Edmonton (Alta.) - 1983 - Urban traffic noise policy study_stage ii

SD LIBRARY

II II

6204

0041/0036/1983/Stage

Urban Traffic Noise Pot cy EDMONTON.-TRANSPORTA ;;;-....:0"" • ... 3

-

=BAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY STAGE II VOLUME I: Summary and Recommendation Report

6801a .E3 E386 II 1983 mai V.1 ‘-

THE CITY OF

eimonton

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT TSP/30/83

Q041 Monaghan Macklin Marshall Ltd 0,,03CP Urban Traffic-Noise Policy l'7- 1 Study, Stage 2, Implementation 196,3 Report.

171 3924

DATE I OUT

Q041 0036; 1983 v.1

NAME

PHONE No.

DATE'!

IN

Monaghan Macklin Marshall Ltd. Urban Traffic,-Noise Policy Study, Stage 2.

Implementation Report.

banning and Building Depar LIBRARY The City

A.C. 6204

7...

I

•

j..;

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY

NOTE:

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study (UTNPS) Stage II: Summary and Recommendation Report was adopted by City Council on 1983 09 13 and became effective on that date. The policies contained within this document replaces the previous Interim Municipal Urban Traffic Noise Policy adopted by City Council on 1980 07 09.

Questions concerning the interpretation and application of the policies herein may be directed to the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section (428-2978) of the Transportation Management Department. Any amendments to legislation noted in this report will be included in the appropriate Municipal Bylaws or legislation of other levels of government and will not appear in this document.

Planning and Building Depairient -Lon The

monton THE CITT

Ed

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

RECORD OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY

Amendment No.

Date Adopted

User's Record of Incorporating Amendments Signature/Date

Section and Page Number

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY STAGE II VOLUME I: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT TSR/30/83

Prepared by: Transportation Management Department

PREFACE

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study (UTNPS) was initiated at the request of City Council at the Aldermanic Seminar on Transportation Issues, held on 1978 07 14. The principle objective of the study was to evaluate and recommend acceptable residential noise level standards and alternative noise control measures in order to achieve the overall goal of reducing the amount of residential land adversely affected by traffic noise in Edmonton.

A two stage approach was taken to achieve this objective. Stage I, of the UTNPS Study, presented to City Council as information on 1980 07 09, reviewed the social-environmental, economic and health related impacts of traffic noise on residential land uses; identified current residential noise standards, policies and guidelines in use throughout North America and Europe; and carried out a preliminary assessment of arterial roadway traffic noise levels within existing areas of the City. UTNPS Stage II, which is summarized within this report, develops, evaluates and selects acceptable residential noise level standards and identifies means to achieve those standards through:

i) amendments to policies and

programs of other levels of government; ii) techniques for achieving the noise standards in land use and transportation planning; and iii) municipal noise attenuation and information programs.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II is documented in three reports: UTNPS Stage II Volume I: Summary and Recommendation Report (TSR/30/83); UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of Residential Noise Level Standards (TSR/31/83); and UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (T5R/32/83). The purpose of Volume I, is to provide an historical perspective of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study and a summary of the methodological framework, study limitations, findings and recommendations of the Study.

11

The purpose of Volume II, is to provide more detailed documentation of the criteria used to evaluate alternative noise level standards, and the analysis and evaluation of each criterion, the selection results and associated implementation responsibilities. The purpose of Volume III is to document the various means to achieve those standards through implementation policies, guidelines, programs and responsible parties.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II commenced on 1982 03 01 under the coordination of the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section of the Transportation Management Department. The review was conducted with the cooperation and input of the Assessment, Bylaw Enforcement, Edmonton Local Board of Health, Engineering, Law, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police, and Real Estate and Housing Departments. In addition, cooperation and input were received from the Alberta Trucking Association, Alberta Association of Architects, Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, Urban Development Institute, Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, City of Calgary Transportation Department, Transport Canada, National Research Council, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Alberta Transportation, Alberta Municipal Affairs and the Environment Council of Alberta. The project team included J. Meyer, W. Oakes, B. Priebe, D. Langille and G. Latham.

We would like to express our appreciation to all those who assisted us on this study.

Zle/OQ/ R. H. David General Manager and City Engineer TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. PREFACE CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER 2 - BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY

3

CHAPTER 3 - SUMMARY OF STUDY LIMITATIONS, METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Study Limitations 3.3 Methodology 3.4 Findings CHAPTER 4 - RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Residential Noise Level Standards 4.3 Amendments to Legislation and Programs of Other Levels of Government 4.4 Amendments to Municipal Legislation 4.5 Municipal Noise Abatement and Information Programs 4.6 Other Abatement Measures for Application by the Municipality

APPENDIX I - UTNPS STUDY: MATRIX OF RECOMMENDATIONS, RATIONALE AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN II - IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RECOMMENDATIONS III - SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF NOISE IV - DATA REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION V - INTERIM ACOUSTICAL BARRIER DESIGN GUIDELINES VI - GLOSSARY OF TERMS VII - LISTING OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

10 10 10 12 19 40 40 43 45 48 53 54

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II: Volume I Summary and Recommendation Report (TSR/30/83) is to provide a summary of the residential noise level standards and alternative noise control strategy findings and recommendations. Chapter 2 outlines an historical review of the study mandate and relevant background events.

Chapter 3

presents a summary of the study limitations and assumptions, methodology, and findings including a brief summary of the evaluation undertaken of alternative noise level standards and the review of various implementation strategies. Chapter 4 provides a summary of recommendation statements while Appendix I provides a matrix that presents recommendations, their rationale and further action required. Appendix II presents the responsibilities for implementing the recommendations. Appendix III lists a summary of the effects of noise. Appendix IV outlines procedures for measuring and predicting traffic noise levels. Appendix V outlines interim acoustical barrier design guidelines, while Appendix VI is a glossary of terms found throughout the report. Appendix VII provides a listing of reference documents.

Detailed background documentation is provided in UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of Residential Noise Level Standards (TSR/31/83) and UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83). In addition, three working papers were prepared that provide detailed information on selected topics. They include UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 1: Review of Governmental Traffic Noise Legislation and Policies: UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 2: Identification of Noise Impacts and Issues; and UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 3: Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw Review.

2

The recommendations of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study were selected to provide acceptable noise level standards and implementation strategies from a health and welfare perspective that were technically, administratively and economically feasible to implement. These are based on the findings from an extensive State-of-the-Art review and an examination of policy and program areas of Municipal and other levels of government that have potential to create an acceptable urban sound environment.

3

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY

Road traffic noise is recognized world wide as contributing to a general deterioration of the urban environment. As a result of increasing traffic volumes and consequent higher levels of noise, public concern regarding the control and effects of urban traffic noise is rapidly increasing, as evidenced by the numerous concerns recently expressed by both the public and City Council. Some significant advancements have been made in the reduction of traffic noise at its source, namely vehicle noise abatement, however, noise cannot be completely eliminated by this means. In recognition of this fact, it has been found essential that standards, guidelines and procedures be developed to deal with traffic noise in the land use and transportation planning processes. In addition, since Federal and Provincial policies and programs dealing with traffic noise are limited in this area, and the fact that the primary responsibility for integrating traffic noise considerations into the planning process rests with local governments, which have control over actual land development and transportation system improvements, it can be reasonably concluded that the problem must be dealt with at the municipal level. However, cooperation is also required from other levels of government in order for enabling legislation and related programs to be amended to address and assist with the mitigation of the municipal traffic noise.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study originated at the Aldermanic Seminar on Transportation Issues, held on 1978 07 14, when Council reviewed various roadway noise control policy issues and subsequently directed the Administration to proceed with a comprehensive noise study to address:

i) establishment of Design Noise Levels and preferable method of obtaining acceptable levels, ii) City of Edmonton's 200 foot setback policy, iii) problems of enforcement of the existing Noise Bylaw No. 4110,

4 iv) experimental noise barrier program, identification of priority areas where the Province should be requested to initiate further action.

This policy issue has been included in the Local Policy Plan since 1981.

The City of Edmonton's Local Policy Plan 1981-85 identified a need for a policy study to review the traffic noise problem. This policy issue was carried over to the 1982-1986 Local Policy Plan which identified traffic noise attenuation as a policy issue that should be dealt with by examining traffic noise levels throughout the City and subsequently recommending the use of appropriate control measures. The directive given in this Local Policy Plan stated: "That City Council adopt appropriate comprenhensive noise control policies based on recommendations currently being prepared."

Following the Aldermanic Seminar, the Administration initiated a two stage approach to study the urban traffic noise problem. Stage I was to assess the extent of the traffic noise problem in Edmonton, with Stage II to provide policies, standards and implementation strategies to mitigate the identified traffic noise problem. Stage I of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study was undertaken by the consulting firm of Marshall, Macklin and Monaghan Limited.* This stage of the study, completed 1980 06 02, reviewed the social-environmental, economic and health related impacts of traffic noise on residential land uses; identified current residential noise standards, policies and guidelines in use throughout North America and Europe; and, carried out a preliminary assessment of arterial roadway traffic noise levels within existing residential areas in the City.

* City of Edmonton, Transportation Management Department, "Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage I: A Perspective", 1980.

5

The preliminary assessment of noise in existing residential areas identified that in 1980, approximately 130,000 persons or 23 percent of the City of Edmonton population, resided adjacent to arterial roads. Of these, approximately 18,500 persons were exposed to outdoor noise levels less than or equal to 55 dBA Ldn, and approximately 16,500 persons were exposed to outdoor levels ranging between 55 and 60 dBA Ldn. The remaining 95,000 persons were exposed to outdoor levels ranging from 60 to 75 dBA Ldn. A review of international noise level standards indicated that the predominant objective noise level ranged between 55 to 65 dBA Leq with most jurisdictions identifying levels in excess of 70 dBA Leq to be unacceptable. From the study results, it was concluded that to varying degrees, many residents residing adjacent to arterial roads in Edmonton are subject to socio-environmental, economic and health related traffic noise impacts and that an additional Stage II study be undertaken to establish a comprehensive traffic noise policy for the City of Edmonton in order to mitigate these impacts of traffic noise.

This report was submitted to City Council on 1980 07 08, and was received as information. Subsequently, City Council directed the Administration to proceed with Stage II of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study for the purpose of:

- developing, evaluating and selecting acceptable residential noise level standards; and - identifying means to achieve those standards through implementation policies, guidelines and programs.

An additional directive was given by Council on 1981 07 07:

- to investigate the feasibility of reducing the existing permitted decibel levels for vehicles, under the City Noise Bylaw.

6

In order to carry out these directives, the Transportation Management Department (formerly the Transportation 'Systems Design Department), prepared a Terms of Reference for Stage II of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study, which set out the study objectives, limitations and assumptions, study activities, work program, study members and responsibilities and study costs, which was received as information by City Council on 1982 08 13. The primary study activities included: the evaluation and selection of a residential noise level standard; a review of the Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw; and a review of various administrative and physical noise mechanisms and programs to minimize the occurance of new noise problems and to help mitigate existing noise problems.

The primary responsibilities for developing the Urban Traffic Noise Policy remained with the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section (formerly the Projects and Planning Services Section), Transportation Management Department. However, various Civic Departments and outside agencies participated in the study as noted in the preface of this report. A summary of responsibilities is provided in the matrix illustrated in Figure 2.1. The major responsibility of the other Departments and agencies was to assist the Study Team in the preparation, review and evaluation of an Urban Traffic Noise Policy by providing:

i) technical advice and information as required; ii) clarification of existing or emerging policies; iii) communication and coordination with respective Branches or Sections in each relevant department or agency;

iv) identification of priority areas or areas of concern that the study should address to meet the needs and expectations of the parties involved; and

v) an identification and facilitation of policies and programs to assist in implementing the study recommendations.

RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX ., T.M.D.

ENGINEERING

STUDY ACTIVITY

PLANNING BYLAW POLICE HEALTH

P&PS

FP

SP

OPER

MAA TEST

LAND USE

GMP

1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

1

A

A

A

A

A

A

2 REVIEW EXISTING GOVERNMENT /MUNICIPAL NOISE LEGISLATION

ii

3 IDENTIFICATION OF NOISE IMPACTS AND ISSUES

A

A

LAW

A

A

PARKS & REC

A

PUBUC & RE & H OUTSIDE kGENCIEI

A

A

•

•

I

'

•

— 4 REVIEW OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW 5 ANALYSIS OF EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LOCATIONS

IS

8 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS

V

7 PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE

M

8 PREPARE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

A

A

A

A

A

•

•

A

• •

A

A

A

• •

0

•

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

•

A

A

A

10 PREPARE FINAL REPORT

A

0

.

9 PREPARE DRAFT REPORT

11 G.M.P. & LAND USE BYLAW AMEND MENTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

A

A

A A

•

•

•

•

A A

A A

A A

A A

•

A A

A A

A A

A A

•

0

A A

A A

mil NI I 111 MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY (Initiate and Complete Activity) 0 SECONDARY RESPONSIBILITY (Provide Information for a Component of Study)

FIGURE 2.1

RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX

A MINOR RESPONSIBILITY (Review and Comment)

A , A

7 INSERT FIGURE 2.1

8

Representatives from participating Departments and outside agencies were contacted directly by the Transportation Management Department as required.

The public was afforded the opportunity to provide input into the study in conjunction with Functional Roadway Plan meetings, when traffic noise was perceived as an issue, in order to educate the public with general principles of traffic noise propagation and to familiarize citizens with the study objectives and activities. A display as well as handout information was prepared for these meetings. Interested citizens were also given the opportunity to review the draft study reports upon request. Furthermore, public interests were incorporated in the evaluation of alternative noise level standards by selecting standards from a health, welfare and economic perspective.

The UTNPS Stage II study is documented in three separate volumes. Volume I entitled, UTNPS Stage II Volume I: Summary and Recommendations (TSR/30/83), presents an overview of the Study's findings and recommendations for Council's consideration, that was derived from the detailed study findings documented in Volumes II and III.

Volume II, entitled, UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83), contains an analysis of alternative residential noise level standards based upon evaluation criteria including: a noise policy state-of-the-art review; an analysis of health and welfare effects; an analysis of economic reasonableness; and an analysis of administrative acceptability. From this evaluation, acceptable residential noise level standards were determined. Also implementation responsibilities for the City, the developer and the resident were outlined in order to facilitate the implementation of the noise level standards.

9

Volume III, entitled, UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83), examines a series of implementation strategies for the noise standards related to: i) amendments to municipal and other levels of government policy; ii) appropriate physical noise attenuation techniques for land use and transportation planning; iii) municipal noise abatement and information programs; iv) other abatement measures for application by the Municipality.

The methodology and findings of the UTNPS Stage II Study are summarized in the following Chapter.

10 CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF STUDY LIMITATIONS, METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a summary of the methodological framework used to select acceptable residential noise level standards and to review implementation strategies and associated responsibilities that would integrate the consideration of traffic noise into the overall comprehensive planning process. In addition an explanation of the study limitations is presented. The background documentation, from which this information was derived, is contained in UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of Residential Noise Level Standards (TSR/31/83) and UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83).

3.2 STUDY LIMITATIONS

A number of study limitations were recognized due to physical, technical and economic constraints involved in mitigating all residential noise problems throughout the City. These were based on practical experiences in Edmonton and other North American municipalities. These study limitations were incorporated into and influenced the methodological approach to the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study and the subsequent findings. The study limitations are as follows:

i) Many sources of noise contribute to the overall urban noise problem including train, aircraft, commercial and industrial activities, machinery around the home, animal and human sources. The aim of this study, however, is to focus on vehicular 'traffic' noise sources including trucks and automobiles that utilize the City roadway network adjacent to residential areas.

11 ii) A discretionary range for a noise level standard was considered necessary as a single rigid noise level standard imposed on new residential development, such as new subdivisions, may be found impractical and unattainable in existing developed situations, such as where infill housing is proposed. Existing situations are sometimes constrained by the nature of existing land uses and lack of space for applying low cost attenuation techniques. iii) It was recognized that the outdoor amenity area is an integral living space component of residential property under three storeys. Consequently, noise level standards are based upon the exterior sound level that would occur within this area.

Specifically this area is defined as the outdoor living area immediately adjacent to the housing unit, provided and designed for active or passive recreation and enjoyment of the occupants of a residential development, which may be for private or communal use and owned individually or in common. The rationale for this limitation is based on the fact that when the outdoor noise level for buildings less than three storeys is acceptable, then an acceptable indoor noise level could normally be met by the building construction complying with the Alberta Building Code. In other words, if the outdoor noise level is within 60-65 dBA Lech the building face will reduce interior noise levels by 15-20 dBA and thereby result in an acceptable interior sound environment of 40-45 dBA Leq. For residential buildings of three storeys or more, the noise level will be measured at the facade of the dwelling units, as noise measurements in the outdoor amenity area are not indicative of actual noise levels for medium to high rise buildings because of greater building mass and height.

12

iv) This study recommends a noise level standard that a majority of the population may consider reasonable, recognizing the fact that there are individual variations in noise tolerance from person to person.

v) In the case of single family homes fronting-on an arterial roadway and multi-storey buildings where 81% of the residents exposed to excessive traffic noise along arterial roadways, it is not

feasible to mitigate excessive traffic noise using

conventional attenuation devices. In these situations

an

acoustical barrier is impractical because of the lack of Space, elimination of access to the buildings, barrier height limitations, and aesthetic consequences. Recognizing this limitation, it is the intent of the study to recommend measures that would prevent these types of noise problems from occuring in the future.

3.3 METHODOLOGY

The existing interim noise level standard adopted by City Council was based on a review of noise policies adopted elsewhere in North America and applies solely to new residential development adjacent to designated truck routes. It does not apply to new residential development adjacent to arterials not designated as truck routes or within existing residential areas whether or not the development is adjacent to a truck route.

The primary objective of Stage II of the UTNPS Study is to determine noise level standards that are based on a review of health and welfare criteria, as well as experience elsewhere, that would be technically, economically and administratively feasible to implement on a city-wide basis.

13

In addition, the study examines alternative implementation strategies to:

— prevent new traffic noise problems from occuring adjacent to noise sensitive land uses by ensuring measures are included in both residential development and functional roadway projects; and — to reduce existing residential noise problems by encouraging noise insensitive redevelopment or by applying physical noise abatement measures.

These objectives were accomplished using two methodological frameworks: one for selecting acceptable residential noise level standards; and the other for determining appropriate implementation strategies. A summary of these frameworks is as follows:

3.3.1 Evaluation and Selection of Acceptable Residential Noise Level Standards

The evaluation and selection of acceptable residential noise level standards was based on a review of existing Canadian and U.S. Noise policies and standards and through an analysis of the effects of various noise levels on selected health, welfare, economic and administrative criteria relevant to the Edmonton situation. This evaluation, which is presented in detail in the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83), included an extensive literature review, an analysis of economic data and noise level data collected in the field, a review of existing federal, provincial and municipal policies and procedures and an examination of documentation provided by the City of Edmonton Health and Assessment Departments. With the application of this information as a basis, a noise level standard was selected that would protect the public health and welfare aspects of the urban environment. A feasibility

14

analysis of this standard was conducted including technological, economic, legal and administrative factors. It was the application of these constraints that differentiated between desirable noise levels and achievable noise standards.

Specifically, acceptable residential noise level standards were evaluated and selected according to the following criteria, which were felt to represent the most critical and quantifiable effects of setting a residential noise level standard on the Public, the City and the Developer:

i)

State-of-the-Art Review:

The standard should be comparable to current effective and efficient noise level standards approved by other Canadian and U.S. Senior and Local Governments.

ii) Health Effects:

The noise level standard should not have potential to induce hearing loss in individuals.

iii)Welfare Effects:

The noise level standard should not create excessive public concerns, dissatisfaction or complaints caused from speech interference, sleep interference and general annoyance.

iv) Economic Reasonableness:

The noise level standard should not cause an unreasonable economic burden to implement on behalf of either the City, Developer or affected Resident.

15

v)

Administratively Acceptable:

The noise level standard selected should be administratively feasible.

3.3.2 Implementation Strategies

The review of alternative implementation strategies was divided into three components: i) policy amendments and formulation; ii) techniques for achieving the noise standards in land use and transportation planning and; iii) municipal noise attenuation and information programs.

i) Policy Amendments and Formulation

The selection of appropriate implementation strategies was determined by first examining noise policy areas that were consistent with the existing federal, provincial and municipal government responsibilities, legislation and administrative mechanisms, for the purpose of encouraging, improving or regulating noise legislation in order to reduce the impacts of traffic noise on residential areas. In addition, an attempt was made to integrate the recommended noise level standard and associated policies into the overall comprehensive planning and interagency/intergovernmental coordination process. The purpose of considering noise in the land use planning process is not to prevent development but rather to encourage development that is compatible with various noise levels.

The objective is to guide noise sensitive land uses away from the noise and encourage non-sensitive land uses where there is noise.

Where this is not possible, measures should be included in development projects to reduce the effects of the noise.

16 The required amendments to existing policy were determined through written and oral correspondence with the affected government agencies and a thorough examination of the noise control potential of existing legislation of both municipal and other levels of government.

The administrative me chanisms that were considered

included:

Other Government Legislation:

- Vehicle noise emission regulations; - Tire standards and pavement design standards; - Building code regulations; - Health regulations; - Planning Act regulations; - Provincial cost sharing of noise attenuation expenses; and - Funding assistance for Retrofit Program through existing Federal home improvement programs.

Municipal Government Legislation:

- General Municipal Plan; - Land Use Bylaw; - Terms of References for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans; - Traffic Management; - Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw; and - Property Tax Assessment.

ii) Techniques for Achieving the Noise Standards in Land Use and Transportation Planning

The second component of the implementation strategy was to examine alternative physical noise control techniques that are available to architects, planners, developers and roadway engineers to achieve

17

acceptable noise levels in newly developing areas, locations undergoing residential redevelopment and where roadway construction or improvements are proposed. This information was gathered from an extensive literature search as well as from municipal procedures and practices that have evolved on a guidelines basis over the past four years, particularly with acoustical barriers.

The following physical attenuation techniques were considered:

- Spatial Separation; - Land Use Barriers; - Acoustical Barriers; - Architectural Design; and - Acoustical Construction Techniques.

These physical techniques vary in terms of noise reduction characteristics, costs, marketability, and applicability to specific locations and conditions. In addition, the effectiveness of any given technique is a function of the specific noise situation and the way the technique is applied. The purpose of this Section was to determine the most effective alternatives which could be considered in the land use, architectural, engineering and transportation planning processes and to provide guidelines in their use. The most effective approach will be a combination of techniques with the decision regarding the most appropriate mechanism being made by the proponents of residential development projects. The primary stipulation in using these techniques is to ensure that the recommended noise standard is met and that the proposed residential land use complies with applicable development regulations specified in the Land Use Bylaw.

18

iii) Municipal Noise Attenuation and Information Programs

The third and final component of the implementation strategy was to investigate alternative noise abatement program areas that the municipality could implement to reduce excessive traffic noise impacts on existing residential areas. These residential areas include those that are not being considered for noise attenuation facilities as part of a proposed roadway improvement or area or neighbourhood structure plan and are not proposed for land use redistricting in conjunction with an area redevelopment plan or a redevelopment proposal. Two program areas were examined:

— A Barrier Priorization Program and; — A Citizen Information Program.

The Barrier Priorization Program entailed the priorization of sites adjacent to arterial roadways to determine the most critical residential areas requiring the installation of noise barriers.

Candidate sites were 'short listed' based upon site criteria including: lot orientation; local site conditions; the proximity of an arterial roadway; actual noise levels; and the absence of any existing noise attenuation facilities or future plans for constructing facilities. This information was gathered from site surveys, aerial photographs and noise monitoring surveys. The candidate sites were ranked based upon a benefit/cost index with a fixed unit cost for barrier construction being assumed. For this process, the numerical relationship of the index number increased directly with the existing levels of traffic noise and the number of residences to be protected. Those locations that were ranked high by the benefit/cost index with noise levels of 70 dBA Leq (24) or greater were considered cost effective sites for the construction of a barrier.

19 A Citizen Information Program was examined with the purpose of informing the public of the general principles of traffic noise propagation and to give advice regarding cost effective noise attenuation measures that may be voluntarily implemented to reduce the impact of traffic noise upon the indoor sound environment.

Federal grant funding aid to undertake the necessary acoustical renovations is also explored. Another important purpose of this program was to inform residents of existing municipal noise policies and the responsibilities of the City, the Developer and the Resident in terms of attenuating existing residential noise problems. This program will be particularly useful for those property owners with moderate noise levels (65-70 dBA Leq), that do not warrent the installation of noise barriers or purchase of property, yet are willing to reduce their noise problem at their own expense.

3.4 FINDINGS

The findings of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study. Stage II indicated the need for revised residential noise level standards and for the development of attendant implementation strategies. These results along with a formalization of noise attenuation implementation responsibilities of the City, the Developer and the Resident and other affected agencies are summarized in this section. (For a more detailed review of the findings, refer to Appendix I of this report and UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83) and UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83).

The recommendations were developed by members of the Transportation Management Department Study team based on the evaluation of the findings. Draft recommendations were reviewed by all study participants, with emphasis on the policy area s where their responsibility for implementation has been indicated. The concerns and comments of the

20

study members were evaluated and for the most part incorporated into the finalization of the study recommendations.

3.4.1 Evaluation and Selection of Acceptable Residential Noise Level Standards An analysis was undertaken of alternative noise level standards using a number of evaluation criteria to select the most appropriate standards. Criteria included a State-of-the-Art review of current noise standards approved by various Canadian and U.S. Federal, Provincial, State and Municipal Governments as well as a review of the health, welfare, economic and administrative impacts of selecting various standards. A summary is presented below.

3.4.1.1 State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art Review examined traffic noise control legislation and policies that have been adopted in North America for the purpose of assisting in the selection and recommendation of an acceptable residential noise level standard for Edmonton. The major task of this exercise was to document existing government noise policies, taking into account

the

existing

standards,

policy

rationale,

implementation strategies and the effectiveness of the examined policies.

The study findings indicated that noise standards based solely upon health and welfare criteria were very stringent with acceptable noise levels in the range of 55 to 60 dBA Leq. Such standards have proven extremely difficult to enforce and have been applied only in new residential situations where a wide variety of noise abatement options may be applied. Noise standards based upon economic, administrative and technical criteria allowed more flexibility and generally, were in the range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq. Standards in this range were widely

21

adopted and perceived as more realistic in terms of implementation and at the same time provided acoustical protection for the majority of the urban population. In addition, noise levels set within this range can provide for acceptable indoor noise levels (45 dBA) if a dwelling unit is constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Alberta Building Code.

A noise standard range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq provides the flexibility required to address any technical and economic constraints and additionally, take into account health and welfare concerns. (A comprehensive review of traffic noise legislation and policies in North America is documented in the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83) and in the Review of Governmental Traffic Noise Legislation and Policies, Working Paper #1.)

3.4.1.2 Health Effects

In light of health concerns, it was determined that noise level standards should not exceed 70 dBA Leq in order to prevent the occurance of hearing loss due to noise. This level represents the maximum allowable noise environment for existing residential areas, as it is the threshold point whereby hearing impairment may begin to occur. In addition, the psychological effects of noise, such as stress, although difficult to measure, will begin to intensify as the level of annoyance increases and loss of sleep becomes more frequent. These findings were substantiated by the Local Board of Health through an extensive literature search as well as consultation with three medical experts in audiology. (Refer to: Health Effects of Traffic Noise: An Addendum Report, (1982) and in UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of Residential Noise Level Standards (TSR/31/83).)

22

3.4.1.3 Welfare Effects

Three welfare indicators were also examined to determine the selection of an acceptable noise level standard including interference with speech; interference with sleep; and the degree of annoyance from noise. Individually, these three indicators have been used by U.S. Government agencies as the sole basis for the selection of residential noise level standards.

Speech interference from noise begins to occur at a noise level of approximately 60 to 65 dBA Leq. Above this range, normal conversation becomes more difficult and speakers are required to move closer, raise their voices or cease conversation. This results in increased annoyance and complaints that would contribute to the degradation of the overall neighbourhood environment.

The threshold at which noise begins to interfere with sleep varies with each individual. In general, however, it appears that outdoor noise levels begin to interfere with sleep above 65 dBA Leq. Below this level, sleep interference will not occur, except with a minority of individuals who are more sensitive to noise and consequently easily disturbed from sleep.

Similarly, annoyance effects from noise become significant when noise levels reach above 65 dBA Leq. Even at this noise level, approximately 85% of the public are not highly annoyed, however, noise is likely to be considered an adverse aspect of the neighbourhood environment. Above 65 dBA Leq, community reaction becomes significant to severe and noise becomes one of the important adverse aspects of the community. (A more detailed analysis of these effects is provided in the Identification of Noise Impacts and Issues, Working Paper #2 and in the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard, (TSR/31/83).)

23

3.4.1.4 Economic Reasonableness

The examination of noise policies in use elsewhere in North America as well as the evaluation of health and welfare effects of noise provided a basis supportive of a 60 dBA Leq noise standard with an acceptable range of up to 65 dBA Leq for application to new residential development situations. The 5 dBA range allows for the flexibility that is required to address possible technical and economic constraints while maintaining marginal protection for the public from excessive exposure to traffic noise.

A further evaluation was conducted to examine the economic feasibility of implementing this standard within the Edmonton context. The economic effects of the noise standard were determined by examining the responsibilities and consequent attenuation costs required for implementation of the standard by the: i) Municipality; ii) Residents; and iii) Development Industry.

i) Municipal Costs

The costs to the City with respect to the implementation of the noise standard can be divided into two areas: ensuring the attenuation of traffic noise in new residential development situations; and the selective abatement of excessive noise level locations in existing residential development situations as identified in Functional Roadway Planning Studies and the proposed Barrier Priorization Program. These responsibilities of the municipality are specifically stated in Chapter 4, Recommendations Section, Pgs. 43, 44, 49-55.

24

For new residential development situations, the costs to the City are primarily the salaries of staff responsible for activities undertaken within the development review process. These staff salary costs are difficult to isolate, as the time required varies from situation to situation. The cost of including a traffic noise component within the review process would be minimal. On average it takes less than an hour to review applications to ensure conformity to standards. The average number of new residential development applications per annum is 3165 (1982) of which a limited number are for sites adjacent to arterial roadways.

For existing residential locations adjacent to arterial roadways, the City is committed to providing noise attenuation in conjunction with roadway upgrading projects, where feasible, as recommended in Functional Roadway Planning Studies. These costs incurred in providing noise attenuation facilities vary from situation to situation depending upon: site specific factors, the type of material selected for the attenuation barrier, the noise level reduction required, or in some extreme cases, the need to purchase the noise impacted properties.

However, major capital expenditures are usually associated with noise attenuation. For example, $2,200,000 was allocated for noise attenuation facilities in the Whitemud Functional Planning Study and estimates for the Northeast Corridor Functional Planning Study indicate that $795,000 is required to provide adequate noise attenuation. There are currently four completed Functional Roadway Planning Studies since 1980 that recommend the provision of noise attenuation, of which all are eligible to receive 2/3 cost shared financial

25

assistance from the Province under the Urban Transportation Assistance Program. In total since 1980, $6,595,000 worth of required noise attenuation facilities have been identified through Functional Roadway Plans.

Although it is more cost efficient to provide noise attenuation concurrently with roadway improvements, it was found necessary to review the noise conditions along arterial roadways not committed to Functional Roadway Studies. This requirement has formed the basis of the proposed Barrier Priorization Program (p. 53). A recent review (1982) of noise levels along the arterial roadway network, however, indicated that at this time no new candidate sites for noise attenuation facilities are required, other than those already addressed in Functional Roadway Plans or Area Structure Plans.

Therefore, there is no immediate requirement for noise attenuation capital expenditures, other than funds allocated in the Functional Roadway Plans.

Future expenditures on noise attenuation are dependant upon land use changes, the alteration of truck routes and potential increases in traffic flows along arterial roadways. Traffic noise levels along arterial roadways will be monitored on an annual basis to identify any new noise problem locations. Sites that warrant attenuation, that are technically and economically feasible to abate, will receive consideration through the proposed Noise Barrier Priorization Program or will be addressed in a future Functional Roadway Planning Study. These sites will then be included within the Engineering Department's 5 and 10 Year Transit and Roadway Improvement Program for implementation. More detailed information on Municipal attenuation responsibilities is included in UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83).

26 ii) Resident Costs

Currently) the residents of Edmonton indirectly share the responsibility for the costs incurred with municipal funded noise barriers through taxation. Municipal funded barriers are either provided under Functional Roadway Plans or will be included within the proposed Barrier Priorization Program. These costs are minimal however, as they are shared by all City residents through general property taxes.

Direct attenuation costs to residents may occur for situations where the City does not identify a noise problem, or where property owners may be very sensitive to noise and wish to achieve noise levels below the standards. For these situations a resident may voluntarily choose to retrofit their dwelling units in order to reduce interior noise levels to an acceptable level of 45 dBA. These costs could range from $500.00 for the acoustical treatment of windows to as high as $5000.00 for sealed residential units with central air conditioning. These expenditures could be reduced however, if financial assistance was available from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under an existing home improvement grant program. The attenuation responsibility of residents is specifically stated in Chapter 4, Recommendation Section, p. 44.

A more

detailed examination of acoustical home improvement costs is provided in UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83).

iii) Development Industry Costs

The Development Industry has been made responsible for ensuring that new residential development adjacent to truck routes, include attenuation measures to reduce the effects of noise to the existing noise level standard of

27

60 dBA Ldn. It is proposed that the Development Industry will be responsible to develop plans adjacent to arterial roadways which include noise insensitive land uses or be prepared to pay the full costs of developing residential land in accordance with the 60 dBA Leq standard. The onus will be on the developer to make this decision and to assume the cost implications if noise attenuation is required, as

it is

the development which directly

benefits from the mitigative measures. The attenuation responsibilites of the Development Industry are specifically stated in Chapter 4, Recommendation Section, p. 43, 44.

The cost implications on the Development Industry to comply with the above attenuation responsibility are difficult to speculate on as they depend upon specific site conditions, the required noise level abatement and the attenuation technique selected. These technical factors effecting the cost of the alternative attenuation measures are outlined in UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83).

It is known, however, that noise attenuation costs can be reduced if noise abatement is considered and incorporated early in the planning process. At this time the most cost effective techniques,

as determined

developer, are at their disposal.

by the

These techniques

include spatial separation, land use barriers, acoustical barriers,

architectural

design

and

acoustical

construction materials. If land use planning measures are selected (spatial separation or land use barriers), they would eliminate the need for a barrier structure and land for the sole purpose of attenuating traffic noise, as noise attenuation is "built in" to the residential projects. This allows for more developable land and

28

removes the costs associated with long term maintenance of attenuation facilities. Furthermore, the attenuation costs could be offset through increased marketability of the residential dwelling units from reducing on site traffic noise levels.

3.4.1.5 Administrative Acceptability

As in the economic reasonableness analysis, the evaluation of administrative acceptability was limited to a 60 dBA Leq noise standard. This standard was determined to be acceptable from an examination of noise policies in use elsewhere in North America as well as the evaluation of health and welfare effects of noise. The evaluation of administrative acceptability determined that current legislation of other levels of government enables the City to adopt a residential noise level standard of its choice. There is not any existing Federal or Provincial legislation regarding residential noise level standards that could be adopted by municipalities at this time. However, it is necessary to amend the Planning Act to enable a municipality to implement a residential noise level standard in the planning process. In fact, the provision of noise attenuation cannot be imposed at the subdivision and redistricting stages of development until the enabling legislation is amended.

The interim noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn has been effective in controlling noise problems in new residential areas, however, it is not flexible to be used for redevelopment situations that may require less stringent standards because of constraints imposed by the nature of existing land uses and lack of space for applying low cost attenuation techniques.

Therefore, it is necessary to allow a range up to 65 dBA Leq that would require the implementation of economically and technically practicable noise attenuation measures for these situations.

29

In addition, the existing noise descriptor (Ldn) was found to be an inferior descriptor for describing community noise because it: i) increases the time and cost of acoustic measurements; ii) increases the number of calculations; iii) is dependent upon source information over a 24-hour period; and, iv) requires assumptions that introduce errors in the design of noise abatement measures by the arbitrary nature of the 10 dBA nighttime penalty it uses. In comparison the noise descriptor (Leq) is best suited for the City's needs as it: i) correlates with perceived annoyance; ii) does so over a wide range of source conditions; iii) can be used for more than one type of source which allows the overall noise climate to be described; iv) is based on accurate and reasonably inexpensive measurement; and v) is recognized world-wide. (A detailed comparison of the two noise descriptors is outlined in UTNPS Stage II Volume II, Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard, (TSR/31/83).)

3.4.1.6 Conclusion of the Noise Level Standard Evaluation

In conclusion, the results of this study provide evidence that a residential noise level standard of 60 dBA Leq(24) with a discretionary range up to 65 dBA Leq(24) provides an acceptable sound environment and is the most technically, administratively and economically feasible standard to implement. The lower end of the standard, 60 dBA Leq(24), represents an acceptable noise level with respect to health and welfare concerns. The upper end of the standard, 65 dBA Leq(24), recognizes the technical and economic constraints associated with the application of the standard in existing residential areas. (Appendix IV outlines the data requirements and procedures to be used for the measurement and calculation of traffic noise levels.)

It is important to note, that this recommended noise standard does not guarantee the elimination of all annoyance or disturbance from traffic noise, even in those situations when the standard is met.

30

3.4.2 Review of Implementation Strategies

Upon selection of an acceptable noise level standard, it was imperative to review possible implementation strategies that may be used to ensure the consideration of the residential noise level standards in the planning process and to generally reduce the amount of land adversely affected by traffic noise. This task resulted in the formation of a multi-facet implementation strategy, as solutions to noise problems are variable depending upon specific noise sources, levels of noise, site conditions, existing legislation and noise control mechanisms.

The evaluation of the noise control mechanisms was divided into three groups: administrative mechanisms; physical noise attenuation techniques and; municipal noise abatement and information programs.

3.4.2.1 Administrative Mechanisms

The examination of possible administation mechanisms, identified a number of policy and program areas within senior levels of government that were deficient in addressing traffic noise concerns, however, with appropriate amendments they offered potential solutions to municipal traffic noise problems.

The following policy and program areas were identified under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government:

- more stringent vehicle noise emission regulations for new vehicles are required.

31

- research to further reduce engine and tire/pavement noise, as the expertise for this research is available within Transport Canada.

- the restricted use of pocket-type retread tires.

- a 'buy-quiet' policy to give preference to the purchase of quieter vehicles by Federal Departments, in order to reduce the noise impacts of federal owned vehicles.

- amendments to the National Building Code Regulations to address the provision of acceptable interior noise levels in order to regulate the use of acoustically treated building materials and designs for residential dwelling units, in order to meet an acceptable interior noise level.

- amendments to existing GMHC home improvement grant funding programs including RRAP, CHRP, CHIP or another appropriate government grant program to include funding for undertaking acoustical modifications to residential dwelling units in order to achieve acceptable interior noise levels.

The following policy areas were identified under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government:

-

consistent provincial-wide vehicle noise regulations in order to eliminate the problem with variable municipal noise regulations that is encountered by the trucking industry when moving goods from city to city.

-

regulation of proper vehicle maintenance by regular vehicle testing to ensure proper vehicle noise emission levels are maintained by vehicle owners.

32

-

a 'buy-quiet' policy to given preference to the purchase of quieter vehicles by Provincial Departments in order to reduce the noise impacts of provincial owned vehicles.

-

an agency, identified as a Quiet Communities Directorate, be established within the Provincial Government to provide leadership in achieving a quiet environment in Alberta, as recommended by the Environment Council of Alberta from their public hearings on noise in Alberta.

-

amendments to the Alberta Building Code to address the provision of acceptable interior noise levels and to regulate the use of acoustically treated building materials and designs for residential dwelling units to meet acceptable interior noise level standards.

-

amendments to the Provincial Health Code to address noise in a similar manner as the control of other undesirable aspects of the physical environment including air and water pollution, in order to ensure that acceptable interior noise levels are considered during the construction of residential dwelling units.

-

amendments to the development regulations of the Provincial Planning Act in order for the municipality to incorporate traffic noise considerations into the land use planning process through the Edmonton Land Use Bylaw No. 5996.

-

provincial cost sharing of the attenuation of urban traffic noise problem locations.

33

The following policy areas were identified under the jurisdiction of the Municipality:

- the urban design policy of the General Municipal Plan Bylaw No. 6000 to address urban traffic noise to allow Council, the administration, developers and the public to make decisions concerning the control or improvement of the general sound environment of the City. The incorporation of noise policies within the General Municipal Plan Bylaw No. 6000 will ensure a comprehensive approach to noise problems.

- the Edmonton Land Use Bylaw No. 5996 to be amended to address traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines to ensure that future residential development will be compatible with nearby traffic noise sources by: 0 excluding typically incompatible residential land uses from traffic noise impacted areas and replacing them with noise compatible uses such as commercial, industrial, and some institutional and recreational land uses; ii) by requiring specific details of development design or construction to mitigate potential traffic noise incompatibilities including spatial separation, acoustical barriers, and architectural and acoustical construction techniques and; iii) by permitting special land use barrier techniques for orienting the outdoor amenity areas of residential dwelling units which enable noise insensitive site design.

- the Terms of Reference for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Area Redevelopment Plans to be amended to address traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines

34

and stipulate the consideration of traffic noise as a criterion for approving development and redevelopment plans, in order to ensure the implementation of the proposed amendments to the General Municipal Plan Bylaw No. 6000 and the Edmonton Land Use Bylaw No. 5996 amendments regarding traffic noise.

- the existing review of Truck Route System Bylaw No. 5990 consider traffic noise concerns in order to minimize the designation of truck routes adjacent to noise sensitive residential land uses, particularly those that are technically and/or economically impractical to attenuate.

- amendments to the existing Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 4110 to facilitiate enforcement of various individual noise problem sources.

- the adoption of a City policy regarding the municipal control of land for resolving extreme noise problems (70 dBA or greater) in order to effectively deal with excessive noise levels for situations where the use of physical barriers is not technically or economically possible, pending the availability of funding assistance from the Province.

- the current system of providing an economic allowance to property owners who are exposed to excessive levels of traffic noise to be amended to reflect a more accurate and equitable tax compensation for traffic noise impacted property.

- a 'buy-quiet' policy to give preference to the purchase of quieter vehicles by City departments in order to reduce the noise impacts of City owned vehicles.

35 3.4.2.2 Physical Techniques for Achieving the Noise Standards in Land Use and Transportation Planning

The second component of the implementation strategy examined the physical techniques that are available to architects, planners, developers and roadway engineers to achieve a reduction in noise levels for situations where changes in land use are proposed or where roadway construction or improvements are proposed.

Five physical noise attenuation techniques were examined as to their attenuation capability, economic aspects, public acceptability and the implementation process inherent for each technique. The techniques that were examined included: spatial separation, land use barriers, acoustical barriers, architectural techniques and acoustical construction techniques. The findings were not intended to provide complete criteria for selecting a solution to particular noise problems or act as a substitute for detailed acoustical design rather its purpose was to assess the appropriateness of the various attenuation alternatives available for recomended use under the Land Use Bylaw.

Although the appropriate physical technique for a given situation will depend upon individual site conditions, noise control through land use planning techniques (spatial separation and land use barriers) are the most cost effective attenuation measures. To illustrate this point, a summary of these findings is provided below:

- The use of the spatial separation technique, as a measure to reduce outdoor noise levels, should be reviewed early in the planning process where flexibility in site planning can be exercised. Site planning can be used to provide

36

effective attenuation by the judicial location of land uses in relation to arterial roadways. The consideration of the spatial separation technique within the planning process should be encouraged as a viable, useful and aesthetically acceptable noise attenuation option. The present City policy requiring a 200' setback for development adjacent to designated truck routes or another form of attenuation to achieve the 60 dBA Ldn standard, is not considered an efficient use of the spatial separation technique as the setback distance should be flexible depending upon the site specific noise attenuation requirements.

- The use of land use barrier techniques to attenuate outdoor and indoor noise levels is also most beneficial when applied to a development project early in the planning process, when flexibility in site planning design can be exercised. The employment of intervening structures and the orientation of outdoor amenity areas as noise abatement techniques is economically efficient, as additional developable land is made available. The consideration of land use barrier techniques within the planning process and within the overall evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures is essential to ensure acceptable noise attenuation without excessive costs.

- Noise attenuation barriers should be considered as a secondary attenuation measure after other more cost-effective measures, as mentioned above, are considered for their noise abatement merits. However, there are situations, particularly within transportation planning, where the attenuation options are limited due to constraints imposed by existing land uses. For these situations excessive noise levels can only be mitigated by a noise attenuation barrier.

Interim barrier design

standards have been established

by the municipality to

ensure effective attenuation, safety and structural durability.

aesthetics, maintenance,

37

- The use of architectural design techniques is the most appropriate method of achieving a satisfactory indoor sound environment. Developers are required to use architectural design techniques particularly within existing developed areas where there is limited space for implementing other forms of noise attenuation and for multi-storey residential buildings where other forms of attenuation are not technically feasible. In addition, this relatively low cost technique may be used to complement other noise attenuation measures. The objective interior noise level when applying this technique is 45 dBA Leq.

- The use of acoustical construction materials is also an effective noise attenuation technique for achieving a satisfactory indoor sound environment. Construction techniques will have to be evaluated for their potential to reduce the intrusion of traffic noise into the dwelling wherever residential areas are to be located adjacent to arterial roadways with existing or predicted exessive noise levels. The use of these materials is particularly effective in mitigating noise problems experienced by multi-storey residential buildings. The objective interior noise level when applying this technique is 45 dBA Leq.

3.4.2.3 Municipal Noise Abatement and Information Programs

The third component of the implementation strategy was the investigation of alternative program areas that the municipality could implement to reduce excessive traffic noise impacts on existing residential areas. Two program areas in particular were examined: a Noise Barrier Priorization Program and a Citizen Information Program.

38

The Noise Barrier Priorization Program identified the most critical residential areas requiring the installation of noise barriers. The study findings indicated that additional noise barriers are not required at this time for existing residential areas. This situation has occured as a result of the attenuation requirements for the most serious traffic noise problem locations being addressed by previous and current Functional Roadway Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans. (The detailed analysis and results of this study are provided in Chapter 6 of UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83).

Although it was determined that a noise barrier program was not required, there is a requirement for a Noise Monitoring Program for residential areas that are currently experiencing noise levels between 65 and 70 dBA Leq(24), to detect whether noise levels in the future reach an unacceptable level of 70 dBA Leq(24) or greater and for property tax relief assessment. It was found that an increase in noise levels can occur within a short period of time due to changes in land use, population growth and in the designation of truck routes.

The Noise Monitoring Program would select sites based on a computer noise model to determine problem locations that would be further tested using actual noise monitoring surveys. If the survey detects noise levels of 70 dBA Leq or greater, then the location would be recommended for the installation of a noise barrier, or in extreme situations, pending Provincial funding assistance, the municipal purchase of the affected property may be necessary.

39

The Citizen Information Program would be designed to inform the public of general principles of traffic noise and to give advise regarding cost effective noise attenuation measures that may be implemented to reduce the impact of noise upon the indoor sound environment. Various types of information would be disseminated including: i) an explanation of traffic noise principles; ii) advise to homeowners of appropriate noise attenuation measures to reduce indoor noise levels and possible grant funding assistance from the Federal Government; and iii) to explain the Municipal standards, policies and guidelines regarding not only traffic noise but other noise sources as well.

3.4.3 Summary of Implementation Strategies

In summary, these findings indicate a need to establish a noise level standard of 60 dBA Leq(24) with a discretionary range of up to 65 dBA, as this standard was found to be technically, economically and administratively feasible to implement City-wide. Furthermore, to ensure the implementation of this standard as well as generally reduce the amount of residential land adversely affected by traffic noise, there was a need identified to implement the various noise abatement alternatives that were investigated.

Strategies to formalize the adoption of the residential noise level standards and associated implementation measures identified in the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study are detailed in the recommendations outlined in Chapter 4. There are no specific recommendations dealing with the individual physical attenuation techniques in this Chapter, except for acoustical barrier standards, however, the use of these techniques will be addressed within the amendments to the General Municipal Plan and Land Use Bylaw.

40

CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The recommendations focus on a multi-strategy approach to attenuating traffic noise to the recommended residential noise level standards, as it was recognized that solutions to noise problems vary depending upon specific noise sources, levels of noise, site conditions and legislation. An overview of required amendments to existing Federal, Provincial and Municipal policies and suggested municipal noise control programs by which the standards can be implemented, and the associated parties responsible for their implementation is presented. The recommendations:

- define acceptable residential noise levels standards and provide for the implementation of these standards.

- define the traffic noise attenuation responsibilities of the City, the developer and the resident.

- affect change with existing policy within municipal and other levels of government to encourage, improve or regulate noise legislation.

- define the most effective attenuation techniques available to architects, planners, developers, and roadway engineers for achieving the noise standards for situations where changes in land use are proposed or where roadway construction or improvements are proposed.

- provide direction through the land use planning process for municipal decision makers, to ensure noise compatibility with residential land uses adjacent to arterial roadways in Edmonton.

41

- set up municipal noise control programs to help mitigate the traffic noise problems in existing residential areas.

A comprehensive and an economically, technically and administratively practical urban traffic noise abatement strategy would provide for the prevention of excessive noise levels in new residential areas and the attenuation of existing residential traffic noise problems. The current noise policy does not have an implementation strategy or means of integrating noise level standards in to the planning process that is required to ensure the reduction of the undesirable impacts of traffic noise on a City-wide basis. Therefore, in the recommendations there is an emphasis on amendments to existing policies and guidelines that offer solutions to the City-wide traffic noise problems, and to integrate these solutions in to the planning processes. It should be noted that, individually the recommendations may not have a significant effect on the overall urban sound environment, however, collectively, the recommendations contribute to achieving an acceptable urban sound environment.

The recommendations statements are listed according to the following categories:

i) Residential Noise Level Standards

ii) Amendments to Legislation of Other Levels of Government - Vehicle noise emission regulations.

- Tire standards and pavement design standard regulations.

- Building code regulations.

- Public Health Act regulations.

- Planning Act regulations.

- Provincial cost sharing of noise attenuation expenses.

- Funding assistance for retrofit program through existing federal programs.

- Formation of a Quiet Communities Directorate.

42

iii) Amendments to Municipal Government Legislation - General Municipal Plan.

- Land Use Bylaw.

- Terms of References for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans.

- Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw.

- Property assessment.

- Traffic management.

iv) Municipal Noise Abatement and Information Programs - Barrier Construction Program.

- Citizen Information Program.

v) Other Abatement Measures for Application by the Municipality - 'Buy-Quiet' Program for purchase of City vehicles.

- Acoustical Barrier Standards.

- Municipal control of land.

- Railway Corridor Noise Study.

The following section is a list of the recommendation statements according to the above categories. The justification and further action required for the implementation of the recommendations is provided in Appendix I in the UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83) and UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83) which provide a more comprehensive review of the rationale used to formulate the recommendations.

43

4.2 RESIDENTIAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS

The intent of the following recommended residential noise level standards is to place the 60 dBA Leq(24) standard with a discretionary range of up to 65 dBA Leq(24) into the proper context recognizing the need to address different actors and situations. In addition, separate standards were required to address acceptable interior noise levels where there exists no outdoor amenity areas as well as indicate a threshold noise level whereby noise attenuation facilities for existing residential areas becomes cost effective. The data requirements and procedures for measuring and calculating traffic noise levels is outlined in Appendix IV.

4.2.1

That no new residential development less than 3 storeys be allowed adjacent to freeways and arterial roadways unless the developer proves to the satisfaction of the Transportation Management Department, that the projected noise level in outdoor amenity areas after applying attenuation measures will not exceed 60 dBA Leq(24), unless specific site characteristics, such as topography or existing land uses necessitate the consideration of relief from the standard. Under these circumstances, the attenuated noise level in outdoor amenity areas should be the lowest level technically and economically practicable with a maximum discretionary range up to 65 dBA Leq(24).

4.2.2

That where noise levels are projected to be within the discretionary range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq(24) in outdoor amenity areas, after the implementation of noise attenuation measures, the City, for any new residential development, shall require as a condition of approval that the developer inform prospective purchasers or renters of residential dwelling units which are affected by excessive noise by posting a sign in the affected building or by letter that reads:

44

"Purchasers are advised that despite the inclusion of noise attenuation

features within the development

area and/or within the individual building unit(s), noise levels may

continue

to be of concern,

occassionally interfering with some activities of the dwelling occupants."

4.2.3

That, for residential development without outdoor amenity areas or for residential development of three storeys or more where the incident sound level at the facade of any dwelling units exceeds 60 dBA leq, the developer is to endeavor to achieve a projected interior noise level, after applying attenuation measures, of 45 dBA Leq(24) or less.

4.2.4

That the Transportation Management Department shall achieve a projected attenuated noise level as low as technically, administratively and economically practical below 65 dBA Leq(24) with an objective of achieving a noise level of 60 dBA Leq 24, where a freeway or arterial roadway are proposed to be built or upgraded through Or adjacent to a developed residential area.

4.2.5

That existing residential sites with measured noise levels of 70 dBA Leq(24) or above in the outdoor amenity area be considered for noise attenuation by the City, provided the abatement measure will reduce the noise level by 10 dBA or greater, subject to the availability of funds and based on a priority index.

4.2.6

That residential property owners with existing residential dwelling units with measured noise levels less than 70 dBA Leq(24) who do not fall within the attenuation responsibilities of the City, be encouraged to improve the sound environment of their property through acoustically designed building improvements, at their own expense.

45

4.3 AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS OF OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

The intent of the following recommendation statements is to encourage change with existing policies and programs of senior levels of government that can assist in the creation of an acceptable sound environment within Edmonton.

4.3.1 Vehicle Noise Emission Regulations

4.3.1.1 That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to investigate the feasibility of further reductions to the maximum allowable noise levels permitted for new vehicles (cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles) for the purpose of reducing vehicle noise levels at the source.

4.3.1.2 That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Transportation to consider the establishment of specific noise level limits by vehicle classification for incorporation within existing Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaws to ensure consistent province-wide standards.

4.3.1.3 That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Transportation to review the feasibility of a program of vehicle inspection for heavy motor vehicles, motorcycles and automobiles with respect to source noise, for implementation by the Province.

4.3.1.4 That City Council request the Minister of Supply and Services Canada and the Provincial Government to include a "buy quiet" preference as a criterion for use in the selection of vehicles under the jurisdiction of their respective Governments.

46

4.3.2 Tire Standards and Pavement Design Regulation

4.3.2.1

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to research pavement design with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise and establishing appropriate regulations.

4.3.2.2

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to continue and accelerate their research on tire standards with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise and establishing appropriate regulations.

4.3.2.3 That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada through the Canadian Standards Association Tire Retread Committee to consider amendments to CSA Standards which would restrict the use of the pocket type retread tires on trucks with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise.

4.3.3 Building Code Regulations

4.3.3.1

That City Council request the Minister of the Provincial Department of Labour to investigate the feasibility of amending the Alberta Building Code to include acoustical guidelines, based on the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor Methodology, in order to ensure that noise abatement measures are included in the design and construction of residential dwelling units, schools, and hospitals located adjacent to major arterial roadways.

4.3.3.2

That City Council request the National Research Council of Canada to investigate the feasibility of amending the National Building Code to include acoustical guidelines, based on the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor Methodology,

47

for the purpose of ensuring that noise abatement measures are included in the design and construction of residential dwelling units, schools and hospitals located adjacent to major arterial roadways.

4.3.4 Health Regulations

4.3.4.1

That City Council request the Provincial Board of Health to investigate the feasibility of amending the Public Health Act to include a maximum allowable noise level for the interior of residential dwelling units for implementation by the Province in order to ensure noise is considered along with other health concerns in the design and construction of residential dwelling units.

4.3.5 Planning Act Legislation

4.3.5.1 That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Municipal Affairs to amend Sections 69, 77 and 92 of the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, that would provide the necessary mandate for the municipality to use the Municipal Land Use Bylaw No. 5996 to control and regulate noise attenuation requirements for the development of residential land adjacent to arterial roadways and freeways; and to enter into agreements with developers to install or pay for the installation of noise attenuation devices or design alternatives that are necessary to achieve an acceptable noise level for new residential development.

4.3.6 Provincial Cost Sharing of Noise Attenuation Expenses

4.3.6.1 That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Transportation to consider the provision of financial assistance in implementing a noise barrier priorization

48

program and for land purchase, as solutions to noise problems, to the same extent that it shares in the cost of constructing provincial highways in municipalities.

4.3.7 Funding Assistance for Retrofitting Existing Residential Dwelling Units

4.3.7.1 That City Council request that the Minister of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consider the provision of funding assistance for property owners that are exposed to traffic noise levels greater than 60 dBA Leq(24) along arterial roadways, through the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), the Canada Home Insulation Program (CHIP) or another appropriate existing government grant program, to aid residents in undertaking the necessary acoustical modifications to affected dwelling units.

4.3.8 Formation of a Quiet Communities Directorate

4.3.8.1 That City Council request the Minister of the Environment to consider the establishment of a 'Quiet Communities Directorate' to provide leadership in achieving a quiet environment in Aberta.

4.4 AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

The intent of the following recommendation statements is to affect change with existing policies and programs of the municipality that can ensure the creation of an acceptable sound environment; and to integrate the consideration of traffic noise into the overall comprehensive planning process. It should be noted that the proposed amendments to the Land Use Bylaw and the Terms of References for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans, cannot be brought into

49

effect until the previously stated amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act R.S.A 1980, are made that would allow the Municipality to impose the provision of noise attenuation at the subdivision and redistricting stages of development. Therefore, the recommendations concerning the Land Use Bylaw cannot be acted upon by the Planning Department until approval is granted for proposed changes to the Planning Act by the Alberta Planning Board.

4.4.1 General Municipal Plan Bylaw No. 6000

4.4.1.1 That City Council direct the Planning Department to amend the General Municipal Plan Bylaw No. 6000, Urban Design Chapter, to include objective and policy statements dealing with traffic noise in order to promote the consideration of noise abatement using design elements including spatial separation, land use barriers, acoustical barriers, architectural design techniques and acoustical construction materials, in the preparation and review of residential plans and development proposals.

4.4.1.2 That City Council direct the Planning Department to include land use planning guidelines and standards for noise control within the proposed Urban Design Guidelines Handbook to assist in the preparation of the urban design component of District Plans and other statutory plans, and in the review of redistricting and development applications adjacent to arterial roadways.

4.4.1.3

That City Council direct the Planning Department to include land use planning guidelines and standards for noise control within the proposed Handbook of Urban Design Objectives, Policies and Guidelines for Newly Developed Areas, that is to be used in the preparation of Area and Neighbourhood Structure Plans and plans of subdivision and in the review and approval processes for these plans.

50

4.4.1.4 That City Council direct the Planning Department to encourage

innovative

residential

projects

which

demonstrate opportunities to create an acceptable urban sound environment using land use planning techniques.

