Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Draft for Discussion

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment draft for discussion

Prepared by:

AECOM Canada Ltd. 5080 Commerce Boulevard Mississauga, ON L4W 4P2 Canada

T: 905 238 0007 F: 905 238 0038 www.aecom.com

Date: May, 2018

Project #: 60517668 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Authors

Report Prepared By:

Alan Oldfield, MEng, CEng (UK), P.Eng. Manager, Senior Acoustic Engineer, Acoustics and Air Quality Compliance

Report Reviewed By:

Atif Bokhari, P.Eng. Acoustic Engineer

Draft Disclaimer

This document is a draft and is provided for information only. The information contained herein is subject to change during the Transit Project Assessment Process. The final version of this document will be available following the Notice of Completion.

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

. is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); . represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; . may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; . has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; . must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; . was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and . in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table of Contents

page

1. Executive Summary ...... 1

2. Introduction ...... 2

3. Study Area ...... 4

4. Criteria ...... 6 4.1 Construction Noise ...... 6 4.2 Construction Vibration...... 7 4.3 Operational Noise ...... 7 4.4 Operational Vibration ...... 8 4.5 Layover Site Noise ...... 9

5. Baseline Conditions ...... 10

6. Noise and Vibration Assessment ...... 13 6.1 Construction Noise ...... 13 6.1.1 Methodology ...... 13 6.1.2 Construction Noise Assessment Results ...... 15 6.2 Construction Vibration...... 19 6.2.1 Methodology ...... 19 6.2.2 Construction Vibration Assessment Results ...... 20 6.3 Operational Noise ...... 22 6.3.1 Methodology ...... 22 6.3.2 Operational Noise Assessment Results ...... 29 6.4 Operational Vibration ...... 29 6.4.1 Methodology ...... 29 6.4.2 Operational Vibration Assessment Results ...... 31 6.5 Layover Site Noise ...... 32 6.5.1 Methodology ...... 32 6.5.2 Layover Site Noise Assessment Results ...... 33

7. Mitigation ...... 35 7.1 Construction Noise ...... 35 7.2 Construction Vibration...... 36

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

7.3 Operational Noise ...... 36 7.4 Operational Vibration ...... 36

8. Conclusion ...... 38

9. References ...... 39

List of Figures

Figure 1: Noise Sensitive Areas, Representative Points of Reception and Baseline Monitoring Locations (Yonge Street to Parliament Street) ...... 1 Figure 2: Noise Sensitive Areas, Representative Points of Reception and Baseline Monitoring Locations (Parliament Street to Eastern Avenue) ...... 2 Figure 3: Recommended Extents of Vibration Mitigation (Southeast of Henry Lane Terrace) ...... 3 Figure 4: Recommended Extents of Vibration Mitigation (Between Portneuf Court and Parliament Street) ...... 4 Figure 5: Recommended Extents of Vibration Mitigation (Near Corner of Mill Street and Bayview Avenue)) ...... 5

List of Tables

Table 1: Representative Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors ...... 5 Table 2: Noise Impact Ratings ...... 8 Table 3: Summary of Baseline Noise and Vibration Monitoring Data ...... 11 Table 4: Vibration Measurement vs. Prediction ...... 12 Table 5: Assumed Equipment Operating Concurrently and Construction Activities ...... 13 Table 6: Construction Equipment Reference Sound Levels ...... 14 Table 7: Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Corridor Grading and Track Installation ...... 16 Table 8: Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Bridge Modification and Retaining Structures ...... 18 Table 9: Equipment Reference Vibration Levels ...... 19

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 10: Predicted Construction Vibration Impacts ...... 21 Table 11: Comparison of Noise Prediction Models ...... 22 Table 12: Assumed Train Composition, Speed and Volume Data – Existing Conditions ...... 25 Table 13: Assumed Train Composition, Speed and Volume Data – With Project Electrified ...... 26 Table 14: Road Traffic Data ...... 27 Table 15: Predicted Operational Noise Impacts ...... 30 Table 16: Predicted Operational Vibration Impacts...... 31 Table 17: Diesel Trains Idling at Layover Sites ...... 32 Table 18: Layover Site Noise Assessment ...... 34 Table 19: Examples of Site Specific Vibration Mitigation ...... 36

Appendices

Appendix A. Noise and Vibration Terminology

Appendix B. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (MOEE/GO Transit, 1995)

Appendix C. STEAM vs. FTA Comparison

Appendix D. Mile Markers, Throttle Settings and Speeds

Appendix E. Operational Noise – Detailed Results

Appendix F. Operational Vibration Calculations

Appendix G. Layover Site Noise – Determination of Noise Limits

Appendix H. Summary of Assumptions

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

1. Executive Summary

A Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment has been completed as part of the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) for the proposed Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements (the Project). The project will provide additional mainline track capacity, increased train storage capacity and increased track speed capabilities along the east side of the USRC.

Noise and vibration impacts during the construction and operation stages of the Project have been assessed. The relevant assessment guidelines and methodology are outlined in this report, along with predicted noise and vibration impacts and a discussion on requirements for mitigation.

Noise and vibration impacts have been determined and assessed based on the requirements of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (Draft #9, Jan. 1995).

Temporary construction noise impacts are anticipated to be significantly higher than baseline levels at the most affected receptors. Noise mitigation should be provided during construction work adjacent to sensitive land uses.

Construction vibration is predicted to be below the City of Toronto’s zone of influence threshold for construction vibration at all locations.

The operation stage assessment for the rail corridor is based on current and projected train numbers, types, track speeds and throttle settings for the different services operating on the corridor during daytime and night-time periods. The impacts of future operational noise and vibration (With Project) have been assessed against the existing (Without Project) conditions. In addition, the operation of snow clearing devices (SCDs) has been included in the prediction of future operational noise levels.

The operation stage assessment for the rail layover facilities is based on a comparison of the future facility noise levels and the performance limit based on existing ambient conditions, determined in accordance with Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) guidelines.

Operational noise and vibration impacts have been predicted at a number of locations adjacent to the rail corridor. Operational noise impacts are predicted to be below the ‘significant’ threshold at all assessed locations. Operational vibration impacts are predicted to be significant at three locations, where mitigation is recommended, subject to an administrative, operational, economic and technical feasibility review.

1 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

2. Introduction

In 2008, Metrolinx, an agency of the Province of Ontario, adopted the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) called ‘The Big Move’ which provides the vision, goals and objectives for the future development of the regional transportation network within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The RTP identifies the need for increased and improved transit service in the GTHA over a 25-year period and outlines priority transit initiatives which would provide significant improvements to the GTHA transportation network.

As part of the RTP, Metrolinx has proposed expansion and modifications within the eastern portion of the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) east of Yonge Street to west of the Corktown Common Park (approximately Mile 0.35E to Mile 1.51E). The environ mental effects of the Project have been assessed following the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), as prescribed in Ontario Regulation 231/08 under the Environmental Assessment Act. As part of the TPAP, this Environmental Project Report (EPR) has been prepared for public review.

The purpose of the USRC East Enhancements Transit Project is to provide additional mainline track capacity, increased train storage capacity and increased track speed capabilities along the east side of the USRC. This project will facilitate infrastructure improvements to support the planned increases in train and passenger volumes in the USRC as part of the transformational Regional Express Rail (RER) program.

The USRC East Enhancements Transit Project includes the following components:

. Provision of a North Track (E0): Track modifications to extend the North Service Track from east of Lower Jarvis Street Bridge (approximately Mile 0.6E) through Cherry Street Bridge where it will connect to the existing mainline (Track E1) leading to the Bala and Belleville subdivisions. The new track will require extensions to the northern sections of the bridges over Lower Sherbourne Street, Parliament Street and Cherry Street with associated retaining and supporting structures. . Provision of New South Tracks (E7 and E8): Construction of two new south tracks (E7 and E8) starting west of Lower Jarvis Street (approximately Mile 0.35E) connecting the existing Tracks 13 and 14 in Union Station to future track realignments connecting west of Parliament Street (approximately Mile 0.9E) to the existing Don Yard. The new E7 and E8 tracks will require extensions to the southern sections of the bridges over Lower Jarvis Street and Lower Sherbourne Street and associated retaining and supporting structures.

2 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

. Wilson Yard Layover Facility: Construction of up to five new storage tracks and reconfiguration of the existing three tracks (i.e., up to eight storage tracks in total) at the Wilson Yard Layover Facility for additional storage and layover capacity for GO trains.

During the pre-TPAP consultation on this Project, concerns were raised by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regarding the potential negative impacts of the originally proposed extension of Track E0 to the Flood Protection Landform (FPL) in the Corktown Common area. The FPL was constructed by the TRCA as part of the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project to protect sections of downtown Toronto from flood waters associated with the Don River. The USRC East Enhancements Transit Project intersects with the FPL through the following activities:

. Constructing the retaining wall through the Corktown Common area and extending the Lower Don River Trail Pedestrian Underpass to support the new Track E0; . Relocating the multi-use trail; and . Temporary construction staging area.

A Geotechnical Assessment has been completed as part of this Project and the soils in this area are found to be not compatible for typical retaining wall construction. Due to the poor conditions and depth of bed rock, piling of at least 30 m would be required to safely construct the retaining wall in order to support rail loading. This construction method is expected to result in significant disturbances to the FPL and the floodplain in the Corktown Common area.

To avoid impacts to the FPL, Metrolinx has decided to reduce the length of the proposed Track E0 by approximately 600 m (the new turnout is placed at Mile 1.51E). This change to the design would still enable Metrolinx to achieve its service levels as part of the planned RER program.

As a result of this change to the project, extending the Lower Don River Trail Pedestrian Underpass (Bala Underpass) and other associated improvements in the Corktown Common area are no longer part of the USRC East Enhancements Project.

Noise and vibration impacts have been assessed, considering both the construction and operational phases of the USRC East Enhancements Project. The relevant assessment guidelines, methodologies and assumptions are outlined in this report, along with baseline conditions, predicted noise and vibration impacts and a discussion on requirements for mitigation.

A glossary of noise and vibration terminology is provided in Appendix A.

3 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

3. Study Area

The USRC East Enhancements Project Study Area for noise and vibration assessment is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The Study Area encompasses a portion of the USRC east of Yonge Street to west of the Corktown Common Park (approximately Mile 0.35E to Mile 1.51E) as well as the Don Yard and the Wilson Yard layovers. In addition, based on United States (US) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines and direction from Metrolinx, noise and vibration was assessed up to 300 m from each side of the railway. GO, VIA and CN freight rail traffic operate within the Study Area.

