MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY 404 EXTENSION FINAL NOISE STUDY. Assignment Number: 2013-E-0017 #3

Transcription

1 MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY 404 EXTENSION FINAL NOISE STUDY Assignment Number: 2013-E-0017 #3 Submitted to: The Ministry of Transportation 1201 Wilson Avenue Downsview, Ontario M3M 1J8 Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure a Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited 160 Traders Blvd., Suite 110 Mississauga, Ontario L4Z 3K7 February 2015 Project No. TC

2 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 FOREWORD As of January 1, 2015, we have changed our company name from AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited to Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, a Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited (Amec Foster Wheeler). This reflects the combination of our parent company, AMEC plc, and Foster Wheeler AG. This name change is administrative in nature and we assure you that we will continue to maintain the current resources, contracts or other existing services you have with Amec Foster Wheeler. We will continue to provide the same quality of services and the same dedicated team of consultants, project managers, engineers and scientists. Our focus remains on delivering projects safely and successfully for you. You can find more information on Amec Foster Wheeler at TC Page I

3 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE FOREWORD... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION Field Investigation NOISE MONITORING ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS Applicable Guidelines Location of Noise Sensitive Areas within the Area of Investigation Definition of Noise Sensitive Areas Location and Number of NSAs within the Area of Investigation Road Traffic Data Noise Modelling Existing Noise Barriers Noise Model Validation Determination of Current Noise Impacts Determination of Future Noise Impacts Investigation of Noise Mitigation Potential Noise Mitigation Measures Noise Barriers CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CLOSING REFERENCES TC Page II

4 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Measured Sound Levels... 3 Table 2: Summary of Mitigation Efforts Required Per MTO Guideline... 5 Table 3: Existing Traffic Data Year Table 4: Traffic Data - Year Table 5: Measured Vs Modelled Existing Sound Level Comparison (Year 2014) Table 6: Predicted Existing Sound Levels (Year 2014) Table 7: Predicted Future Sound Levels - Unmitigated (Year 2031) Table 8: Ranking of Noise Levels - Unmitigated (Year 2031) Table 9: Noise Barriers and Summary of Economical/Technical Feasibility LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Extent Figure 2: Noise Monitors, Noise Sensitive Areas, Receptors, and Noise Barrier Locations LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Glossary of Commonly Used Noise Terminology Appendix B: Calibration Certificates Appendix C: Monitoring Data Appendix D: Sound Level Comparison with Original EA Study Appendix E: Mitigated Sound Levels with Recommended and Potential Noise Barriers TC Page III

5 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February INTRODUCTION The Ministry of Transportation (Ministry) opened the new extension to Highway 404 in September This highway consists of two lanes in both directions, separated by a 34 m grassed centre median. Figure 1 includes the full project extent for the highway extension. Since the opening of the Highway 404 extension, the Ministry has received several noise complaints from residents living near the highway between Green Lane and Ravenshoe Road in the Town of East Gwillimbury. The original noise assessment report prepared by McCormick Rankin Corporation (MRC) for this section of highway was completed in June 2006 prior to construction using the MTO/MOECC Noise Protocol and the MTO Noise Manual. The study assumed average pavement type would be used on the new highway; however, during construction a change in design resulted in the use of Portland cement concrete pavement. The Ministry has decided, for this case, to investigate current noise levels and determine if residents along the newly opened Highway 404 Extension meet provincial criteria for noise mitigation using the Ministry s current policy, Environmental Guide for Noise This assignment includes noise monitoring for validation of noise model used for the project. This report has been prepared to address these items with respect to the Highway 404 Extension. A glossary of commonly used noise terminology can be found in Appendix A. 1.1 Field Investigation Amec Foster Wheeler staff conducted a field investigation of the Highway 404 Extension with Ministry staff in October The field investigation was conducted to review the noise monitoring locations for the project, and provide a general overview of the current conditions of the project. Amec Foster Wheeler staff also conducted a field review of the recommended noise barrier in January 2015 to assess right-of-way installation at those locations. 2.0 NOISE MONITORING Amec Foster Wheeler conducted noise monitoring at eight (8) representative receptor locations along the Highway 404 Extension. These noise monitoring locations are identified in Figure 2. The noise monitoring program was for a two week period (from October 29 through November 7, 2014). Six long-term noise monitors were used for the measurements at these locations along the project corridor. The following noise monitors are used for the measurements. Noise Monitors NM1, NM7 & NM8: Monitors NM1, NM7 and NM8 were two Larson Davis model LxT Integrating Sound Level Meters (SLM) equipped with long-term measurement gear TC Page 1

