Appendix H: Air Quality Assessment Report

Transcription

1 Appendix H: Air Quality Assessment Report London Bus Rapid Transit Transit Project Assessment Process Environmental Project Report DRAFT April 2018 P R E PA R E D BY

2 LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT IBI GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LONDON PROJECT NO.: DATE: APRIL 13, 2018 WSP UNIT DON HILLOCK DRIVE AURORA, ON, CANADA L4G 0G9 T: F: WSP.COM WSP Canada Inc.

3 SIGNATURES PREPARED BY Maryam Mirzajani, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Air Quality Engineer APPROVED BY David Hofbauer, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Engineer - Environment WSP Canada Inc. prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, IBI Group on behalf of the City of London, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP Canada Inc. at the time of preparation. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP Canada Inc. does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. The original of this digital file will be conserved by WSP Canada Inc. for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP Canada Inc., its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP Canada Inc. does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page ii

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of London (the City ) is proposing to construct a BRT system, comprised of four segments, combined into two operational routes: the north and east corridor, and the south and west corridor. The BRT network (the Project ) was approved by City of London Council with the Rapid Transit Master Plan in July 2017, and is comprised of dedicated lanes on existing streets. A credible worst-case analysis has been undertaken for this air quality impact assessment. The Project s contribution to air quality and the background concentrations vary from day to day, depending on meteorological conditions and operational characteristics. One of the common analytical responses to this issue is the credible worst-case analysis. It is based on the concept that a project is acceptable under all conditions if it is acceptable under a credible worstcase condition (MTO, 2012). This analysis consists of dispersion modelling and incorporation of representative ambient background concentrations. Conclusions from the assessment of the Project s emissions and its related impact on air quality emissions are as follows: 1. The future Full-Build Scenario results in minor impacts or slight improvements compared to the future No- Build Scenario at the most-impacted receptors near the Project. This is due to the assumed reduction in onroad vehicle traffic occurring within the Full-Build Scenario being greater than the contribution of the additional buses servicing the BRT. The increase to local contaminant concentrations is insignificant and the predicted concentrations of contaminants in 2034 remains below the applicable air quality thresholds, with the exception of annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene. 2. For all scenarios examined, all contaminants, with the exception of annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene, have their predicted maximum concentrations at sensitive receptors within the study area of the Project below applicable air quality thresholds when combined with the respective 90 th percentile ambient background concentrations. 3. The annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene concentrations are above their thresholds in all scenarios within the study area; however, the 90 th percentile ambient background concentrations are already above their respective air quality thresholds without any contribution from the Project. The elevated ambient background levels of these contaminants are widespread across Southern Ontario. The impact of the operation of the Project on contaminants already exceeding the thresholds from background concentrations is negligible. 4. The future scenarios will result in a net greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction due to engine efficiency associated with on-road vehicles; though in locations with potential parking lots there may be a localized increase to GHG emission. A more detailed GHG study should be conducted when the final fleet vehicle fuel source is known, as compressed natural gas (CNG) may have a net increase to GHG emissions versus diesel, and electricity demands of an electric fleet are unknown at the time of this assessment. Any of the potential fuel sources for the BRT buses will likely see a decrease or insignificant change to regional/national GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. The focus of this assessment was on impacts to air quality in two specific study areas where the risk to local air quality as a result of the Project was considered to be greatest. The impacts to these higher risk areas were negligible and in some cases positive; therefore, it is assumed that in the less risk-prone areas where the Project exists, which include areas where traffic is forecasted to decrease as a result of modal shifts, air quality will not be impacted or improve. The localized approach to assessing the impacts within the specific study areas does not account for how a modal shift towards transit will impact air quality on a city-wide scale; this city-wide approach based on modal shift was accounted for in the Business Case. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page iii

5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS ACRONYM AAQC AQIA CAAQS CO CO 2eq CO 2eq20 COC EA EAA ECCC EPR g/l g GHG GWP L DEFINITION Ambient Air Quality Criteria Air Quality Impact Assessment Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Equivalents 20-year global warming potential Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Contaminants of Concern Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Act Environment and Climate Change Canada Environmental Project Report Gram Per Liter Gram Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential Liter µm Micrometre MOECC MOVES N 2 O NMHC NO NO 2 NO X N 2 O NPRI Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator Nitrous Oxide Non-Methane Hydrocarbons Nitric Oxide Nitrogen Dioxide Oxides of Nitrogen Nitrous oxide National Pollutant Release Inventory LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page iv

6 ACRONYM O 3 OLM PAH PM PM 2.5 PM 10 POI PPM TPAP TSP US EPA UTM VMT VOC DEFINITION Ozone Ozone Limiting Method Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Particulate Matter Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 micrometres (µm) Particulate Matter Less than 10 micrometres (µm) Point of Impingement Parts Per Million Transit Project Assessment Process Total suspended particulate United States Environmental Protection Agency Universal Transverse Mercator Vehicle Miles Travelled Volatile Organic Compound LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page v

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION Project Description Study Objectives Study Areas METHODOLOGY Approach Contaminants of Concern Air Quality Thresholds Background Air Quality Conversion of Oxides of Nitrogen to Nitrogen Dioxide Credible Worst-Case Analysis Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Meteorological and Terrain Data Receptors Emission Rate Calculation Traffic Data Emission Factors Dust Resuspension RESULTS Maximum Local Air Quality Impacts Results for the Highbury Avenue Study Area Results for the Oxford Street Study Area Discussion Alternative Fuels for BRT Buses Compressed natural gas Electric Greenhouse Gases/Climate Change Analysis Construction Emissions LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page vi

8 4 CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES TABLES TABLE 2-1 APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS... 5 TABLE 2-2 AIR MONITORING STATIONS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN... 6 TABLE 2-3 SUMMARY OF AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREAS... 7 TABLE 2-4 CAL3QHCR KEY INPUT PARAMETERS TABLE 2-5 MOVES INPUT PARAMETERS TABLE 3-1 MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS ALONG HIGHBURY AVENUE (CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) TABLE 3-2 MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS ALONG OXFORD (CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) TABLE 3-3 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS (START-UP) TABLE 3-4 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS (IDLING) TABLE 3-5 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS (TRAVELLING) LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page vii

9 FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 FIGURE 1-2 FIGURE 1-3 FIGURE 2-1 FIGURE 2-2 FIGURE 2-3 APPROVED BRT NETWORK (JULY 2017) HIGHBURY AVENUE AIR QUALITY EAST STUDY AREA OXFORD AIR QUALITY WEST STUDY AREA LOCATION OF AIR MONITORING STATIONS SENSITIVE RECEPTORS WITHIN THE HIGHBURY STUDY AREA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS WITHIN THE OXFORD STUDY AREA APPENDICES A AMBIENT AIR MONITORING DATA B SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS D MOVES EMISSION FACTORS LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page viii

10 1 INTRODUCTION Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a bus-based rapid transit system that mirrors many of the features of a rail system with the flexibility and cost savings associated with using over the road vehicles. London s BRT includes new infrastructure and service design improvements that will transform how public transit service is delivered. The City of London (the City ) is proposing to construct a BRT system, comprised of four segments, combined into two operational routes: the north and east corridor, and the south and west corridor, as presented in Figure 1-1. The BRT network (the Project ) was approved by City of London Council with the Rapid Transit Master Plan in July 2017, and is comprised of dedicated lanes on existing streets. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION To move from planning to implementation, the City is following the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP, Ontario Regulation 231/08). This document is a component of the Environmental Project Report (EPR) in support of the TPAP, specifically addressing air quality. Potential impacts of the proposed Project are examined, and appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring requirements are recommended. This document also considers and expands upon the work completed for the previous phase of the project, found in the documents as part of London s Rapid Transit Initiative Master Plan (RTMP, July 2017): IBI Group Inc. retained WSP on behalf of the City of London, to undertake an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) as a part of the EPR in support of the TPAP. This AQIA forms an appendix to the EPR. 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES The purpose of this AQIA is to assess the effect of the proposed Project operations on local air quality, upon full implementation of the expansion in future years. In addition, the AQIA study qualitatively assesses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the Project and the construction emissions, reviewing mitigation and potential monitoring programs. This report documents the assumptions, methodologies, analyses, and results of the study, providing information useful for interpreting the project s potential environmental impacts. The objectives of this AQIA are: To predict the concentrations of selected contaminants resulting from traffic in the study areas for the following scenarios: 1. Current Scenario: conditions currently (2018); 2. No-Build Scenario: 2034 horizon (future scenario) with no BRT; and, 3. Full-Build Scenario: 2034 horizon (future scenario) with BRT. To predict the combined effect of the project and ambient background concentrations at sensitive receptors; and, To use these predictions to assess potential local impacts of the project according to applicable guidelines. To satisfy the study objectives, existing and planned sensitive receptors within the study area of the Project have been confirmed and documented. The air quality impacts of the development of the Project at these receptors have been assessed and compared to air quality threshold limits. A sensitive receptor for air quality is defined by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in Ontario Regulation 419/05 Air Pollution Local Air Quality (O. Reg. 419/05), Section 30(8) as a: place of residence; child care facility; LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 1

11 health care facility; senior citizen s residence; long-term care facility; or, school. 1.3 STUDY AREAS The study areas were selected based on analysis of traffic data and corridor design booklets. The study areas were defined such that they included intersections: with the worst combination of high traffic volumes, largest increase in traffic (Full-Build vs Current), and smallest reduction in traffic as a results of the Project (Full-Build vs No-Build); with proximity to residential areas and sensitive receptors as defined in section 1.2; and, with changes in infrastructure (i.e., road widening). With the above outlined criteria, the following two study areas were selected: 1. Highbury Avenue between Dundas Street and Oxford Street East, and continuing along Oxford Street East to Second Street (Figure 1-2); and, 2. Oxford Street West between Wharncliffe Road and Wonderland Road (Figure 1-3); Predicted local air quality impacts associated with roadways tend to drop off significantly at downwind distances greater than 300 m; therefore, the sensitive receptors included in this assessment are limited to within 300 m to either side of the BRT corridor within the study areas. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 2