The predominant land uses within the Study Area include mid-rise residential and institutional uses, with a greater concentration of:

. Regeneration Areas throughout the buffer limits; . Low and mid-rise Residential apartments between Lower Jarvis Street and Parliament Street; . Parks and Natural Areas throughout the buffer limits; . Mixed Use Areas north of the GO Transit Rail Corridor; and, . Employment Lands east of the Don River.

Sensitive receptors have been visually identified using aerial and street photography. Within the groupings of sensitive receptors, i.e. sensitive land use area, a sample receptor has been selected to represent the worst case receptor. These assessed points of reception are at the closest sensitive properties to the railway within each sensitive land use area. Note that planned and approved developments have also been considered. Table 1 below presents the representative points of reception to be assessed, which are also presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2. It is usually not necessary to undertake calculations for every receptor along the corridor as locations further removed from the corridor than sample receptors will have equal or lower noise impacts. No noise or vibration sensitive commercial or industrial properties have been identified.

4 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 1: Representative Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors

Receptor ID Location R1 # 55 Bremner Boulevard (Multi-storey residential building) R2 #1 The Esplanade (Multi-storey residential building) R3 #2 Church Street (Multi-storey residential building) R4 #1 Market Street (Multi-storey residential building) R5 #91 Henry Lane Terrace (Multi-storey residential building) R6 #133 Longboat Avenue (Townhouse) R7 #70 Distillery Lane (Multi-storey residential building) R8 Planned Mixed/Residential Development (as per West Don Lands Precinct Plan) R9 Planned School location (as per West Don Lands Precinct Plan)

Most of the assessed receptors are on the north side of the rail corridor because the south side receptors are generally further from the rail corridor, so exposed to lower rail noise levels, and closer to the Gardiner Expressway, so exposed to higher contributions of road noise. With lower rail noise but higher road noise, the rail noise impacts south of the rail corridor will be lower.

5 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

4. Criteria

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE)1 / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (the Protocol; MOEE/GO Transit, 1995) provides a framework for noise and vibration assessments of GO Transit rail projects. A copy of the Protocol is provided in Appendix B. Criteria for both construction and operation stages are specified, as described below.

4.1 Construction Noise

The Protocol notes that construction of a project shall be examined; and reference is given to the Model Municipal Noise Control By-law (MOE, 1978). This prohibits operation of any equipment in connection with construction all day Sundays and Statutory Holidays; and between 19:00 one day to 07:00 the next on weekdays.

The Ontario noise pollution control publication NPC-115, Construction Equipment, included in the Model Municipal Noise Control By-law (MOE, 1978), sets requirements for sound power levels of individual construction equipment items. The Ontario noise pollution control publication NPC-118, Motorized Conveyances, included in the Model Municipal Noise Control By-law, sets requirements for heavy vehicles.

Since publication of the Protocol, the City of Toronto’s Municipal Code Chapter 591 (Noise) has been updated with an additional prohibition on construction before 09:00 on Saturdays with an exception for major transit projects2, for which construction is permitted between 07:00 and 23:00 daily. However By-law 1400-2007 notes that the time restrictions do not apply to continuous concrete pouring, large crane work, necessary municipal work and emergency work that cannot be performed during regular business hours. Metrolinx respects the City of Toronto construction noise by-laws and works within them where possible. As an active rail corridor, there are times when construction within the rail corridor cannot occur during regular business hours when trains are operating. This work can only be done when trains are not in service.

The US FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006) is widely used as a reference for construction noise and vibration impact assessment.

1. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy is now known as Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2. City of Toronto By-law 973-2010 defines Major Transit Projects as Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension, Toronto Transit City – Light Rail Plan, including Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Finch West LRT, Scarborough LRT, and Sheppard East LRT.

6 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

The FTA guidance manual includes a residential daytime noise criterion of 80 dBA Leq, 8hr, or a 70 dBA Leq, 8hr criterion for night-time work for detailed assessment purposes. Above these levels, noise control measures are recommended.

4.2 Construction Vibration

When assessing ground-borne vibration, there are typically two major concerns: building damage and potential to cause disturbance. Building damage is typically assessed using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) vibration levels; and human perception (or disturbance) is typically assessed using Root Mean Square Velocity (RMSV) vibration levels.

The Model Municipal Noise Control By-law referenced in the Protocol does not include limits for construction vibration, however the City of Toronto has developed a construction vibration by-law (By-law 514, found in City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 363), which is applicable. By-law 514 includes vibration limits not to be exceeded at ground level adjacent to any building:

. 8 mm/s at frequencies less than 4 Hz . 15 mm/s at frequencies in the range 4-10 Hz . 25 mm/s at frequencies higher than 10 Hz

Metrolinx respects City of Toronto construction vibration by-laws and works within them where possible.

The limits for vibration during construction are intended to avoid damage to buildings, including both cosmetic damage (such as hairline surface cracks) and structural damage. A factor of safety can be applied to the City of Toronto criteria for a conservative assessment, corresponding to the vibration level at the extent of the vibration zone of influence (5 mm/s PPV, according to the by-law). Structural building damage would typically be expected at much higher levels of vibration. For example, mortar joints are expected to fail at around 75 mm/s PPV and gypsum wallboard and plaster is expected to fail after many cycles at 25 mm/s PPV (City of Toronto, 2007).

Vibration levels below 0.1 mm/s (RMSV) are typically considered to be imperceptible to humans (ISO, 1985).

4.3 Operational Noise

In accordance with the Protocol, noise impacts from rail operations are evaluated by comparing noise levels with the completed project and existing conditions without the project. Noise predictions should be based on projections of future service volumes to account for increased future ridership demands.

7 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Under the Protocol, noise and vibration sensitive receptors include residences, schools, worship spaces, hospitals and retirement homes. Points of reception for noise assessment are external and normally located 3 m from the most exposed side of the building at a height of 1.5 m for daytime (07:00-23:00 hours), and at the plane of a bedroom window at a height of 4.5 m for night-time (23:00-07:00 hours), for low density residential development. For apartment units, the point of reception is normally the plane of the apartment bedroom or living room window. Commercial buildings are not typically considered sensitive receptors for rail operations, except commercial and industrial operations that are exceptionally sensitive to noise or vibration.

The noise impact is the difference between the noise levels predicted with the completed project and without the project. Noise levels without the project are taken to be the higher of the predicted existing ambient noise level, combined with the existing rail noise without the project, or 55 dBA Leq,16hr (daytime) / 50 dBA Leq,8hr (night time). The Protocol includes the following table defining the noise impact ratings:

Table 2: Noise Impact Ratings

Adjusted Impact Level Impact Rating 0-2.99 dB Insignificant 3-4.99 dB Noticeable 5-9.99 dB Significant 10+ dB Very Significant Source: MOEE/GO Transit Draft Protocol, 1995

In accordance with the Protocol, the feasibility of operational noise mitigation measures is to be reviewed where the predicted noise impact of the project is ‘significant’ (equal to or greater than 5 dB).

4.4 Operational Vibration

Vibration sensitive receptors are similar to those established for the noise assessment. In accordance with the Protocol, vibration impacts are evaluated by comparing vibration levels with the completed project and without the project. Vibration is assessed at sensitive properties at a location 5 m to 10 m from the building foundation, in a parallel direction to the tracks; or adjusted as required to accommodate site conditions.

The feasibility of operational vibration mitigation measures is to be reviewed where the predicted impact is 25% or more, relative to the existing level or 0.14 mm/s Root-Mean- Square (RMS) vibration velocity (whichever is higher).

8 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

4.5 Layover Site Noise

Operation of layover sites in Ontario are subject to sound level limits provided in publication NPC-300, Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning. This guideline applies to the operation of the storage yards (Don Yard and Wilson Yard

Layovers). The one-hour equivalent sound level (Leq, 1hr) limit for noise from a layover site is the higher of either 55 dBA or the background sound level. In this case, the background sound levels include predicted road traffic noise and contribution of rail traffic, determined in accordance with the following conditions and procedures, as described in NPC-300:

. the contribution of train pass-by sound levels to the background sound level only applies to noise sensitive land uses in Class 1, 2 and 4 areas (not in a Class 3 area)3*; . the noise sensitive land uses are located within 300 m from the nearest track of railway lines carrying a minimum of 40 trains during daytime or 20 trains during nighttime;

. the equivalent sound level during the daytime (Leq,16hr) and nighttime (Leq,8hr) due to train pass-bys is determined by means of prediction according to STEAM or by other methods/models that are acceptable to MOECC; . a 10 dBA adjustment is subtracted from the train pass-by day and night equivalent sound levels; and . the adjusted train pass-by day and night equivalent sound levels are then logarithmically (on an energy basis) added to the higher of either the

background One-Hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq, 1hr) or the exclusion limit.

As stated above, the background sound levels include predicted road traffic noise levels. The 1-hour road traffic noise levels have been estimated for the quietest period during the day and night from the average daytime and night-time roadway noise levels with a correction applied based on the relative 1-hour traffic volumes in the most influential road segment. This approach is anticipated to slightly under-predict the road noise level in the quietest 1-hour. The assessment is anticipated to be conservative since the noisiest layover operations are being compared against the quietest background noise levels.

3. The USRC East Enhancements Project Study Area is classified as a ‘Class 1’ area. An area is classified as Class 1 if it has an acoustical environment typical of a major population centre, where the background sound level is dominated by man-made noise sources, including road traffic.

9 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

5. Baseline Conditions

Noise and vibration monitoring was conducted at two sample locations to characterize the baseline ambient conditions adjacent to the rail corridor (refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2). The baseline noise and vibration measurement data provide a benchmark for comparison, however operational impacts are based on predicted noise and vibration levels to provide an assessment of the predictable worst-case impacts.

Noise monitoring was undertaken using 3M Quest SoundPro sound level meters, fitted with microphone wind shields and strapped to poles such that the microphone height was approximately 2 m above local ground surface. The sound level meters were field calibrated immediately prior to the measurement period and checked upon completion of the measurements to confirm that no significant drift in calibration was observed. Measurements were recorded in 15-minute samples.

Vibration monitoring was undertaken using Instantel Minimate vibration meters with the triaxial geophones buried approximately 0.3 m below the local ground surface. Measurements were recorded in 15-minute samples.