6 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 including wind screens and bird spikes. The Model LxT uses a Larson Davis Model PRMLxT1L preamplifier and a Larson Davis precision microphone model 377B02, which have been factory calibrated with the SLM units. The SLM meets IEC Type 1 requirements. The sound level meters have been calibrated by independent certification lab within the previous twelve months, and were field calibrated with a Larson-Davis Model CA200 precision acoustic calibrator before and after the measurements. Noise Monitors NM2 through NM6: Monitors NM2 through NM6 were four Larson Davis model 831 Integrating Sound Level Meters (SLM) equipped with long-term measurement gear including wind screens and bird spikes. The Model 831 uses a Larson Davis Model PRM831 preamplifier and a Larson Davis precision microphone model 377B02, which have been factory calibrated with the SLM units. The SLM meets IEC Type 1 requirements. The sound level meters have been calibrated by independent certification lab within the previous twelve months, and were field calibrated with a Larson-Davis Model CA200 precision acoustic calibrator before and after the measurements. A copy of the laboratory Certificate of Calibration for the noise monitors is provided in Appendix B. The noise monitors were set to record hourly sound level equivalent L eq (i.e., L eq (1-hr)), L 10, L 90 and L max in dba at each location. Microphones were fitted on tripods with wind screens and birddeterrent wires, set to a typical outdoor listening height of 1.5 metres - 2 metres above ground. The noise monitoring was carried out in accordance with the procedures specified in Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) noise publication NPC-103. For the purpose of this study, and as defined in NPC-103, it is considered that inclement weather conditions occur when: Humidity levels above 90% or precipitation has occurred; Wind velocity has exceeded 20 km/h; or Temperature is outside the operating range defined by the manufacturer of sound level meter (i.e., -10 C to +50 C). Amec Foster Wheeler collected historical meteorological data from the nearest weather station with a complete set of data: the Environment Canada Historical Weather website for the Toronto Buttonville A weather station. The weather data collected for the relevant periods of measurement is provided in Appendix C. The coordinates for this weather station are: Latitude: 43 51'44.000" N Longitude: 79 22'12.000" W TC Page 2

7 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 The noise data collected is presented in tables provided in Appendix C. Measured sound levels at the representative receptors are summarized in Table 1. Noise Monitor Representative Receptor [1] Table 1: Measured Sound Levels Representative [5], [6] Monitoring Periods Measured Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) [2] Measured Daytime Sound Levels L eq Day (dba) Measured Nighttime Sound Levels L eq Night (dba) NM1 OR6 October 30, NM2 OR7 October 30, NM3 OR8 November 5, NM4 NM5 OR9 OR10 October 30, November 3 and 5, 2014 October 30, November 3 and 5, NM6 OR19 November 5, NM7 AR10 October 30, NM8 AR20 November 5, Notes: [1] Original Receptor (OR) numbering as used in the MRC report. Additional Receptors (AR) are added along with those in the MRC report. [2] Leq 24hr is used for this assessment. Leq Day and Leq Night are provided for informational purpose only. [3] Daytime is defined as the period between 07:00 and 23:00, and night-time as the period between 23:00 and 07:00. [4] Sound levels reported in the table are for weekdays only. [5] Representative monitoring periods are defined as weekdays where there were least 22 or more hours recorded of acceptable data. Monitoring days that did not meet this requirement were not considered representative. [6] Where there were more than one representative monitoring day provided, the measured sound levels (24, day, night) were averaged to provide a representative noise level for the monitoring location. A sample 24hr hourly measured data for NM5 (represented by receptor OR10) is graphically presented below: TC Page 3

8 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February Hour LAeq over a 24 hour period (Nov ) Sound Pressure Level [dba] Hour 3.0 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS This section of the report provides an evaluation of noise impacts from road traffic noise resulting from the Highway 404 Extension. All significant road networks in the area are included for this assessment (e.g., Woodbine Ave., Leslie St., Green Lane Road, Mt Albert Road, Queensville Side Road, Doane Road, Boag Road and Ravenshoe Road). All others road networks, upon direction by MTO, are considered insignificant for the purposes of road traffic noise impact for the project. 3.1 Applicable Guidelines There are several transportation noise guidelines, including Ontario Provincial policies established by the MTO and MOECC, Regional and Municipal noise guidelines that are applicable to typical road projects. However, since this is a highway project MTO Environmental Guide for Noise 2006 is the only Ministry noise guideline applicable to the project. The Environmental Guide for Noise updates, improves and supersedes both the MOECC/MTO Joint Protocol (MTO & MOECC, 1986) and the MTO Quality and Standards Directive QST-A1 (MTO 1992a). TC Page 4

9 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Under the Environmental Guide for Noise, the importance of changes from a noise impact perspective is based on the objective level and change from existing conditions. Assessments should be based on a minimum 10-year future horizon year traffic data (i.e., on traffic volumes 10 years after the completion of the project). For this project, traffic data have been coordinated with the original MRC Noise Assessment Report for the future horizon year (2031), as well as traffic predictions based on traffic data collected during the year Noise mitigation is technically warranted when noise levels are increased to 65 dba or the increase is 5 db over the no-build ambient (MTO Environmental Guide for Noise). Mitigation measures can include noise barriers, noise reducing asphalts, and changes in vertical profiles and horizontal alignments. For the purpose of this study, as the new construction of the highway is completed, options for asphalts, vertical profiles and horizontal alignments are not available or feasible. According to the MTO guideline, noise mitigation where applied must be administratively, economically and technically feasible, and must provide at least 5 db of reduction averaged over the first row of noise-sensitive receivers. Mitigation measures are restricted to within the roadway right-of-way and shoulder. Off right-of-way noise mitigation, such as window upgrades and air conditioning, is not considered for this assessment as the assessment is for done for the Outdoor Living Area (OLA). Noise mitigation requirements per MTO guidelines are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Mitigation Efforts Required Per MTO Guideline Change in Sound Levels above Ambient and Absolute Future Sound Levels with Project <5 db Increase OR <65 dba Absolute >5 db Increase OR >65 dba Absolute None Mitigation Effort Required Investigate noise control measures within right-of-way Noise control measures where used must provide a minimum of 5 db of attenuation, averaged over the first row of receivers Mitigated to as close to ambient as possible, where technically, economically and administratively feasible Under MTO policies, L eq (24h) sound levels are used to assess impacts from freeways (400-series major highways). 3.2 Location of Noise Sensitive Areas within the Area of Investigation Definition of Noise Sensitive Areas Noise impacts from transportation projects are evaluated at noise sensitive receptors within the area. Noise receptors are called Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs) in the MTO documents. Under TC Page 5

