Edmonton (Alta.) - 1985 - Railway noise study_recommendation report (1985-10)

IN" SD LIBRARY

5964

T040/4768/1985

RAILWAY NOISE STUDY: CITY-OF-EDMONTON,-TR

TSR/79/85

RAILWAY NOISE STUDY

THE CITY OF

EJ

aka.

1flOMOn

TRANSPORTATION

Planning Department The City_ of Edmo7r

4500.7a .E3 :5R8 1985

See Canada Transportation Act A080/0827/2009

RAILWAY NOISE STUDY Recommendation Report

Prepared by: Transportation Department October, 1985

AUG 11 1986

Planning Department

LMRARY

ec.

Edcoontarit

7ho City of Edmonton

P1anning Department T040 . 4768 1985

City of Edmonton, Transportation Dept.

Railway Noise Study : Recommendation Report .1985

LIBRARY The City of Edmonton

RAILWAY NOISE STUDY

NOTE:

The Railway Noise Study Recommendation Report was submitted to City Council on September 10, 1985, at which time the recommendations contained in Section 5.1 of the report were approved.

Any questions concerning the content or recommendations contained in this report should be directed to the Support Resources Section, Services Branch of the Transportation Department (428-5982).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE #

1.0

2.0

3.0

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1

Objective

1.2

Mandate

1 1

1.3

Study Approach

2

RAILWAY NOISE SITUATION

3

2.1

Railway Noise Sources

3

2.2

Noise Effects on People

5

2.2.1 Auditory Effects

6

2.2.2 Non-Auditory Effects

8

2.2.3 Other Effects

8

2.3

Railway Facilities in Edmonton

10

2.4

Future Residential Areas

17

NOISE MITIGATION POLICIES AND OPTIONS

19

3.1

Noise Control Legislation and Policy

19

3.1.1

Transport Canada

19

3.1.2

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

19

3.1.3

The Province of Alberta

20

3.1.4

The Province of Ontario

20

3.1.5

Municipal Policy and Practice

21

3.1.6

The City of Edmonton

25

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

PAGE #

3.2

4.0

Operational Railway Measures

25

3.2.1

Anti-Whistling Bylaw

25

3.2.2

CN Rail Noise Control Program

26

3.2.3

CP Rail

27

ANALYSIS OF NOISE CONTROL MEASURES AND DEVELOPMENT

28

OF A STRATEGY

4.1

Introduction

28

4.2

Noise Level Standards

30

4.2.1 CMHC Standards

30

4.2.2 UTNPS Standards

31

4.2.3 Default Scenario

31

4.2.4 Selection of a Noise Level Standard

32

Evaluation of Railway Operational Measures

32

4.3

5.0

STRATEGY

34

5.1

Recommendations

34

5.2

Implementation

37

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - CMHC Noise Prediction Model Appendix 2 - Noise Control Options

LIST OF EXHIBITS

PAGE # Exhibit 1. Railway Districts and Classification

11

Exhibit 2. Existing Land Use Adjacent to Railway Facilities

14

Exhibit 3. Future Residential Areas Adjacent to Railway Facilities

18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Railway Facility Classifications

15

Table 2. Municipal Policy and Practice

22

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The residents of Edmonton are becoming increasingly aware of their noise environment. This, coupled with future residential development adjacent to railway corridors and the absence of any railway noise legislation, means that an increasing number of Edmonton residents could be affected by railway noise. This study will identify the sources, effects and distribution of railway noise in Edmonton as well as identify possible control options.

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the Railway Noise Study is to develop a residential Noise Level Standard to encourage compatibility between new residential development and railway operations. A secondary objective is to identify various operational measures which the railway companies have adopted to reduce the amount of railway noise affecting existing residential areas.

1.2 MANDATE

On September 9, 1983, City Council approved the recommendations of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study, Stage II. One of the recommendations directed the Administration to undertake a Railway Noise Policy Study as follows:

"That 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."

-2-

1.3 STUDY APPROACH

The work program for the Railway Noise Study is divided into four steps. The first step involves the assessment of railway noise sources and how they affect people (based on a review of current research), as well as an examination of railway facilities and operations adjacent to existing and future residential land uses.

This is undertaken to define the nature and extent of the railway noise situation in Edmonton. The findings of the first step are documented in Chapter 2 of this report.

The second step of the Study identifies existing preventative outdoor and indoor noise level policies designed to minimize future residential land uses exposed to excessive railway noise. The Study also identifies corrective railway operational measures intended to reduce the impact of railway noise. A review of railway noise policies at both the Federal and Provincial levels of government as well as those of other municipalities, is included to identify potential noise control solutions for application in Edmonton. The findings of the second step are documented in the third chapter of this report.

The third step deals with an analysis of the positive and negative features of these noise control options. The options are evaluated on the basis of general technical, administrative and economic practicalities. The findings of the third step are documented in the fourth chapter of this report.

The final section documents the recommendations and the implementation strategies concerning acceptable railway noise levels, land use guidelines for new residential development adjacent to railway corridors, and operational noise control procedures for implementation by the Railway Companies.

-3-

2.0 RAILWAY NOISE SITUATION

The purpose of the Railway Noise Study is to identify strategies to encourage noise compatibility in new residential development directly adjacent to railway corridors. In order to provide a basis for the evaluation of these controls, it is necessary to define railway noise sources and how noise affects people. An examination of railway facilities and operations adjacent to existing and future residential land uses describes what noise exposures are present.

To this end, this chapter defines the nature and extent of the current railway noise situation in Edmonton.

2.1 RAILWAY NOISE SOURCES

It is generally accepted that railway passby noise is generated by two major sources: the locomotive, and railcar wheel/rail interaction. (Another often mentioned source of railway noise is the whistle which produces a loud and distinct tone. This source is discussed in Section 3.2.1.). However, with a typical train consisting of three locomotives and 100 railcars travelling at 90 km/h (typical mainline operating characteristics), the locomotive passby time is less than three seconds while the railcar passby time is more than 65 seconds. Despite the higher peak noise levels generated by the locomotives, the wheel/rail noise generated by railcars for a relatively longer period of time becomes the dominant 1 factor when calculating noise levels (Leq) . Average train speeds within the city range between 50 km/h and 80 km/h thereby increasing the above noted passby times.

1. From "Standards of Acceptable Railway Noise and Vibration Applicable to New Residential Developments Adjacent to Railways" by S.S. Wilson and Associates for the Ontario Ministry of Housing, April 1981.

