FINAL DESIGN NOISE ANALYSIS - patpconstruction.com · Milepost 40-48 – Improvements Project Final Design Noise Analysis Noise Analysis Methodology A detailed noise analysis was

PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION MILEPOST 40-48IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

FINAL DESIGN NOISE ANALYSIS

March 2011

Prepared for:

Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionPO Box 67676

Harrisburg, PA 17106

Prepared By:

5 Capital Drive, Suite 400Harrisburg, PA 17110

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Milepost 40-48

Improvements Project

DRAFT

FINAL DESIGN NOISE ANALYSIS

Submitted to:

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission P.O. Box 67676

Harrisburg, PA 17106-7676

Submitted by:

5 Capital Drive, Suite 400 Harrisburg, PA 17110

March 2011

Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1 – Regional Location Map..................................................................................... 3

Noise Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................. 4

Table 1 – PennDOT Noise Abatement Criteria.................................................................. 5

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2 – Index Map ......................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 – Project Mapping................................................................................................ 9

Figure 4 – Project Mapping.............................................................................................. 10

Figure 5 - Project Mapping............................................................................................... 11




Figure 9 – Project Mapping.............................................................................................. 15

Figure 10 – 24 Hour Graph .............................................................................................. 16

Table 2 – Noise Level Summary ...................................................................................... 17

Future Conditions and Impact Assessment........................................................................ 18

Table 3 – NSA 1 - Feasibility/Reasonableness Calculations ........................................... 20

Table 4 – NSA 4 - MHK Barrier Feasibility/Reasonableness Calculations..................... 22

Table 5 – NSA 4 - MID Barrier Feasibility/Reasonableness Calculations ...................... 23

Table 6 – NSA 7 - Feasibility/Reasonableness Calculations ........................................... 24

Table 7 – NSA 8 - Feasibility/Reasonableness Calculations ........................................... 25 Table 8 – NSA 10 - Feasibility/Reasonableness Calculations......................................... 26

Table 9 – Noise Abatement Feasibility/Reasonableness Summary ................................. 29

Construction Noise .............................................................................................................. 29

Public Involvement .............................................................................................................. 30

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 30

*Technical Files contained on CD at end of document

i

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Milepost 40-48 – Improvements Project Final Design Noise Analysis

Executive Summary As a means to promote safe and efficient traffic flow within this area, The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) is proposing the Milepost 40-48 widening, which is currently in Final Design. The project involves the addition of two additional travel lanes to further promote traffic movements within the project area. The report documents the existing and future noise levels associated with the PTC 40-48 Widening Project, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Peak-hour noise monitoring of Category B noise receptor sites was performed at 32 locations on September 27th and 28th and on October 3rd and 4th of 2005 as part of this study, to gain a thorough understanding of the noise environment. These sites were also modeled and an additional 16 noise modeling “only” receptor sites were added to better quantify the effect of the improvements to noise-sensitive land uses within the project area and to aid in the noise abatement analysis. For reporting purposes, the project was divided into areas of common noise environment, referred to as Noise Sensitive Areas (NSA’s). Noise modeling was completed for existing (2010), and design year Build (2040) conditions. Existing (2010) worst-case noise levels exceed PENNDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) at nine receptors in the project area, representing approximately 13 residences and a cemetery. Design Year (2040) Build condition noise levels are projected to increase slightly, as a result of increased traffic volumes on the main roadways within the project area. Future, Build nose levels are predicted to exceed the NAC at 16 receptors, which represent approximately 27 residences, one school and one cemetery. The Final Design noise analysis examined noise abatement at all of the areas that exceed the NAC. Based on the noise modeling results, it has been determined that, within these limits of work, noise abatement is feasible (i.e., capable of reducing future noise levels by at least 5 dBA) and reasonable (cost-effective) for Noise Sensitive Area 1 within the project area. The details of the proposed mitigation measures are contained within this report. Introduction Impacts associated with noise are often a prime concern when evaluating roadway improvement projects. Roadway construction at a new location or improvements to the existing transportation network may cause negative impacts to the noise-sensitive environment located adjacent to the project area. For this reason, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) have established a noise analysis methodology and noise level criteria to assess the potential noise impacts associated with construction, and use of transportation related projects. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) follows all PennDOT and FHWA, noise-related guidelines accordingly. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) is currently designing roadway improvements for an eight-mile stretch of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, from the Butler Valley Interchange (Exit 39, milepost 39.2) to the Allegheny Valley Interchange (Exit 48,

