SS WILSON ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
REPORT NO. WA10-028-1
DETAILED ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED LONGBRIDGE PARKING LOT
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YONGE STREET AND HWY 407
CITY OF VAUGHAN
SUBMITTED TO:
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION
2655 NORTH SHERIDAN WAY, SUITE 300
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
L5K 2P8
PREPARED BY:
AMIRA RAHAL, BAS
ASSOCIATES
HALAL HOQUE
PROJECT ANALYST
APPROVED BY:
HAZEM GIDAMY, P.ENG.
PRINCIPAL
JANUARY 10, 2012
SSWA INC. 15 Wertheim Court, Suite 211, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H7
Tel: (905) 707-5800 Fax: (905) 707-5801 e-mail: info@sswilsonassociates.com
www.sswilsonassociates.com & www.noisetraining.com
DETAILED ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED LONGBRIDGE PARKING LOT
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YONGE STREET AND HWY 407
CITY OF VAUGHAN
PAGE
INDEX
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
2.0
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
3.0
SOUND LEVEL CRITERIA
7
4.0
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
8
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A:
SAMPLE SOUND LEVEL PREDICTIONS
APPENDIX B:
RESPONSES TO DRAFT COMMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Toronto Transit Commission in partnership with York Region is
planning to construct the new Langstaff/Longbridge Commuter Parking
Lot. The lot is to be located south of Highway 407 and west of Yonge
Street and will serve commuters of the proposed Yonge Line subway
extension. Figure 1 shows the Key Plan and Figure 2 shows the Aerial
Photograph of the subject site
SS Wilson Associates was retained by TTC to conduct a Detailed Noise
Study to assess the potential noise impact as a result of the proposed
parking lot and to prepare a report to that effect. The primary objective of
the study is to maintain, if not improve the existing sound levels in the
subject area of concern by investigating the public concerns about noise
and to recommend the necessary mitigation measures to ensure that such
an objective is reached. During the Environmental Assessment process,
SS Wilson Associates (SSWA) produced a number of technical reports in
2008 to address the noise concerns of the Longbridge Community based
on the relevant information which was available at the time of the
assessment.
One of the issues of concern to the Longbridge Community is the noise
increase which could be created with the introduction of the proposed
parking lot on the intervening land between the residences’ backyard
property line and the south end of Highway 407. Currently, the dominating
source of noise affecting area homes along Longbridge Road is Highway
407, and to a lesser extent traffic noise from both Highway 7 and Yonge
Street affecting only a small number of homes that are in closer proximity
to Yonge Street.
As part of the overall noise assessment, actual ambient sound level
measurements were carried out at several selected key locations within
the Longbridge Community as well as sound level predictions with the use
of the approved Ministry of the Environment (MOE) traffic noise prediction
model to assess the current/ambient noise conditions affecting the existing
homes that are adjacent to the proposed Longbridge Parking Lot. The
predictions were based on the then, current traffic data, existing
topography, the available site grades and cross-sections for the area.
In 2008, three houses along Longbridge Road were selected as points of
reception to represent the Longbridge Community. In terms of their
exposure and proximity, these houses are considered the worst case
(most conservative) noise receptors. Actual long-term sound level
measurements were taken at these locations and the results showed the
actually measured sound levels to be reasonably consistent with the
predicted sound levels.
1
With the use of noise prediction models, various scenarios were
individually assessed in 2008 in order to compare and evaluate the current
conditions in comparison to the future conditions with the different designs
of the proposed parking lot. Currently, the vacant intervening area
between Highway 407 and the community is comprised of absorptive
ground materials; primarily grass and vegetation, which provides
significant acoustic attenuation for the subject area. Based on our 2008
findings, the ground attenuation factor as a result of the current ground
conditions provides approximately an 8dB reduction which is considered
acoustically significant.
With the introduction of the proposed parking lot, the results showed that
the most significant factor which will affect the community is the future loss
of ground attenuation due to the change in the type of intervening ground
in the subject area, and to a lesser extent, noise related to future vehicular
traffic movements within the proposed parking lot.
This Detailed Noise Study report provides more refined analyses of the
potential noise impact based on the selected parking lot design concept in
addition to providing more detailed information on the proposed noise
mitigation measures recommended to achieve the stated objectives of
protecting the community from noise. The recommended measures are
also beneficial in providing other benefits such as enhancing security,
privacy and aesthetics of the homes.
2
2.0 SUMMARY, FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
2.1
This study addressed with more precision in comparison with our previous
study dated Dec. 4, 2008 the existing and future sound levels due to
Highway 407 based on the proposed parking lot’s detailed spot elevations,
design of the parking lot and the provided detailed elevations at the
receptors and the identified noise sources. Figure 3 shows the site plan
layout of the proposed lot.