- 4 -

The majority of heavy rail locomotives are driven by electric traction motors with the electric power generated by diesel engines. The dominant noise source from locomotives is the exhaust, with other principal sources being the cooling fans, wheel/rail contact, and to a lesser extent, engine casing vibration. Exhaust and cooling fan noise generation is not dependent on train speed but rather the engine load.

Engine load is based on the throttle

setting, a scale between 1 (minimum) and 8 (maximum). At the lower throttle settings and at significant

modest speeds, wheel/rail noise is a

contributor to the

noise generated by a passing

locomotive. At throttle

setting 8, wheel/rail noise is not 2 significant until speeds of 88 to 96 km/h are attained.

At these speeds the engine noise and wheel/rail noise contribute approximately equal amounts to the overall noise level.

The only significant noise generation source from railcars is through wheel/rail contact. A number of factors contribute to the noise characteristics and levels. On straight track the generation of wheel/rail noise is dependent on three main factors: train speed, train length and wheel/rail condition. The speed of the train is thought to be the most important of these factors with a doubling of speed producing a 6.0 to 7.5 dBA increase in noise levels. Train length is important in that it determines (along with speed) the duration of the passby and therefore the total noise generated. The condition of the wheel and the rail is important in that the number and severity of irregularities on the contact surfaces leads to

2. From "Measurement and Diagnosis of Diesel Electric Locomotive Noise",

by R.J. Remmington, N.J. Rudd, and R. Mason in Noise Control Engineering, March-April 1980, pp 66-73.

-5-

increased noise generation. Flat spots and roughness on the wheel, rail corrugations, as well as loosely jointed rail and rough rail welds, can generate an additional 3 to 15 dBA. Special track work such as cross-overs also produce increased noise.

On curved track, especially track with radii less than 100m, wheel squeal may occur. Wheel squeal is caused when the wheels slide as well as roll around curved sections of track. Most railcars are designed with two, two-axle trucks with the wheels rigidly attached to the axles which are in turn rigidly fixed to the truck. When the railcar goes around a curve several factors cause the wheels to slide. The first is the fact that the wheels on the outside of the curve must travel a greater distance than the inner wheels. To compensate for this the inner and outer wheels will attempt to roll at different velocities causing the wheels to slide. Another factor is the crabbing of the trucks as they negotiate a curve. Because the axles are fixed parallel to each other they can never both lie on the radii of the curve. This means that one of the wheel pairs must be at an angle to the track causing them to slide on the track. In very short radius curves the wheel flanges may be in contact with the side of the rail creating a further source of 3 squeal.

2.2 NOISE EFFECTS ON PEOPLE

The criteria for describing the effect of noise on people are implicitly or explicitly included in the development of all noise

3. From "Wheel/Rail Noise and Vibration" by P.S. Remington, M.S. Rudd, I.L. Ver, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 1975.

-6-

control studies. Therefore, in examining railway noise, the non-auditory and auditory effects of noise as well as effects on behavior and activities have been taken into account.

2.2.1 Auditory Effects

Deterioration of Auditory Acuity:

Auditory acuity is defined by perception thresholds, the minimum acoustic sound pressures perceivable by the ear. The temporary elevation of these thresholds following exposure to high noise levels may become permanent when the noise exposure is repeated over a long period of time.

Noise levels which may cause permanent hearing loss vary greatly from person to person. This variation is also reflected in research and legislation dealing with noise exposure limits. The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) of the United States has concluded that there is risk of permanent hearing damage after 40 years of exposure to daily 4 L (sound levels) of: eq 75 dBA during 8 hours per day, or 78 dBA during 4 hours per day, or 81 dBA during 2 hours per day, or 84 dBA during 1 hour per day.

4. US Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requiste to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," U.S. Government Documents, 1974.

- 7 -

The Canadian Noise Control Legislation provides for less stringent 5 exposure levels.

MAXIMUM PERMITTED NOISE EXPOSURE AT WORKSITE

5

Maximum Number of Hours of Exposure Per Employee Per Work Day

Sound Level in Decibels

More than

87 but not more than

90

8

More than

90 but not more than

92

6

More than

92 but not more than

90

4

More than

95 but not more than

92

3

More than

97 but not more than 100

2

More than 100 but not more than

92

1.5

More than 102 but not more than 105

1

More than 105 but not more than 110

0.5

More than 110 but not more than 115

0.25

More than 115

Based on the above, it is unlikely that railway noise would create permanent hearing damage among adjacent residents since the duration of train passby noise is less than the exposure indicated in the EPA document or in the Canada Noise Control Regulations.

5.

Canada Labour Code, Chapter 1006, "Canada Noise Control Regulations".

-8-

2.2.2 Non-auditory Effects

The non-auditory effects of noise on health are complex and include the following:

(a) Effects on the cardiovascular system. (b) Stress effects. (c) Neurophysiological effects.

Although such effects tend to indicate an adverse influence on health per se, the evidence available does not yet permit identification of a sufficiently reliable and significant relationship between noise exposure and health disorders which could be used as the basis for setting standards and policies.

2.2.3 Other Effects

Sleep Disturbance:

Sleep disturbance is one of the most obvious effects of railway noise. There are three main types of sleep disturbance: difficulty in falling asleep, shortening of certain sleep stages, and awakening. Generally, people subjected to a noisier environment overcome their inability to sleep but the quality of their sleep is not identical with that in the pre-noise period. Research on this subject does suggest that it is possible to compensate for short-term sleep deficits but that prolonged deprivation of the deepest stages of sleep can result in diminished task performance. Efforts to correlate sleep disturbance to particular noise levels have been unsuccessful due to wide variations in personal characteristics and incomplete knowledge of the effects of change to the stages of sleep.

- 9 -

Speech Interference:

Speech interference and disturbance in listening to television and radio are often mentioned in surveys and research dealing with noise complaints from residents. Considerable information has been gathered on the masking of various sound types by noise. The masking effect on conversation can be characterized by the relationship between the percentage of simple phrases understood (intelligibility) on the one hand, and an acoustical index on the other. As an example, conversation between two individuals two metres apart requires raised voices when the background noise level exceeds 60 dBA.

For a more detailed explanation of speech interference refer to section 2.1 of the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study: Stage 6 1.

Annoyance:

Annoyance is a state of mind resulting from the perception of unwanted noise. 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 predictions are made for community groups on a statistical basis. Even these predictions vary

6. City of Edmonton Transportation Department, 1980

-10-

because of differences in tolerance levels. However, it is generally acknowledged that railway noise is less annoying 7 than roadway noise.