12 2 METHODOLOGY Local air quality impacts were assessed by estimating contaminant concentrations resulting from the transit operations in three scenarios: 1. Current Scenario: conditions currently in the study area (2018); 2. No-Build Scenario: 2034 horizon (future scenario) with no BRT; and, 3. Full-Build Scenario: 2034 horizon (future scenario) with BRT. In 2034, the BRT project will be completed and fully operational. The comparison of the contaminant concentrations between the 2034 Full-Build and No-Build scenarios determines the impact of the Project on local air quality. The methodology for this air quality impact assessment is outlined in the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Environmental Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Air Quality Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Provincial Transportation Projects (the MTO Guideline, MTO 2012). The assessment relies on atmospheric dispersion modelling of contaminants. Guidance pertaining to the technical aspects of the modelling are from the MOECC Guideline A-11: Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario, version 3 (ADMGO, MOECC 2017). 2.1 APPROACH For the three scenarios, roadway traffic in the current and future scenarios have been utilized to determine the local impacts of the Project on sensitive receptors within the study areas. The impacts have been compared to applicable air quality thresholds. The air quality thresholds represent target levels set by federal and provincial authorities and are not specifically enforceable. Operations considered in the study areas for the current scenario include traffic movement on roads including passenger cars and London Transit Commission (LTC) buses. Operations considered in the study areas for the Full-Build future scenario include passenger cars with an assumed decrease in volume from the BRT operations, remaining LTC buses in the corridor, and BRT buses along the north and east BRT route and the south and west BRT Route, both routes are identified in Figure 1-1. The No-Build future scenario includes expected passenger vehicle increases without the BRT buses and continued operation of LTC buses. The traffic volume data was provided by the City of London for all scenarios. The assessment was conducted using an emission rate calculation model. The local impacts of all emissions were predicted using an air dispersion model. The United States Environmental Protection Agency s (US EPA) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model was used to determine vehicle emission rates for passenger cars and transit buses on roads. The US EPA CAL3QHCR Model was used to determine the dispersion of the emissions associated with the three scenarios. CAL3QHCR is a US EPA preferred dispersion model for predicting pollutants near roadway intersections and a more refined version based on CAL3QHC that requires local meteorological data. For the purpose of determining the cumulative impact, the modelled concentrations from the three scenarios have been independently added to ambient background concentrations and the resulting sums compared to the most stringent air quality thresholds in order to evaluate the potential for adverse effects. The potential for an adverse effect is considered to exist when the cumulative impact for a contaminant exceeds the air quality threshold at a sensitive receptor. If the ambient background concentration of a contaminant already exceeds the air quality threshold, then the potential for an adverse effect already exists without considering the Project. Air quality thresholds are discussed in section 2.3. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 3

13 2.2 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN Contaminants of concern (COC) assessed in modelling include: Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometres (µm) (PM 2.5 ); Volatile organic compounds (VOCs): acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): benzo(a)pyrene as a surrogate; Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ): oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) corrected using available ozone (O 3 ) for conversion of nitric oxide (NO) to NO 2 ; and, Carbon monoxide (CO). COCs qualitatively assessed include: Particulate matter less than 10 micrometres (µm) (PM 10 ); Total suspended particulate (TSP); and, Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2eq ). 2.3 AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS In order to assess the impact of the Project, the predicted cumulative impacts at sensitive receptors were compared to guidelines established by government agencies. As recommended by the MTO, comparison of predicted cumulative pollution concentrations with the Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) and the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS, formerly the Canada Wide Standards) are necessary to assess the need for mitigation (MTO, 2012). The Ontario AAQC lists desirable concentrations of contaminants in air, based on protection against adverse effects on health and/or the environment. AAQCs are developed by the MOECC and have varying time weighted averaging periods (e.g., annual, 24 h, one hour, and 10 minutes) appropriate for the adverse effect that they are intended to protect against (i.e., acute or chronic). The adverse effects considered may be related to health, odour, vegetation, soiling, visibility, and/or corrosion. AAQCs may be changed from time to time based on the state-of-the-science for a particular contaminant (MOECC, 2012). The national CAAQS are specifically health-based air quality objectives for pollutant concentrations in outdoor air. Under the Air Quality Management System, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada established air quality standards for fine particulate matter. These standards are more stringent and comprehensive than the previous Canada Wide Standards that the CAAQS replace. The new CAAQS were established by the Federal government in The CAAQS include a long-term (annual) target for fine particulate matter (Environment Canada, 2013). Applicable standards include the 2020 proposed CAAQS standards for PM 2.5. Additional CAAQS were released in November 2017 for sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) and NO 2, with varying standards proposed to take effect in 2020 and 2025 for both contaminants. Due to the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel, SO 2 is not considered a contaminant of concern and was not assessed. The AAQC and CAAQS are collectively referred to as air quality thresholds in this AQIA. An exceedance of one of the air quality thresholds will cause mitigation to be considered, assuming the air quality threshold is not already exceeded by the ambient background concentration of a contaminant. Table 2-1 summarizes the air quality thresholds related to the contaminants of concern used in this AQIA. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 4

14 Table 2-1 Applicable Air Quality Thresholds CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN AVERAGING TIME THRESHOLD VALUE (µg/m³) SOURCE PM h Annual NO2 1 h CAAQS CAAQS (2020) CAAQS CAAQS (2020) CAAQS (2025) AAQC 24 h 200 AAQC Annual 22.6 CAAQS (2025) CO 1 h AAQC 8 h AAQC Acrolein 1 h 4.5 AAQC 24 h 0.4 AAQC Benzene 24 h 2.3 AAQC Annual 0.45 AAQC 1,3-Butadiene 24 h 10 AAQC Annual 2 AAQC Acetaldehyde 30 min 500 AAQC 24 h 500 AAQC Formaldehyde 24 h 65 AAQC Benzo(a)pyrene 24 h AAQC Annual AAQC The air quality thresholds represent desirable levels of contaminants in ambient air, and are not enforceable within any jurisdiction; they represent a road map for ambient air quality provincially (AAQC) and nationally (CAAQS). The air quality threshold value for each contaminant and its applicable averaging period are used to measure the impact at sensitive receptors. The applicable averaging periods for the contaminants are based on 30 minute, one hour, eight hour, 24 h, and annual exposure periods. The averaging periods for each contaminant are based on adverse impacts to human health, flora, or fauna. The limiting effects are indicated within the AAQC (MOECC, 2012). As previously mentioned, CAAQS threshold values are based on adverse impacts to human health only. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 5

15 2.4 BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY Concentrations of the COCs resulting from background sources were estimated by analysing historical monitoring data from ECCC National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) stations as well as MOECC air monitoring stations in the vicinity of the BRT corridor. Data was collected from these stations for the most recent available year (NAPS, 2015; and MOECC, 2015). For a majority of the ambient stations, 2015 is the most recent year of data availability. The Hamilton Downtown Station, Kitchener Station and Simcoe Station have more recent data included in this assessment. Where possible, the stations used to assess the ambient background are selected to have minimal to no impact from an existing bus corridor, such that the ambient background levels of the COCs are not duplicated when processed for the purpose of the cumulative assessment. The location of the selected stations are presented in Figure 2-1. The availability of data varies for each COC based on accessibility to quality assured data from ECCC and the MOECC. The station information and period of analysis are listed in Table 2-2. For PM 2.5, NO 2, CO and O 3 the MOECC stations in Hamilton Downtown, Kitchener, Guelph, Port Stanley, Grand Bend, and Toronto West were utilized. Data for VOCs and PAHs were not available at these stations, so NAPS stations located in Windsor, Kitchener West, London, Simcoe, and Egbert were utilized. More detailed analysis of ambient air monitoring data is available in Appendix A. Table 2-2 Air Monitoring Stations for Contaminants of Concern CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN STATION ID STATION NAME (LOCATION) AVAILABILITY OF DATA Particulate Matter (PM2.5) MOECC MOECC MOECC MOECC Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) MOECC MOECC MOECC MOECC Ozone MOECC MOECC MOECC MOECC Carbon Monoxide (CO) MOECC MOECC Hamilton Downtown Kitchener Guelph Port Stanley Hamilton Downtown Kitchener Guelph Grand Bend Hamilton Downtown Kitchener Guelph Port Stanley Toronto West (Resources Road) Hamilton Downtown Acrolein NAPS Windsor Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene NAPS NAPS Kitchener (West Ave. & Homewood) London (900 Highbury Ave) Acetaldehyde, Formaldehyde NAPS NAPS Egbert (RR56/10 th Side Road) Windsor Benzo(a)pyrene NAPS NAPS Hamilton Downtown Simcoe (Experimental Farm) LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 6

16 The 90 th percentile background concentration for each COC was determined from the stations listed in Table 2-2. The average concentrations recorded above the 90 th percentile are considered outliers and are removed from calculations to avoid extreme, rare, and transient events. The 90 th percentile over the five year data set is considered to be representative of ambient background conditions for averaging periods of 30 minutes, one hour, eight hours, and 24 h. For COCs with an annual averaging period, the highest recorded annual mean over the five years of data from the designated ambient stations was used. Table 2-3 summarizes background concentrations in the area of the Project. Ozone, although not a COC is included in Table 2-3 as it was utilized to determine the ability to form NO 2 from vehicular NO X emissions, described in detail in section 2.5. The ambient background concentrations presented in Table 2-3 will be aggregated with the predicted Project concentrations to account for cumulative impacts. Table 2-3 Summary of Ambient Background Concentrations within the Study Areas CONTAMINANT AVERAGING PERIOD BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION (µg/m³) 90 TH PERCENTILE AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD (µg/m³) % OF THRESHOLD PM h % Annual % NO2 1 h % 24 h % Annual % Ozone 1 h 96.9 n/a n/a 24 h 75.5 n/a n/a Annual 64.7 n/a n/a CO 1 h , % 8 h , % Acrolein 1 h % 24 h % Benzene 24 h % Annual % 1,3-Butadiene 24 h % Annual % Acetaldehyde 30 min % 24 h % Formaldehyde 24 h % Benzo(a)pyrene 24 h % Annual % Bold values indicate exceedances to air quality thresholds from 90 th percentile background concentrations LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 7