10 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 current Ontario guidelines, NSAs include the following land uses, provided they have an outdoor living area associated with them: Private homes (single family units and townhouses); Multiple unit buildings such as apartments, provided they have a communal OLA associated with them; Hotels/motels where there are OLA s for visitors (e.g., swimming pool area); Educational facilities and daycare centres where there are OLAs for students; Hospitals and nursing homes for the aged, provided they have an OLA for use by patients; and Campgrounds that provide overnight accommodation. The following land uses are generally not considered to qualify as NSAs: Apartment balconies; Churches and other places of worship; Cemeteries; Parks and picnic areas not part of a defined OLA; All commercial; and All industrial Location and Number of NSAs within the Area of Investigation Forty-five (45) representative NSAs within the study area have been considered for this study and they were provided by MTO. The NSAs considered in the study includes twenty-four (24) originally assessed receptors (MRC report) and twenty-one (21) additional NSAs as added by MTO. These NSAs are single family dwellings on either side of the Highway 404 Extension, except some of the additional receptors (e.g., AR4, AR5, AR10 and AR12 to AR19). These are open areas without any defined noise sensitive area; but are included for the assessment as requested by MTO. The NSAs with receptor locations are shown in Figure 2. The receptor locations for this traffic noise impact assessment are the Outdoor Living Areas (OLA) of noise sensitive land uses. The OLA may be situated on any side of the receptor, but is generally taken to be the backyard. For assessment purposes, it is taken as a point located 3 m from the façade of the receptor, and 1.5 m (approximate head-height) above the ground surface. Where the actual position of the OLA is unknown, the side or backside closest to the proposed roadway has been assumed. The locations of the representative noise receptors used in the analysis are shown in Figure 2. TC Page 6

11 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February Road Traffic Data For the purposes of validating the traffic noise model with noise monitoring results, existing sound levels were modelled using the current traffic data (2014) as provided by MTO. Traffic noise assessments are typically based on a 10-year future horizon year (i.e., on traffic volumes 10 years after the completion of the project). Future horizon year (2031) traffic data used in the original noise assessment (MRC Noise Assessment Report) is used for this assessment. For the assessment of current (2014) traffic noise impact, existing Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT) for the highway and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume for the crossroads as provided by the MTO are used. The traffic split for the medium and heavy trucks were also provided for the Highway 404 Extension by the MTO. The traffic data used in the assessment is summarized in Table 3 and 4. Table 3: Existing Traffic Data Year 2014 Road SADT / AADT [1] Commercial Vehicle % Heavy/Medium Truck % Split Posted Speed Limit (km/h) Highway ,916 [1] / Doane Road /40 70 Mt Albert Road 7, /40 70 Queensville Side Road 3, /40 70 Ravenshoe Road W 6, /40 80 Ravenshoe Road E 7, /40 80 Leslie St. 15, /40 50 Woodbine Ave. 20, /40 80 Green Lane W 30, /40 70 Green Lane E 24, /40 70 Boag Road /40 80 Note: [1] SADT for Highway 404 only. All other roads are AADT. [2] Traffic Data as provided MTO for the monitoring period (November 2014). TC Page 7

12 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Road Table 4: Traffic Data - Year 2031 SADT with Hwy 404 [1] SADT without Hwy 404 [1] Commercial Vehicle % Heavy/Medium Truck % Split Posted Speed Limit (km/h) Highway South of Green Lane 130, / Highway Green Lane to Doane Road 104, / Highway Doane Road to Queensville Side Rd 90, / Highway Queensville Side Rd to Woodbine Ave. 67, / Doane Road West of Hwy ,700 13, /40 70 Doane Road East of Hwy ,300 13, /40 70 Mt Albert Road 19,600 16, /40 70 Queensville Side Road West of Hwy ,800 12, /40 70 Queensville Side Road East of Hwy ,800 12, /40 70 Ravenshoe Road West of Hwy 404 4,000 9, /40 80 Ravenshoe Road East of Hwy ,900 9, /40 80 Leslie St. 26,365 [2] 26,365 [2] /40 50 Woodbine Ave. Mt. Albert Rd to Doane Rd 8,500 50, /40 80 Woodbine Ave. Doane Rd to Queensville Side Rd 9,100 46, /40 80 Woodbine Ave. Queensville Side Rd to Holborn Rd 9,400 38, /40 80 Woodbine Ave. Holborn Rd to Boag Rd 10,700 41, /40 80 Woodbine Ave. Boag Rd to Hwy ,800 51, /40 80 Woodbine Ave. Hwy 404 to Ravenshoe Road 60,500 51, /40 80 Green Lane W 30,365 53, /40 70 Green Lane E 24,961 53, /40 70 Boag Road /40 80 Note: [1] Traffic Data as referenced in the MRC report (Future Year 2031). [2] Calculated from 2014 data with an increase of 3% annually. For the purposes of this assessment for the future (2031) year, the higher of available SADT and AADT is used as required by the guideline. 3.4 Noise Modelling The Ministry of Transportation accepts the following computerized noise models: STAMINA 2.0; FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM ), Version 2.5; Stamson, Version 5.0; or Other versions or programs subsequently approved for use by the Ministry. TC Page 8

