Appendix B4. Vibration Impact Assessment Report

B4.
Noise and
Vibration Impact
Assessment Report
Burloak Drive Grade Separation
Environmental Assessment
Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Report
Metrolinx
Project number: 60512842
November 24, 2017

Burloak Drive Grade Separation Environmental
Assessment Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Report
Quality information
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Alan Oldfield, MEng, CEng(UK), P.Eng. James Au, P.Eng., INCE Fred Leech, BScAg
Senior Acoustic Engineer, Manager, Acoustic Engineer Senior Environmental Planner
Acoustics & Air Quality Compliance
Revision History
Revision Revision date Details Name Position
0 September 2017 Original Issue Alan Oldfield Senior Acoustic Engineer
1 October 2017 Incorporating Alan Oldfield Senior Acoustic Engineer

Metrolinx comments
2 October 2017 Incorporating Alan Oldfield Senior Acoustic Engineer

additional Metrolinx
comments
3 November 2017 Updated project Madelin Blacha Environmental Planner

description
Distribution List
# Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name
0 X Metrolinx
Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

Assessment Report
Prepared for:
Metrolinx
Prepared by:
Alan Oldfield, MEng, CEng(UK), P.Eng.
Senior Acoustic Engineer, Manager, Acoustics & Air Quality Compliance
T: 905-712-7058
E: alan.oldfield@aecom.com
AECOM Canada Ltd.

5080 Commerce Boulevard
Mississauga, ON L4W 4P2
Canada
T: 905.238.0007
F: 905.238.0038
aecom.com
© 2017 AECOM Canada Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.
This document has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in
accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed
between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been
checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this
document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

Assessment Report
Executive Summary
A noise and vibration impact assessment has been completed as part of the Transit Project Assessment Process
(TPAP) for the proposed grade separation of the Lakeshore West Rail Corridor at Burloak Drive (the Project). The
Project will enhance safety, on time performance and operational flexibility/reliability in support of expanded rail
service.
Noise and vibration impacts have been assessed considering both the construction and operational phases of the
Project. This report describes the relevant assessment guidelines, methodologies and assumptions, along with
predicted noise and vibration impacts, and commentary on mitigation requirements.
Noise and vibration impacts have been determined and assessed based on the requirements of the Ontario Ministry
1
of Environment and Energy / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment.
Temporary construction noise impacts could be audible and may require control measures to ensure they are below
recommended limits. Construction vibration may be perceptible at the closest receptors during roadway construction
(e.g. during operation of vibratory rollers within 40 m of receptor locations) and is not anticipated to cause any
building damage. Therefore, residual adverse noise and vibration effects from construction activities are expected to
be insignificant.
No long-term track alignment or profile changes are anticipated as part of the Project. For the purposes of the current
grade separation project noise and vibration assessment, it is assumed there will be no changes in long-term rail
operations. As roadway improvements are proposed as part of the Project, road traffic noise was assessed to
determine potential noise impacts. Noise impacts from the roadway improvements have been assessed with
1
guidance from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)/Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) document A
Protocol for Dealing with Noise Concerns During the Preparation, Review and Evaluation of Provincial Highways
Environmental Assessments.
Future operational noise and vibration impacts with the proposed road-under-rail grade separation and widened
roadway are predicted to be insignificant and are not anticipated to warrant mitigation.
1
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) and Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) have been replaced by the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).

Assessment Report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Study Area.................................................................................................................................................. 1
3. Criteria and Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Construction Noise ............................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Construction Vibration ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Operational Noise.............................................................................................................................. 7
3.4 Operational Vibration ......................................................................................................................... 8
4. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 9
5. Effects Assessment, Mitigation and Monitoring............................................................................................. 9
5.1 Construction Noise ............................................................................................................................ 9
5.2 Construction Vibration ..................................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Operational Noise............................................................................................................................ 13
5.4 Operational Vibration ....................................................................................................................... 13
6. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 14
7. References ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Figures
Figure 2-1. Burloak Drive Grade Separation TPAP Study Area Showing Noise Sensitive Areas ................................ 2
Tables
Table 3-1. Construction Activities and Assumed Equipment Operating Concurrently ................................................. 4
Table 3-2. Construction Equipment Reference Sound Levels ................................................................................... 5
Table 3-3. Equipment Reference Vibration Levels ................................................................................................... 6
Table 3-4. Road Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 5-1. Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Construction and Temporary Detour and Diversion ..................... 10
Table 5-2. Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Railway Structure Construction .................................................. 10
Table 5-3. Predicted Construction Vibration Impacts.............................................................................................. 12
Table 5-4. Predicted Operational Noise Impacts .................................................................................................... 13
Appendices
Appendix A. Noise and Vibration Terminology
Appendix B. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration
Assessment (MOEE/GO Transit, 1995)