17 In Table 2-3 annual concentrations of PM 2.5, NO 2, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene as well as annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene background concentrations exceed the air quality thresholds. The elevated ambient background levels of benzene and benzo(a)pyrene are a widespread occurrence across urban Ontario, and levels are desired to be decreased by the MOECC. The desire to decrease levels of these contaminants is demonstrated by the MOECC posting their intent in 2009 to introduce new reduced AAQC guidelines for benzene and benzo(a)pyrene which took effect in This change saw the MOECC setting the AAQC to equal the point of impingement criteria imposed on industrial facilities, in an effort to bring ambient levels of these pollutants down across urbanized portions of Ontario. The annual NO 2 and annual PM 2.5 exceed the proposed CAAQS to take effect in 2025 and 2020, respectively. The 90 th percentile background annual PM 2.5 exceeds the current CAAQS of 10 µg/m³. The annual PM 2.5 and NO 2 standards are future standards within the CAAQS, proposed to assist in the long term decrease of these COCs nationally. 2.5 CONVERSION OF OXIDES OF NITROGEN TO NITROGEN DIOXIDE When oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) are emitted in diesel exhaust, their initial composition is dominated by nitric oxide (NO). Approximately 90 % of the emissions of NO X are in the form of NO. Once in the ambient air, NO is irreversibly oxidized by ground level ozone (O 3 ) to produce nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) as follows: NO O NO O NO 2 is a COC with established air quality thresholds, so the concentration of NO 2 is important to quantify for the Project. For the purpose of this AQIA, a simplified version of the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) was used to estimate the maximum short-term NO 2 concentrations resulting from emissions of NO X. The 1 h and 24 h NO X concentrations predicted by dispersion modelling were compared to the average 90 th percentile measured ambient O 3 concentrations, for the same averaging period, from ambient monitoring stations in Table 2-2. The OLM method assumes that if the concentration of NO (90 % of the modelled NO X ) is less than the available 90 th percentile ambient O 3, then all of the NO is converted to NO 2 as follows: If, 0.9NO ppm O ppm then, NO ppm NO ppm If the concentration of NO (90 % of the modelled NO X ) is greater than the available 90 th percentile ambient O 3, then there is not enough O 3 to convert all of the NO to NO 2, so the following relationship applies: If, 0.9NO ppm O ppm then, NO ppm 0.1NO ppm O ppm The conservative nature of this method assumes that the peak NO X emissions from the dispersion modelling occur simultaneously with the 90 th percentile peak O 3 concentrations, to maximize the amount of NO 2 that could be formed. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 8

18 2.6 CREDIBLE WORST-CASE ANALYSIS The COC concentrations from modelling the proposed Project were aggregated with background 90 th percentile ambient concentrations, with the results compared to the applicable air quality thresholds in order to evaluate the potential for adverse effects. This approach accounts for the cumulative effect of the Project s emissions in combination with ambient background concentrations. A credible worst-case analysis has been undertaken for this assessment. The contribution from the Project and the ambient background concentrations can vary from day to day, depending on meteorological conditions and operational characteristics. One of the common analytical responses to this issue is the credible worst-case analysis. It is based on the concept that a project is acceptable under all conditions if it is acceptable under a credible worstcase condition (MTO, 2012). In the credible worst-case analysis, the maximum modelled averaging period contributions from the Project, under maximum operating conditions and worst-case meteorological conditions are assumed to coincide with the peak ambient background concentrations. For each COC, the 90 th percentile concentration from the ambient background monitoring data is used to represent the peak ambient background condition. The aggregate of the maximum modelled Project contribution and the 90 th percentile ambient background concentration is compared to the applicable air quality threshold. If the credible worst-case analysis indicates that a significant number of sensitive receptors may be subject to air quality that does not meet the air quality thresholds, then a more detailed analysis will be conducted for that specific receptor/community (mitigation); otherwise, no further local air quality impact assessment is required (MTO 2012). 2.7 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELLING Dispersion models use mathematical formulations to represent the atmospheric processes that transport and disperse air contaminants. This air quality impact assessment involves the CAL3QHCR dispersion model. The CAL3QHCR model is developed by the US EPA specifically to predict air contaminant levels downwind of roadways. The CAL3QHCR model uses emission factors and combines them with hourly meteorological data, traffic data, and the configuration of the roadway. The model processes this information to predict roadway contributions to air quality levels at selected locations (sensitive receptors) in proximity to the roadway. The CAL3QHCR model is an enhanced version of CAL3QHC that can process up to a year of hourly meteorological data. The CAL3QHCR model can process specified vehicular Emissions, Traffic volume, and Signalization (ETS) data for each hour of a week. This model is capable of predicting air contaminants from both travelling and idling vehicles. CAL3QHCR enhances other similar models (CALINE3 and CAL3QHC) by incorporating methods for estimating queue lengths and contribution of emissions from idling vehicles at signal controlled intersections. The CAL3QHCR model is able to generate impacts for different averaging periods over one year of simulation. The hourly concentrations are estimated based on emission rates from sources. The model calculates concentrations over the year of simulation (one value for each hour) and presents the maximum and 90 th percentile. The 24 h average value is calculated using the emission rates and daily variation of emissions which is determined by traffic data. The model calculates one value for each day over the one year period, and presents the maximum daily concentrations. Consequently, the maximum value for an averaging period of one hour will always be greater than the value for the 24 h averaging period, since the latter considers an average over the daily variations while the former is the highest one hour value calculated by the model. CALRoad view version which is an integrated interface of the CAL3QHCR model was used for this assessment. The input parameters for this model are presented in Table 2-4. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 9

19 Table 2-4 CAL3QHCR Key Input Parameters PARAMETER Meteorological data Pollutants Traffic Volumes Deposition Velocity Settling Velocity Surface Roughness Links Dispersion Coefficient INPUT 1999 (most recent) PM2.5, CO, NOX, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, acrolein, and benzo(a)pyrene Provided by City of London (AADT and Peak Hours) PM2.5 = 0.1 cm/s PM2.5 = 0.02 cm/s 108 cm representative of the urban land use (commercial, residential, industrial) present in the study area Free Flow and Queue Dispersion Coefficient The CAL3QHCR dispersion model estimates air pollutant concentrations near a roadway by allocating the vehicle emissions to linear segments of the roadway, termed links. A new link must be defined whenever the road width, traffic volume, speed, alignment, or type of traffic movement (free flow or queue) changes. Free Flow links are allocated for moving traffic versus Queue links assigned where vehicle idling takes place such as at signalized intersections. Two types of links were included in the modelling, Free Flow links and Queue Links. A free flow link is defined as a straight segment of roadway with a constant width, height, traffic volume, traffic speed, and vehicle emission factors. Queue links are defined as a straight section of the roadway with constant width in which vehicles are idling for a period of time, such as signalized intersections. The length of the Queue link is calculated by the model based on traffic volume and capacity of approach. The dispersion modelling parameters used in CAL3QHCR for each type of link used in this assessment are discussed in this section. Free Flow Link Geometry Parameters Mixing Zone (Link Width): is defined as the width of the travelled roadway plus three meters on each side to account for dispersion of the plume Link Height: Link height can vary between 10 m (elevated) and -10 m (depressed section). For this assessment a link height of zero meters was selected. Queue Link Parameters Link width: the link width for Queue links is determined by the width of the roadway lane only without the three meter addition outlined above as vehicles are not moving. Approach Traffic Volume: Varies link to link Saturation flow rate: 1600 vehicles per hour Clearance Lost time: 3 s Average Red Time Length: 50 s Average Signal Cycle Length: 90 s The model calculates the contribution from all of the relevant links to each individual receptor so that the modelled impact can be determined. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 10