From the measured sound levels, the following is an extracted summary
(energy average of three days) of the Leq sound level descriptor specified
by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for impact assessment purposes
during the daytime (i.e. from 7am to 11pm) over a three-day period
(October 29, 2008 to November 3, 2008) measured at the noted locations:



Receptor Location (L1) Leqday = 59dBA
Receptor Location (L2) Leqday = 59dBA
Receptor Location (L3) Leqday = 60dBA
Figure 4 shows the actual measurement locations.
The following is a summary of the predicted Leq16 sound levels at the
selected receptors based on the best available traffic data on Highway
407 in 2008:



Receptor Location (L1) Leqday= 60dBA
Receptor Location (L2) Leqday= 59dBA
Receptor Location (L3) Leqday= 59dBA
Figure 5 shows the selected points of reception.
It is concluded that the actually measured ambient sound levels in 2008
are certainly consistent with the predicted sound levels. It should also be
noted that these levels are expected to be lower than the future sound
levels when the proposed parking lot becomes operational as a result of
the natural growth in vehicular traffic on Highway 407. In other words, the
future ambient noise due to Highway 407 is likely to continue to increase.
They are predicted to be as follows:



Receptor Location (L1) Leqday=61dBA
Receptor Location (L2) Leqday=61dBA
Receptor Location (L3) Leqday=62dBA
3
2.2
The new sources of noise which were considered for assessing the impact
of the proposed parking lot at the Outdoor Living Areas of the noted
representative dwellings are vehicular movements and car idling within the
lot. Based on detailed sound level modeling conducted for this lot design,
the total combined effect predicted at the selected points of reception are
as follows:



Receptor Location (L1) Leqday = 59dBA
Receptor Location (L2) Leqday = 53dBA
Receptor Location (L3) Leqday = 52dBA
Based on the above results, the houses located near the exit and entrance
of the proposed parking lot will be more affected than those houses further
away but those houses are more exposed to higher ambient sound levels
due to their proximity to Highway 407.
As indicated in this report, the Longbridge community is currently
acoustically benefiting from the absorptive intervening land between
Highway 407 and their north property line, but the introduction of the
proposed parking lot will transform the existing absorptive ground surface
to that of a reflective ground surface which will increase the sound levels
by a significant margin as predicted below:



Receptor Location (L1) Leqday= 70dBA
Receptor Location (L2) Leqday= 71dBA
Receptor Location (L3) Leqday= 71dBA
The overall sound levels due to both noise sources combined; Highway
407 and the TTC car parking lot were added together to establish the
overall sound level impact within the Outdoor Living Areas of the selected
receptors. It should be noted that since the overall predicted parking lot
sound levels are significantly lower than Hwy 407 predicted sound levels,
the overall levels are expected to be more or less acoustically similar to
Hwy 407 sound levels. The overall resulting sound levels are as follows:



2.3
Receptor Location (L1) Leqday= 70dBA
Receptor Location (L2) Leqday= 71dBA
Receptor Location (L3) Leqday= 71dBA
In order to determine the overall increase in sound levels above the future
ambient sound levels, the future sound levels were subtracted from the
combined effect of both of the above-mentioned noise sources which
showed the excess or change to be in the range of 9 dB to 10 dB. This
change is considered acoustically significant warranting the application of
4
noise control measures to protect the Outdoor Living Areas of all the
affected dwellings facing north.
2.4
For verification purposes, members of Wilson Associates also conducted
site visits in 2011 and took sample parking lot sound level measurements
at a comparable parking lot affiliated with Finch Station located on the
west side of Yonge Street to measure the sound levels from actual
vehicular movements within the parking lot. The parking lot was selected
based on the following parameters:




Same number of entrances and exits
Entrance to parking lot directly off of Yonge Street
Similar in proximity to the subway station
Minimum ambient noise due to vehicular traffic on public roads at the
measurement locations
Two measurement locations were selected based on their similar proximity
and exposure to the first row of the parking lot. Traffic movements were
observed in both the morning peak hours from approximately 6:30am to
8:30am (7:00am to 8:00am being the busiest hour) and the evening peak
hours at approximately 4:00pm to 8:00pm (6:00am to 7:00pm being the
busiest hour). Figure 6 shows the location of these selected measurement
points. Figure 7 shows a comparison of sound levels between Location 1
and Location 2.
