Roberts Bank Terminal 2: Survey of Area Residents Regarding Noise and Vibration Issues

Transcription

1 Roberts Bank Terminal 2: Survey of Area Residents Regarding Noise and Vibration Issues Prepared for: Port Metro Vancouver Prepared by the: Economic Planning Group Research Analysts August 2013

2 Economic Planning Group 765 Sea Drive Brentwood Bay, B.C., V8M 1B1 Internet: August 2, 2013 Wakefield Acoustics Ltd Oak Bay Avenue Victoria, BC, V8R 1G5 Attn: Mr. Clair Wakefield Re: Issues Survey of Roberts Bank Terminals Area Residents Regarding Noise and Vibration Dear Clair: This document provides our research and analysis of residents in the vicinity of Roberts Bank terminals on the topic of noise and vibration issues. It is based on our survey of residents conducted by a mail survey of selected neighbourhoods in closest proximity to the terminal and the railway servicing the terminal. A total of approximately 2,000 households were included in the survey and a total of 303 questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 15%. The analysis covers the issues related to noise, low frequency noise and vibration. The topics addressed include: - Type of noise/vibration - Suspected sources - Frequency of occurrence - Times of occurrence - Importance of Noise/Vibration Yours sincerely Economic Planning Group G D Hall G David Hall, P.Phys. Partner

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In support of the field studies for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project, a resident survey was conducted in neighbourhoods in the vicinity of the terminals. The survey is part of, and informs, the broader noise and vibration study in the areas near Roberts Bank, as part of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project s Noise and Vibration Assessment process. The following are the key findings: - Respondents identified that noise, low frequency noise, and vibration all appear to be concerns within the study area. - Noise appears to be the most bothersome of the three sound wave effects with over half (54%) of respondents indicating they were regularly disturbed. Low frequency noise caused less of a negative effect but still disturbed about 40% of respondents. Vibration affected just under one-third of respondents at 30%. - Train generated noise was the suspected source of most of the noise effects (52%), while throbbing effects were the most common description of low frequency noise (85%). Vibration effects were predominantly felt throughout the respondent s entire house, cited by 70% of respondents disturbed by vibration. - Trains predominated as the suspected source for most (58%) of the noise effects and vibration effects (66%), while the Roberts Bank terminals was cited as the suspected source for the majority of low frequency noise (46%). - Noise, low frequency noise, and vibration all tended to disturb respondents on a regular daily basis, although the most severe times were the generally quiet times of early morning and late at night. - For those respondents disturbed by noise, low frequency noise, and vibration, the effects tended to be severe as over half cited the disturbance being of high or very high importance. The following Table ES-1 summarises the key findings in the form of percentage distributions for the more common survey responses.

4 Table ES-1: Percentage Responses by Topic for Noise, LFN and Vibration Effects Topic Area Noise Low Frequency Vibration Noise Disturbed: Yes No 54% 44% 40% 55% 30% 62% Community: Tsawwassen First Nation Ladner Tsawwassen Type: Humming Trains Sources: Port/Roberts Bank terminals Trains Frequency: Daily Weekly Times of Day: Evening Night time All Quiet times Importance: Moderate High Very High 14% 25% 50% 41% 52% 38% 58% 57% 24% 8% 32% 57% 30% 28% 28% 14% 21% 56% 85% 15% 52% 46% 56% 28% 11% 38% 48% 33% 19% 38% 12% 34% 42% NA NA 32% 66% 58% 28% 15% 24% 56% 33% 11% 44%

5 Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Executive Summary INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Objectives 1 Research Methodology 2 Questionnaire Topics 4 SURVEY DISTRIBUTION 5 NOISE RELATED ISSUES 5 Disturbed by Noise 5 Type of Noise 6 Source of Noise 7 Frequency of Occurrence 7 Typical Times of Occurrence 8 Importance of Noise 9 Noise Issues Summary 10 LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ISSUES 11 Disturbed by LFN 11 Type of LFN 12 Source of LFN 12 Frequency of Occurrence 13 Typical Times of Occurrence 13 Importance of LFN 14 Location of LFN Effects 14 LFN Summary 15 VIBRATION ISSUES 16 Disturbed by Vibration 16 Vibration Effects 17 Source of Vibration 17 Frequency of Occurrence 18 Times of Occurrence 18 Importance of Vibration 19 Summary of Vibration Issues 20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 21 APPENDICES Appendix A: Questionnaire Appendix B: Survey Distribution Maps