Weather data have been obtained from a nearby Environment Canada weather station (Pearson International Airport). The noise and vibration measurement data have been cross-referenced against the weather data obtained from the Pearson International Airport weather station. Measurements recorded during periods of inclement weather have been omitted from the dataset. For noise, inclement weather includes wind speeds greater than 20 km/h or any precipitation. For vibration, inclement weather includes wind speeds greater than 50 km/hr or any precipitation.

A summary of key baseline measurement data are provided in Table 3.

The baseline noise levels are typical of an urban environment, where noise levels are dominated by man-made noise sources, including road traffic.

10 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 3: Summary of Baseline Noise and Vibration Monitoring Data

Noise Noise Vibration Existing Daytime Existing Night- Existing Average Location Monitoring Dates Noise (dBA) time Noise (dBA) Daily Maximum Leq,07:00-23:00 Leq,23:00-07:00 RMSV (mm/s)* NV1 - Track Section near November 1, 2016 – Lower Sherbourne 65.5 60.9 0.122 November 8, 2016 Street (Gate LE31) NV2 - Track Section near November 1, 2016 – 67.3 61.1 0.508 Cherry Street (Gate LE51) November 8, 2016 Note: * RMSV estimated from measured PPV data assuming a crest factor of 4. Crest factor is the ratio of PPV to maximum RMS amplitude, which is usually 4 to 5 for ground-borne vibration from trains (FTA, 2006).

The point of vibration reception for assessment is within 5 to 10 m of the building foundation in a direction parallel to the tracks or adjusted as required to accommodate site conditions. The vibration monitors were set up at the edge of the rail corridor where the sensors (geophones) could be buried in the ground, to establish a firm mounting for the duration of the monitoring period. The sensor used at the first measurement location (NV1), near Lower Sherbourne Street, was located at a lower elevation than the rail tracks; whereas the sensor used at the second measurement location (NV2), near Cherry Street, was located at a similar elevation to the tracks. This may help to explain why the baseline vibration levels measured at the first location are lower than at the second location. Both measurements are representative of the locations at which they were recorded, but levels at residential buildings would be lower. At the nearest residential buildings, vibration levels are expected to be lower as they are further from the rail corridor. But it is possible that some residents close to the rail corridor currently feel occasional vibrations from vehicle pass-bys, including road and rail traffic.

The operational vibration assessment is based on predicted vibration levels using the FTA’s General Vibration Assessment method. As baseline measurement locations were adjusted based on site conditions and were not recorded at the building foundations, vibration levels have been predicted at the baseline measurement locations and at the nearest buildings to provide a comparison with the measurement data. This comparison is provided in Table 4.

11 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 4: Vibration Measurement vs. Prediction

Vibration Vibration Vibration Measurement Prediction Prediction Location Existing Average At Measurement Ground Adjacent to Daily Maximum Location Nearest Building RMSV (mm/s) * RMSV (mm/s) RMSV (mm/s) NV1 - Track Section near Lower 0.122 0.37 0.25 Sherbourne Street (Gate LE31) NV2 - Track Section near Cherry 0.508 0.74 0.16 Street (Gate LE51)

The results in Table 4 above show that the predicted vibration levels at the measurement locations are a conservative estimate since they indicate higher vibration levels. At the ground adjacent to the nearest building to each measurement location, vibration levels are predicted to exceed the typical threshold of perception of 0.1 mm/s RMSV and the Protocol objective baseline level of 0.14 mm/s RMSV.

12 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

6. Noise and Vibration Assessment

6.1 Construction Noise

6.1.1 Methodology

Construction noise levels have been predicted at noise sensitive areas using reference equipment source levels and estimated equipment operations and quantities for the different stages of construction. The US Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA, 2011) was used for this assessment. This model was developed as a construction noise screening tool and allows users to activate and analyze multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously at multiple receptor locations using simplified prediction assumptions. The model uses an extensive database of equipment sound levels; however the contractor’s equipment may vary from these.

Construction noise impacts have been assessed with respect to existing ambient noise levels acquired from baseline monitoring, to gauge the level of annoyance expected from construction activities. In order to keep the railway operating during the daytime, it is expected that substantial construction efforts will be undertaken at night.

The estimated equipment quantities used in this assessment are provided in Table 5. These have been developed based on prior experience with Metrolinx rail infrastructure construction projects and direction from Metrolinx. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the identified equipment and operations may be equally active during the day or night, as a predictable worst case scenario.

Table 5: Assumed Equipment Operating Concurrently and Construction Activities

Site Bridge Temp. Excavation Equipment Preparation Modification Track Staging and Description and Utility and Retaining Installation Roads Grading Relocation Structures Excavator 1 - 2 1 1 Backhoe 2 2 2 - - Bulldozer 1 1 1 - - Grader 1 1 1 - - Skid Steers 2 2 2 2 -

13 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Site Bridge Temp. Excavation Equipment Preparation Modification Track Staging and Description and Utility and Retaining Installation Roads Grading Relocation Structures Compaction Machine 1 1 1 - - Crane 1 - - 2 2 Auger Rig - - - 1 - Ballast Regulator - - - - 1 Tamper machine - - - - 1 Hi-Rail Truck - - - - 2 Semi-Trucks/hr - 2 2 2 2 Concrete Pump - - - 1 - Truck Cement Trucks/hr - - - 4 - Dump Trucks/hr 1 2 2 - - Generator 1 - - 1 - Vac Truck 1 - - - - Vibratory Roller - 1 1 - 1

A list of the expected construction noise sources is provided in Table 6. The noise levels given in the table are based on the equipment operating at full power. To account for the variation in power during operation, the reference noise levels are adjusted based on the typical duty cycle, or ‘usage factor, for that equipment.

Table 6: Construction Equipment Reference Sound Levels

Sound Pressure Level at Assumed Equipment Other Notes 15.2 m dBA (re 20 µPa), Usage Factor Description at full power (%) Excavator - 81 40 Rail Mounted Assumed Excavator 81 40 Excavator Backhoe - 78 40 Bulldozer - 82 40 Grader - 85 40 Skid Steers Assumed Front End 79 40 Loader Compaction Machine - 83 20 Crane - 81 16

14 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Sound Pressure Level at Assumed Equipment Other Notes 15.2 m dBA (re 20 µPa), Usage Factor Description at full power (%) Auger Rig - 84 20 Ballast Regulator Assumed Ballast 82 40 Equalizer Tamper Machine - 83 40 Truck Assumed Pickup 75 40 Truck Concrete Pump - 81 20 Truck Dump Truck - 76 40 Generator Assumed 25 KVA 81 50 generator Vac Truck - 85 40 Vibratory Roller - 80 20 Source: Source levels and usage factors from US Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA, 2006), except Ballast Regulator and Tamper Machine, from US Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006) – usage factors estimated for these items.

For a conservative analysis, all construction activities are assumed to be located at the point of the proposed construction sites closest to each receptor under assessment.

6.1.2 Construction Noise Assessment Results

Predicted construction noise levels are presented in Table 7 and Table 8. The assumed baseline noise levels presented in the table are based on the noise measurement data from the nearest baseline measurement location to each receptor.

Temporary construction noise impacts are anticipated to be significantly higher than baseline levels at most of the assessed points of reception. Predicted noise levels exceed the US FTA guideline limit of 80 dBA Leq, 8hr for daytime construction work at four locations. At seven locations, predicted noise levels exceed the US FTA guideline limit of 70 dBA Leq, 8hr for night-time construction work. Noise levels are expected to be lower than those presented in Table 7 and Table 8 because the predictions for each phase of construction are based on the assumed equipment operating together at the same conservative set-back distance, rather than distributed around the work site. Noise will be controlled to ensure that the guideline limits are not exceeded, where possible.

15 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 7: Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Corridor Grading and Track Installation

Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Assumed Assumed Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Assumed Baseline Baseline Average Noise Average Average Average Assessed Point of Set-back Noise Level Noise Level ID Level, Leq,8hr Noise Level, Noise Level, Noise Level, Reception Distance (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Leq,8hr (dBA) Leq,8hr (dBA) Leq,8hr (dBA) (m) Daytime Night-time Site Preparation & Temporary Excavation and Track (07:00-23:00) (23:00-07:00) Utility Relocation Staging Roads Grading Installation R1 # 55 Bremner 333 65.5 60.9 61.1 59.4 60.3 56.5 Boulevard (Multi- storey residential building) R2 #1 The Esplanade 265 65.5 60.9 63.1 61.4 62.3 58.5 (Multi-storey residential building) R3 #2 Church Street 83 65.5 60.9 73.2 71.5 72.3 68.6 (Multi-storey residential building) R4 #1 Market Street 40 65.5 60.9 79.4 77.8 78.5 74.8 (Multi-storey residential building) R5 #91 Henry Lane 12 65.5 60.9 89.9 88.3 89.1 85.3 Terrace (Multi- storey residential building) R6 #133 Longboat 13 65.5 60.9 91.5 87.6 90.7 87.0 Avenue (Townhouse) R7 #70 Distillery Lane 33 67.3 61.1 81.3 79.5 80.4 76.7 (Multi-storey residential building)

16 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

17 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 8: Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Bridge Modification and Retaining Structures

Assumed Assumed Baseline Assumed Baseline Predicted Equivalent Average Set-back Noise Level (dBA) Noise Level (dBA) Noise Level, Leq,8hr (dBA) ID Assessed Point of Reception Distance Daytime (07:00- Night-time (23:00- Bridge Modification and (m) 23:00) 07:00) Retaining Structures R1 # 55 Bremner Boulevard (Multi- 837 65.5 60.9 50.8 storey residential building) R2 #1 The Esplanade (Multi-storey 746 65.5 60.9 51.8 residential building) R3 #2 Church Street (Multi-storey 500 65.5 60.9 55.2 residential building) R4 #1 Market Street (Multi-storey 301 65.5 60.9 59.6 residential building) R5 #91 Henry Lane Terrace (Multi- 96 65.5 60.9 69.6 storey residential building) R6 #133 Longboat Avenue 6 65.5 60.9 93.2 (Townhouse) R7 #70 Distillery Lane (Multi-storey 10 67.3 61.1 89.4 residential building) R8 West Don Lands Precinct Plan 17 67.3 61.1 84.6 future residential building R9 West Don Lands Precinct Plan 32 67.3 61.1 79.1 future school

18 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Recommendations for construction noise mitigation measures are provided in Section 7.1 of this report.