The results of the measured sound levels from the existing Finch Subway
parking lot and a comparison against the predicted sound levels of the
proposed parking lot are discussed in detail in the Analysis Section.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to maintain the current ambient sound levels in the subject area, it
is recommended that a variable height sound barrier be constructed along
the entire length of the joint north property line of the houses which back
onto the proposed parking lot. The expected attenuation due to the
recommended barrier is expected to offset the increase in the existing
ambient noise as a result of loss of ground attenuation and the added
noise due to the parking lot itself.
The technical feasibility of protecting the above-noted areas with sound
barriers has been investigated in regards to meeting the acoustic and
other technical warrants (height, extent and location) and the results
confirmed the technical feasibility of providing significant acoustic relief to
the residents. It should be noted that there are other important issues that
5
will have to be addressed during the detailed barrier design stage such as
potential interference with utilities, trees, drainage, property limits, etc.
According to the Site Plan, there is approximately 40m of buffer space
available. Based on information previously provided by the Study Team,
approximately 10m of the buffer land will be allocated for construction of
the recommended physical separation barrier.
In order to investigate the acoustic efficiency of various sound barrier
height alternatives, sound level predictions were carried out using the
MOE Noise Prediction Model STAMSON, the computerized version of the
MOE noise prediction model, ORNAMENT. Sample sound level
calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Based on our calculations, the following barrier heights are recommended:



Receptor Location1 (L1) = 4.5m (2.5m berm + 2.0m barrier wall on top)
Receptor Location2 (L2) = 4.8m (2.8m berm + 2.0m barrier wall on top)
Receptor Location3 (L3) = 5.8m (3.8m berm + 2.0m barrier wall on top)
Construction of the recommended sound barriers will result in sound
levels which will be equivalent to or lower than the existing ambient sound
levels established in the outdoor areas of the affected dwellings. In other
words, it is predicted that there will be no negative acoustic impact from
the proposed parking lot. Figure 8 the proposed alignment of the
recommended sound barriers.
Should the details of this study be approved by the City, the City should
consult with the homeowners of concern about the most optimum barrier
heights and potential issues of concerns (sun shading, loss of view,
material, colour,…etc.) following which the proponent to pursue the
detailed design assignment of same.
6
3.0 SOUND LEVEL CRITERIA
STATIONARY SOURCES OF NOISE CRITERIA
All sources that are to be treated as “Stationary Sources” will be subject to
the MOE's criteria included in Publication NPC-205 (i.e. the higher of either
the prevalent ambient sound levels or the exclusion limits for hourly Leq
sound levels included in NPC-205). The criteria are based on the guidelines
prepared by the MOE for the assessment of planned "Stationary Sources" of
sound.
Appendix B includes a copy of MOE Publication NPC-205.
The predicted and/or measured 1 hour equivalent sound level (Leq) of
existing road traffic is normally compared with the predicted and/or
measured 1 hour equivalent sound level (Leq) from the source. Other
applicable criteria are also referred to in MOE Publication. NPC-205
In situations where the ambient is not significant, then the Ministry exclusion
limits in Publication NPC-205 would apply.
GENERAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR NOISE
The sound level criteria are also related to the existing ambient noise.
Should the projected undertaking sound levels exceed the ambient levels,
the impact on a noise-sensitive receptor may be determined by comparing
the projected undertaking levels with the established ambient levels.
The following Table outlines the generally accepted impact assessment
ratings based on the significance of the excess above the established
existing ambient levels:
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLE
EXCESS/CHANGE
IMPACT RATING
0 TO <3
Insignificant
=>3 TO <5 dBA
Noticeable
=5 To <10 dBA
Significant
=>10
Very Significant
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
7
Project No.: WA10-028-1
4.0 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The current design of the proposed parking lot consists of approximately
2,272 parking spots with two entrances off of Yonge Street, one of which
will also be used for exiting.
Our methodology for assessing the stationary noise impact assumed that
50% of the proposed parking lot will be occupied by commuter vehicles
during the hours of 7:00am 8:00am which is approximately 1,100 vehicles
given the size of the proposed parking lot, based on our experience from
other parking lot studies and recently observed activities at Finch Parking
Lot.
Based on our observations of Finch Parking Lot, we have determined the
following:



25% of commuters come to the parking lot between 6am-7am which is
approximately 300 vehicles
50% of commuters come to the parking lot between 7am-8am which is
approximately 600 vehicles
25% of commuters come to the parking lot between 8am-10am which
is approximately 300 vehicles
The following Table shows the actual measured sound levels of Finch
Parking Lot during the morning peak hours and evening peak hours.
Average Morning Peak Hours
Location 1
Location 2
54dB
52dB
Average Evening Peak Hours
Location 1
Location 2
53dB
51dB
The worst case hour Leq of Finch parking lot was measured to be 55dBA
which is based on 600 vehicles during the busiest hour (7:00am to
8:00am).