20 2.8 METEOROLOGICAL AND TERRAIN DATA The MTO Guideline prescribes a single worst-case set of meteorological conditions for use in a credible worst-case analysis (MTO, 2012). For this air quality impact assessment, a more refined approach was adopted, in which the most recent annual meteorological data was used within the modelling. Predicted worst-case concentrations for 30 minutes, one hour, eight hours, 24 h, and annual averaging times were extracted from the results of the one year of simulation. Surface data (i.e., hourly measurements recorded at surface-based weather stations located 10 m above grade) for 1999 for Toronto Airport Station (the most recent available data) was retrieved from the meteorological resources center and processed with RAMMET, the meteorological preprocessor of CAL3QHCR. 2.9 RECEPTORS Based on previous experience, predicted local air quality impacts associated with transportation projects tends to drop off significantly at distances greater than 300 m; therefore, the receptors included in this assessment have been restricted to within 300 m of the selected BRT corridors. For each study area sensitive receptors were identified and used within the model. Sensitive receptors were selected to ensure that future development for the study areas is taken into account. The locations of the sensitive receptors are shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 for each study area; the descriptions, the address, and the distance from the BRT corridor are provide in Appendix B. Per common practice, all receptors were placed at an assumed breathing height of 1.5 m above the ground EMISSION RATE CALCULATION The most significant, and user controlled data input into the dispersion model is the emission rates and associated source parameters. An accurate and effective collection of emission rates and source parameters result in better prediction of concentrations at receptors. The standard approach for estimating on-road mobile emissions is to use computer simulation techniques that has undergone extensive testing. The MOVES model, developed for this purpose by the US EPA, was used to generate emission factors (i.e., emission rate in mass per time for each kilometer of travel by vehicles). In this assessment, for each scenario the emissions sources were identified and the emission factors associated with each source was estimated using the MOVES model. The emission factors were generated for traveling, and idling activities. Vehicle exhaust emissions vary widely by type of vehicle, and the MOVES model generates emission factors for several different classes, following the 13 identified classifications of the Federal Highway Administration, including motorcycles, passenger cars, light trucks, buses, heavy trucks, etc. In order to generate a composite emission factor for each pollutant, that represents the average vehicle fleet, the individual emission factors were aggregated using the vehicle fleet composition in London. The information on vehicle composition (i.e., heavy and medium duty trucks) on each intersection was provided by the City of London. The following emission sources were included in the AQIA for each scenario. Current Scenario (2018) Traveling passenger cars and trucks on roadways within each study area; and, Travelling LTC buses on roadways in each study area No-Build Future Scenario (2034) The Project has not been constructed; therefore rapid transit buses are not in service. Forecasted passenger cars and trucks on roadways in each study area in 2034; and, Forecasted LTC buses on roadways in each study area in 2034 Full-Build Future Scenario (2034) LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 11

21 The BRT project has been completed is in operation. The emission sources included for this scenario include: Reduced forecasted traveling passenger cars and trucks on roadways in each study area; Modified LTC buses on roadways in each study area in 2034; and, Travelling rapid transit buses in corridors in the study areas. The fuel source proposed for BRT buses are diesel, CNG, or electric. This AQIA was conducted for the worst-case fuel source which is diesel. The impact on air quality due to adopting other fuel sources (CNG or electric) have been qualitatively assessed TRAFFIC DATA The City of London provided traffic volume for current conditions and projections for 2034 No-Build and Full- Build. WSP processed the detailed traffic movements for the BRT routes and surrounding area based on the traffic data provided. The traffic data consisted of annual average daily traffic (AADT) and peak traffic volumes for the study area. The traffic data was processed to estimate the vehicle kilometer travelled (VKT) in each link defined in the dispersion model. The VKT together with other parameters of the roadway (e.g., height, mixing zone) will be used in the CAL3QHCR model to predict the concentration of contaminant resulting from on-road mobile sources emissions. The traffic data include the following information for each defined model link: Existing AADT Hourly Distribution of Traffic Fraction of heavy duty and medium duty Future AADT for No_Build Number of LCT buses Number of RT buses Future AADT for Full_Build Day/Night Ratio Speed Limit Peak Hour Traffic Volume EMISSION FACTORS To estimate emissions from all roadway traffic, emission factors for the selected contaminants were generated by US EPA MOVES (2014a). The MOVES model is used to estimate the emissions from on-road vehicles and it is the MOECC recommended model for transportation related air quality impact assessments. MOVES is a state-of-thescience emission modelling system that estimates emissions for mobile sources at the national, county, and project level for criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics. MOVES provides estimates of current and future emission rates from motor vehicles based on a variety of factors such as local meteorology and vehicle fleet composition (US EPA, 2017). For this study, MOVES was used to estimate vehicle emissions based on vehicle type, model year and vehicle speed. Table 2-5 specifies the major inputs into MOVES. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 12

22 Table 2-5 PARAMETER MOVES Input Parameters INPUT Scale & Geographical Bounds Pollutants Years Months Meteorology Source Use Types and Fuel Combinations Road Type Vehicle Age Distribution Custom County Domain (New York-Niagara County to represent Greater Toronto Area) PM2.5, CO, NOX, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, acrolein, and benzo(a)pyrene 2018 (current) and 2034 (future) January and June (representative of winter and summer conditions) Temperature and Relative Humidity values were obtained from Toronto Pearson International Airport Station ( ). Passenger Vehicles (Gasoline), Transit Buses (Diesel) Urban Unrestricted Access MOVES defaults based on years selected Emission factors were calculated for the Current Scenario (2018) and the future scenarios (2034). All emission factors were developed for January and June and the maximum emission factor generated was selected for this assessment to account for the worst-case scenario. Associated hourly meteorological data (temperature and relative humidity) for these months was collected from the Toronto Pearson International Airport station from 2008 to 2012 (Environment Canada, 2017). The emission rates were calculated in custom county domain scale and the emission factors for each type of activity (idling and travelling) were generated for the selected road type and vehicle types. The vehicle speed was determined based on relative activity (idling or travelling). The MOVES model is capable of providing emission factors for multiple speed ranges. Travelling vehicles are assumed to have a maximum speed of the posted speed limit within the model link. The MOVES model is not capable of directly providing idling emission factors. For idling, per US EPA guidance, emission factors generated by the model for the first speed bin (0 4 km/h) were used and multiplied by half of the average speed (2 km/h). The emission factors were generated for the following activities: Vehicle (passenger cars and trucks) on the roadways: i) Idling; and, ii) Travelling. LTC and RT buses on the roadways: i) Idling; and, ii) Travelling. Buses were assumed to stop and go at the stations, without turning the ignition off (i.e., no start emissions). Vehicles within the study area were also assumed to never turn off their ignition (i.e., no start emissions). A summary of MOVES emission factors for 2018 and 2034 are summarized in Appendix D. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 13

23 DUST RESUSPENSION The PM 2.5 emission factor estimated by MOVES only includes the exhaust emissions, brakewear, and tirewear emissions. The MOVES model is not capable of estimating the emission due to the resuspension of particulates. Particulate resuspension emissions from the roadways occur due to vehicles travelling over a paved surface. The particle resuspension emissions have been estimated using US EPA recommended methodology and added to the Project emissions. The quantity of particulate emissions from resuspension of loose material on the road surface due to vehicles travelling were calculated using the empirical equation suggested in AP-42 (AP-42, 2011):.. where, SL = road surface silt loading = 0.2 g/m 2 (from US EPA, AP-42, section , Table ) w = average weight (tonnes) of the vehicles traveling the road; Passenger cars: 1.5 tonnes Buses: 13.5 tonnes Particle size = 2.5 g/vmt The particulate resuspension emission factors were calculated from the above equation and aggregated with the emission factor generated from MOVES for PM 2.5. More details on emission rate calculations using emission factors generated by MOVES and traffic data are available in Appendix D. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 14

24 3 RESULTS 3.1 MAXIMUM LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The air dispersion modelling results for the selected COCs for the most impacted sensitive receptor for each scenario are reported in this section. The comparison between future Full-Build and No-Build scenarios determines the impact of the Project on local air quality. This section includes predicted results for the following three scenarios: 1. Current Scenario: conditions currently in the study areas (2018); 2. No-Build Scenario: 2034 horizon (future scenario) with no BRT; and, 3. Full-Build Scenario: 2034 horizon (future scenario) with BRT. The results for each scenario were evaluated at all sensitive receptors in the selected study areas, but only the most impacted receptors are presented. Due to the averaging period, the most impacted sensitive receptor may vary; the one hour worst-case receptor may not necessarily be the 24 h worst-case receptor. Only the worst-case receptors are identified within this AQIA, so long as either: the worst-case receptor is below the air quality thresholds; or, the background concentration of a COC already exceeds the air quality thresholds at the worst-case receptor. The cumulative impacts due to the proposed Project were calculated by aggregating the Project specific modelling results with the 90 th percentile background ambient concentrations. The cumulative impacts were compared to air quality thresholds and the percentage is presented in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 for each study area. The cumulative impacts for each of the three scenarios (Current, No-Build, and Full-Build) are presented in these table. All of the dispersion modelling outputs were hourly. Where the threshold was on an hourly basis, the maximum hourly result was reported. If the threshold was on a daily (24 h) basis, the maximum 24 h concentration was reported. The annual results were the average of the hourly values for the year LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 15

25 3.1.1 RESULTS FOR THE HIGHBURY AVENUE STUDY AREA Table 3-1 Maximum Predicted Concentrations along Highbury Avenue (Cumulative Impacts) COC AVERAGIN G PERIOD CURENT SCENARIO (µg/m³) NO- BUILD (µg/m³) FULL- BUILD (µg/m³) AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD PERCENT OF THRESHOLD CURRENT NO-BUILD FULL-BUILD NO2 1 h % 82 % 85 % 24 h % 22 % 22 % Annual % 107 % 108 % CO 1 h % 1.4 % 1.4 % 8 h % 3.2 % 3.1 % PM h % 87 % 86 % Annual % 144 % 143 % Acetaldehyde 30 min % 0.34 % 0.34 % 24 h % 0.32 % 0.32 % Acrolein 1 h % 1.9 % 1.9 % 24 h % 19 % 19 % Benzene 24 h % 79 % 79 % Annual % 192 % 192 % 1,3-Butadiene 24 h % 1.3 % 1.3 % Annual % 3.5 % 3.5 % Benzo(a)pyrene 24 h % % % Annual % % % Formaldehyde 24 h % 2.2 % 2.2 % Bold values exceed the air quality thresholds The cumulative impacts were calculated by aggregating the Project specific modelling results with the 90 th percentile background ambient concentrations. The cumulative impacts were compared to air quality thresholds and the percentage is presented in Table 3-1. The cumulative air quality impacts of the Project are predicted to be below the air quality thresholds, with the exception of annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene, which already exceed the air quality thresholds from 90 th percentile background ambient concentrations, as previously discussed. As seen in Table 3-1, both future scenarios within the Highbury study area show a decrease in annual NO 2, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene compared to the Current Scenario, due to an increase in engine efficiency predicted by US EPA MOVES. Of the pre-existing exceeding COCs, only annual PM 2.5 displays an increase in emissions in the future scenarios, though the increase is minor and slightly lower for the Full-Build Scenario versus the No-Build Scenario. Emissions of COCs are very similar between the Full-Build Scenario and the No-Build Scenario, meaning the Project has little impact within the Highbury study area. The future scenarios in general show an improvement or minor increase when compared to the Current Scenario. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 16

