draft design report/draft eis/draft section 4(f ......route 347 noise technical report june 2006...

175
DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION PIN 0054.05.103 NY Route 347 Safety and Mobility Improvement Project Northern State Parkway to NY Route 25A Towns of Smithtown, Islip & Brookhaven Suffolk County July 2006 Noise Technical Report Volume II, Appendix I U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEORGE E. PATAKI, Governor, THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., Commissioner

Upload: others

Post on 26-Sep-2020

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFTEIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F)

EVALUATION

PIN 0054.05.103NY Route 347 Safety and Mobility Improvement

Project

Northern State Parkway to NY Route 25ATowns of Smithtown, Islip & Brookhaven

Suffolk County

July 2006

Noise Technical Report

Volume II, Appendix I

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONGEORGE E. PATAKI, Governor, THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., Commissioner

Page 2: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 1C. NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA.................................................................................................... 2D. NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY............................................................................................ 3

1. Noise Receptor Areas ..................................................................................................................... 32. Noise Measurement Program.......................................................................................................... 53. Comparison of Noise Measurements to Modeled Sound Levels....................................................... 8

E. IMPACT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 101. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 112. No-Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... 113. Build Alternative .......................................................................................................................... 11

F. NOISE ABATEMENT ANALYSIS................................................................................................. 12G. RECOMMENDATION................................................................................................................... 15H. PARALLEL BARRIER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 16I. CONSTRUCTION NOISE................................................................................................................ 19

Exhibits

Exhibit A - Maps 1 through 18 – Noise Measurement Locations, Noise Impacts, and Noise Contours for Existing, No-Build, and Build conditions

Exhibit B - TNM Traffic Data

Exhibit C - Computed Sound Levels – Existing, No-Build, Build

Exhibit D - Maps 19 through 36 – Analyzed Noise Barriers and Noise Contours for the Build with Recommended Barriers condition

Exhibit E - Noise Barrier Insertion Loss for each Analyzed Barrier

Exhibit F - Parallel Barrier Analysis Output

Page 3: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Common Noise Levels.............................................................................................................. 2Table 2. FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria.............................................................................................. 3Table 3. Land Use Activity Locations..................................................................................................... 3Table 4. Institutional Noise Receptors .................................................................................................... 5Table 5. Long-Term Measurements – Hourly Sound Levels (dBA, Leq) ................................................. 6Table 6. Short-term Measurement Data................................................................................................... 7Table 7. Measured Sound Levels Compared to Modeled Sound Levels ................................................... 9Table 8. Summary of Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................... 11Table 9. Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis ........................................................................................ 13Table 10. Summary of Recommended Noise Barriers ........................................................................... 15Table 11. Summary of Parallel Barrier Analysis ................................................................................... 16Table 12. Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment................................................................. 19

Page 4: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 1

A. INTRODUCTION

The Noise Technical Report supplements the Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation prepared for the Route 347 Safety and Mobility Improvement Project fromNorthern State Parkway in Smithtown to Route 25A in Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York. The NY Route 347 Project involves the reconstruction of the 24-kilometer (15-mile) highway from the Northern State Parkway to Route 25A, including new on/off ramps on Northern State Parkway at New Highway, to improve traffic safety and mobility. The work includes roadway widening, interchange construction, retaining walls, and new traffic signals with interconnections. Bridge construction is planned for westbound NY Route 454 over NY Route 347 (as an alternative to retaining the at-grade intersection), NY Route 25 (Middle Country Road) over NY Route 347, and NY Route 347 over Nicolls Road (CR 97).

The proposed improvements to NY Route 347 constitute a Type I project according to 23 CFR 772, which is eligible for noise abatement should noise impacts occur. A noise study was conducted pursuant to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NYSDOT guidelines to determine if noise receptors located on developed land (including residential and non-residential) would be impacted by the increased traffic noise associated with the project. For impacted receptors, abatement measures were evaluated and then tested for feasibility and reasonableness. The study included the following tasks:

� Identify existing land uses and activities within the study area;� Determine existing noise levels;� Predict what the future design-year noise levels would be if the project were built (Build

Alternative) and if it were not built (No-Build Alternative);� Compare future design-year noise levels (Build and No-Build) with existing levels and with

FHWA noise abatement criteria to determine traffic noise impacts;� Investigate various types of noise abatement that might be used to reduce or eliminate traffic

noise impacts if the project is built; and,� Identify noise-impacted areas for which noise abatement is feasible and reasonable.

B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Environmental noise is defined as the sound in a community emanating from man-made sources such as automobiles, trucks, buses, aircraft, trains, and fixed industrial sources or natural sources such as animals and wind. Sound levels are measured in logarithmic units called decibels (dB). An overall measurement of sound results in a single decibel value that describes the sound environment, taking all frequencies (pitches) into account. The human ear, however, does not sense all frequencies in the same manner. The “A”-weighted scale (expressed in dBA units) was developed to closely approximate the human sensory response from highway-related noise. The descriptor used to express noise levels for project assessment purposes is the equivalent noise level, Leq. The Leq is the logarithmic average of the varying sound levels during a defined period of time, normally one hour.

Under normal conditions, a change of three decibels is required for the average person to perceive a difference in noise levels without the use of instruments. Examples of the magnitude of individual change in traffic volume, traffic speed, or distance from the noise source to the receptor necessary to result in a 3 dBA change are:

� a doubling of hourly traffic volumes, with no change in speed,� a change in vehicular speeds of 15 miles per hour, with no change in volume, or� a one-third to one-half reduction in the distance between traffic and receptor.

Page 5: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 2

Public reaction to noise levels is a function of location (urban, suburban, rural), time of day, fluctuation of noise levels, duration, and individual judgment of the listener. Usually, a decrease of 10 decibels appears to the listener to be a halving of the noise, while an increase of 10 decibels appears to be a doubling of the noise. For reference and orientation to the decibel scale, representative environmental noises and their respective dBA levels are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Common Noise Levels

Common Outdoor NoisesSound Pressure

Level (dBA)Common Indoor Noises

Jet Flyover 110 Rock Band at 5 meters

Gas lawnmower at 1 meter100

Inside NYC Subway Train

Diesel truck at 15 meters 90 Food blender at 1 metersGarbage disposal at 1 meters

Noisy urban setting – daytime 80Shouting at 1 meters

Gas lawnmower at 30 metersCommercial area

70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 metersNormal speech at 1 meters

60Large business office

Quiet urban setting – daytime 50 Dishwasher – next roomSmall theater

Quiet urban setting – nighttimeQuiet suburban setting-nighttime

40 Large conference room

Quiet rural – nighttime30 Bedroom at night

Large concert hall (background)20

Broadcast and recording studio10

Threshold of hearing0

Source: New York State Department of Transportation Materials Bureau, Field Measurement of Existing Noise Levels, 1985.

C. NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) shown in Table 2 has been established by the FHWA to identify noise impacts from highway projects. Developed from research data, they represent acceptable maximumdesirable noise levels for various land uses and associated human activities.

Federal regulation 23 CFR 772 states that: “Noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria levels, or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels”. “Approach” is defined as 1 dBA less than the NAC. The FHWA has left the definition of substantial increase to the states. NYSDOT has defined a substantial impact as increases of 6 dBA or more. Both the “approach” level and the incremental 6 dBA criteria were used to assess the noise impact of the project.

Page 6: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 3

Table 2. FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria

Activity

Category

FHWA

NACDescription of Activity

A57

(exterior)

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B67

(exterior)Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

C72

(exterior)Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Categories A or B above.

D -- Undeveloped lands.

E52

(interior)Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Source: Title 23 CFR 772.

D. NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

1. Noise Receptor Areas

The entire corridor was broken down into noise receptor areas based upon their activity categories using land use maps, aerial photography and field visits. Land uses adjacent to the corridor encompass FHWA land use activity categories B and C. Forty-nine NRAs were identified, twenty-five of which werepredominantly residential. The boundaries of each NRA are shown on Maps 1 through 18 in Exhibit A and described in Table 3.

Table 3. Land Use Activity Locations

NRA Land UseActivity

Category

Type and Approximate

Number of UsesLocation

A1 Residential/Park B 70 residences, 1 park WB, New Highway to Route 454

A2 Office C 4 office buildings EB, west of New Highway

B1 Residential B88 residences, 2 private schools

WB, White Oak Drive to Old Willets Path

B2 Office C 5 office buildings WB, east of Old Willets Path

B3 Residential B 188 residencesEB, New Highway to Old Willets Path

B4 Office C 1 office building EB, east of Old Willets Path

C1 Parkland BBlydenburgh Park/Bill Richards Park

WB, east of County Center Road

C2 Residential B 19 residences WB, South Gate

C3 Residential B 12 residences EB, Northfield Road

C4 Office C Veteran’s War MemorialEB, Simeon Woods Road/State Office Bldg

C5 Residential B 6 residences EB, School House Lane

D1 Residential B146 residences, 1 private school, 7 commercial buildings

WB, Brooksite Drive to Helen Ave.

D2 Commercial/Residential C/B4 residences, 1 cemetery/church, 16commercial buildings

EB, Route 454 to Route 111

D3 Residential B93 residences, 3 commercial buildings

EB, Route 111 to Mt. Pleasant Road

Page 7: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 4

Table 3. Land Use Activity Locations (continued)

NSA Land UseActivity

CategoryLocation

D4 Residential B 119 residences EB, Hidden Ponds Complex

E1 Residential B50 residences, 5 commercial buildings

WB, Helen Avenue to Terry Road

E2 Commercial/Residential C/B38 residences, 6 commercial buildings

WB, Terry Road to Town Commons Road

E3 Residential B55 residences, 3 commercial buildings

EB, Helen Avenue to Terry Road

E4 Commercial/Residential C/B13 residences, 1 nursing home, 16 commercial buildings

EB, Terry Road to Southern Boulevard

F1 Commercial/Industrial C8 commercial/industrial buildings

WB, Southern Boulevard to Route 25

F2 Residential B62 residences, 1 commercial building

WB, Lake Avenue to Route 25

F3 Residential B 172 residencesEB, Southern Boulevard to Route 25

G1 Residential B36 residences, 7 commercial buildings

WB, Route 25 to Alexander Avenue

H1 Residential (Proposed) B NoneWB, Alexander Avenue to Moriches Road

H2 Commercial/Residential C/B37 residences, 27 commercial buildings

WB, Moriches Road to Lakeside Avenue

H3 Residential B 62 residencesWB, Lakeside Avenue to Nicolls Road

H4 Residential B 27 residencesWB, Nicolls Road to Pond Path Drive

H5 Commercial/Residential C/B21 residences, 12 commercial buildings

EB, Route 25 to Hallock Road

H6 Residential/Commercial B/C136 residences, 5 commercial buildings

EB, Hallock Road to Nicolls Road

I1 Residential B37 residences, 3 commercial buildings

WB, Pond Path Drive to Belle Mead Road

I2 Commercial/Industrial C5 commercial/industrial buildings

WB, Belle Mead Road

I3 Commercial/Residential C/B9 residences, 5 commercial buildings

EB, Nicolls Road to Mark Tree Road

I4 Residential B 43 residences EB, Mark Tree Road

J1 Parkland BSouth Setauket Woods Nature Preserve

WB, Wireless Road

J2 Commercial C 6 commercial buildings WB, Arrowhead Lane

J3 Residential B 70 residencesWB, Apartments west of Old Town Road

J4 Residential B178 residences, 1 nursing home, 2 office buildings

EB, Wireless Road to Old Town Road

K1 Residential B51 residences, 6 commercial buildings

WB, Old Town Road to Woodhull Avenue

K2 Commercial/Residential C/B2 residences, 8 commercial buildings

WB, Woodhull Avenue to Norwood Avenue

K3 Residential B 8 residencesWB, Norwood Avenue to Terryville Road

K4 Commercial C 8 commercial buildings WB, Terryville Road to Route 112

Page 8: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 5

Table 3. Land Use Activity Locations (continued)

NSA Land UseActivity

CategoryLocation

K5 Residential B170 residences, 14 commercial buildings, 1 church

EB, Old Town Road to

K6 Commercial C 6 commercial buildings EB, west of Terryville Road

K7 Commercial/Residential C/B28 residences, 10 commercial buildings

EB, Terryville Road to Route 112

L1 Residential B93 residences, 9 commercial buildings

WB, Route 112 to Crystal Brook Hollow Road

L2 Commercial/Residential C/B5 residences, 5 commercial buildings

WB, Route 25A

L3 Commercial C11 commercial/industrial buildings

EB, Route 112 to Davis Avenue

L4 Residential B 54 residencesEB, Davis Avenue to Crystal Brook Hollow Rd

L5 Commercial C 8 commercial buildings EB, Route 25ASource: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006

Additionally, individual institutional noise receptors such as schools, churches, nursing homes, noisesensitive parks and preserved natural areas within the project area were identified and are described in Table 4.

Table 4. Institutional Noise Receptors

NSA Receptor ID Name Use

A1 A1/A2 Hoyt Farm Town Park Recreation

B1 B21/B22Solomon Schecter Day School and

Menorah Day School of Suffolk County Private School

C1 C2 Blydenburgh Park/Bill Richards Park Recreation

C4 C28 Veteran’s War Memorial Recreation

C4 C29 Phoenix House Rehabilitation

D1 D112-D114 Ivy League School, Inc. Private School

D2 D138 Hauppauge Methodist Church Religious

E4 F32 Nesconset Nursing Home Assisted Living

F3 F45 Living Word Full Gospel Church Religious

J1 J166 South Setauket Woods Nature Preserve Recreation

J4 J196-J203 Jefferson’s Ferry Lifecare Retirement Community Assisted Living

J4 J209/J210 Senior Quarters at Centereach Assisted Living

K5 K2/K4 Christ Church United Methodist ReligiousSource: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006

2. Noise Measurement Program

Long-term, or 16-hour, monitoring was performed to examine the characteristics of the existing noise. Three locations were selected to cover the western (Site 1), central (Site 2), and eastern (Site 3) portions of the project area. These locations are shown on Maps 4, 7, and 14 in Exhibit A. Overall, the average hourly sound levels remain generally constant during the day and evening, with sound levels increasing around 5AM and decreasing around 11PM. During this period the sound levels are generally steady,

Page 9: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 6

varying no more than 3 dBA at Sites 2 and 3, and 5 dBA at Site 1, and only begin to noticeably decrease after 11PM. Hourly readings are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Long-Term Measurements – Hourly Sound Levels (dBA, Leq)

Time Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

12:00 AM 64 62 58

1:00 AM 62 60 56

2:00 AM 61 59 53

3:00 AM 62 59 54

4:00 AM 66 60 58

5:00 AM 70 64 61

6:00 AM 73 67 64

7:00 AM 72 67 63

8:00 AM 70 67 63

9:00 AM 70 67 63

10:00 AM 68 67 62

11:00 AM 69 67 62

12:00 PM 68 67 63

1:00 PM 69 67 63

2:00 PM 69 67 62

3:00 PM 69 67 61

4:00 PM 69 66 61

5:00 PM 70 64 60

6:00 PM 70 66 62

7:00 PM 70 67 N/A

8:00 PM 70 66 63

9:00 PM N/A 65 61

10:00 PM N/A 64 61

11:00 PM 69 64 59

Leq 69 65 61 Source: Konheim & Ketcham, 2004

Additional monitoring with concurrent traffic counts was performed for shorter 20-minute time periods, to obtain data to compare measured sound levels with modeled sound levels to ensure that the modeling was performed correctly. Twenty-minute measurements were taken at 79 locations throughout the project corridor. These locations are shown on Maps 1 through 18 in Exhibit A and the data is shown in Table 6.

Page 10: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 7

Table 6. Short-term Measurement Data

Site Number Distance from 347 (ft) 1st reading (dBA) 2nd reading (dBA)

M1A 200 65 N/A

M1 40 66 65

M2 60 67 67

M3 55 67 64

M4 50 65 66

M5 13 68 67

M6 500 49 51

M7 400 59 55

M8 66 69 65

M9 25 69 69

M10 55 70 69

M11 77 71 69

M12 120 65 64

M13 100 68 68

M14 75 69 68

M15 350 57 59

M16 160 63 62

M17 25 68 68

M18 125 64 66

M19 200 61 61

M20 220 59 60

M21 40 69 69

M22 30 68 67

M23 35 65 66

M24 40 67 68

M25 125 62 63

M26 160 61 60

M27 90 61 61

M27A 400 50 52

M28 60 67 69

M29 100 63 62

M31 200 59 57

M32 194 56 57

M33 200 52 53

M34 40 72 71

M35 42 70 69

M36 40 65 65

M37 500 52 51

M38 86 66 65

M39 100 62 63

M40 100 65 67

M41 30 66 65

M42 100 63 65

M43 100 53 52

Page 11: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 8

Table 6. Short-term Measurement Data (continued)

Site NumberDistance

From 347 (ft)

1st reading

(dBA)

2nd reading

(dBA)

M44 150 60 60

M46 48 66 64

M47 120 59 58

M48 600 53 53

M49 62 62 61

M50 65 66 67

M51 37 68 68

M52 40 64 66

M53 68 65 64

M54 300 57 56

M55 60 67 67

M56 100 59 60

M57 100 60 56

M58 50 60 61

M59 200 56 57

M61 42 68 69

M62 150 52 54

M63 150 63 59

M64 120 63 63

M65 200 63 64

M66 40 65 63

M67 70 66 67

M68 30 69 68

M69 180 56 57

M70 80 66 66

M71 400 49 50

M72 15 67 67

M73 35 64 64

M73A 110 58 58

M74 50 61 60

M75 40 66 65

M75A 120 60 58

Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006

3. Comparison of Noise Measurements to Modeled Sound Levels

To ensure accuracy of the use of the noise model, the traffic data collected during field measurements was entered into the model and the resulting modeled noise levels were compared with the measured noise levels. This was to ensure that changes between existing and future conditions were due solely to changes in roadway and/or traffic conditions and did not erroneously reflect discrepancies due to modeling input and measurement techniques. Generally, the difference between the measured and modeled traffic noise levels should be within 3 dBA. The measured sound levels as well as the modeled sound levels are shown in Table 6. For all of the measured sites, the model predicted traffic noise levels were within 3dBA of the measured traffic noise levels; indicating that the model may be used to accurately calculate traffic noise levels within the study area.

Page 12: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 9

Table 7. Measured Sound Levels Compared to Modeled Sound Levels

1st Reading Sound Levels 2nd reading Sound Levels

Measurement SiteMeasured Modeled Difference Measured Modeled Difference

1A 65 66 -1 N/A N/A

1 66 67 -1 65 63 2

2 67 65 2 67 64 3

3 67 65 2 64 64 0

4 65 66 -1 66 68 -2

5 68 65 3 67 65 2

6 49 52 -3 51 51 0

7 59 56 3 55 53 2

8 69 66 3 65 66 -1

9 69 68 1 69 71 -2

10 70 70 0 69 71 -2

11 71 70 1 69 71 -2

12 65 65 0 64 66 -2

13 68 68 0 68 68 0

14 69 71 -2 68 69 -1

15 57 58 -1 59 56 3

16 63 62 1 62 63 -1

17 68 67 1 68 69 -1

18 64 63 1 66 65 1

19 61 60 1 61 60 1

20 59 62 -3 60 62 -2

21 69 71 -2 69 72 -3

22 68 67 1 67 67 0

23 65 68 -3 66 69 -3

24 67 69 -2 68 69 -1

25 62 65 -3 63 65 -2

26 61 62 -1 60 63 -3

27 61 61 0 61 63 -2

27A 50 53 -3 52 55 -3

28 67 70 -3 69 70 -1

29 63 60 3 62 63 -1

31 59 57 2 57 57 0

32 56 58 -2 57 58 -1

33 52 51 1 53 52 1

34 72 72 0 71 73 -2

35 70 70 0 69 70 -1

36 65 63 2 65 64 1

37 52 53 -1 51 51 0

38 66 65 1 65 68 -3

39 62 63 -1 63 63 0

40 65 66 -1 67 67 0

41 66 65 1 65 66 -1

42 63 65 -2 65 67 -2

43 53 54 -1 52 53 -1

Page 13: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 10

Table 7. Measured Sound Levels Compared to Modeled Sound Levels (continued)

1st Reading Sound Levels 2nd reading Sound LevelsMeasurement Site

Measured Modeled Difference Measured Modeled Difference

44 60 63 -3 60 63 -3

46 66 64 2 64 63 1

47 59 59 0 58 58 0

48 53 55 -2 53 56 -3

49 62 63 -1 61 63 -2

50 66 65 1 67 65 2

51 68 68 0 68 69 -1

52 64 64 0 66 65 1

53 65 63 2 64 62 2

54 57 59 -2 56 57 -1

55 67 69 -2 67 70 -3

56 59 58 1 60 60 0

57 60 58 2 56 55 1

58 60 61 -1 61 59 2

59 56 56 0 57 55 2

61 68 68 0 69 72 -3

62 52 52 0 54 56 -2

63 63 64 -1 59 61 -2

64 63 66 -3 63 62 1

65 63 62 1 64 61 3

66 65 68 -3 63 65 -2

67 66 67 -1 67 66 1

68 69 68 1 68 68 0

69 56 59 -3 57 60 -3

70 66 66 0 66 63 3

71 49 52 -3 50 52 -2

72 67 65 2 67 68 -1

73 64 66 -2 64 65 -1

73.5 58 58 0 58 58 0

74 61 64 -3 60 60 0

75 66 66 0 65 66 -1

75.5 60 61 -1 58 61 -3Source: Konheim & Ketcham, 2004 and Edwards and Kelcey, 2004

E. IMPACT ANALYSIS

To predict traffic noise levels at varying distances from the project roadway, a total of 1496 points wereinput into the model. These locations are shown on Maps 1 through 18 in Exhibit A.

In addition to changes in the roadway and distances between the roadway and receptor, traffic noise levels are heavily dependent upon traffic volumes, speed, and composition. Following is a description of the data that was used in the TNM model.

Page 14: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 11

� Volumes – Existing (2004), No-Build (2035), and Build Alternative (2035) traffic volumes for Route 347 and the intersecting roadways were obtained from the traffic study discussed in Chapter III. The volumes for each roadway are provided in Table B-1 in Exhibit B.

� Speeds – Conservative (noisier) traffic speeds were used in the model - the highest speeds expected given the peak hour volume of traffic on the roadway. 50 mph was used for the mainline traffic on Route 347, and 25 mph was used for the intersecting local streets.

� Composition - The average composition that was observed for cars, medium trucks, and heavy trucks during the peak hour of the traffic data collection program was used to model the existing, no build and build conditions: 98% passenger vehicles, 1.2% medium trucks (typically 2 axles), and 0.8% heavy trucks (typically 3 or more axles). This composition mix was used for all roadways in the model.

1. Existing Conditions

Traffic volumes for 2004, with their associated speed and composition were entered into the model to yield predicted existing traffic noise levels. Existing modeled sound levels range between 50 and 74 dBA (Refer to Table C-1 in Exhibit C). Maps 1 through 18 in Exhibit A show the noise contour lines for 66 dBA and 71 dBA for the existing, no-build, and build conditions. Residences and parks within the 66 dBA contour line and commercial facilities with outdoor uses within the 71 dBA contour line would beconsidered to be above the Noise Abatement Criteria. A total of 442 properties would approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria - 389 residences, 6 institutional facilities, and 47 non-residential/institutional facilities (Refer to Table 8).

Table 8. Summary of Noise Impacts

Exceedances of NAC Existing No-Build Build

Residences 389 408 491

Institutional Facilities 6 6 6

Parks 0 0 1

Non-Residential/Institutional 47 65 92

Total Number of Properties 442 479 590 Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006.

2. No-Build Alternative

No-Build Alternative volumes for the year 2035 were entered into the model of the existing roadway to yield predicted traffic noise levels for the No-Build Alternative. No-Build modeled sound levels range between 50 and 75 dBA. A total of 479 properties would approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria - 408 residences, 6 institutional facilities, and 65 non-residential/institutional facilities.

3. Build Alternative

Build volumes for the year 2035 were entered into the model and the design of the roadway was modified to reflect the proposed improvements to yield predicted traffic noise levels for the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative modeled sound levels range between 50 and 76 dBA. A total of 590 properties would approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria - 491 residences, 6 institutional facilities, 1 park and 92 non-residential/institutional facilities.

Page 15: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 12

F. NOISE ABATEMENT ANALYSIS

Possible noise abatement measures, as required by 23 CFR 772.13 (c)(1) include traffic management measures, alteration of the alignment, buffer zones, noise insulation, and noise barriers.

Traffic management measures which are effective in reducing traffic noise include prohibiting truck traffic or limiting trucks to specific hours, and reducing speed limits. Prohibiting truck traffic would negatively impact the commercial areas since Route NY 347 is a commercial roadway with businesses, to which trucks make regular deliveries. In order to achieve a noticeable reduction in noise from speeds, the speed limit would need to be decreased by approximately 33 kilometers per hour (20 mph). This reduction would inhibit traffic flow on the roadway and would not meet the project's goal of improving capacity, mobility and travel time reliability by developing an efficient highway improvement that provides congestion relief while maintaining existing traffic patterns.

Alteration of the alignment, either horizontally or vertically is an abatement technique; however, the design of the roadway is limited by the existing alignment, while also trying to minimize the number of displacements and takings of private property.

Buffer zones, which are undeveloped open spaces bordering a highway, would be very costly and disruptive to the community, as it would potentially require the taking of many dwelling units. To reduce the noise level by 10 dBA, a buffer zone would need to be 61 meters (200 feet) of undeveloped land.

Noise insulation of structures, which includes sealing windows, is only available to public schools.

Noise barriers are structures erected within the right-of-way, and can be either a vertical wall made of concrete, masonry, steel, or wood, or an earth berm. Noise barriers are the most common method to reduce or eliminate traffic noise impacts for several reasons: construction is limited to only where there is an impact, the goals of the project would not be compromised by slowing traffic or restricting access, and the noise levels at neighboring land uses would be reduced by 5 to 10 dBA, or more.

Noise barriers were considered for each noise sensitive area that would be impacted by the traffic noiseassociated with the project. However, the abatement measures need to be both feasible and reasonable.

According to the NYSDOT Noise Analysis Policy, to be feasible, the traffic noise barrier should strive for a reduction of 10 dBA or more, and must achieve a minimum of 7 dBA reduction in traffic noise at the location with the greatest reduction. Also included in feasibility is the continuity of a barrier. Largeopenings to accommodate land use access, cross streets, and maintenance access break the barrier, and allow noise to reach receptors unattenuated. A barrier requiring several breaks would likely not be able to obtain a substantial reduction in noise levels. In addition, as a rule of thumb, noise barriers are not usually analyzed or constructed for single residences.

For a traffic noise barrier to be reasonable, the cost per benefited receptor should be at or below the FHWA designated cost, which is currently $50,000. A receptor is considered to be benefited if there is a reduction of 5 dBA or more at a point where frequent human use occurs and a reduction in sound levelswould be beneficial. The cost of the barrier is determined by multiplying the surface area of the proposed barrier by $37.50 per square foot for reflective barriers, and by $46.50 per square foot for absorptive barriers. This total cost is then divided by the number of benefited receptors. If the cost per benefited receptor is $50,000 or less the barrier would be considered reasonable. However, this limit is subject to FHWA designation and may be raised in the future.

Page 16: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 13

Fifty-nine noise barriers were studied to determine the feasibility and reasonableness of abating the traffic noise impacts. The barriers were then analyzed to determine if they could effectively reduce the traffic noise level at the impacted receptors, and then if the cost for each barrier was reasonable, given the number of residences that it would be predicted to benefit. Each of these barrier design options is described in Table 9 and shown on Maps 19 through 36 in Exhibit D.