The comparison between the actually measured sound levels and the
predicted sound levels of the proposed parking lot indicates that the
predicted sound levels exceeded the measured sound levels by 4 dBA
depending on the location of the houses. This discrepancy is due to the
total number of vehicles assumed in the noise prediction model for the
proposed parking lot being twice the number of actually measured
vehicles. If the 500 vehicles were adjusted in the noise prediction model, it
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
8
Project No.: WA10-028-1
would yield the same sound level results as the Finch parking lot.
Road Traffic Data
The current study is based on the following factors:





More detailed land contour elevations, with spot elevations
throughout, were used in the updated model
For the purposes of this study, an assumption was made that Highway
407 traffic between Bathurst Street and Yonge Street is approximately
109,600 vehicles per day with 9% heavy trucks and 3% medium
trucks based on the best available data from York Region
To account for future traffic growth, a 3.0% increase in traffic (for 10
years) was assumed
More detailed road segments were used for improved accuracy of
sound level predictions and barrier acoustic efficiency assessment
The number of car movements in the proposed parking lot was
updated to correspond to the latest site plan
All other technical assessment details used in the study were as
prescribed by the proponent.
Actually Measured Sound Levels
Staff of SS Wilson Associates visited the study area between October
2008 and November, 2008 and the Finch parking lot in April, 2011 and
installed digital sound level meters at several selected locations to
measure the actual sound levels.
The objectives of the sound level measurements are as follows:
a. To provide factual information on the present ambient sound levels
during typical daytime hours.
b. To support and enhance the calculated values and indicate if and
where anomalies exist in the prediction model.
The unattended sound level measurements were performed using the
following equipment:


Rion NL-22 Integrating Sound Level Meters fitted with 1/2" condenser
microphone, pre-amplifier and windscreen.
Bruel & Kjaer Precision Calibrator Model B&K 4231.
The sound level measurement procedures were primarily based on the
Ministry of Environment procedures in their Publication NPC-103
“Procedures” included in the Model Municipal Noise Control by-Law, the
recommendations of the instrument manufacturers and the best
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
9
Project No.: WA10-028-1
engineering practices to suit site specific conditions. The sound level
meters were checked and calibrated before, during and following
completion of the measurement sessions without any appreciable change
in the sound levels.
The weather conditions during the measurement sessions were
favourable for measurements as the local wind speed did not exceed 30
km/hr.
The measurement locations are shown in Figures 7 to 10. Photograph 1
and 2 show views of the measurement setups and the selected
representative locations at two of the selected receptors.
Sound Level Prediction Model
A 3-D computer program for multiple point and line sources and
multiple receivers developed by SS Wilson Associates was used to
calculate the sound levels. The program takes into account:





Reference sound levels and reference distances for the equipment
working in each area of the subject development, i.e. sound emission
levels.
The Cartesian co-ordinates (x, y & z) of all sources and receivers.
The number of events or occurrences of the noise in a given time
period and the time period of each event.
Spherical divergence factor.
Additional attenuation due to sound barriers; natural or man-made
types.
Additional attenuation due to ground (as modified by sources/receiver
elevations, the presence of intervening barriers and the type of ground).
Atmospheric attenuation due to air molecular absorption
Table 1 contains relevant information on the available grade elevations at
the receptors and the proposed barrier base elevations (be it an existing
ground elevation or an existing base berm top elevation).
Table 2 is a summary of the actual and predicted sound level results as
well as barrier requirements.
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
10
Project No.: WA10-028-1
TABLES
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
11
Project No.: WA10-028-1
TABLE 1
GRADE ELEVATIONS USED IN SOUND BARRIER CALCULATIONS
ELEVATION
AT
LOCATION
RECEIVER
(m)
BARRIER
BASE
ELEVATION
(m)
HEIGHT OF
BARRIER
(m)
ELEVATION
AT TOP OF
BARRIER
(m)
L1
196.28
196.28
4.5
200.75
L2
201.25
201.25
4.8
206.05
L3
185.97
185.97
5.8
191.77
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
12
Project No.: WA10-028-1
TABLE 2
ACTUAL AND PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS AT
OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS (OLA’S)
PREDICTED
SOUND LEVEL
DUE TO
VEHICULAR
MOVEMENTS
WITHIN THE
PARKING LOT
ONLY, dBA
PREDICTED
SOUND
LEVEL WITH
EFFECT OF
REFLECTIVE
GROUND
SURFACE)
dBA
PREDICTED
OVERALL
FUTURE Leq
SOUND LEVEL
(COMBINED
EFFECT OF
HWY 407 AND
PARKING LOT),
dBA
LOCATION
ACTUAL
EXISTING
(YEAR 2008),
dBA
PREDICTED
EXISTING
SOUND (YEAR
2008) LEVELS,
dBA
PREDICTED
FUTURE
SOUND
LEVELS, dBA
L1
59
60
61
59
70
70
4.5m
(2.5m berm +
2.0m barrier wall
on top)
L2
59
59
61
53
71
71
4.8m
(2.8m berm + 2.0m
barrier wall on top)
L3
60
59
62
52
71
71
5.8m
(3.8m berm + 2.0m
barrier wall on top)
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
13
Minimum
Recommended
Barrier Height
.