6.2 Construction Vibration

6.2.1 Methodology

Construction vibration impacts have been predicted using reference equipment source levels and estimated equipment operations for the different construction sites. The US FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006) includes procedures for predicting vibration transmission. These procedures include a distance attenuation equation to estimate vibration levels from reference source levels, which provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. The reference vibration levels used in this assessment are summarized in Table 9 and the distance attenuation equation is as follows:

1.5 Vibration velocity = (Reference vibration velocity) x (Dref/D)

Where: Dref is the reference distance at which the reference vibration level is given and D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

The building damage limits are based on in-ground vibration levels, adjacent to the building. Perceptible vibrations would result from in-building floor vibrations, but the limits for construction vibration perceptibility are also taken as in-ground vibration levels. This approach is consistent with the FTA procedures.

Table 9: Equipment Reference Vibration Levels

PPV RMSV Reference Equipment Description Other Notes Reference Reference Distance (mm/s) (mm/s) (m) Excavator (Rock) Assumed Large Bulldozer 2.26 0.57 7.6 Rail Mounted Excavator Assumed Small Bulldozer 0.08 0.02 7.6 Backhoe Assumed Small Bulldozer 0.08 0.02 7.6 Bulldozer (Large) - 2.26 0.57 7.6 Grader Assumed Large Bulldozer 2.26 0.57 7.6 Skid Steers Assumed Backhoe 0.08 0.02 7.6 Compaction Machine Assumed Large Bulldozer 2.26 0.57 7.6 Crane Assumed Loaded Truck 1.93 0.48 7.6 Auger Rig - 2.26 0.57 7.6

19 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

PPV RMSV Reference Equipment Description Other Notes Reference Reference Distance (mm/s) (mm/s) (m) Ballast Regulator Assumed Small Bulldozer 0.08 0.02 7.6 Tamper Machine Assumed Small Bulldozer 0.08 0.02 7.6 Truck - 1.93 0.48 7.6 Concrete Pump Truck Assumed Loaded Truck 1.93 0.48 7.6 Generator Assumed Negligible - - 7.6 Vac Truck Assumed Loaded Truck 1.93 0.48 7.6 Vibratory Roller - 5.33 1.33 7.6 Source: US Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006). Note all values have been converted to metric units.

For a conservative analysis, all construction activities are assumed to be located at the point of the proposed construction sites closest to each receptor under assessment.

6.2.2 Construction Vibration Assessment Results

The construction vibration impacts depend on the type of equipment and proximity to buildings. At the majority of receptor locations, the use of a vibratory roller is anticipated to generate the highest construction vibration levels. However, where the caisson drilling is expected to be in close proximity, this will result in higher vibration levels at the nearest buildings. The predictable worst case construction vibration levels are presented in Table 10 for the most affected points of reception during the construction.

Peak construction vibration velocity levels are predicted to be lower than the City of Toronto’s zone of influence threshold of 5 mm/s at all assessed points of reception. The RMSV vibration levels are generally predicted to be below the human perceptibility threshold of 0.1 mm/s, except at receptors closer than 40 m from vibratory rollers and other similar equipment, and at receptors closer than 25 m from caisson drilling and other similar equipment. Some temporary disturbance may be expected at these locations. Building occupants may be able to feel some vibrations but people are sensitive to vibration at much lower levels than can cause building damage. The vibration impacts are generally not considered to be significant, given their low level and temporary nature. Therefore construction vibration mitigation measures are not anticipated to be required.

20 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 10: Predicted Construction Vibration Impacts

Assumed Predicted Assumed Predicted Predicted Predicted Vibration Set-back Vibration Level Set-back Vibration Level Vibration Level Level (Vibratory Assessed Point of Distance (Vibratory Roller) Distance (Auger Rig) (Auger Rig) ID Roller) (mm/s) Reception (Vibratory (mm/s) (Auger (mm/s) (mm/s) Peak Particle Roller) Root-Mean-Square Rig) Peak Particle Root-Mean-Square Velocity (PPV) (m) Velocity (RMSV) (m) Velocity (PPV) Velocity (RMSV) R1 # 55 Bremner 333 0.02 0.00 837 0.00 0.00 Boulevard (Multi-storey residential building) R2 #1 The Esplanade 265 0.03 0.01 746 0.00 0.00 (Multi-storey residential building) R3 #2 Church Street (Multi- 83 0.15 0.04 500 0.00 0.00 storey residential building) R4 #1 Market Street (Multi- 40 0.44 0.11 301 0.01 0.00 storey residential building) R5 #91 Henry Lane 12 2.67 0.67 96 0.05 0.01 Terrace (Multi-storey residential building) R6 #133 Longboat Avenue 13 2.37 0.59 6 3.05 0.76 (Townhouse) R7 #70 Distillery Lane 33 0.59 0.15 10 1.57 0.39 (Multi-storey residential building) R8 West Don Lands 20 1.24 0.31 17 0.69 0.17 Precinct Plan future residential building R9 West Don Lands 43 0.39 0.10 32 0.27 0.07 Precinct Plan future school

21 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

6.3 Operational Noise

6.3.1 Methodology

The Protocol states that noise impact of GO Transit rail projects “shall be assessed using prediction methods acceptable to the MOEE”. Reference is made to STEAM, Sound from Trains Environmental Analysis Method (MOE, 1990). Although STEAM has proved to be a robust calculation method, there are several aspects that cannot be modelled with the method, which may previously have been modelled separately and added to the results to augment the model. For this assessment, the noise assessment method presented in the US FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006) has been used, with implementation in the Cadna/A acoustic software package. Cadna/A is a more sophisticated 3-dimensional modelling system, implementing a more flexible prediction methodology, and is considered more accurate. Table 11 below provides a summary of the modelling variables that are incorporated into the STEAM and FTA methods for comparison.

Table 11: Comparison of Noise Prediction Models

FTA Method in Variable STEAM Cadna/A Software Number of train types (services on each track segment). ✓ ✓ Train composition (number of locomotives and cars per ✓ ✓ train). Ground terrain can be modelled as a 3-dimensional layer as ✗ ✓ opposed to a 2-dimensional point-to-point model. Ground as blend of hard and soft ground (compared to ✗ ✓ exclusively hard or soft ground). Train speeds per train type. ✓ ✓ Locomotive throttle settings can be modelled, to consider ✗ ✓ variation in noise when trains accelerate or decelerate. Track type (continuous welded or jointed). ✓ ✓ Special trackwork, such as crossovers/switches can be ✗ ✓ incorporated directly in the model. Idling of trains at stations can be incorporated directly in ✗ ✓ model. Separation distances between sources, barriers and ✓ ✓ receivers. Angles of view from the receiver to the track segment. ✓ ✓

22 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

FTA Method in Variable STEAM Cadna/A Software Shielding due to barriers, rows of houses and dense woods. ✓ ✓ Reflections off retaining walls and barriers can be ✗ ✓ incorporated directly in the model. Results can be displayed as noise contours to visualize ✗ ✓ impacts beyond individual sample receptors.

As requested by Metrolinx, a single point test prediction has been conducted for an actual receptor in the Study Area to provide a comparison between railway noise predictions from the FTA method (implemented in Cadna/A software) and calculations prepared in accordance with STEAM (implemented in STAMSON software). This comparison is provided in Appendix C. Results at one sample receptor show higher predicted noise levels with the FTA method (up to around 6 dB higher), however when special trackwork is supressed in the Cadna/A model, the results are around 1 dB higher than the STEAM predictions, which is an insignificant difference. This example demonstrates that the FTA method is capable of yielding similar results to STEAM when special trackwork is not present (or not modelled), but it also shows that special trackwork can have a significant influence on noise levels as predicted with the FTA method.

Noise modelling has taken account of the proposed track alignment and elevation, as well as new infrastructure elements, such as significant grading, according to the design information available. The track type will be continuous welded.

Two scenarios have been modelled:

1. Current/Existing Conditions (year 2016) 2. Future “With Project” Conditions (year 2025) with Electrification – Proposed infrastructure with the proposed mix of electric / diesel trains at RER service levels (in accordance with data provided by Metrolinx)

Normally a 10-year post-construction horizon would be used for environmental assessments, but the future train volume data provided are based on year 2025, which is a notional milestone year. The credible worst-case scenario is based on maximum service goals consistent with the planned infrastructure and safety standards. The future service volumes account for anticipated ridership demands and infrastructure constraints; therefore it is considered to be a credible worst case scenario. The operating conditions for this scenario are highly predictable due to the necessity to adhere to maximum speed limits, and strict safety and operational standards.

23 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

The train type, volume and maximum speed data approved by Metrolinx for this assessment are summarized in Table 12 (Existing Conditions) and Table 13 (With Project). In addition, sample train speed and throttle record data were provided by Metrolinx. This set of data has been simplified to establish assumed speed and throttle profiles for different rail corridor zones for different service types (express or slow) and travel direction (eastbound or westbound). These profiles are presented in Table D1 in Appendix D. The mile markers at the boundaries of the throttle setting zones are shown in Figures D1-D2 in Appendix D.

Noise sources other than locomotive engines and wheel-rail interactions were modelled based on the following assumptions:

. Crossovers/switches: Modelled with equivalent sound level to the reference provided in the FTA guide (90 dBA at 15.2 m; FTA 2006). Event duration determined based on total crossover/switch pass-by time per period (day/night) calculated from train speeds and lengths. . Whistles: Special instructions prohibit whistling within USRC. This does not apply for whistling as a warning to workers on or around the track which requires it (Rule 42). As this is not part of the regular operations, whistles have not been included in the noise model. . Snow Clearing Devices: Modelled based on manufacturer’s sound level data for gas fired blowers. Snow clearing devices were included in the ‘With Project’ scenario noise predictions only and were modelled as operating continuously (throughout day and night), for a conservative assessment.

In practice, there may be some influence in the overall noise level at any receptor from ambient noise sources including road traffic. Ambient noise sources were not generally included in this modelling. The assessment is therefore considered to have used a conservative approach because the baseline level used for determining the impact will be lower than if ambient sources were included. However, the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway are special cases where road traffic noise is likely to be significant due to the proximity of these major highways to noise sensitive areas.

Consideration of Roadway Traffic

Existing ambient noise from the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway was predicted using ORNAMENT, Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method for Environment and Transportation (MOECC, 1990). The major lane groupings in each direction were modelled as line sources. The ORNAMENT results were then combined with the railway noise model results to establish the resultant overall noise levels.

