Traffic Noise Technical Report

Traffic Noise Technical Report Loop 1604 (From SH 16 to IH 35) CSJs: 2452-02-083, 2452-02-114, 2452-03-113, 2452-03-087, and 2452-02-087 Bexar County, Texas San Antonio District March 2016 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 1.1 Modeling Assumptions... 3 2.0 Background... 4 3.0 Noise Analysis Summary... 6 4.0 Mitigation... 10 5.0 Noise Planning Contours... 15 6.0 Construction Noise... 15 7.0 Local Coordination... 16 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Project Location Map... 2 Exhibit 2: Year 2015 and 2045 Design Hour Traffic Volumes... 17 Exhibit 3: Modeled Noise Receivers.30 List of Tables Table 1: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria... 5 Table 2: Traffic Noise Levels (dba Leq)... 7 Table 3: Noise Barrier Proposal (Preliminary)... 15 Table 4: Traffic Noise Contours [db(a) Leq]... 15 i Page

1.0 Introduction The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (Alamo RMA) propose to improve Loop 1604 from State Highway (SH) 16 (Bandera Road) to Interstate Highway (IH) 35 North in Bexar County, Texas for a distance of approximately 22.8 miles. Improvements would include the addition of two 12-ft buffer separated express lanes in each direction along Loop 1604 and modifying exit and entrance ramps along Loop 1604 and IH 10. The existing facility primarily consists of two 12-foot wide general purpose lanes in each direction, with 4-foot inside and 10-foot outside shoulders, separated by a 36- to 64-foot grass ditch median. These lanes operate as a controlled access facility with mainline access gained through ramps from the frontage roads between cross streets. The Build Alternative would involve the addition of two buffer separated express lanes added in each direction along Loop 1604. The additional lanes would each be 12-feet wide, separated from the general purpose lanes by a 4-foot buffer. The inside shoulder would be increased from 4-feet to 10-feet wide. The additional lanes would be added by widening the existing pavement to the inside (toward the center median), converting the existing median ditch. Widening to the outside of the existing pavement would be limited to the areas that do not have enough median width for proposed improvements. All existing mainline pavement would be milled, overlaid and restriped. The existing centerline alignment would remain unchanged. Due to the widening and restriping, 81 existing ramps would need to be modified along Loop 1604 as well as 16 ramps along IH 10. A total of 25 of the ramps are proposed to be reversed in order to convert diamond intersections into X-style intersections. X-style intersections make a larger portion of the frontage road more accessible as well as greatly increasing cross street approaches for a ramp exiting to the frontage road. Incorporating these ramp changes with the addition of the express lanes ensures that the access points to the express lanes are placed where they will function safely and with an acceptable LOS. The Build Alternative includes improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the limits of the project. Gaps in sidewalks and worn foot paths indicate a need for new 6-foot sidewalks in these areas. Bicycle access was deemed sufficient due to the existence of 4-foot or wider shoulders along the frontage roads throughout the project limits. No additional ROW would be required for the proposed project. This traffic noise analysis, prepared in accordance with TxDOT s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved 2011 Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Roadway Traffic Noise, supports the environmental documentation that evaluates the social, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The traffic noise analysis was performed using the latest available FHWA approved traffic noise model version (TNM 2.5). Exhibit 1 shows the Project Location Map. 1 Page

