirements. ** Mitigation is recommended between 55dBA and 60dBA and if levels are 60dBA or above, mitigation should be implemented to reduce the levels as close as practicable to 55dBA.

(SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT LU-131 GUIDELINE)

APPENDIX C // 83 AC.1.5 // RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE 9. Any tonal characteristics of the sound should be PREPARATION OF NOISE IMPACT STUDIES FOR taken into consideration. NEW RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER SENSITIVE LAND 10. All analyses should take the proposed grading USES IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL YARDS of the site as well as the grading at the rail yard, 1. Studies should be undertaken by a qualified particularly when determining the sound barrier consultant. heights.

2. Obtain information from the railway regarding 11. The source positions should be determined in the operations of the freight rail yard in consultation with the railway. They should be question. This information should include based on the most likely and reasonable location existing operations as well as potential future for that activity. modifications to the rail facility. 12. The consultant report shall include the following:

3. Obtain minimum sound levels to be used for each • Key plan; source from the railway, if available. These data should also be verified by on-site observations • Site plan/draft plan of the proposed and on-site sound measurements. development;

4. Calculate the potential impact of all the sources • Figure depicting the location of each of the at the closest proposed residential receptor. sources modeled within the rail yard; This should be at a minimum of 300 m from the • Summary table of the source sound levels closest property line of the freight rail yard. used in the analysis;

5. The analysis should be conducted for the worst • Results of the predicted sound levels at case hour (Leq 1hr). various receptors;

6. The calculation may be conducted using ISO • Results of any on-site sound measurements; 2613-2 or other approved model. • Sample calculations with and without any 7. Impulsive activities, such as train coupling/ proposed mitigation; uncoupling and stretching should be analyzed using a Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level • Summary table of all lots requiring (LLM) and not included as part of the 1 hour Leq. mitigation;

8. The analysis may include any attenuation • Top of sound barrier elevations, if sound provided by permanent intervening structures as barriers are proposed; and well as vegetation as set out by the prediction • Any other information relevant to the site model. Topographical differences between the and the proposed mitigation. source and receiver should be taken into account. 13. The results of the analysis should be compared applicable stationary source guidelines should to the sound level criteria found in AC.1.6. Where be recommended. an excess exists, mitigation that conforms to

AC.1.6 // RECOMMENDED NOISE CRITERIA - RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER SENSITIVE LAND USES IN PROXIMITY TO FREIGHT RAIL SHUNTING YARDS

TIME OF DAY ONE HOUR Leq (dBA) OR LLM (dBAI)

Class 1 Area Class 2 Area

0700 – 1900 50 50

1900 – 2300 47 45

2300 – 0700 45 45

*These criteria are applicable to any usable portion of the lot or dwelling.

**Class 1 and 2 Areas refer to the typical acoustical environment that can be expected within the development zone. Class 1 Areas are acoustic environments dominated by an urban hum, and Class 2 Areas have the acoustic qualities of both Class 1 and Class 3 Areas (which are rural) For more information, refer to Section 2 of the LU-131 Guidelines issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

(SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT LU-131 GUIDELINE)

APPENDIX C // 85 FIGURE 22 // GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION PROPAGATION (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM FIGURE 7-1 IN TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION).

AC.2 // VIBRATION instruments (or) processes; and

Vibration caused by passing trains is an issue that affects • misplaced concern about the potential for structural the structure of a building as well as the liveability or foundation damage. of the units inside. In most cases, structural integrity Mitigation of vibration and ground-borne noise requires is not a factor. Like sound, the effects of vibration the transmission of the vibration to be inhibited at are site-specific and are dependent on the soil and some point in the path between the railway track and subsurface conditions, the frequency of trains and their the building. In some instances, sufficient attenuation of speed, as well as the quantity and type of goods they ground vibration is provided by the distance from the are transporting. track (vibration is rarely an issue at distances greater Vibration is caused by the friction of the wheels of a train than 50 metres from the track), or by the vibration along a track, which generates a vibration energy that is 'coupling loss' which occurs at the footings of buildings. transmitted through the track support system, exciting the However, these factors may not be adequate to achieve adjacent ground and creating vibration waves that spread compliance with the guidelines, and consideration may though the various soil and rock strata to the foundations need to be given to other vibration mitigation measures. of nearby buildings. The vibration can then disseminate However, railway vibration is not normally associated from the foundation throughout the remainder of the with foundation damage. building structure. Experience has shown that vibration levels only slightly above the human perception threshold AC.2.1 // GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION NOISE are likely to result in complaints from residents. Vibration is an oscillatory motion, which can be described Vibration in buildings in proximity to railway corridors in terms of its displacement, velocity, or acceleration. can reach levels that may not be acceptable to building Because the motion is oscillatory, there is no net occupants for one or more of the following reasons: displacement of the vibration element and the average • irritating physical sensations that vibration may of any of the motion descriptors is zero. The response of cause in the human body; humans, buildings, and equipment to vibration is more accurately described using velocity or acceleration. The • interference with activities such as sleep, concepts of ground-borne vibration for a rail system are conversation, and work; illustrated in FIGURE 22. • annoying noise caused by “rattling” of windowpanes, walls, and loose objects. Noise radiated from AC.2.2 // PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY AND THE the motion of the room surfaces can also create ROOT MEAN SQUARE a rumble. In essence, the room acts like a giant The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the loudspeaker; maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of • interference with the proper operation of sensitive the vibration signal. Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it is not of the vibration and the acoustical absorption of the suitable for evaluating human responses, as it takes receiving room. The more acoustical absorption in the some time for the human body to respond to vibration room, the lower will be the noise level. This can be used signals. Because the net average of a vibration signal is to mitigate the ground-borne noise impact, but as noted zero, the root mean square (RMS) amplitude is used to above, is rarely required. describe the vibration amplitude. One of the problems in developing suitable criteria for The criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are ground-borne vibration is that there has been relatively expressed in terms of RMS velocity in decibels or mm/ little research into human response to vibration, in particular, sec, and the criteria for acceptable ground-borne noise human annoyance with building vibration. Nevertheless, are expressed in terms of A-weighted sound levels. there is some information available on human response to vibration as a function of vibration characteristics: its AC.2.3 // HUMAN PERCEPTION OF GROUND-BORNE level, frequency, and direction with respect to the axes of VIBRATION AND NOISE the human body, and duration of exposure time. However, most of the studies on which this information is based were The background vibration velocity level (typically concerned with conditions in which the level and frequency caused by passing vehicles, trucks, buses, etc.) in of vibration are constant. Very few studies have addressed residential areas is usually less than 0.03mm/sec RMS, human response to complex intermittent vibration such as well below the threshold of perception for humans, that induced in buildings by railway corridors. Nonetheless, which is around 0.1 mm/sec RMS. In the some cases, several countries have published standards that provide depending on the distance, intervening soils, and type guidance for evaluating human response to vibration in of rail infrastructure, the vibration from trains can reach buildings. Proponents may utilize the following standards, 0.4mm/sec RMS or more. Even high levels of perception, used internationally, as a reference: however, are typically an order of magnitude below the minimum levels required for structural or even cosmetic • International Standard ISO 2631-2: 2003 (1989) damage in fragile buildings. • American Standard ANSI S2.71: 2006 (Formerly ANSI Typical levels of ground-borne vibrations are shown in S3.29-1983) FIGURE 23. • British Standard BS 6472-1: 2008 (1984)

For surface heavy rail traffic, the sound made by the • Norwegian Standard NS 8176.E: 2005 vibration travelling through the earth is rarely significant because of the relatively low frequency content being • New Zealand Standard NZS/ISO 2631-2: 1989 less audible than the higher vibration frequencies • Australian Standard AS 2670-2: 1990 common to surface transit and subways.

The relationship between ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise depends on the frequency content

APPENDIX C // 87 FIGURE 23 // TYPICAL VIBRATION SOURCES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED VELOCITY LEVELS (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM FIGURE 7-3 IN TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION). AC.2.4 // FACTORS INFLUENCING GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION AND NOISE

Factors that may influence levels of ground borne vibration and noise, and that should be considered by the acoustic consultant in the preparation of a vibration impact study are described in the table below.

FACTORS RELATED TO VIBRATION SOURCE

Factors Influence

Wheel flats and general wheel roughness are the major cause of Wheel Type and Condition vibration from steel wheel/steel rail systems.

Track/Roadway Surface Rough track or rough roads are often the cause of vibration problems.

As intuitively expected, higher speeds result in higher vibration levels. Speed Doubling speed usually results in a vibration level increase of 4 to 6 decibels.

FACTORS RELATED TO VIBRATION PATH

Factors Influence

Vibration levels are generally higher in stiff clay or well-compacted Soil Type sandy soils than in loose or poorly compacted or poorly consolidated soils. Soil layering will have a substantial, but unpredictable, effect on the Soil Layering vibration levels since each stratum can have significantly different dynamic characteristics.

The depth to the water table may have a significant effect on ground- Depth to Water Table borne vibration, but a definite relationship has not been established.

FACTORS RELATED TO VIBRATION RECEIVER

Factors Influence

Generally, the heavier the building foundation, the greater the coupling Foundation Type loss as the vibration propagates from the ground into the building. Since ground-borne vibration and noise are almost always evaluated in terms of indoor receivers, the propagation of the vibration through the Building Construction building must be considered. Each building has different characteristics relative to structure-borne vibration, although, generally, the more massive the building, the lower the levels of ground-borne vibration.

The amount of acoustical absorption in the receiver room affects the Acoustical Absorption levels of ground-borne noise.

(SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM TABLE 7-2 IN TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION).

APPENDIX C // 89 AC.2.5 // RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE right-of-way, vibration measurements are not PREPARATION OF VIBRATION IMPACT STUDIES required. FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER SENSITIVE 5. Sufficient points parallel to the tracks should LAND USES IN PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY be chosen to provide a comprehensive OPERATIONS representation of the potentially varying soil Mitigation can take the form of perimeter foundation conditions. treatment and thicker foundation walls and in more 6. A minimum of five (5) train passbys (comprised severe cases the use of rubber inserts to separate the of all train types using the rail line) should be superstructure from the foundation. recorded at each measurement location.

1. Studies should be undertaken by a qualified 7. The measurement equipment must be capable consultant. of measuring between 4 Hz and 200 Hz ± 3 2. Where studies are not economically or dB with an RMS averaging time constant of 1 practically feasible, due for example to the second. scale of the new development or the absence 8. All measured data shall be reported. of an available mechanism to secure a study, reasonable and practical measures should be 9. The report should include all of the above as undertaken to minimize potential vibration well as: impacts, such as increased building setbacks, • Key plan; perimeter foundation treatment (eg. thicker foundations) and/or other vibration isolation • Site/draft plan indicating the location of the measures, etc. measurements;

3. Vibration measurements should be conducted • Summary of the equipment used to conduct for all proposed residential/ institutional the vibration measurements; type developments. It is not acceptable to use • Direction, type, speed (if possible), and vibration measurements conducted at other number of cars of each train measured; locations such as on the opposite side of the tracks, further down the tracks, etc. • Results of all the measurements conducted;

4. The vibration measurements should be • Exceedance, if any; and conducted at the distance corresponding to the • Details of the proposed mitigation, if closest proposed residential receptor, or on required. the minimum setbacks based on classification of the rail line. If the proposed dwelling units 10. Ground-borne vibration transmission is to be are located more than 75 m from the railway estimated through site testing and evaluation to determine if dwellings within 75 metres • Garg, N. and Sharma, O. (2010). “Investigations of the railway right-of-way will be impacted on transportation induced ground vibrations”. by vibration conditions in excess of 0.14 Proceedings of 20th International Congress on mm/sec. RMS between 4 Hz. And 200 Hz. Acoustics, ICA 2010, Sydney, Australia. The monitoring system should be capable of measuring frequencies between 4 Hz and 200 Hz ± 3 dB, with an RMS averaging time constant of 1 second. If in excess, appropriate isolation measures are recommended to be undertaken to ensure living areas do not exceed 0.14 mm/sec. RMS on and above the first floor of the dwelling.

The following references provide additional insight on methods for measuring ground-borne vibration:

• Hunaidi, O. (1996). “Evaluation of human response to building vibration caused by transit buses”. Journal of Low Frequency Noise and Vibration, Vol. 15 No.1, p. 25-42. NRCC Report No. 36963.

• Hunaidi, O. and Tremblay, M. (1997). “Traffic- induced building vibrations in Montreal”. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 24, p.736-753.

• Allen, D.E. and Pernica, G. (1998). “Control of floor vibration”. Construction Technology Update No.22, Institute for Research in Construction, NRCC.

• Hanson, C.E., Towers, D.A. and Meister, L.D. (2006). “Transit Noise and vibration impact assessment”. FTA-VA-90-1003-06, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, USA.

APPENDIX C // 91 APPENDIX D // NEW RAIL FACILITIES AND SIGNIFICANT RAIL EXPANSIONS IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER SENSITIVE LAND USES Federally regulated railways are governed, in part, by the requirements of the Canada Transportation Act (CTA). Under the CTA, railways are required to obtain an approval from the Canadian Transportation Agency for certain railway construction projects. Additionally, federal railways are required to adhere to the requirements of the Railway Safety Act (RSA), which promotes public safety and protection of property and the environment in the operation of railways.

As such, evaluations of new rail facilities or significant rail expansions are conducted in accordance with applicable Federal regulations.

These include but are not limited to the following:

1. Canadian Transportation Act - section 98 http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/eng/railway-line-construction http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-34. html#h-51

2. Railway Safety Act - Part 1 Construction or Alteration of Railway Works http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.2/page-3. html#docCont http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/ SOR-91-103/page-1.html

3. Railway Relocation and Crossing Act https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/ relocation-railway-lines-urban-areas http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4/index.html

4. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-15.21/index. html

APPENDIX D // 93 APPENDIX E // BEST PRACTICES AE.1 // CURRENT BEST PRACTICES IN CANADA • The guidelines apply to the total sound emitted by moving rail cars and locomotives (including the sound AE.1.1 // RAILWAY NOISE EMISSION GUIDELINES, produced by refrigeration and air conditioning units RAC (CANADA) that are an integral element of such equipment), active retarders, switcher locomotives, car coupling The Railway Association of Canada has prepared Noise operations, and load cell test stands, operated by Emission Guidelines that will assist in controlling noise a railway within Canada. There are exceptions emitted by moving rail cars and locomotives. where the guidelines do not apply, including steam locomotives, sound emitted from warning devices, • The RAC initiative is the first attempt at such a special purpose equipment, and inert retarders. guideline in Canada. Federal agencies have indicated that they support the RAC’s efforts and look forward • Railways and the RAC are encouraged to continue to working with all stakeholders on such initiatives with proactive efforts and partnerships to undertake and also that they encourage a blend of maximum research and education initiatives that build on and levels of noise and annoyance-related approaches in improve the draft noise emission guideline, including the development of such guidelines. incorporating aspects of the subject research. • The RAC guidelines are based on the following United States Codes of Federal Regulations (CFR): CFR Title 40 - Protection of Environment - Part 201 Noise Emission Standards for Transportation Equipment; Interstate Rail Carriers – July 1, 2002; and, CFR Title 49 Transportation – Part 210 Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations – Oct 1, 2002.

APPENDIX E // 95 A summary of the guidelines is below:

NOISE GUIDELINE - MEASUREMENT NOISE SOURCE A-WEIGHTED SOUND NOISE MEASURE LOCATION LEVEL IN dB

All locomotives manufactured on or before Dec. 31, 1979

Stationary, Idle Throttle setting 73 Lmax (slow)1/ 30 m

Stationary, all other throttle settings 93 Lmax (slow) 30 m

Moving 96 Lmax (fast) 30 m

All locomotives manufactured after Dec. 31, 1979

Stationary, Idle Throttle setting 70 Lmax (slow) 30 m

Stationary, all other throttle settings 87 Lmax (slow) 30 m

Moving 90 Lmax (fast) 30 m

Additional req’t for switcher locos manufactured on or before Dec. 31, 1979 operating in yards where stationary switcher and other 65 L90 (fast)2/ Receiving property loco noise exceeds the receiving property limit of

Stationary, Idle Throttle setting 70 Lmax (slow) 30 m

Stationary, all other throttle settings 87 Lmax (slow) 30 m

Moving 90 Lmax (fast) 30 m

Rail Cars

Moving at speeds of 45 mph or less 88 Lmax (fast) 30 m

Moving at speeds greater than 45 mph 93 Lmax (fast) 30 m

Other Yard Equipment and Facilities

Retarders 83 Ladjavemax (fast) Receiving property

Car-coupling operations 92 Ladjavemax (fast) Receiving property

Loco load cell test stands, where the noise from loco load cell 65 L90 (fast)2/ Receiving property operations exceeds the receiving property limits of

Primary Guideline 78 Lmax (slow) 30 m

Receiving property located more than Secondary Guideline if 30 m measurement not feasible 65 Lmax (fast) 120 m from Load Cell

1/Lmax= maximum sound level

L90= statistical sound level exceeded 90% of the time

Ladjavemax= adjusted average maximum sound level

2/ L90 must be validated by determining that L10-L99 is less than or equal to 4 dB (A).

Receiving property essentially means any residential or commercial property that receives sound (not owned by the railroad). AE.1.2 // NOISE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA IN LAND metres of a railway line. This is the only piece of provincial USE PLANNING PUBLICATION LU-131 (ONTARIO, legislation in Canada which triggers the notification of CAN) railways when land-use changes and/or development is proposed in close proximity to rail lands. This guideline outlines noise criteria to be considered in the planning of sensitive land uses adjacent to major AE.1.4 // GUIDELINE D-6: COMPATIBILITY facilities such as roads, airports, and railway corridors. It is the only provincial noise guideline applicable to BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND SENSITIVE residential development in Canada.1 The document LAND USES (ONTARIO, CAN) stipulates a maximum daytime outdoor sound level from The role of this guideline is to prevent or minimize the rail noise of 55dBA; 35dBA for sleeping quarters at night; encroachment of sensitive land use upon industrial land and 40dBA for living and dining rooms during the day. It use and vice versa. The incompatibility of these land also stipulates that a feasibility study is required within uses is due to the possibility for adverse effects created 100 metres of a Principal Main Line railway right-of-way, by industrial operations on sensitive land uses. and 50 metres of a Secondary Main Line railway right-of-way. A detailed noise study is required when Application of this guideline should occur during the land sound levels affecting proposed lands exceed the noise use planning process in an effort to prevent or minimize criteria by more than 5dBA. Finally, the guideline also future land use conflicts. It is intended to apply when outlines specific mitigation requirements when sound a change in land use is proposed. The guideline is a levels exceed certain limits. direct application of Ministry Guideline D-1, "Land Use Compatibility" (formerly Policy 07-03). AE.1.3 // PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LAND This guideline defines sensitive land uses as: STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006, BILL 51 • recreational uses which are deemed by the (ONTARIO, CAN) municipality or provincial agency to be sensitive; The Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law and/or Amendment Act, 2006, Bill 51 provides a more transparent, • any building or associated amenity area which is not accessible, and effective land-use planning process, directly associated with the industrial use, where empowering municipalities with more tools to address humans or the natural environment may be adversely a variety of land-use planning needs. The bill allows affected by emissions generated by the operation of for greater dissemination of information, participation, a nearby industrial facility. For example, residences, and consultation to take place earlier on in the planning senior citizen homes, schools, day care facilities, process, giving local residents and community leaders hospitals, churches and other similar institutional more opportunity to play their crucial role in shaping uses, or campgrounds. Residential land is considered their communities. to be sensitive 24 hrs/day.

Bill 51 requires that notice shall be given to railways This guideline does not apply to railway corridors, but in the case of proposed official plans or official plan does apply to railway yards and other ancillary rail amendments, plans of subdivision, zoning by-laws, facilities. holding by-laws, interim control by-laws, and/or consent to sever lands, where the subject lands fall within 300 Industrial facilities are categorized into three classes according to the objectionable nature of their emissions, 1 Noise Guidelines exist in Alberta, but they are applicable only to the physical size/scale, production volumes and/or the energy sector.

APPENDIX E // 97 intensity and scheduling of operations. This guideline document, Trespassing on Railway Lines: A Community includes an implementation section that contains Problem-Solving Guide was developed. This document requirements or recommendations on the following: describes the Community, Analysis, Response and Evaluation (C.A.R.E.) problem solving model that was • Potential influence area distances developed to assist communities in identifying and • Land use planning considerations addressing the underlying causes of trespassing. It provides a step-by-step method of identifying, analyzing • Recommended minimum separation distances and effectively addressing trespassing issues in the • How to measure separation distance community.

• Commenting or reviewing land use proposals Direction 2006 has identified four areas of concentration (the four E’s) with respect to crossing and trespass • Required studies: noise, dust, and odour prevention, namely: • Additional mitigation measures Education • Legal agreements and financial assurance to ensure mitigation Operation Lifesaver’s success as a safety program lies in educating people of all ages about the dangers of highway/ • Redevelopment, infilling and mixed use areas railway crossings and the seriousness of trespassing on requirements including official status, zoning, railway property. The methods used to reach the public feasibility analysis, new use of existing buildings, include the production and distribution of educational public consultation, environmental warnings for related material, early elementary and driver education sensitive land uses, phased/sequential development, curriculum activities, civic presentations, as well as and site clean-up & decommissioning. media coverage. • Accessory residential use Enforcement The recommendations or requirements for incompatible land uses are intended to supplement, not replace, Laws are in place governing motorists’ and pedestrians’ controls which are required by legislation for both point rights and responsibilities at highway/railway crossings source and fugitive emissions at the facility source. and on railway property. Without enforcement, however, they will be ignored and disregarded, and incidents will AE.1.5 // DIRECTION 2006 (CANADA) continue to happen. Therefore, provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies are urged to deal with Community Trespass Prevention is an initiative of motorists and pedestrians who disregard these laws and Direction 2006, a Government of Canada and public/ jeopardize their lives as well as the lives of others. private partnership initiated in 1996, with the goal of cutting the number of accidents and fatalities in half within 10 years, by 2006. As part of this initiative, the Engineering should be kept in mind. For example, the Australian context allows for a greater government role in its Highway/railway crossings, railway property and approach to mitigation because railway infrastructure is pedestrian crossings must be kept safe, both physically largely state owned and operated. This is also the reason and operationally, and improvements must be made why the rail authorities must bear a larger share of the when needed. To ensure a high level of safety, responsibility when it comes to mitigation, than is the the administrative process of improving railway case in Canada. rights-of-way needs to be reviewed and changed when needed. At the same time, the public needs to be made more aware of federal, provincial and other programs AE.2.1 // NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA aimed at improving railway safety. New South Wales (NSW), located in southeastern Australia, is the largest Australian state by population, with over Evaluation 7.2 million inhabitants. It is currently experiencing an To maintain the quality of Operation Lifesaver, its effect extended period of urban renewal, particularly in and should be measured against its stated goals. Funds are around Sydney, the state capital and the most populous available for technical and program assistance. city in the country. This renewal has led to increased pressure to develop urban infill sites along railway lines, Lessons that can be learned from Direction 2006 include: particularly around existing passenger rail stations. At • The benefits of multi-stakeholder initiatives to raise the same time, transportation by rail (both freight-based awareness of public safety matters and reduce the and passenger-based), has been growing steadily, potential for future incidents. generating a need to establish new railway lines in some parts of the state, and leading to an increase in the • Promotion of rail safety improvement, particularly number of complaints about sound and vibration issues improvement and elimination of at-grade crossings by residents living in proximity to existing lines. and provision of funding for safety initiatives. In response to these circumstances, the government of AE.2 // INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES NSW has developed a comprehensive strategy consisting of a series of complementary initiatives to address The international case studies described here have been and manage the environmental impacts of noise and chosen because they represent examples of jurisdictions vibration from the state's rail system. These include: which employ a comprehensive approach towards • A Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline that outlines mitigation of rail-related impacts on new residential a process for assessing the noise and vibration development that includes the use of proximity impacts of proposed rail infrastructure projects, and guidelines. While Australia stands out as a model for for determining appropriate mitigation. Canadian jurisdictions to look towards when crafting their own policies for development adjacent to railway • A new state policy, called the State Environmental corridors, the differences between the two contexts Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 that clearly

APPENDIX E // 99 articulates a process and requirements for the mitigation is the reduction of noise and vibration. It approval of new residential developments adjacent should be noted that developers of new residential to existing railway corridors. The policy specifies buildings in NSW are responsible for all costs associated internal noise levels of 35dBA for bedrooms with providing safety, sound, and vibration mitigation in between 10pm and 7am, and 40dBA for other their developments. habitable rooms. It also stipulates conditions The introduction of the new state policy and planning under which a rail authority must be notified of a guidelines has significantly streamlined the development development adjacent to its railway corridors, and approvals process for new residential development gives the authority 21 days to respond. adjacent to railway corridors across the state. The State • New planning guidelines for development near Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 takes railway corridors and busy roads that outline precedence over existing municipal policies within the procedures for assessing the noise and vibration state, and municipalities must also 'have consideration' impacts of existing rail facilities on new residential for the new guidelines when approving or denying a development, and suggest potential mitigation development application. Failure to do so may result in a options. decision being overturned by the courts. The privileged position of the rail authorities as adjacent landowners • New national rolling stock noise emission standards, is recognized through the new process, but the 21-day currently under development by the Australasian period for providing comments ensures expediency. Railway Association. The state further encourages rail authorities to honour Although the Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy this time limitation through an annual publication of Roads - Interim Guideline includes recommendations for the names of those who consistently fail to meet the mitigating against the risk of a derailment, these do deadline. While the process allows for and encourages not include a mandatory or recommended setback. The extensive negotiation, municipal Councils are free to State's Director of Policy Planning Systems and Reform reject the safety recommendations of rail authorities suggests that this is because any setback width would that they feel are unreasonable. be considered arbitrary. Additionally, it is argued that Although the state is still in the process of transitioning it would be inappropriate to sterilize land adjacent to into this new system, overall, it is considered thus far, to railway corridors by imposing a setback requirement be a success. The guidelines are heavily used, and new without compensation or acquisition. In the case of new developments are seeing significant benefits, though rail lines under development, it is considered preferable there are still concerns expressed by residents living in for the infrastructure provider to acquire a corridor existing housing stock. wide enough to make accommodations for a buffer. In existing built-up areas around older railway lines, safety is considered on a case-by-case basis through individual risk assessments, although the primary concern of AE.2.2 // QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA assessment process to assist with the evaluation and refinement of development proposals. Queensland, located in northeastern Australia, is the second largest Australian state by area, and the third largest by population, with over 4.5 million inhabitants. AE.2.3 // CODE OF PRACTICE, RAILWAY It is also home to the country's third most populace city, NOISE MANAGEMENT, QUEENSLAND RAIL Brisbane. Regional and metropolitan plans throughout (QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA) Queensland are calling for Transit Oriented Development Queensland Rail (QR), an Australian government owned (TOD) to address the state’s continuing growth and corporation, has developed a Code of Practice for Railway development. These plans typically prescribe more Noise Management. The Code of Practice is generally a compact urban forms, with higher density development self-imposed set of rules to achieve compliance with located in the places of greatest accessibility. Increasingly, the duty to mitigate environmental impacts such as as in NSW, this has led to greater pressure to develop noise and vibration. The self-regulation is similar to the sites adjacent to railway corridors, generating concerns approach to the environment that has been adopted by not only about noise and vibration, but also about the Class 1 and other railway companies in Canada. the potential impact of new development on railway operations. As part of this Code of Practice, QR has developed a “Network Noise Management Plan” that initially In order to properly manage these concerns, a partnership involves conducting a statewide noise audit. If “potential was established between Queensland Rail, Transport and noise-affected receptors” are identified then a detailed Main Roads (TMR), and the Department of Infrastructure noise assessment is carried out. Mitigation measures will and Planning (DIP), through Growth Management be implemented where noise levels exceed the EPP levels Queensland (GMQ). Through this collaboration, a Guide for or if QR cannot achieve compliance with these levels, the development in a railway environment was developed railway will strive to comply with QR nominated interim and made available for use by local municipalities and noise levels of 70 dB(A) (24-hour average equivalent developers. The Guide provides direction for those continuous A-weighted sound pressure level) and 95 interested in developing, excavating, or carrying out any dB(A) (single event maximum sound pressure level). other construction activity in or adjacent to a railway corridor, facilities, or infrastructure. It outlines what Queensland Rail has prepared and made available to information must be reviewed and accounted for when Queensland local governments “QR Guidelines for Local undertaking development in a railway environment, Governments (and/or other Assessment Managers under which agencies hold jurisdictional responsibility, the the Integrated Planning Act) for Assessing Development applicability of regulatory provisions, the consultation Likely to be Affected by Noise from the Operation of process, and related development parameters. A checklist a Railway or Railway Activities”. These guidelines approach ensures the appropriate steps have been taken encourage Queensland local governments to apply to address the matters influencing development in a noise impact assessments to development applications railway environment, and is complemented by a risk requiring assessment under the Integrated Planning Act

APPENDIX E // 101 and which are intended to be located near a railway. and it is anticipated that some trains may exceed 12,000 The noise impact assessment may require the imposition feet in length. of conditions on the development to help achieve the required noise levels. Conditions may include devices Existing and Future Conditions such as sealed windows and/or double glazing; The Corridor contains approximately 66 road-rail minimizing the window area facing a noise source; crossings, of which 12 are overpasses, 38 are public barriers for low level receivers; effective building street-level crossings, and 16 are private street-level orientation; or provision of a suitable buffer distance. crossings. Roughly 388,000 vehicles cross the tracks daily, Although the Canadian environment differs somewhat with expected increases to 560,000 vehicle crossings per from QR (the main difference being that QR is government day by 2021. Future increases in train traffic and vehicular owned), there are lessons that can be learned, including: traffic presented infrastructure challenges to the existing street-level rail crossings, impeding the operational • QR has developed a comprehensive “Network Noise efficiency of both rail and road networks. Additionally, the Management Plan” and carries out a detailed noise significant volume of trains passing through established assessment if potential noise-affected receptors are communities presented many challenges with respect to identified. noise, vibration, emissions, and safety. • QR has prepared noise impact assessment guidelines to assist local governments in applying guidelines Improving Network Efficiency and Addressing to development applications. The guidelines are Proximity Issues comprehensively applied. In February 2007, the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor: Road/ Rail Interface Study prioritized the optimal locations for AE.3.1 // ROBERTS BANK RAIL CORRIDOR CASE investment in road-rail projects. Careful consideration STUDY (BRITISH COLUMBIA, CAN) was also given to selected road closures, network reconfigurations, and traffic management measures The Roberts Bank Rail Corridor (RBRC) represents a designed to maximize benefits to motorists, railways 70-kilometre stretch of tracks, connecting Canada’s largest and neighbouring communities. The study also gave container facility and a major coal terminal at Roberts consideration to a number of proximity related issues Bank (south of Vancouver) with the North American rail including noise, vibration, emissions, and safety. network. Increasing volumes of international freight are shipped as part of Canada’s Pacific Gateway, through The study was a collaborative effort among Transport communities in the Lower Mainland. Canada, British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, South Coast British Columbia The Corridor is comprised primarily of single rail track Transportation Authority (TransLink), the Vancouver and currently carries up to 18 trains per day, ranging Fraser Port Authority, and the Greater Vancouver from 6,000 to 9,500 feet in length. Train traffic volume Gateway Council, with contributions from stakeholders is expected to increase to 28–38 trains per day by 2021, such as corridor municipalities and railway companies. provide an advanced early warning system that will The various agencies turned to the 2007 FCM RAC notify drivers of approaching trains. Proximity Guidelines for direction on addressing issues related to noise and vibration, safety, dispute resolution, and setbacks. The Guidelines were proven to be an effective measure and valuable resource for balancing the needs of the rail agencies, stakeholders, and community members.

Roberts Bank Railway Corridor improvements are intended to:

• Improve the flow of local traffic;

• Improve traffic safety;

• Provide for better access by emergency vehicles during train events;

• Reduce idling of vehicles at level crossings, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions;

• Reduce or eliminate the necessity for train whistling;

• Enhance the efficiency and safety of rail operations;

• Accommodate the anticipated growth in trade-related traffic; and

• Increase national trade competitiveness by increasing goods-movement along the corridor.

Results and Outcomes

The twelve partners are working proactively to improve road access and safety for local residents by providing alternate routes over increasingly busy railways. In total, eight overpasses and one rail siding project in the RBRC Program will be constructed by 2014. Additional rail improvements will reduce requirements for whistle blowing, close rail crossings to vehicular traffic, and

APPENDIX E // 103 APPENDIX F // GLOSSARY Berm Railway Facility

A mound constructed of compacted earth that is situated Any structure or associated lands related to the operation within the setback area of a property adjacent to a railway of a railway. Railway facilities include railway corridors, line. Berms function of safety barriers, screen undesirable freight yards, and train stations. views, and reduce noise. Railway Operations Crash Wall Any activity related to the operation of a railway. A concrete structure often incorporated into the podium of a high-density building adjacent to a railway line that Recommended Setback is designed to provide the equivalent resistance in the The recommended separation distance between a rail case of a train derailment as a standard berm. corridor and a sensitive land use, such as a residence. Noise Impact Study Sensitive Land Uses A study, undertaken by a qualified acoustic consultant, A land use where routine or normal activities occurring which assesses the impact of all noise sources on a subject at reasonably expected times would experience adverse property, and determines the appropriate layout, design, effects from the externalities, such as noise and vibration, and required control measures. generated from the operation of a railway. Sensitive land uses include, but are not limited to, residences or other Low Occupancy Podium facilities where people sleep, and institutional structures A building podium containing non-sensitive uses such such as schools and daycares, etc. parking, retail, or the common elements of a condominium. A low occupancy podium will never contain residential STC Rating uses. STC stands for Sound Transmission Class, and is a single-number rating of a material's or an assembly's Railway Corridor ability to resist airborne noise transfer. In general, a The land which contains a railway track or tracks, higher STC rating indicates a greater ability to block the measured from property line to property line. transmission of noise.

Rail Crossing Vibration Impact Study

A crossing or intersection of a railway and a highway, at A study, undertaken by a qualified acoustic or vibration grade. consultant, which assesses the level and impact of vibration on a subject property, determines whether Railway vibration mitigation is necessary, and recommends mitigation options based on the particular conditions of Any company which owns and operates one or more the development site in question. railway lines.