24 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 12: Assumed Train Composition, Speed and Volume Data – Existing Conditions

Day # Night # Loco’s Cars Speed Limit (E = Eastbound, (E = Eastbound, Corridor Section Service per per EE = East Express, EE = East Express, (km/h) train train W = Westbound, W = Westbound, WE = West Express) WE = West Express) West Project Limit, GO Transit 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 139 (59E, 12EE, 60W, 8WE) 25 (12E, 0EE, 12W, 1WE) Union Station (M0.00) – VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) Harbour Lead (M0.77) VIA (Canadian) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 CN Freight 1 6 24.1 (15 mph) 0 1 (1E) Harbour Lead (M0.77) – GO Transit 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 137 (58E, 12EE, 59W, 8WE) 25 (12E, 0EE, 12W, 1WE) Cherry Street (M1.20) VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Canadian) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 CN Freight 1 6 24.1 (15 mph) 0 1 (1E) Harbour Lead GO Transit 1 12 24.1 (15 mph) 2 0 CN Freight 1 6 0 1 Cherry Street (M1.20) – GO Transit 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 133 (57E, 12EE, 56W, 8WE) 25 (12E, 0EE, 12W, 1WE) Don Yard (M1.23) VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Canadian) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 Don Yard (R105 GO Transit 1 12 24.1 (15 mph) 4 0 territory) Don Yard (M1.23) – GO Transit 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 116 (47E, 12EE, 49W, 8WE) 21 (10E, 0EE, 10W, 1WE) Kingston Sub (M1.40) VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Canadian) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 Kingston Sub (M1.40) – GO Transit 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 102 (40E, 12EE, 42W, 8WE) 19 (9E, 0EE, 9W, 1WE) East Project Limit, VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) Eastern Avenue (M1.91) VIA (Canadian) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 Notes:  GO Transit includes GO Lakeshore East, GO Richmond Hill (west of Kingston Sub only), and GO Stouffville services.  All trains to be modelled as diesel powered.  Volumes above include passenger and non-revenue trips.  Non-revenue trips through USRC are considered as local services for the basis of speed and throttle settings.  Speeds noted are designated limits, whereas speed inputs to noise model are summarized in Table D1 in Appendix D, taken from speed and throttle profile data provided by Metrolinx.

25 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 13: Assumed Train Composition, Speed and Volume Data – With Project Electrified

Loco’s Cars Day # Night # Speed Limit Corridor Section Service per per (E = Eastbound, EE = East (E = Eastbound, EE = East (km/h) Express, W = Westbound, Express, W = Westbound, train train WE = West Express) WE = West Express) West Project Limit, GO (Electric) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 296 (92E, 56EE, 122W, 26WE) 46 (23E, 0EE, 21W, 2WE) Union Station (M0.00) – GO (Diesel) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 58 (29E, 29 W) 0 Harbour Lead (M0.77) VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Cndn) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 CN Freight 1 6 24.1 (15 mph) 0 1 (1E) Harbour Lead (M0.77) – GO (Electric) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 296 (92E, 56EE, 122W, 26WE) 46 (23E, 0EE, 21W, 2WE) Cherry Street (M1.20) GO (Diesel) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 56 (28E, 28 W) 0 VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Cndn) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 CN Freight 1 6 24.1 (15 mph) 0 1 (1E) Harbour Lead GO (Diesel) 1 12 24.1 (15 mph) 2 0 CN Freight 1 6 24.1 (15 mph) 0 1 Cherry Street (M1.20) – GO (Electric) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 296 (92E, 56EE, 122W, 26WE) 46 (23E, 0EE, 21W, 2WE) Don Yard (M1.23) GO (Diesel) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 52 (27E, 25 W) 0 VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Cndn) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 Don Yard (R105 territory) GO (Diesel) 1 12 24.1 (15 mph) 4 0 Don Yard (M1.23) – GO (Electric) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 287 (88E, 56EE, 117W, 26WE) 43 (20E, 0EE, 21W, 2WE) Kingston Sub (M1.40) GO (Diesel) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 32 (16E, 16 W) 0 VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Cndn) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 Kingston Sub (M1.40) – GO (Electric) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 287 (88E, 56EE, 117W, 26WE) 43 (20E, 0EE, 21W, 2WE) East Project Limit, GO (Diesel) 1 12 48.3 (30 mph) 8 (4E, 4 W) 0 Eastern Avenue (M1.91) VIA 1 6 48.3 (30 mph) 25 (12EE, 13WE) 3 (1EE, 2WE) VIA (Cndn) 3 25 48.3 (30 mph) 1 (1EE) 0 Notes:  GO Transit includes GO Lakeshore East, GO Richmond Hill (west of Kingston Sub only), and GO Stouffville services.  Volumes above include passenger and non-revenue trips.  Electric trains are assumed to accelerate up to 15% faster than diesel trains; however, a 15% increase in acceleration results in a negligible change in sound level. Future electric throttle settings and speed profiles will therefore be modelled based on those for existing diesel local and express trips.  Non-revenue trips through USRC are considered as local services for the basis of speed and throttle settings.  Speeds noted are designated limits, whereas speed inputs to noise model are summarized in Table D1 in Appendix D, taken from speed and throttle data provided by Metrolinx.

26 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

The Protocol does not include consideration for mitigating road traffic noise, unless the rail project may produce a road traffic noise impact, in which case the road traffic noise impacts would be assessed in accordance with methods approved for Environmental Assessments of roadway projects. An example would be a grade separation project, where a road-over-rail structure may result in road traffic noise impacts. There are not expected to be road traffic noise impacts as a result of the USRC East Enhancements Project, therefore mitigation will not be considered to address future road traffic noise, such as from changes to the Gardiner alignment proposed to be implemented under a separate capital works project. It should also be noted that a Traffic Noise Impact Study was completed by Dillon Consulting in January 2017 as part of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment. For the purposes of that study, effects were assessed against an assumed future 2031 baseline condition for road traffic and future rail corridor volumes were not considered in the assessment. The noise modelling report (Dillon Consulting, 2017) noted that “traffic noise predictions completed for the preferred alternative (i.e., Hybrid 3) demonstrate levels that would be the same or less than the future ‘Maintain’ alternative. As such, no traffic noise mitigation measures are warranted”.

The road traffic volume data for the Gardiner Expressway (FGG) and Don Valley Parkway (DVP) were provided by the City of Toronto. The data were supplemented with assumptions for missing segments based on the volumes for adjacent segments and an annual growth factor of 1% applied to estimate current (2017) volumes. The proportions of medium and heavy trucks were estimated based on nearby highways. The data used for the assessment are summarized in Table 14 below, where AADT is the annual average daily (24 hr) traffic volume.

Table 14: Road Traffic Data

% % Speed Day/Night Road Segment AADT Medium Heavy (km/h) Split Truck Truck DVP SB_Offramp to Eastern WB 16463 2 4 30 85% / 15% DVP NB_Onramp from Eastern WB 10351 2 4 30 90% / 10% DVP SB to FGG WB 32614 2 4 60 86% / 14% FGG EB to DVP NB 33319 2 4 60 88% / 12% FGG WB, Midblock between Cherry St and 55539 2 4 90 86% / 14% DVP ramp FGG EB, Midblock between Cherry St and 56582 2 4 90 87% / 13% DVP ramp

27 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

% % Speed Day/Night Road Segment AADT Medium Heavy (km/h) Split Truck Truck FGG WB, Midblock between Parliament St and 51781 2 4 90 88% / 12% Cherry St FGG EB, Midblock between Parliament St and 55111 2 4 90 88% / 12% Cherry St FGG WB, Midblock between Small St and 53355 2 4 90 85% / 15% Lower Sherbourne St FGG EB, Midblock between Small St and 47138 2 4 90 87% / 13% Lower Sherbourne St Ramp FGG WB to Sherbourne St 2995 2 4 50 93% / 7% Ramp Lake Shore Blvd EB to FGG EB east of 7236 2 4 50 92% / 8% Jarvis St FGG WB, Midblock between Freeland St and 41616 2 4 90 87% / 13% Jarvis St FGG EB, Midblock between Freeland St and 47002 2 4 90 83% / 17% Jarvis St Ramp FGG WB to Lake Shore Blvd WB 8874 2 4 50 88% / 12% Ramp FGG WB to Yonge St NB 3787 2 4 50 88% / 12% FGG WB, Midblock between Yonge St and 42322 2 4 90 84% / 16% Freeland St FGG EB, Midblock between Yonge St and 42997 2 4 90 86% / 14% Freeland St Ramp Jarvis St SB to FGG WB 17908 2 4 50 88% / 12% Ramp Bay St NB to FGG EB 4499 2 4 50 88% / 12% Midblock Eastern Ave to Don Roadway 30504 2 4 90 92% / 8% Midblock Don Roadway to Eastern Ave 30234 2 4 90 97% / 3% FGG WB, Midblock Lower Sherbourne St to 50124 2 4 90 91% / 9% Jarvis St FGG EB, Midblock Jarvis St to Lower 43215 2 4 90 91% / 9% Sherbourne St FGG WB, Midblock Yonge St to Bay St 43231 2 4 90 82% / 8% FGG EB, Midblock Bay St to Yonge St 39407 2 4 90 94% / 6%

28 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

The track alignment used for the assessment was the current design at the time of undertaking the noise and vibration analysis, as shown in the USRC East Enhancements Roll Plan (October 30, 2017), prepared by AECOM.

Corridor track maintenance operations are not considered a regularly occurring event, and thus would not be subject to the same objective limits as typical operations. As short term events, maintenance would be considered in the same way as construction. Maintenance activities are generally not expected to result in noise levels as high as construction activities because maintenance activities will be significantly less intensive with generally lower energy equipment, so the potential impacts would not be expected to be as severe.

6.3.2 Operational Noise Assessment Results

Table 15 below outlines the predicted noise levels and impacts without any specific noise mitigation measures implemented. Where impacts of 5 dB or more are predicted, mitigation investigation is required. More detailed results are provided in Appendix E, which presents a breakdown of the rail noise and background noise (road traffic) components.

The noise impacts are all below 5 dB so there are no significant impacts and no requirement for mitigation.

6.4 Operational Vibration

6.4.1 Methodology

As with the noise assessment, vibration levels were predicted at sample receptors selected to represent the most exposed receptor within each sensitive area. Vibration levels have been predicted in accordance with the General Vibration Assessment procedures described in the US FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006) guidance document. Vibration levels have been corrected for the train speed and set-back distance based on the existing and proposed track alignments. The reference vibration curves are based on measurements of ground-borne vibration at representative North American transit systems and are generally considered to be conservative. In accordance with the assessment procedure, adjustments have been made to account for the presence of crossovers/switches and elevated transit structures.

