| City Noise Task Force Report |
|
[Previous Page] [Contents] [Next Page]4. Solutions: Recommendations
- Education
- Traffic
- Air Transportation
- Other Transportation
- Signals
- Events
- Recreational and Entertainment
- Home and Neighbours
- Residential Maintenance
- Construction
- Industrial Noise
The fifth task in the Terms of Reference was to seek expert advice regarding possible solutions. The Task Force identified numerous soundscape issues. In preliminary discussion, it was felt by the Task Force that solutions to these issues would likely take three forms:
public education,
regulatory controls and actions taken by the city and
modifications to equipment and noise at the source which would involve the participation of industry.
Three subcommittees were formed to seek advice and formulate an initial set of recommendations corresponding to these three categories. These consultations contributed to the preparation of an Interim Report released in mid-summer 1996.
In the area of public education the Task Force emphasized communication and public awareness. For example, a single, well-publicized reporting procedure to allow all noise complaints to be referred to the correct location is recommended. The Task Force also recognized the potential for information on noise control to be communicated as part of City initiatives using the Internet. Viewing sound from a positive perspective, the Task Force also proposed that sound sanctuaries and soundwalks and events be designated.
In the area of regulation, the Task Force emphasized a wide range of issues and solutions. Clearly, an important issue is traffic noise. Traffic noise is itself a problem, but it is also symptomatic of problems related to the larger issues of transportation and land use policies. The Report stresses that noise can be reduced by measures such as traffic calming, the use of berms along residential streets with high traffic volumes, and the use of quieter vehicles, such as electric buses. Apart from road traffic, another major issue was noise related to air transportation in Coal Harbour; the creation of a Noise Management Committee, similar to the YVR Noise Management Committee, is recommended to resolve these issues. The Report also recommends that hours for noisy garden maintenance activities be restricted and that existing by-laws for construction be enforced more vigorously. Importantly, it concludes that more effective enforcement of existing or new by-laws would occur if City noise enforcement staff were on-call, available to respond promptly outside of regular office hours.
In the area of industrial noise, the Report recommends that the City take a leadership role in buying and using quieter equipment and educating workers in proper maintenance of equipment and quieter work methods. Incentives and signage should be used to promote and reinforce consideration of quiet when equipment is being used in the quietest way possible. To encourage equipment modifications, incentives are proposed for contractors who use or develop quiet machines or methods of work.
The sixth task in the Terms of Reference was to seek public input. The recommendations of the Interim Report were reconsidered and re-shaped on the basis of many sources of public input and they appear in their final form in this Final Report of the Task Force, which concludes the Task Force's set of tasks.
The recommendations developed by the subcommittees are listed below.
The Task Force welcomes feedback on these recommendations (which are not necessarily presented with any significance to their order).
- Which are important and which are not?
- Which are workable and which are not?
- Have issues been overlooked?
- Have solutions been overlooked?
Education
A Vancouver High School recently hosted a year-end celebration on its grounds. Activity consisted, in the main, of a barbeque and minor games (frisbee, etc.). Evidently, amplified noise was considered necessary and an elaborate sound system was erected on that open field. Thus, neighbouring areas were confronted with four hours of repetitious cacophony -- essentially boom-boom-thump! boom-boom-thump! boom-boom-thump! ad infinitum.
Clearly, the message to students was that noise is good, acceptable to the public, necessary to function, and encouraged by the school!
As already pointed out, surveys typically show a low level of public awareness on noise issues. With regard to these issues, there seems to be a sort of pyramid in which a very few at the top will take action, a larger number will feel they are adversely affected, and the majority will adapt or habituate -- even to their own detriment.
This pattern may be as typical of Vancouver as of any other urban setting. While Vancouverites are, indeed, often strong supporters of environmental issues and quality of life concerns, to date the quality of the soundscape has neither been linked in the minds of most to traditional environmental concerns, nor understood to be an important aspect of the city's livability. Since many people might easily make this connection if it is brought to their attention, public education seems to be the best way to create this link.
The main obstacles to increased public awareness seem to be habituation -- a tendency to ignore or to get used to annoying sounds -- and a fatalistic sense of futility or even cynicism -- the feeling that no one cares or is willing to do anything about most noise. The overall solution involves two directions:
The City has to make every effort--and publicly appear to be doing so -- to include acoustic concerns in all its business. Noise and the quality of the soundscape must be seen to be on the public agenda. The Urban Noise Task Force is a beginning, but the city must continue along this line after the Task Force's report is tabled.
Individuals and groups ought to be continually reminded that they can and must contribute to the solution of the city's noise problems. If they believe that these problems can be left to the "experts", little will change.
Proposals should follow both of these paths. They should also include both noise issues, that is, elimination of negative effects and soundscape issues, promoting and preserving positive aspects of the acoustic environment.
Just as health is not merely the absence of disease, the absence of noise complaints, though desirable, does not mean that the positive benefits of sound in the environment are valued by the public.
The following are proposed recommendations for ongoing educational efforts to improve the public's perception of these issues.
1. City planning
Recommendation 1.1
City Council, on receiving the Urban Noise Task Force report, should adopt a resolution stating that acoustic aspects will be given serious consideration in the environmental assessment of any and all future city planning, particularly that involving land use development, transportation, and housing standards.
2. Earcare educational program
Recommendation 2.1
The City should fund an ongoing educational campaign {called the Earcare Program} to be established by the Vancouver Health Board, to increase public awareness in ways that are described in the various points below.
3. Noise complaints
Surveys conducted by the Task Force have shown that the public have a low awareness level both as to their rights and of whom to contact regarding noise issues (with the possible exception of loud parties, which are reported to the police). The current Noise number listed in the Blue Pages of the phone book (736-2866) seems to be working reasonably well, though it deals with all health-related complaints and could become overburdened if used as a noise hotline.Recommendation 3.1
The City should request the Vancouver Health Board to maintain the current practice of personal staffing of this line (as opposed to an automated system).Recommendation 3.2
The City should provide increased publicity for this service as a "Noise Hotline." Calls should continue to be referred to the correct location.Recommendation 3.3
The City should add public input on noise problems to its website.(See Recommendations 12.2 and 12.3.)
Recommendation 3.4
The City should include the option of mediation for situations that fall outside current by-laws or are difficult to deal with.
4. Noise thermometer
Awareness of the slowly increasing sound levels in the city seems to be very low.Recommendation 4.1
The City should install a Noise Thermometer at one or two prominent locations in the city, ideally showing the current sound level in decibels, and some reference to the levels 1, 10 or 20 years ago, in order to attract public attention and be a constant reminder of the issue. One site should be in front of City Hall, and another site might be chosen at a quieter location. The Thermometer should be designed with an averaging system over a 24-hour period so that it fairly represents the overall noise dosage at the location and does not respond significantly to individuals deliberately making noise. (It might even become a tourist attraction!) The press should be encouraged to publish weekly reports.
5. Warnings
The risk of hearing loss is currently managed in the workplace by the Workers Compensation Board, but little protection for the public exists in entertainment and recreational contexts. Establishments and events with high sound levels licensed by the City are required to post warnings regarding these levels and their effects.Recommendation 5.1
The Vancouver Health Board should enforce use of the sign that is currently available (the logo on which could be used by all activities of the Earcare Program).Recommendation 5.2
The City should require establishments and events with high sound levels to offer earplugs for sale on the premises.Recommendation 5.3
The City should encourage a more positive qualitative evaluation of restaurants and other locations to identify places with low sound levels or particularly attractive acoustic qualities, this being an ideal project for collaboration with a group such as the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association (CHHA), whose members often cannot find suitable social venues where conversation is possible. (This is not an ongoing City responsibility, but the co-operation of volunteer societies and the agencies that evaluate restaurants is solicited and could be facilitated by the City.)