Project No.: WA10-028-1
FIGURES
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
14
Project No.: WA10-028-1
Subject
FIGURE 1
KEY PLAN
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
15
Project No.: WA10-028-1
Proposed Parking Lot
FIGURE 2
AERIAL PHOTGRAPH
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
16
Project No.: WA10-028-1
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
Project No.: WA10-028-1
FIGURE 3
SITE PLAN
17
N
TYPICAL- NOISE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT LOCATION L1
(14 LONGBRIDGE ROAD)
TYPICAL- NOISE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT LOCATION L2
(28 LONGBRIDGE ROAD)
TYPICAL- NOISE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT LOCATION L3
(54 LONGBRIDGE ROAD)
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
FIGURE 4
ACTUAL MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Project No.: WA10-028-1
18
L1
L3
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
L2
FIGURE 5
19 OF RECEPTION
SELECTED POINTS
Project No.: WA10-028-1
L2
L1
FIGURE 6
LOCATIONS OF ATTENDED MEASUREMENTS
AT FINCH PARKING LOT
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
Project No.: WA10-028-1
20
58
56
54
52
Location 1
50
48
46
44
Location 2
6:
25
:0
6: 0
35
:0
6: 0
45
:0
6: 0
55
:0
7: 0
05
:0
7: 0
15
:0
7: 0
25
:0
7: 0
35
:0
7: 0
45
:0
7: 0
55
:0
8: 0
05
:0
8: 0
15
:0
0
Sound Levels Leq
Morning Time Vehicular Movements at Two Comparable
Locations
Time
FIGURE 7
SOUND LEVELS OF FINCH PARKING LOT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
21
Project No.: WA10-028-1
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
FIGURE 8
SCHEMATIC SOUND BARRIER ALIGNMENT
Project No.: WA10-028-1
22
APPENDIX A:
SAMPLE SOUND LEVEL PREDICTIONS
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
23
Project No.: WA10-028-1
SS WILSON ASSOCIATES
N23 : Line & Point Sources (20) Model- March 12, 1999
SOUND LEVEL PREDICTION MODEL (20 segments)
........................................................
29/03/2012 14:40
File Number :
Project Name :
Receptor Name :
Other data
Other data
Receptor Xr Co-Ordinates, m
Receptor Yr Co-Ordinates, m
Ground Elevation at Receptor,m
Receptor Height above ground, m
Receptor Zr Co-Ordinates, m
WA10-028-1
Longbridge Community Parking Lot
Location 2
.....................................
.....................................
353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 353.0 549.0 549.0 549.0 549.0
132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 192.0 192.0 192.0 192.0
201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 201.3 196.3 196.3 196.3 196.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
203.3
197.8
197.8
197.8
197.8
Consider Source ? (YorN)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CM1
CM2
CM3
CM4
CM5
CM6
CM7
CM8
CM9
CM10
CM11
CM12
CM13
CM14
CM15
CM16
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
Source Code Name
Source Name/Details
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements
Source Xs Co-Ordinates, m
678.0
580.0
584.0
388.0
292.0
196.0
100.0
4.0
-35.0
673.0
586.0
526.0
424.0
404.0
206.0
186.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source Ys Co-Ordinates, m
252.0
229.0
232.0
204.0
175.0
146.0
118.0
89.0
77.0
302.0
262.0
300.0
292.0
357.0
226.0
294.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ground Elevation at source, m
192.6
194.7
196.6
199.0
201.2
198.9
193.6
187.2
184.8
191.9
191.4
194.2
198.0
198.0
202.1
199.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
195.7
L
60.0
15.0
247
247
500
1.0
197.6
L
60.0
15.0
252
252
500
1.0
200.0
L
60.0
15.0
80
80
500
1.0
202.2
L
60.0
15.0
75
75
500
1.0
199.9
L
60.0
15.0
158
158
500
1.0
194.6
L
60.0
15.0
254
254
500
1.0
188.2
L
60.0
15.0
352
352
500
1.0
185.8
L
60.0
15.0
392
392
500
1.0
192.9
L
60.0
15.0
363
363
500
1.0
192.4
L
60.0
15.0
267
267
500
1.0
195.2
L
60.0
15.0
241
241
500
1.0
199.0
L
60.0
15.0
175
175
500
1.0
199.0
L
60.0
15.0
231
231
500
1.0
203.1
L
60.0
15.0
174
174
500
1.0
200.4
L
60.0
15.0
233
233
500
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Frequency
1.0
193.6
L
60.0
15.0
347
347
500
0.0
15.0
526
526
500
0.0
15.0
526
526
500
0.0
15.0
526
526
500
0.0
15.0
526
526
500
Geomtrical Spreading
Source Height above ground, m
Source Zs Co-Ordinates, m
Point or Line Source (P or L) ?