13 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 The FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) is used for the project as it is an appropriate noise model since the highway includes flyovers and it is built with concrete pavement. The following factors were taken into account in the analysis: Horizontal and vertical road-receiver geometry; Road gradients; Intervening terrain types; Traffic volumes and percentage of trucks; Vehicle speeds; Pavement; and Screening provided by terrain. Concrete pavement is considered since the highway is built with the Portland cement concrete. Amec Foster Wheeler was provided with the progress construction drawings for the project, which were the most available at the time for this assessment. These were used as the basis of developing the TNM modeling for the project and complete the noise assessment. 3.5 Existing Noise Barriers The Sharon Hills Development Phase 6 has implemented a noise barrier along the subdivision property to mitigate noise levels from Highway 404 Extension. The noise wall height ranges from 1.8 m to 3.0 m. This existing noise wall is included in this noise assessment and TNM modeling. 3.6 Noise Model Validation For the purpose of validating the TNM model, eight (8) representative receptor locations were modelled and compared to the noise monitoring results (Table 2). Comparison between monitored and predicted values at these locations shows that the difference in sound levels range from 0 to 3 db. TC Page 9

14 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Monitor Locations Table 5: Measured Vs Modelled Existing Sound Level Comparison (Year 2014) Measured Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) Predicted Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) Sound Level Difference (db) (Measured-Predicted) NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM A comparison made between the modelled and measured sound levels (Table 5) indicates that the modelled sound levels are within 3 db difference of the measured values and are within the accepted level of accuracy for noise modeling with TNM. 3.7 Determination of Current Noise Impacts The existing sound levels (2014) at all modelled receptors are predicted and are reported in Table 6. Table 6: Predicted Existing Sound Levels (Year 2014) Receptor ID Predicted Existing Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) AR1 43 AR2 46 AR3 47 AR4 49 AR5 48 AR6 47 AR7 48 AR8 43 AR9 48 AR10 52 AR11 44 AR12 53 AR13 47 AR14 50 AR15 53 AR16 55 TC Page 10

15 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Receptor ID Predicted Existing Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) AR17 56 AR18 50 AR19 51 AR20 44 AR21 52 OR1 61 OR2 59 OR3 50 OR4 48 OR5 51 OR6 51 OR7 58 OR8 54 OR9 63 OR10 56 OR11 58 OR12 50 OR13 54 OR14 56 OR15 48 OR16 55 OR17 55 OR18 54 OR19 55 OR20 50 OR21 49 OR22 60 OR23 56 OR24 63 The existing sound levels reported here are for information purpose only; they are not considered for the assessment as the MTO Noise Policy is to assess future noise impacts with a minimum 10 years after the completion of the highway (typically higher than the current impact). TC Page 11

16 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Receptor ID 3.8 Determination of Future Noise Impacts According to the MTO Noise Policy, the assessment of road noise impact is conducted by comparing future build sound levels (with the highway in place) with future no-build sound levels (without the highway). Table 7 presents a comparison of future build versus future nobuild sound levels. Future No- Build Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) [1] Table 7: Predicted Future Sound Levels - Unmitigated (Year 2031) Future Build Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) Is Future Build Sound Levels Greater than Absolute Criteria (65 dba)? Increase in Sound Levels ( Build No- Build ) db Predicted Greater than 5 db Above Ambient? AR N 2 N AR N 5 Y AR N 3 N AR4 [2] N - N AR5 [2] N - N AR N 1 N AR N 0 N AR N 1 N AR N 1 N AR10 [2] N - N AR N 3 N AR12 [2] N - N AR13 [2] N - N AR14 [2] N - N AR15 [2] N - N AR16 [2] N - N AR17 [2] N - N AR18 [2] N - N AR19 [2] N - N AR N 2 N AR N 12 Y OR N - N OR N - N OR N 6 Y OR N 8 Y OR N 10 Y OR N 10 Y TC Page 12