4.4.2 Land Use Bylaw No. 5996

That City Council direct the Planning Department, pending

4.4.2.1

approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, to amend the text of the Land Use Bylaw No. 5996, Section 16 Special Information Requirements, to include a traffic noise impact study as part of the submission of a development proposal when it involves residential plans of subdivisions, redistricting and site plans adjacent to an arterial roadway or freeway.

That City Council direct the Planning Department, pending

4.4.2.2

approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, to amend the text of the Land Use Bylaw No. 5996, Section 17, to require as a condition of issuing a development permit, for residential development abutting an arterial roadway, that an applicant enter into an agreement which shall be attached to and form part of such permit, to provide the attenuation measures necessary to achieve the residential noise level standards.

4.4.3 Terms of References for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans

4.4.3.1

That City Council direct the Planning Department, pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, to amend

51

the Terms of Reference for Area Redevelopment Plans within the Environmental Impact Assessment section, to provide for a review of all noise sensitive residential land uses adjacent to arterial roadways in order to determine either a more compatible land use, redevelopment guidelines for residential land uses that require compliance with the residential noise level standards and/or physical attenuation measures that may be taken to mitigate the noise problem.

4.4.3.2

That City Council direct the Planning Department, pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, to amend the Terms of Reference for Area Structure Plans to include under Section 10, Support Materials, a request for a preliminary analysis of the compatibility of the proposed residential land use adjacent to existing or proposed arterial roadways, and an indication of any measures that will be employed to ensure compliance with the residential noise level standards.

4.4.3.3

That City Council direct the Planning Department, pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, to amend the Terms of Reference for Neighbourhood Structure Plans to include within the environmental impact analysis requirements, a detailed explanation of measures that will be employed to achieve compatibility of residential land uses adjacent to existing or proposed arterial roadways to ensure compliance with the residential noise level standards.

52

4.4.4 Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw

4.4.4.1 That City Council adopt the revised Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 7255 that has been prepared as a separate report for reading, in order to facilitate the enforcement of individual source noise problems and in particular vehicle sources of noise affecting the sound environment of the City.

4.4.5 Property Assessment

4.4.5.1 That City Council direct the Assessment Department to adopt a more accurate and equitable tax compensation procedure for traffic noise impacted property, using noise monitoring survey data.

4.4.5.2 That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to establish and maintain a Noise Monitoring ' Program that would predict residential noise levels adjacent to major arterial roadways and freeways, with 1983 acting as the initial year of commencement.

4.4.6 Traffic Management

4.4.6.1 That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to address traffic noise considerations in their current review of the existing Truck Route System Bylaw No. 5990, in order to minimize noise impacts on residential areas.

53 4.5 MUNICIPAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS

4.5.1 Barrier Priorization Program

4.5.1.1

That City Council adopt a noise barrier priorization program whereby existing residential locations with reversed frontage, adequate open space and experiencing noise levels of 70 dBA Leq(24) or above be considered for noise barrier attenuation subject to ranking according to the proposed Noise Monitoring Program and the availability of funds.

4.5.1.2 That specific locations identified as problem areas, but below 70 dBA Leq(24), will be considered and ranked for recommended action by Council.

4.5.1.3

That City Council direct the Engineering Department to establish a separate Special Capital Project within the 5 and 10 Year Roadway and Transit Improvement Program setting out funding for identified noise attenuation projects, and annually, as part of the Capital Budget deliberations, establish a barrier priorization program in conjunction with the priorities of the total capital budget program, according to a priority index or as required, until the needs are met.

4.5.2 Citizen Information Program

4.5.2.1 That the Transportation Management Department establish a Citizen Information Program for the purpose of explaining the municipal traffic noise policies, programs and also abatement measures that may be employed by individual homeowners to improve their indoor sound environment.

54

4.6 OTHER ABATEMENT MEASURES FOR APPLICATION BY THE MUNICIPALITY

4.6.1 Purchase of City Vehicles

4.6.1.1

That City Council direct the Central Supply and Services and Transit Departments to address within the specifications developed for the purchase of City vehicles, the noise levels and limits of the equipment, and specify noise level limits in dBA, taking into consideration the type of vehicle and current technology.

4.6.2 Acoustical Barrier Standards

4.6.2.1 That City Council direct the Engineering Department to prepare a Barrier Design Standards Manual for the purpose of ensuring that barrier noise attenuation facilities are effective, easily maintained, durable and aesthetically acceptable, and in the interim to continue to use the existing list of design guidelines as presented in Appendix V.

4.6.3 Municipal Control of Land

4.6.3.1 That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to attenuate residential noise problems through the municipal control of land, where residential property adjacent to arterial roadways is experiencing noise levels in excess of 70 dBA Leq(24) in the outdoor amenity area and cannot be attenuated by a standard noise barrier due to technical constraints, pending the availability of funding assistance from the Province.

4.6.3.2 That City Council direct the Planning Department to consider redistricting residential property, adjacent to arterial roadways, that is experiencing traffic noise

55

levels greater than 65 dBA Leq(24) in the outdoor amenity area, to a more compatible land use in conjunction with existing and proposed Area Redevelopment Plans, upon concurrance with a majority of the affected property owners.

4.6.4 Future Noise Studies

4.6.4.1 That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to undertake a study regarding land use policies and associated noise standards for residential land uses adjacent to railway corridors.

APPENDIX I MATRIX OF RECOMMENDATIONS, RATIONALE AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN

This appendix summarizes the rationale and the required action to be taken for the implementation of each study recommendation. The key responsible parties for the implementation of the recommendations is also indicated, and is further defined in Appendix II.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

4.2

RESIDENTIAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS

4.2.1

That no new residential development less than 3 storeys be allowed adjacent to freeways and arterial roadways unless the developer proves to the satisfaction of the Transportation Management Department, that the projected noise level in outdoor amenity areas after applying attenuation measures will not exceed 60 dBA Leq (24), unless specific site characteristics, such as topography or existing land uses necessitate the consideration of relief from the standard.

Under these circumstances, the attenuated noise level in outdoor amenity areas should be the lowest level technically and economically practicable with a maximum discretionary range up to 65 dBA Leq (24).

To ensure new residential development The development industry less than 3 storeys adjacent to arteensure that the noise level rial roadways is adequately protected standards are addressed in from traffic noise throughout the City, planning residential projects a noise level standard of 60 dBA and in the submission for their Leq (24) is required. The selection approval. of the standard was based on the following evaluation criteria: - State-of-the Art review of noise standards and policies in use elsewhere in North America.

- A review of health and welfare impacts, and economic, technical and administrative constraints.

The range recognizes the need for flexibility in order to address technical and economic constraints.

4.2.2

That were noise levels are projected to be within the discretionary range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq (24) in outdoor amenity areas, after the implementation of noise attenuation measures, the City, for any new residential development, shall require as a condition of approval that the developer inform prospective purchasers or renters of residential dwelling units which are affected by excessive noise by posting a sign in the affected building or by letter that reads:

To warn prospective home purchasers or renters, and to negate the City from liability, the public must be informed of new residential dwelling units that are affected by excessive noise levels.

"Purchasers are advised that despite the inclusion of noise attenuation features within the development

The development industry ensure that prospective purchasers or renters are informed of potential noise problems.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

area and/or within the individual building unit(s), noise levels may continue to be of concern, occassionally interfering with some activities of the dwelling occupants".

4.2.3

That,for residential development without outdoor amenity areas, or for residential buildings three storeys or more where the incident sound level at the facade of any dwelling unit exceeds 60 dBA Leg, the developer is to endeavor to achieve a projected interior noise level, after applying acceptable attenuation measures, of 45 dBA Leg (24) or less.

To ensure acceptable interior noise levels for high rise residential buildings where there is no outdoor amenity area from which traffic noise can be measured, as in the case of multistorey residential buildings, and where architectural or acoustical building materials are used, an objective interim indoor noise level standard of 45 DBA will apply until appropriate indoor standards are established by the Provincial Board of Health.

The development industry address acceptable indoor noise levels where for residential development applications of 3 storeys or more.

4.2.4

That the Transportation Management Department shall achieve a projected attenuated noise level as low as technically, administratively and economically practical below 65 dBA Leg (24) with the objective of achieving a noise level of 60 dBA Leg (24), where a freeway or arterial roadway are proposed to be built or upgraded through or adjacent to a developed residential area.

To ensure that future transportation roadway planning through or adjacent to an existing residential area, be designed to achieve the objective attenuated noise level or as low as technically administratively and economically practicable.

The Transportation Management Department integrate the residential noise level standard into the transportation planning process.

4.2.5

That existing residential sites with measured noise levels of 70 dBA Leg (24) or above in the outdoor amenity area be considered for noise attenuation by the City provided the

To protect existing residential sites adjacent to arterials subject to traffic noise.

The Transportation Management The use of physical noise attenuation measures for abating noise problems in Department examine the feasibility of noise attenuation existing residential areas is not for these residential sites cost-effective unless a 10 dBA noise

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

abatement measure will reduce the noise level by 10 dBA or greater and subject to the availability of funds and based on a priority Index.

reduction is achieved.

within the context of a Noise Barrier Priorization Program.

4.2.6

That residential property owners with existing residential dwelling units with measured noise levels less than 70 dBA Leq (24) who do not fall within the attenuation responsibilities of the City, be encouraged to improve the sound environment, of their property through acoustically designed building improvements at their own expense.

It is not technically, economically and administratively feasible to reduce all residential locations to acceptable noise levels by the municipality.

The resident is voluntarily responsible for noise attenuating action. The Transportation Management Department is to establish a Public Information Program as well as negotiate possible grant funding assistance under existing CMHC home improvement programs.

4.3

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING SENIOR GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

4.3.1

Vehicle Noise Emission Regulations

4.3.1.1

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to investigate the feasibility of further reductions to the maximum allowable noise levels permitted for new vehicles (cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles) for the purpose or reducing vehicle noise levels at the source.

Reduced individual vehicle noise emissions will contribute to an overall reduction of traffic noise.

Transport Canada's current activities and priorities support this recommendation.

The Transportation Management Department coordinate, through Executive Services, a request to Transport Canada to undertake the recommended investigation.

4.3.1.2

That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Transportation to consider the establishment of specific noise level limits by vehicle classification for incorporation within existing Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaws to ensure consistent province-wide standards.

Specific individual vehicle noise limits will contribute to an overall reduction in traffic noise levels and overcome the current problem experienced by truckers with respect to variable noise regulations.

The Transportation Management Department coordinate through Executive Services, a request to Alberta Transportation to consider the feasibility of implementing the recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

4.3.1.3

That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Transportation to review the feasibility of a program of vehicle inspection for heavy motor vehicles, motorcycles and automobiles with respect to source noise, for implementation by the Province.

To ensure compliance with vehicle noise emission regulations and to ensure the proper maintenance of existing vehicle fleet.

4.3.1.4

That City Council request the Minister of Supply and Services Canada and the Provincial Government to include a "buy quiet" preference as a criterion for use in the selection of vehicles under the jurisdiction of their respective Governments.

A "buy quiet" preference will contribute to reduced noise levels and be indicative of the seriousness and sincerity of the respective governments with regard to noise problems, and encourage motor vehicle manufacturers to produce quieter vehicles.

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, a request to the Federal and Provincial Governments to include noise emissions as a criterion in vehicle selection.

4.3.2

Tire Standards and Pavement Design Regulation

4.3.2.1

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to research pavement design with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise and establishing appropriate regulations.

Pavement design is an important aspect in the generation of noise from tire/roadway contact that has the potential to reduce vehicle noise.

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, a request to Transport Canada to undertake the recommended research.

4.3.2.2

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to continue and accelerate their research on tire standards with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise and establishing appropriate regulations.

Tire tread type is a major factor in the generation of traffic noise that may be designed to reduce vehicle noise.

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, a request to Transport Canada to undertake the recommended research.

4.3.2.3

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada through the Canadian Standards Association Tire Retread Committee to consider amendments to CSA standards which would restrict the use of the pocket type retread tires on trucks with the objective of reducing vehicular

The pocket retread tires contributes more to urban traffic noise than any other tire tread type and should be restricted from use within urban areas.

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, a request to Transport Canada to consider the restricted use of this type of tire.

noise.

The Transportation Management Department coordinate through Executive Services, a request to Alberta Transportation to consider the feasibility of • implementing the recommendation.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

4.3.3.

Building Code Regulations.

4.3.3.1

That City Council request the Minister of the Provincial Department of Labour to investigate the feasibility of amending the Alberta Building Code to include acoustical guidelines, based on the MCC Acoustical Insulation Factor Methodology, in order to ensure that noise abatement measures are included in the design and construction of residential dwelling units, schools, and hospitals located adjacent to major arterial roadways.

The Alberta Building Code should: - address interior noise levels in order to ensure acceptable interior sound environments are provided for through building code regulations.

- apply the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor methodology for the determination of adequate interior sound insulation as it is the most effective method available at this time.

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, a request to the Alberta Department of Labour, Building Standards Division, to examine the feasibility of amending the Alberta Building Code.

4.3.3.2

That City Council request the National Research Council of Canada to investigate the feasibility of amending the National Building Code to include acoustical guidelines, based on the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor Methodology, for the purpose of ensuring that noise abatement measures are included in the design and construction of residential dwelling units, schools and hospitals located adjacent to major arterial roadways.

The National Building Code should: -address interior noise levels in order to ensure acceptable interior sound environments are provided for through building code regulations - apply the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor methodology for the determination of adequate interior sound insulation as it is the most effective method available at this time.

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, a request to the National Research Council, Associate Committee for the National Building Code, to examine the feasibility of amending the National Building Code.

4.3.4

Health Regulation

4.3.4.1

That City Council request the Provincial Board of Health to investigate the feasibility of amending the Public Health Act to include a maximum allowable noise

The inclusion of guidelines regarding allowable noise levels for the interior of residential dwelling units will ensure habitable living

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, a request to the Provincial Board of Health to examine the

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

level for the interior of residential dwelling units, for implementation by the Province, in order to ensure noise is considered along with other health concerns in the design and construction of residential dwelling units.

4.3.5

Planning Act Legislation

4.3.5.1

That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Municipal Affairs to amend Sections 69, 77 and 92 of the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, that would provide the necessary mandate for a municipality to use the Municipal Land Use Bylaw No. 5996 to control and regulate noise attenuation requirements for the development of residential land adjacent to arterial roadways and freeways; and to enter into agreements with developers to install or pay for the installation of noise attenuation devices or design alternatives that are necessary to achieve an acceptable noise level for new residential development.

4.3.6

Provincial Cost Sharing of Noise Barrier Expenses

4.3.6.1

That City Council request that the Minister of Alberta Transportation to consider the provision of financial assistance in implementing a noise barrier priorization program or for land purchase as solutions to noise problems, to the same extent that it shares in the cost of constructing provincial highways in municipalities.

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

environment.

feasibility of implementing the recommendation.

The effective application of a residential noise standard requires: - municipal authority to regulate noise attenuation requirements of residential land adjacent to arterial roadways, - the authority to enter into agreements with developers to apply noise attenuation techniques or design alternatives where necessary.

The Transportation Management Dept. coordinate through Executive Services, and with the assistance of the City of Edmonton Law Dept. and the City of Calgary Tranportation Dept., a request to Alberta Municipal Affairs to make the recommended amendments to the Planning Act.

The provision of noise attenuation is in a majority of instances, usually required with the construction of provincially funded roadway projects within the City and therefore should be considered in the overall costs of the projects.

The Transportation Management Department coordinate through Executive Services, a request to Alberta Transportation to consider the provision of financial assistance for the implementation of a noise attenuation program.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol, II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

Though retrofit is quite effective, it is an extremely expensive approach and should be used only where truck routes or provincial highways cut through existing residential areas and create major noise problems.

Though a change of use or an increase in density holds excellent promise of a long-term economic payoff, the so-called "up-front" costs are extremely high. This is because a number of properties must be purchased over a long period of time with potential problems of holdout or speculation, designs must be developed for the new uses that will replace those fronting on the noisy arterial, and the project must eventually be constructed. Such a project could take several years. However, one of the reasons that development is a preferred alternative is because the potential returns from the upgrading of land uses should be sufficient to cover the cost of the property and the special sound treatment required. Therefore the province should make low-cost loans available so that the municipality is not inhibited by a shortage of funds from proceeding with redevelopment as a solution to noise problems, where this is the most costefficient solution to the problem.

ACTION REQUIRED

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

4.3.7

Funding Assistance for Retrofitting Residential Dwelling Units

4.3.7.1

That City Council request the Minister of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consider funding assistance for property owners that are exposed to traffic noise levels greater than 60 dBA Leq (24) along arterial roadways through the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), the Canada Home Insulation Program (CHIP) or another appropriate existing government grant program, to aid residents in undertaking the necessary acoustical modifidcations to affected dwelling units.

4.3.8

Formation of a Quiet Communities Directorate

4.3.8.1

That City Council request the Minister of the Environment to consider the establishment of a 'Quiet Communities Directorate' to provide leadership in achieving a quiet environment in Alberta.

RATIONALE

A request for CMHC funding is appropriate as: - it would cost the City in excess of $8,000,000 excluding administrative cost, to retrofit residential dwelling units along arterial roadways in the City which is an excessive economic burden.

- CMHC has existing grant funding programs that are designed to improve the living environment of existing residential dwelling units.

An important aspect to creating quiet communities is to establish an agency whose sole responsibility would be noise control. The functions of this agency, identified as the Quiet Communities Directorate, would be: - to develop a core of technical expertise about noise, its nature, hazards, and control, that would be available to the provincial government departments, municipalities, and the public at large.

- to develop special programs to achieve quiet communities; for

ACTION REQUIRED

The Transportation Management Department coordinate through Executive Services, a request to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consider the possibility of providing funding assistance for acoustical modifications for dwellings through existing home improvement programs.

The Environment Council of Alberta, with support from the Transportation Management Dept, initiate the formation of such an agency.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol,I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

example, through education, economic programs, and development of a model municipal noise control by-law.

- to liaise and co-ordinate noise concerns among jurisdictions and departments.

4.4

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

4.4.1

General Municipal Plan

4.4.1.1

That City Council direct the Planning Department to amend the General Municipal Plan Bylaw No. 6000, Urban Design Chapter, to include objective and policy statements dealing with traffic noise in order to promote the consideration of noise abatement using design elements including spatial separation; land use barriers, acoustical barriers, architectural design techniques and acoustical construction materials, in the preparation and review of residential plans and development proposals.

General Municipal Plan amendments are necessary: - to facilitate decisions concerning the control and improvement of the general sound environment - to ensure developers are aware of the context into which they will be placing their development projects with respect to traffic noise concerns.

- to ensure a comprehensive, rather than a piece-meal approach to noise problems.

- to authorize the application of the physical noise attenuation mechanisms noted.

The Transportation Management Dept. with the assistance of the Planning Dept., prepare and attain approval of. the GMP amendments and subsequently implement the amendments.

4.4.1.2

That City Council direct the Planning Department to include land use planning guidelines and standards for noise control within the proposed Urban Design Guidelines Handbook to assist in the preparation of the urban

The consideration of noise control guidelines and standards within District Plans and other statutory plans will reduce residential noise problem locations as redeye-

The Transportation Managmement Dept. with the assistance of the Planning Dept., prepare and attain approval of the GMP amendments and subsequently

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

design component of District Plans and other statutory plans, and in the review of redistricting and development applications adjacent to arterial roadways.

velopment occurs.

implement the amendments.

4.4.1.3

That City Council direct the Planning Department to include land use planning guidelines and standards for noise control within the proposed Handbook of Urban Design Objectives, Policies and Guidelines for Newly Developed Areas, that is to be used in the preparation of Area and Neighbourhood Structure Plans and plans of subdivision and in the review and approval processes for these plans.

The consideration of noise control guidelines and standards during the preparation of the stated plans and in the review and approval process for the plans will minimize the occurrance of new noise problem locations.

The Transportation Management Dept. with the assistance of the Planning Dept., prepare and attain approval of the GMP amendment and subsequently implement the amendment.

4.4.1.4

That City Council direct the Planning Department to encourage innovative residential projects which demonstrate opportunities to create an acceptable urban sound environment using land use planning techniques.

Innovative residential projects will allow flexibility in the use of physical noise abatement mechanisms to achieve an acceptable sound environment that otherwise may not be technically or economically possible.

The Planning Department to implement the recommendation where feasible.

4.4.2

Land Use Bylaw No. 5996

4.4.2.1

That City Council direct the Planning Dept. pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, to amend the text of the Land Use Bylaw No. 5996, Section 16 Special Information Requirements to include a traffic noise impact study as part of the submission of a development proposal when it involves residential plans of subdivisions, redistricting and site plans adjacent to an arterial roadway

The amendments to the Land Use Bylaw are necessary: - to integrate traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines into the land use planning process.

The Transportation Management Dept. with assistance from the Planning Dept., prepare and attain approval and subsequently implement the required amendment.

- to guide noise sensitive land uses away from roadway noise sources and encourage non-sensitive land

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

or freeway.

4.4.2.2

That City Council direct the Planning Department pending approval of the amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, to amend the text of the Land Use Bylaw No. 5996, Section 17 to require as a condition of issuing a development permit, for residential development abutting an arterial roadway, that an applicant enter into an agreement which shall be attached to and form part of such permit, to provide the attenuation measures necessary to achieve the residential noise level standards.

4.4.3

Terms of References for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans.

4.4.3.1

That City Council direct the Planning Department to amend the Terms of Reference for Area Redevelopment Plans, pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, within the Environmental Impact Assessment section, to provide for a review of all noise sensitive residential land uses adjacent to arterial roadways in order to determine either a more compatible land use, redevelopment guidelines for residential land uses that require compliance with the residential noise level

RATIONALE

uses or where this is not possible, to ensure measures are included in residential development projects to reduce the effects of traffic noise to meet the standards.

The amendment to the Land Use Bylaw is necessary to ensure specific requirements regarding the details of development design or construction are addressed for the purpose of mitigating potential traffic noise incompatibilities by entering into an agreement with the City and the the applicant.

The amendment is required: - to encourage redistricting of noise impacted residential land uses to more compatible land uses within the context of Area Redevelopment Plans.

- to ensure implementation of the proposed General Municipal Plan and Land Use Bylaw Amendments regarding traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines.

ACTION REQUIRED

The Transportation Management Dept. with assistance from from the Planning Dept., prepare and attain approval and subsequently implement the required amendment.

The Transportation Management Dept. with assistance from the Planning Dept., prepare and implement the amendments to the Terms of Reference for Area Redevelopment Plans as recommended.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

standard and/or physical attenuation measures that may be taken to mitigate the noise problem.

4.4.3.2

4.4.3.3

4.4.4

That City Council direct the Planning Dept. pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, to amend the Terms of Reference for Area Structure Plans, to include under Section 10, Support Materials, a request for a preliminary analysis of the compatibility of the proposed residential land use adjacent to existing or proposed arterial roadways, and an indication of any measures that will be employed to ensure compliance with the residential noise level standards.

That City Council direct the Planning Department pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, to amend the Terms of Reference for Neighbourhood Structure Plans, to include within the environmental impact analysis requirements, a detailed explanation of measures that will be employed to achieve compatibility of residential land uses adjacent to existing or proposed arterial roadways in order to ensure compliance with the residential noise level standards.

The amendment is required: - to include the consideration of traffic noise at an early stage of planning and to use the noise standards as one of the criteria for approving Area Structure Plans.

- to ensure implementation of the proposed General Municipal Plan and Land Use Bylaw Amendments regarding traffic noise, standards, policies and guidelines.

The amendment is required: - to include the consideration of traffic noise at an early stage of planning and to use the noise standards as one of the criteria for approving Neighbourhood Structure Plans.

- to ensure implementation of the proposed General Municipal Plan and Land Use Bylaw Amendments regarding traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines.

Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw The amendments are required:

The Transportation Management Dept. with assistance from the Planning Dept., prepare the amendments to the Terms of Reference for Area Structure Plans as recommended.

The Transportation Management Dept. with assistance from the Planning Dept., prepare and implement the amendments to the Terms of Reference for Neighbourhood Structure Plans as recommended.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

- to facilitate the regulation and enforcement of noise emission levels.

- to facilitate the regulation and enforcement of other sources of noise.

ACTION REQUIRED

The Police, Bylaw Enforcement and Health Departments enforce the revised Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw upon approval by City Council.

4.4.4.1

That City Council adopt the revised Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 7255 that has been prepared as a separate report for reading, in order to facilitate the enforcement of individual source noise problems and in particular vehicle sources of noise affecting the sound environment of the City.

4.4.5

Property Assessment

4.4.5.1

That City Council direct the Assessment Department to adopt a more accurate and equitable tax compensation procedure for traffic noise impacted property, using noise monitoring survey data.

The Assessment Department to The current system of subjectively review the economic allowance determining economic allowances for system as recommended. property owners on the basis of exposure to noise, be amended to reflect a more accurate and equitable tax compensation system using actual noise measurement data.

4.4.5.2

That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to establish and maintain a Noise Monitoring Program that would predict noise levels in residential areas adjacent to major arterial roadways and freeways with 1983 acting as the initial year of commencement.

The data obtained from the Noise Monitoring Program would provide the necessary information for a more accurate and equitable tax compensation procedure as well as identify priority attenuation locations for the Barrier Priorization Program.

The Material and Testing of the Engineering Department to establish the Noise Monitoring Program as recommended.

4.4.6

Traffic Management

4.4.6.1

That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to address traffic noise considerations in their current review of the existing Truck Route System Bylaw 5990, in order to minimize noise impacts on residential areas.

Residential land use incompatibility can be minimized if truck routes are located away from noise sensitive land uses or where roadways are not able to be attenuated.

The Transportation Management Dept. ensure that traffic noise is addressed in the current Provincial Review of Municipal Truck Routes.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

MUNICIPAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS Barrier Priorization Program That City Council adopt a noise barrier priorization program whereby existing residential locations with reversed frontage, adequate open space and experiencing noise levels of 70 dBA Leq (24) or above be considered for noise barrier attenuation subject to ranking according to the proposed Noise Monitoring Program and the availability of funds.

It has been determined from the State of the Art Review of North American Abatement Policies and Programs that a majority of government agencies recognize that the capital costs associated with noise attenuation by means of an acoustical barrier are not considered cost effective unless a 10 dBA or greater noise level reduction is required to achieve an acceptable noise level.

That specific locations identified as problem areas, but below 70 dBA Leq(24), will be considered and ranked for recommended action

by Council.

A barrier Priorization Program is required to mitigate only excessive traffic noise problem locations of 70 dBA Leq or greater unless specified

by City Council.

That City Council direct the Engineering Department to establish a separate Special Capital Project within the 5 and 10 year Roadway and Transit Improvement Program, setting out funding for identified noise attenuation projects, and annually, as part of the Capital Budget deliberations, establish a barrier priorization program in conjunction with the priorities of the total capital budget program, according to a priority index or as required, until the needs are met.

The Engineering Department has an appropriate capital budget that could fund capital work projects of this nature for the City.

4.5.1.2

4.5.1.3

The Transportation Management Department identify candidate attenuation sites that are not already included in Functional Roadway Plans and to submit the list of sites to the Engineering Department for inclusion in the 5 Year Roadway and Transit Construction Program.

The Engineering Department establish the appropriate capital budget.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

4.5.2

Citizen Information Program

4.5.2.1

That the Transportation Management Department establish a Citizen Information Program for the purpose of explaining the municipal traffic noise policies, programs and also abatement measures that may be employed by individual homeowners to improve their indoor sound environment.

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

A citizen information program provides The Transportation Management the mechanism for: establish a Citizen Information Program as recommended.

- explaining the principles of traffic noise propagation.

- to advise homeowners of appropriate noise attenuation measures they may implement to reduce indoor noise levels and possible grant funding assistance.

- to explain municipal noise standards and policies.

OTHER MEASURES FOR APPLICATION BY THE MUNICIPALITY Purchase of City Vehicles That City Council direct the Central Supply and Services and Transit Departments to address within the specifications, developed for the purchase of City vehicles, the noise levels and limits of the equipment, and specific noise level limits in dBA, taking into consideration the type of vehicle and current technology.

The implementation of the program would indicate the City's sincerity and seriousness in dealing with noise problems and would also serve as an encouragement to manufacturers to reduce vehicle noise emissions.

The specifications should address the noise levels thereby giving all potential bidders the same opportunity to comply, with the objective of giving preference to any manufacturer which might have vehicles operating at a lower dBA rating.

The Central Supply and Services and Transit Depts, to undertake the necessary action to comply with the stated recommendations.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.' Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

4.6.2

Acoustical Barrier Standards

4.6.2.1

That City Council direct the Engineering Department to prepare a Barrier Design Standards Manual for the purpose of ensuring that barrier noise attenuation facilities are effective, easily maintained, durable and aesthetically acceptable, and in the interim to continue to use the existing list of design guidelines as presented in Appendix V.

4.6.3

Municipal Control of Land

4.6.3.1

That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to attenuate residential noise problems through the municipal control of land, where residential property adjacent to arterial roadways is experiencing noise levels in excess of 70 dBA Leg (24) in the outdoor amenity area and cannot be attenuated by a standard noise barrier due to technical constraints, pending the availability of funding assistance from the Province.

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

The municipality is usually responsible for maintaining barriers constructed by the Development Industry within road right-of-ways and therefore it is important to ensure the construction of effective, easily maintained, durable and aesthetically acceptable acoustic barriers.

The Engineering Dept. with assistance from the Transportation Management Dept. to prepare a comprehensive barrier design standards manual as recommended.

The municipal control of land is necessary for resolving noise problems, particularly for excessive noise level situations where the use of physical barriers is not technically or economically possible.

At this noise level residential habitation is unacceptable and and immediate action to mitigate noise problems is necessary.

The Transportation Management Department implement the stated recommendation where feasible.

For these circumstances, the affected land use should be purchased by the City to provide a land setback buffer, space for the installation of a berm and/or wall, or for municipal redevelopment with compatible land uses or sold to the private sector with appropriate convenants on the deed to ensure that only compatible land uses are developed, upon concurrance with a majority of the affected property owners.

REFERENCE NUMBER Vol.I Vol. II Vol.III

RECOMMENDATION

4.6.3.2

That City Council direct the Planning Department to consider redistricting residential property, adjacent to arterial roadways, that is experiencing traffic noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leg (24) in the outdoor amenity area, to a more compatible land use in conjunaion with existing and proposed Area Redevelopment Plans, upon concurrance with a majority of the affected property owners.

4.6.4

Future Noise Studies

4.6.4.1

That City Council direct the Transportation Management Dept. to undertake a study regarding land use policies and associated noise standard for residential land uses adjacent to railway corridors.

RATIONALE

ACTION REQUIRED

The redistricting of residential property is an effective method of allowing the eventual redevelopment of noise incompatible land uses, particularly where noise attenuation facilities are economically or technically impractical. Existing Area Redevelopment Plans contain many residential noise problem locations within their boundaries.

The Planning Department to implement the stated recommendations where appropriate.

At this time, no existing land use or noise policies have been adopted by the City to deal with residential noise problems adjacent to existing rail Corridors.

The Transportation Management Dept. to carry out a study of rail noise for the purpose of developing acceptable policies and standards for inclusion in the Municipal Land Use Bylaw.

APPENDIX II IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

This appendix outlines the implementation responsibilities of various parties for initiating action and for following through with the implementation of the study recommendations. The parties indicated to undertake major responsibilities are denoted in upper case lettering while the parties with input responsibilities only are denoted in lower case lettering.

RECOMMENDATION

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIATING ACTION *Input Responsibility

1, REVISED RESIDENTIAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARD

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION *Input Responsibility

TMD * Planning * All Study Participants

PLANNING * Transportation Management

TMD * Alberta Transportation * Transport Canada * Executive Services

TRANSPORT CANADA

b) Tire Standards and Pavement TMD * Transport Canada Design Executive Services

TRANSPORT CANADA

2. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING SENIOR GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION a) Vehicle Noise Emissions

c) Building Code Regulations

TMD * Alberta Department of Labour Executive Services National Research Council

ALBERTA DEPT. OF LABOUR NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL * Central Mortgage and Housing

d) Health Regulations

TMD * Provincial Board of Health Executive Services

PROVINCIAL BOARD OF HEALTH

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIATING ACTION

RECOMMENDATION

*Input Responsibility

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION *Input Responsibility

e) Planning Act Legislation

ALBERTA MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS * Planning TMD CITY OF * Executive Serv. * Transportation Management * Planning CALGARY * Alberta * City of Calgary Transportation Municipal Dept.

Affairs

f) Provincial Cost Sharing of Noise Attenuation Measures

TMD

* Alberta Transportation

ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION

g) Funding Assistance for Retrofit Program

TMD

* CMHC

CMHC * Planning (R.R.A.P. Officers)

h) Formation of Quiet Communities Directorate

ENVIRON.* COUNCIL

Alberta Municipalities

MUNICIPAL* AFFAIRS

Alberta Municipalities

3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION a) General Municipal Plan

TMD * Planning * Public

PLANNING * Transportation Management

b)Land Use Bylaw

TMD * Planning * Public

PLANNING * Transportation Management

c)Terms of References ARP, ASP and NSP

TMD * Planning

PLANNING * Transporation Management

RECOMMENDATION

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIATING ACTION *Input Responsibility

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION *Input Responsibility

d) Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw

TMD * Law, Planning * Bylaw Enforcement * Police, Parks and Recreation * Real Estate & Housing * Alberta Trucking Association * Health * Public

BYLAW ENFORCEMENT POLICE * Health Department

e) Property Assessment

TMD * Assessment * Engineering

ASSESSMENT * Transportation Management * Engineering

TMD * ENGINEERING

ENGINEERING * Transportation Management

4. MUNICIPAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS a)Barrier Priorization Program

b) Citizen Information Program TMD * CMHC

TMD * Public Relations * CMHC

5. OTHER ABATEMENT MEASURES FOR APPLICATION BY THE MUNICIPALITY a) Purchase of City Vehicles

TMD * Transit * Central Supply And Services

TRANSIT CENTRAL SUPPLY AND SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIATING ACTION *Input Responsibility

b) Acoustical Barrier Standards TMD * Engineering

c)Municipal Control of Land

TMD * Planning

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION *Input Responsibility

ENGINEERING * Transportation Management PLANNING * Public TMD

APPENDIX III SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF NOISE

This appendix describes some aspects of the effect of noise on people in residential areas to varying levels of cumulative exposure. This information was derived from the literature review undertaken during the course of the study.

SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE (Residential Land Uses Only)

EFFECTS

SOUND LEVEL IN DECIBELS

SPEECH INTERFERENCE

HEARINGS LOSS

Qualitative Description

Indoor %Sentence Intelligibility

Outdoor Distance in Metres For 95% Sentence Intelligibility

SLEEP INTERFERENCE

Qualitative Description

ANNOYANCE

AVERAGE COMMUNITY REACTION

%of Population Highly Annoyed

75 and Above

May Begin To Occur

98%

0.5

Will Occur

37%

Very Severe

70

Will Not Likely Occur

99%

0.9

Will Occur

25%

Severe

65

Will Not Occur

100%

1.5

Will Begin to Occur

15%

Significant

60

Will Not Occur

100%

2.0

Will Not Likely Occur

9%

Moderate To

55 and Below

Will Not Occur

100%

3.5

Will Not Occur

4%

Slight

GENERAL COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARDS LOCAL AREA

Noise is likely to be the most important of all adverse aspects of the local environment.

ESTIMATED POPULATION IN EDMONTON EXPOSED ARTERIAL ROADWAY NOISE (1980)

0

ADMINISTRATION COST IMPLICATIONS

RESIDENT COST IMPLICATIONS

DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY COST IMPLICATIONS

$0

No Costs

No Cost

Noise is one of the most important adverse aspects of the local environment.

51,000

$o

No Direct Costs

No Cost

Noise is one of the important adverse aspects of the local environment

44,000

$5,535,000

Direct Costs

Limited Cost

Noise may be considered an adverse aspect of the local environment

16,500

$24,705,000

No Direct Costs

Moderated Cost

Noise is considered no more important than various other environmental factors.

18,500

$28,845,000

No direct Costs

Very Costly

APPENDIX IV DATA REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION

The purpose of this appendix is to outline the data requirements and procedures to be used for the measurement and calculation of traffic noise levels. The data requirements and procedures have been derived from practical experience in Edmonton and the application of the Alberta Surface Transportation Noise Attenuation Study Manual for the prediction of surface transportation noise.

NOISE CALCULATIONS

1.

Calculations of the A-weighted 24 hour equivalent sound level Leq(24) dBA for existing situations will be based on Average Annual Weekday Traffic Volumes. The receiver location is to be in the outdoor amenity area approximately 3 meters away from the dwelling wall and 1.5 meters above typical ground elevation.

2.

In the case of new residential development or in the evaluation of barriers the ultimate design capacity must be used for the projection of traffic volumes in noise studies unless it can be established that the ultimate design capacity will not be reached.

In establishing volumes based on ultimate design capacity, reference should be made to policies and procedures developed by the Transportation Management Department.

3.

Noise levels should be calculated using the traffic noise prediction method that is outlined in the Alberta Surface Transportation Noise Attenuation Study Manual for the Prediction of Surface Transportation Noise.

4.

Truck volumes and vehicle speeds should be established based on policies and procedures developed by the Transportation Management Department.

NOISE MEASUREMENTS

1.

Noise monitoring receptors shall be located in the outdoor amenity area, 1.5 meters above typical ground elevation and approximately 3 meters away from the dwelling wall.

2.

For the purpose of measuring the interior noise level, the noise monitoring receptors shall be located approximately 3 meters from the front of the dwelling. A 3 dBA correction factor should be subtracted from this measured noise level to account for sound energy reflecting from the building. This noise level may be used as a representative indicator of the interior noise level by subtracting from this noise level, the generally accepted standard noise level reduction of 15 dBA (or greater depending on the use of acoustical building materials), that may be attributed to standard building face construction. This procedure should result in acceptable noise levels within the dwelling unit.

APPENDIX V INTERIM ACOUSTICAL BARRIER DESIGN GUIDELINES

The purpose of this appendix is to provide interim guidelines for the design and construction of acoustical barriers that are to be followed by both the Civic Administration as well as the private development community. These guidelines were derived from those currently in use by the City. These guidelines will be eventually replaced with more detailed specifications that will be prepared by the Engineering Department and will be included in the City Servicing Standards Manual.

ACOUSTICAL BARRIER DESIGN GUIDELINES

The following acoustical barrier standards are interim guidelines specifying requirements for the construction of such facilities:

1.

The noise barrier must be acoustically designed so as to reduce noise levels to the objective noise level of 60 dBA Leq(24).

2.

Noise attenuation facility minimum height required is 3.5 meters above general site grade. All property required for noise attenuation is in addition to road right-of-way. Design of any noise attenuation facility is a responsibility of the developer and must be to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.

3.

If a berm of a height of 2 meters or more is to be used, a 3 meter berm top is required. Noise attenuation walls or screen fences should be centered on the berm. The location of the wall or fence will define the property line. The 1.5 meters on the public side of the fence or wall should include .65 meter rounding from the slope to the top.

4.

Minimum 3:1 side slopes on public side of berm; 95% compaction of berm material.

5.

Noise walls which are to be in part publicly maintained must be constructed of steel sheeting or concrete compound. Minimum density 2 required is 8.5 Kg /m2 (1.75 lb/ft2) for steel, 17 Kg/m (3.5 lb/ft)

for

other materials

(Source:

Alberta Surface

Transportation Noise and Attenuation Study).

6. Minimum 1/30 years wind pressure loading 110 Kg/m2 (22.5 lb/ft2) to be used.

7.

The facility should be continuous with no holes, cracks or gaps and should extend into the ground to a depth of 6 inches.

8.

Trees, plants or other forms of vegetation must not be planted on the top of the berm, and should be limited to the lower portion of the berm slope.

9.

Landscaping for the purpose of improving the aesthetic characteristics of an acoustic barrier must meet the standards of the Parks and Recreation Department.

10. An acoustic barrier must extend a distance beyond the last receptor of excessive noise, equal to 4 times the perpendicular distance from the receptor to the barrier, or the barrier must be designed to wrap around the last receptor, so that the last receptor receives the required acoustical protection.

11. The visual continuity of acoustic barriers must be maintained if an existing facility is nearby, through the use of the same construction materials, techniques and design considerations.

12. Any proposed variance to these requirements must be accompanied by a letter from a certified acoustical engineer stating that the barrier proposed will attenuate noise to a level of 60 dBA Leq in the outdoor amenity area of the subject properties.

.

APPENDIX VI GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The purpose of this glossary is to provide an aid in understanding acoustical terminology to all persons reading this report and those involved in noise and land use planning, and decision making, including planners, elected officials, the private development community and the general public.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

A—Weighted Sound Level:

The sound level as measured on a sound level meter, using a setting that emphasizes the middle frequency components similar to response of the human ear. The a—weighted sound level is found to correlate well with subjective assessments of the annoying or disturbing effects of sounds.

Absorption:

Absorption is a property of materials that reduces the amount of sound energy reflected. Thus, the introduction of an "absorbent" into the surfaces of a room will reduce the sound pressure level in that room by virtue of the fact that sound energy striking the room surfaces will not be totally reflected. It should be mentioned that this is an entirely different process from that of transmission loss through a material, which determines how much sound gets into the room via the walls, ceiling, and floor. The effect of absorption merely reduces the resultant sound level in the room produced by energy which has already entered the room.

Ambient Noise Level:

The sound level of background noise characteristic of an environment.

Practically speaking, the level of a specific sound must be above the ambient noise level in order to be perceived.

Annoyance:

General term encompassing adverse citizen opinion of a roadway that generally correlates with noise level increases caused by peak hour traffic or trucks. Annoyance is generally predicted by the amount the vehicular noise that exceeds the existing neighbourhood noise.

Attenuation:

A reduction in sound level in travelling from a source to a receiving point.

Barrier:

A solid physical obstruction between the roadway and the observer, which interrupts the line of sight between them.

Barrier Attenuation:

The reduction in level of sound travelling over hard ground resulting from a barrier between source and receiving point.

Berm:

A mound of earth that interrupts the line of sight between a source and receiving point, thus acting as a barrier.

Day Night Average Sound Level:

Day-night sound level in dBA is derived

(Ldn)

by averaging time varying sound energy over the daytime (daytime Leq) with the varying sound energy over the nighttime (nighttime Leq) to which an additional ten decibel weighting is applied to the nighttime hours between 2200 to 0700.

Decibel (dB):

One tenth of a bel. Sound is measured in decibels. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Decibels are not linear units, but representative points on a sharply rising (exponential) curve. Thus, 100 decibels represent 10 billion times as much acoustic energy as one decibel.

Equivalent Level (Leq):

An hourly unit of noise. The Leq condenses an hour's worth of noise fluctuations into a single number, with units of dBA. The Leq is also called the "energy-equivalent level". Leq(24) is the average noise level over a 24 hour period.

Line Source of Noise:

A source of noise spread out into a line, such as the combined traffic on a roadway or railway.

Loudness:

A

psychological

quantity

that

corresponds to noise intensity where a ten-fold increase in noise energy results in a two-fold increase in loudness.

Similarly,

a

ten-fold

decrease in noise energy is heard as a halving of the loudness.

Noise Sensitive Land Uses:

Noise sensitive land uses include: residential,

schools,

libraries,

churches, hospitals, auditoriums and outdoor recreation areas. These typify land uses whose suitability is restricted by intrusive noise, hence are termed "noise sensitive". Noise sensitivity

include:

factors

interference with speech communication; subjective

judgements

of

noise

acceptability and relative noisiness; need for freedom from noise intrusion; and, sleep interference criteria.

Point Source of Noise:

A source of noise essentially concentrated at a single source, such as noise from a single vehicle.

Propagation:

The passage of sound energy from noise source to observer.

Sound Insulation:

The use of structures and materials designed to reduce the transmission of sound from one room or area to another or from the exterior to the interior of a building.

APPENDIX VII REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Agent, K., and Zegeer, C., "The Effect of Interrupted Flow on Traffic Noise", Noise Control Engineering, March-April, 1982.

Alberta Transportation, "Alberta Surface Transportation Noise and Attenuation Study, A State of the Art Literature Review", prepared by DeLeuw Cather, 1974.

Bolt, Beranek & Newman, "Measurements of the Impulsiveness and Annoyance of Compression - Release Engine Brake Noise", Office of Noise Control, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Bradley, J.S., "Exterior Vehicle Noise and Its Effects", University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Engineering Science, prepared by Transport Canada, Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch, March 1975.

Breston, B.E., "The Impact of Road Traffic Noise on Property Values", Graduate Thesis, McMaster University, Sept. 1979.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Le Breton Flats Development Evaluation 1, Sound Barriers for Windows", 1981.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Le Breton Flats Development Evaluation 2, Walls and Floors as Sound Barriers", 1981.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Le Breton Flats Development Evaluation 3, Traffic Noise Barrier Walls", 1981.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing", Technical Research Division of CMHC, 1981.

City of Ontario, California, "Noise Element", a component of the General Plan, September, 1975.

Du Pree, Russell B., "Evaluation of Outdoor to Indoor Noise Reduction of Building Facades and Outdoor Noise Reduction of Building Facades and Outdoor Noise Barriers", California Office of Noise Control, 1975.

Eldred, K., "Standards and Criteria for Noise Control Engineering, January-February, 1982.

Embleton, Piercy and Sutherland, "Review of Noise Propagation in the Atmosphere", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 61, No. 6, June, 1977.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in Alberta", 1980.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Public Hearings on Noise in Alberta, Reports and Recommendations", July, 1982.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in the Human Environment, Volume 1: 1979.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in the Human Environment, Volume 2: 1979.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Administration and Regulation of Noise in Alberta", 1980.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in the Workplace", 1980.

Galloway, W., and Schultz, T., "Noise Assessment Guidelines", U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, D.C., 1979.

Gamble, H.B., Sauerlender 0.H., and Langley C.J., "Adverse and Beneficial Effects of Highways on Residential Property Values", Transportation Research Board, 508, 1976.

Jones, I.D., "Road Traffic Noise, Volume 5, Part 3 Progress in Planning", Pergamon Press, 1976.

Kermode, R.H., "Cost Effectiveness of Freeway Traffic Noise Barriers", California Department of Transportation, 1981.

Lee, T., and Jones, H., "Noise Study on Older Residential Property", University of Calgary, 1979.

Langley C.J., "Time—Series Effects of a Limited Access Highway on Residential Property Values", Transportation Research Board, 583, 1976.

Lawther, J., "Pavement Effects in Tire/Pavement Interaction Noise", Pennsylvania State University, unpublished report, 1977.

Miller, "Effects of Noise on People", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America", 56, No. 3, Sept., 1974.

Ministry of Environment, Ontario, "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning, Volume 1, Analysis of Noise Impacts", November, 1978.

Ministry of Environment, Ontario, "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning, Volume 2, Road Traffic Noise Tables", November, 1978.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario "Land Use Planning for Noise Control in Residential Communities", October, 1981.

National Academy of Sciences, "Noise Abatement: Policy Alternatives for Transportation; Report to the EPA", Washington, D.C., 1977.

National Concrete Masonry Association, "Concrete Masonry in Highway Construction Appurtenances", Arlington, Va., 1973.

National Research Council of Canada, "Noise Pollution - What Can Be Done?", Physics Today, 1975.

Nelson, J.P., "Economic Analysis of Tranportation Noise Abatement", Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.

Quirt, J.D., "Building Acoustic Insulation" Noise and Vibration Section, National Research Council Canada, 1982.

Region of Peel, City of Brampton and City of Mississauga, "Traffic Noise Abatement Policies and Practices Relating to Residential Development", November, 1979.

Region of Peel, "Joint Traffic Study", November, 1981.

Sacks, M.P., "Noise Control: Recent Terms and Concepts", Engineering Digest, March, 1978.

Scholes W.E., "Traffic Noise Criteria", Applied Acoustics, London, England, 1970.

Stackie D.N.M. and Johnson D.M., "Economic Value of Peace and Quiet", Lexington Massachusetts, 1975.

Stempler S., Sanders H., Watkins and Boronow E., "Development of Environmental Noise Codes for the City of New York", Sound and Vibration, December, 1977.

Taylor S.M., Breston B.E., and Hall F., "The Effect of Road Traffic Noise on Housing Prices", Journal of Sound and Vibration, 80(4), 1982.

Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Research Council, "Motor Vehicle Noise Control, Special Report 152", National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1975.

Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Research Council, "Highway Noise Generation and Control, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report, 173", Washington, D.C., 1976.

Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Research Council, "Environmental Issues in Transportation: Analysis, Noise, and Air Quality", National Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va., 1981.

Transportation Department, City of Calgary, "Surface Transportation Noise Policy for the City of Calgary", Report of the Task Force on Surface Transportation Noise.

Transportation Department, City of Calgary, "Noise Control Through Land Use Planning: The Calgary Case", December, 1981.

United Nations, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Reducing Noise in OECD Countries", Paris, 1978.

U.S. Department of Commerce, "The Social Impact of Noise", National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C., 1971.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, "The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use", 1976.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, "Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control", June, 1980.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Noise Program Series.

Volume III. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Noise Policy and Related Environmental Procedures", National Technical Information Services, July, 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", EPA 550/9-74-004, March, 1974.

_

SD LIBRARY

II IH

17200607540

II _

-----

--

se !1 t.77.

/I

1

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLO' STUDY STAGE ll VOLUME II: Evaluation and Selection of Residential Noise _evel Standards

6801a .E3 E386 983 v.2 1

'

@ THE CITY OF

monton

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT TSR/31 /83 , _ __

041 Monaghan Macklin Marshall Ltd. 0036.

1980 Urban Traffic-Noise Policy V.2 Study, Stage 2, A Perspec171 3924 tive, 1980 DATE OUT

Q041 0034, 1983 v.2

NAME

PHONE DATE No. IN

Monaghan Macklin Marshall Ltd. Urban Traffic-Noise Policy Study, Stage 2.

Implementation Report.

.7. Ang Department LIBRARY The City of Edmonton •

A.C. 6204

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY STAGE II VOLUME II: EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF RESIDENTIAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS

TSR/31/83

Prepared by: Transportation Management Department

and Badmg Dapattmeat 'seri-i•v:,,;

1_151PSW

'The btyof Edmonton

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY

NOTE:

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study (UTNPS) Stage II: Summary and Recommendation Report was adopted by City Council on 1983 09 13 and became effective on that date. The policies contained within this document replaces the previous Interim Municipal Urban Traffic Noise Policy adopted by City Council on 1980 07 09.

Questions concerning the interpretation and application of the policies herein may be directed to the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section (428-2978) of the Transportation Management Department. Any amendments to legislation noted in this report will be included in the appropriate Municipal Bylaws or legislation of other levels of government and will not appear in this document.

@itiontort

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

PREFACE

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study (UTNPS) was initiated at the request of City Council at the Aldermanic Seminar on Transportation Issues, held on 1978 07 14. The principle objective of the study was to evaluate and recommend acceptable residential noise level standards and alternative noise control measures in order to achieve the overall goal of reducing the amount of residential land adversely affected by traffic noise in Edmonton.

A two stage approach was taken to achieve this objective. Stage I, of the UTNPS Study, presented to City Council as information on 1980 07 09, reviewed the social—environmental, economic and health related impacts of traffic noise on residential land uses; identified current residential noise standards, policies and guidelines in use throughout North America and Europe; and carried out a preliminary assessment of arterial roadway traffic noise levels within existing areas of the City. UTNPS Stage II, which is summarized within this report, develops, evaluates and selects acceptable residential noise level standards and identifies means to achieve those standards through:

i) amendments to government policies

and programs; ii) techniques for achieving the noise standards in land use and transportation planning; and iii) municipal noise attenuation and information programs.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II is documented in three reports: UTNPS Stage II Volume I: Summary and Recommendation Report (TSR/30/83); UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of Residential Noise Level Standards (TSR/31/83); and UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83). The purpose of Volume I, is to provide an historical perspective of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study and a summary of the methodological framework, study limitations, findings and recommendations of the Study.

11

The purpose of Volume II, is to provide more detailed documentation of the criteria used to evaluate alternative noise level standards, and the analysis and evaluation of each criterion, the selection results and associated implementation responsibilities. The purpose of Volume III is to document the various means to achieve those standards through implementation policies, guidelines, programs and responsible parties.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II commenced on 1982 03 01 under the coordination of the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section of the Transportation Management Department. The review was conducted with the cooperation and input of the Assessment, Bylaw Enforcement, Edmonton Local Board of Health, Engineering, Law, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police, and Real Estate and Housing Departments. In addition, cooperation and input were received from the Alberta Trucking Association, Alberta Association of Architects, Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, Urban Development Institute, Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, City of Calgary Transportation Department, Transport Canada, National Research Council, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Alberta Transportation, Alberta Municipal Affairs and the Environment Council of Alberta. The project team included J. Meyer, W. Oakes, B. Priebe, D. Langille and G. Latham.

We would like to express our appreciation to all those who assisted us on this study.

R. H. David General Manager and City Engineer TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. PREFACE iv

LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER 2 - BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY

3

CHAPTER 3 -

SCOPE OF VOLUME II REPORT 3.1 Purpose of Noise Standards 3.2 Purpose of Volume II Report 3.3 Study Limitations 3.4 Methodology

9 9 11 12 14

CHAPTER 4 -

STATE-OF-THE-ART COMPARISON

16

CHAPTER 5 -

IDENTIFICATION OF HEALTH EFFECTS

19

CHAPTER 6 -

IDENTIFICATION OF WELFARE EFFECTS

22

CHAPTER 7 - ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

29

CHAPTER 8 - ANALYSIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACCEPTABILITY

50

CHAPTER 9 -

RESIDENTIAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Summary of Study Findings 9.2 Study Recommendations

Edmonton Local Board of Health, "Health Effects of Traffic Noise, An Addendum Report", 1982.

APPENDIX II- Data Requirements and Procedures for Noise Level Measurement and Calculation APPENDIX III - Listing of Reference Documents Appendix IV - Glossary of Terms

APPENDIX I

56 56 62

iv LIST OF TABLES PAGE NO. TABLE 5.1 - HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE TABLE 6.1 - SPEECH INTERFERENCE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE TABLE 6.2 - SLEEP INTERFERENCE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE TABLE 6.3 - ANNOYANCE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE TABLE 7.1 - ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC NOISE - BARRIER ATTENUATION COSTS TO REDUCE EXISTING ARTERIAL NOISE LEVELS TABLE 7.2 - NOISE CONTROL MEASURES TABLE 9.1 - SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE

20 23 26 28

34 40 57

V

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO.

FIGURE 2.1 - UTNPS STAGE II - RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX

7

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II: Volume II Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (T5R/31/83), is to provide a detailed background report on the analysis of alternative residential noise level standards from which acceptable standards were subsequently selected. Chapter 2 of this report outlines an historical review of the study mandate and relevant background events. Chapter 3 presents the scope of this report including an explanation of the purpose of a noise standard, the objectives of this report and the methodological evaluation criteria. Chapter 4 presents the State-of-the-Art review of traffic noise control legislation that has been adopted elsewhere in North America to date. Chapter 5 provides a review of the health effects of noise with Chapter 6 outlining the welfare effects of noise. Chapter 7 analyzes the economic affects of an acceptable noise level standard based on health and welfare criteria in terms of attenuation costs. In addition, Chapter 8 provides an analysis of the administrative acceptability of the identified residential noise level standard. And finally, Chapter 9 selects an acceptable residential noise level standard and places it into proper context recognizing the need to address different actors and situations. The Appendices include additional information of the health effects of traffic noise, data requirements and procedures for noise level measurement and calculation, a list of reference documents and a glossary of terms.

The recommended residential noise abatement standards and implementation strategies are included in UTNPS State II Volume I: Summary and Recommendation Report (TSR/30/83), which is to be submitted to City Council for adoption. UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies

(TSR/32/83) contains background documentation of the

recommended implementation strategies. In addition, three working papers were prepared that provide detailed information on selected

topics. They include UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 1: Review of Governmental Traffic Noise Legislation and Policies; UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 2: Identification of Noise Impacts and Issues; and UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 3: Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw Review.

3 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY

Road traffic noise is recognized world wide as contributing to a general deterioration of the urban environment. As a result of increasing traffic volumes and consequent higher levels of noise, public concern regarding the control and effects of urban traffic noise is rapidly increasing, as evidenced by the numerous concerns recently expressed by both the public and City Council. Some significant advancements have been made in the reduction of traffic noise at its source, namely vehicles, however, noise cannot be completely eliminated by this means.

In recognition of this fact, it has been found essential that standards, guidelines and procedures be developed to deal with traffic noise in the land use and transportation planning processes. In addition, since Federal and Provincial policies and programs dealing with traffic noise are limited in this area, and the fact that the primary responsibility for integrating traffic noise considerations into the planning process rests with local governments, which have control over actual land development and transportation system improvements, it can be reasonably concluded that the problem must be dealt with at the municipal level.

However, cooperation is required from senior levels of government in order for enabling legislation and related programs to be amended to address and assist with the mitigation of the municipal traffic noise.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study originated at the Aldermanic Seminar on Transportation Issues, held on 1978 07 14, when Council reviewed various roadway noise control policy issues and subsequently directed the Administration to proceed with a comprehensive noise study to address:

i) establishment of Design Noise Levels and preferable method of obtaining acceptable levels, ii) City of Edmonton's 200 foot setback policy, iii) problems of enforcement of the existing Noise Bylaw No. 4110, iv) experimental noise barrier program, identification of priority areas where the Province should be requested to initiate further action.

4 This policy issue has been included in the Local Policy Plan since 1981.

The Local Policy Plan 1981-85, identified a need for a policy study to review the traffic noise problem. This policy issue was carried over to the 1982-1986 Local Policy Plan which identified traffic noise attenuation as a policy issue that should be dealt with by examining traffic noise levels throughout the City and subsequently recommend the use of appropriate control measures. The directive given in this Local Policy Plan stated:

"That City Council adopt the appropriate comprehensive noise control policies based on recommendations currently being prepared."

Following the Aldermanic Seminar, the Administration initiated a two stage approach to study the urban traffic noise problem, with the intent of Stage I to assess the extent of the traffic noise problem in Edmonton, with Stage II to provide policies, standards and implementation strategies to mitigate the identified noise problem. Stage I of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study was undertaken by the consulting firm of Marshall. Macklin and Monaghan Limited.* This stage of the study, completed 1980 06 02, reviewed the social—environmental, economic and health related impacts of traffic noise on residential land uses; identified current residential noise standards, policies and guidelines in use throughout North America and Europe; and, carried out a preliminary assessment of arterial roadway traffic noise levels within existing residential areas in the City.

*City of Edmonton, Transportation Management Department, "Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage I: A Perspective", 1980.