Railway Line

The physical tracks on which trains operate. Railway lines may be categorized as either a Main Line, Branch Line, or Spur Line, based on the speed and frequency of trains (see Appendix B for a sample rail classification system).

APPENDIX F // 105 APPENDIX G // LINKS & OTHER RESOURCES Railway Association of Canada Ontario Ministry of the Environment www.railcan.ca www.ene.gov.on.ca

(includes relevant government links and links to member Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation railway sites) www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca Federation of Canadian Municipalities Operation Lifesaver www.fcm.ca www.operationlifesaver.ca (includes links to provincial affiliate associations and municipal sites) Safe Communities

RAC/FCM Proximity Project www.safecommunities.ca www.proximityissues.ca Queensland Rail

Government of Canada www.corporate.qr.com.au www.canada.gc.ca Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Transport Canada www.tmr.qld.gov.au www.tc.gc.ca New South Wales Department of Planning Canadian Transportation Agency www.planning.nsw.gov.au www.cta-otc.gc.ca

APPENDIX G // 107 APPENDIX H // LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED Municipalities Development Industry Canadian Railways & Railroad Operators Borough of Plateau Montreal, City of BILD, Policy & Government Relations Montreal Canadian National Railway Canada Lands Company Borough of Riviere-des-Prairies, Canadian Pacific Railway Conservatory Group Pointe-aux-Trembles, City of Metrolinx Montreal Hullmark Development Trillium Railway Bureau du Plan, City of Montreal Montreal Design Zone

City of Edmonton Namara Developments International

City of Regina Ontario Homebuilders Association American Association of Railroads

City of Saskatoon Perimeter Development City of Melbourne, Australia

City of Toronto City of Washington, DC Professionals City of Vancouver Government of New South Wales, Aecom Australia, Policy Planning Systems City of Welland Evans Planning and Reform City of Winnipeg Goodmans LLP Surface Transportation Board Greater Moncton Planning Jablonsky Ast & Partners Commission Provincial & Federal Ministries Jade Acoustics Inc. & Regulating Agencies Town of Halton Hills JSW+ Associates Canadian Transportation Agency Town of Orangeville Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Goods Movement Policy Office

Province of Nova Scotia

Saskatchewan Ministry of Municipal Affairs

APPENDIX H // 109 APPENDIX I // REFERENCES Allen, D.E. and Pernica, G. (1998). “Control of floor Go Transit. (N.d.). Go Transit rail corridor development vibration”. Construction Technology Update No.22, handbook: Author. Institute for Research in Construction, NRCC. Hanson, C.E., Towers, D.A. and Meister, L.D. (2006). Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., & Schwela, D. H., eds. (1999). Transit Noise and vibration impact assessment. FTA-VA- Guidelines for community noise [Research Report]. 90-1003-06, Office of Planning and Environment, Retrieved from World Health Organization website: Federal Transit Administration, USA. http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html Health Canada. (2010). Useful information for Bill 51: An Act to amend the Planning Act and environmental assessments. Retrieved from http://www. the Conservation Land Act and to make related hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/ amendments to other Acts. (2006). Royal Assent Oct. eval/environ_assess-eval/environ_assess-eval-eng.pdf 19, 2006. Retrieved from the Parliament of Ontario Howe, B., & McCabe, N. (March 15 2012). Railway website: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail. vibration reduction study: Information on railway do?locale=en&BillID=455 vibration mitigation [Ottawa, ON]: Railway Association Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (1986). of Canada. Road and rail noise: Effects on housing [Canada]: Author. Hunaidi, O. (1996). “Evaluation of human response to Canadian Transportation Agency. (August 2011). building vibration caused by transit buses”. Journal of Railway noise measurement and reporting methodology. Low Frequency Noise and Vibration, Vol. 15 No.1, p. Retrieved from: http://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ 25-42. NRCC Report No. 36963. railway_noise_measurement Hunaidi, O. and Tremblay, M. (1997). “Traffic-induced Canadian Transportation Agency. (October 2008). building vibrations in Montreal”. Canadian Journal of Guidelines for the resolution of complaints concerning Civil Engineering, Vol. 24, p.736-753. railway noise and vibration. Retrieved from: https:// Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning www.otc-cta.gc.ca/sites/all/files/altformats/books/ (1997, LU-131). Retrieved from the Ontario Ministry guidelines-noise-and-vibration_e_0.pdf of the Environment website: http://www.ene.gov. Direction 2006. (n.d.) Trespassing on railway lines: on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/ A community problem-solving guide. Retrieved from: documents/resource/std01_079357.pdf http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/wp-content/ Preston, B.J. (April 7 2009). Sustainable Development uploads/2010/06/en_TrespGuide2003.pdf in the Law Courts: The Polluter Pays Principle. 16th Garg, N. and Sharma, O. (2010). “Investigations on Commonwealth Law Conference, Hong Kong. transportation induced ground vibrations”. Proceedings Queensland Rail. (November 2007). Code of practice - of 20th International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2010, railway noise management. EMS/STD/46/004. Retrieved Sydney, Australia. from http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/AboutUs/

APPENDIX I // 111 ReleaseOfInformation/Documents/EMS-STD-46-004.pdf World Health Organization. (2011). Burden of disease from environmental noise: Quantification of healthy life Rail Infrastructure Corporation. (November 2003). years lost in Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.euro. Interim guidelines for applicants: Consideration of rail who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888. noise and vibration in the planning process. Retrieved pdf from http://www.daydesign.com.au/downloads/Interim_ guidelines_for_applicants.pdf

Railway Association of Canada, The, & Federation of Canadian Municipalities, The. (2007). Final Report: Proximity guidelines and best practices [Montreal, QC]: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Railway Safety Act Review Secretariat. (2007). Stronger ties: A shared commitment to railway safety. Retrieved from the Transport Canada website: www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/ RSA_Review-Examen_LSF

State Government of New South Wales, Department of Environment . (2007). Interim guideline for the Assessment of Noise from Rail Infrastructure Projects. Retrieved from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ noise/railinfranoise.htm

State Government of New South Wales, Department of Planning. (2008). Development near rail corridors and busy roads - interim guideline. Retrieved from http:// www.planning.nsw.gov.au/rdaguidelines/documents/ DevelopmentNearBusyRoadsandRailCorridors.pdf

State of Queensland, Department of Infrastructure and Planning. (October 2010). Guide for development in a railway environment. Retrieved from: http://www.dlgp. qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/tod/rail-guideline.pdf

Toronto Area Rail Transportation of Dangerous Goods Task Force. (1988). Consultant's Report [Ottawa, ON]: Supply and Services Canada.

FCM / RAC

PROXIMITYINITIATIVE Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment

September 2013 Acknowledgements and Disclaimer

This project is supported by a grant from the Health Impact Project, a collaboration of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts, with funding from The Kresge Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, or The Kresge Foundation. The report also does not reflect the views of the agencies that may have participated in the HIA process, including reviewing drafts of the report and/or providing data for the analyses in the report. The authors are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. The authors have no involvements or conflicts of interest that might raise questions of bias in the study results reported.

Authors and Contributors Kim Gilhuly, Human Impact Partners Ruth Lindberg, Former Program Manager, Keith Haynes, Maryland State Delegate, National Center for Healthy Housing District 44, Baltimore City (NCHH) Katie Hirono, Health Impact Project Kristina Souders, Research Assistant, Jill Lemke, Economic Development Planner, NCHH Baltimore City Department of Planning Rebecca Morley, Executive Director, NCHH Clifford Mitchell, Director, Environmental Rajiv Bhatia, Project Consultant Health Bureau, Department of Health and Tom Rivard, Project Consultant Mental Hygiene (DHMH) Judith Akoto, Project Coordinator, NCHH Sarah Morris-Compton, Director of the Jonathan Heller, Human Impact Partners Office of Policy and Planning, BCHD Jill Breysse, Senior Project Manager, NCHH Marjorie Owens, President, Wilhelm Park Neighborhood Association The National Center for Healthy Housing Bonnie Phipps, President/CEO, Saint Agnes gratefully acknowledges the following Healthcare persons who advised us in the report’s Rebecca Ruggles, Director, Maryland development and contributed their expertise: Environmental Health Network Nancy Servatius, Environmental Health Aruna Chandran, Chief of Epidemiologic Bureau, DHMH Services, Baltimore City Health Department Madeleine Shea, Former Director, Office of (BCHD) Population Health Improvement, DHMH Keith Davis, Former HIA Planning Bradley Smith, Project Manager, Office of Coordinator, BCHD Freight and Multimodalism, Maryland Andrew Fellows, Vice-Chair of the Department of Transportation (MDOT) Maryland Commission on Environmental Dominic Wiker, Manager, Commercial Justice and Sustainable Communities Development, Office of Real Estate, MDOT

Members of the Morrell Park Community Association and the Morrell Park and St. Paul’s Improvement Association helped scope this HIA and refine its recommendations.

Cover Photo: Mural on Washington Boulevard.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 1 of 129

Table of Contents List of Acronyms Used ...... 5 Executive Summary ...... 6 Background ...... 6 Findings...... 6 Priority Recommendations...... 11 1. Introduction ...... 14 2. Project Background ...... 16 3. HIA Screening ...... 19 4. HIA Scope and Methods ...... 21 Health Effects Considered ...... 21 Vulnerable Populations ...... 21 Development of Pathway Diagrams and Research Questions ...... 22 Community and Stakeholder Input into HIA Scope ...... 22 Health Determinants Considered but Not Addressed ...... 23 Methods...... 24 5. Baseline Conditions ...... 28 Profile of the Communities Surrounding the Mount Clare Yard Site ...... 28 6. HIA Assessment Findings ...... 32 6.1 Air Quality ...... 32 6.1.1 The Evidence: Air Quality and Health...... 32 6.1.2 Existing Conditions: Air Quality ...... 34 6.1.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Air Quality ...... 40 6.1.4 Resident Perspectives on Potential Air Quality Impacts ...... 45 6.1.5 Limitations and Data Gaps ...... 45 6.1.6 Air Quality: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 46 6.2 Employment ...... 48 6.2.1 The Evidence: Employment and Health ...... 48 6.2.2 Existing Conditions: Employment ...... 49 6.2.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Employment and Associated Health Outcomes ...... 53

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 2 of 129

6.2.4 Limitations and Data Gaps...... 54 6.2.5 Employment: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 54 6.3 Neighborhood Resources ...... 56 6.3.1 The Evidence: Neighborhood Resources and Health ...... 56 6.3.2 Existing Conditions: Neighborhood Resources ...... 59 6.3.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Neighborhood Resources and Associated Health Outcomes ...... 62 6.3.4 Limitations and Data Gaps...... 66 6.3.5 Neighborhood Resources: Conclusions and Recommendations...... 66 6.4 Noise ...... 69 6.4.1 The Evidence: Noise and Health ...... 69 6.4.2 Existing Conditions: Noise ...... 72 6.4.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Noise and Associated Health Outcomes . 73 6.4.4 Limitations and Data Gaps...... 74 6.4.5 Noise: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 74 6.5 Traffic Safety ...... 75 6.5.1 The Evidence: Traffic Safety and Health ...... 75 6.5.2 Existing Conditions: Traffic Safety ...... 76 6.5.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Traffic Safety and Associated Health Outcomes ...... 78 6.5.4 Limitations and Data Gaps...... 81 6.5.5 Traffic Safety: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 81 6.6 Light ...... 83 6.6.1 The Evidence: Light and Health ...... 83 6.6.2 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Light and Associated Health Outcomes .. 84 6.6.3 Light: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 85 6.7 Other ...... 86 6.7.1 Rodents ...... 86 6.7.2 Community Engagement, Communication, and Transparency in Decision-Making ...... 86 7. Summary of Impacts ...... 89 8. Recommendations ...... 93

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 3 of 129

9. Monitoring ...... 99 10. References ...... 102 11. Appendices ...... 114 Appendix A: Screening Criteria ...... 114 Appendix B: Research Questions ...... 115 Appendix C: Health Determinant Indicators and Data Sources ...... 119 Appendix D: Sample Stakeholder Interview Questions ...... 121

Appendix E: Estimating Attributable Excess Mortality from PM2.5 Exposure ...... 123

Long-term Prospective Cohort Studies of Chronic Exposure to PM2.5 and Mortality ...... 123 Appendix F: Proportion of Housing Units without Vehicle Access Located a Half Mile or More from the Nearest Supermarket ...... 125 Appendix G: Estimating the Population at Risk for Being Highly Annoyed from Roadway Noise ...... 126 Appendix H: Estimating the Population at Risk for Sleep Disturbance from Roadway Noise 128

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 4 of 129

List of Acronyms Used

AQ – Air quality BRFSS – Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System CO – Carbon monoxide CSA – Community Statistical Area DHMH – Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene EPA – Environmental Protection Agency FHWA – Federal Highway Administration HIA – Health Impact Assessment MDOT – Maryland Department of Transportation MDSHA – Maryland State Highway Administration MEPA – Maryland Environmental Policy Act µg – Microgram µm – Micrometer NCHH – National Center for Healthy Housing NEJAC – National Environmental Justice Advisory Council NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NOx – Nitrogen oxides PM10 – Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers PM2.5 – Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers SOx – Sulfur oxides VOC – Volatile organic compound WHO – World Health Organization

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 5 of 129

Executive Summary

Background Decision-makers at the state and local levels are evaluating a proposed Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility at the existing Mount Clare Yard in southwest Baltimore. The purpose of the facility is to transfer goods “between trucks and trains for either ‘long-haul’ rail service to markets outside of the region or ‘short-haul’ truck delivery to local warehouses, retailers, and other businesses within the region” in response to the growing demand for consumer goods movement (Maryland Department of Transportation, n.d.). The intermodal facility at the Mount Clare Yard will allow CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) and its affiliates to double-stack freight containers arriving into the Seagirt Marine Terminal after they have passed through the Howard Street Tunnel, before shipping to markets outside of Baltimore.

The National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH), a national nonprofit organization based in Columbia, Maryland, received funding from the Health Impact Project in December 2011 to conduct a health impact assessment (HIA) of the potential health effects of the proposed Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility. HIA brings together scientific data, health expertise, and public input to identify the potential – and often overlooked – health effects of proposed projects, policies, and programs.

NCHH used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including literature review, quantitative forecasting, focus groups, and stakeholder interviews to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of the development on the health of the community.

Health determinants are economic, social, and environmental conditions that influence the health of people and communities. Based on input from community residents and agency stakeholders, NCHH identified six health determinants for study:

• Air Quality; • Employment; • Neighborhood Resources (e.g., property values, tax revenue, and community resources such as schools, emergency services, and parks and recreational spaces); • Noise; • Traffic Safety; and • Light

Findings

The findings from the HIA include:

Community Demographics and Health • The Morrell Park/Violetville Community Statistical Area1 (CSA), where the proposed intermodal facility would be located, has a greater population of white residents and

1 Community Statistical Areas are clusters of neighborhoods developed by the Baltimore City Planning Department.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 6 of 129

residents age 65 or older than that of the city, Baltimore County, and the state as a whole. The median household income for the area is $39,931—slightly higher than the city as a whole, but substantially lower than Baltimore County ($65,411) and the state ($72,419).

• The residents living in the CSA have higher rates of age-adjusted mortality and heart disease, all cancer and lung cancer deaths, and deaths linked to chronic diseases of the lower respiratory system (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma) compared with Baltimore City and Maryland residents as a whole.

Air Quality • The introduction of the intermodal facility at the Mount Clare site will increase the frequency of freight transport moving through the surrounding residential areas, resulting in emissions of numerous hazardous chemicals. These include particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO).

• Our air quality analysis examined the baseline levels of particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). We found that the area surrounding the proposed site is currently in attainment with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Ambient Air Quality (NAAQ) standard for PM2.5, but is already level with the more health protective World Health Organization (WHO) air quality threshold for the pollutant. Measuring from the nearest air quality monitoring station (four miles away), the present conditions in the community for PM2.5 annually average 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), which compares with EPA’s annual NAAQ standard of 12 µg/m3 and the WHO annual guideline of 10 ug/m3 (World Health Organization, 2000).

• Using conservative models,2 we found that air quality near the proposed site will worsen due to increased truck traffic. If trucks were concentrated in two peak hour periods (morning and evening), the maximum additional exposure of residents to PM2.5 would be an estimated 0.8 µg/m3 during a peak period on any given day.

• Using data from the census block groups surrounding the proposed site location for 3,933 individuals over age 30, we calculated the excess annual mortality rate attributable to PM2.5 exposure that could result from the facility. The maximum modeled changes in air quality emissions due to increased truck traffic could result in an excess annual mortality risk of 10 deaths per 100,000 individuals attributable to PM2.5 exposure if the Desoto Road3 access option is selected. The Bernard Drive4 access option could result in an

2 The air quality models assume 300 truck trips per day and do not project any growth in truck trips. They also exclude emissions from rail and equipment at the facility, and do not include emissions from idling vehicles at or around the site. The models also do not include the contribution of additional emissions that could result from new industries associated with the facility, such as warehousing or truck repair businesses, siting in the neighborhood. 3 In the Desoto Road access option, trucks would travel to and from the site via I-95, South Caton Avenue., Wilkens Avenue, and Desoto Road.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 7 of 129

excess annual mortality risk of four deaths per 100,000 individuals attributable to PM2.5 exposure. Over 50 years, PM2.5 exposure would be expected to result in 14 excess deaths in the Desoto Road option, and eight excess deaths in the Bernard Drive option.

Employment • Income is one of the most important and consistently documented predictors of health status, including premature death, low birth weight, chronic disease, suffering from injuries or violence, heart disease, and depression, among many other health outcomes (Yen & Syme, 1999; Yarnell et al., 2005; Berube & Katz, 2005).

• The current unemployment rates in two of the census tracts surrounding the proposed facility are substantially higher than those of the city of Baltimore and the state of Maryland when comparing demographically similar populations. For example, unemployment rates of white residents in Morrell Park/Violetville census tracts 2502.06 and 2503.03 (9.3 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively) are significantly higher than those in both the city of Baltimore and Maryland (6.5 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively). Similarly, 31.5 percent of African-Americans in census tract 2503.03 are unemployed, compared with 16.4 percent of African-Americans in the city and 11.0 percent in the state.

• A study by Towson University predicted that the intermodal facility will create 45 jobs onsite, which will be transferred directly from existing jobs at the Seagirt Marine Terminal. The study estimated that the facility will produce 192 direct jobs for contractors who transport goods, 490 jobs during the construction phase, and 84 jobs induced from spending in local economies (Irani et al., 2012). Focus group findings revealed concerns that those who are unemployed or underemployed in the community may not be eligible for the jobs that are created by the facility due to a misalignment in skills and training.

Neighborhood Resources • Neighborhood resources, including police and fire services, parks and open space, and schools, have an impact on public health and quality of life by impacting individual exposure to injuries and violence, educational outcomes and associated health outcomes, physical activity, and mental health. Park facilities provide opportunities for recreation and facilitate physically active lifestyles (Transportation Research Board & Institute of Medicine of National Academies, 2005).

• A vibrant neighborhood environment is one type of setting for social interaction, which can lead to an increased sense of community and less crime. Social networks and interaction have been linked to improvements in physical and mental health through multiple mechanisms (Sullivan et al., 2004).

4 In the Bernard Drive access option, trucks would travel to and from the site via I-95, South Caton Avenue, Wilkens Avenue, South Dukeland Street, Wilmarco Avenue, and Bernard Drive.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 8 of 129

• Property values are indicative of community wealth, which has potential health implications. Significant changes in property values, as demonstrated through the recent literature generated on housing foreclosures, can enact economic hardships on homeowners through loss of home equity and impacts on housing stability (Immergluck & Smith, 2005).

• Based on the literature, we predict the facility could decrease residential property values for homes adjacent to the proposed site. Studies show a correlation between increased roadway traffic and diminished residential property values. Parts of the CSA are already rated as stressed housing markets by the City of Baltimore. Decrements in housing value could further exacerbate the market conditions in certain parts of the CSA.

• Increased traffic on truck transit routes to the Mount Clare site is a potential threat to the use of park spaces, including a small memorial garden on Washington Boulevard. In addition, Gibbons Commons, which is expected to be a significant community asset with its recreational facilities and a baseball field, is slated for construction on Wilkens Avenue, one of the roads that will be used as a thoroughfare for facility truck traffic.

Noise • According to the World Health Organization, industries, construction, and road, rail, and air traffic are main sources of community noise (Berglund et al., 1999).

• Focus group participants describe the current neighborhood conditions as quiet and peaceful. CSX is completing a noise study to predict changes in noise levels caused by operation of the facility, but these data were not available at the time of publication.

• A causal effect of noise on annoyance5 has been well established at 50-55 dBA (Berglund et al., 1999), and sleep disturbance begins at 55-60 dBA. For comparison, a truck with more than three axles going 37 mph creates 83 dBA of noise (Annecke et al., 2008). Facility operations are expected to produce an average of 300 additional truck trips through the Morrell Park/Violetville neighborhoods daily.

• Sensitive receptors6 that line Wilkens Avenue – a high school, a hospital, and senior care facilities – will not have any barrier to the increased noise emissions of trucks moving to and from the facility. The new facilities of Gibbons Commons, which are expected to include green spaces, recreational facilities, and grand housing (housing for grandparents raising their grandchildren), will also sit along the intended truck access route for the facility.

5 Noise annoyance is defined as a feeling of resentment, displeasure, discomfort, dissatisfaction, or offense when noise interferes with someone’s thoughts, feelings, or actual activities (Passchier‐Vermeer, 2000). 6 Sensitive receptors are places where populations that may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of a particular project reside or spend significant amounts of time, including schools, hospitals, residences, parks, and other areas.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 9 of 129

• The children in the seven schools located within a mile of the Mount Clare site may be exposed to higher noise levels both in school and, for those also living near operations, at home. As a result, many school-age children could be at increased risk of deficits in attention span, concentration and memory, and reading ability (Evans & Lepore, 1993).

Traffic Safety • The Baltimore City Department of Transportation’s Traffic Impact Study of the proposed facility indicates that the baseline conditions of traffic already push the threshold of acceptable quality; the Level of Service rating7 at the intersection of Caton Avenue and Wilkens Avenue is currently a D, which is the considered the lowest acceptable rating of quality of service for Baltimore City intersections.

• Focus group participants predicted that the addition of trucks that will accompany the operation of the new intermodal facility will exacerbate their current traffic problems with congestion. Safety was a concern, as drivers were worried about sharing roadways with more tractor trailers. Efforts to obtain baseline vehicular crash data from the City of Baltimore for the Morrell Park/Violetville area were unsuccessful and therefore quantitative predictions of the impact of the increased truck traffic on injuries and fatalities are not provided in this report.

Light • Study of the health effects of light exposure is relatively new. Although the relationships between exposure to Light at Night (LAN) and the onset of a number of negative health outcomes are not yet entirely clear, there is sufficient evidence of associations between LAN and negative health effects to warrant concern over the potential impacts of the intermodal facility’s lighting system on the health of nearby residents.

• Recent studies indicate that humans react to artificial light at both low and high intensities; the light intensity used for illuminating house interiors and worksites is sufficient to alter circadian rhythms, which can influence sleep-wake cycles, hormone release, and other important bodily functions (Navara & Nelson, 2007).

• Experimental studies with rodents suggest that even small amounts of LAN may have major impacts on physical and psychological well-being, including irritability, anxiety- like and depressive-like behaviors, learning and memory deficits, inhibition of melatonin secretion, accelerated tumor growth, propensity to obesity, and cardiovascular disease (Salgado-Delgado et al., 2011).

• Lighting was raised by several focus group participants as an issue of concern. Homeowners with properties directly adjacent to the Mount Clare Yard described

7 Level of Service (LOS) reflects the quality of service by assigning a letter grade based on the average delay experienced by motorists at an intersection and ranges from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (significant delay). LOS D is typically used to represent the acceptable LOS threshold in Baltimore City (Baltimore City Department of Transportation, 2013).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 10 of 129

concerns about light from the facility site flooding their properties at night. Residents also described negative impacts on privacy and safety attributable to the lighting and hours of facility operation.

Priority Recommendations

The HIA predicted potential health effects of the proposed facility and identified strategies for mitigating those effects. Section 8 provides a complete list of these recommendations. Based on feedback from agency officials and community leaders, NCHH has prioritized the following recommendations:

Design/Planning Phase: 1. CSX should pay the City of Baltimore a facility regulatory and site infrastructure fee to at least partially offset any potential negative impacts on access to neighborhood resources. For example, the fees could be used to provide local jurisdictions with block grants for improvements to neighborhood resources (e.g., libraries, schools, parks, community centers) that could be impacted by the project. The fees would be used to mitigate costs borne by the City to mitigate the impact of the trucks on the roads, the potential loss of tax revenue resulting from decreased property assessments, and to pay for pedestrian and bicycle safety programs. The fees would provide a sustainable stream of funding to mitigate unforeseen impacts of the facility in the future. These amounts should increase by five percent each year and would automatically increase by 20 percent if the State or City takes any enforcement action related to the construction or operation of the facility.

2. CSX and the Maryland Department of the Environment should complete the air quality models begun in this HIA to more fully assess the existing air quality in the community (including existing train emissions) and project the added impacts of the facility (including idling, train emissions, machinery, congestion, etc.) on air quality and excess mortality.

3. The community should be involved in decisions and priority setting for the community improvements CSX plans to make with project funds. Improvements related to the construction and operations of the facility and mitigations related to the facility should be included in CSX’s construction budget rather than as part of the community improvement budget.

4. The City of Baltimore should develop a plan to monitor and enforce the truck routes to ensure trucks traveling to and from the facility do not use prohibited, local roads. All truck routes should be well defined and marked with clear signs indicating approved routes. The City of Baltimore should also make provisions for enforcement of truck idling regulations in the planning process.

5. Once noise models from CSX are available, the Baltimore Health Department or the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should analyze the magnitude of impacts on annoyance and sleep disturbance. NCHH provides protocols in appendices G and H that the agencies could use to conduct this analysis. If excessive noise levels are noted,

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 11 of 129

CSX should install sound-proofing/noise-reducing windows for homes and schools in close proximity to the facility and along the routes servicing the facility.

6. CSX should provide a site lighting plan that accounts for impacts on residents’ privacy and is subject to a third-party review. To the extent possible while ensuring occupational safety, CSX should reduce the facility’s lighting at night to minimize disturbance to nearby residents. If possible, the color spectrum of lighting sources should also be adjusted towards low-level red lighting and away from high-energy blue lighting, which has been found to be highly disruptive to human biological cycles (Navara & Nelson, 2007).

Construction Phase: 7. The City of Baltimore should assess the current pedestrian infrastructure and coordinate with CSX to provide a complete network of sidewalks to any roads where truck traffic will increase as a result of the facility. Signalized, stop controlled, or otherwise protected crosswalks should be included in the plans for upgrading the pedestrian infrastructure.

8. The City of Baltimore should work with CSX to establish a rodent control program during the excavation, construction, and operations phases.

Operations Phase: 9. CSX should make all efforts to reduce air pollution resulting from on- and off -site equipment and vehicles. For example, the City and CSX should pursue opportunities to require and encourage that all trucks entering the facility be 2008 or newer.8 CSX should pursue opportunities to ensure that all diesel trains associated with the intermodal facility are low emitting or retrofitted to provide the lowest possible emissions. Wherever possible, container cranes, loaders, and forklifts should be either electrically powered or equipped with low-emitting engines. CSX should ensure that no unnecessary truck or train idling occurs.

10. CSX should restrict activities that are likely to produce noise and light pollution before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. and on weekends.

Communications: 11. CSX, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Department of Transportation should develop clear and transparent procedures through which residents may raise and address issues regarding noise, lighting, air quality, or other concerns once the project is operational.

12. CSX, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Department of Transportation should improve the transparency and timeliness of information during the design, planning, and construction phases by maintaining an up-to-date public website, providing Town Hall-style forums to respond to community questions, and providing timely responses to emails received through the address provided on the project website ([email protected]).

8 Note: The Port Authority operates a program to assist fleets with upgrading their trucks to reduce emissions and improve air quality.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 12 of 129

Monitoring: 13. CSX should provide funding to the Maryland Department of the Environment to install and operate air quality monitors at several locations, including: near residences directly adjacent to the project site and associated truck routes; at locations ¼ mile and ½ mile from the site and associated truck routes; and at sensitive receptor sites, such as schools, community centers, libraries, senior facilities, parks, and playgrounds. These data should be monitored at least annually following the opening of the site, should be made public, and should be provided directly to residents of the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA.

14. If indoor or outdoor pollutant levels at sites such as schools, libraries, and community and senior centers rise above standards published by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 2000),9 CSX should seek to reduce emissions through pollution control technology and by improving the building performance (e.g., through reduced air leakage and improved ventilation), reducing emissions through pollution control technologies, and installing additional natural buffers and barriers.

Policy Recommendations: 15. As part of the City’s consolidated planning process, the City should create a neighborhood revitalization plan for the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA. The plan should improve the community’s infrastructure and services and encourage businesses to remain in the intermodal corridor communities through financial incentives. Such investment would help maintain property values, promote social cohesion, and mitigate the potential stigma of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood. The City should preferentially consider strategies to divert increasing tax revenue resulting from the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility into infrastructure and services for the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA.

9 Note that the WHO standards are for outdoor pollutants. No established standards exist for indoor air pollutants. However, if pollutant levels are at or above outside thresholds in indoor spaces, mitigations would be prudent.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 13 of 129

1. Introduction

Decision-makers at the state and local levels are evaluating a proposed Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility at the existing Mount Clare Yard in southwest Baltimore. The purpose of the facility is to transfer goods “between trucks and trains for either ‘long-haul’ rail service to markets outside of the region or ‘short-haul’ truck delivery to local warehouses, retailers, and other businesses within the region” in response to the growing demand for consumer goods movement (Maryland Department of Transportation). Key decision-makers in this project include the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the CSX Corporation (CSX), and the City of Baltimore.

The proposed facility is part of a global response to the expansion of the Panama Canal, which will allow large container ships to deliver goods to and from Asia and the east coast of the United States (Irani, Steward, Ebersole, Radchenko, & Asala, 2012). The Port of Baltimore is working to improve its current infrastructure and rail capacity to remain competitive relative to other eastern ports once the Panama Canal expansion is complete. The construction of the proposed intermodal facility is seen as a critical component of this competitive advantage. According to a report prepared by Towson University’s Regional Economic Studies Institute for the Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore, without the intermodal facility, “the larger vessels will make fewer stops along the Eastern Seaboard, which could potentially benefit the port in Norfolk, Virginia, to the disadvantage of Maryland. The Port of Baltimore could possibly lose up to 50 percent of containerized cargo to Norfolk if there is no proper infrastructure to accommodate the projected increase in containerized cargo” (Irani et al., 2012).

In December 2011, the Health Impact Project provided funding to the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) to conduct a health impact assessment (HIA) of the proposed facility. An HIA is a “systematic process that uses an array of data sources and analytic methods and considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on the health of a population and the distribution of those effects within the population. HIA provides recommendations on monitoring and managing those effects” (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2011). Table 1 depicts the HIA process, which involves six systematic steps (Health Impact Project, 2011).

Table 1: Six Steps of Health Impact Assessment HIA Step Purpose

Screening Determines the need and value of a HIA

Scoping Determines which health impacts to evaluate, methods for analysis, and a work plan

Assessment Provides (1) a profile of existing health conditions and (2) an evaluation of potential health impacts

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 14 of 129

HIA Step Purpose

Recommendations Provide strategies to manage identified adverse health impacts and maximize benefits to health Reporting Includes (1) development of the HIA report and (2) communication of findings and recommendations Monitoring Tracks (1) impacts on decision-making processes and the decision and (2) impacts of the decision on health determinants

When NCHH began working on the HIA in January 2012, MDOT and CSX were considering four site alternatives. NCHH designed the HIA to inform the site selection and design and operation of the facility, with the ultimate goal of protecting and promoting the health of individuals living, working, attending school, and recreating near the proposed site location. The federal funding for the intermodal project also meant that MDOT and CSX would have to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NCHH was attracted to the idea of integrating the HIA with the NEPA process because of the potential for scaling up the use of HIA as part of the NEPA process.

In the fall of 2012, MDOT and CSX announced that the facility would be constructed at a location not previously included on the list of alternatives—CSX’s existing Mount Clare Yard in southwest Baltimore City (Maryland Department of Transportation, 2012). In addition, the State announced that federal funds would no longer be used for the project, which in turn meant that the federal environmental review process (required by NEPA) would no longer be required (Maryland Department of Transportation, 2013). NCHH shifted its focus to the new location and revised the scope of the HIA to reflect the health concerns expressed by residents living in the community surrounding the Mount Clare Yard. NCHH completed the HIA report in August 2013 and continued to work throughout the summer of 2013 to disseminate findings and begin monitoring the impacts of the HIA.

This HIA will inform decisions regarding the final design and site plans for the facility, including decisions regarding truck access routes. Moving forward, the HIA will also inform city and state agency decisions regarding zoning changes, as well as permits and other approvals that CSX will need to secure to construct and operate the facility. Finally, this HIA can inform decisions of the Maryland Department of Planning in overseeing the intermodal facility project’s compliance with the Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 15 of 129

2. Project Background

The proposed intermodal facility at the Mount Clare Yard in southwest Baltimore is located within the Morrell Park/Violetville Community Statistical Area10 (Figure 1), and is an existing, underused rail yard owned by CSX. There is frequent commuter, freight, and intermodal train activity along the main rail lines that run through the neighborhoods near the proposed site; however, no trains currently pass through the rail line that services the Mount Clare Yard. Because the site is not currently used to load or unload freight cargo (i.e., there are no container lifts happening at the site), there are currently no trucks traveling to and from the site.

Figure 1: Mount Clare Yard Site Location (Map Source: CSX Intermodal Transfer Facility Traffic Impact Study, April 5, 2013)

The CSX site plan for the 65 acres of land at the Mount Clare Yard includes:

• Rail tracks for trains entering and exiting the facility; space for storage tracks, and working tracks for loading and unloading freight containers; • Paved areas that would accommodate approximately 180 wheeled parking units and 360 stacked containers; • Areas for employee parking, operations and maintenance buildings, lighting, and security; and • Areas for storm water management (CSX Corporation).