Reference Sound Level, dBA
Reference Dist. for Lp, m
Source-Receptor Distance,m
Selected Ds-r ,m
P
P
P
P
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
Consider Dist.atten.(Y or N) ?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Reference Dist. for Lp, m
15
247
20
15
252
20
15
75
Distance Reduction Factor
15
347
20
20
15
158
20
15
254
20
15
352
20
15
392
20
15
363
20
15
267
20
15
241
20
15
175
20
15
231
20
15
174
20
15
233
20
15
526
20
15
526
20
15
526
20
15
526
20
Distance Error Flag
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Geometrical Spreading, dB
No Ground Attenuation
-27.3
-24.3
-24.5
-14.6
-13.9
-20.4
-24.6
-27.4
-28.3
-27.7
-25.0
-24.1
-21.3
-23.7
-21.3
-23.8
-30.9
-30.9
-30.9
-30.9
Source-Receptor Distance,m
Model (1=none,2=CMHC,3=ISO)
Distance used for calculation
Source Height above ground, m
Receptor Height above ground, m
Barrier Height Factor(2xbh) (CMHC)
P+T Factors (CMHC only)
Is there a sound Barrier ?
Ground Attenuation, dB
15
80
20
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
1
347
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
247
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
252
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
80
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
75
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
158
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
254
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
352
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
392
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
363
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
267
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
241
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
175
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
231
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
174
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
1
233
1.0
2.0
0
0
N
0.0
3
526
3.0
1.5
0
0
N
-4.6
3
526
3.0
1.5
0
0
N
-4.6
3
526
3.0
1.5
0
0
N
-4.6
3
526
3.0
1.5
0
0
N
-4.6
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
24
Project No.: WA10-028-1
WA10-028-1
Yes Atmospheric Attenuation
Consider atm.atten.(Y or N) ?
Atmospheric Attenuation, dB
Barrier Attenuation
Consider Barrier Attenuation (Y or N)
Ground Elevation at source, m
........
Y
-0.8
........
Y
-0.5
........
Y
-0.5
........
Y
-0.1
........
Y
-0.1
........
Y
-0.3
........
Y
-0.5
........
Y
-0.8
........
Y
-0.9
........
........
Y
-0.8
Y
-0.6
........
Y
-0.5
........
Y
-0.4
........
Y
-0.5
........
Y
-0.4
........
Y
-0.5
........
Y
-1.2
........
Y
-1.2
........
Y
-1.2
........
Y
-1.2
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
........
Y
192.6
194.7
196.6
199.0
201.2
198.9
193.6
187.2
184.8
191.9
191.4
194.2
198.0
198.0
202.1
199.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Ground Elevation at Receptor,m
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
196.3
196.3
196.3
196.3
RECEIVER-BARRIER DIST.(rbd)
331.6
232.0
236.8
65.1
59.6
142.7
238.5
337.0
377.3
347.5
252.0
226.3
160.1
215.7
159.5
217.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BARRIER GND. ELEV.(bge)
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
201.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BARRIER THICKNESS (bt)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SOURCE-BARRIER DISTANCE(sbd)
BARRIER HEIGHT (bh)
Barrier Attenuation, dB
Barrier Acoustic Zone
Barrier Top Elevation
Sub-Total Attenuation, dBA
Additional Adjustments
Common Adjustment
Line-to-Point Source Barrier Adjust.
...............................................
Sub-Total Adjustments, dB
Lp @ Receptor, dBA
-15.8
-13.6
-10.7
-5.6
-1.6
-6.2
-14.8
-19.1
-20.0
-16.4
-16.6
-14.1
-7.9
-8.1
0.0
-5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
shadow shadow shadow shadow bright shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow bright shadow bright bright bright bright
192.6 194.7 196.6 199.0 201.2 198.9 193.6 187.2 184.8 191.9 191.4 194.2 198.0 198.0 202.1 199.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-43.8
-38.5
-35.8
-20.3
-15.7
-27.0
-40.0
-47.3
-49.2
-44.8
-42.2
-38.8
-29.6
-32.4
-21.7
-29.8
-36.7
-36.7
-36.7
-36.7
........
