What follows is the contents of an open and very public conversation had with the PR team at Metrolinx. Most other email addresses and other identifying info has removed.
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:17 PM
Subject: Metrolinx Noise Wall Feedback
Hello Fellow CAC Members,
I would like thank everybody that took the time feedback to the final questionnaire and I’d like to thank the team at Metrolinx for compliling and distributing the results. Some very interesting points were raised through the anonymous questionnaire that did not come out in the meetings, and I am please to now have an even better understanding of the issue. Reading through the feedback did however raise a few issues and concerns that I’m hoping the team at Metrolinx can help clarify.
1. It seems clear to me that the opinion on whether to ‘full build’ varies across the three subject areas. I think this is great in that it indicates we generally put a fair bit of thought into our answers. However, it is difficult to correlate some people’s statements with their support for full build. I did my best to visualize it with the pictograph below (red opposes full build, green supports, white is indeterminate)
*% of respondents. 15% of the committee members didn’t even respond which would skew the ‘unknown’ percentage even higher.
My ask of Metrolinx is to update the document to explicitly indicate each respondent’s support or opposition for the full build for each of the three areas. The submitted forms have no personally identifying information, so if they were to be shared then I could compile this data myself in less than 30 minutes. This would also help us ensure nothing was missed. For example, my own responses to the official survey did not make it into the compiled answers document — though in all fairness I wrote the last quarter of the distributed doc as an essay submission before I even saw the formal survey.
2. Some of the reasons stated for supporting the wall are based on information that I understand to be incorrect. I would not want anybody to later regret supporting this neighbourhood changing barrier based on flawed information, so I hope the team at Metrolinx can provide clarifications on the following items:
2.A – If the walls are not built now, there will be no money to build them if they’re required in the future
. At the first committee meeting, the project lead stated that Metrolinx will always be responsible for noise mitigation in the corridor whether or not walls are built in 2015. Then again, he’s no longer with the organization. I understand that railway noise is governed Federally (through the Canadian Transportation Agency), and if Metrolinx exceeds acceptable noise levels at any time in the future then they will be required to mitigate either with walls, slowing trains, quieter engines, etc…
Can Metrolinx re-confirm that ‘full build’ is not a “now or never” decision.
2.B – If some sections of wall are built at a later date they may not be consistent with the 2015 walls
I understand that while fully transparent walls have not been deployed elsewhere, they are not a new or novel technology.
Can Metrolinx confirm that the walls are being built from ‘standard’ components and it should not be difficult to find matching parts for maintenance or new construction in the future?
2.C – Building walls in stages will increase the amount environmental damage
I understand the walls are typically constructed from within the corridor and the corridor land will never see greenery again. The environmental damage has already been done permanently.
Can Metroinx confirm that there is no difference in the environmental impact of building the walls now vs. later?
2.D – We need to build the walls to protect people’s hearing
The expected benefit of noise walls in 2015 is not known. There is no evidence that the proposed barriers will result in any noticeable improvement, or that they will not actually make noise issues even worse — which is entirely possible. It would be foolish to construct the walls without first knowing how well they are expected to work.
Can Metrolinx leverage the preliminary wall designs to accurately model what noise levels will be like in 2015 both with and without the full build walls so we can understand the actual expected noise reduction?
I’ll finish with a few thoughts and observations:
-I am incredibly excited that the Environmental Assessment for electrification of the UP Express has officially commenced! This is a tangible and significant step towards electrification of our rail corridor in the near future and will provide far more effective noise mitigation, considerable health benefits, improved transportation capabilities, and is overall a great thing for our neighbourhood, Toronto, and beyond!
-Quite few people mentioned the desired/proposed electrification of the corridor, and so the EA should make many of us very happy.
-There is still some confusion on the specifics of the wall designs. One committee member supports a .6m concrete based wall along Dundas when the proposed concrete will in fact be 3 times taller (over head height). I hope the bird bars won’t be similarly surprising and disappointing.
-The folks supporting the full build for 2015 are a charitable bunch. More than one of the statements appear to support the wall primarily for the benefit of others (school kids, neighbours, future residents, etc…). I sincerely hope this is not misguided generosity that might never be appreciated (or even worse — a trojan horse). I want more people to want the wall for themselves!
-A significant portion of the 43% of committee members supporting the full build walls in 2015 have not specified why. I really do want to understand, so please help me out with a sentence or two. Are a lot of people out there being bothered by the noise right now?
-The folks opposed to the wall appear to have a “David and Goliath” complex towards Metrolinx.
-Most of us have never been to “Section #1”. It may as well be a whole world away. Did we have representation on the committee from anybody that actually lives there, or has at least been there?
-The CAC process (while obviously improvised) has been and continues to be a valuable experience for me. We’re about to enter round 3 of Metrolinx trying to get the specific feedback they desire and I’ve
learned a great deal about how our Provincial Agencies can interact with the public they are supposed to serve.
-At least one person modified their opinion to help the committee reach “consensus”. I’m disappointed. Consensus was not the goal of the advisory committee. The purpose was to explore the depth and diversity of opinions. Metrolinx already stated at the first meeting that they will ultimately do what they want to. Even if the the organization took a position against everybody’s wishes, there is no mechanism to ultimately hold anybody accountable. Please, everybody, always express what *YOU* feel. You should never regret speaking your mind — but you could easily regret speaking somebody else’s.
If you’ve read to the end then I sincerely thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I would love to hear from you too.
Happy Holidays!
Cheers,
Tim
From: Mandeep Jassal <Mandeep.Jassal@gotransit.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 December, 2013 9:13 AM
To: Tim Noronha <tim@thewestbend.ca>
Subject: RE: Metrolinx Noise Wall Feedback
Hi Tim,
Thank you for your questions. It’s not clear how you arrived at the inputs for your ‘pictograph’. It appears that you have reviewed the comments from CAC members which Metrolinx circulated to try and determine who was for, opposed or unknown for each section. I would ask that you not try to split out the feedback from the CAC members in this way. We approached design of all the walls as one committee, not as three separate committees. We have shared the feedback with everyone and the results are: 57% do not support installing Full Build noise walls for 2015 and 43% support installing the Full Build noise walls for 2015.