10 Community Statistical Areas are clusters of neighborhoods developed by the Baltimore City Planning Department based on recognizable city neighborhoods (Baltimore City Health Department, n.d.).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 16 of 129

Once renovations are completed in 2015, the intermodal facility is expected to generate approximately 300 truck trips daily, with a maximum of 350 truck trips at full capacity (CSX Corporation, 2013). Most of these would be tractor-trailer trucks with up to and including 53-foot trailers (Figure 2) (Baltimore City Department of Transportation, 2013). Once in operation, a maximum of 5 Figure 2: Truck with 53-Foot Trailer intermodal trains would use the 65-acre site per day. These trains span approximately a mile to a mile and a half in length, and are currently running along the main rail line en route to the Seagirt Marine Terminal. CSX does not expect an increase in the number of intermodal trains because they will be using double-stack technology to carry more cargo on the same amount of trains (CSX Corporation, 2013). It is estimated that the renovation of the Mount Clare Yard facility would result in 85,000 annual container lifts and would cost $90 million (Maryland Department of Transportation, 2012). Although the volume of freight moving through Maryland is expected to grow by 75 percent by 2030 due to the Panama Canal and port expansion, MDOT does not expect facility operations to increase beyond the maximum truck, train, and container lift capacities stated above.

Decision-makers are considering two access points, and consequently two distinct truck routes, to the proposed facility. In both scenarios, trucks traveling to and from the facility will use South Caton Avenue and Wilkens Avenue as the access route to and from Interstate 95 (I-95).

1. In Option 1 (Desoto Road Access) trucks would travel to and from Wilkens Avenue and the site via Desoto Road. This option would require trucks to travel through residential areas along Desoto Road to access the site (Figure 3).

2. In Option 2 (Bernard Drive Access), trucks would travel to and from Wilkens Avenue and the site via South Dukeland Street/Bernard Drive. Employees would access the site via Desoto Road. This option would also require closure of the section of Georgetown Road that lies to the northeast of Desoto Road, as well as re-routing of the Maryland Transit Administration’s Route 35 bus. This option would require trucks to travel past fewer residences compared to the Desoto Road option (Figure 4).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 17 of 129

Figure 3: Desoto Road Access Route Option - I-95 to/from Mount Clare Yard via South Caton Avenue, Wilkens Avenue, and Desoto Road

Figure 4: Bernard Drive Access Route - I-95 to/from Mount Clare Yard via South Caton Avenue, Wilkens Avenue, South Dukeland Street, Wilmarco Avenue, and Bernard Drive.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 18 of 129

3. HIA Screening

The HIA screening process determines whether an HIA is necessary and whether it will add value to the decision-making process. NCHH followed a checklist of screening criteria to assess the value of and need for the HIA (see Appendix A for the checklist). During the screening process, which included a series of meetings with key decision-makers, potentially impacted residents, and other stakeholders, NCHH determined that:

• The proposed facility has the potential to affect health, and those impacts are not likely to be considered without the HIA. Although CSX, MDOT, and the City of Baltimore considered the facility’s impact on noise and traffic as part of their reviews, they did not plan to extend these environmental impacts to health outcomes. For example, the City’s traffic study examined the impacts of the proposed facility on the street level of service11 but does not examine the impacts of potential increased traffic and congestion on emissions changes or impacts on asthma and other health issues in the community. Additionally, the screening process revealed a lack of clarity among residents regarding the decision-making process and the process for resolving their concerns. The HIA offered a tool for documenting the community’s concerns and for bringing them into the decision-making process.

• The HIA could potentially inform the development and construction of the proposed facility. The permitting and zoning processes that the facility must undergo provide an opportunity for implementing the recommendations of the HIA. This HIA provides information that stakeholders may use to engage meaningfully in the planning process.

• The HIA could help lead to institutional and/or systemic changes that promote better health outcomes for all. NCHH anticipated that this HIA could further spur the use of HIAs in Maryland. By developing relationships with agencies and organizations involved in land use and transportation decisions and building their capacity to conduct HIAs, NCHH hopes to see that health is more directly and more broadly considered in future land use and transportation planning decisions in the state.

• Sufficient time, resources, and partnerships existed to conduct the HIA in advance of key project decisions. NCHH secured funding through the Health Impact Project and had sufficient internal capacity to support the HIA. In addition, NCHH had established partnerships with key agencies and community groups to facilitate successful involvement and stakeholders throughout the HIA process. We included input from the following agencies in the development of the HIA: the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Maryland Department of Transportation, the Baltimore City Health Department, and the Baltimore City Planning Department. Additionally, NCHH developed strong relationships with community residents and leaders near the four original proposed site locations and the Mount Clare Yard site.

11 Level of Service reflects the quality of service by assigning a letter grade based on the average delay experienced by motorists at an intersection. (Baltimore City Department of Transportation, 2013)

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 19 of 129

A key motivation for pursuing a health impact assessment of the proposed project was NCHH’s desire to bring greater clarity and transparency to the decisions that were being made by CSX and MDOT and their impacts on the community.

Focus groups and stakeholder interviews conducted as part of the HIA revealed concern and confusion regarding the decision-making process and timeline for the intermodal facility project. Homeowners living near the four original proposed site locations noted that the proposed project resulted in stress because residents were unsure when decisions would be made, and if the sites near their homes would be selected.

“We’ve all been dealing with this stress since the day we heard about it. It comes and goes, I mean, and nothing’s been accomplished, really, and put off the list. So, I mean, you kind of forget about it for a while, and then all of a sudden it pops up…And it’s been since April of last year.” – Focus Group Participant

“So you’re in this constant state of not knowing which way to go, what to do, and it is extremely stressful! And it’s extremely stressful like wondering, ‘Are they going to be here, are they not? Should we sell our house now? Should we try to do this?’ I want to stay. I love my neighborhood, but I got to think of my health. And I don’t know which way to go…And that’s been stressful from day one that they started talking about this.” - Focus Group Participant

In selecting the Mount Clare Yard site, CSX and MDOT also decided not to accept federal funding for the project. This decision had the important implication of releasing the project from coverage by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA’s fairly extensive and prescribed public participation process afforded the residents of the original four potential sites specific opportunities for input and involvement. Without NEPA’s protection, NCHH was concerned that there would be fewer opportunities for community involvement and engagement in decisions that could significantly impact their health.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 20 of 129

4. HIA Scope and Methods

The HIA scope determines which health impacts to evaluate, the methods for analysis, and lays out the work plan for the HIA. During the scoping process, researchers collected input from the community and other stakeholders to shape the research questions and prioritize the health effects assessed. NCHH’s process for creating the HIA scope included creating a large list of potential health effects based on the scientific literature, generating research questions that the HIA would attempt to answer, and presenting the health effects and proposed research questions to community members for feedback. We further refined the scope through qualitative research (namely focus groups and stakeholder interviews).

Health Effects Considered

NCHH used the guidance provided in Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2011) and Health Impact Assessment: A Guide for Practice (Bhatia, 2011) to identify possible health effects of the proposed facility. We selected health effects that were plausible, logical, and supported by sound evidence, while acknowledging any data limitations and uncertainties. NCHH considered the following five characteristics of the health effects:

• Direction—indicating whether the health effect is adverse, beneficial, or unclear; • Magnitude—indicating how much a health effect might change as a result of a decision; • Intensity—indicating a health effect’s severity; • Likelihood—indicating the degree of certainty that the health effect will occur; and • Distribution—indicating whether the health effects are shared equally among the exposed populations.

Vulnerable Populations

The HIA sought to consider how the facility might impact particularly vulnerable or susceptible sub-populations. In addition to individuals living, working, attending school, and recreating near the planned site location, NCHH used available data from peer-reviewed literature (Aday, 2001) and input from community residents and agency stakeholders to identify the following vulnerable populations:

• Children (young children ages 0-5 and school-aged children ages 6-17); • Elderly (adults ages 65 and older); • Pregnant women; • Low-income individuals (those living below 200 percent of federal poverty level); • People of color (e.g., African American; Hispanic); and • Populations with existing health conditions that make them more susceptible to air quality and other impacts (e.g., asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 21 of 129

Development of Pathway Diagrams and Research Questions

Pathway diagrams are used to show the relationships between health determinants (e.g., air quality) and health outcomes (e.g., asthma). In April 2012, NCHH hosted a training to build its own capacity, as well as that of stakeholders and decision-makers, including state agencies, organizations, and community residents, for carrying out an HIA.

During this training, NCHH and participants prepared pathway diagrams for each health determinant to depict potential health outcomes resulting from the development and operation of an intermodal facility. For each health determinant, NCHH also prepared two sets of research questions, one set concerning determinant-related existing conditions at the proposed site location and the second set concerning the future impact of the facility on each health determinant and its associated health outcomes. The research questions were used to further define the scope of the HIA and identify methods to answer the questions.

NCHH generated 70 research questions and key indicators for these research questions and corresponding data sources (Appendix B includes the research questions and Appendix C summarizes, for each health determinant, the key indicators and data sources used to answer research questions). For example, we used annual average daily traffic data to answer four research questions about air quality: (1) what are the existing traffic and truck counts on roadways surrounding the proposed facility; (2) what are the possible changes once the facility becomes operational; (3) what are the existing levels of traffic- and truck-attributable air pollution emissions/exposures on roadways surrounding the location; and (4) what is the effect of the changes in traffic and truck counts on air quality on these surrounding roadways? Pathway diagrams for each determinant are included in the sections that follow.

Community and Stakeholder Input into HIA Scope

Based on input from community residents and agency stakeholders, NCHH narrowed the list of health determinants for study to the following six: air quality, employment, neighborhood resources (e.g., property values, tax revenue, and community resources such as schools, emergency services, and parks and recreational spaces), noise, traffic safety, and light.

In June 2012, NCHH issued a draft scope for the HIA of the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility to outline a clear plan and timeline for conducting the HIA and to define the priority health issues to be examined, research questions and methods for answering those questions, and the roles of stakeholders in the HIA. The scope reflected the input and feedback generated through community forums, meetings, trainings, and interviews with stakeholders.

As noted in the Introduction, NCHH originally planned to compare the impacts of the proposed facility at four potential sites in the Baltimore-Washington region; however, after decision- makers announced the existing Mount Clare Yard as the selected facility location, NCHH shifted the focus of the HIA to this new site location.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 22 of 129

Figure 5 includes a timeline of community and stakeholder engagement activities conducted by NCHH. NCHH hosted three community forums NCHH attended three NCHH presented at in Jessup, Beltsville, community meetings two additional and Elkridge, where CSX presented the community Maryland (the initial project concept to meetings to gather locations of the additional input on residents. NCHH used the original proposed HIA scope, perspectives and sites), gathering reaching concerns of residents input from nearly approximately 45 that arose at these 100 residents and individuals. meetings to refine the stakeholders. April 2012 HIA scope. March 2012 December 2012

April 2012 Fall 2012 NCHH hosted HIA training Following the shift to for over 30 individuals. the Mount Clare Yard Attendees developed site, NCHH revised pathway diagrams, the scope based on determined research conversations with questions, and identified community leaders data sources and methods in the Morrell Park for key health outcomes and Wilhelm Park for the draft HIA scope. neighborhoods.

Figure 5: Timeline of Engagement and Scoping Process

Throughout the HIA process, NCHH focused on clear communication and transparency, community engagement, equity, methodological and scientific integrity, and protection and promotion of public health.

Health Determinants Considered but Not Addressed

Water Quality: Residents in the original four sites ranked water quality as a priority health concern. However, residents from the Mount Clare site did not identify water quality as a high priority.

Rodent Control: Residents near the Mount Clare site did cite the current significant rodent control problem, and raised concerns that the facility’s construction would worsen the rodent problem in the neighborhood by dispersing rodents currently living near the underutilized rail yard. Ultimately, NCHH did not analyze the impact of the facility on the rodent problems in the community due to the unavailability of baseline data and the lack of literature on the effects of similar projects on rodent populations. NCHH did, however, include in its recommendations opportunities to prevent surges in rodent populations as a result of the construction and

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 23 of 129 operations of the facility based on technical advice from the Baltimore City rodent control program.

Occupational Hazards: Although NCHH examined the impacts of employment related to the facility on health, NCHH did not consider occupational hazards as part of this HIA. Individuals employed in goods movement may face occupational hazards related to the trucking and rail industries. Long-haul truck drivers experience challenges in accessing healthcare services, particularly preventive care (Solomon et al., 2004). Surveys of both male and female truck drivers have demonstrated common health problems reported among drivers, including back pain, hypertension, headaches, and arthritis (Layne et al., 2009). NCHH determined that these occupational health concerns were beyond the scope and capacity of analysis given the relatively limited information regarding the number and types of jobs that might be available to residents living near the Mount Clare Yard as a result of the facility.

Methods Table 2 includes the health determinants considered, the methods used to evaluate their impact on human health, and their geographic scale. Evaluation methods generally consisted of a literature review, a summary of available data on the existing conditions at the proposed site location, and an evaluation (quantitative and/or qualitative) of the potential impact of the operation of the future facility. Generally, for the purposes of establishing the baseline conditions of the community, NCHH used the smallest available unit of data (e.g., block group, census tract, CSA). When such data were unavailable, NCHH relied on a larger-scale unit (e.g., city). When possible, NCHH compared baseline community statistics to the City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, and state of Maryland statistics.

Table 2: Health Determinant Evaluation Methods Health Methods Determinant Air Quality • Traffic and air emissions modeling • GIS analysis • Application of exposure-response functions • Literature review and review of available and projected statistics • Stakeholder Interviews • Focus Groups Employment • GIS analysis • Review of Towson University Economic Impact Study • Review of available and projected statistics • Stakeholder Interviews • Focus Groups Neighborhood • GIS analysis Resources • Baltimore City market typology • Literature review and review of available statistics • Stakeholder interviews • Focus groups

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 24 of 129

Health Methods Determinant Noise • GIS analysis • Review of available and projected statistics • Analysis of current and projected traffic levels by the Baltimore City Department of Transportation • Stakeholder interviews • Focus groups Traffic Safety • GIS analysis • Review of available statistics • Review of study prepared for Baltimore City Department of Transportation projecting traffic impacts • Stakeholder interviews • Focus groups Light • Literature Review • Focus groups • Stakeholder interviews

Geospatial Analysis

NCHH conducted the geospatial analysis presented in this document using ArcGIS, a software package produced by Environmental Systems Research Institute. NCHH downloaded 2010 Census data and 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American FactFinder website (http://factfinder2.census.gov). NCHH joined these data with census tract shapefiles from the 2010 Census Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) database. Additional Maryland-specific geographic information system (GIS) data, such as roads, train routes, and water bodies were gathered from open source Maryland GIS mapping resources offered by the Maryland State Highway Administration, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Mapping Resource Guide. As part of the scoping process, NCHH determined its geographic focus on impacts to populations residing within one mile of the proposed facility location and within 300 meters of major roadways that will be used by the facility. Therefore, the majority of the maps presented in this document examine the distribution of demographic, social, and economic indicators within a one-mile radius from the proposed facility location or within smaller geographic scales, such as within 300 meters of major roadways and the site location, or within one-quarter or one-half mile of the site location.

Demographic, Social, and Health Outcome Data Analysis

NCHH gathered additional demographic, social, and health data presented in this document from the Baltimore City Department of Health’s 2011 Neighborhood Health Profiles, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American FactFinder, and the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s State Health Improvement Process County Health Profiles.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 25 of 129

Focus Groups

As part of the assessment phase of the HIA, NCHH conducted five focus groups, three in August 2012 with residents living near the four original proposed site locations in Elkridge, Jessup, and Beltsville; and two in April and May 2013 with residents living near the Mount Clare Yard site. The focus groups documented resident experiences and how the development and operation of the facility could impact their health and their communities.

All of the focus groups were conducted in English. NCHH recruited focus group participants at local community association meetings. Community leaders also circulated information about the focus groups through their networks and hung fliers at local shops in the neighborhoods. A total of 24 individuals participated in the 5 focus groups; 17 from the four original site locations and 7 from the Mount Clare Yard site.

Participation in the focus groups was completely voluntary, and NCHH informed participants that although their quotes would be used in the report, their names would never be linked to any statements made during the focus groups. Given limited funding, NCHH was not able to provide all participants with compensation for their participation. However, at the close of each focus group, one participant was selected through a “raffle” process to choose a $25 gift card to one of three locations: Home Depot, iTunes, or the Cheesecake Factory.

At the start of each focus group meeting, NCHH asked for permission to audio record the conversation to ensure an accurate description of the discussion. NCHH used Production Transcripts to transcribe the audio recordings. Given the shift in focus to the Mount Clare Yard Site, the majority of the focus group data presented in this HIA report are from the two focus groups with residents near this site. For these focus groups, three NCHH staff members independently reviewed each of the focus group transcripts and identified key themes that arose during the discussions. The staff then convened to develop a common codebook, with key themes and associated definitions. Staff then re-reviewed and coded the transcripts in alignment with the key themes. NCHH has included in this report quotes from the focus groups conducted with residents near the original proposed site locations to elucidate themes regarding the decision-making process or communication between agencies, CSX, and residents.

Stakeholder Interviews

NCHH identified stakeholders in the construction and operation of the proposed facility through correspondence with community residents and contact with involved government agencies. Identified stakeholders included community leaders, business owners, local healthcare providers, environmental groups, and government departments involved in planning and regulation processes for the facility. NCHH conducted interviews with stakeholders over the telephone following a structured interview format (Appendix D lists the questions used for the stakeholder interviews). Interview questions sought the individual’s perspective on the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the intermodal facility, including, but not limited to, the six key health determinants identified by NCHH. Potential impacts and recommendations recognized by stakeholders were incorporated into the Assessment and Recommendations sections of the HIA.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 26 of 129

NCHH interviewed the following stakeholders:

• Marjorie Owens, President of the Wilhelm Park Neighborhood Association • Bonnie Phipps, CEO and President of Saint Agnes Healthcare • Andrew Fellows, Vice-Chair of the Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities • Keith Haynes, Maryland State Delegate, District 44, Baltimore City • Jill Lemke, Economic Development Planner, Baltimore City Department of Planning • Keith Davis, former HIA Planning Coordinator, Baltimore City Health Department • Rebecca Ruggles, Coordinator of The Maryland Environmental Health Network • Kathryn Holmes, President of the Crossroads Business Park Association

CSX did not respond to requests to participate in an interview, and the Baltimore City Chamber of Commerce declined to participate in an interview for the HIA.

Air Quality Modeling

NCHH conducted air quality modeling using an EPA-approved traffic model, CAL3QHCR. NCHH used the Lakes Environmental Calroad interface to input traffic volume, emissions, meteorology, and street characteristics into the CAL3QHCR model. Traffic volumes and truck percentages were extracted from the Maryland State Highway Administration GIS traffic counts for the Baltimore area. NCHH used surface meteorological data from the Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI), Station number 93721, and upper air data from the Sterling Airport, Sterling, Virginia (Station number 93734). NCHH used historical hourly data for the full year of 1990 in both surface and upper air meteorological inputs. NCHH estimated PM2.5 emissions data for automobiles using California Air Resources Model, EMFAC 2007. NCHH estimated truck PM2.5 emissions at 0.4 grams per mile as the age, speed, and load characteristics of the fleet were not defined and similar emissions have been found for trucks in other intermodal facilities. Exposure data are displayed and illustrated as an annual average.

Study Limitations

The scoping process enabled NCHH to focus its assessment on those factors that were of greatest concern to the community and ripe for mitigation. However, for some of the selected health determinants, data gaps limited our ability to conduct quantitative assessments. For example, data from the CSX noise study predicting changes in noise levels caused by operation of the facility were unavailable. This precluded NCHH from modeling the health effects of any increase in noise. Data on existing rates of pedestrian-vehicle and vehicle-vehicle collisions at intersections of interest along the proposed truck routes were also unavailable. Without these data, NCHH was unable to examine baseline conditions fully and the potential impact of the facility on pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicular injuries. Finally, the views of focus group and stakeholder interview participants may not fully represent all the residents surrounding the Mount Clare Yard or all stakeholder groups with a vested interested in the impacts of the facility. However, NCHH made significant efforts to secure participants with a diverse range of viewpoints.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 27 of 129

5. Baseline Conditions

Profile of the Communities Surrounding the Mount Clare Yard Site

The Mount Clare Yard is located within the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA within southwest Baltimore City (See Figure 6). The Morrell Park/Violetville CSA is comprised of the Morrell Park, Violetville, Wilhelm Park, Saint Paul, and Oaklee neighborhoods.

Figure 6: Mount Clare Rail Yard Site

Map Source: Modified from Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance, Vital Signs 11 Community Statistical Area (CSA) Profiles, Morrell Park/Violetville

Table 3 provides an overview of selected demographic data to describe the population residing within the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA compared with Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland. The Morrell Park/Violetville CSA has a greater population of residents age 65 or older (17.6 percent of the population) than that of the city (11.8 percent of the population), Baltimore County (14.6 percent), and the state as a whole (12.5 percent). It has a higher proportion of white residents (73.3 percent) compared to the city (29.7 percent), Baltimore County (65.4 percent), and state (61.1 percent). Residents in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA have a slightly higher median household income ($39,931) than that of the city as a whole ($37,395), but have substantially lower median incomes compared to households in Baltimore County ($65,411) and state as a whole ($72,419). More than 11 percent of families

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 28 of 129 in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA are living in poverty,12 compared to 15.2 percent of families in Baltimore City, 5.3 percent of families in Baltimore County, and 6.1 percent of families in Maryland.

Table 3: Comparison of Morrell Park/Violetville CSA Data with City, County, and State-Level Data Morrell Park/ Baltimore Baltimore State of Violetville CSA City County Maryland Demographics Total Population 9,095 616,802 809,941 5,828,289 Age Distribution 0-17 years 19.6% 21.6% 22.0% 23.4% 18-24 years 8.7% 12.5% 10.1% 9.6% 25-44 years 28.4% 28.8% 25.6% 26.9% 45-64 years 25.8% 25.2% 27.7% 27.6% 65+ years 17.6% 11.8% 14.6% 12.5% Race/Ethnicity Black or African 18.8% 63.6% 26.8% 30.0% American White 73.3% 29.7% 65.4% 61.1% Asian 2.4% 2.4% 5.2% 5.8% Some Other Race 2.6% 2.2% 0.5% 0.6% Two or More Races 2.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2.5% Hispanic or Latino 4.3% 4.2% 4.4% 8.4% Income and Education Median Household $39,931 $37,395 $65,411 $72,419 Income Less than $25,000 29.9% 33.3% 15.6% 15.1% $75,000 and over 19.4% 22.5% 42.1% 48.3% Percent Unemployed 5.8% 11.1% 6.0% 7.3% Percent of Families 11.4% 15.2% 5.3% 6.1% in Poverty Percent of 63.2% 65.0% 85.0% 81.0% Kindergartners “Fully Ready” to Learn Note: Items in bold indicate indicators that are high relative to other comparative geographic areas.

12 The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the threshold for that family size, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. For example, for a family of four in 2013, the federal poverty threshold is $23,550.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 29 of 129

Table 4 presents selected health outcomes related to mortality and life expectancy among Morrell Park/Violetville CSA residents. Morrell Park/Violetville residents have a lower life expectancy compared to the city as a whole (72.2 years vs. 73.5 years), higher age-adjusted mortality rates (118.6 per 10,000 vs. 110.4 per 10,000), and higher mortality rates compared to the city among the 15-24, 45-65, and 65-84 age groups.

Table 4: Comparison of Selected Health Outcomes - Morrell Park/Violetville CSA and Baltimore City Morrell Park/ Baltimore City Violetville Life Expectancy at Birth (in years) 72.2 73.5 Age-Adjusted Mortality (Deaths per 10,000) 118.6 110.4 Avertable Deaths 2 26.1% 36.1% Mortality by Age (per 10,000)3 Less than 1 year 11.3 11.7 1-14 years 2.8 2.8 15-24 years 21.4 13.5 25-44 years 25.6 27.3 45-64 years 135.8 117.9 65-84 years 458.3 393.7 85 and older 907.8 1315.0 1Rates are annual averages for 2005-2009 and are age-adjusted. 2As defined by the Baltimore City Health Department, “Avertable deaths are deaths that could have been avoided if all Baltimore communities had the same opportunity at health. Data presented here are based on the assumption that the death rates achieved in the five communities with the highest incomes should be achievable in every community, regardless of income. A positive percentage indicates the percentage of deaths that could have been avoided if a particular neighborhood had the same death rates as the five highest-income neighborhoods.” 3The number of deaths of persons by age per 10,000 persons within the area in a five year period. Data Source: Baltimore City Health Department, 2011. www.bniajfi.org/uploaded_files/VSChapters/Vital%20Signs%2011.pdf

The Morrell Park/Violetville CSA has a number of sensitive receptors near the proposed site location and major roadways that would be used to access the facility. Sensitive receptors are places where populations that may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of a particular project reside or spend significant amounts of time, including schools, hospitals, residences, parks and other areas. Vulnerable populations include children, the elderly, and those with pre- existing health conditions. Figure 7 shows the locations of key sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed site location. There are six public schools within a one-mile radius of the proposed site location, as well as a private high school and hospital that are both located near the intersection of South Caton Avenue and Wilkens Avenue. This intersection is along the truck route that would be used to access the site location. A number of parks are located in close proximity to the site, including Desoto Park, Morrell Park, Carroll Park, and Gwynns Falls Park. In April 2013, site plans were announced for Gibbons Commons, a 32-acre area on Wilkens Avenue, to include a baseball field, green spaces, recreational facilities, community services, and grand housing, providing accessible housing to grandparents raising their grandchildren. These

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 30 of 129

new facilities, which are intended to benefit vulnerable populations, will sit along the intended truck access route for the facility. In addition to the sensitive receptors shown on Figure 7, 483 residences are located within a quarter mile of the proposed site location, and 1,780 residences within a half mile of the proposed site location (Baltimore City Department of Planning, 2013).13

Figure 7: Schools, Hospitals, and Parks Near the Proposed Site Location

13 The Mount Clare Yard site has a greater number of residences within a quarter mile and half mile of the site compared to the four original proposed site locations: Beltsville – 132 within a quarter mile and 352 within a half mile; Hanover – 343 within a quarter mile and 451 within a half mile; Jessup – 0 within a quarter mile (excludes correctional facility) and 50 within a half mile (excludes correctional facility); and Montevideo – 114 within a quarter mile and 296 within a half mile (CSX and Maryland Department of Transportation, 2011).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 31 of 129

6. HIA Assessment Findings

6.1 Air Quality

The introduction of the intermodal facility to the Mount Clare site will increase the frequency of freight transport moving through the surrounding residential areas. Freight transport relies on locomotives, trucks, cargo equipment, and other vehicles with engines that typically burn diesel fuel, resulting in emissions of numerous hazardous chemicals (National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 2009). These include particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and carbon monoxide (CO). Individuals living and working near diesel emission sources, including major roadways, rail yards, and ports, face greater health risks resulting from higher levels of emissions exposure (National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 2009; Brugge, Durant, & Rioux, 2007; California Air Resources Board, 2006; California Air Resources Board, 2004).

One of the principal worries expressed by focus group participants was that the intermodal facility operations would worsen the air quality around their homes. Members of the community expressed sympathy with the regional and statewide economic benefits that could result from the facility’s operation, but also communicated that health is already a local concern. As one focus group participant said, “I want to see the economic development in this community grow, but I also want to see the safety of the area, because this area has, I think, one of the highest rates of cancer in the city, and also one of the worst air qualities.”

6.1.1 The Evidence: Air Quality and Health

Health effects from these emissions include increased risk of asthma and other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, cardiac mortality, and lung cancer (Holguin, Tellez-Rojo, M, & et, 2003; Brugge, Durant, & Rioux, 2007; HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution, 2010).

Numerous studies within the United States and internationally have documented the impacts of traffic-related air pollution on respiratory health. A recent analysis by the Health Effects Institute “concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma. It also found suggestive evidence of a causal relationship with onset of childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function, total and cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular morbidity, although the data are not sufficient to fully support causality” (HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution, 2010).

A study of children in six different areas in the Netherlands demonstrated negative associations between lung function and truck traffic density, particularly among children living within 300 meters of a major roadway (Brunekreef et al., 1997). A case-control study of white children in Erie County, New York found that children who were admitted to a hospital for asthma were 1.93 times more likely to live within 200 meters of heavily trafficked roads, and were more likely to have trucks and trailers traveling within 200 meters of their homes compared to children

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 32 of 129

admitted to the hospital during the same period for nonrespiratory diseases (Lin et al., 2002). These results held after controlling for age and poverty level. A cross-sectional study of school- aged children in the United Kingdom demonstrated that living within 90 meters of a main road was associated with increased risk of wheezing (Venn et al., 2001). A southern California study of traffic-related pollution and childhood asthma demonstrated that lifetime history of doctor- diagnosed asthma, wheezing, and use of asthma medication were associated with outdoor levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and proximity to freeways (Gauderman, et al., 2005). Another study of California school children demonstrated that children living within 75 meters of a highway or arterial road were 1.5 times more likely to suffer from asthma (McConnell et al., 2006).

Evidence also supports a causal relationship between air pollution and non-respiratory health outcomes, including cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (EPA, 2009). Data from a population-based study in Germany suggest that long-term residence within 150 meters of major roads may be a risk factor for coronary heart disease, even after controlling for background air pollution levels and individual risk factors (Hoffmann et al., 2006). Short-term exposure to PM2.5 is associated with non-fatal heart attacks and premature death in people with heart and lung diseases, among other health outcomes (EPA, 2001).

The strong relationships between air pollution and human health have resulted in actions by the federal government to set standards for, control, and monitor air pollutants, such as the inclusion of PM, CO, NO2, and ozone in the National Ambient Air Quality standards (NAAQs) under the Federal Clean Air Act. A recent EPA analysis estimated that 2005 levels of PM2.5 and ozone were responsible for between 130,000 and 320,000 PM2.5-related and 4,700 ozone-related premature deaths, or about 6.1% of total deaths (based on the lower end of the avoided mortality range) from all causes in the continental U.S. Almost 200,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 90,000 hospital admissions due to respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and 2.5 million cases of aggravated asthma among children were also attributed to PM2.5 and ozone air pollution (Fann N, 2012).

However, the air quality standards under the Federal Clean Air Act were not established to eliminate risk to human health from air pollution completely, and pollution levels below federal regulatory standards should not be interpreted as safe for human health; individuals may be adversely affected by air pollution even when EPA regulatory requirements are met (Schwartz, 2002).

Furthermore, studies have found evidence that incremental changes in levels of air pollutants within the threshold dictated by the NAAQS may impact health significantly. Epidemiological studies show an increase in cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality with incremental increases in ambient PM2.5 and PM10 levels (Sarnat et al., 2001) (Samet et al., 2000). Vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions, are more susceptible to the adverse health effects of air pollutants (Bell et al., 2006).

Figure 8 shows the relationships between air quality and health outcomes potentially occurring as a result of developing and operating the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility. The

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 33 of 129

pathway diagram shows that the changes in trucks, cars, train trips, tree coverage,14 and equipment at the facility will impact emissions of key air pollutants including PM, CO, VOCs, NOx, and SOx. These changes could affect a wide range of health outcomes including cancer, respiratory disease, heart disease, and premature mortality.

Figure 8: Air Quality Pathway Legend: ∆ = “change in”

6.1.2 Existing Conditions: Air Quality

Stakeholder interviews indicated that air pollution is already an issue of concern in the neighborhoods in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA. Delegate Keith Haynes, who represents the residents of District 44 in the Maryland House of Delegates, noted that air quality in the Morrell Park community is threatened by a number of sources of air pollution, including an incinerator, which is a point-source of mercury and other toxic metal emissions, such as chromium.

Bonnie Phipps, President and CEO of Saint Agnes Healthcare, also attested to the poor health outcomes already present in the neighborhood. Phipps said, “We already have pretty significant issues particularly in southwest Baltimore where we’re located. Things like incidence of cancer, smoking prevalence, different diseases that are lifestyle related, emphysema, things like that, diabetes that can be impacted by lifestyle. We do a lot of work in the community around cardiac disease, also very prevalent in southwest Baltimore due to a lot of different things, the environment… there are a lot of things that are already pointing to [the area] not being a healthy environment.”

14Trees can help absorb pollutants from the air (Nowak, 2002).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 34 of 129

NCHH analysis of air quality focused on motor vehicle traffic as a current producer of air emissions and also focused on the health impact of PM2.5 emissions from current motor vehicle traffic. NCHH focused on PM2.5 because (1) their emissions are not well controlled by automobile and truck emission standards (compared to pollutants such as CO), and are expected to be a continuous problem well into the future; (2) PM2.5 is associated with a variety of well- defined health outcomes as described above, including asthma and mortality; (3) PM2.5 is not heavily influenced by atmospheric chemical transformations (compared to pollutants such as NOx), so it is easier to model and predict exposures. For these reasons, PM2.5 generally represents an efficient worst-case proxy for roadway air pollution exposures.

Using data on existing traffic volumes, NCHH estimated existing emissions of PM2.5 near the Mount Clare site. Figure 9 depicts the annual average weekday daily traffic volume on roadways surrounding the Mount Clare site (i.e., the number of vehicles that pass through a particular road segment on an average weekday). Interstate 95 runs through the center of the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA, presenting an existing vehicle-related air pollution source to the community. On an average weekday, over 18,000 vehicles pass through the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA on I-95 (Maryland State Highway Administration, 2011). Of these, approximately seven percent are single-unit trucks (vehicles on a single frame) and seven percent are combination unit trucks (tractor trailers or semi-tractor trailers) (Maryland State Highway Administration, 2011).

Particular matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), also known as fine particulate matter, pose significant risks to health due to their small size (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). Figure 10 depicts the existing modeled emissions of PM2.5 resulting from current vehicle volumes on major roadways surrounding the Mount Clare Yard site. This model shows that along I-95, existing vehicle volumes contribute a maximum PM2.5 concentration of 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3) to regional air quality background levels on an average day. As you move further away from the freeway and along local roadways, these exposure levels decline. The closest regional air monitoring station is located approximately four 3 miles from the proposed site location, and has an annual mean PM2.5 level of 10 µg/m (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Adding the background levels to the maximum modeled concentration, the estimated average annual exposure to PM2.5 for residents in the 3 Morrell Park/Violetville CSA is 10.5 µg/m . This level is below the NAAQS for PM2.5 of 12 3 µg/m (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012), but is level with the more health- protective World Health Organization (WHO) air quality threshold of 10 ug/m3 (World Health Organization, 2000).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 35 of 129

Figure 9: Existing Traffic Volumes by Street Segment, 2011

Figure 10: PM2.5 Emissions from Existing Vehicle Volumes

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 36 of 129

Data on existing health outcomes among residents of the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA suggest that residents may have unique risks from demographic factors or existing health conditions. These unique risks need to be considered carefully when examining the potential impacts of the proposed facility on air-quality-related health issues (See Table 5). These include:

• A high death rate from chronic lower respiratory diseases, including COPD, emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma (8.6 per 10,000 residents) compared to the city (3.9 per 10,000). • A high percentage of elementary school students missing 20 or more school days (14.3 percent) compared to the city as a whole (10.1 percent).

