Miles Kemp GDOT Office of Environmental Services, Air & Noise Consultant Manager

Transcription

1 Miles Kemp GDOT Office of Environmental Services, Air & Noise Consultant Manager

2 Focus Quality Simple Quality documents, on time. Who is our audience?» Public, FHWA reviewers, Internal GDOT reviewers Informative Technical thoroughness, easy to follow Eliminate room for error Quick to complete > 90% Completed on Schedule

3 Simplicity Simple format Checklist approach Communicated through a Q/A format Tables FHWA s requests when creating our template

4 Simplicity Focus on criteria Why a Type I for Noise? Impacts? Barriers? Focus on results Existing, Proposed Sound Levels? Impacts? Barrier?

5 Format Executive Summary Project synopsis Modeling Assumptions Results, or Summary of Findings

6

7

8

9

10

11 Format Organization Table of Contents List of Tables Figures, & Attachments

12

13

14 Format Q/A Format Ex.: What is the existing noise environment? Background How is noise defined? Typical hourly sound levels? Factors that affect traffic noise? Methodology to predict noise? What is considered a noise impact? NAC Table, explanation of Activity Categories How were Activity Categories assigned? Receivers, representing X # of Receptors for each Activity Category

15 Format Tables Easy to communicate information, simple format. Summary of Findings # Impacted Receivers & # Receptors Represented General Property Identification & Location Is Abatement Feasible & Reasonable? Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) Activity Categories Impact Leq(h) Activity Category Descriptions Validation Field Measurements and TNM Comparisons Time of reading Field Measurement TNM Calculation Difference Model Traffic Inputs TNM Results Summary Receiver, # of Receptors, NAC Designation Comparison of Existing, Build, & No-Build Impact Status Project Sound Levels for Vacant Parcels to Aid Local Officials Noise Barrier/Wall Evaluations Feasibility Reasonableness Summary of Findings

16 Format - Tables Easy to communicate information, simple format. Summary of Findings Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) Field Readings & TNM Model Validation Model Traffic Inputs TNM Results Summary Sound Levels for Local Officials Noise Barrier Evaluations Summary of Findings # of Impacted Receivers & # Receptors represented Activity Categories Time of Reading & Field Measurement Existing Traffic, Vehicle Breakdown, & Lane Inputs Receiver & # of Receptors Study Areas Feasibility Reference the beginning of the report General Property Identification & Location Impact Leq(h) TNM Calculation No-Build Traffic, Vehicle Breakdown, & Lane Inputs NAC Distance (Feet) from roadway edge of pavement Reasonableness Reaffirm results Is Abatement Feasible & Reasonable? Descriptions of Activity Categories Difference Build Traffic, Vehicle Breakdown, & Lane Inputs Existing, No-Build, & Build Results End of vacant parcels Receivers that meet abatement criteria Ties report together

17

18

19

20

21

22 Simplicity Ultimately, simple to understand, but.

23 Simplicity Needs to be easy to review! Office Policy 30 day review limit for 1 st draft 7 day turnaround for 2 nd review 3 rd reviews should not be necessary Moving forward» Consultant workshop Addenda, memos, re-evals Easy to build off report information & methodology moving forward

24 Informative Clarify technical terms & processes Criteria & Results explained NAC Table Results Table Barrier Analyses (Feasible/Reasonable) Summary of Findings NEPA Summary Letter to Local Officials Tracking Sheet

25

26

27

28

29 Quick to complete Office Policy 30 day review period for 1st draft 7 day review for 2nd submittal 3rd reviews should not be necessary Consultant workshop Our section has to complete many assessments each FY Limited budget, so many don t even make it to Let

30 FY 2016 Noise Assessments 8% On Time Late 92% FY % noise documents completed and reviewed on schedule