17 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Receptor ID Future No- Build Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) [1] Future Build Sound Levels L eq 24hr (dba) Is Future Build Sound Levels Greater than Absolute Criteria (65 dba)? Increase in Sound Levels ( Build No- Build ) db Predicted Greater than 5 db Above Ambient? OR N 8 Y OR N 12 Y OR Y 21 Y OR N 4 N OR N 12 Y OR N 3 N OR N 7 Y OR N 16 Y OR N 3 N OR N 11 Y OR N 12 Y OR N 10 Y OR N 11 Y OR N 8 Y OR N 5 Y OR N - N OR N 4 N OR N 18 Y Notes: [1] Future No-Build sound levels below 45 dba are reported as 45 dba as these areas without Highway 404 is considered as rural area. [2] The receptor included is for information purpose only. These receptors do not house any noise sensitive area and they are not considered for noise control measures. The original MRC report for EA adopted a background noise level of 50 dba to characterize the baseline acoustic environment for the receptors with future no-build sound level less than 50 dba. However, since the degree of urbanization in the area has not grown to the extent anticipated at the time of the EA, a background noise level of 45 dba has been used in this assessment to better characterize the baseline acoustic environment for the receptors with future no-build sound levels less than 45 dba. The sound levels at 19 modelled receptors exceed the MTO limits. In keeping with MTO requirements, impacts are also ranked in terms of increasing sound level in Table 8. TC Page 13

18 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Future Build Sound Levels Table 8: Ranking of Noise Levels - Unmitigated (Year 2031) Receptors in Category No. of Affected NSAs 50 dba and Under AR1 to AR3, AR6 to AR9, AR11 and AR to 55 dba OR3 to OR6, OR15, OR20 and OR to 60 dba AR21, OR2, OR8, OR10, OR12 to OR14, OR16 to OR19, and OR22 61 to 65 dba OR1, OR7, OR11, OR23 and OR to 70 dba OR The results indicate that the sound levels are exceeded at 19 noise sensitive areas. Investigation of noise mitigation is completed in the next section. For reference, a comparison of future build and future no-build sound levels from this study with the original assessment for the EA (MRC Report) is provided in Appendix D. 3.9 Investigation of Noise Mitigation Based on the projected sound levels resulting from the project, an investigation of noise mitigation measures is required. Noise mitigation should be investigated within the right-of-way. Off- right-of-way noise mitigation measures such as window upgrades and air conditioning are not considered. Mitigation measures should achieve at least 5 db attenuation over the first row of affected receivers. Mitigation should be implemented where administratively, technically, and economically feasible Potential Noise Mitigation Measures Noise mitigation measures that can typically be implemented within the right-of-way include: Changes to vertical and horizontal alignments; Changes to pavement surface types; and Acoustical barriers (noise walls and berms). Horizontal and Vertical Alignments Horizontal and Vertical Alignments are not considered for this project as the construction of Highway 404 is already completed. TC Page 14

19 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Pavement Type Portland Concrete pavement has been used for this project. There is no consideration for noise mitigation with alternate pavement types as the construction of Highway 404 is already is completed. Noise Barriers Noise barriers reduce noise levels at protected receptors through blocking the path of sound waves emanating from the source towards the receiver, and by absorbing or reflecting the incident sound energy away. Therefore, a noise barrier must at least break the line-of-sight between the source (the roadway) and the receptor (the ground-level OLA of the NSA under investigation) in order to be effective. Noise barrier can be a combination of a berm and a noise wall. As per MTO guideline the noise barriers must provide a minimum of 5 db of attenuation, averaged over the first row of receivers, to be considered technically feasible. Noise wall height is limited to 5 m as the practical construction limit by MTO. Where noise walls are to be used, they should be free of gaps and cracks, and have a minimum surface density (mass per unit of face area) of 20 kg/m 2 (4 lb/ft 2 ). It is preferable that barriers are absorptive at least on the roadway side, and this is mandatory in situations where parallel walls (e.g., walls on both sides of a roadway) are proposed. Noise wall costs are typically around $550 per m 2 of face area ($2,750 per running meter length for a 5 m high). Cost Effectiveness of Mitigation Noise mitigation must be cost effective and economically feasible. The current MTO practice is not to exceed a maximum cost of $100,000 per protected receptor (e.g., house) for new projects. This limit has been used for noise barrier economic feasibility for this project. Barrier Aesthetics Noise wall colour and surface appearance and other aesthetic features must be considered in the detailed design. Landscaping, including planting of trees or in this case keeping trees, shrubs and ground cover must be considered for noise berms and berm/wall combinations Noise Barriers A total of eleven noise barriers, including the existing barrier at Sharon Hill Development, are considered in this assessment. Barriers are analyzed for best technical and economical installation within the Ministry right-of-way. TC Page 15