Assessment Report
1. Introduction
Metrolinx is implementing the GO Expansion Program (previously termed Regional Express Rail), which will provide
new travel choices on the GO Transit network across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, including 15-minute
service along the Lakeshore West Rail Corridor. This plan includes the grade separation of the Lakeshore West Rail
Corridor at Burloak Drive (the Project) to enhance safety, on time performance and operational flexibility/reliability in
support of expanded rail service.
The existing at-grade road/rail crossing consists of three (3) in-service mainline tracks and a four-lane arterial road
with associated sidewalks and/or multi-use paths.
The proposed Project will include:
· A new road-under-rail grade separation that provides:

o A rail corridor that continues to include three (3) mainline tracks;
o A 4-lane arterial road (Burloak Drive) that can ultimately provide up to six (6) traffic lanes;
o Minor intersection enhancements at Harvester Road / Wyecroft Road and Prince William Drive /
Superior Court;
o Dedicated multi-use paths along the boulevards and on-street bicycle lanes;
o Retaining walls; and
o Future electrification provisions for Overhead Catenary System (OCS) pole bases and other
electrification requirements, including grounding and bonding.
· Construction staging that provides:
o Temporary rerouting of a section of Burloak Drive to the east;
o Temporary diversion of a section of the Lakeshore West Rail Corridor tracks to the south;
· Relocation of the existing Burloak Interlocking Plant (switches between tracks) that is located just west of
Burloak Drive; and,
· Utility relocations to accommodate the design and construction staging of the proposed road-under-rail
underpass.
Noise and vibration impacts were assessed, considering both the construction and operational phases of the Project.
This report describes the relevant assessment guidelines, methodologies and assumptions, along with predicted
noise and vibration impacts. This report is for one of a number of environmental studies that have been completed in
support of the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), under which Project impacts have been assessed as
prescribed in Ontario Regulation 231/08 under the Environmental Assessment Act.
A glossary of noise and vibration terminology is provided in Appendix A.
2. Study Area
As shown in Figure 2-1, Burloak Drive grade separation Study Area (the Study Area) is comprised of a rail corridor
that runs along Lakeshore West Corridor from Mi. 26.50 to Mi. 27.30, and along Burloak Drive from the Harvester
Road/Wyecroft Road intersection to the north and Prince William/Superior Court intersection to the south. The Study
Area along Burloak Drive extends approximately 30 m on either side of both the Burloak Drive roadway platform and
the Lakeshore West Rail Corridor in order to encompass the full length of the proposed road-under-rail grade
separation design and the construction staging.
For the purposes of this Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report, the area of investigation and assessment
will include:
· The residential area bounded by Burloak Drive to the east, Phoebe Crescent to the west, Sherwood Forest
Park to the north, and Hannah Street / Stella Lane to the south, so that the impacts of changes to operating
roadway noise from Burloak Drive to the residential noise sensitive areas can be assessed.

1
Assessment Report
· The industrial building on Syscon Court to the northwest of the existing at-grade crossing, so that vibration
from construction activities can be assessed for potential building damage at the nearest industrial building
to existing at-grade crossing.
This area of investigation is consistent with the US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines, where noise and
vibration is assessed up to 230 m from commuter rail mainline or 490 m from rail station or crossings with horns and
bells.
Figure 2-1. Burloak Drive Grade Separation TPAP Study Area Showing Noise Sensitive Areas
3. Criteria and Methodology

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy2 / GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment
(referred to herein as the MOEE/GO Transit Protocol; MOEE/GO Transit, 1995) provides a framework for noise and
vibration assessments of GO Transit rail projects. A copy of the MOEE/GO Transit Protocol is provided in Appendix
B. Criteria for both construction and operational stages are specified.
2
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy is now known as Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

2
Assessment Report
3.1 Construction Noise
3.1.1 Construction Noise Assessment Criteria
The MOEE/GO Transit Protocol notes that construction of a project shall be examined; and reference is given to the
Model Municipal Noise Control By-law (MOE, 1978).
The Ontario noise pollution control publication NPC-115, Construction Equipment, included in the Model Municipal
Noise Control By-law, sets requirements for sound power levels of individual construction equipment items. The
Ontario noise pollution control publication NPC-118, Motorized Conveyances, included in the Model Municipal Noise
Control By-law, sets requirements for heavy vehicles.
The Project site spans across the City of Burlington and the Town of Oakville. By-laws from both municipalities were
reviewed. The City of Burlington By-law 19-2003 (as amended by By-law 49-2008) and the Town of Oakville By-law
2008-098 both have prohibitions on construction in line with the Model Municipal By-law (all day Sunday and
Statutory Holidays, and between 19:00 one day to 07:00 the next on weekdays).
Both local municipal noise by-laws also include a prohibition on ‘the operation of any item of construction equipment
without effective muffling devices in good working order and in constant operation’.
Metrolinx respects local municipal by-laws and works within them where possible. As an active rail corridor, there are
times when construction within the rail corridor cannot occur during regular business hours when trains are operating.
This work can only be done when trains are not in service. Similarly, work may be required at weekends or overnight
to minimize road traffic impacts.
The United States Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006)
is widely used as a reference for construction noise and vibration impact assessment. The FTA guidance manual
includes a residential daytime noise criterion of 80 dBA Leq,8hr, or a 70 dBA Leq,8hr criterion for night-time work for
detailed assessment purposes. Above these levels, noise control measures are recommended.
3.1.2 Construction Noise Assessment Methodology
Construction noise levels were predicted at noise sensitive areas using reference equipment source levels and
estimated equipment quantities for the different stages of construction. The US Federal Highway Administration
Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA, 2011) was used for this assessment. This model was developed as a
construction noise screening tool and allows users to analyze multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously at multiple
receptor locations using simplified prediction assumptions. The model uses an extensive database of equipment
sound levels, but note that contractor’s equipment may vary from these.
Construction noise impacts were assessed by comparing predicted construction noise levels with the MOEE/GO
Transit Protocol objective sound levels for noise sensitive land uses. In order to keep the railway operating during the
daytime, it is expected that substantial construction efforts will be undertaken at night.
The estimated equipment quantities used in this assessment are provided in Table 3-1. These were developed
based on prior experience with Metrolinx rail infrastructure construction projects and input from Metrolinx.

