Noise Exposure Technical Report - City of Kingston

Exhibit B

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON

D12-12-018

KINGSTON AIRPORT NOISE EXPOSURE TECHNICAL REPORT

JUNE 6, 2016 REV A | 161-04694-00 FINAL REPORT

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

Kingston Airport Noise Exposure Forecast Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summarizes the results of this noise exposure forecast technical report: 

While the NEF modelling confirmed that there would be changes in the noise environment, the changes are not considered significant. The NEF values beyond the airport boundaries are 30 NEF or less and are consistent with previously completed planning-level noise analysis. Only a small area at the south end of the site shows the 30 NEF contour crossing into the Front Road right-of-way.



Attempts have been made to quantify where possible the changes in the 2026 noise exposure contours using the 2012 contours as the baseline for comparison. Table E-1 presents a quantitative difference between the 25 and 30 NEFs for each scenario while Figure E-1 presents a comparison between the existing conditions 2012 Planning NEF Contour and the 2026 NEF with the runway extension. 2012 Existing - 30 NEF 2026 Forecast - 30 NEF

2026 Forecast - 25 NEF 2012 Existing - 25 NEF

Figure E-1 – 2012 Existing Conditions NEF versus 2026 Forecast NEF Contour with 1,071 ft. Extension to Runway 01-19 (6,000 ft.)

i


June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

Table E-1 - Summary of NEF Contour Areas Year

Total Area Under the NEF Contour (ha) 25 NEF

30 NEF

2012

220

74

2026 (No Extension)

245

83

2026 (With Extension)

248

85



NEF values of 30 or less are generally considered compatible with noise sensitive land uses per Transport Canada’s TP1247. In the case of Kingston Airport, the marina to the north and surrounding residential properties can expect to remain within the 25 NEF or less and the 25-30 NEF range. According to Transport Canada’s TP1247 these land uses are compatible will the anticipated airport noise levels. The following table provides additional NEF guidance related to outdoor recreational uses including marinas.

ii

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A




The extended runway at the south end helps mitigate noise at the north end by enabling higher aircraft departure profiles at the north end. Furthermore, the displaced threshold at the north end ensures the approach profiles for aircraft landing from the north remain at the same altitude as they do under existing conditions. The extension to the north will not result in aircraft flying lower to the ground than they do today.



Through future noise management consultations with air-operators, additional noise mitigations can be considered including reduced-thrust takeoffs due to the increased runway length.



The following chart shows historical aircraft movements at Kingston from 1984 to 2015. The 2026 forecasted total movements of 44,518 remain below historical values which peaked at 51,151 movements. This combined with newer aircraft technology demonstrates that Kingston has experienced higher noise levels in the past than those forecasted to 2026.

iii

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

1.1

Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3

Scope ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.0

AIRPORT NOISE IN CANADA – AN OVERVIEW ............................ 3

2.1

What is Noise? .................................................................................................................. 4

2.2

History of the Canadian NEF System ............................................................................. 4

2.3

NEF Explained................................................................................................................... 6

2.4

Validation of the Canadian Noise Metric ........................................................................ 8

2.5

Unique and Relevant Characteristics of NEF System .................................................. 9

3.0

KINGSTON AIRPORT NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS .............. 10

3.1

GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 10

3.2

NEF Modelling Software ................................................................................................ 10

3.3

Forecasting and Projection Information Sources ....................................................... 10

3.4

Noise Exposure Scenarios ............................................................................................ 12

3.5

Kingston Airport Statistics ............................................................................................ 13

3.6

Peak Planning Day (PPD)............................................................................................... 14

3.7

Runway Distribution ....................................................................................................... 14

3.8

Aircraft Mix ...................................................................................................................... 15

3.9

Night Time Operations ................................................................................................... 16

4.0

NOISE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ............................................... 17

4.1

2012 Noise Exposure Planning Contours (Existing Conditions) .............................. 17

4.2

2026 No Runway 01-19 Extension Noise Exposure Contour ..................................... 18

4.3

2026 With Runway 01-19 Extension Noise Exposure Contour.................................. 19 i

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


4.4

What is a Displaced Threshold and Impacts on Noise............................................... 19

4.5

Noise Mitigation due to Lengthened Runway ............................................................. 22

4.6

Summary.......................................................................................................................... 25

5.0

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 27

FIGURES Figure 4-1 – 2012 Noise Exposure Planning Contour Figure 4-2 - 2026 Noise Exposure Forecast Contour with no Extension to Runway 01-19 Figure 4-3 - 2026 Noise Exposure Forecast Contour with 1,071 ft. Extension to Runway 01-19 (6,000 ft.) Figure 4-4 – 2012 Existing Conditions NEF versus 2026 Forecast NEF Contours with 1,071 ft. Extension to Runway 01-19 (6,000 ft.)