Unfortunately, we had technical difficulties with a couple of the feedback forms, including yours, and the comments came up as blank when it was reviewed. When you brought this to our attention, we revisited the forms and found the feedback after searching within the PDF document. Attached you will find the original feedback forms that were submitted with comments and selections of preference. We also received feedback through five e-mails and three phone calls. A recap of these interactions is also included.
Metrolinx has previously stated that if the Full Build noise walls are not installed for 2015, there is no set date for their installation – please review the meeting minutes for the Lansdowne to Bloor CAC meeting on October 29. We only know at what service level these walls are required – Full Build. It will be much more challenging to build noise walls at a future date given the expanded service in the corridor. Additionally, there will be significantly more impacts to the community as these walls will likely need to be installed overnight given the nature of the Union Pearson Express service schedule. As you know, Metrolinx is installing the Full Build walls in 2015 to provide the additional benefit of noise reduction for our neighbours. Without the installation of the Full Build noise walls in 2015, there will be an increase in train noise.
The noise wall designs use standard materials that are in use around the world and meet Ministry of Transportation standards. However, these are not “off the shelf” noise walls and require custom manufacturing because of the specific designs that were developed. It will be more challenging, and possibly costlier, to build smaller noise wall sections in the future as there will not be the economies of scale that we have today. For maintenance, we expect to have a few additional noise wall panels available.
It is incorrect to state that “The expected benefit of noise walls in 2015 is not known.” We have responded to you about this matter on many occasions to correct your mistaken assumption. It is clear in the 2012 Operational Noise and Vibration Assessment what the noise reduction will be from the noise walls for both the 2015 and Full Build service scenarios. It also shows what the increase in noise level will be without the Full Build noise walls installed for 2015. As we outlined for you in our recent communication on November 8, 2013, below is an example.
Noise attenuation varies depending on the receptor location. For example, at 2475 Dundas St. W., noise is reduced for the Full Build Scenario by 5.65 dB both during the day and night. Please review the charts in the 2012 Operational Noise and Vibration Assessment for more details.
Finally, I appreciate your point of view, but the noise wall public consultation and community advisory committee process was not improvised. A lot of thought and effort went into planning and co-ordinating 32 CAC meetings and four public meetings. We did our best to ensure a transparent and engaging process to ensure that communities that we work in and serve had the opportunity to have a say on how to integrate the noise walls into the surrounding neighbourhood.
Given that a majority of the committee has provided feedback that they do not want the Full Build walls installed for 2015, we are in the process of getting broader feedback from the community most directly impacted. I would appreciate it if you let this process unfold as it has been identified. We will report back to the committee on the feedback we received from your neighbours who back on to or face the rail corridor in this area.
Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Mandeep
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Mandeep Jassal
Subject: Re: Metrolinx Noise Wall Feedback
Hi Mandeep,
Thanks for your thorough response on behalf of the team at Metrolinx.
I developed my pictograph by attempting to extrapolate from the comments provided. I did not try to “split” the feedback in any way other than how the questions were posed — a Yes or No answer to each of the three sections. I’ve updated the pictograph to represent the complete information you have since provided. Thank you for sharing the completed forms and I’m glad I was able to help you identify the missing information. I was surprised to see support (and opposition) was more polarized than the comments would suggest, and I was a little disappointed at the number of participants that did not share any comments.
I am counting on the fact that if full build walls are not built for 2015 then there is no set date. I still believe they should *NEVER* be necessary. The GO service being added in 2015 represents less than 10% of the hypothetical “full build” scenario.
You cannot have the argument about more complex post 2015 deployments both ways. If electrification won’t be significantly more difficult after 2015, then a wall along the edge of the corridor certainly cannot be. Construction of the most substantial length of proposed wall along Dundas is on the opposite side of the corridor from the UP Express, and the UP adjacent section is very accessible from the rail path. The unsubstantial threat of overnight work amounts to little more than fear mongering and is wholly inappropriate. All this is presuming the walls will even be required within the next three decades. At that point the barriers will be past end-of-life and will require a ‘community impacting’ overhaul anyway.
I will clarify my previous statement to read “the expected benefit of *full build* noise walls in 2015 is unknown”. We have already accepted the need for the 2015 required walls and the construction of those is not in dispute. The 2012 Operational Noise and Vibration Assessment predicts impact numbers based on noise mitigation requirements and does not model the “community benefit” build being proposed. The data clearly indicates the expected level of mitigation ranging from less than 1 dB to almost 8 dB for the areas where a wall is specifically required for 2015. The remaining majority of modeled receptors indicate the potential noise impact with the expectation of no mitigation. Using the interpretation of the data you are suggesting, the predicted benefit of ‘full build’ walls in 2015 will be precisely 0.00 dB.
The report further states that the modeled noise impact is conservative (ie. high) and does not give any consideration to ambient noise. The ambient noise from Dundas is one of the biggest concerns along this section, and the latest barrier designs are expected to worsen its impact. At best, the benefit of the full build walls may barely exeed the “insignificant” threshold of 3dB. There remains a very real probability the proposed barriers will make noise conditions in the neighbourhoods East of Dundas even worse. I remain confident that the “mistaken assumptions” are being made strictly on your side of the wall.
Several members of our committee joined with the expectation that we would have opportunity for an intelligent discussion on the actual need for full build walls in 2015. This legitimate issue was deliberately excluded from the general public session, and a proper discussion was ultimately relegated to an email-in form mentioned in the last 5 minutes of our final meeting. If this tactic and the follow-on “focused feedback” sessions currently underway were not improvised but rather planned, then “disingenuous” would be a better way to describe the whole community engagement process of which the otherwise well executed CAC meetings were just a part.
