NOISE STUDY REPORT Interstate 75 / State Road 951 Ultimate Interchange Improvements PD&E Study Florida Department of Transportation District One 801 N. Broadway Ave. Bartow, Florida 33830-3809 Collier County Financial ID# 425843-2-22-01 June 20, 2013 Prepared By: Environmental Transportation Planning Ponte Vedra Beach, FL In Association With: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
6/20/2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An assessment of noise impacts was conducted for this project according to Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Section 772: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (July 13, 2010), Part II, Chapter 17 of Florida Department of Transportation s (FDOT) Project Development and Environment Manual (May 24, 2011) and Chapter 335.17, Florida Statutes. This assessment also adheres to current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise analysis guidelines contained in FHWA-HEP-10-025: Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (December 2011). EXISTING/NO-BUILD TRAFFIC NOISE CONDITIONS Overall, traffic noise levels throughout the project study area are below the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria. One exception is at the Tuscan Isles apartment complex where one end unit is affected by traffic noise. However, once construction is completed on the No-Build Alternative (includes widening SR 951 (Collier Boulevard) and SR 84 (Davis Boulevard), and ramp improvements at I-75), more noise sensitive sites be affected by traffic noise. It is predicted that the noise level increases related to these improvements will average 4.4 db(a) with a range of 0.6 db(a) to 6.7 db(a) throughout the study corridor. The majority of impacts will occur at the Tuscan Isles complex where a total of 16 units will be affected, and in the adjacent Palm Springs neighborhood and park. Additionally, increased noise levels are also predicted for businesses with outside eating areas near the Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard intersection. BUILD ALTERNATIVE IMPACT AND ABATEMENT SUMMARY With the No-Build improvements completed and the proposed project in place, traffic noise levels are predicted to be similar to the No-Build Alternative with increases over existing conditions ranging between 1.0 db(a) along Collier Boulevard to 8.5 db(a) at noise sensitive sites located closer to the I-75 mainline. While this range of increase is not considered substantial, 34 noise sensitive sites are predicted to experience noise levels that either approach or exceed the FHWA NAC. Consequently, abatement measures were evaluated for the two Activity Category B areas: Palm Springs Subdivision and Tuscan Isles; the Palm Springs Park (a Category C site); and at the unoccupied Buddy s Burgers, a Category E site. Due to limited right of way, the only abatement measure analyzed for this project is the construction of noise barriers. Of the four barriers that were evaluated, only one potentially meets the reasonableness and feasibility requirements, the Tuscan Isles noise barrier. i
6/20/2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIKELIHOOD Based on the noise analysis performed to date, there appears to be no apparent solutions available to mitigate the noise impacts at two impacted residences in the Palm Springs Neighborhood (identified in Appendix Table B-1 as receptors PS3 and PS5) nor at four units in the Tuscan Isle Apartment complex (receptors T1b, T1c and T2c). Abatement is also not reasonable at the Palm Springs Park nor is it feasible at the one impacted Activity Category E site, represented in this report by receptor E7. The Florida Department of Transportation is committed to the construction of feasible and reasonable noise abatement measures at the noise-impacted location identified in Table ES-1 contingent upon the following conditions: Detailed noise analyses during the final design process support the need, feasibility and reasonableness of providing abatement. Cost analysis indicates that the cost of the noise barrier(s) will not exceed the cost reasonable criterion. Community input concerning types, heights, and locations of the noise barrier(s) is solicited and the affected property owners support construction of the noise barrier. Safety and engineering aspects as related to the roadway user and the adjacent property owner have been reviewed and any conflicts or issues resolved. Any other mitigating circumstances revealed during the final design have been analyzed and resolved. Noise Barrier Tuscan Isles Table ES-1: Potentially Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barrier Summary Avg. Total Number of Number of Feasible Noise System Estimated Impacted Benefited Wall Reduction Wall Barrier Cost Residences Residences Height (db(a)) Length Cost per Benefited Residence 29 33 6.3 1,931 22 $1,274,460 $38,620 ii
6/20/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i Existing/No-Build Traffic Noise Conditions... i Build Alternative Impact And Abatement Summary... i Statement of Likelihood... ii Introduction... 1 Project Improvements... 3 No-Build Alternative... 5 Methodology... 6 Noise Metrics... 6 Traffic Data... 6 Noise Abatement Criteria... 6 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis... 9 Model Validation Process... 9 Identification of Noise Sensitive Sites... 12 Noise Impact Analysis Results... 13 Palm Springs Neighborhood... 14 Palms Springs Community Park... 14 Tuscan Isles Apartment Complex... 14 Noah s Landing Apartment Complex... 15 Forest Glen Golf & Country Club... 15 Scattered Category E Commercial Sites... 15 Noise Abatement Consideration... 16 Feasibility Analysis... 16 Reasonableness Analysis... 16 Analyzed Palm Springs/Tuscan Isles Residential Barrier... 17 Analyzed Palm Springs Park Barrier... 20 Analyzed Collier Blvd. Commercial Barrier... 22 Statement of Likelihood... 22 Public Coordination... 24 Noise Impact Contours... 24 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts... 27 Bibliography... 28 Appendix A: Proposed Typical Sections... A-1 Appendix B: Project Aerials... B-1 Appendix C: Traffic Data... C-1 Page iii