TABLES Table 2-1 – CNR Values Related to Expected Community Reaction Table 2-2 – Community Response Prediction and NEFs Table 3-1 - Summary of Peak Planning Day (PPD) Development Table 3-2 - Summary of NEF Model Peak Planning Day (PPD) Table 3-3 - Summary of Average Runway Utilization Table 3-4 - Summary of Average Itinerant Aircraft Mix Table 3-5 - Summary of Average Aircraft Movement Type Table 3-6 – Average Day/Night Split at Kingston Table 4-1 - Summary of NEF Contour Areas

APPENDICES APPENDIX A – NEF Model Input Files

ii

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background


Since the preparation of the 2007 Kingston Airport Master Plan, a number of planning noise contours have been prepared and the information used to assess the existing and future noise environment around the airport. Changes in air traffic volumes, mix and infrastructure improvements including a 326m (1,071 ft.) extension to the primary Runway 01-19 have been modelled and planning level noise contours prepared and interpreted. In 2012 a comprehensive Business Plan was prepared and adopted by the City of Kingston which included an air traffic forecast to 2026 and a runway extension to 6,000 ft. for Runway 01-19. It should be noted that while options were presented for an extension of up to 6,847 ft. which was more suitable for regular service by larger narrow – body aircraft like the Boeing 737, the City opted for a reduced extension to 6,000 ft. length which was more conducive for use by newer (and quieter) competitive smaller regional jet and turbo-prop aircraft. In response to the Business Plan recommendations adopted by the City, a technical Project Definition Document (PDD) was prepared in 2013. This PDD analyzed and summarized the technical feasibility and cost of infrastructure improvements required at the airport to accommodate the Business Plan recommendations. Following the completion of the PDD, in 2015 the City elected to complete a screening level environmental assessment as a matter of due diligence given the significance of the project. Throughout the period outlined above, various planning-level aircraft noise studies were completed to better understand the potential impacts of the future airport operations on the surrounding noise environment and the sensitivity to changes in various inputs including aircraft mix and runway lengths. Both Transport Canada and FAA based noise models were used to further test changes in inputs and how the various models would react in terms of size and shape of the noise contours. In all planning cases to date, while the noise contours did demonstrate change, the impacts of those changes were consistently observed not to be significant in terms of impacts on surrounding land use compatibility. However, the need for a more formal technical study based solely on the Canadian Transport Canada Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) system was identified by the City. This report serves to present the findings of this technical NEF study.

1.2

Objectives

The primary objectives of this study are summarized below: ►

Produce official noise contours, both for conditions in 2012 as well as those forecasted to 2026 based on the traffic data and airfield configuration presented during the Screening Level Environmental Assessment presentation on March 30, 2016 as shown below:

1

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


** See Note

** Note: By nature of the Transport Canada NEF modelling methodology, Local traffic is modelled separately and in the case of Kingston has an average day to peak planning day (PPD) factor of 5x versus Itinerant traffic that has an average day to PPD factor of 2x. The PPD shown in this table did not separate these movement types to show these different peaking factors. The only affected aircraft type was the C-172 and for the NEF model was separated into itinerant and local movements and peaked separately as presented in Section 3.6 of this report. As a result the total PPD used in the actual NEF model was higher than the value shown above.

2

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

►


Use the most up to date Transport Canada approved modelling techniques and software in the development of the noise models and outputs.

►

Demonstrate that the findings of this formal technical NEF study are consistent with the planning-level findings of previous informal noise studies completed by the City over the period of study outlined in Section 1.1.

►

Document and summarize all modelling inputs, assumptions and analysis of results.

►

Prepare a technical report in a format acceptable to Transport Canada that could be submitted for their technical endorsement.

1.3

Scope

The following summarizes the scope of this assignment: ►

Review of background information.

►

Review the baseline air traffic data and update as required to comply with Transport Canada approved NEF modelling standards and model input requirements.

►

Generation of 2012 Existing Conditions Noise Exposure Planning Contours (Scenario 1).

►

Re-confirmation of forecasts/projections, operations and develop future scenario rationale.

►

Generation of 2026 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contours (Scenario 2) with no extension to Runway 01-19. Note: The purpose of this contour was to demonstrate how the proposed displaced threshold configurations impact the noise environment.

►

Generation of 2026 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contours (Scenario 3) with a 326m (1,071 ft.) extension to Runway 01-19 for a total length of 6,000 ft.

►

Completion of the technical report, receive feedback from the client and submission of the final report to Transport Canada for their review and endorsement.

2.0

AIRPORT NOISE IN CANADA – AN OVERVIEW

The following sections outline the general authoritative structure in Canada for regulating and undertaking airport/aircraft noise assessment. In general, the ultimate authority in regulating airport noise in Canada rests with Transport Canada. This authority is given through the Federal Aeronautics Act and by incorporation by reference, the associated Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR). Section 4.9 of Canada’s Aeronautics Act enables the “…the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting aeronautics and, without restricting the

3

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting……..(f) noise emanating from aerodromes and aircraft;…” However, the separation of powers in the Constitution of Canada places the responsibility for control of land at the provincial level. Provinces in turn delegate the power to municipalities. To assist the provincial/municipal authorities, Transport Canada provides tools and recommended practices including:

2.1

►

Noise contouring system (NEF)

►

Tables that contain compatibility for different types of land uses at different NEF levels.

What is Noise?

Sound is a vibration that travels through a particular medium. Sound travels outwards from its source, similar to a pebble thrown into a pond. Humans are used to sensing sound that travels through air, and subsequently perceive it as perhaps beautiful or undesirable. When sound is perceived as undesirable, it is referred to as noise. A particular sound is described by its amplitude, often expressed in decibels (dB). An increase of 10 dB of sound is perceived as twice as loud to a listener. Humans can barely perceive a change of 3 or 4 dB. Another characteristic of sound is its frequency. A sound’s frequency changes how high or low the sound is perceived to be: for example the low rumble of a far off thunderstorm or the high pitch of a tweeting bird. Finally, it is important to note that most sounds are composed of a complex mixture of various frequencies to which the human ear has a differential response. This means that the ear does not weigh all frequencies equally when sensing a complex sound. Ultimately, the ear will perceive two sounds with the same energy level but different frequency mix, differently. The differential response that the human has to frequencies can be taken account for when measuring noise by using a filter. The A-weighted filter is an example of a filter that approximates the human ear’s response to various frequencies. The filter used to measure a sound directly affects the decibels reported by the measuring equipment. Consequently, the choice of filter can have an important impact on any calculation involving sound. Finally, the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is used to describe the amount of noise for an entire event, such as an airplane flyby.