6. Acoustic sanctuaries
Preserving positive acoustic situations is as important as eliminating negative noise sources. However, such sounds and acoustic spaces are just as vulnerable to being lost as other historical and cultural artifacts.Recommendation 6.1
The City should evaluate heritage buildings for possible designation as "Acoustic Sanctuaries," that is, by considering their insulating properties or particular acoustic attributes, and indicate them as such on signs at the entrance. Admonitions to respect the "silence" of such Acoustic Sanctuaries might also be added where appropriate.Recommendation 6.2
The City should give Vancouver's Soundmarks -- the unique, historical sounds, such as the Nine O'Clock Gun, the bells of Holy Rosary Cathedral, the O Canada horn -- the equivalent of heritage status.Recommendation 6.3
The City should ensure that recommendations 6.1 and 6.2 are carried out in collaboration with an organization such as Heritage Vancouver.
7. Quiet parks
Currently, only three parkland areas designated as "quiet" exist: Sunset Beach, Locarno Beach and Spanish Banks. A recent public opinion survey commissioned by the Task Force showed that 70 per cent of the respondents supported an increase in the number of quiet parks. It is unclear how aware the public is of this designation.Recommendation 7.1
The Parks Board should develop a program to increase the number of quiet beaches and parks in each area of the city, with a view to converting all to quiet designation within a five-year time frame.Recommendation 7.2
The Parks Board should increase public awareness of existing and future quiet parklands, using more signs in the designated areas.
Evidence that relevant educational material already exists and could be highlighted with relative ease in the VSB curricula: One task force member discovered a booklet entitled, "The Soundscape" in her son's grade one classroom, where the ear was one of the parts of the body being studied. In the same school, the first five minutes of every afternoon is "music listening time," during which music is piped throughout the school, accompanied by a brief introduction to the composer and the piece. The children are to imagine the story or feelings of the person playing the music. This aspect of aesthetic education could easily be extended to appreciation of the soundscape.
Recommendation 8.1
The City, in coordination with Tourism Vancouver and Tourism B.C. and merchant associations, should publish guides and maps of the city's Sound Events (e.g., the boat horns in the harbour on New Year's Eve, Chinese New Year), of the Acoustic Sanctuaries and Quiet Parks, and of a set of Soundwalks which could be taken by tourists or the public, as in Gastown, Little Mountain, or Stanley Park.Recommendation 8.2
The City's Cultural Affairs Office should encourage any events or organizations that promote soundscape awareness.
9. Information releases
Recommendation 9.1
The City's communications personnel should issue seasonally-timed reminders, by such means as pamphlets, notices, and press releases, targeted at anticipated noise sources -- e.g., garden maintenance in spring, quiet beach and park restrictions in summer, fireworks in October -- and incorporate citizen complaint procedures. Pamphlets might ideally and economically be included with the City's various regular mailings such as property tax, licenses, permits, etc., and with the co-operation of utilities in their monthly mailings. These items should ideally go beyond stating by-law limits and appeal to common sense and respect for others, and should stress issues such as quality of life.
Figure 7: Do you support increasing the number of designated quiet parks?
Noise as the garbage of the 1990s?
"In the late 17th century, Paris was without a sanitary system -- its streets were a gigantic latrine for 500,000 people. The Prefect of Paris, Monsieur Poubelle, succeeded in forcing garbage cans on the property of owners in 1887 only after a ferocious public battle. This governmental interference in the individual's right to throw his garbage into the street -- which was, in reality the property owner's right to leave his tenants no other option -- made Poubelle into the "cryptosocialist" of the hour.
Put in contemporary terms, the market economy angrily and persistently opposed clean public water, sanitation, garbage collection and improved public health because they appeared to be unprofitable enterprises which, in addition, put limits on the individual's freedom."
From Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West by John Ralston Saul, 1993, Penguin Books, Toronto. pp. 238-239.
Recommendation 10.1
The City should coordinate its educational efforts with the Vancouver School Board through its music, health, science and social studies programs, to encourage the Board to incorporate existing and new teaching materials into its curricula. These materials should increase knowledge of current noise by-laws, and of hearing and acoustics, stressing both positive (e.g., aesthetic appreciation of sound and the soundscape) and negative effects (e.g., risks of noise, Walkmans, loud concerts).Recommendation 10.2
City employees and those who regularly visit schools, such as police, nurses and Health Board audiologists, should discuss soundscape and noise issues with the students.
11. Liaison among City departments and with outside organizations
Recommendation 11.1
The City should ensure there is a good liaison between each of its Departments and the appropriate organizations that deal with, or in some cases, could deal with acoustic issues.Recommendation 11.2
The City should consult regularly with some organizations dealing with the hard of hearing, such as the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (WIDHH), CHHA and the Vancouver Health Board Audiology Centre, or others, about the needs of these constituencies, particularly with regard to public buildings, and other venues where the City has jurisdiction.Recommendation 11.3
The City should encourage environmental groups to include acoustic concerns in their agendas, and to coordinate with the City's efforts in this direction.
12. Neighbourhood groups
Recommendation 12.1
The City should maintain good lines of communication with neighbourhood groups such as the citizens associations and the community policing offices so that local noise problems can be identified, preferably in advance of individual complaints. (See Recommendation 3.4.)Recommendation 12.2:
The current project involving the Internet, the so-called "community clickable map," should include a section on noise issues which would allow the public to register their concerns and have them directed to the appropriate integrated service team or department.
Traffic
13. Ambient traffic sounds
When this Task Force first began its deliberations, it was presented with a list of the most common noise-related complaints received by City of Vancouver staff. On reviewing this list, it became clear that a surprisingly large number of the complaints were traffic-related. While traffic noise had been on the list of its initial concerns, the Task Force had not realized that police, fire and ambulance sirens, motorcycles, automobile alarms, "boom box" cars, engine brakes, idling vehicles -- each of them originally regarded as a specific noise complaints -- were, in fact, part of a larger, more wide-spread problem. A City-commissioned public opinion survey on the noise environment in the City of Vancouver confirmed that traffic noise is ranked as one of the top three noise nuisances by over 51 per cent of respondents. Traffic noise is everywhere, whether it is the daily hum of a busy street, so loud that it limits normal conversation, or the roar of an apparently mufflerless vehicle piercing through a residential street in the small hours of the morning. Traffic noise is the most pervasive and chronic noise to be faced in a growing urban region so heavily reliant on the automobile. Traffic noise is a particular problem in Vancouver, because many arterial roads serve as major conduits for commuters and for trucks and buses, as well as for local traffic.For some, the volume and type of traffic close to their homes are more than a nuisance. Traffic sounds can be so objectionable that home enjoyment is diminished. Some people find themselves compelled to sleep in basements, or with windows closed in summer, or unable to carry on a conversation out-of-doors. They pay a heavy price for the easy urban transportation provided by the car and truck. Despite all this, the issue of traffic noise is one which tends to generate shrugs of indifference and comments along the lines of "Yes, but what can be done about it?"
The European Union considers traffic noise to be its worst urban noise problem. In the last few years, EU member states have undertaken a comprehensive noise initiative consisting of a range of steps to combat this modern-day scourge.
Here in Vancouver, if we seriously intend to reduce the impact of traffic noise on daily lives (or at least to prevent it from growing worse) there are things which can be done. It is almost axiomatic that initiatives to reduce traffic volume afford the best prospect of reducing noise. Since there is a growing perception that current driving habits cannot continue indefinitely for reasons related to congestion, pollution, and noise, the Task Force believes that the motoring public will accept changes.