These health outcomes could potentially be indicative of existing air pollution-related respiratory health issues worsened air quality. In addition, the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA has a larger proportion of residents age 65 and older compared to the city. Older adults may be particularly susceptible to changes in air quality and its associated impacts.

Table 5: Comparison of Health Outcomes Potentially Related to Existing Air Quality–Morrell Park/Violetville CSA and Baltimore City Morrell Park/ Baltimore City Violetville Percent of Elementary School Students 14.3% 10.1% Missing 20+ Days Age-Adjusted Mortality (Deaths per 10,000 118.6 110.4 residents)1 Heart Disease Death Rate per 10,0001 28.9 28.4 Cancer Death Rate per 10,0001 24.8 23.1 Lung Cancer Death Rate per 10,0001 7.1 6.9 Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease Death 8.6 3.9 Rate per 10,000 (includes COPD, emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma)1 1Rates are annual averages for 2005-2009 and are age-adjusted. Data Source: Baltimore City Health Department, 2011 Neighborhood Health Profiles Note: Items in bold indicate indicators that are high relative to the city as a whole.

Although other factors beyond air quality, such as smoking, may contribute to the higher rates of chronic lower respiratory deaths among Morrell Park/Violetville CSA residents, the geographic alignment of elevated chronic lower respiratory death rates with proximity to freeways and railways is striking (See Figure 11), with the only exception to this alignment being in the area surrounding the freeway running north through the city. These data suggest that residents living in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA, in addition to other communities along major freeways and rail lines, may already be disproportionately burdened by transportation-related air pollution. Figure 12 depicts the proportion of elementary school children missing 20 or more days of school. Asthma is a leading cause of missed school days among children (Akinbami, 2006), and although these data are not stratified based on the cause of missed school days, they may serve as a proxy for the impacts of asthma on school attendance for the community. Over 14 percent of

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 37 of 129

elementary school children in the CSA missed 20 or more days of school during the 2008-2009 school year.

Focus group and stakeholder interview participants corroborated these data and related personal experiences with health problems they believe were caused by the existing poor air quality in their neighborhood.

“Every one of them [on my street] died of cancer. They’re gone, all the way to the top.” – Focus Group Participant

“I mean there is a lot of asthma. All of my grandchildren have asthma. The youngest one is seven months old. He just had a really bad bout with it for like two months. I had asthma. I think maybe the trains aren’t all to blame but I think they do make an impact.” – Focus Group Participant

The local health care system also noted the high rates of disease among the population neighboring the facility. According to Bonnie Phipps, President and CEO of Saint Agnes Healthcare, “We have a high incidence of lung cancer, we have a high incidence of emphysema; we have a high incidence of cardiac-related issues. None of those people do well in a heavily polluted area.”

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 38 of 129

Figure 11: Chronic Lower Respiratory Deaths per 10,000 by Community Statistical Area Data Source: Baltimore City Neighborhood Health Profiles, Baltimore City Health Department, 2011

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 39 of 129

Figure 12: Percent of Elementary School Students Missing 20 or More School Days by Community Statistical Area Data Source: Baltimore City Neighborhood Health Profiles, Baltimore City Health Department, 2011

6.1.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Air Quality

Operation of the intermodal facility is expected to result in 150 trucks per day entering and exiting the site, or 300 truck trips per day, with a maximum of 350 truck trips at full capacity (CSX Corporation, 2013). According to the Baltimore City Department of Transportation’s Traffic Impact Study of the proposed facility, morning peak hours would see heavier volumes of tractor-trailer truck traffic compared to afternoon peak hours, with 80 percent of the trucks in the morning peak hour exiting the site (See Table 6).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 40 of 129

Table 6: Trucks Entering Intermodal Facility during Peak Hours Entering Site Exiting Site Peak A.M. Hour Tractor-trailer trucks, up to and 25 98 including 53-foot trailers Employee vehicles and tractors 5 20 without containers A.M. Total 30 118 Peak P.M. Hour Tractor-trailer trucks, up to and 27 31 including 53-foot trailers Employee vehicles and tractors 5 6 without containers P.M. Total 32 37 Data Source: Baltimore City Department of Transportation, CSX Intermodal Transfer Facility Traffic Impact Study

The Baltimore City Department of Transportation’s Traffic Impact Study of the proposed facility indicates that facility operations will increase congestion, and, significantly, determined an increase in the overall intersection delay at the intersection of Caton Avenue and Wilkens Avenue under either access option under consideration (Desoto Road and Bernard Drive) (McCormick Taylor, 2013). This intersection already has a Level of Service15 rating D, which is the considered the lowest acceptable rating of quality of service for Baltimore City intersections. Further, it is the site of a hospital and a school, and plans are underway for recreation facilities, a baseball field, and apartments designated for grand-housing (housing for individuals who are the primary caregivers of their grandchildren) to be constructed on the corner of this intersection. Children, the elderly, and those with preexisting conditions are more sensitive to the negative health effects of emissions, so the potential increase of emissions caused by congestion at this intersection is significant.

Figures 13-16 demonstrate the modeled cumulative impacts of 150 trucks entering and exiting the intermodal facility on PM2.5 emissions. These models include both the baseline vehicle PM2.5 emissions as well as the emissions from the projected additional vehicles. Figures 13 and 14 demonstrate the projected PM2.5 emissions levels if the 300 new truck trips are spread evenly across a 24-hour period (approximately 13 truck trips per hour) along the two different route options (Desoto Road access and Bernard Drive access). Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate the projected emissions levels if the 300 new truck trips were concentrated in two-hour periods in the morning and evening (75 truck trips per hour over four hours in the day) along the two different route options.

15 Level of Service (LOS) reflects the quality of service by assigning a letter grade based on the average delay experienced by motorists at an intersection and ranges from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (significant delay).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 41 of 129

As shown in the model, because the Desoto Road access option has a greater number of residences along its route than the other access option it would result in greater PM2.5 emissions exposures to local residents. Along the Desoto Road route, the maximum additional exposure to 3 PM2.5 resulting from a concentration of trucks in two two-hour periods is 0.8µg/m . Adding to the annual regional background and existing vehicle-related PM2.5 levels, the maximum exposure 3 to PM2.5 for residents in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA would be 11.3 µg/m during a peak period on any given day. The standard set by EPA for PM 2.5 levels over a 24-hour period is 35ug/m3.

Importantly, there is no evidence of a safe level of PM2.5. Researchers have found a linear 3 relationship between PM2.5 at levels of zero to 35 µg/m and increases in deaths (Schwartz, 2002). In other words, pollution levels below federal regulatory standards cannot be considered completely safe for human health; individuals – and vulnerable populations in particular – may be adversely affected by air pollution even when EPA NAAQS are met.

Figure 13: Impact of Truck Traffic Increases on PM2.5 Emissions along Desoto Road Route (assuming the trips are evenly spread)

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 42 of 129

Figure 14: Impact of Truck Traffic Increases on PM2.5 Emissions along Bernard Drive Route (assuming the trips are evenly spread)

Figure 15: Impact of Truck Traffic Increases on PM2.5 Emissions along Desoto Road Route (assuming trips occur during peak hours)

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 43 of 129

Figure 16: Impact of Truck Traffic Increases on PM2.5 Emissions along Bernard Drive Route (assuming trips occur during peak hours)

Using population data from the census block groups surrounding the proposed site location for the population of 3,933 individuals over age 30, we calculated the excess annual mortality rate attributable to PM2.5 exposure that could result from the facility using the methods described in Appendix E. The maximum modeled changes in air quality emissions could result in an excess annual mortality risk of 10 deaths per 100,000 individuals attributable to PM2.5 exposure if the Desoto Road access option were selected. The Bernard Drive access option could result in an excess annual mortality risk of four deaths per 100,000 individuals attributable to PM2.5 exposure. Over 50 years, PM2.5 exposure would be expected to result in 14 excess deaths in the Desoto Road option, and eight excess deaths in the Bernard Drive option.

Public health professionals often reference mortality as a rate (e.g., “per 100,000” or “per one million”) to compare rates or risks of injuries, diseases, and other measurable health outcomes among populations. This technique allows comparison of health outcomes among populations of different sizes by normalizing the rate in the actual population to a comparable rate in a standard population size. To put into context the risk of 10 or four “excess deaths” from the two potential truck routes for the intermodal facility, consider that the Department of Health and Human Services in its Healthy People 2010 report found the death rate among women during childbirth was unacceptably high at a rate of 12.1 deaths per 100,000 live births. The agency has set of goal of reducing that rate through programs and services to 3.3 deaths per 100,000. Put another way, the Federal government makes financial investments and enacts regulations for excess mortality levels that are below the excess annual mortality risk that Morrell Park/Violetville residents may face due to operations of the proposed intermodal facility.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 44 of 129

6.1.4 Resident Perspectives on Potential Air Quality Impacts

Focus group participants believed that even as their neighborhood sits adjacent to I-95 and has been the site of train operations for decades, the additional traffic and operations will make the intermodal facility a significant source of air pollution in Morrell Park. Residents noted the nature of the facility as a permanent fixture, and indicated that it would be the heaviest industrial operation in the area.

“If you have 150 tractor trailers coming through every day sitting idle and waiting to be unloaded in addition to whatever other machinery is going to be over there, I don’t think you have to be an expert to know that [air quality is] going to get worse.” –Focus Group Participant

The children of one focus group participant were already planning on moving away from the neighborhood due to fears of the project worsening air quality. She said, “My kids are moving and actually this project has a lot to do with that…they already have asthma and their just scared to death about the impact on the air quality.”

Residents also highlighted the need for appropriate monitoring of baseline and future air quality conditions. As one focus group participant stated, “You’re never going to know [how the facility impacts air quality] for sure unless you do some kind of an air quality study on those areas directly adjacent to the property now. And then if the facility goes through, another air quality study later and have to…hold some people accountable for it, if this is our air quality study now, and we do it again six months after the facility is open, and we have an issue...But surely, I think you could have something drawn up and agreed to, in writing, that if this were the situation, that, you know, there would be something done.”

6.1.5 Limitations and Data Gaps

The air quality models likely underestimate the total air quality impacts of the facility due to limitations in the modeling and data gaps. With regard to the baseline conditions, which are critical to making accurate health predictions, the location of the air monitoring station 4 miles from the site location may underestimate the pollutant levels to which Morrell Park/Violetville residents are currently exposed. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations on roadways are, on average, 80 percent higher than concentrations measured at central site monitors (EPA, 2008).

In addition, the air quality models use average meteorological conditions, rather than using peak hour meteorological pollutant concentrations. This is important for analysis of intermodal operations as, according to the Traffic Impact Study of the proposed facility, morning peak hours would see heavier volumes of tractor-trailer truck traffic compared to afternoon peak hours, with 80 percent of the trucks in the morning peak hour exiting the site.

The analysis does not account for congestion-related impacts. These impacts include a decrease in the average speeds of traffic, a potential impact of increased truck traffic. Lower average speeds increase travel time, increasing produced emissions, and they also result in vehicle- induced air turbulence on roadways, reducing dispersion of vehicle-related pollutants and

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 45 of 129

resulting in an increase in pollutant concentrations from roadway sources. Increased truck traffic to and from the facility site may also alter driving patterns along truck routes, including increasing frequency of speed-ups, slow-downs, stops, and starts. These actions produce greater volumes of emissions than vehicles operating in cruise conditions, and the difference is particularly significant for vehicles with high-powered accelerations, like tractor trailers (Zhang & Batterman, 2013).

The analysis does not account for several other potential sources of pollution, including: existing train emissions in the neighborhood, potential emissions from onsite machinery and from trucks idling at the facility, and the impacts of vehicle incidents (collisions) on emissions. The increase in truck traffic on roadways may result in a greater number of collisions and breakdowns on roadways. Incident congestion may be associated with acute health outcomes, such as asthma exacerbation (Zhang & Batterman, 2013).

Additionally, based on statements from CSX and MDOT that train traffic would remain constant and truck traffic would not increase beyond stated maximum capacities, NCHH did not model any incremental increases in truck trips, trains, or other machinery.

Finally, the conclusions of the analysis are based primarily around the EPA NAAQS, which have been shown to exceed levels that may yield negative health outcomes, particularly for vulnerable populations (EPA, 2008). The models also only looked at one (PM2.5) of many harmful pollutants from vehicles for reasons previously described. PM10, ultrafine particulates, CO, NOx, Ozone, SOx, and VOCs are other chemicals that are known health hazards.

6.1.6 Air Quality: Conclusions and Recommendations

The impact of the facility on the air quality in the community is not a trivial matter given the disproportionate existing air quality-related health burden in the Morrell Park/Violetville neighborhoods. NCHH offers the following recommendations on air quality based on the findings presented above:

• CSX and the Maryland Department of the Environment should complete the air quality models begun in this HIA to more fully assess the existing air quality in the community(including existing train emissions) and project the added impacts of the facility (including idling, trains emissions, machinery, congestion, et cetera.) on air quality and excess mortality.

• The City of Baltimore should enforce the maximum number of daily truck and train trips associated with the intermodal facility to ensure that the facility’s capacity and usage does not grow beyond the identified maximum capacities.

• CSX should make all efforts to reduce air pollution resulting from on- and offsite equipment and vehicles. For example, the City and CSX should pursue opportunities to require and

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 46 of 129

encourage that all trucks entering the facility be 2008 or newer.16 CSX should pursue opportunities to ensure that all diesel trains associated with the intermodal facility are low emitting or retrofitted to provide the lowest possible emissions. Wherever possible, container cranes, loaders, and forklifts should be either electrically powered or equipped with low emitting engines. CSX should ensure that no unnecessary truck or train idling occurs.

• CSX should provide funding to the Maryland Department of the Environment to install and operate air quality monitors at several locations, including: near residences directly adjacent to the project site and associated truck routes; at locations one-quarter mile and one-half mile from the site and associated truck routes; and at sensitive receptor sites such as schools, community centers, libraries, senior facilities, parks, and playgrounds. These data should be monitored at least annually following the opening of the site, should be made public, and should be provided directly to residents of the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA.

• If pollutant levels indoors or outdoors sites such as schools, libraries, and community and senior centers rise above standards published by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 2000),17 CSX should seek to reduce emissions through pollution control technology and by improving the building performance (e.g., through reduced air leakage and improved ventilation), reducing emissions through pollution control technologies, and installing additional natural buffers and barriers.

• The Maryland Department of the Environment should work with agency and academic partners to conduct additional air quality modeling to assess the existing air pollution burden in the region and city from freeways, trucks, and train emissions. This information should be used to inform the future planning of infrastructure projects.

• The Baltimore City Health Department should continue to monitor the health outcomes among residents in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA that could be directly impacted by the facility, such as asthma and respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, mortality, and traffic collisions on an annual basis.

16 Note: The Port Authority operates a program to assist fleets with upgrading their trucks to reduce emissions and improve air quality.

17 Note that the WHO standards are for outdoor pollutants. No established standards exist for indoor air pollutants. However, if pollutant levels are at or above outside thresholds in indoor spaces, mitigations would be prudent.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 47 of 129

6.2 Employment

Income is one of the most important and consistently documented predictors of health status. A good-paying job makes it easier for workers to live in healthier neighborhoods, provide quality education for their children, secure child care services, buy more nutritious food, and meet other basic needs—all of which affect health. Good jobs also tend to provide health insurance and other benefits such as paid sick leave through their employment. Higher earning also translates to a longer lifespan. By contrast, unemployed and low-income Americans face numerous health challenges.

6.2.1 The Evidence: Employment and Health

Having a very low income or living in poverty is associated with higher likelihood of premature death, low birth weight, chronic disease, suffering from injuries or violence, heart disease, and depression, among many other health outcomes (Yen & Syme, 1999; Yarnell, et al., 2005; Berube & Katz, 2005). In addition, benefits received as part of employment, such as health insurance, can impact health outcomes by providing access to preventive care (Faulkner & Schauffler, 1997). Economic resources can influence health through a number of different pathways, including providing access to health-promoting goods and services such as health care and healthy foods; impacting one’s psychosocial experience through work, home, and neighborhood environments as well as through chronic stress associated with economic hardship; and through cumulative effects of economic advantage or disadvantage that occur over one’s lifetime (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2011).

The impacts of income on health begin at early stages of life. Research has demonstrated that babies born to low-income mothers are more likely to have a low birth weight, which is linked to child development and chronic health conditions later in life (Blumenshine et al., 2010; Braverman & Barclay, 2009). Children below the federal poverty level are seven times more likely to be in poor or fair health than children in families with incomes at or above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (Braveman et al., 2010). These relationships between income and health hold true throughout one’s life. Adults living below the federal poverty level are nearly five times more likely to report being in poor or fair health than adults who have family incomes at or above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (Braveman & Egerter, 2008). In addition, a large body of research demonstrates strong associations between coronary heart disease (CHD) and poor socioeconomic status (Skodova, et al., 2008).

Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates a strong association between unemployment and many adverse health outcomes, including rates of overall mortality, mortality due to cardiovascular disease, and suicide (Jin, Shah, & Svoboda, 1995). Income fluctuations (for example, due to decreasing job security) are also associated with adverse health outcomes. A longitudinal study of nearly 5,000 individuals demonstrated that frequency of income loss was associated with increased depression (Prause, Dooley, & Huh, 2009).

Employment can also have a positive impact on health by providing access to employee benefits such as health insurance and paid sick days. An analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 48 of 129

Prevention’s (CDC’s) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data on over 50,000 adults ages 18 to 64 demonstrated that health insurance coverage is one of the most important determinants in whether or not adults receive recommended preventive care (Faulkner & Schauffler, 1997). Other studies have replicated these findings, confirming that individuals with health insurance are more likely to receive preventive care services (Culica et al., 2002).

Figure 17 demonstrates the relationships between employment and potential health outcomes from developing and operating the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility. Although tax revenues and associated impacts on health are included in the pathway below, information on tax revenues will be addressed through the neighborhood resources section.

Figure 17: Employment Pathway Legend: ∆ = “change in”

6.2.2 Existing Conditions: Employment

The major businesses and potential employers within a one-mile radius of the Mount Clare site include St. Agnes Hospital and the businesses of the Crossroads Desoto Industrial Park. A small number of restaurants are located along Washington Boulevard, south of the proposed site.

Focus group participants and stakeholders perceived the communities surrounding the Mount Clare site as predominantly blue-collar, with some white-collar workers. Focus group participants reported that employed community residents typically either travel to downtown Baltimore for work or work in home improvement trades. Participants felt that the employment profile has changed recently, with higher unemployment (and its consequences) becoming a growing concern for the community.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 49 of 129

“This is an area and a community [that] used to be basically middle class blue collar workers, with some white collar in there. Now it’s predominantly unemployed blue collar….” –Focus Group Participant.

Table 7 displays unemployment rates of the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA, Baltimore City, and Maryland. Although unemployment rates for the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA as a whole are lower than those in Baltimore City and the state of Maryland (5.8 percent vs. 12.6 percent and 7.3 percent), disaggregation of the data by census tract reveal a higher prevalence of unemployment in census tracts located within a quarter mile of the facility site18 (see Figure 18), particularly in comparison to demographically similar populations. For example, unemployment rates of white residents in census tracts 2502.06 and 2503.03 (9.3 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively) are significantly higher than those in both Baltimore City and Maryland (6.5 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively). Similarly, 31.5 percent of African-Americans in census tract 2503.03 are unemployed, compared with 16.4 percent of African-Americans in the city and 11.0 percent in the state. The close proximity of these census tracts to the Mount Clare site also puts them at risk of bearing the greatest burden of the impacts of facility operations. More than 11 percent of families in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA are living in poverty,19 compared to 15.2 percent in the city, 5.3 percent in Baltimore County, and 6.1 percent in the state.

18 A portion of Census Tract 2102 sits within a quarter mile of the site; however, NCHH excluded this census tract from this analysis due to the fact that the portion of the census tract within the quarter mile buffer is part of the Carroll Park Golf Course. 19 The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the threshold for that family size, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. For example, for a family of four in 2013, the federal poverty threshold is $23,550.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 50 of 129

Table 7: Employment Status, 2007-2011 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates

Census Census CSA Tract Tract Baltimore City Maryland (aggregate) 2502.06¹ 2503.03¹ #² % #² % #² % #² % #² % Total unemployment³ 103 8.3% 194 18.4% 380 5.8% 39,347 12.6% 231,047 7.3% (all races) Unemployment,

by race and ethnicity: One race: White 96 9.3% 131 15.7% 7,021 6.5% 104,545 5.5% Black or African- X X 63 31.5% 30,354 16.4% 100,758 11.0% American American Indian and X X X X 193 15.4% 950 10.4% Alaska Native Asian X X X X 472 5.9% 8,296 4.7% Native Hawaiian and X X X X X X X X Other Pacific Islander Other X X X X 473 10.8% 9,685 8.9% Two or more races: X X X X 902 17.0% 5,577 10.4% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) X X X X 1,242 9.0% 20,900 8.2%

White only, not 96 9.4% 131 19.8% 6,432 6.4% 95,666 5.4% Hispanic or Latino ¹ Large confidence intervals for some census tract-level estimates. ² Counts derived by first multiplying the estimated percent of population in the civilian labor force and the estimated population, then multiplying the result by the estimated percent unemployed. Therefore counts should be taken as rough estimates only. ³ The American Community Survey defines the unemployment rate as “the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the civilian labor force.” X Values suppressed for counts less than 25 due to concerns about the reliability of estimates for smaller sample sizes.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 51 of 129

Figure 18: Census Tracts Surrounding the Mount Clare Yard

Residents also noted a perceived decline in the number and variety of businesses in the community over time, with a subsequent negative impact on neighborhood vitality and reduced potential for economic growth and access to vital services.

“We need a pharmacy. We need a dollar store, a real dollar store.” – Focus Group Participant

The absence of local economy has negative implications for neighborhood resources, social cohesion, and may also indicate a likelihood that without intervention, the prevalence of unemployment in these neighborhoods will persevere or even increase.

As previously mentioned, the proposed intermodal facility is part of a broader effort to increase the competitive advantage and capacity of the Port of Baltimore following the completed expansion of the Panama Canal. The Maryland Port Administration (MPA) estimates that the port currently accounts for $3 billion in wages and salaries, and that businesses operating at the port provide 14,630 jobs (Maryland Port Administration, 2012). Across the state, MPA estimates that 108,000 jobs are linked to activities at the port. In 2011, CSX employed 1,770 workers in Maryland who received $120 million in compensation (CSX, 2012). However, while these impacts may be felt throughout the Maryland economy, the focus group participants did not identify CSX or the port as current employers of local residents.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 52 of 129

6.2.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Employment and Associated Health Outcomes

The proposed intermodal facility poses a potential source of employment opportunities for the Baltimore area. According to a report prepared by Towson University’s Regional Economic Studies Institute for the Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore, once completed, the intermodal facility will support (See Table 8):

• 45 jobs onsite, which will be transferred directly from existing jobs at the Seagirt Marine Terminal, and 192 contractors who transport goods (Irani et al., 2012). • About 490 jobs during the construction phase. • 84 induced jobs from spending in local economies. These induced jobs may be the most likely to be available to residents living near the Mount Clare Yard.

Table 8: Estimated Economic Impacts from the Intermodal Facility Impact on Employment Direct Indirect Induced Total Construction Phase 490.1 134.1 167.6 791.8 Operation Phase – Intermodal Facility 45.0 24.0 15.9 84.9 Operation Phase – Contractors 192.0 53.8 68.0 313.8 Source: (Irani et al., 2012)

Further, the Towson University study estimates that, without the intermodal facility to sustain the needed competitive advantage at the Port of Baltimore, the state could lose up to 746 jobs, 387 of which would be direct jobs at the Port of Baltimore (Irani et al., 2012).

However, it is unclear what, if any, impact this could have on Morrell Park/Violetville residents. State and local officials confirmed that, rather than new jobs being created at the intermodal facility, the 45 direct positions at the facility will be transferred from the Seagirt Marine Terminal. Under these conditions, the new facility may not provide direct employment opportunities by CSX for local residents. Focus group participants see indirect or induced jobs resulting from the facility as the only potential employment opportunity resulting from the new facility. Further, some focus group participants reflected that even if CSX operations made jobs available, local residents may not have the skill sets required for jobs at the facility:

“You can’t just pick up and get a job working for CSX. You got to know a little bit of something, I’m sure, I mean unless maybe you’re security. You can’t be an engineer or you can’t be a crane operator.” – Focus Group Participant

“I mean, unless for some other reason some of the warehouses around here get more business because of the deliveries, that’s about the only opportunity we would have.” – Focus Group Participant

However, Kathryn Holmes, President of the Crossroads Business Park Association, indicated that CSX operations may have the opposite effect. Holmes stated that, unless the infrastructure of

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 53 of 129 traffic routes to the Mount Clare site is improved to accommodate the additional truck traffic, the congestion and accidents induced by increases in truck traffic could be detrimental to the small businesses in Crossroads Business Park, potentially leading to a decrease in employment.

Residents participating in the focus groups expressed cautious optimism that the project represents a real opportunity to revitalize the community through the infusion of some new jobs and by attracting new businesses, but only if CSX takes an active role to help broaden the community’s economic base.

“We would hope that, with this facility, we could attract other small businesses, maybe commercial, maybe, what’s the word I’m looking for, main businesses, brand businesses, to this community.” – Focus Group Participant

“We’re not going to get better residents and taxpaying people until we have a good economic base, and I’m hoping that CSX will help us develop that economic base.” – Focus Group Participant

6.2.4 Limitations and Data Gaps

Beyond the focus group findings, information regarding the employment background and skills of the unemployed and underemployed residents of the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA were unavailable for this report. This limited our predictions regarding the alignment of the jobs being produced at the facility and the ability for those jobs to help reduce unemployment in the CSA.

6.2.5 Employment: Conclusions and Recommendations

Employment has been one of the key benefits to the community discussed by CSX. If an appropriate number of quality job opportunities are provided to local residents, the facility could have a beneficial impact on the community, increasing their income, decreasing poverty, and therefore directly and indirectly improving community health. In addition, as noted in the Neighborhood Resources Section below, drugs and neighborhood crime are a significant concern among residents. Increasing the training, education, and employment of youth who may otherwise be participating in criminal activities would have a significant impact on the community.

The high prevalence of unemployment in the census tracts closest to the Mount Clare site provides an opportunity for the intermodal facility to impact the nearby residential areas positively. If the facility serves as a source of employment for these residents, it will move economic resources into the community, potentially granting numerous benefits, including reductions in poverty, improved neighborhood resources, and increases in social capital. Moreover, increased employment in these areas will positively impact health outcomes as discussed above, potentially counteracting some of the negative health outcomes of residing in close proximity to facility operations.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 54 of 129

Focus group participants suggested that CSX could bring job training programs and apprenticeships to help to bridge the gap in skill sets of local residents when compared to skill sets required for employment in CSX operations. This training could contribute to neighborhood economic development and prepare community members for jobs that should be preferentially offered to the community.

Andrew Fellows, Vice-Chair of the Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, perceives the introduction of employment opportunities as the only possible mitigator for the disproportionate negative outcomes of the intermodal facility on local residents. According to Fellows, “I think that within a facility, especially one that has a negative impact on the community, that one of the mitigating factors would be to take a look if possible at the jobs that could be created by the facility and then actually put it as part of the guidelines or framework or regulatory framework that they actually have to offer jobs to local residents as a first priority.”

Delegate Haynes also emphasized the need to move forward with facility operation plans with an eye on economic benefit for the local community, including consideration of local businesses as potential beneficiaries of the influx of workers and economic activity in the area: “What is the footprint going to look like? Is it going to affect access to the existing level of businesses in such a way that it drives customers away because of access or lack of access or increase their businesses because of bringing more people into the area? So, I think that when you look at the final product, the final footprint, and I think that’s one of the things that as this project moves forward and trying to engage with the stakeholders in the area is how do we accommodate residents? How do we accommodate existing businesses? And how do we make room for businesses to grow from the anticipated increase of people coming into an area to work, so to speak...?”

NCHH offers the following recommendations on employment based on the findings presented above:

• CSX should work with the Baltimore City Office of Employment Development to set aside living wage positions at the site for residents in the surrounding neighborhoods during construction and operations phases.

• CSX should initiate and maintain an apprenticeship program for at-risk youth from neighborhoods surrounding the Mount Clare Yard to enable access to goods movement- related employment opportunities as the amount of freight moving through Maryland continues to increase.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 55 of 129

6.3 Neighborhood Resources

Neighborhood resources, including police and fire services, parks and open space, and schools, impact public health and quality of life by impacting individual exposure to injuries and violence, educational outcomes and associated health outcomes, and physical activity and mental health.

6.3.1 The Evidence: Neighborhood Resources and Health

Neighborhoods can provide access to parks, open space, and healthy foods, all of which can impact physical activity, nutrition, and mental health. Park facilities provide opportunities for recreation and facilitate physically active lifestyles (Transportation Research Board & Institute of Medicine of National Academies, 2005). A prospective analysis of over 2,000 adults ages 45- 84 demonstrated that individuals with better neighborhood resources, as defined by access to opportunities for physical activity and healthy foods, had a 38 percent lower incidence of type 2 diabetes, even after controlling for individual diet, physical activity level, and body mass index (Auchincloss et al., 2009). Studies have found that increases in traffic noise at local parks may lead to a more negative perception of those parks (Szeremeta & Zannin, 2009).

Various studies of residents living in Chicago’s public housing developments have provided evidence that trees and other vegetation may positively affect residents’ activity and mental health. The researchers demonstrated that trees in public spaces resulted in higher use of the space by both children and adults and that children’s level of play and supervision by adults was twice that observed in barren public spaces without trees and grass (Taylor et al., 1998; Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1997). Another study of 145 women living in Chicago public housing revealed that residents living in barren buildings surrounded by little or no vegetation reported higher levels of aggression and violence than residents in buildings surrounded by more vegetation, even after controlling for confounding factors (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Further, trees and other vegetation can serve as valuable mitigators of air and noise emissions (Nowak, 2002; Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999), potentially reducing the health impacts of air and noise pollution produced by industrial activity.

Given that the funding of public education is controlled by local government, community economic resources are important in determining the quality of neighborhood schools, including the quality of the curricula, the qualifications of teachers, and access to academic counseling (Williams & Collins, 2001). Quality of school systems is important because education is a significant predictor of health status. Lack of high school education is a powerful predictor of the variation of mortality rates among states in the U.S. (Muller, 2002). Independent of income, higher education levels are associated with increased life expectancy (Lleras-Muney, 2005).

Social cohesion is also a potential product of adequate neighborhood resources, including access to goods, fire and police services, parks, and open spaces, as well as perceptions of safety and connections to the community. A vibrant neighborhood environment is one type of setting for social interaction that can lead to an increased sense of community and less crime. Conversely,

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 56 of 129

streets with high-volume traffic and a high concentration of non-residential land use are associated with higher crime (Appleyard, 1981; Brantingham, 1981).

Social networks and interaction have been linked to improvements in physical and mental health through multiple mechanisms (Sullivan, Kuo, & DePooter, 2004). Social support, perceived or provided, can buffer stressful situations, prevent feelings of isolation, and contribute to high self- esteem (Cohen, Underwood, & Gottlieb, 2000). Group membership within a community and participation in social activities have been shown to decrease mortality rates and cognitive impairment (Kreuter & Lezin, 2002; Hsu, 2007).

Property values are an important part of neighborhood resources, as they are an indicator of community wealth, which has potential health implications. Significant changes in property values, as demonstrated through the recent literature generated on housing foreclosures, can enact economic hardships on homeowners through loss of home equity and impacts on housing stability (Immergluck & Smith, 2005). Using data on foreclosures in the city of Chicago, researchers estimated that every foreclosure within a city block results in at least a 0.9 percent decline in property values per single-family home (Immergluck & Smith, 2005). This research also demonstrated that nearby foreclosures had an even larger effect on single-family property values within low- and moderate-income census tracts. Foreclosures also impact tax revenues for cities, counties, and local school districts (Immergluck & Smith, 2005). The direct impacts of foreclosure on homeowners include: the damaging of credit rates, affecting one’s ability to move to a new home and lessening one’s ability to get loans; the loss of the home as an asset along with accumulated equity and tax advantages of homeownership; and high levels of stress, which in turn can impact health (Kingsley, Smith, & Price, 2009).

The specific impacts of freight intermodal facilities on surrounding property values have not yet been evaluated in the published literature. However, studies on the effects of truck and freight traffic on property values have been conducted and provide insight on the potential impact that operation of the new intermodal facility at the Mount Clare site may have on housing values in the adjacent communities. There is evidence of a correlation between increased roadway traffic and diminished residential property values. A study conducted in Baton Rouge, Louisiana determined a significant 0.5 percent negative change for each 1,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT)20 in suburban areas, and a one percent negative change per 1,000 AADT in city areas (Hughes & Sirmans, 1992).

Increases in railway traffic have also been associated with diminished residential property values for nearby houses. In 1997, CSX and Norfolk Southern combined operations in Cleveland, acquiring Conrail and consolidating track utilization. One study analyzed residential housing values in the area surrounding the train operations from 1996, before announcement of the project, and again in 1999, when operation of the new system had been fully implemented (Simons & Jaouhari, 2004). With 95 percent confidence, Simons and Jaouhari researchers calculated a loss in residential housing value of $194 per average daily freight trip for smaller

20 Annual Average Daily Traffic is the average daily traffic on a roadway for all days of the week during a period of one year and is expressed in vehicles per day.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 57 of 129

housing units within 250 feet of the railway. Sales prices of units located between 251-500 feet and between 501-750 feet also saw losses of $85 and $94, respectively. These smaller units were largely located in central city or inner-ring working-class suburbs. Medium-sized units within 250 feet of tracks were found to drop $262 in property value per average daily freight trip, again with 95 percent confidence. All other findings were significant at 85 percent confidence.