Exhibit 1: Project Location Map 2 Page

1.1 Modeling Assumptions Details of the modeling assumptions included an analysis of the existing year 2015 and design year 2045. Design Hourly Volume (DHV) traffic data for the noise analysis was developed by Michael Baker International. A posted speed of 70 mph was used on the Loop 1604 mainline. Frontage road, cross-street and most ramp speeds were modeled at 45 mph, high speed off-on ramps were modeled with 55 mph speeds and U-turn roads underneath Loop 1604 were modeled with 25 mph speeds. Acceleration was also modeled (on-ramps, signals), but deceleration was not to provide a more conservative result. If there was no posted speed found for a local road/cross-street near Loop 1604, then a 45 mph speed was assumed. The proposed facility configuration construction primarily included the addition of the managed lanes and the new or modified on and off ramps to and from the managed lanes, the general purposes lanes, the frontage roads and the cross street interchanges, as applicable. Please note that there are long sections of the roadway project where there are/were no noise sensitive receivers, either existing or proposed. Consequently, these areas were not modeled. The percent cars, medium trucks and heavy trucks (X, X, X%, respectively) that were used in the analysis were provided by TXDOT, San Antonio District, as follows: Loop 1604 from SH 16 to Redland Road (97.8, 1.3, 0.9%) and from Redland Road to IH 35 (96.2, 1.2, 2.6%). These percentages were also applied to all frontage roads, ramps and cross-streets within these two areas. Specific road/ramp traffic data used in the analysis is included in the TNM files provided to TxDOT. Exhibit 2, located near the end of this report, shows a schematic linediagram of the traffic volumes for the Existing Year 2015 and the Design Year 2045 Build Alternative. 3 Page

2.0 Background Sound from highway traffic is generated primarily from a vehicle s tires, engine and exhaust. It is commonly measured in decibels and is expressed as "db." Sound occurs over a wide range of frequencies. However, not all frequencies are detectable by the human ear; therefore, an adjustment is made to the high and low frequencies to approximate the way an average person hears traffic sounds. This adjustment is called A- weighting and is expressed as "db(a)." Also, because traffic sound levels are never constant due to the changing number, type and speed of vehicles, a single value is used to represent the average or equivalent sound level and is expressed as "Leq." The traffic noise analysis typically includes the following elements: Identification of land use activity areas that might be impacted by traffic noise. Determination of existing noise levels. Prediction of future noise levels. Identification of possible noise impacts. Consideration and evaluation of measures to reduce noise impacts. The FHWA has established the following Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land use activity areas that are used as one of two means to determine when a traffic noise impact will occur. These criteria are outlined in Table 1. 4 Page

Activity Category A B C D FHWA (dba Leq) 57 (exterior) 67 (exterior) 67 (exterior) 52 (interior) Table 1: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Description of Land Use Activity Areas 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. Residential. Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. 72 E (exterior) F - Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A-D or F. Agricultural, 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. Source: TXDOT Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise (2011), 23CFR772. A noise impact occurs when either the absolute or relative criterion is met: Absolute criterion: the predicted noise level at a receiver approaches, equals or exceeds the NAC. Approach is defined as one db(a) below the NAC. For example: a noise impact would occur at a Category B residence if the noise level is predicted to be 66 db(a) or above. Relative criterion: the predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level at a receiver even though the predicted noise level does not approach, equal or exceed the NAC. Substantially exceeds is defined as more than 10 db(a). For example: a noise impact would occur at a Category B residence if the existing level is 54 db(a) and the predicted level is 65 db(a). When a traffic noise impact occurs, noise abatement measures must be considered. A noise abatement measure is any positive reasonable and feasible action taken to reduce the impact of traffic noise on an activity area. 5 Page

3.0 Noise Analysis Summary The FHWA traffic noise modeling software (TNM2.5) was used to calculate existing and predicted traffic noise levels. The model primarily considers the number, type and speed of vehicles; highway alignment and grade; cuts, fills, surrounding terrain features; building shielding, existing noise barriers, privacy walls, concrete traffic barriers and the locations of activity areas likely to be impacted by the associated traffic noise. Existing and predicted traffic noise levels were modeled at receiver locations (see Table 2 and Exhibit 3, located at the end of the report) that represent the land use activity areas adjacent to the proposed project that might be impacted by traffic noise and potentially benefit from feasible and reasonable noise abatement. As indicated in Table 2, the proposed project would result in traffic noise impacts and the following noise abatement measures were considered: traffic management, alteration of horizontal and/or vertical alignments, acquisition of undeveloped property to act as a buffer zone, and the construction of noise barriers. (The No Build Alternative would not directly result in impacts to noise receivers throughout the study area; however, as projected traffic on Loop 1604 increases, noise levels would also increase.) 6 Page