6/20/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Page Figure 1: Project Location Map... 1 Figure 2: Project Study Area... 2 Figure 3: Project Layout... 4 Figure 4: Tuscan Isles Noise Barrier Analysis... 19 Figure 5: Palm Springs Park Noise Barrier Analysis... 20 Figure 6: Noise Impact Contours (series)... 24 List of Tables Page Table ES-1: Potentially Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barrier Summary... ii Table 1: Hourly A-Weighted Noise Abatement Criteria... 7 Table 2: Comparative Noise Levels... 8 Table 3: Traffic Noise Prediction Model Validation... 12 Table 4: Noise Barrier Results Palm Springs/Tuscan Isles... 17 Table 5: Noise barrier Results Tuscan Isles... 18 Table 6: Palm Springs Park Noise Barrier Feasibility Analysis... 21 Table 7: Palm Springs Park Special Use Reasonableness Analysis... 21 Table 8: Potentially Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barrier Summary... 22 iv
6/20/2013 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District One is conducting a Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Study to consider improvement alternatives at the I-75 at SR 951 (Collier Boulevard/CR 951) interchange in Collier County. Refer to Figure 1 below for an illustration of the project location. This PD&E Study looks at potential improvements needed to maintain acceptable traffic operations at the interchange termini and the closely spaced intersection between Collier Boulevard and SR 84 (Davis Boulevard). The project limits extend approximately 3,000 feet west and east along I-75 from the Collier Boulevard overpasses. The southern project terminus is the intersection of Business Circle South and Collier Boulevard. The northern terminus is the intersection of Magnolia Pond Drive and Collier Boulevard. Limits of the study area are illustrated on the next page in Figure 2. 1
6/20/2013 INTRODUCTION 2
6/20/2013 INTRODUCTION PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvement is a capacity project that combines a classic Partial Cloverleaf (ParClo) A interchange form with two flyover ramps connections to and from Collier Boulevard south of the Davis Boulevard intersection. As such, the highest volume traffic movement to and from I-75 does not have to travel through the Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard signalized intersection, extending the design life of this busy location. A separated exit lane would be added to northbound Collier Boulevard under the I-75 overpasses and could be constructed within the existing width under the existing structures. The proposed ParClo A interchange would include two new loop ramps in the southwest and northeast quadrants of the interchange. Two new bridges would provide acceleration lanes to I-75 and would be built south and north of the existing I-75 overpasses. The I-75 southbound on-ramps from southbound and northbound Collier Boulevard first merge to one lane joining the I-75 mainline southeast of the current interchange gore. The proposed I-75 northbound on-ramp gore will be rebuilt in the approximate same location as the existing gore and will provide a parallel merge auxiliary lane to mainline I-75. The southbound off-ramp gore would be rebuilt to provide a parallel two-lane exit. Both southbound and northbound off-ramps would be relocated to accommodate the new loop ramps. Two flyovers would convey Collier Boulevard traffic over Beck Boulevard and Davis Boulevard to the proposed northbound loop on-ramp and from the southbound off-ramp respectively. These flyovers would connect with Collier Boulevard at the Business Circle North intersection, south of Davis Boulevard. An illustration of the proposed project is provided on the following page in Figure 3. Typical sections are provided as Appendix A, while further engineering detail can be obtained in the project s Preliminary Engineering Report. 3
INTRODUCTION 6/20/2013 Figure 3: Project Layout 4
6/20/2013 INTRODUCTION NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE Consistent with FHWA guidelines, this analysis considers an alternative assessing what would happen to the environment in the future if this proposed interchange improvement project was not built. This alternative, called the No-Build Alternative, consists not only of the existing roadways within the study area, but also includes the routine maintenance improvements to these facilities. Three capacity improvement projects are under construction to improve Collier Boulevard, Davis Boulevard, and three of the four I-75 ramps. These improvements are set to be complete by 2014 and are considered to be part of the study s No-Build Alternative. As a result of these projects, Collier Boulevard will be widened to eight lanes, four in each direction of travel, between the intersection with Davis Boulevard and City Gate Boulevard. Davis Boulevard is being widened to six lanes from west of Radio Road to Collier Boulevard. Intersections turn lanes improvements at Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard include: a second southbound left-turn lane, three eastbound left-turn lanes, an eastbound right, bypass lane to southbound Collier Boulevard and full reconstruction of Beck Boulevard, the eastern intersection leg, with dual left-turn lanes and a right-turn lane. The Collier Boulevard south intersection leg with the I-75 northbound on-ramp is being widened to include a third northbound leftturn lane. Both I-75 off-ramps at Collier Boulevard are being widened to make full use of the additional capacity being added along the arterial. As such, the southbound off-ramp will be five lanes wide with three right-turn lanes toward southbound Collier Boulevard and northbound two left-turn lanes. The I-75 northbound off-ramp is being widened to four lanes, two per turning direction at the Collier Boulevard intersection. The northbound I-75 on-ramp is being widened to three lanes for consistency with the new three left-turn lanes off Collier Boulevard While the No-Build Alternative does not meet project needs, it provides a baseline condition to compare and measure the effects of the proposed corridor. 5