3
Assessment Report
Table 3-1. Construction Activities and Assumed Equipment Operating Concurrently
Equipment Description Construction Activities
Site Preparation Temp. Staging Excavation and Retaining Walls, Concrete Span Installation * Track Installation
and Utility Roads and Track Grading Augered Piles – Abutments
Relocation Diversion Shoring &
Foundations *
Excavator 1 - 2 1 1 - 1
Backhoe 2 2 2 - - - -
Bulldozer 1 1 1 - - - -
Grader 1 1 1 - - - -
Skid Steers 2 2 2 2 2 - -
Compaction Machine 1 1 1 - - - -
Crane 1 2 - 1 1 2 2
Piling Rig – Caisson - - - 1 - - -
drilling
Ballast Regulator - 1 - - - - 1
Tamper machine - 1 - - - - 1
Hi-Rail Truck - 2 - - - - 2
Semi Trucks/hr - 2 2 2 2 2 2
Concrete Pump Truck - - - 1 1 - -
Cement Trucks/hr - - - 4 2 - -
Dump Trucks/hr 1 - 2 - - - -
Generator 1 - - - 1 - -
Vac Truck 1 - - - - - -
Vibratory Roller ** - - 1 - - - 1
* Piles will be augered, not driven, wherever feasible. Assessment is based on caisson drill rig. Pile installation and span installation will be at night, all other phases will be during the day.
** Vibratory Roller on temporary staging roads and areas where track is to be laid at grade (not bridge area)

4
Assessment Report
A compilation of construction noise source data is provided in Table 3-2. The noise levels in the table are based on
the equipment operating continuously at full power. To account for the variation in power during operation, the
reference noise levels are adjusted based on the typical duty cycle, or ‘usage factor’, for that equipment.
Table 3-2. Construction Equipment Reference Sound Levels
Sound Pressure Level

at 15.2 m
Equipment Description Other Notes Assumed Usage Factor (%)
dBA (re 20 µPa), at full
power
Excavator - 81 40
Backhoe - 78 40
Bulldozer - 82 40
Grader - 85 40
Skid Steers Assumed Front End Loader 79 40
Compaction Machine - 83 20
Crane - 81 16
Augering Rig - 84 20
Ballast Regulator Assumed Ballast Equalizer 82 40
Tamper Machine - 83 40
Truck Assumed Pickup Truck 75 40
Concrete Pump Truck - 81 20
Dump Truck - 76 40
Generator Assumed 25 KVA generator 81 50
Vac Truck - 85 40
Vibratory Roller - 80 20
Source: Source levels and usage factors from US Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
User's Guide (FHWA, 2006), except Ballast Regulator and Tamper Machine, from US Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006) – usage factors estimated for these items
3.2 Construction Vibration
3.2.1 Construction Vibration Assessment Criteria
When assessing ground-borne vibration, there are typically two major concerns: building damage and potential to
cause disturbance. Building damage is typically assessed using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) vibration levels; and
human perception (or disturbance) is typically assessed using Root Mean Square Velocity (RMSV) vibration levels.
The Model Municipal Noise Control By-law referenced in the MOEE/GO Transit Protocol does not include limits for
construction vibration, however the City of Toronto has developed a construction vibration by-law (By-law 514), which
was used for guidance in lieu of any local municipal construction vibration limits.
By-law 514 includes vibration limits not to be exceeded at ground level adjacent to any building:
· 8 mm/s at frequencies less than 4 Hz

· 15 mm/s at frequencies in the range 4-10 Hz
· 25 mm/s at frequencies higher than 10 Hz
The limits for vibration during construction are intended to avoid damage to buildings, including both cosmetic
damage (such as hairline surface cracks) and structural damage. A factor of safety can be applied to the City of

