The city of Beaconsfield has ignored the advice of MTQ engineers and other professionals
Sorry to bring you back to reality
The MTQ advised and suggested a noise barrier in the city of Beaconsfield in 1986, 1987, 2010 and 2015. These opinions were recorded in writing by engineers and other professionals of the MTQ and taken up by the Minister.
In previous exchanges with the mayor and his representatives, they said:
“It is false to claim that in issuing building permits, the City would have ignored advice from the Ministry of Transport or from various professionals” March 24, 2020
Here are the specific references that demonstrate otherwise :
54.1 Regulating the danger zone
The City of Beaconsfield was notified in 1986 that it should regulate the area adjacent to the highway.
“This report also wishes to emphasize the interest that the cities of Pointe-Claire and Beaconsfield would have in regulating residential development along Highway 20, so as to regulate the expansion of residential use in the interior of the area characterized by sound conditions greater than Leq 55 dB(A) ” P.39
This Dec 1986 – Impact study, was written by engineers and other MTQ experts.
Where is the regulation of the city of Beaconsfield following these MTQ recommendations for the purple (> 70 dBA) and red (> 65 dBA) zones along the 20? What requirements has the city placed on permit applicants in these hazardous areas?
Remember that CMHC suggested, as early as 1981, to reduce outside noise below 65 dBA. ”:
“When noise levels are between 55 dB and 75 dB, it is recommended to provide new buildings with adequate soundproofing. In addition, care must be taken [mitigation measures] to provide suitable outdoor amenity where the noise level is 55 dBA or less. »P.58
The conclusions of this CMHC report are incorporated into the Montreal Urban Community Development Plan, to which the city of Beaconsfield belongs.
54.2 Priorities and intentions of the MTQ
The MTQ has been repeating its intention to correct the situation for over 30 years. But “it takes two to dance”.
“These ten (10) sub-sectors, which include single-family residences, appear to be priorities in the search for corrective measures likely to reduce the noise intrusions from Highway 20″ P.26
This Jan 1987 – Study of noise pollution south of the A-20, was written by engineers, urban planners and other professionals from the MTQ
This report then details a MTQ proposal to finance 50-50 corrective measures with the city of Beaconsfield
“The goal is to identify the appropriate acoustic barriers that could be built within the boundaries of the Ministère des Transports in order to reduce the noise disturbance from Highway 20 on the adjacent residential areas. » P.26
In 1998, the MTQ Road Noise Policy which was later cited in the 2010 MTQ noise pollution study and in various communications with the city of Beaconsfield.
“The Ministry of Transport (…) therefore intends, in consultation with the municipalities, to alleviate the main noise pollution problems by implementing corrective measures in areas where the level of outside noise is equal to or greater than 65 dBA Leq, 24 h. » P. 3
The 2010 – Study of noise pollution along the A-20, was written by MTQ engineers
“South of the highway [20], noise levels are generally over 65 decibels over a 24-hour period in the first row of dwellings. » P.33
“(…) The first row of dwellings on the southern edge of Highway 20 is located in an area where the level of noise annoyance is high and mitigation measures can be considered under the Highway Noise Policy for Quebec Department of Transport. » P.33
“Under the road noise policy, the cost of the acoustic barriers required in the case of an existing road can be shared equally with the municipality concerned. » P.33
54.3 Rebuke by the MTQ
The September 2015 meeting with the Minister of Transport, Mr. Robert Poeti provided several examples of non-compliance with MTQ requests and expectations:
“Minister Robert Poëti although critical of Beaconsfield issuing building permits for houses close to the highway would like to work together towards resolving the traffic noise issues. He challenged those present at the meeting to agree this morning to a course of action and avoid lawyers getting involved.” P.2
We see no sign that the city is working in concert with the [MTQ] to ensure these target dates are met. (…) During the September 3, 2015 meeting with the former MTQ Minister Poeti, he reminded you, Mayor Bourelle, that Beaconsfield had been remiss in its obligations to its citizens, and gave you photographs as proof. »
54.4 A problem recognized by the city
The council of the city of Beaconsfield initiated and knew of these reports. It also unanimously adopted several resolutions to this effect, including, among others:
- CA04 040619 “dated December 21, 2004 to request the Ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ) to conduct a noise pollution study within the limits of the Beaconsfield-Baie-D’Urfé borough”
- 2010-11-427 “on Nov 22, 2010 Request to the MTQ for the construction of a sound barrier along highway 20 at no cost to residents”
- 2012-08-793 “on August 20, 2012 “Request to the MTQ to reduce the speed limit on highway 20 from 100 km/h to 70 km/h in the City’s sector and to install photo radars “
This last resolution referred to the 95-page MTQ report of October 2010 “Noise pollution study” which indicates that at least 726 residences in Beaconsfield are afflicted with noise levels greater than 55 dBA and that for 227 residences, the level of noise exceeds 65 decibels.
The mayor has publicly acknowledged the pollution problems along the highway “Which has serious consequences on people’s quality of life and health. “.
But the city’s response is always the same: yes to the barriers but at no cost to the city…
54.5 Conclusion the city ignored the advice from the MTQ and professionals
We have demonstrated that the city of Beaconsfield has ignored the advice of MTQ engineers and other professionals. The city has maintained its decision to refuse to pay to protect the health and quality of life of thousands of its residents in the polluted corridor.
54.6 Liability without fault
Since the beginning of this saga, the city of Beaconsfield has argued that it does not want to pay to protect its citizens. We have not seen it in writing, but it is likely that the city bases its position on its disclaimer in this matter. Something like “we don’t have to pay because it wasn’t our decision.” After more than 30 years of letting your citizens suffer, can’t you open your position a little bit to protect the health of one third of your population?
First, remember that many cities in Quebec have already agreed to pay 50% (not 25%) of the cost of noise barriers on their territory without looking for those responsible.
We have already mentioned that the Civil Code adds a second so-called “faultless liability” protection to general liability based on fault. In fact, on November 20, 2008 the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that citizens have the right to bring a class action for “abnormal or excessive” nuisances even if these nuisances are authorized by law. Ciment Saint Laurent was thus ordered to pay more than 15 million to the citizens of Beauport.
Authors here (page 8) and here (page 8) propose the notion of “compensatory equity” which
The notion of compensatory equity is increasingly being taken into account in methods of evaluating the social impacts of transportation projects (Geurs et al., 2009; Thomopolous et al., 2009). The overall idea is that individuals disproportionately affected by a transportation project should be compensated by those benefiting the most from the project (Thomopolous et al., 2009). An approach of this kind could be relevant in mitigating impacts related to road transportation around.
In this case, such a morally grounded approach would be adapted so that ALL taxpayers participate in mitigating the impacts linked to road transport in the city, and not only those who suffer.
54.7 They were promised
Finally, during our meetings with the citizens living in the newly built houses along the 20 (old Esso garage and garden center), the majority of the owners told us that the developer of their house had told them that a noise barrier would be soon to be built. This, of course, does not engage the responsibility of the city, since it is not based on signed agreements, but it demonstrates the preoccupation of buyers BEFORE signing and their expectations today unfulfilled.