The survey results do once again call into question Metrolinx’ initial decision in early 2012 to construct the full build walls “based on community feedback”. Even the current level of full build support is at best confounded with tepid tolerance. Metrolinx decision to stray from the EA requirements cannot be justified. The simple truth is that an arms-length Provincial Agency such is Metrolinx should not be making controversial decisions to provide their opinion of “community benefit” in areas outside of their transportation mandate. The underlying issue is that there is no mechanism to hold the agency or anybody accountable for what could ultimately prove to be a very bad decision.
Metrolinx must operate within the rules and regulations by which it is governed. Any decision to deploy more than the EA required noise mitigation is outside of the Agency’s mandate — regardless of intention or rationalization. If Metrolinx insists on providing extraneous community benefit it should be something the community clearly agrees on and with the support of our elected representatives. Extension of the rail path South of Dundas would certainly qualify. That the bureaucracy (which should be focused on execution) has taken a position in favour of building unnecessary noise barriers should be concerning, let alone that the position taken is indefensible.
I continue to be disappointed by the continued misrepresentation that noise barriers are the only option for noise mitigation. In most other jurisdictions they are considered a last resort not only because of their limited effectiveness, the maintenance burden, and their impact on neighbourhoods. The most effective means of noise mitigation operate on the source — in this case primarily the noisy diesel locomotive. Trains can be slowed, or even better the means of propulsion can be replaced. Noise source mitigation will also benefit those in areas where barriers are impractical and will address upper floor and residential interior noise — locations the proposed noise barriers completely fail to address.
With the EA for electrification of the corridor now officially underway, it is absolutely unacceptable for Metrolinx to continue dismissing the potential noise benefits electrification will provide. The unnecessary barriers are set to become semi-transparent striped elephants for which nobody will be responsible. I wish everybody would take a step back and look at the train-wreck of a bureaucratic boondoggle unfolding in front of us.
I want our Government to accelerate our track to electric trains. I want Metrolinx to focus on efficient and effective delivery of modern transportation services that benefit all communities they interact with.
I do not want to see any more time, money, or effort wasted on trying to validate, vindicate, or externalize a bad decision that should have never been made.
Sincerely,
Timothy Noronha
From: Manuel Pedrosa <Manuel.Pedrosa@metrolinx.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Timothy Noronha
Subject: Re: Metrolinx Noise Wall Feedback
Hi Tim,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would to take a moment to clarify some of your comments below. It is misrepresentative to only focus on the GO service being added in 2015. The total train trips in 2015 is more than half of the Full Build service level. This is a significant increase in train service than exists today.
You are misinformed that it is ‘unknown’ what the noise reduction will be with the installation of Full Build walls for 2015. Let’s use sensitive receptor A11 located at 2435 Dundas St. W. For 2015, the expected noise increase is 4.35 dB in the day and 3.53 dB at night. These are noticeable increases in noise from noise levels today which is not an insignificant increase in noise. The daytime expected increase is not far off from being a significant increase in noise (5 dB or greater) which would require mitigation. There is no doubt that installing noise walls in 2015 would significantly reduce this increase in noise. Your statement that “…the predicted benefit of ‘full build’ walls in 2015 will be precisely 0.00 dB” is simply not true.
The bottom line is that noise will be increasing in areas where noise walls are not required for 2015. As a responsible agency, based on community feedback, we feel it is appropriate to mitigate the increase in noise as much as possible.
It is important to note that 7 of the 8 noise wall advisory committees have endorsed the noise wall designs and accepted Metrolinx’s plan to install the full build noise walls for 2015. In fact, 43% of the noise wall committee in which you are a member supports the installation of full Build noise walls for 2015. Based on this, I would not characterize this as “tepid tolerance”.
I appreciate your point of view and it has been duly noted throughout this process. However, there are other differing points of view and it is important that all points of view be respected.
With regards to electrification, we have clearly demonstrated with an evidence-based review of the science that the vast majority of noise walls are still required. Even those noise walls that technically are not required, they will still provide noise mitigation to reduce noise levels.
I would like to wish you and your family all the best this holiday season and let’s touch base in the new year if you have anything further to discuss.
Regards,
Manuel Pedrosa
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:16 PM
To: Manuel Pedrosa
Subject: Re: Metrolinx Noise Wall Feedback
Thanks, Manuel, for so bluntly validating my concerns.
My focus on future GO service is completely appropriate. It is only unplanned future GO service that triggers any post-2015 walls. The airport train cannot get any noisier since it will be running at full frequency from day one. This particular service will actually get slightly quieter when electrified in 2017. Any GO service added a decade from now will also likely replace the existing diesel GO locomotievs with quieter ones. I do not believe I am misrepresenting that the existing evidence does not support building walls. I think the predicted noise levels are being misrepresented with your non-scientific ‘total trips’ statistic when we all know that different types of trains sound very different. Furthermore, this has already been considered as the EA used weighted dBA and specifically modeled every type of train but electric GO locomotives. I suggest you stick to the science and let’s be clear about what is being misrepresented by whom.
For receptor A11, please ‘inform’ me of what the train noise will be with barriers in place and 2015 service levels? You said I am misinformed, but you have still not provided any real data to satisfy this query. Your loose justifications of “not far off” and “no doubt” frighten me coming from a Metrolinx engineer — and are insufficient to qualify as ‘information’. We require an actual number from a study that ideally considers the type of wall and ambient noise effects and maybe even community sourced alternatives. You have strayed from what the EA approved into a proposal to spend millions of dollars to “significantly reduce the increase” in noise with no proof it will even work. Ironically, the sentence fragment you chose to quote out of context and label as ‘not true’ was characterizing your own team’s misinterpretation of the EA results.