5 The preliminary assessment of noise in existing residential areas identified that in 1980, approximately 130,000 persons or 23 percent of the City of Edmonton population, resided adjacent to arterial roads. Of these, approximately 18,500 persons were exposed to outdoor noise levels less than or equal to 55 dBA Ldn, and approximately 16,500 persons were exposed to outdoor levels ranging between 55 and 60 dBA Ldn. The remaining 95,000 persons were exposed to outdoor levels ranging from 60 to 76 dBA Ldn. A review of international noise level standards indicated that the predominant objective noise level ranged between 55 and 65 dBA Leq with most jurisdictions identifying levels in excess of 70 dBA Leq to be unacceptable. From the study results, it was concluded that to varying degrees, many residents residing adjacent to arterial roads in Edmonton are subject to socio-environmental, economic and health related traffic noise impacts and that a further Stage II Study be undertaken to establish a comprehensive traffic noise policy for the City in order to mitigate these impacts of traffic noise.

This report was submitted to City Council on 1980 07 08, and was received as information. City Council directed the Administration to proceed with Stage II of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study for the purpose of:

- developing, evaluating and selecting acceptable residential noise level standards; and - identifying means to achieve those standards through implementation policies, guidelines and programs.

An additional directive was given by Council on 1981 07 07:

- to investigate the feasibility of reducing the existing permitted decibel levels for vehicles, under the City Noise Bylaw.

6 In order to carry out these directives, the Transportation Management Department (formerly the Transportation Systems Design Department) prepared a Terms of Reference for Stage II of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study which set out the study objectives, limitations and assumptions, study activities, work program, study members and responsibilities and study costs, which was received as information by City Council on 1982 08 13. The primary study activities included: the evaluation and selection of a residential noise level standard; a review of the Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw; and a review of various administrative and physical noise mechanisms and programs to minimize the occurance of new noise problems and to help mitigate existing noise problems.

The primary responsibilities for developing the Urban Traffic Noise Policy remained with the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section (formerly the Projects and Planning Services Section), Transportation Management Department. However, various Civic Departments and outside agencies participated in the study as noted in the preface of this report. A summary of the responsibilities is provided in the matrix illustrated in Figure 2.1. The major responsibility of the other Departments and agencies was to assist the Study Team in the preparation, review and evaluation of an Urban Traffic Noise Policy by providing:

i) technical advice and information as required; ii) clarification of existing or emerging policies; iii) communication and coordination with respective Branches or Sections in each relevant Department or agency; iv) identification of priority areas or areas of concern that the study should address to meet the needs and expectations of the parties involved; and v) an identification and facilitation of policies and programs to assist in implementing the study recommendations.

8 Representatives from participating Departments and outside agencies were contacted directly by the Transportation Management Department as required.

The public was afforded the opportunity to provide input into the study in conjunction with Functional Roadway Plan meetings, when traffic noise was perceived as an issue, to educate the public with the general principles of traffic noise propagation and to familiarize citizens with the study objectives and activities. A display as well as handout information was prepared for these meetings. Interested citizens were also given the opportunity to review the draft study reports upon request. Furthermore, 'public interests' were incorporated in the evaluation of alternative noise level standards by selecting standards from a health, welfare and economic perspective.

The UTNPS Stage II Study is documented in three separate volumes. Volume I entitled, UTNPS Stage II Volume I: Summary and Recommendations (TSR/30/83), presents an overview of the Study's findings and recommendations for Council's consideration, that was derived from the detailed study findings documented in Volumes II and III.

This document represents Volume II, entitled, UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83). As was stated in the introduction, it contains an analysis of alternative residential noise level standards based upon evaluation criteria including: a noise policy state-of-the-art review; an analysis of health and welfare effects; an analysis of economic reasonableness; and an analysis of administrative acceptability. From this evaluation, acceptable residential noise level standards were determined. Also implementation responsibilities for the City, the developer and the residents were outlined in order to facilitate the implementation of the noise level standards. Volume III, entitled, UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (T5R/32/83), examines a series of implementation strategies for the noise standards related to: i) amendments to senior government and municipal policy; ii) appropriate physical noise attenuation techniques for land use and transportation planning; iii) municipal noise abatement and information programs; and iv) other abatement measures for application by the Municipality.

9 CHAPTER 3 SCOPE OF VOLUME II REPORT

3.1 PURPOSE OF NOISE STANDARDS

The most difficult aspect of dealing with the traffic noise issue is setting an acceptable residential noise standard, as this decision has many attendant implications. The noise standard that is selected should represent a compromise between that which is desirable and that which is achievable. That which may be desirable, in terms of minimizing the negative effects of noise, and that which is achievable, in terms of minimizing the economic cost of measures to control noise. If the noise standard is set too low, large sums of money could be spent unnecessarily on barriers and other methods of attenuating noise. If levels are too high, annoyance and complaints will result.

There are two additional reasons why a noise level standard should be established. The first one, which is the most important, is regarding the quality of life experienced by residents living adjacent to arterial roadways. The detrimental effects of noise are numerous and it is known that significant physiological and psychological effects of human exposure to high noise levels will occur causing annoyance and interference with sleep, speech and activities in general. Therefore in order to ensure an acceptable urban sound environment, a residential noise level standard must be established.

The second reason could be described as the "residential expectation" of the people moving into a residential dwelling unit. A majority of people expect a certain amount of peace and quiet at their newly purchased or rented property. It is of little comfort to affected residents that noise control measures were not implemented or required for economic or other reasons. And furthermore, if noise control measures are delayed for new residential development, they usually cost much more than they would if implemented early in the planning process.

10 It appears therefore that a noise level standard must be established that sets out an objective noise level limit to ensure an acceptable quality of life for residents that is economically and technically practical to achieve. The current interim noise level standard for new residential development has been found satisfactory for new residential development adjacent to truck routes, however at the same time it has been found impractical and at times unattainable in existing developed situations because of technical and economic constraints created by existing land uses that limit the space and the alternatives available for attenuation devices. Therefore a standard not only needs to be established, but one is required that has a degree of flexibility in its application to account for existing developed situations. This can be achieved by setting a noise level range rather than a single noise level limit. The specification and use of a range, however, needs very specific definition of the upper limit, or in many cases, it could be the only limit that is used. Application of only the upper range could result in noise control measures that are under-designed and in some situations, annoyance and complaints could be the result. The lower noise level limit therefore, should represent the level at which the negative effects would be minimized and should be used as a design objective for noise control measures wherever possible. While the upper noise level limit of the range would represent the level at which annoyance would begin. This upper level also allows the necessary flexibility required, especially in existing areas of the City where it may be technically or economically impractical to achieve the lower range of the standard.

In essence then, the primary task of selecting an acceptable residential noise level standard was to evaluate the range of levels which could be considered "marginally acceptable" and second to decide where in the range to set the limits to be used as a noise standard for new residential development on a City-wide basis.

11 3.2 PURPOSE OF THE VOLUME II REPORT

The selection of the existing interim noise level standard for the City was based solely upon a review of noise policies adopted elsewhere in North America. In addition, the policy applies only to new residential development within new residential areas that is adjacent to designated truck routes. Consequently, the standard does not deal with new residential development along non—designated truck routes or within existing residential areas. It was the primary objective of Stage II of the UTNPS Study therefore to determine noise level standards that were based on a comprehensive review of health and welfare criteria as well as experience elsewhere, and that would be technically, economically and administratively feasible to implement on a City—wide basis. In addition, the study was to examine alternative implementation strategies that would both prevent new traffic noise problems from occuring by guiding noise sensitive land uses away from roadway noise sources or to ensure measures are included in residential development projects to reduce the effects of noise, reduce the existing residential noise problems by encouraging noise insensitive redevelopment or by applying physical noise abatement measures.

Therefore, it is the principle objective of Volume II to provide an evaluation and subsequent recommendations concerning acceptable residential noise level standards and establish an appropriate range, that is technically, administratively and economically feasible to implement. A summary of the findings of the evaluation of an appropriate standard is subsequently presented. It should be recognized that no matter what unit of measure is used to describe the noise exposure and no matter at what level noise standards are set, there will always be some dissatisfaction with traffic noise. This is a consequence of the variation in noise tolerance from person to person. Consequently, this study will attempt to set noise level standards that would create sound conditions that a majority of the population should consider reasonable.

12 3.3 STUDY LIMITATIONS A number of study limitations were recognized due to physical, technical and economic constraints involved in mitigating all residential noise problems throughout the City. These were based on practical experiences in Edmonton and other North American municipalities. These study limitations were incorporated into and influenced the methodological approach to the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study and the subsequent findings. The study limitations are as follows:

i) Many sources of noise contribute to the overall urban noise problem including train, aircraft, commercial and industrial activities, machinery around the home, animal and human sources. The aim of this study, however, is to focus on vehicular 'traffic' noise sources including trucks and automobiles that utilize the City roadway network adjacent to residential areas. ii) A discretionary range for a noise level standard was considered necessary as a single rigid noise level standard imposed on new residential development, such as new subdivisions, may be found impractical and unattainable in existing developed situations, such as where infill housing is proposed. Existing situations are sometimes constrained by the nature of existing land uses and lack of space for applying low cost attenuation techniques.

iii) It was recognized that the outdoor amenity area is an integral living space component of residential property under three storeys. Consequently, noise level standards are based upon the exterior sound level that would occur within this area.

Specifically this area is defined as the outdoor living area immediately adjacent to the housing unit, provided and designed for active or passive recreation and enjoyment of the occupants of a residential development, which may be for private or communal use and owned individually or in common. The rationale

13 for this limitation is based on the fact that, when the outdoor noise level for buildings less than three storeys is acceptable, then an acceptable indoor noise level could normally be met by the building construction complying with the Alberta Building Code. In other words, if the outdoor noise level is within 60-65 dBA Leq, the building face will reduce interior noise levels by 15-20 dBA and thereby result in an acceptable interior sound environment of 40-45 dBA. For residential buildings of three storeys or more, the sound level will be measured at the facade of the dwelling units, as noise measurements in the outdoor amenity area are not indicative of actual •noise levels for medium to high rise buildings because of greater building mass and height.

iv)

This study recomends a noise level standard that a majority of the population may consider reasonable, recognizing the fact that there are individual variations in noise tolerance from person to person.

v) In the case of single family homes fronting—on an arterial roadway and multi—storey buildings where 81% of the residents exposed to excessive traffic noise along arterial roadways, it is not feasible to mitigate excessive traffic noise using conventional attenuation devices. In these situations an acoustical barrier is impractical because of the lack of space, elimination of access to the buildings, barrier height limitations, and aesthetic consequences. Recognizing this limitation, it is the intent of the study to recommend measures that would prevent these types of noise problems from occuring in the future.

14 3.4 METHODOLOGY

The evaluation and selection of acceptable residential noise level standards was based on a review of existing Canadian and U.S. noise policies and standards and through an analysis of the effects of noise on selected health, welfare, economic and administrative criteria relevant to the Edmonton situation. This evaluation included an extensive literature review, an analysis of economic data and noise level data collected in the field, a review of existing federal, provincial and municipal policies and procedures and an examination of documentation provided by the City of Edmonton Health and Assessment Departments. With the application of this information as a basis, a noise level standard was selected that would protect the public health and welfare aspects of the urban environment. A feasibility analysis of this standard was conducted including technological, economic, legal and administrative factors. It was the application of these constraints that differentiated between desirable noise levels and achievable noise standards.

Specifically acceptable residential noise level standards were evaluated and selected according to the following critiera, which were felt to represent the most critical and quantifiable effects of setting a residential noise level standard on the Public, the City and the Developer:

i) State-of-the-Art Comparison:

The standard should be comparable to current effective and efficient noise level standards approved by other Canadian and U.S. Senior and Local Governments and agencies.

ii) Health Effects:

The noise level standard should not have the potential to induce hearing loss in individuals.

15 iii) Welfare Effects:

The noise level standard should not create excessive public concerns, dissatisfaction or complaints caused from speech interference, sleep interference and general annoyance.

iv) Economic Reasonableness:

The noise level standard should not cause an unreasonable economic burden to implement on behalf of either the City, Developer or affected Resident.

v) Administratively Acceptable:

The noise level standard selected should be administratively feasible.

The findings of each evaluation criterion are presented in the following chapters.

16 CHAPTER 4 STATE-OF-THE-ART COMPARISON

4.1 STUDY FINDINGS

A review of the traffic noise control legislation that has been adopted in North American to date, is comprehensively documented in UTNPS Working Paper #1 entitled, "Review of Governmental Traffic Noise Legislation and Policies". The purpose of this report was to aid in the identification of a noise standard and policy guidelines that are most appropriate for the Edmonton situation. Specifically, this report reviews policies currently in use by federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as well as existing legislation, policies and programs currently relegated to or adopted by the City of Edmonton. Emphasis was made on the existing standards, policy rationale, implementation strategies and the effectiveness of the examined policies. In addition, a critical analysis was made of the negative and positive aspects of other governmental legislation and their general applicability to the Edmonton situation.

An American perspective was included to introduce an element of contrast from which existing Canadian and Alberta regulations may be compared.

The following is a summary of the study findings.

Generally, from the State-of-the-Art Review, the most effective noise standards were those that were found to be administratively, technically and economically feasible by other government agencies while providing an acceptable quality of urban environment that was sensitive to health and welfare concerns. Noise standards based solely on health and welfare criteria were usually an objective or guideline rather than a strict policy with a more stringent objective noise level of 55 dBA Leq and an acceptable range of 55-70 dBA Leq. The enforcement of such standards, however, has proven extremely difficult and therefore have been applied only in new residential areas where numerous noise abatement options may be explored. Developed residential areas have limited noise abatement options as they are constrained by the nature of existing land uses and the lack of space for physical attenuation devices.

17 On the other hand, the noise level standards based on economic, administrative and technical criteria had a greater range of noise levels between 60-67 dBA Leq, with an acceptable range up to 70 dBA Leq. These standards were more widely adopted as they were generally perceived as more realistic in terms of implementation, particularly for existing residential areas, while at the same time protected the majority of urban population. In addition, noise level standards set within this range produced acceptable indoor noise levels (45 dBA) if the construction of a dwelling unit complied with recognized Building Standards. The government jurisdictions that have adopted a noise policy for both new and existing development, specify an acceptable noise level below which noise attenuation is not considered technically

Or

economically

practical. These standards were found to be the most widely accepted and in most cases successful in providing an acceptable urban sound environment for both existing and new residential areas.

4.2 CONCLUSION The State-of-the-Art Review examined traffic noise control legislation and policies that have been adopted in North America for the purpose of assisting in the selection and recommendation of an acceptable residential noise level standard for Edmonton. The major task of this exercise was to document existing government noise policies, taking into account the existing standards, policy rationale, implementation strategies and the effectiveness of the examined policies.

The study findings indicated that noise standards based solely upon health and welfare criteria were very stringent with acceptable noise levels in the range of 55 to 60 dBA leq. Such standards have proven extremely difficult to enforce and have been applied only in new residential situations where a wide variety of noise abatement options may be applied. Noise standards based upon economic, administrative and technical criteria allowed more flexibility and generally, were in the range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq. Standards in this range were widely adopted

18 and perceived as more realistic in terms of implementation and at the same time provided acoustical protection for the majority of the urban population. In addition, noise levels set within this range can provide for acceptable indoor noise levels (45 dBA) if a dwelling unit is constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Alberta Building Code.

A noise standard range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq. provides the flexibility required to address any technical and economic constraints and additionally, take into account health and welfare concerns. It is important to note that the noise policies that were investigated did not guarantee the elimination of all annoyance or disturbance from traffic noise, even in those situations where the standards where met, however, they did not protect the vast majority of the affected urban population.

19 CHAPTER 5 IDENTIFICATION OF HEALTH EFFECTS

5.1 STUDY FINDINGS

A review of the health effects of noise is presented in detail in UTNPS Working Paper #2 entitled, "Identification of Noise Impacts and Issues".

One of the major objectives of this report was to examine the quantitative relationship between health effects and the various levels of noise exposure. Specifically, the investigation of health effects dealt with noise induced hearing loss as non-auditory effects of noise undoubtedly occur but are difficult to equate with precise levels of sound. The effects on the cardiovascular system, stress effects and neurophysiological effects tend to indicate an adverse influence on health, however, the evidence available does not yet permit a sufficiently reliable and significant relationship between noise doses and health disorders to be explicitly used as a basis for setting a noise standard. The following is a summary of the study findings.

The effects of traffic noise on health are diverse, involving both physiological as well as psychological responses. The most serious impacts of noise, however, are the physiological effects of which hearing loss of a permanent or temporary nature is the most severe. Therefore, protection from hearing damage is a prime prerequisite that must be considered in formulating permissible traffic noise level standards.

Hearing loss from noise is a reduction in the ability to hear sounds caused by the psysiological damage resulting from cumulative exposure over a period of time to excessive levels of noise. The amount of hearing loss is determined mainly by the sound intensity, pitch, tone, composition or frequency content, the duration of exposure and whether the sound is continuous or impulsive. The hearing threshold level is the predominate measure of hearing loss. This level is defined as the level of a tone at the instant it is perceived. Thus, a higher level of hearing threshold correlates with a greater level of hearing loss.

20 Noise levels which may cause permanent or temporary hearing loss vary from person to person, however, a noise level limit of 140 decibels for sound of short duration and a 24—hour Leq limit that is equal to or less than 70 dBA or 75 dBA for eight hours a day is generally accepted as providing adequate protection against hearing damage. In comparison, the City's average daytime traffic noise levels adjacent to arterial roadways 1 These levels range from 50 dBA to 75 dBA within residential areas. decrease by approximately 10 dBA or more during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. nighttime period.

Hearing loss therefore, is unlikely to occur as a result of traffic noise, particularly in Edmonton. This conclusion has been confirmed by the Edmonton Local Board of Health who have completed an extensive literature review and conducted personal interviews with three medical 2 Their report concluded that experts in the field (see Appendix I). permanent damage to the auditory mechanisms by traffic noise in the 50-80 dBA ranges is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. The duration and exposure conditions necessary for such levels to create permanent damage virtually do not occur in the Edmonton environment. A detailed breakdown of-the auditory effects of noise and the approximate levels at which they occur is illustrated in Table 5.1.

TABLE 5.1 HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE3 Sound Level In Decibels 75 and above 70 65 60 55 and below

Hearing Loss (Qualitative Description May begin to occur Will not likely occur Will not occur Will not occur Will not occur

1. City of Edmonton, Transportation Management Department, "Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage 1: A Perspective", 1980.

2. Edmonton Local Board of Health, "Health Effects of Traffic Noise: An Addendum Report", 1982.

3. National Academy of Sciences, "Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise", 1977.

21 5.2 CONCLUSION

It appears that the selection of a noise level standard should not exceed 70 dBA Leq in order to prevent the potential of hearing loss due to noise. This level represents the maximum allowable noise environment for both new or existing residential areas, as it is the threshold point whereby hearing damage may begin to occur. In addition, the other psychological effects of noise, such as stress, although difficult to measure, will begin to intensity as the level of annoyance and loss of sleep become more frequent.

22 CHAPTER 6 IDENTIFICATION OF WELFARE EFFECTS

6.1 STUDY FINDINGS The effects of traffic noise on the personal comfort and well being of the public may be measured and assessed through the use of three welfare indicators: interference with speech; interference with sleep; and the degree of annoyance from noise. Individually these criteria have formed the basis for the selection of design noise level standards in North America. A detailed outline of these effects is provided in Working Paper #2 entitled, "Identification of Noise Impacts and Issues". A brief summary of the welfare indicators that were examined follows:

i) Speech Interference Human welfare is clearly dependent on the maintenance of intelligible speech communication; which is the activity most frequently interfered with by noise. Speech interference effects fall into two categories. The first is an inability to understand a spoken message because of the masking caused by intruding noise. This can occur during the course of a face-to-face conversation, while talking on the telephone or when listening to television. The second effect is more subtle. This occurs when an intruding noise interferes with a conversation causing the speaker to increase their vocal effort which may produce discomfort and strain on the vocal system.

In the presence of noise, the speaker and listener generally move closer together and adjust their voice levels to obtain improved intelligibility. The masking effect on conversation can be characterized by the relationship between the percentage of simple phrases understood (intelligibility) on the one hand,

23 and acoustical index on the other. Three acoustical indices may be used: articulation index (Al); speech interference level (SIL); and sound level (dBA). The sound level in dBA usually gives an adequate prediction of speech interference in residential areas. In the case of fluctuating noise, which is characteristic of traffic noise, intelligibility is greater than with constant noise levels. Some of the relationships between outdoor noise levels and speech interference, are shown in Table 6.1 for the marginal value of 95% sentence intelligibility.

TABLE 6.1 4 SPEECH INTERFERENCE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE

SPEECH INTERFERENCE Distance between people in Sound Levels in Decibels

Meters for 95% Sentence Intelligibility

75 and above

0.5

70

0.9

65

1.5

60

2.0

55 and below

3.5

The implications of background noise on interpersonal communication are rather substantial. This process involves

of on Levels "Information 4. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", 1974.

24 culturally acceptable communicative distances and speech levels. The prescribed North American social norm is a distance of approximately 4.5 to 5 feet (1.5m) for a normal conversation. If background noise levels increase, speakers are required either to infringe on this space, to raise their voice level, or to cease communication. The choice of any of these alternatives

is generally unsatisfactory

in that it would

represent a

disruption to interpersonal

communication.

It

appears from

Table 6.1 that in order to

achieve a normal

conversation

between two individuals 1.5

meters apart, a

background noise level of 65 dBA or less outdoors is required.

It appears that speech interference from noise begins to occur at a noise level of approximately 60 to 65 dBA. Above this range normal conversation becomes difficult and speakers are required to move closer, raise their voices or cease conversation. This makes interpersonal communication difficult and could result in increased annoyance and complaints and would contribute to the

degradation of the overall neighbourhood

environment.

ii) Sleep Interference

Sleep interference is one of the more significant f fects of noise. The degree to which sleep is affected depends not only upon the factors

which influence hearing loss, but other

considerations such as the level of sleep, and the age and health of exposed individual.

Individual arousal to noise stimuli depends upon a variety of factors, one of which is the particular level of sleep a person experiencing (e.g. light, medium, deep) when the disturbance occurs. In a light sleep, sounds must be 30 to 40 decibels greater than in a normal awake state, and in a deep sleep, 50 to

25 80 decibels greater, in order to be perceived. In general, unfamiliar sounds interfere with sleep stages to a greater extent than familiar. Individuals deprived of sleep usually require more intense stimuli to awaken than do well-rested individuals; and conversely, subjects can be more easily awakened the longer they have slept, in any stage of sleep.

Experimental results also suggest that noise-level fluctuations affect an individual's ability to get to sleep and remain asleep. Age and health also pay significant roles in the extent of sleep disturbance from noise, with persons over 60 years of age being substantially more annoyed than the middle aged or the young, and with healthy persons generally being less annoyed than those of poor physical condition.

The majority of studies appear to indicate that physical adaption to sleep interference is non-existent or negligible, at best. Most adaption is psychological. Hence, even though individuals may make the necessary mental adjustment to noise, the quality, duration, and recuperative value of sleep can still be affected, leading to a deterioration of one's state of health and poor work performance.

Presently, little laboratory information is available on the effects of fluctuating noise such as nighttime vehicular traffic, on sleep. However, the effects of a constant sound of a specific magnitude and duration on the probability of awakening and shift in sleep level do exist. Studies of sleep interference indicate a concensus that a desirable indoor noise level is approximately 35 to 40 dBA5. This indoor level corresponds to outdoor nighttime levels of roughly 45 dBA for an open-window environment and 55 to 60 dBA for a closed window

5. Edmonton Local Board of Health, "Health Effects of Traffic Noise: A Literature Review", 1980.

26 6 environment . Table 6.2 presents a summary of the casual relationships between noise levels and the effects of sleep.

TABLE 6.2 SLEEP INTERFERENCE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE

7

Outdoor Sound Level

Sleep

In Decibels

Interference

(Qualitative Description

75 and above

Will occur

70

Will occur

65

Will begin to occur

60

Will not likely occur

55 and below

Will not occur

with Windows Closed)

iii) Annoyance Findings

Public annoyance and adverse community reaction resulting from the subjective perception of unwanted noise from roadway traffic, has been used to establish a relationship between the annoyance felt by a community and the level of traffic noise to which it was exposed.

The reaction to noise is complex, depending on the characteristics of the sound, the type of activities disturbed and the situational and attitudinal factors involved. This complexity does not allow an accurate assessment of individual annoyance to be made for exposure to a given noise, but general

6.In an average dwelling; that complies with the Alberta Building Standards, a noise level of at least 15-20 dBA below the outdoor level when windows are closed should exist. Therefore, if the outdoor noise level is no more than 60 dBA, then sleep interference will not likely occur.

7. City of Edmonton, Transportation Management Department, 1982.

27 predictions may be made for community groups on a statistical basis. The annoyance produced by unwanted noise has been assessed using case studies of citizen complaints and through social surveys. Table 6.3 presents a summary of the relationship between the annoyance experienced by the public and the level of traffic noise to which they were exposed. It may be interpreted from this table that the noise level accepted by the majority of a given population (91%), is of 60 dBA and less.

It should be pointed out that no matter what noise level standard is set, there will always be some dissatisfaction with traffic noise. This is a consequence of the variation in tolerance from person to person. Therefore, noise standards should be established to create sound conditions that a majority of the population may consider reasonable.

6.2 CONCLUSION It appears that the selection of a noise level standard should not exceed 65 dBA Leq in order to maintain an acceptable quality of environment in terms of sleeping and conversation conditions. In addition, if a 60 dBA noise level standard is achieved, community reaction, in terms of annoyance and complaints to noise, will be insignificant as noise will be considered no more important than various other environmental factors.

28 TABLE 6.3 ANNOYANCE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE

8

Average Sound Level % of Population Community In Decibels Highly Annoyed 75 and above

47%

Reaction

General Community Attitude Towards Local Area

very severe Noise is likely to be the most important of all adverse aspects of the community environment.

70

25%

severe

Noise is one of the most important adverse aspects of the community environment.

15%

65

significant Noise is one of the important adverse aspects of the community environment, Noise may be considered an

9%

60

moderate to 55 and below

4%

slight

adverse aspect of the community environment.

Noise considered no more important than various other environmental factors.

Annoyance effects of noise on people become significant when noise levels reach 65 dBA. Even at this noise level approximately 85% of the public exposed excessive noise levels is not highly annoyed. They may however, begin to consider noise to be an adverse aspect of the neighbourhood environment.

Above 65 dBA, community reaction becomes significant to severe as noise becomes one of the important adverse aspects of the community.

8. National Academy of Science, "Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise", 1977.

29 CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

From the evaluation of the state-of-the-art review of North American noise policies as well as the evaluation of the health and welfare effects of noise, it appeared that a noise level of 60 dBA Leg is the most appropriate residential noise level standard. It was at this point in the evaluation of possible noise level standards where a further review was conducted of the technical/economical and administrative feasibility of implementing this standard within the Edmonton context.

7.1 STUDY FINDINGS At the present time, no totally satisfactory quantitative, economic criteria have been incorporated in the development of noise regulations to this date, as no one has been able to accurately calculate the dollar cost of noise impacts. However, the areas which are economically affected by traffic noise are known, including; property values, impaired health, lowered working efficiency and noise attenuation costs. The economic impacts of impaired health and lowered working efficiency will not be considered for this study as they are extremely difficult to quantify and are not known to what extent they are affected by noise levels from traffic. Property values are also difficult to quantify as proximity to a major roadway involves exposure to a combination of traffic related nuisances including air pollution, dust, vehicle lights, as well as noise. Isolating the separate effects of these factors is probably impossible. Therefore, this Chapter will investigate the noise attenuation costs which are the area of greatest concern because the financial impacts are more immediately apparent and distinguishable.

The economic effects of the standard therefore, were determined by examining the funding required for noise attenuation by: i) the City, ii) the Public, and iii) the Development Industry. Before this

30 examination could be made however, a review was undertaken of noise attenuation responsibilities of the three parties. The following outlines the study findings regarding the noise attenuation responsibilities and the economic implications on these three parties.

i) Municipal Responsibilities:

The responsibilities to the City with respect to the implementation of the noise standard can be divided into two areas: ensuring the attenuation of traffic noise in new residential development situations; and the selective abatement of excessive noise level locations in existing residential development situations as identified in Functional Roadway Planning Studies and the proposed Barrier Priorization Program.

For new residential development situations, the costs to the City are primarily the salaries of staff responsible for activities undertaken within the development review process.

These staff salary costs are difficult to isolate, as the time required varies from situation to situation. The cost of including a traffic noise component within the review process would be minimal. On average it takes less than an hour to review applications to ensure conformity to standards. The average number of new residential development applications per annum is 3165 (1982) of which a limited number are for sites adjacent to arterial roadways.

For existing residential locations adjacent to arterial roadways, the City is committed to providing noise attenuation in conjunction with roadway upgrading projects, where feasible, as recommended in Functional Roadway Planning Studies. These costs incurred in providing noise attenuation facilities vary from situation to situation depending upon: site specific

31 factors, the type of material selected for the attenuation barrier, the noise level reduction required, or in some extreme cases, the need to purchase the noise impacted properties.

However, major capital expenditures are usually associated with noise attenuation. For example, $2,200,000 was allocated for noise attenuation facilities in the Whitemud Functional Planning Study and estimates for the Northeast Corridor Functional Planning Study indicate that $795,000 is required to provide adequate noise attenuation. There are currently four completed Functional Roadway Planning Studies since 1980 that recommend the provision of noise attenuation, of which all are eligible to receive 2/3 cost shared financial assistance from the Province under the Urban Transportation Assistance Progam. In total since 1980, $6,595,000 worth of required noise attenuation facilities have been ientified through Functional Roadway Plans.

The remaining residential noise problem areas, that would be omitted because they were not included in Functional Roadway Plans, or were not included in the Barrier Priorization Program, or were multi-storey or fronting-on residential buildings, would be dealt with by the municipality in the following manner.

First, encouragement would be made to gradually redevelop these areas by the development industry to a more noise compatible land use, by redistricting the affected property through Area Redevelopment Plans. For those residents not wishing their property to be redistricted, the municipality will provide information to the affected property owners advising them of acoustical home improvements that they may implement to reduce indoor noise levels. It may be possible for the City to negotiate a grant funding program with the Federal Government to assist with the cost of the acoustical renovations. In addition, the municipality will ensure a fair and accurate tax reduction is given to the affected residents. A Noise Monitoring Program would also be established in order to detect

32

the occurance of new residential noise problem locations that may require attention. And finally, the proposed amendments to government policies and programs should assist in creating an overall acceptable urban sound environment.

Municipal Cost Implications:

Based on the above review of the municipal attenuation responsibilities, the attenuation costs that would be incurred by the municipality to achieve a noise level standard of 60 dBA Leq in existing residential areas is limited at this time. The primary means of measuring the economic effects of noise on City expenditures was by examining the funding required by the Municipality to attenuate the most severe existing traffic noise locations in Edmonton, using acoustical barriers to achieve selected noise standards.

Although it is more cost efficient to provide noise attenuation concurrently with roadway improvements, it was found necessary to review the noise conditions along arterial roadways not committed to Functional Roadway Planning Studies. This requirement has formed the basis of the proposed Barrier Priorization Program.

The potential traffic noise attenuation sites that were examined for this analysis were limited to residential areas where the lots were backing-on an arterial roadway and where there existed sufficient open space to install a continuous barrier, to protect the outdoor amenity area. Residential lots that were fronting-on an arterial roadway or had an existing or proposed noise attenuation barrier were not considered. Fronting-on properties were generally assumed to receive adequate noise attenuation, with the residential building acting as a noise barrier between the roadway and the outdoor amenity area and in most cases do not allow for the installation of a barrier.

33 Five alternative noise levels were again selected as potential residential noise level standards. These levels were 55 and below, 60, 65, 70, 75 and above. For each level, cost estimates were determined for each noise level standard, based on the number of residential areas exposed to excessive noise that were identified from the computer noise prediction model findings of Stage I.

The average barrier unit costs were derived from discussions with manufacturers and the assumptions that the optimum costeffective barrier is about 3.5 meters in height and that the barrier would be constructed of steel. A barrier height of 3.5 meters was chosen for this exercise, as studies have proven that barriers lower than 3 meters are not cost effective in terms of cost per dBA attenuation. Also, based on the economic principle of diminishing returns, the California Department of 9 Transportation has determined that a barrier height of 3.3 meters would be the most cost effective in terms of cost per lineal foot per dBA attenuation. However, in order to intercept noise emitted from truck exhaust stacks, a height of 3.5 meters is recommended. It should be noted that the barrier costs represented average site preparation costs and did not allow for site specific conditions, nor do the costs include the acquisition of property, should it be required.

9. "Cost Effectiveness of Freeway Traffic Noise Barriers" California Department of Transportation, 1981

34 The barrier implementation costs for each alternative noise level standard are summarized below in Table 7.1. Barrier implementation at a noise level standard of 55 dBA would entail the construction of approximately 64.1 kilometres in length at cost of approximately $28,845,000 based on 1982 cost estimates.

Barriers implemented to meet a noise level standard of 60 dBA would entail construction of approximately 54.9 kilometers in length and would cost approximately $24,705,000. Similarly, barriers implemented at a noise level standard of 65 dBA would entail the construction of over 12.3 kilometres in length at a cost of approximately $5,535,000.

TABLE 7.1 10 ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC NOISE - BARRIER ATTENUATION COSTS TO REDUCE EXISTING ARTERIAL NOISE LEVELS

Sound Levels

Barrier

Barrier

In Decibels(Leq)

Length(KM)

Cost (8)

75 and above

0

0

70

0

0

65

12.3

5,535,000

60

54.9

24,705,000

55 and below

64.1

28,845,000

10. City of Edmonton, Transportation Management Department, 1982.

35 It is interesting to note that no barriers are required at a noise level standard of 70 dBA and over and consequently there are no requirements for noise attenuation capital expenditures at this time other than those already addressed in Functional Roadway Plans or Area Structure Plans.

This situation can be attributed to the inclusion of noise abatement measures and associated attenuation costs within the context of recent functional roadway plans that has either mitigated the severe residential noise problem locations or has addressed the noise problem and has provided for future attenuation facilities.

Future expenditures on noise attenuation are dependant upon land use changes, the alternation of truck routes and potential increases in traffic flows along arterial roadways. Traffic noise levels along arterial roadways will be monitored on an annual basis to identify any new noise problem locations. Sites that warrant attenuation, that are technically and economically feasible to abate, will receive consideration through the proposed Noise Barrier Priorization Program or will be addressed in a future Functional Roadway Planning Study. These sites will then be included within the Engineering Department's 5 and 10 Year Transit and Roadway Improvement Program for implementation.

ii) Resident Responsibilities:

Currently, the residents of Edmonton indirectly share the responsibility for the costs incurred with municipal funded noise barriers through taxation. Municipal funded barriers are either provided under Functional Roadway Plans or will be included within the proposed Barrier Priorization Program.

These costs are minimal however, as they are shared by all City residents through general property taxes.

36 Resident Cost Implications:

Direct attenuation costs to residents may occur for situations where the City does not identify a noise problem, or where property owners may be very sensitive to noise and wish to achieve noise levels below the standards. For these situations residents may voluntarily choose to retrofit their dwelling units in order to reduce interior noise levels to an acceptable level of 45 dBA, as outlined in more detail in UTNPS Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83).

The proceeding section discussed how traffic noise levels impacting outdoor amenity areas can be reduced through a municipal program of noise barrier construction in reversed frontage situations. While such a program would also serve to reduce indoor noise levels of a residential dwelling, significant reduction in indoor noise levels can also be achieved by the individual homeowner, through modifications or renovations to the building fabric. In direct frontage situations this may be the only practical form of noise attenuation. The type of modifications undertaken may involve the installation of double glazed/sealed window units, added insulation, or the application of lead—vinyl sheeting, gypsum board, resilient channel wall studs, and solid core doors.

The costs to the homeowner for implementing these modifications is minimal if the installation is done personally. Examples of various building material costs (1982 cost estimates) include solid core door ($100.00), 1/2 inch gypsum board 4 x 8 ($6.00), 2 acoustical insulation—fibreglass (per m — $3.00), resilient

37 channel wall studs per foot ($0.75), double glazed sealed window unit ($300.00). If sealed windows are used, central air conditioning would be required at a cost of approximately $3,000.00. It is difficult to estimate the exact costs per house as the material selected to achieve noise attenuation will depend upon the degree of the perceived noise level, the function of a particular room, and the age and construction of materials used in the existing dwelling. The noise reduction from modifying the window area alone can reduce noise levels by 11 5 dBA . It should be noted that some of the materials available for acoustical improvements may also have thermal (energy saving) value and would provide the homeowner with additional incentive through the added benefit of reduced heating costs. A home improvement program for noise abatement, including possible grant funding from CMHC, is discussed in UTNPS Stage II, Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83).

iii) Development Industry Responsibilities:

The Development Industry has been made responsible for ensuring that residential development plans adjacent to truck routes, include attenuation measures to reduce the effects of noise to the existing noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn. It is proposed that the Development Industry will be responsible to develop plans adjacent to arterial roadways which include insensitive land uses or be prepared to pay the full costs of developing residential land in accordance with the 60 dBA Leq standard.

The onus will be on the developer to make this decision and to assume the cost implications if noise attenuation is required, as it is the development which directly benefits from the mitigative measure.

11. Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Control Standards and Procedures, Department of Transportation, 1976.

38 In order to minimize the expense of mitigating noise problems for any new development or redevelopment of existing buildings, it is important to begin dealing with noise as an issue at the early stages of design. If there is a potential noise problem, it can often be resolved with minimum expense if it is taken into account in the overall planning and design of the development from the start. A corollary of efficient site design is that noise control measures instituted as an after thought generally result in high costs and are aesthetically less satisfactory than measures introduced early in the process with an emphasis on controlling the outdoor_ amenity area noise level.

Whether or not specific noise control measures are required for a particular development will depend upon the severity of the noise problem. Often the assessment of noise levels at a particular site will indicate a slight noise problem (between 60-65 dBA Leq). Such an excess is recognized as being "just noticeable". Whether a developer should be required to provide physical noise control measures is debatable. In such cases, however, consideration should be given to longer term aspects of the situation, using ultimate capacity traffic volume predictions and consequent noise level projections. The developer may be asked to remove the small excess of noise or prospective purchasers of such property may need to be informed that a slight noise problem exists. A "warning clause" system , has been used in Ontario. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to ensure that a prospective purchaser reads such a clause before making a commitment to buy. This difficulty is particularly true for second and subsequent purchasers. A similar clause should be included in Rental Agreements and be read by the prospective tenant before an agreement is signed or a commitment made.

39 With more severe noise problems (65 dBA Leq and greater), it will be necessary to require specific noise control measures (such as those listed in Table 7.2) as a condition of approval.

In general such measures should be designed to meet an acceptable noise standard (60 dBA Leq and below) although slight exceedances could be dealt with as discussed above.

Development Industry Cost Implications:

The cost implications on the Development Industry to comply with the above attenuation responsibility are difficult to speculate on as they depend upon specific site conditions, the required noise level abatement and the attenuation technique selected.

It is known, however, that noise attenuation costs can be reduced if noise abatement is considered and incorporated early in the planning process. At this time the most cost effective techniques, as determined by the developer, are at their disposal. These techniques include spatial separation, land use barriers, acoustical barriers, architectural design and acoustical construction materials. If land use planning measures are selected (spatial separation or land use barriers), they would eliminate the need for a barrier structure and land for the sole purpose of attenuating traffic noise, as noise attenuation is "built in" to the residential projects. This allows for more developable land and removes the costs associated with long term maintenance of attenuation facilities. Furthermore, the attenuation costs could be offset through increased marketability of the residential dwelling units from reducing on site traffic noise levels. The following is a review of the cost implications of applying alternative noise attenuation measures:

TABLE 7.2 NOISE CONTROL MEASURES

LAND USE PLANNING

STAGE OF PLANNING

Spatial Separation Mitigation measures may be considered Open Space and Distance Setbacks (early in the planning process) at: Insertion of Noise Insensitive Buffers - Area Redevelopment Structure Plan Scale - Neighbourhood Structure Plan Scale Land Use Barriers - Area Structure Plan Scale - Individual Lot Redevelopment Scale - Intervening Structures - Apartments - Townhouses - Topographic Considerations - Orientation of Outdoor Amenity Area

COST High: distance setbacks are a moderate to high cost depending on size of buffer strip.

Low: main costs are fees of acoustical consultant and site planner.

OTHER NOISE CONROL MEASURES Acoustical Barriers Earth Berms Walls

Mitigation measures may be considered (early in the planning process) at: - Neighbourhood Structure Plan Scale - Area Structure Plan Scale

Moderate to High: depending on availability of earth, land costs for berms, and height and type of barrier.

Architectural Design - Room Arrangement - Orientation of Windows - Blank Walls

Mitigation measures relate to Indoor Noise Levels. Mitigation measures may be considered (late in the planning process) at: - Individual Lot Redevelopment Scale - Area Redevelopment Plan Scale

Low: main cost is that of an acoustical consultant, minimal expense if used when first constructing building.

Construction Techniques - Acoustical Treatment of Walls, Windows and Doors - Air Conditioning and Ventilation

Low to Moderate: varies with amount of noise reduction desired but generally low. Costs offset by reduction in heating requirements.

41 Spatial Separation:

The premise behind this noise control measure is that land uses which produce noise should be separated from residential areas that require a relative quiet environment. It should be noted, however, that the effectiveness of distance alone as a noise mitigation measure is relatively limited as great distances are required to mitigate severe noise problems.

The amount of land required in the spatial separation of a noise source - from the receiver is dependent upon such factors as topography and the intensity of the noise source. However, if it is possible to find a buffer use for the area allocated for the spatial separation of the noise source and receiver, the cost of land may not be a major consideration. It may be possible to group land uses in such a way that noise sources and areas which require relatively quiet environments are buffered by land uses which do not create much noise, do not require quiet surroundings and are compatible with the adjacent residential land uses. In this way, land uses including active recreation facilities such as linear parks and arenas, might be used to separate an arterial roadway and a residential area.

Also transportation related land uses such as local service roads or parking lots may be used to spatially separate residential land uses from traffic noise.

In Edmonton, the cost of land is a major component of the final sale price of a residential unit. Therefore, direct and significant costs to the developer are associated with the use of land strictly for noise mitigation through spatial separation rather than for residential development. Therefore, this noise control measure would only be economically practical whereby the loss of opportunity for development would not exceed the cost of

42 other noise control measures that do not require the additional land. In addition, if spatial separation is used as a noise mitigation measure and is left as open space, there may be a maintenance cost involving such activities as grass cutting and weed control.

Finally, public acceptance should be considered in the cost evaluation of using spatial separation for noise control.

Public acceptance of a noise mitigation measure is an important consideration in marketing a residential development. The marketability of a development will often be influenced by the aesthetic acceptability of the chosen noise mitigation measure.

The use of the natural landscape as a noise barrier, or the use of open space, or a well planned land use arrangement will likely result in a high level of acceptance by the public.

Land Use Barriers:

It is often not possible to plan developments where the appropriate degree of noise mitigation could be achieved through spatial separation alone. This is particularly true for arterial roadways within the older areas of the City where noise control cannot be achieved through a redistribution of land uses on a site or within a neighbourhood.

An important aspect of site planning is the consideration of the natural landscape of a given site. For example, rolling terrain may provide a natural barrier where the proper positioning of buildings may result in acceptable noise levels. The use of the natural landscape and topography as a barrier may result in a more aesthetically acceptable and less expensive solution than other forms of barriers.

43 A more common land use barrier is the intervening structure.

This is a where a building acts as a barrier between the roadway noise and a residential area. Such an intervening structure would need to be a long continuous structure close to and parallel to the roadway. Commercial as well as residential land uses may be used as an intervening structure.

Even low and medium density housing may be built adjacent to arterial roadways providing additional acoustical insulation is provided to create tolerable interior noise levels (45 dBA). In this case the house, or houses, would act as a barrier between the roadway and the yard and to other residential properties beyond. This is more effective where the houses are attached as in townhousing or multiple units, creating a continuous barrier.

Where traditional subdivision design orientates houses to back on to the arterial roadway, the situation can be reversed. The rear yard could be used for car parking and with the noise sheltered from the front yard, it could be used as the outdoor amenity area. A number of different multiple unit and individual site layouts have been developed to deal with these noise problems. Key—lots are one such innovation. Garages are also sometimes used as barriers to provide quiet private yard space.

Intervening structures are a cost effective use of land since the structure provides both housing and a noise barrier.

Construction of the building itself, however, may be more expensive than the norm in order to reduce interior noise levels. In addition, because of the design characteristics of intervening structures (such as apartments where dwelling units are located on only one side of internal corridors for interior noise insulation purposes), more internal space is required for circulation than in conventionally designed buildings. For this

44 reason a slightly lower density may be achieved than that realized in conventionally designed buildings. However, townhouses which act as intervening structures need only be different from conventional designs in that one side of the unit would have a blank wall. Low and medium density housing designed as intervening structures may require no additional land over conventional designs.

Construction costs of intervening structures may be slightly higher than for conventionally designed residential units. In an apartment building that has units on only one side of the corridor, the circulation space to living floor space ratio will not be comparable with conventional designs. In addition, extra construction costs may be incurred in providing acoustical insulation to the walls facing the roadway.

It is also important to note that intervening structures frequently are designs which are not considered conventional or traditional, and therefore may cause some consumers to find such buildings less attractive and consequently difficult to market.

Acoustical Barriers:

For this section, acoustical barriers are defined to be earth berms and walls, that effectively act as barriers to noise.

Unlike noise control measures involving land use planning techniques, these types of barriers are rarely useful in their own right as part of a development. For this reason they should be considered as a secondary measure in the planning process.

45 An earth berm is a mound of earth running parallel to a roadway that acts as a barrier against the noise source. The primary cost of a berm is the land that is occupied. In addition, the costs of constructing a berm are to some extent dependent upon the availability and proximity to fill. Even the smallest berm, requires a considerable volume of fill. The land required is also considerable because of the 3:1 slope that is necessary to ensure ease of maintenance. Although berms may be considered to be a more aesthetically pleasing noise mitigation measure than walls, they require considerable more work to maintain their appearance. Grassed earth berms require regular mowing and weed control. Berms also require extra cost resulting from the additional accumulation of debris and snow. Furthermore, berms may act as barriers to drainage which may pose problems for the function and maintenance of drainage swails.

It is also important to note that the erection of berms is indicative of a noise problem in an area. This may be a negative selling feature for a residential subdivision.

However, some people may perceive the berms as offering them a greater degree of privacy and protection. Other consumers may feel that the noise problem has been resolved by the inclusion of a berm and therefore will consider this feature positively.

In comparison, acoustical walls which effectively mitigate noise, have the advantage of requiring less maintenance and less space than an earth berm. They also provide a strong psychological separation between the noise source and receiver.

The main function of a solid wall is for noise mitigation, however, it may draw attention to the fact that a noise problem exists similar to berms. There is also the problem where these barriers may not be considered aesthetically pleasing, especially if no landscaping is provided. Maintenance costs are relatively low, particularly if concrete or steel is used in their construction.

46 Architectural Design Techniques:

Within a house there are noise sensitive areas which include bedrooms, living rooms and dens. Less noise sensitive areas may include kitchens and bathrooms; while hallways, storage rooms and closets are not sensitive to noise. With appropriate arrangement of these areas, the internal separation of sensitive areas from the noise source may result in acceptable noise levels being achieved. Also by limiting the number and size of wall openings on the side of a dwelling exposed to noise, interior noise levels will be reduced.

However, the design of houses should consider noise as one of many concerns. For example, windows are normally planned with consideration of light and ventilation in mind. The absence of windows on one side of a dwelling may in turn require a special ventilation system or air conditioning. In addition, the arrangement of a house designed to accommodate noise concerns may result in a building with an unusual appearance and consequently may be difficult to sell.

There are usually no direct costs to the developer associated with architectural design techniques used to control noise.

However, in the case of an apartment building, where corridors have units on one side only, construction costs are higher since useable residential space is served by almost twice as much circulation (corridor) space.

47 Construction Techniques:

In most residential developments where outdoor noise levels are at acceptable limits, standard construction techniques and building code requirements are adequate to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable limits. Further reduction of indoor noise levels however, is possible for situations where residential development is desirable adjacent to an arterial roadway, through the use of special construction techniques, materials and design details. It is beyond the scope of this section to describe these techniques in detail but they include such items as:

- increasing the airspace, thickness and density of materials used in walls; - making windows as small as possible, sealing them properly, increasing glass thickness, and using various forms of double glazing (air conditioning may become necessary in conjunction with these measures); - using a solid core door and adding a screen door or double door.

Construction techniques that reduce indoor noise levels will require no additional property for their implementation. In addition, it is unlikely that they will encounter public resistance as acoustic insulation and heavier glass in windows are not likely to be perceived by the average consumer. In addition, no extra maintenance costs can be attributed to construction techniques and in fact these techniques may save in energy costs due to the insulating nature of acoustical materials.

48 7.2 CONCLUSION

It appears therefore that there will not be an excessive economic burden created by the provision of noise attenuation to achieve a residential noise standard of 60 dBA Leq, by either the City, the Public or the Development Industry. Municipal noise attenuation costs, other than that committed to functional roadway plans, are limited and will primarily involve staff costs in the development review process as well as costs incurred in the establishment of a Citizen Information Program, Noise Monitoring Program, Noise Barrier Priorization Program when required and to continue providing municipal tax assessment relief for existing noise impacted residential properties.

The costs to residents, other than through general property taxes, will be on a voluntary basis only, depending on whether they wish to retrofit their own dwelling units with noise insulation materials in order to achieve noise level below the standards. These costs can be relatively minor, if grant funding assistance is provided for under existing CMHC home improvement programs.

Similarily, the establishment of a 60 dBA Leq noise standard will not subject the development industry to provide costly noise attenuation measures, provided that the previously outlined abatement measures are considered and incorporated early in the planning process, as the most cost-effective abatement measures are at the developers disposal at that time. In particular, the costs associated with land use planning noise attenuation measures are relatively inexpensive.

These measures eliminate the need for a barrier structure and land for the sole purpose of attenuating traffic noise, as noise attenuation is "built in" to the residential projects. This allows for more developable land and removes the costs associated with long term maintenance of attenuation facilities.

49 CHAPTER 8 ANALYSIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACCEPTABILITY

8.1 STUDY RESULTS

As in the economic reasonableness analysis, the evaluation of administrative acceptability was limited to a 60 dBA Leg noise standard.

This standard was determined to be acceptable from an examination of noise policies in use elsewhere in North America as well as the evaluation of health and welfare effects of noise.

i) Compatibility with Senior Government Legislation:

At this time, neither the Federal or Provincial governments have established policies or guidelines concerning urban traffic noise that could be imposed upon or adopted by municipalities.

Land use planning issues are generally acknowledged to be the responsibility of the Provinces. In Alberta, however, much of the Provincial authority has been delegated to the Municipalities themselves. Legislation setting out the power and responsibilities of municipalities are primarily contained in the Planning Act, 1980.

The land use control system, consisting of Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and the Land Use Bylaw, are the three major tools provided to the City by the Planning Act for implementing general municipal plan policies including those addressing environmental issues. With these planning tools in place, direction may be provided for the implementation of any noise policies set out in the general municipal plan for the preparation and review of plans for development or redevelopment of areas or parcels of land within the City.

50 The Planning Act does mention that a municipality, through a general municipal plan, may "describe the land uses proposed for the municipality and the manner of and the sequence proposed for future development.. .and contain such other matters as City Council considers necessary" (Section 61). This provides for an Urban Traffic Noise Standard as it may be considered as an "other matter" under this Section, if approved by City Council.

This Section may be sufficient to justify amending a general municipal plan, however, a number of minor amendments to the development regulations of the Planning Act are required before traffic noise considerations may be incorporated into the land use planning process through a land use bylaw. It was found that an amendment to Section 69 of the Planning Act is required that would allow a land use bylaw to regulate noise attenuation requirements for the use and development of residential land, particularly adjacent to arterial radways, freeways and railway corridors. This section currently sets out all site conditions that may be prohibited, regulated and controlled by a municipality except for on-site noise levels.

It is also necessary to insert a clause in Sections 77 and 92 of the Planning Act that would make it possible for municipalities to enter into agreements with developers to install or pay for the installation of noise attenuation devices or design alternatives that are necessary to achieve an acceptable noise level for new development. Sections 77 and 92 presently give a municipality the right to enter into agreements with developers to construct public roadways and install utilities, pedestrian walkways, and off-street parking. A similar provision is needed to enable municipalities to negotiate with developers regarding noise attenuation devices or design alternatives where noise problems warrant such treatment to achieve an acceptable noise level, as determined by the municipality.

51 In summary, the evaluation of administrative acceptability determined that the City may adopt a residential noise level standard of its choice. At this time, there is no existing Federal or Provincial legislation that must be conformed to and, the administrative mechanisms for implementing a noise policy are already in place. However, there is a need for amendments to the Planning Act that will provide the necessary mandate for the municipality to implement a traffic noise policy through the land use planning process.

ii) Compatibility with Existing Municipal Noise Policy

At the recessed meeting of City Council on Wednesday, 1980 07 09, the following amended policy concerning noise attenuation and residential development was adopted by City Council:

"That no new residential development be allowed within 200 feet of designated truck routes, measured from the nearest travelling lane, or within such distance as required by alternative noise attenuation treatments to achieve comparable noise attenuation so that the noise level at the nearest property line would not exceed 60 dBA Ldn or to the satisfaction of the Transportation Management Department."

This policy was adopted as an interim measure while a comprehensive study could be undertaken of the most appropriate noise standard for the City. To date, this policy has been successful in minimizing the occurance of new traffic noise problem locations in the new suburban residential areas, however, the applicability of the policy is limited to new residential areas within 200 feet of designated truck routes.

52 This stipulation omits the existing residential noise problem locations along arterial roadways and for those arterials that were not designated as truck routes. In addition, this standard has been found inflexible and therefore impractical and unattainable for new development within existing development situations. Existing situations are constrained by the nature of existing land uses and the lack of space for applying low cost attenuation techniques. Therefore it appears that a discretionary range up to 65 dBA Leq is necessary for the noise standard that would require economically and technically practicable noise attenuation measures for these situations.

The other major drawback of the 60 dBA Ldn standard is the noise descriptor (Ldn) chosen for the standard. The descriptors which are generally found to correlate most highly with traffic noise annoyances are Leq, L10, L50, and Ldn. Of these four, neither L10 nor L50 are as universally applicable to different types of noise sources or as inexpensively measurable as are Leq and Ldn. Ldn is not suitable as a noise descriptor when analysis of impact and abatement are needed, for it: i) greatly increases the time and cost of acoustic measurements; ii) increases the number of calculations significantly; iii) is dependent upon source operating information over a 24-hour period; and iv) requires assumptions that potentially introduce errors intolerable in the design of noise abatement measures by the arbitrary nature of the 10 dBA nighttime penalty it uses. Leq on the other hand is best suited as a community noise descriptor because of the following reasons:

i) It correlates well with attributed annoyance.

ii) It does so over a wide range of source operating conditions, for instance, large traffic and speed variations.

53 iii) It is capable of use for more than one type of source to allow the overall noise climate to be described, particularly when more than one source is present (e.g. traffic and train noise together).

iv) It is capable of accurate and reasonably inexpensive measurement.

Leg is used or endorsed by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications and many European Organizations. In addition, the Environment Council of Alberta, "Report and Recommendations of the Public Hearings On Noise in Alberta", 1982, recommended, "That the use of dBA Leg be accepted as the standardized noise descriptor" to provide consistency and comparability. Furthermore, the National Research Council concluded that dBA Leg is the most appropriate standard noise descriptor.

8.2 CONCLUSION

In terms of compatibility with senior government legislation, it appears that the City may adopt a residential noise level standard of its choice. There is not any existing Federal or Provincial legislation regarding residential noise level standards that must be conformed to, and, the administrative mechanisms for implementing a noise policy are already in place. However, it is necessary to amend the Planning Act to enable a municipality to implement a residential noise level standard in the planning process. In fact, the provision of noise attenuation cannot be imposed at the subdivision and redistricting stages of development until the enabling legislation is amended.

54 In terms of compatibility with the existing municipal noise policy, it appears that the interim noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn has been effective in controlling noise problems in new residential areas, however, it is not flexibile and therefore impractical for redevelopment situations by the nature of existing land uses and lack of space for low cost attenuation devices. Therefore, it is necessary to allow a discretionary range up to 65 dBA Leq for the noise level standard to be economically and technically practical for these situations.

In addition the existing noise descriptor (Ldn) was found to be inappropriate as a descriptor for describing community noise, as it required assumptions that potentially introduce errors intolerable in the design of noise abatement measures by the arbitrary nature of the 10 dBA nighttime penalty it uses, while the more accurate descriptor (Leq) appeared to be best suited for the City's needs.

55 CHAPTER 9 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS

This study evaluated the alternative noise level standards by using a state-of-the-art comparison of current noise level standards and policies approved by various Canadian and U.S. Federal, Provincial, State and Municipal Governments. In addition, a review was taken of the health, welfare, economic and administrative impacts of selecting a standard which is summarized in Table 9.1.

Based on the State-of-the-Art Review, the most optimum noise standard was determined to be 60 dBA Leq with an acceptable range to 65 dBA Leq. This range allowed for the flexibility that is required to address any technical and economic constraints as well as protect the public from excessive traffic noise. The lower end of this standard, 60 dBA Leq represents an acceptable noise level with respect to health and welfare concerns. The upper end of this range, 65 dBA Leq, recognizes technical difficulties and the financial burden associated with the application of the standard in existing residential areas.

In light of health concerns, it was determined that the noise level standard should not exceed 70 dBA Leq in order to prevent the occurance of hearing loss due to noise. This level represents the maximum allowable noise environment for existing residential areas, as it is the threshold point whereby hearing damage may begin to occur. In addition, the psychological effects of noise, although difficult to measure, will begin to intensify as the level of annoyance increases and the loss of sleep becomes more frequent.

Three welfare indicators were also examined to determine the selection of an acceptable noise level standard including interference with speech;

TABLE 9.1 SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE (Residential Land Uses Only)

SPEECH INTERFERENCE

EFFECTS HEARING LOSS

SOUND LEVEL IN DECIBELS

Outdoor Indoor Distance in Metres %Sentence Qualitative Description Intelligibility for 95% Sentence Intelligibility

75 and above May Begin to Occur

SLEEP INTERFERENCE

ANNOYANCE AVERAGE COMMUNITY REACTION

Qualitative %of population Description Highly Annoyed

98%

0.5

Will occur

47%

Very Severe

99%

0.9

Will Occur

25%

Severe

15%

Significant

70

Will not Likely Occur

65

Will Not Occur

100%

1.5

Will Begin to Occur

60

Will Not Occur

100%

2.0

Will Not Likely Occur

9%

Moderate to

55 and Below

Will not Occur

100%

3.5

Will Not Occur

4%

Slight

TABLE 9.1 (Cont.)

DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY COST IMPLICATIONS

NOISE POLICY STATE OF THE ART*

ADMINISTRATIVELY ACCEPTABLE

SOUND LEVEL IN DECIBELS

CITY COST IMPLICATIONS

RESIDENT COST IMPLICATIONS

75 and above

$0

No Costs

No Cost

No Existing Policies

No Policy Required

70

$0

No Direct Costs

No Cost

Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Yes**

65

$ 5,535,000

Direct Costs

Limited Cost

Federal Hwy. Administration (67 dBA) Ye-s** • Illinois Dept. of Transp. (67 dBA) Arizona Dept. of Transp. (67 dBA) City of Cerritos, California Winnipeg, Manitoba

60

$24,705,000

No Direct Costs

Moderated Cost

City of Calgary/City of Los Angeles City of Montreal/City of Ont., Cal State of California - Caltrans (US)

Yes**

55 and below

$28,845,000

No Direct Costs

Very Costly

Housing and Urban Development (US)

Technically and Economically Unenforceable

* Most noise standards in Canada and the U.S. were solely guidelines rather than policies and were therefore omitted from this summary. **Conditionally acceptable pending amendments to Planning Act.

TABLE 9.1 (Cont.)

ESTIMATED POPULATION IN EDMONTON EXPOSED TO ARTERIAL ROADWAY NOISE (1980)

SOUND LEVEL IN DECIBELS

GENERAL COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARDS LOCAL AREA

75 and above

Noise is likely to be the most important of all adverse aspects of the local environment.

0

70

Noise is one of the most important adverse aspects of the local environment

51,000

65

Noise is one of the important adverse aspects of the local environment.

44,000

60

Noise may be considered an adverse aspect of the local environment

16,500

55 and above

Noise is considered no more important than various other environmental factors

18,500

59 interference with sleep; and the degree of annoyance from noise. Speech interference from noise begins to occur at a noise level of approximately 60 to 65 dBA Leg. Above this range normal conversation becomes more difficult and speakers are required to move closer, raise their voices or cease conversation. This results in increased annoyance and complaints and would contribute to the degradation of the overall neighbourhood environment.

The threshold at which noise begins to interfere with sleep varies with each individual. In general however, it appears that outdoor noise levels begin to interfere with sleep above 65 dBA. Below this level, sleep interference will not likely occur, except with a minority of individuals who are more sensitive to noise and consequently easily disturbed from sleep.

Similarly, annoyance effects from noise become significant when noise levels reach above 65 dBA Leq. Even at this noise level approximately 85 % of the public are not highly annoyed, however, noise is likely to be considered an adverse aspect of the neighbourhood environment. Above 65 dBA Leq, community reaction becomes significant to severe and noise becomes one of the important adverse aspects of the community.

The results of the economic effects of traffic noise demonstrated that road traffic noise does have a measureable affect on funding required for noise attenuation by the City, the public, and the development industry.

It appears however, that there will not be an excessive economic burden created by the provision of noise attenuation to achieve a residential noise level standard of 60 dBA Leq, by either the City, the Public or the Development Industry. Municipal noise attenuation costs, other than that committed to functional roadway plans are limited, and will primarily involve staff costs in the development review process as well as costs incurred in the establishment of a Citizen Information Program and Noise Monitoring Program, Noise Barrier Priorization Program as required and to continue providing municipal tax assessment relief for existing noise impacted residential properties.

60 The costs incurred by residents other than through general property taxes will be on a voluntary basis only, depending on whether they wish to retrofit their own dwelling units with noise insulating materials in order to achieve noise levels below the standards. These costs can be relatively minor, if grant funding assistance is provided for under existing CMHC home improvement programs.

Similarly, the establishment of a 60 dBA Leg noise standard will not subject the development industry to provide costly noise attenuation measures provided that the outlined measures are considered and incorporated early in the planning process, as the most cost-effective abatement measures are at the developers disposal at that time. In particular, the costs associated with land use planning noise attenuation measures, which are outlined in more detail in UTNPS Volume III (TSR/32/83), are relatively inexpensive. These measures eliminate the need as barrier structure and land for the sole purpose of attenuating traffic noise as noise attenuation is "built" in to the residential projects. This allows for more developable land and removes the costs associated with long term maintenance of attenuation facilities.

In terms of compatibility with senior government legislation it appears that the City may adopt a residential noise level standard of its choice. There is not any existing Federal or Provincial legislation regarding a residential noise level standard that could be imposed upon or adopted by municipalities. However, it is necessary to amend the Planning Act to enable a municipality to implement a residential noise level standard within the land use planning process. In fact, the provision of noise attenuation cannot be imposed at the subdivision and redistricting stages of development until the enabling legislation is amended.

In terms of compatibility with the existing City Noise Policy, it was found that the interim noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn has been

61 effective in controlling noise problems in new residential areas, however, it is not flexible and therefore impractical and unattainable for redevelopment situations. Therefore, it was found that a discretionary range up to 65 dBA is necessary in order for the implementation of the noise level standard to be economically and technically practical for these situations. In addition, the existing noise descriptor (Ldn) was found to be inappropriate as a descriptor for describing community noise, as it required assumptions that potentially introduce errors intolerable in the design of abatement measures by the arbitrary nature of the 10 dBA mighttime penalty it uses. It was found that the more accurate descriptor (Leq) was best suited for the City's requirements.

9.2 STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of this study provide evidence that a residential noise standard of 60 dBA Leq(24) with a discretionary range up to 65 dBA Leq(24) is the most technically, administratively and economically feasible standard to implement while providing an acceptable urban sound environment. The proposed policies that follow are derived from the previous analysis as well as represent an adoption and formalization of procedures and practices that have evolved on a guidelines basis over the last four years. They are included in UTNPS Stage II Volume I, TSR/31/83, which will be submitted to City Council for adoption. The intent of the following recommended residential noise level standards is to place the 60 dBA Leq(24) standard with a discretionary range of up to 65 dBA Leq(24) into the proper context recognizing the need to address different actors and situations. In addition, separate standards were required to address acceptable interior noise levels where there exists no outdoor amenity areas as well as indicate a threshold noise level whereby noise attenuation facilities for existing residential areas becomes cost effective. The data requirements and procedures for both measuring and calculating noise levels are outlined in Appendix III.

62 i) It is unrealistic to suggest prohibiting all new single family residential development adjacent to arterial roadways since it is often technically, administratively and economically practicable to design new residential developments and/or incorporate measures in such a manner that noise is reduced to acceptable levels. In addition, it is recognized that developers have varying methods to attenuate noise.

Consequently, it was considered desirable to establish the 60 dBA Leq(24) sound level limit for noise control in the outdoor amenity areas for new residential development adjacent to arterials to ensure the development is adequately protected from traffic noise throughout the City. It has been determined that when noise levels in the outdoor amenity area are at this acceptable level, then an acceptable indoor noise level of 45 dBA Leq could normally be met by construction complying with the Alberta Building Code.

Furthermore, the existing City traffic noise policy solely deals with traffic noise problems occurring along designated truck routes in new residential areas and does not deal with arterial noise problems associated with existing residential areas

Or

with arterial roadways not designated as truck routes. An amended urban traffic noise policy is required to address these noise problem situations by providing a degree of flexibility or range in the sound level limits and in the choice of attenuation measures. This flexibility is required particularly where it may be technically and economically infeasible to achieve the standard due to topography, existing development and available noise attenuation options.

The selection of the standards was based on health and welfare concerns as well as by technical and economical feasibility. In addition, the standard was based on a comprehensive State-of-the-Art review of noise standards and policies in use elsewhere in North America.

63 It is therefore recommended:

That no new residential development less than 3 storeys be allowed adjacent to freeways and arterial roadways unless the developer proves to the satisfaction of the Transportation Management Department, that the projected noise level in outdoor amenity areas after applying attenuation measures will not exceed 60 dBA Leq(24), unless specific site characteristics, such as topography or existing land uses necessitate the consideration of relief from the standard. Under these circumstances, the attenuated noise level in outdoor amenity areas should be the lowest level technically and economically practicable with a maximum discretionary range up to 65 dBA Leq(24).

ii) If a developer successfully justifies a condition of relief of the proposed traffic noise level standard, it should be the responsibility of the proponent to inform prospective purchasers or renters of residential dwelling units which are affected by the excessive noise. At this time, many prospective purchasers and renters of residential dwelling units are unaware of existing or predicted traffic noise levels within the area.

This situation may eventually lead to annoyance and complaints from the affected residents who in turn will expect the municipality to rectify the problem. This policy however would be an incentive for developers to consider the incorporation of the most appropriate noise attenuation measures into the development plans, with the objective of achieving the 60 dBA Leg traffic noise level standard where possible, in order thatpotential buyers or renters are not discouraged.

It is therefore recommended:

64 That where noise levels are projected to be within the discretionary range of 60 to 65 dBA Leq(24) in outdoor amenity areas, after the implementation of noise attenuation measures, the City, for any new residential development, shall require as a condition of approval, that the developer inform prospective purchasers or renters of residential dwelling units which are affected by excessive noise by posting a sign in the affected building or by letter that reads: "Purchasers are advised that despite the inclusion of noise attenuation features within the development area and/or within the individual building unit(s), noise levels may continue to be of concern, occasionally interfering with some activities of the dwelling occupants." iii) In order to ensure acceptable interior noise levels where there is no outdoor amenity area from which traffic noise can be measured as in the case of multi-storey residential buildings, and where architectural techniques or acoustical building materials are used, an objective interim indoor noise level standard of 45 dBA Leq(24) should apply until appropriate indoor standards are established by the Provincial Board of Health.

It is therefore recommended: That for residential development without outdoor amenity areas, or for residential development of three storeys or more where the incident sound level at the facade of any dwelling unit exceeds 60 dBA Leq, the developer is to endeavor to achieve a projected interior noise level, after applying attenuation measures, of 45 dBA Leq(24) or less.

65 iv) The existing City traffic noise policy does not specify an objective noise level standard for the City Administration to utilize in the design and construction of new or upgraded arterial roadways within developed residential areas. In many cases it would be technically impracticable and economically infeasible to reduce traffic noise levels in existing residential areas to achieve a 60 dBA Leq noise standard because of the nature of existing land uses and the lack of space for attenuation devices. Therefore, an additional noise standard is required to ensure that future transportation roadway planning through or adjacent to existing residential areas, be designed to achieve the objective attenuated noise level or as low as technically, administratively and economically practical.

It is therefore recommended:

That the Transportation Management Department shall achieve a projected noise level as low as technically, administratively and economical practical below 65 dBA Leq(24) with the objective of achieving a noise level of 60 dBA Leq(24), where a freeway or arterial roadway are proposed to be built or upgraded through or adjacent to a developed residential area.

v) With the great expense of barriers and municipal control of land for noise reduction purposes in existing residential areas, attenuation by the Muncipality should only be considered if a noise reduction of 10 dBA or more can be achieved, which is the noise level at which point the use of barriers becomes cost-effective, subject to budget allocations.

66 It is therefore recommended: That existing residential sites with measured noise levels of 70 dBA Leq(24) or above in the outdoor amenity area be considered for noise attenuation by the City, provided the abatement measure will reduce the noise level by 10 dBA or greater, subject to the availability of funds and based on a priority index.

It is technically, economically and administratively infeasible to reduce all residential locations to acceptable noise levels by the municipality. Consequently, it will be the responsibility of affected residents, on a voluntary basis, to acoustically retrofit their existing residential properties.

This will include property owners of multi-storey structures, single family dwelling units with a fronting-on lot orientation and single family units with a flanking or backing-on lot orientation, that are experiencing noise levels less than 70 dBA Leq.

It is therefore recommended:

That residential property owners with existing residential dwelling units with measured noise levels less than 70 dBA Leq(24) who do not fall within the attenuation responsibilities of the City, be encouraged to improve the sound environment of their property through acoustically designed building improvements, at their own expense.

APPENDIX I

Edmonton Local Board of Health, "Health Effects of Traffic Noise, An Addendum Report", 1982

CITY OF EDMONTON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DESIGN DEPT.

Edmonton Local Board of Health

ALE No:

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE EDMONTON HEALTH DISTRICT

JUL 15 1982 ADMINISTRATION

7th Floor, ON Tower, 10004 - 104 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5J OK1

To:

PROJECTS & PLANNING SERVICES FUNCTIONAL PLANNING SYSTEMS PLANNING

Mr. R.A.Heise, Ph.Eng. General Manager, Transportation Systems Design Department The City of Edmonton

01/0)3.

From: Dr. Michael. Webster, Ph.D. Director, Speech & Language Services Division

Subject: Report relative to request for information for use in Urban Traffic Noise Study: Stage II

This report was prepared in response to your memorandum (#16742) of 1982-04-27 addressed to Dr.J.M. Howell, Medical Officer of Health, Edmonton Local Board of Health. Specifically you requested that the Board supply you with information; 1) regarding the possible deleterious effects of noise, at various specific intensity levels, upon the auditory mechanism, and 2) regarding noise standards recommended by agencies outside of Edmonton. Additionally, your memo specifically noted that non-auditory effects of noise on health would not be considered in Stage II of your study.

With regard to the effects of noise on the auditory mechanisms, the report will focus on amplifying, clarifying, elaborating upon, or updating such information in a report supplied to your department in May of 1980 entitled Health Effects of Traffic Noise: A Literature Review (Howell, et al, 1980)

HEALTH EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC NOISE: AN ADDENDUM REPORT 1 In May of 1980 Howell et al summarized the literature relative to the physical health effects of traffic noise (see appendix I). Their review was far-ranging and included physical effects beyond the limited effects on the "auditory mechanisms" which is the only aspect on which information is currently being requested.

With regard to the effects on the hearing mechanism of various intensity levels of sounds, temporary threshold shifts (temporary depression of hearing actuity) were stated as occurring within the 60-80 dB-A range

1.

Howell, J.M., J. Gillespie, L.Jonat, K. Pennifold, and D. Thomson, Health Effects of Traffic Noise: A Literature Review, Report: Edmonton Local Board of Health, 1980

-2 with continuous exposure for 8 to 24 hours. If the shift is less than 40 dB, it usually requires less than eight hours for total recovery to normal thresholds. These reviewers cited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 in summarizing the probable conditions necessary for permanent threshold shifts (permanent hearing loss) to occur. On the low end, 75 dB of intensity for 8 hours per day would require 40 years to produce permanent damage whereas on the high end 1 hour per day at 84 dB would be sufficient to creat permanent damage but, once again only after 40 years. The Environment Council of Alberta 2 was cited as indicating that sounds as low as 55 dB would have to bn experienced continuously for 40 years to produce permanent shifts.

Studying the question further adds little new information.

The only study with potentially negative ramifications is that of Miller, Eldridge, and Bredberg 3 who found permanent damage to the cochlear hair cells of chinchillas after prolonged noise exposure but without a permanent threshold shift. These authors concluded that there may be some danger of noise exposure which produces a temporary threshold shift that takes longer than 16 hours to recover as possibly producing such effects in humans. Their finding however occurred only with continuous exposure for up to 9 days at intensity levels higher than 90 dB. Such conditions Are virtually not replicable with regard to human exposure to traffic noise.

One of the most comprehensive texts ever produced on the subject of noise and its effects on humans is by Burns 4,5 who states: In any circumstances involving noise exposure to a community the question of harm to health almost invariably arise. There are repeated allegations that noise can exert ill effects on health, but on examination, they are vague.

Frequently they are propounded by people on the basis of personal belief rather than on any grounds capable of medical verification, but remain difficult either to confirm or disprove. The question is nevertheless important, 1. "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", U.S. Government Document, 1974.

2. "Noise in the Human Environment", Environment Council of Alberta, Vol. 2, 1979 3. Untitled personal communication to W. Burns, Cited in Noise and Man, Burns, W., Lippincott, 1973, pp 212 4. Burns, W., Noise and Man, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1973 5. For photocopy of Burn's study of traffic noise see Appendix II

3 because these fears and beliefs are so widely held, and no doubt the assertion about ill effects on health will continue to be made.

It is first appropriate to enquire what is meant by health in this context. The report of the Committee on the Problem of Noise (1963) quotes the definition of the World Health Organisation: ' health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely an absence of disease and infirmity.'

This enviable condition is obviously vulnerable in a number of ways. Noise can disrupt sleep, cause annoyance, interrupt conversation and trains of thought, as well as inflicting physical damage on the ears (pp 144-145) as well as inflicting It is the latter portion of Burns quote " physical damage on the ears" which is germane to the present review Burns cites no studies which provide evidence that noise in the 50,55, 60,65,70,75,80 dB-A range (the range requested for this report) causes permanent damage to the hearing mechanisms except under conditions of exposure and duration which are virtually out of the realm of possibility for typical people residing or working near traffic noises even on busy truck routes. Furthermore, a search of the following journals covering the 5 year period of 1977 to the present time failed to produce any evidence of permanent damage to the auditory mechanism as a result of anything but the most extreme durations of exposure to the levels of interest: Journal of Speech & Hearing Research Journal of Sound & Vibrating Hearing Instruments Audiology & Hearing Education Audiology Ear & Hearing Acta Otolaryngologica Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology Archives of Oto-laryngology Finally, three expert opinions were sought. These experts were; Dr. Paul kileny, (Ph.D.) Director Glenrose Audiology Department, Edmonton, Alberta Dr. Donald Hood (Ph.D.) President, Thunder Bay Audiology Ltd. Thunder Bay, Ontario Dr. Maurice Miller (Ph.D.) Professor, Audiology & Speech Pathology, New York University Chairman, Audiology, Lennox Hill Hospital, New York

- 4-

Each expert was presented with the Howell et al report findings on the effect of the various levels of noise intensity and duration on the hearing mechanism and asked if they knew of any evidence contrary to the report, either pre-dating it or post-dating it. Moreover they were asked the same question with regard to the 5 dB steps between 50 and 80 dB. The answer was no in both cases.

In addition, Dr. Miller recommended the following titles as being possibly useful to the Stage II study: Environmental Noise Measurements on Interstate 57 Before and After a Truck Strike. Environmental Protection Agency Report # 550/9-74-0, 1974 Background Document for Proposed Medium and Heavy Truck Noise. Environmental Protection Agency Report #550/974-018, 1974 E.P.A. Proposed Emission Standard for Interstate Rail Carrier Noise. Bureau of National Affairs Report, 1974 Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. U.S. Dept. of Transportation Report, 1973 Passenger Noise Environment of Enclosed Transportation Systems, Environmental Protection Agency. Report # 550-9-75-205, 1975

On the basis of the 1980 Howell, et.al report, a subsequent literature review, and personal interviews with three experts, it is concluded that permanent damage to the auditory mechanism by traffic noise in the 50,55,60,65,70,75, 80 dB range is extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Stated differently the duration and exposure conditions necessary for such levels to create permanent damage virtually do not occur in the Edmonton environment.

Although the terms of reference for this report specifically rule out non-auditory effects of noise, it is felt that some. comment is necessary. The quote from Burns on page 2 of this report has important implications when considering that both the Edmonton Local Board of Health and the Environment Council of Alberta embrace the substance of the World Health Organization's definition of health. 1,2, While it is true that it

1. Statement of Philosophy,. Goals and Objectives, Edmonton Local Board of Health, 1981, pp.7.

2. Noise is a Health Hazzard, Environment Council of Alberta, Occupational Health & Safety Division, 1980, pp.I.

is difficult to equate degrees of non-auditory effects to specific levels of sound intensity, it is felt that some of these effects are scientifically substantiated to the point that they are deserving of attention. A specific example is the negative effect on speech intelligibility of sounds over 60 dB-A regardless of duration and regardless of their lack of effect on the auditory mechanism. These findings are not only empirical, they have serious implications for safety (inability to hear shouted warnings, for example). •NOISE STANDARDS IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF EDMONTON* A request was made of nine City Health Agencies across Canada for information regarding noise standards which come under their jurisdiction.

Eight replies were received, namely from Burnaby, Calgary, Dartmouth, Halifax, Hamilton, Regina, Toronto and Winnipeg.

Some standards in these cities are enforced by the Health Units and some by inspectors from City Hall. There is also some overlapping between agencies.

The noise abatement requirements vary from very general and flexible to quite specific and restrictive. A number of regions work on the basis of a noise nuisance. One of the most general standards was: "no person shall operate or permit the operation of any power or manual equipment, machinery, device or motor vehicle in such a manner as to create a nuisance".

A noise nuisance was defined as: "any loud, unnecessary or unusual sound or any sound whatsoever which either annoys, distrubs, injures, endangers or distracts from comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of any person".

In defining noise as a nuisance, levels were not given. In one city the case, after being investigated, is presented to City Council.

Truck routes have also been established to lessen the traffic noise problem.

Some cities with more restrictive requirements have specific noise levels standards. Types and weights of vehicles, speed limits, and whether day or night exposure are all factors which are taken into consideration in the enforcement of the noise requirements.

An example of this is a table in the City of Calgary Noise Bylaw Section 5(3) of Bylaw #9024 which is: "(3) The maximum sound rating allowed is determined by the speed at which a vehicle may lawfully travel in the location where the sound is measured and the type of vehicle according to the following table: *Information for this portion was compiled by L. Clark, Director, Environmental Health Division, Edmonton Local Board of Health

VEHICLE CLASS

LAWFUL SPEED LIMIT (in miles per Hour)

MAXIMUM NOISE INTENSITY (dBA)

Light Motor Vehicle (passenger vehicle,

not more than 30

77

more than 30 and not more than 45

80

more than 45

83

not more than 30

85 (in daytime) 82 (in night)

more than 30

90 (all times)

not more than 30

87

more than 30 and not more than 45

91

more than 45

95

not more than 30

92

more than 30 and not more than 45

94

more than 45

98

Light truck, power bicycle, motor scooter

Motorcycle

Motor Truck

Tractor Trailer

As there is quite a variation under different circumstances and in order that some part which may be important is not missed, copies of all standards received are being passed on for informational purposes (see appendix III) No conclusion can be drawn from the information presented in this section of the report other than the apparent fact that standards vary widely from city to city. A fair comment might be that codes based upon noise as a nuisance might have a better chance of allowing for citizen recourse for non-auditory effects of noise

i

APPENDIX II LISTING OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Breston, B.E., "The Impact of Road Traffic Noise on Property Values", Graduate Thesis, McMaster University, Sept. 1979.

Eldred K., "Standards and Criteria for Noise Control - An Overview", Noise Control Engineering, January - February, 1982.

Gamble H.B., Sauerlender 0.H., and Langley C.J., "Adverse and Beneficial Effects of Highways on Residential Property Values", Transportation Research Board, 508, 1976.

Kermode R.H., "Cost Effectiveness of Freeway Traffic Noise Barriers", California Department of Transportation, 1981.

Langley C.J., "Time-Series Effects of a Limited Access Highway on Residential Property Values", Transportation Research Board, 583, 1976.

Miller, "Effects of Noise on People", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America", 56, No. 3, Sept., 1974.

National Academy of Sciences", Noise Abatement: Policy Alternatives for Transportation", report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977.

National Research Council of Canada, "Noise Pollution - What Can Be Done?", Physics Today, 1975.

Nelson J.P., "Economic Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement", Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.

Sacks M.P., "Noise Control: Recent Terms and Concepts", Engineering Digest, March, 1978.

Scholes W.E., "Traffic Noise Criteria", Applied Acoustics, London, England, 1970.

Stackie D.N.M. and Johnson D.M., "Economic Value of Peace and Quiet", Lexington Massachusetts, 1975.

Stempler S., Sanders H., Watkins and Boronow E., "Development of Environmental Noise Codes for the City of New York", Sound and Vibration, December, 1977.

Taylor S.M., Breston B.E., and Hall F., "The Effect of Road Traffic Noise on Housing Prices", Journal of Sound and Vibration, 80(4), 1982.

United Nations, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Reducing Noise in OECD Countries", Paris, 1978.

U.S. Department of Commerce, "The Social Impact of Noise", National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C., 1971.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA 550/9-74-004, March, 1974.

APPENDIX III NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES

1. Noise levels must be measured using the A-weighted 24 hour equivalent sound level Leq(24) expressed in decibels (dBA) and be based on the higher of the Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume or Summer Average Daily Traffic Volume for existing residential areas.

2. In the case of new residential development or in the evaluation of barriers the ultimate design capacity must be used for the projection of traffic volumes in noise studies unless it can be established that the ultimate design capacity will not be reached.

3. Noise levels should be calculated using traffic noise prediction methods that are endorsed by the Transportation Management Department. These methods are: the Alberta Surface Transportation Noise Attenuation Study Manual for the Prediction of Surface Transportation Noise; the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation method; the Federal Highway Administration method Stamina 2.0/Optima; or some other technically accurate and acceptable method of noise prediction upon approval by the Transportation Management Department.

4. Traffic volumes shall be 1/24 of the daily volume.

5. Vehicle speed shall be the posted speed.

6. Truck volumes shall comprise 15% of the total traffic flow, unless known by actual traffic count.

7. Noise monitoring receptors shall be located in the outdoor amenity area, 1.5 metres above typical ground elevation and approximately 3 meters away from the dwelling wall. This observer distance also applies to noise level calculations.

8. For design purposes, traffic volumes shall be based on level of service C. i.e. the noisiest condition.

9. For the purposes of measuring the interior noise level, the noise monitoring receptors shall be located approximately 3 meters from the front of the dwelling. A 3 dBA correction factor should be subtracted from this measured noise level to account for sound energy reflecting from the building. This noise level may be used as a representative indicator of the interior noise level by subtracting from this noise level the generally accepted standard noise level reduction of 15 dBA (or greater depending on the use of acoustical building materials), that may be attributed to standard building face construction. This procedure should result in acceptable noise levels within the dwelling unit.

i

APPENDIX IV

Glossary of Terms

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

A—Weighted Sound Level:

The sound level as measured on a sound level meter, using a setting that emphasizes

the middle frequency

components similar to response of the human ear.

The a—weighted sound level

is found

to correlate well with

subjective assessments of the annoying or disturbing effects of sounds.

Absorption:

Absorption is a property of materials that reduces the amount of sound energy reflected. Thus, the introduction of an "absorbent" into the surfaces of a room will reduce the sound pressure level in that room by virtue of the fact that sound energy striking the room surfaces will not be totally reflected. It should be mentioned that this is an entirely different process from that of transmission loss through a material, which determines how much sound gets into the room via the walls, ceiling, and floor. The effect of absorption merely reduces the resultant sound level in the room produced by energy which has already entered the room.

Ambient Noise Level:

The sound level of background noise characteristic of an environment.

Practically speaking, the level of a specific sound must be above the ambient noise level in order to be perceived.

Annoyance:

General term encompassing adverse citizen opinion of a roadway that generally correlates with noise level increases caused by peak hour traffic or trucks. Annoyance is generally predicted by the amount the vehicular noise that exceeds the existing neighbourhood noise.

Attenuation:

A reduction in sound level in travelling from a source to a receiving point.

Barrier:

A solid physical obstruction between the roadway and the observer, which interrupts the line of sight between them.

Barrier Attenuation:

The reduction in level of sound travelling over hard ground resulting from a barrier between source and receiving point.

Berm:

A mound of earth that interrupts the line of sight between a source and receiving point, thus acting as a barrier.

Day Night Average Sound Level:

Day—night sound level in dBA is derived

(Ldn)

by averaging time varying sound energy over the daytime (daytime Leq) with the varying sound energy over the nighttime (nighttime Leq) to which an additional ten decibel weighting is applied to the nighttime hours between 2200 to 0700.

Decibel (dB):

One tenth of a bel. Sound is measured in decibels. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Decibels are not linear units, but representative points on a sharply rising (exponential) curve. Thus, 100 decibels represent 10 billion times as much acoustic energy as one decibel.

Equivalent Level (Leq):

An hourly unit of noise. The Leq condenses an hour's worth of noise fluctuations into a single number, with units of dBA. The Leq is also called the "energy—equivalent level". Leq(24) is the average noise level over a 24 hour period.

Line Source of Noise:

A source of noise spread out into a line, such as the combined traffic on a roadway or railway.

Loudness:

A

psychological

quantity

that

corresponds to noise intensity where a ten—fold increase in noise energy results in a two—fold increase in loudness.

Similarly,

a

ten—fold

decrease in noise energy is heard as a halving of the loudness.

Noise Sensitive Land Uses:

Noise sensitive land uses include: schools,

residential,

libraries,

churches, hospitals, auditoriums and outdoor recreation areas. These typify land uses whose suitability is restricted by intrusive noise, hence are termed "noise sensitive". Noise factors

sensitivity

include:

interference with speech communication; subjective

judgements

of

noise

acceptability and relative noisiness; need for freedom from noise intrusion; and sleep interference criteria.

Point Source of Noise:

A

source

of

noise

essentially

concentrated at a single source, such as noise from a single vehicle.

Propagation:

The passage of sound energy from noise source to observer.

Sound Insulation:

The use of structures and materials designed to reduce the transmission of sound from one room or area to another or from the exterior to the interior of a building.

SD LIBRARY

III I 17200607541 III 11111 11111111 II , _

4=c-

=BAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY STAGE II

VOLUME III: Implementation Strategies'''

6801a .E3 thiN 111 E386 uiPkt 1983 -

v. 3

./ OF

twill-101310R

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT .TSR/321133

A

Q641 . Monaghan Macklin Marshall Ltd. 0034, Noise Policy ' 1983• Urban-Traffic V.3 . Study, Stage 2, Evaluation i& Selection of REs Noise Level 171 39241 DATE OUT

Q041 003‘ 1983 v.3

NAME

PHONE DATE IN No.

Monaghan Macklin Marshall Ltd. Urban Traffic-Noise Policy Study, Stage 2.

Implementation Report.

Plartnq and Buildirg Department

LIBRARY The Co of Edmo

AC

6204

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY STAGE II VOLUME III: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

TSR/32/83

Prepared by: Henning and Building Department UPRARy

n ton

Transportation Management Department

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY

NOTE:

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study (UTNPS) Stage II: Summary and Recommendation Report was adopted by City Council on 1983 09 13 and became effective on that date. The policies contained within this document replaces the previous Interim Municipal Urban Traffic Noise Policy adopted by City Council on 1980 07 09.

Questions concerning the interpretation and application of the policies herein may be directed to the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section (428-2978) of the Transportation Management Department. Any amendments to legislation noted in this report will be included in the appropriate Municipal Bylaws or legislation of other levels of government and will not appear in this document.

el THE Wa

t

n on

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

PREFACE

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study (UTNPS) was initiated at the request of City Council at the Aldermanic Seminar on Transportation Issues, held on 1978 07 14. The principle objective of the study was to evaluate and recommend acceptable residential noise level standards and alternative noise control measures in order to achieve the overall goal of reducing the amount of residential land adversely affected by traffic noise in Edmonton.

A two stage approach was taken to achieve this objective. Stage I, of the UTNPS Study, presented to City Council as information on 1980 07 09, reviewed the social-environmental, economic and health related impacts of traffic noise on residential land uses; identified current residential noise standards, policies and guidelines in use throughout North America and Europe; and carried out a preliminary assessment of arterial roadway traffic noise levels within existing areas of the City. UTNPS Stage II, which is summarized within this report, develops, evaluates and selects acceptable residential noise level standards and identifies means to achieve those standards through:

i) amendments to government policies

and programs; ii) techniques for achieving the noise standards in land use and transportation planning; and iii) municipal noise attenuation and information programs.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II is documented in three reports: UTNPS Stage II Volume I: Summary and Recommendation Report (TSR/30/83); UTNPS Stage II Volume II:

Evaluation and Selection of

Residential Noise Level Standards (TSR/31/83); and UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83). The purpose of Volume I, is to provide an historical perspective of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study and a summary of the methodological framework, study limitations, findings and recommendations of the Study.

The purpose of Volume II, is to provide more detailed documentation of the criteria used to evaluate alternative noise level standards, and the analysis and evaluation of each criterion, the selection results and associated implementation responsibilities. The purpose of Volume III is to document the various means to achieve those standards through implementation policies, guidelines, programs and responsible parties.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II commenced on 1982 03 01 under the coordination of the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section of the Transportation Management Department. The review was conducted with the cooperation and input of the Assessment, Bylaw Enforcement, Edmonton Local Board of Health, Engineering, Law, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police, and Real Estate and Housing Departments. In addition, cooperation and input were received from the Alberta Trucking Association, Alberta Association of Architects, Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, Urban Development Institute, Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, City of Calgary Transportation Department, Transport Canada, National Research Council, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Alberta Transportation, Alberta Municipal Affairs and the Environment Council of Alberta. The project team included J. Meyer, W. Oakes, B. Priebe, D. Langille and G. Latham.

We would like to express our appreciation to all those who assisted us on this study.

R. H. David General Manager and City Engineer TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

PREFACE

LIST OF FIGURES

vii

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1 -

INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER 2 - BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY

CHAPTER 3 - SCOPE OF VOLUME III REPORT

3.1

Purpose of the Volume III Report

3.2

Study Limitations

3.3 Methodology

CHAPTER 4 - ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS

Amendments to Senior Government Legislation

4.1

3

9

9 10 12

17

18

4.1.1 Vehicle Noise Emission Regulations

18

4.1.2 Tire Standards and Pavement Design

27

4.1.3

32

Building Codes

4.1.4 Public Health Act Regulations 4.2

Amendments to Municipal Legislation

4.2.1

General Municipal Plan

4.2.2 Land Use Bylaw

40 45 45 50

4.2.3 Terms of Reference for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans

56

4.2.4 Traffic Management

63

4.2.5 Municipal Control of Land

69

4.2.6

78

Property Assessment

iv

PAGE NO.

- PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES FOR ACHIEVING THE

CHAPTER 5

NOISE STANDARDS IN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

84

5.1

Spatial Separation

86

5.2

Land Use Barriers

95

5.3

Acoustical Barriers

109

5.4

Architectural Design

127

5.5

Acoustical Construction Techniques

139

CHAPTER 6

- MUNICIPAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND

153

INFORMATION PROGRAMS 6.1

Barrier Priorization Program

155

6.2

Citizen Information Program

173

APPENDIX I - Evaluation of Existing City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 4110 APPENDIX II - Acoustical Insulation Factor Methodology APPENDIX III - Residential Areas Susceptable to Excessive Traffic Noise Levels APPENDIX IV - Summary Chart: Physical Noise Attenuation Techniques APPENDIX V - Glossary of Terms APPENDIX VI - Reference Documents

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO.

7

FIGURE 2.1

Responsibility Matrix

FIGURE 5.1

Distance as a Buffer in Noise Attenuation

89

FIGURE 5.2

Parking Areas as a Noise Insensitive Buffer Zone

91

FIGURE 5.3

Recreational Areas as a Noise Insensitive

92

Buffer Zone

FIGURE 5.4

The Use of Building Barriers to Create

98

an Acoustical Shadow Zone

FIGURE 5.5

Single Family Homes Shielding Recreational Areas

FIGURE 5.6

Residential Barrier Blocks as Acoustical

98

101

Barriers (To Protect the Entire Residential Development)

FIGURE 5.7

Typical Barrier Block Layout Using Townhouses

102

(Straight Line Parallel to Roadway Noise Source)

FIGURE 5.8

Commercial Barrier Blocks Used in Residential

103

Noise Attenuation

FIGURE 5.9

Light Industrial and Commercial Intervening

104

Structures and Land Use as Acoustical Barriers

FIGURE 5.10

Alternative Noise Barrier Locations with

111

Respect to the Receiver and the Roadway

FIGURE 5.11

Line of Sight Distance

111

FIGURE 5.12

Typical Profile of a Specially Designed Berm

113

vi

PAGE NO.

- FIGURE 5.13

Typical Profile of Earth Berms (Sound Barriers)

113

and Complementary Uses

FIGURE 5.14

Sound Reflections: Berms vs. Walls

118

FIGURE 5.15

Orientation of Rooms

129

FIGURE 5.16

A Floor Plan Specially Designed to

131

Reduce Noise Impact

FIGURE 5.17

Architectural Design as a Noise Control

134

Measure (The Use of Blank Walls for an Apartment Building or Stacked Townhouse)

FIGURE 5.18

Architectural Design as a Noise Control

135

Measure (The Use of Blank Walls for a Townhouse)

FIGURE 5.19

Some Methods of Increasing the Noise Attenuation 142 Properties of Walls

FIGURE 5.20

Methods of Increasing the Noise Attenuation

143

Properties of Walls

FIGURE 5.21

Construction of Party Walls

146

FIGURE 5.22

Construction of Party Walls (Continued)

147

FIGURE 5.23

Deflection of Noise by Apartment Balconies

149

FIGURE 6.1

Residential Locations Susceptable to Excessive

162

Traffic Noise Levels

vii

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE NO.

TABLE 4.1

HUD Noise Level Criteria

43

TABLE 4.2

Traffic Noise - Economic Allowance on Dwellings

79

TABLE 4.3

Traffic Noise - Economic Allowance on Land

80

TABLE 4.4

Revised Economic Allowance and Dwellings and Land 87

TABLE 5.1

Barrier Materials

116

TABLE 5.2

Barrier Component Costs

121

TABLE 5.3

Barrier Type Preference

122

TABLE 6.1

Barrier Priority Noise Index: Ranking of Sites

167

TABLE 6.2

Residential Locations Experiencing Acute

169

Traffic Noise Levels Whose Attenuation Needs Have Been Addressed Previously or Will be Addressed in the Future

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II: Volume III Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83) is to provide an examination and subsequent recommendations regarding alternative implementation strategies that integrate the consideration of noise standards and guidelines into the overall comprehensive planning and interagency/ intergovernmental coordination process. Specifically, it examines a series of implementation strategies for the noise standards related to: i) amendments to existing senior government and municipal policies and programs; ii) appropriate physical noise attenuation techniques for land use and transportation planning; iii) municipal noise abatement and information programs; and iv) other abatement measures for application by the Municipality. Chapter 2 of this report presents an historical review of the study mandate and relevant background events. Chapter 3 outlines the scope of the report including the purpose and objectives and the methodology. Chapter 4 examines various administrative mechanisms and provides recommendations to effect change with existing policy or create new policies and programs within municipal and senior levels of government for the purpose of encouraging and improving noise legislation. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of alternative physical noise attenuation techniques available to architects, developers and roadway engineers for achieving noise impact reduction in situations where changes in land use are proposed. And finally, Chapter 6 examines municipal noise abatement and information programs that are primarily designed for reducing excessive traffic noise levels within existing residential areas.

Appendix I presents the Evaluation of the Existing City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 4110. Appendix II provides a description of the Acoustical Insulation Factor method which is used to determine the building materials necessary to achieve a satisfactory indoor sound

2

environment while Appendix III presents a listing of site characteristics of barrier candidate sites. Appendix IV summarizes the physical noise attenuation techniques examined in this report. Appendix V provides a glossary of terms while Appendix VI provides a list of the reference documents.

These implementation strategies are also included in UTNPS Stage II Volume I: Summary and

Recommendation Report (TSR/30/83) which is to be

submitted to City Council for adoption. UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83) outlines the evaluation and subsequent selection of acceptable residential noise level standards.

In addition, three working papers were prepared that provide detailed information on selected topics. They include UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 1: Review of Governmental Traffic Noise Legislation and Policies; UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 2: Identification of Noise Impacts and Issues; and UTNPS Stage II Working Paper No. 3: Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw Review.

3

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY

Road traffic noise is recognized world wide as contributing to a general deterioration of the urban environment.

As a result of increasing

traffic volumes and consequent higher levels of noise, public concern regarding the control and effects of urban traffic noise is rapidly increasing, as evidenced by the numerous concerns recently expressed by both the public and City Council. Some significant advancements have been made in the reduction of traffic noise at its source, namely vehicle noise abatement, however, noise cannot be completely eliminated by this means. In recognition of this fact, it has been found essential that standards, guidelines and procedures be developed to deal with noise in the land use and transportation planning processes. In addition, since Federal and Provincial policies dealing with traffic noise are limited in this area, and the fact that the primary responsibility for integrating traffic noise considerations into the planning process rests with local governments, which have control over actual land development and transportation system improvements, it can be reasonably concluded that the problem must be dealt with at the municipal level. However, cooperation is also required from senior levels of government in order for enabling legislation and related programs to be amended to address and assist with the mitigation of municipal traffic noise.

The Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study originated at the Aldermanic Seminar on Transportation Issues, held on 1978 07 14, when Council reviewed various roadway noise control policy issues and subsequently directed the Administration to proceed with a comprehensive noise study to address:

i) establishment of Design Noise Levels and preferable method of obtaining acceptable levels, ii) City of Edmonton's 200 foot setback policy,

4

iii) problems of enforcement of the existing Noise Bylaw No. 4110, iv) experimental noise barrier program, identification of priority areas where the Province should be requested to initiate further action.

This policy issue issue has been included in the Local Policy Plan since 1981. The Local Policy Plan 1981-85, identified a need for a policy study to review the traffic noise problem. This policy issue was carried over to the 1982-1986 Local Policy Plan which identified traffic noise attenuation as a policy issue that should be dealt with by examining traffic noise levels throughout the City and subsequently recommending the use of appropriate control measures. The directive given in this Local Policy Plan stated:

"That City Council adopt the appropriate comprehensive noise control policies based on recommendations currently being prepared."

Following the Aldermanic Seminar, the Administration initiated a two stage approach to study the urban traffic noise problem. Stage I was to assess the extent of the traffic noise problem in Edmonton, with Stage II to provide policies, standards and implementation strategies to mitigate the identified traffic noise problem. Stage I of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study was undertaken by the consulting firm of Marshall, Macklin and Monaghan Limited.* This stage of the study, completed 1980 06 02, reviewed the social-environmental, economic and health related impacts of traffic noise on residential land uses; identified current residential noise standards, policies and guidelines throughout North America and Europe; and, carried out a preliminary assessment of arterial roadway traffic noise levels within existing residential areas in the City.

*City of Edmonton, Transportation Management Department, "Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage I: A Perspective", 1980.

5

The preliminary assessment of noise in existing residential areas identified that in 1980, approximately 130,000 persons or 23 percent of the City of Edmonton population, resided adjacent to arterial roads. Of these, approximately 18,500 persons were exposed to outdoor noise levels less than or equal to 55 dBA Ldn, and approximately 16,500 persons were exposed to outdoor levels ranging between 55 and 60 dBA Ldn. The remaining 95,000 persons were exposed to outdoor levels ranging from 60 to 75 dBA Ldn. A review of international noise level standards indicated that the predominant objective noise level ranged between 55 and 65 dBA Leg with most jurisdictions identifying levels in excess of 70 dBA Leg to be unacceptable. From the study results, it was concluded that to varying degrees, many residents residing adjacent to arterial roads in Edmonton are subject to socio-environmental, economic and health related traffic noise impacts and that a further Stage II Study be undertaken to establish a comprehensive traffic noise policy for the City in order to mitigate these impacts of traffic noise.

This report was submitted to City Council on 1980 07 08, and was received as information. Subsequently, City Council directed the Administration to proceed with Stage II of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study for the purpose of:

- developing, evaluating and selecting acceptable residential noise level standards; and - identifying means to achieve those standards through implementation policies, guidelines and programs.

An additional directive was given by Council on 1981 07 07:

- to investigate the feasbility of reducing the existing permitted decibel levels for vehicles, under the City Noise Bylaw.

6

In order to carry out these directives, the Transportation Management Department (formerly the Transportation Systems Design Department), prepared a Terms of Reference for Stage II of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study which set out the study objectives, limitations and assumptions, study activities, work program, study members and responsibilities and study costs, which was received as information by City Council on 1982 08 13. The primary study activities included: the evaluation and selection of a residential noise level standard; a review of the Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw; and a review of various administrative and physical noise mechanisms and programs to minimize the occurance of new noise problems and to help mitigate existing noise problems.

The primary responsibilities for developing the Urban Traffic Noise Policy remained with the Projects, Policy and Procedures Section (formerly the Projects and Planning Services Section), Transportation Management Department. However, various Civic Departments and outside agencies participated in the study as noted in the preface of this report. A summary of the responsibilities is provided in the matrix illustrated in Figure 2.1. The major responsibility of the other Departments and agencies was to assist the Study Team in the preparation, review and evaluation of an Urban Traffic Noise Policy by providing:

i)technical advice and information as required; ii)clarification of existing or emerging policies; iii)communication and coordination with respective Branches or Sections in each relevant Department or agency; iv)identification of priority areas or areas of concern that the study should address to meet the needs and expectations of the parties involved; and v) and identification and facilitation of policies and programs to assist in implementing the study recommendations.

Representatives from particpating Departments and outside agencies were contacted directly by the Transportation Management Department as required.

8

The public was afforded the opportunity to provide input into the study in conjunction with Functional Roadway Plan meetings, when traffic noise was perceived as an issue, in order to educate the public with general principles of traffic noise propagation and to familiarize citizens with the study objectives and activities. A display as well as handout information was prepared for these meetings. Interested citizens were also given the opportunity to review the draft study reports upon request. Furthermore, public interests were incorporated in the evaluation of alternative noise level standards by selecting standards from a health, welfare and economic perspective.

The UTNPS Stage II Study is documented in three separate volumes. Volume I entitled, UTNPS Stage II Volume I Summary and Recommendation Report (TSR/30/83), presents an overview of the Study's findings and recommendations for Council's consideration that was derived from the detailed study findings documented in Volumes II and III.

Volume II, entitled UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83), contains an analysis of alternative residential noise level standards based upon evaluation criteria including: a noise policy state-of-the-art review; an analysis of health and welfare effects; an analysis of economic reasonableness; and an analysis of administrative acceptability. From this evaluation, acceptable residential noise level standards were determined. Also implementation responsibilities for the City, the developer and the resident were outlined in order to facilitate the implementation of the noise level standards.

This document represents Volume III, entitled UTNPS Stage II Volume III: Implementation Strategies (TSR/32/83). As was stated in the introduction of this report, it examines a series of implementation strategies for the noise standards related to: i) amendments to senior government and municipal policy; ii) appropriate physical noise attenuation techniques for land use and transportation planning; and iii) municipal noise abatement and information programs.

9

CHAPTER 3 SCOPE OF VOLUME III REPORT

3.1

PURPOSE OF THE VOLUME III REPORT

Once an acceptable noise level standard was selected in UTNPS Stage II Volume II: Evaluation and Selection of Residential Noise Level Standards (TSR/31/83), it was imperative to review possible implementation strategies that may be implemented to ensure the consideration of the residential noise level standards in the planning process and to reduce the amount of land adversely affected by traffic noise. This task resulted in the formation of this multi-facet implementation strategy report as it was recognized that solutions to noise problems were variable depending upon specific noise sources, levels of noise, site conditions and existing relevant legislation and that an examination of a wide variety of noise control mechanisms would be required. In addition, it was determined that individually a particular strategy may not have a significant affect on the overall urban sound environment. However, collectively, the combined effects of a number of strategies would have the greatest contribution towards noise reduction, particularly in the prevention of future residential noise problems.

Specifically, the purpose of this report is to:

- identify possible amendments to existing policy within senior and municipal levels of government, to encourage, or improve noise legislation.

- identify the most effective attenuation techniques available to architects, planners, developers, and roadway engineers for achieving the noise standards for situations where changes in land use are proposed or where roadway construction or improvements are proposed.

10 - provide direction through the land use planning process for municipal decision makers, to ensure noise compatibility with residential land uses adjacent to arterial roadways in Edmonton.

- examine municipal noise control programs to help mitigate the traffic noise problems in existing residential areas.

It was recognized that a comprehensive and an economically, technically and administratively practical urban traffic noise abatement strategy would facilitate both the prevention of excessive noise levels in new residential areas and the attenuation of existing residential traffic noise problems. The current noise policy does not outline any form of implementation strategy or means of integrating noise level standards into the planning process which is required to ensure the reduction of the undesireable impacts of traffic noise on a City-wide basis.

Therefore, in this report there is an emphasis on amendments to existing policies and guidelines that offer solutions to the City-wide traffic noise problems, and to integrate these solutions into the overall municipal comprehensive land use and transportation planning processes.

3.2 STUDY LIMITATIONS

A number of study limitations were recognized due to physical, technical and economic constraints involved in mitigating all residential noise problems throughout the City. These were based on practical experiences in both Edmonton and in other North American municipalities. These study limitations were incorporated into and influenced the methodological approach to the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study and the subsequent findings. The study limitations are as follows:

i) Many sources of noise contribute to the overall urban noise problem including train, aircraft, commercial and industrial activities, machinery around the home, animal and human sources. The aim of this study, however, is to focus on

11 vehicular 'traffic' noise sources including trucks and automobiles that utilize the City roadway network adjacent to residential areas.

ii) A discretionary range for a noise level standard was considered necessary as a single rigid noise level standard imposed on new residential development, such as new subdivisions, may be found impractical and unattainable in existing developed situations, such as where infill housing is proposed. Existing situations are sometimes constrained by the nature of existing land uses and lack of space for applying low cost attenuation techniques.

iii) It was recognized that the outdoor amenity area is an integral living space component of residential property. Consequently, noise level standards are based upon the exterior sound level that would occur within this area. Specifically this area is defined as the outdoor living area immediately adjacent to the housing unit, provided and designed for active or passive recreation and enjoyment of the occupants of a residential development, which may be for private or communal use and owned individually or in common. The rationale for this limitation is based on the fact that when the outdoor noise level for buildings less than three storeys is acceptable, then an acceptable indoor noise level could normally be met by the building construction complying with the Alberta Building Code.

In other words, if the outdoor noise level is within 60-65 dBA Leg, the building face will reduce interior noise levels by 15-20 dBA and thereby result in an acceptable interior sound environment of 40-45 dBA Leg. For residential buildings of three storeys or more, the sound level will be measured at the facade of the dwelling units, as noise measurements in the outdoor amenity are not indicative of actual noise levels for medium to high rise buildings because of greater building mass and height.

12

iv) This study recommends a noise level standard that a majority of the population may consider reasonable recognizing the fact that there are individual variations in noise tolerance from person to person.

v) In the case of single family homes fronting—on an arterial roadway and multi—storey buildings where 81% of the residents are exposed to excessive traffic noise along arterial roadways, it is not feasible to mitigate excessive traffic noise using conventional attenuation devices. In these situations an acoustical barrier is impractical because of the lack of space, elimination of access to the buildings, barrier height limitations, and aesthetic consequences. Recognizing this limitation, it is the intent of the study to recommend measures that would prevent these types of noise problems from occuring in the future.

3.3 METHODOLOGY The methodology that was used to identify alternative implementation strategies focused on the examination of a wide variety of approaches to attenuating traffic noise, as it was mentioned previously, solutions to noise problems are variable. In addition, research was undertaken to examine the alternative implementation strategies and techniques from the perspectives of maximizing acoustical benefits and minimizing costs while ensuring an acceptable and aesthetically desirable sound environment. To this end, the review of alternative implementation strategies was divided into three components: i) policy amendments and formulation; ii) physical noise attenuation techniques for land use and transportation planning; iii) municipal noise attenuation and information programs.

13

i) Policy Amendments and Formulation

The selection of appropriate implementation strategies was determined by first examining noise policy areas that were consistent with the existing federal, provincial and municipal government responsibilities, legislation and administrative mechanisms, for the purpose of encouraging, improving or regulating noise legislation in order to reduce the impacts of traffic noise on residential areas. In addition, an attempt was made to integrate the recommended noise level standard and associated policies into the overall comprehensive planning and interagency/intergovernmental coordination process. The purpose of considering noise in the land use planning process is not to prevent development but rather to encourage development that is compatible with various noise levels. The objective was to guide noise sensitive land uses away from the noise and encourage non-sensitive land uses where there is noise. Where this may not be possible, measures should be included in development projects to reduce the effects of the noise.

The required amendments to existing policy were determined through written and oral correspondence with the appropriate government agencies and a thorough examination of the noise control potential of existing legislation of both senior and municipal levels of government. The administrative mechanisms that were considered included:

Senior Government Legislation:

- Vehicle noise emission regulations; - Tire standards and pavement design standards; - Building code regulations; - Health regulations; and - Planning Act regulations.

14

Municipal Government Legislation:

- General Municipal Plan; - Land Use Bylaw; - Terms of References for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans; - Traffic Management; - Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw; and - Property Tax Assessment.

ii) Techniques for Achieving the Noise Standards in Land Use and Transportation Planning

The second component of the implementation strategy was to examine alternative physical noise control techniques that are available to architects, planners, developers and roadway engineers to achieve acceptable noise levels in newly developing areas, locations undergoing residential development and where roadway construction or improvements are proposed. This information was gathered from an extensive literature search as well as from municipal procedures and practices that have evolved on a guideline basis over the past four years, particularly with acoustical barriers.

The following physical attenuation techniques were considered:

- Spatial Separation; - Land Use Barriers; - Acoustical Barriers; - Architectural Design; and - Acoustical Construction Techniques.

15

These physical techniques vary in their terms of noise reduction characteristics, costs, marketability, and applicability to specific locations and conditions. In addition, the effectiveness of any given technique is a function of the specific noise situation and the way the technique is applied.

The purpose of this section was to determine the most effective alternatives which could be considered in the land use, architectural, engineering and transportation planning processes and to provide guidelines in their use. The most effective approach will be a combination of techniques with the decision regarding the most appropriate mechanism being made by the proponents of residential development projects. The primary stipulation in using these techniques is to ensure that the recommended noise standard is met and that the proposed residential land use complies with applicable development regulations specified in the Land Use Bylaw.

iii) Municipal Noise Attenuation and Information Programs

The third and final component of the implementation strategy was to investigate alternative noise abatement program areas that the municipality could implement to reduce excessive traffic noise impacts on existing residential areas. These residential areas include those that are not being considered for noise attenuation facilities as part of a proposed roadway improvement or area or neighbourhood structure plan and are not proposed for land use redistricting in conjunction with an area redevelopment plan or a redevelopment proposal. Two program areas were examined:

- A Barrier Priorization Program and; - A Citizen Information Program.

16

The Barrier Priorization Program entailed the priorization of sites adjacent to arterial roadways to determine the most critical residential areas requiring the installation of noise barriers. Candidate sites were 'short listed' based upon site criteria including: lot orientation; local site conditions; the proximity of an arterial roadway; actual noise levels; and the absence of any existing noise attenuation facilities or future plans for constructing facilities. This information was gathered from site surveys, aerial photographs and noise monitoring surveys. The candidate sites were ranked based upon a benefit/cost index with a fixed unit cost for barrier construction being assummed. For this process, the numerical relationship of the index number increased directly with the existing levels of traffic noise and the number of residences to be protected. Those locations that were ranked high by the benefit/cost index with noise levels of 70 dBA Leq(24) or greater were considered cost effective sites for the construction of a barrier.

A Citizen Information Program was examined with the purpose of informing the public of the general principles of traffic noise propagation and to give the advice regarding cost effective noise attenuation measures that may be voluntarily implemented to reduce the impact of traffic noise upon the indoor sound environment. Federal grant funding aid to undertake the necessary acoustical renovations is also explored. Another important purpose of this program was to inform residents of existing municipal noise policies and the responsibilities of the City, the Developer and the Resident in terms of attenuating existing residential noise problems. This program will be particularly useful for those property owners with moderate noise levels (65-70 dBA Leq), that did not warrent the installation of noise barriers or the purchase of property, yet are willing to reduce their noise problem at their own expense.

A detailed examination of the above noted implementation strategies is presented in the subsequent Chapters of this report.

17

CHAPTER 4 ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS

INTRODUCTION An examination was first undertaken of the administrative mechanisms that may be employed to bring about change to the existing policies of both senior and the municipal levels of government for the purpose of encouraging, improving noise policies and legislation. In particular, policy areas were chosen that would facilitate the integration of the residential noise level standards into the overall comprehensive planning process of the City and other policy areas of the Provincial and Federal Government that were compatible with existing governmental responsibilities and adopted legislation.

This examination of possible administrative mechanisms identified a number of policy areas within both senior and municipal levels of government that were deficient in addressing traffic noise concerns, however, offered potential solutions to traffic noise problems through amendments to these existing policies, legislation and through traffic noise related research.

The investigation of each of the administrative mechanisms begins by defining the noise control strategy involved and its importance within the urban context. This is followed by a discussion of the inadequacies of the existing legislation or program and the potential contribution of the particular administration mechanism towards mitigating traffic noise. The analysis of each mechanism is concluded with the formulation of recommendations for senior or municipal levels of government regarding policy and program amendments as potential solutions to traffic noise problems. In addition, a discussion of responsibilities with respect to the implementation of the recommendations is included.

18

4.1 AMENDMENTS TO SENIOR GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

4.1.1 Vehicle Noise Emission Regulations

Strategy

The motor vehicle has long since been recognized as the most significant contributer to environmental noise. The factors contributing to vehicle noise are diverse, however, the engine is the predominant source of vehicular noise, particularly for automobiles and trucks when stationary or moving at speeds less that 50 km/h. For the purposes of this report the source of vehicle noise includes the engine, fan, air intake, and exhaust noise in addition to the actual engine noise. The objective of this Section is to review the effectiveness of existing vehicle noise emission regulations and to examine the potential of lowering the regulations for various vehicle classifications and thereby reduce traffic noise at its source. Additionally, recommendations are made regarding possible legislative action.

Discussion

Each of the three levels of government in Canada have responsibilities regarding vehicle noise abatement. The reponsibilities of the Federal Government lie primarily with the establishment of maximum vehicle exterior noise levels and ensuring that manufacturers of all new vehicles meet the requirements of the standards. (A limitation of these regulations is that they do not extend to 'after sale' products such as replacement mufflers.) The provincial governments are responsible, through various provincial traffic acts, for controlling excessive vehicle noise from faulty mufflers, squealing brakes and horns. It is at the municipal level however, that most anti-vehicle noise legislation in Canada has been passed. Throughout Canada the provincial governments

19

authorize municipalities to create bylaws to abate individual vehicle source noise. These bylaws allow municipalities to prohibit, eliminate or abate loud, unusual or disturbing sounds and to establish permissable noise levels with respect to time of day, and the location where the sound may occur. Municipalities may also define what constitutes objectional noise, devise a system or method of determining or measuring such noise, and prohibit the operation of motor vehicles, which, in any manner, make objectionable noise. However, municipal regulations concerning vehicle noise levels must conform to those set by the Federal Government for new vehicles, as it is not practical to expect noise levels less than what the vehicle was designed to achieve. A more detailed examination of these responsibilities is as follows.

i) Federal Responsibilities

Transport Canada, under the Authority of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, regulates the noise emissions of new motor vehicles offered for sale in Canada. These regulations require that noise levels produced by heavy vehicles (over 4,500 kg GVW) be no higher than 83 dBA, for motorcycles 83 dBA and for passenger cars 80 dBA, with all measurements taken 15 m from the vehicle. There are a number of factors on which the current Federal vehicle noise emission levels are based. First, they were selected to represent viable, but not necessarily the best standards, while not forcing untried or prohibitively expensive noise reduction technology on the manufacturer. Second, the levels were chosen to be compatible with those in force in other countries so as not to create artificial trade barriers.

And third, the levels and test methods are directed primarily at engine and exhaust noise during low-speed, full-throttle acceleration, considered at the time of developing the standard to be the most annoying mode of vehicle operation.