Table 2: Traffic Noise Levels (dba Leq) Modeled Results Receiver NAC NAC Description Number Category Level Existing Predicted Change Noise 2015 2045 + [-] Impact R1 Motel Pool E 72 48 50 2 N R1A Single Family Residential B 67 54 54 0 N R1B Single Family Residential B 67 51 54 3 N R1C Single Family Residential B 67 47 48 1 N R2 Restaurant (exterior seating) E 72 66 68 2 N R3 Multi-Family Residential B 67 69 72 3 Y R4 Multi-Family Residential Pool Area C 67 51 54 3 N R5 Multi-Family Residential B 67 70 72 2 Y R6 Multi-Family Residential B 67 74 77 3 Y R7 Multi-Family Residential B 67 73 75 2 Y R8 Multi-Family Residential B 67 68 71 3 Y R9 Multi-Family Residential B 67 60 64 4 N R10 Multi-Family Residential B 67 64 66 2 Y R11 Multi-Family Residential B 67 65 67 2 Y R12 Multi-Family Residential B 67 65 67 2 Y R13 Athletic Complex C 67 52 54 2 N R14 Recreation Area C 67 63 65 2 N R15 Multi-Family Residential B 67 67 69 2 Y R16 Multi-Family Residential B 67 64 67 3 Y R16A Restaurant (exterior seating) E 72 64 67 3 N R16B Hospital (interior) D 52 46 48 2 N R17 Single Family Residential B 67 57 61 4 N R17A Single Family Residential B 67 56 61 5 N R17B Single Family Residential B 67 62 66 4 Y R17C Single Family Residential B 67 68 70 2 Y R17D Single Family Residential B 67 60 63 3 N R17E Single Family Residential B 67 61 65 4 N R17F Single Family Residential B 67 58 61 3 N R18 Single Family Residential B 67 57 60 3 N R19 Single Family Residential B 67 62 65 3 N R20 Single Family Residential B 67 62 66 4 Y R21 Single Family Residential B 67 65 68 3 Y R22 Multi-Family Residential B 67 68 71 3 Y R23 Multi-Family Residential B 67 67 70 3 Y R24 Multi-Family Residential B 67 62 66 4 Y R25 Single Family Residential B 67 64 67 3 Y R26B UTSA Recreation Area C 66 63 65 2 N R27 Hotel Pool E 72 62 64 2 N R28 Hotel Pool E 72 65 68 3 N R29 Office (exterior activity) E 72 66 69 3 N R29A Hotel Pool E 72 64 67 3 N R29B Multi-Family Residential B 67 60 64 4 N R29C Restaurant (exterior seating) E 72 46 48 2 N R29D Place of Worship (exterior) C 67 60 63 3 N R29E Multi-Family Residential B 67 68 71 3 Y R30 Single Family Residential B 67 63 65 2 N R30A Medical Center (interior) D 52 47 48 1 N R30B Place of Worship (exterior) C 66 73 77 4 Y R31 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 39 41 2 N R32 Athletic Club (exterior) C 67 69 71 2 Y 7 Page