1


milepost 47.5) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). This project will add travel lanes, widen the median, and replace or rehabilitate the existing bridges. Since this project is “capacity enhancing”, it is considered a Type I project, as per PennDOT/FHWA guidelines. Type I projects involve the construction of highways on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway, which significantly changes either the horizontal and vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes. It is PennDOT policy to assess highway traffic noise impacts of transportation improvement projects and give consideration to the incorporation of appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures into the design and construction for those projects that have potential noise impacts, where warranted, feasible and reasonable. It is also anticipated that six overhead bridges will be replaced, one mainline bridge will be eliminated, one mainline bridge will be rehabilitated, two mainline bridges over Deer Creek will be replaced, an abandoned railroad overpass will be removed, and ten structural culverts will be extended and rehabilitated. There are currently two, 12-foot lanes in each direction, two, 10-foot shoulders and an existing 10-foot median in this section of the Turnpike. Under this project, the Turnpike will be widened to allow for three 12-foot lanes in each direction and the existing median will be widened to 26 feet. This wider median will have enough room for 12-foot shoulders on either side of a center concrete barrier. The median width will be adjusted accordingly, to match the western end of the project near the Butler Valley Interchange and the eastern end near the Allegheny River Bridge. This report details the steps involved in the Final Design noise analysis for PTC 40-48 Improvements Project, including noise monitoring and modeling methodologies, results, impact evaluation, mitigation alternatives, abatement recommendations, and public involvement. Following approval of the recommendations contained in this report, additional noise modeling and noise mitigation design is anticipated to reach Final Design noise mitigation commitments. Community specific public involvement will also be conducted at a later date, following the approval of this report.

2

Project Limit

Project Limit

0397

0 M

T H

B 3

22,

201

1 1

2:22

:48

PM

0 3,000 Feet

0 1,000 Meters

Figure 1Project Location Map

PTC 40-48Glenshaw, PA and New Kensington, PA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle, 1993

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

3


Noise Analysis Methodology A detailed noise analysis was performed for noise-sensitive land uses throughout the limits of the project study area. The noise analysis included noise monitoring of existing conditions at representative noise-sensitive land uses, noise modeling of existing worst-case (2010) and future (2040) build conditions, an assessment of future noise impacts, and where warranted, an evaluation of potential noise mitigation measures. The methodologies applied to this noise analysis are in accordance with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) “Project Level Highway Traffic Noise Handbook” Publication 24, May 2007. PennDOT guidelines are based on the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aid Policy Guide CFR 772, U.S. Government Printing Office. The following methodology was used to assess the noise impacts associated with the PTC 40-48 Improvements Project. First, the project area was studied to determine the locations of noise-sensitive receptors. Table 1 provides a description of the activity categories. Category B, noise-sensitive receptors are of greatest concern when assessing transportation-related noise levels. Category B receptors include, but are not limited to, residences, hospitals, motels, hotels, schools, recreational areas, parks, and places of worship. The selected, noise-sensitive receptors were then monitored to determine the existing ambient noise conditions throughout the project study area before the introduction of the proposed roadway improvements. With the completion of noise monitoring, the project study area was modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM 2.5) to simulate existing and future noise conditions throughout the corridor. The FHWA TNM 2.5 computer model is the current FHWA approved noise model for predicting and assessing highway-related noise levels. The existing (2010) model results were compared to the monitored levels to determine if the model provided an accurate representation of the actual existing conditions throughout the project study area. After the accuracy of the existing conditions model was verified (less than a 3 decibel difference between monitored and modeled), the proposed alignments and corresponding traffic data were incorporated to predict the future noise levels at each receptor with the proposed project in place and in use. Future noise projections were made for the year 2040, the design year of the project. The design year noise levels were then compared to the appropriate Federal and State Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) to determine if noise abatement is warranted, feasible, and reasonable. Table 1 summarizes the State and Federal criteria for a variety of activity categories. Most of the sites monitored and/or modeled in this noise analysis represent residential land uses and fall within Activity Category B; therefore, any future noise level that approaches or exceeds 67 dBA is considered a noise impact and meets the “warrants” for consideration of noise abatement.

4


TABLE 1 FHWA/PennDOT Noise Abatement Criteria

Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels (dBA) Activity Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category

A 57 (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 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.

D -- Undeveloped lands.

E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Source: 23 CFR Part 772 • PennDOT considers noise levels within 1 dBA of the above criteria to “approach” the criteria, and

thus, warrant noise mitigation consideration. • Source: PennDOT Project Level Highway Traffic Noise Handbook, Publication 24, May 2007. The Federal procedures require the State to define the level(s) that “approach” the criteria. PennDOT considers the noise abatement criteria to be approached if the traffic noise levels are within one decibel of the values shown in Table 1. In addition, PennDOT defines a “substantial increase” as a noise level increase of 10 dBA from existing to design year conditions. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) has adopted this methodology for noise analyses related to proposed improvements along the Pennsylvania Turnpike. If noise impacts (warrants) associated with the project build alternative are identified for a Noise Sensitive Area (NSA), noise mitigation is evaluated for feasibility and reasonableness, according to PennDOT/PTC procedures. Noise barrier feasibility deals specifically with acoustical and engineering considerations such as:

• Noise Barriers must achieve at least 5 dBA reductions at the majority of the impacted receptors.