2.3 RAILWAY FACILITIES IN EDMONTON Both Canadian National (CN) Rail and Canadian Pacific (CP) Rail have track and marshalling yard operations in Edmonton. Exhibit 1 indicates the location of main lines and branch lines as well as the marshalling yards (see Table 1 for a description of track and yard classification). CN operates the majority of track in Edmonton with the CP facilities generally located on the south side of the North Saskatchewan River.

Exhibit 2 indicates the general land uses

adjacent to railway facilities. The existing residential areas directly adjacent to railway operations are described below:

1.

Alberta Hospital, Oliver: the hospital is located approximately 400 m east of the CN secondary branch line.

2.

Evergreen Mobile Home Park: directly adjacent to the CN principal main line.

3.

Clareview: the presently constructed portion of Kirkness has a 4 m berm and a 2 m screen fence between the single family dwelling units and the CN principal main line.

7. "Reactions to Road and Railway Traffic Noise in Urban and Rural Areas," R. Schuemer, W. Kasubek, V. Knall, and A. Schumer-Hohrs in INTER-NOISE 81, p. 827.

NO LLVO IJI SST10

0 0 0

C..)

a a a

S.1.011:11.SlaAVM11V8

E -

I

iLl

-1cW14-14, ;

vs q4,1 :11 I 1 ,sktri ll

Leduc (CP)

...... .... .......................... .... ...... ;i* . i; . IflI.

--------

IL,

5 0

I

4 1111

----

Coronado (CN) - class 4

- -rall11111111%

- 12 -

4.

Hermitage: single family housing and multiple family housing developments abut the elevated CN principal main line. A multiple family housing site east of 50th Street incorporated noise attenuation features in site and building design.

5.

Balwin: a small area of single family housing lies between 127 Avenue and the CN principal main line.

6.

Killarney: a portion of this community lies to the north of the CN Container operation.

7.

Lauderdale/Calder: these two communities lie to the north of the CN principal main line and CN Calder Yard operation.

8.

Athlone: a small area on either side of the Government grain elevator directly abuts the elevator siding and CN principal main line.

9.

Wellington Park: there is 110 m of open space between a multiple family housing development and the CN principal branch line to the west.

10.

West-Ingle: there are 37 m of open space between the CN secondary main line and the single family dwelling units to the west.

11.

Parkdale/Eastwood: in various locations in these communities there is single family housing adjacent to the CN secondary main line.

- 13 -

12.

Boyle/McCauley: in various locations in these communities there are single family and multiple family residential areas adjacent to the CN secondary main line.

13.

Oliver: portions of this neighbourhood are adjacent to the CP Intermodal Yard and the CN City Yard. The CP Intermodal operation was relocated to a southside location in January, 1985.

14.

Garneau/Strathcona:

CP principal branch line track which

connects the southside CP marshalling yard and Intermodal operation with the CN City Yard passes through these two communities. As noted in #13, railway traffic on this line is expected to decrease significantly in 1985.

! ,zsitrimeraig-4: / - /Iry „ dElt:wr, " iiCic

7"", 1 1,?, mix —

•-% .4••• AllapyliEr

grb "

tirj elq1/414

1:1X0 1111111 aMTV.Wid,

1 - ALBERTA HOSPITAL, OLIVER 2 - EVERGREEN MOBILE HOME PARK 3 - CLAREVIEW (Kirkness) 4 - HERMITAGE (Overlander, Canon R.I.dgel 5 - BALWIN 6 - KILLARNEY 7 - LAUDERDALE, CALDER 8 - ATHLONE 9 - WELLINGTON PARK 10 WEST-INGLE 11 - PARKDALE, EASTWOOD 12 - &DYLE STREET 13 - OLIVER 14 - STRATHCONA, GARNEAU

.141"C:

Vacant / Open Space 111111111 Residential / Institutional

Ed THE CITY OF

Commercial / Industrial / Utility / Transportation

.

11

nto

• Ar Ar I h _

r r iP740 11e r§1S -

TRANSPORTATION

Bi 4"' "111117 S", r1140 -2E3EVrat.

.-111ralelEt BR CN 6111.!ArlMil

fin

e.;.;

letakiltgrorn 1:%"; s :010 itTh stit'l

Ilr %:%

oe 417111111111M4' .'‘ PT"r4jr.gr/P-104,„ 11-igq 56; 4044. igegra*C

%41 Si s: Si 1: %i 1:

-7'1.7 1::

Exhibit 2 EXISTING LAND USE ADJACENT TO RAILWAY FACILITIES

- 15 -

TABLE 1

RAILWAY FACILITY CLASSIFICATIONS

Class 1

Principal Main Lines

Traffic:

Includes heavy trains with 3 or 4 power units per train.

High speeds, frequently exceeding 80 km/h (50 m.p.h.).

Volume generally exceeds 10 trains per day.

Crossings, gradients etc. may increase normal railway noise and vibration.

Principal Yards

Traffic:

Major railway car classification site with extensive flat switching and/or hump operation.

Major car and locomotive repair and/or servicing facilities may be present.

Class 2

Secondary Main Lines

Traffic:

Trains generally of light or moderate weight, with 1 or 2 power units per train, but may include heavier trains with more units.

High speeds, frequently exceeding 80 km/h (50 m.p.h.).

Volume generally exceeds 5 trains per day.

Crossing, gradients etc. may increase normal railway noise and vibration.

- 16 -

Secondary Yards

Traffic: Secondary car classification site with extensive flat switching.

Minor car and locomotive repair and/or servicing facilities may be present.

Class 3

Principal Branch Lines

Traffic:

Trains generally of light or moderate weight, with 1 or 2 power units per train, but may include heavier trains with more units.

Low speeds, generally limited to 50 km/h (30 m.p.h.).

Regular scheduled traffic, usually less than 5 trains per day.

Class 4

Secondary Branch Lines

Traffic:

Trains generally of light weight, with 1 power unit per train.

Low speeds, generally limited to 50 km/h (30 m.p.h.).

Intermittent, unscheduled traffic, usually less than I train per day.

- 17 -

2.4 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AREAS

The undeveloped areas of Edmonton adjacent to railway corridors which are planned or expected to contain residential development are shown on Exhibit 3.

The Clareview Outline Plan was approved by City Council in 1972.

Neighbourhood 6, Kirkness, was approved by the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) on October 11, 1978 and is located adjacent to the CN principal main line; this plan did not proceed to Council. The Kirkness Neighbourhood Structure Plan was supported by MPC on April 28, 1983. A berm and screen fence was a MPC condition in 1978.