2.2

History of the Canadian NEF System

In Canada, the accepted measure of airport noise is the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF). The NEF is a single number that rates overall airport noise for a single point. NEF contours (lines joining points of equal noise exposure) are often generated for the areas surrounding airports. A brief historical overview of the development of this metric is necessary to understand the current form and implementation of the NEF. In his survey of the history of airport noise measures, the NRC’s Bradley (1996) states that the NEF metric evolved from the previously developed American Composite Noise Rating (CNR). While the CNR was being developed in the United States, a number of European noise metrics were also being developed. In the early 4

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


1960s the Noise and Number Index (NNI) was introduced in the United Kingdom. France and Germany quickly followed with the Psophique lndex (lp) and the Störindex (Q) respectively. The development of these various noise metrics was due to the pervasive introduction of jet engine civil aircraft. These engines were significantly louder than the propeller engines they replaced and caused a significant and sudden increase in airport noise. Prior to the current incarnation of the NEF, there were five major developmental steps beginning with the original CNR first proposed in 1952. This initial concept was to rate general “community” noise. The original system described responses to noise in terms of community response, mainly in terms of complaints and legal action. Through a series of case studies CNR values were compared to community response and a six-item scale was prepared. In 1955, the first revision to the CNR was conducted, reducing the scale from 6 items to 5, adding considerations for repeated sounds, as well as some other technical considerations. While this second version did a decent job of predicting community response to changes, it was not particularly effective in absolute terms. This meant that the second version was useful for predicting the relative change, but did not accurately predict the community response in absolute terms. During the late 1950s the U.S. Air Force started to develop procedures for land use planning and evaluating noise around air bases. The CNR concept was specifically modified to account for aircraft noise and predicted aircraft noise levels. Procedures for predicting aircraft noise levels during ground run-up and aircraft in flight were developed, and a correction for time of day was made. The CNR was further refined in 1962 and included the use of Perceived Noise Levels (PNdB). This single value ranked the noise in terms of how noisy it was perceived to be. Some simplifications were also made to the system: reducing the number of time of day weightings to day or night, thus eliminating the evening category. This version of the CNR had three community response descriptors described in the Table 2-1. Table 2-1 – CNR Values Related to Expected Community Reaction

Composite Noise Rating, CNR

Description of Community Response

< 100

Essentially no complaints would be expected. The noise occasionally interferes with certain activities of the resident.

100 to 115

> 115

Individuals may complain, perhaps vigorously. Concerted group action is possible. Individual reactions would likely include repeated vigorous complaints. Concerted group action might be expected.

Finally in 1967, reports published by the FAA introduced the NEF as an evolution of the early CNR. This newest development included improvements in dealing with perceived noise levels, refined calculations by eliminating a limitation of performing calculations in 5 dB increments, and proposed new procedures for calculating expected aircraft noise levels for the new NEF measure. In addition, the manner in which the perceived noise level concept deals with pure tones and the duration of aircraft pass-bys was modified. This modification resulted in a new

5

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


measure, termed Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL). The final modification to the previous system was weighting nighttime operations 16.7 times that of daytime operations. Bradley (1996) notes that there was no evidence in the original reports to support this weighting. Despite the new measure, no new information on community response to aircraft noise was included. The NEF measure has been used in various countries, including Canada, Australia, Yugoslavia and Hong Kong. However, it was never adopted by the United States where it was developed. Rather, the U.S. adopted the daynight sound level, Ldn, because of a political imperative for a single environmental noise measure across departments.

2.3

NEF Explained

The Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) is a single number rating of overall aircraft noise. It combines the noise levels of individual aircraft and the numbers of aircraft to give a single number rating of the average negative impact of the aircraft noise. The current NEF metric evolved from the earlier Composite Noise Rating (CNR) which was initially developed for general community noise situations and later modified to evaluate aircraft noise. While these measures were being developed in the United States, other early airport noise measures were being developed in Europe. The Canadian Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) was developed to encourage compatible land use planning in the vicinity of airports. NEFs are official contours and Transport Canada will support them to the level of accuracy of the input data. The NEF has the additional benefit of providing recommended acoustic design criteria to obtain acceptable indoor noise levels for residential, commercial and other construction. Experience at 21 airports with respect to correlation’s between noise complaints and the NEF contours are displayed below in Table 2-2. These response predictions were developed through statistical analysis of community response to aircraft noise in the 1960/70’s. As part of a 1996 NRC validation study of the Canadian NEF System, evidence from another study conducted for London’s Heathrow airport and from major Swiss airports, showed no effect on changing attitudes towards aircraft noise. This suggests that Table 2-2 below may still be valid and does still form the basis of community noise response prediction in Canada. Table 2-2 – Community Response Prediction and NEFs

Response Area >40 NEF

35 - 40

Response Prediction Repeated and vigorous individual complaints are likely. Concerted group and legal action might be expected. Individual complaints may be vigorous. Possible group action and appeals to authorities.