26 3.1.2 RESULTS FOR THE OXFORD STUDY AREA Table 3-2 Maximum Predicted Concentrations along Oxford Street (Cumulative Impacts) COC AVERAGING PERIOD CURENT SCENARIO (µg/m³) NO- BUILD (µg/m³) FULL- BUILD (µg/m³) AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD PERCENT OF THRESHOLD CURRENT NO-BUILD FULL-BUILD NO2 1 h % 110 % 87 % 24 h % 24 % 23 % Annual % 107 % 106 % CO 1 h % 1.5 % 1.5 % 8 h % 3.1 % 3.2 % PM h % 95 % 92 % Annual % 133 % 133 % Acetaldehyde 30 min % 0.35 % 0.34 % 24 h % 0.32 % 0.32 % Acrolein 1 h % 2.1 % 1.9 % 24 h % 19 % 19 % Benzene 24 h % 79 % 79 % Annual % 191 % 191 % 1,3-Butadiene 24 h % 1.3 % 1.3 % Annual % 3.5 % 3.5 % Benzo (a)pyrene 24 h % % % Annual % % % Formaldehyde 24 h % 2.3 % 2.3 % Bold values exceed the air quality thresholds The cumulative impacts were calculated by aggregating the Project specific modelling results with the 90 th percentile background ambient concentrations. The cumulative impacts were compared to air quality thresholds and the percentage is presented in Table 3-2. The cumulative air quality impacts of the Project are predicted to be below the air quality thresholds, with the exception of annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene, which already exceed the air quality thresholds from 90 th percentile background ambient concentrations, as previously discussed. The 1 h NO 2 concentration exceeds the new CAAQS for the No-Build Scenario only. As seen in Table 3-2, both future scenarios show a decrease in annual NO 2, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene compared to the Current Scenario, due to an increase in engine efficiency predicted by US EPA MOVES. Of the pre-existing exceeding COCs, only annual PM 2.5 displays an increase in emissions in the future scenarios, though the increase is minor. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 17

27 Emissions of COCs are very similar between the Full-Build Scenario and the No-Build Scenario, meaning the Project has little impact within the Oxford study area. The future scenarios in general show an improvement or minor increase when compared to the Current Scenario; the exception being 1 h PM 2.5 concentrations which show an increase in the future scenarios, though they remain below the air quality threshold DISCUSSION The decrease in maximum predicted concentrations from the Current Scenario to the future scenarios is due to the increased efficiency of future vehicles predicted by US EPA MOVES being greater than the increase in roadway traffic and the addition of a diesel bus fleet (the BRT). Comparison of Full-Build Scenario and No-Build Scenario indicates the Project has no local impact on air quality within the study area, as results are similar. For NO 2, CO, and PM 2.5 the Full-Build Scenario results in decreases in emissions when compared to the No-Build Scenario. The cumulative impacts are compared with air quality thresholds in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 and no additional exceedances of the thresholds were identified, other than 1 h NO 2, for the No-Build Scenario within the Oxford study area. With the exception of annual PM 2.5, the contribution of the Project to pre-existing exceedances from ambient background concentrations is a net improvement. Comparison of the cumulative concentrations shows the COCs associated with the Project are below the air quality thresholds, or result in a net improvement, or no change to existing condition exceedances. As such the proposed Project is predicted not to have an adverse effect on air quality within the study area and will result in the decrease in some contaminants compared to the No-Build Scenario. 3.2 ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR BRT BUSES The AQIA outlined in this report assess the impacts due to operating a diesel bus network. The option to construct a CNG or electric BRT fleet is still being considered by the City of London. The following section highlights qualitatively the impacts associated with different sources of fuel for the BRT fleet COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS In general CNG decreases the formation of NO 2 and PM 2.5 compared to diesel. The decrease in these emissions can be significant at sensitive receptors and based on the experience of WSP where CNG was assessed against future diesel technology, the decrease in NO 2 impacts at receptors was approximately 15 % and 4 % for the 1 h and 24 h averaging periods, respectively. The reduction in the 1 h averaging period for NO 2 should be noted as the CAAQS 2025 standard for NO 2 is very stringent. For PM 2.5, CNG can further decrease emissions by 5 % for the 24 h averaging period, based on the experience of WSP in projects examining CNG substitution for diesel ELECTRIC Electric buses would not emit any COCs within the study areas, with the exception of particulate matter from brakewear, tirewear, and re-suspension. The remainder of the COCs generated by electric buses do not occur locally, but rather nationally/regionally depending on the source of power to generate the required electricity. Impacts associated with electric buses would need further information to assess, such as the type of electric bus, energy demand, and source of electricity generation. In general terms, COCs can be reduced by large stationary electricity generating plants where pollution controls can be implemented more readily than on mobile equipment, such as buses. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 18

28 3.3 GREENHOUSE GASES/CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are contributors to the radiative warming effect of the environment that results in global climate change. The major GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) which are emitted from fuel combustion as well as other anthropogenic and natural sources. Carbon dioxide is the main product of combustion while the other two gases are by-products of incomplete combustion. Methane and nitrous oxide have lower concentrations in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but their potential impact on global warming per molecule is larger than for carbon dioxide. On a local geographical scale, the warming effects of black carbon may be more prominent than GHGs, especially on a shorter time scale. Black carbon is present in particulate matter generated by fuel combustion processes, and absorbs solar radiation at all wavelengths. Given its shorter residence time in the atmosphere than GHGs, the use of the 100 year global warming potential (GWP) factors to determine CO 2 equivalency (CO 2eq ) may not be appropriate. Hence, published 20 year GWP for GHGs and black carbon (Solomon et al. 2007, Minjares et al. 2014) were used to estimate the magnitude of the climate change effects of Project-related black carbon emission and its potential contribution to local climate change. Other components such as sulphates, nitrates, and organic carbon (OC) present in particulate matter generally reflect light and have a cooling effect that may partially offset the warming effect of black carbon, but are not fully understood and not part of this qualitative assessment. To assess GHGs the potential global warming of each chemical is taken into account to express the GHGs in a single parameter called CO 2 equivalent (CO 2eq ). The 20 year GWP factors were used to produce a single parameter CO 2eq20. Fuel types for all options of buses including current diesel, future diesel (new model engines), compressed natural gas (CNG), and electric are examined for the potential impact to GHG emissions. The CO 2e20 impacts of various fleet compositions are listed in Table 3-5, Table 3-6, and Table 3-7 for start-up emissions, idling emissions, and travelling emissions, respectively. Table 3-3 Greenhouse Gas Impacts (Start-up) FUEL TYPE CO2EQ20 EMISSIONS (G/VEH.START) DECREASE IN GHG EMISSIONS (%) Diesel (2018) Diesel (2034) % CNG % Electric - - Notes: A negative decrease is an increase in emissions Table 3-4 Greenhouse Gas Impacts (Idling) FUEL TYPE CO2EQ20 EMISSIONS (G/VEH.HOUR) DECREASE IN GHG EMISSIONS (%) Diesel (2018) Diesel (2034) % CNG % Electric - - LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 19

29 Table 3-5 Greenhouse Gas Impacts (Travelling) FUEL TYPE CO2EQ20 EMISSIONS (G/VEH.HOUR) DECREASE IN GHG EMISSIONS (%) Diesel (2018) Diesel (2034) % CNG % Electric - - For electric buses, there is no local impact within the study areas from greenhouse gases as the creation of power (i.e., electrical generation plants) is located outside of the study area; however, there will be an impact nationally/regionally from these plants which is not assessed due to a lack of knowledge of the total power demand requirement of the BRT fleet should it be all electric. Start-up emissions outlined in Table 3-5 have little impact to greenhouse gas emissions as the buses will be running continuously for long periods, without stopping or starting their engines within the study areas. The high value for CNG engines in Table 3-5 is due to the uncontrolled release of methane from CNG engines on cold starts. Idling emissions located in Table 3-6 are important to the study area as buses will idle at stop lights and at bus stops. The purpose of the BRT system is to minimize idling at stop lights by timing the signals to maintain BRT traffic movement whenever possible. When idling, CNG buses have the greatest reduction to GHG emissions compared to current fleet vehicles. For travelling emissions in Table 3-7, both future diesel engines and CNG engines yield a reduction of GHG generation. Future diesel buses offer the greatest decrease, but both options produce a net decrease that would assist in meeting Ontario s 2007 Action Plan on Climate Change. 3.4 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS The impact of the Project components on local air quality and GHGs were investigated in the previous sections. This section documents the potential effects that may occur because of construction activities for the proposed Project. It also documents the mitigation measures and monitoring activities (as applicable) identified to minimize the predicted effects on air quality. The construction activities associated with the Project consist of the construction of new structures, platforms, bus lanes, walkways, potential parking, and landscaped areas. Air emissions associated with construction typically include: 1. Total Suspended Particles (TSP), Particulate Matter less than 10 µm (PM 10 ), and PM 2.5 resulting from: Stockpiling of soils and other friable material; Granular material loading and unloading activities; Transportation of soils and other friable materials via dump trucks; Soil excavation and filling activities required to facilitate the modified site layout for the new station; Movement of heavy and light vehicles on paved and unpaved roads; Demolition of structures necessary to accommodate the bus stops; and, Cutting of existing concrete. 2. Emissions resulting from the combustion engines of construction equipment (COCs, and GHG emissions). LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 20