20

ii) Provincial Responsibilities

The principal provincial legislation in Alberta that deals with individual vehicle noise is the Highway Traffic Act (1980). The Act specifies equipment (lights, brakes, horns, etc.) and conditions of use of motor vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles known as the "rules of the road"; outlines muffler requirements; specifies the use of sirens; prohibits stunts (squealing tires caused by rapid acceleration or braking) that cause loud and unnecessary noise from a motor vehicle; and prohibits the operation of a vehicle on residential streets between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. so as to unduly disturb the residents. Similar legislation is contained in the legislation for off-highway vehicles as well as prescribing any equipment required and the allowable uses. While Alberta Transportation is responsible for establishing both of these Acts, the specific prohibitions are enforced by the RCMP and municipal police.

iii) Municipal Responsibilities

Most municipalities in Canada have 'Nuisance Bylaws' which prohibit loud, unusual or disturbing sounds in a neighbourhood. Of these, there are two basic types: one which is subjective in nature prohibiting specific noises, and the other, which is currently used by the City, that specifies quantitative limits in decibels for specific offensive noises. For the latter type, sound level limits, in decibels, are usually established for various classifcations of vehicles.

In Alberta several statues enable municipalities to enact bylaws to abate noise. The Municipal Government Act (1970)

21

specifically enables municipal councils to pass bylaws for the purpose of prohibiting, eliminating, or abating noise.

These bylaws may establish permissable noise levels for all, or varying periods of the day, in all or a designated part of the municipality. The Highway Traffic Act (1980) enables councils, with respect to roadways under their control, to make bylaws for the regulation and control of vehicle traffic. Pursuant to this section, municipalities may define what constitutes objectional noise, devise a system or method of determining or measuring such noise, and prohibit the operation of motor vehicles which, in any manner, make objectionable noise. The vehicle noise emission standards currently in use by the City of Edmonton are 83 dBA for automobiles, 83 dBA for motorcycles, 90 dBA for trucks and 92 dBA for diesel trucks. All measurements are taken 5 metres from the vehicle travelling zone and apply only to roads having speed limits of 60 km/h or less.

iv) Inadequacies of Existing Legislation

At the present time, there are three major hindrances to further reductions in regulated motor vehicle noise levels in Canada. The first problem is the lack of resources in terms of both manpower and funds to devote to finding solutions. Further reductions in vehicle noise emission regulations can be very expensive and provide marginally reduced noise levels, and therefore solid justification is necessary to satisfy government socio-economic/cost benefit requirements. The second hindrance is a general absence of national traffic exposure data and a prediction technique on which to base regulatory impact projections. The last problem is the higher cost and technical complexity of quieter vehicles. Much of the less expensive technology

22

for reduced engine exhaust noise has been applied, and further improvements will develop more slowly because of their impact on vehicle design. Possible future innovations include acoustic engine enclosures and aerodynamic noise reduction. Despite these problems, more stringent federal noise regulations can have a considerable impact within a reasonably short time. This was made evident by recent Statistics Canada Surveys, which indicated that 65% of the vehicles in use are less than 5 years old while 88% are 8 years old or less. Stricter standards therefore could improve the noise emission performance of the vehicle fleet quite quickly.

We also recognize that the greatest limitation of Federal noise regulations is that they are applicable only to newly manufactured vehicles. In addition, in many cases vehicle noise annoyance is attributable to abusive operation of the vehicle, mischievious modification and simple neglect.

These problems cannot be controlled federally, and therefore vehicle noise abatement also requires provincial and municipal action. Federal controls can be used to regulate the noise emissions of vehicles when manufactured, but once the vehicle is in use, noise control is the responsibility of the provincial and municipal governments. Provincial action is required in the area of province-wide vehicle level noise regulations and regular vehicle inspections. Municipal action is required to improve the noise bylaw enforcement procedures. The cumulative results of these actions could be very beneficial in the overall reduction of urban traffic noise.

Recommendations

There are basically four alternatives to reducing vehicular noise emissions: the first is to encourage more stringent

23

regulations with respect to the noise emissions permitted by new vehicles; the second is to increase the enforcement of proper maintenance of vehicles within the existing fleet, to meet acceptable noise emission standards and to regulate the manner in which vehicles are operated; the third is for the Federal and Provincial Governments and the Municipality to give preference to the purchase of quiet public transit, service and maintenance vehicles; the fourth, which is under municipal jurisdiction, is to maintain an effective noise abatement bylaw.

The first solution is primarily within Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Government is responsible for new vehicle standards and therefore should be encouraged to strictly enforce noise emission regulations and to carry out research concerning the further reduction of engine noise and other related engine noise sources including the search for leak free exhaust system joints, reducing noise in pipe shells, air intake systems and fan noise. An advantage of controlling noise at the source by Federal and Provincial regulations, is that the cost is borne almost entirely by the producer of the noise, the manufacturer or the vehicle owner, rather than by the general population through taxation for noise attenuation facilities. It is therefore recommended: That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to investigate the feasibility of further reductions to the maximum allowable noise levels permitted for new vehicles (cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles) for the purpose of reducing vehicle noise levels at the source.

24

The second solution to regulate the use and maintenance of vehicles, lies within the provincial and local jurisdictions.

The regulations concerning the use of vehicles is adequately addressed by the City of Edmonton through the revised Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 7255 presented in Appendix I. A problem remains however, as the vehicle noise regulations specified in this Bylaw are not consistent with other Alberta municipalities. This inconsistency can cause problems, especially with the trucking industry, when moving goods from city to city. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Transportation to consider the establishment of specific noise level limits by vehicle classification for incorporation within existing Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaws to ensure consistent province—wide standards.

The regulation of proper vehicle maintenance could also be improved by regular vehicle testing. This has been done successfully by other jurisdictions along with vehicle safety inspection tests, or in the case of trucks, with weight measurement tests, to ensure proper vehicle noise emission levels. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Transportation to review the feasibility of a program of vehicle inspection for heavy motor vehicles, motorcycles and automobiles with respect to source noise, for implementation by the Province.

25

The third solution, to purchase 'quiet' vehicles lies under the Provincial, Federal and Municipal jursidiction. These levels of government purchase a considerable number of vehicles each year for use by various departments. If Federal and Provincial purchasing agents included quietness as one of the specifications for vehicles purchased and preference was given to quieter vehicles, this would provide a useful incentive for manufacturers to develop quieter equipment and may reduce the noise impacts of government owned vehicles. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council request the Minister of Supply and Services Canada and Provincial Government to include a "buy quiet" preference as a criterion for use in the selection of vehicles under the jurisdiction of their respective Governments.

Although, not within the context of senior levels of government, such a 'buy quiet' preference as a criterion for use in the selection of vehicles has equal applicability at the Municipal level. Particular attention should be given to those vehicles that travel in residential areas such as buses. The specifications should address noise levels thereby giving all potential bidders the same opportunity to comply, with the objective of giving preference to any manufacturer which may have vehicles operating at a lower dBA rating.

Additionally the use of vehicle noise emissions as a criterion for use in the selection and purchase of City vehicles is not only feasible, but also would be an indicator of the City's serious intentions with respect to traffic noise reduction. (It should be noted that this recommendation is addressed in Volume I, 4.6.1.1 in order for consideration along with other abatement measures for appreciation by the Municipality.) It is therefore recommended:

26

That City Council direct the Central Supply and Services and Transit Departments to address within the specifications developed for the purchase of City vehicles, the noise levels and limits of the equipment, and specify noise levels limits in dBA, taking into consideration the type of vehicle and current technology.

The fourth solution, to maintain an effective municipal noise abatement bylaw, lies solely under municipal jurisdiction.

Municipalities have jurisdiction in the regulation of individual source noise problems within their boundaries and in Alberta, the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to pass and enforce noise abatement bylaws for the purpose of reducing the annoyance resulting from excessive individual source noise problems. (It should be noted that this amendment is addressed in Volume I, 4.4.4.1 in order that it be considered along with other Amendments to Municipal Legislation.) It is therefore recommended:

That City Council adopt the revised Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 7255 in order to facilitate the enforcement of individual source noise problems and in particular vehicle sources of noise affecting the sound environment of the City. (As outlined in Appendix I)

27

4.1.2 Tire Standards and Pavement Design

Strategy

Tire/pavement noise represents one of the most serious problems among the sources of vehicle noise, particularly for automobiles and trucks moving at moderate to high speeds. The cumulative impacts of tire/pavement noise contribute greatly to the excessive noise situation existing adjacent to major urban arterial roadways. At the present time however, there is a lack of legislation dealing with this noise source. The objective of this Section is to examine the potential of reducing tire/pavement noise and the practicality of legislative action.

Discussion

i) Tire Noise

Two noise origins have been identified as accountable for the noise generated through tire/pavement interaction. The first origin is related to the displacement of air from the spaces between the treads as they make contact with the road surface. This occurs when a portion of the tire rolls into contact with the road surface, compressing the tire and thereby forcing air out of the tread grooves. Conversely, noise is generated when compression is relieved and air flows back into the tread grooves. The presence of cavities in tires or pavement that can be readily sealed and opened by a rolling tire, create potential conditions for the generation for noise. The second origin of tire/pavement noise is tread vibration and associated sidewall vibration. This vibration may be transmitted through the suspension and radiated by the body of the vehicle.

28

Under normal operating conditions, at a speed of 50 km/h, the passenger car sound is a composite of relatively equal contributions of the engine and exhaust system noise and tire/pavement interaction. As speed increases, tire noise increases at a more rapid rate than does engine noise.

A solution to the tire/pavement noise generated from automobiles is to have these vehicles fitted with rib tread (radial) tires. Today, most cars are being equipped with this quieter tire which will become the standard tread in the near future. However, the greatest source of tire noise is trucks, primarily, large vans and trucks with trailers. At lower speeds, truck noise is almost completely dominated by engine and exhaust related components. At higher highway speeds, however, tire/pavement interaction becomes the dominant source of noise. During cruising operation (60 kph) the increase in tire/pavement noise varies with the type of tread in use, with the popular cross-bar tread and pocket retread tires contributing greatly to higher tire noise.

Research data by the U.S. National Research Council has shown that the use of the rib tire treads can reduce noise from 4.5 to 6 dBA over the cross-bar tread and reduce noise from 15.5 to 17 dBA over the pocket To date, only the radial tire (rib tread retread) To design) has demonstrated any significant effects on the

1. Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Research Council, "Highway Noise Generation and Control, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report", 173, Washington, D.C., 1976.

29

reduction of tire noise. It appears that this tire is not used widely for trucks because of a high initial capital outlay, as compared to the other standard tires. However, over a long period of time, the actual cost of the radial tire is lower than other types because of greater durability and tire life. In recognition of this fact, there appears to be a slow trend within the trucking industry towards greater use of the radial tire.

ii) Pavement Noise

The dominent sources of vehicle noise are engine related, except at speeds of greater than 50 km/h where the noise generated from tire/pavement interaction becomes a major factor. Even after exhaust and other engine related noises are diminished through technical improvements, vehicle noise will continue to be dominant on highways and major arterials. This occurs particularly where moderate to high percentages of trucks are found, by virtue of their high tire/pavement noise. Although tire noise may be reduced, research has proven that the noise generated from contact with the pavement appears to be relatively insensitive to changes in texture and therefore the noise abatement potential of pavement resurfacing is minimal except where the pavement is in a state of disrepair or where a concrete road surface exists. The degree of insensitivity is also dependent upon the type of tire in use. For instance, the common cross-bar tire is quite insensitive to the road surface, but noise from a rib tire generally increases as road roughness increases. The popular pocket retread tires in use by trucks becomes quieter on road surfaces where the tread pockets (grooves) cannot seal to the road.

30

It should be noted that there are a number of parameters in addition to noise generation to be considered in pavement selection. Not only is there variability by pavement type, but there is variability with time, weathering, wear, durability and skid resistance. An open graded mix which is believed to be noise retardent is susceptable to freeze—thaw breakup as well as the eventual filling in of surface interstices, causing the surface to act the same as a dense graded asphalt with the consequent loss of any noise reduction that may have been initially evident. Also, the noise generated by a rolling tire can vary substantially as the tire moves in and out of the normal tire path on given pavement.

Recommendations

The reduction of existing tire/pavement noise appears to be a matter of tread selection. Research data has shown a wide variance in tire noise generation which is primarily dependent upon the type of tire tread in use. Radial and bias rib tread tires are quieter than the cross—bar treaded tire which in turn is quieter than the pocket retread tire. The pocket retread tire generates much more noise than any other tread designs and contributes greatly to truck traffic noise on major arterials and highways where speeds are greater than 50 km/h.

At present time, only the Federal Government is responsible for the regulation of tire manufacturing standards, which at the present time do not address the noise emission problem.

The legislative authority is under the Canadian Standards Association. The Province of Alberta is not involved with tire/pavement noise research although the Provincial Government also has the authority to restrict the use of certain types of tires in addition to the Federal Government.

It is therefore recommended:

31

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada through the Canadian Standards Association Tire Retread Committee to consider amendments to the CSA Standards which would restrict the use of the pocket retread tires on trucks with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise.

Given that the City of Edmonton, and municipalities in general, do not have the necessary funding and expertise to find solutions to noise resulting from tire/pavement interaction, it is recommended: That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to continue and accelerate their research on tire standards with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise and establishing appropriate regulations.

Tire noise reduction is essentially dependent on tire tread and roadway surface selection. Modern day pavement technology has lead roadway builders to use dense graded or medium course types of asphalt for a number of reasons including economic efficiency and durability. At this time, costs of materials are likely to be considered of much greater importance than noise reduction capability and therefore, further research is required in this area. In light of the fact there is a lack of funds and expertise for this exercise to be carried out by the municipality, it is therefore recommended:

That City Council request the Minister of Transport Canada to research pavement design with the objective of reducing vehicular source noise and establishing appropriate regulations.

32

4.1.3 Building Code Regulations

Strategy

Schools, hospitals and residential dwelling units are land uses which are particularly sensitive to traffic noise. These land uses are sometimes exposed to excessive noise levels because of their location adjacent to major arterial roadways. It is unrealistic, however, to suggest prohibiting all new residential development, hospitals or schools close to arterial roadways.

It is often technically, administratively and economically practical and socially acceptable to construct these types of land uses if acoustical measures are incorporated in suCh a manner that interior noise levels are reduced to acceptable levels. This section examines the use of building codes, for the purpose of regulating acceptable interior sound levels within residential dwelling units) hospitals and schools adjacent to noise sources.

Discussion

i) Existing Legislation

Legislation governing the construction of buildings in Alberta is under the authority of the Provincial Government. The Provincial Uniform Buildings Standards Act defines the terms and the responsibilities regarding building construction standards while the Alberta Building Regulations describe the specific building material requirements and standards. The current Alberta Building Regulations are based on the National Building Code guidelines and are the only building regulations enforced within the Province. These building regulations provide the design criteria to

33

ensure that buildings are constructed to withstand elements including fire, rain, wind, snow; and to provide guidelines for the use of building materials, structural components and assembly procedures. However, neither Federal or Provincial building legislation addresses the problem of intrusion from excessive exterior noise sources upon the interior of a dwelling unit, as is the case when residential units are located adjacent to major arterial roadways.

In Alberta, provincial enabling legislation allows municipalities to pass bylaws for the purpose of controlling noise, however, this does not include matters regarding the use of municipal building regulations. At the present time, there are no legislative requirements for the acoustical protection of residences adjacent to major arterials. The current provincial building regulations are based on structural requirements and are inadequate to ensure that acceptable indoor noise attenuation occurs, particularly in areas near major sources of traffic noise.

ii) Noise Attenuating Building Materials

There are a number of construction techniques and building materials that may be used for the purpose of reducing the traffic noise that penetrates a dwelling unit. Noise may enter a room through windows, doors, the ceiling and any openings to the outside.

34

Therefore, noise attenuating building materials and construction techniques are generally designed to replace the conventional means employed for these areas. References 2, 3 and 4 explain the use of noise attenuating building materials in.further detail.

The noise attenuation potential of various construction materials have been shown to be very effective. For example, closed windows themselves can reduce noise levels by 15 to 20 dBA with sealed units reducing noise levels by an additional 5 dBA. Further noise reductions may be achieved through the use of sealed units together with double glazing which may reduce the transmission of exterior sound by up to 35 dBA. The major drawback of this approach is the need for an alternative means of cooling and ventilation, and the associated costs which maybe substantial. Other steps that can be employed in the reduction of interior sound levels include increasing the thickness of the glass, tighter fitting and acoustically treated solid core doors, and more air space between the panes in double or triple glazed windows. Roofs and ceiling are usually treated only where there is a severe problem with aircraft noise.

2. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "LeBreton Flats Development Evaluation 2, Walls and Floors as Sound Barriers", 1981.

3. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Road and Rail Noise, Effects on Housing", 1981.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 4 Office of Research and Development, "The Audible Landscape: A Manual For Highway Noise and Land Use", 1976.

35

The transmission of sound through a wall may be abated through the use of various types of building materials including acoustically treated brickwork, increased thermal insulation within the wall and by increasing the thickness of the walls. Also, wall building techniques such as double studded walls, staggered studs and steel studded gypsum wall boards have proven to be valuable in the absorption of sound. The only negative aspect of these techniques is again the increased costs, particularly in retrofit situations, however, some advantage is also gained in terms of energy conservation.

iii) Noise Control Using the Building Code

A building code may be used as a mechanism for controlling interior noise by requiring the use of building materials with a specific attenuation capability. Three types of regulations may be used.

First, the sound absorption capability of various building materials may be measured through a procedure known as Sound Transmission Class rating (STC). This rating procedure could be included within the building code by specifying a certain STC level for the exterior walls of buildings near or adjacent to traffic noise) similar to what is presently specified for party walls.

The builder would then be required to construct the dwelling unit to the specified sound absorption standard. The major drawback with the use of the STC unit of measurement is accuracy. The margin of error associated with the use of this technique is significant enough to create difficulties in effective enforcement.

36

An alternative approach to the control of interior noise levels is through the specification within the building code of maximum allowable noise levels within particular rooms of a dwelling unit. For this approach, decibel levels may be established for rooms within the building in order to identify definitive and clear acoustical building requirements. The developer would then be required to examine existing and anticipated noise levels for the exterior and interior of buildings faced with excessive noise levels. This acoustical analysis would aid the developer in the selection of appropriate building materials and construction techniques to ensure compliance with the building code. The major problem with this approach is also enforcement. It is impossible to be certain of the interior noise levels until project completion, at which time, any alterations would prove extremely expensive.

The third approach is to use the method developed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, namely the Acoustical Insulation Factor (AIF), to select 5 This procedure takes appropriate building materials. into account the type of room under consideration, the number of exterior walls forming the room, the types of windows, exterior doors and the exterior noise levels to take advantage of the lower noise levels of the sheltered walls. This design procedure considers each wall in a dwelling unit separately. It was developed by the National Research Council and is presently in use by CMHC for their housing projects.

5. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Road and Rail Noise, Effects on Housing", 1981.

37

This procedure appears to be accurate, reliable enforceable and has proven record with CMHC. The procedure is outlined in detail in Appendix II.

iv) Summary

The provincial building code could specify construction materials to be used, an STC level, interior decibel levels or require the use of the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor to ensure acceptable noise attenuation. The specification of certain building materials should not be inflexible since only developers and builders know material costs and building processes well enough to determine the best means of noise attenuation. Also, the regulation should not be overly rigid in order to encourage innovative methods of noise abatement.

However, because the use of interior dBA levels and STC levels are subject to an unsatisfactory margin of error and enforcement difficulties, the CMHC method appears to be the most reliable. This method requires the builder to determine the necessary Acoustic Insulation Factor (AIF) allowing flexibility in choice of materials and designs while providing direction for achieving the proper noise abatement. A more detailed explanation of the procedure is provided in Appendix II and Chapter 5, under the section entitled Acoustical Building Materials, that deals with physical noise control mechanisms.

38

Recommendations

The Province of Alberta has enacted legislation for the control of the structural aspects of building construction with specific regulations outlined in the Alberta Building Code. However, the provincial building code is essentially an adopted version of the National Building Code, with neither Code addressing the problem of excessive interior sound levels.

The Associate Committee in the National Building Code, of the National Research Council is responsible for amendments to the National Building Code. The procedure for obtaining a code change is to submit a brief to the Associate Committee, requesting and explaining the need for an amendment to the 1985 edition of the National Building Code. The next edition of the Alberta Building Code will be based on the 1985 National Building Code and will therefore include any amendments designed to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels.

The Alberta Department of Labour, Building Standards Branch is responsible for any amendments to the Alberta Building Code.

Changes to the Alberta Building Code do not require prior approval by the Associate Committee administering the National Building Code. Therefore, an alternative approach to changing the building code is to directly petition the Alberta Building Standards Council. The proposed amendments, if approved, will then be included with other changes in a new edition of the Alberta Building Code in 1986.

39

It appears that the Acoustical Insulation Factor procedure used by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is the most successful in determining sufficient acoustical insulation, and should be considered for use within the building code to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels. The application of this method to the National and Alberta Building Codes has the added advantage of using CMHC and the National Research Council as a readily available source of information and continued research. It is therefore recommended: That City Council request the Minister of the Provincial Department of Labour to investigate the feasibility of amending the Alberta Building Code to include acoustical guidelines, based on the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor Methodology, in order to ensure that noise abatement measures are included in the design and construction of residential dwelling units, schools, and hospitals located adjacent to major arterial roadways, and; That City Council request the National Research Council of Canada to investigate the feasibility of amending the National Building Code to include acoustical guidelines, based on the CMHC Acoustical Insulation Factor Methodology, for the purpose of ensuring that noise abatement measures are included in the design and construction of residential dwelling units, schools and hospitals located adjacent to major arterial roadways.

40

4.1.4 Public Health Act Regulations

Strategy

The residents of dwellings located adjacent to major arterial roads are exposed to increasing levels of traffic noise and associated detrimental effects on personal health. Health effects may become apparent when indoor noise exceeds a level of 45 dBA (Leq) at which time the well being of the general public may be jeopardized by means of general annoyance, interference with speech and sleep, and psychological irritation which is subtle and difficult to quantify, yet inescapable. At the present time, health legislation in Alberta does not address these problems and does not mention the impacts of traffic noise upon personal health. The objective of this Section therefore, is to review the use of health regulations for noise control.

Discussion

i) Overview of Public Health Legislation

Currently, in Alberta, the development of public health regulations is a responsiblity of the Provincial Government. The Alberta Social Services and Community Health Department administers the Public Health Act (RSA 1980 CP-27), which provides the legal mechanism to regulate noise in the public domain through the Provincial Board of Health regulations. The Act requires the Board to be cognizant of the interest of the health and life among the people of Alberta.

41

The primary responsibility of the Board of Health is to regulate, protect and improve health conditions and to prevent, mitigate and suppress disease. To this end, the Board administers regulations with respect to investigations and inquiries regarding sanitation, causes of disease, mortality, occupational regulations and prescribes maximum permissible water and air contaminants and other public health related concerns.

The Board may also establish regulations for the protection and improvement of health and the prevention and suppression of health related problems, including the prevention and removal of health related nuisances.

The Public Health Act also provides for municipal boards of health to administer health regulations by public health inspectors. These professionals are responsible for the resolution of environmental health problems. At the present time, noise considerations are not part of the health regulations, however, the Public Health Act does provide the legislative authority for such regulations. Currently, public health inspectors of the Edmonton Local Board of Health, undertake noise monitoring tests for exterior community noise problems within the City. This infrastructure and the organizational setting could be used for the enforcement of a public health noise standard.

ii) Current Use of Health Regulations for Noise Control Elsewhere

In Canada, there is little application of health regulations for the purpose of regulating the amount of traffic noise that reaches the interior of the dwelling unit. Only, the Health Department of the City of

42

Burnaby, B.C. has adopted noise standards which are based on the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements for acceptable interior and exterior noise levels. These standards form part of a policy document which provides guidelines for use within the development approval process where residential development applications must include an acoustical analysis and noise attenuation measures which meet the requirements of the Health Department.

Municipalities in the United States make use of health codes which can be easily adopted to include a provision for noise compatibility in new construction. Some local jurisdictions, particularly in California, have adopted the HUD noise level standards. The HUD noise levels criteria is shown in Table 4.1. These standards are usually enforced through the use of an acoustical analysis which must be included within an Environmental Impact Statement. The local health authorities examine development submissions to determine whether an Occupancy Permit should be issued. If compliance with the standards is doubtful, approval is made conditionally, whereby an Occupancy Permit will not be issued unless actual measurements, taken after construction is complete, confirm that the standards have been met. Development proposals which appear incapable of meeting the HUD standards are disapproved until revisions are made.

43

Table 4.1 6 HUD NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA

Exterior

discretionary - normally acceptable

65 dBA - L

33 (not to be exceeded more than 8 out of 24 hrs.)

clearly acceptable

45 dBA - L

2 (not to be exceeded more than 30 min. out of 24 hrs.)

Interior

clearly acceptable

45 dBA - L

33 (not to be exceeded more than 8 out of 24 hrs.)

55 dBA - L4 (not to be exceeded more than 1 out of 24 hrs.)

(night)

45 dBA - L6 (not to be exceeded more than 30 min. out of 8 hrs.)

6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use, 1976.

44

A similar approach may be applicable to the local situation. An acceptable interior noise level standard which is adopted by the Province would ensure that acceptable noise levels along with other health regulations, are considered during the construction of residential dwelling units and maintained in existing dwelling units that are renter occupied. This standard should reflect the maximum allowable noise level that will ensure noise protection from a health perspective.

Recommendation

The Alberta health regulations are the major mechanism for ensuring that residential dwelling units are habitable.

Currently, the health regulations address environmental concerns including sanitation, diseases, and nuisances which have a detrimental affect on personal health. The Act also provides for the control of undesirable aspects of the physical environment including air and water pollution. At this time, the Provincial Board of Health also has the authority to include amendments designed for the purpose of reducing the detrimental effects of traffic noise on public health and ensuring habitable living environments. This protection has been omitted from the public health regulations to date. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council request the Provincial Board of Health to investigate the feasibility of amending the Public Health Act to include a maximum allowable noise level for the interior of residential dwelling units for implementation by the Province, in order to ensure noise is considered along with other health concerns in the design and construction of residential dwelling units.

45

4.2 AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

4.2.1 General Municipal Plan

Strategy

While growth by the City has brought about renewal, it has also meant numerous shortcomings where little attention has been given to the quality of the environment being created. One environmental problem in particular has materialized; that is the issue concerning noise incompatibility of residential land use adjacent to major roadways. Land uses should be distributed so that uses generating noise are located so as not to interfere with 'quiet' residential land uses or should be designed to abate noise by using site planning, architectural or acoustical barrier techniques. Land use planning guidelines and standards for noise control therefore can play an important role in protecting the quality of the urban environment. The General Municipal Plan policies which manage the growth and form of Edmonton, should therefore encourage consideration given to traffic noise abatement in the City's land use planning and development regulations. It is the purpose of this Section to examine this noise control potential of the General Municipal Plan.

Discussion

To this date little attention has been given within the General Municipal Plan to the quality of the urban sound environment.

Numerous urban design planning concerns have been addressed by the General Municipal Plan including an examination of the design of spaces around and between buildings in terms of function, form, street scapes, building facades, shadow effects, views and energy conservation. However, there appears to be a neglect for the urban sound component of the physical environment.

46

The encouragement of environment sensitivity in land use and transportation planning is identified as a major objective of the City in the General Municipal Plan 18—point growth strategy under Environmental Quality. However, to ensure traffic noise concerns are addressed within land use plans, it is necessary that specific noise control guidelines are addressed within the General Municipal Plan in conjunction with other urban design guidelines.

At this time, Area Redevelopment and Area Structure Plans provide an opportunity to refine design policies and guidelines outlined in the General Municipal Plan. It is important therefore, that traffic noise control is emphasized by the General Municipal Plan for the preparation of these statutory plans and for the development of individual sites where the detailed features of the urban environment are being shaped.

Land use planning techniques for controlling noise are the most effective preventive noise abatement means available to municipal government, as the solutions are: cost effective; acceptable to the general public (and therefore marketable); have potential to alleviate future land use/noise conflict; and, have the potential to minimize implementation costs if applied early in the construction process. Therefore, it is imperative that the General Municipal Plan policies which manage the growth and form of the City, be amended to encourage consideration given to traffic noise abatement in the City's land use planning process.

The purpose of considering noise in the land use planning process is not to prevent development but rather to encourage development that is compatible with various noise levels. The objective is to guide noise sensitive land uses away from the noise and encourage non—sensitive land uses where there is noise. Where this is not possible, measures should be included in development projects to reduce the effects of the noise.

47

Recommendations

Currently the Planning Department is responsible for co-ordinating and recommending General Municipal Plan Amendments that are necessary to keep the Plan up to date (G.M.P. Policy 18.A.1(d)). Updating the G.M.P. is necessary to ensure that the strategies stated in the General Municipal Plan maintain their relevance to current issues such as traffic noise control and new development trends.

The Urban Design Policy of the General Municipal Plan should address urban traffic noise to allow Council, the administration and the public to make decisions concerning the control or improvement of the general sound environment of the City. It will also make developers more aware of the context into which they will be placing their developments by requiring consideration of traffic noise concerns. Further, the incorporation of noise policies within the General Municipal Plan will ensure a comprehensive, rather than piece-meal approach to noise problems. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Planning Department to amend the General Municipal Plan Bylaw No. 6000, Urban Design Chapter, to include objective and policy statements dealing with traffic noise in order to promote the consideration of arterial traffic noise abatement using design elements including spatial separations, land use barriers, architectural design techniques and acoustical construction materials, in the preparation and review of residential plans and development proposals.

48

The Transportation Management Department has prepared guidelines for these traffic noise control techniques that outline in more detail the design elements listed in the above proposed Urban Design Handbook as it provides examples of successful noise control projects and would assist in the preparation, review and approval of plans and development proposals.

It is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Planning Department to include land use planning guidelines and standards for noise control within the proposed Urban Design GuidelinesHandbook to assist in the preparation of the urban design component of District Plans and other statutory plans, and in the review of redistricting and development applications adjacent to arterial roadways; and

That City Council direct the Planning Department to include land use planning guidelines and standards for noise control within the proposed Handbook of Urban Design Objectives, Policies and Guidelines for Newly Developed Areas that is to be used in the preparation of Area and Neighbourhood Structure Plans and plans of subdivision and in the review and approval processes for these plans.

It is unrealistic to prohibit all new residential development adjacent to major roadways since it is often technically, administratively and economically practicable to design new developments which incorporate measures in such a manner that allow traffic noise to be reduced to acceptable levels. Also, it is recognized that developers have varing degrees of flexibility to attenuate sound. Furthermore, it is recognized that noise mitigation, although important, may be of no greater consideration than the achievement of other urban design objectives. Consequently, it is recommended:

49

That City Council direct the Planning Department to encourage innovative residential projects which demonstrate opportunities to create an acceptable urban sound environment using land use planning techniques.

50

4.2.2 Land Use Bylaw No. 5996

Strategy

The existing Land Use Bylaw No. 5996 is a legislative tool by which the use and development of land and/or buildings is regulated or controlled. It is therefore the key instrument for implementing many of the General Municipal Plan policies and in particular the environmental quality objective of promoting high environmental standards in relationships between land uses perceived as incompatible. The Land Use Bylaw, therefore, has the potential to be a useful tool for traffic noise control. It is the purpose of this Section to review the role the Land Use Bylaw could play in traffic noise control.

Discussion

At this time the Land Use Bylaw does not make reference to traffic noise as a condition of development or as a development constraint. However, it is essential that the Land Use Bylaw address traffic noise impacts and abatement measures within the context of the Land Use Bylaw to ensure that the most effective noise mitigation measures (such as the arrangement of land uses and spatial separation) are considered at an early stage in the planning process. Furthermore, the incorporation of traffic noise control guidelines within the Land Use Bylaw will ensure a comprehensive, rather than a piece-meal approach to noise problems.

51

Currently the Land Use Bylaw is the primary administrative mechanism used by the municipality to direct land use in accordance with the General Municipal Plan policies, for orderly growth. The Land Use Bylaw specifies what type of land use is permitted in each zoning district and additional specifications are used to control signs, off-street parking facilities, lot size, frontage, maximum building height and ratio of open space to developed land. These precedents therefore, make zoning a useful tool for noise control.

Enforcement of the provisions of a Land Use Bylaw are traditionally accomplished through the approval of development plans and permits. At this stage of the planning process, land use regulations may be used in three ways to ensure the future residential development will be compatible with nearby traffic noise sources:

i) by excluding typically incompatible residential land uses from traffic noise impacted areas and replacing them with noise compatible uses such as commercial, industrial, institutional and recreational land uses.

ii) by requiring specific details of development design or construction which tend to mitigate potential traffic noise incompatibilities including distance setbacks, acoustical barriers and architectural and construction techniques.

iii) by permitting special development techniques for orienting the outdoor amenity areas of residential dwelling units which enable noise compatible site design.

The application of these three measures are discussed in detail in the subsequent chapter entitled Physical Noise Attenuation Techniques.

52

Recommendations

The preparation and maintenance of the Land Use Bylaw is a current responsibility of the Planning Department. Therefore in order to facilitiate the adoption of these amendments it is necessary that the Planning Department undertake the necessary administrative amendments that are indicated by the recommendations, upon approval of the necessary amendments to the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, that will provide for this regulation.

In order for the existing Land Use Bylaw to become an effective tool in minimizing incompatible land uses adjacent to arterial roadways, several amendments are necessary to the existing land use planning and approval procedures that would ensure the consideration of traffic noise attenuation requirements.

At this time, there are four separate development classes that specify permitted uses and other related information for various types of residential development. Noise impacted residential development, however, not only falls under all of these development classifications, but it is also specifically located adjacent to arterial roadways. It would be most appropriate therefore that a traffic noise analysis be required under the Section entitled, Special Information Requirements for residential development abutting arterial roadways. The inclusion of a noise impact study within this Section of the Land Use Bylaw-4ould therefore affect residential development permits4i all classifications that were located abutting arterials and expressways. It is therefore recommended:

53

That City Council direct the Planning Department pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, to amend the text of the Land Use Bylaw No. 5996 Section 16, Special Information Requirements, to include a traffic noise impact study as part of the submission of a development proposal when it involves residential plans of subdivisions, redistricting and site plans adjacent to an arterial roadway or freeway.

Another part of the Land Use Bylaw that requires amending is the Section dealing with conditions attached to development permits. Noise attenuation measures, that are selected to abate traffic noise for residential developments, should also be tied to the development permit to ensure compliance with the noise standards, policies and guidelines. Residential development or redevelopment adjacent to existing arterial roadways should require the developer, at his cost, to provide the attenuation measures necessary to achieve the residential noise level standard, where technically and economically feasible. The developer should also be required to provide noise attenuation for residential development adjacent to a proposed arterial roadway as it is at this stage of land use planning where most of the cost-effective noise attenuation measures including acoustical barriers, can be implemented within the actual development.

Therefore, in order to ensure noise attenuation responsibilities are addressed by residential development permits that are proposed adjacent to arterial roadways, it is recommended:

54

That City Council direct the Planning Department pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, to amend the text of the Land Use Bylaw No. 5996, Section 17 to require as a condition of issuing a development permit, for residential development abutting an arterial roadway, that an applicant enter into an agreement which shall be attached to and form part of such permit to provide the attenuation measures necessary to achieve the residential noise level standards.

At this time, the Planning Act does mention that a muncipality, through a general municipal plan, may "describe the land uses proposed for the municipality and the manner of and the sequence proposed for future development..., and contain such other matters as City Council considers necessary" (Section 61). An Urban Traffic Noise Standard therefore may be considered as an "other matter" under this Section, if approved by City Council.

Section 61 may be sufficient to justify amending a general municipal plan, however, a number of minor amendments to the development regulations of the Planning Act appear to be required before traffic noise considerations may be incorporated into the land use planning process through a land use bylaw. It appears that an amendment to Section 69 of the Planning Act is required that would allow a land use bylaw to regulate noise attenuation requirements for the use and development of residential land, particularly adjacent to arterial roadways, freeways and railway corridors. This Section currently sets out all site conditions that may be prohibited, regulated and controlled by a municipality except for on-site noise levels.

55

It also appears desirable to insert a clause in Sections 77 and 92 of the Planning Act that would make it possible for municipalities to enter into agreements with developers to install or pay for the installation of noise attenuation devices or design alternatives that are necessary to achieve an acceptable noise level for new development. Sections 77 and 92 presently give municipality the right to enter into agreements with developers to construct public roadways and install utilities, pedestrian walkways, and off—street parking. A similar provision is needed to enable municipalities to negotiate with developers regarding noise attenuation devices or design alternatives where noise problems warrant such treatment to achieve an acceptable noise level, as determined by the municipality.

The effectiveness of the recommended traffic noise standard is dependent on the above suggested amendments to the Planning Act. (It should be noted that these amendments are addressed in Volume I, 4.3.5 under Amendments to Existing Senior Government Legislation in order that they be considered along with other amendments to Senior Government Legislation.) It is therefore recommended:

That City Council request the Minister of Alberta Municipal Affairs to amend Sections 69, 77 and 92 of the Planning Act R.S.A. 1980, that would provide the necessary mandate for the municipality to use the Municipal Land Use Bylaw No. 5996 to control and regulate noise attenuation requirements for the development of residential land adjacent to arterial roadways and freeways; and to enter into agreements with developers to install or pay for the installation of noise attenuation devices or design alternatives that are necessary to achieve an acceptable noise level for new residential development.

56

4.2.3 Terms of References for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure and Neighbourhood Structure Plans

Strategy

Statutory plans including Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans are a means of implementating the policies of the General Municipal Plan while providing direction to the Land Use Bylaw regulations on specific sites within developed and undeveloped areas of the City.

Therefore in order to implement the proposed General Municipal Plan and the Land Use Bylaw Amendments regarding traffic noise, the Terms of Reference for Area Redevelopment Plans and Area Structure Plans must be amended to address the proposed traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines and thereby stipulate the consideration of traffic noise as a criterion for approving development and redevelopment plans. It is the purpose of this Section to review the role that these terms of references could play in traffic noise control.

Discussion

i) Area Redevelopment Plans (ARP)

The specific objective of the Area Redevelopment Plans is to implement the General Municipal Plan and the Land Use Bylaw objectives and policies for the preservation, rehabilitation, and/or redevelopment of developed areas of the City. The Terms of Reference for ARP's specifies that the content should include:

57

a) the location, timing and form of development, consistent with the policies of the General Municipal Plan regarding transportation objectives and urban environmental design objectives;

b) an implementation strategy for proposals relating to the staging of redevelopment, methods and guidelines of land use control;

c) an indication of environmental, social and economic impacts of proposals and how any detrimental impacts will be minimized.

It appears within the context of an area redevelopment plan, there is an opportunity to address traffic noise compatibility of residential land uses adjacent to arterial roadways and specifically to enforce the traffic noise standard and related policies. Area Redevelopment Plans could carry out this function by providing land use guidelines that would encourage the redevelopment of noise sensitive land use adjacent to arterial roadways to more compatible uses such as retail and office uses. These non-residential types of land uses also act as a very effective barrier that can shield noise generated from a roadway from the remaining residential land uses in a neighbourhood. Since there is a limited need for office and retail space, selective residential land uses may be appropriate next to an arterial roadway. Residential uses would be appropriate providing architectural and/or special site planning modifications are incorporated within the development that will achieve the Residential Noise Level Standard and be compatible to the adjacent residential land use.

58

ii) Area Structure Plans

Area Structure Plans act as a means of establishing a framework to guide the subdivision and development of new suburban areas. They carry out this function by taking into account specific site contexts and constraints. The contents of Area Structure Plans must also be sufficiently comprehensive to address the concerns of the General Municipal Plan policies and the Land Use Bylaw.

In order to achieve this comprehensiveness, an understanding of the existing physical, social and economic conditions is required. Therefore all land use proposals are to be supported by an impact assessment, which thoroughly documents the implications of a proposal on existing conditions, and identifies measures to minimize the anticipated negative impacts.

The appropriate stage of the planning process to undertake this analysis is during the preparation of the Area Structure Plan, as this level of planning provides the intermediate link between the General Municipal Plan and the Neighbourhood Structure Plan. Area Structure Plans also deal with the basic and preliminary design decisions for a new area including, in both qualitative and quantitative terms, the different land uses, transportation services and utilities, density and development sequence, as well as how the development of these components will occur.

It appears therefore that traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines could be addressed within Area

59 Structure Plans as part of the environmental impact assessment of land use proposals. This would ensure that noise attenuation, if required, be accommodated within site plans either in the form of acoustical barriers, distance setbacks, architectural techniques, building materials or through site plan modifications for noise control as explained in Chapter 5. An elaboration of the proposed implementation of the noise attenuation measures would then be provided in detail at the Neighbourhood Structure Plan stage.

iii) Neighbourhood Structure Plans

The purpose of Neighbourhood Structure Plans is to provide the linkage between Area Structure Plans and the plans of subdivision which bring into effect the division of land. The contents are essentially the same as that identified in the corresponding Area Structure Plan, except they provide more detailed information at the level of neighbourhood units. They also indicate the Land Use Bylaw districts which are use to regulate development.

It appears therefore that traffic noise standards, policies and guidelines could be addressed by Neighbourhood Structure Plans through the selection of compatible noise insensitive land use districts, or the application of other noise attenuation measures adjacent to arterial roadways. These measures would be explained in detail unlike the analysis undertaken at the Area Structure Plan stage of planning.

Recommendations

The preparation of Area Redevelopment Plans as well as the maintenance of the Area Structure Plan and Neighbourhood

60

Structure Plan Terms of References are currently functions undertaken by the Planning Department. Therefore, the Planning Department should be responsible for ensuring the adoption and implementation of the necessary amendments that are indicated by the recommendations.

Area Redevelopment Plans and Area Structure Plans at this time require the inclusion of environmental impact statements, however, traffic noise impacts are not specified within impact statements. Traffic noise impacts should be addressed, however, as the most effective noise mitigation measures such as the arrangement of land uses and spatial separation, must be considered at this preliminary planning stage. Review of noise considerations at this planning stage is also advantageous to the developers as they are aware of the traffic noise control opportunities or problems presented by existing site characteristics and existing or proposed roadways in the area thereby avoiding any costs that may be incurred in modifying the detailed Neighbourhood Structure Plans at a later date.

In addition, the objective of Area Redevelopment Plans is to maintain and/or improve the quality of life in the developed residential areas of the City. At this time various physical and environmental concerns are to be addressed by the plans, however, noise concerns are not specifically required. It is at this time that the most cost-effective solutions to existing noise problems, particularly through redistricting, can be implemented.

61

It appears therefore, that in order for Area Redevelopment Plans, Area Structure Plans, and Neighbourhood Structure Plans to become effective mechanisms for minimizing incompatible land use adjacent to arterial roadways, several amendments are necessary to the Terms of References of these Plans.

The preparation of Area Redevelopment Plans should include a review of noise impacted residential land uses adjacent to arterial roadways. This review would entail an examination of the redistricting of noise sensitive residential development to more compatible land uses such as retail, institutional, recreational, etc., or by regulating residential redevelopment to include noise attenuation measures within the development design or construction materials in order to satisfy the recommended Residential Noise Level Standard, and the Noise Impact Assessment Guidelines proposed for the Land Use Bylaw.

In order to effectively reduce existing traffic noise problem locations it is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Planning Department pending approval of the proposed amendments to enabling legislation within the Planning Act, R.S.A., 1980, to amend the Terms of Reference for Area Redevelopment Plans, within the Environmental Impact Assessment section, to provide for a review of all noise sensitive residential land uses adjacent to arterial roadways in order to determine either a more compatible land use, redevelopment guidelines for residential land uses that require compliance with the residential noise level standard and/or physical attenuation measures that may be taken to mitigate the noise problem.

64 Interrupted flow occurs when traffic is halted by a traffic control device, such as stop sign or traffic signal and when traffic congestion increases to a level which inhibits free traffic flow. This is particularly true when traffic volumes are comprised of a large proportion of heavy trucks. The acceleration, deceleration and braking of heavy trucks can effect noise emissions significantly. In fact, the acceleration of trucks can increase noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA over the sound levels generated at normal city speeds (50 km/h). Additionally, the deceleration of large vehicles using compression—release engine brakes can cause noise levels to be as much as 5 dBA more than the noise emissions from vehicles operating without such brakes. Solutions to the interrupted traffic flow problem include the reduction of vehicle trips by encouraging a greater use of transit, and with the use of priority bus lanes, lane change designations, and sequentially computer controlled traffic lights.

The reduction of vehicle trips also contributes to reduced traffic volumes which may reduce traffic noise emissions in some situations. Research shows that for traffic volumes of less than 1,000 vehicles per hour, the noise level will drop off at a rate approaching 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For traffic volumes of greater than 3,000 vehicle per hour, the noise level drops off at a rate approaching 3 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate for volumes between 1,000 and 3,000 is approximately 4.5 dBA. This indicates that the potential for abating noise through reduced traffic volumes is limited, especially for traffic volumes of more than 3,000 vehicles per hour. This is further

65

substantiated by research findings which show a 3 dBA increase in noise levels for every doubling of traffic volumes. A 3 dBA increase in sound is barely perceptable to the human ear. Lower traffic volumes will not produce any significant reduction in noise except for situations where traffic congestion creates acceleration and braking of vehicles.

Traffic speed also has a marginal impact on overall traffic noise levels. Reduced traffic speed limits may provide lower noise levels, but in order to have significant decreases in noise, it is necessary to have significant reductions in the speed limits. In general, traffic noise can be reduced by 2 dBA for every 15 km/h reduction of the speed limit. The use of lower traffic speeds is therefore not practical as a means of reducing noise levels on most roadways, as there would be an undesirable decrease in the level of service and consequently would result in an inefficient transportation network.

ii) Truck Route Designation

Research findings indicate that trucks are responsible for a large proportion of the annoyance associated with traffic noise. Noise monitoring studies demonstrate that diesel trucks are approximately 8 dBA louder than gasoline powered trucks and 13 dBA louder than automobiles. At lower speeds engine noise from trucks is predominant, while at higher speeds, roadway/tire interaction is the major source of truck noise.

66

The selection of truck routes therefore can be an effective method of controlling and localizing truck traffic to less noise sensitive routes. The effectiveness of a truck route policy however is contingent upon the criteria used for the evaluation of alternative routes. Route selection should include within the evaluation criteria an acoustical examination of the land use impacted and the degree of impact, to ensure the trucks routes are selected adjacent to noise insensitive land uses where possible. It is also effective to place time constraints upon truck movements during the night hours, as the residential areas are most sensitive to disturbance from traffic noise at this time.

The application of a Two Tier System of truck route regulation for Edmonton would provide an effective method of minimizing noise impacts upon residential areas. Under this system, all trucks would be classified into two categories (tiers) for the purpose of assigning route restrictions. The first tier would include two and three axle trucks. These vehicles would be allowed unrestricted use of the arterial street system between the hours of 0700 and 1900. The second tier would include all trucks having more than three axles. These vehicles would use the truck route loop at all times. The shortest arterial route would be used to move between the loop and an origin or destination within the City. During the night hours, the first tier trucks would also be required to use the truck route loop and shortest arterial route. The arterial roads would be defined by the Transportation System Bylaw.

67

The Two Tier Truck Route System is an effective method of minimizing traffic noise, primarily because it restricts truck movements during the night time hours when residential areas are most sensitive to disturbance from traffic noise. Additionally, the Two Tier System places the most attention on large trucks which are the greatest source of noise, and limits their potential routes, thereby minimizing noise impacts. The effect of allowing first tier trucks unrestricted access to city arterials during the day is also minimal since the majority of people are either less sensitive to daytime noise levels or are absent from their residences during the working day. Furthermore, the concentration of larger trucks on limited routes also allows noise attenuation techniques and associated costs to be focused on selected roadways. Therefore, it appears that this approach facilitates an effective method of regulating truck traffic and minimizing the noise impacts upon residential areas.

Recommendations

The traffic noise problem is accentuated when traffic congestion and poorly timed traffic control devices create stop and go traffic conditions. The effective management of urban traffic can contribute significantly towards reduced noise levels. The most effective traffic management techniques include: increasing the efficiency of traffic flow; minimizing the number of vehicles using the transportation network; establishing truck routes corridors; applying route, size and time restrictions on trucks; and employing traffic noise impacts as a criterion in the designation of truck routes. As most of the techniques are

68

currently considered in the transportation planning process, the recommendation will deal solely with truck traffic, which is presently under review by the Province.

Trucks are a major source of vehicular noise, especially for residents living adjacent to designated truck routes and therefore special attention should be given to avoid the designation of truck routes adjacent to noise sensitive residential land uses, particularly those that are technically and/or economically impractical to attenuate. At the present time the Transportation Management Department and Alberta Transportation are undertaking a review of the existing municipal truck route system Bylaw #5590. It is essential that traffic noise be considered as one of the primary criteria for developing a new system and in particular, to consider the two tier truck route system as a viable option.

It is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to address traffic noise considerations in their current review of the existing Truck Route System Bylaw 5990, in order to minimize noise impacts on residential areas.

69

4.2.5 Municipal Control of Land

Strategy

The resolution of excessive traffic noise impacts upon residential areas, may under some circumstances require the municipal control or ownership of land. In extreme situations, municipal purchase or other control of land exposed to excessive noise levels is necessary as the use of physical barriers is not technically possible for all problem locations. This Section discusses the alterative methods of municipal control of land and their potential with respect to noise attenuation.

Discussion There are a number of alternative methods for municipal control of land, however, this section will examine three of the most prominent and effective procedures that may be used for noise abatement purposes. These alternatives are as follows:

- the municipal purchase of land and relocation or demolition of residential units for the purpose of constructing noise barriers or leaving land undeveloped as a buffer;

- municipal purchase, clearance and redistricting of noise impacted land to sell to the public for the purpose of redevelopment to a more compatible land use; and,

- redistricting or rezoning the noise sensitive land use to encourage the eventual redevelopment of the effected property to a more compatible land use and to attract the private development industry to undertake these projects.

70

Each of these options are appropriate under certain circumstances and are discussed in the following paragraphs.

i) Municipal Purchase of Land for the Purpose of Constructing Noise Barriers

There are primarily two factors that must be considered by the municipality in deciding upon the appropriateness of land acquisition and barrier construction as a policy for use in the reduction of traffic noise impacts in residential areas. The first is the financial costs of acquisition. The second is the social costs and benefits associated with municipal ownership of the land.

The major financial cost to the municipality is the purchase price of the land, however, there are also indirect costs associated with the municipal acquisition of land for noise abatement purposes. There are fees involved with the transfer of land, legal costs, engineering surveys and loss of municipal tax revenue.

Additionally, there are costs for property, the construction costs of any noise attenuation facilities and the maintenance of the facilities. Other factors that should be considered include potential problems associated with a reduced housing stock, and the availability of replacement housing for the displaced residents. In view of the high financial costs associated with barriers, this noise attenuation option should only be considered when noise levels exceed to 70 dBA Leq, when there is insufficient land to construct a barrier and Provincial funding is available. At this noise level the acoustical benefits of a barrier are maximized, thereby offsetting the high costs involved.

71

The primary benefit of municipal land acquisition and barrier construction is the provision of reduced noise impacts and acoustical protection for the remaining residents. Other benefits will depend upon the eventual activities designated to the acquired land. If the land is used as an open space buffer, a noise wall or a berm, effective landscaping can be visually appealing and create an aesthetic benefit. In addition, an open space buffer area could be developed for recreational uses.

ii) Municipal Purchase of Land for the Purpose of Redevelopment

Another noise abatement option open to municipal government is the purchase of residential land that has been severely affected by traffic noise for the purpose of promoting redevelopment. In this case, the buildings on the purchased property may be cleared and the residents relocated elsewhere in the area or given a fair market price for their property. Subsequently, the property can be redistricted with appropriate covenants in the deed to ensure that only compatible uses are developed. For example, a residential area adjacent to a major arterial may be redeveloped for commercial or retail uses. These land uses are less sensitive to traffic noise and, in addition, act as a noise barrier between the roadway traffic and the remaining residential area.

The municipal purchase of noise impacted land should be considered in situations where there is insufficient space or other technical constraints for the construction of noise abatement facilities, where noise

72

levels exceed 70 dBA Leq, where sufficient land and access permit the redevelopment of the property and when Provincial funding is available. Once the purchased land is redistricted, the property could be sold to private developers for commercial or retail redevelopment. In this situation, the element of economic risk will be much lower for the private developer.

The redevelopment should not be limited to commercial or retail activities, but more importantly the land use should be compatible with the neighbourhood. In many cases residential development may be the most desirable land use. This may be possible if acoustical insulation is used to attenuate interior noise levels. Also, site planning and design techniques could be used to reduce noise exposure in the outdoor amenity area. For example, a long continuous building design could have an acceptable interior noise environment while at the same time reduce noise levels at the rear of the building and also act as noise barrier for the adjacent residential area.

The costs and benefits associated with this alternative are unlike those of the first option, the purchase of municipal land for the purpose of construction noise barriers. The financial costs of land acquisition are the same, however, there is no need for the construction of noise attenuation facilities and therefore no costs for the subsequent maintenance of such facilities.

73

The primary benefit of municipal land purchase is acoustical protection for the remaining residential area. In addition, some of the initial costs incurred for purchasing the land are offset through the resale of the land, which may be considerable if the land is redistricted for commercial property. In addition, commercial and retail development may result in indirect benefits such as increased employment opportunities and would increase the overall City tax base.

The purchase of property by a municipality is an effective, but also more expensive at least initially, than acoustical barriers as a means of ensuring acceptable traffic noise levels in residential areas.

Therefore this approach should be applied to locations of severe noise exposure where technically and economically feasible and where a majority of the affected residents are willing to sell their properties.

iii) Redistricting for the Purpose of Redevelopment

The actual purchase of land by the municipality for noise abatement purposes should not be required when noise levels are not excessive enough to warrant the immediate construction of a barrier or purchase of the affected property. In this case a residential area affected by moderate traffic noise between 65-70 dBA Leq) would be encouraged to gradually redevelop with assistance by the development industry, to a more appropriate land use by redistricting the affected property. For this option, the private sector is responsible for the total redevelopment project including the purchase of the property, land assembly and construction of the facilities.

74

The sole municipal responsibility is to ensure that compatible noise insensitive land uses are developed.

The major drawback to this approach, is that the private development industry may take a number of years to assemble sufficient property for redevelopment.

Additionally, they may hold the land while waiting for the most cost-effective time for redevelopment. During this waiting period, the residents would continue to face an unabated traffic noise problem. Therefore, this approach is more applicable to locations along arterials where traffic noise has not reached an unacceptable level of 70 dBA Leq and can be tolerated for some time.

iv) Social Costs and Benefits of Continued Public Land Ownership

In applying the municipal control of land technique for noise control, consideration must be given to not only the severity of the noise problem and the initial costs of acquiring land, but the costs and benefits of continued public ownership of the land. There are a number of factors that should be considered in the determination of costs and benefits when evaluating possible municipal control of land. Some of these factors are:

- the value of possible alternative uses of the acquired land; - any municipal tax losses; - losses in development opportunities not taken; - benefits in noise compatibility; - savings in municipal services that would otherwise be required;

75

- and visual or aesthetic benefits or disbenefits associated with a well landscaped buffer or noise barrier; and, - maintenance costs.

Municipalities should also consider the use of land acquired in noise impacted residential areas for recreational purposes including linear parks, trails, playgrounds and for the construction of municipal public works or office buildings. If over a period of time it becomes apparent that the costs of continued public ownership outweigh the benefits, the land can be sold to the private sector for the purpose of the redevelopment.

Recommendations

The impact of urban traffic noise levels upon residential areas can be reduced through the municipal control of land.

One effective method of municipal control is the purchase of noise impacted land and the relocation or demolition of residential units for the purpose of constructing noise barriers or encouraging redevelopment to a more compatible land use. This method would be utilized where there is insufficient space for the construction of noise abatement facilities. In this case, the buildings would be removed to provide the required land space for the construction of a berm and/or wall or sold for redevelopment to a more compatible land use that would provide sufficient on site noise attenuation as well as protect the remaining residents.

Because of the high cost associated with this noise abatement option, it should be considered for use in only severe noise exposure locations and pending Provincial funding assistance.

76

The monitoring and identification of residential locations requiring noise attenuation is a responsibility of the Transportation Management Department. It will therefore be the responsibility of this Department to examine the attenuation options including the Municipal control of land prior to recommending an abatement strategy for a specific noise problem location. (It should be noted that these recommendations are addressed in Volume 1, 4.6.3 under Other Abatement Measures For Application by he Municipality.) It it therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to attenuate residential noise problems through the municipal control of land, where residential property adjacent to arterial roadways is experiencing noise levels in excess of 70 dBA Leg (24) in the outdoor amenity area and cannot be attenuated by a standard noise barrier due to technical constraints pending the availability of funding assistance from the Province.

Another means of municipal land control is changing the land use districts of residential areas moderately affected by urban traffic noise. This would allow for land assembly by the private sector and the eventual redevelopment to a more compatible land use without municipal expense. This option should be explored further during the preparation of Area Redevelopment Plans which examine existing land use problems in the Inner City and associated arterial roadways. Due to the greater length of time for a change in the land use, this option should be considered only in situations where traffic noise has not reached a severe level of 70 dBA Leq. The Planning Department, is currently responsible for the preparation and maintenance of Area Redevelopment Plans for existing residential areas. Through the plan preparation process, community concerns and needs are identified including any traffic noise issues. The Planning Department should

77

therefore assist in resolving existing or potential land use conflicts with traffic noise in consultation with the Transportation Management Department and the noise impacted residents. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Planning Department to consider redistricting residential property, adjacent to arterial roadways, that are experiencing traffic noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leg (24) in the outdoor amenity area, to a more compatible land use in conjunction with existing and proposed Area Redevelopment Plans, upon concurrence with a majority of the affected property owners.

78

4.2.6 Property Assessment

Strategy In some residential areas traffic noise impacted property cannot be attenuated because of economic, practical and technical limitations. In addition, noise levels may not be severe enough to warrant redevelopment as a noise abatement option or the inhabitants may wish to continue residency in their present dwellings in spite of the traffic noise problem.

In these situations, financial allowances may be used in lieu of a noise attenuation device for compensating those property owners who are exposed to excessive levels of traffic noise.

The most common economic allowance is the reduction of property taxes for those residents experiencing high levels of traffic noise exposure. This approach is currently used by the City.

The purpose of this Section is to evaluate the methodology presently employed by the City for the purpose of determining its usefulness.

Discussion

There are a number of residential locations throughout Edmonton which are exposed to excessive traffic noise levels. At the present time the City does implement a system of reduced property tax assessment to compensate those residents who must tolerate unacceptable levels of noise and associated impacts upon property values. An economic allowance is given on both the assessment of dwellings and on the land. The size of the dwelling allowance depends upon the proximity to major traffic routes, the amount of traffic on the routes and the occurrance of a service road which acts as a noise buffer by increasing the

79

distance between the roadway and the assessed land. The assessment reduction therefore varies with exposure to noise and relative location with respect to the roadway.

The methodology currently employed in determining the economic allowance on dwelling units that are located within traffic noise impacted areas is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 - Traffic Noise - Economic Allowance on Dwellings

No Service Road

With Service Road

1.