The Task Force endorses the efforts of the City to reduce traffic volume by promoting alternative transportation options such as public transit, car pooling, dedicated bus lanes during rush hours, light rapid transit and cycling.
"There are nations where traffic has been substantially reduced by regulations passed by their municipalities. This is a reliable and pragmatic approach already in use in many cities in Europe and around the world.
"These solutions included: pay toll on bridges which give access to the city; raising parking meter rates over three dollars an hour and over ten dollars in public parking for three hours; raising parking fines; buses only in Downtown perimeter, with this extra revenue going to city coffers."
Excerpt from letter to the Task Force
Recommendation 13.1
The City should communicate to the GVRD, B.C. Transit, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and others its desire to maintain vehicle capacity at 1996 levels to prevent the increase of noise levels, in addition to other previously stated concerns about air quality and congestion.Recommendation 13.2
The Task Force's recommendations regarding traffic noise should be transmitted to the City Engineer for consideration with respect to the Draft Transportation Plan in order that the Plan better reflect the traffic noise concerns of Vancouver residents.
Noise monitoring
Monitoring, testing and evaluation are important tools in the management of traffic noise problems. Presently the City undertakes no routine measurements of traffic noise levels.Recommendation 13.3
The Environmental Health Division should measure and monitor traffic noise at major arterials throughout the city and develop a traffic noise map of Vancouver to determine the acoustical quality of major traffic areas. An ongoing program of measurement and recording in the "State of the Environment" report should be instituted.Recommendation 13.4
City staff should develop and implement traffic noise impact assessment procedures for major development proposals, land use changes and transportation initiatives to determine traffic noise impact on existing adjacent neighbourhoods, commercial districts and parks. (Presently the effects of noise are considered only from the perspective of the residents or occupants of the new development.) Attention should be paid to the impact on arterial connections to the site.With the need for an annual inspection of vehicles under the "AirCare" Program now largely accepted by motorists, it would be a convenient addition to include noise measurement for all vehicles in order to identify offenders. On the understanding that the Program will soon be extended to include trucks and buses, the Task Force believes that now is the opportune time to press provincial authorities to include provisions for noise measurements. This would be a test to measure the noise level at a specified distance from the vehicle and should be covered by legislation to subvert arguments about permissible decibel readings, background noise, etc.
Recommendation 13.5
The City should ask the Province of British Columbia to extend the "AirCare" Program to include noise testing ("EarCare") of all internal combustion-powered vehicles.If the provincial government is not prepared to include noise measurements of vehicles in connection with the "AirCare" program, the City should work to establish a central test facility.
Recommendation 13.6
The City should work with the private sector to establish designated testing facilities.
Traffic calming
Relatively simple measures have been effective in reducing noise due to speeding traffic on side streets in the West End. These include speed restrictions, speed bumps, cul de sacs and traffic circles at intersections. The Task Force recommends that the use of these and similar measures be extended throughout the city.
Noise buffering walls should be used along major traffic routes, particularly First Avenue.
Use First Avenue for a pilot project as livability along this route is being compromised by the volume of traffic and by the no-parking regulations, which are in place 24 hours a day.
Photo radar should be used along First Avenue on a permanent basis.
Implement bus route on First Avenue to slow down traffic.
Comments from public workshop
Recommendation 13.9
The City should investigate current techniques for noise mitigation, including earth berms, walls, insulation and road paving materials, as well as implementation issues such as costs, funding, maintenance, etc.The Task Force wishes to draw Council's attention to some priority areas for noise mitigation, based upon correspondence received and public input. High volume arterial streets, particularly where residential land use predominates, should receive high priority for noise attenuation, specifically Knight Street, S.W. Marine Drive, First Avenue and Oak Street. Also, the Task Force urges that noise considerations be a priority in planning for changes to the Stanley Park causeway and Hastings Park redevelopment.
Recommendation 13.10
The City should institute a pilot project to protect an existing residential neighbourhood or park in a high traffic zone from excessive traffic noise through the use of barriers or landscaped berms.Recommendation 13.11
The City should assist homeowners or others seeking information on techniques for improving noise attenuation on their premises through various glazing options or ventilation systems by producing a "how to" pamphlet, distributing existing information or acting as an information broker directing inquiries to the appropriate personnel at CMHC or elsewhere.Recommendation 13.12
The City should request organizations promoting energy-efficient housing to incorporate demonstrations of noise attenuation measures in so far as they also promote energy conservation.Recommendation 13.13
The City should make noise attenuation a priority in the planning and decision making surrounding major projects, for example the Lions Gate Bridge replacement and Hastings Park Development.
Road surface and tire noise
Maintenance of road surfaces and utilization of new materials offer some possibilities for automobile noise reduction.Recommendation 13.14
The City Engineering Department should ensure that roads are smooth, in good condition and free from potholes and seams that cause noise.Tire road noise is now the principal noise emitted by all classes of vehicles and is most closely linked to the nature of the pavement. OECD countries have been experimenting with different materials and techniques since the 1980s.
Recommendation 13.15
City Engineering staff should investigate new technologies in quieter road materials and implement a pilot project utilizing a "quiet" road surface.
Truck and bus noise
Although a reduction in the volume of automobile traffic is of top priority, it is noteworthy that, thanks to improved engine systems and tires, the noise of the individual car has decreased in recent years. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the noise produced by buses and trucks. With power plants and exhaust systems, these have become a dominant source of traffic noise -- and not as a matter of the power required, insofar as some small trucks are the worst offenders.With the current emphasis on a reduction of traffic volume and the measures proposed to accomplish this, reference is seldom made to the consequent impact on traffic noise. The reductions in noise to be anticipated with reductions in traffic volume would be most welcome, provided the gains are not cancelled by an increase in the noise of vehicles for public transit. Whereas electric buses, battery-powered trams and certain types of LRT are demonstrably superior, it is important to note that the noise produced by a single diesel bus is equivalent to that of a large fleet of private cars.
There is a wide disparity in the noise produced by truck and bus types. Some are tolerable while others produce physical pain in the ears of bystanders. If the former are well within the capabilities of the manufacturers, why must the latter be tolerated? Under the Motor Vehicle Act it is forbidden to operate a vehicle in a manner that causes "any loud or unnecessary noise."
Recommendation 13.16
City staff should negotiate with provincial authorities to determine what measures are required to enforce the section of the Motor Vehicle Act which states that it is forbidden to operate a vehicle in a manner that causes "any loud or unnecessary noise."Truck braking devices, such as engine, "Jake" or Jacobs brakes, are covered under the Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-Law.
Recommendation 13.17
The City should initiate a signage program to educate drivers on the use of their engine brakes and increase enforcement of measures preventing improper use of engine brakes.The number of small trucks is increasing while that of large trucks are decreasing within the City of Vancouver.
Recommendation 13.18
The City should look to revising the Truck By-Law to include restrictions on smaller trucks, and hours of use.Recommendation 13.19
The City should ensure that trucks and buses remain in designated trucking routes by improved signage and increased commercial vehicle enforcement in problem areas.Recommendation 13.20
The City should encourage the police to periodically increase enforcement of speed limitations directed at commercial vehicles.Recommendation 13.21
The City should advocate that Transport Canada act to set more stringent standards for noise emissions from trucks and buses.Recommendation 13.22
The City should enforce the existing by-law requirements for keeping commercial vehicle signage and licenses prominent and legible so that enforcement of noise regulations is facilitated.