6

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


Response Area 30 – 35 < 30

Response Prediction Sporadic to repeated individual complaints. Group action possible. Sporadic complaints may occur. Noise may interfere occasionally with certain activities of the resident.

A series of land use tables for aircraft noise considerations only are produced by Transport Canada as shown in the example below. This is only offered up as a guide and is mostly related to land use compatibility as related to airport noise and the following table and associated descriptions are found in Transport Canada’s TP1247 Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes, 2013/14.

Transport Canada does not support or advocate incompatible land use (especially residential housing and similar noise sensitive uses) in areas affected by aircraft noise. These may begin as low as NEF 25. At NEF 30, speech interference and annoyance caused by aircraft noise are, on average, established and growing. By NEF 35, there effects are very significant. New residential development is therefore not compatible with NEF 30 and above, and should not be undertaken. As was previously detailed, jurisdictional boundaries do not permit the federal government to impose the NEF 30 limit on provincial land use planning. These are recommendations only. However, these recommendations are “imposed” on projects within federal scope. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will generally only fund developments which meet their standards which are consistent with Transport Canada’s recommendations. There are three types of noise exposure contours depending on the time element involved and are summarized as follows: ►

Noise Exposure Forecasts (NEFs)

Traffic volume and aircraft type and mix used in calculating the noise contours are normally forecast for a period of between five to ten years into the future. Runway geometry must be the current layout,

7

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


except that new and approved projects involving changes in the runways may be included, when the completion date of the project lies within the forecast period. ►

Noise Exposure Projections (NEPs)

It is recognized that much land use planning involves projections beyond five years into the future, when aircraft fleet mixes and runway configurations are most likely to be different from the known conditions of today. To provide provincial and municipal authorities with long range guidance in land use planning, Transport Canada introduced the Noise Exposure Projection (NEP). The NEP is based on a projection of aircraft movements for up to 20 years into the future and includes aircraft types and runway configurations that may materialize within this period. NEPs are official contours and Transport Canada will support them to the level of accuracy of the input data. The information required to produce an NEP must, at least, be contained in an Airport Master Plan. ►

Planning Contours

The third type of noise contour is the Planning Contour which is produced to investigate planning alternates and must be labeled as such. Any agency may produce these contours as they do not have an official status. Examples of a planning contour may include composite contours (overlay of two or more different contours) or contours that project airport capacity or “what if” runway configurations.

2.4

Validation of the Canadian Noise Metric

In 1996, Transport Canada commissioned the National Research Council to validate the Canadian NEF system. The following basic recommendations/conclusions were developed: ►

Recommends additional surveys be done in Canada to validate the negative effects of aviation noise.

►

Upgrade the NEF system software

►

Consider adopting an A-weighted NEF Measures (to permit field measurements to correlated modeled information)

►

NEFs should be supplemented with single event noise limits using the SEL metric to ensure the general noise environment, including particular worst case situations are considered.

8

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


►

Establish clear criteria for acceptable land use at various NEF levels

►

Efforts should be made to publish revised version of CMHC document on new housing and aircraft noise.

►

Encourage uniform national approach of the NEF System

With respect to the above recommendations, the confirmed actions taken by Transport Canada include: ►

NEF system software is in process of being updated. Initial Beta Testing of the software began in 2003 and it is now available. The updated software has been used as part of the study.

►

NRC has completed a study along with recommendations and software design (referred to as IBANA – Insulating Buildings Against Noise from Aircraft) to reflect improved noise insulation techniques using current home building technology. The results of this work must now filter done to the provincial building code level which will involve a concerted effort on the part of Transport Canada and provincial authorities. The results of this study have no legal status in its current form. This work is intended to update the CMHC recommendations.

2.5

Unique and Relevant Characteristics of NEF System

The Canadian NEF System, due to its development history has some unique and relevant characteristics that are worth highlighting. These characteristics are worth bearing in mind as the airport noise mitigation standards proposed by this study are considered: ►

The Canadian NEF system will underestimate ground attenuation i.e. topography, vegetation etc., while the FAA’s (DNL) system overestimates it. The result is that the Canadian NEF is, in most cases, much larger in area than those calculated using the FAA equivalent. This conclusion is the same when compared to the Australian NEF System.

►

The Canadian NEF system penalizes night-time operations by 12 dB whereas the FAA system uses 10 dB. The result, again, is a larger Canadian NEF contour versus the FAA modeled results. For every single night-time aircraft movement, the model will factor that movement by 16.7 times.

►

The NEF system uses the concept of a 95th percentile planning day whereas the FAA uses an average day. The 95th percentile day approach results in increased modeled operations and larger contours. This approach can mean sometimes using factors of 2 to 5 times the average day traffic volume in the Canadian system. Another way to describe the 95th percentile planning day would be to use the term “A busy average day but not quite the busiest day.”

9

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


3.0

KINGSTON AIRPORT NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS

3.1

GENERAL

This study formalized and updated the NEF noise exposure contours for Kingston using the latest Transport Canada NEF modelling software and procedures. To support this modelling, the aircraft movement statistics developed following the Business Plan and presented on March 30, 2016 have been used to ensure the consistency in the information between the business plan and the NEF analysis.