5
Assessment Report
Toronto criteria for a conservative assessment to establish a vibration zone of influence, within which vibration levels
would be at or greater than 5 mm/s PPV, according to the by-law. Structural building damage would typically be
expected at much higher levels of vibration. For example, mortar joints are expected to fail at around 75 mm/s PPV
and gypsum wallboard and plaster is expected to fail after many cycles at 25 mm/s PPV (City of Toronto, 2007).
Vibration levels below 0.1 mm/s (RMSV) are typically considered to be imperceptible to humans (ISO, 1985).
3.2.2 Construction Vibration Assessment Methodology
Construction vibration impacts were predicted using reference equipment source levels and estimated equipment
operations for the different construction sites. The US Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006) includes procedures for predicting vibration transmission. These procedures
include a distance attenuation equation to estimate vibration levels from reference source levels, which provides a
reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. The reference vibration levels used in this assessment are
summarized in Table 3-3 and the distance attenuation equation is as follows:
1.5
Vibration velocity = (Reference vibration velocity) x (Dref/D)
Where: Dref is the reference distance at which the reference vibration level is given and
D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
The building damage limits are based on in-ground vibration levels, adjacent to the building. Perceptible vibrations
would result from in-building floor vibrations, but the limits for construction vibration perceptibility are also taken as in-
ground vibration levels. This approach is consistent with the FTA procedures.
Table 3-3. Equipment Reference Vibration Levels
Equipment Description Other Notes PPV Reference RMSV Reference Reference Distance
(mm/s) (mm/s) (m)
Excavator (Rock) Assumed Large 2.26 0.57 7.6

Bulldozer
Rail Mounted Assumed Small 0.08 0.02 7.6
Excavator Bulldozer
Backhoe Assumed Small 0.08 0.02 7.6
Bulldozer
Bulldozer (Large) - 2.26 0.57 7.6
Grader Assumed Large 2.26 0.57 7.6
Bulldozer
Skid Steers Assumed Backhoe 0.08 0.02 7.6
Compaction Machine Assumed Large 2.26 0.57 7.6
Bulldozer
Crane Assumed Loaded Truck 1.93 0.48 7.6
Augering Rig - 2.26 0.57 7.6
Ballast Regulator Assumed Small 0.08 0.02 7.6
Bulldozer
Tamper Machine Assumed Small 0.08 0.02 7.6
Bulldozer
Truck - 1.93 0.48 7.6
Concrete Pump Truck Assumed Loaded Truck 1.93 0.48 7.6
Generator Assumed Negligible - - 7.6
Vac Truck Assumed Loaded Truck 1.93 0.48 7.6

6
Assessment Report
Equipment Description Other Notes PPV Reference RMSV Reference Reference Distance
(mm/s) (mm/s) (m)
Vibratory Roller - 5.33 1.33 7.6
Source: US Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guide (FTA, 2006). Note all values were
converted to metric units.
3.3 Operational Noise
3.3.1 Operational Noise Assessment Criteria
In accordance with the MOEE/GO Transit Protocol, noise impacts from rail operations are evaluated by comparing
noise levels with the completed Project and without the Project. No long-term track alignment or profile changes are
anticipated as part of the Project. In addition, RWDI have assessed potential noise and vibration impacts from the
GO Expansion Program, as documented in their report ‘GO Rail Network Electrification Transit Project Assessment
Process, Final Noise and Vibration Modelling Report – Lakeshore West Corridor’, dated September 20, 2017. Their
assessment includes predicted noise and vibration levels at the nearest residential receptor to the grade crossing
(receptor R10 in the RWDI report).
The MOEE/GO Transit Protocol requires that if a rail project produces a road traffic noise impact, road traffic noise
impacts are to be assessed in accordance with methods approved for Environmental Assessments of roadway
projects. Therefore, road traffic noise was assessed to determine potential noise impacts. Guidance for road traffic
3
noise assessment is provided in the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)/Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE)
document A Protocol for Dealing with Noise Concerns During the Preparation, Review and Evaluation of Provincial
Highways Environmental Assessments (the MTO/MOE Protocol; MTO/MOE, 1996). The MOECC typically relies on
this guideline during the review of Environmental Assessments for municipal road improvements.
Under the MTO/MOE Protocol, noise mitigation requirements are assessed based on road traffic noise impacts
typically 10 years post-construction. Road traffic noise assessment is based on the 16-hour equivalent traffic noise
level between 07:00 hours and 23:00 hours (Leq, 16hr expressed in A-weighted decibels, dBA). The noise impact due
to the Project is defined as the change in noise level above ambient within the outdoor living area of noise sensitive
areas. The future ambient noise levels are taken as the traffic noise levels with no roadway improvements (“Future
No Build”). The future noise levels with the Project are taken as the traffic noise levels with the roadway
improvements implemented (“Future Build”).
Under the MTO/MOE Protocol, noise mitigation investigations are required where noise impacts are predicted to be
greater than 5 dB. Any proposed noise mitigation measures should achieve a minimum noise reduction of 5 dB; and
reduce traffic noise levels to the objective outdoor sound level of 55 dBA L eq, 16hr or the future ambient (whichever is
greater).
3.3.2 Operational Noise Assessment Methodology
Road traffic noise levels were predicted using the United States Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model
Version (TNM) 2.5 as opposed to the MOECC’s Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method for Environment and
Transportation (ORNAMENT). Although ORNAMENT is typically appropriate for straightforward road geometries,
there are several aspects that cannot be modelled with the method. TNM has previously been authorized by the
MTO for assessments where there is complexity of the road alignment, site layout and topography. Given the
relatively complex geometry of the roadway with the grade separation (with elevation changes, profiled screening
attenuation and reflection effects), the use of TNM is considered to be appropriate and is expected to provide more
accurate results than ORNAMENT.
The prediction model inputs include the following:
· Road traffic data