The Palisades Area Structure Plan (ASP) was approved by City Council on April 24, 1984, with a residential neighbourhood adjacent to the CN secondary main line in the northwest corner of the ASP. The development concept plan indicates that a noise attenuation facility is proposed between the railway and the residential land uses.

The Meadows ASP was approved by City Council on October 12, 1982 with a residential neighbourhood adjacent to the CN principal main line in the south east corner of the ASP. A buffer between the residential land uses and the railway line was indicated in the development concept plan contained in the ASP.

The Dunvegan ASP was approved by City Council on May 14, 1985. This plan proposes to develop portions of the existing Dunvegan railway yard as single family residential. The plan also includes a berm and wall between the proposed residential land uses and the railway, roadway and commercial uses to the south and west.

The northeast annexation area known as the Ranchlands has no status for land development purposes. It is likely that ultimate development of this area will contain some residential land uses abutting the existing CN principal main line and secondary branch line railway facilities.

0-13

0

ap, 041'

S31.11110Vd A VM11V801 IN3ovrav SV3EIV1V11.1\13 016383811111d

0)

1.4 .

1ij

al "---

ILI'

. . '4-04._.0 .

altil Jam. essiogrl

InIgmtaicol lib...

poluu4r

lid 7Emia

...4' 11 l q

ii.,,, -

F4'...4"..0. illii i '114...

I III

.. . ,,,............................. . . . ......................!..,1 ..sitti'llu 1

-1,

1110

...I.: 1 42414

1 Ail '

0

\

•

•)

.....!!!! ...

-19-

3.0 NOISE MITIGATION POLICIES AND OPTIONS

Chapter Two described the sources, and effects of railway noise as well as the extent of railway operations in Edmonton. With the Edmonton railway noise environment identified, the range of options for potentially resolving the problems must be examined. To that end this chapter will review existing Federal and Provincial responsibilities for railway noise, as well as policies and practices adopted by selected Canadian jurisdictions to identify potential noise control solutions for application in Edmonton. Specifically, two types of measures will be examined: 1) outdoor and indoor noise level standards for minimizing noise problems within future residential development and, 2) corrective railway operational measures to reduce existing railway noise problems.

3.1 NOISE CONTROL LEGISLATION AND POLICY

3.1.1 Transport Canada

Railways in Canada are governed by the Railway Act (R.S.C. 1970, R-2) which regulates railway operations. Under this legislation, Transport Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) are given the authority to regulate a wide range of railway activity such as train speed, use of whistles and safety precautions. This legislation does not deal with noise with the exception of the procedure whereby a municipality may request that the Canadian Transport Commission waive the requirement for audible warning signals (horns and bells) at level railway crossings.

3.1.2 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has a general policy of advising the public and developers of

- 20-

methods which can protect residential areas from levels of excessive railway noise.

The criteria contained in these

guidelines are advisory and they are only used as mandatory standards where CMHC provides direct financing or subsidies.

The guidelines specify acceptable indoor noise levels for various rooms in a dwelling and for outdoor amenity areas

Noise Level

Room

(dBA Leq (24)) Bedrooms

35

Living, dining, recreation rooms

40

Kitchens, bathrooms, utility rooms, hallways 45 Outdoor recreation area

3.1.3

55

The Province of Alberta

Railways in Alberta are governed by the Railway Act (R.S.A. 1980,

R-4) which regulates railway operations.

Section 182 of this Act is similar to Federal Railway Act provisions in that the requirement for the use of bells and whistles at level railway crossings may be waived at the request of a municipality.

3.1.4

The Province of Ontario

In 1979, CN Rail in Ontario requested that the Minister of Housing consider the development of policies which address noise and vibration standards for new residential development adjacent to railway corridors. As a result of this request three Ministries of the Ontario Government began working on a policy. They were assisted by a technical advisory committee consisting of representatives from the railways, the

-21-

development industry, the Federal government and others. To date no policy has been adopted by the Province.

It should also be noted that the issue of safety with respect to the containment of derailments and cargo spills was also a factor in the determination of the barrier heights and setback guidelines being considered in this policy.

3.1.5 Municipal Policy and Practice

Given that municipalities do not have the authority or enabling legislation to govern railway noise generation at the source, their ability to protect residential areas is limited to land use planning and design solutions at the noise receptor. Major Canadian municipalities have been surveyed to determine the extent to which residential land use adjacent to railway lines is being regulated and by what means. The most common rail noise policy and land use planning practice was that although the problem was recognized, few specific policies had been formulated and cases of anticipated railway noise problems were considered on a site specific basis.

Many municipalities indicated that in general there is an initial attempt to locate insensitive land uses (i.e. commercial, light industrial) between railway corridors and residential areas. If this is not practical then spatial separations are considered, either off-site, through the use of open space or roadways along the railway line, or on-site with dwelling set-back requirements. Other municipalities also indicated that the developers of residential land likely to be affected by railway noise can be directed to inform prospective tenants or purchasers of the potential noise impacts. Table 2 summarizes the results of the survey.

-22-

Table 2 MUNICIPAL POLICY AND PRACTICE

Municipality

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Noise Control Mechanism

- may specify set-backs and height restrictions at subdivision stage.

- other general rules: non-residential land uses along rail corridors, intervening uses(ie. parks, roads), deeper lots between railway corridor and habitable space.

Thunder Bay, Ontario

- established Noise Restricted Policy Area in the Official Plan.

- Noise Restricted Policy Area in vicinity of railway corridors and airport.

- new residential dwellings in this area may require noise abatement techniques to the approval of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

- creators of new residential lots in this area are required, as a condition of approval, to inform prospective purchasers or tenants of potential noise nuisance from the railway corridors and/or airport.

Windsor, Ontario

- utilize either the CMHC guidelines or the Ontario Ministry of the Environment documents "Acoustic Technology in Land Use Planning, Vols. 1 and 2".

Halifax, Nava Scotia

- No guidelines or regulations.

- 23 -

Table 2 (Con't)

Municipality

Hamilton, Ontario

Noise Control Mechanism

- zoning applications for land abutting railway corridors are sent to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for comments. these comments may be incorporated in the zoning bylaw for the property or as part of Site Plan Control requirements in development of the project.

Regina, Saskatchewan

- no residential development is allowed within 1000 feet (304 metres) of relocated railway lines; exceptions may be made in the case of railway track below grade.

- non-residential land uses may be permitted within 1000 feet (304 metres) of the railway corridor.