At least we agree that this specific site, receptor A11, along Dundas does NOT meet the requirements for a wall.
Who wrote this line: “As a responsible agency, based on community feedback, we feel it is appropriate to mitigate the increase in noise as much as possible.”? I’ve seen it a few times and there is everything wrong with it. For Metrolinx to spend millions of dollars on a wall, against the community’s wishes, and with no evidence to support it is absolutely irresponsible. Your basis on “community feedback” has been proven as flawed as your approach to obtaining/dictating it. There must be no “we” allowed in neighbourhood damaging experiments. Somebody must be accountable — typically an elected representative. Finally, if Metrolinx wants to mitigate the increase in noise then it should be focused on the EAs for electrifying the corridor.
To get support for the walls, you basically told people they weren’t optional. I believe the exact quote was “you’re getting them whether you like them or not”. The information about 2015 vs. full build was deliberately withheld from the public information sessions. Then you tried to hide from the public that walls may only be required eventually if the line is not electrified; actually suggesting that electric trains are as noisy as diesel locomotives. Then you misled the public on actual service level increases planned. The comments from the workshops read like people were “okay” with the designs if the alternative was hearing almost 300 GO trains per day. If not ‘tepid’, then how would you characterize community acceptance of the proposed walls? At least my community has clearly (and repeatedly) stated that we demand something better than this ‘unnecessary wall’.
Please demonstrate the “evidence based” review and the supporting evidence for walls, as you’ve offered to do. The study I’ve seen shows most of them are not needed for 2015 and I think we can agree that electrification will reduce noise from the airport train even further. If most walls are not required in 2015, how can they possibly ‘still be required’ post-electrification?
I’ll simplify my previous asks even further to just two questions:
1. Where is the data or evidence supporting the full build of noise barriers in 2015?
2. Which engineers, executives, or other Metrolinx employees are responsible and more importantly, who are accountable for the decision to proceed with a full build of noise barriers given absolutely no supporting data or evidence? (in fact, with data and evidence and community opinion to the contrary!)
Regards,
Tim
From: “Manuel Pedrosa” <Manuel.Pedrosa@metrolinx.com>
To: “Timothy Noronha” <tim@thewestbend.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:09:48 PM
Subject: RE: Metrolinx Noise Wall Feedback
Good Morning, Tim,
Happy New Year! I hope that you’ve had a great start to 2014. We tried to thoroughly answer all of your questions related to noise mitigation from increased train service. At this point, I think it’s best that we sit down for a meeting to discuss any further clarifications you may require. There is nothing further to add over e-mail beyond the responses that have been provided to date.
Please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience to schedule a meeting if you require any further clarification.
Regards,
Manuel Pedrosa
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Monday, January13, 2014 1:00 PM
To: Manuel Pedrosa
Subject: Re: Metrolinx Noise Wall Feedback
Hi Manuel,
It would appear there is sufficient interest to proceed with the meeting you proposed.
However, you have already stated that you have nothing to add beyond information you’ve already provided. Significant questions remain unanswered and so I do not believe you are the right representative from Metrolinx to adequately address them. To respect the attendee’s time Metrolinx needs have the appropriate people present and be prepared to discuss:
1. The (missing) scientific evidence and other data in support of building any post 2015 walls
2. The decision making process that is responsible for deviating from what was actually studied and approved through the Environmental Assessment
3. Who is responsible and accountable for the decision to build post-2015 walls with no supporting data and against significant community opposition
4. Metrolinx commitment to ongoing, open and honest community engagement
Specifically on this last point, I’ll be looking for very specific answers to a few issues that continue to trouble me:
a) Why have the requirements for and effectiveness of constructing additional walls in 2015 been misrepresented?
There has been only one formal study on the projected noise levels and it did not model the scenario you are proposing to build. The study was absolutely clear on where barriers are required in 2015 and where they are not. There are no grounds to assert additional walls will be required ever. “We feel” is a wholly inadequate argument to dismiss the only scientific study. As an independent yet public agency, Metrolinx must adhere to the facts and the results of accepted and approved Environment Assessment. Fear-mongering statements like “you have no idea what’s coming” and “any post 2015 construction will occur overnight” must not be a part of the public discourse since Metrolinx public statements need to be independently verifiable.
b) Why was the Brown+Storey ‘community sourced’ proposal for the corridor dismissed without any consideration?
The stated reason that it does not meet the sound mitigation requirements is completely misleading and false as there are no noise mitigation requirements in the sections for which this green wall was proposed. The proposal meets all of the requirements for a 2015 build (namely security), and it has considerable community support as well. More than 90% of the CAC asked for a green wall and this proposal (or something derived from it) is far more acheivable than the single impractical example Metrolinx publicly disparaged on behalf of all green wall solutions.
c) Who within the organizational hierarchy is responsible and accountable for community impacting decisions made at Metrolinx?
Metrolinx has a specific mandate and is meant to operate independently within certain boundaries. Who is at fault when those boundaries are crossed — especially when to the the public’s detriment? That is the person we need at the meeting to explain Metrolinx’ position and to actually listen to our Communities. Attempting to ‘improve’ communities (especially when against their will) is task that should be reserved for elected representatives and those that directly report to them.
The decision to erect walls around our neighbourhoods without approval or even legitimate justification will have significant repercussions for Metrolinx at the political level and significant impacts on our neighbourhoods and communities on every level. Several years ago, Metrolinx (as GO) insisted to our communities it would be impossible to use any alternative to the pounding diesel pile-driver during the West Toronto Diamond Grade Separation project. You even fought us in court when we obtained a Federal injunction. After putting many people through over a year of hell, you ultimately implemented the very solution that the community had identified and requested from the start. We were always right, we were forced to fight, we were vindicated (I won’t say anybody ‘won’), and your team obviously learned very little from the whole unfortunate experience. Let’s not go through that again, as the impact this time is far more permanent and potentially devastating.
