appendix e air quality, noise and vibration … e_8mb.pdfappendix e: air quality, noise and...

APPENDIX E: AIR QUALITY, NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT STUDY Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel: Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Station via a Downtown LRT Tunnel Prepared for: Delcan Corporation 1223 Michael Street Suite 100 Ottawa, ON K1J 7T2 On behalf of: City of Ottawa 110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1 Prepared by: Gradient Micro Climate Engineering Inc. 127 Walgreen Road Ottawa, ON K0A 1L0 May 2010

127 Walgreen Road, Ottawa, Ontario K0A 1L0 � Tel.: (613) 836-0934 � Fax: (613) 836-8183 A member of the dfaGroup � www.gradientwind.com

REPORT: GmE 08-042-EA

Prepared For:

Mr. David Hopper, Project Manager Delcan Corporation

1223 Michael Street, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario

K1J 7T2

Prepared By:

Joshua Foster, B. Eng.; E.I.T. Vincent Ferraro, M.Eng., P.Eng.

May 28, 2010

AIR QUALITY, NOISE, AND VIBRATION IMPACT STUDY

City of Ottawa: Environmental Assessment Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel

Ottawa, Ontario

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gradient Microclimate Engineering Inc. (GmE ) was retained by Delcan Corporation to provide

engineering support for the environmental assessment (EA) phase of the City of Ottawa’s

Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) project in the areas of air quality, noise, and ground

vibrations. The DOTT project is a proposed 12.5 kilometer (km) conversion of the City of

Ottawa’s bus rapid transit (BRT) network, known as the Transitway, to electric Light Rail

Transit (LRT), from Tunney’s Pasture Station in the west to Blair Station in the east. The

project comprises two above-grade segments on the east and west ends linked by a 3.2 km

downtown tunnel segment. This report presents the assessment methodology and comparative

results for existing and future environmental impacts of the undertaking relating to air quality,

noise and ground vibrations, and provides recommendations for mitigation where required.

IMPACTS OF OPERATIONS

Air Quality Impacts

An assessment of air quality along the corridor was undertaken with the use of air dispersion

software CAL3QHC developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US

EPA). The program implements essential atmospheric parameters combined with traffic

volumes and vehicle emissions parameters of a specified vehicle fleet to determine worst-case

concentrations of selected pollutants for all possible wind directions. Worst-case concentrations

varying by wind direction are subsequently combined with local wind statistics to obtain

reasonable worst-case concentrations of the selected compounds. This study focuses on

common tailpipe emissions, including Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX),

Hydrocarbons (HC), and Suspended Particulate Matter (PM) for analysis. Particulate matter is

analyzed into several fractions (PM44, PM10 and PM2.5), with emphasis on the most harmful

fraction being PM2.5. Subscripts indicate maximum particle sizes in microns (10-6 meter).

The outcome of the air quality impact analysis indicates that converting the Transitway (BRT)

into an electric LRT system creates an overall improvement in ambient air quality, due to

elimination of diesel buses along the Transitway and reduced vehicle emissions across the

vehicle fleet over the study horizon. Increased bus traffic at transfer hubs will be outweighed by

improved emission technology over time, including hybrid and alternate fuel vehicles.

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration ii

Analysis of the potential impact on air quality from ventilation shaft emissions along the tunnel

portion was performed using the MOE software AERMOD, for scenarios considering normal

operations, maintenance, and emergency fire conditions. Under normal operations, the only

anticipated emission is particulate matter (PM) from brake dust, which was found to produce

negligible impact on the environment. Operation of diesel generators, underground during night

time maintenance operations, would release products of combustion similar to roadway

vehicles described previously. Results of simulations indicate that concentrations of ventilation

shaft emissions at virtually all sensitive receivers fall below Ministry of the Environment

(MOE) standards defined in Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 419. The two locations which

experience violations of the criterion for NOX are the proposed future site of the Ottawa Public

Library and the rooftop fresh air intake at 118 Sparks Street. Based on the level of conservatism

in the modelling assumptions, and the design flexibility at the library site, the detailed design of

the building and its mechanical system will create adequate opportunity to mitigate any

marginal air quality issues. For the building at 118 Sparks Street, a minor violation of the NOX

criterion occurs for one hour in five years (equivalent to once in 43,800 hours), also based on

the same conservative modelling assumptions. As such, the Sparks Street site is considered to

experience acceptable air quality without the need for mitigation. Air quality monitoring during

maintenance operations is recommended to establish policies for maintenance activities.

Simulation of fire conditions in the tunnel indicates that smoke and other combustion products

discharged from ventilation shafts can produce hazardous concentrations at fresh air intakes of

nearby buildings. Although emergency conditions are not constrained by MOE regulations,

given the low risk and uncertain location of affected shafts, it is recommended that heat and

smoke detectors for automatic damper control of fresh air intakes be installed at selected

buildings itemized in the main body of the report. The same analysis during fire scenarios

indicates that station entrances remain free of harmful contamination levels, thereby allowing

safe egress of patrons in an emergency.

Air emissions from the Maintenance and Storage (M & S) Facility, as well as from expanded

operations at the terminal stations, will be assessed and controlled during the detailed design

and project implementation phases of the project according to MOE and City of Ottawa

requirements.

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration iii

Noise Impacts

Existing and future noise conditions were predicted using the MOE road and rail analysis

software STAMSON 5.04 based on current and projected traffic volumes to the year 2031. A

comparison of existing and future conditions revealed that, despite an increase in noise levels

due to converting the Transitway to LRT, noise levels at most receptors remain dominated by

existing sources, including Highway 417 and Scott Street. However, mitigation is necessary

and recommended for the houses and church located along the north side of the Transitway

between Parkdale Avenue and Merton Street. Adequate mitigation would be in the form of a

2.4 meter (m) tall noise barrier installed adjacent to the property lines of the affected properties

within the City’s right of way, as illustrated in Figure 3 found in the main body of the report.

Noise emanating from the ventilation shafts and at the tunnel portals during normal operations

have not been specifically considered as part of this study. Noise from tunnel ventilation

equipment will be mitigated to acceptable levels by the selection of silencers, according to the

Certificate of Approvals process regulated by the MOE and the City of Ottawa Environmental

Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG), following equipment selection during the detailed design

phase of the project. In a similar way, noise from expanded operations at the terminal stations

and from the future M & S Facility, as well as Electrical Substations (Traction Power Stations)

would be evaluated during the detailed design and implementation phase of the project

according to the rules established by the City of Ottawa ENCG based on the MOE protocol.

Appropriate mitigation for these facilities may include the use of landscaped earth berms and

noise barriers, as well as silencers for mechanical equipment and duct work.

Ground Vibrations and Ground-Borne Noise Impacts

Existing ground vibrations were measured at nine locations throughout the corridor to assess

the impact from buses along the Transitway and traffic on surrounding roadways. Vibration

impacts of the new LRT system were predicted using the United States Federal Transit

Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment protocol. The analysis

considered conservative assumptions relating to track operations, including: (i) worn tracks,

and (ii) the presence of special track work (such as switches and crossovers) among others.

According to the FTA, these factors have an equal impact on vibrations and are not additive.

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration iv

Without mitigation, ground vibration levels and associated ground-borne noise will increase to

perceptible and possibly annoying levels along the full corridor, including the downtown tunnel

section. However, implementation of appropriate mitigation features would limit future ground

vibrations to acceptable levels according to the various building uses along the corridor.

Although ground-borne noise is more difficult to attenuate along the tunnel section, the same

mitigation features would satisfy the vast majority of noise issues affecting buildings in the

downtown core. As such, recommended mitigation includes: (i) track and sleeper isolation such

as floating slab track, double-tie systems, or equivalent vibration attenuation techniques along

the downtown tunnel section, the maintenance tunnel link, and the at-grade section from

Tunney’s Pasture Station to the Bayview Road crossing, and (ii) use of track isolation such as

resilient track fasteners alone, for the remainder of the corridor. Furthermore, the use of

continuously welded rail, as well as regular maintenance of train wheels and track, is

recommended to ensure acceptable long term performance within vibration and noise limits.

Short term monitoring of noise and vibrations is also recommended for the first six months of

LRT operations at selected basements of adjacent buildings along the tunnel sections, including

all buildings sensitive to noise and vibration, to evaluate the success of the noted mitigation

strategies.

The noted mitigation strategies should be reevaluated throughout the design evolution to ensure

appropriate attenuation is achieved by the LRT system. The stiffness of the vehicles’ primary

suspension and the natural frequency of the floating slab can have a significant effect on the

vibration attenuation performance of the entire system.

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration v

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Varied construction activities along the LRT corridor are expected to create isolated and short-

term noise, air quality and vibration impacts on the environment. The construction manager

will be required to develop a strategy for mitigating the effects according to good practices

intended to satisfy, as far as technically feasible, the fugitive dust limits specified in O.Reg.

419, the noise limits specified in MOE NPC-1151 and City of Ottawa By-laws for Noise2, and

the limits on ground vibrations specified in MOE NPC-1193. Tunnel construction works must

also be preceded by pre-construction surveys for selected buildings along the tunnel route. A

list of common mitigation strategies adapted to the current project includes, but is not limited

to, the following:

For air emissions:

(i) Monitor weather forecast, and plan operations to take advantage of calm wind periods;

(ii) Minimize site storage of granular material in height and extent;

(iii) Locate storage piles in sheltered areas that can be covered;

(iv) Provide movable wind breaks as necessary to minimize fugitive dust;

(v) Use water spray and suppression techniques to control fugitive dust;

(vi) Cover haul trucks and wash down access routes to the construction site.

For noise and vibrations:

(i) Limit speeds of heavy vehicles within and upon approaching the site;

(ii) Provide compacted smooth surfaces, avoiding abrupt steps and ditches;

(iii) Install movable noise barriers or temporary enclosures at tunnel portals;

(iv) Keep equipment properly maintained according to manufacturer’s procedures;

(v) For the TBM, maintain the cutting face in optimum condition. Select cutting speed

within operational limits to avoid resonance in adjacent structures. Monitor noise and

vibration at basements of selected adjacent buildings;

(vi) Implement a blast design program prepared by a blast design engineer.

1 MOE, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, NPC-115 Construction Equipment, August 1978 2 City of Ottawa, Noise By-law ByLAW NO. 2004-253 3 MOE, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, NPC-119 Blasting, August 1978

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE 2

3. OBJECTIVES 3

4. METHODOLOGY 4

4.1 Assessment of Air Quality 4 4.1.1 Air Quality Criteria 5 4.1.2 Modelling Vehicle and Bus Emissions 7 4.1.3 Modelling Ventilation Shaft Emissions 11 4.1.4 Bus Terminals and M & S Facility 15

4.2 Assessment of Airborne Noise From At-Grade Transportation Sources 16 4.2.1 Noise Criteria 17 4.2.2 Noise Assessment Procedure 18 4.2.3 Stationary Noise 19

4.3 Assessment of Ground Vibrations and Ground-Borne Noise 19 4.3.1 Vibration Criteria 20 4.3.2 Assessment Procedure 21

5. RESULTS 26

5.1 Air Quality 26 5.1.1 Impact of Vehicle and Bus Emissions 26 5.1.2 Impact of Ventilation Shafts 29 5.1.3 Maintenance and Storage Facility 31

5.2 Airborne Noise From At-Grade Transportation Sources 34

5.3 Ground Vibrations and Ground-borne Noise 45

6. IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION 54

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 57

7.1 Operational Impacts 57

7.2 Construction Impacts 59

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration vii

LIST OF FIGURES:

FIGURE 1: KEY PLAN AND OVERVIEW FOR RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FIGURE 2: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS SMIRLE AVE TO PARKDALE AVE FIGURE 3: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS PARKDALE AVE TO BAYSWATER AVE FIGURE 4: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS BAYSWATER AVE TO PRESTON STREET FIGURE 4: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS PRESTON STREET TO WELLINGTON STREET FIGURE 6: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS WELLINGTON STREET TO BAY STREET FIGURE 7: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS BAY STREET TO BANK STREET FIGURE 8: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS BANK STREET TO ELGIN STREET FIGURE 9: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ELGIN STREET TO McKENZIE BRIDGE FIGURE 10: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS McKENZIE KING BRIDGE TO NICHOLAS STREET FIGURE 11: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS NICHOLAS STREET TO GREENFIELD AVE FIGURE 12: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS GREENFIELD AVE TO HWY 417 FIGURE 13: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS HWY 417 TO HURDMAN STATION FIGURE 14: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS HURDMAN STATION FIGURE 15: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS HURDMAN STATION TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE FIGURE 16: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO TRAIN STATION FIGURE 17: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS TRAIN STATION TO BELFAST ROAD FIGURE 18: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS BELFAST ROAD TO ST. LAURENT BLVD FIGURE 19: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ST. LAURENT BLVD TO MICHAEL STREET FIGURE 20: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS MICHAEL STREET TO CYRVILLE ROAD FIGURE 21: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS CYRVILLE ROAD TO HWY 174 FIGURE 22: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS HWY 174 TO BLAIR STATION FIGURE 23: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS BLAIR STATION FIGURE 24: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS MAINTENANCE & STORAGE FACILITY FIGURE 25: AERMOD 3D MODEL OF DOWNTOWN (VIEWED FROM THE INTERSECTION

OF WELLINGTON STREET AND KENT STREET LOOKING SOUTH EAST FIGURE 26: GENERIC VIBRATION CRITERION (VC) CURVES FOR VIBRATION –

SENSITIVE EQUIPMENT – SHOWING ALSO THE ISO GUIDELINES FOR PEOPLE IN BUILDINGS

FIGURE 27: FTA GENERALIZED CURVES OF VIBRATION LEVELS VERSES DISTANCE (ADOPTED FROM 10-1, FTA TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT)

FIGURE 28: VIBRATION LEVELS AT 18 m FROM TRACK, TRAIN SPEED 80 km/h (ADOPTED FROM FIGURE 5, PARRAMATTA RAIL LINK – APPROACH TO CONTROLLING TRAIN REGENERATED NOISE AND VIBRATION)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MODELLING OF EXISTING CONDITIONS INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA FOR CAL3QHC

APPENDIX B: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MODELLING OF FUTURE CONDITIONS INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA FOR CAL3QHC

APPENDIX C: AIR DISPERSION MODELLING FOR VENTILATION SHAFTS INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA FROM AERMOD

APPENDIX D: NOISE MODELLING OF EXISTING CONDITIONS INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA STAMSON 5.04

APPENDIX E: NOISE MODELLING OF FUTURE CONDITIONS INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA STAMSON 5.04

APPENDIX F: FUTURE GROUND VIBRATION PREDICTIONS CALCULATIONS

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Gradient Microclimate Engineering Inc. (GmE ) was retained by Delcan Corporation to provide

engineering support for the environmental assessment (EA) phase for the City of Ottawa

Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) project in the areas of air quality, noise, and ground

vibrations. The DOTT EA is undertaken as a coordinated Provincial–Federal EA, pursuant to

the new Provincial Transit Project Regulation (Ontario Regulation 231/08), and the Federal

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

This report describes the assessment, methodology and results for future environmental air

quality, noise and ground vibration impacts created by the project, compares them with existing

conditions, and provides recommendations for mitigation where required.

Detailed assessments of the operational impacts are presented in Sections 4 and 5, and a

qualitative assessment of the impacts of construction is presented in Section 6.


2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The DOTT is a proposed twelve and a half kilometer (12.5 km) conversion of the City of

Ottawa bus rapid transit (BRT) network, known as the Transitway, to electric light rail transit

(LRT). The extent of the project spans from the existing Transitway station at Tunney’s Pasture

in the west to Blair Station in the east. The undertaking involves converting a dedicated bus

roadway to at-grade rail on the east and west ends, and linking them with a new 3.2 km tunnel

under the City’s downtown core. The tunnel will extend from the Western Portal, located east

of LeBreton Station, to the Eastern Portal, located north of Lees Station, weaving a cross-

country route beneath existing tall buildings, underground services, and the Rideau Canal.

Outside the portals, the DOTT alignment will follow the existing Transitway corridor. Twin

parallel tunnels are proposed, having a diameter of approximately six meters (m) each. The

running tunnels will be mined primarily through limestone bedrock using a Tunnel Boring

Machine (TBM). Underground station caverns will be mined using controlled drilling and

blasting techniques. The Campus Station at the University of Ottawa will be constructed using

the cut and cover technique. The end portals and ventilation shafts will be constructed using

conventional surface excavation techniques.

Station platforms are designed to handle six-car trains, with 180 m long platforms, to

accommodate future expansion beyond the design horizon of 2031, although only four-car

trains will be required for much of the intervening period. The operational design speed of the

new LRT system is 80 kilometers per hour (80 km/h) with anticipated headways of two (2) to

three (3) minutes during peak hours. Figure 1 illustrates an overview of the project.

Train maintenance will occur at a new Maintenance and Storage (M & S) Facility located in an

industrial area at Belfast Road and Terminal Avenue, south of the Canadian National Railway

line and a residential neighbourhood beyond. One or several large buildings will house the

maintenance operations and the LRT vehicles. The facility will operate on a 24-hour basis and

would include outdoor maintenance and marshalling activities.


3. OBJECTIVES

The DOTT is intended to promote efficient rapid mass transit, and is the first link in a city wide

LRT system. The underlying goal of the studies covered in this report is to identify and

minimize any impacts of the undertaking, including construction activities, on the human and

natural environments by judicious selection of design elements. As such, the necessary scope of

work to achieve this goal comprises: assessing existing conditions for air quality, noise, and

ground vibrations, predicting future conditions resulting from the undertaking, and

recommending appropriate mitigation measures where comparisons show significant

deterioration according to the guidelines of the City of Ottawa, Ministry of the Environment of

Ontario (MOE) and other governing authorities.

Under the new Transit Project Regulation (Ontario Regulation 231/08), future impacts of the

project are to be considered relative to existing conditions at the time the assessment is

undertaken. Under the new regulations, a ‘future do nothing’ analysis is no longer required, and

has not been presented in this report.


4. METHODOLOGY

The following sections describe the methodology for assessing baseline existing conditions and

predicted future conditions due to LRT operations for each of the subject areas. Construction

impacts are discussed qualitatively in Section 6.