Modeled Results Receiver NAC NAC Description Number Category Level Existing Predicted Change Noise 2015 2045 + [-] Impact R33 Multi-Family Residential B 67 62 65 3 N R34 Multi-Family Residential B 67 62 65 3 N R35 Multi-Family Residential B 67 61 63 2 N R36 Restaurant (exterior seating) E 72 66 70 4 N R37 Multi-Family Residential B 67 69 71 2 Y R38 Multi-Family Residential B 67 69 71 2 Y R39 Multi-Family Residential B 67 70 72 2 Y R40 Multi-Family Residential B 67 70 72 2 Y R41 Restaurant (exterior seating) E 72 71 73 2 Y R42 School (interior) D 52 32 35 3 N R43 Multi-Family Residential B 67 63 65 2 N R44 Multi-Family Residential B 67 67 70 3 Y R45 Multi-Family Residential B 67 71 74 3 Y R46 Multi-Family Residential B 67 61 64 3 N R47 Athletic Club Pool C 67 59 63 4 N R48 Single Family Residential B 67 57 59 2 N R48A Athletic Field C 67 60 62 2 N R49 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 35 38 3 N R49A Athletic Field C 67 60 64 4 N R50 Single Family Residential B 67 57 60 3 N R51 Single Family Residential B 67 63 67 4 Y R52 Single Family Residential B 67 57 61 4 N R53 Single Family Residential B 67 53 57 4 N R54 Single Family Residential B 67 53 56 3 N R55 Athletic Field C 67 62 65 3 N R56 Multi-Family Residential B 67 57 60 3 N R57 Multi-Family Residential B 67 60 64 4 N R58 Multi-Family Residential B 67 60 64 4 N R59 Multi-Family Residential B 67 60 64 4 N R60 Multi-Family Residential B 67 61 65 4 N R60A Restaurant (exterior seating) E 72 66 69 3 N R60B Restaurant (exterior seating) E 72 67 69 2 N R61 Multi-Family Residential B 67 61 64 3 N R62 Golf Course C 67 66 69 3 Y R63 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 44 46 2 N R64 Multi-Family Residential B 67 57 60 3 N R65 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 30 33 3 N R66 Single Family Residential B 67 52 55 3 N R67 Multi-Family Residential B 67 56 58 2 N R70 Single Family Residential B 67 59 61 2 N R71 Single Family Residential B 67 58 61 3 N R72 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 43 47 4 N R73 Place of Worship and School (interior) D 52 43 47 4 N R74 Hotel Pool E 72 52 54 2 N R75 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 30 31 1 N R76 Single Family Residential B 67 55 57 2 N R77 Single Family Residential B 67 56 58 2 N R78 Single Family Residential B 67 63 65 2 N R79 Single Family Residential B 67 63 65 2 N R80 Single Family Residential B 67 62 64 2 N R81 Single Family Residential B 67 63 65 2 N R82 Single Family Residential B 67 62 64 2 N 8 Page

Modeled Results Receiver NAC NAC Description Number Category Level Existing Predicted Change Noise 2015 2045 + [-] Impact R83 Single Family Residential B 67 57 59 2 N R84 Single Family Residential B 67 59 61 2 N R85 Single Family Residential B 67 60 62 2 N R86 Single Family Residential B 67 69 71 2 Y R87 Single Family Residential B 67 63 65 2 N R88 Single Family Residential B 67 65 68 3 Y R89 Single Family Residential B 67 60 62 2 N R90 Single Family Residential B 67 56 59 3 N R91 Single Family Residential B 67 62 64 2 N R92 Single Family Residential B 67 51 54 3 N R93 Single Family Residential B 67 49 52 3 N R94 Single Family Residential B 67 48 51 3 N R95 Single Family Residential B 67 62 65 3 N R96 Single Family Residential B 67 61 64 3 N R97 Multi-Family Residential B 67 60 61 1 N R98 Multi-Family Residential B 67 59 61 2 N R99 Single Family Residential B 67 61 64 3 N R100 Single Family Residential B 67 61 64 3 N R101 Single Family Residential B 67 62 65 3 N R102 Single Family Residential B 67 61 64 3 N R103 Single Family Residential B 67 56 59 3 N R104 Medical Treatment Center C 67 59 61 2 N R105 Medical Treatment Center C 67 61 65 4 N R106 Medical Treatment Center C 67 53 56 3 N R107 Medical Treatment Center C 67 50 53 3 N R108 Place of Worship (exterior) C 67 61 63 2 N R109 Place of Worship (exterior) C 67 56 58 2 N R110 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 24 27 3 N R111 Single Family Residential B 67 57 59 2 N R112 Multi-Family Residential B 67 69 72 3 Y R113 Multi-Family Residential B 67 71 74 3 Y R114 Multi-Family Residential B 67 69 72 3 Y R115 Multi-Family Residential Pool C 67 61 64 3 N R116 Multi-Family Residential B 67 65 68 3 Y R117 Multi-Family Residential B 67 59 62 3 N R118 Place of Worship (interior) D 52 36 39 3 N R119 Single Family Residential B 67 57 60 3 N R120 Single Family Residential B 67 60 61 1 N R121 Single Family Residential B 67 64 66 2 Y R122 Single Family Residential B 67 74 75 1 Y R123 Single Family Residential B 67 59 62 3 N R124 Single Family Residential B 67 62 64 2 N R125 Single Family Residential B 67 57 60 3 N R126 Single Family Residential B 67 49 52 3 N R127 Single Family Residential B 67 58 59 1 N R128 Single Family Residential B 67 52 55 3 N Note1: The values marked in red and yellow are locations that approach or exceed the FHWA NAC criteria are considered to be impacted. Note2: As part of the analysis process, receivers were added and deleted, accounting for omitted numbers and numbers with letter designations in the Receiver Number column. The receivers were not renumbered in order to maintain continuity with the initial analysis. 9 Page