20 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Barrier ID Existing Barriers The Sharon Hills Development Phase 6 has implemented a noise barrier along the subdivision property to mitigate noise levels from Highway 404 Extension. The noise wall height ranges from 1.8 m to 3.0 m. Potential Noise Barriers Reviewed and Recommended (New) Ten potential noise barriers were considered and assessed for this project and they are listed in Table 9. The potential noise barrier locations are shown in Figure 2. Noise barrier characteristics and effectiveness are evaluated in Table 9 below. Affected Modelled NSAs Table 9: Noise Barriers and Summary of Economical/Technical Feasibility No of Affected Residences [1] Average Reduction (db) Barrier Height (m) Barrier Length (m) Approx. Barrier Cost ($) [2] Approx. Barrier Cost Economically Per Receptor Feasible? [4] ($) [3] Technically Feasible? NB1 AR2, OR4, OR6, OR7, ,675 7,356,250 99,408 Yes Yes OR8, OR9 NB2 OR ,020 2,805,000 2,805,000 No No NB3 OR ,402,500 1,402,500 No No NB4 OR ,100,000 1,100,000 No No NB5 OR ,375,000 1,375,000 No Yes NB6 OR ,375,000 1,375,000 No No NB7 OR ,650,000 1,650,000 No Yes NB8 OR , ,750 No Yes NB9 OR18, OR ,400 3,850, ,000 No Yes NB10 OR19, OR ,700 4,675,000 1,558,333 No No Notes: [1] The number of affected residences that are represented by the modelled NSA which will be protected by the noise barrier. [2] Based on a barrier cost of $550 per m 2 of face area. [3] Total cost divided by the number of affected residences. [4] Yes if barrier costs is less than $100,000 per receptor; else, No Five out of ten potential noise barriers assessed here are technically feasible as they provide at least 5 db noise reduction as required by the MTO guideline at the protected receptors. These five potential noise barriers are also assessed for economic feasibility, and only one of them is considered economically feasible based on the $100,000 cost per residence criteria. Based on this, noise barrier NB1 is recommended for this project. TC Page 16

21 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February 2015 Mitigated sound levels with the potential and recommended noise barriers are provided in Appendix E. The recommended noise barrier NB1 is also assessed at the right-of-way as most of the right-of-way is elevated from the highway at this location and it meets the MTO criteria. Therefore, noise barrier NB1 recommended at the right-of-way. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The environmental noise impacts of the Highway 404 Extension between Green Lane and Ravenshoe Road have been assessed. The FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) is used for this assessment. The noise model was validated with noise measurements for the existing conditions. Measured sound levels were compared with the modelled sound levels, and that indicates that the modelled sound levels are within 3 db of the measured values, which is within an acceptable level of accuracy. Traffic data for future horizon year of 2031 is used for this assessment. The modelled future sound levels exceed the MTO limits at nineteen (19) representative NSAs. Additional noise mitigation for those NSAs has been investigated, in accordance with MTO Noise Policy. Alignment changes and pavement mitigations have been ruled out as the Highway 404 Extension construction is completed already. Ten potential noise barriers were investigated for technical and economic feasibility. Five of the potential noise barriers are technically feasible and they provide at least 5 db noise reduction as required by the MTO guideline at the protected receptors. These five technically feasible potential noise barriers are also assessed for economic feasibility. Only one of them is economically feasible, as the rest did not meet the $100,000 per residence criteria. Based on this, noise barrier NB1 is recommended at the rightof-way for this project. TC Page 17

22 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February CLOSING This report was prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) for specific purpose addressed herein. The quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in Amec Foster Wheeler s services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in the report. This report is intended to be used by MTO only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Amec Foster Wheeler. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by a third party other than those expressly noted in this report is at that party s sole risk. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Written by: Mohammed Salim, P. Eng., Senior Transportation Noise Lead Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure a Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited Signature: Date: 03 February, 2015 Reviewed by: Frank Babic, P. Eng., INCE, Acoustics Practice Lead Eastern Canada Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure a Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited Signature: Date: 03 February, 2015 TC Page 18

23 Ministry of Transportation Highway 404 Extension Final Noise Study February REFERENCES Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) / Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), 1986, Joint Protocol, A Protocol for Dealing with Noise concerns during the Preparation, Review and Evaluation of Provincial Highway s Environmental Assessments. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1977a, Model Municipal Noise Control Bylaw, which includes Publication NPC-103 Procedures. Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), 1992a, Quality and Standards Directive QST-A1, Noise Policy and Acoustic Standards for Provincial Highways. Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), 1992b, Environmental Office Manual Technical Areas Noise, EO-V Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), 2006, Environmental Guide for Noise Version 1.1 July Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), 2009, Environmental Reference for Highway Design. United States Federal Highway Administration (US FWHA), Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5, Computer model McCormick Rankin Corporation, Highway 404 Extension Green Lane to Woodbine Avenue W.O Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Noise Assessment Report, June TC Page 19

24 PROJECT EXTENT DRAFT CLIENT LOGO CLIENT AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION ONTARIO 160 Traders Boulevard East Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L4Z 3K7 DWN BY: PROJECT GG CHK'D BY: MS DATE: TITLE JANUARY 2015 SCALE: N.T.S. HIGHWAY 404 EXTENSION PROJECT EXTENT PROJECT NO: TC REV. NO.: A FIGURE No. 1