Idling vehicles
Under the Vehicle Noise Abatement By-Law 4338, idling of diesel buses for more than three minutes is not allowed. However, the regulation is not adequately enforced, and the number and frequency of offences by tour buses is causing extreme hardship to residents of the West End in particular. Further, we find no reason for the idling restraint to be limited to diesel buses.Recommendation 13.23
The City should initiate stricter enforcement of idling provisions under the existing Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-Law 4338 and expand the by-law to include idling provisions for all buses and trucks.Recommendation 13.24
City staff should communicate with Tourism Vancouver, tour bus companies and hotel operators about this issue and investigate mutual, voluntary solutions to the problem.Of particular concern to the Task Force is the apparent dedication of transportation authorities to the extensive use of diesel buses with supercharged engines and exhaust systems, the basic technology of which dates back to the turn of the century.
Recommendation 13.25
The City should communicate to B.C. Transit that the existing system of electric buses on many streets should be maintained and extended in lieu of noisier diesel buses.The number of tour buses producing noise and exhaust pollution is a serious threat to the environment in city parks and the daily parade around Stanley Park has reached the saturation point. In Santa Barbara, California, state-of-the-art battery-powered "trams" provide a popular service along the main routes favoured by shoppers and tourists. Are such imaginative solutions beyond our capabilities?
While research and development of electric vehicles is being undertaken in B.C., it would appear timely to extend support to a demonstration service. On the understanding that the Province wishes to establish world leadership in this field, the Task Force recommends discussions with the provincial authorities with the object of creating an experimental service, possibly in the Downtown core or around Stanley Park.
Recommendation 13.26
The City should advise B.C. Transit that it supports a demonstration service using electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel-cell buses in the Downtown core or around Stanley Park.
14. Internal combustion vehicle noises
Vehicles operating without effective mufflers are a constant and particularly irritating source of specific vehicle noise. Motorcycle noise is often regarded as the worst offender, although only a relatively small portion of the motorcycle-riding public is responsible. Mufflers, the primary cause of irritation, are covered under the Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-Law, which deems noise to be objectionable. The wording of the by-law does not lend itself to ease of prosecution, due to ambiguous language. Enforcement is a problem, as it is difficult to apprehend offenders. The sounds emitted from faulty and certain after-market muffler equipment are accentuated at high speed. Police have noise meters but such evidence is not admissible in court since the current by-law does not reference noise emission standards.Recommendation 14.1
The City should work with the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists to devise and promote an education campaign having as its goal the reduction of motorcycle noise.Recommendation 14.2
Council should amend the Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-Law to prohibit exhaust system components other than unaltered, original equipment or replacement equivalents in good working order.Recommendation 14.3
Council should encourage periodic campaigns by the police throughout the city with a focus on noise problems occurring in residential neighbourhoods.Recommendation 14.4
The City should request the Province to set noise emission standards for modified vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Act.Recommendation 14.5
The City should set up a progressive ticketable offence program for failing standards and failing to respond to orders to present the vehicle for noise evaluation.Recommendation 14.6
The City should authorize apprehension of noisy vehicles for reasonable cause and require expeditious presentation of vehicles to testing facilities.
Air Transportation
15. Aircraft noise
Modern turbo jet transport aircraft are required to satisfy noise standards set by international agreements. These have been progressively "tightened" over the years. Since the technical advances in power plants that are required to reduce noise have also reduced fuel consumption, the airlines have been receptive to these measures, and the majority of transports in scheduled services are in compliance.
Vancouver International Airport
Vignette from a 1974 Greater Vancouver noise survey
Interviewer
I have some questions about noise.Interviewee
What? What? Speak up!Interviewer
I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS!Interviewee
You'll just have to wait until that plane goes by. ... Now, what was it you wanted?Interviewer
How long have you had this problem?Interviewee
What problem?At the main Vancouver airport, the noisiest portion of the flight path for the take-off and initial climb can usually be conducted over water or unoccupied land. When the climb is continued to a reasonable height out to sea and combined with accepted "noise abatement" procedures, the impact on the city is reduced. Short haul or "commuter" transports with propeller turbine power plants produce considerably less noise beyond airport boundaries. Compared with the jets, they are not a serious problem when flights are restricted to paths at a reasonable height over residential areas.
Federal regulations govern the flight procedures. The Task Force acknowledges the good work of the YVRAA Noise Management Committee, which represents the many constituencies with noise concerns and includes a City representative from the Environmental Health Division. Noise issues related to the new parallel runway are also being addressed through the YVRAA Noise Management Committee.
Recommendation 15.1
On the understanding that good co-operation exists, the City should undertake to ensure that the modern (ICAO) aircraft noise standards are not relaxed and that operations with obsolescent power plants are permitted only in very special circumstances.Recommendation 15.2
City representatives on the Noise Management Committee should undertake to ensure that night curfew times are relaxed only in emergencies.Recommendation 15.3
City representatives on the Noise Management Committee should undertake to ensure that authorized procedures are reviewed at three-year intervals to maintain the comfort of city residents as a prime consideration in assigning flight corridors and minimum altitudes. (This in addition to the flight safety concerns of Transport Canada and economic returns to the airlines and Airport Authority.)
16. Coal Harbour air traffic
In contrast to the situation at Vancouver International Airport, the smaller aircraft flying in and out of Coal Harbour are not required to satisfy any recognized noise standards.Operating from a ramp at Harbourfront, jet-powered transport helicopters fly a frequent, scheduled passenger service to Victoria. Smaller helicopters are used by charters. Flying from the harbour, twin-engine float planes provide scheduled trips to Victoria and small, single-engine float planes are used for scheduled and charter services to coastal and island communities.
In daylight hours, and with the transport helicopters now extending operating hours well into the evening, these flights have become extremely active. The growing noise disturbance is a serious concern.
In many offices facing the harbour, conversation is impossible when these aircraft are taking off. With the new residential construction and the plans for many outdoor attractions at the waterfront, substantial numbers of complaints and growing demands for remedial measures are inevitable.
In areas near and within Stanley Park, the "beat" of helicopters and power bursts from propeller-driven aircraft create disturbances that will be considered intolerable when the plans to reduce the Stanley Park causeway traffic noise materialize.
Restricting the take-off and initial climb at full power to the Harbour Basin would provide some relief. Climb power could be restricted to segments of the flight path within the industrial perimeter of the harbour. The exposure of most residents and parks would then be reduced to the noise associated with level cruising flight.
Raising the "floor" of the approach corridors over Stanley Park would help. It is not apparent that any interference with other air traffic would be a concern if the minimum height over land was raised by 500 to 1,000 feet. It would result in a steep approach to the landing, in the best interests of safety and noise control in a densely populated area.
In the longer term, with demands growing for harbour air services, it will become essential to establish noise limits for individual aircraft. Since the engine/propeller combination used by most of the small float planes operating from the harbour is particularly noisy and ancient, and since the piston engines of these aircraft require replacements at regular intervals, it would not be unreasonable to stipulate an update to turbine engines within a period of five years. With the turbine, a gear arrangement can be provided to reduce propellor rpm on take-off, a source of noise. Suitable power plants are available locally and examples are in service with Harbour Air.
"Hush kits" are also becoming available for helicopters and should be evaluated immediately.
For the interim, it could be stipulated that the total fleet will be frozen as to type and size until noise restrictions are in effect and that the noise level of any aircraft replacing those now operating out of Coal Harbour must not exceed the standard set by the current jet helicopter, for helicopters, or the Twin Otter, for fixed-wing aircraft.
The operating procedures for these aircraft are currently a joint responsibility of Transport Canada and the Harbourmaster, with the probable addition of another participant under "privatization."