4.0 Mitigation Before any abatement measure can be proposed for incorporation into the project, it must be both feasible and reasonable. In order to be "feasible," the abatement measure must be able to reduce the noise level at greater than 50% of impacted, first row receivers by at least five db(a); and to be "reasonable," it must not exceed the cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000 for each receiver that would benefit by a reduction of at least five db(a). Additionally, the abatement measure must be able to reduce the noise level for at least one impacted, first row receiver by at least seven db(a). In accordance with TxDOT guidance, impacted Category C and D receivers receive a determination of the equivalent number of residences to assess cost effectiveness. There were two (2) impacted locations that fall under NAC C (R32, the Shavano Tennis Club and R62, the Sonterra Golf Course). Mitigation for both receiver sites is discussed later in this report. There were no impacted NAC D locations. Traffic management: control devices could be used to reduce the speed of the traffic; however, the minor benefit of one db(a) per five mph reduction in speed does not outweigh the associated increase in congestion and air pollution. Other measures such as time or use restrictions for certain vehicles are prohibited on state highways. Alteration of horizontal and/or vertical alignments: any alteration of the existing alignment would displace existing businesses and residences, require additional right of way and not be cost effective/reasonable. Buffer zone: the acquisition of undeveloped property to act as a buffer zone is designed to avoid rather than abate traffic noise impacts and, therefore, is not feasible. Noise barriers: this is the most commonly used noise abatement measure. Noise barriers were evaluated for each of the impacted receiver locations. Noise barriers would not be feasible and reasonable for any of the following impacted receivers and, therefore, are not proposed for incorporation into the project: Receivers R10-R12 represent seven impacted single-family residences within The Enclave at Hausman subdivision located on the southbound side of Loop 1604 north of Bandera Road. Barriers were placed along both the frontage road (no direct access) and along the Loop 1604 mainline because it is higher in elevation than the frontage road. The frontage road barrier did not achieve the minimum 5 dba reduction. For the mainline barrier, an 8-14 foot high barrier approximately 2,214 feet long was modeled, benefiting all eleven receivers in the first row and achieving the 7 dba design goal for at least one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $514,223. The cost per benefited receptor was $46,748. The noise barrier that would achieve the minimum 10 Page

feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would exceed the reasonable, costeffectiveness criterion of $25,000. Receivers R15-R16 represent approximately 20 multi-family units at the Montecito Apartments located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 south of West Hausman Road. A noise barrier was placed along the Loop 1604 mainline. A barrier was not analyzed along the frontage road since the mainline is high enough in elevation that a barrier along the frontage road would not be able to mitigate noise from the dominant source. Additionally, there are several direct access driveways along the frontage road. A noise barrier at 20 feet high could not achieve either the 5 dba minimum goal nor the 7 dba design goal. Therefore, a barrier is not considered reasonable or feasible. Receivers R17B and 17C represent 13 impacted single-family residences on Prairie Lace and Blue Flax Cove within the College Park area located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 south of Babcock Road. The barrier was placed along the frontage road since there is no direct access to these homes from the frontage road. An 18 foot high barrier approximately 1,489 feet long was modeled, benefiting nine receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $482,331. The cost per benefited receptor was $53,592. The noise barrier that would achieve the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would exceed the reasonable, cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000. Receivers R20-R21 represent 12 single family residences along Green Glen Drive, located on the southbound side of Loop 1604 east of Babcock Road. A barrier was analyzed along the Loop 1604 mainline since the mainline is high enough in elevation that a barrier along the frontage road would not be able to mitigate noise from the dominant source. Additionally, there are several direct access driveways and cross-streets along the frontage road. A set of two overlapping barriers, ranging from 8-15 feet high approximately 539 and 2,564 feet long from south to north, respectively, were modeled, benefiting twelve receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for at least one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier set was $634,826. The cost per benefited receptor was $52,902. The noise barrier that would achieve the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would exceed the reasonable, cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000. Furthermore, a barrier placed between Loop 1604 and the frontage road would block the Loop 1604 visibility of the numerous adjacent businesses. Receivers R22-R25 represent 13 multi-family units with balconies/patios in the Tetro Student Village and the Maverick Creek Villas, located on the southbound side of Loop 1604 east of Babcock Road. A barrier was analyzed along the Loop 1604 mainline since the mainline is high enough in elevation that a barrier along the frontage road would not be able to mitigate noise from the dominant source. Additionally, there are several direct access driveways and cross-streets along the frontage road, including several driveways that individually access the Staybridge Suites Hotel, a gas station, a shopping mall and several restaurants. A 12 foot high barrier approximately 1,689 feet was modeled, 11 Page

benefiting 13 receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for at least one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $364,818. The cost per benefited receptor was $28,063. The noise barrier that would achieve the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would exceed the reasonable, cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000. Furthermore, a barrier placed between Loop 1604 and the frontage road would block the Loop 1604 visibility of the numerous adjacent businesses. Receiver R29E represents 10 multi-family units with balconies at the Pecan Springs Apartments south of Loop 1604 on the northbound side of IH10 at the intersection of Pecan Springs Road. Noise barriers were modeled along both the frontage road and the IH10. A noise barrier at 20 feet high could not achieve either the 5 dba minimum goal nor the 7 dba design goal. Therefore, a barrier is not considered reasonable or feasible. Receiver R30B represents the playground in front of the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha Temple located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 at Bacon Road. Noise barriers were modeled along both the frontage road and the Loop 1604 mainline. A noise barrier at 20 feet high could not achieve the 7 dba design goal. Therefore, a barrier is not considered reasonable or feasible. Receiver R32 is the Shavano Tennis Club located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 west of NW Military Highway. A noise barrier was placed along the Loop 1604 mainline. A noise barrier at 20 feet high could not achieve either the 5 dba minimum goal nor the 7 dba design goal. A noise barrier was also placed along the frontage road. A 20 foot high noise barrier in this location could not achieve the 7 dba design goal for one impacted front-row receiver. Therefore, a barrier is not considered reasonable or feasible. Receivers R37-R40 represent approximately 50 multi-family units with balconies/patios at the Ranch at Shavano Park, located on the southbound side of Loop 1604 east of NW Military Highway. The barrier was placed along the frontage road since there is no direct access to these homes from the frontage road. The receivers are located considerably higher in elevation than the roadway. A 17-19 foot high barrier approximately 1,812 feet long was modeled, benefiting sixteen receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $575,802. The cost per benefited receptor was $35,987. The noise barrier that would achieve the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would exceed the reasonable, costeffectiveness criterion of $25,000. Receiver R41 represents an exterior seating area at Paesano s Restaurant that is in a commercial land use area with no other exterior noise receiver sites. It is located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 east of NW Military Highway. A barrier placed along the frontage road would require driveway breaks in order to provide access to the restaurant and adjacent businesses. Therefore, a barrier was placed along the mainline. A noise barrier at 20 feet high could not achieve the 7 dba design goal. Therefore, a barrier is not considered reasonable or feasible. 12 Page