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.2
Leq Time Base , Minutes
Line Source Data :
- Length of Line Segment, m
- Source Speed, Km/Hr
- No. of Movements in Time Base
-Segment integration time, min.
Point Source Data :
- No. of Events in Time Base
- Each Event Duration, min.
- Duration Of All Events, min.
Leq @ Receptor, dBA
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.5
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.2
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.7
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.3
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
20.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
570
570
1135
970
800
530
388
228.00 228.00 454.00 388.00 320.00 212.00 155.20
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
60.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.8
60.0
Yes
Yes
100
15
150
60.00
100
15
50
20.00
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.2
17.8
60.0
60.0
Yes
Yes
100
100
15
15
570
570
228.00 228.00
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
60.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.4
60.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.6
60.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.3
60.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.2
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
15
50
20.00
100
15
70
28.00
100
15
50
20.00
100
15
70
28.00
100
15
50
20.00
50
10
1
0.30
50
10
1
0.30
50
10
1
0.30
50
10
1
0.30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
1
60
60.00
22.0
27.3
33.0
47.8
51.6
38.5
24.2
12.7
6.0
21.0
23.6
16.4
27.1
22.9
35.0
25.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other Adjustments
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
................................................
Net Source Leq ,dBA
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ALL SOURCES Leq
53
................................................
................................................
53.41673948
Overall Lp
47
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
53.41673948
dBA
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
Maximum Lp
44
dBA
25
Project No.: WA10-028-1
SS WILSON ASSOCIATES
SOUND LEVEL PREDICTION MODEL (20 segments)
........................................................
N23 : Line & Point Sources (20) Model- March 12, 1999
29/03/2012 14:40
File Number :
Project Name :
Receptor Name :
Other data
Other data
WA10-028-1
Longbridge Community Parking Lot
Location 2
.....................................
.....................................
Leq SOUND LEVELS AT RECEPTOR
100.0
90.0
SOUND LEVEL, dBA
80.0
70.0
Net Source Leq ,dBA
60.0
#REF!
50.0
40.0
30.0
....
....
....
....
CM16
CM15
CM14
CM13
CM12
CM11
CM10
CM9
CM8
CM7
CM6
CM5
CM4
CM3
CM2
CM1
20.0
SOURCE CODE
Source Number
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Source Code Name
CM1
CM2
CM3
CM4
CM5
CM6
CM7
CM8
CM9
CM10
CM11
CM12
CM13
CM14
CM15
CM16
....
....
....
....
Source Name/Details
Net Leq @ Receptor,dBA
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
....
Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements Movements
22.0
27.3
33.0
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
47.8
51.6
38.5
24.2
12.7
6.0
26
21.0
23.6
16.4
27.1
Project No.: WA10-028-1
22.9
35.0
25.5
0.0
....
0.0
....
0.0
....
0.0
APPENDIX B:
RESPONSES TO DRAFT COMMENTS
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
27
Project No.: WA10-028-1
Item
Section
Reviewer
Dwg. # / Spec
Section / Page #
Comment
Response
1
ENG-MEC dmackinn-1
WA10-028-1, Page 7
NPC-205 is due to be replaced by NPC-300 which contains
specific requirements for transit operations and associated
functions. Please review draft NPC-300 and include commentary
with respect to this pending change.
Firstly, here is the exact response we received from MOE on the status of the document: "The draft NPC-300
continues to be a draft document. It was submitted for the approvals that are required before it can be posted as a
decision on the Environmental Registry, at which time it would be publicly released and would begin to be
implemented ". Secondly, the MOE position on parking lot has always been same and that is to exclude parking lots
from stationary sources. However, two other important factors should be noted for this project: (1) during the public
meeting, this issue was raised several times by the neighbours and most importantly (2) the fact remains that
introduction of the parking lot instead of the raw green land is that we will lose considerable ground attenuation, ie.
the parking lot when empty will result in a sudden surge if converted from green to asphalt.
2
ENG-MEC dmackinn-2
WA10-028-2, Page 3
As mentioned, the protocols developed were intended for specific
transit projects, namely the RTEP Sheppard Line. This project
should not reference those old RTEP protocols unless agreements
have been formalized to apply them likewise for TYSSE projects.
Three points: (1) The criteria used are consistent with those given in Table 1 of the TTC Design Manual DM-0106-00
provided with this response, (2) verbal consultation with the MOE staff took place at the outset of the project and in
the absence of specific protocol for this application, the recommendation was made to use any TTC MOE protocol
for similar applications, and (3) if neither were used, we would still have used general acoustic noise impact
assessment guidelines which would be similar to what was presented.