Recommendation 16.1
The City should request Transport Canada to appoint a committee or board with representatives from the community and all the agencies involved, including the City of Vancouver, to address the concerns related to air traffic in Coal Harbour. The responsibilities of this committee would be similar to those of the committee that monitors operations at Vancouver International Airport, as described above, extended as necessary to consider the problems peculiar to Coal Harbour.The above committee or board should consider the following recommendations as part of its Terms of Reference.
Recommendation 16.2
The City should ensure that Vancouver is represented on all boards and committees dealing with aircraft and airports.Recommendation 16.3
City representatives should undertake to ensure, in conjunction with Transport Canada, that serious consideration be given to the installation, in areas where complaints are chronic, of noise monitors to display or record noise levels of aircraft originating/arriving at Coal Harbour or passing overhead so that remedial measures can be based on hard data (as is now done around major airports across Canada).Recommendation 16.4
The City should approach Transport Canada to restrict the initial take-off and climb at maximum power to the central portion of the Harbour Basin.Recommendation 16.5
The City should approach Transport Canada to restrict climbing power to segments of the flight path within the industrial perimeter of the Harbour. Raise the "floor" of the approach corridors over Stanley Park by at least 500 feet and stipulate that the final approach below 300 feet shall take place over water.Recommendation 16.6
The City should approach Transport Canada, pending significant reductions in the noise levels of the individual aircraft, to declare a freeze on the size of the present fleet of aircraft and the size of the individual aircraft, fixed wing and helicopter.
17. Aircraft: Helicopters/heliports
There is a growing presence of helicopters in and over Vancouver. These include low flying "commuter" helicopters around Point Grey and over the city, traffic and police helicopters, helicopters being used for movie shoots and emergency transport helicopters.Vancouver has a number of helicopter ports within its boundaries, at Coal Harbour and at places such as hospitals (to be used for emergency transport only) and the RCMP headquarters. While the Task Force endorses the police and emergency uses, trivial use of helicopters (e.g., for the movie industry or for convenience) is discouraged. (See also Recommendation 7.3.)
"Seaplanes which leave Coal Harbour to travel south to Seattle or only to the Fraser River Middle Arm airport should be given a heading down the centre of Burrard Inlet to turn south a good distance off Point Grey. M.O.T. (Transport Canada) has many patently ignorant answers why this should not be so! Mainly it is to the effect that it would not be economical for the aircraft operatoins company and/or the airline could not provide a favourable schedule between A and B if they had to cover that much more distance. Or the planes would have to fly at much higher elevations and the airlines would not make a profit. So who is the most important?"
Excerpt from letter to the Task Force on aircraft noise
Recommendation 17.1
The City should approach Transport Canada to prohibit overflights or increase minimum height requirements to the extent that their shuddering emissions are significantly reduced at ground level.Recommendation 17.2
The City should approach Transport Canada to encourage the establishment of an authority to monitor overflight elevations, having regard for land contours, and conducted on a regular basis.
18. Aircraft: Propeller
The operation of these aircraft is under the jurisdiction of the Federal government (Transport Canada). (See also Recommendation 7.3)Recommendation 18.1
The City should open dialogue with Transport Canada to prohibit overflights or increase minimum height requirements to the extent that their drone-like emissions are significantly reduced at ground level.
Other Transportation
19. Railways
Light rail systems are not as noisy as other rail systems and can normally be dealt with by berms and barriers.The noise produced by Light Rapid Transit railways is highly dependent on the track/wheel/suspension system and these factors should be prime considerations in the selection of the type to be used in a particular situation.
The excessive use of whistles in the East end of Vancouver by the West Coast Express is causing a problem.
Other railways are normally under federal jurisdiction.
The source noise in diesel-electric engines is located high off the ground and so berms and barriers are a less effective form of sound protection.
Recommendation 19.1
The City should continue to monitor problem areas, such as Gastown and East Vancouver, especially with regard to shunting.Recommendation 19.2
The City should initiate an investigation into the excessive use of whistles by the West Coast Express.Recommendation 19.3
Before accepting any proposed new LRT system, Council should evaluate the experience of other communities with the noise of such a system.
20. Garbage pickup/commercial pickup and delivery
The early morning servicing of commercial/residential refuse containers by a host of different contractors, including the City, results in the disturbance of nearby residents. The current by-law allows for earlier servicing in the "Downtown area," but parts of this area have been increasingly residentialized. In addition the Task Force received submissions requesting relief from the early morning deliveries to commercial centres which border on residential uses. (Also see Recommendation 21.1 on backup signals.)Recommendation 20.1
The City should revise the definition of Downtown Area to exclude former commercial areas such as Gastown, Yaletown and the International Village.Recommendation 20.2
The City should review other early pickup boundaries, and hours of pickup and delivery, from time to time to accommodate changing land use patterns.Given that the technology to "snub" heavy fire doors has been available for 100 years, it should not be difficult to devise container lids with some form of shock absorber.
Recommendation 20.3
The City should encourage technical schools to design buffers for garbage containers and to explore the incorporation of resilient "bumpers" between the container lid and box, the use of padded footings or resilient castors on the container, and the design of silencing methods for the container-handling mechanism.Recommendation 20.4
The City should consult with industry for these and other measures.Complaints have been received about the presence of multiple contractors providing garbage pickup in a particular area (e.g., the West End), thus causing residents to be disturbed on a continual basis by the noise of the various trucks and the pick-up process. In some countries (e.g., Australia and Britain) the waste collection service is administered by the local government on a contract basis, with contracts being tendered on a three-year cycle for different districts of the city. The result is that only one contractor services a neighbourhood, resulting in fewer noise events and reduced air emissions. Although this may be viewed as interference in the "free market" system we currently have, it could be modified to equitably distribute the waste collection among existing service providers.
Signals
21. Backup signals
The equipment in current use is a WCB requirement and under provincial authority. It is neither monitored nor tested. The signals are excessively noisy and can be heard blocks away. They are clearly audible beyond their point of need. Ultrasonic rear-end collision devices that have been in use for years in Asian and Scandinavian cities are now available in Canada. These provide a signal within the truck cab with no external noise. Options also exist within the existing regulations for the use of flag-persons and visual rather than auditory devices.The City should provide leadership in this area by exploring and adopting suitable alternatives to backup signals such as ultrasonic warning devices, visual devices or the use of flag-persons acceptable to the WCB.
Recommendation 21.1
The City should request that the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) set and monitor standards for backup signals, ensuring the lowest level of noise consistent with safety.Recommendation 21.2
The City should explore alternate methods of ensuring safety with regard to backing vehicles.
22. Auto horns
As traffic density increases, there is an expectation that the use of auto horns will also increase; in addition, horns are often used for social purposes in a negative way.Recommendation 22.1
The City should educate the public about the Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-Law 4338(6) and the negative effects of indiscriminate horn usage.
23. Sirens
Sirens are covered by the Motor Vehicle Act. Fire trucks have both sirens and air horns, with the latter restricted at night in the Downtown area.The volume of the sirens is now causing a significant problem, particularly in densely populated areas such as Downtown and the West End, where emergency siren noise was identified in a public survey commissioned by the Task Force as the second biggest problem, exceeded only by vehicle/traffic noise (Figure 1). The public survey also found that, city-wide, six out of ten residents do not believe that the use of sirens could be safely reduced. This compares with residents of the West End/Downtown where 46 per cent think the use of sirens, in general, can be safely reduced and 57 per cent feel that the siren volume, specifically, could be safely reduced (Figure 8 and Figure 9).