Table 9. Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis

Barrier Data

Sound Level Leq (dBA) at Benefited

Receivers Barrier Cost Data

Barrier ID Length (m)

Best

Analyzed

Height (m) No Barrier With Barrier

Typical

Insertion

Loss Total

Residences

Benefited

Cost per

Residence

A1 1057 7 53-68 51-60 7 $2,989,196 38 $78,663

B1 1335 7 54-74 51-61 8 $3,775,380 38 $99,352

B2 310 4 52-75 50-68 7 $500,960 9 $55,662

B3 161 4 60-75 59-74 8 $260,176 10 $26,018

B4 149 4 63-73 63-68 9 $240,784 3 $80,261

C1 55 7 66 70- 4 Not feasible - -

C2 97 4 69-74 64-71 7 $156,752 3 $52,251

C3 73 7 63-74 61-70 5 Not feasible - -

C4 - Option 1A 199 4 57-69 55-62 8 $321,584 4 $80,396

C4 - Option 1B 199 4 57-69 56-63 8 $321,584 4 $80,396

C5 - Option 1A 231 6 59-71 55-59 7 $559,944 4 $139,986

C5 - Option 1B 231 6 59-71 56-60 6 $559,944 4 $139,986

D1 447 5 58-72 55-69 8 $902,940 9 $100,327

D2 243 6 56-75 51-72 9 $589,032 16 $36,815

D3 479 6 59-74 54-71 10 $1,439,515* 41 $35,110*

D4 449 6 60-76 54-65 11 $1,349,358* 31 $43,528*

D5 277 6 58-73 55-73 8 $671,448 31 $55,954

D6 132 7 58-75 56-70 5 Not feasible - -

D8 490 5 56-74 54-72 11 $989,800 37 $26,751

E1 92 4 60-73 58-63 5 $148,672* 3 $49,557*

E3 297 4 62-74 57-66 9 $479,952* 15 $39,669*

E2 102 4 71-75 67- 8 $164,832 1 $164,832

E4 276 4 60-75 57-73 8 $552,966* 14 $39,498*

E6 73 4 60-71 59-63 8 $117,968 1 $117,968

E7 148 4 60-74 58-74 5 $239,168 3 $79,723

F1 172 4 60-74 57-65 9 $277,952 4 $69,488

F2 204 4 59-73 57-64 9 $329,664 7 $47,095

F3 141 4 61-76 58-76 9 $227,856 4 $56,964

F5 170 4 59-74 58-74 8 $274,720 5 $54,944

F6 319 4 57-73 56-65 7 $515,504 9 $57,278

F8 67 7 57-66 54-63 3 Not feasible - -

F9 51 7 59-72 55-66 6 Not feasible - -

F10 246 4 59-73 56-72 11 $397,536 7 $56,791

Page 17: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 14

Table 9. Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis

Barrier Data

Sound Level Leq (dBA) at Benefited

Receivers Barrier Cost Data

Barrier ID Length (m)

Best

Analyzed

Height (m) No Barrier With Barrier

Typical

Insertion

Loss Total

Residences

Benefited

Cost per

Residence

F11 554 4 56-74 52-68 9 $895,264 22 $40,694

G1 192 4 59-73 57-64 8 $310,272 3 $103,424

G2 384 4 57-75 52-71 9 $620,544 14 $44,325

G3 658 4 58-72 53-60 7 $1,063,328 28 $37,976

H2 240 4 60-70 56-62 7 $387,840 5 $77,568

H3 74 7 58-69 57-63 6 Not feasible - -

H4 102 4 58-71 57-65 9 $164,832 1 $164,832

H5 49 7 59-73 58-73 3 Not feasible - -

H6 142 4 56-75 56-70 8 $229,472 4 $57,368

H7 – All Options 1037 4 50-74 50-65 11 $1,675,792** 34 $49,288**

H8 138 4 56-75 54-64 11 $276,483 3 $92,161*

H9 – All Options 761 4 54-73 51-67 10 $1,384,776* 30 $46,159*

I1 369 4 52-73 50-73 8 $596,304 6 $99,384

I2 601 5 50-73 50-63 8 $1,214,020 21 $57,810

I3 290 6 58-71 57-64 11 $702,960 10 $70,296

J1 252 4 59-72 57-72 8 $407,232 10 $40,723

J4 401 4 50-73 44-70 10 $648,016 21 $30,858

J5 193 4 53-71 52-71 6 $311,888 3 $103,963

K1 101 4 60-73 58-71 5 $163,216 3 $54,405

K2 115 4 60-73 57-65 8 $185,840 2 $92,920

K4 106 7 59-69 56-64 5 Not feasible - -

K6 86 4 58-74 56-66 6 $138,976 2 $69,488

K9 60 4 62-73 61-70 2 Not feasible - -

K10 155 5 59-70 58-63 6 $313,100 3 $104,367

L1 89 4 58-69 56-62 7 $143,824 1 $143,824

L2 63 7 62-72 60-70 2 Not feasible - -

L3 148 4 54-70 54-63 6 $296,518* 10 $29,652*

L5 82 7 61 59 2 Not feasible - -

L4 446 4 57-72 52-70 8 $763,942* 18 $42,441*

L7 94 7 59-68 57-62 5 Not feasible - -

Note: Barriers shown in bold-type are recommended for consideration during final design.

* Due to parallel barriers, cost for absorptive material, $9 per square foot, was added to the barrier cost.** Without absorptive material to Barrier H9 there is minimal degradation to the residents behind Barrier H7. Barrier H7 was analyzed with absorptive material to minimize the degradation to the residents behind Barrier H9. The cost of the absorptive material for Barrier H7 was added to the cost of Barrier H9.

Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006.

Page 18: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 15

G. RECOMMENDATION

Based upon this analysis, the Department recommends the noise barriers described in Table 10. With these barriers in place, 361 residences would be benefited.

Table 10. Summary of Recommended Noise Barriers

Barrier Data Barrier Cost Data at $37.5/sq.ft.

Barrier IDLength

(m)

BestAnalyzed

Height (m)

TypicalInsertion

Loss (dBA)Total

ResidencesBenefited

Cost per Residence

B3 161 4 8 $260,176 10 $26,018

D2 243 6 9 $589,032 16 $36,815

D3 479 6 10 $1,439,515* 41 $35,110*

D4 449 6 11 $1,349,358* 31 $43,528*

D8 490 5 11 $989,800 37 $26,751

E1 92 4 5 $148,672* 3 $49,557*

E3 297 4 9 $479,952* 15 $39,669*

E4 276 4 8 $552,966* 14 $39,498*

F2 204 4 9 $329,664 7 $47,095

F11 554 4 9 $895,264 22 $40,694

G2 384 4 9 $620,544 14 $44,325

G3 658 4 7 $1,063,328 28 $37,976

H7 – All Options 1037 4 11 $1,675,792 34 $49,288H9 – All Options 761 4 9 $1,384,776* 30 $46,159*

J1 252 4 8 $407,232 10 $40,723

J4 401 4 10 $648,016 21 $30,858

L3 148 4 7 $296,518* 10 $29,652*

L4 446 4 8 $763,942* 18 $42,441*

Note: Barriers shown in bold-type are recommended for consideration during final design.

* Due to parallel barriers, cost for absorptive material, $9 per square foot, was added to the barrier cost.

Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006.

Should the conditions change substantially during the final design phase, the barriers may no longer be recommended and may not be included in the project’s contract plans. A final decision on the recommendations will be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement processes.

Page 19: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 16

H. PARALLEL BARRIER ANALYSIS

At several locations along the corridor, barriers are recommended to be placed on both sides of the road, parallel to each other. These barriers typically cause sound reflection between the barriers, increasing the sound levels from the roadway. When the distance between the barriers compared to the height of the barriers is less than or equal to 10:1, a parallel barrier analysis should be performed. The extent of degradation depends upon this ratio, as well as the relative height of the receiver in comparison to the roadway. The parallel barrier component of the TNM model calculates this degradation at each receiver.To minimize or remove the effect of the parallel barriers, sound absorptive barriers can be used either for one or both barriers. Table 11 shows the reduction in insertion loss that would occur with each type of barrier combination, no absorption on both sides, absorption on one side only (with an 85% noisereduction coefficient (NRC)), and absorption on both sides.

Table 11. Summary of Parallel Barrier Analysis(Reduction in Insertion Loss (dBA))

Receiver No Absorption Absorption on One Barrier Absorption on Both Barriers

Barriers D3 and D4

D19 5.4 0 0

D20 3.5 0 0

D21 4.2 0 0

D22 5 0 0

D23 5.4 0 0

D24 4.2 0 0

D25 3.5 0 0

D26 5.4 0 0

D27 1.7 0 0

D28 5 0 0

D29 1.7 0 0

D30 1.7 0 0

D31 5.4 0 0

D32 5 0 0

D33 1.7 0 0

D34 5.5 0 0

D35 1.7 0 0

D36 1.7 0 0

D37 3.5 0 0

D38 5 0 0

D39 5.4 0 0

D65 4.7 2.2 0

D66 5 2 0

D67 4 1.8 0

D70 3.7 1.7 0

D71 2.6 1.1 0

D72 1.9 0.8 0

D73 1.9 0.8 0

D74 5 2.2 0

D75 1.9 0.8 0

D76 4.7 2.2 0

Page 20: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 17

Table 11. Summary of Parallel Barrier Analysis (continued)(Reduction in Insertion Loss (dBA))

Receiver No Absorption Absorption on One Barrier Absorption on Both Barriers

D77 1.9 0.8 0

D78 5 2 0

D79 1.9 0.8 0

D80 4.7 2.2 0

D81 1.9 0.8 0

D82 5 2.2 0

D83 1.9 0.8 0

D84 4.7 2.2 0

D85 5 2.2 0

D86 1.9 0.8 0

D87 1.9 0.8 0

D88 4.7 2.2 0

Barriers E1B and E4

E10 0 0 0

E12 0 0 0

E13 0 0 0

E14 0 0 0

E15 1 0 0

E16 1.7 0 0

E17 1 0 0

E18 0 0 0

E19 1 0 0

E64 0 0 0

E66 0 0 0

E68 0 0 0

E69 0 0 0

E70 0 0 0

E72 0 0 0

E73 1.6 0.9 0

E74 0.6 0.3 0

E75 1 0.6 0

E76 1.8 0.9 0

E79 1.2 0.7 0

E80 0 0 0

Page 21: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 18

Table 11. Summary of Parallel Barrier Analysis (continued)(Reduction in Insertion Loss (dBA))

Barriers H7 and H9

H7 2.3 0 0

H8 3.3 0 0

H8A 3.5 0 0

H9 2.3 0 0

H9A 3.3 0 0

H10 3.3 0 0

H11 2.3 0 0

H12 3.3 0 0

H13 2.3 0 0

H14 3.3 0 0

H14A 3.5 0 0

H15 3.3 0 0

H16 3.5 0 0

H43 1.4 0.6 0

H44 0 0 0

H44A 0 0 0

H45 0 0 0

H46 1.4 0.6 0

H47 1.4 0.6 0

H48 0 0 0

H48A 0 0 0

H49 1.4 0.6 0

Barriers L3 and L4

L27 0 0 0

L29 0 0 0

L31 0 0 0

L32 0 0 0

L33 0 0 0

L34 0 0 0

L35 0 0 0

L78 2.5 0 0

L80 2.1 0 0

Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006

Page 22: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006

Edwards and Kelcey Page 19

I. CONSTRUCTION NOISE

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in short-term, temporary construction noise along the length of the roadway. Noise produced during construction would vary, depending on such factors as the phase of construction and the type, quantity, and location of the equipment employed during that phase. Table 10 presents noise levels for types of construction equipment that could be used for the project.

Table 12. Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment

Equipment Noise Level dBA (at 50' from source)

Auger Drill Rig 84

Backhoe 78

Bulldozer 82

Compactor 83

Compressor 78

Concrete Mixer Truck 79

Crane 81

Dump Truck 76

Generator 81

Grader 85

Jackhammer 89

Paver 77

Pile Driver 101

Rock Drill 81

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guides, Final Report, 2006.

Average noise levels for typical construction equipment, measured at 50 feet from the construction site, range from 76 dBA to 101 dBA. These sound levels would decrease at an approximate rate of 6 dBA each time the distance between the residence and the noise source is doubled, so at 100 feet, the sound levels would range between 70 dBA and 95 dBA. Construction activities would typically be limited to weekdays between 7 AM and 6 PM, except under special circumstances.

Construction of the bridges would most likely be the loudest, as they will likely require the use of pile drivers. Three specific locations which would likely require bridge construction were analyzed using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model - the Route 454, Route 25, and Nicolls Road intersections. At Route 454, the closest residence is approximately 240 feet from the area proposed for pile driving. At Route 25 the closest residence is approximately 225 feet, and at Nicolls Road the closest residence is approximately 140 feet from the area proposed for pile driving. Assuming a maximum of two pile drivers operating at one time, as well as additional construction equipment, the total maximum sound level at the closest residences to Route 454 and Route 25 would be 88 dBA, and the closest residences at Nicolls Road would be 92 dBA. These high sound levels would be temporary in nature and should only occur at this level during operation of the pile drivers.

To minimize these levels, temporary abatement measures could be considered, such as portable or temporary noise barriers and equipment shields or enclosures. These measures could reduce sound levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The feasibility of these measures, as well as the possibility of erecting recommended barriers in the earlier phases of construction would be investigated during final design.

Page 23: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report May 2006

Edwards and Kelcey

Exhibit AMaps 1 through 18

Noise Measurement Locations, Noise Impacts, and Noise Contours for Existing, No-Build, and Build

conditions

Page 24: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 25: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 26: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 27: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 28: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 29: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 30: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 31: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 32: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 33: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 34: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 35: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 36: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 37: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 38: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 39: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 40: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 41: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 42: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 43: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 44: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report May 2006

Edwards and Kelcey

Exhibit BTNM Traffic Data

Page 45: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table B1: TNM Traffic Data

NPE1 2087 2045 25 17 2413 2365 29 19 3203 3139 38 26NPW1 1531 1500 18 12 1770 1735 21 14 2222 2177 27 18ParkDrN 219 215 3 2 252 247 3 2 336 329 4 3NPE2 2087 2045 25 17 2413 2365 29 19 3203 3139 38 26NPW2 1531 1500 18 12 1770 1735 21 14 2222 2177 27 18347ewestNSP 1207 1183 14 10 1392 1364 17 11 1853 1816 22 15347wwestNSP 1073 1052 13 9 1238 1213 15 10 1557 1526 19 12347E1 3294 3228 40 26 3805 3729 46 30 5056 4955 61 40347W1 2604 2552 31 21 3008 2948 36 24 3779 3703 45 30347E2 4160 4077 50 33 4805 4709 58 38 6238 6113 75 50347W2 2836 2779 34 23 3275 3210 39 26 4067 3986 49 33347E3 4087 4005 49 33 4721 4627 57 38 6119 5997 73 49347W3 2817 2761 34 23 3254 3189 39 26 4150 4067 50 33347E4 2976 2916 36 24 3437 3368 41 27 4397 4309 53 35347W4 - Option 1A 2097 2055 25 17 2422 2374 29 19 2858 2801 34 23347W4 - Option 1B 3007 2947 36 24347E5 2559 2508 31 20 2956 2897 35 24 3756 3681 45 30347W5 1753 1718 21 14 2025 1985 24 16 2514 2464 30 20347E6 2671 2618 32 21 3085 3023 37 25 3878 3800 47 31347W6 1796 1760 22 14 2074 2033 25 17 2579 2527 31 21347E7 2620 2568 31 21 3026 2965 36 24 3772 3697 45 30347W7 1833 1796 22 15 2117 2075 25 17 2628 2575 32 21347E8 2872 2815 34 23 3317 3251 40 27 4118 4036 49 33347W8 1891 1853 23 15 2184 2140 26 17 2711 2657 33 22347E9 2617 2565 31 21 3023 2963 36 24 3966 3887 48 32347W9 1982 1942 24 16 2289 2243 27 18 2841 2784 34 23347E10 2618 2566 31 21 3024 2964 36 24 3955 3876 47 32347W10 1903 1865 23 15 2198 2154 26 18 2728 2673 33 22347E11 2449 2400 29 20 2829 2772 34 23 3684 3610 44 29347W11 1851 1814 22 15 2138 2095 26 17 2657 2604 32 21347E12 2424 2376 29 19 2800 2744 34 22 3634 3561 44 29347W12 1924 1886 23 15 2223 2179 27 18 2759 2704 33 22347E13 2258 2213 27 18 2608 2556 31 21 3393 3325 41 27347W13 1916 1878 23 15 2213 2169 27 18 2776 2720 33 22347E14 2004 1964 24 16 2315 2269 28 19 2931 2872 35 23347W14 1784 1748 21 14 2060 2019 25 16 2630 2577 32 21347E15 2524 2474 30 20 2915 2857 35 23 3619 3547 43 29347W15 2618 2566 31 21 3024 2964 36 24 3754 3679 45 30347E16 2832 2775 34 23 3271 3206 39 26 4068 3987 49 33347W16 2350 2303 28 19 2714 2660 33 22 3370 3303 40 27347E17 2371 2324 28 19 2739 2684 33 22 3439 3370 41 28347W17 1822 1786 22 15 2104 2062 25 17 2651 2598 32 21347E18 2255 2210 27 18 2605 2553 31 21 3234 3169 39 26347W18 2025 1985 24 16 2339 2292 28 19 2903 2845 35 23347E19 2018 1978 24 16 2330 2283 28 19 2894 2836 35 23347W19 1646 1613 20 13 1902 1864 23 15 2360 2313 28 19347E20 1943 1904 23 16 2244 2199 27 18 2786 2730 33 22347W20 1886 1848 23 15 2179 2135 26 17 2704 2650 32 22347E21 1597 1565 19 13 1844 1807 22 15 2611 2559 31 21347W21 1390 1362 17 11 1605 1573 19 13 2015 1975 24 16347E22 1265 1240 15 10 1461 1432 18 12 1814 1778 22 15347W22 1689 1655 20 14 1951 1912 23 16 2422 2374 29 19New Highway 1 606 594 7 5 700 686 8 6 953 934 11 8New Highway 2 630 617 8 5 866 849 10 7 538 527 6 4New Highway 3 454 445 5 4 523 513 6 4 1126 1103 14 9Jayne 1 637 624 8 5 620 608 7 5 767 752 9 6Jayne 2 692 678 8 6 799 783 10 6 1207 1183 14 10Route 454 SB 1500 1470 18 12 1733 1698 21 14 2273 2228 27 18Route 454 NB - Option 1A 1092 1070 13 9 1262 1237 15 10 1715 1681 21 14Route 454 NB - Option 1B 1566 1535 19 13Route 454 Ramp - Option 1A 797 781 10 6 921 903 11 7 1292 1266 16 10Route 454 Ramp - Option 1B 1143 1120 14 9Old Willets 1 1255 1230 15 10 1448 1419 17 12 1715 1681 21 14Old Willets 2 1026 1005 12 8 1184 1160 14 9 1478 1448 18 12Brooksite 1 409 401 5 3 474 465 6 4 693 679 8 6Brooksite 2 652 639 8 5 754 739 9 6 1108 1086 13 9Mt. Pleasant 1 704 690 8 6 813 797 10 7 1017 997 12 8Mt. Pleasant 2 678 664 8 5 782 766 9 6 1079 1057 13 9Plaisted 1 106 104 1 1 123 121 1 1 209 205 3 2

NB PM2035

CarsCars MT HT MT HTBD PM2035

Cars MT HTExisting2004 PM

Roadway Links

Page B - 1

Page 46: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table B1: TNM Traffic Data

NB PM2035

CarsCars MT HT MT HTBD PM2035

Cars MT HTExisting2004 PM

Roadway Links

Plaisted 2 130 127 2 1 151 148 2 1 194 190 2 2Route 111 A 1800 1764 22 14 2079 2037 25 17 2625 2573 32 21Route 111 B 1945 1906 23 16 2246 2201 27 18 2837 2780 34 23Terry 1 1310 1284 16 10 1527 1496 18 12 1881 1843 23 15Terry 2 1402 1374 17 11 1718 1684 21 14 2050 2009 25 16Southern Blvd 1 428 419 5 3 552 541 7 4 703 689 8 6Southern Blvd 2 401 393 5 3 463 454 6 4 593 581 7 5Lake 1 940 921 11 8 971 952 12 8 1227 1202 15 10Lake 2 845 828 10 7 976 956 12 8 1226 1201 15 10Gibbs Pond 1 778 762 9 6 783 767 9 6 986 966 12 8Gibbs Pond 2 339 332 4 3 391 383 5 3 486 476 6 4Brown 1 704 690 8 6 814 798 10 7 1067 1046 13 9Brown 2 378 370 5 3 438 429 5 4 517 507 6 4Middle Country 1 2116 2074 25 17 2444 2395 29 20 3111 3049 37 25Middle Country 2 1750 1715 21 14 2021 1981 24 16 2613 2561 31 21Moriches 1201 1177 14 10 1387 1359 17 11 1737 1702 21 14Hallock 1 185 181 2 1 214 210 3 2 273 268 3 2Hallock 2 831 814 10 7 960 941 12 8 1221 1197 15 10Stonybrook 1 684 670 8 5 789 773 9 6 982 962 12 8Stonybrook 2 1601 1569 19 13 1848 1811 22 15 2297 2251 28 18Lakeside 87 85 1 1 100 98 1 1 125 123 2 1Nicolls 1 2053 2012 25 16 2371 2324 28 19 3027 2966 36 24Nicolls 2 2075 2034 25 17 2396 2348 29 19 2976 2916 36 24Nicolls 3 1291 1265 15 10 1491 1461 18 12 1883 1845 23 15Nicolls 4 1364 1337 16 11 1576 1544 19 13 1913 1875 23 15Mark Tree 1 1017 997 12 8 1174 1151 14 9 1458 1429 17 12Mark Tree 2 783 767 9 6 905 887 11 7 1123 1101 13 9Wireless 1522 1492 18 12 1758 1723 21 14 2183 2139 26 17Arrowhead 1 679 665 8 5 784 768 9 6 973 954 12 8Arrowhead 2 813 797 10 7 938 919 11 8 1166 1143 14 9Old Town 1 1496 1466 18 12 1728 1693 21 14 2145 2102 26 17Old Town 2 1670 1637 20 13 1930 1891 23 15 2395 2347 29 19Woodhull 1 46 45 1 0 52 51 1 0 65 64 1 1Woodhull 2 346 339 4 3 399 391 5 3 495 485 6 4Terryville 1 821 805 10 7 948 929 11 8 1177 1153 14 9Terryville 2 803 788 9 6 918 900 11 7 1140 1117 14 9Norwood Ave 403 394 5 4 473 464 6 4 570 558 7 5Route 112 A 2181 2137 26 17 2518 2468 30 20 2287 2241 27 18Route 112 B 1456 1427 17 12 1681 1647 20 13 1872 1835 22 15Crystal Brook 1 553 542 7 4 638 625 8 5 792 776 10 6Crystal Brook 2 817 801 10 7 944 925 11 8 1171 1148 14 9Route 25A 469 460 6 4 542 531 7 4 672 659 8 5SPUI/Clover S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 724 9 6SPUI/Clover W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 453 444 5 4SPUI/Clover N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 295 4 2Middle Country S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 984 964 12 8Middle Country N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 379 371 5 3347E16-2 2582 2530 31 21347W16-2 SPUI - Option 3A 2048 2007 25 16Nicolls 3 1966 1927 24 16Ramp NENN 693 679 8 6Ramp NNNW 825 809 10 7Ramp NSNE 891 873 11 7Ramp NWNS 435 426 5 3347E16-2 3275 3210 39 26347W16-2 CLOVER - Option 3B 2872 2815 34 23Ramp NENN 554 543 7 4Ramp NNNW 825 809 10 7Ramp NSNE 669 656 8 5Ramp NWNS 435 426 5 3347E16-2 2721 2667 33 22347W16-2 FLYOVER - Option 3C 2872 2815 34 23Ramp NENN 554 543 7 4Ramp NNNW 825 809 10 7Ramp NSNE 669 656 8 5Ramp NWNS 435 426 5 3

Page B - 2

Page 47: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table B1: TNM Traffic Data

NPE1 2087 2045 25 17 2413 2365 29 19 3203 3139 38 26NPW1 1531 1500 18 12 1770 1735 21 14 2222 2177 27 18ParkDrN 219 215 3 2 252 247 3 2 336 329 4 3NPE2 2087 2045 25 17 2413 2365 29 19 3203 3139 38 26NPW2 1531 1500 18 12 1770 1735 21 14 2222 2177 27 18347ewestNSP 1207 1183 14 10 1392 1364 17 11 1853 1816 22 15347wwestNSP 1073 1052 13 9 1238 1213 15 10 1557 1526 19 12347E1 3294 3228 40 26 3805 3729 46 30 5056 4955 61 40347W1 2604 2552 31 21 3008 2948 36 24 3779 3703 45 30347E2 4160 4077 50 33 4805 4709 58 38 6238 6113 75 50347W2 2836 2779 34 23 3275 3210 39 26 4067 3986 49 33347E3 4087 4005 49 33 4721 4627 57 38 6119 5997 73 49347W3 2817 2761 34 23 3254 3189 39 26 4150 4067 50 33347E4 2976 2916 36 24 3437 3368 41 27 4397 4309 53 35347W4 - Option 1A 2097 2055 25 17 2422 2374 29 19 2858 2801 34 23347W4 - Option 1B 3007 2947 36 24347E5 2559 2508 31 20 2956 2897 35 24 3756 3681 45 30347W5 1753 1718 21 14 2025 1985 24 16 2514 2464 30 20347E6 2671 2618 32 21 3085 3023 37 25 3878 3800 47 31347W6 1796 1760 22 14 2074 2033 25 17 2579 2527 31 21347E7 2620 2568 31 21 3026 2965 36 24 3772 3697 45 30347W7 1833 1796 22 15 2117 2075 25 17 2628 2575 32 21347E8 2872 2815 34 23 3317 3251 40 27 4118 4036 49 33347W8 1891 1853 23 15 2184 2140 26 17 2711 2657 33 22347E9 2617 2565 31 21 3023 2963 36 24 3966 3887 48 32347W9 1982 1942 24 16 2289 2243 27 18 2841 2784 34 23347E10 2618 2566 31 21 3024 2964 36 24 3955 3876 47 32347W10 1903 1865 23 15 2198 2154 26 18 2728 2673 33 22347E11 2449 2400 29 20 2829 2772 34 23 3684 3610 44 29347W11 1851 1814 22 15 2138 2095 26 17 2657 2604 32 21347E12 2424 2376 29 19 2800 2744 34 22 3634 3561 44 29347W12 1924 1886 23 15 2223 2179 27 18 2759 2704 33 22347E13 2258 2213 27 18 2608 2556 31 21 3393 3325 41 27347W13 1916 1878 23 15 2213 2169 27 18 2776 2720 33 22347E14 2004 1964 24 16 2315 2269 28 19 2931 2872 35 23347W14 1784 1748 21 14 2060 2019 25 16 2630 2577 32 21347E15 2524 2474 30 20 2915 2857 35 23 3619 3547 43 29347W15 2618 2566 31 21 3024 2964 36 24 3754 3679 45 30347E16 2832 2775 34 23 3271 3206 39 26 4068 3987 49 33347W16 2350 2303 28 19 2714 2660 33 22 3370 3303 40 27347E17 2371 2324 28 19 2739 2684 33 22 3439 3370 41 28347W17 1822 1786 22 15 2104 2062 25 17 2651 2598 32 21347E18 2255 2210 27 18 2605 2553 31 21 3234 3169 39 26347W18 2025 1985 24 16 2339 2292 28 19 2903 2845 35 23347E19 2018 1978 24 16 2330 2283 28 19 2894 2836 35 23347W19 1646 1613 20 13 1902 1864 23 15 2360 2313 28 19347E20 1943 1904 23 16 2244 2199 27 18 2786 2730 33 22347W20 1886 1848 23 15 2179 2135 26 17 2704 2650 32 22347E21 1597 1565 19 13 1844 1807 22 15 2611 2559 31 21347W21 1390 1362 17 11 1605 1573 19 13 2015 1975 24 16347E22 1265 1240 15 10 1461 1432 18 12 1814 1778 22 15347W22 1689 1655 20 14 1951 1912 23 16 2422 2374 29 19New Highway 1 606 594 7 5 700 686 8 6 953 934 11 8New Highway 2 630 617 8 5 866 849 10 7 538 527 6 4New Highway 3 454 445 5 4 523 513 6 4 1126 1103 14 9Jayne 1 637 624 8 5 620 608 7 5 767 752 9 6Jayne 2 692 678 8 6 799 783 10 6 1207 1183 14 10Route 454 SB 1500 1470 18 12 1733 1698 21 14 2273 2228 27 18Route 454 NB - Option 1A 1092 1070 13 9 1262 1237 15 10 1715 1681 21 14Route 454 NB - Option 1B 1566 1535 19 13Route 454 Ramp - Option 1A 797 781 10 6 921 903 11 7 1292 1266 16 10Route 454 Ramp - Option 1B 1143 1120 14 9Old Willets 1 1255 1230 15 10 1448 1419 17 12 1715 1681 21 14Old Willets 2 1026 1005 12 8 1184 1160 14 9 1478 1448 18 12Brooksite 1 409 401 5 3 474 465 6 4 693 679 8 6Brooksite 2 652 639 8 5 754 739 9 6 1108 1086 13 9Mt. Pleasant 1 704 690 8 6 813 797 10 7 1017 997 12 8Mt. Pleasant 2 678 664 8 5 782 766 9 6 1079 1057 13 9Plaisted 1 106 104 1 1 123 121 1 1 209 205 3 2