• The barrier cannot deny access to local vehicular and/or pedestrian travel (i.e., private driveways, local streets and sidewalks).

• There cannot be significant engineering and/or safety problems associated with the barrier, which would preclude construction.

These factors can affect the feasibility determination for particular areas. The proximity of a local street and/or a private driveway can greatly reduce the effectiveness of noise barriers because the existence of one requires the termination of the noise barrier to allow for access. These potential “breaks” in the barrier can reduce it’s effectiveness by

5


allowing noise to propagate around the barrier’s terminus points. Essentially, the “breaks” in the noise barrier (for access reasons) often make achieving the required 5-dBA reductions (which are necessary to be found feasible) nearly impossible. The presence of high traffic volumes on local roadways can also dominate a given noise environment and preclude the design of feasible noise mitigation. Noise barrier reasonableness is determined by assessing multiple issues including:

• The number of units benefited; • The desires of those citizens affected by the barrier; • A comparison of existing and future noise levels; • Development trends and existing/future land use/zoning; • Total barrier cost and cost per effectively mitigated residence; • Barrier constructability and maintainability.

Noise walls and earth berms are often implemented into the highway design in response to identified noise impacts. The effectiveness of a free-standing (post and panel) noise barrier and an earth berm of equivalent height are relatively consistent; however, an earth berm is often perceived as a more aesthetically pleasing option. Therefore, where possible, earth berms are typically the preferred form of noise mitigation. The use of earth berms is not always an option however, due to the excessive space they require adjacent to the roadway corridor. At a standard slope of 2:1, every one-foot of berm height would require approximately 4 feet of horizontal width. This requirement becomes more complex on roadway improvement projects, where residential properties often abut the proposed roadway corridor. In these situations, implementation of earth berms can require significant property acquisition to accommodate noise mitigation. Due to limited right-of-way throughout the proposed roadway corridor, earth berms were not considered a viable mitigation option. Therefore, noise barriers were evaluated in an attempt to reduce future noise levels below criteria. Related to noise barrier reasonableness, limiting factors typically include the cost/benefit comparison or the desires of those residents affected. PennDOT’s current cost/benefit factor allows for up to $50,000 per benefited residence (assuming a noise barrier cost of $34 per square foot). Noise barriers that exceed this cost/benefit index are typically considered not reasonable. PennDOT also has established noise barrier design goals referenced in “Project Level Highway Traffic Noise Handbook”, Publication 24, May 2007. Noise mitigation design goals include:

• Reduce future Highway Traffic Noise by 7 to 10 dBA at the majority of the impacted receptor sites.

• If possible, reduce Highway Traffic Noise to the low 60-decibel range. • If possible, reduce future Highway Traffic Noise levels back to existing levels.

6


These design goals were referenced during the noise mitigation analysis to evaluate preliminary noise mitigation measures and evaluate those measures for feasibility and reasonableness. Although these goals are not mandatory, and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, they do give PennDOT a tool to optimize noise barrier design and a gauge for the proposed noise mitigation measure’s effectiveness. Once again, the PTC has adopted this methodology for noise analyses concerning improvements to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and its interchanges. Existing Conditions The noise analysis was initiated with 24-hour noise monitoring of existing conditions to determine the peak traffic hour(s) within the project area. The location of the 24-Hour monitoring sites, Hick-1-24HR and MHK-1-24HR, are displayed on Figure 2 and in greater detail in Figures 3 and 4. Review of the 24-Hour data contained in Figure 10 indicates the AM and PM peak travel period(s) are between 6:00AM and 9:00AM and 3:00PM and 6:00PM, representing, as the worst-case traffic noise hours. Short-term noise monitoring was performed during these peak periods on September 27th and 28th and on October 3rd and 4th of 2005. Monitoring was performed for 10-minute durations at 32 noise-sensitive receptors during both the AM and PM peak traffic period. All extraneous noise events (i.e., airplanes, dogs barking, etc.) were removed from the data to produce an absolute, traffic-induced, noise level. The locations of the 32 monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2 and in detail on Figures 3-9. Also, the noise monitoring data and corresponding site sketches can be viewed in Appendices A, B and C, respectively, of this report. The monitored, hourly equivalent noise levels (Leq) at each receptor are shown in column 3 of Table 2. Leq is defined as the equivalent, constant sound level that, over a given period of time, would produce as much acoustic energy as a variable level over that same period of time. Recognizing that the decibel is derived logarithmically, Leq is an average noise level over a given period of time. The results of the monitoring analysis indicate existing noise levels range from 51 to 67 dBA during the peak noise hour(s). As expected, sites in close proximity to the Pennsylvania Turnpike produced higher background noise levels than more removed sites. The dominant existing noise source in the project area is the mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The following steps in the noise analysis methodology lead to projecting future, design year (2040) noise levels, and determine if they would approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. If the noise abatement criteria are approached or exceeded, in any Noise Sensitive Area, noise abatement consideration is warranted for those receivers and additional analyses would be performed to determine if noise abatement is both feasible and reasonable.