29 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 15: Predicted Operational Noise Impacts

Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Noise Level Noise Level Predicted Predicted Noise Level Noise Level Mitigation (dBA) (dBA) Noise Noise (dBA) (dBA) Investigation ID Assessed Point of Reception Future (With Future (With Impact Impact Existing Existing Requirement Project) Project) (dB) (dB) L L Yes/No eq,16hr eq,8hr L L Day Night (Day) (Night) eq,16hr eq,8hr (Day) (Night) R1 # 55 Bremner Boulevard (Multi- 76.0 71.0 78.2 72.7 2.2 1.7 No storey residential building) R2 #1 The Esplanade (Multi-storey 74.5 69.4 78.0 72.1 3.5 2.7 No residential building) R3 #2 Church Street (Multi-storey 69.6 70.1 72.3 71.3 2.7 1.2 No residential building) R4 #1 Market Street (Multi-storey 76.0 71.0 78.8 72.4 2.8 1.4 No residential building) R5 #91 Henry Lane Terrace (Multi- 71.9 66.3 72.9 66.2 1.0 0 No storey residential building) R6 #133 Longboat Avenue 69.7 66.8 70.7 66.2 1.0 0 No (Townhouse) R7 #70 Distillery Lane (Multi-storey 70.7 65.6 72.8 67.2 2.1 1.6 No residential building) R8 Planned Mixed/Residential 68.3 63.5 70.7 64.4 2.4 0.9 No Development (as per West Don Lands Precinct Plan) R9 Planned School location (as per 66.1 N/A 68.9 N/A 2.8 N/A No West Don Lands Precinct Plan) Note: Schools are considered noise-sensitive during daytime only, so night-time noise levels for R9 are not applicable to the assessment.

30 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

The FTA assessment procedure includes a 10 VdB correction for special trackwork. The additional vibration is due to the wheels passing over the frog gap, switch point, and joints between continuous welded rail and frog, generating impulsive vibration. Since the impacts at frog gaps and joints are point sources, the vibration attenuates more rapidly than vibration from tangent track. For distances over 15 m, it is assumed that the correction for vibration from switches is varied with distance according to the function 10-15*log(distance/15) VdB.

Track maintenance operations would not be considered a regularly occurring event so they would not be subject to the same objective limits as typical operations. As short term events, maintenance would be considered in the same way as construction. Maintenance activities are not expected to result in vibration levels higher than construction activities because maintenance activities will be significantly less intensive with generally lower energy equipment, so the potential impacts would not be expected to be as severe.

6.4.2 Operational Vibration Assessment Results

Table 16 outlines the predicted RMSV vibration levels and impacts without any specific vibration mitigation measures implemented. The impacts are relative to 0.14 mm/s or the existing level – whichever is higher. Where impacts of 25% or more are predicted, mitigation investigation is required. A calculation summary is provided in Appendix F.

Table 16: Predicted Operational Vibration Impacts

Predicted Predicted Mitigation Vibration Vibration Level, Predicted Investigation ID Point of Reception Level, RMSV RMSV (mm/s) Vibration Requirement (mm/s) Future (With Impact (%) (Yes/No) Existing Project) R1 # 55 Bremner Boulevard 0.34 0.34 0% No (Multi-storey residential building) R2 #1 The Esplanade (Multi- 2.12 2.12 0% No storey residential building) R3 #2 Church Street (Multi- 0.19 0.19 0% No storey residential building) R4 #1 Market Street (Multi- 0.48 0.48 0% No storey residential building) R5 #91 Henry Lane Terrace 0.96 1.45 51% Yes (Multi-storey residential building)

31 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Predicted Predicted Mitigation Vibration Vibration Level, Predicted Investigation ID Point of Reception Level, RMSV RMSV (mm/s) Vibration Requirement (mm/s) Future (With Impact (%) (Yes/No) Existing Project) R6 #133 Longboat Avenue 0.41 0.53 30% Yes (Townhouse) R7 #70 Distillery Lane (Multi- 0.17 0.19 13% No storey residential building) R8 Planned Mixed/Residential 0.34 0.34 0% No Development (as per West Don Lands Precinct Plan) R9 Potential School location 0.20 0.33 69% Yes (as per West Don Lands Precinct Plan)

Significant vibration impacts (above 25% impact) are predicted at three locations within the Study Area (R5, R6 and R9) as a result of future tracks being aligned closer to these points of reception and introduction of new special trackwork adjacent to R5 and R9. Consideration for mitigation is warranted at these locations. The track locations where mitigation is recommended are highlighted in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, subject to an administrative, operational, economic and technical feasibility review. Example mitigation measures are described in Section 7.2 of this report.

6.5 Layover Site Noise

6.5.1 Methodology

The following layover noise sources have been reviewed for this assessment:

. Diesel trains idling simultaneously within 1-hour periods (Table 17):

Table 17: Diesel Trains Idling at Layover Sites

Location and Hour of the Day Max. No. Idling Trains (With Project) Don Yard: 07:00-08:00 1 08:00-09:00 2 09:00-10:00 1 13:00-14:00 1 14:00-15:00 2 15:00-16:00 4 16:00-17:00 3 Wilson Yard: Any hour (24 hr/day) 2

32 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

. Small tractor to pull honey wagon – similar to a John Deere Model 3033R (at Don Yard) as it is the worst case for proximity to sensitive points of reception; . Honey wagon trailer – custom built to fit facility requirements (at Don Yard) as it is the worst case for proximity to sensitive points of reception; . Electric E truck – similar to model Mighty E manufactured by Canadian Electric Vehicles Ltd. – not included in noise model (insignificant noise source); . Boom lift truck – similar to JLG Model E450AJ or Genie Z™-34/22 N – not included in noise model (insignificant noise source); . Mobile locomotive sanding unit at Don Yard as it is the worst case for proximity to sensitive points of reception; and . Snow Clearing Devices: Modelled based on manufacturer’s sound level data for gas fired blowers. Snow clearing devices were modelled as operating continuously (throughout day and night), for a conservative assessment.

The noise sources above were input into an environmental noise model (ISO 9613-2 algorithm implemented in CadnaA software) to predict the noise levels at the sample receptors, representative of the most exposed receiver locations within each surrounding noise sensitive area.

6.5.2 Layover Site Noise Assessment Results

The 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq, 1hr) limits for noise from the layover sites (Don Yard and Wilson Yard) was calculated based on the layover site noise criterion described in Section 4.5 of this report. The predicted sound levels from the future layover operations were then compared against these limits. The 1-hour periods during day and night with the most anticipated activity have been used for the layover sound levels.

A summary of the layover site noise assessment results is presented in Table 18 below for the two closest receptors. The calculated sound level components that were factored into the determination of the sound level limits are presented in Table G1 in Appendix G.

As shown below, the future layover site operations are anticipated to be compliant with applicable sound level limits at the surrounding noise-sensitive land uses.

33 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Table 18: Layover Site Noise Assessment

Layover Site Layover Site Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Mitigation Noise Limit Noise Limit Layover Site Layover Site Noise Noise Investigation ID Point of Reception (dBA) (dBA) Noise (dBA) Noise (dBA) Impact (dB) Impact (dB) Requirement Day Night Day Night Day Night Yes/No (Leq,1hr) (Leq,1hr) (Leq,1hr) (Leq,1hr) R8 Planned Mixed / 62.3 57.4 52.2 48.7 0 0 No Residential Development (as per West Don Lands Precinct Plan) R9 Potential School 59.3 N/A 58.1 N/A 0 N/A No location (as per West Don Lands Precinct Plan)

34 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

7. Mitigation

7.1 Construction Noise

Noise from construction activities can be controlled in numerous ways, including operational restrictions, source mitigation measures, as well as receptor-based mitigation measures. The following measures will be implemented throughout construction to reduce the noise impacts at sensitive receptors:

. Operate in accordance with local by-laws whenever possible; . If construction needs to be undertaken outside of the normal daytime hours, local residents shall be informed beforehand of the type of construction planned and the expected duration; . Use construction equipment compliant with noise level specifications in MOECC guidelines NPC-115 and NPC-118; . Keep equipment well-maintained and fitted with efficient muffling devices; . Idling of equipment will be restricted to the minimum necessary to perform the specified work; . Ensure vehicles employed continuously on site for extended periods of time (two days or more) are fitted with sound reducing back-up (reversing) alarms4; . Avoid unnecessary revving of engines and switch off equipment when not required (do not idle); . Minimize drop heights of materials; and . Route haulage/dump trucks on main roads where possible, rather than quieter residential roads.

The following additional mitigation measures may be considered and implemented to further reduce noise effects during construction, if required:

. Offset usage of active heavy equipment (schedule non-concurrent use); . Implement noise compliance checks to ensure equipment levels are in compliance with MOECC guidelines NPC-115 and NPC-118; . Reroute construction and truck traffic, when possible;

4. Note that Ministry of Labour requirements and Ontario’s Occupational Health & Safety Act and Regulations (Reg. 231/91-105) specify obligations for dump trucks to be equipped with automatic audible reversal alarms when operated in reverse.

35 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

. Co-ordinate ‘noisy’ operations such that they will not occur simultaneously, where possible; . Where possible, investigate and implement the use of alternative construction equipment or methods to reduce noise emissions from construction. Utilize alternative equipment that generates lower noise levels or optimize silencer/muffler/enclosure performance; . Use rubber linings in chutes and dumpers to reduce impact noise; . Install acoustic enclosures, noise shrouds or noise curtains around noisy equipment; and . Install temporary noise barriers/solid construction hoarding on site boundary to screen affected locations.

7.2 Construction Vibration

No specific construction vibration mitigation measures are anticipated to be required.

7.3 Operational Noise

No specific operational noise mitigation measures are anticipated to be required.

7.4 Operational Vibration

Operational mitigation measures have been based on the criteria defined in the Protocol, subject to administrative, operational, economic and technical feasibility.

The performance of the vibration mitigation to achieve the existing vibration levels is up to an equivalent of 4 dB overall insertion loss at the most affected location. This means the mitigation to be implemented must be capable of reducing vibration levels by at least 4 dB. There are several options that may be considered for this level of vibration isolation, with some options described in Table 19 below. It is anticipated that one of these options will be selected for the locations where mitigation is recommended.