4.1 Assessment of Air Quality

Converting the Transitway (BRT) into an electric LRT system will have benefits or drawbacks

depending on location. Whereas the LRT system will reduce diesel emissions from BRT buses,

including Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), and

Particulate Matter (PM), in addition to other secondary compounds, increased bus traffic at

terminal stations may have a negative effect on air quality at nearby points of reception. Section

4.1.2 describes the methodology used to assess the impact of vehicle and bus emissions on

ambient air quality throughout the DOTT corridor.

The new 3.2 km tunnel and four underground stations through Ottawa’s downtown core are

proposed as part of the project. Each station will be serviced by one ventilation shaft at each

end, which will be used primarily to supply fresh air and climate control to the stations. The

ventilation shafts are also used to balance air and extract smoke in the event of a fire. Under

normal operation, the piston effect of the trains entering and leaving the station will make up

the majority of the air exchanges. Reversible ventilation fans will be operated automatically

during periods of high temperatures on warm summer days, and during underground

maintenance operations. In the event of an underground fire, the fans will operate automatically

to push fresh air into the station, or to extract smoke as controlled by heat and smoke sensors

installed throughout the tunnel and stations.

The ventilation shafts will impact the outside environment in three possible scenarios. First,

under normal operation, PM from brake dust and other machinery will be exhausted above

grade level. In this case, there are no other significant airborne emissions from the electric

trains. Second, during night time maintenance of the tunnel or stations, by-products of diesel or

gasoline fumes emitted by maintenance equipment (i.e. generators, work cars and hand tools)

will be exhausted at the ventilation shafts. Third, during rare emergency fire situations, one or


more ventilation shafts will exhaust smoke and other combustion products to the above grade

environment. Section 4.1.3 describes the methodology used to assess the impact of the

ventilation shafts on local air quality affecting surrounding buildings for each of these cases.

4.1.1 Air Quality Criteria

An assessment of air quality is based on determining the concentration of a pollutant at a

particular location. Pollutant concentrations are measured in either parts per million (ppm) or

micrograms per cubic meter (�g/m3). Resulting concentrations are compared to clean air

standards that have been set by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE), Standards

Development Branch. There are two sets of standards and guidelines. The Ambient Air Quality

Criteria (AAQC)4 are the Ministry’s targets for clean air from all sources of pollutants,

including transit, transportation, and industrial faculties when considered with other sources.

Regulation 419: Air Pollution – Local Air Quality Standards (O. Reg. 419)5, are the legal limits

for single or multiple sources falling within a single property, such as an industrial facility.

AAQC and O. Reg. 419 standards are effect-based concentration levels for individual

pollutants in air, with variable averaging periods for each pollutant. Averaging periods vary

from one to twenty-four hours, appropriate for the relevant effect each pollutant causes. For

example, CO has acute health effects (poisoning) and an averaging period of one-half hour,

whereas prolonged exposure to high levels of PM can have long term respiratory effects, with a

corresponding averaging period of twenty-four hours. The AAQC and O. Reg. 419 standards

for representative pollutants are listed in Table 1, with the averaging period for each pollutant

described in parenthesis.

4 Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC), February 2008. 5 Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Summary of Standards and Guidelines to Support Ontario Regulation 419: Air Pollution – Local Air Quality, February 2008


TABLE 1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND O. REG. 419 STANDARDS

POLLUTANT AAQC (�g/m3)

O. Reg. 419 (�g/m3)

LIMITING EFFECT

CO 36200 (1 HR) 15700 (8 HR) 6000 (1/2 HR) Health HC 2500 (24 HR) 2500 (24 HR) Health NOx 400 (1 HR) 200 (24 HR) 400 (1 HR) 200 (24 HR) Health

(PM44, < 44�m) 120 (24 HR) 120 (24 HR) Visibility

(PM10, < 10�m) 50 (24 HR) Not Available Health

(PM2.5, < 2.5�m) 30 (24 HR) Not Available Health

Although emergency situations are not constrained by air pollution criteria, the National Fire

Protection Association code, ‘NFPA 130’6, requires that ventilation shafts be designed to

prevent the entrainment of smoke into the underground stations for safe egress of passengers,

as well as to protect the safety of pedestrians and occupants of adjacent buildings.

The impact of emissions from subway shafts during a tunnel fire are defined in terms of

dilution ratios. Dilution ratios represent the amount of mixing or dilution of the smoke plume,

defined as a source concentration divided by the concentration at a point of reception. Dilution

ratios are used in this case due to the lack of reliable data regarding the contents of combustion

products. Although smoke, comprising particulates of various sizes, is the visible component of

combustion, other harmful products are also carried in the hot plume that would be exhausted

from one or more of the eight ventilation shafts or the tunnel portals. In-house experience,

supported with limited full-scale testing, indicates that dilution ratios of 1000 or more are

required to achieve acceptable air quality for most chemicals, including particulates, assuming

continuous long-term exposure. Lower dilution, and therefore higher concentrations, will be

acceptable for occasional short-exposures.

6 National Fire Protection Association, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems, NFPA 130, 2007


4.1.2 Modelling Vehicle and Bus Emissions

To assess the impact of converting the BRT Transitway into an electric LRT system, air

dispersion modelling was performed using the computer software CAL3QHC. Developed by

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CAL3QHC is an air dispersion

model in widespread use to predict air quality influenced by roadway vehicle emissions. The

main features of the atmosphere which influence pollution dispersion, which are reflected in the

model, include wind, atmospheric stability, and mixing height. Stability of the atmosphere is

controlled by thermal effects within the lowest 500 m of the atmosphere, which changes on a

diurnal cycle and day-to-day, as well as by wind strength. Both of these influence mixing

height. CAL3QHC incorporates conservative estimates of atmospheric parameters, along with

roadway parameters such as vehicle counts, traffic speeds, and characteristics of signalized

intersections, to estimate actual pollutant concentrations at each receptor for the worst-case one

hour period for all wind directions at ten degree intervals.

Using peak hour traffic volumes to represent reasonable worst-case conditions, an assessment

of air quality along the DOTT corridor was performed for common vehicle pollutants,

including CO, NOX, HC and suspended PM, broken down into inhalable (PM<10�m) and

respirable (PM<2.5�m) components. Since PM2.5 is known to have the greatest health risks and

the most stringent criterion, only results for PM2.5 are presented in this report. The analysis was

based on current traffic information received from the City of Ottawa through Delcan. Future

traffic volumes were based on assumptions of growth rates outside the downtown core of 2%

per year and 0% through the downtown core. Zero growth was assumed for the downtown core

due to saturation in development in the area, and the reduction of buses along Albert and Slater

Streets under future conditions. The vehicle emission factors, summarized in Table 2, were

taken from a report; ‘On Road Vehicle Emission Inventories’7 prepared for Environment

Canada corresponding to current and forecasted Canadian vehicle fleets according to the

protocol established in MOBILE 6. Major intersections and roadways with significant vehicle

traffic within the influence zone of the corridor, such as Scott Street, as well as Highways 417

and 174, were included in the model. Eighty ambient air quality receptor locations, illustrated

in Figures 2 through 24, were selected to quantify the worst-case one-hour concentrations

7 Senes Consultants Limited; Air Improvement Resource Inc., Updated estimate of Canadian On-Road Vehicle Emissions for the Year 1995-2020, Environment Canada, October 2002


during peak traffic hours of the morning periods. The model was run for the full azimuth of

wind directions, and for wind speeds of one meter per second (m/s), 2 m/s, and 4 m/s,

referenced to the weather station at the Ottawa International Airport. Wind speed and

directional statistics for the Ottawa area were combined with the pollution data to determine

statistical levels of pollutants occurring along the corridor.

Peak traffic volumes for road segments used in the CAL3QHC model are listed in Table 3.

Colour separations have been used only to improve the readability of the tables, and are not

related to interpretation of conditions. For roadways, the vehicle mix is taken to comprise 88%

light duty gasoline vehicles (LDGV), 7% light duty diesel trucks (LDDT), and 5% heavy duty

diesel vehicles (HDDV). Buses travelling along the Transitway were considered HDDV.

TABLE 2: VEHICLE EMISSION DATA

ROADWAY BUSES POLLUTANT

DRIVING (g/veh-mi)

IDLING (g/veh-HR)

DRIVING (g/veh-mi)

IDLING (g/veh-HR)

2008CO 6.4 332 4.407 229 HC 0.63 19.5 0.411 12.7 NOx 1.03 8.74 6.813 57.8 PM2.5 0.035 2.68 0.109 8.35

2021CO 4.28 119.5 0.479 13 HC 0.42 6.83 0.124 2 NOx 0.297 2.19 1.045 8 PM2.5 0.031 1.29 0.031 1


TABLE 3: ROAD TRAFFIC VOLUMES, EXISTING AND FUTURE

CURRENT VEHCILE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FORECASTED 2031 TRAFFIC VOLUMES

ROAD PEAK HOUR AADT* PEAK

HOUR AADT*

Transitway/ New LRT Tunney’s Pasture - LeBreton 704 2207 60 540

Scott Street Holland Ave. – Parkdale Ave 1890 11291 2922 17456

Holland Ave At Scott Street 1240 8132 1917 12572

Parkdale Avenue At Scott Street 1212 9852 1874 15231

Scott Street Parkdale Ave. – Bayview Road 1772 13180 2739 20376

Bayview Road At Scott Street 848 4437 1311 6860

Scott Street Bayview Road – Booth Street 1779 12343 2750 19082

Ottawa River Parkway At Booth Street 3000 30000 3000 30000

Booth StreetAt Scott Street 3000 30000 3000 30000

Albert Street Booth Street – Elgin Street 596 5659 596 5659

Slater Street Booth Street – Elgin Street 600 6000 600 6000

Queen Street Bronson Ave. – Elgin Street 859 6276 859 6276

Bronson Ave. At Albert Street 942 9424 942 9424

Bay Street At Albert Street 600 6000 600 6000

Lyon Street At Albert Street 600 6000 600 6000

Kent Street At Albert Street 1054 11237 1054 11237

Bank Street At Albert Street 1200 12000 1200 12000

O’Connor Street At Albert Street 1157 8983 1157 8983

Metcalfe Street At Albert Street 449 4683 449 4683

NOTE: * AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (24 Hour Period)

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration

TABLE 3 (CONT’D): ROAD TRAFFIC VOLUMES, EXISTING AND FUTURE

CURRENT VEHCILE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FORECASTED 2031 TRAFFIC VOLUMES

ROAD PEAK HOUR AADT* PEAK

HOUR AADT*

Elgin Street At Albert Street 1446 19355 1446 19355

Rideau Street Metcalfe Street – Waller Street 1000 8887 1000 8887

Transitway / New LRT Laurier – Lees 913 2886 60 540

Nicholas Street Laurier Ave – Highway 417 2882 28723 2882 28723

Colonel By Drive Daly Ave – Main Street 1362 13683 1362 13683

Highway 417 Metcalfe Street to Riverside Drive 15350* 153500 23731 237308

Transitway / New LRT Lees – Hurdman 936 3042 60 540

South West Transitway Hurdman – Lycée Claudel 667 2977 1031 4602

Riverside Drive At Industrial Ave. 2661 39213 4114 60623

Industrial Ave At Riverside Ave 2571 16499 3975 25507

Via Rail Train At Riverside 1 11 2 11

Transitway / New LRT Hurdman – Cyrville 605 2007 60 540

Highway 417 Riverside Drive – Highway 174 14530 145300 22463 224631

Tremblay Road Belfast Road – St. Laurent Ave 200 2553 309 3947

St. Laurent Ave. At Highway 417 2798 25799 4326 39885

Cyrville Road A Highway 417 1168 11795 1806 18235

Aviation Parkway At Highway 417 1212 9643 1874 14908

Transitway / New LRT Cyrville – Blair 547 1703 60 540

Highway 174 Highway 417 – Blair Road 6700 67000 10358 103581

Blair Road At Highway 417 2383 32023 3684 49507

NOTE: * AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (24 Hour Period)


Ambient concentrations of the primary vehicle emissions were obtained from the MOE’s

permanent monitoring station located at the intersection of Rideau Street and Wurtemburg

Street8, east of the downtown core. Values summarized in Table 4 represent conservative

estimates of the 90th percentile background levels existing along the corridor. As such, for 90%

of the time, the measured background concentrations will fall below these levels at the

measurement site. Background concentrations have not been accounted for in the CAL3QHC

results, due to the uncertainty of predicting future background levels. Results are intended to

show the relative comparison between future impacts of air quality due to the LRT undertaking

and existing conditions. Sources outside of the DOTT corridor have not been considered,

except as noted. All results based on one-hour concentrations have been converted to

appropriate averaging periods where applicable. The complete CAL3QHC air quality

modelling input and output data for existing and future conditions are presented in Appendices

A and B.

TABLE 4: AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS AT MOE’S RIDEAU STREET

MONITORING STATION

POLLUTANT BACKGROUND (�g/m3)

PERCENTAGE OF MOE

CRITERIA CO 504 1.4% HC Unavailable N/A** NOx 48 12%

PM44, < 44�m Unavailable N/A**

PM10, < 10�m Unavailable N/A**

PM2.5, < 2.5�m 14 46% NOTE: ** N/A = Not Applicable

4.1.3 Modelling Ventilation Shaft Emissions

Local air quality predictions for ventilation shaft emissions are based on MOE’s new standard

model for assessing air quality impacts from stationary sources known as AERMOD. The

assessment protocol includes: (i) creating a three-dimensional computer model of the study area

(Ottawa downtown core, see Figure 25); (ii) running the model for five-years of local

meteorological data; and (iii) comparing the resulting concentrations at selected receptors with

8 Air Quality in Ontario – 2007, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2008.


provincial criteria. AERMOD is based on atmospheric boundary layer theory in a 3-

dimensional framework, which allows considerations of building downwash, advanced

depositional parameters, such as density differences for particulate matter, as well as

considerations for local meteorological conditions and topography.

All existing buildings within the downtown core and the south end of the University of Ottawa

campus, near Campus Station, were represented in the computer model. Proposed ventilation

shaft locations are illustrated in Figures 6 to 9, 11 and 12. The assumed release height of each

shaft is described in Table 5. All ventilation shafts were modelled as point sources having a

surface area of 25 m2 with a vertical discharge volume dependant on operation modes as

discussed in subsequent paragraphs. The tunnel portals were modelled with a horizontal

discharge and a surface area of 28 m2. For Vent # 4 (West Shaft for the Downtown East

Station), it was assumed the existing building at 96 Bank Street (The Bank Chambers Building)

would be demolished during construction of the ventilation shaft, and the site left undeveloped.

TABLE 5: VENT SHAFT EMISSIONS

VENT # STATION SHAFT RELEASE HEIGHT 1 Portal West 3 m AGL** 2 Downtown West West 2.5 m AGL 3 Downtown West East 2.5 m AGL 4 Downtown East West 2.5 m AGL 5 Downtown East East 35 m AGL 6 Rideau West At grade level 7 Rideau East 15 m AGL 8 Campus North At grade level 9 Campus South At grade level 10 Portal East 3 m AGL

NOTE: ** AGL = Above Ground Level

Wind profiles as a function of height appropriate for the exposures of the study site were

obtained from the MOE for five years of measured data (from 1996 to 20009). AERMOD

simulations automatically produce a variety of intermediate data for a range of historical wind

speeds and wind directions, on an hour-by-hour basis, to arrive at the worst-case normalized

concentration for each pollutant at each specified receptor.

9 http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/air/regulations/metdata/Central.htm


An array of approximately 300 receptors, in addition to the 80 used in CAL3QHC, were placed

throughout the downtown core and the University of Ottawa campus. Receptors were placed at

building fresh air intakes, ground level entrances, and at the entrances to underground stations.

Since building fresh air intakes provide air continuously to unsuspecting building occupants,

they are considered to be among the most important and sensitive receptors. A complete set of

air dispersion input and output data from AERMOD is presented in Appendix C.

Normal Operations

Under normal operations of the tunnel, only PM, in the form of brake dust, will be emitted

through the vent shafts. A review of similar tunnel installations indicated that platform

concentrations of PM average 270 micrograms per cubic meter (�g/m3)10. Using this PM

concentration at platform level, together with the design shaft exhaust flow rate of 100 cubic

meters per second (m3/s) for the DOTT11,12 produces an average emission rate of PM at each

ventilation shaft of 0.027 grams per second (g/s) under normal operations. All ventilation shafts

and portals were considered to be emitting PM concurrently and continuously.

Maintenance Operations During maintenance operations of the underground infrastructure, diesel or gasoline powered

equipment will be used in the tunnels and stations. To assess the potential impact this may have

on the local air quality of the surrounding buildings, an analogous maintenance scenario used

by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was assumed for DOTT. The maintenance operation

involves replacement or repair of a full turnout switch, which can be accomplished overnight

between the hours of 2:00 AM and 8:00 AM. The equipment used for this operation includes

diesel powered work cars (R18, R19, R20 and RT55) operated at list speed, and four (4), 25

Horsepower (18.5 kW) hydraulic diesel generators13. As for the brake dust simulation, the

exhaust flow rate at each of the ventilation shafts for maintenance operations was assumed to

be 100 m3/s. Two adjacent ventilation shafts were assumed to be operating concurrently during

10 L.G. Murruni; V. Solanes; M. Debray; A.J. Kreniner; J. Davidson; M. Davidson; M. Vázquez and M. Ozafáan. Concentrations and Elemental Composition of Particulate Matter in the Buenos Aries Underground System, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 23, Issue 30, September 2009. 11 Halcrow Group Limited, DOTT Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel Ventilation and Fire Life Safety, November 2009 12 Based on GmE’s experience with TTC related projects. 13 Internal communications between GmE and TTC


the maintenance period to share ventilation load and reduce the concentration at each shaft

exhaust. Table 6 describes the emission rate data used by AERMOD simulations during tunnel

maintenance.

TABLE 6: MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS EMISSIONS FACTORS BASED ON TTC MAINTENANCE SCENARIO

EMISSIONS (g/s) POLLUTANT

2008 CO 0.35 HC 0.02 NOx 0.05 PM 0.005

It is noteworthy that the TTC example is used to evaluate the potential impact of the ventilation

shafts on air quality. It will be up to the design team and operator of DOTT to implement

acceptable maintenance routines in compliance with the O.Reg. 419 Standards. The assumption

of splitting the emissions across two ventilation shafts is good practice, in addition to other

ventilation protocols. Furthermore, it would be prudent to monitor actual conditions during

maintenance operations to achieve this objective.