6 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (RBT2 or Project) is a proposed new three-berth marine terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, B.C. that could provide 2.4 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent unit containers) of additional container capacity annually. The project is part of Port Metro Vancouver s Container Capacity Improvement Program, a long-term strategy to deliver projects to meet anticipated growth in demand for container capacity to As part of ongoing environmental and technical work for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Port Metro Vancouver is undertaking field studies at Roberts Bank and the surrounding areas. These studies are part of the early planning phase focused on collecting baseline inventory information to develop an understanding of existing conditions in the study areas. One component of the field studies relates to noise and vibration and their effects on residents living adjacent to the existing Roberts Bank terminals. Wakefield Acoustics Ltd. (Wakefield) was awarded the contract to conduct the noise and vibration assessment project. In support of the field studies the Economic Planning Group (EPG) was tasked with providing a resident survey analysis component. The survey is part of the broader study to inform the noise and vibration study in the areas near Roberts Bank as part of the terminal project s Noise and Vibration Assessment process. OBJECTIVES The purpose of the survey is to assess the opinions of residents in close proximity to the Roberts Bank terminals, and to the rail line servicing the port, on noise and vibration issues. The specific objectives were to: - Survey residents in the area of Roberts Bank terminals on the effects of: o Noise o Low Frequency Noise o Vibration - For each of these topic areas, assess the: o type or nature o sources o frequency o typical time of the day o importance 6

7 - Determine spot locations/residences where the noise/vibration is perceived to be bothersome based on survey responses in order to inform the site selection process for sound and vibration measurements. - Through survey analysis, determine the importance and severity of Roberts Bank terminals source noise and vibration on study area residents. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study area consisted of the west side of the Tsawwassen neighbourhood, portions of South Delta and Westham Island. These areas, which are located closest to Roberts Bank terminals, vary in distance from the terminals by between four and eight kilometers. In order to obtain responses from residents of the study area, it was necessary to control the survey method in order to target study area residents. A survey by mail was identified as the preferred approach. A self-selection electronic/internet survey would not limit participation to the target study area. In addition a personal interview or telephone survey would not allow anonymous participation. Contact was made with Canada Post and postal walk maps were accessed from their website. Postal walks (routes assigned to individual letter carriers) were identified within postal codes matching the study area. A total of approximately 2,000 residences were identified, in six separate postal walks, stratified as shown in Table 1. Maps showing the residential areas covered by the survey are included in Appendix B. Table 1: Postal Codes and Household Counts Postal Code Zone Postal Walk Code Households V4M SS LC LC LC V4K RR 0001 Single Family 479 Apartments 92 Farms 73 V4L SS Total 1,939 The resident survey questionnaire was drafted by EPG and Wakefield to address the most relevant noise and vibration issues. Upon approval, the survey was printed as a four page booklet with a separate cover letter explaining the project and the survey. A sample of the survey is provided in Appendix A. To allow for additional details about noise issues and concerns, a section was provided for the respondent to write additional comments. 7

8 As an incentive to complete the survey, respondents were asked to provide their name and contact information so that their names could be entered in a draw for a gift certificate to a local restaurant. Four separate pieces were printed and formed part of the survey material, namely the: - Outgoing Port Metro Vancouver No. 10 envelope addressed as: Attention Resident: Contains Noise and Vibration Survey - Cover letter: Single sheet, double sided printed on Port Metro Vancouver letterhead, explaining the purpose of the survey and providing contact information (See Appendix A) - Questionnaire: Single 11 x 17 sheet printed double sided, folded along the 11 axis and letter folded to fit the outgoing and return envelope, printed with Port Metro Vancouver logo header and address footer (See Appendix A). - Return envelope: No. 9 stamped envelope addressed to Port Metro Vancouver, Attn: Noise and Vibration Survey, to be used by the respondent to return the survey. All printed pieces were delivered to a commercial mail house for stuffing and delivery to Canada Post. A total of 2000 outgoing envelopes were prepared and stuffed to ensure adequate buffer if additional pieces were needed. Canada Post delivered boxes of survey envelopes to the respective postal substations in Delta for delivery by letter carriers, processed at a reduced postage rate as unaddressed mail. Envelopes were delivered to study area residents over a three day period with all surveys delivered by May 24, 2013, allowing two weeks before the requested June 7, 2013 return date. Respondents completed the questionnaire and mailed it back to Port Metro Vancouver, who then batched and couriered them to EPG for data entry and analysis. Returned surveys were accepted for data entry up to June 14, A total of 303 usable surveys were returned by the extended cut-off date for a response rate of 15.6% (303/1939). It is noted that twelve additional questionnaires were not codeable as the responses were all written comments that did not address the survey questions. Fifteen more surveys were received after the cut-off date and were not included in the analysis. All surveys were sequentially numbered and coded for data entry to ensure written responses could be tracked for further analysis. 8