Maximum Traffic Routes

20%

11%

2.

Heavy Traffic Routes

15%

8%

11%

5%

6%

3%

(10,000 and over) 3.

Medium Traffic Routes (5,000 - 10,000)

4.

Light Traffic Routes (2,000 - 5,000)

5.

Dwellings on or flanking traffic routes - Rates to be approximately one-half of above rates depending on separating distance and noise factors.

6.

Dwellings on 2nd lot from maximum traffic routes to be reduced at a rate no more than one-half rate for 1st dwelling.

7.

Dwellings on 3rd lots from maximum traffic routes to be reduced only under extremely noisy conditions.

8.

Dwellings flanking lanes with excess traffic to be allowed up to 7% economic allowance.

Dwellings flanking lanes 3% economic allowance.

No economic allowance allowed when the garage flanks lane.

(Source: Assessment Department City of Edmonton, 1982)

80

A similar methodology is used in assessing the reduction in property tax for land exposed to excess traffic noise. The economic allowance on land is determined as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 - Traffic Noise - Economic Allowance on Land

1.

Collector Road

3%

2.

Main Artery

6%

3.

Heavy Traffic Routes

9%

4.

Heavy Traffic Route with Service Road

6%

5.

Freeway Truck Route

6.

Freeway Truck Route with Service Road

9%

7.

Backing on to Freeway

9%

12%

(Source:

Assessment Department,

City of Edmonton, 1982)

There are a number of problems associated with this method of determining economic allowance. The most critical flaw is that the methodology depends solely upon the use of subjective statements and estimates of roadway classification and traffic volume in determining the degree of noise impact, as opposed to using the actual noise level data in the assessment of property and dwellings. The use of a method employing actual noise measurements would provide an improved procedure however it would require a regular and systematic city-wide examination of noise levels, perhaps every year.

81

The second inadequacy of the present system is that economic allowance distinguishes between noise impacted property with a service road and property without a service road. The problem with this procedure is that the provision or lack of a service road is not likely to have a significant relationship with actual noise exposure. A more accurate measurement of the noise problem may be possible if a distinction is made between those properties which front onto a roadway and those which back onto a roadway. Those properties which back on to the roadway would receive the greater economic allowance while the fronting properties would receive a lesser but significant reduction in property taxes. This distinction is important because reverse frontage lots are more critically affected by traffic noise.

These properties do not have a building structure to act as a barrier to reduce noise in the outdoor amenity area while standard frontage lots receive interior noise reduction from the building itself, which also acts as a barrier to the rear outdoor amenity area.

Another drawback of the present system of property assessment is the lack of recognition for attenuated noise levels. Once noise attenuation facilities are constructed, there are no criteria upon which property assessment can be revised to account for the noise abatement. The use of actual noise measurements would eliminate this problem, as the assessment would be based upon the actual attenuated noise levels.

Recommendations

The procedure presently employed to determine the degree of noise impact and an appropriate level of financial compensation is subjective and does not provide an accurate indicator of the actual noise levels of noise exposure for residential property.

82

A superior assessment methodology which incorporates the concepts described previously in this section is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 - Proposed Revisions to Economic Allowance on Dwellings and Land

Noise Levels (dBA (Leq))

Backing on Road

Fronting On Road

Fronting On Road

(No Service Road)

(Service Road)

Greater than 70 dBA

20%

15%

10%

65 to 70 dBA

15%

10%

5%

60 to 65 dBA

10%

5%

0%

This system of determining economic allowance or one of similar structure, would allow for a much more accurate and equitable tax compensation for traffic noise impacted property. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Assessment Department to adopt a more accurate and equitable tax compensation procedure for traffic noise impacted property, using noise monitoring surveys data.

A new procedure which employs actual noise levels will require accurate data on traffic noise level emissions. This will require a systematic examination of noise levels on a city wide basis that is updated regularly. The Transportation Management Department would provide supportive analysis and data and will assist in the identification and categorization of locations experiencing excessive noise. The Assessment Department will be responsible for establishing a new tax reduction system and

83

coordination of the noise level information with the Transportation Management Department, as required for assessment updates. It is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Transportation Management Department to establish a Noise Monitoring Program that would predict residential noise levels adjacent to major arterial roadways and freeways with 1983 acting as the initial year of commencement.

84

CHAPTER 5

PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE IN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

INTRODUCTION

This section of the implementation strategy examines the physical techniques that are available to architects, planners, developers and roadway engineers to achieve a reduction in noise levels for situations where changes in land use are proposed or where roadway construction or improvements are proposed.

Five major physical noise attenuation techniques are examined as to their attenuation capability, economic aspects, public acceptability and the implementation process inherent for each technique. The techniques that are examined included: spatial separation, land use barriers, acoustical barriers, architectural design and acoustical construction techniques.

These physical techniques vary widely in their noise reduction characteristics, their costs, their marketability, and especially, in their applicability to specific locations and conditions. In addition, the effectiveness of any given technique is a function of the specific noise situation and the method of application. This Section was not designed to provide complete criteria for selecting a solution to particular noise problems and was not intended as a substitute for detailed acoustical design. Rather, its purpose was to determine the most effective alternatives which could be considered in the land use, architectural, engineering and transportation planning processes and to provide guidelines for their use. It should be understood that often the most effective approach will be a combination of techniques and that the final decision regarding the most appropriate mechanism will remain with individual proponents of residential development projects. The primary stipulation in using these techniques is to ensure that the recommended

85

noise standard is met and that the proposed residential land use complies with any other applicable development regulations specified in the Land Use Bylaw.

The examination of each of the physical techniques begins by defining the strategy or physical technique with a brief definition of the noise abatement concept, the physical properties, and the variations of form for the particular technique. This is followed by a discussion of the attenuation capability, economic aspects, public acceptability, and the implementation process for each technique. In some cases, design standards are provided as a guide to developers and roadway engineers to ensure the proper use of physical techniques. No specific recommendations regarding the application of physical attenuation techniques are presented in this chapter, except for acoustical barrier standards, however, the use of these techniques will be addressed within the proposed amendments to the General Municipal Plan and the Land Use Bylaw.

86

5.1 SPATIAL SEPARATION

Strategy An effective means of mitigating the impacts of noise at the neighbourhood scale, is to spatially separate noise sources from areas which require relatively quiet environments. This can be accomplished most easily through land development control and proper zoning during the preparation of Area Structure Plans. This Section examines the potential of using spatial separation measures such as noise insensitive buffers, open space and distance setbacks, to provide cost-efficient and effective noise attenuation.

The present city noise policy recommends the use of the spatial separation technique in the form of a required 200' setback for residential development abutting designated truck routes. Therefore, this Section will also examine the costs and benefits of the required 200' setback to determine its merits from an efficiency perspective.

Discussion

i) Overview of Concept

Spatial separation is based upon the principle that land uses which produce noise should be separated from residential areas which require a relatively quiet environment. Therefore, roadways with heavy traffic volumes and, in particular high truck traffic volumes, should be spatially separated from noise sensitive areas.

The amount of land required in the Spatial Separation of a noise source from the receiver is variable depending upon factors such as topography and the intensity of the noise

87

source. Frequently, large distances are not practical in an urban situation because of excessive land costs that would be required to mitigate the intensity of the noise sufficiently at the reception point. However, if it is possible to find a use for the buffer areas allocated for the spatial separation of the noise source and the receiver, the cost of land may not be a major consideration.

It is possible to group land uses in such a way that the noise sensitive residential areas are buffered by land uses which do not create much noise, do not require quiet surroundings and are compatible with the adjacent residential land uses. In this way, specific active or passive recreation areas may be used to separate an arterial roadway and a residential area.

Two forms of spatial separation techniques are examined in this study, in addition to the 200' setback policy presently used by the City. The two techniques are: distance setback and the insertion of noise insensitive buffers.

ii) Attenuation Capability

The physical separation between the noise source and the receiver is a relatively simple and effective technique for reducing the impact of traffic noise on outdoor amenity areas by increasing the distance between a residential development and a roadway. A distance setback is most effective where residential development is close to the noise source. For example, increasing the distance of a receiver from a roadway from 50 feet to 100 feet would attenuate hourly Leq levels by approximately 4 dBA. However, if the dwelling was originally located at 200 feet, a 4 dBA attenuation would require an increased setback to 400 feet, and a further 4 dBA decrease would require a setback of 800 feet. To place this noise

88

reduction in perspective, it should be understood, that a 3 dBA difference is barely audible to the average person. In view of the substantial distance required, the setback method of noise attenuation provides only a marginal benefit and is cost—effective at short distances only. However, it does add a buffer effect for dust, odours, and gaseous contaminants originating from traffic.

As an example of setback noise attenuation, Figure 5.1 illustrates the noise abatement for a reversed frontage residential lot backing onto a arterial road with a 40 mph speed, 10% trucks, and 24,000 vehicles per day on level ground. A distance of nearly 300 feet is required between the edge of pavement and the rear wall of the dwelling in order to meet an outdoor amenity area noise level of 60 dBA. Figure 5.1 also shows the setback distances required for a traffic volume of 15,000 vehicles per day.

The distance setback method of attenuating noise is a very direct means of dealing with the problems of traffic noise, especially at the neighbourhood scale, however it's use must also be examined in terms of acoustical merits, costs and public acceptability.

The use of the distance setback alternative of noise attenuation is prohibitive because of high land and associated costs in urban areas. However, this noise attenuation alternative can be feasible if the land is developed for a noise—insensitive land use. This approach ensures that the open space setback area is not wasted and may even provide additional acoustical protection for the residential area over the standard open space technique.

STREETUNE

so'

-40 mph -10% Trucks -15,000 U/D

Road 4

24'

50'

64.5 dBA

mo'

1 60.4 dBA 200'

56.2 dBA 250'

55.0 dBA 00

STREETL IN E 60'

I

- 40 mph -10 % Trucks -24,000 U/D

Road

t 24'

50'

4 66.6 dBA 100'

.62.4 dBA 200'

58.3 dBA 250'

56.9 dBA 300'

55.8dBA 325'

Figure 5.1 DISTANCE AS A BUFFER IN NOISE ATTENUATION

1 55.3 dBA

(Region of Peel, "Traffic Noise Abatement Policies and Practices Relating to Residential Development", November, 1979)

90

Noise insensitive land uses in the setback area may include, automobile parking, linear parks, green belts, basketball and tennis courts and other facilities for sporting activities.

Figures 5.2 and 5.3 illustrate the use of the parking and recreational options as noise insensitive buffers. The use of these buffer zones, as a means of attenuating outdoor noise levels, may be applied only during the early planning stage of site design, through the same process as the distance setback option. In subdivision planning, this noise insensitive buffer may even be regarded as land dedicated for public use such as parks, schools, and other institutional land use developments, subject to approval by the respective governing agencies and departments.

iii) Economic Aspects

In Edmonton, the cost of land is a major component of the final sale price of a residential unit. Therefore, noise reduction by the distance setback method is often more practical in outlying areas where land costs are usually much lower. The distance setback is economically practical only when the opportunity for development does not exceed the costs of other noise control measures which do not require additional land. There are significant opportunity costs associated with the use of land strictly for noise mitigation through spatial separation rather than development to other land uses. In general, the setback attenuation option is not cost-effective unless the intervening land can be used for other compatible land uses or may be regarded as land dedication for parkland, schools or religious assembly. In this case, the cost of the intervening land may be negligible as the land would have been dedicated elsewhere within the subdivision in accordance with the Land Use Bylaw regulations.

f;DCO&O Outdoor recreational area Play area

BUILDING

Railway or Roadway (Noise Source)

Figure 5.2 PARKING AREAS AS A NOISE INSENSITIVE BUFFER ZONE

(Ontario Ministry of Environment, "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning", Vol. 1, Analysis of Noise Impact, 1978)

HIGHWAY

Figure 5.3 RECREATIONAL AREAS AS A NOISE INSENSITIVE BUFFER ZONE

(U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, "The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use,"1976.)

93

The 200' distance setback policy requirement is subject to the same inefficiencies as described above. The setback requirements are expensive and inefficient. Additionally, an unflexible 200' setback requirement may at times provide needless attenuation and in other applications may not provide sufficient noise attenuation. Traffic noise levels are variable and the necessary attenuation and distance setback varies accordingly.

Another consideration that should be noted is maintenance costs. If a spatial separation technique is selected as a noise mitigation measure and the land is used for open space or as a linear park for recreational purposes, there may be maintenance required for activities such as grass cutting, weed control and equipment maintenance.

iv) Public Acceptability

Public acceptability is an important factor that must be considered in the cost evaluation of using spatial separation for noise control, as public acceptance is a critical consideration in the marketing of residential development.

The marketability of a development will often be influenced by the aesthetic acceptability of the chosen noise mitigation measure. The use of the natural landscape as a noise barrier, or open space, or a well planned and aesthetically pleasing recreational area will likely result in a high level of public acceptance and consequently increase the marketability of a given residential development.

v) Implementation Process

In order for the Spatial Separation noise abatement technique to become an effective tool for use by developers in minimizing incompatible land uses adjacent to arterial

94

roadways, it is necessary to have a clearly defined process for the evaluation and implementation of the technique. It is also noteworthy that this method of abatement may be applied only during the earliest stages of the planning process where flexibility in site planning design can still be exercised.

The recommendations within the Land Use Bylaw Section of this report, 4.2.2 and in Volume 1, Section 4.4.2. endorse the use of a traffic noise impact study as part of the approvals process for residential development permits of all land use classifications and statutory plans that are located adjacent to major arterial roadways. A study of this nature which will be outlined in more detail within the Land Use Bylaw Amendments, would be required if the spatial separation noise attenuation option was chosen by the proponent of a development project. The study would be prepared by a qualified engineer or architect. In the terms of content, the study would include prediction methods, calculations, a detailed description of the site plan and a statement on the anticipated effectiveness of the abatement measures.

95

5.2 LAND USE BARRIERS

Strategy

The intrusion of traffic noise upon residential areas may be mitigated with the application of land use barriers or intervening structures that act as a physical barrier between traffic noise and a residential area. The intervening structure must be long and continuous as well as close to and parallel to the roadway. The land uses adjacent to the roadway may be commercial as well as residential in nature and may also include rolling terrain of the natural landscape, as the natural profile of the ground can be used to minimize noise problems.

This Section examines the potential of using land use barriers as a means of reducing the impacts of traffic noise upon residential areas. Two generalized forms of land use barriers are discussed, the orientation of outdoor amenity areas and intervening structures.

These techniques are reviewed for their noise attenuation potential, from the perspectives of economic considerations, noise reduction benefits and public acceptability. The procedures necessary for implementing land use barriers are also examined.

Discussion

i) Overview of Concept

Spatial separation techniques are often not practical as a means of attenuating traffic noise to a level acceptable for residential developments. This is particularly true for arterial roadways within the developed areas of the city where noise control through spatial separation is difficult to

96

achieve because of the land cost constraints. The application of the land use barrier option of noise attenuation however provides a means of reducing traffic noise to acceptable levels within the outdoor amenity area of adjacent residential dwellings and diminishing the impacts of noise upon the residential area beyond.

There are basically two categories of land use barriers.

These are: 1) residential land uses with proper acoustical orientation of outdoor amenity areas and, 2) intervening structures. The objective of acoustically orienting the outdoor amenity area of a residential land use is to provide a quiet recreational area for each individual dwelling unit adjacent to a noise source so as to meet the recommended 60 dBA Leq standard. This is accomplished by positioning the dwelling in such a manner that the structure acts as a barrier between the noise source and the outdoor amenity area.

Intervening structures may also be used to provide quiet outdoor amenity areas, however the major objective is to attenuate traffic noise over an entire residential area. This can be accomplished by placing a noise insensitive building structure to act as an acoustical barrier shielding the remainder of the community. The following provides a discussion of these two land use barrier techniques.

ii) Acoustical Orientation of the Outdoor Amenity Area for Residential Land Uses

The necessity of providing quiet outdoor amenity areas for new residential development is required in order to provide an acceptable sound environment and to meet the recommended noise level standard which is measured within this area. If noise

97

levels within the outdoor amenity area are within the standard, then the interior noise levels should also be acceptable, providing the building is constructed according to local building standards. The emphasis is on the positioning of the outdoor amenity area relative to the dwelling unit.

For example, access to a dwelling may be from a service road between the dwelling and the noise source with the front yard of the dwelling directly exposed to traffic noise. The rear yard would then be used as the outdoor amenity area as it is in the acoustical shadow created by the building itself. This method can be expensive since dwellings are located on only one side of a service road, therefore its application is probably more suited to heavily travelled arterial roads and freeways. This concept is illustrated in Figure 5.4. The advantage of this design is that it eliminates the need for and the maintenance of expensive berms and barriers.

Another method of providing quiet outdoor amenity areas is through a design concept known as key lots. The key lot concept is where the back lots are located immediately adjacent to the front lots and connected to an internal public street by a long narrow driveway for vehicle and pedestrian access. The internal public street services the front dwelling as well as the back lot. The placement of zero lot line single family homes in a key lot design can provide a near continuous structure, shielding the outdoor amenity areas from the noise source as well as providing acoustical protection for the second row residential dwelling units and beyond. The key lot concept is illustrated in Figure 5.5.

It is important to note that effective use of outdoor amenity area orientation is dependent upon early consideration in the planning process, during the preparation of neighbourhood structure plans. This technique of noise attenuation can be efficient and cost—effective if applied at that time.

98 Significant sound attenuation due to building No sound attenuation due to building

+—BA

Front (Parking area, entrance, etc.)

B.R.

D.R

L.R. OF

Internal Road 4Roadway: '

Basement

Noise control will be required for this slat,

Edge of Pavement

'Z::;!Wgaattb;*igMcfggiga5MEMA Backyard (Private area, patio. eta)

TOWNHOUSING

Figure 5.4 THE USE OF BUILDING BARRIERS TO CREATE AN ACOUSTICAL SHADOW ZONE

Min. of Env.,"Acoustics Technology In Land Use of Planning, Vol. 1", 1978)

(Ont.

Railway or Roadway (Noise Source) Zero-lot line key lots This gap should be minimized for effective shielding of backyard. (typically 5% of the dimension D)

\ ,

' \

_

\ \ .., . \..:.,...

\

\ \ ;4.- Single :\ \

\ \ -, \ Back-

\ \- • !erne

•\ \ \ \\ \

•

yard of key lot

Sound attenuation in the range 10 to 15 dBA due to puildings Driveways for key lots

-----__ -----____.

Front lot Internal Road

Reproduced from the Key Lot Study for the Townsend Community Development Program, Ministry of Housing,by John Bousfield Associates, February , 1977.

Figure 5.5 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (SHOWN SHADED) SHIELDING OUTDOOR AMENITY AREA

(Ont. Min. of Env.,"Acoustics Technology In Land Use Planning, Vol. 1", 1978)

99

Intervening Structures

For the application of intervening structures, the first row of buildings facing a source of noise can be used as a "barrier block" to reduce noise levels for the remainder of a residential area. The use of intervening structures as a noise attenuation measure differs from the orientation of outdoor amenity areas in that the objective is more than simply reducing outdoor noise exposure for the first row residents. The objective is to reduce the intrusion of traffic noise over an entire residential area by using a noise insensitive building as an intervening structure.

An important aspect of site planning and the effective use intervening structures is the consideration of the natural landscape of a given site. For example, rolling terrain may provide a natural barrier if an acoustically efficient positioning of a building is implemented, thereby providing acceptable noise levels. Additionally, the use of the natural landscape and topography as a barrier may result in a more aesthetically acceptable less expensive solution than other forms of barriers.

A more typical use of intervening structures, involves the construction of a noise insensitive building to act as a barrier against a noise source such as a busy road. For example, an office building can be built adjacent to a major arterial roadway and if properly designed and positioned the building may serve as a barrier between the road and the nearby residential area. A prerequisite for the effective application of intervening structures is they are long, continuous and close to and parallel to the roadway. Gaps in the structure must be minimized and in

100 some cases the end of the barrier block may require additional acoustical treatment such as a noise wall.

Barrier blocks are generally designed to be higher than the dwellings to be protected and therefore are able to provide effective noise attenuation for a large area. The application of this technique must be considered early in the planning process, preferably within the subdivision design stage.

Commercial as well as residential land uses may be used as the intervening structure. However, it is noteworthy, if an apartment building is employed as an intervening structure, special techniques must be included in the design and construction of the building to ensure acceptable interior noise levels. Townhouses, attached dwellings and in some cases commercial land uses may also be used as barrier blocks.

The intervening structure strategy for noise control can be applied more widely than other noise attenuation techniques and offers a creative and cost efficient attenuation measure to the residential subdivision noise impact problem. It is economical since the structure performs dual functions as both a noise barrier and a location for residential, commercial or other types of land use. In addition, because there is much flexibility the use of intervening structures, there is an allowance for a wide variety of alternative designs and an opportunity to ensure the development of compatible land uses adjacent to the residential area. Figure 5.6 illustrates the use of the barrier block concept and Figures 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 portray schematically typical barrier building designs forming acoustical envelopes to provide noise protection for the

101

Figure 5.6 RESIDENTIAL BARRIER BLOCKS AS ACOUSTICAL BARRIERS (TO PROTECT THE ENTIRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) (Ontario Ministry of Environment, Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning, Vol. 1,"1978)

102

ROADWAY (Noise Source)

4fP

Outdoor Recreational Areas

Balance of the Subdivision to be protected

Figure 5.7 TYPICAL BARRIER BLOCK LAYOUT USING TOWNHOUSES AS AN ACOUSTICAL BARRIER (Ontario Ministry of Environment, "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning," VolA 1978)

residential

commercial

41—\Noise (a) Barrier Block as Office Space

Source

1

6:4

n

Sherbourne Jarvis Street Front Street

Housing Tennis court (b)Barrier Block as Tennis Courts, Light Industry and Shops

n 4-T>

Noise Source

(;)

ns

a

am, _Qt_kul atl Parliament Street

Expressway

400'

Noise Source

„-Townhouses Ar

(c) Barrier Block as Multi-Story Car Park for Residents

Commuter packing

Esplanade

Front Street

C.N. & C.P. Railways

Figure 5.8 COMMERCIAL BARRIER BLOCKS USED IN RESIDENTIAL NOISE ATTENUATION "Region of Peel, "Traffic Noise Abatement Po4cies and Practices Relating to Residential Development , 1979

104

•••••• Industrial Building

•

Er•strm.) (3 ,7•'(Ist.gS

Figure 5.9 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND USES AS INTERVENING STRUCTURES

(Ontario Ministry of Environment, Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning, "Vol. 1, 1978)

105

remaining residential area. Intervening structures can take many designs and forms within the concept described here. It is responsibility of the developer to provide acceptable designs using this concept.

ii) Attenuation Capability

Land use barrier techniques provide an acoustically effective and creative solution to the traffic noise impact problem. The orientation of outdoor amenity areas and intervening structures can be of major importance in providing quiet amenity areas reducing noise levels by 5 to 15 dBA.

It is important to note, however, that there are a number of technical and design variables which are critical to the effectiveness of a land use barrier in attenuating noise.

For example, the positioning of the outdoor amenity areas relative to the building structure and the noise source is of utmost importance in providing adequate noise abatement. Also, to be effective, intervening structures must be long, continuous and as close as possible to either the source of the noise or to the noise sensitive area.

The height of structure is also of critical importance in effective abatement of noise, and should not be less than two stories in height. It is important to note that when a building is used as an acoustical barrier to attenuate a site, consideration must be given to protecting the indoor environment of the building from noise transmitted from the source side. These considerations are examined in the Sections on Architectural Design (5.4) and Acoustical Construction Techniques (5.5) of this report.

106

The major acoustical problem with the use of intervening structures, and in particular with key lots, is the gaps present in the exposed row of housing. Gaps in a row of housing, as is the case with acoustical barriers, can greatly erode the expected abatement and therefore this method should not be used in locations of extremely high levels of traffic noise.

iii) Economic Aspects

Land use barriers are a cost effective use of land, since the dwelling or building structure fulfills the dual role of providing an efficient use of land and a noise barrier.

Construction of the building itself, however, may be more expensive than the norm in order to reduce interior noise levels by using acoustical building materials. In addition, because of the design characteristics of intervening structures (such as apartments where dwellings units are located only on one side of internal corridors for interior noise insulation purposes), more internal space is required for circulation than in conventionally designed buildings. However, townhouses which act_as intervening structures need only be different from conventional designs in that one side of the unit would have a blank wall. Low and medium density housing designed as intervening structures may require no additional land over conventional designs.

The maintenance costs associated with the use of land use barriers, are generally no different than the cost required for conventionally designed buildings. There may be minor maintenance costs for the individual owners of townhouses or attached dwellings in a key lot design, for the removal of snow, where some homeowners may have driveways which are longer than their neighbours.

107

In general, however, the use of land use barriers are cost-efficient and an effective method of allowing more land to be developed for residential purposes.

iv) Public Acceptability

The application of land use barrier techniques may sometimes require structures that are designed in an unusual or unconventional manner. There may be limited door and wall openings on the side of the building closest to the noise source and many consumers may find such buildings less attractive and thereby create a marketability problem for these dwellings.

The marketing difficulties can be overcome with careful site planning and an emphasis upon aesthetic concerns.

Also, if the natural topography can be incorporated into the design of the project, it will greatly enhance its marketability. If the intervening structure is commercial or light industrial in nature, the building design may under most circumstances be conventional, thereby eliminating the likelihood of unsatisfactory marketability.

v) Implementation Process

The application of Land Use Barriers as a noise mitigation technique is most appropriate at the Area Redevelopment Plan and Neighbourhood Structure Plan stages, as well as, in some cases for the preparation of individual development applications. With respect to the preparation of these plans, the Planning Department should encourage the development industry to consider the use of land use barriers as a preferred noise attenuation option as opposed to rendering land useless with noise walls and/or berms.

108

If a land use barrier technique is selected as a preferred noise abatement option, the development proposal should include a conceptual site plan in addition to calculations demonstrating the effectiveness of a specific land use barrier technique towards complying with the noise level standard. This information would be included as part of a traffic noise impact study and as part of the approvals process for residential development permits for all development classifications and statutory plans immediately adjacent to major arterial roadways or freeways as outlined in the Land Use Bylaw Section of this report, 4.2.2 and in Volume I, Section 4.4.2. This study would be prepared by a qualified engineer or architect. The study would include prediction methods, calculations, a detailed description of the site plan and a statement on the anticipated effectiveness of the noise abatement measures in meeting the recommended traffic noise level standard. The study details will be specified in the amendments to the Land Use Bylaw.

109

5.3 ACOUSTICAL BARRIERS

Strategy

An acoustical barrier is a physical structure, planned or natural, placed between a roadway and a noise—sensitive area or residential unit to intercept or impede the propagation of traffic noise emissions. Although well designed acoustical barriers are known to be very effective in reducing noise levels, they should be considered as a secondary attenuation measure, after other more cost—effective measures, such as land use planning techniques, are considered for their noise abatement merits. However, if noise levels are extremely excessive, a barrier may be deemed necessary for the achievement of optimum attenuation.

This Section examines alternative barrier types for the purpose of describing and presenting criteria for the maximization of benefits and the minimization of noise barrier costs. The discussion begins with a detailed description acoustical barriers and their technical properties, and then outlines the implications of selecting a barrier for noise attenuation purposes. The use of acoustical barriers is examined from the perspectives of economic efficiency, public acceptability and noise attenuation capability. A process for barrier implementation and an identification of responsibility is also discussed and a recommendation is made regarding the design of acoustical barriers.

Discussion

i) Overview of Concept

Acoustical barriers are constructed to abate the noise created by roadway traffic and thereby reduce annoyance to an adjacent

110 residential neighbourhood. These barriers may be constructed from a variety of materials, however, noise attenuation barriers can be categorized into the following five groups.

a) sloping mounds of earth, called berms, b) natural topographical features which can act as barriers, c) walls and fences made of various materials including concrete, metal, and wood, d) regions of dense planting and shrubs and trees, and, e) combinations of the above materials The choice of a particular noise attenuation alternative depends upon the consideration of space, cost, public acceptance and noise attenuation capability. However, to be effective a barrier must be long, continuous, and encircling the area to be protected and should wrap around the noise sensitive area. Additionally, a barrier is most effective when it is positioned either very close to the noise source or to the receiver as illustrated in Figure 5.10. An effectively designed barrier must be solid, free from gaps and have an 2 adequate mass (not less than 4 lb./ft ). The barrier must be high enough to eliminate the line of sight between the source and the receiver, as illustrated in Figure 3.11. An examination of barrier options follows.

111

a) Barrier close to source. Larch path length difference.

Recommended

b) Barrier half way between sourc, and receiver. Small- path length difference. Not Recommended.

E,Ige •

(b)

pds,t11101 ,

N

Barrier close to receiver.

Large path length difference.

Recommended.

(c)

Figure 5.10 ALTERNATIVE NOISE BARRIER LOCATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE RECEIVER AND THE ROADWAY (Ontario Ministry of Environment, "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning", Vol. 1, 1978)

•••••••

•

line of

S

igh t

Figure 5.11 LINE OF SIGHT DISTANCE (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, "the Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use", 1976)

112

Earth Berms Earth berms are sloping mounds of earth running parallel to the roadway. They can range from three feet to fifteen feet in height and still be considered satisfactory from an aesthetic viewpoint. The higher the berm the greater the width of land required for its construction. Normally a berm requires an area six times its height, unless specially designed as illustrated in Figure 5.12. Therefore, because of the enormous amount of costly land required, and the need for expensive fill, the earth berm alternative is not always the most economically feasible or technically practical method of reducing traffic noise. Complementary land uses, incorporated into the design of the earth berm may, in some cases, improve the cost-effectiveness of a barrier noise abatement facility.

Figure 5.13 shows some typical earth berm designs which include complementary uses.

In general, there are a number of positive attributes associated with the use of earth berms. They are able to deflect sound waves upward, as opposed to reflecting sound waves from one side of the roadway to the other as is sometimes the case with vertical noise walls, thereby reducing the noise levels received on the opposite side of the roadway. Additionally, earth berms provide a very absorptive surface which reduces the effects of reflected sound waves and at the same time provides an aesthetically pleasing acoustical barrier. However, there are also negative aspects regarding the application of earth berms for acoustical purposes. Earth berms can be expensive if additional land has to be purchased to accommodate the size of the berm and in existing developed situations, and there is often insufficient space for the construction of a berm to the height required for acceptable

113

3:1 Slope

(a) Typical Profile of a Standard Berm (3:1 Slope)

Edge of pavement

1:1 Slope

E.o.e

Reinforcement (crushed stone. etc.)

b)

Figure 5.12 TYPICAL PROFILE OF A SPECIALLY DESIGNED BERM

(Ont. Min. of Env., "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning" Vol. 2, 1978)

o

r.;

z9.$ -t,ter

,a,) Garden Plots

P.

b."•`, (b) Open Play 44g4gMgegAliA Edge Of pavement

.7.cn ° (c) Playground

Approx. 8:1 Slope

(d) Earth Ramp E.

Figure 5.13 TYPICAL PROFILE OF EARTH BERMS (SOUND BARRIERS) AND COMPLEMENTARY USES

(Ont. Min. of Env., "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning", Vol. 2, 1978)

114

attenuation. Earth berms can be acoustically effective and aesthetically desirable but the merits of its use must be weighed against the costs and any final decision must be based upon appropriateness for application to a specific site.

Barrier Walls

Another popular method of attenuating noise is with the use of acoustical barrier walls. The use of barrier walls can be an effective method of providing visual and acoustical attenuation between roadway noise sources and adjacent residential areas. Barrier walls can reduce noise levels by as much as 12 dBA. These walls can exist in many designs and material variations and their acoustical effectiveness depends primarily upon height, as well as a solid and continuous wall of adequate mass.

Noise walls offer several advantages over berms, as they require considerably less space, less maintenance and they are capable of providing the necessary physical separation between the noise source and the recipient. An additional benefit of a wall is the privacy and air pollution protection provided to the residents adjacent to the roadway.

One of the major disadvantages of abating noise with acoustical walls is that long high walls tend to be aesthetically monotonous, thereby detracting from the character and appearance of a residential community.

Effective landscaping and specially designed barriers with varying patterns, colours, materials and the use of art forms can reduce this monotony.

115

The costs of a wall can vary considerably according to the type of construction, the material used, the local availability of materials and skills, any additional costs due to any special acoustical design and the barrier dimensions.

Some of the frequently used materials for wall construction include masonry, precast concrete, sheet metal and wood. Each of these materials has varying costs as well as specific noise attenuation properties. Table 5.1 shows the transmission loss potential (noise absorption capability) of various barrier construction materials.

Plantings

Plantings are another possible method of attenuating traffic noise. Trees and bushes may absorb or scatter sound waves, however their use as an effective method of noise attenuation is limited. The use of plantings can provide only a 3-5 dBA reduction in noise levels for every 100' distance. The major benefit derived from the use of plantings is primarily psychological and not acoustical. The psychological benefit of plantings is the visual attenuation gained by separating the noise source from the receiver. By removing the noise source from the view of the residents, there is less perceived human annoyance resulting from the intrusion of traffic noise. The fact that people are unable to see the roadway reduces the preception of noise.

116

BARRIER MATERIALS

MATERIAL Woods

THICKNESS (in.) (mm)

TLa (dBA)

b

Fir

1/2 1 2 1/2 I 2

13 25 50

17 20 24

13 25 50

16 19 23

Redwood

1/2 1 2

13 25 50

16 19 23

Cedar

1/2 1 2

15 18 22

Plywood

1/2 1

13 25 50 13 25

Particle Boardc d

1/2

13

20

Aluminum

1/16 1/8 1/4

1.6 3 6

23 25 27

Steel

24 ga.

20 ga.

16 ga.

0.6 0.9 1.6

18 22 25

Lead

1/16

1.6

28

4 6 4

100 150 100

36 39 40

4 6

100 150

32 36

3/4

19

21-23

Plastic Lamina on Plywood

3/4 3/4

19 19

21-23 21-23

Plastic Lamina on Particle Board

3/4

19

21-23

1/4

6

22

Pine

20 23

Metals

Concrete, Masonry, etc.

Light Concrete Dense Concrete Concrete Block Composites Aluminum-Faced Plywoode Aluminum-Faced Particle Boarde

Miscellaneous Glass (Safety Glass) Plexiglas (Shatterproof) Masonite Fiber Glass/Resin Stucco on Metal Lath Polyester with Aggregate Surface f a

13

22-25 20

1/4

6

20

1

25

32

3

75

20-30

1/2

A-weighted TL based on generalized truck spectrum.

b

Tongue and groove boards recommended to avoid leaks (for fir, pine, redwood, and cedar). c ShouId be treated for water resistance. d May require treatment to reduce glare (for aluminum and steel). e Aluminum is 0.01-in. (0.25-mm) thick. Special care is necessary to avoid delamination (for all composites).

'TL depends on surface density of the aggregate.

5.1 (Transportation Research Board, "Highway Noise Barriers", Washington D.C. 1981) Table 5.1 BARRIER MATERIALS

117

Another consideration regarding the acoustical merits of plantings is time. Time must be allowed for trees and shrubs to grow to the desired height, and until that time there is insufficient noise attenuation. Also, many trees do not provide year-round noise attenuation, as during the winter months they lose their folage. In addition, the costs of plantings can vary considerably according to the species selected, climate, width of buffer and the density of cover desired. It is important to note that the planting of shrubs and trees so as to form a dense ground cover, can be more expensive than noise walls and much less effective. In general, plantings are not an effective noise abatement option when used alone. However, plantings can be beneficial when applied in conjunction with other noise reduction techniques.

Combination Barrier Designs

The combination of various barrier designs is often the most economically and acoustically acceptable and aesthetically pleasing type of noise attenuation barrier.

A combination of barrier attenuation techniques may include a berm/wall combination together with some plantings for the purpose of providing visual attenuation. An earth berm/wall combination possesses several advantages over the use of a berm or a wall along as it is more visually pleasing than a wall of equivalent height; the berm portion of this combination is less dangerous for a motorist leaving the roadway; the non-vertical construction of a berm does not reflect noise back to the opposite side of the highway as does a wall, as illustrated in Figure 5.14; the combination requires less land than would be required for a berm of equivalent height and slope and therefore less costly; and the wall provides a fencing function not available with berms. In summary, the combination noise wall/berm maximizes acoustical abatement and economic efficiency and provides an excellent opportunity for an aesthetically pleasing en,Tironment.

118

PATH OF TYPICAL

EPLEC TIC:NS

ii

PATH OF TYPICAL REFLECTIONS

Both sides of a noise source should be considered when analysing noise problems. Reflections of sound in the illustration would be worse with barrier walls than utilizing earth berms.

Figure 5.14 SOUND REFLECTIONS : BERMS VS WALLS

(Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, "Land Use Planning for Noise Control in Residential Communities", 1981)

119

ii) Attenuation Capability In order for berms or walls to act as an effective noise mitigation measure, they must be continuous, with few gaps and be of sufficient density to deflect sound waves. In general, earth berms possess superior noise attenuation capabilities than walls because the sloping surface of an earth berm deflects sound waves upward rather than towards the opposite side of the roadway. Subsequently, noise levels on the opposite side of the roadway will be lower than they will with a wall barrier. Additionally, sodded berms provide better sound absorption and less noise reflection than do walls. Under normal circumstances, earth berms, walls or combinations of acoustical barriers are capable of reducing noise levels by 8 to 12 dBA.

The use of plantings alone, for acoustical attenuation purposes is very ineffective, as they are only capable of reducing noise levels by approximately 3-5 dBA. Plantings are most useful when applied in combination with other barrier techniques, primarily for the purpose of landscaping and aesthetic appeal.

iii) Economic Aspects The economic considerations associated with acoustical barriers varies according to the type of barrier, the degree of attenuation desired, the cost of land, maintenance costs and other site specific factors. Well designed barriers can be very effective in reducing noise levels, however, they are an expensive attenuation alternative and in some cases, a waste of useful land.

Therefore, they should be considered only as a secondary noise abatement measure, after other more cost-effective measures such as land use planning are considered for their acoustical merits.

120

Earth berms are likely co occupy a considerable amount of land, irrespective of the slope of the berm. In urban -areas

this land can be very costly. Although berms may be

considered more aesthetically pleasing as a noise mitigation measure than walls, they are more costly in terms of maintenance, and the material costs may be very high but this depends to some extent upon the availability and proximity of fill.

The actual cost of acoustical barriers is quite high.

Recent barrier construction cost estimates (1982 cost figures) in Edmonton have been estimated at $165 per linear meter for a berm with a 3 meter height, and $220 per linear meter for a 4.5 meter berm. These cost estimates assume that the fill required for the berm is available in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. The estimates also assume that the berm is constructed on existing owned property and that no additional land must be purchased.

Another consideration of note is that there are opportunity costs associated with the use of berms. Berms can require a large amount of land and thereby remove that land from other potentially more productive uses such as residential, commercial or retail etc. Also, the land occupied by the berm yields nothing or very little in terms of tax revenue.

The construction cost estimates for steel panel noise walls in Edmonton (1982 cost figures) are $300 per linear meter for a wall with a 3.0 meter height and $165 per linear meter for a wall with 1.5 meter height. These costs do not include any additional costs required for land purchase or maintenance. Although the actual costs of walls may be higher than berms, walls do not require large amounts of costly land as do earth berms. Therefore, the opportunity costs associated with the use of noise walls is likely to be relatively insignificant.

121

There are a wide variety of costs in the implementation of any barrier project. Although any breakdown of component costs would not be accurate for all barriers, the following table shows some generalized estimates based upon information supplied by various state governments in the United States in 1980.

Table 5.2 - Barrier Component Costs

Cost Component

Engineering

% Total Cost

5

Materials

45

Foundation

15

Labour

20

Drainage

5

Landscaping

5

Other

5

Source: (Transportation Research Board, National Research Research Council, Highway Noise Barriers, Vol. 87, 1981)

Note: these figures do not include maintenance costs.

iv) Public Acceptability

In general, the construction of acoustic barriers is indicative of a noise problem and therefore may create marketability problems for nearby residential units.

Acoustic barriers, especially walls, are not usually considered aesthetically pleasing and may contribute to increased marketing difficulties. Other consumers may

122

consider that the noise problem has been solved by the acoustical barrier and therefore will view this feature as a positive attribute.

Many potential home buyers will prefer the option of a landscaped berm as opposed to a wall. The landscaping of a berm with shrubs and evergreen trees has a limited value in terms of noise reduction, but may offer an aesthetic appeal. Noise walls can also be aesthetically treated with the use of various barrier materials, varying wall texture and with the use of art forms on the walls. However, despite these treatments, walls in general are not as appealing as earth berms. American studies on State barrier projects clearly indicates that earth berms are the most desirable acoustic barrier while a metal material receives the least public acceptance. Table 5.3 presents an acceptance ranking of various types of barriers.

Table 5.3 - Barrier Type Preference*

Barrier Type

Acceptance Ranking

Berm

1

Wall*/Berm Combination

2

Wood Wall Concrete Wall

3 Tie 3

Metal Wall

5

Source: (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Noise Barriers, Vol. 87, 1981).

The public acceptability of these acoustic barriers depends, to a very large degree, upon landscaping and the incorporation of aesthetic qualities in the barrier project.

123

v) Implementation Process

In order for acoustical barriers to become an effective method for use by developers and the City for the reduction of traffic noise impacts upon residential areas, it is necessary to identify and define a process for the evaluation and implementation of the technique. A Traffic Noise Impact Study, to be specified in the proposed amendments to the Land Use Bylaw, would be required if acoustical barriers were chosen as a method of providing an acceptable sound environment in the outdoor amenity areas of residential units by the proponent of the development project. The use of this technique would require an examination of the extent of the noise problem which would subsequently effect the design characteristics of the barrier including construction materials and barrier height.

For this type of noise abatement strategy, design standards are necessary to ensure that the barriers provide effective attenuation and to ensure other factors such as aesthetics, maintenance, safety, and structural durability receive adequate attention. To this end there are a number of design guidelines that should be incorporated into the barrier design and construction process. The following is an interim list of design construction and maintenance standards that should be addressed until a more comprehensive manual is preprared.

a)

The noise barrier must be acoustically designed so as to reduce noise levels to the objective noise level of 60 dBA Leq (24).

124

b)

Noise attenuation facility minimum height required is 3.5 meters above general site grade. All property required for noise attenuation is in addition to road right-of-way. Design of any noise attenuation facility is a responsibility of the developer and must be to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.

c)

If a berm of a height of 2 meters or more is to be used, a 3 meter berm top is required. Noise attenuation walls or screen fences should be centered on the berm. The location of the wall or fence will define the property line. The 1.5 meter on the public side of the fence or wall should include .65 meter rounding from the slope to the top.

d)

Minimum 3:1 side slopes on public side of berm; 95% compaction of berm material.

e)

Noise walls which are to be in part publicly maintained must be constructed of steel sheeting or concrete compound. Minimum density required is 8.5 2 2 2 kg/m (1.75 lb/ft ) for steel, 17 kg/m (3.5 2 lb/ft ) for other materials (Alberta Surface Transportation Noise and Attenuation Study).

f)

Minimum 1/30 years wind pressure loading 110 kg/m 2 (22.5 lb/ft ) to be used.

g)

The facility should be continuous with no holes,

2

cracks, or gaps and should extend into the ground a depth of 6 inches.

125

h)

Trees, plants or other forms of vegetation must not be planted on the top of the berm, and should be limited to the lower portion of the berm slope.

i)

Landscaping for the purpose of improving the aesthetic characteristics of an acoustic barrier must meet the standards of the Parks and Recreation Department.

j)

An acoustic barrier must extend a distance beyond the last receptor of excessive noise, equal to 4 times the perpendicular distance from the receptor to the barrier, or the barrier must be designed to wrap around the last receptor, so that the last receptor receives the required acoustical protection.

k)

The visual continuity of acoustic barriers must be maintained if an existing facility is nearby, through the use of the same construction materials, techniques and design considerations.

1) Any proposed variance to these requirements must be accompanied by a letter from a certified acoustical engineer stating that the barrier proposed will attenuate noise to a level of 60 dBA Leq in the outdoor amenity area of the subject properties.

Guidelines similar to the above interim design standards have been in use by the City for the last three years.

These guidelines have proven to be effective and are consistent with the design standards required by many U.S. municipal and senior levels of government.

126

The task of noise attenuation in residential areas experiencing excessive exposure to traffic noise is not completed by the adoption of design standards and barrier construction. Noise attenuation facilities must be maintained and replaced as damage or aging requires. These costs are becoming increasingly important and are likely to become a very important factor in material selection in the near future. Future costs can and should be accommodated in a life cycle cost/benefit analysis.

Recommendations The impact of urban traffic noise levels upon residential areas can be effectively reduced through the use of acoustical barriers. Barrier design can be very instrumental in providing effective attenuation and ensuring that other factors such as aesthetics, maintenance, safety and structural durability receive adequate attention. The development of a City barrier design manual to set minimum standards and specific requirements would contribute much towards these objectives. Until such time a design standards manual is prepared, the interim guidelines will serve to direct barrier design as described in the implementation process section. (It should be noted that this recommendation is addressed in Section 4.6.2 of Volume 1.) It is therefore recommended: That City Council direct the Engineering Department to prepare a Barrier Design Standards Manual for the purpose of ensuring that barrier noise attenuation facilities are effective, easily maintained, durable and aesthetically acceptable, and in the interim to continue to use the existing list of design guidelines.

127

5.4 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

Strategy An architect or designer has a great deal of flexibility in selecting noise control measures to achieve a satisfactory indoor sound environment. Specifically, by giving attention to acoustical considerations in the planning of room arrangement, placement of windows, building height, balconies, and courtyards, an architect may achieve significant noise impact reduction, without the need for costly acoustical barriers. The purpose of this Section is to present alternative architectural design techniques and examine their relative merits for creating a quiet indoor sound environment and in the case of balconies, quiet outdoor sound environment. The techniques are also considered from the perspectives of cost-effectiveness, public acceptability and noise attenuation potential. A process for implementing architectural techniques as a noise abatement measure is also presented.

Discussion

i) Overview of Concept

Architectural techniques are most valuable when the objective is to reduce indoor noise to an acceptable level particularly when dealing with multi-storey buildings. It may be necessary for these circumstances, to consider the reduction of indoor noise levels through room arrangements, window and balcony orientation, and the use of blank walls for the purpose of reducing the intrusion of traffic noise into the dwelling itself. The following examines the noise control potential of these architectural modifications.

128

Room Arrangement

One easy and practical method of reducing the negative impacts of traffic noise is through room arrangement. Every residential dwelling unit contains rooms which are noise sensitive and other rooms which are less sensitive to noise.

The noise sensitive areas include bedrooms, living rooms and dens while the less noise sensitive areas may include kitchens, dining rooms bathrooms, hallways, storage rooms and closets. An appropriate arrangement of these areas will allow for an internal separation of sensitive areas from the noise source and may thereby contribute to a more acceptable interior noise level. The less sensitive rooms should be placed closest to the noise source where they can act as sound buffers for the more sensitive rooms.

An acoustically designed interior should place the kitchen and washrooms on the roadway side of the building, and bedrooms and living rooms on the shielded side. In addition the wall facing the roadway can be acoustically insulated. This technique is illustrated for a dwelling unit in Figure 5.15.

The most noise insensitive spaces or rooms include corridors, stairways, garages, storage and garbage areas.

Orientation of Windows

Another effective method of reducing the intrusion of noise into the dwelling unit is through the orientation of windows.

Interior noise levels can be reduced significantly by limiting the number and size of wall openings on the side of the dwelling exposed to the noise source. Windows are normally planned with primary consideration given to sunlight and ventilation, and in the past acoustical concerns have usually been overlooked. This is particularly important since glass is a poor absorber of sound.

129

BR.

BR.

LR.

ftA DEN

BATH

KIT

DR.

NOISE SOURCE

Use of acoustical architectural design to reduce noise impacts on more noise sensitive living spaces.

Figure 5.15 ORIENTATION OF ROOMS

(Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, "Land Use Planning for Noise Control in Residential Communities", 1981)

130

The effectiveness of this measure however, depends upon the orientation of the wall and the building with respect to the noise source. Acoustically designed windows and window openings exposed to noise should be small and face the noise source directly, in order to allow a significant reduction of indoor noise levels. For windows designed in the side walls, perpendicular to the noise source, the reduction in noise is not as critical. However, the larger windows should be located in a wall parallel to the noise source, on the shielded side of the dwelling, in order that a significant reduction in indoor noise levels can be realized while attaining the aesthetic benefits of such a window.

The primary advantage of this technique is that there is no additional cost involved in the orientation of the windows on the unexposed walls. In addition, this technique is quite effective in controlling indoor noise levels and can be considered early as well as late in the planning process.

Figure 5.16 illustrates a dwelling unit design which incorporates window orientation as well as room arrangement for the purpose of minimizing the intrusion of traffic noise.

The picture window of the dwelling faces the garden in the backyard of the lot.

Orientation of Balconies, Terraces, and Courtyards

Balconies, terraces and courtyards, which can be categorized as outdoor amenity areas are usually located immediately outside dwelling units for the resident's enjoyment of the outdoor environment and therefore should not be subject to excessively high noise levels. The noise problem surrounding balconies however, goes much further than the outdoor environment. Balconies themselves are a contributing factor to noise within the interior of a dwelling unit. If balconies

131

Note: The wall directly exposed to the arterial is used for noiseinsensitive uses- of bathroom, hallway and closets. Also, the windows open to the shielded garden.

Figure 5.16 A FLOOR PLAN SPECIALLY DESIGNED TO REDUCE NOISE IMPACT (Ontario Ministry of Environment, "Acoustics Technology in Laud Use Planning", Vol 2, 1978)

132

are facing a roadway, they may reflect noise off the balcony ceiling directly into the interior of the building. This problem is particularly apparent in multi—storey apartment buildings and townhouses. One solution to both this exterior and interior noise problem is to place the balconies on the quiet side of the building, thereby shielding the balconies by positioning them in the acoustical shadow of the building.

This design principle also is effective in controlling noise levels for terraces and courtyards. It must be noted, that when this solution is employed, there must be an internal rearrangement of corridors and rooms to accommodate the requirement for balconies on one side of the building only.

In some situations, it may not be practical or possible to orientate balconies and alternative solutions must be investigated, such as providing a common outdoor amenity area shielded by the building and the use of acoustical building materials to control interior noise levels.

Blank Walls

The application of blank walls for noise abatement purposes is the most effective form of architectural technique. Noise can be reduced significantly by eliminating windows and other openings from the wall of a building close to the source of noise. A blank wall is then able to act as a sound barrier for the remainder of the building. The walls of a residential building directly adjacent to and perpendicular to the noise source are usually the most severely impacted, and therefore a relocation of windows to the walls subjected to lower noise levels will contribute to a quieter indoor sound environment.

If a blank wall is impractical or undesirable for aesthetic reasons, an adequate alternative is the provision of smaller, acoustically treated windows.

133

Blank walls have a useful application in high density housing projects, but their use can also be extended to low and medium density housing. Figure 5.17 illustrates the use of a blank wall in an apartment building facing a noisy roadway. Also noteworthy, is the positioning of the noise insensitive corridor, immediately adjacent to the blank wall and the placement of the balconies within the acoustical shadow of the building. Figure 5.18 portrays the application of a blank wall to a townhouse. The blank wall is able to deflect and absorb sound waves and thereby reduce the intrusion of traffic noise into the interior of the dwelling. The sensitive orientation of rooms and the outdoor amenity area is also incorporated into the design of the townhouses, to provide maximum acoustical benefit.

There are four factors which place restrictions on the use of blank walls; ventilation, lighting, aesthetics and the one sided nature of apartment buildings with blank walls. The conventional house design normally relies on operable windows located in the opposite walls to provide adequate ventilation and lighting. The application of one blank wall to the dwelling unit reduces this flexibility, requiring special designs to ensure sufficient natural lighting and ventilation. In some cases, special equipment may be necessary to ensure adequate ventilation. Another restriction is that where the blank wall noise attenuation concept is applied to an apartment building, dwellings can be located only on one side of the main internal corridor. This is likely to result in an underutilization of high density residential land. The fourth restriction on the use of such a technique is aesthetics, particularly for high rise buildings that are located for the purpose of maximizing a particular scenic location. It is worthwhile to note however that the blank wall technique may only be required for the lower stories of the building that are closest to the noise source, while the upper stories may be provided with balconies to maximize the scenic view.

134

Corridor

Noise Source

/1r

Typical Blank Wall (or with special glazing)

Parking -

Dwelling Unit

cE'

Balconies

Significantly lower sound level due to shielding

Common Outdoor; jtecreation Area

,

Figure 5.17 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS A NOISE CONTROL MEASURE (THE USE OF BLANK WALLS FOR AN APARTMENT BUILDING) (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, "Land Use Planning for Noise Control in Residential Communities", 1981)

135

Conventional Day Lighting and Ventilation

Noise —00.

Source

Bedroom

Blank Wall (or with special glazing)

Significantly lower sound level due toshielding

Edge of pavement

Figure 5.18 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS A NOISE CONTROL MEASURE (USE OF BLANK WALLS FOR A TOWNHOUSE)

(Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, "Land Use Planning for Noise Control in Residential Communities", 1981

136

ii) Attenuation Capability

An appropriate arrangement of the internal areas of the dwelling can provide reduced noise levels in the most noise sensitive rooms. This technique may reduce the traffic noise levels in bedrooms by approximately 5 dBA over the indoor noise level in the insensitive areas of the house. If required, an additional, and very significant reduction in noise levels (up to 10 dBA) can be achieved through window orientation and the use of blank walls. The risk of poor lighting and ventilation dictate that this measure be used for extreme noise problem situations only.

The orientation of balconies and terraces may contribute to a limited reduction in interior noise levels, but the primary objective of this measure is to reduce noise exposure to these areas themselves. This technique, which provides for the placement of the balcony in the acoustical shadow zone of the building is an effective method of including the intrusion of traffic noise and may provide 5 dBA noise level reduction or greater to the balcony area.

In summary, proper building design with special attention to acoustical details can provide an indoor noise level reduction of up to 30 dBA with the use of architectural techniques, as compared to a noise level reduction of 20 dBA for interior noise levels in a dwelling with traditional design and standard windows that are closed.

Therefore, the use of architectural techniques is highly desirable from an attenuation perspective as these measures can contribute to acceptable noise levels within the interior of residential dwellings units.

137

iii) Economic Aspects

In general, there are usually no direct costs to the developer for the application of architectural design techniques for noise control purposes, as no additional building materials are required. However, in the case of an apartment building, where corridors have dwelling units on one side only, construction costs are higher since the useable residential space is served by almost twice as much circulation (corridor) space and often places restrictions on the number of dwelling units.

Additionally, the application of blank walls, as an attenuation measure for housing units adjacent to busy roadways, may result in increased costs over conventionally designed housing, if special ventilation equipment or design techniques for improved lighting conditions are required. The use of architectural design techniques however, will not require any maintenance costs over and above conventionally designed residential units.

In summary, the application of architectural measures of noise attenuation appears to be a cost-efficient measure for controlling excessive traffic noise levels, particularly for new residential development in existing residential locations where there is limited space for the use of other noise attenuation techniques.

iv) Public Acceptability

The application of architectural design techniques to residential dwelling units may result in a building with an unusual appearance or an unconventional internal layout that many consumers may find undesirable. Some potential buyers object to any new orientation of windows or any possible

138

lighting problems. Consequently, such units may be difficult to sell. To overcome this problem, public acceptance of housing which has been designed in an untraditional manner can be enhanced greatly with landscaping, the provision of recreational areas and by emphasizing the aesthetic qualities of the housing project.

v) Implementation Process

In order for architectural design techniques to become an effective method for use by developers in the reduction of noise levels, particularly within residential buildings, it is necessary to identify a process for the evaluation and implementation of this technique. Additionally, it is important to note that this method of abatement is flexible enough to be applied during the early or latter stages of the planning process.

The recommendations within the Land Use Bylaw Section 4.2.2 of this report and Section 4.4.2 of Volume I endorse the use of a traffic noise impact study as part of the approvals process for residential development permits of all land use classifications and statutory plans that are located adjacent to major arterial roadways. A study of this nature would be required if architectural techniques were chosen as a method of providing an acceptable indoor sound environment by the proponent of the development project that would include a conceptual site plan and building floor plan as well as the appropriate calculations that demonstrate the effectiveness of the technique in achieving the indoor sound environment. This study would be prepared by a qualified engineer or architect.

In terms of content, the study details will be specified in the amendments to the Land Use Bylaw.

139

5.5 ACOUSTICAL CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES

Strategy

Acoustical construction techniques are often alternatives to architectural design where further abatement of noise is required.

These construction techniques include the acoustical treatment of walls, the use of double glazing in windows, increasing the thickness of glass, the use of solid core doors, and the acoustical treatment of balconies. This Section examines a variety of these construction techniques and outlines the implications of selecting various techniques. The use of the techniques is examined from the perspectives of economic efficiency, public acceptability and noise attenuation capability. A process for implementing this technique is also presented.

Discussion

i) Overview of Concept

The application of special construction techniques is most beneficial for the reduction of indoor noise levels to an acceptable level. In most residential developments where outdoor noise levels are at acceptable limits, standard construction techniques, if built to Alberta Building Code requirements, are adequate to reduce interior noise levels to an acceptable level. However, if the anticipated indoor noise levels are greater than 45 dBA, it may be desirable to consider the attenuation possibilities of special construction techniques.

140

To allow an evaluation and comparison of performance for alternative construction materials, it is necessary to have a measure of materials capability to reduce sound. The National Research Council of Canada has developed a method which enables building components to be selected in a manner which will provide adequate sound insulation. The method is based on the use of an Acoustic Insulation Factor (AIF) which takes into account the type of room under consideration, the number of components (walls, windows, doors) forming the room envelope, and the exterior noise level. The use of the AIF method and when it should be applied is explained in detail in Appendix II. The following is an examination of the critical building components for noise control.

Walls Walls are of critical importance in the protection of a quiet interior sound environment as they provide the most insulation from exterior noise. However, wall materials and designs vary in their sound insulation properties. Figures 5.19 and 5.20 provide a visual summary of some of the acoustical wall construction techniques which can be used to improve the sound environment.

In general, the acoustical protection provided by a wall can be improved by increasing the mass and stiffness of the wall material. The denser the wall material, the more it will reduce noise, thus concrete walls are better noise absorbers than wood walls of equal thickness. The mass of a wall can be improved by increasing the thickness of a wall. Doubling the thickness of a partition can provide as much as 6 dBA reduction in sound. However, the costs of this measure tend to limit its feasibility as a method of noise absorption.

141

The stiffness of the wall material can also influence its sound attenuation capability. Walls should be constructed so as to avoid any potential vibrations that may occur at audible frequencies and transmit sounds.

Another method of wall design that can be effective in reducing interior sound levels is the use of airspaces inside the partition. The airspace provides a useful sound insulator of up to 5 dBA and is more effective and cost efficient than a single wall of equal weight. The only negative aspect to the application of airspaces is that they can be difficult to design. In addition to increasing the airspace, the noise attenuation capability of walls can be further improved by increasing the spacing between wall studs. In a single stud wall, a 24 inch stud spacing gives a 2-5 dBA noise reduction over the usual 16 inch spacing. Sound transmission can be reduced further by attaching the stud to only one panel and alternating the studs between the two panels.