3.2

NEF Modelling Software

The latest Transport Canada NEF modelling software has been used for this study. This new version of NEF-Calc was a complete rewrite of the previous software and now provides an improved user interface. More importantly, the current version of the software incorporated many new aircraft noise models having imported the FAA’s INM aircraft database (up to version 6.1c – Dec. 2005). This allows for much more accurate modeling of airport noise. Version of NEF-Calc provided by Transport Canada, version 2.0.6.1 as can be seen in the exhibit below. Latest Transport Canada Approved NEF-Calc Software Version

3.3

Forecasting and Projection Information Sources

There has been some evolution in the peak planning hour used for the noise evaluation prepared for the Project Definition Document in 2013 and as used for this report. A brief summary is provided below and on Table 3-1. ►

In 2007 the MMM Master Plan Study was completed for Kingston Airport. A peak planning day of 350 aircraft movements was projected and used for the preparation of NEF contours in 2026 assuming an extension of the existing runway from 4,929 ft. to 6,000 ft.

10

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

►


In January 2012 LPS completed the Business Case for Expansion which outlined the business case for the extension of Runway 01-19 to 6,000 ft. This plan provided updated forecasts of 44,518 total annual traffic movements in 2026. This forecast assumed 38,531 annual aircraft movements in 2012.

►

In 2013 while preparing the Project Definition Document (PDD) for the runway and terminal expansion, MMM established a peak planning day of 297 aircraft movements based on the 44,518 total annual aircraft movements forecast in the Business Plan for 2026. The peak planning day of 297 aircraft movements was used to prepare the planning-level noise contours for an initial public meeting in February 2013.

►

After the public meeting the forecast was revisited and it was noted by the airport that the actual total annual aircraft movements in 2012 were significantly less than projected in the LPS Business Plan. The forecast was subsequently updated by applying the growth rates within the LPS Business Plan to the 2012 actuals as requested by the airport. The updated peak planning day that was subsequently used for the 2026 planning-level noise contours within the Summary Project Definition Document was 222.

11

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


Table 3-1 - Summary of Peak Planning Day (PPD) Development

2012 Actual

Final PDD (2026)

2026 NEF Modeled in this Study Based on Transport Canada NEFCAL Methodology

Aircraft Type * See Note 1

Master Plan(2026)

Business Case/Draft PDD (2026)

DHC-8

19.0

49.4

14.5

21.2

21.2

B1900

6.0

30.7

15.0

19.2

19.2

Cessna CNA441

3.0

11.4

6.7

6.7

6.7

Beech Baron

3.0

11.4

4.2

4.3

4.3

Cessna C-172

314.8

189.3

158.8

168.8

325.5 *See Note 2

C-130 Herc

0.3

2.4

0.5

0.6

0.6

CL601

4.0

2.7

0.9

1.3

1.3

Total

350.0

297.2

200.7

222.0

375.0

Note 1 : Representative Aircraft in Model: DHC8 represents DHC8 plus twin turbine helicopters B1900 represents 19-seat aircraft plus single-engine helicopters CessnaCNA441 represents twin turbine 6-8 seat aircraft Beech Baron represents twin piston General Aviation aircraft Cessna C-172 represents single piston GA aircraft C-130 Herc represents military aircraft CL 601 represents CRJ705 Regional Jet Note 2: By nature of the Transport Canada NEF modelling methodology, Local traffic is modelled separately and has an average day to PPD factor of 5x versus Itinerant traffic that has an average day to PPD factor of 2x. The PPD has been adjusted here to account for these different peaking factors. The only affected aircraft type was the C-172 and for the NEF model was separated into itinerant and local movements and peaked separately as presented in Section 3.6 of this report. As a result the total PPD used in the actual NEF model was higher than the value shown in the previous forecast tables. This same adjusted to local peaking was applied to the 2012 baseline models.

3.4

Noise Exposure Scenarios

This study prepared three noise exposure scenarios covering both existing (2012) and future (2026) scenarios. The following describes the scenarios that were modelled including key assumptions: ►

2012 Existing Conditions – Noise Exposure Planning Contours – Scenario 1 This scenario was developed to model actual baseline noise conditions for 2012.

►

2026 Future Conditions with no Runway 01-19 Extension– Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) – Scenario 2

12

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


This scenario is based on forecast growth to 2026 based on the 2012 Business Plan with emphasis on growth in turbo-props like the Bombardier Q400 and regional jet traffic. Under this scenario, a runway extension was not modelled so that the impact of the proposed displaced thresholds on the size and shape of the contours could be understood. The inputs in terms of aircraft mix and growth were identical to Scenario 3 for this purpose. ►

2026 Future Conditions with 1,071 ft. Runway 01-19 Extension and Displaced Thresholds – Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) – Scenario 3 This scenario is based on forecast growth to 2026 based on the 2012 Business Plan with the same mix and movement data as Scenario 2. Under this scenario, a runway extension is constructed along with the displaced thresholds as proposed in the PDD reports which fixes the landing thresholds to the existing locations on the runway. The proposed runway extension would support the business plan objective for operations by small narrow-body regional jets.