─ Volumes
3
Ontario Ministry of Environment is now known as Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

7
Assessment Report
─ Speed limit
─ Vehicle composition (percentage Medium and Heavy Trucks)
· Ground characteristics
─ Roadway surface type (e.g. asphalt, concrete, or ‘average’)
─ Ground topography
─ Ground type between assessment locations and roadways
─ Roadway layout
· Shielding effects
─ Berms
─ Barriers
─ Buildings
The traffic data used for this assessment are summarized in Table 3-4. The same pavement type (‘average’) has
been assumed for both Future No Build and Future Build scenarios.
Table 3-4. Road Traffic Data

1 1
Road AADT AADT Medium Heavy Daytime % Night-time Speed
Future No-Build Future Build Truck % Truck % (07:00- % (23:00- Limit
23:00) 07:00) (km/h)
Burloak Drive 29,092 31,016 1.70 1.37 93 7 60

(48% Northbound, (48% Northbound,
2 2
52% Southbound ) 52% Southbound )
3 3
Harvester Road 15,940 16,995 3.14 1.15 93 7 60
3 3
Wyecroft Road 9,680 9,680 1.20 0.53 93 7 60
3 3
Superior Court 6,887 6,887 0.87 0.20 93 7 60
3 3
Prince William 3,292 3,292 1.01 0.79 93 7 40
Drive
Notes to table: 1) AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic
2) No traffic data split provided for Burloak Drive at Superior Court; same north/south percentages applied to
Burloak Drive north and south of Superior Court.
3) Day/night split not provided for Prince William Drive and Superior Court; applied day/night (93%/7%) from
Burloak Drive.
Sensitive receptors were visually identified using aerial and street photography. Two (2) sample receptors were
selected to represent the worst case noise exposure from Project operations. The identified noise sensitive areas
and representative receptors are shown in Figure 2-1. One (1) sample receptor (R1) is the closest sensitive property
to the proposed rail / road grade separation, and the other (R2) is the closest sensitive property to Burloak Drive.
Corridor track and road maintenance operations are not considered a regularly occurring event, and thus would not
be subject to the same objective limits as typical operations. As short term events, maintenance would be considered
in the same way as construction. Maintenance activities are generally not expected to result in noise levels as high
as construction activities because maintenance activities will be significantly less intensive with generally lower
energy equipment. In addition, maintenance activities will likely be of shorter duration than construction, so the
potential impacts would not be expected to be as severe.
3.4 Operational Vibration

No long-term track alignment or profile changes are anticipated as part of the Project, so no change in individual train
pass-by vibration levels will be expected.

8
Assessment Report
Rubber-tired road vehicles generally do not generate vibration levels of concern because the tires and suspension
systems provide vibration isolation. Impacts would not be expected from operating on a smooth road surface. Most
vibration or groundborne noise problems are related directly to discontinuities in the road surface (e.g. potholes,
bumps, or expansion joint). Since the Project will remove the at-grade crossing, the discontinuities in the roadway
will be eliminated at this location. Therefore, a road traffic vibration assessment is not included in this report.
4. Existing Conditions
Existing noise conditions in the Study Area are dominated by the activities of people: mostly from road traffic,
particularly from Burloak Drive, but also background from Highway 403, which is approximately 500 m north of the
Study Area. Other sources of noise in the Study Area include activities at the industrial facilities on both sides of
Harvester Road and at the commercial buildings on Burloak Drive. Existing noise from operations on the Lakeshore
West Rail Corridor include train pass-bys and audible warning devices (bells) used at the existing at-grade crossing.
5. Effects Assessment, Mitigation and Monitoring

In this section, the predicted noise and vibration effects are presented for the construction and operational stages of
the Project, as well as recommendations for mitigation.
5.1 Construction Noise
5.1.1 Construction Noise Effects
Construction noise levels were predicted at the worst-case noise-sensitive receivers for construction equipment
operating at the closest possible operating distances. The results are presented in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2.

9
Assessment Report
Table 5-1. Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Construction and Temporary Detour and Diversion
ID Assessed Assumed Assumed Baseline Noise Site Preparation Temp. Staging Excavation and Retaining Walls, FTA Guideline Noise
Point of Set-back Level (dBA Leq,1hr) and Utility Roads and Track Grading Augered Piles – Limits
Reception Distance (m)
Relocation Diversion Shoring & (dBA Leq, 8hr)
Daytime Night-time Foundations Daytime Night-time
(07:00- (23:00- (07:00- (23:00-
23:00) 07:00) 23:00) 07:00)
R1 Unit 19, #5555 20 55 50 85.5 84.8 84.7 82.2 80 70

Prince William
Drive
R2 #5892 Prince 65 55 50 75.3 74.5 74.5 71.9 80 70

William Drive
Table 5-2. Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Railway Structure Construction
ID Assessed Assumed Assumed Baseline Noise Concrete Span Track FTA Guideline Noise
Point of Set-back Level (dBA) Abutments Installation Installation Limits
Reception Distance (m)
(dBA Leq, 8hr)
Daytime Night-time Daytime Night-time
(07:00- (23:00- (07:00- (23:00-
23:00) 07:00) 23:00) 07:00)
R1 Unit 19, #5555 184 55 50 61.8 56.0 63.0 80 70