NB PM2035

CarsCars MT HT MT HTBD PM2035

Cars MT HTExisting2004 PM

Roadway Links

Page B - 1

Page 48: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table B1: TNM Traffic Data

NB PM2035

CarsCars MT HT MT HTBD PM2035

Cars MT HTExisting2004 PM

Roadway Links

Plaisted 2 130 127 2 1 151 148 2 1 194 190 2 2Route 111 A 1800 1764 22 14 2079 2037 25 17 2625 2573 32 21Route 111 B 1945 1906 23 16 2246 2201 27 18 2837 2780 34 23Terry 1 1310 1284 16 10 1527 1496 18 12 1881 1843 23 15Terry 2 1402 1374 17 11 1718 1684 21 14 2050 2009 25 16Southern Blvd 1 428 419 5 3 552 541 7 4 703 689 8 6Southern Blvd 2 401 393 5 3 463 454 6 4 593 581 7 5Lake 1 940 921 11 8 971 952 12 8 1227 1202 15 10Lake 2 845 828 10 7 976 956 12 8 1226 1201 15 10Gibbs Pond 1 778 762 9 6 783 767 9 6 986 966 12 8Gibbs Pond 2 339 332 4 3 391 383 5 3 486 476 6 4Brown 1 704 690 8 6 814 798 10 7 1067 1046 13 9Brown 2 378 370 5 3 438 429 5 4 517 507 6 4Middle Country 1 2116 2074 25 17 2444 2395 29 20 3111 3049 37 25Middle Country 2 1750 1715 21 14 2021 1981 24 16 2613 2561 31 21Moriches 1201 1177 14 10 1387 1359 17 11 1737 1702 21 14Hallock 1 185 181 2 1 214 210 3 2 273 268 3 2Hallock 2 831 814 10 7 960 941 12 8 1221 1197 15 10Stonybrook 1 684 670 8 5 789 773 9 6 982 962 12 8Stonybrook 2 1601 1569 19 13 1848 1811 22 15 2297 2251 28 18Lakeside 87 85 1 1 100 98 1 1 125 123 2 1Nicolls 1 2053 2012 25 16 2371 2324 28 19 3027 2966 36 24Nicolls 2 2075 2034 25 17 2396 2348 29 19 2976 2916 36 24Nicolls 3 1291 1265 15 10 1491 1461 18 12 1883 1845 23 15Nicolls 4 1364 1337 16 11 1576 1544 19 13 1913 1875 23 15Mark Tree 1 1017 997 12 8 1174 1151 14 9 1458 1429 17 12Mark Tree 2 783 767 9 6 905 887 11 7 1123 1101 13 9Wireless 1522 1492 18 12 1758 1723 21 14 2183 2139 26 17Arrowhead 1 679 665 8 5 784 768 9 6 973 954 12 8Arrowhead 2 813 797 10 7 938 919 11 8 1166 1143 14 9Old Town 1 1496 1466 18 12 1728 1693 21 14 2145 2102 26 17Old Town 2 1670 1637 20 13 1930 1891 23 15 2395 2347 29 19Woodhull 1 46 45 1 0 52 51 1 0 65 64 1 1Woodhull 2 346 339 4 3 399 391 5 3 495 485 6 4Terryville 1 821 805 10 7 948 929 11 8 1177 1153 14 9Terryville 2 803 788 9 6 918 900 11 7 1140 1117 14 9Norwood Ave 403 394 5 4 473 464 6 4 570 558 7 5Route 112 A 2181 2137 26 17 2518 2468 30 20 2287 2241 27 18Route 112 B 1456 1427 17 12 1681 1647 20 13 1872 1835 22 15Crystal Brook 1 553 542 7 4 638 625 8 5 792 776 10 6Crystal Brook 2 817 801 10 7 944 925 11 8 1171 1148 14 9Route 25A 469 460 6 4 542 531 7 4 672 659 8 5SPUI/Clover S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 724 9 6SPUI/Clover W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 453 444 5 4SPUI/Clover N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 295 4 2Middle Country S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 984 964 12 8Middle Country N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 379 371 5 3347E16-2 2582 2530 31 21347W16-2 SPUI - Option 3A 2048 2007 25 16Nicolls 3 1966 1927 24 16Ramp NENN 693 679 8 6Ramp NNNW 825 809 10 7Ramp NSNE 891 873 11 7Ramp NWNS 435 426 5 3347E16-2 3275 3210 39 26347W16-2 CLOVER - Option 3B 2872 2815 34 23Ramp NENN 554 543 7 4Ramp NNNW 825 809 10 7Ramp NSNE 669 656 8 5Ramp NWNS 435 426 5 3347E16-2 2721 2667 33 22347W16-2 FLYOVER - Option 3C 2872 2815 34 23Ramp NENN 554 543 7 4Ramp NNNW 825 809 10 7Ramp NSNE 669 656 8 5Ramp NWNS 435 426 5 3

Page B - 2

Page 49: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report May 2006

Edwards and Kelcey

Exhibit CComputed Sound Levels – Existing, No-Build, Build

Page 50: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

A1 P 0 51 52 53 no 53 0 noA2 P 0 55 55 56 no 56 0 noA3 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noA4 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noA5 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noA6 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noA7 R 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noA8 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noA9 R 6 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noA10 R 9 60 60 61 no 61 0 noA11 R 6 66 66 68 yes 68 0 noA12 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noA13 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noA14 R 4 54 56 57 no 57 0 noA15 R 6 59 60 61 no 61 0 noA16 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noA17 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noA18 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noA19 R 1 54 56 57 no 57 0 noA20 R 2 63 64 65 no 65 0 noA21 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noA22 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noA23 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noA24 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noA25 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noA26 C 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noA27 C 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noA28 C 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noA29 R 1 55 56 56 no 56 0 noA30 R 7 63 64 65 no 65 0 noA31 R 5 53 54 55 no 55 0 noA32 R 1 66 66 67 yes 67 0 noA33 R 2 55 56 57 no 57 0 noA34 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noA35 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noA36 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noA37 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noA38 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noA39 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noA40 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noA41 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noA42 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noA43 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noA44 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noA45 R 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noA46 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noA47 R 3 56 56 57 no 57 0 noA48 R 2 58 58 60 no 60 0 noB1 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noB2 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB3 R 2 60 60 61 no 61 0 noB4 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noB5 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noB6 R 1 66 66 68 yes 68 0 noB7 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB8 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noB9 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 no

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

Page C - 1

Page 51: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

B10 R 3 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noB11 R 2 60 61 62 no 62 0 noB12 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noB13 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noB14 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noB15 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB16 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noB17 R 4 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noB18 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noB19 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noB20 C 2 68 69 70 no 70 0 noB21 I 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noB22 I 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noB23 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noB24 R 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noB25 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noB26 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noB27 R 3 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noB28 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noB29 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noB30 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noB31 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noB32 R 1 65 65 67 yes 67 0 noB33 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noB34 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noB35 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noB36 R 1 70 70 72 yes 72 0 noB37 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noB38 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noB39 R 2 72 72 74 yes 74 0 noB40 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB41 R 1 64 64 66 yes 66 0 noB42 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noB43 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noB44 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noB45 R 1 65 65 67 yes 67 0 noB46 R 1 69 69 71 yes 71 0 noB47 R 1 70 71 73 yes 73 0 noB48 R 2 60 61 62 no 62 0 noB49 R 3 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noB50 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noB51 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noB52 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noB53 R 3 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noB54 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noB55 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB56 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noB57 R 2 65 65 67 yes 67 0 noB58 R 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noB59 R 1 63 63 66 yes 66 0 noB60 R 1 63 63 65 no 65 0 noB61 R 2 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noB62 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noB63 R 1 66 66 67 yes 67 0 noB64 R 1 64 64 65 no 65 0 noB65 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noB66 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 no

Page C - 2

Page 52: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

B67 C 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noB68 C 1 67 68 69 no 69 0 noB69 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noB70 C 2 61 61 62 no 62 0 noB71 R 2 56 57 58 no 58 0 noB72 R 2 56 56 57 no 57 0 noB73 R 1 55 55 57 no 57 0 noB74 R 1 55 55 57 no 57 0 noB75 R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noB76 R 6 57 57 58 no 58 0 noB77 R 3 60 60 62 no 62 0 noB78 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noB79 R 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noB80 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noB81 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noB82 R 3 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noB83 R 1 52 52 53 no 53 0 noB84 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noB85 R 1 74 74 75 yes 75 0 noB86 R 1 52 52 53 no 53 0 noB87 R 3 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noB88 R 5 50 51 52 no 52 0 noB89 R 2 52 52 53 no 53 0 noB90 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noB91 R 1 55 55 57 no 57 0 noB92 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noB93 R 2 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noB94 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noB95 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noB96 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noB97 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noB98 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noB99 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noB100 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noB101 R 2 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noB102 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noB103 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB104 R 2 63 64 65 no 65 0 noB105 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noB106 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noB107 C 2 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noB108 R 1 58 59 59 no 59 0 noB109 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noB110 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB111 R 1 60 61 61 no 61 0 noB112 R 2 58 58 59 no 59 0 noB113 R 1 61 62 62 no 62 0 noB114 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noB115 R 5 61 62 63 no 63 0 noB116 R 4 59 60 61 no 61 0 noB118 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noB119 R 2 62 63 64 no 64 0 noB120 R 5 63 64 65 no 65 0 noB121 R 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noB122 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noB123 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noB124 R 2 74 75 76 yes 76 0 no

Page C - 3

Page 53: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

B125 R 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noB126 R 4 69 70 71 yes 69 2 noB127 R 8 58 59 60 no 59 1 noB128 R 4 73 74 75 yes 68 7 yesB129 R 2 71 72 73 yes 65 8 yesB130 R 6 61 61 62 no 61 1 noB131 R 4 73 73 75 yes 64 11 yesB132 R 5 59 60 61 no 60 1 noB133 C 0 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noB134 C 1 74 75 76 yes 76 0 noB135 C 1 74 75 76 yes 76 0 noC1 C 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noC2 P 0 60 61 62 no 62 0 noC4 R 1 58 59 59 no 59 0 noC5 R 1 56 57 57 no 57 0 noC6 R 1 68 69 69 yes 69 0 noC7 R 1 68 69 68 yes 68 0 noC8 R 1 68 69 68 yes 68 0 noC9 R 1 69 70 69 yes 69 0 noC10 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noC11 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noC12 R 1 70 71 71 yes 71 0 noC13 R 1 64 65 65 no 65 0 noC14 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noC15 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noC16 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noC17 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noC18 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noC19 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noC20 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noC21 R 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noC22 R 1 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noC23 R 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noC24 R 1 72 72 74 yes 74 0 noC25 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noC26 C 1 73 73 74 yes 74 0 noC27 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noC28 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noC29 I 3 71 72 75 yes 75 0 noC30 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noC31 R 1 60 60 62 no 62 0 noC32 R 1 64 65 67 yes 67 0 noC33 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noC34 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noC35 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noC36 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noC37 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noC38 C 2 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noC39 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noD1 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noD2 C 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noD3 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noD4 C 4 65 65 66 no 66 0 noD5 C 2 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noD6 R 2 60 60 61 no 60 2 noD7 R 1 64 64 65 no 62 3 noD8 R 2 68 69 70 yes 61 9 yes

Page C - 4

Page 54: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

D9 R 2 73 74 75 yes 58 17 yesD10 R 2 73 74 75 yes 59 16 yesD11 R 2 73 73 74 yes 68 6 yesD12 R 1 54 55 56 no 52 4 noD13 R 1 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesD14 R 2 54 55 56 no 52 4 noD15 R 2 61 62 63 no 55 8 yesD16 R 3 56 57 58 no 53 5 yesD17 R 2 62 63 64 no 57 7 yesD18 R 2 61 62 63 no 59 4 noD19 R 3 58 59 60 no 55 5 yesD20 R 1 71 71 72 yes 65 7 yesD21 R 1 68 68 69 yes 61 8 yesD22 R 2 62 63 64 no 57 7 yesD23 R 2 60 61 62 no 55 7 yesD24 R 1 67 68 69 yes 58 11 yesD25 R 1 71 71 72 yes 59 13 yesD26 R 1 60 61 62 no 54 8 yesD27 R 2 73 74 75 yes 58 17 yesD28 R 2 64 64 65 no 56 9 yesD29 R 2 73 74 75 yes 58 17 yesD30 R 2 74 74 76 yes 58 18 yesD31 R 2 60 61 62 no 56 6 yesD32 R 2 65 65 66 yes 57 9 yesD33 R 2 73 74 75 yes 60 15 yesD34 R 2 62 62 63 no 58 5 yesD35 R 1 73 74 75 yes 59 16 yesD36 R 1 73 74 75 yes 61 14 yesD37 R 1 70 71 72 yes 65 7 yesD38 R 1 63 64 65 no 61 4 noD39 R 1 60 61 62 no 59 3 noD40 R 1 58 58 60 no 57 3 noD41 R 1 58 59 60 no 58 2 noD42 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noD43 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noD44 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noD45 R 1 73 74 75 yes 75 0 no

D46A R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD46B R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noD46C R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noD46 R 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noD47 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noD48 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noD49 R 3 58 59 60 no 60 0 noD50 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noD51 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noD52 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noD53 R 2 58 58 59 no 59 0 noD54 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noD55 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noD56 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noD57 R 0 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noD58 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noD59 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noD60 R 1 62 63 64 no 63 1 noD61 R 1 65 65 66 yes 65 1 noD62 R 1 68 69 70 yes 68 2 no

Page C - 5

Page 55: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

D63 R 1 71 72 73 yes 71 2 noD64 R 2 58 59 60 no 56 4 noD65 R 3 62 62 63 no 55 8 yesD66 R 2 58 58 59 no 54 5 yesD67 R 0 63 64 65 no 55 10 yesD68 R 2 60 60 61 no 58 3 noD69 R 1 62 63 64 no 61 3 noD70 R 1 67 68 69 yes 62 7 yesD71 R 1 71 71 72 yes 60 12 yesD72 R 1 72 72 74 yes 58 16 yesD73 R 2 72 73 74 yes 57 17 yesD74 R 4 58 59 60 no 54 6 yesD75 R 2 72 73 74 yes 57 17 yesD76 R 3 62 63 63 no 55 8 yesD77 R 2 72 72 73 yes 58 15 yesD78 R 3 58 58 59 no 54 5 yesD79 R 2 72 73 74 yes 57 17 yesD80 R 2 62 63 64 no 56 8 yesD81 R 2 72 72 73 yes 58 15 yesD82 R 1 58 59 60 no 54 6 yesD83 R 2 72 73 74 yes 57 17 yesD84 R 2 62 63 64 no 57 7 yesD85 R 3 58 59 60 no 56 4 noD86 R 2 72 73 74 yes 57 17 yesD87 R 2 72 73 74 yes 59 15 yesD88 R 2 62 62 63 no 58 5 yesD89 R 1 70 71 72 yes 71 1 noD90 R 1 66 67 68 yes 66 2 noD91 R 1 63 64 65 no 64 1 noD92 R 1 61 62 63 no 62 1 noD93 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noD94 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noD95 R 2 59 60 61 no 59 2 noD96 R 2 60 61 62 no 60 2 noD97 C 1 67 68 69 no 69 0 noD98 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noD99 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noD100 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noD101 R 1 70 70 72 yes 72 0 noD102 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noD103 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noD104 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noD105 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noD106 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD107 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noD108 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD109 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noD110 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noD111 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noD112 I 0 56 57 58 no 58 0 noD113 I 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noD114 I 0 61 61 63 no 63 0 noD115 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noD116 C 1 68 68 69 no 69 0 noD117 VR 0 67 68 69 no 69 0 noD118 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noD119 C 1 60 60 62 no 61 1 no

Page C - 6

Page 56: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

D120 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noD121 R 1 58 59 60 no 59 1 noD122 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noD123 R 1 59 60 61 no 60 1 noD124 R 1 60 61 62 no 61 1 noD125 R 1 61 62 63 no 61 2 noD126 R 1 64 65 66 yes 62 4 noD127 R 1 67 68 69 yes 63 6 yesD128 R 1 69 70 71 yes 62 9 yesD129 R 1 70 71 72 yes 61 11 yesD130 C 1 64 64 65 no 65 0 noD131 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noD132 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD133 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noD134 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noD135 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noD136 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noD137 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noD138 I 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD139 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noD140 C 2 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noD141 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noD142 R 4 62 61 62 no 62 0 noD143 C 1 60 65 66 no 66 0 noD144 R 5 61 57 58 no 58 0 noD145 R 4 64 61 62 no 62 0 noD146 R 9 57 63 64 no 64 0 noD147 R 10 61 55 56 no 56 0 noD148 R 6 63 63 64 no 64 0 noD149 R 6 54 63 63 no 63 0 noD150 R 20 62 57 58 no 58 0 noD151 R 20 62 55 56 no 56 0 noD152 R 6 57 64 65 no 65 0 noD153 R 3 54 57 58 no 58 0 noD154 R 6 63 65 65 no 65 0 noD155 R 2 58 58 59 no 58 1 noD156 R 2 59 60 61 no 58 3 noD157 R 2 56 56 57 no 55 2 noD158 R 2 61 61 62 no 57 5 yesD159 R 2 56 57 58 no 55 3 noD160 R 2 58 58 59 no 55 4 noD161 R 2 61 62 63 no 57 6 yesD162 R 0 67 67 68 yes 68 0 noD163 R 0 63 63 65 no 65 0 noD164 R 1 67 67 68 yes 68 0 noD165 R 2 57 57 59 no 59 0 noD166 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noD167 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noD168 R 2 58 58 59 no 59 0 noD169 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD170 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noD171 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noD172 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noD173 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD174 R 1 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noD175 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noD176 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noD177 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 no

Page C - 7

Page 57: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

E1 R 5 73 72 74 yes 61 13 yesE2 R 5 62 61 63 no 56 7 yesE3 R 5 73 72 74 yes 60 14 yesE4 R 2 57 57 59 no 54 5 yesE5 R 2 54 54 56 no 54 2 noE6 R 1 59 59 61 no 55 6 yesE7 R 5 62 62 64 no 57 7 yesE8 R 5 73 73 74 yes 61 13 yesE9 R 2 59 58 60 no 60 0 noE10 R 1 66 66 68 yes 63 5 yesE11 R 3 60 60 62 no 59 3 noE12 R 1 71 71 73 yes 62 11 yesE13 R 1 65 65 68 yes 63 5 yesE14 R 1 70 69 72 yes 62 10 yesE15 R 3 65 65 67 yes 60 7 yesE16 R 3 60 60 62 no 57 5 yesE17 R 1 66 66 68 yes 59 9 yesE18 R 3 60 60 62 no 57 5 yesE19 R 4 66 66 69 yes 60 9 yesE21 R 3 60 59 62 no 58 4 noE22 R 1 64 64 66 yes 62 4 noE23 R 1 67 67 70 yes 66 4 noE24 R 1 63 63 65 no 64 1 noE25 R 3 59 58 61 no 59 2 noE26 R 1 71 71 74 yes 74 0 noE27 R 3 63 63 65 no 64 1 noE28 R 3 72 72 74 yes 74 0 noE29 R 1 66 66 69 yes 68 1 noE30 R 3 58 58 60 no 60 0 noE31 R 1 62 62 65 no 65 0 noE32 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noE33 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noE34 R 1 68 69 71 yes 71 0 noE35 R 1 65 65 68 yes 68 0 noE36 R 2 59 59 61 no 61 0 noE37 C 1 61 61 63 no 63 0 noE38 C 1 69 69 71 yes 71 0 noE39 C 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noE40 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noE41 C 1 64 65 66 no 66 0 noE42 R 7 60 60 62 no 62 0 noE43 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noE44 C 0 66 67 68 no 68 0 noE45 R 3 56 57 58 no 58 0 noE46 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noE47 R 2 58 58 60 no 60 0 noE48 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noE49 R 6 58 59 60 no 60 0 noE50 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noE51 R 4 58 59 60 no 60 0 noE52 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noE53 R 8 58 59 60 no 60 0 noE54 R 8 58 58 60 no 60 0 noE55 C 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noE56 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noE57 R 4 54 55 56 no 56 0 noE58 R 3 61 62 62 no 62 0 noE59 R 3 60 61 61 no 61 0 no

Page C - 8

Page 58: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

E60 R 3 56 56 57 no 57 0 noE61 R 3 57 58 58 no 58 0 noE62 C 0 65 66 67 no 67 0 noE63 R 2 57 58 59 no 59 0 noE64 R 1 73 72 75 yes 75 0 noE65 R 1 69 68 71 yes 71 0 noE66 R 1 65 64 67 yes 64 3 noE67 R 1 59 59 61 no 59 2 noE68 R 1 62 61 64 no 61 3 noE69 R 2 73 72 75 yes 61 14 yesE70 R 2 60 60 62 no 59 3 noE71 R 1 59 58 61 no 58 3 noE72 R 1 69 68 71 yes 61 10 yesE73 R 3 64 64 66 yes 59 7 yesE74 R 2 73 72 75 yes 61 14 yesE75 R 1 69 69 71 yes 61 10 yesE76 R 2 61 61 63 no 58 5 yesE77 R 1 58 58 60 no 57 3 noE78 R 2 59 59 61 no 57 4 noE79 R 1 68 68 70 yes 62 8 yesE80 R 2 64 63 66 yes 61 5 yesE81 R 2 60 60 62 no 59 3 noE82 R 2 61 61 63 no 60 3 noE83 R 2 72 71 74 yes 73 1 noE84 R 2 68 67 70 yes 68 2 noE85 R 1 68 68 70 yes 70 0 noE86 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noE87 R 2 61 61 63 no 63 0 noE88 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noE89 R 3 74 73 76 yes 76 0 noE90 R 1 61 61 63 no 63 0 noE91 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noE92 R 1 70 70 72 yes 72 0 noE93 R 1 66 65 68 yes 68 0 noE94 R 1 60 60 62 no 62 0 noE95 R 1 70 70 72 yes 72 0 noE96 R 1 63 63 65 no 65 0 noE97 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noE98 R 1 69 68 71 yes 71 0 noE99 R 1 66 65 68 yes 68 0 noE100 R 1 60 60 62 no 62 0 noE101 R 2 64 64 66 yes 66 0 noE102 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noE103 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noE104 C 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noE105 C 1 72 72 74 yes 74 0 noE106 C 1 71 71 73 yes 73 0 noE107 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noE108 C 2 68 69 70 no 70 0 noE109 R 3 60 60 62 no 62 0 noE110 C 2 67 67 69 no 69 0 noE111 R 3 59 59 60 no 60 0 noE112 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 noE113 C 2 69 69 71 yes 71 0 noE114 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noE115 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noE116 C 2 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noE117 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 no

Page C - 9

Page 59: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

E118 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noE119 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noE120 I 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noE121 C 2 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noE122 C 2 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noE123 R 2 57 57 59 no 54 5 yes

F1 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noF2 C 1 68 68 70 no 70 0 noF3 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noF4 C 1 63 63 65 no 65 0 noF5 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noF6 C 1 67 68 69 no 69 0 noF7 R 1 65 66 67 yes 62 5 yesF8 R 2 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yesF9 R 2 65 65 66 yes 60 6 yesF10 R 1 58 59 59 no 57 2 noF11 R 2 71 72 73 yes 64 9 yesF12 R 2 59 59 61 no 58 3 noF13 R 2 64 65 66 yes 62 4 noF14 R 2 61 61 62 no 61 1 noF15 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noF16 R 1 61 61 63 no 63 0 noF17 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noF18 R 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noF19 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noF20 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noF21 R 2 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noF22 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 noF23 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noF24 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noF25 P 1 65 65 66 no 66 0 noF26 P 0 60 61 62 no 62 0 noF27 P 0 60 61 62 no 62 0 noF28 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noF29 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noF30 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noF31 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noF32 I 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noF33 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noF34 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noF35 R 2 60 60 61 no 61 0 noF36 R 3 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noF37 R 1 73 73 74 yes 74 0 noF38 R 2 59 59 60 no 60 0 noF39 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noF40 R 2 59 59 60 no 60 0 noF41 R 2 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noF42 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noF43 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noF44 R 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noF45 I 1 74 75 76 yes 76 0 noF46 R 3 59 60 61 no 61 0 no

F47A R 2 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noF47 R 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noF48 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noF49 R 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 no

F50A R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 no

Page C - 10

Page 60: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

F50 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noF51 R 3 61 61 62 no 62 0 noF52 R 1 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noF53 R 3 62 63 64 no 64 0 noF54 R 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noF55 R 1 73 73 75 yes 75 0 noF56 R 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noF57 R 2 60 60 61 no 61 0 noF58 R 2 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noF59 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noF60 R 3 62 63 64 no 64 0 noF61 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noF62 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noF63 R 1 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noF64 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noF65 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noF66 R 3 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noF67 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noF68 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noF69 R 1 60 60 62 no 62 0 noF70 R 2 62 62 63 no 63 0 noF71 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noF72 R 1 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noF73 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noF74 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noF75 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noF76 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noF77 R 1 63 63 65 no 65 0 noF78 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noF79 R 1 71 71 73 yes 73 0 noF80 R 2 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noF81 R 2 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noF82 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noF83 R 8 56 56 57 no 57 0 noF84 R 8 59 60 61 no 61 0 no