3.5

Kingston Airport Statistics

There are a number of factors that influence the noise exposure contours at an airport including: ►

Aircraft types

►

Night time movements (Defined as any flight between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). Night time movements are penalized by a factor of 16.7 times (12 dB)

►

Runway distribution

►

Departure configurations (Stage Lengths)

In order to define as accurately as possible the aircraft movement environment at the Kingston Airport, official statistics were obtained from the Aviation Statistics Centre, Statistics Canada for the year 2010. This data source included all of the required information for the noise exposure analysis including: ►

Aircraft Type

►

Origin or Destinations

►

Runways used

►

Arrival or Departure operation

►

Time of Day of flight

►

Engine Type

13


June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

Data for both itinerant movements and local movements were included both of which are required for the NEF analysis. Itinerant and Local movements are defined as follows: Itinerant An itinerant aircraft movement is one that enters or leaves the control zone of the air traffic control tower (approximately 5-7 nautical miles) Local A local movement is one that stays within the control zone of the air traffic control tower.

3.6

Peak Planning Day (PPD)

The 95th Percentile Day method was used to derive the NEF peak planning day in accordance with the procedure recommended by Transport Canada. By definition, the calculated peak planning day represents a busy 24 hour day at the airport where only 5% of the days in the year are busier. Another way to describe the 95th percentile planning day would be to say it is “..a busy average day, but not quite the busiest day.” Table -3-2 present the peak planning day values for 2012 and 2026 used in the NEF model. Table 3-2 - Summary of NEF Model Peak Planning Day (PPD) Year

NEF Planning Day (95 th Percentile Day Method) Local Total Itinerant

2012

101

244

344

2026

115

260

375

Note: By nature of the NEF methodology, Local traffic is modelled separately and has an average day to PPD factor of 5x versus Itinerant traffic that has an average day to PPD factor of 2x. As result the total PPD shown in the table differs f rom that presented in Section 1.2.

3.7

Runway Distribution

Runway distribution has a significant impact on the noise exposure contours, particularly those runways used for takeoffs, the loudest aircraft operation. If for example, one particular runway is used more often than another for takeoff, the NEF contours will generally be larger off the ends of this runway. Table 3-3 provides average runway usage statistics in tabular format for the 2012 baseline and 2026 forecast.

14


June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

Table 3-3 - Summary of Average Runway Utilization Average Runway Utilization

Runway

Arrivals (% of Total)

Departures (% of Total)

01

14.2

32.6

07

14.8

11.2

19

51.2

23.4

25

19.8

32.9

Total

100.0

100.0

Runway distribution was assumed to be fairly consistent over the forecast and projection periods. There would have to be a significant change in the meteorological and operating conditions at the airport to result in a significant variation in these utilization’s. This is not predicted to occur during the study period. As a result, the 2012 runway utilization’s were applied for the 2026 runway scenarios.

3.8

Aircraft Mix

Table 3-4 summarizes the itinerant aircraft mix at the Kingston Airport using the following categorizations: ►

Jet

►

Turbine

►

Piston

Table 3-4 - Summary of Average Itinerant Aircraft Mix Year

Jet

Turbine

Piston

Total

2012

0.9%

36.6%

62.5%

100.0%

2026

1.2%

40.5%

58.3%

100.0%

Table 3-5 further breaks down the aircraft mix, by itinerant and local movements.

15

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


Table 3-5 - Summary of Average Aircraft Movement Type Movement Type

Average Percent of Total (%)

Itinerant

29.2%

Local

70.8%

Total

100.0%

Local aircraft activity was modelled as 100% piston engine type since these movements are primarily light single engine training aircraft.

3.9

Night Time Operations

Within the NEF system, night time is defined as between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The NEF system penalizes these movements by 16.7 times (12 dB) to account for the added annoyance on the community as a result of these operations. The Kingston Airport currently sees about 9% of total movements meeting this nighttime criteria as shown in Table 3-6. The NEF models generated for this study were based on this day/night split. Table 3-6 – Average Day/Night Split at Kingston Time

% of all Movements

Day

91%

Night

9%

TOTAL

100%

16

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


4.0

NOISE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

4.1

2012 Noise Exposure Planning Contours (Existing Conditions)

This planning contour represents the existing conditions scenario at the airport and is shown in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1 – 2012 Noise Exposure Planning Contour

17

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

4.2


2026 No Runway 01-19 Extension Noise Exposure Contour

This NEF contour was developed to project the 2026 forecast based on no change to Runway 01-19 ie. no runway extension, as shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2 - 2026 Noise Exposure Forecast Contour with no Extension to Runway 01-19

18

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

4.3


2026 With Runway 01-19 Extension Noise Exposure Contour

This NEF contour was developed to project the 2026 forecast based on the 1,071 ft. extension and associated displacements to Runway 01-19 as shown in Figure 4-3.

25 NEF 30NEF

Figure 4-3 - 2026 Noise Exposure Forecast Contour with 1,071 ft. Extension to Runway 01-19 (6,000 ft.)

4.4

What is a Displaced Threshold and Impacts on Noise

The PPD recommended an extension of Runway 01-19 to a total length of 6,000 ft. The PDD further recommended that the existing landing thresholds on the runway be maintained at their current positions and that pavements be extended from these points as displacements. These new pavements can be used for takeoff purposes in both directions but are not used for landings. The following definition further explains the concept of a displaced threshold: Displaced Threshold: A runway threshold that is located other than at the beginning of the runway, generally designated in order to provide suitable obstacle clearance or to maintain existing arrival paths for landing aircraft. The displaced portion of the runway may still be used for departing aircraft and is marked with large white arrows pointing to the point where pilots should be aiming to land.

19

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


The following exhibits demonstrate how a displaced threshold operates and would appear to pilots using the Kingston Airport Runway 01-19 proposal.