The sounds produced by sirens are also becoming less effective as a warning system to other vehicles on the road, primarily as a result of technological advancements in sound-proofing inside passenger cars and some trucks. A simple increase to the siren volume is not the solution. Alternatives to support, enhance and augment the use of sirens, such as flashing lights, remote traffic light controls, in-vehicle volume/tonal controls, other warning devices and other potential solutions, must be investigated further.
Figure 8: Could the volume of sirens be safely reduced?
- City-wide responses
Figure 9: Could the volume of sirens be safely reduced?
- West End/Downtown responses
Recommendation 23.1
The City should require that large air horns be used only as necessary.Recommendation 23.2
The City's Citizens Advisory Committee to the Fire Department should include the impact of siren use in their deliberations and any subsequent follow-up discussions with the provincial government on coordination of emergency response vehicles.Recommendation 23.3
The City should continue to research alternatives to the use of sirens. The investigation should include but not be limited to items such as flashing lights, remote traffic light controls, in-vehicle volume/tonal controls, other warning devices, and any alternative solutions.
24. Car alarms
The police can take action on a car whose alarm is sounding if it is on public property. However, if the vehicle is on private property, the police cannot deal with it.Recommendation 24.1
The City should consider controlling decibel levels of alarm and its activation status signal. The latter has no need to be audible beyond the immediate area occupied by a vehicle.Recommendation 24.2
The City should prohibit devices which indicate that the alarm system is armed by giving a continual audible signal.
Events
25. Firecrackers
Firecrackers are controlled by the Fire Department. They are prohibited except by permit. There is a 10:00 p.m. curfew on private fireworks.
"We are writing on behalf of many of our neighbours as well as ourselves to join the growing chorus of Vancouverites who find the noise and disruption caused by the Indy race both intolerable and antithetical to Vancouver's civic identity.
"Although we live far from the actual course of the race, this past Labour Day weekend we were assaulted by its noise at hours which even contravene the City's noise by-laws for construction sites. The sound pollution, air pollution and traffic chaos caused by this event render it unsuitable for its current site in the middle of an increasingly crowded, people-oriented city."
Excerpt from letter to the Task Force on Indy race noise
Noise impacts of this event are increasing as more residential housing is being built and commercial operations are opening closer to the race circuit area. The size of the crowds attracted to the Abbotsford Air Show and Cloverdale Rodeo should be reassuring to the business community in showing that the public will travel a considerable distance from the city core to attend a popular event.
Recreation And Entertainment Noise
27. "Boom cars"
This refers to both moving and stationary automobiles containing audio amplification equipment capable of achieving very high decibel levels. Robson Street has been the target of a police campaign to enforce the Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-Law and this campaign has met with some success. This significant nuisance is nomadic however, and remains a city-wide problem.Recommendation 27.1
The City should maintain enforcement of the "boom car" provision, as needed, including all residential areas and in particular, playground and similar assembly areas.
28. Jet Skis/boats
Jet skis are limited to launching and landing at Vanier Park. They cannot land on beaches.Large ships using the harbour have not been identified as a significant source of irritating noise. However, small, personal pleasure craft have been cited as causing a noise problem, particularly in the False Creek South area. Parties on board the vessels are the most commonly identified source of noise. A problem of jurisdictional responsibilities compounds the situation.
Recommendation 28.1
The City should prohibit or set boundaries or limitations on such things as launch areas and in/out privileges in definitive legislation following consultation with Coast Guard, Parks Board and Harbours Board.Recommendation 28.2
The City should contract with the various parties involved (Harbours Board, Coast Guard) to review the mandates and develop a strategy to increase enforcement of the municipal noise by-law prohibiting noisy parties. Noisy parties on board a boat, of any description, should be handled in the same manner as a noisy house party.
29. Ice cream and other mobile vendors
The noise levels of amplified sounds emitted by these vendors is controlled through a street vending permit and is overseen by the Engineering Department. By the terms of the permit, when the vehicle stops, the accompanying sounds are required to cease."Rogue" vendors without business licenses are a problem, since they don't comply with City noise guidelines.
Recommendation 29.1
The City should require that current business licenses or readily visible validation stickers be prominently displayed, while vehicle signage must prominently and legibly identify the name and address of the vendor.Recommendation 29.2
The City should strictly enforce the existing policy and control over illegal vendors. Territorial limitations and/or limitations on frequency of trips should be explored.
30. Storefront audio
Enforcement of the existing by-law provisions by Property Use Inspectors appears to be working.Recommendation 30.1
The City should continue to strongly enforce existing by-laws which prohibit outside loudspeakers under the Permits and Licenses By-Laws.Recommendation 30.2
The City should prohibit inside loudspeakers which project sound outside of the premises.
31. Street entertainers or buskers
The Coordinated Community Support Team (CCST) is addressing this issue. There is a need for an enforcement tool.Recommendation 31.1
The City should restrict locations which allow performing, playing and busking, hours of play, and the length of the playing time.Recommendation 31.2
The City should require buskers to have an annually renewable license which can be withheld upon receipt of complaints, and should require the license or a readily-visible validation decal to be prominently displayed.
32. Night club/entertainment centre audio
This is a growing problem, particularly in mixed CD-1 zoning. For example, neighbourhood restaurants are converting themselves to karaoke bars, and installing more powerful sound systems, without proper sound muffling construction. A new by-law should address mixed zoning issues. The existing fine of $200 is insignificant and, as such, may simply be regarded as a mere cost of doing business. (See also Recommendations 5.1 and 5.2.)Recommendation 32.1
The City, on advice from the Health Board, should set maximum decibel levels within the premises based on a recommended maximum noise level (suggested 50 decibels) within 100 feet of a night club/entertainment centre and a recommended maximum noise level (suggested 50 decibels) within a residential occupancy contained within the same building as an entertainment centre/night club.Recommendation 32.2
The City should increase minimum level of fines to $500 or even higher.Recommendation 32.3
The City should require noise insulation to surround the establishment, inside walls, ceiling and flooring.Currently the Noise By-law contains a provision for evaluating the impact of the "bass" tones from music and entertainment noise. This provision has proven problematic for staff to measure and enforce. It may soon be tested in court.
Recommendation 32.4
The Environmental Health Division should investigate alternative ways of evaluating the community impact of the "bass" component of entertainment noise with a view to replacing or eliminating the existing reference to the "dBC Scale" in noise-related by-laws.
Personal "walky" stereos are capable of generating sound levels in the earphones in excess of 100 decibels -- a very real source of potential hearing damage. Some manufacturers have acknowledged this problem by incorporating automatic volume controls. However, not all units have these, and they can be switched off at the user's whim. Let the listener beware!
With the exception of special events, noise from portable and car stereos, two-way radios, cellular phones and loudspeakers (at golf courses, car lots and the like) often exceeds the ambient noise level in the public realm and as such is deemed objectionable. Often public or private sound equipment, not material to the events taking place in public facilities such as pools, rinks and community centres, is utilized in these facilities to the detriment of the enjoyment of the other users.
It is hoped that peer pressure arising from increased public awareness will lead to quieter neighbourhoods, parks and beaches and obviate the need for enforcement procedures.
Recommendation 33.1
The City should require operators of amplified sound equipment to explore and institute alternative methods and procedures for accomplishing their requirements so that communication is contained within the area of need.Recommendation 33.2
The City should apply stricter enforcement of the applicable Noise By-Law provisions.Recommendation 33.3
The City should regularly reacquaint the drivers of City-owned vehicles with the provisions of the Noise By-Law.