F85A R 2 64 64 65 no 65 0 noF85 R 6 64 64 66 yes 66 0 noF86 R 8 55 56 57 no 57 0 noF87 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noF88 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noF89 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noF90 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noF91 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noF92 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noF93 R 1 61 61 63 no 63 0 noF94 R 1 72 73 74 yes 68 7 yesF95 R 1 61 62 63 no 62 1 noF96 R 1 58 59 60 no 58 1 noG1 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noG2 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noG3 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noG4 R 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noG5 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noG6 R 1 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noG7 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noG8 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noG9 R 2 62 62 64 no 64 0 no

Page C - 11

Page 61: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

G10 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noG11 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noG12 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 noG13 R 1 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noG14 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noG15 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noG16 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noG17 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noG18 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noG19 R 1 71 71 73 yes 73 0 noG20 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noG21 R 2 60 61 62 no 62 0 noG22 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noG23 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 noG24 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noG25 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noG26 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noG27 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noG28 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noG29 C 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noG30 C 2 60 60 61 no 61 0 noG31 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noG32 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noG35 C 1 60 61 63 no 63 0 noG36 R 2 57 58 61 no 53 8 yesG37 R 1 56 56 58 no 53 5 yesG38 R 1 60 61 65 no 55 10 yesG39 R 1 56 56 58 no 53 5 yesG40 R 1 55 56 58 no 53 5 yesG41 R 2 61 61 64 no 56 8 yesG42 R 1 57 58 60 no 54 6 yesG43 R 2 69 70 71 yes 58 13 yesG44 R 1 57 57 59 no 53 6 yesG45 R 1 56 57 58 no 53 5 yesG46 R 2 60 60 62 no 56 6 yesG47 C 1 62 63 64 no 57 7 yesG48 R 1 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesG49 R 3 70 70 72 yes 60 12 yesG50 R 2 62 63 64 no 56 8 yesG51 R 1 56 57 58 no 53 5 yesG52 R 1 58 58 59 no 54 5 yesG53 R 2 69 69 70 yes 60 10 yesG54 R 1 60 60 61 no 55 6 yesG55 R 3 69 70 71 yes 62 9 yesG56 R 2 59 59 60 no 59 1 noG57 R 1 66 66 68 yes 58 10 yesG58 R 1 57 58 59 no 55 4 noG59 R 1 65 65 67 yes 58 9 yesG60 R 1 58 59 60 no 56 4 noG61 R 2 62 62 63 no 57 6 yesG62 R 1 56 56 58 no 54 4 noG63 R 1 61 62 63 no 56 7 yesG64 R 1 59 60 61 no 54 7 yesG65 R 1 58 58 59 no 54 5 yesG66 R 1 55 55 56 no 52 4 noG67 R 1 57 58 59 no 54 5 yesG68 R 1 56 57 58 no 53 5 yes

Page C - 12

Page 62: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

G69 R 1 58 59 60 no 54 6 yesG70 R 1 64 65 66 yes 58 8 yesG71 R 1 60 61 62 no 55 7 yesG72 R 1 56 57 58 no 53 5 yesG73 R 1 72 72 73 yes 61 12 yesG74 R 1 64 64 66 yes 58 8 yesG75 R 1 57 57 58 no 54 4 noG76 R 1 58 58 59 no 54 5 yesG77 R 1 68 69 70 yes 63 7 yesG78 R 1 59 59 60 no 57 3 noG79 R 1 58 58 60 no 56 4 noG80 R 1 64 64 66 yes 63 3 noG81 R 2 57 57 59 no 55 4 noG82 R 1 66 67 68 yes 67 1 noG83 R 2 59 60 61 no 59 2 noG84 R 1 70 70 71 yes 70 1 noG85 R 2 61 61 62 no 60 2 noG86 R 1 73 73 75 yes 71 4 noG87 R 1 65 66 67 yes 64 3 noG88 R 1 58 59 61 no 57 4 noG89 R 2 59 60 62 no 58 4 noG90 R 1 68 69 72 yes 62 10 yesG91 R 1 60 61 64 no 58 6 yesG92 R 1 63 64 69 yes 60 9 yes

G93A R 4 57 57 64 no 56 8 yesG93B R 4 55 56 61 no 54 7 yesG93C R 2 53 54 57 no 53 4 noG93 R 3 59 59 67 yes 59 8 yesG94 C 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noG95 C 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noH1 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH2 R 1 61 62 62 no 62 0 noH3 R 2 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noH4 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH5 R 2 73 74 75 yes 75 0 no

H6A R 3 54 55 56 no 56 0 noH6 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noH7 R 1 71 71 72 yes 67 5 yes

H8A R 5 56 57 58 no 55 3 noH8 R 2 62 63 64 no 59 5 yes

H9A R 1 61 61 62 no 56 6 yesH9 R 1 71 71 72 yes 61 11 yesH10 R 1 62 62 64 no 57 7 yesH11 R 1 71 72 73 yes 61 12 yesH12 R 1 63 63 65 no 57 8 yesH13 R 2 69 70 71 yes 60 11 yes

H14A R 3 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesH14 R 1 65 65 67 yes 57 10 yesH15 R 1 62 63 65 no 56 9 yesH16 R 2 59 60 61 no 54 7 yes

H17A R 2 54 54 56 no 52 4 noH17 R 2 57 57 59 no 53 6 yesH18 R 1 55 55 57 no 52 5 yes

H19A R 2 51 52 54 no 51 3 noH19 R 1 53 53 55 no 52 3 noH20 R 2 55 56 58 no 55 3 noH21 R 2 57 57 60 no 54 6 yes

Page C - 13

Page 63: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

H22 R 2 59 60 62 no 53 9 yesH23 R 1 61 61 64 no 54 10 yesH24 R 2 63 64 67 yes 57 10 yesH25 R 3 71 71 73 yes 59 14 yesH26 R 1 53 53 56 no 56 0 noH27 R 3 54 54 57 no 57 0 noH28 R 1 55 56 58 no 58 0 noH29 R 1 56 56 59 no 59 0 noH30 R 1 58 58 61 no 61 0 noH31 R 1 57 58 60 no 60 0 noH32 R 2 60 60 63 no 63 0 noH33 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noH34 R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH35 R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH36 R 3 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH37 R 1 72 73 74 yes 65 9 yesH38 R 1 68 69 70 yes 60 10 yes

H39A R 5 54 55 56 no 53 3 noH39 R 4 59 60 61 no 57 4 noH40 R 1 72 73 74 yes 60 14 yesH41 R 1 69 69 70 yes 59 11 yes

H42A R 2 54 55 56 no 52 4 noH42 R 4 59 60 61 no 55 6 yesH43 R 3 71 71 72 yes 60 12 yes

H44A R 6 50 50 50 no 50 0 noH44 R 2 52 52 53 no 53 0 noH45 R 2 54 55 56 no 55 1 noH46 R 3 72 72 73 yes 59 14 yesH47 R 3 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yes

H48A R 3 55 55 57 no 53 4 noH48 R 4 59 59 61 no 55 6 yesH49 R 1 68 69 70 yes 59 11 yesH50 R 2 62 63 66 yes 56 10 yes

H51A R 2 56 56 58 no 53 5 yesH51 R 1 59 60 62 no 54 8 yesH52 R 2 60 61 63 no 55 8 yesH53 R 2 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesH54 R 1 59 59 61 no 54 7 yes

H55A R 2 52 53 54 no 51 3 noH55 R 1 54 55 57 no 51 6 yesH56 R 1 57 58 60 no 53 7 yesH57 R 1 55 56 57 no 55 2 noH58 R 1 52 53 55 no 53 2 noH59 R 1 52 53 55 no 51 4 noH60 R 1 63 64 65 no 56 9 yesH61 R 1 59 60 61 no 57 4 noH62 R 1 58 59 60 no 53 7 yesH63 V 0 60 61 62 no 62 0 noH64 V 0 59 60 61 no 61 0 noH65 V 0 62 62 64 no 64 0 noH66 R 1 56 57 62 no 62 0 noH67 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noH68 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noH69 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noH70 R 3 55 55 56 no 56 0 noH71 C 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noH72 R 2 53 54 55 no 55 0 no

Page C - 14

Page 64: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

H73 C 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noH74 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noH75 C 1 64 65 66 no 66 0 noH76 C 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noH77 C 1 67 68 69 no 69 0 noH78 C 1 65 66 67 no 67 0 noH79 C 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noH80 C 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noH81 R 6 55 56 57 no 57 0 noH82 R 8 56 57 58 no 58 0 noH83 C 3 67 67 68 no 68 0 noH84 C 1 65 66 67 no 67 0 noH85 R 7 54 55 56 no 56 0 noH86 R 5 56 56 57 no 57 0 noH87 C 1 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noH88 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noH89 C 3 64 65 66 no 66 0 noH90 R 4 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH91 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noH92 C 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noH93 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noH94 C 2 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noH95 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noH96 C 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noH97 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH98 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noH99 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH100 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noH101 C 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noH102 C 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noH103 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noH104 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noH105 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noH106 C 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noH107 C 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noH108 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noH109 C 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noH110 R 3 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noH111 R 6 59 59 60 no 60 0 noH112 R 4 60 60 61 no 61 0 noH113 R 2 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noH114 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noH115 R 2 54 55 56 no 56 0 noH116 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noH117 R 2 53 54 55 no 55 0 noH118 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noH119 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noH120 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noH121 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noH122 C 1 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noH123 R 3 56 57 58 no 58 0 noH124 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noH125 R 2 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noH126 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH127 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH128 R 2 63 64 65 no 65 0 noH129 R 2 56 57 58 no 58 0 no

Page C - 15

Page 65: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

H130 R 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noH131 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noH132 R 3 58 58 59 no 59 0 noH133 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noH134 R 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noH135 R 3 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH136 R 3 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH137 R 2 60 60 61 no 61 0 noH138 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noH139 R 2 61 61 62 no 62 0 noH140 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noH141 R 1 67 67 69 yes 69 0 noH142 R 2 71 71 73 yes 73 0 noH143 R 2 56 57 58 no 58 0 noH144 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 noH145 R 2 73 73 75 yes 75 0 noH146 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noH147 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noH148 R 1 60 60 62 no 62 0 noH149 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noH150 R 1 73 74 75 yes 75 0 noH151 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noH152 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noH153 R 2 55 55 56 no 56 0 noH154 R 1 65 65 67 yes 67 0 noH155 R 2 56 56 57 no 57 0 noH156 R 1 61 61 63 no 63 0 noH157 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH158 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 no

I1 R 1 66 66 67 yes 67 0 noI2 R 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noI3 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noI4 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noI5 R 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noI6 R 2 50 51 52 no 52 0 noI7 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noI8 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noI9 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noI10 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noI11 R 2 55 56 56 no 56 0 noI12 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noI13 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noI14 C 1 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noI15 R 2 60 61 62 no 62 0 noI16 R 1 66 66 67 yes 67 0 noI17 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noI18 C 1 65 66 67 no 67 0 noI19 R 2 60 61 61 no 61 0 noI20 C 1 65 66 67 no 67 0 noI21 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noI22 R 1 66 66 67 yes 67 0 noI23 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noI24 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noI25 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noI26 R 2 59 60 61 no 61 0 noI27 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noI28 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 no

Page C - 16

Page 66: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

I29 R 2 59 59 60 no 60 0 noI30 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noI31 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noI32 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noI33 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noI34 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noI35 C 1 64 65 66 no 66 0 noI36 C 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noI37 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noI38 C 1 66 67 67 no 67 0 noI39 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noI40 C 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noI41 R 4 60 60 61 no 61 0 noI42 C 1 68 68 69 no 69 0 noI43 C 1 66 66 67 no 67 0 noI44 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noI45 R 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noI46 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noI47 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noI48 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noI49 R 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noI50 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noI51 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noI52 R 3 50 50 50 no 50 0 noI53 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noI54 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noI55 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noI56 R 3 50 50 51 no 51 0 noI57 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noI58 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noI59 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noI60 R 1 50 51 52 no 52 0 noI61 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noI62 R 1 51 52 53 no 53 0 noI63 R 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noI64 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noI65 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noI66 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noI67 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noI68 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noI69 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noI70 R 4 55 55 56 no 56 0 noI71 R 4 57 57 58 no 58 0 noI72 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noI73 R 4 60 61 62 no 62 0 noI74 P 0 57 58 58 no 58 0 noI75 R 5 57 58 59 no 59 0 noJ1 R 2 55 56 57 no 56 1 noJ2 R 2 56 57 58 no 57 1 noJ3 R 2 58 58 59 no 58 1 noJ4 R 1 59 60 61 no 59 2 noJ5 R 1 62 63 64 no 61 3 noJ6 R 1 64 65 66 yes 62 4 noJ7 R 2 66 66 67 yes 63 4 noJ8 R 1 66 67 68 yes 62 6 yesJ9 R 1 70 70 71 yes 62 9 yesJ10 R 1 70 71 72 yes 61 11 yes

Page C - 17

Page 67: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

J11 R 1 71 72 73 yes 61 12 yesJ12 R 1 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yesJ13 R 1 71 72 73 yes 61 12 yesJ14 R 1 71 72 73 yes 61 12 yesJ15 R 1 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yesJ16 R 1 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yesJ17 R 1 71 72 73 yes 59 14 yesJ18 R 1 71 72 73 yes 59 14 yesJ19 R 1 71 72 73 yes 59 14 yesJ20 R 1 71 72 73 yes 59 14 yesJ21 R 1 72 72 73 yes 59 14 yesJ22 R 1 71 72 73 yes 59 14 yesJ23 R 1 71 72 73 yes 59 14 yesJ24 R 1 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yesJ25 R 1 63 63 64 no 58 6 yesJ26 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noJ27 R 1 56 57 58 no 56 2 noJ28 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ29 R 1 52 52 53 no 50 3 noJ30 R 1 55 55 56 no 55 1 noJ31 R 1 56 57 58 no 56 1 noJ32 R 1 58 59 59 no 56 3 noJ33 R 1 61 61 62 no 57 5 yesJ34 R 1 61 62 63 no 58 5 yesJ35 R 1 61 61 62 no 58 4 noJ36 R 1 51 51 52 no 52 0 noJ37 R 2 52 52 53 no 52 1 noJ38 R 2 51 52 53 no 52 1 noJ39 R 1 52 53 54 no 52 2 noJ40 R 1 53 53 54 no 52 2 noJ41 R 1 55 56 57 no 54 3 noJ42 R 1 54 54 55 no 54 1 noJ43 R 1 51 52 53 no 53 0 noJ44 R 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noJ45 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ46 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noJ47 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noJ48 R 1 56 57 57 no 57 0 noJ49 R 1 55 56 57 no 56 1 noJ50 R 1 58 59 60 no 57 3 noJ51 R 1 63 64 65 no 60 5 yesJ52 R 2 61 62 62 no 58 4 noJ53 R 2 59 60 61 no 58 3 noJ54 R 1 59 59 60 no 59 1 noJ55 R 1 57 58 59 no 57 2 noJ56 R 1 56 56 57 no 56 1 noJ57 R 1 53 54 55 no 53 2 noJ58 R 1 54 55 56 no 53 3 noJ59 R 1 54 55 56 no 54 2 noJ60 R 3 54 55 56 no 53 3 noJ61 R 3 53 54 55 no 53 2 noJ62 R 2 53 54 55 no 53 2 noJ63 R 3 54 54 55 no 53 2 noJ64 R 1 54 55 56 no 53 3 noJ65 R 1 55 55 56 no 53 3 noJ66 R 1 57 58 59 no 55 4 noJ67 R 1 56 57 58 no 54 4 no

Page C - 18

Page 68: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

J68 R 1 54 54 55 no 53 2 noJ69 R 1 51 51 52 no 50 2 noJ70 R 3 53 54 55 no 54 1 noJ71 R 2 53 53 54 no 53 1 noJ72 R 2 52 53 54 no 53 1 noJ73 R 1 56 56 57 no 54 3 noJ74 R 1 52 52 53 no 52 1 noJ75 R 1 53 54 54 no 54 0 noJ76 R 1 50 50 51 no 50 1 noJ77 R 1 54 55 56 no 55 1 noJ78 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ79 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ80 R 1 52 52 53 no 53 0 noJ81 R 1 50 50 51 no 51 0 noJ82 R 1 50 51 51 no 51 0 noJ83 R 1 50 50 51 no 51 0 noJ84 R 1 50 50 51 no 50 1 noJ85 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ86 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ87 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ88 R 2 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ89 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ90 R 1 50 50 50 no 50 0 noJ91 C 1 61 61 62 no 59 3 noJ92 C 1 69 69 70 no 70 0 noJ93 R 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noJ94 R 1 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noJ95 R 1 66 66 67 yes 67 0 noJ96 R 1 64 65 65 no 65 0 noJ97 R 1 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noJ98 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noJ99 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noJ100 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noJ101 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noJ102 R 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noJ103 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noJ104 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noJ105 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noJ106 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noJ107 R 1 60 61 61 no 61 0 noJ108 R 1 60 61 61 no 61 0 noJ109 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noJ110 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noJ111 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noJ112 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noJ113 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noJ114 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noJ115 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noJ116 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noJ117 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noJ118 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noJ119 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noJ120 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noJ121 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ122 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ123 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noJ124 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 no

Page C - 19

Page 69: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

J125 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ126 R 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noJ127 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ128 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ129 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noJ130 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noJ131 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noJ132 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noJ133 R 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noJ134 R 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noJ135 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noJ136 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noJ137 R 1 53 54 55 no 55 0 noJ138 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noJ139 R 1 52 52 53 no 53 0 noJ140 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noJ141 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ142 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noJ143 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noJ144 R 1 52 53 54 no 54 0 noJ145 R 1 54 54 55 no 55 0 noJ146 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noJ147 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noJ148 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noJ149 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noJ150 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noJ151 R 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noJ152 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noJ153 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noJ154 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noJ155 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noJ156 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noJ157 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noJ158 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noJ159 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noJ160 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noJ161 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noJ162 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noJ163 R 1 55 56 56 no 56 0 noJ164 R 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noJ165 V 0 61 62 62 no 62 0 noJ166 P 0 60 60 61 no 61 0 noJ167 C 0 58 59 60 no 60 0 noJ168 C 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noJ169 C 1 65 65 66 no 66 0 noJ170 C 2 68 69 70 no 70 0 noJ171 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noJ172 C 0 68 69 70 no 70 0 noJ173 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noJ174 P 0 59 60 61 no 61 0 noJ175 R 1 59 59 60 no 58 2 noJ176 R 1 62 62 63 no 60 3 noJ177 R 2 58 59 59 no 57 2 noJ178 R 1 66 67 68 yes 62 6 yesJ179 R 1 60 61 62 no 59 3 noJ180 R 1 69 70 71 yes 62 9 yesJ181 R 1 65 66 67 yes 60 7 yes

Page C - 20

Page 70: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

J182 R 1 69 70 71 yes 61 10 yesJ183 R 2 62 63 64 no 58 6 yesJ184 R 2 58 58 59 no 57 2 noJ185 R 1 67 68 69 yes 61 8 yesJ186 R 2 60 61 62 no 58 4 noJ187 R 1 70 71 72 yes 61 11 yesJ188 R 1 64 64 65 no 59 6 yesJ189 R 1 68 68 69 yes 62 7 yesJ190 R 1 65 65 66 yes 62 4 noJ191 R 1 59 60 61 no 58 3 noJ192 R 1 62 63 64 no 61 3 noJ193 R 2 57 58 59 no 57 2 noJ194 C 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noJ195 R 1 59 60 61 no 58 3 noJ196 R 3 58 58 59 no 59 0 noJ197 R 8 61 62 63 no 63 0 noJ198 R 7 60 61 62 no 62 0 noJ199 R 2 57 58 59 no 59 0 noJ200 R 5 60 61 62 no 62 0 noJ201 R 6 62 62 63 no 63 0 noJ202 R 5 54 55 56 no 56 0 noJ203 R 8 59 59 60 no 60 0 noJ204 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noJ205 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noJ206 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noJ207 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noJ208 R 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noJ209 I 1 65 65 64 no 64 0 noJ210 I 0 64 65 65 no 65 0 noJ211 C 0 67 67 68 no 68 0 noK1 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noK2 I 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noK3 I 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noK4 I 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noK5 C 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noK6 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noK7 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noK8 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noK9 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noK10 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK11 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noK12 R 1 67 67 68 yes 68 0 noK13 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noK14 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noK15 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noK16 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noK17 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noK18 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK19 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noK20 C 0 69 69 70 no 70 0 noK21 R 0 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noK22 R 0 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK23 C 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noK24 R 1 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noK25 C 1 69 69 70 no 70 0 noK26 R 1 65 66 66 yes 66 0 noK27 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noK28 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 no

Page C - 21

Page 71: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

K29 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noK30 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noK31 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noK32 C 1 69 69 70 no 70 0 noK33 R 3 60 61 62 no 62 0 noK34 R 3 59 59 60 no 60 0 noK35 R 3 57 58 59 no 59 0 noK36 R 2 55 56 57 no 57 0 noK37 R 2 54 54 55 no 55 0 noK38 R 2 53 53 54 no 54 0 noK39 R 2 56 56 57 no 57 0 noK40 R 2 55 55 56 no 56 0 noK41 R 2 54 55 56 no 56 0 noK42 R 2 55 55 56 no 56 0 noK43 R 2 54 55 56 no 56 0 noK44 R 2 54 54 55 no 55 0 noK45 R 2 54 54 55 no 55 0 noK46 R 2 54 54 55 no 55 0 noK47 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noK48 C 1 69 69 70 no 70 0 noK49 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK50 R 2 52 52 53 no 53 0 noK51 R 2 53 54 55 no 55 0 noK52 R 2 55 55 56 no 56 0 noK53 R 2 56 57 58 no 58 0 noK54 R 2 59 59 60 no 60 0 noK55 R 2 57 58 59 no 59 0 noK56 R 2 56 56 58 no 58 0 noK57 R 2 57 58 59 no 59 0 noK58 R 2 55 56 57 no 57 0 noK59 R 2 54 55 56 no 56 0 noK60 R 2 54 54 56 no 56 0 noK61 R 2 54 54 56 no 56 0 noK62 R 2 53 54 56 no 56 0 noK63 R 2 52 52 53 no 53 0 noK64 R 2 51 52 53 no 53 0 noK65 R 2 51 51 52 no 52 0 noK66 R 1 52 52 53 no 53 0 noK67 R 1 53 53 54 no 54 0 noK68 R 1 54 55 56 no 56 0 noK69 R 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noK70 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noK71 R 1 58 59 59 no 59 0 noK72 R 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noK73 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noK74 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noK75 C 1 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noK76 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noK77 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK78 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noK79 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noK80 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noK81 R 0 66 66 67 yes 67 0 noK82 C 2 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK83 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noK84 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noK85 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 no

Page C - 22

Page 72: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

K86 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noK87 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noK88 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noK89 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noK90 C 1 67 67 68 no 68 0 noK91 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noK92 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noK93 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK94 C 1 67 68 69 no 69 0 noK95 C 1 65 66 67 no 67 0 noK96 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noK97 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK98 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK99 C 1 68 68 69 no 69 0 noK100 VR 0 64 65 65 no 65 0 no

K101A VR 0 65 65 66 no 66 0 noK101B VR 0 61 62 63 no 63 0 noK101C VR 0 63 63 64 no 64 0 noK101D VR 0 59 60 61 no 61 0 noK101E VR 0 61 61 62 no 62 0 noK101F VR 0 57 58 59 no 59 0 noK101 VR 0 67 68 69 no 69 0 noK102 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noK103 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noK104 R 1 58 59 59 no 59 0 noK105 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noK106 R 1 55 55 56 no 56 0 noK107 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noK108 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noK109 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noK110 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK111 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK112 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK113 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK114 R 2 61 61 62 no 62 0 noK115 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noK116 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noK117 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noK118 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noK119 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noK120 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noK121 R 0 61 61 62 no 62 0 noK122 R 0 59 60 61 no 61 0 noK123 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noK124 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK125 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noK126 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noK127 R 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK128 VR 0 71 71 73 no 73 0 noK129 VR 0 68 68 69 no 69 0 noK130 VR 0 71 71 72 no 72 0 noK131 VR 0 67 67 68 no 68 0 noK132 VR 0 67 68 69 no 69 0 noK133 VR 0 65 66 67 no 67 0 noK134 VR 0 68 69 70 no 70 0 noK135 VR 0 71 72 73 no 73 0 noK136 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 no

Page C - 23

Page 73: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

K137 R 0 61 62 63 no 63 0 noK138 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noK139 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noK140 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noK141 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noK142 R 1 63 63 64 no 64 0 noK143 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noK144 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK145 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noK146 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noK147 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noK148 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK149 C 1 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noK150 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noK151 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK152 R 1 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noK153 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noK154 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noK155 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noK156 R 1 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noK157 C 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noK158 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noK159 R 1 64 64 65 no 65 0 noK160 R 1 64 64 65 no 65 0 noK161 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK162 C 1 66 66 67 no 67 0 noK163 C 1 65 66 66 no 66 0 noK164 C 1 68 68 69 no 69 0 noK165 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noK166 C 1 65 66 67 no 67 0 noK167 C 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noK168 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK169 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noK170 R 2 62 63 64 no 64 0 noK171 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noK172 C 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noK173 C 1 64 64 65 no 65 0 noK174 R 2 60 60 62 no 62 0 noK175 R 1 69 69 70 yes 70 0 noK176 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noK177 R 2 57 58 59 no 59 0 noK178 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noK179 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noK180 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noK181 R 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noK182 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noK183 R 2 60 60 61 no 61 0 noK184 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noK185 R 2 57 57 58 no 58 0 noK186 R 1 57 57 58 no 58 0 noK187 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noK188 C 2 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noK189 C 1 72 73 74 yes 74 0 noK190 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noK191 R 2 58 58 59 no 59 0 noK192 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noK193 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 no

Page C - 24

Page 74: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

K194 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noK195 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noK196 C 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noK197 C 1 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noK198 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noK199 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noK200 C 1 73 74 75 yes 75 0 noK201 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noK202 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noK203 C 1 68 69 69 no 69 0 noK204 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noK205 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK206 R 1 64 64 65 no 65 0 noK207 R 1 68 68 69 yes 69 0 noK208 R 1 72 72 73 yes 73 0 noK209 C 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noK210 R 1 65 66 66 yes 66 0 noK211 R 1 66 66 66 yes 66 0 noK212 C 1 62 62 62 no 62 0 noK213 V 0 70 71 72 no 72 0 noK214 C 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noK215 C 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 no

L1 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noL2 R 5 57 58 59 no 59 0 noL3 R 6 59 60 61 no 61 0 noL4 R 5 65 66 67 yes 67 0 noL5 R 5 56 57 58 no 58 0 noL6 R 10 55 56 57 no 57 0 noL7 R 5 58 58 60 no 60 0 noL8 C 2 70 70 72 yes 72 0 noL9 R 2 57 58 59 no 59 0 noL10 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noL11 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noL12 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noL13 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noL14 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noL15 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noL16 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noL17 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noL18 R 2 56 57 58 no 58 0 noL19 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noL20 C 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noL21 C 1 66 67 68 no 68 0 noL22 C 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noL23 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noL24 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noL25 R 1 67 68 69 yes 69 0 noL26 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noL27 R 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noL28 R 1 58 59 60 no 59 1 noL29 R 1 63 64 65 no 64 1 noL30 R 2 56 57 58 no 57 1 noL31 R 2 59 60 61 no 59 2 noL32 R 2 57 58 59 no 57 2 noL33 R 1 56 57 58 no 54 4 noL34 R 1 57 57 59 no 54 5 yesL35 R 1 64 65 66 yes 57 9 yesL36 R 1 60 61 62 no 55 7 yes

Page C - 25

Page 75: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

L37 R 1 58 59 60 no 54 6 yesL38 R 1 57 57 59 no 53 6 yesL39 R 1 55 56 57 no 52 5 yesL40 R 1 64 64 66 yes 56 10 yesL41 R 1 62 62 63 no 56 7 yesL42 R 1 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesL43 R 1 68 68 70 yes 57 13 yesL44 R 1 58 59 60 no 54 6 yesL45 R 1 56 57 58 no 54 4 noL46 R 1 70 70 72 yes 58 14 yesL47 R 1 65 65 67 yes 58 9 yesL48 R 1 60 60 62 no 57 5 yesL49 R 1 56 57 58 no 55 3 noL50 R 1 59 60 61 no 58 3 noL51 C 1 57 58 59 no 57 2 noL52 R 1 66 67 68 yes 67 1 noL53 I 1 68 69 70 yes 70 0 noL54 C 1 69 69 70 no 70 0 noL55 C 1 67 68 69 no 69 0 noL56 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noL57 C 1 70 71 71 yes 71 0 noL58 R 2 58 58 59 no 59 0 noL59 C 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noL60 R 3 57 57 58 no 58 0 noL61 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noL62 C 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noL63 C 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noL64 C 1 71 71 73 yes 73 0 noL65 C 1 55 56 57 no 57 0 noL66 C 1 61 61 63 no 63 0 noL67 C 1 70 70 72 yes 72 0 noL68 R 1 55 55 57 no 57 0 noL69 R 1 59 59 61 no 61 0 noL70 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noL71 R 1 66 66 68 yes 68 0 noL72 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noL73 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noL74 R 4 55 56 57 no 57 0 noL75 R 1 56 56 57 no 53 4 noL76 R 3 62 63 64 no 62 2 noL77 R 6 53 53 54 no 53 1 noL78 R 5 68 68 70 yes 62 8 yesL79 R 10 55 56 57 no 55 2 noL80 R 5 67 68 69 yes 63 6 yesL81 R 6 59 60 61 no 60 1 noL82 R 1 58 58 59 no 59 0 noL83 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noL84 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noL85 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noL86 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noL87 R 1 59 59 60 no 60 0 noL88 R 1 61 61 62 no 62 0 noL89 R 1 66 66 68 yes 68 0 noL90 C 1 67 68 69 no 69 0 noL91 C 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noL92 C 1 71 71 72 yes 72 0 noL93 C 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noL94 C 1 65 66 67 no 67 0 no

Page C - 26

Page 76: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C1: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Options 1A, 2A, and 3A )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

L95 C 1 68 69 70 no 70 0 noL96 C 1 68 68 69 no 69 0 noL97 VR 1 69 69 70 no 62 8 yesL98 VR 1 62 63 65 no 59 6 yesL99 VR 1 59 60 61 no 57 4 noL100 VR 1 67 68 69 no 59 10 yesL101 VR 1 57 58 59 no 55 4 noL102 VR 1 60 60 61 no 56 5 yes

Note: R = Residential; P = Parkland; I = Institutional; C = Commercial; VR = Vacant land anticipated to be residential.Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006.