9 QUESTIONNAIRE TOPICS As noted, the survey addressed three basic topics: noise, low frequency noise and vibration. (See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire.) For each of these three topics, a similar set of five descriptors were used. The survey topics and descriptors were as follows: Exhibit 1: Questionnaire Description and Coding No. General Coded Response or Suggested Options 1 Where do you live? Coded as: Tsawwassen First Nation, Ladner, Tsawwassen, South Delta, Westham Island, Other Noise 2 Disturbed by noise? Coded as: Yes/No/Don t know 3 If yes Type/Nature of noise Suspected source of noise Frequency of occurrence of noise Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Seasonal Typical times of occurrence Early morning, late afternoon, evening, nighttime Importance of noise Minimal, Low, Moderate, High Low-Frequency Noise 4 Disturbed by low-frequency noise? Coded as: Yes/No/Don t know 5 If yes Type/Nature of low-frequency noise Example of low throbbing sound Suspected source of low-frequency noise Frequency of occurrence of lowfrequency Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly noise Typical times of low-frequency occurrence Early morning, late afternoon, evening Importance of low-frequency noise Minimal, Low, Moderate, High 6 Where most disturbing? Coded as: Indoors, Outdoors Vibration 7 Disturbed by vibration Coded as: Yes/No/Don t know 8 If yes Description of vibration Suspected source of vibration Frequency of occurrence of vibration Typical times of occurrence vibration Importance of vibration Additional Comments Example of: Feel in floor, Windows, Picture rattles Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly Early morning, late afternoon, evening, nighttime Minimal, Low, Moderate, High 9

10 SURVEY DISTRIBUTION Question 1: Where did respondents live? Over one half of respondents (55%) lived in Tsawwassen, followed by Ladner at just over onequarter (27%), and the Tsawwassen First Nation at 11%. Response rates also differed by community with Tsawwassen generating a 19% response rate followed by Ladner at approximately 15% and Westham Island at 12%. The distribution was as follows: Table 2: Survey Counts and Percent Distribution Community/Neighbourhood Count Percent Response Rate Tsawwassen First Nation % 8.4% Ladner % 14.7% Tsawwassen % 19.4% South Delta 3 1.0% 4.9% Westham Island % 12.0% Other 9 3.0% Total % 15.6% NOISE RELATED ISSUES Respondents provided information on a range of noises, emanating from outside their home and neighbourhood, that disturbed them. Forty of these were non-port related sources and included: vehicle traffic, aircraft, BC Ferries, sirens, go carts, and voices/music. As the intent of this analysis was to identify Roberts Bank terminals related noise, these references were not included. It is further noted that since the topic of this survey was noise and vibration, it is possible that residents who were not disturbed did not bother to complete the survey. The size of this response bias is unknown but it is likely that the proportion of residents who stated they were not disturbed by noise or vibration was somewhat understated in relation to the total sample. Question 2: Disturbed by noise? Just over one-half of respondents (54%) stated that they were disturbed by noise emanating from sources outside of their residence and beyond their immediate neighbours. The distribution of responses was as follows: 10

11 Table 3: Respondents Disturbed by Noise Response Count Percent Yes % No % Don t know/not sure 6 2.0% Total % Of the 54% respondents who were disturbed by noise, half were from Tsawwassen, one-quarter from Ladner and about 14% from Tsawwassen First Nation. Table 4: Location of Respondents Disturbed by Noise Community Disturbed Percent Tsawwassen First Nation % Ladner % Tsawwassen % South Delta 2 1.2% Westham Island 7 4.3% Other 8 4.9% Sum % Question 3: Description of Noise Related Issues Those persons responding that they were disturbed by noise answered the next set of five questions relating to the characteristics of the noise impacts. These questions related to the type of noise, suspected source, frequency, timing and importance. Information has been presented on the actual number of respondents (Count), the proportion who were disturbed by the various kinds of noise (Percent Affirmative), and the percentage of all study area residents, including those who were not disturbed by noise (Percent Total) Type/Nature of Noise Respondents used a number of terms to describe the type or nature of the outside noise. These included the following descriptors (in alphabetical order). - Bangs - Crashing - Rumbling - Beeping - Engines - Scraping - Chugging - Humming - Shunting - Clanking - Pulsing - Voices 11