Table 19: Examples of Site Specific Vibration Mitigation

Mitigation Measure Description Resilient Rail Resilient fasteners are used to fasten the rails to the ties. Fasteners By making use of fasteners that are less stiff in the vertical direction, it is possible to reduce the ground-borne vibration by as much as 4 to 8 dB at frequencies above 30 to 40 Hz.

36 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Mitigation Measure Description Resilient Resiliently supported tie system involves attaching thick rubber Supported Ties pads directly to the underside of ties in ballast. By making use of rubber pads between the ties and the foundation it is possible to reduce the vibration by at least 10 dB. The rails are fastened directly to the concrete ties using standard rail clips. Ballast Mats A ballast mat consists of a rubber or other type of elastomer pad that is placed under the ballast. Ballast mats are less effective if placed directly on the soil or the sub-ballast and in some instances may require an asphalt or concrete layer under the ballast. Ballast mats can provide 10 to 15 dB attenuation at frequencies above 25 to 30 Hz.

37 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

8. Conclusion

Noise and vibration during construction are expected to be perceptible to sensitive receptors (local residents). At several locations, construction noise levels are predicted to be significant and will need to be controlled to ensure sensitive receivers are not exposed to noise above the adopted guideline limits described in Section 4.1 of this report. However, if residents report excessive levels of noise and vibration, Metrolinx will investigate mitigation options where appropriate.

Vibration levels are predicted to be below the City of Toronto’s zone of influence threshold for construction vibration at all locations.

The effects related to increased noise and vibration from construction activities will be temporary in duration and will cease upon completion of construction. No residual effects related to building damage from vibration are anticipated. Therefore, residual adverse noise and vibration effects from construction activities are expected to be minor.

Future rail and layover operational noise impacts are predicted to be below the significant threshold level and layover facility sound level limits at the surrounding noise- sensitive land uses.

Operational vibration impacts are predicted to be significant at three locations (R5 - Southeast of Henry Lane Terrace, R6 – portion of Tom Longboat Lane (between Portneuf Court and Parliament Street), and R9 – near corner of Mill Street and Bayview Avenue), where mitigation is recommended to be provided. Railway tracks at these locations are recommended to have a vibration isolation system installed to help control vibration levels where possible. With these mitigation measures implemented, residual vibration effects from rail operations are predicted to be minor.

38 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

9. References

City of Toronto: By-Law 514-2008, To amend City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 363, Building Construction and Demolition, with respect to regulation of vibrations from construction activity, 2008.

City of Toronto: By-Law 591-2009, Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 591, Noise, 2009.

City of Toronto: Technical Research Study: Construction Related Vibration in the City of Toronto, INSPEC-SOL Inc. Reference No. T-1804, 2007.

Dillon Consulting: Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment, Appendix I – Evaluation of Traffic Noise Impact for Alternative Solutions and Preferred Undertaking, January 2017.

Federal Highways Administration (FHWA): US Department of Transportation, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2011.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA): US Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report No. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006.

International Organization for Standardization: ISO 2631-2: Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration – Part 2: Vibration and Shock in Buildings (1 to 80 Hz), Geneva, Switzerland, 1985.

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy and GO Transit: Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment, Draft #9, January 1995.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, Queens Printer for Ontario. August 1978.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment: NPC-300, Environmental Noise Guideline, Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2013.

39 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method for Environment and Transportation (ORNAMENT), Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1990.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment: STEAM, Sound from Trains Environmental Analysis Method, 1990.

RWDI Air Inc.: GO Rail Network Electrification Transit Project Assessment Process, Final Noise & Vibration Modelling Report – Union Station Rail Corridor, November 2016.

Figures

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Figure 1: Noise Sensitive Areas, Representative Points of Reception and Baseline Monitoring Locations (Yonge Street to Parliament Street)

F-1 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Figure 2: Noise Sensitive Areas, Representative Points of Reception and Baseline Monitoring Locations (Parliament Street to Eastern Avenue)

F-2 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Figure 3: Recommended Extents of Vibration Mitigation (Southeast of Henry Lane Terrace)

Note: The Active Isolation Zone is the length of track over which vibration levels should be attenuated to control vibration to the affected receptor location(s). The Nominal Transition Zone is a length of track with isolation treatment of decreasing resilience between the isolation zone (with maximum deflections) and the standard ballast track (with lower deflections). Depending on the type of track isolation system selected, this transition zone may be needed to avoid an abrupt mismatch in track deflection as trains pass over – to protect the integrity of the track.

F-3 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Figure 4: Recommended Extents of Vibration Mitigation (Between Portneuf Court and Parliament Street)

F-4 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Figure 5: Recommended Extents of Vibration Mitigation (Near Corner of Mill Street and Bayview Avenue))

F-5

Appendix A

Noise and Vibration Terminology

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix A. Noise and Vibration Terminology

Term Definition Sound Pressure wave travelling through a medium, such as air. Noise Unwanted sound. Acoustics The science of sound propagation and transmission. Vibration Oscillation of a parameter that defines the motion of a mechanical system. Decibel, dB A logarithmic ratio, not strictly a unit, used to describe sound levels. For sound pressure, the reference level is 20 micropascals (threshold of hearing). Frequency The rate at which an event is repeated. Measured in Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz = 1 oscillation/sec. Normal human hearing extends over a range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to about 20 kHz. Octave Band A band of frequencies where the upper limiting frequency is twice the lower limiting frequency. Octave bands are identified by their centre-frequencies. The octave bands standardized for acoustic measurements include those centred at 31.5, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, & 8000 Hz. A-Weighting Network, A frequency weighting network intended to represent the variation in dBA the ear’s ability to hear different frequencies. Overall sound levels calculated or measured using the A-weighting network are indicated by dBA rather than dB. Sound Pressure Level A measurement of instantaneous sound pressure and equal to 10

(SPL, Lp) times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the instantaneous sound pressure of a sound divided by the reference sound pressure of 20 μPa (0 dB). Reported and measured in decibels (dB or dBA).

Leq - “Equivalent sound Value of a constant sound pressure level which would result in the level” same total sound energy as would the measured time-varying sound

pressure level over equivalent time duration. The Leq, 1hr, for example, describes the equivalent continuous sound level over a 1 hour period. Peak Particle Velocity The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform. (PPV) Can be expressed in mm/s. Root Mean Square The square root of the mean-square value of an oscillating vibration Velocity (RMSV) velocity waveform, where the mean-square value is obtained by squaring the value of amplitudes at each instant in time and then averaging these values over the sample time.

Appendix B

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (MOEE/GO Transit, 1995)

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix B: Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment (MOEE/GO Transit, 1995)

B-1 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

B-2 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

B-3 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

B-4 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

B-5 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

B-6 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

B-7

Appendix C

STEAM vs. FTA Comparison

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix C: STEAM vs. FTA Comparison

C-1 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

C-2

Appendix D

Mile Markers, Throttle Settings and Speeds

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix D: Mile Markers, Throttle Settings and Speeds

Table D1: Sectors with Equal Throttle Settings, and Corresponding Maximum Speed used in Noise Model1

Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Sector Approx. Sector Max. Max. Express Express Express Express Throttle Throttle ID Extents Speed Speed Throttle Max. Speed Throttle Max. Speed setting setting (km/h) (km/h) setting (km/h) setting (km/h) Ua Mi. 0.35E – 0.50E 1 24 1 24 1 23 1 23 Ub Mi. 0.50E – 0.53E 1 24 1 24 3 25 1 29 Uc Mi. 0.53E – 0.54E 1 24 1 24 5 26 1 31 Ud Mi. 0.54E – 0.81E 8 64 1 44 8 67 1 42 Ue Mi. 0.81E – 0.97E 8 64 2 44 8 67 1 43 Uf Mil. 0.97E – 1.04E 1 70 2 44 8 67 1 45 Ug Mi. 1.04E – 1.11E 1 70 2 44 1 70 1 47 Uh Mi. 1.11E – 1.17E 1 70 2 44 1 70 1 47 Ui Mi. 1.17E – 1.24E 2 70 2 45 3 72 1 46 Uj Mi. 1.24E – 1.41E 4 70 2 45 1 72 3 46 Uk Mi. 1.41E – 1.48E 8 70 2 44 1 72 3 41 Ul Mi. 1.48E – 1.50E 8 73 2 44 1 71 1 39 Um Mi. 1.50E – 1.53E 8 73 2 44 8 71 1 38 Un Mi. 1.53E – 1.95E 8 78 1 90 8 71 1 84 Note: 1. Data Derived from Notch Data Logs Provided by Metrolinx

D-1 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Figure D1: Mile Marker Locations (Yonge Street to Parliament Street)

D-2 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Figure D2: Mile Marker Locations (Parliament Street to Eastern Avenue)

D-3

Appendix E

Operational Noise – Detailed Results

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix E: Operational Noise – Detailed Results

Table E1: Operational Noise – Detailed Results (All values are calculated predictions)

Background Noise Background Noise Rail Noise Rail Noise Overall Noise Overall Noise Rail Noise Rail Noise Overall Noise Overall Noise Noise Noise Mitigation Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Impact Impact Investigation ID Existing Road Existing Road Existing Existing Existing Existing With Project With Project With Project With Project (dB) (dB) Requirement Traffic Traffic Leq,16hr (Day) Leq,8hr (Night) Leq,16hr (Day) Leq,8hr (Night) Leq,16hr (Day) Leq,8hr (Night) Leq,16hr (Day) Leq,8hr (Night) Day Night Yes/No Leq,16hr (Day) Leq,8hr (Night) R1 72.7 68.1 73.2 67.9 76.0 71.0 76.7 70.8 78.2 72.7 2.2 1.7 No R2 63.1 58.7 74.2 69.0 74.5 69.4 77.9 71.9 78.0 72.1 3.5 2.7 No R3 64.1 65.2 68.2 68.4 69.6 70.1 71.6 70.1 72.3 71.3 2.7 1.2 No R4 70.0 64.3 74.8 70 76.0 71.0 78.2 71.7 78.8 72.4 2.8 1.4 No R5 69.2 62.9 68.6 63.7 71.9 66.3 70.4 63.4 72.9 66.2 1.0 0 No R6 66.6 64.7 66.8 62.6 69.7 66.8 68.5 61.0 70.7 66.2 1.0 0 No R7 68.6 63.1 66.5 62.1 70.7 65.6 70.7 65.0 72.8 67.2 2.1 1.6 No R8 64.3 59.1 66.1 61.5 68.3 63.5 69.6 62.9 70.7 64.4 2.4 0.9 No R9 56.8 N/A 65.6 N/A 66.1 N/A 68.6 N/A 68.9 N/A 2.8 N/A No Notes: Schools are considered noise-sensitive during daytime only, so night-time noise levels for R9 are not applicable to the assessment. Future (With Project) Noise Levels are a logarithmic addition of the Rail ‘With Project’ and Background (Existing Road Traffic) Noise Levels.