Page C - 27

Page 77: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C2: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Option 1B )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

C4 R 1 58 59 59 no 59 0 noC5 R 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noC6 R 1 68 69 69 yes 69 0 noC7 R 1 68 69 68 yes 68 0 noC8 R 1 68 69 68 yes 68 0 noC9 R 1 69 70 69 yes 69 0 noC10 R 1 56 56 57 no 57 0 noC11 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noC12 R 1 70 71 71 yes 71 0 noC13 R 1 64 65 65 no 65 0 noC14 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noC15 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noC16 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noC17 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noC18 R 1 57 57 59 no 59 0 noC19 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noC29 I 3 71 72 75 yes 75 0 noC30 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noC31 R 1 60 60 61 no 61 0 noC32 R 1 64 65 66 yes 66 0 noC33 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noC34 R 1 61 62 62 no 62 0 noC35 R 1 61 62 62 no 62 0 noC36 R 1 59 60 60 no 60 0 noC37 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noC38 C 2 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noC39 C 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 no

D100 R 1 60 61 62 no 62 0 noD101 R 1 70 70 72 yes 72 0 noD102 R 1 66 67 68 yes 68 0 noD103 R 1 62 62 64 no 64 0 noD104 R 1 62 63 64 no 64 0 noD105 R 1 65 65 66 yes 66 0 noD106 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD107 R 1 69 70 71 yes 71 0 noD108 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD109 R 1 70 71 72 yes 72 0 noD110 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noD111 R 1 62 62 63 no 63 0 noD112 I 0 56 57 58 no 58 0 noD113 I 1 56 57 58 no 58 0 noD114 I 0 61 61 63 no 63 0 noD130 C 1 64 64 66 no 66 0 noD131 R 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noD132 R 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD133 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noD134 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noD135 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noD136 C 1 71 72 73 yes 73 0 noD137 C 1 63 64 65 no 65 0 noD138 I 1 59 60 61 no 61 0 noD139 C 1 61 62 63 no 63 0 noD140 C 2 72 73 74 yes 74 0 no

Note: R = Residential; P = Parkland; I = Institutional; C = Commercial; VR = Vacant land anticipated to be residential.Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006.

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

Page C - 28

Page 78: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C3: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Option 3B )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

H1 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH2 R 1 61 62 62 no 62 0 noH3 R 2 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noH4 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH5 R 2 73 74 75 yes 75 0 no

H6A R 3 54 55 56 no 56 0 noH6 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noH7 R 1 71 71 72 yes 67 5 yes

H8A R 5 56 57 58 no 55 3 noH8 R 2 62 63 64 no 59 5 yes

H9A R 1 61 61 62 no 56 6 yesH9 R 1 71 71 72 yes 61 11 yesH10 R 1 62 62 64 no 57 7 yesH11 R 1 71 72 73 yes 61 12 yesH12 R 1 63 63 65 no 57 8 yesH13 R 2 69 70 71 yes 60 11 yes

H14A R 3 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesH14 R 1 65 65 67 yes 57 10 yesH15 R 1 62 63 65 no 56 9 yesH16 R 2 59 60 61 no 54 7 yes

H17A R 2 54 54 56 no 52 4 noH17 R 2 57 57 59 no 53 6 yesH18 R 1 55 55 57 no 53 4 no

H19A R 2 51 52 54 no 51 3 noH19 R 1 53 53 55 no 52 3 noH20 R 2 55 56 58 no 55 3 noH21 R 2 57 57 60 no 54 6 yesH22 R 2 59 60 62 no 53 9 yesH23 R 1 61 61 64 no 54 10 yesH24 R 2 63 64 67 yes 57 10 yesH25 R 3 71 71 73 yes 58 15 yesH26 R 1 53 53 56 no 56 0 noH27 R 3 54 54 57 no 57 0 noH28 R 1 55 56 58 no 58 0 noH29 R 1 56 56 59 no 59 0 noH30 R 1 58 58 61 no 61 0 noH31 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noH32 R 2 60 60 62 no 62 0 noH33 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noH34 R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH35 R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH36 R 3 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH37 R 1 72 73 74 yes 65 9 yesH38 R 1 68 69 70 yes 60 10 yes

H39A R 5 54 55 56 no 53 3 noH39 R 4 59 60 61 no 57 4 noH40 R 1 72 73 74 yes 60 14 yesH41 R 1 69 69 70 yes 59 11 yes

H42A R 2 54 55 56 no 52 4 noH42 R 4 59 60 61 no 55 6 yesH43 R 3 71 71 72 yes 60 12 yes

H44A R 6 50 50 50 no 50 0 noH44 R 2 52 52 53 no 53 0 noH45 R 2 54 55 56 no 55 1 noH46 R 3 72 72 73 yes 59 14 yesH47 R 3 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yes

H48A R 3 55 55 57 no 52 5 yes

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

Page C - 29

Page 79: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C3: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Option 3B )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

H48 R 4 59 59 60 no 55 5 yesH49 R 1 68 69 70 yes 59 11 yesH50 R 2 62 63 65 no 56 9 yes

H51A R 2 56 56 58 no 53 5 yesH51 R 1 59 60 61 no 54 7 yesH52 R 2 60 61 63 no 55 8 yesH53 R 2 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesH54 R 1 59 59 62 no 54 8 yes

H55A R 2 52 53 54 no 51 3 noH55 R 1 54 55 57 no 51 6 yesH56 R 1 57 58 60 no 53 7 yesH57 R 1 55 56 57 no 55 2 noH58 R 1 52 53 54 no 53 1 noH59 R 1 52 53 55 no 51 4 no

Note: R = Residential; P = Parkland; I = Institutional; C = Commercial; VR = Vacant land anticipated to be residential.Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006.

Page C - 30

Page 80: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C4: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Option 3C )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

H1 R 1 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH2 R 1 61 62 62 no 62 0 noH3 R 2 70 70 71 yes 71 0 noH4 R 2 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH5 R 2 73 74 75 yes 75 0 no

H6A R 3 54 55 56 no 56 0 noH6 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noH7 R 1 71 71 72 yes 67 5 yes

H8A R 5 56 57 58 no 55 3 noH8 R 2 62 63 64 no 59 5 yes

H9A R 1 61 61 62 no 56 6 yesH9 R 1 71 71 72 yes 61 11 yesH10 R 1 62 62 64 no 56 8 yesH11 R 1 71 72 73 yes 61 12 yesH12 R 1 63 63 65 no 57 8 yesH13 R 2 69 70 71 yes 60 11 yes

H14A R 3 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesH14 R 1 65 65 67 yes 58 9 yesH15 R 1 62 63 64 no 56 8 yesH16 R 2 59 60 61 no 54 7 yes

H17A R 2 54 54 56 no 52 4 noH17 R 2 57 57 59 no 54 5 yesH18 R 1 55 55 58 no 53 5 yes

H19A R 2 51 52 54 no 51 3 noH19 R 1 53 53 56 no 53 3 noH20 R 2 55 56 58 no 57 1 noH21 R 2 57 57 60 no 55 5 yesH22 R 2 59 60 65 no 54 11 yesH23 R 1 61 61 65 no 55 10 yesH24 R 2 63 64 67 yes 57 10 yesH25 R 3 71 71 73 yes 58 15 yesH26 R 1 53 53 56 no 56 0 noH27 R 3 54 54 57 no 57 0 noH28 R 1 55 56 58 no 58 0 noH29 R 1 56 56 59 no 59 0 noH30 R 1 58 58 61 no 61 0 noH31 R 1 57 58 59 no 59 0 noH32 R 2 60 60 62 no 62 0 noH33 R 1 58 58 60 no 60 0 noH34 R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH35 R 2 61 62 63 no 63 0 noH36 R 3 58 59 60 no 60 0 noH37 R 1 72 73 74 yes 65 9 yesH38 R 1 68 69 70 yes 60 10 yes

H39A R 5 54 55 56 no 53 3 noH39 R 4 59 60 61 no 57 4 noH40 R 1 72 73 74 yes 60 14 yesH41 R 1 69 69 70 yes 59 11 yes

H42A R 2 54 55 56 no 52 4 noH42 R 4 59 60 61 no 55 6 yesH43 R 3 71 71 72 yes 60 12 yes

H44A R 6 50 50 50 no 50 0 noH44 R 2 52 52 53 no 53 0 noH45 R 2 54 55 56 no 55 1 noH46 R 3 72 72 73 yes 59 14 yesH47 R 3 71 72 73 yes 60 13 yes

H48A R 3 55 55 57 no 52 5 yes

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

Page C - 31

Page 81: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table C4: Computed Sound Levels and Benefits of Recommended Barriers(For Roadway Option 3C )

ReceptorLandUse

# of UnitsRepresented

Build Sound Levelwith Barrier

InsertionLoss

ReceptorBenefitted

Benefits of Recommended BarriersReceptor

Impact

ExistingSoundLevel

No-BuildSoundLevel

BuildSoundLevel

H48 R 4 59 59 60 no 55 5 yesH49 R 1 68 69 70 yes 59 11 yesH50 R 2 62 63 66 yes 57 9 yes

H51A R 2 56 56 58 no 53 5 yesH51 R 1 59 60 61 no 54 7 yesH52 R 2 60 61 64 no 56 8 yesH53 R 2 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesH54 R 1 59 59 61 no 54 7 yes

H55A R 2 52 53 54 no 51 3 noH55 R 1 54 55 56 no 51 5 yesH56 R 1 57 58 59 no 53 6 yesH57 R 1 55 56 57 no 55 2 noH58 R 1 52 53 54 no 53 1 noH59 R 1 52 53 54 no 51 3 no

Note: R = Residential; P = Parkland; I = Institutional; C = Commercial; VR = Vacant land anticipated to be residential.Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2006.

Page C - 32

Page 82: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report May 2006

Edwards and Kelcey

Exhibit DMaps 19 through 36

Analyzed Noise Barriers and Noise Contours for the Build with Recommended Barriers condition

Page 83: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 84: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 85: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 86: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 87: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 88: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 89: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 90: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 91: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 92: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 93: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 94: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 95: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 96: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 97: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 98: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 99: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 100: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 101: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 102: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 103: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report May 2006

Edwards and Kelcey

Exhibit ENoise Barrier Insertion Loss for each Analyzed Barrier

Page 104: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier A1

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILA1 0 53 53 0 53 0 53 0 53 0A2 0 56 56 0 56 0 56 0 56 0A3 1 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1A4 1 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1A5 1 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1A6 1 56 54 2 54 2 54 2 55 1A7 1 57 53 4 54 3 54 3 55 2A8 1 54 51 3 52 2 52 2 53 1A9 6 66 59 7 59 7 60 6 61 5A10 9 61 53 8 55 6 56 5 57 4A11 6 68 59 9 61 7 63 5 66 2A12 1 60 52 8 54 6 56 4 59 1A13 1 57 52 5 53 4 55 2 56 1A14 4 57 52 5 53 4 55 2 56 1A15 6 61 57 4 58 3 58 3 60 1A16 1 61 54 7 56 5 58 3 59 2A17 1 61 54 7 56 5 58 3 59 2A18 1 58 53 5 54 4 56 2 57 1A19 1 57 52 5 54 3 55 2 56 1A20* 2 65 58 7 59 6 60 5 62 3A21 1 59 54 5 55 4 56 3 57 2A22 1 61 55 6 57 4 58 3 59 2A23 1 60 57 3 57 3 58 2 59 1A24 1 63 56 7 57 6 58 5 60 3B1 1 60 54 6 55 5 55 5 56 4B2 1 61 54 7 55 6 56 5 57 4

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 12

--

Legend

*

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

1057 mBarrier Area 7,399 sq. m 6,342 sq. m 5,285 sq. m 4,228 sq. m

Barrier Length 1057 m 1057 m 1057 m

2 dBMax Noise Reduction 8 dB 7 dB 6 dB 6 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 4 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 38 29 26 6No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 6

12 12 12 12

$1,708,112Cost per Benefited Unit $78,663 $88,351 $82,121 $284,685Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $2,989,196 $2,562,168 $2,135,140

Barrier A1 - The 7m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Best barrier design analyzed, but not recommended

Typical Receptor/Insertion Loss

Recommended barrier design

Page E - 1

Page 105: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers B1/B2

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

A29 1 56 54 2 54 2 54 2 55 1A30 7 65 54 11 55 10 56 9 57 8A31 5 55 52 3 52 3 53 2 54 1A32 1 67 55 12 56 11 58 9 60 7A33 2 57 52 5 53 4 54 3 55 2A34 1 64 54 10 55 9 56 8 57 7A35 1 61 54 7 55 6 57 4 58 3A36 1 60 54 6 55 5 56 4 58 2A37 1 58 53 5 54 4 55 3 57 1A38 1 60 53 7 54 6 55 5 57 3A39 1 62 54 8 55 7 56 6 58 4A40 1 61 53 7 54 7 55 6 57 4A41 1 56 51 5 52 4 52 4 53 3A42 1 61 53 8 54 7 55 6 55 6A43 1 60 52 8 53 7 54 6 55 5A44 1 58 52 6 53 5 53 5 54 4A45 1 57 52 5 53 4 54 3 55 2A46* 1 62 54 8 55 7 56 6 57 5A47 3 57 53 4 54 3 55 2 57 0A48 2 60 53 7 54 6 55 5 56 4B71 2 58 52 6 53 5 54 4 55 3B72 2 57 52 5 53 4 54 3 55 2B73 1 57 52 5 53 4 53 4 54 3B74 1 57 53 4 54 3 55 2 56 1B75 2 63 56 7 58 5 59 4 60 3B76 6 58 55 3 56 2 57 1 58 0B77 3 62 55 7 56 6 57 5 58 4B78 1 54 51 3 52 2 52 2 53 1B79 1 55 52 3 52 3 53 2 53 2B80 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 53 1B81 1 54 51 3 52 2 52 2 53 1B82 3 74 61 13 62 12 62 12 63 11

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 4

--

B83 1 53 51 2 52 1 52 1 52 1B84 1 55 52 3 53 2 53 2 54 1B85 1 75 68 7 68 7 68 7 68 7B86 1 53 52 1 52 1 53 0 53 0B87 3 74 58 16 59 15 60 14 62 12B88 5 52 50 2 50 2 50 2 50 2B89 2 53 52 1 52 1 52 1 53 0B90 1 54 52 2 53 1 53 1 53 1B91 1 57 54 3 54 3 55 2 55 2B92 1 55 54 1 54 1 55 0 55 0B93 2 72 59 13 60 12 61 11 63 9B94* 1 69 59 10 59 10 60 9 62 7B95 1 64 58 6 58 6 59 5 60 4B96 1 62 57 5 58 4 59 3 59 3B97 1 60 57 3 57 3 58 2 58 2B98 1 59 57 2 58 1 58 1 58 1B99 1 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 60 2B100 1 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 61 1B101 2 71 62 9 63 8 63 8 63 8B102 1 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1B103 1 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1B104 2 65 64 1 64 1 64 1 64 1B105 1 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1B106 1 63 62 1 62 1 63 0 63 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 9

--

Barriers B2 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

310 mBarrier Area 2,170 sq. m 1,860 sq. m 1,550 sq. m 1,240 sq. m

Barrier Length 310 m 310 m 310 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 14 dB 12 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 11 10 10 9No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

9 9 9 9

$500,960Cost per Benefited Unit $79,698 $75,144 $62,620 $55,662Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $876,680 $751,440 $626,200

Barriers B1 – The 7m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Barrier B1

Barrier B2

1335 m 1335 mBarrier Area 9,345 sq. m 8,010 sq. m 6,675 sq. m 5,340 sq. m

Barrier Length 1335 m 1335 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 13 dB 12 dB 12 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 38 30 24 15No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

$2,157,360Cost per Benefited Unit $99,352 $107,868 $112,363 $143,824Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $3,775,380 $3,236,040 $2,696,700

Page E - 2

Page 106: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier B3

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILB126 4 71 69 2 69 2 69 2 69 2B127 8 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1B128 4 75 67 8 68 7 68 7 68 7B129* 2 73 64 9 64 9 64 9 65 8B130 6 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1B131 4 75 62 13 62 13 63 12 64 11B132 5 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1B133 0 74 74 0 74 0 74 0 74 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 14

--

Barrier B4

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILB57 2 67 65 2 65 2 65 2 65 2B58 1 71 66 5 66 5 66 5 66 5B59 1 66 65 1 65 1 65 1 65 1B60 1 65 63 2 63 2 63 2 64 1B61* 2 73 63 10 63 10 64 9 65 8B62 1 63 63 0 63 0 63 0 63 0B63 1 67 65 2 65 2 65 2 65 2B64 1 65 65 0 65 0 65 0 65 0B65 1 66 66 0 66 0 66 0 66 0B66 1 71 68 3 68 3 68 3 68 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 9

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

161 mBarrier Area 1,127 sq. m 966 sq. m 805 sq. m 644 sq. m

Barrier Length 161 m 161 m 161 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 13 dB 12 dB 12 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 10 10 10 10No. ofImpactedUnits

8 8 8 8

14 14 14 14

$260,176Cost per Benefited Unit $45,531 $39,026 $32,522 $26,018Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $455,308 $390,264 $325,220

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

149 mBarrier Area 1,043 sq. m 894 sq. m 745 sq. m 596 sq. m

Barrier Length 149 m 149 m 149 m

2 dBMax Noise Reduction 10 dB 10 dB 10 dB 9 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 2 dB

No. of Benefited Units 3 3 3 3No. ofImpactedUnits

3 3 3 3

9 9 9 9

$240,784Cost per Benefited Unit $140,457 $120,392 $100,327 $80,261Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $421,372 $361,176 $300,980

Barrier B3 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

Barrier B4 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Page E - 3

Page 107: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers C1/C2/C3

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

C20* 1 71 66 5 66 5 66 5 67 4-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

C21 1 72 67 5 67 5 67 5 67 5C22 1 69 64 5 64 5 64 5 64 5C23* 1 73 65 8 65 8 66 7 66 7C24 1 74 71 3 71 3 71 3 71 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 4

--

C25 1 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 61 2C26 0 74 70 4 70 4 70 4 70 4C27* 1 72 67 5 67 5 67 5 67 5

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

Barriers C2 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.Barriers C3 – The 7m Barrier is not feasible and therefore not recommended.

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

73 mBarrier Area 511 sq. m 438 sq. m 365 sq. m 292 sq. m

Barrier Length 73 m 73 m 73 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB 5 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 1 1 1 1No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

$117,968Cost per Benefited Unit N/A N/A N/A N/ACost @ $37.5/ft2 $206,444 $176,952 $147,460

Barriers C1 – The 7m Barrier is not feasible and therefore not recommended.

220 sq. mBarrier Length 55 m 55 m 55 m 55 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

4 dBBarrier Area 385 sq. m 330 sq. m 275 sq. m

Avg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 1 1 1 0Max Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 1

1 1 1 1

$88,880Cost per Benefited Unit $155,540 $133,320 $111,100 N/ACost @ $37.5/ft2 $155,540 $133,320 $111,100

97 mBarrier Area 679 sq. m 582 sq. m 485 sq. m 388 sq. m

Barrier Length 97 m 97 m 97 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 8 dB 8 dB 8 dB 7 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 3 3 3 3No. ofImpactedUnits

2 2 3 3

4 4 4 4

$65,313 $52,251Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $274,316 $235,128 $195,940

Barrier C1

Barrier C2

Barrier C3

$156,752Cost per Benefited Unit $91,439 $78,376

Page E - 4

Page 108: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers C4/C5 - Option 1A

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

C4 1 58 58 0 58 0 58 0 58 0C5 1 57 56 1 56 1 56 1 56 1C6 1 68 58 10 59 9 59 9 60 8C7* 1 68 58 10 58 10 59 9 59 9C8 1 67 58 9 59 8 59 8 60 7C9 1 69 61 8 61 8 62 7 62 7C10 1 57 54 3 55 2 55 2 55 2C11 2 59 55 4 56 3 56 3 57 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 4

--

C12 1 71 59 12 59 12 60 11 61 10C13* 1 65 57 8 58 7 59 6 60 5C14 1 60 56 4 56 4 56 4 57 3C15 1 64 57 7 57 7 58 6 60 4C16 1 59 55 4 55 4 56 3 57 2C17 1 62 57 5 57 5 58 4 59 3C18 1 59 55 4 56 3 56 3 57 2C19 1 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 59 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

Barriers C5 – The 6m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

231 mBarrier Area 1,617 sq. m 1,386 sq. m 1,155 sq. m 924 sq. m

Barrier Length 231 m 231 m 231 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 12 dB 11 dB 11 dB 10 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 4 4 3

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

$186,648Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $653,268 $559,944 $466,620

2No. ofImpactedUnits

Barriers C4 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$373,296Cost per Benefited Unit $163,317 $139,986 $155,540

Barrier C4

796 sq. mAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB 4 dB

Barrier Area 1,393 sq. m 1,194 sq. m 995 sq. m

8 dBNo. of Benefited Units 4 4 4 4Max Noise Reduction 10 dB 9 dB 9 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

$321,584Cost per Benefited Unit $140,693 $120,594 $100,495 $80,396Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $562,772 $482,376 $401,980

Barrier Length

Barrier C5

199 m199 m199 m199 m

Page E - 5

Page 109: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers C4/C5 - Option 1B

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

C4 1 59 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0C5 1 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1C6 1 69 59 10 59 10 60 9 61 8C7* 1 68 58 10 59 9 59 9 60 8C8 1 68 59 9 59 9 60 8 61 7C9 1 69 61 8 62 7 62 7 63 6C10 1 57 55 2 55 2 56 1 56 1C11 2 60 56 4 56 4 57 3 57 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 4

--

C12 1 71 59 12 60 11 60 11 61 10C13* 1 65 58 7 59 6 59 6 60 5C14 1 60 56 4 57 3 57 3 58 2C15 1 64 57 7 58 6 59 5 60 4C16 1 59 56 3 56 3 56 3 57 2C17 1 63 58 5 58 5 59 4 60 3C18 1 59 56 3 56 3 57 2 57 2C19 1 62 58 4 58 4 59 3 60 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

-

-

Barriers C5 – The 6m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.Barriers C4 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$373,296

Cost per Benefited Unit $163,317 $139,986 $155,540 $186,648

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $653,268 $559,944 $466,620

2No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

No. of Benefited Units 4 4 3

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 12 dB 11 dB 11 dB 10 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB

231 mBarrier Area 1,617 sq. m 1,386 sq. m 1,155 sq. m 924 sq. m

Barrier Length 231 m 231 m 231 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

199 m 199 mBarrier Length 199 m 199 m

Barrier C4

796 sq. mAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB 4 dB

Barrier Area 1,393 sq. m 1,194 sq. m 995 sq. m

8 dBNo. of Benefited Units 4 4 4 4Max Noise Reduction 10 dB 10 dB 9 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

$321,584Cost per Benefited Unit $140,693 $120,594 $100,495 $80,396Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $562,772 $482,376 $401,980

Barrier C5

Page E - 6

Page 110: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier D1

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILD100 1 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1D101 1 72 61 11 62 10 62 10 63 9D102 1 68 60 8 61 7 61 7 61 7D103 1 64 60 4 60 4 60 4 60 4D104 1 64 58 6 58 6 58 6 59 5D105* 1 66 57 9 57 9 58 8 59 7D106 1 61 58 3 58 3 59 2 59 2D107 1 71 57 14 58 13 59 12 62 9D108 1 61 56 5 56 5 56 5 57 4D109 1 72 57 15 58 14 60 12 63 9D110 1 60 54 6 55 5 55 5 56 4D111 1 63 55 8 56 7 56 7 57 6D112 0 58 54 4 54 4 55 3 55 3D113 0 58 55 3 55 3 55 3 55 3D114 0 63 57 6 58 5 58 5 59 4D115 1 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1D116 0 69 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0D117 0 69 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 5

--

Barriers D2/D4/D6

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

D1 0 63 63 0 63 0 63 0 63 0D2 0 59 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0D3 0 64 64 0 64 0 64 0 64 0D4 0 66 66 0 66 0 66 0 66 0D5 0 72 72 0 72 0 72 0 72 0D6 2 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1D7 1 65 62 3 62 3 63 2 63 2D8* 2 70 60 10 61 9 61 9 62 8D9 2 75 57 18 58 16 60 15 62 13D10 2 75 58 17 59 16 62 13 65 10D11 2 74 68 6 68 6 69 5 72 2D12 1 56 51 5 52 4 52 4 53 3D13 1 59 52 7 53 6 53 6 54 5D14 2 56 51 5 51 5 52 4 53 3D15 2 63 54 9 55 8 55 8 56 7D16 3 58 53 5 53 5 53 5 54 4D17 2 64 56 8 57 7 57 7 58 6D18 2 63 59 4 59 4 59 4 59 4

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 8

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

447 mBarrier Area 3,129 sq. m 2,682 sq. m 2,235 sq. m 1,788 sq. m

Barrier Length 447 m 447 m 447 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 15 dB 13 dB 12 dB 10 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 9 9 9 7No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5

$100,327 $103,193Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,264,116 $1,083,528 $902,940

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL

Barrier D1 – The 5m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$722,352Cost per Benefited Unit $140,457 $120,392

7m 6m 5m 4m

243 mBarrier Area 1,701 sq. m 1,458 sq. m 1,215 sq. m 972 sq. m

Barrier Length 243 m 243 m 243 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 18 dB 16 dB 15 dB 13 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 19 18 16 11No. ofImpactedUnits

2 2 2 2

8 8 8 8

$392,688Cost per Benefited Unit $36,169 $32,724 $30,679 $35,699Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $687,204 $589,032 $490,860

Barrier D2

Page E - 7

Page 111: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

D19 3 60 55 5 55 5 56 4 56 4D20 1 72 65 7 65 7 65 7 65 7D21 1 69 61 8 61 8 62 7 62 7D22 2 64 57 7 57 7 58 6 58 6D23 2 62 54 8 55 7 55 7 56 6D24* 1 69 57 12 58 11 59 10 60 9D25 1 72 58 14 59 13 60 12 61 11D26 1 62 52 10 53 9 54 8 56 6D27 2 75 57 18 58 17 60 15 62 13D28 2 65 54 11 55 10 56 9 58 7D29 2 75 57 18 58 17 60 15 62 13D30 2 76 57 19 58 18 60 16 63 13D31 2 62 53 9 54 8 55 7 57 5D32 2 66 54 12 55 11 57 9 59 7D33 2 75 58 17 60 15 61 14 64 11D34 2 63 55 8 55 8 56 7 58 5D35 1 75 58 17 59 16 61 14 64 11D36 1 75 60 15 61 14 63 12 65 10D37 1 72 64 8 64 8 64 8 65 7D38 1 65 59 6 59 6 60 5 61 4D39 1 62 57 5 57 5 58 4 58 4D40 1 60 56 4 56 4 56 4 57 3D41 1 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 57 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 17

--

D42 1 61 56 5 57 4 57 4 58 3D43 1 63 58 5 59 4 59 4 60 3D44 1 66 61 5 61 5 61 5 62 4D45 1 75 70 5 70 5 70 5 70 5

D46A 1 61 56 5 56 5 57 4 57 4D46B* 2 63 58 5 58 5 58 5 59 4D46C 1 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 57 3D46 1 64 59 5 59 5 59 5 60 4D47 1 64 60 4 60 4 60 4 60 4D48 1 62 59 3 60 2 60 2 60 2D49 3 60 58 2 59 1 59 1 59 1D50 0 64 63 1 63 1 63 1 64 0D51 1 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1D52 1 59 58 0 58 0 58 0 58 0D53 2 59 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 2

--

Barriers D6 – The 7m Barrier is not feasible; eliminating this barrier changes the combined attenuation of BarrierD2, D4 and D6. Refer to Barriers D2 and D4 Alternative [without Barrier D6] below for the insertion losses thatwould result from only Barriers D2 and D4.