6/20/2013 NOISE STUDY METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY The traffic noise impact analysis conducted for this project is consistent with Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), 772: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (July 13, 2010), Part II, Chapter 17 of the Florida Department of Transportation s (FDOT) Project Development and Environment Manual (May 24, 2011) and Chapter 335.17, Florida Statutes. This assessment also adheres to current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise analysis guidelines contained in FHWA-HEP-10-025: Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (December 2011). NOISE METRICS Traffic noise is a combination of noises produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires and is never constant. The noise level is always changing with the number, type and speed of the vehicles producing the noise. As such, the noise metric used to describe this combination of noise is referred to as L eq. This metric allows for the fluctuations of daily traffic noise to be analyzed in terms of steady noise levels with the same acoustic energy, and thus, is the level of constant sound. The constant sound is quantified by a meter that measures units called decibels (db). For highway traffic noise, an adjustment or weighting of the high and low-pitched sounds is made to approximate the way an average person hears. These adjusted sounds are called A-weighted decibels and are expressed as db(a). TRAFFIC DATA Traffic volumes for the existing condition were obtained from actual FDOT 2011 traffic counts. Traffic volumes assigned to the 2035 design year represent the worst-case condition in terms of noise for both the No-Build and Build Alternatives. Worst-case noise conditions occur with the maximum amount of traffic traveling at posted speed; reflecting a Level of Service (LOS) C operating condition. These LOS C volumes were derived from the FDOT Level of Service Manual. All traffic data used in this noise analysis are included in this report as Appendix C. NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA Land use plays an important role in traffic noise analyses. To determine which land uses are noisesensitive, this noise impact analysis used the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Shown on the following page in Table 1, these criteria are divided into individual land use activity categories. For each of these categories, the FHWA has established noise levels at which noise abatement must be considered. 6
6/20/2013 NOISE STUDY METHODOLOGY Additionally, FDOT requires noise abatement consideration for all noise levels that approach within one decibel of the FHWA abatement criteria. These approach levels are also identified on Table 1. Activity Category Activity Leq(h) 1 FHWA FDOT Table 1: Noise Abatement Criteria (Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level-decibels (db(a))) Evaluation Location Description of Activity Category A 57.0 56.0 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. B 2 67.0 66.0 Exterior Residential. C 2 67.0 66.0 Exterior Active sports areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, daycare centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, golf courses, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public/non-profit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreational areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. D 52.0 51.0 Interior Auditoriums, daycare centers, hospitals libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public/nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 2 72.0 71.0 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not included in A-D or F. F - - - Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical) and warehousing. G - - - Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. (Based on Table 1 of 23 CFR Part 772) 1 The Leq(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. 2 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. Note: FDOT defines that a substantial noise increase occurs when the existing noise level is predicted to be exceeded by 15 decibels or more as a result of the transportation improvement project. When this occurs, the requirement for abatement consideration will be followed. One additional criterion for determining project impacts occurs when project noise levels are below the NAC but the predicted project-related noise levels show a substantial increase (+15 db(a) or more) over existing levels. For example, if existing noise levels are 41.0 db(a) and project-related noise levels are 56.0 db(a), noise abatement consideration is required due to the 15.0 db(a) increase. 7
6/20/2013 NOISE STUDY METHODOLOGY An illustration of typical exterior and interior noises and their associated decibel level is presented below in Table 2. This graph provides the reader a better understanding of the noise levels discussed herein. 8
6/20/2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS The FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) - version 2.5 was used to predict traffic noise levels for this project. This program estimates the traffic noise level from a series of roadway segments (the source) at a noise sensitive site (the receptor). The TNM program requires certain data to be entered. These data are noise influencing variables that include the volume and types of vehicles traveling the roadway, vehicular speed and roadway geometry, and the presence of existing barriers between the road and receptor such as berms and building rows. MODEL VALIDATION PROCESS Before TNM can be used to predict traffic noise, field measurements are required to validate the model. Following 23 CFR 772, field measurements were taken at four locations within the study corridor using an Extech Instruments Model 407780 Type 2 Integrating Sound Level Meter. The sound level meter, calibrated at 114.0 db(a) with an Extech Instruments Model 407766 calibrator, was adjusted to the A- weighted frequency scale which makes it respond more like a human ear. During each of the 10-minute measurement sessions, traffic data was collected and included the number of cars, medium trucks (delivery-type trucks/two axles, six wheels), buses, motorcycles, and heavy trucks (tractor-trailers, concrete trucks/more than two axles) traversing the validation site. The data collection effort also included recording the travel speed for each type of vehicle using a Bushnell Speedster hand-held radar gun. The validation sites were located at distances consistent with noise sensitive sites that are adjacent to the I-75 mainline, its ramps, and/or Collier Boulevard. The weather during the November 19, 2012 monitoring sessions ranged from 62 to 74 under clear skies with a slight westerly breeze. 9