Emergency Operation In the event of fire in the running tunnel or in one of the stations, the ventilation shafts and

reversible fans will be used to extract smoke and provide fresh air to the affected station. If fire

occurs in a section of running tunnel between stations, passengers will be evacuated at the

closest point of safety. Fresh air will be pumped into the tunnel against the direction of

passenger escape, and smoke will be extracted from the station at the other end of the line.

Similarly, for station fires, smoke will be extracted from one end of the station and fresh air

supplied to the other, in order to provide safe evacuation of the passengers. Axial fans in the

ventilation shafts and jet fans near the portals will provide an exhaust flow rate of 200 m3/s.

AERMOD simulations were run with a unit emission rate to develop dilution ratios for

receptors at surrounding buildings. Smoke will be discharged from a single shaft during a fire.


4.1.4 Bus Terminals and M & S Facility

Future sources of air emissions related to the undertaking include the expanded activities at the

terminal stations (Tunney’s Pasture, Blair and Hurdman), as well as the new Maintenance and

Storage (M & S) Facility. These sites could not be analyzed with any assurance of reasonable

results during the EA phase of the project, due to the lack of design parameters. However,

detailed analysis of impacts and mitigation measures are required during detailed design and

project implementation by the MOE through the Certificate of Approval (C of A) process and

O.Reg 419.

Whereas air pollution impacts of the terminal stations arise from increased bus activities, new

sources of emissions from the M & S Facility could include heating systems, operations (i.e.

welding, painting), and emergency generator testing.


4.2 Assessment of Airborne Noise From At-Grade Transportation Sources

Airborne noise is defined as any obtrusive sound. It is created at a source, transmitted through a

medium, such as air, and intercepted by a receiver. Noise may be characterized in terms of the

power of the source or the sound pressure at a specific distance. While the power of a source is

characteristic of that source, the sound pressure depends on the location of the receiver and the

path the noise takes to reach the receiver. Its measurement is based on the decibel unit, dBA,

which is a logarithmic ratio referenced to a standard noise level (2×10-5 Pascals). The ‘A’

suffix refers to a weighting scale, which represents the noise perceived by the human ear. With

this scale, a doubling of power results in a 3 dBA increase in measured noise levels and is just

perceptible to most people. An increase of 10 dBA is often perceived to be twice as loud.

For vehicle traffic, the equivalent sound energy level, LEQ, provides a weighted measure of the

time varying noise levels, which is well correlated with the annoyance of sound. It is defined as

the continuous sound level, which has the same energy as a time varying noise level over a

selected period of time. For roadways, the LEQ is commonly calculated based on a 16-hour

daytime / 8-hour night time split to assess its impact on residential buildings.

The MOE provides guidelines for control of noise produced by human activities14. These

guidelines have been adopted by various municipalities and are incorporated into local noise

by-laws. The City of Ottawa commissioned a comprehensive technical document for the

purpose of assessing and controlling noise impacts within its urban boundary15. In broad terms,

noise sources are classified as either transportation or stationary. Transportation noise sources

include road, rail and aircraft sources. Stationary sources occur within a specified property and

can either be fixed, such as a ventilation shaft, or moving, such as maintenance vehicles at an

industrial facility.

14 Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning, Publication LU131, Ministry of The Environment, Oct. 1997. 15 City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines, Planning and Growth Management Department, City of Ottawa, April 2006.


4.2.1 Noise Criteria

Many municipalities consider daytime LEQ of 55 dBA to be acceptable for outdoor living areas

(OLA’s), with mitigating measures being required as the noise levels exceed 60 dBA. For

capital works projects, such as roadway widening, the requirements for providing noise

mitigation measures according to the City of Ottawa’s Environmental Noise Control Guidelines

(ENCG)16 and best practice are:

� For future noise levels less than, or equal to, 55 dBA no mitigation is required.

� For future noise levels greater than 55 and less than, or equal to, 60 dBA accompanied

by an increase greater than 5 dBA over existing conditions, noise mitigation shall be

considered according to Table 7 taken from the ENCG.

� For future noise levels greater than 60 dBA, regardless of the amount of increase,

noise mitigation shall be considered according to the requirements of Table 7.

TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACT RATING AND MITIGATION17

Future Sound Level, LEQ 16hr

Change Above Ambient, dBA Impact Rating Mitigation

0-3 Insignificant None 3-5 Noticeable None

5-10 Significant

Greater than 55 dBA and less

than or equal to 60 dBA 10+ Very Significant

Investigate noise control measures to achieve retrofit criteria (minimum

attenuation 6 dBA) 0-3 Insignificant 3-5 Noticeable

5-10 Significant Greater than 60 dBA

10+ Very Significant

Investigate noise control measures to achieve retrofit criteria (minimum

attenuation 6 dBA)

According to section 2.0 of the ENCG, retrofit sound barriers will be installed and maintained

within the City’s right of way, except for flanking walls where an easement may be requested.

Sound barriers within the right of way will only be installed where it is feasible to achieve the

minimum retrofit criteria of 6 dBA. The guideline also states ‘Off right-of-way noise control

measures and night time (11:00 PM – 7:00 AM) assessment of the noise impact will not be

considered as part of these guidelines’18.

16 SS Wilson, City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines, May 2006 17Adopted from Table 2.1, City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines, May 2006. 18 SS Wilson, City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines, May 2006


4.2.2 Noise Assessment Procedure

Existing noise levels at eighty receptors along the DOTT corridor, corresponding to the same

locations used for ambient air quality assessments outside the downtown tunnel, were based on

current traffic information received from the City of Ottawa through Delcan. Future noise

levels at the same eighty receptor locations were based on the assumption that traffic outside

the downtown core would grow at a rate of 2% per annum to the year 2031, and 0% per year

within the downtown area. Figures 2 to 24 illustrate receptor locations along the corridor and

noise sensitive buildings have been outlined in red. The major source of noise is assumed to be

roadway traffic. Other sources of transportation noise included in the study are the CN/CP rail

line crossing at Riverside Drive. Traffic volumes are described in Table 3.

Roadway noise calculations have been based on the MOE road noise analysis program,

STAMSON 5.04. This program calculates noise levels based on: (i) Annual Average Daily

Traffic (AADT) volumes, posted speed limits, and vehicle mix data for roadways, representing

the source; and (ii) source-receiver distance, exposure angles and intermediate ground surface

characteristics, and source-receiver ground elevation, as characterizing the path of noise. The

use of this program satisfies MOE19 and City of Ottawa requirements. AADT volumes on

surrounding streets were considered to be split 92% daytime, and 8% night time, for each

roadway segment, as well as a vehicle mix of 7% and 5% for medium (LDDT) and heavy

vehicles (HDDV), respectively. Assumed speed limits in the calculations are 100 kilometers

per hour (km/h) for highways, 60 km/h for arterial roads, and 50 km/h for local and downtown

roadways, and 70 km/h for the existing Transitway, common to all Transitway segments. A

complete set of the noise modelling input and output data for STAMSON 5.04 for both existing

and future conditions are presented in Appendices D and E.

19 Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning, Publication LU131, Ministry of The Environment, Oct. 1997.


4.2.3 Stationary Noise

Background noise levels in the downtown area will also be influenced by stationary sources

such as building mechanical systems. In theory, new stationary noise sources are subject to an

approval process enforced by the MOE with a maximum noise limit of 50 dBA daytime and

45 dBA night time. As a result, background noise contribution to the total noise environment is

considered to be secondary and has not been specifically considered in this study.

According to the City of Ottawa noise guidelines, the M & S Facility, as well as the current

BRT stations and future LRT stations, are to be considered as stationary noise sources. Other

stationary noise sources to be considered are electrical substations (Traction Power Stations)

and ventilation shafts. However, due to the limited amount of information available at the time

this study was completed, a reliable noise assessment was not possible for these stationary

sources. However, future activity levels around each station are expected to remain similar to

existing conditions. A qualitative analysis for the LRT stations, M & S Facility, portals,

ventilation shafts, and electrical substations is provided in Section 5.2.1. A detailed noise

assessment for these stationary noise sources will be required during the detailed design phase

of the project, once source data at each location are identified.

4.3 Assessment of Ground Vibrations and Ground-Borne Noise

Rail transit systems can produce perceptible levels of ground vibrations, especially when they

are in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. Similar to sound waves in air, vibrations in

solids are generated at a source, propagated through the medium, and intercepted by a receiver.

In the case of ground vibrations, the medium can be uniform, or more often, a complex layering

of soils and rock strata. Also, similar to sound waves in air, ground vibrations produce

perceptible motions and regenerated noise known as ‘ground-borne noise’ when the vibrations

encounter a hollow structure such as a building. Ground-borne noise and vibrations are

generated when there is excitation of the ground, from a train for instance. Repetitive motion of

the wheels on the track causes vibrations to propagate through the soil until they encounter a

building. The vibrations pass along the structure of the building beginning at the foundation

and propagating to all floors. Air inside the building excited by the vibrating walls and floors


represents regenerated airborne noise. Characteristics of the soil and the building are imparted

to the noise thereby creating a unique noise signature.

Human response to ground vibrations is dependent on the strength of vibrations, which is

measured by the root mean square (RMS) of the movement of a particle on a surface. Typical

units of ground vibration measures are millimeters per second (mm/s), or inch per second (in/s).

Since vibrations can vary over a wide range it is also convenient to represent them in decibel

units, of dBV. In North America it is common practice to use the reference value of one micro-

inch per second (�in/s) to represent vibration levels for this purpose. The threshold level of

human perception to vibrations is about 0.10 mm/s RMS or about 72 dBV. Although

somewhat variable, the threshold of annoyance for continuous vibrations is (1.0 mm/s or

92 dBV), ten times higher than the perception threshold, whereas the threshold for significant

structural damage is (10 mm/s or 112 dBV) at least one hundred times higher than the

annoyance threshold level20. Factors affecting vibrations generated by LRT vehicles running above grade or in tunnels

include: vehicle suspension, wheel and track condition, special track work, track support

systems, speed, transit structure, depth of system underground, and soil conditions, among

other factors. For example, worn tracks and wheel flats are known to increase vibrations

significantly. At grade, rail systems have different frequency components as compared to

subway systems, due to differences in the density and strength of surrounding media among

other parameters. Vibrations in rock are harder to generate but travel farther than vibrations in

soils.

4.3.1 Vibration Criteria

Generic vibration criteria for a variety of building functions have been established based on years of experience and fundamental research performed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) ISO 2631-221, and similar groups. Vibration levels appropriate for different occupancies and equipment are referenced according to the nomenclature adjacent to the line levels in Figure 26. The most demanding levels required in research laboratories are referred to

20 C.D. Dowding, Blast Vibration Monitoring & Control, Prentice Hall, 1985 21 ISO 2631-2 Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibrations – Part 2: Continuous and Shock-Induced Vibrations In Buildings (1 to 80 Hertz), 1989-02-15


as Vibration Criteria (VC)-A through VC-E, with VC-A being the least stringent in the group. VC-A is preceded in decreasing order of severity by ‘Operating Theatre’ representing hospitals, ‘Residential’, ‘Office’ and ‘Workshop’ levels. In the United States, the Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) has set vibration criteria for sensitive land use next to transit corridors. Similar standards have been developed by a partnership of MOE and TTC22, which were adopted as the appropriate standard for most buildings along the DOTT corridor. The ISO criteria are included for reference when dealing with highly sensitive equipment common in high-technology manufacturing and some university facilities. Table 9 describes the buildings where vibrations were predicted, their intended land use and vibration criteria.

4.3.2 Assessment Procedure

Existing levels of ground vibrations due to vehicle traffic were determined by field measurements using two Instantel seismographs (Minimate Plus) capable of recording three components of ground velocity, one vertical and two horizontal. Nine measurement sites were selected at sensitive receptors throughout the corridor, as identified in Table 8 (Note, colour separations have been used to improve the readability of the table). At each test location, the seismographs were installed adjacent to the building’s foundation. Figures 2 to 24 illustrate the vibration measurement locations.

TABLE 8: VIBRATION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ALONG THE DOTT CORRIDOR

RECEPTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION LAND USE

A Townhouse, 231 Forward Avenue Residential

B ODAWA Cultural Centre, 12 Stirling Avenue Institutional

C Park Square Condom, 151 Bay Street Apartment Buildings

D South Side of Sun Life Building, 99 Bank Street Commercial

E North Side of Sun Life Building, 99 Bank Street Commercial

F National Arts Centre, 53 Elgin Street Institutional

G Les Suites Hotel, 130 Besserer Street Apartment Building

H SITE Building, University of Ottawa Sensitive Building

I Single Detached Home, 388 Tremblay Road Residential

22 MOEE/TTC Protocol for Nonie and Vibration Assessment for the Proposed Yonge-Spadina Subway Loop, June 16, 1993


Potential vibration impacts of the proposed LRT system were predicted using the FTA’s

‘Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’23 protocol. The FTA general vibration

assessment is based on an upper bound generic set of curves that show vibration level

attenuation with distance. These curves, illustrated in Figure 27, are based on ground vibration

measurements at various transit systems throughout North America. Vibration levels at points

of reception are adjusted by various factors to incorporate known characteristics of the system

being analyzed; such as operating speed of vehicle, conditions of the track, construction of the

track and tunnel; depth and geology of the soil; as well as the structural type of the impacted

building structures. The analysis accounted for worn track or special track work which, although

considered to have equal impacts on noise and ground vibrations, are not considered to be

additive. The validity of the FTA method was confirmed by comparisons with empirical

seismic attenuation information developed by Dobrin and Savit (1988)24, using analogous

source data from Parramatta Rail Link25, New South Wales, Australia. Both the Parramatta Rail

Link and the DOTT incorporate a tunnel through limestone bedrock. Vibration levels of the

Parramatta Rail Link are presented in Figure 28.

Future vibration predictions were carried out at 60 reprehensive receptor locations, described in

Table 9 and illustrated in Figures 2 to 24, throughout the corridor. (Note, colour separations

have been used to improve the readability of the table, and are not related to the interpretation

of the conditions). Sensitivity of buildings to vibrations, and therefore allowable levels of

motion, is dependent upon intended use. All vibration sensitive buildings throughout the

corridor are highlighted in red in Figures 2 to 24.

23 C. E. Hanson; D. A. Towers; and L. D. Meister, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. 24 Dobrin and Savit , Applied Geophysics (1988) 25 D. Roberts; B. Murray, Parramatta Rail Link – The Approach to Controlling Train Regenerated Noise & Vibration, Conference on Railway Engineering, Darwin 20-23 June 2004

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

23

TAB

LE 9

: VI

BR

ATI

ON

REC

EPTO

R L

OC

ATI

ON

S A

ND

VIB

RA

TIO

N C

RIT

ERIA

REC

EPTO

R

# N

AM

E O

F B

UIL

DIN

G

LOC

ATI

ON

LA

ND

USE

VI

BR

ATI

ON

C

RIT

ERIA

(d

BV)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

1 H

ouse

S

cott

Stre

et a

t Car

olin

e A

venu

e R

esid

entia

l 70

35

2 Tu

nney

's P

astu

re

Sco

tt S

treet

& H

olla

nd A

venu

e C

omm

erci

al

75

40

3 H

ouse

S

cott

Stre

et &

Par

kdal

e Av

enue

R

esid

entia

l 70

35

4 A

partm

ent B

uild

ing

231

Par

kdal

e A

venu

e R

esid

entia

l 70

35

5 O

DAW

A N

ativ

e C

entre

12

Stir

ling

Ave

nue

Inst

itutio

nal

70

35

6R

ussi

an O

rthod

ox C

hurc

h S

tone

hurs

t Ave

nue

Inst

itutio

nal

7035

7H

ouse

S

cott

Stre

et &

Gar

land

Stre

et

Res

iden

tial

7035

8To

wnh

ouse

s S

cott

Stre

et &

Cha

mpa

gne

Ave

. R

esid

entia

l 70

35

9To

wnh

ouse

s A

lber

t Stre

et &

Em

pres

s S

treet

R

esid

entia

l 70

35

10C

larid

ge C

ondo

min

ium

s Fl

eet S

treet

R

esid

entia

l 70

35

11

The

Gar

dens

81

Bro

nson

Ave

nue

Res

iden

tial

70

35

12

Alb

ert a

t Bay

, Sui

te H

otel

47

3 A

lber

t Stre

et

Res

iden

tial

70

35

13

Otta

wa

Tech

nica

l HS

44

0 A

lber

t Stre

et

Inst

itutio

nal

70

35

14

Dor

al In

n 48

6 A

lber

t Stre

et

Res

iden

tial

70

35

15

Chr

ist C

hurc

h C

athe

dral

43

9 Q

ueen

Stre

et

Inst

ruct

iona

l 70

35

16P

ark

Squ

are

Con

do

151

Bay

Stre

et

Res

iden

tial

7035

17C

row

n Pl

aza

Hot

el

101

Lyon

Stre

et

Res

iden

tial

7035

18C

onst

itutio

n S

quar

e P

h III

35

0 A

lber

t Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

19P

lace

De

Ville

Tow

er A

& B

32

0 Q

ueen

Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

20E

ldor

ado

Nuc

lear

Bui

ldin

g 25

5 A

lber

t Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

24

TAB

LE 9

(CO

NT’

D):

VIB

RA

TIO

N R

ECEP

TOR

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D V

IBR

ATI

ON

CR

ITER

IA

REC

EPTO

R

# N

AM

E O

F B

UIL

DIN

G

LOC

ATI

ON

LA

ND

USE

VI

BR

ATI

ON

C

RIT

ERIA

(d

BV)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

21

Cap

ital S

quar

e 22

2 Q

ueen

Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

22

Sun

-Life

Bui

ldin

g 99

Ban

k S

treet

C

omm

erci

al

75

40

23

CB

C R

adio

Can

ada

181

Que

en S

treet

S

ensi

tive

65

30

24

Wor

ld E

xcha

nge

Pla

za

45 O

'Con

nor S

treet

C

omm

erci

al

75

40

25

Her

itage

Pla

ce

155

Que

en S

treet

C

omm

erci

al

75

40

2613

1 Q

ueen

**

131

Que

en S

treet

C

omm

erci

al

7540

27D

'Arc

y M

cGee

Bui

ldin

g 90

Spa

rks

Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

28Th

e C

ham

bers

51

Que

en S

treet

C

omm

erci

al

7540

29C

entra

l Pos

t O

ffice

47

Spa

rks

Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

30N

AC

53 E

lgin

Stre

et

Sen

sitiv

e65

30

31

Gov

’t C

onfe

renc

e C

entre

2

Rid

eau

Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

32

Frie

man

Mal

l 96

Spa

rks

Stre

et

Com

mer

cial

75

40

33

Rid

eau

Cen

tre

50 R

idea

u S

treet

C

omm

erci

al

75

40

34

Wes

tin H

otel

11

Col

onel

By

Driv

e R

esid

ence

s 70

35

35

Les

Sui

tes

Hot

el

130

Bes

sere

r Stre

et

Res

iden

ces

70

35

36O

ttaw

a A

rt G

alle

ry2

Dal

y A

venu

e C

omm

erci

al

7540

37H

oste

l (O

ld J

ail)