Another study found a correlation between the frequency of train horns and property value; value depreciation was greater for houses located near crossings where train horns were used more frequently (Clark, 2005). This may indicate that the negative association between railway traffic and residential property values will be magnified in the case of an intermodal facility, as trains need to signal movement at the site and when traversing the neighborhood at on-grade crossings.

The proposed intermodal facility may be appealing to business that use rail to ship their commodities, potentially increasing the value of surrounding properties for industrial use. Realtors in Chambersburg, PA, the site of a new CSX intermodal facility, indicated that proximity to the intermodal will likely make surrounding properties attractive for commercial and industrial applications, increasing the property value for these land uses. However, these real estate agents approximated that less than a dozen homes were affected by the construction of the facility, and that CSX redirected facility traffic so that it was not using residential roads. It was noted that a more populated site location may have had a negative impact on residential properties; “If [facility access roads] were to be close to any of our residential areas, yes, there would have been a loss of value and additional inventory in those areas,” said Michael Cordell of Cordell Real Estate LLC.

As discussed in the Employment section, potential reductions in employment and property values could reduce revenue for public resources (e.g., police and fire). Taxes are the most common source of funding for fire and emergency service departments, and local property taxes are a primary component of this funding. If local property values decrease, revenue from these taxes will also decrease, reducing funding for essential emergency services in the area. Revenue from real estate transfer taxes, which tax at the time of sales, will also decrease if properties near the facility site are perceived as less desirable (United States Fire Administration, 2012). Reductions in these services may yield an increase in crime, violence, and fire hazards.

One question is whether the facility will also bring new sources of tax revenue to the city of Baltimore, which would offset the potential reduction in property values. The Towson University study of the economic impacts of the Panama Canal expansion on the Port of Baltimore determined that the construction phase of the proposed intermodal facility would generate approximately $4.2 million in state and local tax revenues. Operation of the proposed intermodal facility is expected to generate approximately $0.3 million in annual state and local tax revenues, and $2.1 million of state and local taxes will be generated by the contractors (Irani et al., 2012). The study concludes that the proposed intermodal facility project would generate considerable tax revenues for Maryland. However, this tax revenue will be dispersed across the state, while residents in the communities surrounding the Mount Clare Yard will bear a disproportionate share of the burden of the potential negative impacts of the facility’s construction and operation.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 58 of 129

Figure 19 demonstrates the relationships between neighborhood resources and health outcomes potentially impacted by developing and operating the intermodal facility at the Mount Clare Yard.

Figure 19: Neighborhood Resources Pathway Legend: ∆ = “change in”

6.3.2 Existing Conditions: Neighborhood Resources

When asked what they love about their homes and their neighborhood, one focus group participant responded, “It’s sort of like being in the city but also being in the country. We have deer and fox and raccoons and all kinds of wildlife and we have a beautiful wooded lot and just love it…” However, participants also expressed considerable concern with decline in neighborhood quality in recent years. As one participant said, “This was like being in the country, but you were in the city. And it was a wonderful place. We’ve lost a lot of it, and it’s – we’ve not lost it all, but we’ve lost a lot of it, and I think this project is just going to make it worse.” Residents recalled neighborhood activities aimed at bringing local families together that had long since stopped, and expressed that they missed these social opportunities to get together with other residents in the neighborhood. Drugs and drug-related crime were seen as a major driver in neighborhood decline, and a pervasive problem in the neighborhood.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 59 of 129

Of particular concern to residents is the lack of an accessible public high school in the neighborhood, to which some participants attributed the high dropout rate in the neighborhood: “We really don’t have an option for high school. A lot of the kids just drop out after elementary. I mean, where are you going to go?” Participants noted that although the official Baltimore City policy is that students can go to any school in the city, but the schools that are close by are “not up to par” and that youth risk experiencing violence if they attend those schools. Participants saw this lack of education as connected with a low sense of self-worth and hopelessness among youth in the neighborhood. As one focus group participant said, “You have a lot of kids that are dropping out of school, so they have no education behind them, so they feel they can’t do anything, because there is no self-worth….”

Residents in focus groups expressed concern about the general lack of resources for youth in the neighborhood. One participant said, “We don’t really have too much out here for the kids. We’ve got the rec center, we’ve got the playground, and they got the park at Desoto Road. We don’t even have a library. We had a library, they took it out.”

Participants emphasized the value of existing, local parks to the community in focus group discussions, particularly Desoto Park. The truck entrance to the intermodal facility had originally been proposed next to the park, but was strongly objected to by residents to avoid truck traffic on a residential road next to a large green space. Delegate Haynes reiterated the importance of parks and green spaces to the community. Haynes said, “Carroll Park, great park… And we have the Carroll Park Golf Course… that open space is invaluable. Along with the Little League ball field, which is nestled within the community, these are some great green spaces which are being used. I think it is tremendously important to move forward while protecting some of our most precious gems—the green spaces that we have in the city.”

The Mount Clare Yard also sits near a portion of the Gwynns Falls Trail, which travels through an environmentally valuable urban greenway park in west and southwest Baltimore City along the Gwynns Falls stream valley, a historically and culturally significant area. Residents are concerned that the increase in operations at the site may produce noise emissions, runoff, and crime that would negatively impact the trail.

Participants felt that the Morrell Park community had experienced a neglect of investment compared to other communities in Baltimore. As one focus group participant said, “In the past, this community has been neglected when you look at other communities.”

Many participants enjoyed living in Morrell Park because of its proximity to downtown Baltimore: “It’s really nice and it’s convenient. You get off the highway; you get to the Inner Harbor in a couple of minutes or wherever you need to go right off of I-95, so the access is really nice. It’s a really nice, niche community.” However, participants noted that the neighborhood is very dependent on automobiles. Due to the lack of a “main street” area, residents do not really walk other than to access the parks or to just take a walk around the neighborhood. Residents also discussed the impacts of changing bus lines on neighborhood accessibility. “[The Route 36 bus line] was more convenient….before they switched the routes…the city came through and said ‘Oh, well, we’re changing your route.’ The impacts of former bus route changes are

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 60 of 129 particularly important to consider given that one of the truck route options would require re- routing the MTA Route 35 bus line, which runs from the neighborhood of Franklin Square in northwest Baltimore to the community of Arbutus, which is located in Baltimore County. The bus currently runs from 4:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. daily, and services both Johns Hopkins Hospital and St. Agnes Hospital and provides access to downtown Baltimore.

Property Values: Table 9 includes the baseline property values for the community. The City of Baltimore uses five categories to characterize the housing market typology within a neighborhood: regional choice, middle market choice, middle market, middle market stressed, and distressed. The census block group in which the facility would be located is currently characterized as middle market stressed. The markets within other census block groups in close proximity to the site range from middle market stressed to middle market choice.

Table 9: Baseline Property Values Median Census Sales Commercial/ Units per Vacant Market Vacant Foreclosure sales price Owner block 2009/ residential square house category lots filings 2009/ occupied group21 2010 land ratio mile notices 2010 Middle 2502 061 market 18 0.5 652 13% 1% 6% $62,251 70.5% stressed Middle 2502 063 market 21 6.28 1,540 14% 1% 4% $112,500 75.4% choice Middle 2503 032 12 19.6 8,200 1% 1% 6% $88,603 76% market Middle 2503 033 market 17 9.9 3,188.89 31% 2% 4% $55,000 45.1% stressed

Market Category Definitions1 Middle Market Choice: Neighborhoods in the Middle Market Choice category have housing prices above the city’s average with strong ownership rates, and low vacancies. However, these neighborhoods show slightly increased foreclosure rates. Modest incentives and strong neighborhood marketing should be used to keep these communities healthy, with the potential for growth. Middle Market: Neighborhoods in the Middle Market category have median sale values of $91,000 (above the City’s average of $65,000) as well as high homeownership rates. These markets experienced higher foreclosure rates when compared to more competitive markets, with slight population loss. Neighborhood stabilization and aggressive marketing of vacant houses should be considered in this category. Diligent housing code enforcement is also essential to maintain the existing housing stock. Middle Market Stressed: Neighborhoods in the Middle Market Stressed category have slightly lower home sale values than the City’s average, and have not shown significant sale price appreciation. Vacancies and foreclosure rates are high, and the rate of population loss has increased in this market type, according to the 2010 Census data. Based on these market conditions, intervention strategies should support homeowners who may be facing economic hardships due to adverse changes in the national economy.

21 Baltimore City 2011 Housing Market Typology: https://data.baltimorecity.gov/Community/2011-Housing- Market-Typology/782b-zpd7.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 61 of 129

Emergency Response Services: The Southwest District Police Station is responsible for emergency response services for the Morrell Park/Violetville area, and is located north of Wilkens Avenue on Font Hill Avenue, approximately one mile from the site location. Fire services are provided by Squad 47 of the Baltimore City Fire Department, which is based on Washington Boulevard just south of Mount Clare Yard.

6.3.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Neighborhood Resources and Associated Health Outcomes

Neighborhood Fabric and Social Cohesion: Focus group participants expressed concern over the changing land use mixture in the neighborhood and that the facility may Figure 20: Proportion of Housing Units without Vehicle result in many residents moving. Access that are Also Located a Half Mile or More from Residents expect the facility to make the the Nearest Supermarket1 neighborhood much more industrial. Other participants expressed concern that the facility would exacerbate many of the existing problems in the neighborhood.

“I really don’t know what’s going to happen but in my mind I see it becoming more of an industrial neighborhood. I don’t really like the vision that I have of it.”

“Our neighborhood is definitely going down. And what I think, and I hate to say it, I think this is going to make it worse.”

“I don’t know how it’s going to change the things that are alarming right now. I mean we have a problem with drugs in the neighborhood right now. We have a problem with rodents, a terrible problem. I think that’s going to get a lot worse.”

Bonnie Phipps, President and CEO of Saint Agnes Healthcare, reflected that the movement of industry into the Morrell Park/Violetville neighborhoods is contradictory to the efforts of the community in the past years to make the area more resident-friendly. Stakeholders felt that the introduction of the facility would discourage use of certain neighborhood resources, such as a memorial garden set up by the community on CSX property. Focus group discussions indicated that homeowners with sufficient resources may move away from the neighborhood to avoid intermodal operations, further straining or decreasing the strength of existing social networks and weakening social cohesion.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 62 of 129

As noted in the Employment Section, focus group participants expressed significant concern over the neighborhood’s declining economic base and the lack of access to essential goods and services in the neighborhood, such as pharmacies and grocery stores. One measure of a healthy community is the extent to which communities have easy access to a grocery store with affordable fresh foods. Compared to Baltimore City and the State of Maryland, the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA has a higher proportion of households without vehicle access that are more than a half mile from a supermarket. Within the CSA, 21.6 percent of the households in Census Tract 2503.03 and 9.7 percent of the households in Census Tract 2502.06 do not have access to vehicles and are located more than a half mile from a supermarket (see Figure 20 and Appendix F for additional detail).

Property Values and Mobility: Focus group participants expressed concern with the manner in which CSX had been working to acquire residential properties near the proposed site location. Participants felt that the offers made by CSX to homeowners were too low, and that homeowners were given the sense that they were fortunate to be compensated. As one homeowner said, “They threatened me a little bit with eminent domain, and I figure if they’re going to try something like that, they at least have got to go to my price.” He continued, “They lowballed me on an offer. It’s only three houses now. The two women are in their seventies, and they pretty much buffaloed them into it. The one son stepped up and is going to take his mother. The other woman, I have no idea where she’s going. But they’ve got a roll back in front of her house right now. The other house is mine, and I’ve even got one guy down at the bottom and I don’t think they’ve offered him anything. I think he’s just going to be stuck down there with all—well, with the mess.”

Additionally, residents felt concerned about which properties received offers from CSX. Although these determinations were made based on property that needed to be acquired to build and operate the facility, residents felt CSX should make a good faith effort to purchase a number of properties in close proximity to the site so that residents can relocate if they choose. One resident described the mismatch between the number of properties receiving purchase offers and the number that are in close proximity to the site and the railroad tracks. She said, “The track is here, and our houses are here—we’re touching. I think those six people ought to be relocated. I mean, six houses—maybe they don’t want to, but at least approach them and say, ‘This is what’s going to happen here in your neighborhood, it’s going to be in your back yard 24-7, do you want to live here or would you like us to relocate you?’”

As previously discussed, there are 483 residences located within a quarter mile of the proposed site location. Figure 21 shows the proximity of residential parcels to the proposed site location.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 63 of 129

Figure 21: Parcels within a Quarter Mile of the Proposed Site with Residential Land Uses

Residents also noted that the facility could result in a damaging “filtering” situation where those with means are able to leave the neighborhood, and those without remain. As one resident said, “The majority of the people that live in this community are either middle or low income. They’re not going to be able to get anywhere. I mean they’re going to have to put up with whatever they get and so I think it’s very important that somebody care to look into what’s going to happen….” Participants discussed that a number of people in the neighborhood are already planning or attempting to move and expressed concerns over the impacts this could have on the neighborhood: “A lot of people are not just talking about moving. They’re moving. They’re trying to get what they can get for their place now before it happens. So it’s definitely going to change the structure of the neighborhood.” Other residents would like to move but are financially unable. Some hoped that CSX would make an offer on their properties so that they had the option of moving. As one resident said, “I just want to get out…. Not trying to get rich.” Another resident stated, “I think it’s bad news for people to be living right on top of this kind of, you know— [It] belongs somewhere where it’s commercial, or if it’s going to be there, get rid of us.”

The Federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA) provides one model for addressing displacement during development projects. The law applies to projects receiving federal funds or federal financial assistance where property is acquired or persons are displaced as a result of acquisition, demolition, or rehabilitation.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 64 of 129

The URA requires that the agency conducting the project appraise the property before negotiations, inviting the property owner to accompany the appraiser during the property inspection; provide the owner with a written offer of just compensation and a summary of what is being acquired; pay for the property before possession; and reimburse expenses resulting from the transfer of title such as recording fees, prepaid real estate taxes, or other expenses. If the properties are residential, the agency is required to provide relocation advisory services to displaced tenants and owner occupants; provide a minimum 90 days written notice to vacate prior to requiring possession; reimburse the resident for moving expenses; and to provide payments for the added cost of renting or purchasing comparable replacement housing (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.).

Participants also noted that many houses in the neighborhood have gone on the market, but owners have had limited success in selling their properties: “We have four houses on our street that are for sale and nothing is moving.” Businesses located in the Crossroads Business Park are also concerned about their commercial property values declining if the CSX operations increase traffic congestion in the area.

These potential impacts on property values and residential mobility, and the subsequent effects on social cohesion, stress, and household economic resources, could have significant implications for health.

Access to Parks and Green Space: Focus Group participants noted that the neighborhood currently has a number of parks, as well as the memorial garden near the firehouse. Participants noted that CSX donated the land to help create the memorial garden. However, residents were concerned that no one would continue using the memorial garden once the intermodal facility was built: “There’s a piece of property on Washington Boulevard on the side of the tracks and it used to be wooded really. It’s next to the firehouse. So I approached CSX a couple years ago and asked them ‘Can we use that piece of ground, do something with it if we clean it up?’ And they said yeah. So we did, we cleaned it up. And there is a memorial garden up there. Yeah, and it’s a nice spot and whenever you ride by there, usually you see somebody just sitting and meditating or whatever. It’s a beautiful spot. But I don’t think people are going to be sitting there anymore. We just put a grill there, a permanent grill. There’s benches. This year we’re going to try to put a little play set there for the kids. If [the intermodal facility] is going in, I don’t think that’s going to be a good spot anymore.”

Increased traffic on truck transit routes to the Mount Clare site is a potential threat to the use of the community’s parks due to increased traffic noise and road crossings that may be perceived as dangerous (see Figure 24 in the Traffic Safety section). Gibbons Commons, which is in the planning stages, is expected to be a strong community asset, with recreational facilities and a baseball field. However, the park is set to be constructed on Wilkens Avenue, the intended thoroughfare for Mount Clare trucks. As Bonnie Phipps, President and CEO of Saint Agnes Healthcare stated, “[Gibbons Commons], it’s going to be a community asset, Cal Ripken’s Foundation is going to build a baseball field. We’re going to have some housing over there, some workforce housing. We’ve got interest from a couple people to build some retail over there. I

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 65 of 129

hope that all those trucks on the street don’t kill that project because I’m afraid the people that we had thought would take advantage of the workforce housing are now going to think twice about that, particularly if they have small children.”

Noise and threats to pedestrian safety created by truck traffic may dissuade people from taking advantage of the new park, which could in turn lead to reduced physical activity for both adults and children. Reduced physical activity could lead to many negative health impacts, including increased diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and depression.

Emergency Services: Focus group participants viewed the fire and police department as critical resources in the neighborhood. Residents expressed extreme concern with the potential for the railroad to block police and fire response services in the event of an emergency. As one resident said, “In this community we have one fire house. If this railroad down here is blocked, let’s say there’s a derailment, and there’s, just say an emergency up here, and several people were injured.... There is no access to get help to this area, and you’re stuck.” In addition, the potential for declining property values also portends reduced tax revenue, which could impact funding for police and fire services.

Bonnie Phipps, President and CEO of Saint Agnes Healthcare, also expressed concern about truck traffic as an impediment to emergency response by ambulances from the hospital. At the very least, she said, ambulance sirens would need to be used more frequently, further contributing to noise emissions around sensitive receptors.

6.3.4 Limitations and Data Gaps

Conducting a formal property valuation study was beyond the scope of this assessment. NCHH interviewed a real estate agent who represents the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA and an agent from another CSX intermodal location (Chambersburg, PA). However, the Chambersburg location is not in a residential setting and therefore was not applicable, and the Baltimore agent felt it was too soon to predict precise changes in home values in the surrounding neighborhoods.

6.3.5 Neighborhood Resources: Conclusions and Recommendations

Focus group participants felt strongly that CSX, the city, and the state need to make an ongoing financial commitment to support neighborhood resources in the communities surrounding the Mount Clare Site. As one resident said, “I mean this neighborhood is going to be facing the brunt of this project that’s going to benefit the state. Allocate a certain percentage. Going forward each year. Our firehouse, our school, the community, our major needs, our roads to be repaved. I don’t think it’s too much to ask.”

NCHH offers the following recommendations on neighborhood resources based on the findings presented above:

• CSX should pay the City of Baltimore a facility regulatory and site infrastructure fee to at least offset partially any potential negative impacts on access to neighborhood resources. For

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 66 of 129

example, the fees could be used to provide local jurisdictions with block grants for improvements to neighborhood resources (e.g., libraries, schools, parks, community centers) that could be impacted by the project. The fees would be used to mitigate costs borne by the City to mitigate the impact of the trucks on the roads, the potential loss of tax revenue resulting from decreased property assessments, and to pay for pedestrian and bicycle safety programs. The fees would provide a sustainable stream of funding to mitigate unforeseen impacts of the facility in the future. These amounts should increase by five percent each year and would automatically increase by 20 percent if the State or City takes any enforcement action related to the construction or operation of the facility.

• The community should be involved in decisions and priority setting for the community improvements CSX plans to make with project funds. Improvements related to the construction and operations of the facility and mitigations related to the facility should be included in CSX’s construction budget rather than as part of the community improvement budget.

• The City of Baltimore and CSX should partner to increase the police and security presence at and around the facility. The partnership should leverage the facility’s security resources to reduce existing crime levels in the neighborhood and to mitigate any potential increases in crime from the more intense industrial use.

• CSX should work with the City of Baltimore to provide fair and consistent property purchasing offers to all households within close proximity of the site perimeter. Offers should include replacement costs for the housing structure and compensation for relocation.

• As part of the rezoning process for the City of Baltimore, the City should ensure harmony between residential and industrial uses in the CSA and seek to reduce future conflicts.

• As part of the City’s consolidated planning process, the City should create a neighborhood revitalization plan for the CSA. The plan should improve the community’s infrastructure and services, and encourage businesses to remain in the intermodal corridor communities through financial incentives. Such investment would help maintain property values, promote social cohesion, and mitigate the potential stigma of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood. The city should consider strategies to divert preferentially increasing tax revenue resulting from the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility into infrastructure and services for the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA.

• The City of Baltimore should explore alternatives to the closure of Georgetown Road at Bernard Drive. If such a closure is necessary, the City should examine and mitigate the impact on the community and businesses of changes to service of MTA Bus Route 35.

• CSX should minimize the impact of the facility’s construction and operations on parks and green spaces adjacent to facility operations and truck routes, particularly Carroll Park and the Gwynns Falls Trail, Desoto Park, and Gibbons Commons. Natural buffers and pedestrian walkways should be installed to protect those walking or recreating in the community from

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 67 of 129

injuries and other potential health hazards (e.g., crosswalks, fences, trees).

• CSX should work with the City to identify appropriate mechanisms, using greening and aesthetic principles, to block sound and light between the site and adjacent houses. These same principles should be followed to add a buffer of vegetation around site and truck routes, particularly near sensitive receptors including parks and schools. These mitigations should be funded as part of CSX’s construction budget.

• CSX should retain all mature, specimen, and significant trees and vegetation around the site to reduce storm runoff and assist with reducing air pollutants.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 68 of 129

6.4 Noise

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines community noise (also known as environmental noise) as “noise emitted from all sources except noise at the industrial workplace” and cites road, rail, and air traffic and construction as main sources of community noise (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999). Traffic, locomotives, and cargo equipment are important sources of environmental noise in communities. The health effects of noise pollution “are numerous, pervasive, persistent, and medically and socially significant” (Hagler, 1999).

6.4.1 The Evidence: Noise and Health

A single truck passing on a street at intermediate speeds typically results in 80 to 90 dBA of noise (Ellebjerg, 2007). The more vehicles there are on the road, and the greater the proportion of trucks, the louder the traffic will be (Federal Highway Administration, 2006).

WHO has identified and documented seven categories of adverse health effects of noise pollution on humans (Hagler, 1999; Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999):

Noise-induced hearing impairment: Hearing impairment is defined as a decrease in the threshold of hearing, and is caused by irreversible damage to hair cells, the sensory receptors in the inner ear that convert sound energy into electrical signals that travel to the brain (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2008; Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999). In the United States, approximately 15 percent of the population between the ages of 20 and 69—or 26 million people—has high-frequency hearing loss that may have been caused by exposure to noise at work or in leisure activities (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2008). As both an intense sound presented to the ear for a short period of time and a less intense sound that is presented for a longer time period will produce equal damage to the inner ear, decibel level of the sound, distance from the source of the sound, and duration of exposure to the sound are equally important in determining risk of chronic hearing impairment (Rosen & Vrabec, 2001). Long or repeated exposure to noise at or above 85 decibels has been associated with irreversible hearing loss (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2008).

Speech intelligibility: Speech interference occurs when environmental noise levels interfere with the ability to comprehend normal speech. Noise-induced hearing impairment is another pathway in which noise may interfere with spoken communication; the American Hearing Research Foundation reports that one in 10 Americans has irreversible hearing loss that affects his or her ability to understand normal speech (American Hearing Research Foundation, 2012). Reduced speech intelligibility may lead to a number of personal disabilities and behavioral changes, including uncertainty, irritation, misunderstandings, decreased working capacity, problems with concentration, stress reactions, disturbed interpersonal relationships, and fatigue. Some of these effects may lead to increased accidents, disruption of communication in the classroom, and impaired academic performance (Goines & Hagler, 2007).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 69 of 129

Sleep disturbance: Sleep disturbance has a substantial impact on physiological and mental functioning. The WHO’s Guidelines for Community Noise recommend that continuous background noise should not exceed 30 A-weighted decibels (dBA),22 and individual noise events above 45 dBA should be avoided to prevent noise-related sleep disturbance (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999). Sleep disturbances are associated with a variety of health problems, including fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased performance (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999).

Cardiovascular disturbances: Prolonged noise exposure may result in negative cardiovascular effects, including hypertension and ischemic heart disease. A meta-analysis of 43 studies found significant associations between occupational noise exposure and hypertension (van Kempen et al., 2002). This meta-analysis also found that road traffic noise exposures increases the risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic heart disease. In areas with high levels of noise (95-125 dbA), elevated blood pressure levels among school-aged children are associated with residing or attending school near a major noise source, such as an airport, traffic, or trains (Evans & Lepore, 1993).

Disturbances in mental health: WHO’s review of the literature related to environmental noise demonstrated that environmental noise is not believed to directly cause mental illness, but that it can intensify or accelerate the development of mental health issues (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999).

Impaired task performance: Noise can negatively impact the performance of cognitive tasks such as reading, attention, problem solving, and memorization, particularly among children and workers (Evans & Lepore, 1993). Among children, noise has been linked to decreased reading comprehension, decreased memory, lower standardized test performance, and learning delays (Stansfeld et al., 2005; Evans, 2006).

Negative social behavior and annoyance reactions: Noise annoyance is defined as a feeling of resentment, displeasure, discomfort, dissatisfaction, or offense when noise interferes with someone’s thoughts, feelings, or actual activities (Passchier‐Vermeer, 2000). Noise can result in annoyance as well as changes in social (e.g., aggressiveness or disengagement) and everyday behaviors (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999). A causal effect of noise on annoyance has been well established at 50-55 dBA, (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999) and sleep disturbance begins at 55-60 dBA.

Annoyance is a well-established metric for evaluating the significance of community noise. Annoyance due to noise is determined by loudness, temporal patterns (e.g., the time of day the noise is louder), source and predictability (e.g., traffic or gunshots), and the association of the noise with other environmental factors such as vibration, light pollution, or air pollution.

22 A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 70 of 129

Miedema synthesized results from 18 studies of road traffic noise to estimate noise exposure and annoyance response measures and to derive an exposure response curve estimating the percentage of highly annoyed persons (Miedema, 2001). Appendix G includes this exposure response curve and can be used to estimate the percentage of the population reporting being highly annoyed if exposed to certain noise due to road traffic noise.

Research has indicated associations between self-reported disruptions in sleep due to nighttime noise from aircraft, road traffic, and railways (Griefahn, 2006; Jakovljević, 2006). Miedema et al. pooled findings from 14 studies of outdoor noise exposure and sleep disturbance to develop an exposure-response function at the population level for road traffic noise exposure and self- reported sleep disturbance as the response. The meta-analysis included 24 studies and estimated exposure-response curves for aircraft, road traffic, and railway noise. For each noise source, sound levels were plotted against degree of sleep disturbance. Appendix H includes the exposure response curve for road traffic noise and can be used to estimate the percentage of the population that would be highly sleep disturbed if exposed to certain noise levels from road traffic.

Table 10 from the World Health Organization (WHO) provides some general guidelines regarding noise levels found in particular environments, and the health effects that may be relevant should these levels be exceeded (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999). For comparison, a truck with more than three axles going 37 mph creates 83dBA of noise (Ellebjerg, et al., 2008). Facility operations are expected to produce an average of 300 additional truck trips through the Morrell Park/Violetville neighborhoods daily.

Table 10: Typical Sound Levels Found in Different Environments and Some Relevant Health Effects if Sound Levels Are Exceeded.

Environment Health effect Sound level (dBA) Time (hours) Outdoor living areas Annoyance 40-55 16 Indoor dwellings Speech intelligibility 35 16 Bedrooms Sleep disturbance 30-60 8 School classrooms Disturbance of communication 35 During class Industrial, commercial, Hearing impairment, school 70 24 and traffic areas performance, ischemic heart disease

The negative health impacts of noise are related to the total noise exposure experienced from all noise sources in the environment and can lead to a combination of these different negative impacts (Hagler, 1999). Additionally, noise exposure disproportionately impacts certain segments of the population. Infants, children, those with mental or physical illnesses, and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to noise pollution.

In addition to the impacts described above, increased noise at local parks that border the truck transit routes may lead to a more negative perception of those parks (Szeremeta & Zannin, 2009), which in turn could result in reduced physical activity for both adults and children.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 71 of 129

Figure 22 depicts the relationships between noise exposure and health outcomes that may be impacted by developing and operating the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility at Mount Clare Yard. Changes in noise levels from the construction of the facility and its ongoing operations may yield a wide range of health outcomes, including sleep disturbance, hearing impairment, impaired task performance, and adverse cardiovascular effects.

Figure 22: Noise Pathway Legend: ∆ = “change in”

6.4.2 Existing Conditions: Noise

Although the community of interest is proximate to both Interstate 95 and existing CSX rail lines, some residents note that the neighborhood is quiet and peaceful. One resident said, “We’re not that far from 95, but I don’t even remember hearing the cars and stuff. I mean you just don’t. It’s very quiet and peaceful.” Other focus group participants characterize the noise from highway traffic as a constant drone, to which they have largely become accustomed. In contrast, residents identified a problem with the noises associated with the use of air brakes as trucks exit the interstate, in spite of perceived prohibitions against use. Similarly, participants indicated concerns about the current prevalence of truck restriction violations that particularly affect the community because of its location near highways and downtown Baltimore. As one resident said, “With where we are, we hear the drone of traffic from 95. The worst part about that is the tractor trailer air brakes. When they’re coming off or going off the exit and I would assume that air brakes are like illegal in the city, but tell that to the truckers. That’s bad.”

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 72 of 129

Residents reported that they hear the trains whistle as they move through the neighborhood but again appear to have become used to these noises, which they describe as intermittent and even comforting. In the past, residents reported hearing trains “clanging” together as they coupled/de- coupled, but this issue was not viewed as currently problematic. As one focus group participant said, “Well, believe it or not, it’s pretty quiet. Like the trains never used to—they used to run and you could hear them bang together through the night, but you get used to that. You don’t hear it anymore. But they haven’t run mostly for a long time. Once in a great while they run. So what you hear is crickets or whatever. Like she said, it’s like being in the country—it is. Down there I mean it’s woods at the bottom of the hill and that’s it. We were the last house down at the bottom of the hill and you never hear anything.”

6.4.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Noise and Associated Health Outcomes

Noise models predicting changes in noise levels caused by operation of the Baltimore- Washington Intermodal Rail Facility are being developed by CSX, but were not available at the time of this report’s publication. The transition of the Mount Clare Yard to operation at full capacity is expected to cause an increase in noise emissions, primarily from increased truck traffic. Based on this basic knowledge of noise emissions from trucks and the expected increase in traffic from the facility, we expect that noise emissions from the Mount Clare site and truck transit routes will increase. Operations at the intermodal facility will use electric cranes, which will help to reduce noise emissions from the site.

Without the more precise models being developed by CSX, predictions of the magnitude of health impacts resulting from noise emissions from facility operations are not currently possible. However, qualitative predictions can be made regarding changes in annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease, and other health outcomes.

Noise levels in ranges that affect health can be created by a single truck, suggesting that annoyance and sleep disturbance could be outcomes of facility operation, particularly during nighttime hours. Distance between residences and truck routes will mitigate the impact of these noise emissions. However, the sensitive receptors that line Wilkens Avenue—a hospital, senior care facilities, and (future) grand-housing—will not have any barrier to the increased noise emissions of trucks moving to and from the facility.

The children in the seven schools located within a mile of the Mount Clare site may be exposed to higher noise levels both in school and, for those also living near operations, at home, putting them at increased risk of reduced attention span, concentration and remembering problems, and reading ability deficits. These outcomes may impact lifespan, earning potential, and the associated impacts on health.

Increased noise at local parks that border the truck transit route may reduce their use and lead to negative health impacts, including increased diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and depression. For example, the use of Gibbons Commons as a new community asset, including a safe play area for children, may be threatened by noise emissions from the intermodal facility operations.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 73 of 129

Residents expressed concern that the facility would likely have a negative impact on noise levels in the community as a result of increased truck traffic and increased train traffic. Additionally, residents perceive that the 24-7 nature of the facility operation would create increased stress because the noise would be constant (e.g., a train being loaded at regular intervals during the day and night) as opposed to intermittent. The increased noise attributable to the facility is perceived as disruptive. As one focus group participant said, “You know, I mean, and it’s got to be noisy. I mean, how many people do you have working all night long, and literally 10 steps away from me, and other neighbors.” Another participant perceived the lack of sound barriers between the facility and nearby residences as a major concern: “It’s a dead-end street. That’s going to completely change. It’s going to be like a circus down there. It’s all open. There’s nothing blocking you from their property, the track, so unless they plan on putting up walls or sound barriers. I don’t know what their intentions are but I think it’s going to have great impact, negative.”

6.4.4 Limitations and Data Gaps

The absence of the CSX noise study significantly restricted our ability to analyze the potential noise-related health effects of the proposed facility. As discussed above and in our recommendations, models exist for predicting sleep disturbance and noise annoyance, but those models rely on the inputs from the noise study.

6.4.5 Noise: Conclusions and Recommendations

NCHH offers the following recommendations on noise based on the findings presented above:

• Once noise models from CSX are available, the Baltimore Health Department or the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should analyze the magnitude of impacts on annoyance and sleep disturbance. NCHH provides protocols in Appendices G and H that the agencies could use to conduct this analysis. If excessive noise levels are noted, CSX should install sound-proofing/noise-reducing windows for homes and schools in close proximity to the facility and along the routes servicing the facility.

• The City of Baltimore should monitor noise emissions from intermodal operations at one year intervals following the opening of the site. Results should be compared to baseline levels. The Baltimore City Health Department or the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should analyze the magnitude of impacts on annoyance and sleep disturbance. CSX should fund additional noise mitigation programs accordingly. NCHH provides protocols in Appendices G and H that the agencies could use to conduct these analyses.

• The Baltimore City Department of Transportation should monitor and enforce existing truck restrictions and prohibitions against the use of air brakes through “stings” or other mechanisms.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 74 of 129

6.5 Traffic Safety

The influx of new truck traffic in and around the intermodal facility and the impact on safety was one of the top concerns for the community. The present design of the community, the lack of enforcement of traffic regulations, and the sheer increase in the number of truck trips makes the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA a particularly vulnerable site for traffic safety issues. The current route choices for trucks to access the facility could put residents or those employed in the area at increased risk of traffic collisions—whether in cars, walking, or, less likely, biking.

6.5.1 The Evidence: Traffic Safety and Health

There is a demonstrated and statistically significant association between increased traffic volume and increased frequency of collisions between vehicles and pedestrians (Roberts, 1995; World Health Organization, 2004). Traffic volume has been demonstrated to be a particularly important risk factor for injuries and death rates among child pedestrians, with reductions in traffic volumes associated with reductions in child pedestrian death rates (Roberts, 1995; World Health Organization, 2004). Additionally, traffic collisions involving trucks are associated with a higher risk of severe injuries in both collisions with pedestrians and collisions with other motor vehicles (Chang & Mannering, 1999; Roudsari et al., 2004).