6/20/2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS The first validation location, shown in the photo to the right, was at the pool deck of the Springhill Suites hotel in the northeast corner of the interchange. The sound level meter was placed just outside the pool deck approximately 294 feet from White Lake Boulevard facing the I-75 westbound off ramp. During the monitoring sessions, background noise from the pool equipment and construction on Collier Boulevard could be heard. Photo Above: Springhill Suites Monitor Site At the Comfort Inn, rooms facing the eastbound on-ramp to I-75 have balconies or patios. To avoid interference from construction noise on Collier Boulevard, the sound level meter was placed further east from the rooms. Background noise from room air conditioners made it difficult to obtain readings on a ground floor patio. Hence, the meter was shifted to the edge of the parking lot, approximately 100 feet from the on-ramp. Construction noise continued to be noticeable during the measurement sessions. Photo Below: Comfort Inn Monitor Site 10
6/20/2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS The third location was selected to measure noise levels at the project s southern limit where the Forest Glen golf course and commercial areas are located. Affects from the ongoing Collier Boulevard construction are not noticeable at this location. Placed at the edge of the Walmart parking lot, the sound level meter was approximately 190 feet from southbound Collier Boulevard. No unusual noise events occurred during the three 10-minute sessions. Photo Above: Commercial Monitor Site Photo Below: Palm Springs Park Monitor Site The fourth validation site, shown in the photo to the right, was Palm Springs Park. The sound level meter was placed at the picnic area, approximately 340 feet from the eastbound I-75 travel lane. Construction noise from the ongoing Collier Boulevard improvement cannot be heard at this location. No unusual noise events occurred during the three 10-minute sessions. Validation of TNM occurs when the model-predicted noise levels are within three decibels of the fieldmeasured levels. As shown on the following page in Table 3, the noise model predicted within the 3.0 decibel level of accuracy for all but one session and is therefore, considered acceptable for predicting existing and future noise levels for this project. 11
6/20/2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS Table 3: Traffic Noise Prediction Model Validation Field Measurement Location Session Time Field Measured Level (db(a)) Computer Predicted Level (db(a)) Variation (db(a)) 1 7:40 am 54.1 54.1 0 Site #1: Springhill Suites 2 7:52 am 54.3 54.4 0.1 3 12:12 pm 55.1 55.3 0.2 3.3 1 9:03 am 62.7 59.4 Invalid Site #2: Comfort Inn 2 9:14 am 61.4 59.5 1.9 3 9:26 am 60.6 58.5 2.1 1 10:11 am 63.2 63.8 0.5 Site #3: Walmart/Commercial Area 2 10:23 am 62.6 63.8 1.2 3 10:34 am 63.8 64.3 0.5 1 1:10 pm 58.9 61.7 2.8 Site #4: Palm Springs Park 2 1:21 pm 58.8 61.3 2.5 3 1:32 pm 59.7 62.5 2.8 *1 = Collier Boulevard construction noise (No-Build Alternative) interfered with this session. TNM could not replicate this background noise. IDENTIFICATION OF NOISE SENSITIVE SITES Activity Category B land uses along the study corridor consist of the Palm Springs neighborhood, the Tuscan Isle apartment complex (both located adjacent to the I-75 mainline); and the Noah s Landing subdivision on Magnolia Pond Drive. The areas of outside activity for the Palm Springs neighborhood are the back patios. For Tuscan Isles, each apartment unit has either a patio or a balcony. There are no patios/balconies for the Noah s Landing apartments; thus, the area of outdoor activity is centered around the pool and recreation areas, which are considered Activity Category C land uses. Other Activity Category C land uses within the project corridor are recreational areas that include Palm Springs Park which backs to I-75, and the Forest Glen Golf Course located adjacent to Collier Boulevard. The corridor s Activity Category E land uses are located adjacent to Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard and include non-medical office buildings, fast food restaurants, and several hotels. The NAC definitions specify that for Category E land uses, only areas of frequent exterior use will be considered noise sensitive. The restaurants with outdoor eating areas are considered noise sensitive. These include the two Subway restaurants co-located at gas stations, McDonald s, Dunkin Donuts, and Buddy s Burgers (currently closed). For the hotels, these areas of use are pool areas and/or outside balconies. Additionally, outdoor benches at the office building behind the Walmart shopping center constitute a noise sensitive area. Conversely, the bench areas associated with the retail shopping plaza are considered Category F land uses and are not noise sensitive. 12
6/20/2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS The remainder of the corridor is either Category F uses such as retail and light industrial businesses, or Category G uses like vacant land. A records search for active building permits on Category F and G lands did not identify any active permits for land uses that would be considered noise sensitive. There are no land uses in the study corridor which warrant an Activity Category A analysis and analysis of interior (Category D) noise levels was not justified for this project. A total of 57 Category B receptors, three Category C sites, and twelve Category E commercial sites were analyzed for project noise impacts. The reporting of project noise levels was simplified by using representative receptors within each common noise environment. A common noise environment is defined by FDOT as a group of receptors within the same FHWA Activity Category that are exposed to similar noise sources and levels; traffic volumes, traffic mix, and speed; and topographic features. Generally, common noise environments occur between two secondary noise sources, such as interchanges, intersections and/or cross-roads. A common noise environment involves a group of impacted receptors that would benefit from the same noise barrier or noise barrier system. An illustration of the analyzed receptors is provided as Appendix B Project Aerials. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS When discussing noise level increases, the general rule that applies to perception is: A 3 db(a) increase is barely perceptible to most people. A 5 db(a) increase is noticeable to most people. A 10 db(a) increase is perceived as twice as loud and is considered a doubling of noise. A 15 db(a) increase is considered substantial and requires noise abatement consideration regardless of the predicted noise level. Further detail on individual noise sensitive sites within each common noise environment is provided at the beginning of Appendix B. 13