30 To mitigate construction activities an Air Quality Management Plan will be developed to address construction equipment and vehicle exhaust, potential traffic disruption and congestion, fugitive dust and odour. Potential mitigation measures that may be included in the Air Quality Management Plan include: Dust suppression measures (e.g., application of water wherever appropriate, or the use of approved non-chloride chemical dust suppressants, where the application of water is not suitable) will conform to recognized standard specifications such as the Cheminfo Services Inc. March 2005 publication Best Practices for the Reduction of Air Emissions from Construction and Demolition Activities prepared for Environment Canada; Use of dump trucks with retractable covers for the transport of soils and other friable materials; Minimize the number of loadings and unloading of soils and other friable materials; Minimize drop heights, use enclosed chutes, and cover bins for debris associated with deconstruction of affected structures; Washing of equipment and/ use of mud mats where practical at construction site exits to limit the migration of soil and dust off-site; Dust monitoring in locations where it has been determined that a particulate bound contaminant of concern exists in native soil; Stockpiling of soil and other friable materials in locations that are less exposed to wind (e.g., protected from the wind by suitable barriers or wind fences/screens, or covered when long-term storage is required) and away from sensitive receptors to the extent possible; Reduction of unnecessary traffic and implementation of speed limits; Permanent stabilization of exposed soil areas with non-erodible material (e.g., stone or vegetation) as soon as practicably possible after construction in the affected area is completed; Ensuring that all construction vehicles, machinery, and equipment are equipped with current emission controls, which are in a state of good repair; and, Dust-generating activities should be minimized during conditions of high wind. In addition to the Air Quality Management Plan, construction activities will be monitored by a qualified Environmental Inspector who will frequently review the efficacy of the mitigation measures and construction best management practices to confirm they are functioning as intended. In the event that mitigation is found to not be effective, revised mitigation measures designed to improve effectiveness will be implemented. Dust levels will be monitored daily by the Contractor and frequently by the Environmental Inspector to assess the effectiveness of dust suppression measures, and adjust as required. Monitoring will continue throughout the construction phase until activities are complete, all exposed soils have been stabilized, and all construction waste has been removed from site. A complaint response protocol will be established for nuisance effects such as dust for local residents to provide feedback. Regular inspections of dust emissions will occur by the Contractor (frequency to be defined prior to project construction) to confirm dust control watering frequency and rates are adequate for control. Selected site supervisors should monitor the site for wind direction and weather conditions to ensure that high-impact activities be reduced when the wind is blowing consistently towards nearby sensitive receptors. The site supervisor should also monitor for visible fugitive dust and take action to determine the root-cause in order to counteract this. Specific details regarding monitoring should be included in the Air Quality Management Plan. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 21

31 4 CONCLUSIONS The Project will be located along major routes within the City of London. The impact of the Project on local air quality was assessed using emission calculation techniques and air dispersion modelling. Conclusions from the assessment of the Project s impacts on air quality and climate change are as follows: 1. The future Full-Build Scenario results in minor impacts or slight improvements compared to the future No- Build Scenario at the most-impacted receptors near the Project. This is due to the assumed reduction in onroad vehicle traffic occurring within the Full-Build Scenario being greater than the contribution of the additional buses servicing the BRT. The increase to local contaminant concentrations is insignificant and the predicted concentrations of contaminants in 2034 remains below the applicable air quality thresholds, with the exception of annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene. 2. For all scenarios examined, all contaminants, with the exception of annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene, have their predicted maximum concentrations at sensitive receptors within the study area of the Project below applicable air quality thresholds when combined with the respective 90 th percentile ambient background concentrations. 3. The annual NO 2, PM 2.5, benzene, and annual and 24 h benzo(a)pyrene concentrations are above their thresholds in all scenarios within the study area; however, the 90 th percentile ambient background concentrations are already above their respective air quality thresholds without any contribution from the Project. The elevated ambient background levels of these contaminants are widespread across Southern Ontario. The impact of the operation of the Project on contaminants already exceeding the thresholds from background concentrations is negligible. 4. The Project will result in a net greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction due to engine efficiency associated with on-road vehicles; though in locations with potential parking lots there may be a localized increase to GHG emission, these will be less than the overall decreases. A more detailed GHG study should be conducted when the final fleet vehicle fuel source is known, as compressed natural gas (CNG) may have a net increase to GHG emissions versus diesel, and electricity demands of an electric fleet are unknown at the time of this assessment. Regardless of vehicle type, the Project is expected to have a positive impact on air quality and lead to a reduction in GHG emissions; however, the use of electric vehicles would result in the greatest net benefit to local air quality. The focus of this assessment was on impacts to air quality in two specific study areas where the risk to local air quality as a result of the Project was considered to be greatest. The impacts to these higher risk areas were negligible and in some cases positive; therefore, it is assumed that in the less risk-prone areas where the Project exists, which include areas where traffic is forecasted to decrease as a result of modal shifts, air quality will not be impacted or improve. The localized approach to assessing the impacts within the specific study areas does not account for how a modal shift towards transit will impact air quality on a city-wide scale; this city-wide approach based on modal shift was accounted for in the Business Case. LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 22

32 5 REFERENCES Environment Canada. (2013). Canada Ambient Air Quality Standards. Retrieved from Environment Canada. (2017). Historical Climate Data. Retrieved from Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2015). National Air Pollution Surveillance Program (NAPS) [Data Products]. Accessed October 2017 from Minjares, Ray; Wagner, David Vance; Akbar, Sameer Reducing black carbon emissions from diesel vehicles: impacts, control strategies, and cost-benefit analysis. Washington DC; World Bank Group. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). (2010). Ontario Digital Elevation Model. [Data Products]. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Retrieved from digital-elevation-model Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). (2012). Ontario s Ambient Air Quality Criteria. Standards Development Branch, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). (2012). Environmental Guide: Recommended Approach for Assessing and Mitigating the Air Quality Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Provincial Transportation Projects. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. (MOECC). (2012). Ambient Air Quality Criteria. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. (2015). Air Quality in Ontario. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). (2017). Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario, Version 3.0. Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). (2007). Ontario s Action Plan On Climate Change - Go Green Booklet. Retrieved from 20on%2 0Climate%20Change.pdf USEPA. (2017). Moves Model Latest Version of Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). Retrieved from Solomon, S., D. etal, Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. USEPA. (2016). EPA Emission Standards for Non-road Engines and Vehicles, Emission Standards Reference Guide, Tier Emissions, EPA Retrieved from LONDON BUS RAPID TRANSIT AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project No IBI Group on behalf of the City of London WSP April 2018 Page 23

33 FIGURES

34 KILALLY ROAD GAINSBOROUGH ROAD Waubuno Creek NISSOURI ROAD OXFORD WEST VALET SHAW ROAD TRAFALGAR CATHERINE DONNYBROOK DRIVE Service Layer Credits: GLENORA DRIVE Stoney Creek SUNNYSIDE DRIVE Medway Creek SANDFORD WINDERMERE ROAD Medway Creek VANNECK ROAD ROBINS HILL ROAD ALDERSBR OOK SARNIA ROAD KIPPS LANE CLARKE ROAD RICHMOND HURON R OAD CHEAPSIDE WESTERN R O AD VE TERANS MEMORIAL PARKWAY MCNAY OXFORD EAST WHARNCLIFFE ROAD NORTH Mud Creek WOODHULL ROAD Pottersburg Creek 2ND QUEBEC CENTRAL AVENUE TASTREE T HORTON EAST COMMISSIONERS ROAD WEST CRUMLIN SIDEROAD KING RIVERSIDE DRIVE QUEENS AVENUE DUNDAS FLORENCE YORK ELVIAGE DRIVE WAVELL HALE BRYDGES BYRON BASELINE ROAD GREY RIDOUT SOUTH SPRINGBANK DRIVE ADM WORTLEY ROAD BERKSHIREDRIVE BOLER ROAD GR IRAL DRIVE EGERTON Dingman Creek EMERY IFFITH HIGH WEST GORE ROAD POND MILLS ROAD COMMISSIONERS ROAD EAST VISCOUNT ROAD CRANBROOK ROAD T REET S HAMILTON ROAD THOMPSON RO A D BELMONT DRIVE FERNDALEAVENUE BASELINE ROAD EAST WONDERLAND ROAD Waubuno Creek SOUTH SOUTHDALE ROAD WEST Dingman Creek WESTDEL BOURNE SOUTHDALE ROAD EAST BOSTWICK COLONEL ERNEST AVENUE WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH ROAD TALBOT ROAD OLD VICTORIA ROAD BRADLEY AVENUE HIGHBURY AVENUE SOUTH WHITE OAK ROAD BESSEMER WELLINGTON ROAD MAIN R D JA LNA BOULEVA EXETER ROAD ROAD Sharon Creek 126 DON HILLOCK DRIVE, UNIT 2 AURORA, ONTARIO CANADA L4G 0G9 TEL.: FAX: FIGURE NO: Metres 1-1 CLIENT: PROJECT: CITY OF LONDON AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT LONDON RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT NO: DATE: MARCH 2018 SCALE: 1:60,000 TITLE: DISCIPLINE: APPROVED BRT NETWORK (JULY 2017) ENVIRONMENT. Document Path: T:\ \AQ\MXD\ Figure 1-1 Site Location.mxd LEGEND NORTH AND EAST BRT ROUTE SOUTH AND WEST BRT ROUTE WATERCOURSE WATERBODIES DESIGNED BY: - DRAWN BY: T.P. CHECKED BY: - ISSUE: - REV.: -