Over 4,000 pedestrians were killed and an estimated 59,000 pedestrians were injured in traffic collisions in the United States in 2009 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009). Pedestrians ages 65 and older accounted for 19 percent of these fatalities, and children ages 15 and younger accounted for seven percent of these fatalities. Pedestrians, cyclists, and two-wheel motorized vehicle users are disproportionately impacted by traffic collisions (World Health Organization, 2004). Traffic safety is impacted by a number of factors, including changing vehicle and truck volumes, speed, and changes in road or pedestrian infrastructure.

Speed is a major risk factor influencing both the risk of a collision and the outcomes or consequences of a collision. This relationship has been demonstrated in the empirical evidence, which has shown that every kilometer per hour increase in mean traffic speed will typically result in a 4-5 percent increase in the incidence of fatal crashes (World Health Organization, 2004). The design of roads and road networks also play an important role in collision risk, with increased risk occurring where road networks fail to route heavy traffic around populated areas or separate pedestrians from traffic (World Health Organization, 2004).

Traffic safety and infrastructure can also impact health by promoting or discouraging physical activity. Perceived and actual risk of injury may discourage walking and cycling, which can directly impact health by decreasing physical activity levels (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002). Adults living in walkable neighborhoods—defined as neighborhoods where residents can walk to essential services such as grocery stores and other common destinations— are more likely to meet national physical activity guidelines than those adults living in the least walkable neighborhoods (Frank et al., 2005). Research has demonstrated that individuals living in mixed-use neighborhoods with easy walking access to shops and other services have a 35 percent lower risk of obesity, and that children are more likely to be physically active when

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 75 of 129 sidewalks are present and destinations are easily accessible (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004; Davidson & Lawson, 2006). A cross sectional survey of 56 neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon demonstrated a positive association between employment density, household density, the number of spaces for recreation, and the number of street intersections and walking activity (Li et al., 2005). This study also demonstrated connections between perceptions of safety for walking and levels of walking activity.

Figure 23 demonstrates the relationships between traffic safety and health outcomes that may be impacted by developing and operating the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility at the Mount Clare Yard. Changes in truck volumes and speeds and road infrastructure could cause increased traffic collisions, pedestrian or cyclist injuries, and could reduce the likelihood that residents will walk or bike in the neighborhood, or easily reach goods and services without a vehicle.

Figure 23: Traffic Safety Pathway Legend: ∆ = “change in”

6.5.2 Existing Conditions: Traffic Safety

The air quality section of this report discusses the current traffic levels in the community surrounding the proposed facility and therefore the data regarding the increases in truck traffic are not repeated here. As discussed previously, increased truck traffic is a concern for air quality, while it also presents concerns and challenges for traffic safety. Focus group participants and stakeholders indicated that the Morrell Park/Violetville area already suffers from traffic congestion. The Baltimore City Department of Transportation’s Traffic Impact Study of the proposed facility indicates that the baseline conditions of traffic are already pushing the

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 76 of 129

threshold of acceptable quality; the Level of Service23 rating at the intersection of Caton Avenue and Wilkens Avenue is currently a D, which is the considered the lowest acceptable rating of quality of service for Baltimore City intersections.

At-grade train crossings also reportedly cause interruptions to traffic flow, contributing to congestion. As one focus group participant stated, “I drive a car and I work downtown, and so I have to cross that track every day. And periodically I have got caught at that track and when they stop, when they backup and they link, whatever they call it, and then they come forward, they stop…. So if you get caught there now, you’re sitting there for about 20, 25 minutes. That’s pretty bad.” Another resident related that they had experienced delays of up to an hour as a result of train traffic along the existing CSX rail lines. As many of the residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the Mount Clare site work downtown, roadway traffic is of great concern to the community.

Traffic problems are not only an inconvenience, they also pose safety concerns. Focus group participants and stakeholders indicated that current infrastructure is insufficient to ensure safe pedestrian travel in the areas surrounding the project site. Focus group participants described how children cross the train tracks on their way to school because it is the most efficient route due to a lack of crosswalks and pedestrian infrastructure:

“The kids use it [the train tracks] as a crosswalk. Because we have asked for years, not putting the city down at all, but we don’t have buses for all the kids, so they come down Washington Boulevard, some of them come from the other side. And instead of coming down to Whistler and crossing, because there’s no crosswalk there…it’s easier for the kids to go up and go down the dead end street and cut across the track than it is to come down the right way and come up.” - Focus Group Participant

Similarly, Bonnie Phipps, President and CEO of Saint Agnes Healthcare stated, “There’s no crossing now at the hospital entrance. The city is supposed to be placing a crossing light there and they’re also supposed to be redoing the corner of Caton and Wilkens…They’ve got signs up now that say that they’re going to be doing it, but it’s not complete.... And there’s nothing by the school, I mean there’s a light but there’s no real [what] I would call safe crossing.”

Kathryn Holmes, President of the Crossroads Business Park Association, noted the business park as another hazardous zone for pedestrians. Holmes related that the absence of sidewalks and poor visibility in the heavily-trafficked park have caused employees to be injured in traffic incidents. Focus group participants reported that current truck routes are not particularly well-enforced. This is consistent with findings from other communities in Baltimore. In the Dundalk Area Truck Impact Study, residents reported a high level of illegal truck activity in their neighborhoods and that police enforcement of regulations, either speeding or route restrictions, is infrequent and inconsistent. According to the report, “While southeast District Police are aware of residents’ desire for greater enforcement of truck restrictions, they are often diverted to

23 Level of Service (LOS) reflects the quality of service by assigning a letter grade based on the average delay experienced by motorists at an intersection and ranges from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (significant delay).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 77 of 129

criminal cases elsewhere.” The report also noted outdated truck route maps that drivers use and inconsistently understood definitions (such as what is “local”) that result in violations.

Generally, the pedestrian infrastructure is not presently designed in a manner to promote physical activity. The increase in truck traffic may exacerbate the community design shortcomings, necessitating intervention.

6.5.3 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Traffic Safety and Associated Health Outcomes

Focus group participants predicted that the addition of trucks that will accompany the operation of the new intermodal facility will exacerbate their current traffic problems with congestion. Safety was a concern, as drivers were worried about sharing roadways with more tractor trailers. Efforts to obtain baseline vehicular crash data from the City of Baltimore for the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA were unsuccessful; therefore, quantitative predictions of the impact of the increased truck traffic on injuries and fatalities are not provided in this report.

However, qualitative findings from the focus groups and stakeholder interviews suggests that increased truck traffic from the facility would pose an increased risk to pedestrian safety and exacerbate existing pedestrian safety concerns, particularly on Wilkens Avenue. That crossing is used by many children to get to school, and it is likely that the baseball field and recreational facilities of Gibbons Commons will attract more children to the area. Saint Agnes Hospital, which sits on the corner of South Caton Avenue and Wilkens Avenue, is also without a safe crossing. Bonnie Phipps, President and CEO of Saint Agnes Healthcare, indicated that her primary concern for the project was traffic safety for hospital employees and particularly for the children in the neighborhood: “There [are] going to be 300 additional trucks every day coming right down Caton Avenue right in front of a [private] high school and an elementary school and our property, which really concerns us for a lot of reasons: for the safety of our employees, for the environment which we already know is challenged, for the little kids that are in the elementary school from a safety perspective....”

Participants predicted that the addition of trucks that will accompany the operation of the new intermodal facility will exacerbate their current traffic problems. Again, safety was a concern, as drivers were worried about sharing roadways with tractor trailers. The intersection of Dukeland Street and Wilmarco Avenue and the interchange to I-95 were highlighted by focus groups as places where additional truck traffic may induce incidents. Bonnie Phipps also expressed concern about truck traffic as an impediment to emergency response by ambulances from the hospital. At the very least, she said, ambulance sirens would need to be used more frequently, further contributing to noise emissions around sensitive receptors.

The expected increase in blocked traffic resulting from trains halting at at-grade crossings also raised safety concerns; focus group participants indicated that, in the case of an emergency, a train stopped on the crossing would prevent effective evacuation: “If there was an accident here, and we were not able to get out this way because the tracks are here, and there was a train down here at the tracks, we would all be caught here. We would be trapped.” In particular, residents

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 78 of 129

want assurance that Route 1 would not be blocked by trains on the track from the Mount Clare site. Blocking Route 1 is perceived as a safety issue, as this is the access route between Morrell Park residents and the fire station: “If you have to stop that train to switch, you need to design this so that stop does not block Route 1. You can stop and back up, as long as you’re moving, and you can go forward, but you cannot stop and block Route 1, period.”

Some new infrastructure will need to be put in place on the designated routes to handle the increase in truck traffic. Delegate Keith Haynes indicated that roads in the area would need to be reconditioned, and new traffic signaling systems considered: “If you’re going to have larger vehicular traffic come into the area then you have to have the infrastructure to accommodate that and accommodate in such a way that it doesn’t impact the traffic flow of the normal business traffic and residential traffic that you have coming through that area already.” These infrastructure improvements could offer an opportunity to provide safer pedestrian routes throughout the neighborhood to address existing safety concerns and assist in mitigating some of the increased pedestrian safety risks that could result from the facility.

Focus group responses indicated that pedestrian safety should also be considered in plans for the facility. Children in the neighborhood currently use the train tracks as a crossing to get home from school because of an absence of convenient crosswalks, putting their safety at risk. Increased truck and train thoroughfare will heighten this risk. Participants recommended the addition of barriers to prevent crossing at the tracks. Andrew Fellows, Vice-Chair of the Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities said, “To the extent that there is a walkable urban place that’s sort of being developed in Morrell Park… there’s some possibilities of creating a really walkable urban place that’s not car-dependent. I think this intermodal facility with truck traffic coming through, continuing and maybe increased freight traffic will make it less walkable. And so, to the extent possible, that should be addressed.”

Figure 24 highlights a number of intersections identified by residents and stakeholders as areas of concern for traffic safety.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 79 of 129

Figure 24: Intersections of Concern Surrounding the Proposed Facility Site

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 80 of 129

6.5.4 Limitations and Data Gaps

NCHH made several attempts to obtain collision data from the City of Baltimore for the area surrounding the facility. We have noted the intersections of concern that emerged through our qualitative findings in Figure 24 above. Every jurisdiction has access to collision data to help with traffic planning activities including, for example, traffic calming at problematic intersections. Without these data, NCHH was unable to make quantitative predictions about the impact of the increase in truck traffic on pedestrian, vehicle, and bicycle collisions.

6.5.5 Traffic Safety: Conclusions and Recommendations

Designated routes for truck traffic are already part of negotiations between CSX and residents in the plans for the new facility. Focus group participants were enthusiastic about the potential of these negotiations to alleviate some traffic and safety concerns, but wanted assurance that agreed-upon routes will be enforced.

Other models exist around the country for regulating truck transportation into and out of industrial areas. For example, in Oakland, the City and the Port Authority committed to jointly funding and working together to create a truck management plan with the goal of reducing port- related truck traffic on local streets. This resulted in the Maritime Comprehensive Truck Management Program, adopted in June 16, 2009, which aims to address a number of truck issues, including supporting the State’s emissions reduction regulations and improving safety, traffic, congestion, and operations. At its core are a truck registry program, enforcement of the new truck emissions regulations, participation in truck traffic and parking studies, improving operations at the gates (reducing idling, providing restrooms, and treating drivers with respect), improving stakeholder involvement and education, and providing business and workforce assistance. The plan also acknowledges that there is still much work to do, including participation in studies of truck traffic management to improve safety, minimize wait times, and address illegal truck parking. Increasing parking penalties, reinvesting money from citations into truck-related facilities, improving signage, identifying enforcement trouble hotspots, finding new enforcement mechanisms, better coordination between the Port and the City on enforcement issues, and education are all included in the plan (UC Berkeley Health Impact Group, 2010).

NCHH offers the following recommendations on traffic safety based on the findings presented above:

• The City of Baltimore should develop a plan to monitor and enforce the truck routes to ensure trucks traveling to and from the facility do not use prohibited, local roads. All truck routes should be well defined and marked with clear signs indicating approved routes. The City of Baltimore should also make provisions for enforcement of truck idling regulations in the planning process.

• CSX and the City of Baltimore should explore additional truck route and access options that do not put residents or employees of the Crossroad Business Park at risk.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 81 of 129

• CSX should improve the road infrastructure along the designated truck route, with consideration paid to intersections with high crash incident rates (e.g., at Wilmarco and Dukeland) and taking into account the Crossroads business park traffic.

• The City of Baltimore should assess the current pedestrian infrastructure and coordinate with CSX to provide a complete network of sidewalks to any roads where truck traffic will increase as a result of the facility. Signalized, stop-controlled, or otherwise protected crosswalks should be included in the plans for upgrading the pedestrian infrastructure.

• CSX should erect barriers to prevent children from crossing the train tracks on their way to school. Children in the neighborhood currently use the train tracks as a crossing to get to and from school because of an absence of convenient crosswalks, putting their safety at risk.

• CSX should work with the City of Baltimore to ensure that Route 1 is not blocked by halted trains traveling along the CSX rail network, which would pose a problem for emergency vehicle egress and commuter travel.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 82 of 129

6.6 Light

Sensory responses to light exert extensive control upon multiple body systems creating numerous targets on which light-induced disruptions can act, resulting in a wide range of physiological changes and potentially serious medical implications (Navara & Nelson, 2007). Study of the health effects of light exposure is relatively new, and the complex, multi-tiered nature of associations between light and health outcomes are not completely understood. However, though the relationship between exposure to Light at Night (LAN) and the onset of a number of health outcomes are not yet clear, there is sufficient evidence of associations between LAN and negative health outcomes to warrant concern over the potential impacts of the new intermodal facility’s lighting system on the health of the local community.

6.6.1 The Evidence: Light and Health

Light at Night (LAN) has two recognized major physiological effects: It disrupts circadian rhythms and suppresses the production of melatonin by the pineal gland (Reiter, et al., 2007). Circadian rhythms are physical, mental, and behavioral changes that follow a roughly 24-hour cycle, responding primarily to light and darkness in an organism’s environment. Circadian rhythms can influence sleep-wake cycles, hormone release, and other important bodily functions (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 2012). Alteration of circadian rhythms has been associated with performance, alertness, sleep, and metabolic disorders; and has also been demonstrated to predispose individuals to a wide range of mood disorders, including impulsivity, mania, and depression (Falchi et al., 2011; Salgado-Delgado et al., 2011). Melatonin plays a significant role in the regulation of metabolism, immune function, and endocrine balances. The suppression of the production and release of melatonin pose several potential health effects (Navara & Nelson, 2007). Inhibiting the production of melatonin can result in accelerated tumor growth and incidence of coronary heart disease (Chepesiuk, 2009; Falchi et al., 2011). The downstream consequences resulting from these effects, such as sleeplessness, make the web of physiological changes resulting from irregular light exposure even wider, as sleep disorders and deprivation are associated with several disorders, such as diabetes and obesity (Falchi et al., 2011).

Recent studies indicate that humans react to artificial light at both low and high intensities; the light intensity used for illuminating house interiors and worksites are sufficient to alter the biological clock and circadian rhythms (Navara & Nelson, 2007). Moreover, both disruptions to circadian rhythms and melatonin production have been found to be light intensity and wavelength dependent. These findings suggest that even minor additions to external light glow can have extensive physiological repercussions on individuals (Reiter, et al., 2007).

Effects of LAN on the health of rodents have been more extensively researched, and studies indicate that even small amounts of LAN can have major impacts on physical and psychological well-being. Experimental studies with rats clearly demonstrated that repetitive exposure to dim light during the night for a relatively short time (five hours average) had similar effects on circadian rhythms as bright light. This exposure to artificial light, which has an intensity similar

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 83 of 129

to that generated by a 60-watt bulb, for short periods of time during the night induces an important shift in the biological clock advance. Exposure of rodents to constant light leads to irritability, anxiety-like and depressive-like behaviors, learning and memory deficits, inhibition of melatonin secretion, aging and accelerated tumor growth, visceral adiposity increase, propensity to obesity, and cardiovascular malfunction (Salgado-Delgado et al., 2011). These findings, though not directly translatable to human subjects, reinforce conclusions that the effects of exposure to LAN are potentially extensive and severe.

Figure 25 demonstrates the relationships between light exposure and health outcomes that may be impacted by developing and operating the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility at the Mount Clare Yard.

Figure 25: Light Pathway Legend: ∆ = “change in”

6.6.2 Projected Impacts of the Intermodal Facility on Light and Associated Health Outcomes

Lighting was raised by several focus group participants as an issue of concern. Specifically, participants expressed concerns with the negative impact of the amount of lighting they believe will be required to support a 24-7 operation in the midst of residential neighborhoods. Homeowners with properties directly adjacent to the Mount Clare Yard were particularly concerned about light from the facility site flooding their properties at night. Residents also described negative impacts on privacy and safety attributable to the lighting and hours of operation. Finally, residents mentioned their beliefs that CSX was not forthcoming in responding to questions about how site lighting would be managed or provide specific strategies for how lighting issues would be addressed once the site was operational. As one resident said, “Oh, they didn’t appreciate any lighting questions at all. Just that…if there was an issue that a resident had that they would be open to adjusting the lighting so it wouldn’t be on their property or

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 84 of 129

whatever.” Another resident stated, “I think they’re playing down the lighting thing. They have specific lighting that is just in a targeted area. I’m sorry. If you’re right there on the tracks and you have lighting, it’s going to light up the neighborhood.”

6.6.3 Light: Conclusions and Recommendations

CSX has agreed to use targeted lighting methods to limit light emissions from the facility site. Scientists, however, believe reflections from the lit surfaces and atmospheric scatter cause some upward light emissions to remain, even after the best control of the light distribution is reached and when the proper quantity of light is used (Falchi et al., 2011). NCHH offers the following recommendations on light based on the findings presented above:

• CSX should provide a site lighting plan that accounts for impacts on residents’ privacy and is subject to a third-party review. To the extent possible while ensuring occupational safety, CSX should reduce the facility’s lighting at night to minimize disturbance to nearby residents.

• To the extent possible while ensuring occupational safety, CSX should reduce the facility’s lighting at night to minimize disturbance to nearby residents. If possible, the color spectrum of lighting sources should also be adjusted towards low-level red lighting and away from high-energy blue lighting, which has been found to be highly disruptive to human biological cycles (Navara & Nelson, 2007).

• CSX should restrict activities that are likely to produce noise and light pollution before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. and on weekends.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 85 of 129

6.7 Other

Several concerns emerged from the focus groups and stakeholder interviews that were not addressed in the HIA scope. In this section, we provide an overview of those issues, including a summary of the associated recommendations. Specifically, the issues include rodent control and transparency/communication in decision-making. Because these issues were excluded from the scope of the HIA, we have not summarized the limitations and data gaps for them separately. Instead, we have noted below where data gaps may have hindered predictions and recommendations.

6.7.1 Rodents

According to the head of the City of Baltimore’s Rat Rubout Program, construction of the intermodal facility will disturb rat burrows and the rats will disperse. The city program recommends CSX hire a private rodent control contractor to bait the site repeatedly before, during, and after the site construction. City staff members are available to perform this service in alleys, streets, tree wells, and properties. However, the site where the construction will take place must be treated by CSX and be part of the original construction contract. According to the City of Baltimore, “[T]his would be more than we can handle alone.” NCHH offers the following recommendations regarding rodent control:

• The City of Baltimore should work with CSX to establish a rodent control program during the excavation, construction, and operations phases.

• CSX should establish controls over rodents, mosquitoes, and potential drowning related to any storm water retention ponds, and consider using a more modern underground drainage system in the site plan.

6.7.2 Community Engagement, Communication, and Transparency in Decision-Making

Residents near the Mount Clare Yard site expressed concern over the decision-making process that led to the selection of the Mount Clare site. Residents felt the other site locations had been discarded from the list due to political and community power to “say no” to the project.

“And all they really [care] about is Panama Canal and how wonderful it’s going to be for Maryland and blah blah blah. It’s like well, this is probably the most populated area or community out of all the area sites, wherever it was, 15 or so, where everyone else said no way. They’re going to drop it right in the middle of our neighborhood.”

Residents also expressed concerns and confusion over the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and companies involved in the project. Participants questioned who the appropriate contacts were to approach with their concerns, and questioned what opportunities there were to get involved with city and state agencies. Additionally, residents expressed that currently, when they have concerns over a CSX train blocking an at-grade crossing, they face

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 86 of 129

tremendous challenges contacting the appropriate people because the contact is in Jacksonville, Florida, not Baltimore: “They tell you to call, and its Jacksonville....”

Residents near the Mount Clare Yard and the various original proposed site locations noted that ongoing communication from CSX and state agencies could have helped address some of these communication challenges. For example, although CSX and MDOT decided to pursue the Mount Clare Yard site in September 2012, the public website set up to assist with ongoing communication and transparency with regard to the project was not updated to reflect this decision until April 2013, causing confusion and uncertainty. Similarly, focus group participants living near the Mount Clare Yard noted a need for improved responsiveness through existing communication methods. For example, the project website provides an email through which residents can request information about public meetings; however, participants stated that they never received a response to requests for information they sent to this address. Similarly, representatives from St. Agnes Hospital and the Crossroads Business Park also reported challenges in communication with CSX and key agencies with regard to the project. For example, despite being a critical resource for the neighborhood and being located along the proposed truck access route, St. Agnes Hospital was unaware that the Mount Clare Site was even being considered for the facility until after the site choice had been finalized.

Residents near the Mount Clare Yard site also expressed a desire for a more coordinated outreach effort among the various community groups and want a general meeting where the plan for the facility is presented to the entire community.

“This is one of the issues that I’ve had with this project all along was that they have fractured – they go to community meetings, but at these other four settings they sent out mailers to the entire neighborhoods with specific meeting dates. This is a more fractured approach that they’re taking. So you don’t know what’s going on at these meetings.” – Focus Group Participant

The concerns and confusion related to the project’s decision-making process reflect a clear need for continuous improvement with regard to community engagement, communication, and transparency as the project proceeds. Additionally, the challenges highlighted in this section provide an opportunity for reflection and improvement for all future land use decisions in Maryland. NCHH offers the following recommendations regarding community engagement, communication, and transparency in decision-making:

• CSX, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Department of Transportation should improve the transparency and timeliness of information during the design, planning, and construction phases by maintaining an up-to-date public website, providing Town Hall-style forums to field community questions, and providing timely responses to emails received through the address provided on the project website ([email protected]).

• CSX, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Department of Transportation should develop clear and transparent procedures through which residents may raise and address issues regarding noise, lighting, air quality, or other concerns once the project is operational.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 87 of 129

• CSX should hire one or two residents from within the community to serve in an official capacity as liaison(s) between CSX and the community.

• CSX should respond to and address the concerns raised by community leaders in their letter of July 9, 2013 before it finalizes plans for the facility.

• CSX should offer community-wide opportunities for residents to gather and learn about CSX’s plans for the project so that residents from various community groups can collectively learn about the project. The City of Baltimore should work with residents to identify a clear process for communication with CSX and MDOT including a local contact and a timeline and process through which the person is required to respond.

• The Maryland Department of Transportation should provide the community associations near the proposed facility with a clear description of Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requirements and the role of citizens in the MEPA process.24

• The Maryland State Legislature should work to strengthen the Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) to ensure that projects funded or permitted solely by state or local funds are still required to consider fully any significant environmental and health impacts, as they would be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) may serve as a model for these revisions to MEPA.

24 The White House Council on Environmental Quality has produced a community guide for the National Environmental Policy Act that could serve as a useful model: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/citizens_guide_Dec07.pdf.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 88 of 129

7. Summary of Impacts

Table 11 summarizes the predictions of how the development and operation of the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility at the Mount Clare Yard may impact the health of individuals living, working, attending school, and recreating near the proposed site location. These predictions are based primarily on the evidence gathered from the literature base, air quality modeling, and focus group and stakeholder interview findings.

The following are definitions of the key terms in the table.

Impact: Indicates whether the health effect is adverse, beneficial, or unclear • Positive = Changes that may improve health • Negative = Changes that may detract from health • Uncertain = Unknown how health will be impacted • No effect = No effect on health

Magnitude of Impact: Indicates how much a health effect might change as a result of a decision (Note that this is relative to population size) • Low = Causes impacts to no or very few people • Medium = Causes impacts to wider number of people • High = Causes impacts across large sections of the impacted community or across the entire impacted community

Intensity of Impact: Indicates a health effect’s severity • Low = Causes impacts that can be quickly and easily managed or do not require treatment • Medium = Causes impacts that necessitate treatment or medical management and are reversible • High = Causes impacts that are chronic, irreversible, or fatal

Likelihood of Impact: Indicates the degree of certainty that the health effect will occur • Likely = It is likely that impacts will occur as a result of the project • Possible = It is possible that impacts will occur as a result of the project • Unlikely = It is unlikely that impacts will occur as a result of the project • Uncertain = It is unclear if impacts will occur as a result of the project

Distribution of Impact - Indicates whether the health effects are shared equally among the affected populations

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 89 of 129

Quality of Evidence: • *** = Many consistent sources of evidence • ** = A few good sources of evidence • * = No clear sources of evidence, but generally consistent with principles of public health

Table 11: Summary of Impacts

Health Determinant Quality of Impact Magnitude Intensity Likelihood Distribution or Outcome Evidence Air Quality Children; Elderly; Residents within close *** Asthma and Negative High High Likely proximity to roadways and the site location; respiratory disease Individuals with pre-existing conditions Elderly; Residents within close proximity to *** Cardiovascular Negative High High Likely roadways and the site location; Individuals with disease pre-existing conditions Women of child-bearing age living in close ** proximity to roadways and the site location; Low birth weight Negative High Medium Possible Women of child-bearing age with pre-existing conditions Elderly; Residents within close proximity to *** Lung cancer Negative High High Possible roadways and the site location; Individuals with pre-existing conditions Elderly; Residents within close proximity to *** Premature mortality Negative High High Likely roadways and the site location; Individuals with pre-existing conditions

Employment Premature mortality Unemployed population in Morrell Park CSA; Employees of Crossroads Industrial Business Uncertain Low High Uncertain *** Park; Individuals newly employed as a result of facility

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 90 of 129

Health Determinant Quality of Impact Magnitude Intensity Likelihood Distribution or Outcome Evidence Unemployed population in Morrell Park CSA; Cardiovascular Employees of Crossroads Industrial Business Uncertain Low High Uncertain *** disease Park; Individuals newly employed as a result of facility Unemployed population in Morrell Park CSA; Depression and Employees of Crossroads Industrial Business Uncertain Low Medium Uncertain *** mental health Park; Individuals newly employed as a result of facility Unemployed population in Morrell Park CSA; Healthcare and Employees of Crossroads Industrial Business Uncertain Low Medium Uncertain *** medication access Park; Individuals newly employed as a result of facility Unemployed population in Morrell Park CSA; Employees of Crossroads Industrial Business Low birth weight Uncertain Low Medium Uncertain ** Park; Individuals newly employed as a result of facility Unemployed population in Morrell Park CSA; Employees of Crossroads Industrial Business Chronic disease Uncertain Low High Uncertain *** Park; Individuals newly employed as a result of facility Neighborhood Resources Injuries Negative Low High Uncertain All * Premature mortality Negative Low High Unlikely All ** Chronic disease Negative Medium High Possible All *** Mental health (stress, Negative High Medium Likely All *** anxiety, depression) Noise Residents closest to site and site routes, Sleep disturbance Negative Medium Medium Likely *** particularly infants and elderly Annoyance Negative High Low Likely All ***

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 91 of 129

Health Determinant Quality of Impact Magnitude Intensity Likelihood Distribution or Outcome Evidence Residents closest to site and site routes, Cardiovascular health Negative Medium High Likely *** particularly the elderly Stress, anxiety, and Negative Medium Medium Likely Residents closest to site and site routes ** depression Noise-induced Negative Medium High Likely Residents closest to site and site routes *** hearing loss Impaired task Residents closest to site and site routes, children performance/ Negative Medium Medium Likely ** attending schools near site routes educational outcomes Interference with Residents closest to site, particularly children spoken Negative Medium Low Likely *** and the elderly communication Traffic Safety Morbidity and Individuals living, working, or attending school Negative Low High Likely *** mortality in proximity to roadways Mental health and Individuals living, working, or attending school Negative High Medium Likely ** stress in proximity to roadways Obesity and chronic Negative Medium High Possible Commuters; All ** disease Light Metabolic disorders Negative Low High Uncertain Residents closest to site **

Mood disorders Negative Low Medium Uncertain Residents closest to site **

Sleep disorders Negative Low Medium Possible Residents closest to site ***

Risk of coronary Residents closest to site, particularly the Negative Low High Uncertain ** heart disease elderly

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 92 of 129

8. Recommendations

Based on the assessment findings, NCHH developed a draft set of recommended mitigations to reduce the probability and magnitude of adverse health outcomes due to the planned facility. In July, 2013, NCHH shared these recommendations with community residents and key agency stakeholders for assistance with refinement and prioritization.

Design/Planning:

1. CSX should pay the City of Baltimore a facility regulatory and site infrastructure fee to offset, at least partially, any potential negative impacts on access to neighborhood resources. For example, the fees could be used to provide local jurisdictions with block grants for improvements to neighborhood resources (e.g., libraries, schools, parks, community centers) that could be impacted by the project. The fees would be used to mitigate costs borne by the City to mitigate the impact of the trucks on the roads, the potential loss of tax revenue resulting from decreased property assessments, and to pay for pedestrian and bicycle safety programs. The fees would provide a sustainable stream of funding to mitigate unforeseen impacts of the facility in the future. These amounts should increase by five percent each year and would automatically increase by 20 percent if the State or City takes any enforcement action related to the construction or operation of the facility.

2. CSX and the Maryland Department of the Environment should complete the air quality models begun in this HIA to more fully assess the existing air quality in the community (including existing train emissions) and project the added impacts of the facility (including idling, trains emissions, machinery, congestion, etc.) on air quality and excess mortality.

3. The community should be involved in decisions and priority setting for the community improvements CSX plans to make with project funds. Improvements related to the construction and operations of the facility and mitigations related to the facility should be included in CSX’s construction budget rather than as part of the community improvement budget.

4. The City of Baltimore should develop a plan to monitor and enforce the truck routes to ensure trucks traveling to and from the facility do not use prohibited local roads. All truck routes should be well defined and marked with clear signs indicating approved routes. The City of Baltimore should also make provisions for enforcement of truck idling regulations in the planning process.

5. CSX and the City of Baltimore should explore additional truck route and access options that do not put residents or employees of the Crossroad Business Park at risk.

6. CSX should work with the Baltimore City Office of Employment Development to set aside living wage positions at the site for residents in the surrounding neighborhoods

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 93 of 129

during construction and operations phases.

7. CSX should initiate and maintain an apprenticeship program for at-risk youth from neighborhoods surrounding the Mount Clare Yard to enable access to goods movement- related employment opportunities as the amount of freight moving through Maryland continues to increase.

8. CSX should work with the City of Baltimore to provide fair and consistent property purchasing offers to all households within close proximity of the site perimeter. Offers should include replacement costs for the housing structure and compensation for relocation.

9. Once noise models from CSX are available, the Baltimore Health Department or the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should analyze the magnitude of impacts on annoyance and sleep disturbance. NCHH provides protocols in appendices G and H that the agencies could use to conduct this analysis. If excessive noise levels are noted, CSX should install soundproofing/noise-reducing windows for homes and schools in close proximity to the facility and along the routes servicing the facility.

10. CSX should provide a site lighting plan that accounts for impacts on residents’ privacy and is subject to a third-party review. To the extent possible while ensuring occupational safety, CSX should reduce the facility’s lighting at night to minimize disturbance to nearby residents.

11. The City of Baltimore should work with CSX to establish a rodent control program during the excavation, construction, and operations phases.

12. The City of Baltimore should explore alternatives to the closure of Georgetown Road at Bernard Drive. If such a closure is necessary, the City should examine and mitigate the impact on the community and businesses of changes to service of MTA Bus Route 35.

13. CSX should respond to and address the concerns raised by community leaders in their letter of July 9, 2013 before it finalizes plans for the facility.

Construction:

14. CSX should improve the road infrastructure along the designated truck route, with consideration paid to intersections with high crash incident rates (e.g., at Wilmarco and Dukeland) and taking into account the Crossroads business park traffic.

15. The City of Baltimore should assess the current pedestrian infrastructure and coordinate with CSX to provide a complete network of sidewalks to any roads where truck traffic will increase as a result of the facility. Signalized, stop controlled, or otherwise protected crosswalks should be included in the plans for upgrading the pedestrian infrastructure.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 94 of 129

16. CSX should minimize the impact of the facility’s construction and operations on parks and green spaces adjacent to facility operations and truck routes, particularly Carroll Park and the Gwynns Falls Trail, Desoto Park, and Gibbons Commons. Natural buffers and pedestrian walkways should be installed to protect those walking or recreating in the community from injuries and other potential health hazards (e.g., crosswalks, fences, trees).

17. CSX should work with the City to identify appropriate mechanisms, using greening and aesthetic principles, to block sound and light between the site and adjacent houses. These same principles should be followed to add a buffer of vegetation around site and truck routes, particularly near sensitive receptors, including parks and schools. These mitigations should be funded as part of CSX’s construction budget.

18. CSX should retain all mature, specimen, and significant trees and vegetation around the site to reduce storm runoff and assist with reducing air pollutants.

19. CSX should erect barriers to prevent children from crossing the train tracks on their way to school. Children in the neighborhood currently use the train tracks as a crossing to get to and from school because of an absence of convenient crosswalks, putting their safety at risk.

20. CSX should establish controls over rodents, mosquitoes, and potential drowning related to any storm water retention ponds, and consider using a more modern underground drainage system in the site plan.

Operations:

21. The City of Baltimore should enforce the maximum number of daily truck and train trips associated with the intermodal facility to ensure that the facility’s capacity and usage does not grow beyond the identified maximum capacities.

22. CSX should make all efforts to reduce air pollution resulting from on- and offsite equipment and vehicles. For example, the City and CSX should pursue opportunities to require and encourage that all trucks entering the facility be 2008 or newer.25 CSX should pursue opportunities to ensure that all diesel trains associated with the intermodal facility are low emitting or retrofitted to provide the lowest possible emissions. Wherever possible, container cranes, loaders, and forklifts should be either electrically powered or equipped with low emitting engines. CSX should ensure that no unnecessary truck or train idling occurs.