6/20/2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS Palm Springs Neighborhood Located south of the I-75 mainline at the project s western limit, is the Palm Springs neighborhood. Twelve homes in this area were analyzed for noise impacts. None of the homes is currently experiencing traffic noise impacts from the I-75 mainline. However, under the No-Build and Build Alternatives, improvements to the southbound exit ramp will bring the traffic noise closer to this subdivision. As a result, two homes are predicted to experience noise levels that either approach or exceed the FHWA 67.0 db(a) noise abatement criterion for Activity Category B land uses. Consequently, abatement consideration is required for these two homes (identified in Appendix B as PS3 and PS5). Palms Springs Community Park Tucked into the Palm Springs neighborhood is a community park, an Activity Category C land use. In addition to open green space, the park is home to a playground and a picnic area. While neither the playground nor the picnic area is impacted by existing traffic noise, the No-Build and Build improvements will increase noise levels to the extent that abatement consideration is required. On the project aerials (Appendix B), the playground is denoted as Park a and the picnic area is Park b. Tuscan Isles Apartment Complex Housed in 3-story buildings, each of the apartments in Tuscan Isle has a balcony or patio, as illustrated in the photo to the right. In Appendix B, units denoted with a are located on the ground floor; units with b have balconies on the second floor; and units with c have balconies on the third floor. Of the 45 analyzed apartments, only one is currently impacted by traffic noise. However, the combination of the proposed project and the No-Build Alternative (under construction) traffic noise increases to the extent that 29 apartments will be impacted and require abatement consideration. 14
6/20/2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS Noah s Landing Apartment Complex Even though this complex is located more than 1,000 feet from the I-75 mainline, it was analyzed for noise impacts to verify the proposed project would not create a substantial noise increase (15.0 ±db(a)). As illustrated in the photograph to the right, the apartments have no balconies or patios. The only area of outdoor activity is the pool area, and Activity Category C land use. The distance from the pool to I-75 is too great for the complex to be impacted by traffic noise. Consequently, abatement consideration is not required at this location. Forest Glen Golf & Country Club The fairways and green associated with Holes 15 and 16 are adjacent to northbound Collier Boulevard. To determine potential noise impacts, receptor points were scattered throughout the fairway and greens. The noise levels at all three analysis scenarios is below the 67.0 db(a) noise abatement criterion for Activity Category C land uses. Consequently, abatement consideration is not required at this location. Scattered Category E Commercial Sites The remainder of the noise analysis focused on commercial sites with outdoor activity. None of the 11 sites currently experiences noise levels that approach or exceed the 72.0 db(a) noise abatement criterion for Activity Category E land uses. With implementation of the proposed project, one site will meet the abatement criterion. The outdoor dining area at Buddy s Burgers (E7) is predicted to have traffic noise levels of 72.0 db(a). As of February 2013, the restaurant was closed for business. However, because the outdoor patio contains eight tables that may be retained by future owners, noise abatement was considered at this site. 15
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION Due to limited right of way, the only abatement measure analyzed for this project is the construction of noise barriers. Noise barriers reduce the sound that enters a community from a busy roadway by forcing the noise to take a longer path over and around the barrier. Barriers cannot obstruct safe access to adjacent properties and streets. They must also allow adequate driver visibility from an adjacent driveway or side street. Where feasible, FDOT requires these barriers to be positioned 5-feet inside the FDOT rights of way to facilitate construction and future maintenance. When that is not feasible, barriers are positioned along the road shoulder; sometimes a combination of both methods is required. Feasibility Analysis When analyzing noise barriers two main factors are considered; the first factor is feasibility. Feasibility focuses on the barrier s ability to reduce traffic noise at affected properties. In order to be effective, a barrier must block the impacted receptor s line of sight to the noise source. FDOT requires that noise barriers achieve a minimum noise reduction, or insertion loss, of 5.0 db(a) at two impacted receptors. This is the point at which a lowered noise level is noticeable and is the threshold for determining whether a site benefits from a barrier. Reasonableness Analysis The total cost of an economically reasonable barrier cannot exceed $42,000 per benefited receptor, including costs associated with additional right of way and/or easements. For this project, estimated barrier costs were calculated using the current FDOT statewide average of $30 per square foot. In addition to cost, the barrier must also meet the FDOT abatement design goal of 7.0 db(a) for at least one impacted site behind the analyzed barrier. Barriers are evaluated at heights ranging from 8 to 22 feet. Determining barrier length begins with an evaluation of length that is four times the distance from the impacted receptor to the barrier in question. From that point, the length is optimized by reducing the wall to a point where the FDOT abatement design goal is attained and the FHWA 5.0 db(a) minimum reduction requirement is achieved for the maximum number of impacted receptors. 16