75 N

icho

las

Stre

et

Res

iden

tial

7035

38S

tew

art H

all (

U o

f O)

1 S

tew

art S

treet

In

stitu

tiona

l70

35

39D

esm

arai

s (U

of O

) 55

Lau

rier A

venu

e In

stitu

tiona

l70

35

40La

urie

r Tow

ers

50 L

aurie

r Ave

nue

Res

iden

tial

7035

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

25

TA

BLE

9 (C

ON

T’D

): V

IBR

ATI

ON

REC

EPTO

R L

OC

ATI

ON

S A

ND

VIB

RA

TIO

N C

RIT

ERIA

REC

EPTO

R

# N

AM

E O

F B

UIL

DIN

G

LOC

ATI

ON

LA

ND

USE

VI

BR

ATI

ON

C

RIT

ERIA

(d

BV)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

41

Sim

ard

(U o

f O)

60 U

nive

rsity

Pvt

. In

stitu

tiona

l 70

35

42

Res

iden

ces

(U o

f O)

90 U

nive

rsity

Pvt

. In

stitu

tiona

l 70

35

43

Soc

ial S

cien

ce (

U o

f O)

139

Loui

s P

aste

ur

Inst

itutio

nal

70

35

44

CA

RE

G (U

of O

) 20

Mar

ie C

urie

In

stitu

tiona

l 70

35

45

Col

onel

By

(U o

f O)

Col

onel

By

Driv

e In

stitu

tiona

l 70

35

46S

ITE

(U o

f O)

800

Kin

g E

dwar

d A

venu

e S

ensi

tive

6535

47To

wnh

ouse

s K

ings

land

ing

Priv

ate

Res

iden

tial

7035

48Le

es A

partm

ents

Le

es A

venu

e R

esid

entia

l 70

35

49R

ivie

ra C

ondo

s 15

00 R

iver

side

Driv

e R

esid

entia

l 70

35

50H

ouse

Tr

embl

ay R

oad

Res

iden

tial

7035

51

Indu

stria

l Bui

ldin

g B

elfa

st R

oad

& C

oven

try R

oad

Indu

stria

l 80

45

52

St.

Laur

ent C

entre

12

00 S

t. La

uren

t Bou

leva

rd

Com

mer

cial

75

40

53

Com

fort

Inn

Hot

el

Mic

hael

Stre

et

Res

iden

tial

70

35

54

Cyr

ville

Apa

rtmen

ts

Cyr

ville

Roa

d &

Hig

hway

174

R

esid

entia

l 70

35

55

Hou

se

Ced

arcr

oft C

resc

ent

Res

iden

tial

70

35

56H

ouse

E

ugen

e S

treet

R

esid

entia

l 70

35

57G

louc

este

r Cen

tre

Bla

ir R

oad

Com

mer

cial

70

35

58H

ouse

13

16 A

venu

e N

R

esid

entia

l 70

35

59H

ouse

13

24 A

venu

e N

R

esid

entia

l 70

35

60H

ouse

20

82 A

venu

e O

R

esid

entia

l 70

35


5. RESULTS

This section describes the baseline existing conditions and comparisons with predicted impacts

for air quality, noise, and ground vibrations after implementing the DOTT project. Construction

impacts are discussed qualitatively in Section 6.

5.1 Air Quality

The impact of converting the Transitway (BRT) into an electric LRT system, with respect to

the levels of diesel and gasoline emissions from buses and passenger vehicles, is discussed in

section 5.1.1. Impacts of emissions from the ventilation shafts serving the downtown tunnel are

described in section 5.1.2.

5.1.1 Impact of Vehicle and Bus Emissions

Predictions of existing and future statistical maximum pollutant concentrations, due to bus and

passenger vehicle emissions, based on CAL3QHC simulations are presented in Table 10.

(Note, colour separations have been used to improve the readability of the table, and are not

related to the interpretation of the conditions). Appendices A and B provide the detailed input

and output parameters used for the CAL3QHC for future and existing predictions. These results

incorporate the effects of local wind statistics, but do not include the 90% existing ambient

concentrations from the MOE Rideau Street monitoring station. Tabulated results represent the

reasonable worst-case concentrations expected to occur at the noted receptor locations.

Concentrations of all tailpipe emissions fall significantly below the allowable limits for CO,

HC, NOX and PM2.5. Furthermore, tabulated results indicate that ambient air quality throughout

the corridor is expected to improve due to the undertaking of the DOTT project and

improvements in passenger vehicle emissions technology.

One of the most significant findings is that PM2.5 concentrations are expected to diminish from

approximately 28% of the MOE limit to 7.5% of the limit, without consideration of background

levels, and from 42% (28%+14%) to 21.5% (7.5%+14%) with background levels considered.


TABLE 10: PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR EXISTING VERSUS FUTURE CONDITIONS, WIND PROBABILITIES ARE CONSIDERED

CONCENTRATION (mg/m3)

CO (1HR) HC (24 HR) NOX (1 HR) PM2.5 (24 HR) RECEPTOR

existing future existing future existing future existing future 1 204.6 205.1 5.5 5.9 56.8 12.0 2.5 1.1 2 155.4 92.6 4.0 2.9 40.2 7.4 1.8 0.5 3 402.3 305.9 10.4 8.6 78.1 14.2 3.8 1.5 4 117.9 48.7 3.0 1.7 31.3 6.8 1.4 0.4 5 599.3 314.7 15.9 9.2 67.4 14.0 3.3 1.4 6 303.8 232.3 8.4 6.8 41.4 10.9 1.7 1.17 255.7 212.0 7.3 7.9 55.7 34.5 1.7 2.18 81.2 102.0 2.5 3.2 21.4 6.6 0.5 0.69 101.1 141.1 3.2 5.7 41.8 31.9 0.7 1.8

10 122.7 263.1 4.3 7.8 34.0 12.4 0.6 1.211 55.4 75.7 1.8 2.4 17.0 5.5 0.3 0.4 12 60.9 70.5 1.9 2.5 20.6 9.8 0.4 0.6 13 81.1 134.3 2.7 5.5 42.8 31.4 0.6 1.8 14 108.5 226.0 3.8 6.8 32.2 12.2 0.6 1.1 15 65.1 104.1 2.1 3.6 19.6 13.5 0.4 0.9 16 105.2 165.7 3.4 5.3 27.1 14.6 0.6 1.117 118.3 62.0 3.5 2.5 30.6 7.1 1.2 0.418 131.6 73.4 3.9 2.8 32.4 7.3 1.2 0.519 84.2 46.8 2.4 1.7 21.6 4.7 0.9 0.420 129.3 73.1 3.8 2.8 31.4 7.0 1.3 0.421 64.6 32.1 1.7 1.0 17.2 3.1 0.7 0.2 22 331.1 226.4 9.3 7.1 41.8 13.4 1.9 1.2 23 674.0 420.5 18.6 13.2 62.1 25.9 3.1 2.2 24 175.6 77.7 5.0 2.3 21.9 3.7 1.0 0.3 25 62.8 53.6 1.7 1.7 14.9 4.0 0.6 0.3 26 416.7 175.0 11.4 5.0 21.8 5.0 1.3 0.627 107.8 46.3 2.9 1.3 5.9 1.3 0.3 0.128 173.0 81.5 5.2 2.6 13.0 2.9 0.5 0.229 198.7 83.1 5.3 2.4 10.2 2.4 0.6 0.330 280.8 120.3 7.8 3.5 15.9 3.7 0.8 0.431 371.9 156.5 10.2 4.5 19.7 4.5 1.1 0.5 32 232.0 99.2 6.5 3.0 13.5 3.1 0.7 0.3 33 263.5 76.4 7.1 2.6 42.6 5.6 2.1 0.4 34 199.8 54.4 5.5 2.0 39.4 4.2 1.8 0.2 35 680.5 143.0 18.6 5.7 205.3 8.3 8.0 0.4 36 679.0 118.0 18.0 4.7 194.3 6.8 8.4 0.337 510.0 114.0 14.1 4.5 162.3 6.3 6.0 0.338 412.1 76.9 10.8 3.1 110.4 4.4 5.1 0.239 367.2 120.4 10.5 4.8 88.4 6.6 4.0 0.340 184.0 82.4 5.6 3.3 43.9 4.6 1.7 0.2


TABLE 10 (CONT’D): PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR EXISTING VERSUS FUTURE CONDITIONS, WIND PROBABILITIES ARE CONSIDERED


CO HC NOX PM2.5RECEPTOR existing future existing future existing future existing future

41 440.1 232.6 14.1 9.3 99.8 12.5 3.7 0.7 43 239.8 101.9 7.3 4.1 62.9 5.6 2.3 0.3 44 633.2 132.9 17.0 5.4 178.5 7.3 7.8 0.3 45 156.4 75.3 4.5 2.8 46.2 8.0 1.6 0.4 46 207.9 88.0 5.6 3.0 61.7 8.8 2.4 0.547 209.9 129.8 5.8 4.1 53.7 8.5 2.1 0.748 251.8 201.9 7.4 6.3 40.2 9.2 1.6 0.849 198.9 142.7 5.8 4.5 52.8 7.9 1.9 0.750 423.7 363.6 12.4 11.1 76.1 16.9 3.4 1.751 525.1 126.9 14.0 4.9 130.7 7.1 6.4 0.4 52 445.6 305.8 14.5 11.2 75.3 14.5 2.4 1.0 53 231.8 165.0 7.9 6.5 48.0 8.9 1.4 0.5 54 251.9 221.8 9.5 8.8 52.3 12.0 1.1 0.6 55 193.8 152.1 6.9 6.0 39.7 8.2 1.1 0.4 56 246.9 231.5 9.5 9.2 46.6 12.4 0.9 0.757 231.1 221.1 9.0 8.8 39.9 11.9 0.8 0.658 455.4 412.4 17.9 16.5 76.2 22.2 1.5 1.259 191.4 173.4 7.2 6.9 32.9 9.2 0.7 0.560 213.2 173.0 7.3 6.5 30.9 8.5 0.9 0.561 483.9 349.3 17.5 14.0 87.7 18.7 2.6 1.0 62 187.6 143.9 6.6 5.7 35.3 7.8 1.1 0.4 63 300.1 295.3 11.2 11.8 53.1 15.9 1.4 0.8 64 353.0 166.9 10.6 6.7 75.1 9.0 3.4 0.5 65 232.5 137.3 7.4 5.5 47.1 7.4 1.9 0.4 66 106.1 98.0 3.9 3.9 19.1 5.6 0.5 0.367 96.0 86.4 3.5 3.5 17.2 5.1 0.4 0.268 140.1 142.1 5.4 5.8 24.1 9.2 0.5 0.569 133.3 133.6 5.1 5.4 23.0 9.4 0.5 0.570 182.5 180.3 7.1 7.3 30.8 11.3 0.6 0.6


TABLE 10 (CONT’D): PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR EXISTING VERSUS FUTURE CONDITIONS, WIND PROBABILITIES ARE CONSIDERED


CO HC NOX PM2.5RECEPTOR existing future existing future existing future existing future

71 100.3 82.6 3.7 3.4 18.2 5.3 0.5 0.3 72 112.2 90.9 4.1 3.7 20.4 5.9 0.6 0.3 73 109.9 93.2 4.1 3.7 19.6 5.8 0.5 0.3 74 189.8 184.1 7.4 7.5 32.2 11.8 0.6 0.6 75 138.0 134.9 5.3 5.5 23.7 10.6 0.5 0.6 76 191.1 182.7 7.4 7.5 32.6 13.5 0.7 0.877 202.2 205.8 7.5 9.1 35.6 30.7 0.9 1.678 154.2 118.3 5.4 4.9 29.2 10.5 0.9 0.679 258.4 172.7 8.6 7.2 51.3 17.9 1.9 0.980 205.9 106.3 6.5 4.4 42.4 9.3 1.7 0.5

MAX 680.5 420.5 18.6 16.5 205.3 34.5 8.4 2.2MIN 55.4 32.1 1.7 1.0 5.9 1.3 0.3 0.1

MEAN 244.2 152.7 7.5 5.5 48.7 10.2 1.8 0.7STAN’D DEV'N 157.8 85.6 4.4 3.1 39.8 6.8 1.8 0.5

MOE Limit 36200 36200 2500 2500 400 400 30A 30A

MAX % of MOE 1.9% 1.2% 0.75% 0.66% 51.3% 8.6% 28.0% 7.5%A Representing PM with particle sizes less then 2.5 micrometers in diameter

5.1.2 Impact of Ventilation Shafts

Predicted impacts from the ventilation shafts on surrounding air quality are described in Table

11 for each of the three possible scenarios including: normal operations, maintenance

operations, and emergency conditions. Tabulated results represent the worst-case peak

concentrations expected to occur once in a five year period, based on five years meteorological

data. For emergency situations, the 98% dilution ratios are maximum one hour concentrations

expected to occur, with only a 2% chance of concentration exceeding this limit over a five year

period, assuming the emergency is continuous over that period. The 26 most impacted

receptors, taken from the set of 300 points considered, are presented in Table 11, representing

fresh air intakes of surrounding buildings and station entrances. Receptor locations are

illustrated in Figures 6 to 13.


During normal daytime operations, particulate emissions from brake dust is anticipated to have

negligible effects on air quality at nearby buildings, illustrated in the ‘Normal Operations’

column of Table 11, because the maximum peak concentrations fall below O.Reg. 419. (Note,

colour separations have been used to improve the readability of the table, and are not related to

the interpretation of the conditions).

During maintenance periods, usually limited to overnight intervals, there is potential for air

quality to become worse at selected locations. Inspection of Table 11 indicates that there are

violations of the NOx one hour criterion over the MOE limit at two locations. The first occurs

around Vent Shaft #2 (West Shaft for Downtown West Station) and the second occurs around

Vent Shaft #5 (East Shaft for Downtown East Station). For Vent Shaft #2, our analysis

assumed the ventilation shaft would discharge 2.5 m above ground between two existing

buildings on site, a low rise office building (402 Albert Street) and a two-storey home

converted into retail space. The receptor location was placed in the reasonable worst-case

location, corresponding to the fresh air intake at the 402 Albert Street, to identify worst

impacts. Despite the adverse outcome at this location, the current site is likely to undergo major

changes due to the selection of the site as the new location for the Ottawa Public Library.

Undoubtedly, the detailed design of new shaft and of the proposed building, including a

detailed air quality study, can be developed to resolve the localized problem. Similarly, the site

of Vent Shaft # 5 is also expected to undergo redevelopment within the time frame of the

DOTT project being implemented. An alternative site for Vent Shaft # 5 has also been

considered at 148 Sparks Street (Yesterday’s Restaurant) as represented by receptors 12a and

23. Assuming a discharge height of 2.5m above grade level, and the site was left undeveloped,

examination of Table 11 reveals that this site may be a viable alternative for Vent Shaft # 5. Air

quality impacts of the ventilation shafts can be mitigated during the detailed design and

implementation phases of the project, by judicious selection of design and operating

parameters, including: raising the height of the shafts, adjusting flow rates, pre-dilution of the

exhaust, filtering the exhausts, and controlling the use of maintenance equipment. Therefore,

the air quality impacts of the ventilation shafts during maintenance operations are considered to

be negligible.


The low dilution ratios at some building fresh air intakes illustrated under the ‘Fire’ column in

Table 11 indicates that buildings in close proximity to ventilation shafts may be adversely

impacted during an unlikely fire scenario. However, since emergencies are rare and

unpredictable, the most appropriate protection for building occupants would be to install heat

and smoke monitors at all fresh air intakes within a one block radius of all ventilation shafts.

The detectors would automatically shut selected dampers for short periods during an

emergency or direct intake of fresh air from other locations, as may be feasible, for longer

emergencies. Buildings most affected by these ventilation shaft emissions are illustrated in

Figures 6 to 11. Regarding station entrances, the probability of smoke re-entrainment is

considered to be acceptably low, because of the higher dilution ratios at the stations entrances.

Due to the low risk of a fire and coincident requirement of unfavourable wind direction, the

overall effects at important receptors are considered to be negligible.

5.1.3 Maintenance and Storage Facility

The train maintenance and storage facility is expected to generate emissions consistent with a

light industrial use building. The impacts on air pollution levels would be evaluated, and

controlled if necessary, through the MOE Certificate of Approval (C of A) process during the

detailed design and project implementation phase of the project. The impacts are not expected

to be significant.