- the CMHC limit of 55 dBA Leq (24) has been adopted for the purposes of Environmental Impact Statements prepared for rail relocation studies.

Saskatoon,

- no policy.

Saskatchewan

Victoria, B.C.

- a policy of encouraging urban design to deaden noise along railway corridors was adopted by City Council in 1980.

- a noise nuisance bylaw permits the use of horns or other signalling devices on trains where it is sounded as a danger or warning signal.

- 24 -

Table 2 (Con't)

Municipality

Noise Control Mechanism

Vancouver, B.C.

- no policy.

Toronto,

- a railway noise report is currently being

Ontario

prepared.

- the issue is addressed at the local area plan stage in terms of the objective of providing an acceptable residential environment.

Ottawa,

- no standardized regulations.

Ontario

- the issue of railway noise is dealt with on a case-by-case basis at the site plan stage.

- subdivision approval may include development regulations and requirements for a notice to prospective purchasers of the possible nuisance effects of railway noise.

London, Ontario

- 1981 Site Planning Guidelines requires the provision of a setback of up to 60m for residential development adjacent to a railway corridor.

- special consideration is given in the case of residential development proposed in the proximity of marshalling yards.

-25-

3.1.6 The City of Edmonton

When City Council adopted the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study (UTNPS) in September, 1983 an outdoor amenity area noise level standard of 60 dBA Leq (24) was established. This standard was found to be technically, economically and administratively feasible to implement city-wide for noise generated by roadway traffic. The outdoor amenity area is generally considered to be the rear yard for single family and ground oriented dwelling units.

3.2 OPERATIONAL RAILWAY MEASURES

Despite the absence of legislation which would control or regulate railway noise, there are methods of reducing the generation and propagation of railway noise. In general, these measures are most effective in the vicinity of railway marshalling yards. This section of the report will document efforts made by CN and CP Rail to reduce railway noise in residential areas.

3.2.1 Anti-Whistling Bylaw

As noted in Section 3.1, the Railway Act administered by the Railway Transport Committee (RTC) of the Canadian Transport Commission (CTC), provides for the waiving of the requirement for train whistles to be sounded at level railway crossings.

This anti-noise measure is actually initiated by the municipality by the adoption of a bylaw which is then reviewed by the RTC for acceptability. The railway companies are notified by the RTC if they are affected by changes to the whistling provisions of the Railway Act.

- 26 -

3.2.2 CM Rail Noise Control Program

CM has had a noise control program in the Edmonton area for more than 10 years. Their program can be divided into three types of measures: generation, propagation and education.

The following measures have been implemented, or are under research or review to reduce railway noise generation:

i) modifications to the retarder systems in Calder Yard, ii) installation of rail lubricators on curved track, iii) shutting down idling locomotives when possible, iv) experimental work on engine heaters to permit shut-down in all weather conditions, v) experimental work on improved muffler systems, vi) new motorized equipment purchased with noise suppression built-in, vii) where possible, new facilities are located away from residential areas. viii) modification to equipment used in intermodal operations

The following measures have been implemented to reduce railway noise propagation:

i) construction of a noise containing shed over the main retarder in Calder Yard, ii) construction of noise deflecting barriers along the group retarders in Calder Yard, iii) construction of a berm along the north boundary of Calder Yard, iv) construction of a bypass track along the south side of Calder Yard, v) construction of a noise barrier wall along the north boundary of Calder Yard, vi) idling engines moved out of Calder Yard when necessary.

-27-

The following educational and informative measures have been undertaken by CN:

i)

meetings have been held with community leagues and the civic administration,

ii)

consultants have been retained to deal with specific noise problems,

iii)

provision of experience and expertise in noise control to other firms,

iv) v)

training CN employees in noise control measures, advising on ways of minimizing the effects of railway noise on new residential areas adjacent to railway facilities through the municipal development review process.

3.2.3 CP Rail

Only a small portion of CP Rail facilities in Edmonton abut residential areas and, as noted in Section 2.3, CP Rail relocated their downtown Intermodal operation to an industrial area on the southside. This will significantly reduce the amount of railway noise in portions of the Oliver, Garneau and Strathcona neighbourhoods.

- 28 -

4.0 ANALYSIS OF NOISE CONTROL MEASURES AND DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter identified two types of noise control measures (noise level standard and railway operating changes) which can be used to encourage a reduction in railway noise levels. Within both of these measures there are several alternatives for the achievement of noise attenuation in both existing and future residential areas adjacent to railway corridors.

This chapter will evaluate these measures and identify a design noise level standard for new residential development adjacent to railway corridors.

Given the current lack of enabling legislation at the Federal and Provincial level, the adopted noise level standard will be applied as a guideline. However, at such time as enabling legislation is approved, the guideline document should be adopted as City Policy.

The evaluation of these two noise control measures and the various options within each measure will be based on general administrative, technical and economic factors.

The evaluation criteria are described as follows:

Administrative: These standards should be established in City Policy as a design noise level and considered at the beginning of the Area Structure Plan (ASP) process. Consideration is being given to amending the ASP Terms of Reference to require that potential areas of negative noise impact be identified in the plan. Also, features intended to mitigate the noise impacts should be included in the ASP for implementation at the NSP and/or subdivision and development stage. The process for implementation should begin with the

- 29-

identification of need, through to the approval of building permits for residential dwelling units adjacent to railway corridors. The City Administration (specifically the Transportation Department) will review the submission of this information for accuracy and acceptability.

Technical: There are five general methods of achieving outdoor and interior noise level standards. They are: spatial separation, intervening structures, acoustical barriers, architectural design, and construction techniques. The means of achieving the noise level standards should be the most cost effective given the nature of the specific situation and the need to protect the integrity of the development. These five methods should be considered as complimentary means of attaining an acceptable interior and exterior noise environment. Further information on these five methods is contained in Appendix 2.

Financial: The financial responsibility for achieving the interior and outdoor noise level standard should rest with the developer/ owner of the land adjacent to the railway corridor. As with the 8 Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study interim standards, the developer shall be responsible for posting signs in new residential areas advising future residents that railway noise levels may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants. Both the Transportation, and Planning and Building Departments will maintain maps and/or plans delineating residential areas with probable noise impacts.

8. Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study: Stage II, City of Edmonton Transportation Department, 1983.

-30-

4.2 NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS

There are two main noise level standards to be reviewed for application in Edmonton. A subjective evaluation of these standards will be undertaken using the previously described criteria.

4.2.1 CMHC Standards

As mentioned in Section 3.1.2 CMHC has a general policy of advising the public and developers of noise attenuation methods.