25Note: The Port Authority operates a program to assist fleets with upgrading their trucks to reduce emissions and improve air quality.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 95 of 129

23. To the extent possible while ensuring occupational safety, CSX should reduce the facility’s lighting at night to minimize disturbance to nearby residents. If possible, the color spectrum of lighting sources should also be adjusted towards low-level red lighting and away from high-energy blue lighting, which has been found to be highly disruptive to human biological cycles (Navara & Nelson, 2007).

24. CSX should restrict activities that are likely to produce noise and light pollution before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. and on weekends.

25. CSX should work with the City of Baltimore to ensure that Route 1 is not blocked by halted trains traveling along the CSX rail network, which would pose a problem for emergency vehicle egress and commuter travel.

Communications:

26. CSX, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Department of Transportation should develop clear and transparent procedures through which residents may raise and address issues regarding noise, lighting, air quality, or other concerns once the project is operational.

27. CSX, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Department of Transportation should improve the transparency and timeliness of information during the design, planning, and construction phases by maintaining an up-to-date public website, providing Town Hall style forums to field community questions, and providing timely responses to emails received through the address provided on the project website ([email protected]).

28. CSX should hire one or two residents from within the community to serve in an official capacity as liaison(s) between CSX and the community.

29. CSX should offer community-wide opportunities for residents to gather and learn about CSX’s plans for the project so that residents from various community groups can collectively learn about the project. The City of Baltimore should work with residents to identify a clear process for communication with CSX and MDOT including a local contact and a timeline and process through which the person is required to respond.

Monitoring:

30. CSX should provide funding to the Maryland Department of the Environment to install and operate air quality monitors at several locations, including near residences directly adjacent to the project site and associated truck routes, at locations one-quarter mile and one-half mile from the site and associated truck routes, and at sensitive receptor sites such as schools, community centers, libraries, senior facilities, parks, and playgrounds. These data should be monitored at least annually following the opening of the site, should be made public, and should be provided directly to residents of the Morrell

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 96 of 129

Park/Violetville CSA.

31. If pollutant levels indoors or at outdoors sites, such as schools, libraries, and community and senior centers, rise above standards published by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 2000),26 CSX should seek to reduce emissions through pollution control technology and by improving the building performance (e.g., through reduced air leakage and improved ventilation), reducing emissions through pollution control technologies, and installing additional natural buffers and barriers.

32. The Baltimore City Department of Transportation should monitor and enforce existing truck restrictions and prohibitions against the use of air brakes through “stings” or other mechanisms.

33. The City of Baltimore and CSX should partner to increase the police and security presence at and around the facility. The partnership should leverage the facility’s security resources to reduce existing crime levels in the neighborhood and to mitigate any potential increases in crime from the more intense industrial use.

34. The City of Baltimore should monitor noise emissions from intermodal operations at one year intervals following the opening of the site. Results should be compared to baseline levels. The Baltimore City Health Department or the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should analyze the magnitude of impacts on annoyance and sleep disturbance. CSX should fund additional noise mitigation programs accordingly. NCHH provides protocols in Appendices G and H that the agencies could use to conduct these analyses.

35. The Baltimore City Health Department should continue to monitor the health outcomes among residents in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA that could be directly impacted by the facility, such as asthma and respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, mortality, and traffic collisions on an annual basis.

Policy Recommendations:

36. As part of the rezoning process for the City of Baltimore, the City should ensure harmony between residential and industrial uses of the CSA and seek to reduce future conflicts.

37. As part of the City’s consolidated planning process, the City should create a neighborhood revitalization plan for the CSA. The plan should improve the community’s infrastructure and services and encourage businesses to remain in the intermodal corridor communities through financial incentives. Such investment would help maintain property values, promote social cohesion, and mitigate the potential stigma of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood. The city should consider strategies to divert preferentially

26 Note that the WHO standards are for outdoor pollutants. No established standards exist for indoor air pollutants. However, if pollutant levels are at or above outside thresholds in indoor spaces, mitigations would be prudent.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 97 of 129

increasing tax revenue resulting from the Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility into infrastructure and services for the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA.

38. The Maryland Department of Transportation should provide the community associations near the proposed facility with a clear description of Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requirements and the role of citizens in the MEPA process.27

39. The Maryland Department of the Environment should work with agency and academic partners to conduct additional air quality modeling to assess the existing air pollution burden in the region and city from freeways, trucks, and train emissions. This information should be used to inform the future planning of infrastructure projects.

40. The Maryland State Legislature should work to strengthen the Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) to ensure that projects funded or permitted solely by state or local funds consider significant environmental and health impacts, as they would be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) may serve as a model for these revisions to MEPA.

27 The White House Council on Environmental Quality has produced a community guide for the National Environmental Policy Act that could serve as a useful model: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/citizens_guide_Dec07.pdf.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 98 of 129

9. Monitoring

As part of CSX’s ongoing relationship with the City of Baltimore and the residents near the Mount Clare Yard, CSX should set aside funding to track and document the impacts of the facility on health and the incorporation of priority recommendations from this HIA into decisions related to the intermodal facility. This monitoring plan seeks to determine the following:

• Which recommendations provided in this HIA have been enacted to protect and improve health?

• What evidence is there for changes in health determinants as a result of the facility’s development and operation?

• What evidence is there for changes in health determinants as a result of the HIA recommended actions?

Table 12: Indicators to Be Monitored

Indicator Agency Responsible Timing for Monitoring

Levels of PM2.5 and other pollutant exposures Maryland Department Annually among residents surrounding the site of the Environment with funding support from CSX Rates of asthma-related emergency Baltimore City Health Annually department visits within census tracts Department surrounding the site Increase in enforcement of truck route Baltimore City Ongoing restrictions Department of Transportation Completion of additional air quality Maryland Department Prior to completion of modeling to assess the existing burden from of the Environment site design and train-related air pollution and project the with funding support permitting added impacts of the facility (including from CSX and in idling, trains and machinery, et cetera) on air partnerships with other quality, excess mortality, and asthma prior to agencies and academic the completion of the site design institutions, as needed Number of living wage positions held by Baltimore City Office Annually residents in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA of Employment at the Mount Clare intermodal facility Development Establishment and continuation of an Baltimore City Office Prior to completion of apprenticeship program for at-risk youth to of Employment site design and enable access to goods movement-related Development permitting employment opportunities

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 99 of 129

Indicator Agency Responsible Timing for Monitoring Completion of noise-related annoyance and Baltimore City Health Prior to completion of sleep disturbance calculations following the Department site design and completion of the CSX noise study permitting Completion of an assessment of pedestrian Baltimore Department Prior to the facility’s infrastructure and development of improved of Transportation and opening in 2015 pedestrian networks (sidewalks and CSX crosswalks) along any roads where truck traffic will increase as a result of the facility Enforcement of the maximum number of City of Baltimore Assess annually daily truck and train trips Establishment of a regulatory and site City of Baltimore Prior to the facility’s infrastructure fee paid by CSX to offset any opening in 2015 potential negative impacts on access to neighborhood resources Fair and consistent property purchasing City of Baltimore Prior to completion of offers provided to all households within close site design and proximity to the site perimeter permitting Increase in the City’s direct investment in the City of Baltimore Ongoing community’s infrastructure and services Planning Office Completion of site lighting plan accounting City of Baltimore Prior to completion of for impacts on residents’ privacy completed Planning Office site design and permitting Rodent control program during the City of Baltimore Prior to the excavation, construction, and operations Rodent Control completion of site phases established and followed Program design and permitting, and ongoing during construction Alternatives to the closure of Georgetown Baltimore City Prior to completion of Road at Bernard Drive examined and impacts Department of site design and mitigated Transportation permitting CSX provides responses to documented City of Baltimore Prior to completion of community concerns Planning Office and site design and the Maryland permitting Department of Transportation Businesses encouraged to remain in the Crossroads Business Annually intermodal corridor communities through tax Park and the City of breaks or credits Baltimore Road infrastructure along the designated Baltimore City Ongoing truck route improved and maintained Department of Transportation Impact of the facility’s construction and Maryland Department Ongoing

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 100 of 129

Indicator Agency Responsible Timing for Monitoring operations on parks and green spaces of the Environment minimized Appropriate mechanisms, using greening and City of Baltimore Prior to the facility’s aesthetic principles, are installed to block Planning Office opening in 2015 sound and light Soundproofing/noise-reducing windows for City of Baltimore Prior to the facility’s homes and schools in close proximity to the Planning Office opening in 2015 facility and along routes servicing the facility Mature, specimen, and significant trees and Maryland Department Prior to completion of vegetation retained around the site to reduce of the Environment site design and storm runoff and reduce air pollutants permitting Buffer of vegetation added around site and Maryland Department Prior to the facility’s truck routes, particularly near sensitive of the Environment opening in 2015 receptors, including parks and schools Barriers erected to prevent children from Baltimore City Prior to the facility’s crossing the train tracks on their way to Department of opening in 2015 school Transportation Storm water retention ponds safety plan City of Baltimore Prior to completion of designed and implemented Planning Office site design and permitting All trucks entering the facility have the best Maryland Department Ongoing emissions control technology installed of the Environment Onsite machinery meets EPA emissions Maryland Department Ongoing standards of the Environment Facility’s lighting reduced at night to City of Baltimore Ongoing following the minimize disturbance to nearby residents Planning Office facility’s opening Procedures established so that residents may Maryland Department Prior to completion of raise and have addressed their concerns once of Transportation and site design and the project is operational the City of Baltimore permitting Police and security presence increased at and City of Baltimore Ongoing around the facility Planning Office

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 101 of 129

10. References

Ackery, A. D., McLellan, B. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (2012, February). Bicyclist deaths and striking vehicles in the USA. Injury Prevention, 18(1), 22-26. Aday, L. A. (2001). At risk in America: The health and health care needs of vulnerable populations in the United States. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Ahern, M., Kovats, R. S., Wilkinson, P., Few, R., & Matthies, F. (2005). Global health impacts of floods: Epidemiologic evidence. Epidemiologic Reviews, 27(1), 36-46. Akinbami, L. J. (2006). The state of childhood asthma, United States, 1980-2005. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, 1-24. American Hearing Research Foundation. (2012, October). Noise induced hearing loss. Retrieved July 19, 2013, from http://american-hearing.org/disorders/noise-induced-hearing-loss/ Annecke, R., Berge, T., Crawshaw, S., Ellebjerg, L., Mårdh, S., Pullwitt, E., et. al. (2008, August 16). Noise reduction in urban Areas from traffic and driver management: A toolkit for city authorities. European Commission DG Research, Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://www.silence- ip.org/site/fileadmin/SP_H/SILENCE_H.D2_20080816_DRI.pdf Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press. Auchincloss, A. H., Diez Roux, A. V., Mujahid, M. S., Shen, M., Bertoni, A. G., & Carnethon, M. R. (2009, October). Neighborhood resources for physical activity and healthy foods and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitue: The Multi-Ethnic study of Atherosclerosis. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(18), 1698-1704. Baltimore City Department of Planning. (2013, July 2). Analysis conducted for NCHH by the Baltimore City Department of Planning. Baltimore, MD. Baltimore City Department of Transportation. (2013). CSX intermodal facility traffic impact study. Baltimore, MD. Baltimore City Health Department. (2012, March). Neighborhood health profiles. Retrieved from http://baltimorehealth.org/neighborhoodmap.html Baltimore City Health Department. (n.d.). Neighborhood health profiles. Retrieved July 17, 2013 from http://baltimorehealth.org/neighborhood.html Bell, M. L., Peng, R. D., & Dominici, F. (2006, April). The exposure-response curve for ozone and risk of mortality and the adequacy of current ozone regulations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(4), 532-536. Bell, M. L., Ebisu, K., & Belanger, K. (2007). Ambient air pollution and low birth weight in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, 1118-1125.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 102 of 129

Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., & Schwela, D. H. (1999). Guidelines for community noise. World Health Organization. Berube, A., & Katz, B. (2005). Katrina’s window: Confronting concentrated poverty across America. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Bhatia, R. (2011). Health impact assessment: A guide for practice. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners. Blumenshine, P., Egerter, S., Barclay, C. J., Cubbin, C., Braveman, P.A. (2010). Socioeconomic disparities in adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 39(3):263-72. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29(2), 293-301. Brantingham, P. (1981). Environmental criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage. Braveman, P. A., & Egerter, S. (2008). Overcoming obstacles to health: Report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the Commission to Build a Healthier America. Washington, DC: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. Braveman, P. A., Cubbin, C., Egerter, S., Williams, D. R., & Pamuk, E. (2010). Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: What the patterns tell us. American Journal of Public Health, 14(1), 20-35. Brugge, D., Durant, J. L., & Rioux, C. (2007, August). Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks. Environmental Health, 6(23). Brunekreef, B., Janssen, N. A. H., de Hartog, J., Harssema, H., Knape, M., & van Vliet, P. (1997, May). Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways. Epidemiology, 8(3), 298-303. California Air Resources Board. (2004). Roseville Rail Yard Study. California Air Resources Board. (2006). Diesel particulate matter exposure assessment study for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002, August 16). Barriers to children walking and biking to school—United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(32);701-704. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011, January 14). CDC Health disparities and inequalities report—United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60 (Supplement).

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 103 of 129

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Asthma and schools. Retrieved August 2, 2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/asthma/. Chang, L. Y., & Mannering, F. (1999, September). Analysis of injury severity and vehicle occupancy in truck- and non-truck-involved accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31(5), 579-592. Chepesiuk, R. (2009, January). Missing the dark: Health effects of light pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(1), A20-7. Clark, D. E. (2005). The effects of ignoring whistle bans and residential property values: A hedonic housing price analysis. (working paper). Available online from http://www.busadm.mu.edu/mrq/workingpapers/wpaper0504.pdf Cohen, S., Underwood, L. G., & Gottlieb, B. H. (2000). Social support measurement and intervention. New York: Oxford University Press. Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997, July). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environmental Behavior, 29(4), 468-494. Committee on Health Impact Assessment; National Research Council. (2011). Improving health in the United States: The role of health impact assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. CSX. (2012). About CSX: CSX and Maryland. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/company-overview/state-fact-sheets/maryland/ CSX and Maryland Department of Transportation. (2011, November 14). Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Public Workshop Boards. CSX Corporation. (2013, May 7). Statement made during a presentation at the Morrell Park Community Association Meeting. CSX Corporation. (n.d.). Baltimore-Washington rail intermodal facility: 12 candidate site evaluation. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office%20of%20Planning%20and%20Capital%20Progr amming/ICTF/Documents/12_Site_Evaluation.pdf. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. (2011). Economic impact analysis of the Baltimore-Washington Rail intermodal facility. Silver Spring, MD: HDR Decision Economics. Culica, D., Rohrer, J., Ward, M., Hilsenrath, P., & Pomrehn, P. (2002, January). Medical checkups: Who does not get them? American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 88-91. Curwin, B. & Bertke, S. (2011). Exposure characterization of metal oxide nanoparticles in the workplace. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 8, 580-587.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 104 of 129

Davidson, K. K., & Lawson, C. T. (2006, July). Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3, 19-35. Ellebjerg, L. (2007, June 11). Controlling noise through traffic management: Results of a literature study. Silence, (p. WP H1). Brussels. Evans, G. W. (2006, January). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423-451. Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise on children: A critical review. Children’s Environments, 10(1), 31-51. Falchi, F., Cinzano, P., Elvidge, C. D., Keith, D. M., & Haim, A. (2011, October). Limiting the impact of light pollution on human health, environment and stellar visibility. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2714-2722. Fann, N., Lamson, A., Anenberg, S. C. Wesson, K. Risley, D. & Hubbel, B.J.. (2012). Estimating the national public health burden associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5 and ozone. Risk Analysis, 32 (1): 81–95. Faulkner, L. A., & Schauffler, H. H. (1997, November-December). The effect of health insurance coverage on the appropriate use of recommended clinical preventive services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 13(6), 453-458. Federal Highway Administration. (2005, April). Assessing the effects of freight movement on air quality at the national and regional level. Final report. Federal Highway Administration. (2006). Highway traffic noise. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/ Frank, L. D., Andresen, M. A., & Schmid, T. L. (2004, August). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 87-96. Frank, L., Schmid, T., Sallis, J., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. (2005). Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form - Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 117-125. Garshick, E., Laden, F., Hart, J. E., Rosner, B., Davis, M. E., Eisen, E. A., et al. (2008, October). Lung cancer and vehicle exhaust in trucking industry workers. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1327-1332. Garshick, E., Laden, F., Hart, J. E., Rosner, B., Smith, T. J., Dockery, D. W., et al. (2004, November). Lung cancer in railroad workers exposed to diesel exhaust. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(15), 1539-1543.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 105 of 129

Gauderman, W. J., Avol, E., Lurmann, F., Kuenzli, N., Gilliland, F., Peters, J., et al. (2005, November). Childhood asthma and exposure to traffic and nitrogen dioxide. Epidemiology, 16(6), 737-743. Goines, L., & Hagler, L. (2007). Noise pollution: A modern plague. Southern Medical Journal, 100(3), 287-294. Griefahn, B. A. (2006). Noise emitted from road, rail and air traffic and their effects on sleep. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 295: 129-140. Guo, H., Tanaka, S., Halperin, W., & Cameron, L. (1999). Back pain prevalence in US industry and estimates of lost workdays. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1029-1035. Hagler, L. (1999). Summary of adverse health effects of noise pollution. http://www.noiseoff.org/document/who.summary.pdf. Hajat, A., Kaufman, J. S., Rose, K. M., Siddiqi, A., & Thomas, J. C. (2010). Long-term effects of wealth on mortality and self-rated health status. American Journal of Epidemiology, 173(2), 192-200. Hansen, J. (2001, January). Increased breast cancer risk among women who work predominantly at night. Epidemiology, 12(1), 74-77. Health Impact Project. (2011). The HIA process. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from http://www.healthimpactproject.org/hia/process HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution. (2010, January). Traffic- related air-pollution: A critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute. Hoffmann, B., Moebus, S., Stang, A., Beck, E.-M., Dragano, N., Möhlenkamp, S., et al. (2006, November). Residence close to high traffic and prevalence of coronary heart disease. European Heart Journal, 27(22), 2696-2702. Holguín, F., Téllez-Rojo, M. M., Hernández, M., Cortez, M., Chow, J. C., Watson, J. .G, et al. (2003, September). Air pollution and heart rate variability among the elderly in Mexico City. Epidemiology, 14(5), 521-527. Hsu, H. C. (2007). Does social participation by the elderly reduce mortality and cognitive impairment? Aging and Mental Health, 11(6), 699-707. Hughes, W. T., & Sirmans, C. F. (1992, November). Traffic externalities and single-family house prices. Journal of Regional Science, 32(4), 487-500. Immergluck, D., & Smith, G. (2005, June). There goes the neighborhood: The effect of single- family mortgage foreclosures on property values. Chicago, IL: Woodstock Institute.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 106 of 129

Industrial Economics, Incorporated. (2006, September 21). Expanded expert judgment assessment of the concentration-response relationship between PM2.5 exposure and mortality: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Economics, Incorporated. (2011, February). Health and welfare benefits analyses to support the second section 812 benefit-cost analysis of the Clean Air Act: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Irani, D., Steward, S., Ebersole, R., Radchenko, K., & Asala, R. (2012, October 4). Economic and fiscal impacts of the Panama Canal expansion on the port of Baltimore. Towson, MD: Towson University. Jakovljević, B. G., Belojević, G., Paunović, K., & Stojanov, Vesna. (2006, February). Road traffic noise and sleep disturbances in an urban population: Cross-sectional study. Croatian Medical Journal, 47: 125–133. Jerrett, M., Burnett, R. T., Ma, R., Pope, C. A., III, Krewski, D., Newbold, K. B., et al. (2005, November). Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology, 16(6), 727-736. Jin, R. L., Shah, C. P., & Svoboda, T. J. (1995, September). The impact of unemployment on health: A review of the evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 153(5), 529- 540. Kingsley, G. T., Smith, R. E., & Price, D. (2009, July 1). The Impacts of foreclosures on families and communities. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Kreuter, M. W., & Lezin, N. (2002). Social capital theory: Implications for community-based health promotion. In DiClemente, R. J., Crosby, R. A., & Kegler, M. C. (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: Strategies for improving public health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001, July). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environmental Behavior, 33(4), 543-571. Layne, D. M., Rogers, B., & Randolph, S. A. (2009, October). Health and gender comparisons in the long-haul trucking industry: A pilot study. American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, 57(10), 405-413. Lee, C., & Vernez Moudon, A. (2004, November). Physical activity and environment research in the health field: Implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(2), 147-181. Li, F., Fisher, K., Brownson, R., & Bosworth, M. (2005, July). Multilevel modelling of built environment characteristics related to neighbourhood walking activity in older adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(7), 558-564.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 107 of 129

Lin, S., Munsie, J. P., Hwang, S. A., Fitzgerald, E., & Cayo, M. R. (2002, February). Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to state route traffic. Environmental Research, 88(2), 73-81. Lleras-Muney, A. (2005). The relationship between education and adult mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 189-221. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. (2012, June). State health improvement process county health profiles. Retrieved from http://dhmh.maryland.gov/ship/SitePages/LHICcontacts.aspx Maryland Department of Transportation. (2012, October 2). Letter to the chairmen of the Maryland Senate Budget and Taxation Committee and House Appropriations Commitee. Retrieved from http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/ICTF/D ocuments/Updates_Feb_2012/Signed_JCR_letter_with_attachments_Oct_2_2012.pdf Maryland Department of Transportation. (2012, September 5). Letter to the chairmen of the Maryland Senate Budget and Taxation Committee and the Maryland House Appropriations Committee. Maryland Department of Transportation. (2013, January 15). Letter to Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood. Maryland Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Baltimore-Washington rail intermodal facility. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office%20of%20Planning%20and%20Capital%20Progr amming/ICTF/Home.html Maryland Port Administration. (2012). Press Release: Port of Baltimore saw largest growth among all major U.S. ports in 2011. Baltimore, MD. Maryland State Highway Administration. (2011). GIS traffic count data by county. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from http://www.marylandroads.com/pages/GIS.aspx?PageId=838 McConnell, R., Berhane, K., Yao, L., Jerrett, M., Lurmann, F., Gilliland, F., et al. (2006, May). Traffic, susceptibility, and childhood asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(5), 766-772. McCormick Taylor, I. (April 5, 2013). Traffic impact study for the CSX intermodal transfer facility. Baltimore City Department of Transportation. Miedema, H. M., & Oudshoorn, C. G. (2001, April). Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(4): 409-416. Muller, A. (2002, January 5). Education, income inequality, and mortality: a multiple regression analysis. British Medical Journal, 324, 23-25.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 108 of 129

National Center for Healthy Housing. (2009). Housing interventions and health: A review of the evidence. Available at: http://www.nchh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=2lvaEDNBIdU%3d&tabid=229 . National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. (2009, September). Reducing air emissions associated with goods movement: Working towards environmental justice. Washington, DC. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009). Traffic safety facts: 2009 data. Washington, DC: NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Online: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811392.pdf National Institute of General Medical Sciences. (2012, November). Circadian rhythms fact sheet. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from Science Education: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/Factsheet_CircadianRhythms.htm National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. (2008, October). Noise- induced hearing loss. Retrieved July 12, 2013, from http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/pages/noise.aspx National Research Council of the National Academies. (2011). Improving health in the United States: The role of health impact assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Navara, K. J., & Nelson, R. J. (2007, October). The dark side of light at night: Physiological, epidemiological, and ecological consequences. Journal of Pineal Research, 43(3), 215- 224. Nelson, J. P. (2004, January). Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values: Problems and prospects. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(1), 1-28. Nowak, D. J. (2002). The effects of urban trees on air quality. Syracuse, NY: USDA Forest Service.

Passchier‐Vermeer, W., & Passchier, W. F. (2000, March). Noise exposure and public health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(Supplement 1):123‐131. Peden, M., Scurfield, R., Sleet, D., Mohan, D., Hyder, A. A., Jarawan, E., et al. (Eds.). (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Pope, C. A., III, Burnett, R. T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., et al. (2002, March 6). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(9), 1132-1141. Prause, J., Dooley, D., & Huh, J. (2009). Income volatility and psychological depression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(1-2), 57-70.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 109 of 129

Reiter, R., Tan, D., Korkmaz, A., Erren, T., Piekarski, C., Tamura, H., et al. (2007, December). Light at night, chronodisruption, melatonin suppression, and cancer risk: A review. Critical Reviews in Oncogenesis, 13(4), 303-328. Reynolds, C. C. O., Harris, M. A., Teschke, K., Cripton, P. A., & Winters, M. (2009). The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: A review of the literature. Environmental Health, 8(47). Ritter, L., Solomon, K., Sibley, P., Hall, K., Keen, P., Mattu, G., et al. (2002, January). Sources, pathways, and relative risks of contaminants in surface water and groundwater: a perspective prepared for the Walkerton inquiry. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 65(1), 1-142. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2011). Income, wealth, and health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available online: www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2011/rwjf70448. Roberts, I., Norton, R., Jackson, R. Dunn, R., & Hassall, I. (1995, January 14). Effect of environmental factors on risk of injury of child pedestrians by motor vehicles: A case- control study. British Medical Journal, 310(6972), 91-94. Rosen, E. J., & Vrabec, J. T. (2001, January 10). Noise induced hearing loss. In J. F. Quinn (Ed.), Grand rounds presentation. Galveston, TX: University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Dept. of Otolaryngology. Roudsari, B. S., Mock, C. N., Kaufman, R., Grossman, D., Henary, B. Y., & Crandall, J. (2004). Pedestrian crashes: Higher injury severity and mortality rate for light truck vehicles compared with passenger vehicles. Injury Prevention, 10, 154-158. Salgado-Delgado, R., Tapia Osorio, A., Saderi, N., & Escobar, C. (2011). Disruption of circadian rhythms: a crucial factor in the etiology of depression. Depression Research and Treatment. Samet, J. M., Dominici, F., Curriero, F. C., Coursac, I., & Zeger, S. L. (2000, December 14). Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities, 1987-1994. New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1742-1749. San Francisco Department of Public Health. (2011). Health effects of road pricing in San Francisco, California. Available at: http://www.sfphes.org/component/jdownloads/summary/37-congestion-pricing/111- health-effects-of-road-pricing-in-san-francisco-california?Itemid=0. Sarnat, J. A., Schwartz, J., & Suh, H. H. (2001, April). Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities. New England Journal of Medicine, 344, 1253-1254. Schwartz, J. L. (2002). The concentration-response relation between PM2.5 and daily deaths. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(10), 1025-1029.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 110 of 129

Simons, R. A., & El Jaouhari, A. (2004.). The effect of freight railroad tracks and train activity on residential property values. Appraisal Journal, 223-233. Skodova, Z., Nagyova, I., van Dijk, J., Sudzinova, A., Vargova, H., Studencan, M., et al. (2008.). Socieconomic differences in psychosocial factors contributing to coronary heart disease: A review. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 15(3), 204-213. Solomon, A. J., Doucette, J. T., Garland, E., & McGinn, T. (2004, November). Healthcare and the long haul: Long distance truck drivers--A medically underserved population. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46(5), 463-471. Stansfeld, S. A., Berglund, B., Clark, C., Lopez-Barrio, I., Fischer, P., Ohrström, E., et al.. (2005, June 4-10). Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: A cross- national study. The Lancet, 365(9475), 1942-1949. Steenland, N. K., Silverman, D. T., & Hornung, R. W. (1990, June). Case-control study of lung cancer and truck driving in the Teamsters Union. American Journal of Public Health, 80(6), 670-674. Stratford, D., Ellerbrock, T. V., Akins, J. K., & Hall, H. L. (2000). Highway cowboys, old hands, and Christian truckers: Risk behavior for human immunodeficiency virus infection among long-haul truckers in Florida. Social Science and Medicine, 50(5), 737-749. Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & DePooter, S. F. (2004, September). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 678-700. Szeremeta, B., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2009). Analysis and evaluation of soundscapes in public parks through interviews and measurement of noise. Science of the Total Environment, 407(24), 6143-9. Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998, January). Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 3-27. Transportation Research Board, Institute of Medicine of National Academies. (2005). Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. National Academies of Science. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American factfnder. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Vehicle travel: Recent trends and environmental impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Regulatory impact analysis: 2006 national ambient air quality standards for particle pollution. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Risk and exposure assessment to support the review of the NO2 primary national ambient air quality standard. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 111 of 129

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Integrated science assessment for particulate matter (Second external review draft). EPA/600/R-08/139B. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Monitor values report. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). National ambient air quality standards. Retrieved June 19, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, E. P. (2012, March 23). Fine particle (PM2.5) designations. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/faq.htm#0 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013, April 17). Fine particle (PM2.5) designations: Frequent questions. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/faq.htm#0 U.S. Fire Administration. (2012, April). Funding alternatives for emergency medical and fire services. Emmitsburg, MD: U. S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

UC Berkeley Health Impact Group. (2010). Health impact assessment of the port of Oakland. Berkeley: University of California. van Kempen, E. E., Kruize, H., Boshuizen, H. C., Ameling, C. B., Staatsen, B. A., & de Hollander, A. E. (2002, March). The association between noise exposure and blood pressure and ischemic heart disease: A meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(3), 307-317. Venn, A. J., Lewis, S. A., Cooper, M., Hubbard, R., & Britton, J. (2001, December 15). Living near a main road and the risk of wheezing illness in children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 164(12), 2177-2180. Williams, D. R., & Collins, C. (2001, September-October). Racial residential segregation: A fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports, 116(5), 404-416. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe Copenhagen. (2000). Air quality guidelines for Europe: Second edition. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Publications. Yarnell, J., Yu, S., McCrum, E., Arveiler, D., Hass, B., Dallongeville, et al. (2005, April). Education, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, and risk of coronary heart disease: The PRIME Study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(2), 268-275.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 112 of 129

Yen, I. H., & Syme, S. L. (1999). The social environment and health: A discussion of the epidemiologic literature. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 287-308. Zhang, K., & Batterman, S. (2013, April 15). Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic. Science of the Total Environment, 450-451, 307-316.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 113 of 129

11. Appendices

Appendix A: Screening Criteria

NCHH considered the following criteria during the screening process. Screening Criteria 1. The project, plan, or policy has been proposed, a final decision about whether to adopt the proposal has not been made, and there is sufficient time to conduct an analysis before the decision is made. 2. The decision has the potential to affect, positively or negatively, environmental or social determinants of health that impact health outcomes of a population—and those health impacts are not being or not likely to be considered without the HIA. 3. Evidence, expertise, and/or research methods exist to analyze health impacts associated with the decision being considered. 4. The proposal being considered could potentially impact health inequities. 5. The proposal’s impact on health outcomes is potentially significant. This can be measured in terms of the number of people affected, the magnitude of impacts, and the breadth of the impacts. 6. The connections between the proposal and health outcomes are neither too obvious nor too indirect. 7. Decision-makers and/or those stakeholders who have the capacity to influence decision- makers are likely to use HIA findings and recommendations to inform or influence the decision–making process, whether through regulatory requirements or voluntarily. 8. The HIA could help lead to institutional and/or systemic changes that promote better health outcomes for all. 9. Partners are available to participate in the HIA process and use HIA findings and recommendations. 10. Resources (including funding, personnel, technical capacity, and leadership) are available to conduct the HIA.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 114 of 129

Appendix B: Research Questions

Table A.1: Air Quality (AQ) Research Questions Existing Conditions Research Questions Impact Research Questions AQ1E. What are the existing traffic and truck AQ1I. How are traffic and truck counts on counts on roadways surrounding the proposed roadways surrounding the proposed site site location? location expected to change due to the proposed facility? AQ2E. What are the existing levels of traffic AQ2I. How will the projected changes in and truck-attributable air pollution traffic and truck counts due to the proposed emissions/exposures on roadways surrounding facility affect air quality on roadways the proposed site location? surrounding the proposed site location? AQ3E. What are other sources of air pollution AQ3I. What will be the cumulative impact of near the proposed site location, including both the proposed facility and all existing air stationary sources (e.g., refineries) and mobile pollution sources on air quality? sources (e.g., freeways)? AQ4E. What are current rates of asthma in the AQ4I. How will changes in air quality proposed site location? What are current rates resulting from the proposed facility potentially of emergency department visits for asthma in impact aggravation of asthma? How will the proposed site location? changes in air quality resulting from the facility potentially impact vehicle/truck/train- attributable asthma emergency department visit rates? AQ5E. What are existing mortality rates (all- AQ5I. How will changes in air quality cause, cardiac-related, and cancer-related) in resulting from the facility potentially impact the proposed site location? mortality risk? AQ6E. How do demographic characteristics of AQ6I. Will projected changes in air quality populations living in proximity to the proposed resulting from the facility disproportionately site location compare with those of people impact people with social or economic living in the remainder of the city and the state vulnerabilities? as a whole? AQ7E. How many sensitive receptor sites are AQ7I. How will changes in air quality located in proximity to the proposed site resulting from the facility be expected to location (e.g., schools, parks, senior housing, impact these sensitive receptor sites? and hospitals)? AQ8E. What are current perceptions of air AQ8I. What are the perceived impacts of the quality in the proposed site location? proposed facility on air quality in the proposed site location?

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 115 of 129

Table A.2: Employment (E) Research Questions Existing Conditions Research Questions Impact Research Questions E1E. How many and what types of jobs E1I. How will the proposed facility impact the (including wages, benefits, skill sets necessary) number and types of permanent jobs available currently exist in the area surrounding the at the Seagirt Marine Terminal and at the Mount Clare Yard? proposed facility? How will the proposed facility impact the number and types of jobs offered to residents in proximity to the proposed site location? E2E. What non-freight related employers and E2I. How will the operation of the proposed businesses are currently located near the facility potentially impact non-freight related proposed site location? employers and businesses? E3E. What is the current level of E3I. How will the operation of the proposed unemployment among residents near the facility impact employment near the proposed proposed site location? site location? E4E. What are current perceptions of E4I. What are the perceived impacts of the unemployment and future economic growth in proposed facility on unemployment and future the proposed site location? economic growth?

Table A.3: Neighborhood Resources (NR) Research Questions Existing Conditions Research Questions Impact Research Questions NR1E. What are the current property values NR1I. How will the proposed facility impact near the proposed site location? property values near the proposed site location? NR2E. What level of community services (e.g., NR2I. How will the proposed facility impact police, schools) are currently available near the tax revenues and associated community proposed site location? services near the proposed site location? NR3E. What is the residential stability of the NR3I. How will the proposed facility impact current population near the proposed site residential stability near the proposed site location? location? NR4E. What neighborhood resources are NR4I. What neighborhood resources do important to residents near the proposed site residents near the proposed site location location? To what extent are residents near the perceive will be impacted by the proposed proposed site location using neighborhood facility? How do residents near the proposed resources? site location perceive the proposed facility will impact their use of neighborhood resources?