Existing Runway Threshold.

Exhibit A - Existing Runway 19 Threshold – Pilots aim for this Threshold upon Landing

Proposed extension with no change in landing threshold location using a displacement. Arrows point to the existing landing threshold

Exhibit B - Proposed Runway 19 Extension but Landing Threshold Remains Unchanged - Pilots aim for the existing threshold when landing. As a result, the approach profile for an arriving aircraft does not

20

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


change. Note the arrows pointing towards the existing threshold. The portion of runway with the arrows can still be used for takeoff by departing aircraft but is not used for landing. To further illustrate the the appearance of a displaced threshold, the following exhibit shows an actual displaced threshold at the Windsor Airport, ON.

Actual Displaced Threshold at the Windsor Airport, ON. Note the arrows pointing to the landing threshold

Exhibit C – An Example of an Actual Displaced Threshold at the Windsor Airport, ON - This represents a similar configuration to that proposed at both ends of the extended runway at Kingston. The impact of the proposed displaced thresholds at Kingston is one of noise mitigation. As illustrated below, if the thresholds were not displaced, aircraft would arrive along a lower profile resulting in a greater noise footprint along the arrival path. By virtue of the proposed displacements, aircraft will remain at the existing arrival profile mitigating increased noise impacts. The exhibits below only show the arrivals for Runway 19 (northern end of runway) but the same conclusions apply to the other end of the runway. It is further noted that this approach profile would be flown by all aircraft since they are being guided by an electronic and visual aid guidance system ie. ILS and PAPI, both of which are providing a standard 3 degree approach angle.

21

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


Exhibit D (All Aircraft) – The displaced threshold at the north end helps mitigate noise at the north end by resulting in higher approach profiles vs. a non-displaced threshold. If the landing point was at the new runway end, aircraft would be about 11m (36 ft.) lower to the ground making them louder at ground level. All aircraft would follow this profile including piston, jet and turbine type aircraft.

4.5

Noise Mitigation due to Lengthened Runway

The additional length of runway at the south end will also serve to mitigate noise impacts at the north end as a result of aircraft starting their takeoff run further south. As a result, aircraft will depart higher above the ground at the north end of the runway with the new extension to the south during takeoff operations. The following two exhibits illustrate this using the Bombardier Q400 and a narrow-body Embraer Regional Jet.

22

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


Exhibit E (Turbine Aircraft)– Turboprop Q400 Takeoff from south end of runway towards the north with and without the proposed Extension. The Extension results in the aircraft being about 51m (167 ft.) higher at the north end compared to if no extension were constructed.

23

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


Exhibit F(Jet Aircraft) – Small Narrow-body Embraer Regional Jet Takeoff from south end of runway towards the north with and without the proposed Extension. The Extension results in the aircraft being about 32m (105 ft.) higher at the north end compared to if no extension were constructed. Furthermore, due to the higher performance characteristics of these aircraft they will be much higher above the ground than the Q400 turboprops by close to 194m (656 ft.)

24


June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

The northern extension will result in aircraft conducting their power-ups for takeoff closer to the property boundary which will increase the noise impacts off-site for these operations. The NEF model has taken this into consideration. However, the additional runway length will also offer pilots more options for reduce-thrust takeoffs given the increased runway length providing some relief to noise events during takeoff towards the south. Since these mitigations are dependent on each air operator’s standard operating procedures, these reduced thrust events were not specifically modelled in this study. These types of operations can however be encouraged through future consultations with each air operator as part of a noise management strategy at the airport.

4.6

Summary

Attempts have been made to quantify where possible the changes in the 2026 noise exposure contours using the 2012 contours as the baseline for comparison. Table 4-1 presents a quantitative difference between the 25 and 30 NEFs for each scenario while Figure 4-4 presents a comparison between the existing conditions 2012 Planning NEF Contour and the 2026 NEF with the runway extension. Table 4-1 - Summary of NEF Contour Areas Year

Total Area Under the NEF Contour (ha) 25 NEF

30 NEF

2012

220

74

2026 (No Extension)

245

83

2026 (With Extension)

248

85

25

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A


2012 Existing - 30 NEF 2026 Forecast - 30 NEF

2026 Forecast - 25 NEF 2012 Existing - 25 NEF

Figure 4-4 – 2012 Existing Conditions NEF versus 2026 Forecast NEF Contours with 1,071 ft. Extension to Runway 01-19 (6,000 ft.)

26

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A

5.0


CONCLUSIONS

Based on the foregoing, the following conclusions were derived: 

While the NEF modelling confirmed that there would be changes in the noise environment, the changes are not considered significant. The NEF values beyond the airport boundaries are 30 NEF or less and are consistent with previous planning-level noise analysis previously completed. Only a small area at the south end shows the 30 NEF contour crossing into the Front Road right-of-way.



NEF values of 30 or less are generally considered compatible with noise sensitive land uses per Transport Canada TP1247. In the case of Kingston Airport, the marina to the north and surrounding residential properties can expect to remain within the 25 NEF or less and the 25-30 NEF range. According to Transport Canada’s TP1247 these land uses are compatible will the anticipated airport noise levels. The following table provides additional NEF guidance related to outdoor recreational uses including marinas.

27

June 6, 2016 | 161-04694-00, Rev A




The extended runway at the south end helps mitigate noise at the north end by enabling higher aircraft departure profiles at the north end. Furthermore, the displaced threshold at the north end ensures the approach profiles for aircraft landing from the north remain at the same altitude as they do under existing conditions. The extension to the north will not result in aircraft flying lower to the ground than they do today.