E-1

Appendix F

Example Operational Vibration Calculations

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix F: Operational Vibration Calculations

F-1

Appendix G

Layover Site Noise – Determination of Noise Limits

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix G: Layover Site Noise – Determination of Noise Limits

Table G1: Operational Noise – Detailed Results (All values are calculated predictions)

One-hour One-hour Higher of One-hour Higher of One-hour Exclusion Exclusion Rail Noise Rail Noise Adjusted Rail Adjusted Rail Layover Site Layover Site Background Noise Background Noise Background Noise Background Noise Limit Limit Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Noise Level Noise Level Noise Limit Noise Limit ID Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Level or Exclusion Level or Exclusion (dBA) (dBA) (With Project) (With Project) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Existing Road Traffic Existing Road Traffic Limit (dBA) Limit (dBA) Leq,1hr (Day) Leq,1hr (Night) Leq,16hr (Day) Leq,8hr (Night) Leq,1hr (Day) Leq,1hr (Night) Leq,1hr (Day) Leq,1hr (Night) Leq,1hr (Day) Leq,1hr (Night) Leq,1hr (Day) Leq,1hr (Night) R8 58.2 53.7 55 55 58.2 55 70.1 63.6 60.1 53.6 62.3 57.4 R9 53.9 N/A 55 N/A 55 55 67.3 N/A 57.3 N/A 59.3 N/A

The one-hour equivalent sound level (Leq, 1hr) limit for noise from a layover site is the higher of either 55 dBA or the background sound level. In this case, the background sound levels include predicted road traffic noise and contribution of rail traffic, determined in accordance with the following conditions and procedures, as described in NPC-300:

. the contribution of train pass-by sound levels to the background sound level only applies to noise sensitive land uses in Class 1, 2 and 4 areas (not in a Class 3 area)*; . the noise sensitive land uses are located within 300 metres from the nearest track of railway lines carrying a minimum of 40 trains during daytime or 20 trains during nighttime;

(Leq, 1hr) or the exclusion limit.

G-1

Appendix H

Summary of Assumptions

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Appendix H: Summary of Assumptions

Item Item Description # 1 Study Area Direction from Metrolinx: The air and noise & vibration reports should use, as much as possible, the same definitions and assumptions. To this end, it is preferable to define the Study Area as being bound by 300 m on each side of the tracks. 2 Construction See Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, and Table 9 (Activities and equipment equipment assumptions are based on prior experience with Metrolinx rail infrastructure construction projects and direction from Metrolinx). 3 Construction Details (location and extent) of construction staging areas will not be locations determined at this stage, therefore for this environmental assessment all noise generating activities during construction will be assumed to take place within the rail corridor right of way, with the exception of bridge modification and retaining wall structure construction, which will be assumed to take place at the closest location of the construction sites as shown on the AECOM Civil Works drawings available as of March 2018. 4 Construction Construction could occur during day or night, in order to keep railway hours operating during the daytime. 5 Operational Three operational noise modelling scenarios: noise scenarios 1) Without Project (Existing Conditions) - all diesel; 2) With Project (Future (2025) - all diesel, with total volumes as provided in volume data. 3) With Project (Future 2025) - diesel and electric with mix as provided in volume data. 6 GO train See Table 12 and Table 12 volumes Existing Conditions scenario data taken from Total_Trips_Operated_2016_GO_Sept_15.xls Future scenario data taken from Future ‘With Project’ Scenario Spreadsheet (USRC East Trip Volumes RER Scenario 5 + Fall 2016 Diesel & Electric Disaggregated.xlsx). Additional Future Oshawa to Bowmanville data received in email dated December 2nd: 7 VIA train See Table 12 and Table 12 volumes Existing VIA data has been obtained from recent train schedules. The increases in VIA rail service were assumed to be negligible. Therefore, existing and future volumes are the same.

H-1 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Item Item Description # 8 Freight See Table 12 and Table 12 volumes Existing data has been provided by Metrolinx: The only current CN train scheduled to operate in the USRC is CN Train 543 (as shown under the LSW to switch the Portlands). CN has indicated that rail freight volumes are directly linked to GDP. Annual growth rate is assumed to be 2.5% per annum. 9 Noise Operational noise modelling will be conducted using FTA methodology Modelling implemented in Cadna/A software 10 Tangent track Track type will be continuous welded. type 11 Special Modelled with equivalent sound level to the reference provided in the trackwork FTA guide (90 dBA at 15.2 m; FTA 2006). Event duration determined based on total crossover/switch pass-by time per period (day/night) calculated from train speeds and lengths. 12 Whistles Special instructions prohibit whistling within USRC. This does not apply for whistling as a warning to workers on or around the track which requires it (Rule 42). As this is not part of the regular operations, whistles have not been included in the noise model. 13 Crossing Modelled with equivalent sound level to the reference provided in the warning signals FTA guide (73 dBA at 15.2 m; FTA 2006) and duration of 60 s for each train pass-by. 14 Locomotive Modelled with equivalent sound level to the reference provided in the FTA idling at yard guide (73 dBA at 15.2 m; FTA 2006) and duration of 90 min. (worst case). 15 GO trains 12 cars per consist is assumed for all GO Transit train consists 16 VIA trains VIA consists are assumed to be 1 locos and 6 cars 17 Diesel Trip logs provided by Metrolinx for Lakeshore East project were used to passenger train develop throttle settings and speed profiles for existing diesel local and throttle and express trips. These were assumed to be typical trips. speed profiles Speed profiles for RER diesel service will be assumed to be the same as current profiles. 18 Electric train Electric trains have the capabilities to accelerate 15% faster than diesel speeds trains; however, a 15% increase in acceleration results in a negligible change in sound level. The future electric throttle settings and speed profiles are the same as the diesel throttle settings and speed profiles. 19 Yard throttle Assume a reasonable deceleration/acceleration profile into and out of and speed layover yards/maintenance facilities, based on other profiles deceleration/acceleration profiles at other stops from the trip log.

H-2 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Item Item Description # 20 VIA throttle and Assume VIA throttle and speed profiles are similar to GO when pulling speed profiles into and out of stations. 21 Freight train USRC Operating Manual No. 6 was provided by Metrolinx for assessment speeds and this notes maximum freight speed limit of 15 mph on USRC. Throttle setting as per express service on USRC and notch 3 in turnouts to yards and within yards. 22 Track Track allotments for existing conditions provided by Metrolinx (Oct 31st allotments 2016 – Union Stn Allotment.xls). AECOM is using existing track allotments as provided and is scaling up on volume basis for future scenario. All Bowmanville trains operate on track 14 23 Freight track Freight train CN switcher would typically pass through Union on Track 16 allotment and use the South Jarvis Pocket before turning off at the Harbour Lead 24 Distribution of Additional information on local vs. express splits taken from current express and schedules. local services The future distribution is assumed to be the same split as existing, but scaled up for volumes. All Future Bowmanville trains operate as local services with respect to throttle settings within the USRC. 25 Timing of 7:00 to 8:00 am: 2 WB from Bowmanville to Union Future 8:00 to 9:00 am: 2 WB from Bowmanville to Union Bowmanville 4:00 to 5:00 pm: 2 EB from Union to Bowmanville trains 5:00 to 6:00 pm: 2 EB from Union to Bowmanville. 26 Non-revenue The AM rush is assumed to occur before 7:00 am and evening is services between 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm for non-revenue services. 27 Receptor The GO transit assessment protocol describes sensitive land uses as identification residential dwellings and commercial\industrial operations that are exceptionally sensitive. We are proceeding with the assumption that we should be assessing the same land uses as NPC-300 with the exception of vacant lots. 28 Operational Project impacts will only be considered for mitigation, as opposed to noise impacts mitigating for ambient conditions, such as road traffic noise 29 Noise For the purposes of the study, noise mitigation will be evaluated based mitigation on a 5 m standard noise wall and shall be considered technical feasible feasibility if a 5 dB noise reduction is predicted. Noise barriers will be placed at the edge of the Right-of-way for purposes of modelling to assess technical feasibility.

H-3 Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Enhancements Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Item Item Description # 30 Idling trains Assume that diesel and electric idling trains have the same sound level. We do not have sound power levels for the electric trains to know if there should be a difference and there is no adjustment factor in the FTA guide. 31 Yard Noise implications of Wilson Yard and Don Yard will be assessed in equipment accordance with NPC-300 as layover facility, with the following stationary noise sources: . Diesel trains idling simultaneously in Don Yard and Wilson Yard – see Section 6.5.1; . Locomotive idling at yard: Modelled with equivalent sound level to the reference provided in the FTA guide (73 dBA at 15.2 m; FTA 2006). . Small tractor to pull honey wagon – similar to a John Deere Model 3033R (at Don Yard (DY) – could be shared between WY and DY but DY is worst case for proximity to sensitive points of reception) – model as tractor based on FTA sound level reference; . Honey wagon trailer – custom built to fit facility requirements (at Don Yard (DY) – could be shared between WY and DY but DY is worst case for proximity to sensitive points of reception); . Electric E truck – similar to model Mighty E manufactured by Canadian Electric Vehicles Ltd. – not included in noise model (insignificant noise source); . Boom lift truck – similar to JLG Model E450AJ or Genie Z™-34/22 N – not included in noise model (insignificant noise source); and . Mobile locomotive sanding unit at Don Yard (DY) – could be shared between WY and DY but DY is worst case for proximity to sensitive points of reception) power system sound level: 80 dBA at 3 ft., as per Sandveyor 750 handbook. 32 Vibration Operational vibration modelling will be conducted using General Modelling Vibration Assessment FTA methodology, except special trackwork: for distances over 15 m, it is assumed that the correction for vibration from switches is varied with distance according to the function 10-15*log(distance/15) VdB. 33 Snow Clearing Modelled based on manufacturer’s sound level data for Hellfire 4000 Devices and 9000 units, with sound spectrum based on typical packaged ventilation unit. Assumed to operate continuously during day and night.

H-4