This evaluation will examine the noise level standards contained in the CMHC document "Road and Rail Noise: Effects 9 on Housing" :

Room

Noise Level dBA Leq(24)

Bedrooms

35

Living, dining, recreation rooms

40

Kitchens, bathrooms, hallways, utility rooms

45

Outdoor recreation area

55

These standards are widely utilized for both road and railway traffic noise prediction and the document includes a means of identifying specific acoustical treatment necessary to achieve the standards. The implementation of the standards and mitigation measures requires a great deal of technical input

9. "Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing", Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, NHA 5156 81/10.

-31-

and review for each particular dwelling unit and room within each dwelling unit. A review of these standards would be necessary throughout the land development process.

4.2.2 UTNPS Standards

As previously noted, City Council adopted an outdoor amenity area noise level standard and an interior noise level 10 objective in the Urban Traffic Noise Policy Study.

The use of these standards would provide consistency with the work done to date on road traffic noise standards in Edmonton. The process of determining interior noise levels would be simplified. These standards would be less stringent than those contained in Section 4.2.1 while still providing an acceptable interior and outdoor amenity area noise environment.

Location

Noise Level (dBA Leg (24))

Interior

45

Outdoor amenity area

60

4.2.3 Default Scenario

Another alternative is to not adopt any noise standard at this time and allow the developers of land adjacent to railway corridors the opportunity to design the subdivision and construct the housing without being directed to consider the mitigation of railway noise.

10. "UTNPS, Stage II", City of Edmonton Transportation Department, 1983.

-32-

The acceptance of this alternative could lead to lengthy discussions between developers and the City Administration during the land development process. The absence of any railway noise mitigation measures could, in the long term, lead to pressure being exerted on the City and possibly the railway companies to provide relief from railway noise after the development of the neighbourhood.

4.2.4 Selection of a Noise Level Standard

Based on the description of the alternative noise level standards presented, a reasonable option is the use of the City's existing outdoor noise standard (Section 4.2.2) and the interim interior noise level objective. This would provide similar protection for residents adjacent to either roadway or railway noise sources. The responsibility for the implementation of noise control measures to achieve the standard should rest with the developer. Determination of the need for, and design of, noise attenuation should also be the developer's responsibility. The method to achieve the design noise level should reflect the most cost effective means based on the availablity of land, the site characteristics and the financial and design integrity of the

development.

The

financial implications of implementing the design noise level standard should rest with the developer.

Wherever possible,

the measures required to attain the design noise level should be identified and incorporated into the

planning for the

development at the earliest opportunity.

4.3 EVALUATION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONAL MEASURES

The implementation of operational measures by the railway companies to reduce railway noise generation and propagation is beyond the control of the City. The adoption of the measures identified in

- 33-

Section 3.2.2 is at the discretion of the railway company. This section of the report will review these types of measures in general terms for administrative, technical and financial considerations.

Operational noise control measures are adopted by the railway companies at their discretion based on public input or previous experience. Should the noise control measure involve construction or re-construction of facilities, plans may be circulated to the City for review at the Development Permit stage.

For the purpose of development approval the City's Land Use Bylaw recognizes that railway lands are governed by superior legislation (the Railway Act). As such, the railway would not be obligated to circulate any plans to the City. In the past, however, CN has submitted plans of proposed noise control measures to the City for review and comment.

It is assumed that any proposed operational noise control measure has acoustical benefits for the adjacent residential area. CN has indicated that consultants are used to review and verify the noise reduction expected from these measures. As these measures are not likely to produce any direct revenue for the railway company any costs incurred, either operating or capital, are not recoverable.

-34-

5.0 STRATEGY

5.1 Recommendations

This report has documented the sources and effects of railway noise with specific reference to the Edmonton situation. In as much as several areas of Edmonton have approval for residential development and other areas are expected to have residential land uses adjacent to railway facilities, this report provides direction for the development of these areas.

Consequently the following is recommended:

Recommendation

1. That the developer of any land adjacent to a railway facility be encouraged to incorporate land use planning and subdivision design techniques to achieve a residential outdoor amenity area noise level of 60 dBA Leq(24).

Action

The Administration will assist developers and builders in identifying railway noise problem areas and mitigating potential impacts.

Recommendation

2. That the City of Edmonton request that the Minister of Municipal Affairs amend the Planning Act by the addition of the following:

—35—

S 69 (3) (t)

the permissible noise level received by a residential development for the purpose of abating transportation noise.

S 77 (1) (f)

to construct or pay for the construction of such noise attenuation devices as are required in the opinion of the Development Officer to reduce the level of transportation noise received by a development to a level set forth in the Land Use Bylaw.

S 92 (1) (b) (vi)

to construct or pay for the construction of such noise attenuation devices as are required in the opinion of the Development Officer to reduce the level of transportation noise received by a subdivision to the level prescribed for the uses for which the subdivision is proposed.

S 92 (1) (b) (vii) to construct or pay for the construction of neighbourhood entrance signs to convey information necessary in the opinion of the Development Officer.

S 95 (d)

to the Crown in right of Alberta or a Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, land for noise attenuation facilities.

S 96 (1)

A subdivision approving authority may require the registered owner of a parcel that is the subject of a proposed subdivision to provide part of that parcel for the purpose of public roadways, or public utilities, or noise attenuation facilites.

-36-

Action

The Transportation Department will coordinate the preparation of these amendments for the consideration of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Recommendation

3. That pending the Planning Act amendments, the outdoor amenity area noise level standard of 60 dBA Leq(24) be used as an interim guideline for residential development adjacent to railway facilities.

Action

The use of an interim guideline at this time will provide direction to developers and builders.

Recommendation

4. That subsequent to the Planning Act amendments, the Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference, the Neighbourhood Structure Plan Terms of Reference and Area Redevelopment Plan Terms of Reference be amended to require the inclusion of a noise evaluation report for residential land adjacent to railway facilities.

Action

The Transportation Department will, at the appropriate time, request that the Planning and Building Department amend these documents to reflect this recommendation.

-37-

Recommendation

5. That the builder of new residential dwelling units adjacent to a railway facility be encouraged to incorporate architectural design and acoustical construction techniques to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA Leq (24).

Action

The Administration will review builders plans to achieve this interior noise level.

Recommendation

6. That the railway companies be encouraged to continue their implementation of operating and construction programs which reduce the generation and propagation of railway noise into existing residential areas of Edmonton.

Action

The Administration shall provide technical assistance to the railway companies in their efforts to reduce railway noise in residential areas.