7

MP 43

MP 42

MP 41MP 40

SCH-1

CHAT-2

BARD-1BARD-2

HICK-2

MHK-1

MHK-2

MHK-3MHK-4

MID-1

WW-1

APPL-1 SUM-1

WOOD-1

HICK-24HR

CHAT-1

M1-GIB1

M2-MAIN1M1-MAIN1

M1-WOOD1M1-CHAT1

M1-CNTY1

M2-CNTY1M3-CNTY1

M1-CHAT2

CNTY-2CNTY-1

GIB-1

GIB-2

TREE-1

MAIN-2MAIN-1MID-2MCNL-1

POLO-1

HICK-1MHK-24HR

M1-MHK1 M2-MHK1M3-WOOD1

M2-WOOD1

NSA-1

NSA-2

NSA-3NSA-4

NSA-7NSA-5

NSA-8

NSA-9 NSA-10

NSA-6

MP 46

MP 45MP 44

MP 47

CEM-1

CEM-2

BLUE-2

BLUE-1

M1-CNTY1

M2-CNTY1M3-CNTY1

BLUE-3

PARK-1CNTY-2

CNTY-1

M1-14

M2-14

M3-14

NSA-10 NSA-11

NSA-12

NSA-13 NSA-14

1 inch equals 1,500 feet0 3,000

Feet

Legend

PTC 40-48PTC 40-48Figure 2Figure 2

NOISE MONITORINGNOISE MONITORINGLOCATIONSLOCATIONS

Project Area

Noise Receiver

Noise SensItive Area

0395

9 M

T H

B 10

6, 2

010

11:

47:5

6 A

M

8

Cherry St

NSA-1

NSA-2

NSA-3

Cherry StHaberlein Rd

William Flinn Hwy

E Bard

onne

r Rd

Bard

onne

r Rd

Penn Tnpk Ramp

Chau

tauqu

a St

Akview Dr

Poff School Rd

W Bardonner Rd

575+00

570+00

565+00

560+00555+00

550+00SCH-1

HICK-1

POLO-1

CHAT-1

HICK-2

BARD-2BARD-1

CHAT-2M1-CHAT2

M1-CHAT1

HICK-24HR

0 400Feet

1 inch equals 200 feet

0396

0 M

T H

B 3

22,

201

1 1

1:49

:57

AM


LegendReceiver

Noise Sensitive Area

Noise BarrierRecommended

Proposed Highway

Noise BarrierNot Recommended

9

NSA-3NSA-4

NSA-5

I-76

Middle Rd

Mcneal Rd

Cherry St

610+00605+00

600+00

595+00

590+00

585+00

WW-1

MID-2MID-1

MHK-4MHK-3

MHK-2MHK-1

MCNL-1

M2-MHK1M1-MHK1

MHK-24HR

0396

1 M

T H

B 3

22,

201

1 1

1:57

:55

AM

1 inch equals 200 feet0 400

Feet


LegendReceiver



Proposed Highway


10

I-76

Maine Dr

Bayfield Rd

Collin

s Dr

First St

Valleyfield Dr

Woodlake Dr

Sherbrooke Ct

Orchard Dr

Sunnyvale Dr

Overlook Dr

665+00

660+00

655+00

650+00

645+00

640+00

635+00

630+00

625+00620+00615+00

NSA-6

NSA-7

SUM-1

MAIN-1

MAIN-2

WOOD-1

APPL-1

M2-WOOD1

M1-WOOD1

M1-MAIN1M2-MAIN1


0396

2 M

T H

B 3

22,

201

1 1

2:03

:41

PM


LegendReceiver



Proposed Highway


Feet0 600

11

I-76

Gibsonia Rd (SR 0910)

Shaffer Rd

735+00

730+00

725+00

720+00

715+00

710+00

NSA-8

NSA-9 GIB-2

GIB-1

TREE-1

M1-GIB1

0396

3 M

T H

B 3

22,

201

1 1

2:06

:26

PM


0 400Feet


LegendReceiver



Proposed Highway


12

\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\

\\

\\\\\\

E(

E(E( E(

E(

I-76

State Hwy 910

Saxonburg Blvd

County Rd

Berg Dr

Old S

axon

burg

Rd

Washington Al

Third St

CNTY-1

CNTY-2M3-CNTY1

M2-CNTY1

M1-CNTY1

775+00

770+00

765+00

760+00

755+00

750+00

745+00

NSA-10

0396

4 M

T H

B 3

22,

201

1 1

2:10

:29

PM



LegendE( Receiver


Noise BarrierRecommended\

\\

Proposed Highway

Noise BarrierNot Recommended\

\\

®

0 400Feet

13

��

E(E(

E(

E(

E(

E(

Hilltop Dr (S

R 0910)