449 mBarrier Area 3,143 sq. m 2,694 sq. m 2,245 sq. m 1,796 sq. m

Barrier Length 449 m 449 m 449 m

7 dBMax Noise Reduction 19 dB 18 dB 16 dB 14 dBAvg Noise Reduction 11 dB 10 dB 9 dB

No. of Benefited Units 33 33 29 28No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

17 17 17 17

$725,584Cost per Benefited Unit $38,478 $32,981 $31,275 $25,914Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,269,772 $1,088,376 $906,980

132 mBarrier Area 924 sq. m 792 sq. m 660 sq. m 528 sq. m

Barrier Length 132 m 132 m 132 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB 5 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 8 6 5

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

Barrier D4

Barrier D6

$213,312Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $373,296 $319,968 $266,640

1No. ofImpactedUnits

$213,312Cost per Benefited Unit $46,662 $53,328 $53,328

Page E - 8

Page 112: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers D2/D4 Alternative [without Barrier D6]

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

D1 0 63 63 0 63 0 63 0 63 0D2 0 59 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0D3 0 64 64 0 64 0 64 0 64 0D4 0 66 66 0 66 0 66 0 66 0D5 0 72 72 0 72 0 72 0 72 0D6 2 61 59 2 59 2 60 1 60 1D7 1 65 62 3 62 3 63 2 63 2D8* 2 70 60 10 61 9 61 9 62 8D9 2 75 57 18 58 17 60 15 62 13D10 2 75 58 17 59 16 62 13 65 10D11 2 74 68 6 68 6 69 5 72 2D12 1 56 51 5 52 4 52 4 53 3D13 1 59 52 7 53 6 53 6 54 5D14 2 56 51 5 52 4 52 4 53 3D15 2 63 54 9 55 8 55 8 56 7D16 3 58 53 5 53 5 54 4 54 4D17 2 64 56 8 57 7 57 7 58 6D18 2 63 59 4 59 4 59 4 60 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 8

--

D19 3 60 55 5 55 5 56 4 57 3D20 1 72 64 8 65 7 65 7 65 7D21 1 69 61 8 61 8 62 7 62 7D22 2 64 57 7 57 7 58 6 59 5D23 2 62 55 7 55 7 56 6 57 5D24* 1 69 57 12 58 11 59 10 60 9D25 1 72 58 14 59 13 60 12 61 11D26 1 62 54 8 54 8 55 7 56 6D27 2 75 57 18 58 17 60 15 62 13D28 2 65 55 10 56 9 57 8 58 7D29 2 75 57 18 58 17 60 15 62 13D30 2 76 57 19 58 18 60 16 63 13D31 2 62 55 7 56 6 56 6 58 4D32 2 66 57 9 57 9 58 8 60 6D33 2 75 58 17 60 15 61 14 64 11D34 2 63 57 6 58 5 58 5 59 4D35 1 75 58 17 59 16 61 14 64 11D36 1 75 60 15 61 14 63 12 65 10D37 1 72 65 7 65 7 66 6 67 5D38 1 65 61 4 61 4 62 3 62 3D39 1 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3D40 1 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 57 3D41 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 17

--

SoundReceptor

Barrier D2

Barrier Length 243 m 243 m

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

243 m 243 m972 sq. m

Avg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB 4 dBBarrier Area 1,701 sq. m 1,458 sq. m 1,215 sq. m

13 dBNo. of Benefited Units 19 16 13 11Max Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 15 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

2 2 2 2

8 8 8 8

$392,688Cost per Benefited Unit $36,169 $36,815 $37,758 $35,699Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $687,204 $589,032 $490,860

Barrier D4

Barrier Length 449 m 449 m 449 m 449 m1,796 sq. m

Avg Noise Reduction 10 dB 9 dB 8 dB 7 dBBarrier Area 3,143 sq. m 2,694 sq. m 2,245 sq. m

14 dBNo. of Benefited Units 31 31 28 24Max Noise Reduction 19 dB 18 dB 16 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 1 1

17 17 17 17

$725,584Cost per Benefited Unit $40,960 $35,109 $32,392 $30,233Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,269,772 $1,088,376 $906,980

Barriers D2 and D4 – The 6m Barriers are feasible and reasonable, and are therefore recommended.

Page E - 9

Page 113: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier D3

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILD60 1 64 63 1 63 1 63 1 63 1D61 1 66 65 1 65 1 65 1 65 1D62 1 70 68 2 68 2 68 2 68 2D63 1 73 71 2 71 2 71 2 71 2D64 2 60 56 4 56 4 56 4 56 4D65 3 63 55 8 55 8 56 7 57 6D66 2 59 54 5 54 5 54 5 55 4D67* 0 65 55 10 55 10 56 9 57 8D68 2 61 58 3 58 3 59 2 59 2D69 1 64 61 3 61 3 61 3 61 3D70 1 69 62 7 62 7 62 7 63 6D71 1 72 60 12 60 12 61 11 62 10D72 1 74 57 17 58 16 59 15 60 14D73 2 74 56 18 57 17 58 16 59 15D74 4 60 53 7 54 6 54 6 55 5D75 2 74 56 18 57 17 58 16 60 14D76 3 63 55 9 55 8 56 7 57 6D77 2 73 57 16 58 15 59 14 61 12D78 3 59 53 6 54 5 54 5 55 4D79 2 74 56 18 57 17 58 16 60 14D80 2 64 55 9 56 8 56 8 57 7D81 2 73 57 16 58 15 59 14 61 12D82 1 60 54 6 54 6 55 5 55 5D83 2 74 56 18 57 17 58 16 61 13D84 2 64 56 8 57 7 57 7 58 6D85 3 60 56 4 56 4 56 4 57 3D86 2 74 56 18 57 17 59 15 61 13D87 2 74 59 15 59 15 60 14 62 12D88 2 63 58 5 58 5 59 4 59 4D89 1 72 71 1 71 1 71 1 71 1D90 1 68 66 2 66 2 66 2 66 2D91 1 65 64 1 64 1 64 1 64 1D92 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1D93 1 63 63 0 63 0 63 0 63 0D94 1 63 63 0 63 0 63 0 63 0D95 2 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2D96 2 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2D97 1 69 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0D98 1 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0D99 1 71 71 0 71 0 71 0 71 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 27

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

479 mBarrier Area 3,353 sq. m 2,874 sq. m 2,395 sq. m 1,916 sq. m

Barrier Length 479 m 479 m 479 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 16 dB 15 dBAvg Noise Reduction 7 dB 7 dB 6 dB

27 27

No. of Benefited Units 41 41 39

$1,161,096 $967,580

34No. ofImpactedUnits

7 7 7 7

27 27

Barrier D3 - The 6m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

$774,064Cost per Benefited Unit $33,039 $28,319 $24,810 $22,767Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,354,612

Page E - 10

Page 114: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier D5

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILD54 0 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0D55 0 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0D56 0 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0D57 0 73 73 0 73 0 73 0 73 0D58 1 70 67 3 67 3 67 3 67 3D59 1 58 56 2 56 2 56 2 57 1D162 0 68 60 8 61 7 61 7 62 6D163* 3 65 56 9 57 8 58 7 59 6D164 1 68 62 6 63 5 63 5 63 5D165 2 59 56 3 56 3 57 2 57 2D166 1 58 56 2 56 2 56 2 57 1D167 1 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 59 0D168 2 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1D169 2 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 61 0D170 1 62 55 7 56 6 58 4 59 3D171 1 60 54 6 55 5 57 3 58 2D172 1 63 54 9 56 7 58 5 59 4D173 1 61 53 8 55 6 57 4 58 3D174 1 69 56 13 59 10 61 8 62 7D175 1 60 53 7 54 6 56 4 57 3D176 1 65 56 9 58 7 59 6 60 5D177 1 61 53 8 55 6 57 4 58 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 3

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

277 mBarrier Area 1,939 sq. m 1,662 sq. m 1,385 sq. m 1,108 sq. m

Barrier Length 277 m 277 m 277 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 13 dB 11 dB 9 dB 7 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 4 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 12 12 7 6No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3

$447,632Cost per Benefited Unit $65,280 $55,954 $79,934 $74,605Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $783,356 $671,448 $559,540

Barrier D5 – The 6m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Page E - 11

Page 115: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier D8

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILD118 0 64 63 1 63 1 64 0 64 0D119 0 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1D120 0 72 72 0 72 0 72 0 72 0D121 1 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1D122 1 60 60 0 60 0 60 0 60 0D123 1 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1D124 1 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1D125 1 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 62 1D126 1 66 62 4 62 4 62 4 63 3D127 1 69 62 7 63 6 63 6 63 6D128 1 71 62 9 62 9 62 9 63 8D129* 1 72 60 12 61 11 61 11 63 9D155 2 59 57 2 57 2 58 1 58 1D156 2 61 57 4 58 3 58 3 58 3D157 2 57 54 3 54 3 55 2 55 2D158 2 62 57 5 57 5 57 5 58 4D159 2 58 54 4 54 4 55 3 55 3D160 2 59 54 5 54 5 55 4 56 3D161 2 63 55 8 56 7 57 6 58 5

E1 5 74 58 16 59 15 61 13 63 11E2 5 63 55 8 55 8 56 7 58 5E3 5 74 57 17 59 15 60 14 61 13E4 2 59 53 6 54 5 54 5 55 4E5 2 56 53 3 53 3 54 2 55 1E6 1 61 54 7 55 6 55 6 56 5E7 5 64 56 8 56 8 57 7 58 6E8 5 74 59 15 60 14 61 13 63 11

E123 2 59 53 6 54 5 54 5 55 4-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 19

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

490 mBarrier Area 3,430 sq. m 2,940 sq. m 2,450 sq. m 1,960 sq. m

Barrier Length 490 m 490 m 490 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 14 dB 13 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 39 39 37 31No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

19 19 19 19

$791,840Cost per Benefited Unit $35,531 $30,455 $26,751 $25,543Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,385,720 $1,187,760 $989,800

Barrier D8 – The 5m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

Page E - 12

Page 116: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers E1/E3

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

E10* 1 68 63 5 63 5 63 5 63 5E11 3 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 59 3E12 1 73 60 13 60 13 61 12 62 11E13 1 68 63 5 63 5 63 5 63 5

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 3

--

E14 1 72 60 12 60 12 61 11 62 10E15 3 67 59 8 59 8 60 7 60 7E16 3 62 56 6 56 6 57 5 57 5E17* 1 68 57 11 57 11 58 10 59 9E18 3 62 56 6 57 5 57 5 57 5E19 4 69 57 12 58 11 59 10 60 9E21 3 62 57 5 58 4 58 4 58 4E22 1 66 62 4 62 4 62 4 62 4E23 1 70 66 4 66 4 66 4 66 4E24 1 65 63 2 63 2 63 2 64 1E25 3 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 16

--

Barrier E1

Barrier E3

$148,672Cost per Benefited Unit $86,725 $74,336 $61,947 $49,557Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $260,176 $223,008 $185,840

3No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3

No. of Benefited Units 3 3 3

6 dBMax Noise Reduction 13 dB 13 dB 12 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 7 dB 7 dB 6 dB

92 mBarrier Area 644 sq. m 552 sq. m 460 sq. m 368 sq. m

Barrier Length 92 m 92 m 92 m

297 mBarrier Area

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

2,079 sq. m 1,782 sq. m 1,485 sq. m 1,188 sq. mBarrier Length 297 m 297 m 297 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 12 dB 11 dB 11 dB 10 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 18 15 15 15No. ofImpactedUnits

6 6 6 6

16 16 16 16

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $839,916 $719,928 $599,940

Barrier E1/E3 – The 4m Barriers are feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

$479,952Cost per Benefited Unit $46,662 $47,995 $39,996 $31,997

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

Page E - 13

Page 117: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers E2/E4

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

E64* 1 75 67 8 67 8 67 8 67 8E65 1 71 68 3 68 3 68 3 68 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 2

--

E66 1 67 62 5 62 5 63 4 63 4E67 1 61 57 4 57 4 57 4 58 3E68 1 64 59 5 59 5 59 5 60 4E69 2 75 57 18 58 17 59 16 61 14E70 2 62 57 5 57 5 57 5 58 4E71 1 61 56 5 56 5 57 4 57 4E72 1 71 59 12 59 12 60 11 61 10E73 3 66 56 10 57 9 57 9 58 8E74 2 75 58 17 58 17 59 16 61 14E75 1 71 58 13 59 12 60 11 61 10E76 2 63 57 6 57 6 57 6 58 5E77 1 60 55 5 55 5 55 5 56 4E78 2 61 56 5 56 5 56 5 57 4E79* 1 70 60 10 61 9 61 9 62 8E80 2 66 60 6 60 6 60 6 61 5E81 2 62 57 5 57 5 58 4 58 4E82 2 63 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3E83 2 74 73 1 73 1 73 1 73 1E84 2 70 68 2 68 2 68 2 68 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 17

--

No. ofImpactedUnits

2 2 2

2 2 2

8 dBNo. of Benefited Units 1 1 1 1Max Noise Reduction 8 dB 8 dB 8 dB

408 sq. mAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB

Barrier Area 714 sq. m 612 sq. m 510 sq. mBarrier Length 102 m 102 m 102 m 102 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

276 mBarrier Area 1,932 sq. m 1,656 sq. m 1,380 sq. m 1,104 sq. m

Barrier Length 276 m 276 m 276 m

6 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 15 dB 14 dBAvg Noise Reduction 7 dB 7 dB 7 dB

No. of Benefited Units 24 24 20 14No. ofImpactedUnits

4 4 4 4

17 17 17 17

$446,016Cost per Benefited Unit $32,522 $27,876 $27,876 $31,858Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $780,528 $669,024 $557,520

Barrier E2 - Barrier E2 is feasible at 4m but not reasonable Eliminating this barrier, however, changes thecombined attenuation of Barrier E2 and Barrier E4. Refer to Barriers E4 Alternative [without Barrier E2] belowfor the insertion losses that would result from only Barrier E4.

2

$247,248 $206,040

2

$164,832Cost per Benefited Unit $288,456

Barrier E2

$247,248 $206,040 $164,832Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $288,456

Barrier E4

Page E - 14

Page 118: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier E4 Alternative [without Barrier E2]

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILE66 1 67 64 3 64 3 64 3 64 3E67 1 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2E68 1 64 60 4 61 3 61 3 61 3E69 2 75 57 18 58 17 59 16 61 14E70 2 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3E71 1 61 57 4 57 4 57 4 58 3E72 1 71 60 11 60 10 61 10 61 10E73 3 66 58 8 59 7 59 7 59 7E74 2 75 58 17 58 17 59 16 61 14E75 1 71 59 12 59 12 60 11 61 10E76 2 63 58 5 58 5 58 5 58 5E77 1 60 56 4 56 4 56 4 57 3E78 2 61 57 4 57 4 57 4 57 4E79* 1 70 60 10 61 9 61 9 62 8E80 2 66 60 6 60 6 60 6 61 5E81 2 62 58 4 59 3 59 3 59 3E82 2 63 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3E83 2 74 73 1 73 1 73 1 73 1E84 2 70 68 2 68 2 68 2 68 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 17

--

Barrier E6

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILE30 3 60 58 2 59 1 59 1 59 1E31 1 65 63 2 63 2 63 2 63 2E32 1 64 62 2 62 2 62 2 62 2E33 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 59 1E34* 1 71 62 9 62 9 63 8 63 8

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

276 m1,104 sq. m

Barrier Length 276 m 276 m 276 mBarrier Area 1,932 sq. m 1,656 sq. m 1,380 sq. m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 15 dB 14 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 14 14 14 14No. ofImpactedUnits

4 4 4 4

17 17 17 17

$446,016Cost per Benefited Unit $55,752 $47,787 $39,823 $31,858Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $780,528 $669,024 $557,520

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

73 mBarrier Area 511 sq. m 438 sq. m 365 sq. m 292 sq. m

Barrier Length 73 m 73 m 73 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 9 dB 9 dB 8 dB 8 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 1 1 1 1No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $206,444 $176,952 $147,460

Barrier E4 - The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

Barrier E6 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$117,968Cost per Benefited Unit $206,444 $176,952 $147,460 $117,968

Page E - 15

Page 119: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers E7

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILE90 3 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 61 2E91 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2E92 1 72 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 2E93 1 68 65 3 66 2 66 2 66 2E94 1 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3E95 1 72 65 7 66 6 66 6 66 6E96 1 65 61 4 61 4 61 4 61 4E97 1 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3E98 1 71 63 8 63 8 63 8 64 7E99* 1 68 62 6 62 6 62 6 62 6E100 1 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2E101 1 66 63 3 63 3 63 3 63 3E102 1 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1E103 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1E104 1 64 63 1 63 1 63 1 63 1E105 1 74 74 0 74 0 74 0 74 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

Barrier F1

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILF36 3 66 61 5 62 4 62 4 62 4F37 1 74 61 13 62 12 62 12 63 11F38 2 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 58 2F39* 1 70 61 9 61 9 61 9 62 8F40 2 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 57 3F41 2 71 65 6 65 6 65 6 65 6F42 1 65 62 3 62 3 62 3 62 3F43 1 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 57 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

148 mBarrier Area 1,036 sq. m 888 sq. m 740 sq. m 592 sq. m

Barrier Length 148 m 148 m 148 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 8 dB 8 dB 7 dB 7 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 3 3 3 3No. ofImpactedUnits

2 4 4 4

7 7 7 7

$239,168Cost per Benefited Unit $139,515 $119,584 $99,653 $79,723Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $418,544 $358,752 $298,960

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

172 mBarrier Area 1,204 sq. m 1,032 sq. m 860 sq. m 688 sq. m

Barrier Length 172 m 172 m 172 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 13 dB 13 dB 12 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 7 4 4 4No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

7 7 7 7

$277,952Cost per Benefited Unit $69,488 $104,232 $86,860 $69,488Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $486,416 $416,928 $347,440

Barrier E7 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Barrier F1 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Page E - 16

Page 120: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier F2

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILF7 1 67 61 6 61 6 62 5 62 5F8 2 73 57 16 58 15 59 14 60 13F9 2 66 59 7 59 7 60 6 60 6F10 1 59 57 2 57 2 57 2 57 2F11* 2 73 63 10 63 10 64 9 64 9F12 2 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3F13 2 66 62 4 62 4 62 4 62 4F14 2 62 60 2 61 1 61 1 61 1

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 9

--

Barrier F3

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILF44 1 64 61 3 62 2 62 2 62 2F45 0 76 76 0 76 0 76 0 76 0F46 3 61 57 4 58 3 58 3 58 3F47 1 72 69 3 69 3 69 3 69 3

F47A* 2 72 62 10 63 9 63 9 63 9F48 1 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2F49 1 73 64 9 64 9 65 8 65 8F50 1 68 62 6 62 6 62 6 63 5

F50A 1 69 67 2 67 2 67 2 67 2-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 6

--

Barrier F5

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILF57 2 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 60 1F58 2 74 74 0 74 0 74 0 74 0F59 1 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 59 2F60 3 64 61 3 61 3 61 3 61 3F61 1 72 71 1 71 1 71 1 71 1F62 1 63 59 4 59 4 59 4 60 3F63 1 74 68 6 68 6 68 6 68 6F64 1 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3F65 1 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 58 2F66 3 74 58 16 59 15 60 14 61 13F67 1 59 57 2 58 1 58 1 58 1F68 1 66 62 4 62 4 62 4 63 3F69 1 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2F70 2 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 61 2F71 1 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1F72* 1 74 65 9 65 9 65 9 66 8F73 1 65 64 1 64 1 64 1 64 1

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 9

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

204 mBarrier Area 1,428 sq. m 1,224 sq. m 1,020 sq. m 816 sq. m

Barrier Length 204 m 204 m 204 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 16 dB 15 dB 14 dB 13 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 7 7 7 7No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

9 9 9 9

$329,664Cost per Benefited Unit $82,416 $70,642 $58,869 $47,095Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $576,912 $494,496 $412,080

6

10 dB

2

4 dB

Barrier Length

Cost per Benefited Unit $99,687 $85,446Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $398,748 $341,784

Avg Noise ReductionMax Noise Reduction

No. ofImpactedUnits

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

141 m 141 m 141 m 141 mBarrier Area 987 sq. m 846 sq. m 705 sq. m

4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

7m 6m 5m

9 dB 9 dB4 4

6 6

4m

$56,964$71,205

6

$284,820 $227,856

170 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL

Barrier Length 170 m 170 m 170 m680 sq. m

Avg Noise Reduction 4 dB 3 dB 3 dB 3 dBBarrier Area 1,190 sq. m 1,020 sq. m 850 sq. m

13 dBNo. of Benefited Units 5 5 5 5Max Noise Reduction 16 dB 15 dB 14 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

4 4 4 5

9 9 9 9

$274,720Cost per Benefited Unit $96,152 $82,416 $68,680 $54,944Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $480,760 $412,080 $343,400

Barrier F2 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

Barrier F3 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

2 2 2

9 dBNo. of Benefited Units 4

564 sq. m

4

Barrier F5 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Page E - 17

Page 121: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier F6

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILF74 1 63 61 2 61 2 62 1 62 1F75 1 70 63 7 63 7 63 7 64 6F76 1 67 60 7 60 7 60 7 61 6F77 1 65 58 7 58 7 58 7 59 6F78 1 61 56 5 56 5 57 4 57 4F79 1 73 56 17 57 16 58 15 60 13F80* 2 66 57 9 57 9 58 8 58 8F81 2 70 57 13 57 13 58 12 59 11F82 1 64 56 8 56 8 57 7 57 7F83 8 57 53 4 54 3 54 3 54 3F84 8 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2

F85A 2 65 62 3 62 3 62 3 63 2-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

Barrier F6 Alternative [without Barriers F8 and F9]

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILF74 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1F75 1 70 64 6 64 6 65 5 65 5F76 1 67 62 5 62 5 62 5 62 5F77 1 65 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5F78 1 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3F79 1 73 56 17 57 16 58 15 60 13F80* 2 66 58 8 58 8 59 7 59 7F81 2 70 57 13 57 13 58 12 59 11F82 1 64 58 6 58 6 58 6 59 5F83 8 57 56 1 56 1 56 1 56 1F84 8 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1

F85A 2 65 63 2 63 2 63 2 63 2-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

319 mBarrier Area 2,233 sq. m 1,914 sq. m 1,595 sq. m 1,276 sq. m

Barrier Length 319 m 319 m 319 m

6 dBMax Noise Reduction 16 dB 15 dB 14 dB 13 dBAvg Noise Reduction 7 dB 7 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 10 10 9 9No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

7 7 7 7

$515,504Cost per Benefited Unit $90,213 $77,326 $71,598 $57,278Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $902,132 $773,256 $644,380

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

319 mBarrier Area 2,233 sq. m 1,914 sq. m 1,595 sq. m 1,276 sq. m

Barrier Length 319 m 319 m 319 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 16 dB 15 dB 14 dB 13 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 9 9 9 9No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

7 7 7 7

$515,504Cost per Benefited Unit $100,237 $85,917 $71,598 $57,278Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $902,132 $773,256 $644,380

Barrier F6 Alternative [without F8 and F9] – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and istherefore not recommended.

Barrier F6 – As described below, Barrier F8/9 is not feasible. Eliminating this barrier changes the attenuation ofBarrier F6. Refer to Barrier F6 Alternative [without F8/F9] below for insertion losses that would result from onlyBarrier F6.

Page E - 18

Page 122: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers F8/F9

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

F85* 6 66 63 3 63 3 63 3 63 3F86 8 57 54 3 54 3 54 3 55 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 6

--

F87 1 59 55 4 56 3 56 3 56 3F88 1 64 60 4 60 4 60 4 60 4F89 1 59 55 4 56 3 56 3 56 3F90* 1 72 66 6 66 6 67 5 67 5F91 1 68 65 3 65 3 65 3 65 3F92 1 64 62 2 62 2 62 2 63 1F93 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 2

--

2 dBMax Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB 3 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

$108,272N/A N/A

6 6 6

No. of Benefited Units

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

51 mBarrier Area 357 sq. m 306 sq. m 255 sq. m 204 sq. m

Barrier Length 51 m 51 m 51 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB 6 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

1 1 1 1No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

$82,416Cost per Benefited Unit $144,228 $123,624 $103,020 $82,416Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $144,228 $123,624 $103,020

Barrier F9

Barriers F8 and F9 – These 7m Barriers are not feasible since an insertion loss of at least 7 dBA cannot beachieved.