12 For analysis purposes, the Roberts Bank terminals related responses were categorised as humming, trains, and trucks, with trains being the most commonly related source at over onehalf (52%) followed by humming at 41%. Reviewed as a proportion of all respondents, including those who indicated they were not disturbed by noise, the percentage of study area residents disturbed by train noise was just over one-quarter (27%), and 22% for those disturbed by humming sounds. The distribution is as follows: Table 5: Type of Noise Type of Noise Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Humming % 21.8% Train % 27.4% Trucks % 3.9% Total % 53.1% Suspected Source of Noise Respondents were able to specify the source of noise and most (58%) cited trains as the main source followed by references to the Roberts Bank terminals or Port (38%). As a percentage of all study area residents, trains were the suspected source of noise for 30% of residents and the Port approximately 20%. The distribution is as follows: Table 6: Source of Noise Noise Source Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Roberts Bank terminals % 19.5% Trains % 30.0% Trucks 7 4.5% 2.3% Total % 51.8% Frequency of Occurrence Noise frequency appeared somewhat more difficult for residents to specify as responses ranged from infrequent to constant. The questionnaire suggested some examples of possible timeperiods from hourly to seasonal. The responses were coded into categories of Hourly, Daily, Weekly and All Day. 12

13 No respondents indicated the noise was seasonal or monthly, so the noise effects tended to be fairly constant through the year. A response of daily was the most common frequency at 57%. A further one-quarter of respondents (24%) indicated the frequency was weekly, presumably meaning that once a week they are bothered by noise. Assessed as a proportion of the total study area, 30% of residents indicated they were disturbed by noise daily and approximately 13% were disturbed on a weekly basis. The distribution is as follows: Table 7: Frequency of Noise Frequency Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Hourly % 7.9% Daily % 29.7% Weekly % 12.5% All Day 5 3.2% 1.7% Total % 51.8% Typical Times of Occurrence Specifying the times of the day that residents were disturbed by noise was similarly difficult to quantify. Some people did specify a single time of the day while others indicated that noise disturbed them during various times of the day. The lower ratings for the traditional workday hours could be a function of people being away from home or louder ambient noise typical of the daytime hours that could disguise Port-related noise. Conversely, the higher ratings of the overnight period and the combined early morning/evening/night period likely reflected times with little background noise and/or times when residents are retiring for sleep and are more aware of outside noise. Nighttime noise disturbed about one-third of respondents (32%) who stated they were bothered by noise. Many respondents indicated that they were disturbed by noise during various times of the day and a combined category of early morning + evening + night was coded. Approximately 58% of residents who were bothered by noise stated that this combined time period best defined the pattern of disturbance. Reported as a percentage of all study area respondents, 16% were most disturbed at night, while approximately 30% of residents indicated they were disturbed during all of these sleeping or typically quiet times. The distribution is as follows: 13

14 Table 8: Time Periods of Noise Disturbance Percent Percent Times of Day Count Affirmative Total Early morning 3 2.0% 1.0% Other morning 0 0.0% 0.0% Late afternoon 1 0.7% 0.3% Evening % 4.0% Night % 16.2% Early am+evening+night % 29.0% Total % 50.5% Importance of Noise The importance of noise to respondents was a measure of the degree to which residents were bothered by outside noise. It was not a measure of the actual decibel level, but rather how bothersome or annoying the noise was. Response options covered a range of categories from minimal to very high. Over half of respondents (55%) who indicated they were disturbed by noise, said the noise was of either high or very high importance. Reported as a total of all study area respondents, approximately 30% indicated the noise was of either high or very high importance. The distribution is as follows: Table 9: Importance of Noise Importance Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Minimal 7 4.4% 2.3% Low % 4.6% Moderate % 16.2% High % 14.5% Very High % 14.9% Total % 52.5% 14

15 Noise Issues Summary - Noise related to Roberts Bank terminals appears to be a broadly based issue within the study area, with more people than not indicating they are disturbed by noise (54% vs. 44%). - Tsawwassen residents tended to be disturbed most by noise (50% of responses), followed by residents of Ladner (25%), and Tsawwassen First Nation (14%). - Trains were the greatest source of noise disturbance (58%), followed by terminal generated sounds (38%). Train noise was also the most common type of noise (52%) followed by noise described as humming (41%). - Noise disturbance occurred on a daily basis (57%) throughout the year and was most prevalent at night or during all the normally quiet hours of early morning, evening and night time (also reported at 57%). - For those respondents disturbed by noise, terminal related noise appears to be an important issue with 28% rating it as having very high importance, and a similar proportion rating noise disturbance as high importance. In sum, a majority of respondents (56%) deemed the noise disturbance to be of either high or very high importance. 15