25 DOANE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 2 HOLBORN ROAD MOUNT ALBERT ROAD DOANE ROAD BOAG ROAD!( OR18 P:\2014\Projects\TC140807_MTO_AcousticServicesRetainer\09_GIS\Noise_Investigation_Jan2015\MXD\Noise_Receptors_and Barriers_4.mxd GREEN LANE EAST!(!(!( HERALD ROAD!(!( AR6!(!(!(!( AR1!(!(!( AR4 AR2 NB1 OR4 AR21 OR5 NM1 NB2 OR1 OR2 AR5 OR3 LEGEND!( Additional Receptors!(!(!( AR10 AR7 NM8 AR20!( AR8 OR6 NM7!( OR7!(!(!( AR3 OR8 NM2 NM3 AR9!(!(!( MOUNT ALBERT ROAD AR11 NM4 OR9!(!(!(!( NM5!( OR10 NB3 AR12!( OR11 DOANE ROAD OR12!( LESLIE STREET DOANE ROAD!( AR14!( AR13 OR15 NB4 WOODBINE AVENUE!( OR13!(!( OR16 NB6!( NB5 OR14 QUEENSVILLE SIDEROAD!( AR15 HIGHWAY 404!( AR16 OR17 NB7!( OR24!( NB8 HOLBORN ROAD WARDEN AVENUE AR17 HOLBORN ROAD!( AR18!( OR19!(!( NM6 NB9 NOTES: - Background imagery extracted from York Region online mapping NB10 OR21!(!( BOAG ROAD OR20 OR22 BOAG ROAD!(!( AR19 RAVENSHOE ROAD CATERING ROAD!( OR !( Noise Monitors!( Original Receptors Existing Noise Barrier Recommended Noise Barrier Potential Noise Barrier Kilometres Datum & Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N ² Highway 404 Extension Noise Monitors, Noise Sensitive Areas and Receptor Locations and Noise Barrier Locations PROJECT N o : TC SCALE: 1:32,000 FIGURE: 2 Date: February 2015

26 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED NOISE TERMINOLOGY

27 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED NOISE TERMINOLOGY Ambient or Background Noise: The ambient noise from all sources other than the sound of interest (i.e. sound other than that being measured). Under most MOE guidelines, aircraft overflights and train noise, due to their transient nature, are normally excluded from measurements of background noise. Attenuation: The reduction of sound intensity by various means (e.g., air, humidity, porous materials, etc.). db - Decibel: The logarithmic units associated with sound pressure level, sound power level, or acceleration level. See sound pressure level, for example. dba - Decibel, A-Weighted: The logarithmic units associated with a sound pressure level, where the sound pressure signal has been filtered using a frequency weighting that mimics the response of the human ear to quiet sound levels. The resultant sound pressure level is therefore representative of the subjective response of the human ear. A-weighted sound pressure levels are denoted by the suffix A (ie. dba), and the term pressure is normally omitted from the description (i.e., sound level or noise level) Frequency Response of A and C Weighting Networks Frequency (Hz) A-Weighting C-Weighting dbc - Decibel, C-Weighted: The logarithmic units associated with a sound pressure level, where the sound pressure signal has been filtered using a frequency weighting that mimics the response of the human ear to loud sound levels. C-weighted sound pressure levels are denoted by the suffix C (ie. dbc). C-weighted levels are often used in low-frequency noise analysis, as the filtering effect is nearly flat at lower frequencies. dbl or dblin - Decibel, Linear: The logarithmic units associated with a sound pressure level, where the sound pressure signal is unfiltered, and represents the full spectrum of incoming noise. Page 1 of 4

28 Calibrator (Acoustical): A device which produces a known sound pressure on the microphone of a sound level measurement system, and is used to adjust the system to standard specifications. Directivity Factor (Q) (also, Directional or Directionality Factor): A factor mathematically related to Directivity Index, used in calculating propagated sound levels to account for the effect of reflecting surfaces near to the source. For example, for a source in free space where the sound is radiating spherically, Q = 1. For a source located on or very near to a surface (such as the ground, a wall, rooftop, etc.), where the sound is radiating hemispherically, Q = 2. This accounts for the additional sound energy reflecting off the surface, and translates into a +3 db add. Energy Equivalent Sound Level (L eq ): An energy-average sound level taken over a specified period of time. It represents the average sound pressure encountered for the period. The time period is often added as a suffix to the label (e.g., L eq (24) for the 24-hour equivalent sound level). L eq is usually A-weighted. An L eq value expressed in dba is a good, single value descriptor of the annoyance of noise. Exceedance Noise Level (L N ): The noise level exceeded N% of the time. It is a statistical measure of the noise level. For highly varying sounds, the L 90 represents the background noise level, L 50 represents the median or typical noise level, and L 10 represents the short term peak noise levels, such as those due to occasional traffic or a barking dog. Far Field: Describes a region in free space where the sound pressure level from a source obeys the inverse-square law (the sound pressure level decreases 6 db with each doubling of distance from the source). Also, in this region the sound particle velocity is in phase with the sound pressure. Closer to the source where these two conditions do not hold constitutes the near field region. Free Sound Field (Free Field): A sound field in which the effects of obstacles or boundaries on sound propagated in that field are negligible. Frequency: The number of times per second that the sine wave of sound or of a vibrating object repeats itself, now expressed in hertz (Hz), formerly in cycles per second (cps). Hertz (Hz): Unit of measurement of frequency, numerically equal to cycles per second. Human Perception of Sound: The human perception of noise impact is an important consideration in qualifying the noise effects caused by projects. The following table presents a general guideline. Page 2 of 4