Prince William
Drive
R2 #5892 Prince 343 55 50 56.4 50.6 57.6 80 70

William Drive
Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM AECOM

10 10
Assessment Report
Temporary construction noise impacts are anticipated to be significantly higher than the assumed baseline levels at
the assessed points of reception during some construction activities of both roadway and temporary detour
construction. Predicted noise levels exceed the US FTA guideline limit of 80 dBA Leq,8hr for daytime roadway and
temporary detour construction work at the nearest assessed location (R1). Predicted roadway and detour
infrastructure construction noise levels exceed the US FTA guideline limit of 70 dBA L eq,8hr for night-time construction
work at both assessed locations. During railway structure construction, noise may be audible but is predicted to be
below the recommended limits at all times.
Construction noise levels are expected to be lower than those presented in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 because the
predictions are based on the assumed equipment operating together at the same worst case set-back distance,
rather than distributed around the work site.
5.1.2 Construction Noise Mitigation
Noise from construction activities will be controlled to ensure that the guideline limits are not exceeded, where
possible. Construction noise can be controlled in numerous ways, including operational restrictions and source
mitigation measures, as well as receptor-based mitigation measures. Prior to construction, a Noise and Vibration
Control Plan shall be developed and implemented to reduce the noise impacts at sensitive receptors. The plan will
include the following details for noise (vibration recommendations provided in section 5.2.2):
· What measures are being taken to comply with local by-laws whenever possible (e.g. road construction
activities during the day instead of at night);
· If construction needs to be undertaken outside of the normal daytime hours, how local residents will be
informed beforehand of the type of construction planned and the expected duration;
· How construction equipment will meet the noise level specifications in MOECC guidelines NPC-115 and
NPC-118;
· What noise control measures are being implemented, e.g.:
o Implement noise compliance checks to ensure equipment levels are in compliance with
MOECC guidelines NPC-115 and NPC-118;
o Keep equipment well-maintained and fitted with efficient muffling devices;
o Restrict idling of equipment to the minimum necessary to perform the specified work;
o Avoid unnecessary revving of engines and switch off equipment when not required (do not idle);
o Coordinate ‘noisy’ operations such that they will not occur simultaneously, where possible;
o Use rubber linings in chutes and dumpers to reduce impact noise, where possible;
o Minimize drop heights of materials; and
o Route haulage/dump trucks on main roads where possible, rather than quieter residential roads.
· Development of a monitoring/verification plan to demonstrate that the mitigation measures above are
appropriate, functioning correctly, and that acceptable noise levels at noise sensitive receivers are
maintained for the duration of construction.
Note that Ministry of Labour requirements and Ontario’s Occupational Health & Safety Act and Regulations (Reg.
231/91-105) specify obligations for dump trucks to be equipped with automatic audible reversal alarms when
operated in reverse.
During construction work if it is determined that there is a need to further reduce noise effects, additional mitigation
measures may be considered and implemented, where appropriate.

13
11
Assessment Report
5.2 Construction Vibration
5.2.1 Construction Vibration Effects
Across all site locations and phases of construction, the use of a vibratory roller is anticipated to generate the highest
construction vibration levels. The predictable worst case construction vibration levels are presented in Table 5-3 for
the most affected points of reception during the construction.
Table 5-3. Predicted Construction Vibration Impacts
ID Assessed Point of Assumed Set-back Predicted Vibration Level Vibration Zone of Influence
Reception Distance (m) (Vibratory Roller) (mm/s) Threshold (mm/s PPV)
Peak Particle Root-Mean-Square
Velocity (PPV) Velocity (RMSV)
R1 Unit 19, #5555 Prince 20 1.25 0.31 5
William Drive
R2 #5892 Prince William 65 0.21 0.05 5

Drive
V1 #835 Syscon Court 35 0.54 0.14 5

(industrial building)
V2 #738 Burloak Drive 12 2.70 0.67 5

(commercial plaza)
Construction vibration PPV levels are predicted to be lower than the adopted vibration zone of influence threshold (5
mm/s) at all assessed points of reception. The RMSV vibration levels are predicted to be above the human
perceptibility threshold of 0.1 mm/s at receptors closer than 40 m from vibratory rollers and other similar equipment.
Beyond 40 m, the predicted vibration level from operation of a vibratory roller is predicted to be below 0.1 mm/s
RMSV. The other construction equipment assessed generates significantly lower vibration levels. Some temporary
disturbance may be expected at these locations. Building occupants may be able to feel some vibrations but people
are sensitive to vibration at much lower levels than can cause building damage. The vibration impacts are not
considered to be significant, given their low level and temporary nature.
5.2.2 Construction Vibration Mitigation
As part of the Noise and Vibration Control Plan discussed in section 5.1.2, the plan will include the following details
for vibration:
· What measures are being taken to comply with local by-laws whenever possible (e.g. road construction
activities during the day instead of at night);
· If construction needs to be undertaken outside of the normal daytime hours, how will local residents be
informed beforehand of the type of construction planned and the expected duration;
· What vibration control measures are being implemented, e.g.:
o Use of construction methods which may minimize vibration, where possible; and
o Use of lower vibration-generating equipment where practical;
· Development of a monitoring/verification plan to demonstrate that the mitigation measures above are
appropriate, functioning correctly, and that acceptable vibration levels at sensitive receivers are
maintained for the duration of construction.
Blasting operations are typically prohibited by the City of Burlington and Town of Oakville; however, if blasting is
unavoidable, the Contractor must obtain approval from the municipalities, and undertake a detailed impact
assessment and implement appropriate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with local by-laws and MOECC
guidelines, including NPC-119 Blasting, included in the Model Municipal Noise Control By-law.