Home and Neighbours
34. Barking dogs
Many people are being instructed by the police and others that a big, barking dog is the best way to protect their property. As more people "buy into" this idea, barking dog complaints will increase. Presently, the police do not take action on such complaints, nor will 911 respond. To a complainant, there is no effective difference between the annoyances generated by barking dogs and those noisy situations to which the police do respond, such as noisy parties or buskers. (See Figure 10 and Figure 11.)
Figure 10: Should the owners of persistently barking dogs be ticketed?
Figure 11: Should a persistently barking dog be removed to the pound?
Recommendation 34.1
The City should make responsibility for a persistently barking dog a ticketable offense. If repeated visits are required of the Pound, the dog should be taken to the Pound until the penalty is paid.Recommendation 34.2
The City should consider a progressive fine program with substantial increases between levels of fines. In addition, there should be a significant attendance or administration charge for each recall or revisit equated to actual servicing costs.Recommendation 34.3
The City should institute a 911-type Pound response line for complaints about persistently barking dogs, similar to that for noisy parties. This would be in the spirit of community policing.Recommendation 34.4
The City should consider a graduated license renewal system based on the number of offences.
35. Air conditioning, vents and pumps
These devices represent an increasing problem, especially in new condos and mixed-use areas. They are not dealt with adequately in present by-laws. For new buildings, the building permit process should control the location of air conditioning, heat pumps and vents, but in existing units there are no effective controls.Recommendation 35.1
The City should amend the Plumbing and/or Building By-Law to control the position of all air conditioning, pumps and vents, placing them where they will present no noise problems.Recommendation 35.2
The City should not grandfather existing units in the by-law amendments.Recommendation 35.3
The City should address vibration issues, where residential accommodation is affected, in a by-law.
36. Noisy parties
Recommendation 36.1
The City should establish this class of noises as ticketable offences.
Figure 12: Should there be stricter enforcement in response to noisy parties?
Recommendation 36.3
The City should institute a system whereby, for the first event requiring a call on the residence, a copy of the by-law and a formal warning notice should be presented to the residents. For the second event, there should be a significant fine for the residents, on the order of $250. For the third event, there should be a greater fine, on the order of $1,500. In addition, there should be a significant attendance or administration charge, for each recall or revisit, equated to actual servicing costs.Recommendation 36.4
The City should ensure that, in addition to penalizing occupants, notification of the circumstances should follow to absentee property owners advising of the vulnerability of their business licenses, where applicable.Recommendation 36.5
The City should strictly enforce the existing requirements for owners of revenue property.Recommendation 36.6
Council should direct all concerned City Departments to increase enforcement. (See Figure 12.)Recommendation 36.7
Monitor the costs of enforcement and of staff time in order to determine how much attention to a specific premises is costing tax-payers.
37. House alarms
The City's response to continuously sounding false alarms is hampered by the lack of provincial authority to enter legally and remedy the situation. An informal process is currently utilized in extreme cases which involves police, health officers, a locksmith and technician from the security company disabling the alarm system. (See Figure 13.)
Figure 13: Should the police be given the authority to enter premises and disable continually-sounding security alarms?
Recommendation 37.1
The City should approach the provincial government to amend the Vancouver Charter to permit police to make expedient entries into premises in order to attend "runaway" (continuously sounding) alarms.Recommendation 37.2
The City should define "alarm" to include bells, sirens, buzzers, synthesized voices and similar devices.Recommendation 37.3
The City should consider control of decibel levels of house alarms.
Residential Maintenance
Lawn mowers, leaf blowers, trimmers, edgers, mulchers, and other lawn and garden equipment are a significant source of noise for many people. Twenty-five percent of the letters received by the Task Force commented about the noise produced by these machines. Noise from motorized lawn/garden equipment was the most frequently mentioned noise problem. Other frequent comments were complaints about the use of the equipment early in the morning, particularly on Sundays and holidays. (See Figure 14 and Figure 15.)The Task Force applauds the use of nonmotorized gardening services and strongly suggests that the City move toward such methods in its own operations.
Figure 14: Should there be a prohibition against commercial lawn mowing on Sundays?
Figure 15: Do you support a prohibition on private lawn mowing during a certain period on Sundays?
"One solution for the average home owner is to employ a silent gardener. They use only hand tools, push mowers, rakes and brooms, handclippers for hedges. Their costs are comparable to those who use power equipment."
Excerpt from letter to the Task Force on power gardening noise
Present equipment technology, which remains intrusive and irritating, should continue to be permitted, subject to review and control of decibel levels and tone characteristics. The variety of these characteristics is broad, reflecting the array and age of this ubiquitous instrument -- the older they are, as with most equipment, the more annoying their emissions.
Recommendation 38.1
The City should establish a time-conditional program directed to encouraging significant reduction of present noise emission levels and improvement in tonal characteristics, with the ultimate goal of no tolerance for nonconforming equipment within three years of adoption of these recommendations.Recommendation 38.2
Licenses or readily visible validation decals should be prominently and legibly displayed, while vehicle signage must prominently identify the name and address of the gardening service.Note: The following recommendations are intended to create a quiet environmental state during a consistent period on Sundays and holidays. This is seen as a common period to indulge in leisure activities and would be enhanced without the intrusion of noise and fumes. This "grace" period might well also serve to reacquaint the public with the environment of the past and demonstrate the extent to which noise now subtly blends into their daily routines.
Recommendation 38.3
The City should establish hours for commercial lawn mowing using other than manually operated equipment as follows:
- Monday to Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
- Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
- Not permitted on Sundays and holidays.
Recommendation 38.4
The City should establish hours for private lawn mowing using other than manually operated equipment as follows:
- Monday to Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
- Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
- Sundays and holidays: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
39. Lawn trimmers, edge trimmers and similar equipment
Recommendation 39.1
The City should establish permissible decibel levels for this equipment, consistent with those established for lawn mowers in Recommendation 38.1.Recommendation 39.2
The City should establish hours of operation the same as those in Recommendations 38.3 and 38.4 above.
40. Leaf and power blowers
The use of leaf and power blowers continues to be a controversial subject and has generated the most complaints about a specific single noise source. However, very recent evidence suggests that the industry has undertaken commendable efforts to address public concerns regarding this equipment and its use.Although these measures have not been evaluated at this writing it appears that for the first time, the manufacturers, the nursery and gardeners' associations and concerned citizens are taking concrete steps to address these noise issues.
It is important that the industry be prepared to regulate itself quickly before further regulations must be imposed, up to and including an outright ban on these blowers. (See Figure 16.)
Figure 16: Should the use of leaf blowers be banned?
Recommendation 40.1
The City should, based on technological advances within the industry, require that all leaf blowers maintain a maximum decibel level of 70 at 50 feet until January 1998, when 65 decibels will be the maximum allowable; that they be run at the lowest effective throttle setting and that between October 1 and April 30 of each year the City establish hours of use as follows:
- Monday to Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
- Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
- Not permitted on Sundays and holidays
It is further recommended that between May 1 and September 30 one leaf blower per lot may be in use and such use is limited to 15 minutes per hour on lots less than one-half acre and 30 minutes per hour on lots greater than one-half acre.
Recommendation 40.2
The Director of Environmental Health should work with the Nursery Trades Association, Japanese Gardeners' Association and others to develop a plan to monitor the situation with a view to minimizing the usage of leaf blowers.Recommendation 40.3
The City should require community gardening services to prominently display their current business licenses or readily-visible validation decals and ensure that vehicle signage prominently and legibly identifies the name and address of the operator.Recommendation 40.4
The Director of Environmental Health should continue to work with the industry to achieve further reductions of overall noise levels and tonal characteristics; to attempt to refine schedules of usage to match seasonal requirements; and to strive for a more appropriate match of equipment to task. Further, that the Director of Environmental Health should be directed to carry out regular enforcement and to report back regularly on the need for additional regulatory measures.