35 DOBIE MARDELL PLACE RUSHLAND AVENUE SALISBURY CONNAUGHT AVENUE HERBERT AVENUE ELIAS PRINCESS AVENUE KING YORK WHITNEY Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community COMMUNITY GATE STUDENT ROAD RHINE AVENUE PAARDEBERG CRESCENT WISTOW BUCKE OAKSIDE ATE G COMMUNITY ALUMNI ROAD WET HERED CLEMENS LYMAN APPEL STUART STERLING KRUPP TRAVERSE APPRENTICE DRIVE LONDON LANE COLVIN AVENUE ROEHAMPTON COURT OXFORD EAST OXFORD EAST JIM ASHTON FLEET STRAND HOWLAND AVENUE CULVER DRIVE PICCADILLY IVE DR CULVER EMPIRE MARDELL HARTLET MORNINGTON CURRY GLASGOW STERLING SALISBURY CULVER CRESCENT DALE AVENUE CULV ER CULVE R PLA DRIVE CULVER COURT HANSULD CONNAUGHT AVENUE CE 2ND DIXIE 1ST GLASGOW QUEBEC PARKHURST AVENUE Pottersburg Creek COMMERCIAL CRESCENT PRINCESS AVENUE SH SPANNER AEPHERD VENUE ALBANY GLEESON AVALON EVANGELINE HIGHBURY AVENUE NORTH LEONARD DUNDAS ASHLAND AVENUE MCCORMICK BOULEVARD DORINDA PATERSON AVENUE RONALD MERLIN BEATRICE KATHLEEN AVENUE LOVERAGE SAUL SPRUCE NIGHTINGALE AVENUE BURBROOK PLACE CHARLOTTE WOODMAN AVENUE HILTON PLACE EDMONTON WHITNEY VANCOUVER S ASKATOON CALEDONIA EDGEWORTH AVENUE AVONDALE ROAD STRATTON DRIVE CALGARY MANITOBA THIEL SPRUCE ALLEN AVENUE ALLEN PLACE DOULTON OAKLAND AVENUE ELEANOR KELLOGG LANE KING BURSLEM FLORENCE YORK EGERTON BORDEN BORDEN HILTON TITLE: PROJECT NO: DATE: CLIENT: MARCH 2018 STUDY AREA 1. LEGEND STUDY AREA 1 DESIGNED BY: - CITY OF LONDON NORTH AND EAST BRT ROUTE ENVIRONMENT DISCIPLINE: DRAWN BY: T.P. SOUTH AND WEST BRT ROUTE PROJECT: WATERCOURSE CHECKED BY: REV.: ISSUE: - AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT LONDON RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR 126 DON HILLOCK DRIVE, UNIT 2 AURORA, ONTARIO CANADA L4G 0G9 - - SCALE: 1:10,000 TEL.: FAX: FIGURE NO: Metres 1-2 Document Path: T:\ \AQ\MXD\ Figure 1-2 Study Area 1.mxd

36 PALMER Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community WALMER GROVE CEDAR ROAD WESTERN AVENUE FOX AVENUE EDGAR DRIVE WALMER WHARNCLIFFE ROAD NORTH GARDENS BEAVERBROOK AVENUE TROTT DRIVE CRESCENT HOLLYWOOD CHERRYHILL WESTFIELD HORIZON DRIVE ESSEX BEAUFORT WHARNCLIFFE ROAD NORTH CIRCLE WONDERLAND ROAD NORTH DRIVE GUNN IRWIN MCDONALD AVENUE PLACE CHERRYHILL SAUNBY FARRAH ROAD CAPULET LANE GRACE LANE FERNLEY AVENUE GOWER SUMMIT AVENUE PLATTS LANE CHERRYHILL BOULEVARD Mud Creek OXFORD WEST ARGYLE ST ANDREW EMPRESS RATHNALLY EMPRESS AVENUE ST PATRICK CAMBRIDGE AVENUE EMPRESS AVENUE COOPER RATHNALLY RATHOWEN LORRAINE AVENUE BRITANNIA AVENUE COLUMBIA AVENUE WOODWARD AVENUE PROUDFOOT LANE EDINBURGH DRIVE THORNWOOD PAUL BLACKFRIARS BARRINGTON AVENUE BARRY PLACE F OSTER AV ENUE UPPER AVENUE BRIMLEY COURT BRIMLEY PLACE ORNWOOD OURT TH CUMMINGS AVENUE C CARROTHERS AVENUE ALBION BRITANNIA AVENUE BEAVERBROOK AVENUE LEXINGTON AVENUE TOZER AVENUE SUGARCREEK TRAIL KINGSWAY LESLIE MOIR AVENUE CHARLES CHERRY CHANDLER AVENUE EDITH CRESCENT BRAEMAR MOUNT PLEASANT AVENUE ROGERS AVENUE MAURICE SAMUEL PLACE TITLE: PROJECT NO: DATE: CLIENT: MARCH 2018 STUDY AREA 2. LEGEND STUDY AREA 2 DESIGNED BY: - CITY OF LONDON NORTH AND EAST BRT ROUTE ENVIRONMENT DISCIPLINE: DRAWN BY: T.P. SOUTH AND WEST BRT ROUTE PROJECT: WATERCOURSE CHECKED BY: REV.: ISSUE: - AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT LONDON RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR WATERBODIES 126 DON HILLOCK DRIVE, UNIT 2 AURORA, ONTARIO CANADA L4G 0G9 - - SCALE: 1:8,000 TEL.: FAX: FIGURE NO: Metres 1-3 Document Path: T:\ \AQ\MXD\ Figure 1-3 Study Area 2.mxd

37 Service Layer Credits: Lake Simcoe Egbert (NAPS 64401)! ( Toronto West (MOECC 35125) Lake Huron! ( Guelph (MOECC 28028) Lake Ontario! (! ( Grand Bend (MOECC 15020) Michigan Kitchener (NAPS 61502, MOECC 26060)! (! ( Hamilton Downtown (MOECC 29000)! ( London (NAPS 60903)! ( Simcoe Experimantal Farm (NAPS 62601)! ( New York Port Stanley (MOECC 16015) Lake St. Clair Lake Erie! ( Windsor (NAPS 60211) Pennsylvania CLIENT: LEGEND! (. AIR MONITORING STATION NORTH AND EAST BRT ROUTE SOUTH AND WEST BRT ROUTE CITY OF LONDON PROJECT NO: DATE: MARCH 2018 TITLE: LOCATION OF AIR MONITORING STATIONS DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: T.P. PROJECT: DISCIPLINE: ENVIRONMENT CHECKED BY: 126 DON HILLOCK DRIVE, UNIT 2 AURORA, ONTARIO CANADA L4G 0G9 TEL.: FAX: Document Path: T:\ \AQ\MXD\ Figure 2-1 Air Monitoring Stations.mxd Kilometres AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT LONDON RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR - ISSUE: FIGURE NO: SCALE: 2-1 1:1,250,000 - REV.: -

38 LANE OXFORD EAST MARDELL YORK Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community COM MUNITY GATE ALUMNI ROAD L WISTOW OAKSIDE WETHERED CLEMENS MCNAY LYMAN APPEL STUART BOULLEE LINWOOD BARKER ONDON STERLING JIM ASHTON HOWLAND AVENUE 2ND EMPIRE CURRY FLEET STRAND HARTLET 1ST 4 QUEBEC Pottersburg Creek 27 HIGHBURY AVENUE NORTH MORNINGTON AVENUE GLASGOW STERLING CULVER CRESCENT SALISBURY CULVER COURT DALE CONNAUGHT AVENUE HANSULD HERBERT AVENUE Pottersburg Creek 5 Pottersburg Creek PARKHURST AVENUE Pottersburg Creek COMMERCIAL CRESCENT CONNAUGHT AVENUE DIXIE 6 GLASGOW 3RD SPANNER ALBANY AVALON 10 DORINDA 29 MCCORMICK BOULEVARD BURBROOK PLACE RONALD MERLIN BEATRICE LOVERAGE SAUL BURDICK PLACE CHARLOTTE SPRUCE 8 7 NIGHTINGALE AVENUE 28 ASHLAND AVENUE WOODMAN AVENUE DUNDAS EDGEWORTH AVENUE AVONDALE ROAD EDMONTON CALGARY MANITOBA WINNIPEG BOULEVARD S ASKATOON KING HILTON AVENUE VANCOUVER CALEDONIA THIEL BURSLEM ALLEN AVENUE FLORENCE ELEANOR KELLOGG LANE EGERTON BORDEN DOULTON OAKLAND AVENUE TITLE: PROJECT NO: DATE: CLIENT: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN HIGHBURY STUDY AREA MARCH LEGEND DESIGNED BY: - CITY OF LONDON ENVIRONMENT DISCIPLINE: DRAWN BY: T.P. PROJECT: CHECKED BY: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR HOSPITAL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL SENIOR HOME STUDY AREA 1 NORTH AND EAST BRT ROUTE SOUTH AND WEST BRT ROUTE WATERCOURSE REV.: ISSUE: - AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT LONDON RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR 126 DON HILLOCK DRIVE, UNIT 2 AURORA, ONTARIO CANADA L4G 0G9 - - SCALE: 1:10,000 TEL.: FAX: FIGURE NO: Metres 2-2 Document Path: T:\ \AQ\MXD\ Figure 2-2 Receptors Study Area 1.mxd