Another method of wall design that can be effective in reducing interior sound levels is the use of airspaces inside the partition. The airspace provides a useful sound insulator of up to 5 dBA and is more effective and cost efficient than a single wall of equal weight. The only negative aspect to the application of airspaces is that they can be difficult to design. In addition to increasing the airspace, the noise attenuation capability of walls can be further improved by increasing the spacing between wall studs. In a single stud wall, a 24 inch stud spacing gives a 2-5 dBA noise reduction over the usual 16 inch spacing. Sound transmission can be reduced further by attaching the stud to only one panel and alternating the studs between the two panels.

Lower sound attenuation

Higher sound attenuation

Increased mass Use of air space StSSSSSSSSSNSSSSSSS%%%%%%%%SVASIA

MSS).

XS NSW'S\ \SSW\ NllXIXVXXXVSNI,

Increased width of airspace

SS,SSSSSSSSSSSS

klW•VV , UaAkr1/1 4 Wa XWAXM-k‘‘‘‘,M

SSVSSWAS \ SWANS \

kk ‘‘‘‘‘ kWOU,

Wide spacing between studs

)(

Staggered studs

WI&SSStt

V

Use of resilient attachments

StSSSSSI.

Figure 5.19 SOME METHODS OF INCREASING THE NOISE ATTENUATION PROPERTIES OF WALLS Lo-AQc_app.

"U " Dep ' Tr -., No__ and A L_, 19/

Lower sound attenuation

Higher sound attenuation

Dissimilar panels

Sound absorbing blanket In airspace SAW

\\NNS‘Mca=

Well sealed cracks and edges

Figure 5.20 THE METHODS OF INCREASING THE NOISE ATTENUATION PROPERTIES OF WALLS (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, FHWA, "the Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use, 1976)

144

The use of resilient materials to hold the studs and panels together instead of nails can also improve the noise absorption by 2 to 5 -dBA. Nails severely reduce the capability of walls to attenuate noise and while semi—resilient attachments are acoustically effective, relatively inexpensive and easy to insert.

Another very effective method of increasing the noise absorbency of walls is with the use of acoustical blankets.

Acoustical blankets are made from sound absorbing materials such as mineral or rock wool, fiberglass, hair felt or wood fibers and are placed within the wall airspace. This technique can reduce noise levels by up to 10 dBA. It is also noteworthy that an acoustically treated wall can only attain its full attenuation potential if it is well sealed at the perimeter. Small holes and cracks can totally negate the acoustical advantage provided by special construction techniques.

The construction of interior walls can be instrumental in providing a quiet sound environment in the most noise sensitive rooms of the dwelling, which ideally, should be located as far away from the noise source as possible. For example, if the interior walls are acoustically treated, in addition to exterior walls, it may contribute to acceptable indoor noise levels within the bedrooms on the shielded side of the dwelling. Figures 5.21 and 5.22 illustrate building techniques that may be applied to interior walls.

145

Windows

Noise enters into a building through it acoustically weakest points which is usually the windows. The first steps to reducing the transmission of sound through windows is to close and permanently seal the windows, if possible. If at times, the windows must be opened, special window seals are available which allow the opening of windows.

If ordinary windows are insufficient in reducing the intrusion of noise into the dwelling in spite of the application of sealing techniques, thicker glass can be installed. In addition, the glass can be laminated with a tough transparent plastic which is both noise and shatter resistant. An alternative noise abatement measure to increasing glass thickness is the use of double or triple glazed windows.

Furthermore, the performance of such windows can be improved with; increased airspace width, the use of sealings, slightly dissimilar thicknesses of the panes and slightly non-parallel panes. In general the airspace between the window panes should not be less than 2-4 inches and to achieve a satisfactory noise reduction, double-glazed windows should be sealed permanently. The use of slightly dissimilar weights and non-parallel panes prevents acoustical coupling and reasonance of sound waves.

Doors

Acoustically, doors are more difficult to treat than windows.

Standard doors will reduce the insulation value of the surrounding wall with the common hollow core door providing the least resistance to the transmission of noise. To improve the acoustical aspects, the hollow core door can be replaced by a heavier solid core door that is well sealed with a vinyl seal around the edges. A further sound insulation value can be attained if gasketed door stops or drop bar threshold closers are installed at the bottom edge of the door.

146

Walls

(a) Double-stud wall with air space

(b) Double-stud wall with concrete block separator

(c) 190 mm concrete block wall w; no insulation

Materials

16 mm gypsum board 50 mm sound insulation 38 x 89 mm wood studs 12.5 mm gypsum board 25 mm air space 12.5 mm gypsum board 38 x89 mm wood studs 50 mm sound insulation 16 mm gypsum board

16 mm gypsum board 50 mm sound insulation 38 x 89 mm wood studs 12.5 mm gypsum board 190 mm concrete block 12.5 mm gypsum board 38 x 89 mm wood studs 50 mm sound insulation 16 mm gypsum board

12.5 mm gypsum board 38 x 38 mm strapping 190 mm concrete block 38 x 38 mm strapping 12.5 mm gypsum board

Construction

Two standard interior walls, separated by a 25 mm air space.

Each component wall is constructed of 38 x 89 mm wood studs nailed at 400 mm centres filled with 50 mm thick mineral fibre acoustical insulation enclosed with 12.5 mm gypsum board on the inside and 16 mm fire grade gypsum wallboard outside.

Two standard interior walls, separated by hollow 190 mm concrete blocks. Each component wall is constructed of 38 x 89 mm wood studs nailed at 400 mm centres filled with 50 mm thick mineral fibre acoustical insulation enclosed with 12.5 mm gypsum board on the inside and 16 mm fire grade gypsum wallboard outside.

Built of hollow 190 mm concrete blocks, strapped with 38 mm lumbe, for the attachment of 12.5 mm gypsum board both sides.

1981 Cost'

$663.00

$870.00

$503.00

Noise Isolation Class (NIC)

40

70

55

Fire rating (hours)

1

2

2

Thermal Resistance RSI (R)

3.27 (18.63)

3.36 (19.1)

1.17 (6.70)

Comments

Relatively expensive; poor noise reduction; low fire rating.

Very expensive; excellent noise reduction; functions as firewall.

Easy to construct; good noise reduction; efficient firewall; handy for the installation of electric wiring.

'Cost calculated for wall section 2.65 m high, 4.4 m long. Thickness varies.

Figure 5.21 CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY WALLS (CMHC, "LeBreton Flats Development Evaluation 2, Walls and Floors as Sound Barriers", 1981)

147 Figure 5.22 CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY WALLS ( continued ) (CHHC "Le Breton Flats Development Evaluation 2, Walls and Floors as Sound Barriers", 131;1) (d) Composite wall

(e) Concrete block wall with insulation

(f) Double-stud wall with insulation on one side

(g) 140 mm concrete block wall with no insulation

16 mm gypsum board 38 x 89 mm wood studs 50 mm sound insulation 12.5 mm plywood 75 mm cementitious sand 12.5 mm plywood 38 x 89 mm wood studs 16 mm gypsum board

12.5 mm gypsum board 38 x 38 mm strapping 50 mm sound insulation 190 mm concrete block 50 mm sound insulation 38 x 38 mm strapping 12.5 mm gypsum board

12.5 mm gypsum board 38 x 89 mm wood studs 50 mm separation 50 mm sound insulation 38 x 89 mm wood studs (staggered) 12.5 mm gypsum board

12.5 mm gypsum board 38 x 38 mm strapping 140 mm concrete block 38 x 38 mm strapping 12.5 mm gypsum board

Experimental wall combination. Two different walls separated by 62.5 mm space filled with cementitious sand. Form ties. One component wall has a 38 x 89 mm stud frame faced with 16 mm gypsum board on the outside and 12.5 mm plywood on the inside. The second wall is similar in construction but is filled with 50 mm thick mineral fibre acoustical insulation.

Constructed of hollow 190 mm cement blocks, strapped with 38 x 38 mm lumber, insulated with 50 mm thick sound absorptive material on both sides and enclosed with 12.5 mm drywall.

Similar in construction to (a) but only one component wall is filled with 50 mm thick sound insulation and no gypsum board on the inside faces.

Constructed of hollow 140 mm concrete blocks, strapped with 38 x 38 mm lumber enclosed both sides with 12.5 mm gypsum board.

$865.00

$653.00

$391.00

$500.00

59

59

53

58

2

2

1

2

2.21 (12.57)

3.16 (17.98)

2.10 (11.96)

1.15 (6.48)

Very expensive; very good noise reduction.

Relatively expensive; efficient; only slightly better than (c) — sound transmission through the strapping; reduces airborne impact noise; excellent fire rating.

Inexpensive; good noise reduction.

Expensive; very reliable and efficient; good noise reduction; excellent fire rating.

148 An alternative method of dealing with the acoustical problems created by doors is to eliminate them, if possible, from the walls experiencing the greatest noise exposure and place them in more shielded walls..

Balconies

The balconies in high rise apartment buildings can contribute to increased exposure to traffic nose within the interior of the apartment itself. As illustrated in Figure 5.23, the sound deflects off of the balcony ceiling and into the apartment. The use of absorptive material on a normal front-walled balcony however has been shown to produce substantial noise reductions. The treatment of balcony ceilings alone can result in a 5 dBA reduction in sound, and an additional 3 dBA reduction in noise levels is possible with the application of absorptive material to other areas (floors) of the balcony.

Other Options

There are a variety of other acoustical treatments that can be used for the purpose of further improving the indoor sound environment. Among these techniques are the treatment of ceiling and floors. Acceptable indoor noise levels can be attained by the extensive use of thick, heavy carpeting, drapes wall hangings, and acoustical ceiling tiles which absorb sound. These materials cannot prevent noise from passing through the walls, however, they reduce the overall sound levels by reducing sound reverberations. The application of treatment to the ceiling is usually not necessary unless the noise source is occuring over the building as is the case with aircraft.

Figure 5.23 DEFLECTION OF NOISE BY APARTMENT BALCONIES (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, "Land Use Planning for Noise Control in Residential Communities", 1981)

150

ii) Attenuation Capability Construction techniques provide an acoustically effective solution to extreme traffic noise impact problems. By paying careful attention to detail, interior noise levels can be reduced by up to 10 to 15 dBA compared with the noise levels inside a dwelling with ordinary closed windows and conventional wall construction. Sealed windows or thicker glass windows can provide a 5 dBA noise reduction while acoustically treated walls may provide a 10 to 15 dBA reduction in interior noise levels. Sealed units equipped with air conditioning systems can provide a further 10 to 15 dBA improvement in the sound environment.

iii) Economic Aspects The economic implications of applying construction techniques to residential dwelling units can be significant. These various techniques add to the capital cost of the dwelling, while air conditioning systems add to the operating costs of a house. The actual costs of the construction techniques within any particular dwelling will depend upon the noise level, the desired attenuation, the function and location of various rooms, the size of the dwelling unit and whether the techniques are to be applied to new dwelling units or used in retrofit situations. Some cost estimates (1982 cost figures) for a variety of construction techniques are set out below:

NOISE ABATEMENT MATERIALS

APPROX. COST

Solid core door 2'10" X 6'8"

$ 109.09

1/2" gypsum board 4 X 8

$

6.00

2 acoustical insulation (fibreglass) per m

t

3.00

resilient channel wall studs per foot

.75

double glazed/sealed window unit

t 300.00

central air conditioning (2 1/2 ton)

t2,750.00

central air conditioning (heat pump)

$3,625.00

151

It should also be noted that some of the materials available for acoustical improvements may also have thermal (energy saving) value and would provide the developer or homeowner with an additional incentive through the added benefit of reduced heating costs. In addition, it is less expensive to incorporate acoustical materials during initial construction rather than in a retrofit situation.

iv) Public Acceptability

The application of noise attenuating construction techniques to residential dwelling units is not likely to encounter public resistance or contribute to a marketability problem.

Acoustic insulation or heavier glass windows, is not likely to be perceived by the average consumer. However in some cases, the use of permanently sealed windows may create some minor acceptability problems for individuals who may want the option of closing and opening most of the windows in a dwelling unit. Overall, the use of these techniques can ensure a quiet interior sound environment, and do so without creating any public acceptability problems.

v)

Implementation

The traffic noise impact study, as outlined in the Land Use Bylaw Section of this report, 4.2.2 and in Volume I, Section 4.4.2, would be required if construction techniques were chosen as a method of providing an acceptable indoor sound environment by the proponent of the development. The use of this technique would necessitate that the development proposal include a conceptual site plan and building floor plan as well as the appropriate calculations that demonstrate the effectiveness of the technique in achieving an acceptable

152

indoor sound environment. The specific details of the study will be outlined in the amendments to the Land Use Bylaw. The study would include the use of a noise attenuation prediction methods, calculations and procedures employed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, known as the Acoustic Insulation Factor (AIF), as well as a statement on anticipated effectiveness. Appendix II describes in detail the requirements and procedures necessary for using the Acoustic Insulation Factor Method.

Construction techniques should be employed with the objective of achieving an indoor noise environment of 45 dBA.

153

CHAPTER 6

MUNICIPAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to present possible noise abatement programs that may be applied by the municipality in an effort to reduce excessive traffic noise impacts upon existing residential areas. These residential areas include those not being considered for noise attenuation facilities as part of a functional roadway plan, area or neighbourhood structure plan and are not proposed for land use redistricting in conjunction with an area redevelopment plan or a redevelopment proposal. To this end, two municipal program areas were identified and examined:

A Barrier Priorization Program and; A Citizen Information Program.

The Barrier Priorization Program entailed the priorization of sites adjacent to arterial roadways to determine the most critical residential areas requiring the installation of noise barriers. Candidate site were 'short listed' based upon site criteria in cluding: lot orientation; local site conditions; the proximity of a n arterial roadway; actual noise levels; and the absence of any existing noise attenuation facilities or future plans for constructing facilities. This information was gathered from site surveys, aerial photographs and noise monitoring surveys. The candidate sites were ranked based upon a benefit/cost index. For this process, the numerical relationship of the index number increased directly with the existing levels of traffic noise and the number of residences to be protected. Those locations that were ranked high by the benefit/cost index with noise levels of 70 dBA Leq(24) or greater were considered cost effective sites that would facilitate the construction of

154

a barrier and maximize the resultant acoustical benefits. These sites were to be included in addition to the construction of all roadway construction projects within the Transportation Management Department's Five and Ten Year Roadway and Transit Improvement Program, as required.

A Citizen Information Program was examined with the purpose of informing the public of the general principles of traffic noise propagation and to give advice regarding cost effective noise attenuation measures that may be voluntarily implemented to reduce the impact of traffic noise upon the indoor sound environment. Federal grant funding aid to undertake the necessary acoustical renovations was also explored. Another important purpose of this program was to inform residents of existing municipal noise policies and the responsibilities of the City, the Developer and the Resident in terms of attenuating existing residential noise problems. The need for this type of program was anticipated, particularly for those property owners with moderate noise levels (65-70 dBA Leq) that did not warrent the installation of noise barriers or purchase of property, however were willing to reduce their noise problem at their own expense.

155

6.1 BARRIER PRIORIZATION PROGRAM

Strategy

The principal goal of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study is to reduce the amount of residential land adversely affected by traffic noise in Edmonton and in light of this goal, a traffic noise level standard was selected as outlined in UTNPS Stage II, Volume II, Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard (TSR/31/83). It is the objective of this Section to identify existing severe traffic noise problem areas through the City for which a noise barrier priorization program could be used to achieve this standard, where economically and technically practical.* Specifically, the primary objectives of this Strategy are:

to identify and priorize the most critical traffic noise sites that would facilitate the installation of an acoustical barrier as well as maximize the resultant benefits; and to develop a Barrier Priorization Program.

It should be noted that an examination of existing noise levels throughout the City was carried out in Stage I of the UTNPS Study, through the use of a computer prediction model. The data from this study was sufficient for the preliminary review of residential locations experiencing excessive traffic noise. However, it was felt to be not sufficiently accurate for establishing a noise barrier program, particularly in light of the significant capital expenditure implications. Therefore, it was a major task of this Section to re-examine suspected problem areas using data from actual noise monitoring surveys in order for possible noise attenuation sites to be identified and subsequently priorized.

This is not to suggest that the installation of barriers is the sole means of noise attenuation that will be examined for existing residential areas. However, there are limited alternatives to reduce noise in these areas and the use of noise barriers is one of the most effective and expeditious means of our disposal. Other mechanisms that were previously explored within the context of the UTNPS Volume III, will form integral components of a multi-strategy approach to mitigate the overall traffic noise problem.

156

Discussion The identification and priorization of critical traffic noise locations in Edmonton requiring attenuation, was undertaken by identifying residential areas experiencing acute traffic noise levels. This information was subsequently used as a basis for a Barrier Priorization Program, which consists of the priorization of the acute traffic noise locations and the establishment of an implementation strategy for the funding and installation of noise barriers for the priority locations.

A detailed outline of this methodology is as follows:

i) Methodology

The Identification of Residential Areas Experiencing Acute Traffic Noise Levels

The first steps in the identification of residential areas experiencing acute traffic noise levels was to prepare an inventory of residential areas susceptable to excessive traffic noise levels which was compiled with the aid of two primary screening criteria:

a) First, residential locations were to be adjacent to an arterial roadway, where the traffic volumes were sufficient to create excessive traffic noise levels. This data was compiled using the City's roadway classification map and the Transportation Management Department's traffic data.

157

b) The second criterion required that the lot orientation and local topography permitted the installation of a continuous acoustical wall or berm. Residential sites were to be limited to lots that back—on (reverse frontage) an arterial roadway, where the outdoor amenity area is exposed directly to traffic. The topography that existed had to provide sufficient open space to allow construction of a continuous barrier. This information was compiled by examining aerial photographs and later confirmed by field surveys carried out by the Transportation Management Department.

In order to identify the residential sites experiencing excessive traffic noise levels, three additional screening criteria were used.

c) Predicted Traffic Noise Level

Sites were eliminated with predicted traffic noise levels of less than 65 dBA. This criterion was used as it would not have been economically practical to assume all sites exceeding the current noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn could be provided with a barrier, and that it was more economically practical to concentrate on the most severe problem locations where the installation of the facilities is most cost—effective.

The predicted traffic noise level data was estimated using a computer prediction model as outlined in the Alberta Surface Transportation Noise and Attenuation Study. To calculate these noise levels, the following data was collected by City staff:

158

- Vehicle Operating Speeds

Operating speeds on all road segments were assumed to be equal to the posted speed limit.

-Roadway Volumes

Roadway volumes were estimated using available traffic data including 1978 and 1979 average annual weekday traffic volumes, historical growth rates, hourly volume distributions, hourly classification counts of the number of cars, medium trucks and heavy trucks for each of the following arterial roadway categories:

- Non truck route - 24-hour truck route - 13-hour truck route (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.) - 16-hour truck route (7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.)

To achieve the greatest accuracy possible with the data available, total roadway volumes and vehicle classifications were estimated separately using linear regression and other analytical tools for each of the four time periods:

- Peak hours (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) - Daytime off peak (9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.) - Evening (6:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.) - Nighttime (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.)

- General Roadway Characteristics

All road sections under study were assumed to have the following characteristics in common; gradients of less than two percent, normal pavement surface texture and

159

pavement elevation at grade with adjacent residential lands. No adjustments were assumed for the effect of interrupted flow at intersections, for shielding due to vegetation, ground attenuation or structures located adjacent to the roadway.

- Receiver Setbacks

The distance between the noise source and receiver was assumed constant at 30 meters (100 feet) from the centreline of the road.

- Noise Descriptor

The results were expressed in terms of an A-weighted equivalent day/night sound level, dBA Ldn.

d) Existing or Proposed Attenuation

Sites were eliminated that were protected from traffic noise by an existing or proposed barrier, a depressed roadway, or whose attenuation requirements and subsequent implementation were addressed in a neighbourhood structure plan or functional roadway plan. This information was collected using current Transportation Management Department files.

e) Other Considerations

Sites were eliminated from further consideration for a barrier if they were located on lands regulated by superior legislation, including lands owned by the Crown.

These lands are designated DC4 in the City of Edmonton Land Use Bylaw No. 5996.

160

Noise Barrier Implementation Strategy

Upon identifying the critical residential areas experiencing excessive traffic noise levels, the final task to be undertaken was to determine a noise barrier implementation strategy and to explore funding alternatives.

In order to determine the order in which attenuation should be provided for the critical traffic noise locations that were identified, a priorization scheme was developed. This priorization scheme was based on the use of a "noise index" which was used to assess the need for traffic noise abatement at each particular site. The input for the noise index included variables such as the cost of the barrier, existing traffic noise levels* and the number of dwelling units affected by traffic noise. A process was then examined by which the implementation of an acoustical barrier program could be incorporated into the Five Year Construction Program, developed by the Engineering Department. Alternative funding arrangements were examined for financing the acoustical barrier program including 100% municipal funding and provincial subsidies.

* In order to accurately estimate the traffic noise problem at each short listed site, it was necessary to verify the results of the computer prediction model by undertaking a series of noise monitoring studies.

These studies measured traffic noise levels continuously over a twenty—four hour period. The noise level test data collected at the receiver test site was obtained with the use of a Bruel and Kjaer Community Alphenumeric Printer. This equipment was set up to sample the "A" weighted noise level reading of the test area at a sampling rate of ten samples per second employing a fast detection mode. The equipment was preset to automatically print out the noise level data on an hourly basis during the twenty—four hour period. The test equipment was calibrated both before and after the sleep impact units (Ldn) were calculated in order to properly assess the noise levels measured.

161

ii) Study Findings

The Identification of Residential Locations Experiencing Acute Traffic Noise Levels

In order to identify the residential sites experiencing acute traffic noise levels, it was first necessary to identify residential sites susceptible to excessive traffic noise levels. With the aid of the initial preliminary screening criteria (dwelling units with reversed frontage and appropriate site conditions), 145 residential areas were identified. A summary of their site characteristics is presented in Appendix 3. The locations of the residential areas are also mapped in Figure 6.1.

The following information was collected for each site:

- The predicted traffic noise level (1980 computer prediction model results).

- The presence of an existing barrier or proposed plans for an attenuation facility.

- Truck route vs. non-truck route designation.

- Length of site.

- Number of affected dwelling units/population.

To determine the residential locations in the greatest need of attenuation, sites were further screened if they were either protected by an existing or proposed barrier, were regulated by superior legislation, or were experiencing traffic noise levels less than 65 dBA Leq(24). These residential locations were separated from the initial inventory because existing site conditions did not warrent immediate attention. It was with the remaining sites that attenuation efforts were to be concentrated upon.

162

LI

_

/

•ff

•

/

-F

•

,_ t•-:---7--4?"`"`""''S"?,, „ .i

-. • •

• j

•%.

et•

---.

EXISTING OR PROPOSED BARRIER, BERM, OR DEPRESSED ROADWAY RESIDENTIAL AREA BACKING ON AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY SITE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

FIGURE 6.1 RESIDENTIAL AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

163

In order to accurately determine the magnitude of the traffic noise problem, actual traffic noise monitoring studies were undertaken for those sites that remained as potential barrier candidate sites. However, it was not necessary or economically practical to test all potential barrier sites.

For example, sites on opposite sides of a roadway required only one test site. Additionally, if the predicted traffic noise levels for a particular road remained constant over a length of the road that encompassed several potential barrier sites, then one test site was determined to be sufficient to test traffic noise levels over the entire section of road.

After the noise monitoring studies were completed, 11 residential sites remained in consideration for the implementation of a barrier (as shown in Table 6.1).

It should be noted that of the 134 sites that were eliminated, 83 sites (61.9%) were eliminated because the traffic noise levels at these sites did not exceed 65 dBA Leq(24), and 33 sites (24.6%) were eliminated due to the presence of an existing or proposed noise attenuation facility or depressed roadway. In addition, 14 sites (11.2%) were eliminated because attenuation requirements were addressed by a neighbourhood structure plan or a functional roadway planning study. The other 2 sites (1.5%) were eliminated because they were located on land governed by superior legislation (as indicated by a DC4 designation in the City of Edmonton, Land Use Bylaw).

The remaining 11 sites exhibited the following characteristics. All of the sites were experiencing traffic noise levels between 65-70 dBA Leq(24) and were located adjacent to truck routes in the older parts of the City that were developed prior to any requirements for noise attenuation.

Ten of the remaining 11 sites required barrier lengths less

164

than 1500 meters, including 8 sites that required barriers less than 1000 meters. In total, 10.6 kilometers of barriers were found to be required to abate the traffic noise problems at the 11 remaining sites. The 10.7 kilometers of barriers would protect 526 dwelling units, or approximately 1393 residents*.

Barrier Installation Program

Upon identifying candidate sites that should be considered for noise barrier attenuation, it was necessary to develop a framework for establishing a Noise Barrier Installation Program that would implement the barrier requirements. This entailed the priorization of the short listed traffic noise locations and the development of funding and administrative procedures to implement a noise barrier attenuation program.

In general, the primary method of determining the order in which the barriers should be installed, was to apply a benefit and cost approach. This approach evaluated candidate sites on a site specific basis using a benefit/cost index. For this process, the numerical relationship of the index number increased directly with the existing levels of traffic noise and the number of residences to be protected.

In detail, the Noise Barrier Priority Index

2

= (EN11-DNL) N1 Cost

*Based on a 1982 City average of 2.65 persons per dwelling unit.

165

where,

Cost = total cost of the barrier in $1,000's. It was determined by applying an average per lineal meter cost figure to the required barrier length. Required barrier lengths were determined by aerial photograph interpretation and field surveys.

Ni = Number of first row ground level residential dwelling units to be protected by the barrier.

This information was gathered by examination of aerial photographs and by field surveys.

ENLi = Existing noise levels monitored in the outdoor amenity area of homes backing on an arterial roadway. Materials and Testing Section of the Engineering Department undertook a series of noise monitoring tests to provide site specific traffic noise data.

DNL = Design Noise Level or the maximum acceptable noise level in dBA Leq over a 24-hour period which was 65 dBA.

In applying the noise index, several assumptions were made, including:

- Barrier costs were based on a 3.5 meter steel barrier at a cost of t450 per lineal meter (1982 costs). This figure was based on 1982 cost estimates for similar noise barriers constructed in the City.

166

- The maximum acceptable noise level for the purpose of this study was 65 dBA Leg. This level is considered the maximum acceptable range of the proposed 60 dBA Leg residential noise level standard.

- The number of residences affected was limited to first row residences directly backing on an arterial roadway.

Although the second row of homes would receive some attenuation benefits, it was assumed that the outdoor amenity area of the second row of homes is adequately attenuated from traffic noise by the intervening buildings and the additional set-back distance.

The results of the Barrier Priority Noise Index are presented in Table 6.1 and are illustrated in Figure 6.1.

Of the sites presented in Table 6.1 for which actual noise measurements were taken, none of the sites had noise levels exceeding 70 dBA Leq. As determined in UTNPS Volume II, Stage II, Evaluation and Selection of a Residential Noise Level Standard, TSR/31/83, it is at a noise level of 70 dBA Leg where the installation of noise barriers becomes a cost effective noise attenuation mechanism for protecting existing residential areas.

Under this threshold noise level of 70 dBA Leg, noise reduction through acoustical modifications to the dwelling units is the most cost efficient physical solution. Noise insulation materials, as described in this report in Section 5.5, Acoustical Construction Techniques can achieve a 5 dBA Leg reduction in interior sound levels for less cost and also achieve a noise level within the acceptable range of the residential noise level standard.

TABLE 6:1

BARRIER PRIORITY INDEX:

RANKING OF SITES

NUMBER OF MAP REFERENCE NK

NUMBER

GENERAL SITE LOCATIONS

BARRIER LENGTH

RESIDENCES TO BE

TRAFFIC NOISE

NOISE INDEX

(METERS)

PROTECTED

LEVELS (dBA Leq)

VALUE

1

19.4

107 Avenue and 156 Street

775

40

68.9

1.74

2

19.5

107 Avenue and 156 Street

1300

61

68.9

1.59

3

18.1

111 Avenue and Groat Road

925

53

68.5

1.56

4

17.1

Groat Road and 111 Avenue

700

39

68.4

1.43

5

18.2

111 Avenue and 144 Street

650

31

68.5

1.30

6

17.2

Groat Road and 111 Avenue

700

34

68.4

1.25

7

27.1

113 Street and 71 Avenue

1000

60

68.0

1.20

8

19.2

107 Avenue and Groat Road

525

50

65.6

0.54

9

36.1

50 Street and 34 Avenue

1450

55

66.8

0.27

10

19.1

107 Avenue and Groat Road

1775

73

65.6

0.23

11

19.3

107 Avenue and McQueen Road

900

30

65.6

0.19

168

Therefore, it appears that noise barriers are not required for existing residential areas at this time. This situation has occured as a result of the attenuation requirements, for the most serious traffic noise problem locations, being addressed by previous and current Functional Roadway Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans. Table 6.2 lists those sites whose attenuation needs are addressed in Functional Roadway Plans and Neighbourhood Structure Plans.

iii) Noise Barrier Implementation Strategy and Recommendations

Implementation Mechanism

The primary vehicle for implementing the noise barrier program, when it is required, would be through the Transportation Management Department's Five and Ten Year Transit and Roadway Improvement Program. At this time, the Five Year Program includes the priorization of all roadway and transit capital works projects scheduled over the next five and ten years and allocates preliminary budget expenditures.

Consequently, it appears that this program is appropriately structured to carry out the installation of noise barriers either as a separate capital works project or by constructing the barriers in conjunction with roadway upgrading plans.

The first option, that would see a barrier program implemented as a separate capital works project, would entail the installation of the barriers at locations along arterial roadways as required. This would ensure that financial resources are directed towards the residential locations in the greatest need of noise attenuation without delay.

However, there is a drawback as the barrier structure may

169

TABLE 6.2 RESIDENTIAL AREAS EXPERIENCING ACUTE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WHOSE ATTENUATION NEEDS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED PREVIOUSLY OR WILL BE ADDRESSED BY STATUTORY PLANS

MAP REFERENCE NUMBER

GENERAL SITE LOCATION

4.1

137 Avenue and 113 Street

4.2

137 Avenue and 97 Street

5.4

97 Street and 153 Avenue

5.5

97 Street and 137 Avenue

23.7

Whitemud Freeway and 170 Street

23.4

Whitemud Freeway and 159 Street

23.8

Whitemud Freeway and 162 Street

25.6

Whitemud Freeway and 142 Street

25.7

Whitemud Freeway and 47 Avenue

25.8

Whitemud Freeway and 122 Street

25.9

Whitemud Freeway and 111 Street

25.1

Whitemud Freeway and 122 Street

28.1

111 Street and 57 Avenue

28.4

111 Street and 39 A Avenue

36.4

50 Street and 32 Avenue

39.1

75 Street and 83 Avenue

NOTE For a more detailed site identification, see Appendix III.

170

interfere with future roadway improvements and is very costly to construct in isolation of roadway improvements that provide fill for the construction of berms. The second option, that would entail the construction of barriers in conjunction with functional roadway plans, would provide barrier construction in a more random order and may delay the attenuation of severe problem locations. However, this option will be more cost effective if barrier construction is included concurrently with other roadway improvements.

It appears that the most efficient and effective option is a combination of the above two approaches where barriers are constructed in conjunction with roadway upgrading plans or as required for sites with noise levels of more than 70 dBA Leq (24). Candidate sites for noise barriers will be determined by the noise level inventory that will be prepared annually by the TMD.

That City Council adopt a noise barrier priorization program whereby existing residential locations with reversed frontage, adequate open space and experiencing noise levels of 70 dBA Leq(24) or above be considered for noise barrier attenuation subject to ranking according to the proposed Noise Monitoring Program and the availability of funds.

Noise Monitoring Program

Although there is no need for a noise barrier program at this time, there is a requirement for monitoring residential areas that are currently experiencing noise levels between 65 to 70 dBA Leq to determine if noise levels reach the excessive

171

level of 70 dBA Leq. These residential locations may become critical within a short period of time due to changes in local land use, population growth and changes in the designation of truck routes. Consequently, a noise monitoring program should be undertaken every year for all arterial roadways with abutting residential land uses. The recommendation regarding the monitoring of traffic noise is presented in the Section on Property Assessment, 4.2.6 of this report and in Section 4.4.5.2 of UTNPS Stage II Volume I, Summary and Recommendation Report, (TSR/30/83).

Funding Alternatives

There are basically two realistic funding options available to implement a noise barrier installation program: cost shared between the municipality and the province; and one hundred percent municipal funding. Local improvement assessment was not considered as a funding option because of the lack of legislative authority for the local municipality to assess the public for such local improvements.

The Provincial Government has become increasingly aware of the urban traffic noise problem and subsequently has provided funds through the Urban Transportation Assistance Program for the construction of experimental noise barriers such as the Mayfield Road and Calgary Trail Noise Barriers and attenuation along provincial roadway projects such as the Yellowhead Corridor. A recent report prepared by the Environment Council of Alberta* identified a further need to assist municipalities such as Edmonton, and recommended that financial assistance be provided for a noise attenuation program to the same extent that it shares in the cost of construction of provincial highways in municipalities.

*Environment Council of Alberta, "Public Hearings on Noise in Alberta: Report and Recommendations", 1982.

172

It therefore appears likely that some degree of financial assistance may be considered by the Province of Alberta for traffic noise attenuation, if encouragement and interest is expressed by local municipalities. (It should be noted that this recommendation is addressed in Volume I 4.3.6.1, under Provincial Cost Sharing of Noise Attenuation Expenses in order to allow consideration along with other Amendments to Senior Government Legislation.) It is therefore recommended:

That City Council request that the Minister of Alberta Transportation consider the provision of financial assistance in implementing a noise barrier priorization program or for land purchase as solutions to noise problems, to the same extent that it shares in the cost of constructing provincial highways in municipalities.

The second funding option is for the municipality to solely fund the Noise Barrier Program. In order to finance the construction of noise barriers as a separate project, the Engineering Department will be required to establish a separate 5 year Special Capital Project, setting out the noise attenuation projects and an annual budget as required.

It is therefore recommended:

That City Council direct the Engineering Department to establish a separate Special Capital Project within the Five and Ten Year Roadway and Transit Improvement Program setting out funding for identified noise attenuation projects, and annually, as part of the Capital Budget deliberations, establish a barrier priorization program in conjunction with priorities of the total capital budget program according to a priority index or as required until the needs are met.

173

6.2 CITIZEN INFORMATION PROGRAM

Strategy

Public knowledge of noise propagation principles and the nature of noise impacts is one of the most important factors in achieving a quiet urban environment. Education can not only provide residents with an understanding of noise and abatement measures but also information regarding attenuation techniques that may be applied voluntarily for reducing interior noise levels within the home. This in turn may have a direct financial benefit for the builder as well as the home owner through higher value and quickness of sale resulting from a public appreciation of noise attenuation methods. In addition, an informed public can contribute to the success of municipal efforts in noise control.

The objectives of the citizen information program are to meet this need for a better public understanding of traffic noise, to provide information to homeowners with respect to improving the sound environment in their own dwellings as well as explain the Urban Traffic Noise Policies Study to Edmonton residents. This strategy addresses the need for and usefulness of such a citizen information program and outlines the basic information that should be included in the program. Also, a procedure for the implementation of this type of program is provided along with recommendations regarding its application.

Discussion

i) Overview

The Citizen Information Program should be designed: to inform property owners of the general principles of traffic noise

174

propagation; to give advice regarding cost effective noise attenuation measures that may be applied to dwellings; provide information regarding possible Federal grant funding that may be available to reduce the impact of noise upon he indoor sound environment; and to inform residents of existing municipal noise policies and the responsibilities of the City, the Developer and the Resident in terms of attenuating existing residential noise problems. The need for this type of program was anticipated, particularly for those property owners who were experiencing moderate noise levels and did not warrant the municipal installation of noise barriers or purchase of property, however were willing to reduce their moderate noise problem at their own expense. In this regard for the presentation of noise abatement information, priority should be given to the following three groups:

- individuals in decision making positions such as municipal planners, architects, municipal officials as well as developers and builders, - citizens residing adjacent to major arterials and experiencing annoyance due to traffic noise who may consider feasible noise abatement solutions through voluntary home improvement, - potential buyers or tenants adjacent to arterial roadways of residential dwellings units.

The primary mechanism that would be used in the dissemination of this traffic noise information is a brochure. For the purposes of this Strategy, the brochure is regarded as the primary vehicle for distributing information as it is economically practical and this form of medium would reach a greater number of affected residents.

175

In light of the fact that the brochure is the major component of the Citizen Information Program, it must be designed in a concise and informative manner so as to educate those who know little or nothing about traffic noise. Consequently, the brochure will be divided into four sections: 1) an explanation of Municipal standards, policies and guidelines and the general principle of noise propagation; 2) a description of noise attenuating measures that may be applied by a homeowner to reduce indoor noise levels; 3) a checklist of criteria that should be considered by individuals considering the purchase or rental of a residential property adjacent to an arterial roadway, and, 4) a bibliography of references where further detailed information may be obtained. In addition, information may be provided regarding grant funding assistance from the Federal Government, if acoustical home improvements become recognized under existing CMHC home improvement programs standards. Specifically, the brochure will contain the following information.

Firstly, the brochure will summarize the Municipal Noise policies, standards and guidelines as determined by the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study. Municipal noise control strategies would be outlined briefly with an emphasis on differentiating between the different administrative and physical techniques and highlighting the importance of cost—benefit and technical feasibility. In particular, attention would be given to costs, and acoustical benefits associated with the various physical mechanisms and an explanation on the appropriateness of their use in retrofit and new development situations.

The second section of the brochure will describe noise attenuating measures that can be employed by the homeowner or

176

the landlord in an effort to reduce traffic noise impacts with in and around the dwelling. The emphasis will be placed upon reducing the transmission of noise into the dwelling at- the locations of usual acoustical weakness including windows and doors. The brochure would present information on alternative abatement techniques including the use of thicker glass, sealed windows, spacing between window panes, the use of insulation, the application of solid core doors, and methods of sealing doors. The explanation would also describe various types of thermal insulating materials and present information regarding their relative acoustical properties so that homeowners may select insulation which is acoustically as well as thermally effective. Attention would also be given to the acoustical treatment of balconies in apartments to reduce any intrusion of deflected sound waves.

Thirdly, the brochure should provide a checklist of criteria for consideration in the purchase of homes or the rental of residential units adjacent to major generators of traffic noise. The checklist would include existing noise levels, projected roadway changes, the existance of any nearby noise abatement facilities and the possible construction of future facilities, as well as the provision of architectural or building materials acoustical techniques for interior noise control.

The final section will be a listing of references which may be helpful to those individuals who require detailed information on the subjects of noise propagation, abatement techniques, legislation, acoustical home improvements, and possibly grant funding assistance for home improvements.

177

Recommendations

An effective method of improving the public understanding of traffic noise, Municipal noise policies and informing individual homeowners about measures they can implement with respect to improving the sound environment within and around their home is through the use of a Citizen Information Program. This type of program would be aimed at residents that are experiencing noise levels of less than 70 dBA Leq(24) and in locations where noise abatement facilities are not technically or economically feasible. In these situations, it will be the responsibility of residents, on a voluntary basis, to acoustically retrofit their existing residential properties. This will include the property owners of multi-storey residential structures, in addition to single family dwellings.

It is therefore recommended:

That the Transportation Management Department establish a Citizen Information Program for the purpose of explaining the municipal traffic noise policies, programs and and also abatement measures that may be employed by individual homeowners to improve their indoor sound environment.

The inclusion of acoustical improvements may fall within the criteria or standards of existing home improvement programs such as RRAP and CHRP, that would provide financial assistance for homeowners in undertaking noise abatement renovations to their dwellings. To this end, the City should investigate the possibility of including acoustical renovations within existing Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation home improvement program guidelines to provide this financial aid. (It should be noted that this recommendation is

178 addressed in Volume I, 4.3.7.1 under Funding Assistance for Retrofitting Existing Residential Dwelling Units in order that it be considered along with Amendments to Senior Government Legislation.)

It is therefore recommended: That City Council request the Minister of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consider the provision of funding assistance for property owners that are exposed to traffic noise levels greater than 60 dBA Leq(24) along arterial roadways, through the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), the Canada Home Insulation Program (CHIP), or another appropriate existing government grant program, to aid residents in undertaking the necessary acoustical modifications to affected dwelling units.

179

APPENDIX I EVALUATION OF EXISTING CITY OF EDMONTON NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW NO. 4110

APPENDIX I

EVALUATION OF EXISTING CITY OF EDMONTON NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW NO. 4110

URBAN TRAFFIC NOISE POLICY STUDY STAGE II

EVALUATION OF EXISTING CITY OF EDMONTON NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW NO. 4110

Prepared by: Transportation Management Department August, 1983

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective of the Study 1.2 Mandate 1.3 Methodology

2.0 CURRENT CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES VEHICLE NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS

2.1 General Overview of the Canadian Situation 2.2 Federal Legislation (Canadian and U.S.) 2.3 Provincial Legislation 2.4 Municipal Legislation 2.5 Summary

3.0 EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF EDMONTON NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW #4110 VEHICLE NOISE ABATEMENT SECTION

3.1 Background 3.2 Problem Areas and Recommended Amendments

3.2.1 Units of Measurement 3.2.2 Enforcement 3.2.3 Off-road Recreational Vehicles 3.2.4 Refuse Collection Vehicles 3.2.5 Gross Vehicle Weight Limit 3.2.6 Sound Level Measurement Distance

4.0 CONCLUSION

REVIEW OF THE CITY OF EDMONTON NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW NO. 4110 - VEHICLE NOISE ABATEMENT SECTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The objective in reviewing the City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 4110 was to examine the effectiveness of the existing bylaw in controlling excessive noise eminating from individual vehicles, to investigate the enforcement problems, and to determine the feasibility of reducing the existing permitted decibel levels for various vehicle classifications.

1.2 MANDATE

The directive to undertake this study was adopted at the Aldermanic Seminar on Transportation Issues, held on 1978 07 14, at which time Council reviewed various roadway noise control and policy issues and subsequently directed the Administration, "to proceed with a comprehensive noise study" which subsequently became the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study. A major issue to be addressed by the study was to, "investigate the problems of enforcement of the existing Municipal Noise Bylaw No. 4110". An additional directive was given by Council on 1981 07 07, "to investigate the feasibility of reducing the existing permitted decibel levels for vehicles, under the City Noise Bylaw".

The City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw review has been delayed until this time in order that it could be carried out in conjunction with the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study. This review was a component of the Terms of Reference for the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study Stage II, Study Activity 2.3, submitted to Members of Council as information on 1982 08 27.

1.3 METHODOLOGY

In the review of the Vehicle Noise Abatement Section of the City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw, this study was divided into two components.

First, an examination was made of the 'State of the Art' of noise bylaws currently adopted by other Canadian municipalities and by the Canadian and U.S. Federal Governments. This task was undertaken in order that a comparison could be made of Edmonton's permitted noise level limits relative to other current vehicle noise regulations. The second component of the study investigated the occurance of any deficiencies and inadequacies of the existing muncipal noise bylaw. The examination involved discussions with the Civic Departments responsible for the enactment and enforcement of the original bylaw namely, the Police, Bylaw Enforcement, Engineering, Health, Planning and Law Departments. In addition, the Alberta Trucking Association provided input into the study. And finally, the recommendation component of this report outlines specific amendments to the bylaw from an interdepartmental perspective that are technically, administratively and economically feasible to implement.

2.0 CURRENT CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES VEHICLE NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS

2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE CANADIAN SITUATION

Each of the three levels of government in Canada have responsibilities regarding traffic noise abatement. The responsibilities of the Federal Government lie primarily with the establishment of maximum vehicle exterior noise levels and ensuring that manufacturers of all new vehicles meet the requirements of the standards for product certification. A limitation of these regulations is that they do not extend to 'after sale' products such as replacement mufflers. The provincial governments are responsible through various provincial traffic acts, for controlling excessive vehicle noise from faulty mufflers, squealing brakes and horns. It is at the municipal level however, that most anti-noise legislation in Canada has been passed. Throughout Canada the provincial governments authorize municipalities to create bylaws to abate individual vehicle noise. These bylaws allow municipalities to prohibit, eliminate or abate loud, unusual or disturbing sounds and to establish permissable noise levels with respect to time of day, and the location that the sound may occur. Municipalities may also define what constitutes objectional noise, devise a system or method of determining or measuring such noise, and prohibit the operation of motor vehicles which, in any manner, make objectionable noise.

The remainder of this section of the report deals with the specific vehicle noise level standards set by the three levels of government and their respective responsibilities in more detail.

2.2 FEDERAL LEGISLATION (CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES)

Transport Canada, under the authority of the Motor Venicle Safety Act (1970), is the federal department responsible for the formulation of noise emission regulations for new motor vehicles offered for sale in Canada. Since the Departments' policy is generally consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) standards, this section will deal with both government regulations.

There are a number of factors which the current federal vehicle noise emission levels are based. First, they were selected to represent good, but not necessarily the best, industry practice while not forcing untried or prohibitively expensive noise reduction technology on the purchaser.

Second, the levels were chosen to be compatible with those in force in other countries so as not to create artificial trade barriers. Third, the levels and test methods are directed primarily at engine and exhaust noise during low-speed, full-throttle acceleration, considered at the time of developing the standard to be the most annoying mode of vehicle operation.

With respect to heavy vehicles (trucks and buses), the Federal Government's standards have recently been consistent with those of the E.P.A. and currently call for a maximum level of 83 dBA at 15m under full throttle acceleration. In the United States, the permitted level was scheduled to be reduced to 80 dBA in 1983. However, deferral of the effective date to 1986 was given to provide economic relief to the trucking industry and to permit manufacturers to align the design requirements to meet the 80 dBA standard in conjunction with improved fuel economy designs. For buses, the current Canadian level is 83 dBA and a reduction of 77 dBA by 1985 has been proposed by the U.S. Administration. Beyond 1985, the technical and economic feasibility of further reductions in heavy vehicle noise levels is difficult to predict at this time as they will warrent radical changes in vehicle design if pursued.

Canada has regulated exterior noise levels for passenger cars and light trucks since 1972, while the U.S. has yet to do so. The reason for their inaction is because the available methods for measuring light vehicle exterior noise levels, including the method that is used in setting the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) 1106, bears little relation to the contribution of a given passenger car to actual traffic system noise. The vehicle noise emission levels for passenger cars are determined by examining maximum noise emissions, which are very seldom reached in an urban environment where the average speed is 50 km/h. (Note: this testing method is also used for truck vehicles however, it is much more accurate in depicting actual truck noise emission

levels as they are able to reach maximum noise emission in lower gears at minimal speeds.) In consequence, although the permitted level for a light vehicle was recently been reduced in Canada from 86 to 80 dBA at 15m, the net effect of this reduction on traffic noise was small and possibly quite negligible as even the cars within the existing vehicle fleet could very easily meet this standard. The Canadian Federal Government is not proposing any further reductions in noise levels at this time, nor is the U.S. Federal Government proposing to regulate this class of vehicle. The effect of regulation on the contribution of light vehicles to urban traffic noise levels is therefore likely to be minimal for the next several years. It should be noted that some spill-over from European motor vehicle trends may become apparent in the next few years.

The decrease in engine size, in response to fuel economy demands, may have an adverse effect on individual vehicle noise, while increasing substitution of electric and hybrid vehicles, may be beneficial in reducing traffic noise.

Federal regulations for motorcycles currently permit a maximum of 83 dBA at 15m for motorcycles. Recent U.S. proposals, which may be adopted by the Canadian Federal Government, call for maximum levels of 80 dBA in 1983 and 78 dBA in 1985. It is recognized by enforcement agencies that annoyance caused by motorcyles is generally attributable to abusive operation of the vehicle, mischievious modification or to simple neglect.

Similar observation would apply to noise annoyance produced by individual trucks and passenger cars.

2.3 PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

The principal provincial legislation in Alberta that deals with individual vehicle noise is the Highway Traffic Act (1975) which: specifies equipment (lights, brakes, horns, etc.) and conditions of use of motor vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles known as the "rules of the road"; outlines muffler requirements; specifies the use of sirens; prohibits stunts that cause loud and unnecessary noise from a motor vehicle; and prohibits the

operation of a vehicle on residential streets between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. so as to unduly disturb the residents. Similar legislation is contained in the Off-Highway Vehicle Act (1972) which prescribes the terms and conditions governing the registration, use and operation of off-highway vehicles as well as prescribing any equipment required and the types of uses. While Alberta Transportation is responsible for establishing both of these Acts, the specific prohibitions are enforced by the RCMP and municipal police.

Upon investigation of the legislation adopted by other Provincial Governments, it appeared that similar policies were in effect whereby the major control of vehicle noise was delegated to municipal authorities with the exception of muffler and other safety equipment requirements.

2.4 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Most municipalities in Canada have 'Nuisance Bylaws' which prohibit loud, unusual or disturbing sounds in a neighbourhood. Of these, there are two basic types: one which is subjective in nature prohibiting specific noises and the other, which is currently used by the City of Edmonton, that specifies quantitative limits in decibels for specific offensive noises. For the later type, sound level limits, in decibels, are usually established for various types of vehicles. Since this type of bylaw is currently used by the City, this section deals solely with similar bylaws in other Canadian municipalities.

It should be noted that in Alberta several statutes enable municipalities to enact bylaws to abate noise. The Municipal Government Act (1970) specifically enables municipal councils to pass bylaws for the purpose of prohibiting, eliminating, or abating noise. These bylaws may establish permissable noise levels for all, or varying periods of the day, in all or a designated part of the municipality. The Highway Traffic Act (1975) enables councils, with respect to highways under their control, to make bylaws for the regulation and control of vehicle traffic.

TABLE 1: PERMITTED NOISE EMISSIONS (dBA) REGULATIONS Type of Vehicle

Federal and Municipal Governments

Automobile (GVW*

Transport Canada**

(GVW*

6,000 lbs) 80

EPA (U.S.)**

Truck

Motorcycle

6,000 Lbs)

83

83

80

83

United Nations***

82

84

89

Edmonton

83

83

Calgary

77

85 (82 night)

90 (92 Diesel) .

87 (92 Tractor Trailer) 95

Hamilton Hull

83

88 (83 night)

90

Ottawa

83

83

90

Quebec City

83

86

90

Montreal

87

90

92 ( 13,600 kg) 96 ( 13,600 kg) 90 (Buses)

80

Burnaby

80

88 ( 2,200 kg)

* GVW - Gross Vehicle Weight ** Noise levels measured at 15m, all others are measured at 5m. ***Noise levels measured at 7.5m.

NOTE: The Cities of Toronto, Regina, Halifax, Mississauga, Winnipeg, and Vancouver only have subjective vehicular noise emission bylaws.

Pursuant to this section, municipalities may define what constitutes objectional noise, devise a system or method of determining or measuring such noise, and prohibit the operation of motor vehicles which, in any manner, make objectionable noise.

Table 1 provides a comparison of individual vehicle noise emission level standards currently used by other Canadian Municipalities as compared to Edmonton. From this table, it may be concluded that the existing standards for vehicular noise emission, stated in the City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw, are stringent. Comparison of the existing vehicular noise emission standards with Federal noise legislation, other municipal noise bylaws, and legislation in the United States, demonstrates that the existing City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw, vehicle noise emission regulations, are within 3 dBA of the most stringent standards.

Even if the noise levels were lowered by 3 decibels, that change would not guarantee noticeable noise reduction to residents effected by the noise. This is based on the fact that most people cannot perceive changes of 3 dBA and less through their sense of hearing.

2.5 SUMMARY

Canadian Federal noise emission standards for new vehicles will be amended over the next five years, with stricter limits for automobiles (77 dBA), motorcycles (80 dBA) and trucks (80 dBA). As these new vehicles join the existing fleet, noise emission levels should gradually be reduced as the outdated "noisy" vehicles are replaced. At this time however, it is recommended that vehicle noise emission levels remain as they exist until such time the majority of vehicles are equipped to meet more stringent noise emission standards.

In addition, since most vehicle noise annoyance is attributable to abusive operation of the vehicle, mischievious modifications or to simple neglect, the most prudent solution to increasing the effectiveness of the bylaw at this time is through enforcement. Measures to improve the enforcement procedures will be dealt with in detail in the subsequent section.

3.0 AN EXAMINATION OF THE CITY OF EDMONTON NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW NO. 4110 - VEHICLE NOISE ABATEMENT SECTION

3.1 BACKGROUND

The City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw, approved by City Council on 1973 10 07, states that it is intended to "prevent a deterioration of the noise environment in this City and to adopt as the acceptable noise level a reading in dBA units according to a sound level meter used as herein provided". The bylaw makes provision for several types of noise problems. It prohibits loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise that disturbs the comfort of other persons. It also prohibits the use of property, either belonging to someone or under their control, to be used so that there originates excessive noise. Noise level limits, in decibels, are established for various types of vehicles: vehicles under 6,000 pounds 83 dBA; motorcycles - 83 dBA; vehicles over 6,000 pounds - 90 dBA; and diesel powered motor vehicles - 92 dBA. Penalties for violation of the noise abatement section depend on the extent by which the maximum levels are exceeded. Where the noise level has been exceeded by less than 5 dBA a $25.00 fine is enforced and where the noise level has been exceeded by 5 dBA but no more than 8dBA a 840.00 fine is issued. If greater than 9 dBA or more a $75.00 fine is issued.

Enforcement of the City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw is usually a police responsibility. The police act upon public complaints concerning vehicle noise and occasionally carry out spot checks. Enforcement of this nature depends on adequate manpower, finances, technical expertise and monitoring equipment.

3.2 PROBLEM AREAS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

For the examination of the effectiveness of the Vehicle Noise Abatement Section of Bylaw No. 4110, input was received from the Civic Departments responsible for the enactment and enforcement of the bylaw namely the Police, Bylaw Enforcement, Health, Engineering and Law Departments. The following statements of recognized deficiencies and consequent recommendations for improvement are the result of this interdepartmental review.

3.2.1 Units of Measure The standard units of measure for speed and weight of vehicles have been converted over to the metric system however the quantitative regulations stated in the City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw have remained in Imperial measurement units. This lack of uniformity of measurement units has made the bylaw cumbersome to enforce.

Recommendation: that A.eienence to att quantitative meazunementis within the ByZaw (excluding the noize ducniptot) be convetted into mettie

unLt..s oi meazute.

3.2.2

Enforcement

At this time, enforcement of vehicle noise emission regulations is carried out by the Police Department on a complaint basis. The Bylaw Enforcement Department receives noise complaints originating from residential and industrial sources, with the Health Department supplying the techncians to undertake the noise level readings. This current system of enforcement in general is unsatisfactory due to the following circumstances:

a)

The fines for all noise sources under the bylaw are not strong enough to be a deterrent.

b)

The vehicle noise emission section of the bylaw is difficult to enforce in terms of available manpower, expertise and equipment.

As a result, Police Officers generally do not enforce the noise bylaw on their own initiative, but act only on the reception of a noise complaint.

c)

The noise monitoring equipment used by the Police Department for monitoring vehicle noise is obsolete and requires replacement.

d)

Existing sections throughout the bylaw are outdated and require rewriting in order to maintain the relevance of the legislation and thereby facilitate enforcement.

Recommendationz:

a) that e)cizting 6inez iot all no-Le zoutcez be incteazed in amount and that each day o viotation o6 any ptovizion oi the bytaw wowed conztitute a zepatate o“ence. b) that an inckeaze in potice manpowet be made avaitabZe to eztabtizh noJe monitoAing ztationz' on a tegutax baz-i.4 with the objective o6 iLeducing the wow ease ttai6ic noise oi4endeAz who exceed the petmitted vehicutax zound ZeveZz. c) that iundz be made avaitabZe within the Pollee DepaAtment budget, to upgAade zound &vet. metet equipment iot monitating vehicle no-e. d) i) that obzotete zectionz oi the bytaw be kevized. ii) that the byZaw be teviewed on a kegutax bazi.z and updated i6 kequiked.

3.2.3 Off-Road Recreation Vehicles

There is a growing use of off-road recreation vehicles within the City limits that is creating excessive noise within residential areas. The existing vehicle noise abatement section of the City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw has no jurisdiction over off-road recreational vehicles and therefore is ineffectual in controlling these noise problem situations.

Recommendation: that the City o Edmonton No-2e Abatement Bytaw addtezz o6i-/Load A.ecteation vehictez az iot.e.ow:

No peAzon ishaa openate oft cau4e oft penmit to be opeftated any teckeationat motofLized vehicle on any pubtic cit. pnivate pupetty zo az to cteate a noize giLeatek than 84 dBA at 7.5 meteAz itom the zounce o the no-le.

3.2.4 Refuse Collection Vehicles

The City receives numerous complaints regarding the operation of refuse collection vehicles during early morning hours. The noise source originates from the handling of refuse containers and the operation of the compacting mechanism within residential areas. The noise generated is of a short duration, however, the intensity is excessive enough to disrupt sleep especially during the nighttime hours when the background noise is minimal.

Recommendation:

that no peuon 6haa coaect it.e6u6e with a ite6u4e

coaection vehicle at night, within ot abutting a tezidentiat atea.

3.2.5 Gross Vehicle Weight Limit

The existing gross vehicle weight limit for vehicles of less than 6,000 lbs (2,700 kg) restricts the noise levels emitted by automobiles and trucks up to 1/2 ton. The Police Department, however, has noted an increasing number of II ton trucks using over-sized tires. These trucks may then be registered as a 3/4 ton vehicle and thereby increase the noise levels permitted for this class of vehicle.

Recommendation: that the gto44 vehicZe weight timit be incteazed 6/tom 6,000 Zbz (2,700 kg) to 8,000 az (3,600 kg) to inctude 3/4 ton vehicZe4.

3.2.6 Sound Level Measurement Distance for Vehicle Noise

At this time, vehicle sound level readings are measured from an arbitrary distance of 5 meters. The International Standards Organization of the United Nations has comprehensively investigated the most appropriate distance for measuring sound levels of vehicles and has determined that a distance of 7.5 meters from the centre line of the vehicle's path will give an accurate indication of actual vehicle noise levels. This distance, which is used by a majority of countries world-wide, is slightly greater than the existing 5 meter distance that is currently being used by the City. This will create lower vehicle noise emission levels because of the increased buffer area between the noise source and the receiver.

Consequently, the permitted sound levels for vehicles should be lowered to 82 dBA for light passenger vehicles, 89 dBA for trucks and 84 dBA for motorcycles. The measurement distance of 15 meters used by Transport Canada was not used as it was found to be impractical to enforce by the Police Department because of the great distance from the roadway that would be required for undertaking noise measurements. However, Transport Canada does recognize the validity of the standards and sound level measurement distance indicated above.

Recommendationz: 1, that the 4ound teva meazunement dLstance oi 7.5m 40A MOt0t vehiaa

be adopted accotding to the wr_ocedute 4et out by the Inteknationat Standatd aganization o4 the United Nationz (Regf,lation No. 9).