16 LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ISSUES Low-frequency noise (LFN) is noise which has a frequency of less than approximately 200 cycles per second (Hertz). Low-frequency noise tends to penetrate into dwellings more easily than mid and high-frequency noise and may cause lightweight objects to vibrate or rattle. Respondents were asked about their experiences with LFN using the same descriptors as with noise, namely; type, source, frequency, times and importance. It is noted that respondents may have had some difficulty differentiating between noise and low-frequency noise as many of the responses were similar. However, the following analysis is based on resident responses to the LFN questions. Question 4: Disturbed by LFN? Approximately one in four residents were bothered by LFN. A further 55% were not bothered and 6% did not know or were not sure. Note that a few respondents did not answer this question as the total responses were 296 and not 303. Table 10: Respondents Disturbed by LFN Disturbed by Noise Count Percent Total Yes % No % Don t Know/Not Sure % Total % Of the 40% who were disturbed by LFN, more than half resided in Tsawwassen (57%) and 21% lived in Ladner. Table 11: Location of Respondents Disturbed by LFN Community Disturbed Percent Tsawwassen First Nation % Ladner % Tsawwassen % South Delta 2 1.7% Westham Island 5 4.3% Other 4 3.4% Total % 16

17 Question 5: Description of Low Frequency Noise Issues Type of Low Frequency Noise Two types of LFN were mentioned by respondents, namely throbbing/low humming sounds and train noise. Noise described as throbbing or humming predominated representing 86% of the responses, with train LFN a distant second at 15%. Analysed as a percentage of the study area sample, one third (34%) were bothered by throbbing or humming. Table 12: Type of LFN Type of LFN Count Percent Affirmative Percent Total Throbbing/humming % 33.8% Train % 5.7% Total % 39.5% Sources of Low Frequency Noise Respondents identified the Port/Roberts Bank terminals as the suspected source for more than half (52%) of the low frequency noise, followed by trains at 46%. Tallied as a proportion of all study area respondents (including those who were not disturbed by LFN), the proportion citing the Port/Roberts Bank terminals as the suspected source was 19% with 17% citing trains. Table 13: Source of LFN Source of LFN Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Roberts Bank terminals % 18.9% Trains % 16.6% Don t know/not sure 2 1.9% 0.7% Total % 36.1% 17

18 Frequency of Occurrence More than half of respondents (56%) indicated that they were bothered by LFN on a daily basis. Just over one-quarter of respondents (28%) were disturbed by LFN on a weekly basis, while 15% were bothered hourly. Reported for all residents of the study area, one fifth (21%) were disturbed daily and one in ten (11%) weekly. Table 14: Frequency of LFN Frequency of Occurrence Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Hourly % 6.1% Daily % 20.9% Weekly % 10.5% Total % 37.5% Times of Occurrence Respondents indicated they were disturbed by LFN at various times of the day and night. Most bothersome times of occurrence appeared to be the quiet times of early morning, evening and/or night and this combined category represented approximately half (48%) of all responses. Calculated as a percentage of the entire study area population, about 17% were disturbed by LFN during these quiet hours. Table 15: Times of LFN Times of Occurrence Count Percent Affirmative Percent Total Early morning 3 2.9% 1.0% Other morning 1 1.0% 0.3% Late afternoon 0 0.0% 0.0% Evening % 3.7% Night time % 13.2% Early am+evening+night % 16.6% Total % 34.8% 18

19 Importance of LFN Approximately one in four respondents (38%) indicated the importance of the LFN was very high. Residents citing either high or very high represented 57% of the total, while those indicating the effect of the LFN was moderate was 33%. Reported as a total of all study area respondents, LFN was of high or very high importance to over one fifth (22%) of residents. Table 16: Importance of LFN Importance of LFN Count Percent Affirm. Percent Total Minimal 2 1.7% 0.7% Low % 3.4% Moderate % 12.8% High % 7.4% Very High % 14.5% Total % 38.9% Location of LFN Effects Respondents were asked where the LFN effects were most noticeable - either indoors or outdoors. Most respondents (48%) indicated that the effects were most disturbing indoors. Approximately one in three respondents (30%) indicated that the effects were felt both indoors and outdoors. Calculated as a proportion of all study area respondents, about 15% were disturbed indoors and 9% were bothered both indoors and outdoors. Table 17: Location of LFN Effects Where disturbed Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Indoors % 14.5% Outdoors % 6.4% Both % 9.1% Total % 30.1% 19