13
12
Assessment Report
No specific construction vibration mitigation measures are anticipated to be required to address potential building
damage, assuming there will be no impact or vibratory pile driving, and vibratory rollers will be set back at least 8 m
from existing structures and buildings.
During construction work if it is determined that there is a need to further reduce vibration effects, additional mitigation
measures may be considered and implemented.
5.3 Operational Noise
5.3.1 Operational Noise Effects
Table 5-4 below outlines the predicted noise levels and impacts. Where impacts of 5 dB or more are predicted,
mitigation investigation is required according to the MTO/MOE Protocol.
Table 5-4. Predicted Operational Noise Impacts
ID Assessed Point of Predicted Noise Predicted Noise Predicted Noise Noise Impact Mitigation
Reception Level (dBA) Level (dBA) Impact (dB) Threshold for Investigation
Future No Build Future Build Mitigation Requirement
Investigation (dB) (Yes/No)
R1 Unit 19, #5555 Prince 55.0 53.1 -1.9 5 No
William Drive
R2 #5892 Prince William 63.9 63.8 -0.1 5 No

Drive
Marginal reductions in road traffic noise levels are predicted at the assessed points of reception, so the noise impacts
are generally anticipated to be insignificant. The traffic volumes are not significantly higher as a result of the Project
and the lower roadway retaining wall acts as a barrier, providing screening noise attenuation. As the impacts are less
than 5 dB there is no requirement for mitigation.
5.3.2 Operational Noise Mitigation
No specific operational noise mitigation measures are anticipated to be required. The construction noise mitigation
measures outlined in Section 5.1.2 will also be implemented during maintenance activities, where appropriate.
5.4 Operational Vibration
5.4.1 Operational Vibration Effects
No long-term track alignment or profile changes are anticipated as part of the Project, so no change in individual train
pass-by vibration levels will be expected. In terms of the change in roadway design for the grade separation,
operational vibration from rubber tire vehicles is typically not a concern for this type of project. Rubber-tired road
vehicles generally do not generate vibration levels of concern because the tires and suspension systems provide
vibration isolation. Impacts would not be expected from operating on a smooth road surface. Most vibration or
groundborne noise problems are related directly to discontinuities in the road surface (e.g. potholes, bumps, or
expansion joint). Since the Project will remove the at-grade crossing, the discontinuities in the roadway will be
eliminated at this location.
Corridor track and road maintenance operations are not considered a regularly occurring event, and thus would not
be subject to the same objective limits as typical operations. As short term events, maintenance would be considered
in the same way as construction. Maintenance activities are generally not expected to result in vibration levels as
high as construction activities because maintenance activities will be significantly less intensive with generally lower

13
Assessment Report
energy equipment. In addition, maintenance activities will likely be of shorter duration than construction, so the
potential impacts would not be expected to be as severe.
5.4.2 Operational Vibration Mitigation
No specific operational vibration mitigation measures are anticipated to be required. The construction vibration
mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.2 will also be implemented during maintenance activities, where
appropriate.
6. Conclusion
Temporary construction noise impacts are anticipated to be significantly higher than the assumed baseline levels at
the assessed points of reception during some phases of both roadway and detour infrastructure construction. In
order to control noise levels so as not to exceed the guideline limits described in Section 3.1 of this report, some
mitigation measures may be needed. Vibration during construction is not expected to cause any cosmetic or
structural damage and is expected to be perceptible only at the closest sensitive receptors (at locations closer than
40 m from vibratory rollers and other similar equipment).
The effects related to increased noise and vibration from construction activities will be temporary in duration and will
cease upon completion of construction. No residual effects related to building damage from vibration are anticipated.
Therefore, residual adverse noise and vibration effects from construction activities are expected to be insignificant.
Future operational noise and vibration impacts with the proposed road-under-rail grade separation and widened
roadway are predicted to be insignificant and are not anticipated to warrant mitigation.

13
14
Assessment Report
7. References
City of Burlington, By-Law 19-2003, The Nuisance and Noise Control By-law, 2003.
City of Burlington, By-Law 49-2008, Amendment to The Nuisance and Noise Control By-law, 2008.
City of Toronto, Technical Research Study: Construction Related Vibration in the City of Toronto, INSPEC-SOL Inc.
Reference No. T-1804, 2007.
Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), US Department of Transportation, Roadway Construction Noise Model,
2011.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), US Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5”, April
2004.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), US Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, Report No. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 2631-2: Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration
– Part 2: Vibration and Shock in Buildings (1 to 80 Hz), Geneva, Switzerland, 1985.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, Queens Printer for Ontario. August
1978.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method for Environment and Transportation
(ORNAMENT). Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1990.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy / GO Transit. Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment, Draft
#9, January 1995.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation/Ontario Ministry of Environment, “A Protocol for Dealing with Noise Concerns
during the Preparation, Review and Evaluation of Provincial Highways Environmental Assessments”, February 1996.
Town of Oakville, By-Law 2008-098, A by-law to prohibit and regulate noise, 2008.