2. that the coAxe4ponding 4ound teva LIPILtz at 7.5m undet the exiisting Intetnationa Standatd Otganization vehicte noize emiAzion tegutationz (Regutation No. 9), be adopted which inc2ude6 82 dBA 4ot tight pazzenget cau (3,601 Kg ot Zez4), 89 dBA 4ot ttuck4 (3,601 kg ot mote), and 84 aA 4ot mototcycLe4.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The objective of this study was to review the effectiveness of the existing City of Edmonton Noise Abatement Bylaw in controlling excessive noise eminating from individual vehicles, to investigate the enforcement problems, and to determine the feasibility of reducing the existing permitted decibel levels for various vehicle classifications. In addition, the Bylaw Enforcement Department requested a review of the sections of the Bylaw dealing with noise sources other than vehicles.

In carrying out this study an examination was first made of the 'State of the Art' of noise bylaws currently adopted by other Canadian municipalities and by the Canadian and U.S. Federal Governments. This task was undertaken in order that a comparison could be made of Edmonton's permitted noise level limits relative to other current vehicle noise regulations. It was found by this study that the existing vehicle noise emission regulations are within 3 dBA of the most stringent standards and do not require reduction at this time. In addition, it was found that since most vehicle noise is attributable to abusive operation of the vehicle, mischievous modifications or to simple neglect, the most prudent solution to increasing the effectiveness of the bylaw is through enforcement.

Measures to improve the enforcement of the Bylaw are reflected in the proposed bylaw amendments.

The second component of the study investigated the occurance of and deficiencies and inadequancies of enforcement of the existing Bylaw.

This examination involved discussions with selected Civic Departments as well as the Alberta Trucking Association. The proposed amendments to the Municipal Noise Abatement Bylaw address enforcement and measurement procedure issues as these represented the primary concerns identified by the study participants. In addition, minor amendments were also made to the residential and commercial noise source sections of the Bylaw as it was perceived to be an appropriate time to update these sections concurrently.

Furthermore, these proposed amendments were selected because they were considered technically, administratively and economically feasible to implement.

•

BYLAW NO. 7255 (As Amended)

AFr- Fl As to Form , / As to Centrrls As to

,

Pr.r4,-;ip!G

Noise A Bylaw to Prohibit, Eliminate or Abate 0111011.•••••• within the City of Edmonton

City Commissioner

S-1 5C-9 Chiut Commissioner

WHEREAS the Highway Traffic Act, ch. D-7, R.S.A., 1980 as amended, provides that Council, with respect to highways under its direction, control and management, may make bylaws for the regulation and control of vehicle traffic IT defining what constitutes objectionable noise, devising a system or method of determining or measuring that noise, and prohibiting the operation of motor vehicles which in any manner make objectionable noise; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act, ch. 14-26, R.S.A., 1980 as amended, provides that Council may pass a bylaw for the purpose of prohibiting, eliminating or abating noise, and also provides that Council may by bylaw prevent or compel the abatement of nuisances generally; NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council enacts as follows:

Part 1 TITLE AND DEFINITIONS

100

This Bylaw may be cited as The Noise Abatement Bylaw."

101

In this Bylaw, (a) "approved device" means a noise level meter used to measure sound pressure levels which approved device meets the International Electro—Technical Commission Standard No. 123 or the British Standard No. 3539 Part 1, or the U.S.A. Standard S1.4-1961.

(b) "authorized officer" means a Bylaw Enforcement Officer, Public Health Inspector or Police Officer authorized by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Edmonton to measure noise or sound levels. (c) "City" means the corporation of the City of Edmonton or the area contained within the boundaries of the said City in the Province of Alberta as the context requires. (d) "calendar day" means that period of time commencing at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. (e) "commercial district" means an area or district classified as commercial by the Land Use Bylaw, (f) "day" shall mean the period commencing at 0701 hours ending at 2200 hours of the sane day. (g) "dBA" means the intensity of a noise as measured in decibels on the "A" Scale of a Noise Level Meter when the said meter is set on the "A" weighted network and on the fast iesponse. (h) "highway" means any thoroughfare, street, trail, avenue, parkway, driveway, viaduct, lane, alley, square, bridge, causeway, trestleway, or other place, either publicly or privately owned, any part of which the public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the passage or parking of vehicles. (i) "industrial district" means an area or district classified as industrial by the Land Use Bylaw. (j) "Land Use Bylaw" means Bylaw No. 5996 as amended from time to time,

3

and includes any bylaw passed in substitution for or in addition to Bylaw No. 5996. (k) "motorcycle" means a vehicle mounted on two or three wheels and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, shall include those motor vehicles commonly known as motorcycles, scooters, and power bicycles.

(1) "motor vehicle" means any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power except motorcycles, aircraft or a motor vehicle that runs only upon rails. (m) "night" shall mean the period commencing at 2201 hours and ending at 0700 hours of the following calender day. (n) -Noise" means any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which endangers or injures the safety or health of humans. (o) "person" includes a corporation, partnership, association or society. (p) "recreational vehicle" means any recreational, commercial or noncommercial vehicle such as a dragster, Formula A racing car, stock car, go cart, snowmobile, or dunebuggy. (q) "residential district" means an area or district classified as residential by the Land Use Bylaw. (r) "signalling device" means a horn, gong, bell, klaxon or other device producing an audible sound for the purpose of drawing people's attention to an approaching vehicle.

Part 2 GENERAL ABATEMENT PROVISIONS 200

No person shall cause or permit the emission of any noise which disturbs the peace, comfort or repose of other persons within the limits of the City.

201

No person shall allow property under his control or awned by him, to be used so that there originates from that property any noise which disturbs the peace, comfort or repose of other persons within the limits of the City.

202

A Court may enter a conviction against a person for violating this part of the Bylaw, notwithstanding the fact that the noise complained of did not exceed the dBA permitted for that area, where the Court is satisfied that the noise complained of disturbed the peace, comfort or the repose of any person or persons within the City.

203

A person may be found guilty of violating this part of the Bylaw whether or not the noise level has been measured by an approved device.

204

The City may direct any person to abate or eliminate any noise or contravention of the Bylaw by service of a Notice of Abatement upon the person. Any person served with a Notice of Abatement shall comply with the Notice.

Part 3 VEHICLE NOISE ABATEMENT

300

No person shall operate, cause or permit to be operated a motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight of less than 3,600 kilograms so as to create noise of a level greater than 82 dBA in a sixty (60) kilometres per hour zone or less.

-5-

301

No person shall operate, cause or permit to be operated a motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight of 3,601 kilograms or more so as to create noise of a level greater than 89 dBA in a sixty (60) kilometres per hour zone or less.

302

No person shall operate, cause or permit to be operated a motorcycle so as to create noise of a level greater than 84 dBA, in a sixty (60) kilometres per hour zone or less.

303

No person shall operate, cause or permit to be operated any recreational vehicle on any public or private property so as to create noise of a level greater than 84 dBA.

304

Any motor vehicle, motorcycle or recreational vehicle which has been the subject matter of three (3) convictions under part 3 of this Bylaw shall be prohibited from operating within the City until alterations are made thereto such as are necessary to render the vehicle capable of operating within the noise levels, permitted for that class of vehicle.

305

Part 3 of this Bylaw does not apply to the operation of signalling devices used in the normal operation of a vehicle.

306

A person who is the owner or occupier of a retail outlet offering exhaust mufflers for sale shall display in a conspicuous place within the premises a notice in the form of Schedule "A" annexed hereto.

307

A person who is the owner or occupier of a retail outlet offering motorcycles for sale shall display in a conspicuous place within the premises a notice in the form of Schedule "B" annexed hereto.

308

No person shall collect refuse with a refuse collection vehicle at night within or abutting a residential district.

6

Part 4 NOISE LEVEL IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 400

No person shall cause, or permit to be caused, noise of a level greater than 65 dBA in a residential district during the day unless the noise is of a temporary or intermittent nature and does not . exceed the following limits: dBA Hours/Day

70 2

75 1

80 30 Minutes

85 15 Minutes

The time indicated herein is the total elapsed time during any one calendar day.

401

No person shall cause, or permit to be caused, noise of a level exceeding 50 dBA in a residential district at night.

Part 5 NOISE IN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS

500

No person shall cause, or permit to be caused, noise of a level greater than 75 dBA, in a commercial or industrial district during the day unless the noise is of a temporary and intermittent nature and does not exceed the following limits: dBA Time

80 2 Hours

85 1 Hours or less

The time elapsed in the table is the total elapsed time during daytime hours during any one calendar day.

501

No person shall cause, or permit to be caused, noise of a level greater than 60 dBA in a commercial or industrial district during the night.

Part 6 ABUTTING DISTRICTS 600

Where two (2) districts with differing noise levels abut each

other, all noise level measurements shall be taken on the abutting boundary closest to the source of the noise.

601

Where two (2) districts with differing noise levels abut each other, the noise level standard to be met shall be that of the district with the lower permitted noise level.

Part 7 NOISE READINGS 700

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Edmonton may: (a) appoint one or more persons as testers for the purpose of certifying the accuracy of an approved device, and (b) may prescribe forms required for the recording and reporting of the tests.

701

In any prosecution under this bylaw, a certificate signed by a tester; (a) stating the result of a test of approved device, (b) bearing a date of not more than Ninety (90) days before or after the violation alleged, and (c) purporting to be signed by a tester appointed under this bylaw to test approved devices, shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie proof of the statements contained in the certificate without proof of the signature or the appointment of the tester.

8

702

Where a noise level reading has been taken by an authorized officer on an approved device, evidence of the noise level so taken shall be proof of the noise level at the time of the offence.

703

Where noise level readings have been taken a signed certificate from an authorized officer stating: (a) that the noise level test was conducted on an approved device operated by an authorized person identified in the certificate, (b) the results of the tests so conducted, and (c) the time and place where the tests were conducted, is evidence of the statements contained in the certificate without proof of the signature or the appointment of the authorized officer.

704

An approved device shall be operated no less than seven and onehalf (7.5) meters from the source of the noise.

Part 8 PERMITS AND NON-APPLICATION OF BYLAW

800

The General Manager of Bylaw Enforcement may, upon written application, issue a special permit suspending the provisions of this Bylaw.

801

The decision of the General Manager of Bylaw Enforcement may be appealed to the City Commissioners, which appeal shall be in writing in the form provided in Schedule "C" annexed hereto, and submitted to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the General Manager's decision.

9

802

All special permits issued shall be produced to an authorized person upon demand.

803

This Bylaw does not apply to any of the agents, servants, or employees of the City when conducting work on behalf of the City, except for work of an emergency nature.

Part 9 PENALTY

900

Except as provided herein, every person who contravenes or permits the contravention of the provisions of this Bylaw shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay a fine of not less than $50.00 and not more than $2,500.00 for each offense.

901

Every person who fails to comply with a Notice of Abatement issued under Section 204 of this Bylaw is liable to a fine of not less than $500.00 and not more than $2,500.00 for each offense.

902

Any person who contravenes or permits a contravention of Section 300, 301, 302 or 303 shall forfeit and pay the fine as follows: (a) where the level of noise has been exceeded by not more than 4 dBA — $50.00; (b) where the level of noise has been exceeded by more than 4 dBA but not more than 8 dBA — $75.00; (c) where the level of noise has been exceeded by more than 8 dBA — $100.00.

903

Any person who contravenes or permits a contravention of Section 304 shall forfeit and pay a fine or not less than $200.00 but not more than $2,500.00 for each offense.

— 10 —

904

Every person who contravenes or permits contraventions of Sections 306, 307, and 308 shall upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay a fine of $100.00 for each offense

905

The provisions of Bylaw 2101 the Penalty Bylaw as amended, and the successors thereto, shall apply to offenses under this Bylaw.

906

Each day of violation of any provision of this Bylaw shall constitute a_separate offense.

Bylaws 4110, 4117, 4292, 4496 and 4915, are hereby repealed as of

the ,/(7*- day of effect on the

se;77-c--2-7-7/e, 1983. This bylaw comes into force and

/(o, day of $7'&/2.727t

READ a first time this READ a second time this

/ ‘' J4'5'

day of

, 1983.

/(1-L L 6:-(c.,5-,-

day of - ..5e77

77.ee'Wf,

A.D. 1983 A.D. 1983

-2,;(1A.D. 1983 READ a third time and duly passed this //- day of _.‹.!,=;76

THE CITY OF EDMONTON

CI

SCHEDULE "A"

NOTICE

Bylaw 7255 of the City of Edmonton provides that it is an offense to operate a motor vehicle at a noise level in excess of 82 dBA for vehicles having a gross vehicle weight less than 3,600 kilograms, or in excess of 89 dBA for vehicles having a gross vehicle weight greater than 3,601 kilograms.

AN OFFENSE SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE NOT EXCEEDING $2,500.00.

CITY COMMISSIONERS

SCHEDULE -B"

NOTICE

Bylaw 7255 of the City of Edmonton provides that it shall be an offense to operate a motorcycle at a noise level in excess of 84 dBA.

AN OFFENSE SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE NOT EXCEEDING $2,500.00.

CITY COMMISSIONERS

SCHEDULE "C" APPEAL FROM DECISION REFUSING SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SUSPENSION OF THE NOISE ABATEMENT BYLAW

TO:

CITY CLERK 3rd Floor, City Hall Edmonton, Alberta

, hereby appeal the decision of the General Manager of Bylaw Enforcement dated

, refusing my request

for a special permit for suspension of the Noise Abatement Bylaw.

1.

Summary of circumstances for application for special permit.

2.

Reasons for request for special permit.

3.

Reasons for appeal.

APPENDIX II

ACOUSTICAL INSULATION FACTOR METHODOLOGY

(excerpt from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation document, "Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing", 1981, Pg. 54)

ADEQUATE SOUND INSULATION LEVELS Contents

Section A — Adequate Sound Insulation

Section A - Adequate Sound Insulation Introduction Method of Calculation Associated Ventilation Needs Alternative Procedures

Introduction

Tables Required Acoustic Insulation Factor 6.2 Acoustic Insulation Factor for various types of window 6.3 Acoustic Insulation Factor for various types of exterior wall 6.4 Acoustic Insulation Factor for various types of exterior door 6.5 Component area percentages relative to total floor area of a room

Where the noise levels are between 55 dB and 75 dB, it is recommended that adequate sound insulation be provided in new buildings. In addition, provision should be made for suitable outdoor amenity space with a noise level of 55 dB or less.

"Adequate sound insulation" is defined as the sound insulation provided in a dwelling unit in accordance with the recommendations established in this document.

Since conventional roof designs meeting Residential Standards provide sufficient noise reduction, roofs may be ignored in calculations for this guideline. The other components of the outer shell or "envelope" of a building include windows, doors and walls. To achieve the recommended noise reduction, each of these components must provide an appropriate degree of sound insulation.

The National Research Council has developed the following method which, when the noise level in dB has been determined, enables building components to be selected which will provide adequate sound insulation.

These components are termed "appropriate building components".

The method for selecting appropriate building components is based on an Acoustic Insulation Factor (Alp), which takes into account the type of room under consideration, the number of components forming the room envelope, and the exterior noise level.

Because the building will at least partially screen several walls from any traffic route, a room might have two or more exterior walls with different noise levels. To take advantage of the lower noise levels on the sheltered walls, the design procedure considers each wall separately.

Method of Calculation The appropriate building components for -each exterior wall of any room in a dwelling may be determined by the following procedure: Step 1:

Calculate the outdoor noise level for each wall, following the procedures detailed in Parts 3, 4 and 5.

Step 2:

Determine the room category: • bedroom • living room, dining room, -recreation room • kitchen, bathroom, hallways, utility rooms, and so on.

Step 3:

Determine the number of components which make up the exterior envelope of the room.

Note that: • where any wall of a building is shielded from noise, as explained in Part 5, and the noise level is 55 dB or less, the components of that wall are not included in the calculation.

• the actual number of doors or windows does not affect the determination of the AIF, since the AIF is related to the total area of that component for each wall.

• where a room has more than one exterior wall, the number of components for each exterior wall is determined and these numbers are added to obtain the number of components for the room.

Step 4:

For each exterior wall, obtain the required Acoustic Insulation Factor (using the total number of components for the room and the exterior noise level for that wall) from the appropriate section of Table 6.1.

Step 5:

Select the appropriate types of window, exterior wall and exterior door from Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 respectively,

using the AIF obtained. Where the calculated AIF does not correspond directly to an AIF value given in the tables, the next highest value should be used. All the components so indicated are the minimum necessary to provide the degree of sound insulation recommended.

Use of the tables requires evaluating the total area of each component in each exterior wall as a percentage of floor area of the room. Having calculated the appropriate areas, the percentages are obtained from Table 6.5.

Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 have been compiled by the National Research Council from laboratory and field tests on various components. They may be revised from time to time as methods and standards of construction change and as the results of additional field tests become available and are evaluated.

Associated Ventilation Needs The AIF values in the tables apply to closed, fully weatherstripped doors and windows. Because the noise insulation criteria cannot be met by conventional windows when they are open to provide ventilation, alternative means of ventilation are necessary if the noise level at that wall is above 55 dB (See Appendix C).

Alternative Procedures Where a proponent wishes to give more detailed consideration to the problem of noise and the subject of sound insulation, he is advised to consult a person suitably qualified in acoustics.

NOTE : If, for non-acoustic reasons, a component is chosen whose AIF exceeds the requirements by 10 dB or more, it need not be counted as one of the room's components, and the required AIF,for the other components is reduced. For road or rail noise, only three types of components are considered to be relevant: exterior doors, windows and exterior walls. Roof-ceiling systems are ignored because most roof constructions used in Canada have AIF ratings that significantly exceed the requirements for sites where Leg (outside) is less than 75 dB (A).

Table 6.1 - Required Acoustic Insulation Factor (AIF) Bedrooms

Noise level of building wall (dB)

Living, dining, recreation

Kitchen, bathrooms

Number of components forming the room envelope 1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

55 56 57 58 59

22 23 24 25 26

25 26 27 28 29

27 28 29 30 31

28 29 30 31 32

29 30 31 32 33

30 31 32 33 34

31 32 33 34 35

31 32 33 34 35

17 18 19 20 21

20 21 22 23 24

22 23 24 25 26

23 24 25 26 27

24 25 26 27 28

25 26 27 28 29

26 27 28 29 30

26 27 28 29 30

12 13 14 15 16

15 16 17 18 19

17 18 19 20 21

18 19 20 21 22

19 20 21 22 23

20 21 22 23 24

21 22 23 24 25

21 22 23 24 25

60 61 62 63 64

27 28 29 30 31

30 31 32 33 34

32 33 34 35 36

33 34 35 36 37

34 35 36 37 38

35 36 37 38 39

36 37 38 39 40

36 37 38 39 40

22 23 24 95 26

25 26 27 28 29

27 28 29 30 31

28 29 30 31 32

29 30 31 32 33

30 31 32 33 34

31 32 33 34 35

31 32 33 34 35

17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

23 24 25 26 27

24 25 26 27 28

25 26 27 28 29

26 27 28 29 30

26 27 28 29 30

65 66 67 68 69

32 33 34 35 36

35 36 37 38 39

37 38 39 40 41

38 39 40 41 42

39 40 41 42 43

40 41 42 43 44

41 42 43 44 45

41 42 43 44 45

27 28 29 30 31

30 31 32 33 34

32 33 34 35 36

33 34 35 36 37

34 35 36 37 38

35 36 37 38 39

36 37 38 39 40

36 37 38 39 40

22 23 24 25 26

20 21 22 23 24 95 26 27 28 29

27 28 29 30 31

28 29 30 31 32

29 30 31 32 33

30 31 32 33 34

31 32 33 34 35

31 32 33 34 35

70 71 72 73 74 75

37 38 39 40 41 42

40 41 42 43 44 45

42 43 44 45 46 47

43 44 45 46 47 48

44 45 46 47 48 49

45 46 47 48 49 50

46 47 48 49 50 51

46 47 48 49 50 51

32 33 34 35 36 37

35 36 37 38 39 40

37 38 39 40 41 42

38 39 40 41 42 43

39 40 41 42 43 44

40 41 42 43 44 45

41 42 43 44 45 46

41 42 43 44 45 46

27 28 29 30 31 32

30 31 32 33 34 35

32 33 34 35 36 37

33 34 35 36 37 38

34 35 36 37 38 39

35 36 37 38 39 40

36 37 38 39 40 41

36 , 37 I 38 39 1 40 i 41

Table 6.2 - Acoustic Insulation Factor for various types of window

4

5

Window area as a percentage of total floor area of room (1) 6 8 10 13 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80

Acoustic Insulation Factor (Ain (25

Single glazing

Double glazing of indicated glass thickness 2 mm & 13 mm 8 14 mm & 13 mm 8 6 mm & 2 mm glass 13 mm glass 14 mm glass 16 mm glass I 6 mm glass

Thickness

Interpane spacing in ram

35 36 37 38 39

34 35 36 37 38

33 34 35 36 37

32 31 33 32 34 33 35 34 36 35

30 31 32 33 34

29 30 31 32 33

28 29 30 31 32

27 28 29 30 31

26 25 27 26 28 27 29 28 30 29

24 25 26 27 28

23 24 25 26 27

22 23 24 25 26

2 mm

40 41 42 43 44

39 40 41 42 43

38 39 40 41 42

37 36 38 37 39 38 40 39 41 40

35 36 37 38 39

34 35 36 37 38

33 34 35 35 37

32 33 34 35 36

31 30 32 31 33 32 34 33 35 34

29 30 31 32 33

28 29 30 31 32

27 28 29 30 31

9 mm (4)

45 46 47 48 49 50

44 45 46 47 48 49

43 44 45 46 47 48

42 41 43 42 44 43 45 44 46 45 47 46

40 41 42 43 44 45

39 40 41 42 43 44

38 39 40 41 42 43

37 38 39 40 41 42

36 35 37 36 38 37 39 38 40 39 41 40

34 35 36 37 38 39

33 34 35 36 37 38

32 33 34 35 36 37

3 mm 4 oun-6 mm

12 mm

(3)

Triple glazing 3 mm, 3 mm & I 3 mm, 3 mm and 3 mm glass 16 mm glass Interpane spacings in ram (5)

6 13 15 18 22

6 13 16

6 13

6

6

6

6

28 35 42 50 63

20 25 32 40 50

16 20 25 32 40

13 16 20 25 32

13 16 20 24 30

6 6 6 6 6

10 15 20 30 40

6 6 6 6 6

6 10 15 20 30

80 100 125 150

63 80 100 125 150

50 63 80 100 125 150

40 55 75 95 100 135

37 50 70 90 100 125

6 6 6 6

50 65 80 100

6 6 6 6 6

40 50 65 80 100

Source : National Research Council, Division of Building Research, June 1980 Explanatory Notes : 1) Where the calculated percentage window area is not presented as a column heading, the nearest percentage column in the table values should be used.

2) AIF data listed in the table are for well-fitted, weatherstripped units that can be opened. The AIF values apply only when the windows are closed. For windows fixed and sealed to the frame, add three (3) to the AIF given in the table.

3) If the interpane spacing or glass thickness for a specific double-glazed window is not listed in table, the nearest listed values should be used.

4) The AIF ratings for 9 mm and 12 mm glass are for laminated glass only; for solid glass, subtract two (2) from the AIF values listed in the table.

5) If the interpane spaces for a specific triple-glazed window are not listed in the table, use the listed case whose combined spacings are nearest to the actual combined spacing.

6) The AIF data listed in the table are for typical windows, but details of glass mounting, window seals, etc., may result in slightly different performance for some manufacturers' products. If laboratory sound transmission loss data (conforming to ASIM test method E-90) are available, these should be used to calculate the AIF. 7) For easy reference, glazing dimensions are written in the form 2 (100) 2 to denote 2 mm glass (100 mm space) 2 mm glass in the examples.

Table 6.3 - Acoustic Insulation Factor for Various Types of Exterior Wall

Percentage of exterior wall area to total floor area of room 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

Acoustic Insulation Factor

39 41 44 47 48 49 50 55 56 58 59 63

38 40 43 46 47 48 49 54 55 57 58 62

37 39 42 45 46 47 48 53 54 56 57 61

36 38 41 44 45 46 47 52 53 55 56 60

35 37 40 43 44 45 46 51 52 54 55 59

34 36 39 42 43 44 45 50 51 53 54 58

33 35 38 41 42 43 44 49 50 52 53 57

32 34 37 40 41 42 43 48 49 51 52 56

31 33 36 39 40 41 42 47 48 50 51 55

30 32 35 38 39 40 41 46 47 49 50 54

29 31 34 37 38 39 40 45 46 48 49 53

Type of Exterior Wall

EW1 EW2 EW3 EW4 EW1R EW2R EW3R EW5 EW4R EW6 EW7 or EW5R EW8

Source : National Research Council, Division of Building Research, December 1980.

Explanatory Notes : 1) Where the calculated percentage wall area is not presented as a column heading, the nearest percentage column in the table should be used.

2) The common structure of walls EW1 to EW5 is composed of 12.7 mm gypsum board, vapour barrier, and 38 x 89 mm studs with 50 mm (or thicker) mineral wool or glass fibre batts in inter-stud cavi ties.

3) EW1 denotes exterior wall as in Note 2), plus sheathing, plus wood siding or metal siding and fibre backer board.

EW2 denotes exterior wall as in Note 2), plus rigid insulation (25-30 mm), and wood siding or metal siding and fibre backer board.

EW3 denotes simulated mansard with structure as in Note 2), plus sheathing, 28 x 89 mm framing, sheathing, and asphalt roofing material EW4 denotes exterior wall as in Note 2), plus sheathing and 20 mm stucco.

EW5 denotes exterior wall as in Note 2), plus sheathing, 25 mm air space, 100 mm brick veneer.

EW6 denotes exterior wall composed of 12.7 mm gypsum board, rigid insulation (25-50 mm), 100 mm back-up block, 100 mm face brick.

EW7 denotes exterior wall composed of 12.7 mm gypsum board, rigid insulation (25-50 mm), 140 mm back-up block, 100 mm face brick.

EW8 denotes exterior wall composed of 12.7 mm gypsum board, rigid insulation (25-50 mm), 200 mm concrete.

4) R signifies the mounting of the interior gypsum board on resilient clips.

5) An exterior wall conforming to rainscreen design principles and composed of 12.7 mm gypsum board, 100 mm concrete block, rigid insulation (25-50 mm), 25 mm air space, and 100 mm brick veneer has the same AIF as EW6.

6) An exterior wall described in EW1 with the addition of rigid insulation (25-50 mm) between the sheathing and the external finish has the same AIF as EW2.

Table 6.4 - Acoustic Insulation Factor for Various Types of Exterior Door

Percentage of total door area to total floor area of room

Acoustic Insulation Factor

4

5

6.3

8

10

12.5

16

20

25

Type of Exterior Door

30 34 36.

37 38 41 43 44 45 48 50

29 33 35 36 37 40 43 43 44 47 49

28 32 34 35 36 39 41 42 43 46 48

27 31 33 34 35 38 40 41 42 45 47

26 30 32 33 34 37 39 40 41 44 46

25 29 31 32 33 36 38 39 40 43 45

24 28 30 31 32 35 37 38 39 42 44

23 27 29 30 31 34 36 37 38 41 43

22 26 28 29 30 33 35 36 37 40 42

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 or Dl-sd D2-sd D3-sd D4-sd D5-sd D3-D3 D5-D5

Source: National Research Council, Division of Building Research, December 1980.

Explanatory Notes: 1) Where the calculated percentage door area is not presented as a column heading, the nearest percentage column in the table should be used.

2) All prime doors must be fully weatherstripped.

3) D1 denotes 45 mm hollow core wood door (up to 20% of area glazed).

D2 denotes 45 mm glass-fibre reinforced plastic door with foam or glassfibre insulated core (up to 20% of area glazed).

D3 denotes 35 mm in solid slab wood door.

D4 denotes 45 mm steel door with foam or glass-fibre insulated core.

D5 denotes 45 mm solid slab door.

4) sd denotes storm door of wood or aluminum with openable glazed sections.

The AIF values apply when the glazed sections are closed.

Table 6.5 - Component area percentages relative to total floor area of a room

Total area of windows, or doors, or extenor walls in square metres 0.42 0.53 0.67 0.84 1.05 1.31 1.68 2.1 2.7 3.3 4.2 5.3 6.7 8.4 10.5 13.1 /6.7 20.9 26.1 33.2 41.4

to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

0.52 0.66 0.83 1.04 1.30 1.67 2.04 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.2 6.6 ,.3 10.4 13.0 16.6 20.8 26.0 33.1 41.3 51.2

Total floor area of room in square metres 2.7 to 3.2 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

3.3 to 4.1

4.2 to 5.2

5.3 to 6.6

12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

6.7 8.4 10.5 13.1 16.7 20.9 26.1 33.2 41.4 52.2 65. , to to to to to to to to to to to 8.3 10.4 13.0 16.6 20.8 26.0 33.1 41.3 52.1 65.7 88.3] 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

5 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

4 5 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

4 5 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

4 4 5 6.3 5 8 ' 6.3 10 8 12.5 10 16 12.5 20 16 25 20 32 25 40 32 50 40 63 50 80 63 100 80 125 100 160 125 160

4 5 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

I 4 5 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125

4 5 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100

4 5 6.3 8 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 63 80

4 1 5 6.: 8 1 10 12..

16 .

20 I 25 !

32 40 50 i 63 I

APPENDIX III

RESIDENTIAL AREAS SUSCEPTABLE TO EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

FOOTNOTES TO APPENDIX III

STATUS 1

This site remained in the study for further consideration for a barrier.

STATUS 2

This site was removed from further consideration for a barrier because the traffic noise level was less than 65 dBA Leg and therefore a barrier would not be considered cost-effective.

STATUS 3

This site will be removed from further consideration for a barrier because the site already has a noise attenuation facility.

STATUS 4

The attenuation needs of these sites are addressed in an area structure plan, neighbourhood structure plan or functional roadway planning study.

STATUS 5

This site is found on lands designated DC4 and therefore such are governed by superior legislation.

APPENDIX "1" SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH DESIGNATION Leci (m)

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED STATUS BARRIER PROTECTED

1.1 Castledown Road

Rear lot lines of properties fronting on 159 Avenue

109 Street

East

No

60-65

1300

52

No

2

1.2 Castledown Road

Lane west of 107 Street

97 Street

South

No

60-65

900

42

No

2

1.3 Castledown Road

157 Avenue

97 Street

North

No

60-65

2380

100

No

2

2.1 153 Avenue

Lane west of 125 Street

121 Street

North

No

55

420

22

No

2

2.2 153 Avenue

Lane west of 124 Street

Castledown Rd. (113 Street)

South

No

55

1375

65

No

2

3.1 127 Street

153 Avenue

160 metres north East of 153 Avenue

Yes

55

290

10

Yes

3

4.1 137 Avenue

Shopping Centre corner of 113 Street and 137 Avenue

Adjacent to 120 Street

North

Yes

70-75

950

50

No

4

4.2 137 Avenue

97 Street

137A Avenue

North

Yes

70-75

390

15

No

5

5.1 97 Street

Northtown Shopping Centre at 137 Avenue

Lan-e north of 151 Avenue

East

Yes

64.4

1275

65

No

2

5.2 97 Street

550 metres north of Castledown Road

North of 173 Avenue

East

Yes

60-65

325

28

No

2

5.3 97 Street

Castledown Road

Lane north of 173A Avenue

West

Yes

60-65

775

40

No

2

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH DESIGNATION Leq_ (r0

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED 1 STATUS BARRIER PROTECTED

5.4

97 Street

Adjacent to 153 Avenue

North of 162A Avenue

West

Yes

70-75

1050

48

No

4

5.5

97 Street

137 Avenue

Adjacent to lane between 142 and 143 Avenues on opposite side of road

West

Yes

70-75

610

16

No

5

5.1

82 Street

138 Avenue

Lane north of 152A Avenue

West

Yes

62.1

1375

72

No

2

5.2

82 Street

Lane south of 145 Avenue

Lane north of 152A Avenue

East

Yes

6211

710

40

No

2

7.1

66 Street

Lane south of 144 Avenue

Lane north of 152A Avenue

East

Yes

60.7

900

52

No

2

.7.2

66 Street

Lane south of 149A Avenue

Lane north of 152 Avenue

West

Yes

60.7

390

22

No

2

3.1

50 Street

144 Avenue

140 metres of 144 Avenue

West

Yes

60.6

80

5

No

2

9.1

137 Avenue

West of 42 Street

34 Street

South

Yes

60-65

950

40

No

2

9.2

137 Avenue

West of Victoria Trail

East of 36 Street

North

Yes

60-65

300

10

No

2

11.1 Victoria Trail

Hooke Road

South of Hooke Road

East

No

60.7

190

13

No

2

11.2 Victoria Trail

South of 129 Avenue

North of 130 Avenue

East

No

60.7

520

24

No

2

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH DESIGNATION Leg (m)

PRESENCE OF EXISTING NUMBER OF OR RESIDENCES PROPOSED 1 PROTECTED BARRIER STATUS

11.3 Victoria Trail

137 Avenue

North of 138A Avenue

East

No

60.7

700

40

No

2

11.4 Victoria Trail

South of 26 Street

North of 45A Avenue

East

No

60.7

600

34

No

2

11.5 Victoria Trail

North of 150 Avenue

South of 141 Avenue

West

No

60.7

990

56

No

2

11.6 Victoria Trail

139 Avenue

South of 139 West Avenue, adjacent to 138A Avenue, on opposite side of street

No

60.7

990

56

No

2

11.7 Victoria Trail

North of adjacent to 133 Avenue

South of 130 Avenue (approx.

West

No

60.7

900

40

No

2

250 metres 11.8 Victoria Trail

Hermitage Road

South of Hermitage Road

West

No

60.7

275

12

No

2

12.1 Yellowhead Trail

Victoria Trail

34 Street

South

Yes

70-75

300

50

Yes

3

12.2 Yellowhead Trail

Lane east of 51 Street

Lane west of 53 Street

South

Yes

70-75

290

15

Yes

3

12.3 Yellowhead Trail

Lane east of 91 Street

Lane west of 96 Street

South

Yes

65-70

720

28

Yes

3

12.4 Yellowhead Trail (125 Avenue)

142 Street

Lane east of 130 Street

South

Yes

70-75

1300

40

Yes

3

13.1 Capilano Freeway

118 Avenue

112 Avenue

East

Yes

70-75

900

60

Yes (depressed roadway)

3

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE_OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Leg

PRESENCE OF EXISTING NUMBER OF OR RESIDENCES PROPOSED 1 PROTECTED BARRIER STATUS

14.1 127 Avenue

104 Street

Lane west of 108 Street

North

fes

60-65

450

31

No

2

15.1 142 Street

Yellowhead Trail (125 Avenue)

South of lane north of 119 Avenue

East

Yes

60.9

1090

56

No

2

15.2 142 Street

Lane north of Lane north of 117 Avenue (approx.) 115 Avenue

East

Yes

60.9

390

25

No

2

15.3 142 Street

111 Avenue

107 Avenue

East

No

60-65

850

35

No

2

16.1 149 Street

107 Avenue

102 Avenue

West

No

60-65

800

52

17.1 Groat Road

111 Avenue

South of 109 Avenue

West

Yes

68.4

700

39

No

1

17.2 Groat Road

111 Avenue

Lane north of 107A Avenue.

East

Yes

68.4

700 -

34

No

1

18.1 111 Avenue

Groat Road

142 Street

South

Yes

68.5

925

53

No

1

18.2 111 Avenue

Lane east of 144 Street

Lane west of 148 Street

South

Yes

68.5

650

31

No

1

18.3 111 Avenue and Mayfield Road

156 Street

107 Avenue

South & East

Yes

70-75

1478

98

Yes

3

19.1 107 Avenue

Groat Road

149 Street

South

Yes

65.6

1775

73

No

1

19.2 107 Avenue

Groat Road

142 Street

North

Yes

65.6

525

50

No

1

19.3 107 Avenue

McQueen Road

Lane west of 148 Street

North

Yes

65.6

900

30

No

1

2 No (Boulevard)

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH DESIGNATION Leg (11.1)

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED STATUS 1 BARRIER PROTECTED

19.4

107 Avenue

Lane west of 156 Street

Lane east of 163 Street

South

Yes

68.9

775

40

No

1

19.5

107 Avenue

Lane west of 156 Street

East of Mayfield Road

North

Yes

68.9

1300

61

No

1

20.1

156 Street

South of 111 Avenue

109 Avenue

West

No

60-65

425

26

No

2

21.1

170 Street

Approx. 99 Avenue

88 Avenue

East

Yes

60.2

1525

82

No

2

21.2

170 Street

Lane north of 82A Avenue_

Lane between 81 Avenue and 169A Street (north of Whitemud Fwy)

East

Yes

70-75

390

18

Yes

3

21.3

170 Street

Whitemud Freeway

Lane south of Westridge Road

East

No

60-65

575

23

Yes

3

21.4

170 Street

69 Avenue

South of 67 Avenue

East

No

55

450

15

No

2

21.5

170 Street

86 Avenue

Whitemud Freeway West

Yes

70-75

700

31

Yes

3

21.6

170 Street

South of Whitemud Freeway

69 Avenue

West

No

60-65

650

14

Part

3

21.7

170 Street

North of 64 Avenue

62 Avenue

West

No

55

350

20

No

2

22.1

87 Avenue

Lane west of 181 Street

Lane between 181 and 180 Street

North

No

55-60

200

7

No

2

22.2

87 Avenue

Lane between 181 and 180 Street

178 Street

North

No

60.8

175

8

No

2

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Leg _

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED 1 STATUS BARRIER PROTECTED

ROAD

FROM

22.3

87 Avenue

Lane west of 180 Street

177A Street

South

No

60.8

225

10

No

2

22.4

87 Avenue

177A Street

East of 173 Street

South

No

60-65

700

27

No

2

23.1

Whitemud Freeway

187 Street

178 Street

North

Yes

55

800

40

No

2

23,2

Whitemud Freeway

178 Street

Kikino Trail

North

Yes

65-70

75

8

Yes

3

23.3

Whitemud Freeway

East of 176 Street

170 Street

North

Yes

425

12

Yes

3

23.4

Whitemud Freeway

159 Street

152 Street

North

Yes

68.7

900

45

_ No

4

23.5

Whitemud Freeway

East of 183A Street

178 Street

South

Yes

55

600

35

No

2

23.6

Whitemud Freeway

178 Street

172 Street

South

Yes

55

525

15

No

2

23.7

Whitemud Freeway

170 Street

165 Street

South

Yes

68.7

600

23

No

4

23.8

Whitemud Freeway

East of 162 Street

Quesnell Crescent

South

Yes

68.7

925

45

No

4

24.1

178 Street

95 Avenue

South of 90A Avenue

East

No

62.1

350

22

No

2

24.2

178 Street

87 Avenue

85 Avenue

East

No

62.1

225

12

No

2

55

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Le%

PRESENCE. OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED STATUS1 BARRIER PROTECTED

24.3

178 Street

85 Avenue

83 Avenue

East

No

55-60

100

6

No

2

24.4

178 Street

95 Avenue

93 Avenue

West

No

62.1

190

11

No

2

24.5

178 Street

Ermineskine Trail

86 Avenue

West

No

62.1

600

25

No

2

24.6

178 Street

81 Avenue

Whitemud Freeway

West

No

55-60

225

9

No

2

25.1

Whitemud Freeway

Fox Drive

South of 58 Avenue

West

Yes

66.2

525

25

No

1

25.2

Whitemud Freeway

52 Avenue

51 Avenue

West

Yes

70-75

75

8

Yes

3

25.3

Whitemud Freeway

North of 48 Avenue

45 Avenue

West

Yes

70-75

450

27

Yes

3

25.4

Whitemud Freeway

Fox Drive

56 Avenue

East

Yes

66.2

500

32

Yes

3

25.5

Whitemud Freeway

Lane north of 51 Avenue

45 Avenue

East

Yes

70-75

850

29

Yes

3

25.6

Whitemud Freeway

142 Street

East of 140 Street

North

Yes

66.2

300

7

No

4

25.7

Whitemud Freeway

47 Avenue

124 Street

North

Yes

70-75

300

10

No

4

25.8

Whitemud Freeway

122 Street

East of 116A Street

North

Yes

70-75

600

18

No

4

25.9

Whitemud Freeway

115 Street

111 Street

North

Yes

70-75

775

40

4

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Leq.

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED 1 BARRIER STATUS PROTECTED

25.10 Whitemud Freeway

East of 122 Street

114 Street

South

Yes

70-75

960

55

No

4

25.11 Whitemud Freeway

111 Street

West of 106 Street

South

Yes

70-75

600

26

Yes

3

26.1

122 Street

Grandview Drive

63 Avenue

West

No

60-65

390

17

No

2

26.2

122 Street

51 Avenue -

South of 51 Avenue

West

No

60-65

250

25

No

2

26.3

119 Street

North of 41A Avenue

40 Avenue

West

No

60-65

525

26

No

2

26.4

119 Street

North of 29A Avenue

28 Avenue

West

No

60-65

300

8

No

2

26.5

122 Street

Whitemud Freeway

Parallel to 49 Avenue, North of Whitemud

East

No

55

390

30

No

2

26.6

119 Street

Whitemud Freeway (45 Avenue)

41 Avenue

East

No

60-65

525

15

No

2

26.7

119 Street

Lane north of 39A Avenue

32A Avenue

East

No

60-65

1150

52

No

2

26.8

119 Street

North of 29 Avenue

23 Avenue

East

No

60-65

925

34

No

2

27.1

113 Street

Lane north of 71 Avenue

61 Avenue

East

Yes

68.0

1000

60

No

1

28.1

111 Street

South of 57 Avenue

Whitemud Freeway (45 Avenue)

East

Yes

70-75

1075

50

No

4

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Leq.

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED 1 STATUS BARRIER PROTECTED

28.2

111 Street

43 Avenue

Lane south of 41 Avenue

East

Yes

55

150

9

No

2

28.3

111 Street

39A Avenue

23 Avenue

East

Yes

62.2

2375

86

Yes

2

28.4

111 Street

61 Avenue

Approx.

54 Avenue

West

Yes

70-75

700

22

No

4

28.5

111 Street

Whitemud Freeway

South of 29A Avenue

West

Yes

62.2

2625

105

Yes

2

28.6

111 Street

34 Avenue

Adjacent to 27 Avenue

East

Yes

62.6

850

35

No

2

28.7

111 Street

23 Avenue

South of 19 Avenue

West

Yes

62.2

550

20

No

2

29.1

Calgary Trail

North of 39A Avenue

31 Avenue

West

Yes

70-75

1375

63

Yes

3

30.1

61 Avenue

113 Street

109A Street

North

Yes

58.6

575

37

No

2

31.1

51 Avenue

106 Street

104 Street

North

No

60-65

390

20

No

2

32.1

34 Avenue

119 Avenue

Calgary Trail

North

No

55

3100

115

No

2

32.2

34 Avenue

119 Avenue

Calgary Trail

South

No

55

3100

119

No

2

32.3

34 Avenue

91 Street

Lane between 81 & 79 Streets

North

No

55

800

34

No

2

32.4

34 Avenue

Lane between 81 & 79 Streets

60 Street

North

No

55-60

1150

65

No

2

32.5

34 Avenue

East of 58 Street

50 Street

North

No

55-60

395

11

No

2

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Leg

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED 1 STATUS BARRIER PROTECTED

32.6

34 Avenue

91 Street

66 Street

South

No

55-60

2075

85

No

2

33.1

23 Avenue

119 Street

111 Street

North

Yes

65-70

1075

40

Yes

3

13.2

23 Avenue

119 Street

115 Street

South

Yes

65-70

390

12

Yes

3

33.3

23 Avenue

Saddleback Road

111 Street

South _

Yes

65-70

450

20

Yes

3

33.4

23 Avenue

East of 109 Street

Adjacent to 20 Avenue (Approx.)

South

Yes

65-70

800 -

28

Yes

3

33.5

23 Avenue

108 Street (Approx.)

104 Street (Approx.) west of Calgary Trail

North

Yes

65-70

800

25

Yes

3

33.6

23 Avenue

91 Street

Millwoods Road

North

No

55-60

1300

50

No

2

33.7

23 Avenue

40 Street

35 Street

North

Yes

55

700

30

Yes

2

33.8

23 Avenue

91 Street

72 Street

South

No

55-60

1510

61

No

2

33.9

23 Avenue

72 Street

66 Street

South

No

55

600

24

No

2

33.10 23 Avenue

57 Street

Millwoods Road East

South

Yes

55

1300

42

Yes

3

34.1

91 Street

43 Avenue

Lane south of 40 Avenue

East

Yes

65-70

840

38

Yes

3

34.2

91 Street

Millwoods Road

Lane south of 22 Avenue

East

Yes

65-70

2550

114

Yes

3

34.3

91 Street

Lane south of 22 Avenue

Approximately • 88 Street

East

Yes

1000

41

No

2

55

ROAD

FROM

TO

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Leg .

SIDE OF ROAD

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF RESIDENCES PROPOSED STATUS1 BARRIER PROTECTED

35.1

66 Street

North of 41A Avenue

38 Avenue

West

No

60-65

600

28

No

2

35.2

66 Street

38 Avenue

34 Avenue

West

No

55-60

925

21

No

2

35.3

66 Street

34 Avenue

South of 31 Avenue

West

No

60-65

525

20

No

2

35.4

66 Street

23 Avenue

Millwoods Road

West

No

55-60

775

35

No

2

35.5

66 Street

Approx. Grand Meadow Crescent

34 Avenue

East

No

55-60

1000

42

Yes

2

35.6

66 Street

North of 20 Avenue

Millwoods Road

East

No

55-60

700

30

Yes

2

35.7

66 Street

38 Avenue

North of 38 Avenue

East

No

60-65

225

9

No

2

36.1

50 Street

40 Avenue

34 Avenue

West

Yes

66.8

1450

55

No

1

36.2

50 Street

South of 23 Avenue -

Lane south of 14 Avenue

West

Yes

55

1225

47

No

2

36.3

50 Street

Approx. 39B Avenue

34 Avenue

East

Yes

65-70

1250

57

Yes

3 -

36.4

50 Street

32 Avenue

28 Avenue

East

Yes

55

450

23

No

4

36.5

50 Street

28 Avenue

Millwoods Road

East

Yes

55

1400

72

No

2

36.6

50 Street

11A Avenue

11 Avenue

East

Yes

55-60

225

14

No

2

36.7

50 Street

98 Avenue

Lane south of 84 Avenue

East

Yes

63.8

2000

100

Yes

2

37.1

63 Avenue

89 Street

East of 87 Street

North

Yes

63.5

450

26

No

2

.7t

ROAD

FROM

TO

SIDE OF ROAD

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL TRUCK ROUTE (dBA) LENGTH (m) DESIGNATION Leg

PRESENCE OF EXISTING OR NUMBER OF PROPOSED RESIDENCES STATUS1 BARRIER PROTECTED

38.1

Argyll Road

West of 86 Street

69 Avenue

North

Yes

63.5

500

27

No (Boulevard)

2

39.1

75 Street

83 Avenue

90 Avenue

West

Yes

70-75

650

40

No (Boulevard)

4

39.2

75 Street

98 Avenue

101 Avenue

West

Yes

70-75

350

20

Yes

3

40.1

90 Avenue

Lane on west side of 83 Street

75 Street

North

Yes

63.0

800

41

No

9

40.2

90 Avenue

81 Street

75 Street

South

Yes

63.0

575

31

No

2

41.1

98 Avenue

West of 57 Street

50 Street

South

Yes

63.3

600

27

No

2

42.1

101 Avenue

50 Street

East of 50 Street

North

Yes

55

275

8

Yes

3

APPENDIX IV

SUMMARY CHART:

Physical Noise Attenuation Techniques

SUMMARY CHART; Physical Technique

Application Indoor Outdoor Levels Levels

PHYSICAL NOISE ATTENUATION TECHNIQUES

Situations Where Most Applicable

Timing in Planning Process Early Late

Effectiveness

Costs

Comments

Spatial Separation -distance setback

X

-where large undeveloped areas exist

X

-high

-high

-impractical for urban areas

-noise insensitive buffers

X

-where large undeveloped areas exist

X

-high

-moderate

-moderately effective wide range of application

-orientation of outdoor amenity areas

X

-applicable in most situations

X

-high

-little or no cost

-an excellent and aesthetically acceptable method of noise attenuation

-Intervening structures

X

-applicable in most situations

X

-high

-little or no cost

-an excessent and aesthetically acceptable method of noise attenuation

Land Use Barriers

Acoustical Barriers -earth berms

-most useful in new development situations

-high

-moderate to high

-maintenance, visibility and aesthetic problems

-noise walls

-useful in existing and new development situations

-high

-high

-maintenance, visibility and aesthetic problems

-plantings

-primarily for aesthetic purposes

-low

-moderate

-aesthetically desirable, acoustically ineffective

-combinations

-useful in existing and new development situations

-very high

-moderate to -maintenance, visiblity to high problems, but more aesthetically desirable

SUMMARY CHART: PHYSICAL NOISE ATTENUATION TECHNIQUES Physical Technique

Application Indoor Outdoor Levels Levels

Situations Where Most Applicable

Timing in Planning Process Early Late

Effectiveness

Costs

-high

-little or no cost

-excellent for areas of high noise exposure

Comments

Architectural techniques -room arrangement

X

X

-orientation of windows

X

X

-high

-little or no cost

-acoustically effective, however, may impose restrictions on conventional design

-orientation of balconies terraces and courtyards

X

X

-high

-little or no cost

-may impose restrictions on conventional design

-blank walls

X

X

X

-high

-little or no cost

-restricts conventional design and may pose lighting and ventilation problems

-walls

X

X

X

-high

-moderate to high

-excellent for acoustical and thermal purposes

-windows

X

X

X

-high

-moderate

-acoustically effective and easily applied to new and retrofit situations

-doors

X

X

X

-high

-moderate

-acoustically effective and easily applied to new and retrofit situations

X

X

-varies

-moderate

-acoustically effective, poses no serious problems

X

-new development situations near major arterials

X

Construction Techniques

-balconies

-existing and new development situations near major arterials

..

APPENDIX V GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The purpose of this glossary is to provide an aid in understanding acoustical terminology to all persons reading this report and those involved in noise and land use planning, and decision making, including planners, elected officials, the private development community and the general public.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

A-Weighted Sound Level:

The sound level as measured on a sound level meter, using a setting that emphasizes the middle frequency components similar to response of the human ear. The a-weighted sound level is found to correlate well with subjective assessments of the annoying or disturbing effects of sounds.

Absorption:

Absorption is a property of materials that reduces the amount of sound energy reflected. Thus, the introduction of an "absorbent" into the surfaces of a LOOM

will reduce the sound pressure

level in that room by virtue of the fact that sound energy striking the room surfaces will not be totally reflected. It should be mentioned that this is an entirely different process from that of transmission loss through a material, which determines how much sound gets into the room via the walls, ceiling, and floor. The effect of absorption merely reduces the resultant sound level in the room produced by energy which has already entered the room.

Ambient Noise Level:

The sound level of background noise characteristic of an environment.

Practically speaking, the level of a specific sound must be above the ambient noise level in order to be perceived.

Annoyance:

General term encompassing adverse citizen opinion of a roadway that generally correlates with noise level increases caused by peak hour traffic or trucks. Annoyance is generally predicted by the amount the vehicular noise that exceeds the existing neighbourhood noise.

Attenuation:

A reduction in sound level in travelling from a source to a receiving point.

Barrier:

A solid physical obstruction between the roadway and the observer, which interrupts the line of sight between them.

Barrier Attenuation:

The reduction in level of sound travelling over hard ground resulting from a barrier between source and receiving point.

Berm:

A mound of earth that interrupts the line of sight between a source and receiving point, thus acting as a barrier.

Day Night Average Sound Level:

Day-night sound level in dBA is derived

(Ldn)

by averaging time varying sound energy over the daytime (daytime Leq) with the varying sound energy over the nighttime (nighttime Leq) to which an additional ten decibel weighting is applied to the nighttime hours between 2200 to 0700.

Decibel (dB):

One tenth of a bel. Sound is measured in decibels. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Decibels are not linear units, but representative points on a sharply rising (exponential) curve. Thus, 100 decibels represent 10 billion times as much acoustic energy as one decibel.

Equivalent Level (Leq):

An hourly unit of noise.

The Leq

condenses an hour's worth of noise fluctuations into a single number, with units of dBA. The Leq is also called the "energy-equivalent level". Leq(24) is the average noise level over a 24 hour period.

Line Source of Noise:

A source of noise spread out into a line, such as the combined traffic on a roadway or railway.

Loudness:

A

psychological

quantity

that

corresponds to noise intensity where a ten-fold increase in noise energy results in a two-fold increase in loudness.

Similarly,

a

ten-fold

decrease in noise energy is heard as a halving of the loudness.

Noise Sensitive Land Uses:

Noise sensitive land uses include: residential,

schools,

libraries,

churches, hospitals, auditoriums and outdoor recreation areas. These typify land uses whose suitability is restricted by intrusive noise, hence are termed "noise sensitive". Noise sensitivity

include:

factors

interference with speech communication; subjective

judgements

of

noise

acceptability and relative noisiness; need for freedom from noise intrusion; and sleep interference criteria.

Point Source of Noise:

A source of noise essentially concentrated at a single source, such as noise from a single vehicle.

Propagation:

The passage of sound energy from noise source to observer.

Sound Insulation:

The use of structures and materials designed to reduce the transmission of sound from one room or area to another or from the exterior to the interior of a building.

APPENDIX VI REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Agent, K., and Zegeer, C., "The Effect of Interrupted Flow on Traffic Noise", Noise Control Engineering, March-April, 1982.

Alberta Transportation, "Alberta Surface Transportation Noise and Attenuation Study, A State of the Art Literature Review", prepared by DeLeuw Cather, 1974.

Bolt, Beranek & Newman, "Measurements of the Impulsiveness and Annoyance of Compression - Release Engine Brake Noise", Office of Noise Control, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Bradley, J.S., "Exterior Vehicle Noise and Its Effects", University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Engineering Science, prepared by Transport Canada, Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch, March 1975.

Breston, B.E., "The Impact of Road Traffic Noise on Property Values", Graduate Thesis, McMaster University, Sept. 1979.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Le Breton Flats Development Evaluation 1, Sound Barriers for Windows", 1981.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Le Breton Flats Development Evaluation 2, Walls and Floors as Sound Barriers", 1981.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Le Breton Flats Development Evaluation 3, Traffic Noise Barrier Walls", 1981.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing", Technical Research Division of CMHC, 1981.

City of Ontario, California, "Noise Element", a component of the General Plan, September, 1975.

Du Pree, Russell B., "Evaluation of Outdoor to Indoor Noise Reduction of Building Facades and Outdoor Noise Reduction of Building Facades and Outdoor Noise Barriers", California Office of Noise Control, 1975.

Eldred, K., "Standards and Criteria for Noise Control Engineering, January-February, 1982.

Embleton, Piercy and Sutherland, "Review of Noise Propagation in the Atmosphere", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 61, No. 6, June, 1977.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in Alberta", 1980.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Public Hearings on Noise in Alberta, Reports and Recommendations", July, 1982.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in the Human Environment, Volume 1: 1979.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in the Human Environment, Volume 2: 1979.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Administration and Regulation of Noise in Alberta", 1980.

Environment Council of Alberta, "Noise in the Workplace", 1980.

Galloway, W., and Schultz, T., "Noise Assessment Guidelines", U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, D.C., 1979.

Gamble, H.B., Sauerlender 0.11., and Langley C.J., "Adverse and Beneficial Effects of Highways on Residential Property Values", Transportation Research Board, 508, 1976.

Jones, I.D., "Road Traffic Noise, Volume 5, Part 3 Progress in Planning", Pergamon Press, 1976.

Kermode, R.H., "Cost Effectiveness of Freeway Traffic Noise Barriers", California Department of Transportation, 1981.

Lee, T., and Jones, H., "Noise Study on Older Residential Property", University of Calgary, 1979.

Langley C.J., "Time—Series Effects of a Limited Access Highway on Residential Property Values", Transportation Research Board, 583, 1976.

Lawther, J., "Pavement Effects in Tire/Pavement Interaction Noise", Pennsylvania State University, unpublished report, 1977.

Miller, "Effects of Noise on People", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America", 56, No. 3, Sept., 1974.

Ministry of Environment, Ontario, "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning, Volume 1, Analysis of Noise Impacts", November, 1978.

Ministry of Environment, Ontario, "Acoustics Technology in Land Use Planning, Volume 2, Road Traffic Noise Tables", November, 1978.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario "Land Use Planning for Noise Control in Residential Communities", October, 1981.

National Academy of Sciences, "Noise Abatement: Policy Alternatives for Transportation; Report to the EPA", Washington, D.C., 1977.

National Concrete Masonry Association, "Concrete Masonry in Highway Construction Appurtenances", Arlington, Va., 1973.

National Research Council of Canada, "Noise Pollution - What Can Be Done?", Physics Today, 1975.

Nelson, J.P., "Economic Analysis of Tranportation Noise Abatement", Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.

Quirt, J.D., "Building Acoustic Insulation" Noise and Vibration Section, National Research Council Canada, 1982.

Region of Peel, City of Brampton and City of Mississauga, "Traffic Noise Abatement Policies and Practices Relating to Residential Development", November, 1979.

Region of Peel, "Joint Traffic Study", November, 1981.

Sacks, M.P., "Noise Control: Recent Terms and Concepts", Engineering Digest, March, 1978.

Scholes W.E., "Traffic Noise Criteria", Applied Acoustics, London, England, 1970.

Stackie D.N.M. and Johnson D.M., "Economic Value of Peace and Quiet", Lexington Massachusetts, 1975.

Stempler S., Sanders H., Watkins and Boronow E., "Development of Environmental Noise Codes for the City of New York", Sound and Vibration, December, 1977.

Taylor S.M., Breston B.E., and Hall F., "The Effect of Road Traffic Noise on Housing Prices", Journal of Sound and Vibration, 80(4), 1982.

Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Research Council, "Motor Vehicle Noise Control, Special Report 152", National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1975.

Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Research Council, "Highway Noise Generation and Control, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report, 173", Washington, D.C., 1976.

Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Research Council, "Environmental Issues in Transportation: Analysis, Noise, and Air Quality", National Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va., 1981.

Transportation Department, City of Calgary, "Surface Transportation Noise Policy for the City of Calgary", Report of the Task Force on Surface Transportation Noise.

Transportation Department, City of Calgary, "Noise Control Through Land Use Planning: The Calgary Case", December, 1981.

United Nations, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Reducing Noise in OECD Countries", Paris, 1978.

U.S. Department of Commerce, "The Social Impact of Noise", National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C., 1971.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, "The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use", 1976.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, "Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control", June, 1980.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Noise Program Series.

Volume III. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Noise Policy and Related Environmental Procedures", National Technical Information Services, July, 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", EPA 550/9-74-004, March, 1974.

1 1