39 TROTT DRIVE PAUL Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FOX AVENUE WA L MER GARDEN S WHARNCLIFFE ROAD NORTH BEAVERBROOK AVENUE WESTERN ROAD HOR ESSEX IZON DRIVE BEAUFORT CHERRYHILL MCDONALD AVENUE CIRCLE GUNN PLACE CHERRYHILL PROUDFOOT LANE SAUNBY PLATTS LANE FARRAH ROAD GRACE SUMMIT AVENUE CHERRYHILL BOULEVARD Mud Creek OXFORD WEST ST PATRICK 4 10 FOSTER AVENUE BEAVERBROOK AVENUE 7 EMPRESS AVENUE COOPER RATHOWEN CAMBRIDGE COLUMBIA AVENUE 9 BLACKFRIARS WOODWARD AVENUE THORNWOOD DRIVE BRITANNIA AVENUE CARROTHERS AVENUE ALBION TOZER AVENUE UPPER AVENUE SUGARCREEK KINGSWAY AVENUE TRAIL LESLIE CHARLES CHERRY CHANDLER AVENUE ROGERS AVENUE MOUNT PLEASANT AVENUE MAURICE TITLE: PROJECT NO: DATE: CLIENT: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN OXFORD STUDY AREA MARCH LEGEND DESIGNED BY: - CITY OF LONDON ENVIRONMENT DISCIPLINE: DRAWN BY: T.P. PROJECT: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR HOSPITAL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL STUDY AREA 2 NORTH AND EAST BRT ROUTE SOUTH AND WEST BRT ROUTE WATERCOURSE CHECKED BY: REV.: ISSUE: - AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT LONDON RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR WATERBODIES 126 DON HILLOCK DRIVE, UNIT 2 AURORA, ONTARIO CANADA L4G 0G9 - - SCALE: 1:8,000 TEL.: FAX: FIGURE NO: Metres 2-3 Document Path: T:\ \AQ\MXD\ Figure 2-3 Receptors Study Area 2.mxd

40 APPENDIX A AMBIENT AIR MONITORING DATA

41 Summary of Appendix A Tables Table A1: Ambient Air Quality Data O3 ( ) Table A2: Ambient Air Quality Data PM2.5 ( ) Table A3: Ambient Air Quality Data NO2 ( ) Table A4: Ambient Air Quality Data CO ( ) Table A5: Ambient Air Quality Data Acetaldehyde ( ) Table A6: Ambient Air Quality Data Acrolein ( ) Table A7: Ambient Air Quality Data Benzene ( ) Table A8: Ambient Air Quality Data Benzo(a)pyrene Table A9: Ambient Air Quality Data Formaldehyde ( ) Table A10: Ambient Air Quality Data 1,3-Butadiene ( ) Page A-1

42 Table A1: Ambient Air Quality Data O3 ( ) Table A1.1: 2011 Summary 2011 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Table A1.2: 2012 Summary 2012 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Table A1.3: 2013 Summary 2013 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Page A-2

43 Table A1.4: 2014 Summary 2014 (µg/m³) LABEL NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Table A1.5: 2015 Summary 2015 (µg/m³) LABEL NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Page A-3

44 Table A2: Ambient Air Quality Data PM2.5 ( ) Table A2.1: 2011 Summary 2011 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Toronto West 125 Resources Road Table A2.2: 2012 Summary 2012 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Toronto West 125 Resources Road Table A2.3: 2013 Summary 2013 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Toronto West 125 Resources Road Page A-4

45 Table A2.4: 2014 Summary 2014 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Toronto West 125 Resources Road Table A2.5: 2015 Summary 2015 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Port Stanley Dexter Line Toronto West 125 Resources Road Page A-5

46 Table A3: Ambient Air Quality Data NO2 ( ) Table A3.1: 2011 Summary 2011 (µg/m³) LABEL NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION Percentiles Annual MAX Percentile 24 h 90th Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Toronto Downtown Bay St./Wellesley St. W Toronto East Kennedy Rd./Lawrence Ave. E Toronto West 125 Resources Road Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Grand Bend HWY 21/County Road Table A3.2: 2012 Summary 2012 (µg/m³) LABEL NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION Percentiles Annual MAX Percentile 24 h 90th Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Toronto Downtown Bay St./Wellesley St. W Toronto East Kennedy Rd./Lawrence Ave. E Toronto West 125 Resources Road Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Grand Bend HWY 21/County Road Page A-6

47 Table A3.3: 2013 Summary 2013 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Percentile LABEL NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION 24 h 90th Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Toronto Downtown Bay St./Wellesley St. W Toronto East Kennedy Rd./Lawrence Ave. E Toronto West 125 Resources Road Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Grand Bend HWY 21/County Road Table A3.4: 2014 Summary 2014 (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Percentile LABEL NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION 24 h 90th Hamilton Downtown Toronto Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St. Bay St./Wellesley St. W Toronto East Kennedy Rd./Lawrence Ave. E Toronto West 125 Resources Road Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Grand Bend HWY 21/County Road Page A-7

48 Table A3.5: 2015 Summary 2015 (µg/m³) LABEL NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION Percentiles Annual MAX Percentile 24 h 90th Hamilton Downtown Toronto Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St. Bay St./Wellesley St. W Toronto East Kennedy Rd./Lawrence Ave. E Toronto West 125 Resources Road Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Guelph Exhibition Park/Clark St. W Grand Bend HWY 21/County Road Page A-8

49 Table A4: Ambient Air Quality Data CO ( ) Table A4.1: 2011 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto West 125 Resources Road Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Table A4.2: 2012 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto West 125 Resources Road Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Table A4.3: 2013 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto West 125 Resources Road Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Table A4.4: 2014 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto West 125 Resources Road Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Table A4.5: 2015 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto West 125 Resources Road Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St Page A-9

50 Table A5: Ambient Air Quality Data Acetaldehyde ( ) Table A5.1: 2006 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A5.2: 2007Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A5.3: 2008 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A5.4: 2009 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A5.5: 2010 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Page A-10

51 Table A6: Ambient Air Quality Data Acrolein ( ) LABEL YEAR NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Windsor College / Prince Windsor College / Prince Windsor College / Prince Windsor College / Prince Windsor College / Prince Page A-11

52 Table A7: Ambient Air Quality Data Benzene ( ) LABEL YEAR NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Table A7.1: 2009 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Table A7.2: 2010 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Table A7.3: 2011 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Table A7.4: 2012 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Page A-12

53 Table A7.5: 2013 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Page A-13

54 Table A8: Ambient Air Quality Data Benzo(a)pyrene (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX LABEL YEAR NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION Toronto 223 College St Toronto 223 College St Toronto 223 College St Toronto 223 College St Toronto 223 College St Hamilton Downtown Hamilton Downtown Hamilton Downtown Hamilton Downtown Hamilton Downtown Elgin St. and Kelly St. Elgin St. and Kelly St. Elgin St. and Kelly St. Elgin St. and Kelly St. Elgin St. and Kelly St Simcoe Experimental Farm Simcoe Experimental Farm Simcoe Experimental Farm Simcoe Experimental Farm Simcoe Experimental Farm Experimental Farm Experimental Farm Experimental Farm Experimental Farm Experimental Farm Page A-14

55 Table A9: Ambient Air Quality Data Formaldehyde ( ) Table A9.1: 2006 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A9.2: 2007 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A9.3: 2008 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A9.4: 2009 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Table A9.5: 2010 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Egbert RR56 / 10th Sideroad Windsor College / Prince Page A-15

56 Table A10: Ambient Air Quality Data 1,3-Butadiene ( ) (µg/m³) Percentiles Annual MAX LABEL YEAR NAPS ID MOECC ID CITY LOCATION Kitchener West Ave./ Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./ Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./Homewood Ave Kitchener West Ave./ Homewood Ave Table A10.1: 2009 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Table A10.2: 2010 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Table A10.3: 2011 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Table A10.4: 2012 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Table A10.5: 2013 Summary (µg/m³) PERCENTILES ANNUAL MAX Toronto 223 College St London 900 Highbury Ave Page A-16

57 APPENDIX B SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

58 Table B-1: Sensitive Receptors in the Highbury Avenue Study Area ID DESCRIPTION ADDRESS DISTANCE FROM THE ROUTE (m) 1 School 560 Second St School 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd School 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd 84 4 Hospital 850 Highbury Ave N Hospital 850 Highbury Ave N School 847 Highbury Ave N 87 7 School 1260 Dundas St 71 8 School 1250 Dundas St 60 9 School 1300 Oxford St E Senior Home 1340 Dundas St School 955 Highbury Ave N School 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd Residence 761 Second St Residence 1631 Oxford St E Residence 30 Jim Ashton St Residence 625 First St Residence 1453 Oxford St E Residence 1451 Oxford St E Residence 1388 Oxford St E Residence 1384 Oxford St E Residence 1374 Oxford St E Residence 1368 Oxford St E Residence 266 Paardeberg Cres Residence 252 Paardeberg Cres Residence 242 Paardeberg Cres Residence 228 Paardeberg Cres Hospital 850 Highbury Ave N Residence 1340 Dundas St Residence 1340 Dundas St Residence 107 Roehampton Ave 110 Page B-1

59 Table B-2: Sensitive Receptors in the Oxford Street Study Area ID DESCRIPTION ADDRESS DISTANCE FROM THE ROUTE (m) 1 School 215 Wharncliffe Rd N 41 2 School 157 Oxford St W 49 3 School 301 Oxford St W School 284 Oxford St W School 312 Oxford St W Hospital 366 Oxford St W Residential 530 Proudfoot Lane Residential 81 Oxford St W 22 9 Residential 560 Proudfoot Lane Residential 600 Proudfoot Lane Residential 368 Oxford St W Residential 105 Oxford St W Residential 316 Oxford St W Residential 312 Oxford St W Residential 304 Oxford St W Residential 272 Oxford St W Residential 6 Gower St Residential 246 Oxford St W Residential 40 Summit Ave Residential 220 Oxford St W Residential 189 Woodward Ave Residential 150 Oxford St W Residential 116 Oxford St W Residential 102 Oxford St W Residential 80 Oxford St W Residential 34 Oxford St W Residential 2 Oxford St W Residential 167 Oxford St W Residential 225 Platt's Lane Residential 105 Cherryhill Blvd School 215 Oxford St W 50 Page B-2

60 APPENDIX D MOVES EMISSION FACTORS