3
ENG-MEC dmackinn-3
WA10-028-2, Page 3
4
ENG-MEC dmackinn-4
WA10-028-2, Page 3
Include any agreements with regard to noise protocols for
reference in the Appendix.
In absence of any formally agreed noise protocol, the present
legislative standards should be used, i.e. NPC-205 which is due to
be replaced entirely by NPC-300.
Valid request, we have the summary in Section 2.0 of the report and we will include the full text in the revised
document as an Appendix too.
There is no need to make reference to NPC-205 nor future NPC-300. If you search in both documents you will not
find any reference to transit, LRT, subway or light rail transportation of any kind. The only applicable documents are
those in Section 2.0 of our report although it does not have the same name, but generically it is the same type of
source of noise. If this answer is not suitable, then we can switch the text to be general acoustic assessment criteria
which are supported by many acoustic texts.
5
ENG-MEC dmackinn-5
WA10-028-2, Page 3
Obtain and review current design manual section DM-0403.
Please acknowledge it.
We received and reviewed Design Manual DM-0403 and we reviewed same as well as many other documents we
collected over the years from TTC and there is no relevant material to the project on hand or the same type of source
(i.e. bridge rather than station). Should we acknowledge this fact in the revised report?
6
ENG-MEC dmackinn-6
WA10-028-2, Page 3
Obtain and review current design manual section DM-0106.
Please acknowledge it.
We received and reviewed Design Manual DM-0106 and we reviewed same. You are correct in that Table 1 of the
DM document applies in general to this project, but again it does not make reference to the Yonge Street Extension.
Nevertheless, we will make reference to it as the criteria are identical to what we used.
7
ENG-MEC dmackinn-7
WA10-028-2, Page 3
Further to comment DJM-03, recommend to obtain and review
latest draft version of DM-0106-00. As recommended within this
draft section, provide an updated section of noise protocols to be
used for this project.
Same response as No. 6 above and specifically we will make reference to the document as part of the criteria being
used. We expect no technical change to the results.
8
ENG-MEC dmackinn-8
WA10-028-2, Page 6
Coordinate partial or full enclosure of the bridge with associated
tunnel fire ventilation design. Review the need for portal doors,
additional make up shafts, etc.
Firstly, coordination of this item would have to be between MRC and the engineers responsible for fire, ventilation
and design of shafts. From a noise viewpoint, any additional shafts and ventilation design may or may not require
noise control, which is straightforward and a statement to this effect can be included. In regards to the need for portal
doors, the good news is since we have acoustic insulation in the enclosed bridge tunnel, there will be no need for
doors and the use of good sound absorbing material near the portal openings is an essential component to keep the
portals open.
9
ENG-MEC dmackinn-9
WA10-028-2, Page 6
If any portion of the bridge is to be fully enclosed, all materials
involved should be non-combustible with essentially no smoke.
This would include plexiglass panels, acoustic insulation, etc.
mentioned. Coordinate contribution of such materials to flame and
smoke capabilities of the tunnel fire ventilation system.
We certainly agree with this requirement. The sound absorbing material to be used is considered non-combustible
and has very low smoke generation and has been accepted by many codes (typically Roxul or equal). We are
confident that we can find such products if we are given the exact fire spread and smoke generation ratings
maximum levels. The use of plexiglass is only a generic reference and we apologize for its use, however we are
aware of other products that can be specified including safety glass. For the purposes of this report, we should only
include reference to the maximum smoke generation of TTC.
10
Safety
3.0, MOE NPC-205
Is a parking lot considered a stationary source? The need for an
acoustic barrier seems to be more out of need to mitigate a
nuisance then to comply with NPC-205. Our contribution is also
estimated to be lower than the ambient level.
Please see response to Item No. 1 above. WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE PERSONS WHO WROTE THIS
COMMENT THAT IT IS NOT ONLY IN THE PUBLIC MEETING THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED, BUT ALSO A
PRIVATE MEETING BETWEEN TTC, YORK REGION TRANSIT AND SEVERAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
RATE PAYERS ASSOCIATIONS THAT THE AGREED UPON CONTROL MEASURES WERE DISCUSSED AT
LENGTH. WHOEVER WANTS TO MAKE A NEW DECISION, THEY BETTER CONSULT WITH MARY FRANCISTURNER, TOM MIDDLEBROOK AND OTHER TTC HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS WHO ATTENDED THIS MEETING
AT YRT LARGE BOARDROOM!!
TJoseph-1
SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers
28
Project No.: WA10-028-1