29 Increase in Noise Level (db) Perception 3 or less insignificant due to imperceptibility 4 to 5 just-noticeable difference 6 to 9 marginally significant 10 or more significant, perceived as a doubling of sound exposure Impact Sound: The sound produced by the collision of two solid objects, e.g., footsteps, dropped objects, etc., on an interior surface (wall, floor, or ceiling) of a building. Typical industrial sources include punch presses, forging hammers, etc. Impulsive Noise: a) Single or multiple sound pressure peak(s) (with either a rise time less than 200 milliseconds or total duration less than 200 milliseconds) spaced at least by 500 millisecond pauses, b) A sharp sound pressure peak occurring in a short interval of time. Infrasonic: Sounds of a frequency lower than 20 hertz. Insertion Loss (IL): The arithmetic difference between the sound level from a source before and after the installation of a noise mitigation measure, at the same location. Insertion loss is typically presented as a positive number, i.e., the post-mitigation sound level is lower than the pre-mitigation level. Insertion loss is expressed in db and is usually specified per 1/1 octave band, per 1/3 octave band, or overall. Low Frequency Noise (LFN): Noise in the low frequency range, from infrasonic sounds (<20 Hz) up to 250 Hz. Masking: a) The process by which the threshold of audibility for a sound is raised by the presence of another (masking) sound, or b) The amount by which the threshold of audibility of a sound is raised by the presence of another (masking) sound. Near Field: The sound field very near to a source, where sound pressure does not obey the inverse-square law and the particle velocity is not in phase with the sound pressure. Noise: Unwanted sound. Noise Level: Same as Sound Level, except applied to unwanted sounds. Peak Sound Pressure Level: Same as Sound Pressure Level except that peak (not peak-topeak) sound pressure values are used in place of RMS pressures. Quasi-Steady Impulsive Noise: Noise composed of a series of short, discrete events, characterized by rapid rise times, but with less than 0.5 seconds elapsing between events. Page 3 of 4

30 RMS Sound Pressure: The square-root of the mean-squared pressure of a sound (usually the result of an RMS detector on a microphone signal). Reverberant Field: The region in a room where the reflected sound dominates, as opposed to the region close to the noise source where the direct sound dominates. Sound: a dynamic (fluctuating) pressure. Sound Exposure Level (SEL): An L eq referenced to a one second duration. Also known as the Single Event Level. It is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure for a single event. It provides a measure of the accumulation of sound energy over the duration of the event. Sound Intensity: The sound energy flow through a unit area in a unit time. Sound Level Meter: An instrument comprised of a microphone, amplifier, output meter, and frequency-weighting networks which is used for the measurement of noise and sound levels. Sound Pressure Level (SPL): The logarithmic ratio of the RMS sound pressure to the sound pressure at the threshold of hearing. The sound pressure level is defined by equation (1) where P is the RMS pressure due to a sound and P 0 is the reference pressure. P 0 is usually taken as Pascals. (1) SPL (db) = 20 log(p RMS /P 0 ) Sound Power Level (PWL): The logarithmic ratio of the instantaneous sound power (energy) of a noise source to that of an international standard reference power. The sound power level is defined by equation (2) where W is the sound power of the source in watts, and W 0 is the reference power of watts. (2) PWL (db) = 10 log(w/w 0 ) Interrelationships between sound pressure level (SPL) and sound power level (PWL) depend on the location and type of source. Spectrum: The description of a sound wave's resolution into its components of frequency and amplitude. Speed (Velocity) of Sound in Air: 344 m/s (1128 ft/s) at 70 F (21 C) in air at sea level. Threshold of Audibility (Threshold of Detectability): The minimum sound pressure level at which a person can hear a specified frequency of sound over a specified number of trials. Page 4 of 4

31 APPENDIX B CALIBRATION CERTIFICATES

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51 APPENDIX C MONITORING DATA

52 MTO HWY 404 Noise Monitoring Report October/November 2014 MEASUREMENT LOCATION: NM1 Date Start Time Wind Speed [m/s] Meterelogical Data Temp. [ C] Humidity [%] INCLEMENT WEATHER CONDITIONS Sound Level Data 1 Hour Leq Measured Value. Not Available (loss of power, equipment error). Incomplete dataset (less than one hour). Discarded due to inclement weather conditions Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Not Available (loss of power, equipment error) Wed - Oct 29, : NO N/A Incomplete dataset (less than one hour) Wed - Oct 29, : YES N/A Discarded due to inclement weather conditions Wed - Oct 29, : NO 51.7 Wed - Oct 29, : NO 51.0 Wed - Oct 29, : NO 49.2 Wed - Oct 29, : NO 47.6 Wed - Oct 29, : NO 44.3 Wed - Oct 29, : NO 45.3 Wed - Oct 29, : NO 42.4 Wed - Oct 29, : NO 40.0 Thu - Oct 30, : NO 37.1 Thu - Oct 30, : NO 36.1 Thu - Oct 30, : NO 39.1 Notes on Measurements Page: 1 of 6 Project: TC Filename: MTO Hwy 404 Noise Monitoring_v01