For the upcoming meeting, I am in favour of managing attendance to promote a productive two-way discussion. I am not interested in listening to a presentation that is simply a reiteration of the insufficient and contradictory information that you have provided already. We need to have an open and honest discussion about the long-term plans for the corridor and the concerns that may arise. Our community is interested, willing, and very capable of being an integral and active party in designing long term solutions for our rail corridor. I will confidently say that we have actually proven ourselves better suited than Metrolinx to lead the process. After all, it is our neighbourhoods and communities that have the most to gain or lose.
I ask everyone and especially the folks at Metrolinx to please take some time to thoroughly consider the points throughout this email thread. This is not just about walls. Let’s properly restart the community engagement process and move forward with the right people, appropriate and agreed-upon goals, and an approach that respects the wealth of knowledge, experience and competence that we all have to bring to the table.
For a next meeting, we have already identified several community members and representatives who are willing to participate. I ask that Metrolinx identify the right people within your organization who are willing and effectively able to do the same, so that we can quickly get to work. I would be pleased to co-ordinate with an appropriate member of your organization to develop a clear agenda and a framework to ensure a productive discussion. Please have them contact me directly if they wish.
Thank you for your efforts thus far.
Sincerely,
Timothy Noronha
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:54 PM
While we patiently wait for the team at Metrolinx to convene the promised meeting, I will try to clarify what I do and do not want to see unfold.
I do not think we need yet another survey of public opinion on a noise wall. Just as such a significant neighbourhood impacting decision should not be made by transportation bureaucrats, it cannot be made based on a sampling of public opinion. Decisions like these should be made based on facts — something that is clearly lacking here. I am most disappointed that a fantastic opportunity to enhance and improve our neighbourhoods has deteriorated into a debate about building a wall.
I blame the flawed community engagement approach of Metrolinx for the unfortunate fact that we have an adversarial situation at all. As a community, I believe we are all fully in agreement that we want to and need to peacefully co-exist with the rail corridor. I am not convinced a wall will get us there since the only formal study done to date explicitly questions the effectiveness of a noise mitigation wall along Dundas. The potential benefit of full build walls in 2015 has not been studied and even the benefits for the impossible ‘full-build’ scenario are based on a very different wall construction than what is now proposed. What every scientific study of rail noise everywhere has shown is that the most effective way to deal with rail noise is at the source because it also addresses the many, many scenarios a wall does not.
I fully agree with the three criteria/considerations Tariq has laid out — though I do want to move away from an adversarial process. Let’s start by recognizing that we’re all on the same side and all after the same thing — peace and quiet. We should equip ourselves for an informed and intelligent discussion about what issues (and opportunities) the rail corridor represents now and in the future. We need to work together with Metrolinx to develop a long-term plan to manage community impacts and focus on enhancement rather than mitigation. I worry that the proposed wall is a short-sighted excuse for Metrolinx to not properly engage with the communities their infrastructure impacts and I remain deeply concerned that it will not provide the noise relief that all of us seek.
I would like to participate in the founding of community working group that will have an ongoing relationship with Metrolinx. The rail corridor is not going away, and there is no one-time ‘fix’. The purpose of the group will be to identify and manage real issues and concerns as they relate to the rail corridor and work with Metrolinx to develop the creative and innovative solutions Metrolinx promotes in their television commercials. This is what I have been asking of Metrolinx for the two years since they arbitrarily decided that it would be easier to just build a wall.
I do not like when Provincial Agencies make decisions behind closed doors that are outside of their mandate and that can negatively affect communities. I am concerned that no evidence has been provided to support what I am convinced is a short-sighted and bad decision. I am not pleased that the consultation process was an exercise in pushing the decision through rather than actually consulting with the community to address potential issues. Rather than investing our energy into improving the relationship between the rail corridor and the communities it bounds, we have distracted ourselves arguing over a one-time (for all time) solution that we can’t even confirm will make things better.
The wall will not make sound disappear. It just deflects some of it somewhere else (higher frequency noise away from outdoor ground level within 300m of the corridor). Anybody that’s been bothered by the construction taking place these past few weeks should note that they’re hearing the noise despite the fact that our homes are made of walls — much more solid walls with ceilings and surrounded by neighbour’s walls. The wall will not deflect only train noise and we are in an area that is already recognized to have a significant level of other ambient noise. After 2015, if this wall experiment turns out to be a total failure, then who’s problem will it be?
There are places where a wall could be an appropriate solution. There are other places where even a 10m tall wall would not be sufficient to provide noise relief. There are many more effective ways than walls to address noise issues. Our community deserves the opportunity to explore all of the options. Instead, we have been divided and herded into accepting the short-term plan of an organization that has never been known for its proactive problem solving.
Let’s stop talking just about a wall. I would really like us all to focus our efforts on a comprehensive plan to integrate and harmonize our neighbourhoods and the rail corridor now and into the future. We have the interest, the intelligence, the capability, do so much better. Most importantly, we have the most at stake.
Yes; the solution will involve building a few walls this year, but in the long-term we’re worthy and deserving of a whole lot more.
Regards,
Tim
From: “Manuel Pedrosa” <Manuel.Pedrosa@metrolinx.com>
To: “Timothy Noronha” <tim@thewestbend.ca>,
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 3:24:31 PM
Subject: Meeting: Thursday, February 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Good Afternoon,
We have scheduled a meeting for Thursday, February 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at 901 King St. W. (presentation centre) – right next door to the GTS Project community office at the corner of Strachan Ave. and King St. W.
We appreciate that different people have expressed different opinions on the scope and nature of what this meeting should and shouldn’t be about. We have tried to balance the different requests and we are proposing the following agenda to ensure we maximize everyone’s valuable time.