5.2 Implementation

As noted in Section 4.3 the recommendations of this study should be incorporated into the planning process at the earliest possible stage of development. Pending the recommended amendments to the Planning Act, the noise level standards should be used as guidelines for the purpose of implementation. Identification of the need to

- 38-

attenuate railway noise at the Area Structure Plan (ASP) stage provides the greatest range of options (see Appendix 2). As the land development process passes on to the Neighbourhood Structure Plan (NSP) stage there is an opportunity to incorporate off-site set-backs and/or non-residential land use districts along the railway corridor. The subdivision design stage is the point at which noise attenuation facilities and/or on-site set-back requirements can be incorporated into the residential area. At the development approval stage the options available for noise control are limited to site design measures and specific construction techniques and materials.

These noise level standards and noise control measures should be used to evaluate all land use planning proposals and building permit applications for residential development in areas adjacent to railway facilities.

The responsibility for implementation of these standards should rest with the developer/builder. The responsibility for the review of proposed measures shall be undertaken by the Transportation Department, and the Planning and Building Department. The appropriate Railway Company may be consulted on the technical aspects of noise attenuation facilities contained in land use planning proposals.

Appendix 1

CMHC Noise Prediction Model

Appendix 1

In the locations where future residential development is planned adjacent to railway facilities it is important to be able to predict the amount of noise reaching the dwelling unit. To this end, the CMHC document "Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing" should be used to determine railway noise. To determine railway noise levels the following information is required: nominal train speed, total number of locomotives in a 24 hour period, the total number of railway cars in a 24 hour period, and the horizontal distances and vertical elevations relative to the source and the receiver.

The following methodology is taken from the CMHC document:

To determine locomotive noise requires the total number of locomotives per 24 hour period and the average number of railway cars per locomotive. Table A-1 provides the locomotive noise level at 30m for a train speed of 80 kmh. For train speed other than 80 kmh apply the appropriate correction from Table A.2. For distances other than 30m and in locations where there are vertical height differences or barriers between the source and receiver, refer to Table A.4 and the Effective Total Height above ground diagrams. Note that the source height used for locomotives is 4.0m. The distinction between "hard" and "soft" surfaces is related to the ground cover between source and receiver. If more than half of the ground between the source and receiver is concrete, asphalt, clay or compacted gravel then the acoustically "hard" surface correction factor from Table A.4 should be used. Conversely if more than half of the ground cover is "soft" (i.e. grass, vegetation etc.) then the acoustically "soft" surface correction should be used.

1.

"Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing," Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, NHA 5156 81/10.

To obtain the wheel/rail noise level refer to Table A.3. Should corrections for differences between source and receiver vertical heights or for the presence of barriers be necessary, refer to Table A.4. Note that wheel/rail noise generation source height is 0.5m.

When the locomotive and wheel/rail noise levels have been determined they should be combined by referring to Table A.5.

If the computed noise levels exceed the outdoor noise level standard the CMHC document should be referred to for the determination of barrier height and location. The determination of architectural and construction features which can reduce interior noise levels to the acceptable standard are also included in the CMHC report.

Table A.1 - Engine noise (in dB) at 30 m from track for train speed of 80 km/h

Total number of locomotives per day

1-4

Average number of cars/locomotives 40-46 33-39 26-32 19-25 12-18

5-11

47-53

4 or fewer

50

51

52

53

54 '

55

56

57

5

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

6

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

7 -

8

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

9 -

10

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

11 -

13

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

14 -

17

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

18 -

22

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

23 -

28

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

29 -

35

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

36 -

45

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

46 -

56

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

57 -

71

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

72 -

90

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

91 - 110

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

111 - 142

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

143 - 180

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

181 - 225

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Table A.2 - Correction (in dB) to engine noise for actual train speed

Actual Train Speed km/h Correction (dB)

Up to 34 35-43 44-51 52-61 62-74 75-86 87-105 -5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

-1

over 105 -2

.

Table A.3 - Wheel-Rail noise (in dB) at 30 m from track

Total number of railway cars per day

up to 27

28 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 40

Train 41 to 47

up to 70 71 90 91 - 110 111 - 140 141 - 180

42 43 44 45 46

43 44 45 46 47

44 45 46 47 48

45 46 47 48 49

220 280 350 440 560

47 48 49 50 51

48 49 50 51 52

49 50 51 52 53

561 - 700 701 - 890 891- 1120 1121 - 1400 1401 - 1770

52 53 54 55 56

53 54 55 56 57

1771- 2230 2231- 2800

57 58

58 59

181 221 281 351 441

-

Speed (km/h) 48 54 62 to to to 53 61 72

73 to 84

85 to 97

98 to 111

112 to 129

over 129

46 47 48 49 50

47 48 49 50 51

48 49 50 51 52

49 50 51 52 53

50 51 52 53 54

51 52 53 54 55

52 53 54 55 56

53 54 55 56 57

54 55 56 57 58

50 51 52 53 54

51 52 53 54 55

52 53 54 55 56

53 54 55 56 57

54 55 56 57 58

55 56 57 58 59

56 57 58 59 60

57 58 59 60 61

58 59 60 61 62

59 60 61 62 63

54 55 56 57 58

55 56 57 58 59

56 57 58 59 60

57 58 59 60 61

58 59 60 61 62

59 60 61 62 63

60 61 62 63 64

61 62 63 64 65

62 63 64 65 66

63 64 65 66 67

64 65 66 67 68

59 60

60 61

61 62

62 63

63 64

64 65

65 66

66 67

67 68

68 69

69 70

Table A.4 - Correction (in dB) for distance from source to receiver and for total effective height above ground Effective Total Height Above Ground (metres)

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN METRES FROM SOURCE TO RECEIVING POINT up to 11

11 to 14

15 to 18

19 to 22

23 to 27

28 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 57

58 to 72

73 to 90

91 to 112

113 to 142

143 to 180

181 to 225

226 to 275

276 to 350

351 to 450

451 or over

Correction in dB if acoustically "soft" surface 58.0 45.1 36.1 28.1 22.1 18.1 14.1 11.1 9.1 7.1 5.6 4.1 2.6 up

or to to to to to to to to to to to to to

over 57.0 45.0 36.0 26.0 22.0 18.0 14.0 11.0 9.0 7.0 5.5 4.0 2.5

+5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5

+4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4

+3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3

+2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0 -1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -2 -3