20 Low Frequency Noise Summary - LFN does not appear to be as important an issue as noise generally, as over one-half (55%) of respondents were not bothered (vs. 44% for all noise). - LFN described as throbbing or humming predominated representing 86% of the responses, with train-related LFN a distant second at 15%. - Both Roberts Bank terminals and trains were identified as major sources of LFN at 52% and 46% respectively. - For the 40% of respondents disturbed by LFN, most (56%) reported it was a daily occurrence. - Of those residents disturbed by LFN, the effects appear to be an issue during all the typically quiet times of the day. The majority of people (48%) reported that they were disturbed by LFN throughout the evening/nighttime/early morning, followed by night time only at 38%. - Of those residents disturbed by LFN, it is a very important issue for approximately 37% of these residents, and of high importance for an additional 19%. - Respondents disturbed by LFN were most bothered indoors (48%), as opposed to outdoors (21%). 20

21 VIBRATION Ground-borne vibration is vibration that propagates through the ground to adjacent structures producing vibrations and/or re-radiated noise. Respondents were asked about their experiences with vibration effects using similar descriptors as with noise, namely: effects of vibration, source, frequency, times and importance. Question 7: Disturbed by Ground-Borne Vibration About twice as many respondents were not disturbed by vibration as were bothered (63% not disturbed vs. 30% disturbed). Table 18: Respondents Disturbed by Ground Borne Vibration Disturbed by Vibration Count Percent Yes % No % Don t Know/Not Sure % Total % Of those respondents who were disturbed by vibration, residents of Tsawwassen tended to be bothered the most (42%), followed by Ladner at 34%. Table 19: Location of Respondents Disturbed by Vibration Community Disturbed Percent Tsawwassen First Nation % Ladner % Tsawwassen % South Delta 1 1.1% Westham Island 4 4.4% Other 5 5.6% Total % 21

22 Question 8: Description of Vibration Effects Vibration Effects Ground-borne vibration affects structures in various ways. Respondents described a range of effects that were consolidated into categories of window rattling, floor vibrations, or sensations of the entire house vibrating. Of the 30% of respondents who experienced vibration, seven out of ten indicated their entire house vibrated. Floor vibration were an issue for approximately onequarter (23%) of respondents and rattling windows for about 7%. Analysed over the entire study area, including those residents who did not experience vibration, about one in five were aware of vibrations within their house. Table 20: Types of Vibration Effects Vibration Effects Count Percent Affirm. Percent Total Windows 6 7.2% 2.0% Floors % 6.4% House % 19.5% Total % 27.9% Sources of Vibration Respondents indicated that the two sources of vibration were the Roberts Bank terminals or Trains. Approximately two-thirds of respondents who were affected by vibration indicated that trains were the source, and one-third of respondents indicated that Roberts Bank terminals were the source. Including those residents who did not experience vibration, a total of 18% of study area respondents indicated they were affected by vibrations. Table 21: Sources of Vibration Effects Vibration Source Count Percent Affirmative Percent Total Roberts Bank terminals % 8.7% Trains % 18.1% Don t Know/Not Sure 2 2.4% 0.7% Total % 27.5% 22

23 Frequency of Occurrence Residents indicated they were disturbed by vibration from a weekly occurrence to hourly. The most common response was that vibration was felt on a daily basis, reported by approximately six out of ten respondents (58%). Weekly was the next most common response at approximately three out of ten (28%) residents. Reported as a proportion of the entire study area, 16% of respondents indicated they were disturbed by vibration in their homes on a daily basis. Table 22: Frequency of Vibration Effects Vibration Frequency Count Percent Percent Affirmative Total Hourly % 3.4% Daily % 15.8% Weekly % 7.7% All Day 1 1.2% 0.3% Total % 27.2% Times of Occurrence Most respondents who were disturbed by vibration (56%) indicated that the vibration occurred at all times of the day. Others indicated that night was the problem time (24%), followed by evening at 15%. Calculated as a proportion of all study area respondents, 13% indicated they were disturbed by vibration in their homes at all times of the day. Table 23: Times of Vibration Effects Times of Day Count Percent Affirmative Percent Total Early morning 1 1.4% 0.3% Other morning 1 1.4% 0.3% Late afternoon 2 2.8% 0.7% Evening % 3.7% Night % 5.7% All Day % 13.4% Total % 24.2% 23