Proposed Meeting Agenda
- Metrolinx to answers questions and clarify the science behind the noise assessments
- Information on how much the Future Build noise walls (between Dupont St. and Bloor St. W.) will reduce noise in 2015
- Review of the Metrolinx policy decision to install the Full Build noise walls for 2015
- Review of the impact of electrification on the need for noise walls
- Input on how Metrolinx can improve its community engagement going forward
We are recommending the above agenda to ensure that we stay focused on the concerns discussed during the ongoing e-mail dialogue.
In attendance at the meeting will be our noise and vibration consultant, GTS Project Director Gord Troughton, Metrolinx Director of Community and Stakeholder Relations Dina Graser, and other GTS Project team members.
We look forward to a productive dialogue that answers your questions as best we can. Please RSVP your attendance so that we can plan accordingly.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Manuel Pedrosa
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 10:23 AM
To: Manuel Pedrosa
Subject: Re: Meeting: Thursday, February 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Hi Manuel,
Will any new information be presented during this meeting?
It was made very clear that we are not interested in a simple review of already presented information. The available data has already been thoroughly reviewed and there are still significant gaps the community has identified. We’re looking for details on what is missing — not the opportunity to ask yet again.
If anything new is to be discussed then it would be a much better use of everybody’s time if the materials are distributed in advance. I know Ike has sent you several technical questions for which the noise and vibration consultants should have answers ready before any meeting. I’ve shared my questions and even summarized them down to two straightforward requests. It’s pointless for us to meet in person and ask the same questions again just to be told “We’ll get back to you”.
The intended purpose of the meeting was to address Metrolinx flawed decision to construct additional and unnecessary noise walls despite a lack of evidence supporting their effectiveness and without the appropriate authority to do so. The meeting needs to include the persons responsible for these decisions with the power to overturn or at least defer them. I don’t see anybody on the proposed attendee list who could actually be held accountable to the community for the consequences of what Metrolinx is planning to do. The proposed meeting can only have one possible outcome and it will get us no closer to a resolution of the outstanding issues. With only one possible outcome it will not be a discussion, but rather a presentation. Without anything new to present, it would not be something we need to assemble everybody for.
The content for first three items on your agenda could be assembled into a document for distribution in advance of a meeting. This would allow us to ensure you’ve accurately captured all the outstanding questions and concerns, and it would give us some time to review your response. They are not items that we need people to take time out of their evening to listen to as all the information is supposed to be already publicly available. Can your team please consolidate all of the questions and concerns as you understand them into single document and provide a response for everybody on this list to review?
As far as the impact of electrification on the need for walls (item 4), I understand the electrification study has only just commenced. Are noise impacts being considered and studied in the electrification EA? I think it would be good to consolidate the already available information and distribute it with the doc above. From what I understand, no scientific study has been performed on the impacts of electrification since the technology has not yet been determined. We know that electric trains will be quieter — just not by how much.
To improve community engagement, Metrolinx needs to acknowledge engagement as a two way process. The process up to (and including) now has been all about Metrolinx justifying to the community what has already been decided (through a closed process). That’s not engagement. The “we know what is right for the community and you’re getting it whether you like it or not” attitude has to go. Even the CAC process was tainted by false constraints – for example that any wall constructed had to be MoT approved. You know we both discussed well in advance of the CAC meetings that this requirement does not actually apply to the non-2015 ‘full build’ walls. The end resulting design proposal was far from the nearly unanimous desire for a “green wall” solution and it did not need to be. In fact, the community even brought a detailed, viable and requirements satisfying green wall proposal to Metrolinx only to have it completely ignored.
The only way to start improving Metrolinx community relations is for the organization to prove it is listening to community concerns and is willing to act on them not just to systematically discredit them. Your team needs to come up with substantive, open, and honest responses to the issues and be ready to follow up with appropriate and productive actions. I think the first big step towards doing so would be to show you actually understand the concerns we’ve expressed by producing a detailed and *objective* analysis of the full-build wall issue. Please produce and circulate an initial draft and I’m sure we’d all be happy to help you catch anything you missed.
Without tangible evidence of a well thought out response that seeks to actually address our concerns rather than dismiss them, I do not see how a meeting with the agenda proposed for next week could be a productive use of anybody’s time.
Thanks,
Tim
From: “Manuel Pedrosa” <Manuel.Pedrosa@metrolinx.com>
To: “Timothy Noronha” <tim@thewestbend.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:54:09 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting: Thursday, February 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Hi Tim,
This meeting is for you and other community members to seek further clarification on our responses and our scientific evaluation of noise and vibration impacts from transit expansion. We are providing new information in response to the question: how much the Full Build noise walls installed for 2015 will reduce noise in the area between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street?
We are not planning on making a presentation as we have presented this material on several occasions and we have provided comprehensive responses to all questions posed to Metrolinx on the topic of noise assessment, timing of noise wall installation, and the regulatory requirement to mitigate the noise increase from transit expansion.
I must challenge your assumption that this “meeting can only have one possible outcome…” Metrolinx’s goal at this meeting is to answer questions, clarify the understanding of our noise assessment process and results, and to get feedback on how we can improve our community engagement going forward.
Your assertion that this “… meeting needs to include the persons responsible for these decisions…” is not appropriate as this is not the purpose of the meeting. We will review with you the rationale for Metrolinx’s decision to install the Full Build noise walls for 2015. I appreciate that you and some other community members are not supportive of this decision, but, there are other community members who are supportive of the decision.
We are more than happy to re-circulate material to help inform attendees in advance of the meeting and to provide some additional reference material.