TABLE 11: IMPACT OF VENTILATION SHAFT EMISSIONS ON AIR QUALITY

SCENARIO NORMAL

OPERATIONS(�g/m3)

MAINTENANCE (�g/m3) FIRE REC’R

# DESC’N

PM (24 HR) CO (1 HR)

HC (24 HR)

NOx (1 HR)

PM (24 HR)

DILUTION RATIO

98%

1FAIa Claridge Condos Fleet

Street0.08 1.3 0.3 3.7 0.02 5814

2FAI The Juliana

100 Bronson 0.13 1.4 0.4 4.0 0.04 1976

3OLAb 100

Laurier Ave. West

0.20 1.5 0.7 4.1 0.06 4098

4DWc West

StationEntrance

1.29 20.1 2.0 56.2 0.17 1923

5 FAI 402 Albert 80.33 509.0 129.6 1419.9 10.84 8

6DW East Station

Entrance0.52 4.6 0.9 12.8 0.08 397

7 FAI 294 Albert 4.13 78.8 14.2 219.7 1.18 64

8DEd WestStation

Entrance0.49 6.3 1.1 17.5 0.09 992

9 FAI 255 Albert 7.86 88.7 15.4 247.5 1.29 13

10DE East Station

Entrance0.42 2.0 0.5 5.6 0.04 398

11 FAI 118 Sparks 13.73 153.4 36.4 428.0 3.04 68

12 DE Sparks Entrance 0.35 2.3 0.4 6.3 0.04 714

12a DE Sparks Entrance 4.02 1.4 0.3 4.0 0.02 290

13DE World Exchange Entrance

0.49 1.9 0.6 5.3 0.05 373

14 RCe West Entrance 1.11 15.0 3.1 41.9 0.26 1131

15 FAI National Arts Centre 3.78 23.8 4.9 66.3 0.41 126

NOTE: a FAI = Building Fresh Air Intake

b OLA = Outdoor Living Area c DW = Downtown West Station d DE = Downtown East Station e RC = Rideau Centre Station f CS = Campus Station g ND= Non Dimensional


TABLE 11 (CONT’D): IMPACT OF VENTILATION SHAFT EMISSIONS ON AIR QUALITY

SCENARIO NORMAL

OPERATIONS(�g/m3)

MAINTENANCE (�g/m3)

FIRE (ND) REC’R

# DESC’N

PM (24 HR) CO (1 HR)

HC (24 HR)

NOx (1 HR)

PM (24 HR)

DILUTION RATIO

98%

16 FAIa 51 Queen 3.42 27.7 5.5 77.4 0.46 50

17

RCe East Entrance

(Government Conference

Centre)

0.41 6.0 0.8 16.7 0.06 1534

18 FAI Rideau Centre 6.72 105.5 21.5 294.4 1.80 583

19CSf North

StationEntrance

1.53 8.9 2.2 24.9 0.18 379

20 FAI on Residences 11.61 94.1 22.0 262.4 1.84 10

21CS South

StationEntrance

0.28 6.3 0.7 17.7 0.06 3650

22 FAI Marion (U of O) 7.64 10.2 11.2 28.4 0.94 42

23FAI

Yesterday'sRestaurant

11.12 1.7 0.3 4.8 0.03 14

24 FAI SITE(U of O) 0.14 1.9 0.5 5.3 0.04 5495

25 FAI Athletics (U of O) 0.09 1.9 0.3 5.3 0.03 9259

26 FAI Lees Apartments 0.11 1.3 0.4 3.8 0.03 1176

Max 80.33 509.0 129.6 1419.9 10.84 N/AMOE Limit 120 6000 7500 400 120 N/A

% of MOE LIMIT 66% 12% 1.7% 354% 9% N/A NOTE: a FAI = Building Fresh Air Intake

b OLA = Outdoor Living Area c DW = Downtown West Station d DE = Downtown East Station e RC = Rideau Centre Station f CS = Campus Station g ND= Non Dimensional


5.2 Airborne Noise From At-Grade Transportation Sources

Existing and future noise levels due to vehicle traffic along the DOTT corridor are summarized

in Table 12 for daytime (7:00 AM to 11:00 PM) and Table 13 for night time (11:00 PM to

7:00 AM) periods. (Note, colour separations have been used to improve the readability of the

table, and are not related to the interpretation of the conditions). Appropriate contributions to

noise levels by the existing BRT and proposed LRT system have also been included for

existing and future conditions respectively. Various columns in Tables 12 and 13 show the

change in noise levels for both total noise levels and contributions due to the Transitway from

both BRT and LRT. Appendices D and E provide the detailed input parameters and calculation

results from STAMSON 5.04 for existing and future conditions.

The average change in noise levels over existing conditions ranges from a decrease of 4 dBA to

an increase of 6 dBA. Since existing and future noise levels are dominated primarily by

surrounding roadways, such as Highway 417 and Scott Street, the impact of the proposed LRT

will be imperceptible at most noise sensitive areas.

According to the City of Ottawa ENCG, mitigation should be investigated and implemented

where feasible when future daytime noise levels exceed 60 dBA, or when there is a change of

more than 5 dBA and future noise levels exceed 55 dBA as per Table 7. However, since noise

over most of the DOTT corridor is dominated by existing sources, such as Highway 417, there

is no benefit to mitigating noise along the LRT. As such, the rules of the ENCG in Table 7 are

adapted to apply for the LRT alone, when the LRT is an equal or higher source of noise at a

given sensitive point of reception.

Referring to the daytime noise levels in Table 12, the residences along the north side of the

Transitway from Parkdale Avenue to Merton Street (represented by receptors 9 and 13) will

experience increased noise levels due to the new LRT system and will require mitigation.

Other areas where mitigation should be investigated, according to ENCG, are the apartment

buildings at 231 Parkdale Avenue (represented by receptor 7), and the Riviera apartments next

to Hurdman Station (represented by receptors 45, 46, and 47).


A common and practical method of mitigating excess noise from vehicle and rail traffic is to

introduce physical noise barriers of various heights along the property lines or within the right-

of-ways of residences that are adversely affected. Due to the elevated nature of the receiver at

apartment buildings, noise barriers are impractical and mitigation within the city right of way is

not feasible. Regarding the noted apartment buildings, the worst-case differences in noise levels

between future and existing conditions are less than 3 dBA, which are just perceptible to most

observers. The residences along the north side of the Transitway from Parkdale Avenue to

Merton Street could be adequately protected using a noise barrier of approximately 2.4 m

adjacent to the property line of the effected residences, at the locations illustrated in Figure 3.

The exact configuration and heights of the barrier will need to be considered as part of the

detailed design phase of the project.

5.2.1 Impact of Stationary Sources

The activity and traffic patterns around the stations from Bayview to Cyrville are expected to

remain similar to the current function of each station. Given the location of the stations away

from sensitive receivers, any increase in noise levels between future and existing conditions

would be negligible.

At Tunney’s Pasture and Blair stations, bus volumes passing through the station are expected to

increase when these stations convert to transfer hubs for the LRT line. Although the increased

activity at each of these stations can increase the noise impact to the surrounding sensitive

areas, the actual impacts are likely to be minor. The Blair Station would be located in a busy

commercial area between Highway 174 and the Gloucester Centre. As such, any increase in bus

activity would be overcome by noise levels on Highway 174 as they impact the residential area

south of Highway 174. A similar situation exists, although less pronounced, at Tunney’s

Pasture Station, where traffic along Scott Street is a major contributor to the noise environment

for the sensitive residential area on the south side. In both cases, the bus terminals would be

located in proximity to institutional or commercial buildings, which are not noise sensitive.


Noise from the Maintenance and Storage (M & S) Facility will be created by marshalling

activities of the LRT vehicles in the rail yard, as well as maintenance work. Although noise

levels around the facility are expected to increase, the increased noise impact at the residences

is expected to be small due to the primary influence of the existing rail corridor and shielding

provided by the M & S Facility buildings themselves. In conformance with the MOE and City

of Ottawa ENCG, the facility would be subject to a detailed stationary noise analysis during

detailed design and project implementation. Appropriate mitigation may require the use of

landscaped earth berms and noise barriers around the north edge of the property, and

appropriate selection of silencers for mechanical equipment.

Noise from the tunnel portals and the ventilation shafts (systems) along the downtown tunnel

can also have adverse impacts on the local outdoor environment. However, despite being

intermittent and potentially significant sources, noise created by the fans at the noted locations

can readily be mitigated with the use of silencers selected at the time of detailed design.

Assessment and control of noise from these sources is also mandated through the MOE’s

Certificate of Approval (C of A) process, which must occur during the design phase of the

project.

Noise for electrical substations (Traction Power Stations) will create characteristic humming

sounds produced by the transformers. These noises, typically in the range of 500 to 2000 hertz,

are considered pure tone and can be potentially obtrusive to adjacent noise sensitive receivers.

However, noise associated with these electrical substations can be readily mitigated by

separation distance from noise sensitive buildings and the use of noise barriers or enclosures

around substations. Similar to other stationary sources, noise associated with electrical

substations will be addressed through the MOE’s Certificate of Approval procedure and the

City of Ottawa’s ENCG requirements.

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

37

TAB

LE 1

2: N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(DA

YTIM

E)

EXIS

TIN

G C

ON

DIT

ION

S FU

TUR

E C

ON

DIT

ION

D

IFFE

REN

CE

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

NO

ISE

LEVE

L (L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

1 65

.2

48.5

67

.0

50.4

1.

8 1.

9 N

ON

EN

2 51

.2

38.8

54

.5

49.5

3.

3 10

.7

NO

TIC

AB

LEN

3 64

.8

48.7

67

55

.6

2.2

6.9

NO

NE

N4

51.4

47

.9

57.5

56

.4

6.1

8.5

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N5

65.5

44

.7

67.5

51

.1

2.0

6.4

NO

NE

N6

56.3

45.7

58.7

51.1

2.4

5.4

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

T N

767

.564

.969

.767

.22.

22.

3IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

Y1

855

.638

.257

.745

.52.

17.

3N

ON

EN

958

.753

.463

.561

.64.

88.

2N

OTI

CA

BLE

Y10

67.7

48.4

69.7

53.9

2.0

5.5

NO

NE

N11

47

.7

44.3

50

.3

48.5

3.

3 4.

2 IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N12

47

.6

41.7

51

.5

48.7

3.

9 7.

0 N

OTI

CA

BLE

N13

62

.6

61.1

65

.6

64.4

3.

0 3.

3 IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

Y14

68

.5

63.3

70

.5

65.6

2.

0 2.

3 IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N15

44

.7

40.6

46

.8

43.1

2.

1 2.

5 IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N16

51.6

48.3

54.0

51.3

2.4

3.0

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

T N

1756

.347

.056

.749

.60

2.6

NO

NE

N18

66.1

48.9

66.3

51.6

02.

7N

ON

EN

1944

.640

.346

.143

.61.

53.

3IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N20

46.3

36.1

47.1

42.5

0.8

6.4

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

T N

+ =

incr

ease

, - =

dec

reas

e In

sign

ifica

nt =

1 –

3 d

BA

incr

ease

in n

oise

leve

ls

Not

icea

ble

= 3

– 5

dBA

incr

ease

in n

oise

leve

ls

Sig

nific

ant =

5 –

10

dBA

incr

ease

in n

oise

leve

ls

1 Miti

gatio

n re

quire

d bu

t not

feas

ible

acc

ordi

ng to

EN

CG

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

38

TAB

LE 1

2 (C

ON

T’D

): N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(DA

YTIM

E)

EXIS

TIN

G C

ON

DIT

ION

S FU

TUR

E C

ON

DIT

ION

D

IFFE

REN

CE

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

N

OIS

E

LEVE

L

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L

NO

ISE

LE

VEL

(L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

21

65.7

45

.1

65.7

47.5

0

2.4

NO

NE

N22

62

.2

45.6

62

.245

.9

0 0.

3 N

ON

EN

23

67.1

51

.5

67.1

52.1

0

0.6

NO

NE

N24

61

.8

N/A

61

.8

N/A

0

0 N

ON

EN

25

55.4

52

.0

55.0

51.2

-0

.4

-0.8

D

EC

RE

AS

EN

2659

.3N

/A59

.3N

/A0

0N

ON

EN

2765

.8N

/A65

.8N

/A0

0N

ON

EN

2864

.4N

/A64

.4N

/A0

0N

ON

EN

2966

.3N

/A66

.3N

/A0

0N

ON

EN

3064

.9N

/A64

.9N

/A0

0N

ON

EN

31

66.1

N

/A

66.1

N

/A

0 0

NO

NE

N32

60

.1

N/A

60

.1

N/A

0

0 N

ON

EN

33

56.4

N

/A

56.4

N

/A

0 0

NO

NE

N34

66

.1

N/A

66

.1

N/A

0

0 N

ON

EN

35

71.9

69

.2

68.6

N

/A

-3.3

0

DE

CR

EA

SE

N36

68.4

65.1

65.6

N/A

-2.8

0D

EC

RE

AS

EN

3770

.368

.166

.3N

/A-4

.00

DE

CR

EA

SE

N38

62.2

55.4

62.2

N/A

00

NO

NE

N39

63.9

50.7

63.8

46.8

-0.1

-3.9

DE

CR

EA

SE

N40

62.5

49.8

62.4

48.2

-0.1

-1.6

DE

CR

EA

SE

N+

= in

crea

se, -

= d

ecre

ase

Insi

gnifi

cant

= 1

– 3

dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

N

otic

eabl

e =

3 –

5 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

S

igni

fican

t = 5

– 1

0 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

1 M

itiga

tion

requ

ired

but n

ot fe

asib

le a

ccor

ding

to E

NC

G

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

39

TAB

LE 1

2 (C

ON

T’D

): N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(DA

YTIM

E)

EX

ISTI

NG

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

FUTU

RE

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DIF

FER

ENC

E

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

NO

ISE

EVEL

(L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

L

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

41

74.7

59

.5

74.6

57

.2

-0.1

-2

.3

DE

CR

EA

SE

N42

72

.5

61.7

72

.3

59.4

0

-2.3

D

EC

RE

AS

EN

43

70.2

64

.6

70.5

65

.5

0.3

0.9

NO

NE

N44

69

.6

64.1

69

.8

64.9

0.

2 0.

8 N

ON

EY1

45

62.6

62

.5

63.9

63

.8

1.3

1.3

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

T Y1

4665

.465

.462

.562

.5-2

.9-2

.9D

EC

RE

AS

EN

4757

.756

.859

.356

.11.

6-0

.7N

ON

EN

4864

.238

.566

.141

.51.

93.

0N

ON

EN

4959

.646

.161

.150

.11.

54.

0N

ON

EN

5065

.135

.866

.942

.11.

86.

3N

ON

EN

51

65.9

59

.8

65.4

57

.2

-0.5

-2

.6

DE

CR

EA

SE

N52

66

.8

44.3

66

.8

49.8

0

5.5

NO

NE

N53

58

.4

40.3

58

.5

44.6

0.

1 4.

3 N

ON

EN

54

66.9

45

.3

67.0

50

.8

0.1

5.5

NO

NE

N55

57

.8

37.9

57

.8

41.0

0

3.1

NO

NE

N56

66.2

40.4

66.2

43.3

02.

9N

ON

EN

5769

.948

.370

.051

.50.

13.

2N

ON

EN

5871

.366

.272

.469

.11.

12.

9IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N59

61.5

45.8

61.8

48.9

0.3

3.1

NO

NE

N60

64.8

41.6

66.4

44.7

1.6

3.1

NO

NE

N+

= in

crea

se, -

= d

ecre

ase

Insi

gnifi

cant

= 1

– 3

dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

N

otic

eabl

e =

3 –

5 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

S

igni

fican

t = 5

– 1

0 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

1 M

itiga

tion

requ

ired

but n

ot fe

asib

le a

ccor

ding

to E

NC

G

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

40

TAB

LE 1

2 (C

ON

T’D

): N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(DA

YTIM

E)

EX

ISTI

NG

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

FUTU

RE

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DIF

FER

ENC

E

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

NO

ISE

LEVE

L (L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

61

78.2

66

.3

78.5

69

.1

0.3

2.5

NO

NE

N62

68

.1

50.7

68

.1

53.6

0

2.9

NO

NE

N63

60

.9

39.1

62

.6

42.9

1.

7 3.

8 N

ON

EN

64

66.3

59

.2

66.5

59

.7

0.2

0.5

NO

NE

N65

62

.1

52.4

62

.8

56.1

0.

7 3.

7 N

ON

EN

6659

.447

.661

.450

.32.

02.

7N

ON

EN

6762

.042

.563

.946

.61.

94.

1N

ON

EN

6854

.937

.756

.841

.51.

93.

8N

ON

EN

6963

.144

.665

.048

.81.

94.

2N

ON

EN

7058

.746

.060

.749

.82.

03.

8N

ON

EN

71

52.1

39

.3

54.1

43

.1

2.0

3.8

NO

NE

N72

60

.6

48.6

62

.6

52.3

2.

0 3.

7 N

ON

EN

73

61.3

49

.4

63.3

53

.1

2.0

3.7

NO

NE

N74

64

.6

46.7

66

.5

50.8

1.

9 4.

1 N

ON

EN

75

55.8

39

.5

57.8

43

.1

2.0

3.6

NO

NE

N76

63.2

45.1

65.2

49.3

2.0

4.2

NO

NE

N77

62.5

45.8

64.4

48.3

1.9

2.5

NO

NE

N78

55.4

38.7

57.3

41.4

1.9

2.7

NO

NE

N79

61.9

44.4

63.8

46.9

1.9

2.5

NO

NE

N80

64.0

55.1

65.8

56.2

1.8

1.1

NO

NE

N+

= in

crea

se, -

= d

ecre

ase

Insi

gnifi

cant

= 1

– 3

dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

N

otic

eabl

e =

3 –

5 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

S

igni

fican

t = 5

– 1

0 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

1 M

itiga

tion

requ

ired

but n

ot fe

asib

le a

ccor

ding

to E

NC

G

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

41

TAB

LE 1

3: N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(NIG

HT

TIM

E)

EX

ISTI

NG

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

FUTU

RE

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DIF

FER

ENC

E

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

NO

ISE

LEVE

L (L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

1 57

.7

43.5

59

.545

.3

1.8

1.8

NO

NE

N2

44.7

34

.0

48.5

44.5

3.

8 10

.5

NO

TIC

AB

LEN

3 57

.4

44.9

59

.751

.4

2.3

6.5

NO

NE

N4

46.3

44

.0

51.2

50.2

4.

9 6.

2 N

OTI

CA

BLE

N5

57.9

39

.5

60.0

46.3

2.

1 6.

8 N

ON

EN

649

.340

.051

.845

.52.

55.

5N

ON

EN

760

.758

.562

.760

.72.

02.

2IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

Y1

848

.633

.150

.740

.32.

17.

2N

ON

EN

953

.350

.357

.656

.24.

35.

9N

OTI

CA

BLE

Y10

60.2

43.2

62.2

48.9

2.0

5.7

NO

NE

N11

42

.3

40.5

45

.944

.8

3.6

4.3

NO

TIC

AB

LEN

12

41.4

36

.8

46.2

43.1

4.

8 6.

3 N

OTI

CA

BLE

N13

56

.8

55.6

59

.558

.5

2.7

2.9

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

TY

14

61.3

56

.9

63.3

59.1

2.

0 2.

2 IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N15

38

.2

34.8

40

.337

.2

2.1

2.4

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

T N

1647

.645

.550

.248

.72.