268 sq. m

No. ofImpactedUnits

Cost @ $37.5/ft2

Cost per Benefited Unit N/A N/A

6

$189,476 $162,408 $135,340

Barrier Area 469 sq. m 402 sq. m 335 sq. mBarrier Length 67 m 67 m 67 m 67 m

Barrier F8

Page E - 19

Page 123: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers F10/G1

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

F29 1 62 61 1 61 1 62 0 62 0F30 1 67 65 2 65 2 65 2 65 2F31 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2G1 1 63 59 4 59 4 59 4 60 3G2 1 66 58 8 59 7 59 7 60 6G3 1 59 56 3 57 2 57 2 57 2G4* 1 71 58 13 59 12 60 11 61 10G5 1 61 56 5 56 5 57 4 57 4G6 1 73 58 15 59 14 59 14 60 13G7 1 59 55 4 56 4 57 4 56 3G8 1 62 56 6 56 6 57 5 57 5G9 2 64 57 7 58 6 58 6 58 6G10 1 59 55 4 55 4 56 3 56 3G11 1 71 64 7 64 7 64 7 65 6G12 2 61 57 4 57 4 58 3 58 3G13 1 73 72 1 72 1 72 1 72 1

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 6

--

G14 1 66 63 3 64 2 64 2 64 2G15 1 60 56 4 57 3 57 3 57 3G16 1 62 58 4 58 4 59 3 59 3G17* 1 68 59 9 59 9 59 9 60 8G18 1 59 56 3 56 3 56 3 57 2G19 1 73 58 15 59 14 60 13 61 12G20 1 63 57 6 58 5 58 5 59 4G21 2 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 59 3G22 1 70 62 8 63 7 63 7 63 7G23 2 61 58 3 58 3 59 2 59 2G24 1 67 63 4 63 4 63 4 63 4G25 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2G26 1 65 62 3 62 3 62 3 62 3G27 1 63 61 2 62 1 62 1 62 1

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 5

--

Barrier G1 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

192 m768 sq. m

4 dBBarrier Area 1,344 sq. m 1,152 sq. m 960 sq. m

Barrier Length 192 m 192 m 192 m

12 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 4 dBMax Noise Reduction 15 dB 14 dB 13 dBNo. of Benefited Units 4 4 4 3No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5

$310,272Cost per Benefited Unit $135,744 $116,352 $96,960 $103,424Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $542,976 $465,408 $387,840

Barrier F10 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$56,791Barrier G1Cost per Benefited Unit $86,961 $74,538 $70,989

1

6

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $695,688 $596,304 $496,920 $397,536

No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1

6 6 6

13 dBNo. of Benefited Units 8 8 7 7Max Noise Reduction 16 dB 15 dB 14 dB

984 sq. mAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB 4 dB

Barrier Area 1,722 sq. m 1,476 sq. m 1,230 sq. mBarrier Length 246 m 246 m 246 m 246 m

Barrier F10

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

Page E - 20

Page 124: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier F11

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILF94 1 74 67 7 67 7 67 7 68 6F95 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1F96 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2G55 3 71 61 10 61 10 62 9 62 9G56 2 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1G57 1 68 56 12 57 11 58 10 58 10G58 1 59 55 4 55 4 55 4 55 4G59* 1 67 56 11 56 11 57 10 58 9G60 1 60 55 5 55 5 55 5 56 4G61 2 63 55 8 55 8 56 7 57 6G62 1 58 52 6 52 6 53 5 54 4G63 1 63 53 10 54 9 55 8 56 7G64 1 61 52 9 53 8 53 8 54 7G65 1 59 52 7 52 7 53 6 54 5G66 1 56 50 6 51 5 51 5 52 4G67 1 59 52 7 52 7 53 6 54 5G68 1 58 51 7 51 7 52 6 53 5G69 1 60 52 8 53 7 53 7 54 6G70 1 66 56 10 56 10 57 9 58 8G71 1 62 53 9 54 8 54 8 55 7G72 1 58 52 6 52 6 52 6 53 5G73 1 73 57 16 58 15 59 14 61 12G74 1 66 56 10 57 9 57 9 58 8G75 1 58 52 6 53 5 53 5 54 4G76 1 59 53 6 53 6 54 5 54 5G77 1 70 62 8 62 8 62 8 63 7G78 1 60 56 4 56 4 56 4 57 3G79 1 60 55 5 55 5 56 4 56 4G80 1 66 63 3 63 3 63 3 63 3G81 2 59 54 5 54 5 54 5 55 4

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 11

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

554 mBarrier Area 3,878 sq. m 3,324 sq. m 2,770 sq. m 2,216 sq. m

Barrier Length 554 m 554 m 554 m

6 dBMax Noise Reduction 16 dB 15 dB 14 dB 12 dBAvg Noise Reduction 7 dB 7 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 28 28 27 22No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

11 11 11 11

$895,264Cost per Benefited Unit $55,954 $47,961 $41,447 $40,694Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,566,712 $1,342,896 $1,119,080

Barrier F11 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

Page E - 21

Page 125: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier G2

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILG82 1 68 66 2 67 1 67 1 67 1G83 2 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 59 2G84 1 71 70 1 70 1 70 1 70 1G85 2 62 59 3 59 3 60 2 60 2G86 1 75 71 4 71 4 71 4 71 4G87 1 67 64 3 64 3 64 3 64 3G88 1 61 56 5 56 5 56 5 57 4G89 2 62 56 6 57 5 57 5 58 4G90 1 72 61 11 61 11 61 11 62 10G91 1 64 56 8 57 7 57 7 58 6G92* 1 69 57 12 58 11 59 10 60 9G93 3 67 55 12 56 11 57 10 59 8

G93A 4 64 53 11 54 10 54 10 56 8G93B 4 61 51 10 52 9 52 9 54 7G93C 2 57 50 7 51 6 51 6 53 4

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 9

--

Barriers G3

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILG36 1 61 51 10 51 10 52 9 53 8G37 1 58 50 8 51 7 52 6 53 5G38 1 65 51 14 52 13 53 12 55 10G39 1 58 51 7 52 6 52 6 53 5G40 1 58 50 8 51 7 52 6 53 5G41* 2 64 53 11 54 10 55 9 56 8G42 1 60 51 9 52 8 53 7 54 6G43 2 71 54 17 55 16 57 14 58 13G44 1 59 51 8 51 8 52 7 53 6G45 1 58 50 8 51 7 52 6 53 5G46 2 62 52 10 53 9 54 8 56 6G47 0 64 53 11 54 10 55 9 57 7G48 1 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 53 6G49 3 72 56 16 57 15 59 13 60 12G50 2 64 53 11 54 10 55 9 56 8G51 1 58 50 8 51 7 52 6 53 5G52 1 59 51 8 52 7 52 7 54 5G53 2 70 56 14 57 13 58 12 60 10G54 1 61 53 8 53 8 54 7 55 6H60 1 65 55 10 55 10 56 9 56 9H61 1 61 55 6 55 6 56 5 57 4H62 1 60 52 8 52 8 53 7 54 6

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

7m 6m 5m 4m

658 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

384 mBarrier Area 2,688 sq. m 2,304 sq. m 1,920 sq. m 1,536 sq. m

Barrier Length 384 m 384 m 384 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 12 dB 11 dB 11 dB 10 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 19 19 19 14No. ofImpactedUnits

3 3 3 3

9 9 9 9

$620,544Cost per Benefited Unit $57,155 $48,990 $40,825 $44,325Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,085,952 $930,816 $775,680

2,632 sq. mBarrier Length 658 m 658 m 658 mBarrier Area 4,606 sq. m 3,948 sq. m 3,290 sq. m

7 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 14 dB 13 dBAvg Noise Reduction 10 dB 9 dB 8 dB

No. of Benefited Units 28 28 28 27No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

7 7 7 7

Barrier G2 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended .

$1,063,328Cost per Benefited Unit $66,458 $56,964Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,860,824 $1,594,992 $1,329,160

Barrier G3 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

$47,470 $39,383

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL

Page E - 22

Page 126: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier H2

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH110* 3 69 61 8 61 8 62 7 62 7H111 6 60 55 5 56 4 56 4 56 4H112 4 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2H113 2 70 61 9 61 9 62 8 62 8

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 14

--

Barriers H3/H4/H5

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

H123 3 58 57 1 57 1 58 0 58 0H124 1 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2H125* 2 69 63 6 64 5 64 5 64 5H126 2 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 2

--

H127 1 60 58 2 59 1 59 1 59 1H128 2 65 61 4 61 4 61 4 61 4H129 2 58 56 2 56 2 56 2 57 1H130* 1 71 61 10 62 9 62 9 63 8H131 0 68 65 3 65 3 65 3 65 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

H132 3 59 57 2 58 1 58 1 58 1H133 0 73 73 0 73 0 73 0 73 0H134* 1 71 68 3 68 3 68 3 69 2H135 3 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 61 2H136 3 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 60 0H137 2 61 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0H138 1 67 64 3 64 3 65 2 65 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 2

--

Barrier H4 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable and therefore not recommended.

$164,832Barrier H5Cost per Benefited Unit $288,456 $247,248 $206,040

1

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $288,456 $247,248 $206,040 $164,832

0No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0

1 1 1

8 dBNo. of Benefited Units 1 1 1 1Max Noise Reduction 10 dB 9 dB 9 dB

408 sq. mAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 3 dB 3 dB

Barrier Area 714 sq. m 612 sq. m 510 sq. m

$59,792

Barrier Length 102 m 102 m 102 m 102 m

Barrier H4Cost per Benefited Unit $104,636 $89,688 $74,740

0

2

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $209,272 $179,376 $149,480 $119,584

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0

2 2 2

No. of Benefited Units 2 2 2 2

Barrier H3

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

240 mBarrier Area 1,680 sq. m 1,440 sq. m 1,200 sq. m 960 sq. m

Barrier Length 240 m 240 m 240 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 9 dB 9 dB 8 dB 8 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 11 5 5 5No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

14 14 14 14

$387,840Cost per Benefited Unit $61,702 $116,352 $96,960 $77,568Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $678,720 $581,760 $484,800

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

49 mBarrier Area 343 sq. m 294 sq. m 245 sq. m 196 sq. m

Barrier Length 49 m 49 m 49 m

1 dBMax Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB 3 dBAvg Noise Reduction 2 dB 2 dB 1 dB

No. of Benefited Units 0 0 0 0No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

$79,184Cost per Benefited Unit N/A N/A N/A N/ACost @ $37.5/ft2 $138,572 $118,776 $98,980

2 dBMax Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB 5 dBAvg Noise Reduction 2 dB 2 dB 2 dB

74 mBarrier Area 518 sq. m 444 sq. m 370 sq. m 296 sq. m

Barrier Length 74 m 74 m 74 m

Barrier H2 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable and therefore not recommended.

Barriers H3 and H5 – The 7m Barriers are not feasible and are therefore not recommended.

Page E - 23

Page 127: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier H6

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH141 1 69 66 3 66 3 67 2 67 2H142* 1 73 64 9 64 9 65 8 65 8H143 2 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1H144 2 61 57 3 57 3 59 2 59 2H145 2 75 56 19 56 19 57 18 59 16H146 1 64 61 3 61 3 61 3 61 3H147 1 60 58 2 58 2 59 1 59 1H148 1 62 60 2 60 2 61 1 61 1H149 1 58 58 0 58 0 58 0 58 0H150 1 75 58 17 59 16 59 16 59 16H151 1 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1H152 1 72 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 2H153 2 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1H154 1 69 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0H155 2 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1H156 1 65 65 0 65 0 65 0 65 0H157 1 63 63 0 63 0 63 0 63 0H158 1 63 62 1 62 1 63 0 63 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

142 mBarrier Area 994 sq. m 852 sq. m 710 sq. m 568 sq. m

Barrier Length 142 m 142 m 142 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 19 dB 19 dB 18 dB 16 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 4 4 4 4No. ofImpactedUnits

3 3 3 3

7 7 7 7

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $401,576 $344,208 $286,840

Barrier H6 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$229,472Cost per Benefited Unit $100,394 $86,052 $71,710 $57,368

Page E - 24

Page 128: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier H7- Option 3A

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH37 1 74 64 10 65 9 65 9 65 9H38 1 70 58 12 59 11 59 11 60 10

H39A 5 56 52 4 52 4 53 3 53 3H39 4 61 55 6 55 6 56 5 57 4H40 1 74 57 17 58 16 59 15 60 14H41 1 70 56 14 57 13 58 12 59 11

H42A 2 56 50 6 51 5 52 4 52 4H42 4 61 52 9 53 8 54 7 55 6H43 3 72 56 16 57 15 58 14 60 12

H44A 6 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0H44 2 53 50 3 51 2 52 1 53 0H45 2 56 51 5 52 4 53 3 55 1H46 3 73 55 18 56 17 58 15 59 14H47 3 73 56 17 57 16 59 14 60 13

H48A 3 57 50 7 51 6 52 5 53 4H48 4 61 52 9 53 8 54 7 55 6H49* 1 70 55 15 56 14 58 12 59 11H50 2 66 53 13 54 12 55 11 56 10

H51A 2 58 50 8 51 7 52 6 53 5H51 1 62 51 11 52 10 53 9 54 8H52 2 63 52 11 53 10 54 9 55 8H53 2 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 53 6H54 1 61 51 10 52 9 53 8 54 7

H55A 2 54 49 5 50 4 50 4 51 3H55 1 57 50 7 50 7 51 6 51 6H56 1 60 50 10 51 9 52 8 53 7H57 1 57 54 3 54 3 54 3 55 2H58 1 55 52 3 52 3 52 3 53 2H59 1 55 50 5 50 5 50 5 51 4

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 16

--

$1,675,792Cost per Benefited Unit $61,097 $54,645 $49,875 $49,288Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $2,932,636 $2,513,688 $2,094,740

34No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

16 16 16 16

No. of Benefited Units 48 46 42

7 dBMax Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 16 dB 14 dBAvg Noise Reduction 9 dB 8 dB 7 dB

1037 mBarrier Area 7,259 sq. m 6,222 sq. m 5,185 sq. m 4,148 sq. m

Barrier Length 1037 m 1037 m 1037 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

Barrier H7 – Option 3A – The 4m Barrier is feasible;

Page E - 25

Page 129: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier H7- Option 3B

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH37 1 74 64 10 65 9 65 9 65 9H38 1 70 58 12 59 11 59 11 60 10

H39A 5 56 52 4 52 4 53 3 53 3H39 4 61 55 6 55 6 56 5 57 4H40 1 74 57 17 58 16 59 15 60 14H41 1 70 56 14 57 13 58 12 59 11

H42A 2 56 50 6 51 5 52 4 52 4H42 4 61 52 9 53 8 54 7 55 6H43 3 72 56 16 57 15 58 14 60 12

H44A 6 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0H44 2 53 50 3 51 2 52 1 53 0H45 2 56 51 5 52 4 53 3 55 1H46 3 73 55 18 56 17 58 15 58 15H47 3 73 56 17 57 16 59 14 60 13

H48A 3 57 50 7 51 6 52 5 53 4H48 4 60 52 8 53 7 54 6 55 5H49* 1 70 55 15 56 14 58 12 59 11H50 2 65 53 12 54 11 55 10 56 9

H51A 2 58 50 8 51 7 52 6 53 5H51 1 61 51 10 52 9 53 8 54 7H52 2 63 52 11 53 10 54 9 55 8H53 2 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 53 6H54 1 62 51 11 52 10 53 9 54 8

H55A 2 54 50 4 50 4 50 4 51 3H55 1 57 50 7 50 7 51 6 51 6H56 1 60 50 10 51 9 52 8 53 7H57 1 57 55 4 54 3 54 3 55 2H58 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 53 1H59 1 55 50 5 50 5 50 5 51 4

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 14

--

$2,513,688 $2,094,740

34

$1,675,792Cost per Benefited Unit $63,753 $57,129 $49,875 $49,288Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $2,932,636

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

14 14 14 14

No. of Benefited Units 46 44 42

7 dBMax Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 16 dB 15 dBAvg Noise Reduction 9 dB 8 dB 7 dB

1037 mBarrier Area 7,259 sq. m 6,222 sq. m 5,185 sq. m 4,148 sq. m

Barrier Length 1037 m 1037 m 1037 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

Barrier H7 – Option 3B – The 4m Barrier is feasible;

Page E - 26

Page 130: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier H7- Option 3C

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH37 1 74 64 10 65 9 65 9 65 9H38 1 70 58 12 59 11 59 11 60 10

H39A 5 56 52 4 52 4 53 3 53 3H39 4 61 55 6 55 5 56 5 57 4H40 1 74 57 17 58 16 59 15 60 14H41 1 70 56 14 57 13 58 12 59 11

H42A 2 56 50 6 51 5 52 4 52 4H42 4 61 52 9 53 8 54 7 55 6H43 3 72 56 16 57 15 58 14 60 12

H44A 6 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0H44 2 53 50 3 51 2 52 1 53 0H45 2 56 51 5 52 4 53 3 55 1H46 3 73 55 18 56 17 58 15 59 14H47 3 73 56 17 57 16 59 14 60 13

H48A 3 57 50 7 51 6 52 5 53 4H48 4 60 52 8 53 7 54 6 55 5H49* 1 70 56 14 57 13 58 12 59 11H50 2 66 53 13 54 12 55 11 57 9

H51A 2 58 50 8 51 7 52 6 53 5H51 1 61 51 10 52 9 53 8 54 7H52 2 64 52 12 53 11 54 10 56 8H53 2 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 53 6H54 1 61 51 10 52 9 53 8 54 7

H55A 2 54 49 5 50 4 50 4 51 3H55 1 56 49 7 50 6 51 5 51 5H56 1 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 53 6H57 1 57 54 3 54 3 54 3 55 2H58 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 53 1H59 1 54 50 4 50 4 50 4 51 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 16

--

Barriers H8

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH1 1 60 58 2 58 2 59 1 59 1H2 1 62 59 3 59 3 60 2 60 2H3* 2 71 63 8 64 7 64 7 64 7H4 2 60 56 4 56 4 56 4 56 4H5 1 75 59 16 60 15 60 15 61 14

H6A 3 56 53 3 53 3 54 2 54 2H6 1 59 55 4 55 4 56 3 56 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 3

--

Barrier H8 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonableand therefore not recommended.

$278,760 $223,008Cost per Benefited Unit $130,088 $111,504 $92,920 $74,336

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

138 mBarrier Area 966 sq. m 828 sq. m 690 sq. m 552 sq. m

Barrier Length 138 m 138 m 138 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 16 dB 15 dB 15 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB

14 dBNo. of Benefited Units 3 3 3 3

7 dB

1037 m

6 dB

4m

1037 mBarrier Area 7,259 sq. m

No. of Benefited Units 48 43 4115 dB

Avg Noise Reduction 9 dB 8 dBMax Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 16 dB

6,222 sq. m 5,185 sq. m 4,148 sq. mBarrier Length 1037 m 1037 m

SPL7m 6m 5m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

34

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

16 16 16 16

$1,675,792Cost per Benefited Unit $61,097 $58,458 $51,091 $49,288Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $2,932,636 $2,513,688 $2,094,740

Barrier H7 – Option 3C – The 4m Barrier is feasible;

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $390,264 $334,512

Page E - 27

Page 131: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers H9 - Option 3A

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH7 1 72 67 5 67 5 67 5 67 5

H8A 5 58 54 4 54 4 54 4 55 3H8 2 64 57 7 58 6 58 6 59 5

H9A 1 62 54 8 55 7 55 7 56 6H9 1 72 59 13 60 12 60 12 61 11H10 1 64 54 10 55 9 56 8 57 7H11 1 73 58 15 58 15 59 14 61 12H12 1 65 54 11 55 10 56 9 57 8H13 2 71 57 14 58 13 59 12 60 11

H14A 3 59 51 8 51 8 52 7 53 6H14* 1 67 55 12 55 12 56 11 57 10H15 1 65 53 12 54 11 55 10 56 9H16 2 61 51 10 52 9 53 8 54 7

H17A 2 56 50 6 50 6 51 5 52 4H17 2 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 53 6H18 1 57 50 7 50 7 51 6 52 5

H19A 2 54 49 5 50 4 50 4 51 3H19 1 55 49 6 50 5 51 4 52 3H20 2 58 52 6 53 5 54 4 55 3H21 2 60 51 9 52 8 53 7 54 6H22 2 62 50 12 50 12 52 10 53 9H23 1 64 50 14 51 13 53 11 54 10H24 2 67 53 14 54 13 55 12 57 10H25 3 73 55 18 56 17 57 16 59 14

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 11

--

$1,229,776Cost per Benefited Unit $58,165 $52,705 $48,038 $40,993Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $2,152,108 $1,844,664 $1,537,220

11 11 11 11

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

761 mBarrier Area 5,327 sq. m 4,566 sq. m 3,805 sq. m 3,044 sq. m

Barrier Length 761 m 761 m 761 m

7 dBMax Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 16 dB 14 dBAvg Noise Reduction 10 dB 9 dB 8 dB

30No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1

No. of Benefited Units 37 35 32

1

Barrier H9 – Option 3A – The 4m Barrier is feasible;

Page E - 28

Page 132: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers H9 - Option 3B

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH7 1 72 67 5 67 5 67 5 67 5

H8A 5 58 54 4 54 4 54 4 55 3H8 2 64 57 7 58 6 58 6 59 5

H9A 1 62 54 8 55 7 55 7 56 6H9 1 72 59 13 60 12 60 12 61 11H10 1 63 54 9 55 8 56 7 56 7H11 1 73 58 15 58 15 59 14 61 12H12 1 65 54 11 55 10 56 9 57 8H13 2 71 57 14 58 13 59 12 60 11

H14A 3 59 51 8 51 8 52 7 53 6H14 1 67 55 12 55 12 56 11 58 9H15 1 64 53 11 54 10 55 9 56 8H16 2 61 51 10 52 9 53 8 54 7

H17A 2 56 49 7 50 6 51 5 52 4H17 2 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 54 5H18 1 58 50 8 50 8 51 7 53 5

H19A 2 54 49 5 49 5 50 4 51 3H19 1 56 50 6 50 6 51 5 53 3H20 2 58 52 6 52 6 53 5 57 1H21 2 60 51 9 52 8 53 7 55 5H22 2 65 50 15 51 14 52 13 54 11H23 1 64 51 13 52 12 53 11 55 9H24 2 67 53 14 54 13 55 12 57 10H25 3 73 55 18 56 17 57 16 59 14

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 11

--

761 m 761 mBarrier Length 761 m 761 m

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

10 dB 9 dBAvg Noise Reduction 8 dB 7 dBBarrier Area 5,327 sq. m

SoundReceptor

4,566 sq. m 3,805 sq. m 3,044 sq. m

14 dBNo. of Benefited Units 37 37 35 30Max Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 16 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

11 11 11 11

$1,229,776Cost per Benefited Unit $58,165 $49,856 $43,921 $40,993Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $2,152,108 $1,844,664 $1,537,220

Barrier H9 – Option 3B – The 4m Barrier is feasible;

Page E - 29

Page 133: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers H9 - Option 3C

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILH7 1 72 67 5 67 5 67 5 67 5

H8A 5 58 54 4 54 4 54 4 55 3H8 2 64 57 7 58 6 58 6 59 5

H9A 1 62 54 8 55 7 55 7 56 6H9 1 72 59 13 60 12 60 12 61 11H10 1 64 54 10 55 9 56 8 56 8H11 1 73 58 15 58 15 59 14 61 12H12 1 65 54 11 55 10 56 9 57 8H13 2 71 57 14 58 13 59 12 60 11

H14A 3 59 51 8 51 8 52 7 53 6H14 1 67 55 12 55 12 56 11 58 9H15 1 64 53 11 54 10 55 9 56 8H16 2 61 51 10 52 9 53 8 54 7

H17A 2 56 50 6 51 5 51 5 52 4H17 2 59 50 9 51 8 52 7 54 5H18 1 58 50 8 50 8 51 7 53 5

H19A 2 54 50 4 50 4 50 4 51 3H19 1 56 50 6 50 6 51 5 53 3H20 2 58 52 6 53 5 53 5 57 1H21 2 60 51 9 52 8 53 7 55 5H22 2 65 50 15 51 14 52 13 54 11H23 1 65 51 14 52 13 53 12 55 10H24 2 67 53 14 54 13 55 12 57 10H25 3 73 55 18 56 17 57 16 58 15

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 11

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

Barrier Length 761 m 761 m 761 m 761 m3,044 sq. m

Avg Noise Reduction 10 dB 9 dB 8 dB 7 dBBarrier Area 5,327 sq. m 4,566 sq. m 3,805 sq. m

14 dBNo. of Benefited Units 35 35 35 30Max Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 16 dB

No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

11 11 11 11

$1,229,776Cost per Benefited Unit $61,489 $52,705 $43,921 $40,993Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $2,152,108 $1,844,664 $1,537,220

Barrier H9 – Option 3C – The 4m Barrier is feasible;

Page E - 30

Page 134: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier I1

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILI1 1 67 58 9 58 9 59 9 60 7I2 1 55 52 3 52 3 53 2 53 2I3 1 72 57 15 58 14 60 12 62 10I4* 1 68 57 11 58 10 58 10 60 8I5 1 73 56 17 57 16 60 13 62 11I6 2 52 50 2 50 2 50 2 50 2I7 1 67 58 9 58 9 59 8 60 7I8 1 62 57 5 57 5 58 4 58 4I9 1 69 59 10 59 10 60 9 61 8I10 1 64 59 5 59 5 59 5 60 4I11 2 56 55 1 55 1 55 1 56 0I12 1 62 60 2 61 1 61 1 61 1I13 1 64 63 1 63 1 63 1 63 1I14 0 73 73 0 73 0 73 0 73 0I15 2 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1I16 1 67 67 0 67 0 67 0 67 0I17 1 65 64 1 64 1 65 0 65 0I18 0 67 66 1 66 1 66 1 66 1I19 2 61 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

369 mBarrier Area 2,583 sq. m 2,214 sq. m 1,845 sq. m 1,476 sq. m

Barrier Length 369 m 369 m 369 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 13 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 8 8 7 6No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

7 7 7 7

$596,304Cost per Benefited Unit $130,442 $111,807 $106,483 $99,384Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,043,532 $894,456 $745,380

Barrier I1 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Page E - 31

Page 135: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier I2

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILI44 1 61 59 2 59 2 60 1 60 1I45 1 64 61 3 61 3 62 2 63 1I46 1 69 62 7 62 7 63 6 64 5I47 1 71 61 10 62 9 63 8 65 6I48 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0I49 1 72 60 12 61 11 63 9 66 6I50 1 72 60 12 61 11 63 9 68 4I51 1 70 59 11 61 9 63 7 66 4I52 3 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0I53 1 71 60 11 61 10 64 7 66 5I54 1 71 59 12 60 11 62 9 66 5I55 1 70 58 12 60 10 62 8 65 5I56 3 51 50 1 50 1 50 1 51 0I57* 1 70 58 12 60 10 62 8 65 5I58 1 70 58 12 59 11 62 8 64 6I59 1 70 58 12 59 11 61 9 63 7I60 1 52 51 1 51 1 51 1 51 1I61 1 70 58 12 59 11 61 9 63 7I62 1 53 52 1 51 2 51 2 52 1I63 1 73 56 17 57 16 59 14 61 12I64 1 54 52 2 53 1 53 1 53 1I65 1 70 57 13 58 12 59 10 61 9I66 1 54 53 1 53 1 53 1 53 1I67 1 70 56 14 57 13 58 12 60 10I68 1 56 54 2 54 2 54 2 54 2I69 1 69 56 13 57 12 58 11 60 9I70 4 56 53 3 54 2 54 2 54 2I71 4 58 54 4 54 4 54 4 55 3I72 1 70 56 14 57 13 58 12 60 10I73 4 62 56 6 56 6 57 5 58 4I74 0 58 56 2 56 2 56 2 57 1I75 5 59 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 17