- 2012 Operational Noise and Vibration Assessment
- 2013 Assessment of Noise Impacts with Electrification of Union Pearson Express and GO Trains
- New! 2014 Review of the Noise Reduction Provided by Full Build Noise Walls at Opening Day (2015) Between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street (Attached)
- This review was completed in response to the question of how much noise will be reduced by the Full Build noise walls in 2014 through the area of Bloor Street West and Dupont Street.
We look forward to having a productive meeting where we can provide further clarity on our previous responses and to create a better understanding of the science behind our noise and vibration assessment.
Regards,
Manuel Pedrosa
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:13 AM
To: Manuel Pedrosa
Subject: Re: Meeting: Thursday, February 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Hi Manuel,
Thank you for finally providing the noise study that was just completed yet you have been claiming was available all along. I feel vindicated by the fact that it highlights many of the concerns I have been expressing, and also confirms that the effectiveness of noise barriers has been overestimated. This simple study still does not consider the more noise reflective wall design now proposed, nor the considerable effects from ambient noise including the traffic on Dundas — further weakening your case. The science and common sense do not support rushing into this massive construction.
You have made it clear that the decision to install full build walls is as final now as it was two years ago when you told us we’re getting them whether we like it or not. All statements that the decision could be revisited have been blatantly insincere as we have repeatedly met the criteria. The rationale provided for the full build decision remains insufficient and the recent results of the CAC survey prove that it remains severely flawed. Our community is NOT supportive of Metrolinx plan. We’ve tried to work with Metrolinx towards acceptable alternatives but the results of your community engagement were discarded when they didn’t fit the desired outcome — even in spite of your attempts to skew the data in your favour.
The purpose of the meeting I wish to attend is to meet the decision makers. Nobody seems able to identify who they are, and it seems nobody will be held accountable when we realize that we’ve once again been misled by Metrolinx. The walls won’t look like they’ve been presented, and they won’t improve noise conditions to the extent claimed. Nobody is willing to take ownership for this clearly controversial course of action which suggests an organization that is out of control. It is unacceptable for an organization that is supposed to serve the public to act so completely in contempt of it. My request and the community’s desire to meet with somebody responsible is absolutely appropriate to a public institution in a democratic society.
You wish to challenge my assumption that there is only one possible outcome for the proposed meeting. Please do so by identifying what if anything of the approach Metrolinx is willing to change. What do you believe the meeting can “produce”?
If the decision to build was made based on science (as you claim), then there would be no full-build walls in 2015. Plain and simple; they are NOT required by any regulatory requirement and to suggest otherwise is a deliberate lie. Instead, the decision has been made by unknown persons based on community feedback that was apparently fabricated and has been since been proven flawed. To this day, Metrolinx has been unable to share with anybody including the Minister of Transportation, solid evidence of a sound decision making process in choosing to divide our City with unnecessary and unproven walls.
All we are asking is for the opportunity to evaluate the noise barriers through the required 2015 build before they are irreversibly deployed everywhere else. Metrolinx intention to rush into building these walls despite all the opposition and the lack of supporting evidence is a disrespectful, wasteful, and dangerous experiment for which my neighbourhood bears all the risks and has little to gain.
As you forge ahead and put the full build wall contract to tender, what is it going to take to apply even a bit of sober reasoning to this nonsense?
Tim
From: “Manuel Pedrosa” <Manuel.Pedrosa@metrolinx.com>
To: “Timothy Noronha” <tim@thewestbend.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 4:14:52 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting: Thursday, February 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Hi Tim,
We have never claimed that the just released study was previously available. What we have said is that the 2012 Operational Noise and Vibration Study shows the increase in noise across the rail corridor from transit expansion – including the locations that require noise walls for the Full Build service level. Here is a quick review of the study which assessed exactly what the reduction in noise is from the Full Build noise walls being installed for 2015:
What we assessed
This assessment calculates the projected reduction in noise from Full Build noise walls installed in 2015 for the area between Bloor St. W. and Dupont St.
How we calculated the reduction in noise
The noise consultant looked at the effectiveness of the Full Build noise walls (i.e. how much they reduced noise) for the Full Build service level and applied that ‘factor’ of noise reduction to calculate the reduction in noise for the Opening Day 2015 service level for the Full Build walls in question.
Adjusting for differences
Since the effectiveness of the noise walls will not be exactly the same for the Opening Day 2015 service level as the Full Build service level, the figures are slightly overestimated. The greatest overestimate of noise reduction is at receptor location A03 with an insignificant (not audibly perceptible) 0.66 dB overestimation in effectiveness. Since this is an insignificant correction factor, it is not considered to be a factor affecting the overall noise reduction estimates in Table 1.
As we previously shared with you and others, we reviewed the concern of the reflective nature of the acrylic wall design and found that the bounce back from Dundas St. W. traffic noise creates an insignificant increase in noise of 0.5 dB (not audibly perceptible). We have shared this during the noise wall community public consultation and through correspondence (see for example the e-mail sent to Mr. Ike Zimbel and yourself dated October 30, 2013).
You are correct that Metrolinx made a decision in 2012 to install the Full Build noise walls for 2015 after receiving community feedback during our public consultation process. As you know, we completed an engagement process with the Bloor to St. Clair noise wall community advisory committee (CAC), of which you are member, to evaluate next steps to possibly revisit the 2012 decision. The results of the CAC survey were shared with you and the rest of the committee and we committed to further engage with the residents directly facing or adjacent to the rail corridor since there was no clear consensus amongst the members of the CAC. The results of this further engagement will be shared with you and the CAC shortly.
Gord Troughton, Director, Georgetown South Project, is attending the meeting on February 13. He is responsible for any decisions made on this project and will be available to answer any questions you may have.
Our goal for the February 13 meeting, as stated previously, is to provide further clarity on any outstanding questions you may have with regards to our noise assessment, timing of noise wall installation, and the regulatory requirement to mitigate the noise increase from transit expansion.