Through future noise management consultations with air-operators, additional noise mitigations can be considered including reduced-thrust takeoffs due to the increased runway length.



The following chart shows historical aircraft movements at Kingston from 1984 to 2015. The 2026 forecasted total movements of 44,518 remain below historical values which peaked at 51,151 movements. This combined with newer aircraft technology demonstrates that Kingston has experienced higher noise levels in the past than those forecasted to 2026.

28

Appendix A NEF MODEL INPUT FILES

1

Nef-Calc Airport Movements FLIGHTPATH 01A 01A 01A 01A 01A 01A 01A 01A

Aircraft Code

DHC830 BEC190 CNA441 BEC58P CNA172 C130 CL601

01A 01C 01C

CNA172


01D 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A


07A 07C 07C

30/05/2016

0.86 0.89 0.40 0.25 4.00 0.03 0.07

0.09 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.40 0.00 0.01 0.64

21.68

2.14

21.68

2.14

2.91 3.01 1.34 0.85 6.40 0.10 0.30

0.29 0.30 0.13 0.08 0.63 0.01 0.03

14.91

1.47

0.79 0.82 0.36 0.23 4.53 0.03 0.00

0.08 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.00 0.00

6.77

CNA172

07C 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D

NightTime Events

6.50

01C 01D 01D 01D 01D 01D 01D 01D 01D

DayTime Events


0.67

17.79

1.76

17.79

1.76

0.40 0.41 0.18 0.12 4.00 0.01 0.00

0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.40 0.00 0.00 1

Nef-Calc Airport Movements FLIGHTPATH

Aircraft Code

07D 19A 19A 19A 19A 19A 19A 19A 19A


CNA172


19D 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A


25A 25C 25C

30/05/2016

4.30 4.45 1.98 1.25 10.93 0.15 0.35

0.43 0.44 0.20 0.12 1.08 0.01 0.03 2.32

37.79

3.74

37.79

3.74

1.19 1.23 0.55 0.35 7.20 0.04 0.12

0.12 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.71 0.00 0.01

10.68

1.06

0.66 0.68 0.30 0.19 7.20 0.02 0.00

0.07 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.71 0.00 0.00

9.07

CNA172

25C 25D 25D 25D 25D 25D 25D

0.51

23.41

19C 19D 19D 19D 19D 19D 19D 19D 19D

NightTime Events

5.12

19A 19C 19C

DayTime Events

DHC830 BEC190 CNA441 BEC58P CNA172

0.90

33.90

3.35

33.90

3.35

2.12 2.19 0.97 0.61 9.07

0.21 0.22 0.10 0.06 0.90 2

Nef-Calc Airport Movements FLIGHTPATH 25D 25D 25D Grand Total:

30/05/2016

Aircraft Code C130 CL601

DayTime Events 0.07 0.00

NightTime Events 0.01 0.00

15.04

1.49

202.64

20.04

3

Nef-Calc Airport Movements FLIGHTPATH 01AA 01AA 01AA 01AA 01AA 01AA 01AA 01AA

Aircraft Code


01AA 01C 01C

CNA172


01DD 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A 07A


07A 07C 07C

30/05/2016

1.25 1.13 0.40 0.25 4.25 0.03 0.10

0.12 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.73

23.05

2.28

23.05

2.28

4.24 3.84 1.34 0.85 6.81 0.11 0.43

0.42 0.38 0.13 0.08 0.67 0.01 0.04

17.63

1.74

1.16 1.05 0.37 0.23 4.82 0.03 0.00

0.11 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.48 0.00 0.00

7.65

CNA172

07C 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D 07D

NightTime Events

7.43

01C 01DD 01DD 01DD 01DD 01DD 01DD 01DD 01DD

DayTime Events


0.76

18.91

1.87

18.91

1.87

0.58 0.52 0.18 0.12 4.25 0.02 0.00

0.06 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 1

Nef-Calc Airport Movements FLIGHTPATH

Aircraft Code

07D 19AA 19AA 19AA 19AA 19AA 19AA 19AA 19AA


CNA172


19DD 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A 25A


25A 25C 25C

CNA172

25C 25D 25D 25D 25D 25D 25D

30/05/2016

0.56

6.26 5.67 1.99 1.26 11.63 0.17 0.51

0.62 0.56 0.20 0.12 1.15 0.02 0.05

27.48

19C 19DD 19DD 19DD 19DD 19DD 19DD 19DD 19DD

NightTime Events

5.67

19AA 19C 19C

DayTime Events

DHC830 BEC190 CNA441 BEC58P CNA172

2.72

40.18

3.97

40.18

3.97

1.73 1.57 0.55 0.35 7.66 0.05 0.18

0.17 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.76 0.00 0.02

12.08

1.19

0.96 0.87 0.31 0.19 7.66 0.03 0.00

0.10 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.76 0.00 0.00

10.02

0.99

36.05

3.57

36.05

3.57

3.08 2.79 0.98 0.62 9.64

0.30 0.28 0.10 0.06 0.95 2

Nef-Calc Airport Movements FLIGHTPATH 25D 25D 25D Grand Total:

30/05/2016

Aircraft Code C130 CL601

DayTime Events 0.08 0.00

NightTime Events 0.01 0.00

17.20

1.70

223.34

22.09

3