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

601 mBarrier Area 4,207 sq. m 3,606 sq. m 3,005 sq. m 2,404 sq. m

Barrier Length 601 m 601 m 601 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 14 dB 12 dBAvg Noise Reduction 7 dB 7 dB 6 dB

No. of Benefited Units 21 21 21 15No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 5

17 17 17 17

$971,216Cost per Benefited Unit $80,935 $69,373 $57,810 $64,748Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,699,628 $1,456,824 $1,214,020

Barrier I2 - The 5m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Page E - 32

Page 136: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier I3

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILI21 1 58 57 1 57 1 58 0 58 0I22 1 67 62 5 62 5 63 4 64 3I23 1 61 57 4 58 3 58 3 59 2I24 1 68 54 14 55 13 55 13 57 11I25 1 71 58 13 59 12 60 11 62 9I26 2 61 56 5 56 5 57 4 58 3I27 1 70 58 12 59 11 60 10 62 8I28* 1 70 58 12 59 11 60 10 61 9I29 2 60 55 5 55 5 56 4 57 3I30 1 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 58 2I31 1 68 60 8 61 7 61 7 62 6I32 1 66 62 4 62 4 63 3 63 3I33 1 63 61 2 61 2 62 1 62 1I34 1 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 7

--

Barrier J1

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILJ175 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2J176 1 63 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3J177 2 59 56 3 57 2 57 2 57 2J178 1 68 62 6 62 6 62 6 62 6J179 1 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 59 3J180 1 71 60 11 60 11 61 10 62 9J181 1 67 59 8 60 7 60 7 60 7J182 1 71 59 12 59 12 60 11 60 11J183 2 64 57 7 57 7 58 6 58 6J184 2 59 56 3 56 3 56 3 57 2J185* 1 69 59 10 60 9 60 9 61 8J186 2 62 57 5 58 4 58 4 58 4J187 1 72 59 13 59 13 60 12 61 11J188 1 65 58 7 59 6 59 6 59 6J189 1 69 61 8 61 8 61 8 62 7J190 1 66 61 5 61 5 62 4 62 4J191 1 61 57 4 58 3 58 3 58 3J192 1 64 61 3 61 3 61 3 61 3J193 2 59 57 2 57 2 57 2 57 2J194 0 72 72 0 72 0 72 0 72 0J195 1 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 8

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

290 mBarrier Area 2,030 sq. m 1,740 sq. m 1,450 sq. m 1,160 sq. m

Barrier Length 290 m 290 m 290 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 14 dB 13 dB 12 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 10 10 5 5No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

7 7 7 7

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

252 mBarrier Area 1,764 sq. m 1,512 sq. m 1,260 sq. m 1,008 sq. m

Barrier Length 252 m 252 m 252 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 13 dB 13 dB 12 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 5 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 13 11 10 10No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

8 8 8 8

$407,232Cost per Benefited Unit $54,820 $55,532 $50,904 $40,723Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $712,656 $610,848 $509,040

$585,800Cost per Benefited Unit $82,012 $70,296 $117,160

Barrier J1 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

$468,640

Barrier I3 – The 6m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$93,728Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $820,120 $702,960

Page E - 33

Page 137: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier J4

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILJ1 2 57 56 1 56 1 56 1 56 1J2 2 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1J3 2 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1J4 1 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2J5 1 64 61 3 61 3 61 3 61 3J6 1 66 62 4 62 4 62 4 62 4J7 2 67 63 4 63 4 63 4 63 4J8 1 68 62 6 62 6 62 6 62 6J9 1 71 62 9 62 9 62 9 62 9J10 1 72 60 12 60 12 61 11 61 11J11 1 73 59 14 59 14 60 13 61 12J12 1 73 58 15 59 14 59 14 60 13J13 1 73 58 15 59 14 60 13 61 12J14 1 73 58 15 58 15 59 14 61 12J15 1 73 57 16 58 15 59 14 60 13J16 1 73 57 16 58 15 59 14 60 13J17 1 73 57 16 57 16 58 15 59 14J18 1 73 56 17 57 16 58 15 59 14J19* 1 73 56 17 57 16 58 15 59 14J20 1 73 56 17 57 16 58 15 59 14J21 1 73 56 17 57 16 58 15 59 14J22 1 73 56 17 57 16 58 15 59 14J23 1 73 57 16 57 16 58 15 59 14J24 1 73 57 16 58 15 59 14 60 13J25 1 64 57 7 57 7 58 6 58 6J26 1 56 53 3 54 2 55 1 56 0J27 1 58 54 4 55 3 55 3 56 2J28 1 55 52 3 53 2 54 1 55 0J29 1 53 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3J30 1 56 52 4 53 3 54 2 55 1J31 1 58 54 4 54 4 55 3 56 2J32 1 59 54 5 54 5 55 4 56 3J33 1 62 57 5 57 5 57 5 57 5J34 1 63 57 6 58 5 58 5 58 5J35 1 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 58 4J36 1 52 50 2 51 1 52 0 52 0J37 2 53 52 1 52 1 52 1 52 1J38 2 53 51 2 51 2 51 2 52 1J39 1 54 51 3 52 2 52 2 52 2J40 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J41 1 57 53 4 53 4 53 4 54 3J42 1 55 52 3 53 1 53 1 54 1J43 1 53 51 2 51 2 52 1 53 0J44 1 55 53 2 53 2 54 1 55 0J45 1 55 53 2 53 2 54 1 55 0J46 1 54 52 2 53 1 53 1 54 0J47 1 54 52 2 53 1 53 1 54 0J48 1 57 55 2 55 2 56 1 57 0J49 1 57 55 2 55 2 55 2 56 1J50 1 60 56 4 56 4 57 3 57 3J51 1 65 59 6 59 6 60 5 60 5J52 2 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 58 4J53 2 61 57 4 57 4 57 4 58 3J54 1 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1J55 1 59 57 2 57 2 57 2 57 2J56 1 57 56 1 56 1 56 1 56 1J57 1 55 53 2 53 2 53 2 53 2J58 1 56 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 3J59 1 56 53 3 53 3 54 2 54 2J60 3 56 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 3J61 3 55 52 3 52 3 53 2 53 2J62 2 55 52 3 52 3 53 2 53 2J63 3 55 52 3 52 3 53 2 53 2J64 1 56 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 3J65 1 56 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 3J66 1 59 54 5 54 5 55 4 55 4J67 1 58 53 5 54 4 54 4 54 4J68 1 55 52 3 52 3 53 2 53 2J69 1 52 50 2 50 2 50 2 50 2J70 3 55 53 2 53 2 53 2 54 1J71 2 54 52 2 52 2 53 1 53 1J72 2 54 52 2 52 2 53 1 53 1J73 1 57 53 4 53 4 53 4 54 3J74 1 53 51 2 51 2 51 2 52 1J75 1 54 53 1 53 1 54 0 54 0J76 1 51 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1J77 1 56 53 3 53 3 54 2 55 1J78 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0J79 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0J80 1 53 52 1 52 1 53 0 53 0J81 1 51 50 1 51 0 51 0 51 0J82 1 51 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0J83 1 51 50 1 50 1 51 0 51 0J84 1 51 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1J85 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0J86 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0J87 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0J88 2 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

Page E - 34

Page 138: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

J89 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0J90 1 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0J91 0 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3J92 0 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 20

--

401 mBarrier Area 2,807 sq. m 2,406 sq. m 2,005 sq. m 1,604 sq. m

Barrier Length 401 m 401 m 401 m

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 17 dB 16 dB 15 dB 14 dBAvg Noise Reduction 5 dB 4 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 25 23 21 21No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

20 20 20 20

$648,016Cost per Benefited Unit $45,361 $42,262 $38,572 $30,858Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,134,028 $972,024 $810,020

Barrier J4 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

Page E - 35

Page 139: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier J5

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILJ93 1 71 67 4 67 4 67 4 67 4J94 1 69 66 3 66 3 66 3 66 3J95 1 67 65 2 65 2 65 2 65 2J96 1 65 64 1 64 1 64 1 64 1J97 1 69 61 8 61 8 61 8 62 7J98* 1 67 60 7 60 7 61 6 61 6J99 1 65 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5J100 1 63 59 4 59 4 59 4 59 4J101 1 65 63 2 63 2 63 2 63 2J102 1 64 62 2 62 2 63 2 63 2J103 1 64 62 2 62 2 62 2 62 2J104 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1J105 1 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3J106 1 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3J107 1 61 59 2 59 2 60 1 60 1J108 1 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1J109 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1J110 1 62 61 1 62 1 62 1 62 1J111 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1J112 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1J113 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2J114 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2J115 1 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1J116 1 60 58 2 58 2 59 1 59 1J117 1 59 57 2 57 2 57 2 57 2J118 1 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1J119 1 58 57 1 57 1 57 1 57 1J120 1 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1J121 1 55 53 2 53 2 53 2 53 2J122 1 55 54 1 54 1 54 1 54 1J123 1 56 54 2 54 2 54 2 54 2J124 1 57 56 1 56 1 56 1 56 1J125 1 55 53 2 53 2 53 2 53 2J126 1 55 53 2 53 2 53 2 53 2J127 1 55 54 1 54 1 54 1 54 1J128 1 55 54 1 54 1 54 1 54 1J129 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J130 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J131 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J132 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J133 1 55 52 3 52 3 52 3 52 3J134 1 55 52 3 52 3 52 3 52 3J135 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J136 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J137 1 55 52 3 52 3 52 3 52 3J138 1 56 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 3J139 1 53 52 1 53 1 53 1 53 1J140 1 54 52 2 52 2 52 2 52 2J141 1 55 52 3 52 3 52 3 53 2J142 1 56 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 3J143 1 54 53 1 53 1 53 1 53 1J144 1 54 52 2 52 2 53 1 53 1J145 1 55 54 1 54 1 54 1 54 1J146 1 57 53 4 53 4 54 4 54 4J147 1 57 54 3 54 3 54 3 54 3J148 1 58 54 4 54 4 54 4 54 4J149 1 59 54 5 54 5 54 4 55 4J150 1 60 55 5 56 4 56 4 56 4J151 1 57 54 3 54 3 54 3 54 3J152 1 58 55 3 55 3 55 3 55 3J153 1 59 56 3 56 3 56 3 56 3J154 1 61 57 4 57 4 57 4 57 4J155 1 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2J156 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2J157 1 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3J158 1 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 59 3J159 1 57 55 2 55 2 55 2 55 2J160 1 58 55 3 55 3 55 3 55 3J161 1 58 56 2 56 2 56 2 56 2

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

Page E - 36

Page 140: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

J162 1 56 54 2 54 2 54 2 54 2J163 1 56 54 2 54 2 54 2 54 2J164 1 57 55 2 55 2 55 2 55 2J165 0 62 62 0 62 0 62 0 62 0J166 0 61 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0J167 0 60 60 0 60 0 60 0 60 0J168 0 59 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0J169 0 66 66 0 66 0 66 0 66 0J170 0 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0J171 0 71 71 0 71 0 71 0 71 0J172 0 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0J173 0 68 68 0 68 0 68 0 68 0J174 0 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 5

--

193 mBarrier Area 1,351 sq. m 1,158 sq. m 965 sq. m 772 sq. m

Barrier Length 193 m 193 m 193 m

2 dBMax Noise Reduction 9 dB 8 dB 8 dB 8 dBAvg Noise Reduction 2 dB 2 dB 2 dB

No. of Benefited Units 5 4 3No. ofImpactedUnits

2 2 2

5 5 5

$467,832 $389,860

3

2

5

Barrier J5 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

$311,888Cost per Benefited Unit $109,161 $116,958 $129,953 $103,963Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $545,804

Page E - 37

Page 141: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barriers K1/K2

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

K125 1 62 58 4 58 4 58 4 58 4K126 1 60 57 3 58 2 58 2 58 2K129 1 69 67 2 67 2 67 2 67 2K130 1 72 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 2K131 1 68 62 6 63 5 63 5 63 5K132 1 69 61 8 61 8 62 7 62 7K133 1 67 62 5 62 5 62 5 62 5K134 0 70 65 5 65 5 65 5 65 5K135 0 73 61 12 61 12 61 12 62 11K136 1 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2K137 0 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 61 2K138 1 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1K139 1 66 64 2 64 2 64 2 64 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 6

--

K114 2 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1K115 1 60 58 2 59 1 59 1 59 1K116 1 66 63 3 63 3 63 3 63 3K117 1 63 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3K118 1 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 2K119 1 60 57 3 57 3 57 3 57 3K120 1 64 60 4 61 3 61 3 61 3K121 0 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3K122 0 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3K123 1 65 61 4 61 4 61 4 61 4K124 1 63 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3K127 1 73 61 12 61 12 62 11 62 11K128* 1 73 64 9 64 9 64 9 65 8

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 3

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

115 mBarrier Area 805 sq. m 690 sq. m 575 sq. m 460 sq. m

Barrier Length 115 m 115 m 115 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 12 dB 11 dB 11 dB 11 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 2 2 2 2No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3

$185,840Cost per Benefited Unit $162,610 $139,380 $116,150 $92,920Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $325,220 $278,760 $232,300

$54,405Cost per Benefited Unit $95,209 $81,608 $68,007

2

6

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $285,628 $244,824 $204,020 $163,216

No. ofImpactedUnits

2 2 2

6 6 6

11 dBNo. of Benefited Units 3 3 3 3Max Noise Reduction 12 dB 12 dB 11 dB

404 sq. mAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

Barrier Area 707 sq. m 606 sq. m 505 sq. m101 m 101 m 101 m 101 m

Barrier K2 - Barrier K2 is feasible at 4m but not reasonable Eliminating this barrier, however, changes thecombined attenuation of Barrier K1 and Barrier K2. Refer to Barriers K1 Alternative [without Barrier K2] belowfor the insertion losses that would result from only Barrier K1.

Barrier Length

Barrier K2

Barrier K1

Page E - 38

Page 142: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier K1 Alternative [without Barrier K2]

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILK125 1 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 2K126 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 58 2K129 1 69 68 1 68 1 68 1 68 1K130 1 72 70 2 70 2 70 2 71 1K131* 1 68 63 5 63 5 63 5 63 5K132 1 69 61 8 62 7 62 7 62 7K133 1 67 62 5 62 5 62 5 62 5K134 0 70 65 5 65 5 65 5 65 5K135 0 73 61 12 61 12 62 11 62 11K136 1 61 59 3 59 2 59 2 59 2K137 0 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 61 2K138 1 62 61 2 61 1 61 1 61 1K139 1 66 64 2 64 2 64 2 64 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 6

--

Barrier K4

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILK100 0 65 64 1 64 1 64 1 64 1

K101A 1 66 62 4 62 4 62 4 62 4K101B 0 63 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3K101C 0 64 61 3 61 3 61 3 61 3K101D 0 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 58 3K101E 0 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2K101F 0 59 56 3 56 3 56 3 56 3K101 2 69 64 5 64 5 65 4 65 4

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 3

--

Barriers K6

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILK70 1 58 55 3 55 3 55 3 56 2K71 1 59 56 3 57 2 57 2 57 2K72 1 64 60 4 60 4 60 4 60 4K73 1 67 62 5 62 5 62 5 62 5K74* 1 70 64 6 64 6 64 6 64 6K75 0 74 66 8 66 8 66 8 66 8K76 1 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2K77 1 63 61 2 61 2 61 2 61 2K78 1 66 64 2 64 2 64 2 64 2K79 1 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1K80 1 68 66 2 66 2 66 2 66 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 4

--

505 sq. m 404 sq. m101 m 101 m 101 m 101 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

106 mBarrier Area 742 sq. m 636 sq. m 530 sq. m 424 sq. m

Barrier Length 106 m 106 m 106 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 4 dB 4 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 2 2 0 0No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3

$171,296Cost per Benefited Unit $149,884 $128,472 N/A N/ACost @ $37.5/ft2 $299,768 $256,944 $214,120

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

86 mBarrier Area 602 sq. m 516 sq. m 430 sq. m 344 sq. m

Barrier Length 86 m 86 m 86 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 8 dB 8 dB 8 dB 7 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

4

No. of Benefited Units 2 2 2

$173,720

2

No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

4 4 4

$138,976Cost per Benefited Unit $121,604 $104,232 $86,860 $69,488Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $243,208 $208,464

Barrier K4 – The 7m Barrier is not feasible and therefore not recommended.

Barrier K6 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Barrier Length

Max Noise Reduction 12 dB 11 dB

707 sq. m 606 sq. mBarrier AreaAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 3 3 3 311 dB11 dB

6 6 6

4 dB

6

Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $285,628 $244,824 $204,020 $163,216

No. ofImpactedUnits

2 2 2

Cost per Benefited Unit $95,209 $81,608 $68,007 $54,405

Barrier K1 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and therefore is not recommended. Forthe purposes of estimating, 6 new residences are assumed to be constructed.

2

Page E - 39

Page 143: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier K9

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILK204 1 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1K205 1 63 62 1 62 1 62 1 62 1K206 1 65 64 1 64 1 64 1 64 1K207* 1 69 67 2 67 2 67 2 67 2K208 1 73 69 4 69 4 70 3 70 3K209 0 62 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1K210 1 66 65 1 65 1 65 1 65 1K211 1 66 66 0 66 0 66 0 66 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 4

--

Barrier K10

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILK172 0 64 63 1 63 1 63 1 63 1K173 0 65 62 3 62 3 62 3 63 2K174 2 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3K175 1 70 56 14 57 13 58 13 59 12K176* 1 66 59 7 60 6 60 6 60 6K177 2 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1K178 1 64 59 5 59 5 59 5 60 4

L1 1 62 59 3 59 3 59 3 59 3L2 5 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1L3 6 61 60 1 60 1 60 1 61 0

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 2

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

60 mBarrier Area 420 sq. m 360 sq. m 300 sq. m 240 sq. m

Barrier Length 60 m 60 m 60 m

1 dBMax Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 3 dB 3 dBAvg Noise Reduction 1 dB 1 dB 1 dB

No. of Benefited Units 0 0 0

No. ofImpactedUnits

3 3 3

4 4 4

$169,680 $145,440 $121,200

0

3

4

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

155 mBarrier Area 1,085 sq. m 930 sq. m 775 sq. m 620 sq. m

Barrier Length 155 m 155 m 155 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 14 dB 14 dB 13 dB 12 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

No. of Benefited Units 3 3 3 2No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2

$250,480Cost per Benefited Unit $146,113 $125,240 $104,367 $125,240Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $438,340 $375,720 $313,100

Barrier K9 – The 4m Barrier is not feasible and is therefore not recommended.

$96,960Cost per Benefited Unit N/A N/A N/A N/ACost @ $37.5/ft2

Barrier K10 – The 5m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Page E - 40

Page 144: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier L1

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILL12 1 64 62 2 62 2 62 2 62 2L13 1 59 58 1 58 1 58 1 58 1L14* 1 69 62 7 62 7 62 7 62 7L15 1 64 60 4 60 4 61 4 61 4L16 1 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2L17 1 59 57 2 57 2 57 2 58 1L18 2 58 56 2 56 2 56 2 56 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

Barrier L2

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILL72 1 72 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 2L73* 1 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

89 mBarrier Area 623 sq. m 534 sq. m 445 sq. m 356 sq. m

Barrier Length 89 m 89 m 89 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 8 dB 8 dB 7 dB 7 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 1 1 1 1No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

$143,824Cost per Benefited Unit $251,692 $215,736 $179,780 $143,824Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $251,692 $215,736 $179,780

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

63 mBarrier Area 441 sq. m 378 sq. m 315 sq. m 252 sq. m

Barrier Length 63 m 63 m 63 m

2 dBMax Noise Reduction 2 dB 2 dB 2 dB 2 dBAvg Noise Reduction 2 dB 2 dB 2 dB

No. of Benefited Units 0 0 0 0No. ofImpactedUnits

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

$101,808Cost per Benefited Unit N/A N/A N/A N/ACost @ $37.5/ft2 $178,164 $152,712 $127,260

Barrier L1 – The 4m Barrier is feasible; however, it is not reasonable, and is therefore not recommended.

Barrier L2 – This Barrier is not feasible since an insertion loss of at least 7 dBA cannot be achieved.

Page E - 41

Page 145: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier L3/L5

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL

L74 4 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 0L76 3 64 62 2 62 2 62 2 62 2L77 6 54 52 2 53 1 53 1 53 1L78 5 70 60 10 60 10 61 9 61 9L79 10 57 54 3 54 3 55 2 55 2L80* 5 69 61 8 61 8 61 8 62 8

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 10

--

L81 6 61 58 3 58 3 58 3 59 2-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 0

--

Barriers L3 Alternative [without Barriers L2 and L5]

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILL74 4 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 0L76 3 64 62 2 62 2 62 2 62 2L77 6 54 53 1 53 1 53 1 53 1L78 5 70 60 10 61 9 61 9 62 8L79 12 57 55 2 55 2 55 2 55 2L80* 5 69 62 7 62 7 62 7 63 6

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 10

--

$239,168Cost per Benefited Unit $41,854 $35,875 $29,896 $23,917Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $418,544 $358,752 $298,960

10No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

10 10 10 10

No. of Benefited Units 10 10 10

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 9 dB 9 dB 9 dB 8 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

148 mBarrier Area 1,036 sq. m 888 sq. m 740 sq. m 592 sq. m

Barrier Length 148 m 148 m 148 m

Barrier L5

Barrier L3

$239,168Cost per Benefited Unit $41,854 $35,875 $29,896 $23,917Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $418,544 $358,752 $298,960

10No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

10 10 10 10

No. of Benefited Units 10 10 10

4 dBMax Noise Reduction 10 dB 9 dB 9 dB 8 dBAvg Noise Reduction 4 dB 4 dB 4 dB

148 mBarrier Area 1,036 sq. m 888 sq. m 740 sq. m 592 sq. m

Barrier Length 148 m 148 m 148 m

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

82 mBarrier Area 574 sq. m 492 sq. m 410 sq. m 328 sq. m

Barrier Length 82 m 82 m 82 m

2 dBMax Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB 2 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 0 0 0 0No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

$132,512Cost per Benefited Unit N/A N/A N/A N/ACost @ $37.5/ft2 $231,896 $198,768 $165,640

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

Barriers L3 Alternative [without L2 and L5] – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is thereforerecommended.

Barrier L3/L5 – As described above, Barrier L2 and Barrier L5 are not feasible. Eliminating these barrierschanges the attenuation of Barrier L3. Refer to Barriers L3 Alternative [without Barriers L2 and L5] below forinsertion losses that would result from just Barrier L3.

Page E - 42

Page 146: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Table E1. Summary of Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Analysis

Barrier L4

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILL25 1 69 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0L26 1 62 62 0 62 0 62 0 62 0L27 1 70 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0L28 1 60 59 1 59 1 59 1 59 1L29 1 65 64 1 64 1 64 1 64 1L30 2 58 56 2 57 1 57 1 57 1L31 2 61 59 2 59 2 59 2 59 2L32 2 59 57 2 57 2 57 2 57 2L33 1 58 53 5 54 5 54 4 54 4L34 1 58 53 5 53 5 53 5 53 5L35 1 66 55 11 55 11 56 10 57 9L36 1 62 54 8 54 8 54 8 55 7L37 1 60 53 7 53 7 54 6 54 6L38 1 59 52 7 52 7 53 6 53 6L39 1 57 51 6 52 5 52 5 52 5L40 1 66 54 12 55 11 55 11 56 10L41 1 63 54 9 54 9 55 8 56 7L42 1 59 52 7 53 6 53 6 53 6L43 1 70 54 16 55 15 56 14 57 13L44 1 60 53 7 54 6 54 6 54 6L45 1 58 53 5 53 5 53 5 54 4L46 1 72 54 18 55 17 57 15 58 14L47 1 67 57 10 57 10 58 9 58 9L48 1 61 56 5 56 5 56 5 57 5L49 1 58 54 4 54 4 54 4 55 3L50 1 61 57 4 57 4 57 4 58 3L51 0 59 56 3 57 2 57 2 57 2L52 1 68 66 2 66 2 66 2 67 1L75 1 57 53 4 53 4 53 4 53 4L97* 1 70 61 9 61 9 62 9 62 8L98 1 65 59 6 59 6 59 6 59 6L99 1 61 56 5 56 5 56 5 57 4L100 1 69 57 12 58 11 58 11 59 10L101 1 59 54 5 54 5 55 4 55 4L102 1 61 55 6 55 6 55 6 56 5

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 10

--

Barrier L7

No Barrier

SPL IL SPL IL SPL IL SPL ILL86 1 59 57 2 57 2 57 2 58 1L87 1 60 58 2 58 2 58 2 59 1L88 1 62 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2L89 1 68 62 6 62 6 63 5 63 5

-----

With Barrier -

No Barrier 1

--

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

446 mBarrier Area 3,122 sq. m 2,676 sq. m 2,230 sq. m 1,784 sq. m

Barrier Length 446 m 446 m 446 m

5 dBMax Noise Reduction 18 dB 17 dB 15 dB 14 dBAvg Noise Reduction 6 dB 6 dB 5 dB

No. of Benefited Units 23 22 20 18

No. ofImpactedUnits

3 3 3 3

10 10 10 10

$720,736Cost per Benefited Unit $54,839 $49,141 $45,046 $40,041Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $1,261,288 $1,081,104 $900,920

SoundReceptor

No. ofDwelling

Units

With Barrier

SPL7m 6m 5m 4m

94 mBarrier Area 658 sq. m 564 sq. m 470 sq. m 376 sq. m

Barrier Length 94 m 94 m 94 m

3 dBMax Noise Reduction 5 dB 5 dB 5 dB 5 dBAvg Noise Reduction 3 dB 3 dB 3 dB

No. of Benefited Units 1 1 1 1

No. ofImpactedUnits

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

$151,904Cost per Benefited Unit $265,832 $227,856 $189,880 $151,904Cost @ $37.5/ft2 $265,832 $227,856 $189,880

Barrier L4 – The 4m Barrier is feasible and reasonable, and is therefore recommended.

Barrier L7 – This Barrier is not feasible since an insertion loss of at least 7 dBA cannot be achieved at 7m.

Page E - 43

Page 147: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the

Route 347 Noise Technical Report May 2006

Edwards and Kelcey

Exhibit FParallel Barrier Analysis Output

Page 148: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 149: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 150: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 151: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 152: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 153: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 154: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 155: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 156: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 157: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 158: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 159: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 160: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 161: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 162: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 163: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 164: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 165: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 166: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 167: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 168: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 169: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 170: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 171: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 172: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 173: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 174: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the
Page 175: DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/DRAFT EIS/DRAFT SECTION 4(F ......Route 347 Noise Technical Report June 2006 Edwards and Kelcey Page 1 A. INTRODUCTION The Noise Technical Report supplements the