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 116 of 129

Table A.4: Noise (N) Research Questions Existing Conditions Research Questions Impact Research Questions N1E. What are the existing traffic, truck, and N1I. How are traffic, truck, and train counts on train counts on roadways and railways roadways and railways surrounding the surrounding the proposed site location? proposed site location expected to change due to the proposed facility? N2E. What are the current levels of traffic- N2I. How will the projected changes in traffic- related noise in the proposed site location? related noise potentially impact sleep disturbance and perceived high annoyance? N3E. What are the current levels of train- N3I. How will the projected changes in train- related noise in the proposed site location? related noise potentially impact sleep disturbance and perceived high annoyance? N4E. What are other sources of noise in the N4I. How will the proposed facility proposed site location? cumulatively impact noise levels in the proposed site location? N5E. How do demographic characteristics of N5I. Will projected changes in noise resulting populations living in proximity to the proposed from the proposed facility disproportionately site location compare to characteristics of impact people with social or economic people living in the remainder of the city and vulnerabilities? the state as a whole? N6E. How many sensitive receptors are located N6I. How will changes in noise resulting from in proximity to the proposed site location (e.g., the proposed facility potentially impact these schools, parks, senior housing, and hospitals)? sensitive receptors? N7E. What are current perceptions of noise in N7I. What are the perceived impacts of the the proposed site location? proposed facility on noise in the proposed site location?

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 117 of 129

Table A.5: Traffic Safety (T) Research Questions Existing Conditions Research Questions Impact Research Questions T1E. What are the existing vehicle and truck T1I. What are the projected changes in future volumes near the proposed site location? volumes near the proposed site location? T2E. What are the existing pedestrian/cyclist T2I. How will the proposed facility potentially volumes near the proposed site location? impact pedestrian/cyclist volumes near the proposed site location? T3E. What is the current rate of T3I. How will the proposed facility potentially pedestrian/vehicle and cyclist/vehicle impact pedestrian/vehicle and cyclist/vehicle collisions near the proposed site location? collisions and associated morbidity and mortality near the proposed site location? T4E. What pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure T4I. How will the proposed facility potentially currently exists (e.g., crossing signals, bike impact pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure in lanes, etc.) in the proposed site location? the proposed site location? T5E. How many sensitive receptors are located T5I. How will changes in traffic safety in proximity to the proposed site location (e.g., resulting from the proposed facility potentially schools, parks, senior housing, and hospitals)? impact these sensitive receptors? T6E. What are current injury and fatality rates T6I. How will traffic collision injury and related to traffic collisions? fatality rates potentially change following the development of the proposed facility? T7E. What are current rates of physical activity T7I. How will changes in traffic safety and associated health outcomes among resulting from the proposed facility potentially residents in the proposed site location? impact physical activity rates and associated health outcomes? T8E. What are current perceptions of vehicle, T8I. What are the perceived impacts of the bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure in the proposed facility on vehicle, bicycle, and alternative site areas? pedestrian infrastructure in the proposed site location?

Table A.6: Light (L) Research Questions Existing Conditions Research Questions Impact Research Questions L1E. What are other sources of light at night in L1I. How will the proposed facility the proposed site location? cumulatively impact levels of light at night in the proposed site location? L2E. How do demographic characteristics of L2I. Will projected changes in light at night populations living in proximity to the proposed resulting from the proposed facility site location compare to characteristics of disproportionately impact people with social or people living in the remainder of the city and economic vulnerabilities? the state as a whole? L3E. How many sensitive receptors are located L3I. How will changes in light at night in proximity to the proposed site location (e.g., resulting from the proposed facility potentially schools, parks, senior housing, and hospitals)? impact these sensitive receptors? L4E. What are current perceptions of light at L4I. What are the perceived impacts of the night in the proposed site location? proposed facility on light at night in the proposed site location?

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 118 of 129

Appendix C: Health Determinant Indicators and Data Sources

KEY INDICATOR DATA SOURCE AIR QUALITY: Annual Average Daily Traffic MDSHA Traffic Count Data Annual Average Daily Train Traffic Maryland Department of Transportation Annual Average Daily Weekday Traffic MDSHA Traffic Count Data Percentage single-unit & combination MDSHA Traffic Count Data trucks Ambient level of air toxics (e.g., PM2.5) Maryland Department of the Environment; Air Quality Modeling Data Percent of elementary school students Baltimore City Health Department missing 20+ days Age-adjusted mortality rate per 10,000; Baltimore City Health Department rate of heart disease deaths per 10,000 population; rate of cancer deaths per 10,000 population; rate of chronic lower respiratory disease deaths per 10,000; rate of lung cancer deaths per 10,000 Demographic characteristics: U.S. Census • median household income • race/ethnicity • age distribution • % population in poverty • % unemployed Perceptions of air quality Focus groups and stakeholder interviews EMPLOYMENT: Projected number of jobs created (direct, Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Panama indirect, and induced) Canal Expansion on the Port of Baltimore, Towson University Unemployment rates by race American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Rates of diseases related to income and Baltimore City Health Department employment, for example: • life expectancy at birth • age-adjusted mortality • avertable deaths • mortality by age Perceptions of unemployment and future Focus groups and stakeholder interviews economic growth NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Property values Baltimore City Department of Planning • # annual sales Housing Market Typology

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 119 of 129

KEY INDICATOR DATA SOURCE • median sales price • vacant lots Zoning and land use data Maryland Department of Planning GIS data

Perceptions of potential impacts on Focus groups and stakeholder interviews residential property values Perceptions of neighborhood resources Focus groups and stakeholder interviews NOISE: Annual average daily traffic MDSHA Traffic Count Data Annual average daily train traffic Maryland Department of Transportation Annual average daily weekday traffic MDSHA Traffic Count Data Zoning and land use data Maryland Department of Planning GIS data Perceptions of noise Focus groups and stakeholder interviews TRAFFIC SAFETY: Vehicle and truck counts MDSHA Traffic Count Data Perceptions of vehicle and pedestrian Focus groups and stakeholder interviews infrastructure LIGHT: Perceptions of light Focus group and stakeholder interviews

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 120 of 129

Appendix D: Sample Stakeholder Interview Questions

Background 1. How familiar would you say you are with plans for the Baltimore-Washington Intermodal Rail Facility?

Employment 2. What types of jobs or entrepreneurship opportunities do you hope that the intermodal facility might bring to this community?

3. How do you think your business/businesses in the area would change (positively or negatively) if this area were chosen for the intermodal facility?

4. What challenges do you see or hear about in today’s economy? How might the intermodal facility help with these challenges? How might it create additional challenges for your business/businesses in the area? What geographic areas do you think would be impacted (e.g., neighborhood, city, county)? Are there specific locations or areas that would be particularly affected?

Neighborhood Resources 5. Think about the resources that are available in this neighborhood—to you/your customers/constituents. Resources might include schools, gathering places, police and fire services. Which resources are most important to you? The people you serve/work with? Your business? Your customers? Your constituents?

6. How many of your customers come from nearby? Do you think this might change with the facility?

7. How do you think the intermodal facility might change the ways people in this neighborhood interact with each other? What geographic areas do you think would be impacted (e.g., neighborhood, city, county)? Are there specific locations or areas that would be particularly affected?

8. What parks and open spaces are available to residents in this neighborhood? How do you think the intermodal facility might impact accessibility to parks and open spaces in this neighborhood? What geographic areas do you think would be impacted (e.g., neighborhood, city, county)? Are there specific locations or areas that would be particularly affected?

9. In your opinion, what is the main reason people move to this neighborhood? What is the main reason people move away? How do you think the facility might impact people’s desire to move to, or away from, this neighborhood? What geographic areas do you think would be impacted (e.g., neighborhood, city, county)? Are there specific locations or areas that would be particularly affected?

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 121 of 129

Air Quality 10. How is the current air quality in this neighborhood? What are current sources of air pollution in this neighborhood? How do you think air quality might change with the intermodal facility? What geographic areas do you think would be impacted (e.g., neighborhood, city, county)? Are there specific locations or areas that would be particularly affected?

Noise 11. What are current sources of noise in this neighborhood? How do you think the noise levels in your neighborhood might change with the intermodal facility? What geographic areas do you think would be impacted (e.g., neighborhood, city, county)? Are there specific locations or areas that would be particularly affected?

Traffic Safety 12. What is your perception of current traffic volumes in this neighborhood? What is your perception of current traffic safety in this neighborhood? What do you think would make people in this neighborhood feel safer while they’re getting from place to place? How do you think the intermodal facility might affect transportation safety? What geographic areas do you think would be impacted (e.g., neighborhood, city, county)? Are there specific locations or areas that would be particularly affected?

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 122 of 129

Appendix E: Estimating Attributable Excess Mortality from PM2.5 Exposure

Epidemiological studies along with data on pollutant exposure, population size, and mortality rates provide data to construct exposure-response functions relating exposure to ambient PM2.5 and premature mortality. We estimated the impact of increased truck traffic related to the intermodal facility on changes in PM2.5 exposure and associated related premature mortality using a standard exposure response function (ERF) (equation 1).

(1) Δ Incidence = − [y0 (exp (−βΔC exposure)−1)] population

Where: ∗ ∗ • β = coefficient of PM2.5 parameter in regression model • y0 = crude mortality incidence rate • population = size of the population experiencing a change in exposure

Several well-designed, peer-reviewed prospective cohort studies conducted in the U.S. general population provide data for the effect of long-term community-level PM2.5 exposures on community-level annual mortality rates (see table below). The EPA uses these studies for regulatory impact assessments because of their geographic scope and their extensive reexamination.28 Lower risk estimates in the American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort relative to the Harvard Six Cities study may be due to higher population socioeconomic status or exposure misclassification from retrospective exposure assessments. A re-analysis by Jerrett et al. (2005) of an ACS subpopulation in Los Angeles, using more spatially refined intra-regional exposure data to reduce exposure misclassification, found a higher central relative risk estimate of 1.17 in the same cohort.

Long-term Prospective Cohort Studies of Chronic Exposure to PM2.5 and Mortality

Cohort/Publication Population RR per 10 μg/m3 PM2.5 B: coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) American Cancer Society USA, 51 cities 1.06 0.0058 Pope Adults, Age >30 years (1.02-1.11) (0.002-0.010) (Pope et al., 2002)29 Harvard Six Cities USA, Multiple Cities 1.14 0.013 (Lepeule et al., 2012)30 General Population (1.07-1.22) (0.007-0.020) American Cancer Society USA, Los Angeles 1.17 0.0157 (Jerrett and Burnett, 2005)31 General Population (1.05-1.30) (0.005-0.026)

28 Industrial Economics. (2010). Health and welfare benefits analyses to support the second section 812 benefit-cost analysis of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Industrial Economics. (2006.). Expanded expert judgment assessment of the concentration-response relationship between PM2.5 exposure and mortality: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_report.pdf. 29 Pope, C. A., III, Burnett, R. T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., & Thurston, G. D. (2002.). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287:1132–1141. 30 Lepeule, J., Laden, F., Dockery, D., & Schwartz, J. (2012.). Chronic exposure to fine particles and mortality: An extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environmental Health Perspectives 120(7), 965-970.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 123 of 129

Our assessment utilized the ERF from the recent extended re-analysis of the Harvard Six Cities study (RR=1.14 per 10 μg/m3 PM2.5) for predicting PM2.5 attributable health impacts in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA. This represented a middle estimate based on the three above studies. The Baltimore City Health Department provided all-cause crude mortality incidence data at the CSA level.

31 Jerrett, M., Burnett, R., Ma, R., Pope, C. A. III, Krewski, D., Newbold, B., et al. 2005. Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology, 16: 727-736.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 124 of 129

Appendix F: Proportion of Housing Units without Vehicle Access Located a Half Mile or More from the Nearest Supermarket32

Housing Housing units without vehicle access that are Units located a half mile or more from a supermarket Number33 Number34 Proportion35 245102502.06 1,008 97 9.7% 245102503.03 962 208 21.6% Morrell Park/Violetville 1,970 305 15.5% CSA36

Baltimore City 249,903 23,099 9.2% Maryland 2,156,411 94,918 4.4%

32 Source: USDA, Food Access Research Atlas (www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas.aspx). 33 Total number of housing units (variable “OHU2010” in USDA datafile) 34 Number of housing units without vehicle access and low access to supermarkets at a half mile (variable “lahunvhalf” in USDA datafile) 35 Proportion of housing units without vehicle access and low access to supermarkets at a half mile (variable “lahunvhalfshare” in USDA datafile and calculated as “lahunvhalf”/”OHU2010”) 36 Information about the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA was based on data from Census Tracts 24510250303 and 24510250206.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 125 of 129

Appendix G: Estimating the Population at Risk for Being Highly Annoyed from Roadway Noise

Source: Human Impact Partners (2011). I-710 Corridor Project Health Impact Assessment. Oakland, CA. Annoyance is a well-established metric for evaluating the significance of community noise. Annoyance due to noise is determined by loudness, temporal patterns (e.g., the time of day the noise is louder), source and predictability (e.g., traffic or gunshots), and the association of the noise with other environmental factors such as vibration or light or air pollution.

Miedema and Oudshoorn37 synthesized results from 18 studies of road traffic noise to estimate noise exposure and annoyance response measures (Day-night level and percentage of respondents considered to be highly annoyed from noise, respectively) and to derive an exposure response curve estimating the percentage of highly annoyed persons as a function of Day Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). The following formula represents this exposure response curve and can be used to estimate the percentage of the population reporting being highly annoyed (%HA) if exposed to certain Ldn due to road traffic noise:

-4 3 -2 2 %HA = 9.994 x 10 (Ldn–42) –1.523 x 10 (Ldn–42) + 0.538 (Ldn–42)

Where Ldn (the “average” A-weighted long-term LAeq noise measure with a nighttime penalty of 10 dB) = 10 log[(15/24) x 10 LD/10 + (9/24) x 10(LN+10)/10]

LD and LN are the A-weighted long-term LAeq defined by the International Standards Organization38 for the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and the night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), respectively.

Given estimates of the population living within a certain distance of roadways and monitored or modeled noise (using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model 2.539) based on the number of vehicles of various types and speeds passing specific locations per hour), it is possible to estimate, using this formula, the number of people expected to be highly annoyed based on their exposure to noise from roadway traffic.

This estimation requires the following data: 1. Noise contours—Location-specific LAeq readings during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 2. Location-specific and precise Census population estimates—specify the Census data year, geographies (tract, block group, block, or aggregation of one of these to an area specified), and source.

37 Miedema, H. M. E., & Oudshoorn, C.G.M.. (2001.). “Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(4): 409- 416. 38 International Standards Organization. (1987.). “Acoustics—description and measurement of environmental noise.” ISO 1996-2. Geneva, Switzerland. 39 FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2004.). “TNM look-up tables:” 2.5th edition. Washington, DC.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 126 of 129

This estimation requires the following activities with the data described above:

1. To quantify the population exposed to various noise levels and that is at risk for being highly annoyed, use noise interval buffer areas calculated through modeling or based on measurements. Using a geographic information system (GIS), overlay buffers on Census tracts, measure the proportion of the Census tracts that falls within the buffer area, use that to weight the tracts’ population in the buffer, and calculate the population of each buffer area.

2. Apply Ldn-associated %HA values to population figures to estimate the population at risk for high annoyance.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 127 of 129

Appendix H: Estimating the Population at Risk for Sleep Disturbance from Roadway Noise

Source: Human Impact Partners (2011). I-710 Corridor Project Health Impact Assessment. Oakland, CA. Research has indicated associations between self-reported disruptions in sleep due to nighttime noise from aircraft, road traffic, and railways.40, 41 The WHO Community noise guidelines recommend 30 dB LAeq (eight hours) indoor and 45 dB LAeq (eight hours) outdoor as the threshold value for sleep disturbance. Miedema et al. pooled findings from 14 studies of outdoor noise exposure and sleep disturbance to develop an exposure-response function at the population level for road traffic noise exposure and self-reported sleep disturbance as the response. The meta-analysis included 24 studies and estimated exposure-response curves for aircraft, road traffic, and railway noise. For each noise source, sound levels were plotted against degree of sleep disturbance.

The following formula represents the exposure response curve for road traffic noise and can be used to estimate the percentage of the population that would be highly sleep disturbed (%HSD) if exposed to certain noise levels from road traffic.42

2 %HSD = 20.8–1.05Ln + 0.01486Ln

Where Ln is the “average” nighttime A-weighted long-term LAeq defined by the International Standards Organization43 for the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) measured at the outside façade of the dwelling.

Given estimates of the population living within a certain distance of roadways and monitored or modeled noise (using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model 2.544 based on the number of vehicles of various types and speeds passing specific locations per hour), it is possible to estimate, using this formula, the number of people that would be expected to be highly sleep disturbed based on their predicted exposure to nighttime noise from roadway traffic.

This estimation requires the following data: 1. Noise contours—receptor distance specific LAeq readings during the night (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.). 2. Location-specific and precise Census population estimates—specify the Census data year, geographies (tract, block group, block or aggregation of one of these to an area we specify), and source.

40 Griefahn, B., Marks, A.. & Robens, S. (2006.). “Noise emitted from road, rail and air traffic and their effects on sleep.” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 295: 129-140. 41 Jakovljević, B., Belojević, G., Paunović, K. & Stojanov, V. (2006.). “Road traffic noise and sleep disturbances in an urban population: Cross-sectional study.” Croatian Medical Journal, 47: 125–133. 42 Miedema, H.M.E., Passchier-Vermeer, W., & Vos, H. (2002.). “Elements for a position paper on night-time transportation noise and sleep disturbance.” TNO Intro report, 2002-59. Available at: http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/mobilita/SleepDisturbance.pdf. 43 International Standards Organization. (1987.). “Acoustics—Description and measurement of environmental noise.” ISO 1996-2. Geneva. 44 FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2004.). “TNM look-up tables”: 2.5th edition. Washington, DC.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 128 of 129

This estimation requires the following activities with the data described above:

1. To quantify the population exposed to various noise levels and that is at risk for being highly sleep disturbed use noise interval buffer areas provided. Using a geographic information system (GIS), overlay buffers on Census tracts, measure the proportion of the Census tracts that falls within the buffer area, use that to weight the tracts’ population in the buffer, and to calculate the population of each buffer area.

2. Apply Ln-associated %HSD values to population figures to estimate the population at risk for high annoyance.

Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Final Report

Page 129 of 129

Tracking Harm: Health and Environmental Impacts of Rail Yards

THE Impact Project Policy Brief Series

January 2012

Trade, Health and Environment Impact Project THE Impact Project - Policy Brief Series www.theimpactproject.org Introduction

This report examines the role of rail yards in the goods movement system. Shipping containers arrive at marine ports and are transported to local rail yards by truck, and then transferred to trains for travel to their final destinations elsewhere in the country. This report highlights the health and community impacts from rail yards that are located in close proximity to homes, schools, and other sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the brief also draws upon the experience of environmental justice and public health organizations to suggest policy solutions for reducing harmful impacts from rail yards.

The Railroad Industry

The country’s two largest freight railroads operate primarily in the western United States. These are BNSF Railway Company, which operates 32,000 route miles in 28 states and Union Pacific Corporation, which operates 32,100 route miles in 23 states1. In California these two railroad companies operate 18 major rail yards. The largest freight railroads operating in the rest of the country are Norfolk Southern and CSX. Figure 2 lists the operational revenue of the country’s top railroads in 2008.2

Rail Yards

Southern California has the country’s busiest container ports, with large volumes of international trade, much of it from Southeast Asia3. Once the containers arrive at the Ports of Los Angeles or Long Beach, they move to their destinations by truck or by train. Close to 50% of the goods entering these two Ports are destined for east of the Rockies – and will get there by rail,4 through one of the following scenarios. This always involves the container going to a railroad or intermodal facility. A rail yard or intermodal facility is a location where containers are moved from one mode of transport to another. For example, from a truck to a train or vice versa.

(1) A container comes into the ports and is transferred from a ship to a train, which leaves the port property and hauls the containers out of California. (2) A container comes into the ports and is transferred from a ship to a truck, which then travels to a local rail yard where the container is placed onto a train, hauling containers East or North; the yard may be 5 to 20 miles from the ports. (3) A container comes into the ports and is transferred from a ship to a truck, which heads to a distribution center or warehouse, or to a “transload center.” A transloading center can Figure 1

Tracking Harm: Health and Environmental Impacts of Rail Yards 2 be a private warehouse center or a U.S. Customs warehouse. These facilities may be anywhere from 5 to 20 miles from the ports. At these facilities, the contents of the 40- foot international containers are repackaged and placed into larger 53-foot containers (saving retailers shipping costs) before heading to a rail yard to be placed on a train.

Figure 2 Rail yards employ a variety of equipment and vehicles that operate on diesel Case-Study - BNSF Hobart fuel. These include trucks, cranes, yard BNSF’s Hobart rail yard in Commerce, California hostlers, switch locomotives, and line- is the largest rail yard of its kind in the United haul locomotives. Switch locomotives States. The 243-acre yard, which BNSF says move trains around the yard; line haul has reached capacity, handles 1.5 million locomotives haul freight long distances. containers a year. The facility is classified as an intermodal yard, meaning inside the Figure 1 shows the tremendous growth yard containers are transferred from trucks, in intermodal rail traffic over the past which travel the 20 miles from the port, to several decades. Although cargo rail for distribution across the country. volume decreased recently because of the economic downturn, recent port According to a Health Risk Assessment projections see a steady rise in cargo done by the California Air Resources Board, growth that is projected to triple by 20305. communities living near the yard are exposed Due to the projected growth and the fact to an increased risk of 250 chances in a million that existing local rail yards are reaching of developing cancer. It is estimated that capacity, numerous railroads are proposing 315,000 people are exposed to an excess expanding existing yards and building new cancer risk of at least 10 in a million (the Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable rail yards. Many of these yards are being risk) around the BNSF Hobart rail yard.1 proposed in close proximity to places where “sensitive receptors” live, learn, or Source: Li, W. (2007). Health Risk Assessment for the BNSF Railway. Hobart Railyard. California Environmental Protection play — homes, schools, nursing homes, Agency and California Air Resources Board. www.arb.ca.gov/ day care centers, and parks.6 railyard/hra/bnsf_hobart_hra.pdf

THE Impact Project - Policy Brief Series 3 Community Impacts

Communities in the California South Coast Air Basin in close proximity to rail yards include the cities of Colton, Commerce, East Los Angeles, Industry, Lincoln Heights (in the City of Los Angeles), Riverside, San Bernardino, Carson, West Long Beach, and Wilmington. Many additional communities are affected by polluting trucks traveling to the rail yards and locomotives crossing through their neighborhoods. These trucks and trains are major contributors to traffic congestion in Southern California and other parts of the South Coast Air Basin.

Operation of the trucks, locomotives, and yard equipment that service rail yards negatively affects communities’ health and quality of life with increased air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, and industrial blight. Most rail yards operate round-the-clock, with stadium style lights allowing night-time operations. Of particular concern are diesel particulate emissions, which have been linked to lung cancer and other health effects.7

In 2005, the California Air Resources Board conducted Health Risk Assessments for the 18 major California rail yards. This assessment looks at the rail yard’s emissions inventory, wind dispersion data, where people live in relationship to the yard, and other factors that help the agency calculate the increased cancer risk caused by rail yard operations, including the emissions from diesel engines operating at the rail yard. The HRAs found that in total, the 18 rail yards are responsible for 210 tons of diesel pollution emissions a year, posing a significant public health risk and putting more than 3 million people at an elevated risk of cancer.8 Four of the rail yards (see Figure 3) pose an excessive cancer risk of 500-3,300 chances per million. This means that people living in close proximity to the rail yard have a higher risk of cancer compared to other residents who do not live near the yards.

Figure 3. Rail Yard Location Total Cancer Risk PMI (point of max. impact) BNSF San Bernardino 3300 4 rail yards combined Commerce 3000 (UP and BNSF) Union Pacific Roseville 1000 Union Pacific Oakland 640

Regulatory Issues

Communities across California have struggled to implement more stringent regulations on locomotives and rail operations, due to overlapping regulatory authority between national, state, and local entities. In 2004, community organizations worked to pass state legislation that would require the rail companies to reduce their emissions to levels that would protect public health. The rail companies countered that the state could not regulate locomotive emissions.9 In lieu of regulations or state legislation, the California Air Resources Board, BNSF Railroad, and

Tracking Harm: Health and Environmental Impacts of Rail Yards 4 Union Pacific Railroad entered into a voluntary agreement without public process or input, and continue to use this type of agreement as their strategy for addressing emissions from rail yards and locomotives. Environmental justice organizations believe that this approach does not adequately reduce health and community impacts, and have continued to advocate for emission reduction regulations.

Community Action for Change “I have lived in the Ayers Neighborhood in the City of Commerce for 33 years. For some time the noise from the locomotives and other equipment used in the rail yard has become unbearable. The constant beeping, tire changing, drilling, and banging on the containers, only to name a few. The noise from the locomotives can vary but will usually happen at night, typically running 2 or 3 engines at the same time about every hour at full speed. All of this affects how and when we go outside, how much rest we get and how much noise we will be exposed to. I am concerned about the smoke from the idling engines and what effect it will have on my health.” -Maria Vargas, resident

Over the last eight years, community members living in environmental justice neighborhoods have engaged in efforts to reduce pollution and adverse health impacts from rail yard facilities and related operations. Thousands of people have participated and testified in hearings, public meetings, and briefings. Communities have taken direct action throughout Southern California from San Bernardino to Commerce to West Long Beach to raise awareness on the impact that rail yard activity has on their health and quality of life. Community members have conducted demonstrations and protests that have elevated the public policy debate. In addition, they have mounted a billboard campaign to draw attention to diesel pollution near the rail yard in San Bernardino.

Rail yard pollution is certainly not just a California problem. Chicago has some of the largest rail yards in the United States and organizations there are beginning to evaluate the risks. Residents in Kansas are fighting for a more detailed environmental review on a large new intermodal rail yard in their state that would be the destination for cargo on BNSF trains from Los Angeles on their way to the Midwest. In Australia, more than 1,000 residents turned out to protest what is touted to be the largest intermodal facility in Australia, The Moorebank Terminal.10 11

THE Impact Project - Policy Brief Series 5 Policy Recommendations

The operations of rail yards and the passing diesel trucks through communities on their way to the ports and rail yards also impacts health and quality of life in adjacent communities. Policy makers and the railroad industry need to act responsibly to reduce impacts from rail yard operations. The Impact Project is committed to zero emissions technologies and regulations across all stages of goods movement. Policy recommendations to reduce rather than eliminate emissions should be considered important interim steps towards achieving zero emissions.

Promising policies and solutions that can be implemented include:

1. Strengthen federal regulation of locomotives ›› The Federal Government should strengthen federal regulation of emissions from the railroad industry. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments give the U.S. EPA the power to adopt emission standards for new non-road engines including locomotive engines. Existing locomotive regulations have given too much time to the railroads to clean up the diesel emissions. Emission reductions should all be toward the goal of zero emissions.

2. Seek federal authority to allow additional state and local regulation of locomotives ›› The Federal Government should give states and local government or regional environmental agencies additional authority to address local air pollution caused by rail yards.12 ›› Change regulations to allow rail yards to be regulated as stationary sources, so that local government agencies such as Air Quality Management Districts have the ability to control emissions.

3. Strengthen state regulation of rail yard equipment U.S. EPA has confirmed that state regulation of rail equipment other than locomotives (such as older, polluting switch locomotives) is not preempted by federal law and these technologies are subject to regulation by California and other states13. We recommend that states: ›› Require railroads to replace all diesel fuel switch locomotives, cranes, yard hostlers, trucks and equipment with zero emission electric power equivalents or other lower emission technologies as soon as is feasible. ›› Mandate that all switch locomotives, cranes, yard hostlers, trucks, and equipment use the maximum achievable air pollution control technology. ›› Mandate the use of alternative technologies such as Advanced Locomotive Emissions Control System which uses an exhaust hood to capture and scrub clean the smoke stack emissions.14 ›› Mandate that rail yards incorporate a 100% closed loop vapor recovery system in all diesel fuel storage tanks to prevent release of fugitive emissions.

4. Use land use rules and alternative transportation strategies to limit health impacts

Tracking Harm: Health and Environmental Impacts of Rail Yards 6 ›› The California Air Resources Board created land use guidelines that include “Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1000 feet of a service or maintenance yard.”15 The guidelines also state that: “Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.”16 These guidelines should become mandatory, and should work in both directions. That means that a new rail yard should not be allowed to be sited within one mile of sensitive receptors. ›› Eliminate near-dock rail yards, and instead use on-dock rail that transfers a container directly from a ship onto a train. For existing near-dock rail yards, transition to zero- emissions equipment.

5. Use city and county level measures ›› Cities/Counties have the right to refuse to issue business licenses. They can also refuse requested waivers, variances and conditional use permits, or refuse to permit facility expansion. ›› Cities/Counties can revise master plans to limit certain types of industry growth. ›› Cities/Counties can establish a facility truck operating capacity limit. This limits truck traffic, congestion, and accidents. ›› Cities/Counties can charge extra street maintenance and repair fees for truck usage which causes a 50% reduction in the life of the public infrastructure. ›› Cities/counties can require lower lighting and light deflectors to prevent light intruding in fenceline residential areas. ›› Cities/Counties can restrict truck routes, and post no stopping and parking signs. ›› Cities/Counties can restrict hours of operation to limit noise to nearby residential areas at night, as well as require sound barriers and higher walls. ›› Cities/Counties can impose decorative block walls, fences, container/cargo storage height requirements, landscaping and weekly street cleaning. ›› Cities/Counties can charge higher license fees which can be used to mitigate environmental, public health, community, public safety, city economic cost impacts such as extra city services support for police, fire department, public safety, business site inspections and city utilities whereby the city and residences pick up the majority of costs for new power plants, transmission lines etc. ›› Cities/Counties can designate where facility entrances, gates, and parking lots are located. ›› Cities/Counties can require Emergency Response, Evacuation and Public Care Plan.

6. Require additional air quality monitoring and public notification from federal, state and regional air regulatory agencies ›› Air quality agencies can perform 24/7 real time air quality monitoring at and nearby rail yard sites. This includes monitoring hot spot areas in fenceline communities. ›› Agencies can monitor all Criteria Pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Hazardous Air Pollutants. ›› Agencies should release findings of incident and violation reports to the public. ›› Agencies should publish an annual compliance and incident report. ›› Agencies can require a Health Impact Assessment, Community Nexus Impact

THE Impact Project - Policy Brief Series 7 Assessment Study, Project Cost-Benefit Analysis, Public Health Care Mitigation, Alternative Green Technologies Assessment Study, Emergency Response, Evacuation and Public Care Plan and Updated Hazard Risk Assessment as part of the permit process.

Conclusion:

Passenger and freight rail both have important roles in a more sustainable transportation system. But rail will not be truly “green” as long as environmental justice communities near rail yards, intermodal facilities, and rail line tracks are subjected to high burdens of pollution, and while federal law preempts local and state democratic processes from cleaning up the pollution. Affected communities have put forward solutions that would protect the public’s health, advance clean technology, and make railroads better neighbors. It is time for federal, state, regional, county and city officials, and the railroad companies to bring the railroad industry into the 21st century and end rail negative environmental, public health, public safety, and economic impacts.

Acknowledgements

Written by Jocelyn Vivar, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and Mark Vallianatos, Urban & Environmental Policy Institute (UEPI), Occidental College. Photo credits: East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. This brief is part of a series of policy papers on goods movement produced by THE Impact Project, http://www.theimpactproject.org. Funded by The Kresge Foundation and The California Endowment.

Tracking Harm: Health and Environmental Impacts of Rail Yards 8 References

1 BNSF Railway. (2010). Fact Sheet. http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/pdf/fact_sheet.pdf; Union Pacific Railroad. (2011). Union Pacific Fact Sheet. http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/media_kit/about_up/index.shtml 2 Association of American Railroads. (2010, May 24). Class I Railroad Statistics. http://www.aar.org/~/ media/aar/Industry%20Info/AAR%20Stats%202010%200524.ashx 3 US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. U.S. Waterborne Foreign Container Trade by U.S. Custom Port. http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/ports_landing_page.htm; Port of Long Beach. Facts at a glance. http://www.polb.com/about/facts.asp; Port of Los Angeles. Facts & Figures. http://www. portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/press_kit/facts.asp 4 Port of Los Angeles. Goods Movement Press Kit. www.portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/press_kit/goods. asp 5 California Air Resources Board. (2006, April). Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. 6 Wyenn, M. (2009). Fighting for Clean Air: Community Members Speak Out Against Proposed Railyard Expansion near the LA and Long Beach Ports. NRDC Switchboard. October 9, 2009. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/ blogs/mwyenn/fighting_for_clean_air_communi.html 7 Garshick, E. et al. (2004). Lung cancer in railroad workers exposed to diesel exhaust. Environ Health Perspect 112(15): 1539-43. 8 California Air Resources Board. (2007). Health Risk Assessments for the Four Commerce Railyards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/4com_hra.pdf 9 Kracov, G. (2010, Spring). Who’s regulating emissions from California’s trains and rail yards? Environmental Law News. 10 Street Corner Southwest Sydney. Liverpool residents mass rally NO freight intermodal Moorebank. August 15, 2010. http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=18631&mycomm=SW 11 Tarasov, A. (2009, November). Moorebank freight terminal to be biggest in Australia. http://www. liverpoolchampion.com.au/news/local/news/general/moorebank-freight-terminal-to-be-biggest-in-australia/1680058. aspx 12 The California Air Resources Board’s authority over rail yard and locomotive pollution comes from the State Health and Safety Code: the board shall adopt and implement control measures that are necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible for mobile goods movement sources including heavy duty motor vehicles, utility engines and locomotives, unless preempted by federal law [California Health & Safety Code 43013, 43018]. 13 Federal Register. Vol. 72, page 15971 (2007, April 3). 14 Advanced Locomotive Emissions Control System. www.advancedcleanup.com 15 California Air Resources Board. (2005). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. 16 Same as above.

THE Impact Project - Policy Brief Series 9