Hilltop D

r (SR 0910)

Pennsylvania Tpke

Blue Run Rd

I-76

Old 910

Bruno Dr

Eisele

Rd

Creigmore Ct

820+00815+00

810+00805+00

800+00790+00

785+00780+00

NSA-13NSA-11

NSA-12

CEM-2

CEM-1

PARK-1

BLUE-3

BLUE-1

BLUE-2

03

96

5 M

T H

B 3

22

, 2

011

1

2:1

1:0

2 P

M



Legend

E( Receiver



�

��

Proposed Highway


�

��

Feet

0 600

®

14

M1-14M2-14

M3-14

NSA-14

865+00

870+00

875+00

880+00

885+00

890+00

895+00

0396

6 M

T H

B 3

22,

201

1 1

2:13

:49

PM



LegendReceiver



Proposed Highway


Feet0 600

15

Penn

sylv

ania

Tur

npik

e C

omm

issi

on

Mile

post

40-

48 –

Impr

ovem

ents

Pro

ject

Fi

nal D

esig

n N

oise

Ana

lysi

s

16

6 7 91 2 3 4 5

SCH-1 Elementary School 58.3 60.1 -1.8 66 63 67 58

M1-CHAT1 2 Residences -- -- -- 66 68 72 65

M1-CHAT2 2 Residences -- -- -- 66 62 66 59

BARD-1 3 Residences 52.3 55.1 -2.8 66 56 59

BARD-2 1 Residence 60.5 58.4 2.1 66 59 61

HICK-1 1 Residence 57.1 59.6 -2.5 66 60 62

HICK-2 9 Residences 50.9 51.5 -0.6 66 52 54

MHK-1 2 Residences 60.6 63.1 -2.5 66 63 66

MHK-2 8 Residences 56.3 58.1 -1.8 66 58 60

MHK-3 4 Residences 58.7 60.2 -1.5 66 60 63

MHK-4 3 Residences 58.1 57.0 1.1 66 57 59

MID-1 1 Residence 61.3 62.3 -1.0 66 63 65

MID-2 1 Residence 66.7 66.7 0.0 66 67 70

M1-MHK1 1 Residence -- -- -- 66 60 63

M2-MHK1 1 Residence -- -- -- 66 59 62

MCNL-1 3 Residences 60.2 59.6 0.6 66 60 62

WW-1 3 Residences 59.6 60.6 -1.0 66 62 64

WOOD-1 3 Residences 63.3 61.1 2.2 66 61 65

M1-WOOD1 4 Residences -- -- -- 66 59 62

M2-WOOD1 1 Residence -- -- -- 66 59 62

M3-WOOD1 1 Residence -- -- -- 66 58 61

MAIN-1 1 Residence 61.6 61.9 -0.3 66 62 66

MAIN-2 2 Residences 59.8 61.1 -1.3 66 61 65

M1-MAIN1 2 Residences -- -- -- 66 56 59

M2-MAIN1 3 Residences -- -- -- 66 57 60

TREE-1 1 Residence 56.6 53.6 3.0 66 54 57

GIB-1 1 Residence 64.8 65 -0.2 66 66 69

M1-GIB1 2 Residences -- -- -- 66 64 67

NSA-9 GIB-2 1 Residence 58.1 60.4 -2.3 66 61 63

CNTY-1 3 Residences 63.3 64.6 -1.3 66 63 66

CNTY-2 2 Residences 64 65.8 -1.8 66 68 72

M1-CNTY1 2 Residences -- -- -- 66 68 72



CEM-1 Lakewood Gardens 63.4 65.5 -2.1 66 66 67

CEM-2 Lakewood Gardens 64 61.7 2.3 66 62 64

NSA-12 PARK-1 Emmerling Park 56.5 58.5 -2.0 66 59 61

BLUE-1 4 Residences 63.3 64.1 -0.8 66 65 69

BLUE-2 2 Residences 54.7 57 -2.3 66 57 60

BLUE-3 2 Residences 54.5 56.8 -2.3 66 57 60

M1-14 1 Residence -- -- -- 66 69 71

M2-14 2 Residences -- -- -- 66 71 73

M3-14 1 Residence -- -- -- 66 62 64

*

Impacted Receptor Criteria based on levels "approaching" the absolute criteria or that meets the "substantial increase" criterion

66

66 662 Residences

-1.5

CHAT-1

60

Existing Worst-Case

(2010) Noise Level

Difference (Mon.-Mod.)