63.

2IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N17

49.4

41.3

49.8

43.8

0.4

2.5

NO

NE

N18

58.8

43.6

58.9

46.2

0.1

2.6

NO

NE

N19

40.1

37.6

41.9

40.5

1.8

2.9

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

T N

2042

.135

.343

.641

.51.

56.

2IN

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

N+

= in

crea

se, -

= d

ecre

ase

Insi

gnifi

cant

= 1

– 3

dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

N

otic

eabl

e =

3 –

5 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

S

igni

fican

t = 5

– 1

0 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

1 M

itiga

tion

requ

ired

but n

ot fe

asib

le a

ccor

ding

to E

NC

G

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

42

TAB

LE 1

3 (C

ON

T’D

): N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(NIG

HT

TIM

E)

EX

ISTI

NG

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

FUTU

RE

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DIF

FER

ENC

E

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

NO

ISE

LEVE

L (L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

21

58.6

39

.9

58.6

42.1

1.5

6.2

NO

NE

N22

57

.4

45.2

57

.445

.20

2.2

NO

NE

N23

59

.7

46.1

59

.746

.40

0 N

ON

EN

24

54.7

N

/A

54.7

N

/A

0 0.

3 N

ON

EN

25

48.4

45

.7

46.5

40.7

0 0

NO

NE

N26

51.9

N/A

51.9

N/A

-1.9

-5.0

DE

CR

EA

SE

N27

58.3

N/A

58.3

N/A

00

NO

NE

N28

56.8

N/A

56.8

N/A

00

NO

NE

N29

58.7

N/A

58.7

N/A

00

NO

NE

N30

57.4

N/A

57.4

N/A

00

NO

NE

N31

58

.5

N/A

58

.5

N/A

0

0 N

ON

EN

32

52.5

N

/A

52.5

N

/A

0 0

NO

NE

N33

49

.5

N/A

49

.5

N/A

0

0 N

ON

EN

34

58.5

N

/A

58.5

N

/A

0 0

NO

NE

N35

64

.8

62.5

61

.0

N/A

-3

.8

0 D

EC

RE

AS

EN

3661

.258

.458

.0N

/A-3

.20

DE

CR

EA

SE

N37

63.3

61.4

58.7

N/A

-4.6

0D

EC

RE

AS

EN

3855

.649

.755

.6N

/A0

0N

ON

EN

3957

.444

.757

.241

.0-0

.2-3

.7D

EC

RE

AS

EN

4056

.144

.356

.142

.80

-1.5

NO

NE

N+

= in

crea

se, -

= d

ecre

ase

Insi

gnifi

cant

= 1

– 3

dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

N

otic

eabl

e =

3 –

5 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

S

igni

fican

t = 5

– 1

0 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

1 M

itiga

tion

requ

ired

but n

ot fe

asib

le a

ccor

ding

to E

NC

G

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

43

TAB

LE 1

3 (C

ON

T’D

): N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(NIG

HT

TIM

E)

EX

ISTI

NG

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

FUTU

RE

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DIF

FER

ENC

E

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

NO

ISE

LEVE

L (L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

41

67.1

52

.6

67.1

50

.7

0 -1

.9

NO

NE

N42

64

.9

55.0

64

.8

52.8

-0

.1

-2.2

D

EC

RE

AS

EN

43

62.9

57

.9

63.3

58

.9

0.4

1.0

NO

NE

N44

62

.3

57.4

62

.6

58.4

0.

3 1.

0 N

ON

EY1

45

56.0

57

.4

57.3

56

.8

1.3

-0.6

N

ON

EY1

4659

.059

.055

.955

.9-3

.1-3

.1D

EC

RE

AS

EY

4751

.750

.052

.249

.50.

5-0

.5N

ON

EN

4857

.333

.059

.235

.91.

92.

9N

ON

EN

4953

.243

.254

.947

.31.

74.

1N

ON

EN

5058

.131

.759

.936

.91.

85.

2N

ON

EN

51

59.7

54

.0

59.1

51

.4

-0.6

-2

.6

DE

CR

EA

SE

N52

62

.3

40.7

62

.4

46.4

0.

1 5.

7 N

ON

EN

53

51.8

34

.7

51.9

39

.0

0.1

4.3

NO

NE

N54

61

.6

42.0

61

.7

47.3

0.

1 5.

3 N

ON

EN

55

51.3

31

.9

51.3

34

.9

0 3.

0 N

ON

EN

5660

.934

.260

.936

.90

2.7

NO

NE

N57

62.3

41.7

62.4

44.6

0.1

2.9

NO

NE

N58

64.1

59.8

65.4

62.7

1.3

2.9

INS

IGN

IFIC

AN

T Y

5954

.939

.955

.343

.20.

43.

3N

ON

EN

6057

.435

.859

.039

.21.

63.

4N

ON

EN

+ =

incr

ease

, - =

dec

reas

e In

sign

ifica

nt =

1 –

3 d

BA

incr

ease

in n

oise

leve

ls

Not

icea

ble

= 3

– 5

dBA

incr

ease

in n

oise

leve

ls

Sig

nific

ant =

5 –

10

dBA

incr

ease

in n

oise

leve

ls

1 Miti

gatio

n re

quire

d bu

t not

feas

ible

acc

ordi

ng to

EN

CG

D

elca

n Co

rpor

atio

n D

OTT

EA

– Ai

r Qua

lity,

Noi

se a

nd V

ibra

tion

Pa

ge 4

4

TAB

LE 1

3 (C

ON

T’D

): N

OIS

E LE

VELS

ALO

NG

DO

TT C

OR

RID

OR

EX

ISTI

NG

VER

SUS

FUTU

RE

(NIG

HT

TIM

E)

EX

ISTI

NG

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

FUTU

RE

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DIF

FER

ENC

E

REC

EPTO

RTO

TAL

NO

ISE

LEVE

L (L

eq)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(B

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

TOTA

L N

OIS

E LE

VEL

(Leq

)

TRA

NSI

TWA

Y C

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

(L

RT)

IMPA

CT

REQ

UIR

ED

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Yes

/ No

61

70.7

59

.7

71.0

62

.5

0.3

2.8

NO

NE

N62

60

.7

44.3

60

.8

47.3

0.

1 3.

0 N

ON

EN

63

57.4

37

.1

57.4

40

.8

0 3.

7 N

ON

EN

64

59.0

52

.5

59.2

53

.2

0.2

0.7

NO

NE

N65

54

.6

45.7

55

.5

49.6

0.

9 3.

9 N

ON

EN

6653

.142

.155

.044

.61.

92.

5N

ON

EN

6756

.038

.958

.543

.12.

54.

2N

ON

EN

6848

.431

.250

.335

.91.

94.

7N

ON

EN

6960

.742

.262

.646

.31.

94.

1N

ON

EN

7052

.440

.154

.544

.22.

14.

1N

ON

EN

71

45.7

33

.5

47.8

37

.5

2.1

4.0

NO

NE

N72

54

.1

42.6

56

.2

46.5

2.

1 3.

9 N

ON

EN

73

54.8

43

.4

56.9

47

.3

2.1

3.9

NO

NE

N74

61

.5

44.4

63

.4

48.3

1.

9 3.

9 N

ON

EN

75

49.2

33

.5

51.1

37

.5

1.9

4.0

NO

NE

N76

62.0

44.7

63.9

48.6

1.9

3.9

NO

NE

N77

58.0

44.2

60.0

47.8

2.0

3.6

NO

NE

N78

48.8

32.7

50.7

35.7

1.9

3.0

NO

NE

N79

57.3

43.5

59.1

44.5

1.8

1.0

NO

NE

N80

57.5

48.8

59.3

49.8

1.8

1.0

NO

NE

N+

= in

crea

se, -

= d

ecre

ase

Insi

gnifi

cant

= 1

– 3

dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

N

otic

eabl

e =

3 –

5 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

S

igni

fican

t = 5

– 1

0 dB

A in

crea

se in

noi

se le

vels

1 M

itiga

tion

requ

ired

but n

ot fe

asib

le a

ccor

ding

to E

NC

G


5.3 Ground Vibrations and Ground-borne Noise

Results of existing ground vibrations measurements are presented in Table 14, with the

measurements locations illustrated in Figures 2 to 24. Measured RMS vibrations fall below the

level commonly considered to be perceptible by most building occupants of 72 dBV

(0.1 mm/s). Existing vibration levels are also found to be negligible with respect to the risk of

structural damages or even cosmetic damages to building finishes.

Predicted future vibration levels and ground-borne noise (GBN) along the tunnel section

resulting from the implementation of the DOTT project are summarized in Table 15. (Note,

colour separations have been used to improve the readability of the table, and are not related to

the interpretation of the conditions). Results in Table 15 have considered factors such as special

track work, and worn or corrugated track which have similar but non-additive influence on

ground vibration levels. For the section of the corridor from Tunney’s Pasture to the West

Portal, predicted future ground vibration levels, without mitigation, range from 61 to 80 dBV

with corresponding ground-borne noise (GBN) ranging from 26 to 50 dBA. The highest levels

of vibrations and GBN are experienced by residences on the north side of the Transitway and

the south side of Scott Street from Tunney’s Pasture to the Bayview Road crossing. At these

locations, vibration and GBN exceed applicable limits and will be annoying to a large

proportion of the population. From the Bayview Road crossing to the West Portal, vibrations

and GBN levels decrease to acceptable levels as a result of increased separation distance to

sensitive receivers.

In the tunnel sections, from the West Portal to Campus Station, ground vibrations are less

significant as compared to the west section, reaching a maximum level of 68 dBV at the

University of Ottawa’s Desmarais building. However, the harmonic characteristic of vibrations

passing through rock into a building focuses the energy at lower frequencies, thereby making

the vibrations more difficult to attenuate with distance, and more perceptible in the form of

audible noise. As a comparison, the relatively low vibration level of 68 dBV at the Desmarais

building creates GBN of 53 dBA, which is 18 dBA above the sound level criteria. This explains

the reason for hearing low rumbling noises in buildings next to subway systems.


The most sensitive buildings along the tunnel section include the National Arts Centre (NAC)

concert hall and the recording studios in the CBC Radio Canada building. Due to the potential

interference with audio recordings from GBN, a more stringent criterion of 30 dBA has been

selected for these buildings. Inspection of Table 15 indicates that predicted noise levels are

expected to be 39 dBA and 46 dBA at the CBC and NAC buildings respectively.

Transitioning from the bored tunnel through rock to the cut and cover section at the Campus

Station, the vibration energy shifts to still lower frequencies, where structural vibrations are

more problematic. In this region, ground vibration and GBN levels without mitigation are

highest at the University of Ottawa’s SITE building with predicted levels of 75 dBV and

40 dBA, respectively. The SITE building houses vibration sensitive equipment, such as a

scanning electron microscope. Unmitigated vibration and GBN levels at the SITE building

exceed the criteria for sensitive buildings of 65 dBV and 30 dBA.

From the East Portal to Blair Station, the alignment of the new LRT system follows the existing

Transitway which runs parallel to Highway 417 through most of this section. Due to greater

separation distances between the LRT alignment and the surrounding buildings, the impacts of

ground vibration and GBN are less significant though this section. However some buildings,

such as the Lees Apartment buildings and the Comfort Inn on Michael Street may experience

minor violations of the vibration and GBN criteria, with unmitigated levels of 75 dBV and

40 dBA at Lees Apartments; and 80 dBV and 45 dBA at the Comfort Inn.

The cut and cover branch tunnel from the main line to the M & S Facility passes in close

proximity to the residences on Avenue N and Avenue O. These residences will experience

unmitigated vibrations and GBN levels of up to 81 dBV and 36 dBA, which also exceed the

corresponding criteria as summarized in Table 15.

Effective mitigation can be achieved by installing track and sleeper isolation treatments,

including floating slabs and resilient track fasteners. Floating slab track, such as the TTC’s

double-tie system, involves supporting the track ties on an isolated concrete slab, which in turn

is supported by rubber pads resting along a tunnel invert or concrete rail bed. Resilient fasteners

are rubber or neoprene track isolation pads placed between the rail and tie or sleeper. Research


has shown that resilient track fasteners can reduce vibrations by up to 5 dBV, and floating slab

track can provide up to a 20 dBV reduction in rock bored tunnels and a 15 dBV reduction for

cut and cover tunnels in soil.

As such, based on the anticipated excess ground vibrations due to the LRT, track and sleeper

isolation, such as floating slab track or equivalent vibration attenuation techniques, is

recommended for the following sections of DOTT: (i) Tunney’s Pasture Station to the Bayview

Road crossing, (ii) the full tunnel segment between the West and East Portals, and (iii) the cut

and cover branch tunnel leading to the M & S Facility. Track isolation such as resilient track

fasteners and continuously welded rail are recommended for the entire corridor, including the

east at grade section. LRT vehicles with soft primary suspensions, and well maintained tracks

and wheels will also be required to control vibrations at the source.

At the Comfort Inn (Table 15, Receptor 53), even with resilient track fasteners recommended

for the east section, the GBN levels will exceed the criterion by a small amount (i.e. 40 dBA

predicted versus 35 dBA criterion). The excess audible vibration could be mitigated either by:

limiting the train speed during the night time period (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to 50 km/h from

the St. Laurent Boulevard underpass to Station 108+450; or installing a 300 m long section of

floating slab track over the same section of the corridor. The mitigation performance of

imposing speed limits in combination with resilient track fasteners along this section is

described in Table 15. However, since the predicted excess audible GBN is minor, and train

operations decrease during the overnight hours, mitigation is not considered mandatory.

These mitigations strategies should be reevaluated throughout the design evolution to ensure

appropriate attenuation is achieved by the LRT system. The stiffness of the vehicles’ primary

suspension and the natural frequency of the floating slab can a have a significant effect on the

vibration attenuation performance of the entire system. Short term monitoring of noise and

vibrations is recommended for the first six months of LRT operations at select basements of

adjacent buildings along the tunnel sections, including all buildings sensitive to noise and

vibration, to evaluate the success of the noted mitigation strategies.


TABLE 14: VIBRATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

MEASURED RMS VIBRATION LEVEL REC’R LOCATION DESCRIPTION

LAND USE (dBV) (mm/s)

VIBRATION CRITERIA

(dBV)

A Townhouse, 231 Forward Ave. Residential 58 0.02 70

B ODAWA Cultural Centre, 12 Stirling Ave. Institutional 60 0.03 70

C Park Square Condom, 151 Bay Street Residential 66 0.05 70

DSouth Side of Sun Life Building,

99 Bank Street Commercial 64 0.04 75

ENorth Side of Sun Life Building,

99 Bank Street Commercial 62 0.03 75

F National Arts Centre, 53 Elgin Street Institutional 60 0.03 70

G Les Suites Hotel, 130 Besserer Street Residential 70 0.09 70

H SITE Building, University of Ottawa Sensitive Building 62 0.03 65

I Single Detached Home, 388 Tremblay Residential 66 0.06 70 NOTE: dBV = 20 Log10 ((mm/s*.03937)/1e-6)

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

49

TAB

LE 1

5: P

RED

ICTE

D F

UTU

RE

VIB

RA

TIO

N IM

PAC

TS O

F LR

T SY

STEM

REC

EPTO

R

NA

ME

OF

BU

ILD

ING

DIS

TAN

CE

TO

CEN

TER

LIN

E O

F N

EAR

EST

TRA

CK

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

VIB

RA

TIO

N

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

V)

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

) 1

Hou

se

48

70

70

55

35

35

20.0

2

Tunn

ey's

Pas

ture

37

78

75

63

43

40

28

.0

3 H

ouse

40

76

70

61

41

35

26

.0

4 23

1 P

arkd

ale

29

85

70

70

50

35

35.0

5O

DAW

A N

ativ

e C

entre

37

73

70

58

38

35

23.0

6R

ussi

an

Orth

odox

Chu

rch

2280

7065

4535

30.0

7H

ouse

35

7970

6444

3529

.0

8To

wnh

ouse

s 15

562

70N

/A27

35N

/A

9To

wnh

ouse

s 10

161

70N

/A26

35N

/A

10C

larid

ge

Con

dos

187

5770

N/A

2235

N/A

11

The

Gar

dens

24

64

70

40

50

35

23

12A

lber

t at B

ay,

Sui

te H

otel

33

62

70

37

47

35

21

13O

ttaw

aTe

chni

cal

H S

38

61

70

36

46

35

20

14

Dor

al In

n 34

63

70

38

48

35

22

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

50

TAB

LE 1

5 (C

ON

T’D

): P

RED

ICTE

D F

UTU

RE

VIB

RA

TIO

N IM

PAC

TS O

F LR

T SY

STEM

REC

EPTO

R

NA

ME

OF

BU

ILD

ING

DIS

TAN

CE

TO

CEN

TER

LIN

E O

F N

EAR

EST

TRA

CK

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

VIB

RA

TIO

N

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

V)

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

15C

hris

t Chu

rch

Cat

hedr

al

89

53

70

29

39

35

12

16P

ark

Squ

are

Con

do

27

63

70

39

49

35

22

17C

row

n Pl

aza

Hot

el23

65

70

40

50

35

24

18C

onst

itutio

n S

quar

e P

h III

28

63

75

39

49

40

22

19P

lace

De

Ville

To

wer

A &

B

2165

7541

5140

24

20E

ldor

ado

N

ucle

ar

Bui

ldin

g29

6475

3949

4022

21C

apita

l Squ

are

2564

7540

5040

23

22S

un-L

ife B

uild

ing

2665

7540

5040

23

23C

BC

Rad

io

Can

ada

36

61

65

36

46

30

20

24W

orld

Exc

hang

e P

laza

28

63

75

38

48

40

22

25

Her

itage

Pla

ce

30

63

75

38

48

40

22

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

51

TAB

LE 1

5 (C

ON

T’D

): P

RED

ICTE

D F

UTU

RE

VIB

RA

TIO

N IM

PAC

TS O

F LR

T SY

STEM

REC

EPTO

R

NA

ME

OF

BU

ILD

ING

DIS

TAN

CE

TO

CEN

TER

LIN

E O

F N

EAR

EST

TRA

CK

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

VIB

RA

TIO

N

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

V)

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

26

131

Que

en**

32

63

75

38

48

40

22

27D

'Arc

y M

cGee

B

uild

ing

38

61

75

37

47

40

20

28

The

Cha

mbe

rs

33

62

75

38

48

40

21

29C

entra

l Pos

t O

ffice

(193

7)

44

60

75

35

45

40

19

30N

AC

8454

6529

3930

13

31G

ov’t

Con

fere

nce

Cen

tre23

6675

4151

4025

32Fr

iem

an M

all

2863

7539

4940

22

33R

idea

u C

entre

30

6375

3949

4022

34W

estin

Hot

el

2764

7040

5035

23

35

Les

Sui

tes

Hot

el

18

68

70

43

53

35

27

36O

ttaw

a A

rt G

alle

ry42

59

75

35

45

40

18

37

Hos

tel (

Old

Jai

l) 53

58

70

33

43

35

16

38S

tew

art H

all

(U o

f O)

24

64

70

40

50

35

23

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

52

TAB

LE 1

5 (C

ON

T’D

): P

RED

ICTE

D F

UTU

RE

VIB

RA

TIO

N IM

PAC

TS O

F LR

T SY

STEM

REC

EPTO

R

NA

ME

OF

BU

ILD

ING

DIS

TAN

CE

TO

CEN

TER

LIN

E O

F N

EAR

EST

TRA

CK

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

VIB

RA

TIO

N

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

V)

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

39

Des

mar

ais

(U o

f O)

15

68

70

43

53

35

27

40

Laur

ier T

ower

s 21

65

70

40

50

35

24

41

Sim

ard

(U o

f O)

21

65

70

41

51

35

24

42R

esid

ence

s

(U o

f O)

24

64

70

39

49

35

23

43S

ocia

l Sci

ence

(U

of O

) 41

60

70

35

45

35

18

44C

AR

EG

(U o

f O)

6355

7031

4135

14

45C

olon

el B

y (U

of O

) 31

7070

5535

3520

46S

ITE

(U o

f O)

1675

6560

4030

25

47To

wnh

ouse

s 78

6670

6131

3526

48Le

es A

partm

ents

33

7570

7040

3535

49

Riv

iera

Con

dos

65

61

70

56

26

35

21

50

Hou

se

59

73

70

68

38

35

33

51

Indu

stria

l Bui

ldin

g 92

67

80

62

32

45

27

52

St.