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION Analyzed Palm Springs/Tuscan Isles Residential Barrier Because of proximity, one noise barrier was initially analyzed along the FDOT limited access right of way to provide noise reduction for the two impacted Palm Springs residences and the 29 Tuscan Isles apartments. Even though Palm Springs Park is also behind the analyzed barrier, it is considered a different activity category/common noise environment; thus it must be evaluated independently of its residential neighbors. Discussion of the park noise barrier appears later in this Noise Study Report. Summarized below in Table 4, at heights above 18 feet, the analyzed Palm Springs barrier meets both the FDOT s 5.0 db(a) minimum insertion loss requirement and 7.0 db(a) abatement design goal. However, the length of barrier required to achieve these levels of noise reduction combined with the low number of benefited receptors in the Palm Springs neighborhood, does not allow a noise barrier at this location to meet the $42,000 cost per benefited receptor measure. Consequently, the barrier is not cost reasonable. Barrier Height (ft) Optimized Barrier Length (ft) 5.0-5.9 Insertion Loss (IL) for Impacted Receptors (db(a) 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-9.9 Table 4: Noise Barrier Results Palm Springs/Tuscan Isles *1 Avg. IL of Impacted/ Benefited (db(a)) 10.0 Impacted Number of Benefited Receptors Other *2 Total Cost-Reasonableness Analysis Total Estimated Cost Per Benefited Receptor Cost Reasonable *3 14 5,051* 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - N/A 16 5,051 *4 3 2 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - N/A 18 3,155 3 5 2 0 0 0 6.6 10 1 11 $1,703,700 $154,882 No 20 3,045 1 10 5 2 0 0 6.7 18 6 24 $1,827,000 $76,125 No 22 3,339 8 2 11 4 2 0 6.8 24 12 36 $2,203,740 $61,215 No *1 = Does not include noise reduction at Palm Springs Park. Because this is a different activity category/noise environment, it was analyzed separately. *2 = Non-impacted sites that receive a benefit from the barrier. *3 = Cost per benefited receptor is $42,000. *4 = Noise reduction requirements cannot be met at any barrier length. A subsequent analysis was conducted to determine if two separate noise barriers would meet the costreasonable measure; one barrier for the two impacted Palm Springs residences and one for the 29 impacted Tuscan Isles apartments. The analyzed barrier for the Palm Springs neighborhood fails to meet the FDOT abatement design goal and the cost reasonable measure. Noise reduction requirements cannot be met at the maximum noise barrier height of 22 feet. Conversely, providing a separate noise barrier to abate traffic noise solely for the Tuscan Isle complex was more effective as summarized on the following page in Table 5. With an optimized length of 1,931 feet and maximum-allowable height of 22 feet, a barrier at this location provides effective noise reduction for 23 of the 29 impacted units. The six impacted units not benefited from the barrier are two 2 nd floor units represented by receptor T1 and four 3 rd floor units represented by receptors T1 and T2. 17
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION The barrier meets both the FDOT s 5.0 db(a) minimum noise reduction requirement and 7.0 db(a) abatement design goal. A barrier with these dimensions also meets the $42,000 per benefited receptor cost-reasonableness measure. Figure 4 on the following page illustrates the location of this potentially feasible and reasonable noise barrier. Barrier Height (ft) Optimized Barrier Length (ft) 5.0-5.9 Insertion Loss (IL) for Impacted Receptors (db(a))* 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-9.9 Table 5: Noise Barrier Results Tuscan Isles *1 Avg. IL of Impacted/ Benefited (db(a)) 10.0 Impacted Number of Benefited Receptors Other *2 Total Cost-Reasonableness Analysis Total Estimated Cost Per Benefited Receptor Cost Reasonable?*3 14 5,051 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - N/A 16 1,039 4 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - N/A 18 1,284 2 4 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - N/A 20 1,284 2 8 4 2 0 0 6.4 16 0 16 $770,400 $48,150 No 22 1,931 7 0 12 2 2 0 6.3 23 10 33 $1,274,460 $38,620 Yes *1 = Does not include noise reduction at Palm Springs Park. Because this is a different activity category/noise environment, it was analyzed separately. *2 = Non-impacted sites that receive a benefit from the barrier. *3 = Cost per benefited receptor is $42,000. 18
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION 19
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION Analyzed Palm Springs Park Barrier Palm Springs Park, an Activity Category C land use, is considered a Special Use site that requires a multi-phased approach to noise barrier analysis. The first step in the analysis is to determine the most effective barrier dimensions. To define the extent of traffic noise impacts, nine additional analysis receptor points were laid in a grid pattern to represent the entire park. Illustrated below in Figure 5, the area of impact is confined to the hatched area. Summarized on the following page in Table 6, at heights 16 feet and above, a barrier at this location meets the FDOT 5.0 db(a) minimum noise reduction requirement and is therefore, considered feasible. However, impacted areas #2 and #6 receive no noise reduction benefit. 20