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -4 -5

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -6 -7

-3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -8 -9

-4 -4 -4 '-4 -4 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -10 -11

-5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -12 -13

-6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -14 -15

-7 -7 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -14 -15 -16 -17

-8 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -16 -17 -18 -19

-9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -17 -18 -18 -19 -21

-11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -17 -18 -19 -19 -20 -21 -22

-13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -18 -19 -20 -20 -20 -21 -22 -23

-15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -20 -21 -21 -22 -22 -23 -24 -25

-5

-6

-7

-8

-9

-10

-11

-12

Correction in dB if acoustically "hard" surface All Heights

+5

+4

+3

+2

+1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

Table A.5 — Correction for combining noise levels expressed in dB

If higher level exceeds lower level by

0 — 'I dB 2 — 4 dB 5 — 9 dB over 10 dB

Add this correction to higher level

3 dB 2 dB 1 dB 0d8

Appendix 2

Noise Control Options

Appendix 2

Noise Control Options

In the absence of noise control legislation from senior levels of government, the options for protecting residential land uses from railway noise consist of the following techniques: spatial separation, land use barriers, acoustical barriers, architectural design and acoustical construction techniques.

The degree to which any combination of these options is successful in reducing railway noise is dependent on the specific site characteristics and the noise generated by the railway facility based on the classification contained in Section 2.3.

Each of these noise control options will be defined in terms of the concept, the noise attenuation mechanism, and variations of the options available.

Spatial Separation

In theory, separating the noise generator and the noise receptor will reduce noise levels. The most effective use of distance as a noise reduction method occurs when a receiver, which is originally close to the noise source, is moved away from the source. Depending on the characteristics of the noise source, doubling the distance between source and receiver will reduce noise levels between 3 and 6 dBA. It should be mentioned that a 3dBA change in the noise level is considered barely perceptable to the average person.

Spatial separation can be provided through off-site or on-site measures.

Off-site measures include the location of roadways and parks between the source and receiver while on-site measures are building set-backs. The major implication of this option relates to the cost of providing the land necessary for the separation. The optimum situation is to have the

separation designed as an integral and functional part of the neighbourhood. A neighbourhood designed with parks and/or roadway along a railway corridor provides a measure of attenuation. Failing this, land must be acquired for the off-site separation space which could result in inefficient use of land.

Land Use Districting

The basic intention of this option is to reduce the amount of noise entering a residential area. This option uses noise insensitive buildings along a railway corridor to prevent railway noise from entering the neighbourhood. Ideally these buildings should be located the entire length of the noise source to have the greatest effect.

The efficient use of the natural site features will enchance the use of intervening structures. The use of the topography and natural landscape can provide a more efficient and aesthetically acceptable barrier. To be most effective these structures should be close to the noise source and there should be a minimum of space between the buildings.

Commercial or office buildings are examples of noise insensitive buildings that can be integrated into the neighbourhood and provide relief from noise. In certain cases residential buildings (i.e. apartments, townhouses) can be used as a barrier. These types of structures provide the greatest range of options for orientating less sensitive rooms or building components (i.e. corridors, parking structures) towards noise sources. Single family housing can be designed with these features, however fewer options are available. Special design and construction techniques would be required to protect residents of these buildings.

Acoustical Barriers

Acoustical barriers are facilities placed between the noise source and the noise receiver. There are three basic types of barriers: a berm, a wall, and a berm/wall combination. The choice of barrier type is dependent on the amount of land available, cost, noise levels, topography and the required attenuation.

Correctly designed, any one of these three types of facilities can be an effective means of attenuating excessive amounts of railway noise for the outdoor amenity area and ground floor rooms. Attenuation of noise at the second storey level or higher in dwelling units is seldom achieved due to the practical and financial limits of acoustical barrier construction.

Typically, a berm requires a horizontal right—of—way six times its height; meaning that a large amount of land must be available for a berm of substantial height. A barrier wall requires less land than a berm and can be as effective a noise attenuator. A berm/wall combination reduces the land requirements of a full height berm and the scale of a full height wall while still providing a comparable noise attenuation facility.

Architectural Design

The objective of considering noise during the architectural design of a single dwelling unit or a multiple family building is to place the bedrooms and other noise sensitive living space away from the noise exposed side(s) of the dwelling unit. The placement of less noise sensitive rooms (i.e. kitchens, bathrooms) between the noise sensitive rooms and the noise exposed building face would contribute to a more acceptable interior noise level. In addition, the orientation of windows away from a noise source can significantly reduce interior noise levels since glass is a poor sound absorber.

(iv)

Locating the outdoor amenity area on the opposite side of the dwelling unit from the noise source could provide a certain amount of acoustical shielding. The degree to which the shielding is effective is based on site specific variables such as width of the building, site arrangement of neighbouring structures and the relative location of the noise source.

Construction Techniques

The use of acoustical construction techniques can be an alternative to architectural design where design possibilities are not practical or when additional attenuation is required. The use of special construction materials and/or techniques may be required for walls, windows, doors and other interior features. There are a number of wall construction methods which reduce the transmission of noise. Generally, increasing the wall width and spacing of studs will increase the noise attenuation capability of a wall. Thicker glass and double or triple paned windows coupled with increased airspace between panes and, if possible, sealed window units would increase the transmission loss of noise through windows. The most acoustically efficient door is one which is solid with weatherstripping around the frame.

Other acoustically beneficial treatments for the interior of a dwelling unit include thick carpet throughout and acoustical ceiling tiles.

Summary

The lack of Federal and Provincial Legislation regarding railway noise places the onus of protection for residential areas on the municipality.

As the summary of municipal policy and practices indicates, there are few established policies and land use options currently in use in major Canadian cities.

(v)

The outline of these five major options provides an indication of the potential methods of protecting residential areas from predicted excessive levels of railway noise. It is important to remember that the five options identified should be considered as complementary means of attaining an acceptable noise environment both inside the dwelling unit and in the outdoor amenity area.

The following are sources of further information on acoustic insulation for homes:

Designing a Sound Insulated Home

"Design Guide for Reducing Transportation Noise in and Around Buildings," Building Science Series No. 4, National Bureau of Standards; U.S. Department of Commerce; April 1978.

"New Housing and Airport Noise,", Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation, NHA 5185 78/03

"Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing," Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation, NHA 5156 81/10.

Sound Insulating a Home

"Walls and Ceilings," Home Repair and Improvement Series; Time Life Books, 1981.

"Quieting the Home," Office of Noise Abatement Control; United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 1978.

"How You Can Soundproof Your Home," P. Jensen and G. Sweitzer; Lexington Massachusetts: Lexington Publishing Company; 1974.