Criteria*

57.3 58.8

-2.5 66

62

67-0.7

NSA-2

NSA-159.7 62.2

POLO-1 4 Residences

61.7 62.4

NSA-14

CHAT-2 2 Residences

SUM-1

NSA-7

NSA-8

NSA-3

NSA-5

NSA-4

NSA-11

NSA-13

623 Residences 60.5 58.8 1.7

NSA-10

66 59

NSA-6

APPL-1 4 Residences 56.5

59

62

54

57.7 -1.2 66 58 61

62 65

Table 2PTC 40/48 Improvements Project

Sound Level Summary

Abated Sound Level (2040)

Future Build (2040)

Receptor Site

Modeled Noise Level

Site Representation

Monitored Noise Level

17


The noise modeling process is initiated with noise model verification. This is done by comparing the actual monitored results at each receptor to those levels projected by the computer model (using traffic data collected during the noise monitoring process). Table 2 provides a summary of the model verification for the existing (2006) monitored conditions. Column 3 shows the monitored noise level (dBA) at each receptor. Column 4 shows the noise level produced by the noise model using traffic data witnessed during the monitoring process. Traffic data recorded during the monitoring process includes volume, speed, and composition. Traffic speeds were determined by physically driving each roadway counted to determine an average speed for calibration purposes. Traffic data for the calibration modeling effort can be viewed on the noise monitoring data forms in Appendix B. It should be noted that the volumes in Appendix B, represent 10-minute traffic counts. Column 6 of Table 2 compares the monitored and modeled values and presents the difference between the two. A difference of 3 dBA or less is considered acceptable and represents an accurate noise model. All of the monitored sites that were influenced by roadway noise were calibrated within this 3 dBA tolerance. Following the calibration of the existing conditions noise model, additional noise modeling was performed for existing conditions using traffic data supplied by traffic engineers, as shown in Appendix D. This modeling step was performed to evaluate existing, worst-case noise levels associated with existing, worst-case traffic volumes and composition. Column 7 of Table 2 provides a summary of worst-case, existing noise levels, based on supplied worst-case existing traffic volumes (updated 2010). Section 772.17(b) of 23 CFR states that “In predicting noise levels and assessing noise impacts, traffic characteristics which will yield the worst hourly traffic impact on a regular basis for the design year shall be used”. Therefore, since the Pennsylvania Turnpike operates at “free-flow” conditions and is not considered a congested corridor, the worst-case hourly traffic volume was used throughout the analysis. Posted speeds were applied to all roadways in the project corridor. Future Conditions and Impact Assessment: Following the modeling of existing conditions, the analysis continued with the prediction of future noise levels, with proposed roadway improvements in place. This is accomplished by incorporating the proposed improvements into the calibrated noise model and applying projected traffic volumes and composition for the design year (2040) of the project. The future traffic volumes and composition can be viewed in Appendix D of this report. These worst-case hourly traffic volumes were used to predict noise levels and noise level impacts for this project. Column 8 in Table 2 provides a summary of the noise levels and impacted receptors associated with the proposed future roadway improvements. Based on initial project field views, noise-sensitive land uses were grouped into 14 individual Noise Sensitive Areas (NSA). Noise Sensitive Areas are groupings of noise-

18


sensitive land uses that, by location, form distinct communities within the project area and also share common noise exposure characteristics. The following discussion presents existing and future noise conditions for each of the 14 NSAs that were evaluated as part of this project. Where noise levels met the “warrants”, noise mitigation was considered and evaluated for feasibility and reasonableness. NSA 1 NSA 1 is located in the western portion of the project area, near the Butler Valley interchange and consists of six noise-sensitive receptor sites, POLO-1, CHAT-1, M1-CHAT1, CHAT-2, M1-CHAT2 and SCH-1, which represents approximately 12 residences and one elementary school. The Pennsylvania Turnpike is in a cut scenario at this location with noise receptors located well above the elevation of the roadway. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike with some minor influence from East Bardonner Road. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 60 to 68 dBA within the limits of NSA 1. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 62 to 72 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Noise impacts have been identified at approximately six residences and one school, represented by receptor sites CHAT-1, M1-CHAT1, M1-CHAT2, and SCH-1. Since noise impacts have been predicted in these areas, noise abatement consideration is warranted and will be evaluated to determine if feasible and reasonable noise mitigation can be designed for two areas of NSA 1. A continuous post-and-panel noise barrier was modeled for NSA 1 to protect residences represented by receptor sites CHAT-1, M1-CHAT1, and CHAT-2 and another specifically for the existing elementary school (SCH-1). The first discussion will involve the NSA 1 – School Barrier. Moving from east to west the barrier was modeled along the PTC right-of-way boundary at the maintenance facility, travels along PTC right-of-way and then ends along the edge-of-pavement across East Bardonner Road. Figure 3 displays the location and limits of the entire analyzed noise barrier. Table 3, NSA 1 - Noise Barrier Feasible/Reasonable Calculations, shows the abated noise levels and associated insertion losses for each receptor site at each evaluated barrier height. The noise barrier information including: total barrier square footage, total cost, number of benefited residences and cost per benefited residence for the proposed noise barrier can be seen in Table 9. As shown in Table 3, a noise barrier became feasible (achieved a minimum of 5-dBA reduction at the majority of the impacted receptor sites) at a height of 10 feet. The optimized height of School Barrier for NSA 1 (Table 9), is an average height of 14 feet and a length of approximately 960 feet and yields a total area of approximately 13,603 ft2. Assuming a cost of $34/ft2, this barrier would have a total cost of approximately $462,502. This noise barrier would provide benefits to the school and its outdoor land uses. Since reasonableness criteria does not apply to the school, this portion of the noise barrier is deemed reasonable. Therefore, the NSA 1 – School Barrier proposed for NSA 1 is considered feasible and reasonable.