Receivers R44-R45 represent approximately 10 multi-family units with balconies/patios at the Ranch at Shavano Park, located on the southbound side of Loop 1604 west of Rogers Ranch Road. The barrier was placed along the frontage road since there is no direct access to these homes from the frontage road. A 16-18 foot high barrier approximately 1,331 feet long was modeled, benefiting ten receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $424,085. The cost per benefited receptor was $42,409. The noise barrier that would achieve the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would exceed the reasonable, cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000. Receiver R51 represents nine single-family residences at The Fountains at Deerfield nearest to Loop 1604, located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 west of Huebner Road. The residences are partially surrounded by a 6 foot high stone masonry privacy wall from Loop 1604. The barrier was placed along the frontage road since there is no direct access to these homes from the frontage road. The barrier length was limited between the Centurion Storage and Aziz Oriental Rugs buildings so as to not visibly block the businesses from the road. A 20 foot high barrier approximately 638 feet long was modeled, benefiting three receivers and did not achieve the 7 dba design goal for one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $114,836. The cost per benefited receptor was $38,278. The noise barrier that would achieve the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would exceed the reasonable, costeffectiveness criterion of $25,000. Receiver R62 is the Sonterra Golf Course located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 east of Blanco Road. The barrier was placed along the frontage road since the mainline of Loop 1604 is below grade. The barrier length was limited between the driveway entrance/exit to Starbucks shopping plaza and the Canyon Creek shopping plaza building so as to not physically and/or visibly block the businesses from the road. A 20 foot high barrier approximately 401 feet long was modeled, but did not achieve the 7 dba design goal for the one impacted front-row receiver. Therefore, a barrier is not considered reasonable or feasible at this location. Receivers R86 and R88 represent 14 single family residences at the Canyon View/Redland Estates, located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 west of Redland Road. There is an existing barrier in this location that was constructed as a result of a separate project. Therefore, the existing barrier was modified for the analysis by adding additional length in an attempt to adequately mitigate the impacted homes. A noise barrier at 20 feet high could not achieve either the 5 dba minimum goal or the 7 dba design goal for the impacted sites. Therefore, adding additional barrier is not considered reasonable or feasible and is not proposed for incorporation into the project. Noise barriers would be feasible and reasonable for the following impacted receivers and, therefore, are proposed for incorporation into the project: 13 Page

(Barrier 1) Receivers R3, R5-R8 represent 16 multi-family residences with balconies/patios and one pool at the Springs at Bandera, located on the southbound side of Loop 1604 north of Bandera Road. The barrier was placed along the frontage road. There are two entrances with direct access to the frontage road (one is a gated emergency access). A set of three barriers, ranging from 11-15 feet high approximately 386, 464 and 523 feet long from south to north, respectively, were modeled, benefiting fourteen receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for at least one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier set was $322,134. The cost per benefited receptor was $23,010. The noise barrier that would achieve the design goal of 7 dba and the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would achieve the reasonable, cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000. (Barrier 2) Receivers R112-R114 and R116 represent 12 multi-family residences with balconies/patios and one pool at The Vintage Apartments, located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 just south of Judson Road. The barrier was placed along the frontage road since there is no direct access immediately in front of most of these units. A 10-11 foot high barrier approximately 806 feet long was modeled, benefiting eight receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for at least one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $149,962. The cost per benefited receptor was $18,745. The noise barrier that would achieve the design goal of 7 dba and the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would achieve the reasonable, cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000. (Barrier 3) Receivers R121 and 122 represent 11 single-family residences in the Vista Subdivision, located on the northbound side of Loop 1604 just south of Mountain Vista Drive. The barrier was placed along the frontage road since there is no direct access to these homes from the frontage road. A 10 foot high barrier approximately 789 feet long was modeled, benefiting seven receivers and achieving the 7 dba design goal for at least one impacted front-row receiver. The cost of the barrier was $142,100. The cost per benefited receptor was $20,300. The noise barrier that would achieve the design goal of 7 dba and the minimum feasible reduction of 5 dba for these receivers would achieve the reasonable, cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000. Table 3 shows the preliminary noise barrier proposal. Any subsequent project design changes may require a reevaluation of this preliminary noise barrier proposal. The final decision to construct the proposed noise barrier will not be made until completion of the project design, utility evaluation and polling of adjacent property owners. 14 Page