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION Raising the wall height to 18 feet provides effective noise reduction to all impacted areas of the park, but a longer barrier is required to achieve this insertion loss. The same results are also possible with a shorter barrier length, but the barrier height must be raised to either 20 or 22 feet to meet the feasibility requirement. The 20-foot barrier has the lowest overall square footage; thus it was carried forward to the next phase of evaluation, cost-reasonable analysis. Barrier Height (ft) Optimized Barrier Length (ft) Table 6: Palm Springs Park Noise Barrier Feasibility Analysis Insertion Loss (IL) for (db(a)) A B 1 2 3 *1 4 5 6 7 *1 8 9 *1 14 1,366 5.0 <5.0 5.6 <5.0 <5.0 6.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.0 <5.0 16 1,366 6.7 5.3 6.8 <5.0 <5.0 7.8 5.7 <5.0 <5.0 9.0 <5.0 18 2,019 7.9 6.7 8.2 5.2 <5.0 9.0 7.0 5.4 <5.0 10.0 <5.0 20 1,366 8.1 6.8 8.0 5.0 <5.0 9.2 7.0 5.3 <5.0 10.5 <5.0 22 1,366 8.6 7.3 8.4 5.4 <5.0 9.7 7.5 5.7 <5.0 11.0 <5.0 *1 = Not Impacted by Traffic Noise Without knowing the average time spent per visitor or number of visitors using the park on an average day, FDOT s Special Use Reasonableness Matrix was used to determine the number of person-hours on a on an average day needed for a noise barrier to be considered cost reasonable. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 7 below. For a noise barrier to be cost reasonable, 1,154 person-hours of use is required on an average day. This is an unrealistic expectation given the limited activities this neighborhood park offers. Table 7: Palm Springs Park Special Use Reasonableness Matrix Item Criteria Input Description 1 Enter length of proposed barrier 1366 feet Optimized 2 Enter height of proposed barrier 20 feet Optimized 3 Multiply Item1 by Item 2 27320 sq. feet 4 Avg. amount of time person stays per visit 1.5 hours 5 Avg. number people visit site per day 769 people 6 Multiply Item 4 by Item 5 1153.5 person-hr 7 Divide Item 3 by Item 6 23.68443866 sq. ft/person-hr 8 Multiply $42,000 by Item 7 $ 994,746.4 $/sq. ft/person-hr 9 Does Item 8 exceed the "abatement cost factor" of $995,935/perhson-hr/ft2? 10 If Item 9 is no, abatement is reasonable - 11 If Item 9 is yes, abatement is not reasonable See Assumptions Assumptions: For a noise barrier to be cost reasonable, 1,154 person-hours of use is required on an average day. 21
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION Analyzed Collier Blvd. Commercial Barrier As discussed earlier, this location is the site of the closed Buddy s Burgers restaurant, shown in the adjacent photo. However, because the outdoor patio contains eight tables which may be retained by future owners, a noise barrier was considered to abate for the 72.0 db(a) traffic-related noise level. The ability to construct an effective noise barrier within FDOT rights of way is hindered by the Collier Boulevard/Beck Boulevard intersection. Consequently, the FDOT minimum-required noise reduction of 5.0 db(a) cannot be attained and a barrier at this location is not considered feasible. STATEMENT OF LIKELIHOOD Based on the noise analysis performed to date, there appears to be no apparent solutions available to mitigate the noise impacts at two impacted residences in the Palm Springs Neighborhood (identified in Appendix Table B-1 as receptors PS3 and PS5) nor at four units in the Tuscan Isle Apartment complex (receptors T1b, T1c and T2c). Abatement is also not reasonable at the Palm Springs Park nor is it feasible at the one impacted Activity Category E site, represented in this report by receptor E7. The Florida Department of Transportation is committed to the construction of feasible and reasonable noise abatement measures at the noise-impacted location identified on the following page in Table 8 contingent upon the following conditions: Detailed noise analyses during the final design process support the need, feasibility and reasonableness of providing abatement. Cost analysis indicates that the cost of the noise barrier(s) will not exceed the cost reasonable criterion. Community input concerning types, heights, and locations of the noise barrier(s) is solicited and the affected property owners support construction of the noise barrier. Safety and engineering aspects as related to the roadway user and the adjacent property owner have been reviewed and any conflicts or issues resolved. Any other mitigating circumstances revealed during the final design have been analyzed and resolved. 22
6/20/2013 NOISE ABATEMENT CONSIDERATION Noise Barrier Tuscan Isles Table 8: Potentially Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barrier Summary Avg. Total Number of Feasible Noise System Benefited Wall Reduction Wall Residences Height (db(a)) Length Number of Impacted Residences Estimated Barrier Cost Cost per Benefited Residence 29 33 6.3 1,931 22 $1,274,460 $38,620 23
6/20/2013 PUBLIC COORDINATION PUBLIC COORDINATION The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is committed to working with local governments, developers, and residents by providing them access to this Noise Study Report. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed project at advertised public meetings. NOISE IMPACT CONTOURS To aid local government officials in promoting compatibility between land development and the proposed project, potential noise impact contours were developed for this project and are included below in the Figure 6 series. These contours represent the approximate distance at which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) will be approached with implementation of the proposed project. Refer to Table 1 for a description of each activity category. Also note these are unshielded contours that do not consider the noise reduction effects of adjacent buildings or vegetation. 24
6/20/2013 PUBLIC COORDINATION 25
6/20/2013 PUBLIC COORDINATION 26
6/20/2013 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS Land uses adjacent to the I-75/SR 951 interchange are identified on the FDOT listing of noise- and vibration-sensitive sites (e.g., residential use). Construction of the proposed roadway improvements is not expected to have any significant noise or vibration impact. If sensitive land uses develop adjacent to the roadway prior to construction, increased potential for noise or vibration impacts could result. It is anticipated that the application of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction will minimize or eliminate potential construction noise and vibration impacts. However, should unanticipated noise or vibration issues arise during the construction process, the Project Engineer, in coordination with the District Noise Specialist and the Contractor, will investigate additional methods of controlling these impacts. 27