Laur

ent C

entre

22

74

75

69

39

40

34

53

Com

fort

Inn

Hot

el

19

80

70

71A

45

35

36A

N

OTE

: A

cons

ider

ing

the

addi

tiona

l effe

ct o

f lim

iting

trai

ns to

50

km/h

dur

ing

the

over

nigh

t ope

ratio

ns

Del

can

Corp

orat

ion

DO

TT E

A –

Air Q

ualit

y, N

oise

and

Vib

ratio

n

Page

53

TAB

LE 1

5 (C

ON

T’D

): P

RED

ICTE

D F

UTU

RE

VIB

RA

TIO

N IM

PAC

TS O

F LR

T SY

STEM

REC

EPTO

R

NA

ME

OF

BU

ILD

ING

DIS

TAN

CE

TO

CEN

TER

LIN

E O

F N

EAR

EST

TRA

CK

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

VIB

RA

TIO

N

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

V)

PRED

ICTE

D

VIB

RA

TIO

N

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BV)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

OU

T M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

CR

ITER

IA

(dB

A)

PRED

ICTE

D

GR

OU

ND

B

OR

NE

NO

ISE

LEVE

L W

ITH

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

(d

BA

)

54C

yrvi

lleA

partm

ents

42

67

70

62

32

35

27

55

Hou

se

146

62

70

57

27

35

22

56

Hou

se

123

62

70

57

27

35

22

57

Glo

uces

ter C

entre

21

74

70

69

39

35

34

58

Hou

se

25

77

70

62

42

35

27

59

Hou

se

45

73

70

58

37

35

22

60

Hou

se

15

81

70

66

36

35

31


6. IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION

Construction activity required to install the LRT system between the Tunney’s Pasture and

Blair Stations will involve a variety of techniques appropriate for at-grade, sub-grade and

tunnel construction. The east and west external segments of the corridor will involve surface

works for replacing or upgrading the roadbed, as well as installing shallow foundations for

elevated carriageways and stations. Constructing the cut and cover Campus Station, the

ventilation shafts along the downtown segment, as well as the branch tunnel to the M & S

Facility, will require deep excavations, controlled blasting, and sheet piling or foundation

anchoring. Pile driving may be required at isolated locations. The main tunnel construction and

station mining will make extensive use of a tunnel boring machine (TBM), as well as controlled

drilling and blasting. The West Portal, Campus Station to East Portal sections of the downtown

tunnel and the branch tunnel to the M & S Facility will be constructed using cut and cover

techniques. .

As such, many areas along the corridor are expected to experience some degree of air quality,

noise, and vibration impacts. In most cases however, the impacts will be controlled, minor and

intermittent over short cycles of activity. The only exception to short-cycle intermittent

vibrations will be the tunnel mining, which involves longer-cycle intermittent operations of the

TBM with periods of quasi-continuous cutting on the order of hours, extending over a period of

four or five days for any given point of reception.

The expected impacts for the east and west segments of the corridor, as well as at the site of the

M & S Facility, will be limited to isolated and local surface construction projects generating

occasional minor ground vibrations, fumes and dust, as well as intermittent noise. Common

mitigation measures should make use of moveable noise barriers around the perimeter of the

work areas, extensive water spraying to control dust, and implementing daytime hours of

operation to avoid night time impacts when background noise is lowest. In all cases, air quality,

noise and ground vibrations, are not expected to be disruptive to commonly occurring regular

activities. To a similar extent, the impacts of cut and cover construction at the Campus Station


and excavations for the ventilation shafts are likely to produce minor noise, air quality and

ground vibrations, typical of urban building construction projects involving deep foundations.

Station mining and portal entry may involve controlled blasting commonly used in deep

foundation excavation, in addition to traditional excavation techniques. The impacts from

station mining will be limited to ground vibrations and re-generated noise. Specialized services

of blast design engineers will be required to design suitable blasting programs to control the

impacts of these operations. Similar minor vibration impacts as for other foundation excavation

works are anticipated. No additional mitigation measures are anticipated for these works.

Tunnel excavation using the TBM represents a unique construction technique not commonly

used in the Ottawa area. The TBM operates by shearing the rock face with rotary motion of a

large circular disk fitted with cutting heads. With the sides of the machine anchored against the

prepared tunnel walls, the cutting face is slowly pushed forward with hydraulic pistons at a

typical rate of 0.5 meters per hour (m/h) depending on the type of rock being excavated. Once

the maximum stroke of the pistons is reached, the rear of the machine is pulled forward and re-

anchored against the surface of the tunnel for the start of another cutting cycle. As a result of

this procedure, vibrations produced by cutting may last on the order of hours, followed by a

shorter period for repositioning the TBM. Depending on the speed of advance, perceptible

vibrations and ground-borne noise (GBN) may occur at any given single point of reception over

a period lasting several days to a week, with 5 days being the expected average. Based on

available evidence from other sites worldwide, vibrations from TBM operations are likely to

produce low level vibrations with peak energy in the low frequency range (i.e. 3 Hertz to

50 Hertz). These vibrations are likely to produce perceptible vibrations for building occupants

along the route. However, the most severe vibrations are expected to be limited to basements

and commercial areas, which are least sensitive to the influences. Furthermore, at higher floor

levels, vibrations will be naturally mitigated by distance and inherent damping in the structure.

Vibrations from TBM operations are expected to have negligible impacts for the structures

themselves. Resonance conditions, which can occur when the cutting speed of the machine

coincides with the dominant frequencies in the rock mass and the natural frequency of the

foundations they encounter, are rare. However, a vibration monitoring program should be an

integral part of the tunnel construction part of the project. As such, other than operational


controls, no mitigation is anticipated during tunnel boring. Nonetheless, it will be necessary to

inform building occupants of the likely impacts, their importance, and purpose of monitoring.

In summary, various control techniques are available to the construction manager to mitigate

emissions from construction activities. For air emissions, detailed information is available from

Environment Canada26.

Suggested methods to control air emissions include, but are not limited to:

(i) Monitor current and forecasted wind conditions and plan operations to take advantage

of calm wind periods;

(ii) Minimize site storage of granular material in height and extent;

(iii) Locate storage piles in sheltered areas that can be covered;

(iv) Provide movable wind breaks;

(v) Use water spray and suppression techniques to control fugitive dust;

(vi) Cover haul trucks and keep access routes to the construction site clean of debris.

For noise and vibrations, common control methods include but are not limited to:

(i) Limit speeds of heavy vehicles within and upon approaching the site;

(ii) Provide compacted smooth surfaces, avoiding abrupt steps and ditches;

(iii) Install movable barriers or temporary enclosures, around blast sites for instance;

(iv) Keep equipment properly maintained and functioning as intended by the manufacturer;

(v) For the TBM, maintain the cutting face in optimum condition. Select cutting speed

within operational limits. Select cutting speeds to avoid resonance in adjacent

structures. Monitor noise and vibration at basements of adjacent buildings.

The construction manager will be responsible for preparing and implementing a mitigation

strategy with the intent of satisfying the requirements of Ontario Regulations 419 for dust

emissions, MOE NPC-11527 and City of Ottawa By-laws for noise28, and MOE NPC-11929 for

ground vibrations. Proper planning will also require that pre-construction surveys be

undertaken for selected buildings along the tunnel corridor. 26 Best Practices for the Reduction of Air Emissions From Construction and Demolition Activities, March 2005, Cheminco Services Inc. 27 MOE, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, NPC-115 Construction Equipment, August 1978 28 City of Ottawa, Noise By-law ByLAW NO. 2004-253 29 MOE, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, NPC-119 Blasting, August 1978


7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The work summarized in this report compares existing and predicted future conditions for

noise, air quality and ground vibrations, in support of the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel

(DOTT) Environmental Assessment. The project involves conversion of the current Transitway

carrying Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) into electric Light Rail Transit (LRT) between Tunney’s

Pasture Station on the west and Blair Station on the east.

7.1 Operational Impacts

AIR QUALITY

Introducing the DOTT project is expected to reduce levels of vehicle tailpipe emissions over

the majority of the corridor, including the downtown segment. For bus terminals and

surrounding areas, increased bus activity and associated diesel emissions, over time will be

outweighed by improvements in vehicle pollution technology involving the entire vehicle fleet.

As a result, the DOTT project is projected to have a net positive impact on the air quality of the

corridor, especially through the downtown core.

Under normal operations of the tunnel, dispersion analyses of ventilation shaft emissions reveal

that concentrations of particulates from brake dust fall below acceptable MOE limits. During

maintenance operations, ventilation shaft emissions from diesel generators produce occasional

minor violations of the criterion for NOX at two out of 300 considered locations under

reasonable worst-case conditions. The two locations are the proposed future site of the Ottawa

Public Library and the rooftop fresh air intake at 118 Sparks Street. Based on the level of

conservatism in the modelling assumptions, and the design flexibility at the library site, the

detailed design of the building and its mechanical system will create adequate opportunity to

mitigate any marginal air quality issues. For the building at 118 Sparks Street, a minor violation

of the NOX criterion occurs for one hour in five years, (which is equivalent to once in 43,800

hours), also based on the same conservative modelling assumptions. As such, the Sparks Street

site is considered to experience acceptable air quality without the need for mitigation.

Nonetheless, air quality monitoring during maintenance operations is recommended to establish

appropriate policies to ensure compliance with the MOE O.Reg. 419, Air Quality Standards.


Simulation of fire conditions in the tunnel indicates that smoke and other combustion products

discharged from ventilation shafts can produce hazardous concentrations at fresh air intakes of

nearby buildings. Although emergency conditions are not constrained by MOE regulations,

given the low risk and uncertain location of affected shafts, it is recommended that heat and

smoke detectors for automatic damper control of fresh air intakes of selected buildings be

installed approximately within one block radius of each ventilation shaft, as indicated on

Figures 6 to 11. The same analysis during fire scenarios indicate that station entrances remain

sufficiently free of contamination, thereby allowing safe egress of patrons in an emergency.

Due to the nature of the vehicles being maintained, operations of the M & S Facility are

expected to generate minor air emissions consistent with a light industrial facility. The impacts

and necessary controls for air quality will be determined during the detailed design and project

implementation phase according to protocols established by the MOE’s C of A process.

AIRBORNE NOISE

Comparisons of existing and future conditions above grade indicate that despite increases in

noise levels at some locations due to converting the Transitway from BRT to LRT, noise levels

at most receptors are dominated by existing sources, such as Highway 417 and Scott Street. As

a result, mitigation is necessary and recommended only for the one area adversely impacted by

the construction of the LRT, which is on the north side of the Transitway between Parkdale

Avenue and Merton Street extension. In this area, suitable mitigation comprises a physical

noise barrier, approximately 2.4 m tall, installed adjacent to the property lines of the affected

residences and place of worship within the City’s right-of-way. The general layout and extent

of the required noise barriers are illustrated in Figure 3.

Noise created by the operation of the M & S Facility, ventilation shafts, and electrical

substations, particularly during nighttime operations, will be assessed and controlled to City of

Ottawa ENCG standards according to the MOE’s C of A protocol.


GROUND VIBRATIONS AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE

Existing ground vibrations were measured and generally found to be below perceptible levels

along the entire corridor according to MOE and ISO standards. Without mitigation, future

ground vibration levels created by the LRT would increase to perceptible, and possibly

annoying, levels, without being large enough to cause structural or even cosmetic damages to

buildings. However, with proper mitigation, vibration levels can be controlled to acceptable

levels for all sensitive buildings along the tunnel route. For this purpose, it is recommended that

track and sleeper isolation, such as floating slab tracks, double tie system, or equivalent

vibration attenuation techniques be installed in the downtown tunnel section, the branch tunnel

to M & S facility, and along the at-grade section from Tunney’s Pasture to Bayview Road

crossing. Track isolation such as resilient track fasteners and continuously welded rail are also

recommended for the entire length of track from Tunney’s Pasture on the west to Blair Station

on the east. These mitigation strategies should be reevaluated throughout the design evolution

to ensure appropriate attenuation is achieved by the LRT system.

Ground-borne noise generated by train movements through the downtown tunnel was found to

be more significant and more troublesome to mitigate than accompanying ground vibrations.

Nonetheless, implementation of the track isolation techniques recommended for ground

vibrations in the previous paragraph will also be necessary and sufficient to deal with audible

vibrations from train passes. In addition to track isolation, maintenance of the train wheels and

track surface will also be essential elements for ensuring quiet operations. Short term

monitoring of noise and vibrations is recommended for the first six months of LRT operations

at select basements of adjacent buildings along the tunnel sections, including all buildings

sensitive to noise and vibrations, to evaluate the success of the above mentioned mitigation

strategies.

7.2 Construction Impacts

Varied construction activities along the LRT corridor are expected to create isolated and short-

term noise, air quality and vibration impacts on the environment. The construction manager

will be required to develop a strategy for mitigating the effects according to good practices

intended to satisfy, as feasible, the fugitive dust limits specified in O.Reg. 419, the noise limits


specified in MOE NPC-11530 and City of Ottawa By-laws for Noise31, and MOE NPC -11932

for ground vibrations. A list of common mitigation strategies adapted to the current project

includes, but are not limited to, the following:

For air emissions:

(i) Monitor current and forecasted wind conditions, and plan operations to take advantage of calm wind periods;

(ii) Minimize site storage of granular material in height and extent; (iii) Locate storage piles in sheltered areas that can be covered; (iv) Provide movable wind breaks; (v) Use water spray and suppression techniques to control fugitive dust; (vi) Cover haul trucks and keep access routes to the construction site clean of debris.

For noise and vibrations:

(i) Limit speeds of heavy vehicles within and upon approaching the site; (ii) Provide compacted smooth surfaces, avoiding abrupt steps and ditches; (iii) Install movable noise barriers or temporary enclosures, around blast sites for instance; (iv) Keep equipment properly maintained and functioning as intended by the manufacturer; (v) For the TBM, maintain the cutting face in optimum condition. Select cutting speed

within operational limits and to avoid resonance in adjacent structures as feasible. Monitor noise and vibration at basements of adjacent buildings;

(vi) Implement a blast design program prepared by a blast design engineer.

This concludes our assessment of existing and future environmental conditions in the area of

noise, air quality and ground vibrations.

Yours truly,

Gradient Microclimate Engineering Inc.

Josh Foster, B.Eng., E.I.T Vincent Ferraro, M.Eng., P.Eng. Project Engineer Principal GmE 08-042-Existing and Future Conditions

30 MOE, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, NPC-115 Construction Equipment, August 1978 31 City of Ottawa, Noise By-law ByLAW NO. 2004-253 32 MOE, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, NPC-119 Blasting, August 1978


FIGURE 25: AERMOD 3D MODEL OF DOWNTOWN (VIEWED FROM THE INTERSECTION OF WELLINGTON STREET AND

KENT STREET LOOKING SOUTH EAST)

AREA OF LOW RISE DEVELOPMENT NOT INCLUDED IN MODELRIDEAU

CENTRE

SUN LIFECENTRE

VENT # 3


FIGURE 26: GENERIC VIBRATION CRITERION (VC) CURVES FOR VIBRATION- SENSITIVE

EQUIPMENT – SHOWING ALSO THE ISO GUIDELINES FO PEOPLE IN BUILDINGS (ADOPTED FROM FIGURE A.1: ISO ‘GUIDE TO THE EVALUATION OF HUMMN EXPOSURE TO

VIBRATION AND SHOCK IN BUILDINGS (1 HZ TO 80 HZ)’ ISO 2631, 1981.)