24 Importance of Vibration Issues Of those respondents who were disturbed by vibration, 44% indicated the importance was very high. One-third of respondents (33%) indicated the importance was moderate, and one in ten (11%) said the importance was high. Based on the entire group of respondents, 12% indicated the importance of vibration effects was very high. Table 24: Importance of Vibration Effects Importance Count Percent Affirmative Percent Total Minimal 2 2.4% 0.7% Low 8 9.8% 2.7% Moderate % 9.1% High % 3.0% Very High % 12.1% Total % 27.5% 24

25 Summary of Vibration Issues - Most respondents (62%) were not disturbed by vibration, while 30% reported they were disturbed (the remainder were uncertain). - Respondents living in Tsawwassen tended to be the most disturbed (42%), followed by residents of Ladner (34%). - Respondents disturbed be vibrations reported feeling the effects mainly in their homes (70%). - Two-thirds of respondents who were disturbed by vibrations said trains were the source while one-third reported the Roberts Bank terminals as the source. - Of those respondents who were disturbed, vibrations were a daily occurrence for over half of respondents (58%), followed by weekly at 28%. - Of those respondents disturbed by vibrations, most of these persons (56%) cited that vibrations tended to occur all through the day. - Of respondents disturbed by vibrations, 44% rated the importance as very high, with another one-third (33%) reporting the importance to be moderate. 25

26 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Respondents identified that noise, low frequency noise and vibration all appear to be a concern within the study area. Noise appears to be the most bothersome of the three sound wave effects with over half (54%) of respondents indicating they were regularly disturbed. Low frequency noise caused less of a negative effect but still disturbed about 40% of respondents. Vibration affected just under onethird of respondents at 30%. Train generated noise was the suspected type of most of the noise effects (52%), while throbbing effects were the most common description of low frequency noise (85%). Vibration effects were predominantly felt throughout the respondent s entire house, cited by 70% of respondents disturbed by vibration. Trains predominated as the suspected source for most (58%) of the noise effects and vibration effects (66%), while the Roberts Bank terminals was cited as the suspected source for the majority of low frequency noise (46%). Noise, low frequency noise and vibration all tended to disturb respondents on a regular daily basis, although the most severe times were the generally quiet times of early morning and late at night. For those respondents disturbed by noise, low frequency noise and vibration, the effects tended to be severe as over half cited the disturbance being of high or very high importance. The following is a summary of the key findings described as percentage distributions for the more common responses. 26

27 Table 25: Percentage Responses by Topic for Noise, LFN and Vibration Effects Topic Area Noise Low Frequency Vibration Noise Disturbed: Yes No 54% 44% 40% 55% 30% 62% Community: Tsawwassen First Nation Ladner Tsawwassen Type: Humming Trains Sources: Port/Roberts Bank terminals Trains Frequency:..Daily Weekly Times of Day: Evening Night time All Quiet times Importance: Moderate High Very High 14% 25% 50% 41% 52% 38% 58% 57% 24% 8% 32% 57% 30% 28% 28% 14% 21% 56% 85% 15% 52% 46% 56% 28% 11% 38% 48% 33% 19% 38% 12% 34% 42% NA NA 32% 66% 58% 28% 15% 24% 56% 33% 11% 44% 27

28 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Survey Cover Letter and Questionnaire 28

29 May 8, 2013 Dear Resident, Subject: Noise and Vibration Studies related to proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project is a proposed new multi berth container terminal which would provide approximately 2.4 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent unit containers) of additional container capacity. The project is part of the Container Capacity Improvement Program, Port Metro Vancouver s long-term strategy to deliver projects to meet anticipated growth and demand for container capacity until As part of ongoing environmental and technical work for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Port Metro Vancouver has been and continues to undertake field studies at Roberts Bank and the surrounding areas. These studies are part of the early planning phase focused on collecting baseline inventory information to develop an understanding of current conditions in the study areas. One component of the field studies related to noise and vibration is a survey of residents living adjacent to the existing Roberts Bank terminals. You have received this letter and attached survey because your residence is within the study area. The survey inquires about issues related to the types, frequency, duration and sources of noise in the study area. It also enquires about ground-borne vibration. Should you like to participate in the study, please complete the attached survey and return it to us in the self-addressed, stamped return envelope by June 7, At the end of the survey, you will find a space to provide contact information. Filling in this section is not mandatory to complete the survey; however, an understanding of the exact location of your experience of noise and vibration will increase the accuracy of the study. If you choose to complete this section, you will be entered into a prize draw for dinner for two at a restaurant in your area. The prize draw will be made on June 15 th, with the winner announced shortly thereafter. Any contact information we collect will be held in confidence and will be used only for this study and the draw. Please do not hesitate to contact Port Metro Vancouver with any questions or concerns about this Noise and Vibration Survey or about our field studies program. Contact information is listed below and over page. Thank you in advance for your participation in this survey. Yours truly, Rhona Hunter A/ Director, Infrastructure Development Port Metro Vancouver 29