You are also correct that the Full Build noise walls are not required for 2015. We have never said they are required in 2015. Metrolinx has made a policy decision to install the Full Build noise walls for 2015 to provide the communities along our rail corridor with an additional reduction in noise from increased transit service. Without this installation, these locations will experience a perceptible increase in noise as identified by our noise assessment.
With regards to ‘fabricated community feedback’, I would have to ask that you please not misrepresent the facts. Metrolinx did indeed receive feedback from communities from across the corridor during our 2011-2012 public consultation requesting the installation of the Full Build noise walls for 2015. Afterwards, we received feedback, from yourself and others, requesting that the decision to install the Full Build noise walls for 2015 be reversed.
As a provincial public agency, Metrolinx has to balance sometimes competing opinions and priorities and make decisions that are in the best interests of the region and our commitments to the communities in which we work and serve. It’s a difficult job and we appreciate that not everyone is going to agree with all of our decisions.
We look forward to sitting down with you and other interested individuals to have a respectful and comprehensive discussion to ensure that all questions and concerns are addressed. We appreciate that you and others may not like some of our answers but our goal is to ensure that everyone has the facts and understands them.
Regards,
Manuel Pedrosa
From: Timothy Noronha [mailto:tim@thewestbend.ca]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2014 8:15 AM
To: Manuel Pedrosa
Subject: Re: Meeting: Thursday, February 13 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Hi Manuel,
On December 24th, you called me ‘misinformed’ for not knowing the contents of the new report released this past week. Your comments are below in the email chain. You even provided a flawed example to try and make your case that the data was already available. Regardless, thank you for producing a report including some of the information that I requested. I believe you owe me an apology for your inaccurate characterization.
I am a little disappointed with the lack of thoroughness in the report — though it is a good start given the short time which it was completed. The report acknowledges that the methodology overestimates the benefit of the walls, but only one receptor was re-modeled to quantify the exaggerated benefit. It was chosen based on only a subset of noise contributing factors so all the alleged benefits could still be grossly inflated. All modeling still fails to consider the much more significant ambient noise and change to more reflective wall materials. The sum of the multiple ‘insignificant’ factors that have been excluded from your analyses already exceed the estimated benefit for some cases.
I maintain that the community feedback you claim informed the full-build decision appears to be fabricated. Metrolinx has failed to respond to repeated requests to share the data, including requests from the Government Minister responsible for your organization. Furthermore, the supposed data is clearly inconsistent with the results of the ONLY LEGITIMATE SURVEY to date — the open and transparent survey performed with the Community Advisory Committee. The results of the survey clearly show that Community opinion on full-build walls is split. Anybody can systematically subdivide and modify the sample space to obtain a desired result (by age, renters vs. owners, or any arbitrary criteria) — but how can the outcome of such a contrived survey be considered anything but ‘fabricated’? I challenge you to find a single designated professional within your organization willing to stake their reputation on the validity of this approach to conducting a survey. The fact that you are still re-canvassing for a desired result is undeniable proof that you did not have appropriate data on which to base a decision two years ago.
My problem remains that somebody at Metrolinx made a bad policy decision to install massive noise barriers almost everywhere along the corridor instead of just where they are required. The decision was made under the pretense of providing a community benefit, but Metrolinx cannot guarantee they will provide a benefit. It’s not even clear that Metrolinx should have the authority to make policy decisions that don’t affect transit and have such long-term impacts on the neighbourhood. The 2015 barriers that are not in dispute are required by Ministry of the Environment regulations.
Gord Troughton was not the project lead when the decision to construct the full build of noise walls was made. He was unprepared and seemed unfamiliar with and uninterested in community issues when I met with him and the Transportation Minister last October. He was unable to provide a lot of information that the Minister was not requesting for the first time and there were a lot of promises to follow-up. I expect that he has since got himself caught up and will be able to defend the decision as if it were his own. He should be prepared to face everybody assembled and assert that he knows what is best for our neighbourhood despite the fact that we’re still undecided and actively willing to work on an appropriate solution as a community. He must explain that Metrolinx is pushing forward with the plan to deploy gigantic walls under his authority because he already knows better than us. He is unwilling to entertain any further discussion on the issue even though there is no reasonable pressure to build anything right away.
If you can confirm that Gord Troughton is ready to assume full responsibility as the decision maker, I will guarantee you a well attended session. However, if the meeting is to be productive then I think we should instead be discussing a new community engagement process to identify and properly address ongoing community concerns about the corridor. There is a lot that the whole community agrees on and we have expressed a desire to build upon that as a group.
Instead of working with us, Metrolinx has consistently elected to divide and frustrate us to push forward a not-so-secret agenda — and it is not clear why. It is perhaps the most abusive community relationship I have ever encountered.
We all want corridor noise minimized. Pollution too. Much of the noise and pollution is set to disappear over the next four years anyway, as construction wraps up and the line is electrified. We almost unanimously asked for a ‘green’ solution but were denied an opportunity to even explore the idea. That time was instead wasted discussing an impossibly thick wall that cannot be built. Local architects proposed a well thought-out and viable alternative to concrete and plastic walls but it did not get any consideration from your team. Worse, we’ve been repeatedly led to believe that our feedback would make a difference only to have requirements change as we met them.
I appeal to the members of the community to not to see this as a wall or no wall argument. Neighbours joined CAC because they care about making the community better. We are all on the same side and after the same thing. The proposed walls have the real potential to make a lot of things worse and I’ve demonstrated legitimate concerns with Metrolinx approach and the information that they have been providing us. It would be nice to believe that tall walls would make all our troubles go away. I’ve seen too many reasons to believe they won’t. What happens if the wind and traffic make Dundas look and feel like the side of a highway?
What I am asking for is the opportunity to work with everybody interested, including Metrolinx, to develop a well thought-out and comprehensive plan for the rail corridor that a majority of us understand and agree upon.
Thanks,
Tim