FIGURE 27: FTA GENERALIZED CURVES OF VIBRATION LEVELS VERSES DISTANCE

(ADOPTED FROM FIGURE 10-1, FTA TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT)


FIGURE 28: VIBRATION LEVELS AT 18M FROM TRACK, TRAIN SPEED 80 KM/H

(ADOPTED FROM FIGURE 5, PARRAMATTA RAIL LINK – THE APPROACH TO CONTROLLING TRAIN REGENERATED NOISE AND VIBRATION)


APPENDICES A TO F FOUND ON ATTACHED CD

APPENDIX A: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MODELLING OF EXISTING CONDITIONS INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA FOR CAL3QHC

APPENDIX B: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MODELLING OF FUTURE CONDITIONS

INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA FOR CAL3QHC APPENDIX C: AIR DISPERSION MODELLING FOR VENTILATION SHAFTS

INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA FROM AERMOD APPENDIX D: NOISE MODELLING OF EXISTING CONDITIONS INPUT AND

OUTPUT DATA STAMSON 5.04 (Sample calculations of representative receptors are attached) APPENDIX E: NOISE MODELLING OF FUTURE CONDITIONS INPUT AND

OUTPUT DATA STAMSON 5.04 (Sample calculations of representative receptors are attached) APPENDIX F: FUTURE GROUND VIBRATION PREDICTIONS CALCULATIONS (Sample calculations of representative receptors are attached)


APPENDIX D

NOISE MODELLING OF EXISTING CONDITIONS INPUT AND OUTPUT

STAMSON 5.04

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration D 2

STAMSON 5.0 NORMAL REPORT Date: 30-09-2009 15:43:51 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY / NOISE ASSESSMENT

Filename: DOTTEC7.te Time Period: Day/Night 16/8 hours Description: DOTT Existing Conditiosn POR7

Road data, segment # 1: Scott (day/night) -----------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 10671/928 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 849/74 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 606/53 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 50 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)

* Refers to calculated road volumes based on the following input:

24 hr Traffic Volume (AADT or SADT): 13180 Percentage of Annual Growth : 0.00 Number of Years of Growth : 0.00 Medium Truck % of Total Volume : 7.00 Heavy Truck % of Total Volume : 5.00 Day (16 hrs) % of Total Volume : 92.00

Data for Segment # 1: Scott (day/night) ---------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -87.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 2 (Reflective ground surface) Receiver source distance : 59.60 / 59.60 m Receiver height : 10.00 / 4.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00


Road data, segment # 2: Parkdale (day/night) --------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 7758/675 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 617/54 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 441/38 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 50 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 2: Parkdale (day/night) ------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -80.00 deg 0.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 2 (Reflective ground surface) Receiver source distance : 27.50 / 27.50 m Receiver height : 10.00 / 4.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: Scott (day) --------------------------------

Source height = 1.50 m

ROAD (0.00 + 61.78 + 0.00) = 61.78 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.00 67.92 0.00 -5.99 -0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.78 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Segment Leq : 61.78 dBA

Results segment # 2: Parkdale (day) -----------------------------------




Total Leq All Segments: 64.15 dBA


Results segment # 1: Scott (night) ----------------------------------




Results segment # 2: Parkdale (night) -------------------------------------






RT/Custom data, segment # 1: Transitway (day/night) ---------------------------------------------------1 - Bus: Traffic volume : 1980/227 veh/TimePeriod Speed : 70 km/h

Data for Segment # 1: Transitway (day/night) --------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -87.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 2 (Reflective ground surface) Receiver source distance : 30.80 / 30.80 m Receiver height : 10.00 / 4.50 m Topography : 3 (Elevated; no barrier) Elevation : 7.70 m Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: Transitway (day) -------------------------------------


RT/Custom (0.00 + 64.91 + 0.00) = 64.91 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.00 68.18 -3.12 -0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.91 ----------------------------------------------------------------------



Results segment # 1: Transitway (night) ---------------------------------------


RT/Custom (0.00 + 58.52 + 0.00) = 58.52 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.00 61.79 -3.12 -0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.52 ----------------------------------------------------------------------



TOTAL Leq FROM ALL SOURCES (DAY): 67.56 (NIGHT): 60.66



Filename: dottec52.te Time Period: Day/Night 16/8 hours Description: DOTT Existing Conditions POR 52

Road data, segment # 1: Hwy 417 (day/night) -------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 117635/10229 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 9357/814 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 6684/581 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 100 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 1: Hwy 417 (day/night) -----------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -80.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 102.20 / 102.20 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 4.50 m Topography : 4 (Elevated; with barrier) Barrier angle1 : -80.00 deg Angle2 : 87.00 deg Barrier height : 6.50 m Elevation : 3.70 m Barrier receiver distance : 40.00 / 40.00 m Source elevation : 63.30 m Receiver elevation : 67.00 m Barrier elevation : 63.50 m Reference angle : 0.00


Road data, segment # 2: Tremblay (day/night) --------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 3643/317 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 290/25 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 207/18 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 50 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 2: Tremblay (day/night) ------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -87.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 15.00 / 15.00 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 4.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: Hwy 417 (day) ----------------------------------


Barrier height for grazing incidence ------------------------------------Source ! Receiver ! Barrier ! Elevation of Height (m) ! Height (m) ! Height (m) ! Barrier Top (m) ------------+-------------+-------------+-------------- 1.50 ! 1.50 ! 3.55 ! 67.05

ROAD (0.00 + 65.08 + 0.00) = 65.08 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -80 87 0.16 84.37 0.00 -9.66 -0.66 0.00 0.00 -8.96 65.08----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Results segment # 2: Tremblay (day) -----------------------------------


ROAD (0.00 + 61.78 + 0.00) = 61.78 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.66 63.25 0.00 0.00 -1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.78 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------




Results segment # 1: Hwy 417 (night) ------------------------------------





Results segment # 2: Tremblay (night) -------------------------------------






RT/Custom data, segment # 1: Transitway (day/night) ---------------------------------------------------1 - Bus: Traffic volume : 1796/211 veh/TimePeriod Speed : 70 km/h

Data for Segment # 1: Transitway (day/night) --------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -70.00 deg 70.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 59.50 / 59.50 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 4.50 m Topography : 4 (Elevated; with barrier) Barrier angle1 : -70.00 deg Angle2 : 70.00 deg Barrier height : 6.50 m Elevation : 3.50 m Barrier receiver distance : 40.00 / 40.00 m Source elevation : 63.50 m Receiver elevation : 67.00 m Barrier elevation : 63.50 m Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: Transitway (day) -------------------------------------



RT/Custom (0.00 + 44.30 + 0.00) = 44.30 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -70 70 0.19 67.76 -7.15 -1.34 0.00 0.00 -14.97 44.30----------------------------------------------------------------------



Results segment # 1: Transitway (night) ---------------------------------------



RT/Custom (0.00 + 40.72 + 0.00) = 40.72 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -70 70 0.10 61.47 -6.61 -1.23 0.00 0.00 -12.91 40.72----------------------------------------------------------------------





APPENDIX E

NOISE MODELLING OF FUTURE CONDITIONS INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA

FOR STAMSON 5.04

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration E 2


Filename: dottfc7.te Time Period: Day/Night 16/8 hours Description: DOTT Future Condition POR 7

Rail data, segment # 1: LRT (day/night) ---------------------------------------Train ! Trains ! Speed !# loc !# Cars! Eng !Cont Type ! !(km/h) !/Train!/Train! type !weld -----------------+-------------+-------+------+------+------+---- 1. train ! 540.0/60.0 ! 80.0 ! 1.0 ! 4.0 ! Elec! Yes

Data for Segment # 1: LRT (day/night) -------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -87.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 2 (Reflective ground surface) Receiver source distance : 30.80 / 30.80 m Receiver height : 10.00 / 10.00 m Topography : 3 (Elevated; no barrier) No Whistle Elevation : 7.70 m Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: LRT (day) ------------------------------

LOCOMOTIVE (0.00 + 61.79 + 0.00) = 61.79 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.00 65.06 -3.12 -0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.79 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEEL (0.00 + 65.78 + 0.00) = 65.78 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.00 69.05 -3.12 -0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.78 ----------------------------------------------------------------------



Results segment # 1: LRT (night) --------------------------------

LOCOMOTIVE (0.00 + 55.26 + 0.00) = 55.26 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.00 58.53 -3.12 -0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.26 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEEL (0.00 + 59.25 + 0.00) = 59.25 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -87 87 0.00 62.52 -3.12 -0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------




Road data, segment # 1: Scott (day/night) -----------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 16496/1434 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 1312/114 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 937/82 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 50 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 1: Scott (day/night) ---------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -87.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 2 (Reflective ground surface) Receiver source distance : 59.60 / 59.60 m Receiver height : 10.00 / 4.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00


Road data, segment # 2: Parkdale (day/night) --------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 11993/1043 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 954/83 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 681/59 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 50 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 2: Parkdale (day/night) ------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -80.00 deg 0.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 2 (Reflective ground surface) Receiver source distance : 27.50 / 27.50 m Receiver height : 10.00 / 4.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: Scott (day) --------------------------------




Results segment # 2: Parkdale (day) -----------------------------------






Results segment # 1: Scott (night) ----------------------------------




Results segment # 2: Parkdale (night) -------------------------------------








Filename: dottfc52.te Time Period: Day/Night 16/8 hours Description: DOTT Future Condition POR 52

Rail data, segment # 1: LRT (day/night) ---------------------------------------Train ! Trains ! Speed !# loc !# Cars! Eng !Cont Type ! !(km/h) !/Train!/Train! type !weld -----------------+-------------+-------+------+------+------+---- 1. train ! 540.0/60.0 ! 80.0 ! 1.0 ! 4.0 ! Elec! Yes

Data for Segment # 1: LRT (day/night) -------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -70.00 deg 70.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 59.50 / 59.50 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 4.50 m Topography : 4 (Elevated; with barrier) No Whistle Barrier angle1 : -70.00 deg Angle2 : 70.00 deg Barrier height : 6.50 m Elevation : 3.50 m Barrier receiver distance : 40.00 / 40.00 m Source elevation : 63.50 m Receiver elevation : 67.00 m Barrier elevation : 63.50 m Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: LRT (day) ------------------------------

Barrier height for grazing incidence ------------------------------------Source ! Receiver ! Barrier ! Elevation of Height (m) ! Height (m) ! Height (m) ! Barrier Top (m) ------------+-------------+-------------+-------------- 4.00 ! 1.50 ! 4.33 ! 67.83 0.50 ! 1.50 ! 1.97 ! 65.47

LOCOMOTIVE (0.00 + 47.75 + 0.00) = 47.75 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -70 70 0.09 65.06 -6.52 -1.21 0.00 0.00 -9.58 47.75----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEEL (0.00 + 45.59 + 0.00) = 45.59 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -70 70 0.19 69.05 -7.15 -1.34 0.00 0.00 -14.97 45.59----------------------------------------------------------------------



Results segment # 1: LRT (night) --------------------------------

Barrier height for grazing incidence ------------------------------------Source ! Receiver ! Barrier ! Elevation of Height (m) ! Height (m) ! Height (m) ! Barrier Top (m) ------------+-------------+-------------+-------------- 4.00 ! 4.50 ! 5.31 ! 68.81 0.50 ! 4.50 ! 2.96 ! 66.46

LOCOMOTIVE (0.00 + 44.63 + 0.00) = 44.63 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -70 70 0.00 58.53 -5.98 -1.09 0.00 0.00 -6.83 44.63----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEEL (0.00 + 41.77 + 0.00) = 41.77 dBA Angle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -70 70 0.10 62.52 -6.61 -1.23 0.00 0.00 -12.91 41.77----------------------------------------------------------------------




Road data, segment # 1: Hwy 417 (day/night) -------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 117635/10229 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 9357/814 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 6684/581 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 100 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 1: Hwy 417 (day/night) -----------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -80.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 102.20 / 102.20 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 4.50 m Topography : 4 (Elevated; with barrier) Barrier angle1 : -80.00 deg Angle2 : 87.00 deg Barrier height : 6.50 m Elevation : 3.70 m Barrier receiver distance : 40.00 / 40.00 m Source elevation : 63.30 m Receiver elevation : 67.00 m Barrier elevation : 63.50 m Reference angle : 0.00


Road data, segment # 2: Tremblay (day/night) --------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 3643/317 veh/TimePeriod * Medium truck volume : 290/25 veh/TimePeriod * Heavy truck volume : 207/18 veh/TimePeriod * Posted speed limit : 50 km/h Road gradient : 0 % Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 2: Tremblay (day/night) ------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -87.00 deg 87.00 deg Wood depth : 0 (No woods.) No of house rows : 0 / 0Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface) Receiver source distance : 15.00 / 15.00 m Receiver height : 1.50 / 4.50 m Topography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier) Reference angle : 0.00


Results segment # 1: Hwy 417 (day) ----------------------------------





Results segment # 2: Tremblay (day) -----------------------------------






Results segment # 1: Hwy 417 (night) ------------------------------------





Results segment # 2: Tremblay (night) -------------------------------------







APPENDIX F

FUTURE GROUND VIBRATION PREDICTIONS CALCULATIONS

Delcan Corporation DOTT EA – Air Quality, Noise and Vibration F 2



GME08-042 03-Feb-10

Possible Vibration Impacts on Houses near Scott & CarolinePerdicted using FTA General Assesment

Train Speed 50 km/h 30 mph

(m) (ft)North Track 52.0 170.6South Track 48.0 157.5

North Track South TrackFrom FTA Manual Fig 10-1 Vibration Levels at distance from track 62 63 dBV re 1 micro in/sec

Adjustment Factors FTA Table 10-1Speed reference 50 mph -4.4 -4.4Vehicle Parameters 0 0 Assume Soft primary suspension, Weels run trueTrack Condition 10 10 Worn or Corrugated TrackTrack Treatments 0 0 noneType of Transit Structure 0 0 Grade Tie & BallastEfficient vibration Propagation 0 0 Propagation through rock

Vibration Levels at Fdn 71.1 67.6 68.6

Coupling to Building Foundation -5 -5 Wood Framed HouseFloor to Floor Attenuation -2.0 -2.0 1 Levels of BasementAmplification of Floor and Walls 6 6

Total Vibration Level 70.1 66.6 67.6 dBV or 0.082 mm/sNoise Level in dBA 35.1 31.6 32.6 dBA

-15 -15 Mitigation Floating SlabVibration Levels with Mitigation 55.1 51.6 52.6

20.1 16.6 17.6

Distance from C/L of track to Edge of Fdn


GME08-042 25-Aug-09

Possible Vibration Impacts on the NAC (53 Elgin)Predicted using Dobrin and Savit (1988)

Train Speed 80 km/h 50 mph

(m) (ft) (m) (ft)North Track 96.4 316.2 120.9 396.7South Track 83.8 274.9 105.1 344.9

Source at 18m from trackVelocity dB re

Freq 10 -̂9 m/s10 55

12.5 5716 5820 6225 65

31.5 7040 7550 7863 8380 85100 86125 85160 85200 84250 68 Referance: David Robersts & Bary Murray, "Parramatta Rail Link - The Approach to Controlling Train 315 57 Regnerated Noise & Vibration", RTSA Conference on Railway Engineering, June 2004.400 57500 57

Propogation Through homogenours Soil

A = Ao(Ro/R)e -̂alfph(R-Ro) Dobrin and Savit (1988)

Were Ao is amplitude at distance Ro, R is distance from track to point of intrest, andalph is the absorption coefficient and is calculated by

alph = pi*f/Qv

Were f is the frequency, v is the velocity of the wave in rock = 5.97 km/s for limestone, Q is the quality factor for the soil = 650 for limestone

dB Velocity re 10 -̂9 m/s

Vibration at Fdn Mitigation UnmitigatedMitigatedNorth Track South Track Combined Floating Slab Mitigated Convert ot Noise dBA

Freq Source Level Source Linier Liner m/s dB Liner m/s dB dB -dB Vib Levels SPL A weight dBA10 55 0.00000056 0.00000010 40.4 0.00000012 41.6 44.1 -8.0 36.1 9.1 -70.4 -53.3 -25.2

12.5 57 0.00000071 0.00000013 42.4 0.00000015 43.6 46.1 -5.0 41.1 14.1 -63.4 -44.3 -49.316 58 0.00000079 0.00000015 43.4 0.00000017 44.6 47.1 0.0 47.1 20.1 -56.7 -36.6 -36.620 62 0.00000126 0.00000023 47.4 0.00000027 48.6 51.1 -3.0 48.1 21.1 -50.5 -26.4 -29.425 65 0.00000178 0.00000033 50.4 0.00000038 51.6 54.1 -7.0 47.1 20.1 -44.7 -17.6 -24.6

31.5 70 0.00000316 0.00000059 55.4 0.00000068 56.6 59.1 -13.0 46.1 19.1 -39.4 -7.3 -20.340 75 0.00000562 0.00000105 60.4 0.00000121 61.6 64.1 -23.0 41.1 14.1 -34.6 2.5 -20.550 78 0.00000794 0.00000148 63.4 0.00000170 64.6 67.1 -29.0 38.1 11.1 -30.2 9.9 -19.163 83 0.00001413 0.00000263 68.4 0.00000302 69.6 72.1 -27.0 45.1 18.1 -26.2 18.9 -8.180 85 0.00001778 0.00000330 70.4 0.00000380 71.6 74.0 -31.0 43.0 16.0 -22.5 24.5 -6.5100 86 0.00001995 0.00000370 71.4 0.00000426 72.6 75.0 -29.0 46.0 19.0 -19.1 28.9 -0.1125 85 0.00001778 0.00000329 70.4 0.00000379 71.6 74.0 -25.0 49.0 22.0 -16.1 30.9 5.9160 85 0.00001778 0.00000329 70.3 0.00000379 71.6 74.0 -25.0 49.0 22.0 -13.4 33.6 8.6200 84 0.00001585 0.00000292 69.3 0.00000337 70.5 73.0 -28.0 45.0 18.0 -10.9 35.1 7.1250 68 0.00000251 0.00000046 53.3 0.00000053 54.5 57.0 -28.0 29.0 2.0 -8.6 21.4 -6.6315 57 0.00000071 0.00000013 42.3 0.00000015 43.5 45.9 -25.0 20.9 -6.1 -6.6 12.3 -12.7400 57 0.00000071 0.00000013 42.2 0.00000015 43.5 45.9 -25.0 20.9 -6.1 -4.8 14.1 -10.9500 57 0.00000071 0.00000013 42.1 0.00000015 43.4 45.8 -25.0 20.8 -6.2 -3.2 15.6 -9.4

Overall 92.8 0.00004377 0.00000811 78.2 0.00000934 79.4 81.9 57.2 39.1 12.60.0124 m/s 0.000753.8 re micro in/s 29.1

Distance from C/L of track to Edge of Fdn

Propogation through rock

1 10 100 10000

20

40

60

80

100

Source Levels

Velocity dB re 10 -̂9 m/s

Frequancy (Hz)

Dec

ible

s

appendix e air quality, noise and vibration … e_8mb.pdfappendix e: air quality, noise and...

Documents