Table 3: Noise Barrier Proposal (Preliminary) Barrier Representative Receivers (Impacted) Total # Benefited Length (feet) Average Height (feet) Total Cost $/Benefited Receiver 1 R3, R5-R8 14 1,373 11-15 $322,134 $23,010 2 R112-R114, R116 8 806 10-11 $149,962 $18,745 3 R121, R122 7 789 10 $142,100 $20,300 5.0 Noise Planning Contours To avoid noise impacts that may result from future development of properties adjacent to the proposed project, local officials responsible for land use control programs should ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that no new activities are planned or constructed along or within the following predicted (2045) noise impact contours in Table 4. Table 4: Traffic Noise Contours [db(a) Leq] Roadway Section Land Use NAC Categories B, C and E Sound Level Criteria Approximate Distances to Contour (feet)* Loop 1604 between SH16 and IH10 Loop 1604 between IH 10 and Blanco Road Loop 1604 between Blanco Road and US281 Loop 1604 between US281 and Green Mountain Road Loop 1604 between Lookout Road and IH 35 NAC Category B & C 66 db(a) 310 NAC Category E 71 db(a) 120 NAC Category B & C 66 db(a) 450 NAC Category E 71 db(a) 160 NAC Category B & C 66 db(a) 285 NAC Category E 71 db(a) 145 NAC Category B & C 66 db(a) 340 NAC Category E 71 db(a) 150 NAC Category B & C 66 db(a) 270 NAC Category E 71 db(a) 85 *Distance from Right of Way. The table values do not represent predicted levels at every location. Sound levels vary with changes in terrain and will be affected by the shielding of objects such as buildings. This information is being included to make local officials and planners aware of anticipated highway noise levels so that future development will be compatible with these levels. 6.0 Construction Noise Noise associated with the construction of the project is difficult to predict. Heavy machinery, the major source of noise in construction, is constantly moving in unpredictable patterns. However, construction normally occurs during daylight hours when occasional loud noises are 15 Page

more tolerable. None of the receivers is expected to be exposed to construction noise for a long duration; therefore, any extended disruption of normal activities is not expected. Provisions will be included in the plans and specifications that require the contractor to make every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise through abatement measures such as work-hour controls and proper maintenance of muffler systems. 7.0 Local Coordination A copy of this traffic noise analysis will be available to local officials. On the date of approval of this document (Date of Public Knowledge), FHWA and TxDOT are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement for new development adjacent to the project. 16 Page

Exhibit 2: Year 2015 and 2045 Design Hour Traffic Volumes (Year 2015 Existing - Figures 1.1 through 1.6) (Year 2045 No-Build - Figures 2.1 through 2.6, not used for the analysis, not included) (Year 2045 Build Alternative Figures 3.1 through 3.6) 17 Page

18 Page

19 Page

20 Page

21 Page

22 Page

23 Page

24 Page

25 Page

26 Page

27 Page

28 Page

29 Page

Exhibit 3: Modeled Noise Receivers 30 Page

31 Page

32 Page

33 Page

34 Page

35 Page

36 Page

37 Page

38 Page

39 Page

40 Page

41 Page

42 Page

43 Page