6/20/2013 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A Method to Determine Reasonableness and Feasibility of Noise Abatement at Special Use Locations, Roger L. Wayson and John M. MacDonald, University of Central Florida, updated July 22, 2009. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, FHWA-HEP-10-025, revised December 2011. Generalized Service Volume Tables, Level Of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation, October 4, 2010. Measurement of Highway-Related Noise, Report No. PD-96-046, Federal Highway Administration, May 1996. Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, 23 C.F.R. 772, July 13, 2010. Project Development and Environment Manual: Part II, Chapter 17, Florida Department of Transportation, Revised May 24, 2011. State Highway Construction; Means of Noise Abatement, Section 335.17, Florida Statutes, 2012. 28
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-1
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-2
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-3
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-4
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-5
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-6
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-7
6/20/2013 APPENDIX A PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS A-8
6/20/2013 APPENDIX B PROJECT AERIALS Representative Noise Receptor Table B-1: Noise Impact Summary Analyzed Scenario/Alternative Year 2012 Existing Scenario Year 2035 No-Build Year 2035 Build Projected Projected Change Sites Projected Receptor Distance Noise Distance Noise From Represented ID *1 Noise Level Level *1 Level Existing db(a) db(a) db(a) db(a) Tuscan Isles Common Noise Environment - Category B 66.0 db(a) NAC Threshold T1a 2 1 st floor units 54.2 60.8 63.2 9.0 No T1b 2 2 nd floor units 465 57.8 64.2 452 66.1 8.3 Yes T1c 2 3rd floor units 59.2 65.3 67.1 7.9 Yes T2a 2 1 st floor units 55.1 61.6 64.1 9.0 No T2b 2 2 nd floor units 393 58.3 64.5 383 66.6 8.3 Yes T2c 2 3rd floor units 59.6 65.6 67.5 7.9 Yes T3a 1 1 st floor unit 54.9 61.8 63.5 8.6 No 310 297 T3b 1 2 nd floor unit 57.6 64.4 66.1 8.5 Yes T4a 2 1 st floor units 61.7 67.7 70.4 8.7 Yes T4b 2 2 nd floor units 251 65.4 70.5 240 72.1 6.7 Yes T4c 1 3rd floor unit 66.5 71.9 73.7 7.2 Yes T5a 2 1 st floor units 60.8 66.8 69.5 8.7 Yes T5b 2 2 nd floor units 275 65.0 69.8 265 71.5 6.5 Yes T5c 1 3rd floor unit 65.8 71.0 72.7 6.9 Yes T6a 2 1 st floor units 59.9 65.9 68.5 8.6 Yes T6b 2 2 nd floor units 324 64.4 69.0 310 70.8 6.4 Yes T6c 1 3rd floor unit 65.2 70.2 71.8 6.6 Yes T7a 2 1 st floor units 58.8 64.8 67.4 8.6 Yes T7b 2 2 nd floor units 347 63.5 68.3 333 70.2 6.7 Yes T7c 1 3rd floor unit 64.6 69.4 71.1 6.5 Yes T8a 1 1 st floor unit 51.5 57.0 59.2 7.7 No 396 383 T8b 1 2 nd floor unit 55.1 60.5 62.8 7.7 No T9a 1 1 st floor unit 52.4 58.3 61.4 9.0 No T9b 1 2 nd floor unit 470 57.2 62.1 456 64.7 7.5 No T9c 1 3rd floor unit 59.4 63.7 65.9 6.5 No T10a 2 1 st floor units 51.2 57.3 60.4 9.2 No T10b 2 2 nd floor units 500 56.2 61.2 488 63.8 7.6 No T10c 2 3rd floor units 58.5 62.8 65.1 6.6 No T11a 1 1 st floor unit 51.0 57.0 60.1 9.1 No 553 540 T11b 1 2 nd floor unit 55.9 60.9 63.5 7.6 No T11c 1 3rd floor unit 553 58.2 62.6 540 64.9 6.7 No Palm Springs Park - Category C 66.0 db(a) NAC Threshold Park a Playground 297 61.0 66.9 284 69.5 8.5 Consider Abatement Park b Picnic Benches 344 59.6 65.7 331 68.2 8.6 Yes Palm Springs Common Noise Environment - Category B 66.0 db(a) NAC Threshold PS1 6 single-family (SF) 705 54.2 59.6 694 62.1 7.9 No PS2 2 SF 666 55.5 61.7 655 63.8 8.3 No PS3 1 SF 400 59.7 66.4 385 68.0 8.3 Yes B-1
6/20/2013 APPENDIX B PROJECT AERIALS Representative Noise Receptor Receptor ID Sites Represented Table B-1: Noise Impact Summary (Cont) Year 2012 Existing Scenario Projected Distance Noise *1 Level db(a) Analyzed Scenario/Alternative Year 2035 Year 2035 No-Build Build Projected Projected Distance Noise Noise Level *1 Level db(a) db(a) Change From Existing db(a) Consider Abatement PS4 2 SF 626 53.8 60.0 626 61.4 7.6 No PS5 1 SF 481 57.7 63.8 481 66.2 8.5 Yes Forest Glen Golf & Country Club - Category C 66.0 db(a) NAC Threshold FG1 Avg. Hole 15 202 to 202 to 60.9 62.4 367 367 62.4 1.5 No FG2 Avg. Hole 16 192 to 613 55.2 57.6 192 to 594 58.2 3.0 No Noah s Landing - Category C 66.0 db(a) NAC Threshold NL Pool 1710 47.5 52.9 1700 53.6 6.1 No Scattered Commercial Sites - Category E 71.0 db(a) NAC Threshold E1 Outdoor bench 862 53.1 54.7 862 55.1 2.0 No E2 Subway - 1 outdoor table 98 69.5 70.1 76 70.7 1.2 No E3 Subway - 5 outdoor tables 138 67.2 71.1 110 70.2 3.0 No E4 Dunkin Donuts Outdoor tables 319 66.7 69.9 295 69.5 2.8 No E5 McDonalds - 3 outdoor tables 456 65.1 68.6 429 68.1 3.0 No E6 La Quinta Pool 292 61.8 64.6 240 62.8 1.0 No E7 Buddy s Burgers 8 outdoor tables 61 66.3 71.5 47 72.2 5.9 Yes E8 Days Inn bench 379 56.5 61.3 298 62.6 6.1 No E9a Comfort Inn Pool 404 58.0 63.0 304 62.9 4.9 No E9b Comfort Inn Balcony 153 58.5 64.8 263 65.3 6.8 No E10 Super 8 Pool 284 50.6 55.9 416 55.8 5.2 No E11 Springhill Suites Pool 694 53.5 60.2 730 60.2 6.7 No E12 Fairfield Inn Pool 686 52.8 58.8 676 58.8 6.0 No *1 = Approximate distance measured from edge of nearest travel lane. Travel lane may be Collier Boulevard, I-75, or an interchange ramp, whichever is closer to the receptor. B-2
6/20/2013 APPENDIX B PROJECT AERIALS Insert 11x17 project aerials here. B-3
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-1
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-2
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-3
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-4
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-5
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-6
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-7
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-8
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-9
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-10
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-11
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-12
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-13
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-14
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-15
6/20/2013 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA C-16