13
15
Assessment Report
Appendices

13
Assessment Report
Appendix A Noise and Vibration Terminology

Term Definition
Sound Pressure wave travelling through a medium, such as air.
Noise Unwanted sound.
Acoustics The science of sound propagation and transmission.
Vibration Oscillation of a parameter that defines the motion of a mechanical system.
Decibel, dB A logarithmic ratio, not strictly a unit, used to describe sound levels. For sound
pressure, the reference level is 20 micropascals (threshold of hearing).
Frequency The rate at which an event is repeated. Measured in Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz =
1 oscillation/sec.
Normal human hearing extends over a range of frequencies from about 20 Hz
to about 20 kHz.
Octave Band A band of frequencies where the upper limiting frequency is twice the lower
limiting frequency. Octave bands are identified by their centre-frequencies. The
octave bands standardized for acoustic measurements include those centered
at 31.5, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, & 8000 Hz.
A-Weighting Network, dBA A frequency weighting network intended to represent the variation in the ear’s
ability to hear different frequencies. Overall sound levels calculated or
measured using the A-weighting network are indicated by dBA rather than dB.
Sound Pressure Level (SPL, Lp) A measurement of instantaneous sound pressure and equal to 10 times the
logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the instantaneous sound pressure of a sound
divided by the reference sound pressure of 20 μPa (0 dB). Reported and
measured in decibels (dB or dBA).
Leq - “Equivalent sound level” Value of a constant sound pressure level which would result in the same total
sound energy as would the measured time-varying sound pressure level over
equivalent time duration. The Leq,1hr, for example, describes the equivalent
continuous sound level over a 1 hour period.
Peak Particle Velocity The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform. Can be
expressed in mm/s.
Root Mean Square (RMS) The square root of the mean-square value of an oscillating waveform, where
the mean-square value is obtained by squaring the value of amplitudes at each
instant in time and then averaging these values over the sample time.

13
Assessment Report
Appendix B Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy / GO

Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment
(MOEE/GO Transit, 1995)

13
Assessment Report
aecom.com

13

Appendix B4. Vibration Impact Assessment Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix B4. Vibration Impact Assessment Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B4.

Project number: 60512842

November 24, 2017

0 September 2017 Original Issue Alan Oldfield Senior Acoustic Engineer

1 October 2017 Incorporating Alan Oldfield Senior Acoustic Engineer

2 October 2017 Incorporating Alan Oldfield Senior Acoustic Engineer

3 November 2017 Updated project Madelin Blacha Environmental Planner

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

AECOM Canada Ltd.

© 2017 AECOM Canada Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

The proposed Project will include:

· A new road-under-rail grade separation that provides:

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

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

3. Criteria and Methodology

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

3.1 Construction Noise

3.1.1 Construction Noise Assessment Criteria

3.1.2 Construction Noise Assessment Methodology

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

Table 3-1. Construction Activities and Assumed Equipment Operating Concurrently

Equipment Description Construction Activities

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

Table 3-2. Construction Equipment Reference Sound Levels

Sound Pressure Level

3.2 Construction Vibration

3.2.1 Construction Vibration Assessment Criteria

· 8 mm/s at frequencies less than 4 Hz

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

3.2.2 Construction Vibration Assessment Methodology

Table 3-3. Equipment Reference Vibration Levels

Excavator (Rock) Assumed Large 2.26 0.57 7.6

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

3.3 Operational Noise

3.3.1 Operational Noise Assessment Criteria

3.3.2 Operational Noise Assessment Methodology

The prediction model inputs include the following:

· Road traffic data

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

Table 3-4. Road Traffic Data

Burloak Drive 29,092 31,016 1.70 1.37 93 7 60

3.4 Operational Vibration

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

5. Effects Assessment, Mitigation and Monitoring

5.1 Construction Noise

5.1.1 Construction Noise Effects

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

R1 Unit 19, #5555 20 55 50 85.5 84.8 84.7 82.2 80 70

R2 #5892 Prince 65 55 50 75.3 74.5 74.5 71.9 80 70

Table 5-2. Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Railway Structure Construction

R1 Unit 19, #5555 184 55 50 61.8 56.0 63.0 80 70

R2 #5892 Prince 343 55 50 56.4 50.6 57.6 80 70

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM AECOM

5.1.2 Construction Noise Mitigation

Prepared for: Metrolinx AECOM

5.2 Construction Vibration

5.2.1 Construction Vibration Effects

Table 5-3. Predicted Construction Vibration Impacts

R2 #5892 Prince William 65 0.21 0.05 5

V1 #835 Syscon Court 35 0.54 0.14 5

V2 #738 Burloak Drive 12 2.70 0.67 5