41. Appliances and powered hand tools
Retail sales outlets have no reliable information on the noise levels of the domestic appliances, refrigerators, dishwashers, etc., they advertise. It is accepted that home appliances should carry a label indicating power consumption. This should be extended to include noise levels.The same difficulty exists with power tools; the prospective purchaser can find no indication of the noise levels of power drills or belt sanders or virtually any other tool, and sales staff are oblivious to the problem.
Recommendation 41.1
The City should make representations, at whatever level is necessary, to persuade manufacturers and the Canadian Standards Association to assume responsibility for identifying noise levels of power gardening equipment, home appliances and small power tools.Recommendation 41.2
The City should apply hours recommended for private lawn mowing to private use of powered hand tools outdoors. (See Recommendation 38.3.)
42. Commercial mobile vacuums, power washers, carpet cleaners, etc.
Recommendation 42.1
The City should require operators of this equipment to control the sound originating from within the vehicle and maintain it therein, where applicable.Recommendation 42.2
The City should restrict operations in residential and mixed-use areas to the same hours shown for commercial lawn mowers in Recommendation 38.3.Recommendation 42.3
The City should restrict operations in commercial and industrial zones to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Recommendation 42.4
The City should apply the same identification conditions as are specified in Recommendation 29.1.Recommendation 42.5
The City should establish hours for private use of portable power washers the same as for private lawn mowing. (See Recommendation 38.4.)
43. Chain saws
Recommendation 43.1
The City should restrict the use of chain saws to emergency situations, except by special permit.
Construction
44. Construction
The Noise By-Law controls construction times. The recently increased minimum fine for offenders is $500. After-hours construction requires a special permit. Repeat offenders are less likely to get exemptions. A problem with enforcement in this area is that a complainant must be willing to go to court. It would be more effective to have noise from construction deemed objectionable by Council (not requiring the complainant to give testimony) and to have construction made a ticketable offence.
"I fully recognize that there are competing interests here that must be recognized. I am suggesting that the hours of construction be shortened a small bit to alleviate the disturbance. Construction should end at 6 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays. That allows contractors to arrange ten-and-one-half-hour days. That's a heck of a good stretch.
"Think about it. These days, husbands and wives get home from a full and often arduous workday at, say 5 or 6 p.m. They probably watch the news and hit the sheets at 10 or 10:30 p.m. It is only fair that after a day's work they get four hours of quiet time in the evening."
Excerpt from letter to the Task Force on construction noise
Recommendation 44.1
The City should implement changes to establish noise caused by construction as a ticketable offence.Recommendation 44.2
The City should require a sign (minimum 1.2 metres by 1.2 metres) to be prominently posted at a construction site where the value of the project shown on the building permits is in excess of $50,000. The sign should legibly bear reference to the applicable section of the Vancouver Noise By-Law, the name of the construction firm, the name and telephone number of a person within that firm who may be contacted during all on-site working hours. The City Noise Complaint telephone number should also be prominently posted and identified. Signs should use black lettering on white background.Recommendation 44.3
The City should require strict enforcement of the Noise By-Law provisions related to construction.Recommendation 44.4
The City should seek to increase the minimum fine for an offence.Recommendation 44.5
The City should apply a progressive ticketing system to construction noise offences.Recommendation 44.6
The City should revise the current ending time of construction noise hours from 8 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
Figure 17: Should there be stricter enforcement against construction noise?
Industrial Noise
A forestry company wanted a noise-reduction package for a tractor. The local tractor distributor said it had never heard of such a thing. The U.S. manufacturer, however, said, "A hush kit? Sure. We have one right on the shelf. We couldn't sell a tractor in Europe without one."
Moral: Go back to the source and don't take no for an answer!
Dealing with industrial noise: Quiet machines are available
The Task Force established a subcommittee that has endeavoured to contact a representative cross-section of manufacturers of noise-emitting products or machines. In general, the subcommittee found that such manufacturers have an awareness of noise issues surrounding their products. In particular, manufacturers who operate in many different markets, notably Europe and Scandinavia, are aware that noise from machines may be detrimental to their market shares. It is noteworthy that data provided by manufacturers of heavy equipment indicate that differences between standard and quiet models are as high as 20 decibels. For example, a major German manufacturer of chain saws, gasoline-powered trimmers and blowers, has developed quiet models for use in conditions where noise is particularly harmful, and expends considerable research effort on noise-related issues with respect to use of their products. In contrast, some North American manufacturers, whose market is principally domestic, appear to be less concerned with the noise emissions from their products.It appears that the North American public puts a smaller value on the quietness of products than do their European counterparts. If this situation is to be improved, the public must be persuaded to insist on quiet products and to require manufacturers and suppliers to demonstrate product superiority in this area.
Ability to regulate
It appears the City has little direct opportunity to regulate or control manufacturers located outside its boundaries. However, the City is clearly in a position to influence the users of those manufacturers' products, particularly in the areas of public works-construction, road building and repair, and similar activities which require intensive use of both heavy machinery and hand-held tools. The traditional tools of demolition and construction are jack hammers, pavement breakers (pneumatic or hydraulic), and various diesel-powered loaders, excavators and bulldozers. In many cases, quieter alternatives in machines or methods of work are available for specific operations.
Figure 18: Should the City buy or lease only quiet or sound-treated equipment even if it costs a bit more?
For example, in some situations concrete saws can be used instead of jack hammers, with a consequent reduction in noise level. Further, in this case noise from the sawing machine is constant, rather than impulsive and staccato, and is considerably less annoying as a result.
Where alternative, quieter methods of work are not practical, there is the opportunity to use sound-treated tools. Quiet models of air-compressors are readily available in the Lower Mainland, and should be used in place of the more common, noisy models they replace.
Persuasion, not regulation
Availability of quiet machines in the workplace appears to be a bigger problem than the manufacturers' ability to design and produce suitably sound-treated items. Typically, a "silenced" machine is somewhat more expensive to manufacture, since it is likely to include acoustic covers, better mufflers and other additions, and requires a more involved research and development effort, the costs of which manufacturers are anxious to pass on to the public. Smaller tools and machines are likely to be somewhat less powerful than their noisier brethren, thus causing a small but real increase in the time required to complete a particular task.Other noise control measures for construction include use of barriers and "noise sheds" to enclose and segregate central plant equipment, scheduling noisy tasks for less critical times of day, and use of portable noise screens to shield particularly noisy operations. These methods are relatively easy to implement, but have a negative influence on the speed with which tasks are completed. Hard data are difficult to obtain, but one New York subway construction project completed some twenty years ago using quiet methods and technology was reported to have cost a 5 per cent premium over traditional construction methods.
45. Proposed City initiatives
The City should be in the forefront of efforts to promote and encourage use of quiet machines and methods by its own forces and its contractors for municipal projects.Recommendation 45.1
The City should lease or purchase only quiet or sound-treated equipment. (See Figure 18)Recommendation 45.2
The City should improve maintenance standards on all City-owned machinery, trucks, etc., to maximize the benefits of silencers and reduce squeaks and banging resulting from poor lubrication, looseness or mechanical wear.Recommendation 45.3
The City should train City workers in quiet methods of work.Recommendation 45.4
Where rental machinery is used, the City should insist on sound-treated units.
![[City Homepage]](/graphics/footnava.gif)
|
![[Get In Touch]](/graphics/footnavb.gif)
|
![[Communities]](/graphics/footnavc.gif)
|
![[Search]](/graphics/footnavd.gif)
|
|
Last modified: April 30, 1997
(c) 1996 City of Vancouver