30 Contact Details for further Information For questions or comments about the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, please contact: container.improvement@portmetrovancouver.com Phone: For further information regarding the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, please visit our website at 30

31 Roberts Bank Terminal Noise and Vibration Resident Survey Instructions: Please check ( ) all boxes that apply and write answers/responses clearly. Please return the survey in the stamped, return envelope provided by June 7. General Noise 1. In which general area do you live? Tsawwassen First Nation South Delta Ladner Westham Island Tsawwassen Other 2. Are you, or have you been, disturbed by noise emanating from sources outside your residence and beyond your immediate neighbors? Yes No Don t know/not sure 3. If you answered yes to Question 2, please fill in the table below. Should you require more space, please use the Additional Comments page at the end of the survey. Type/Nature of Noise Suspected Source(s) of Noise Frequency of Occurrence of Noise (Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Seasonal) Typical Time(s) of Occurrence (ex. early morning, late afternoon, evening, nightime) Importance of this Noise to You (Minimal, Low, Moderate, High, Comments)

32 Low-Frequency Noise Low-frequency noise is noise which has a frequency of less than about 200 cycles per second (Hertz). Low-frequency noise tends to penetrate into dwellings more easily than mid and high-frequency noise and may even cause lightweight objects to vibrate/rattle. 4. Are you, or have you been, disturbed by low-frequency noise emanating from sources outside your residence and beyond your immediate neighbors? Yes No Don t know/not sure 5. If you answered Yes to Question 4, please fill in the table below. Should you require more space, please use the Additional Comments page at the end of the survey. Type/Nature of Low-Frequency Noise (ex. Low, throbbing sound) Suspected Source(s) of Low Frequency Noise Frequency of Occurrence of Low Frequency Noise (Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly) Typical Time(s) of Occurrence (ex. early morning, late afternoon, evening) Importance of this Noise to You (Minimal, Low, Moderate, High, Comments) If you have been disturbed by low-frequency noise, where is it most disturbing? Indoors Outdoors 32

33 Vibration 7. Ground-borne vibration is vibration that propagates through the ground to adjacent structures producing vibrations and/or re-radiated noise. Are you, or have you been, disturbed by ground-borne vibration emanating from sources outside your residence and beyond your immediate neighbors? Yes No Don t know/not sure 8. If you answered yes to Question 7, please fill in the table below. Should you require more space, please use the Additional Comments page at the end of the survey. Description of Vibration/effects (ex. Feel it in floor, Windows, pictures rattle) Suspected Source(s) of Vibration Frequency of Occurrence of Vibration (Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly) Typical Time(s) of Occurrence (ex. early morning, late afternoon, evening) Importance of this Vibration to You (Minimal, Low, Moderate, High, Comments)

34 Additional Comments Optional Information Filling in this section is not mandatory to complete the survey; however, an understanding of the exact location of your experience of noise and vibration will increase the accuracy of the study. If you choose to complete this section, you will be entered into a prize draw for dinner for two at a restaurant in your area. The prize draw will be made on June 15 th, with the winner announced shortly thereafter. Any contact information we collect will be held in confidence and will be used only for this study and the draw. Instructions Please complete the table below with the required information. Only entries submitted with a completed Noise and Vibration Survey will be entered in the draw. Name: Address: Phone: Thank you for your participation in this survey. 34

35 APPENDIX B: Residential Areas included in Social Survey Survey Distribution Map 1; Overall Coverage of Social Survey 35

36 Survey Distribution Map 2; Social Survey Coverage in Tsawwassen Bluffs Area LC LC LC

37 Survey Distribution Map 3; Social Survey Coverage in TFN Area. SS

38 Survey Distribution Map 4; Social Survey Coverage in Westham Island Area. RR 0001 Single Family 479 Apartments 92 Farms 73 38