19


The extension of the School Barrier was then evaluated to reduce noise levels at the remaining, impacted residences within NSA 1, west of East Bardonner Road. This noise barrier was modeled along the PTC right-of-way boundary adjacent to the westbound travel lanes of the PTC. Figure 3 displays the location and limits of the entire noise barrier. Table 3 shows the abated noise levels and associated insertion losses for each receptor site at each evaluated barrier height. Table 9 shows the noise barrier information including: total barrier square footage, total cost, number of benefited residences and cost per benefited residence for the proposed noise barrier. Since the barrier for the elementary school (discussed above) is considered reasonable, this barrier will be an extension to the school barrier. As shown, the proposed noise barrier is approximately 820 feet long and achieves feasible reductions at an average height of 14 feet. Assuming a cost of $34/ft2, this portion of the noise barrier would cost approximately $390,320 (Total Cost – School Barrier) and would benefit a total of 8 residences. At $48,790 per benefited receptor, the barrier extension is reasonable per PTC guidelines; therefore it is recommended for consideration.

NSA 2 NSA 2 is located in the western portion of the project area, on the south side of the PTC, near the Butler Valley interchange and consists of two noise-sensitive receptor sites, BARD-1 and BARD-2, which represents approximately four residences. The noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 2 are situated well below the grade of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike with some minor influence from East Bardonner Road. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 56 to 59 dBA within the limits of NSA 2. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 59 to 61 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Since, noise impacts have not been identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 2, noise abatement consideration is not warranted and will not be discussed further.

20


NSA 3 NSA 3 is located in the western portion of the project area, south of the PTC along Hickory Street and consists of two noise-sensitive receptor sites, HICK-1 and HICK-2, which represents approximately, ten residences. The noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 3 are situated well below the grade of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 52 to 60 dBA within the limits of NSA 3. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 54 to 62 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Since, noise impacts have not been identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 3, noise abatement consideration is not warranted and will not be discussed further. NSA 4 NSA 4 is located in the western portion of the project area, near Middle Road and consists of six noise-sensitive receptor sites, MHK-1, M1-MHK1, M2-MHK1, MHK-2, MHK-3, MHK-4, MID-1 and MID-2, which represents approximately 21 residences. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike with some minor influence from Middle Road at the eastern end of NSA 4. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 57 to 67 dBA within the limits of NSA 4. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 59 to 70 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Noise impacts have been identified at approximately five residences, represented by receptor sites MHK-1 and MID-2. Since noise impacts have been predicted in this area, noise abatement consideration is warranted and will be evaluated to determine if feasible and reasonable noise mitigation can be designed for NSA 4. Since noise impacts have been predicted at opposite boundaries of NSA 4, two separate noise barriers were evaluated to determine if a feasible and reasonable noise mitigation solution could be achieved. The first noise barrier was designed for the residences represented by receptor site MHK-1. This noise barrier was modeled along the PTC right-of-way boundary adjacent to the westbound travel lanes of the PTC. The proposed noise barrier starts at approximately station 575+00 and ends at station 590+00. Figure 4 displays the location and limits of the proposed noise barrier. Table 4, NSA 4 – MHK Barrier Noise Barrier Feasible/Reasonable Calculations, shows the abated noise levels and associated insertion losses for each receptor site at each evaluated barrier height. Table 9 shows the noise barrier information including: total barrier square footage, total cost, number of benefited residences and cost per benefited residence for the proposed noise barrier. As shown, the proposed noise barrier is approximately 1208 feet long and achieves feasible reductions at a height of 16 feet. Assuming a cost of $34/ft2, this noise barrier would cost approximately $109,525 per benefited receptor, which exceeds the PTC allowable cost criteria. This MHK noise barrier in NSA 4 is feasible but not reasonable; therefore it is not recommended for consideration.

21


The second noise barrier that was evaluated within NSA 4 (MID Barrier) was designed to reduce traffic noise impacts at the single noise-sensitive land use to the east of Middle Road, represented by receptor site MID-2. This noise barrier was modeled along the PTC right-of-way boundary adjacent to the westbound travel lanes of the PTC. The proposed noise barrier starts at approximately station 603+00 and ends at station 612+00. Figure 4 displays the location and limits of the proposed noise barrier. Table 5, NSA 4 MID Barrier Noise Barrier Feasible/Reasonable Calculations, shows the abated noise levels and associated insertion losses for each receptor site at each evaluated barrier height. Table 9 shows the noise barrier information including: total barrier square footage, total cost, number of benefited residences and cost per benefited residence for the proposed noise barrier. As shown, the proposed noise barrier is approximately 898 feet long and achieves feasible reductions at a height of 8 feet. Assuming a cost of $34/ft2, this noise barrier would cost approximately $244,256 per benefited receptor, which exceeds the PTC allowable cost criteria. This specific noise barrier for NSA 4 is feasible but not reasonable; therefore it is not recommended for consideration. NSA 5 NSA 5 is located in the western portion of the project area, south of the PTC along McNeal Drive, west of Middle Road and consists of two noise-sensitive receptor sites, MCNL-1 and WW-1, which represents approximately, six residences. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 60 to 62 dBA within the limits of NSA 3. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 62 to 64 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Since, noise impacts have not been identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 5, noise abatement consideration is not warranted and will not be discussed further.

22


NSA 6 NSA 6 is located in the central portion of the project area along Apple Ridge Drive, Meadow Crest Drive and Woodlake Drive and consists of four noise-sensitive receptor sites, APPL-1, SUM-1, WOOD-1, M1-WOOD1, M2-WOOD1, and M3-WOOD1, which represents approximately 16 residences. The residences within NSA 6 are situated well above the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which affects traffic-induced noise levels. APPL-1, represents the Apple Ridge development, which is currently under construction at this time, which does not accurately show in the attached figures. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 58 to 61 dBA within the limits of NSA 6. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 61 to 65 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Since, noise impacts have not been identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 6, noise abatement consideration is not warranted and will not be discussed further. NSA 7 NSA 7 is located in the central portion of the project area along Maine Drive and consists of four noise-sensitive receptor sites, MAIN-1, M1-MAIN1, M2-MAIN-1 and MAIN-2, which represents approximately eight residences. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 56 to 62 dBA within the limits of NSA 7. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 59 to 66 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Noise impacts have been identified at approximately one residence, represented by receptor site MAIN-1. Since a noise impact has been predicted in this area, noise abatement consideration is warranted and will be evaluated to determine if feasible and reasonable noise mitigation can be designed for NSA 7.

23


Since a noise impact has been predicted at a noise-sensitive land use within NSA 7, a noise barrier was evaluated to determine if a feasible and reasonable noise mitigation solution could be achieved for this area. The noise barrier was designed for the residence represented by receptor site MAIN-1. This noise barrier was modeled along the PTC right-of-way boundary adjacent to the eastbound travel lanes of the PTC. The proposed noise barrier starts at approximately station 619+00 and ends at station 642+00. Figure 5 displays the location and limits of the proposed noise barrier. Table 6, NSA 7 - Noise Barrier Feasible/Reasonable Calculations, shows the abated noise levels and associated insertion losses for this each receptor site at each evaluated barrier height. Table 9 shows the noise barrier summary information including: total barrier square footage, total cost, number of benefited residences and cost per benefited residence for the proposed noise barrier. As shown, the proposed noise barrier is approximately 2,251 feet long and achieves feasible reductions at a height of 16 feet. Two additional residences, represented by receptor site MAIN-2, benefit from this barrier; however, assuming a cost of $34/ft2, this noise barrier would cost approximately $408,181 per benefited receptor, which vastly exceeds the PTC allowable cost criteria. This specific noise barrier for NSA 7 is feasible but not reasonable; therefore it is not recommended for consideration.

NSA 8 NSA 8 is located in the central portion of the project area along Tree Farm Lane and Gibsonia Road and consists of three noise-sensitive receptor sites, TREE-1, GIB-1 and M1-GIB1, which represents approximately four residences. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 54 to 66 dBA within the limits of NSA 8. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 57 to 69 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Noise impacts have been identified at approximately three residences, represented by receptor sites GIB-1 and M1-GIB1. Since noise impacts have been predicted in this area, noise abatement consideration is warranted and will be evaluated to determine if feasible and reasonable noise mitigation can be designed for NSA 8.

24


A noise barrier was evaluated to determine if a feasible and reasonable noise mitigation solution could be achieved for this area. The noise barrier was designed for the residences represented by receptor sites GIB-1 and M1-GIB1. This noise barrier was modeled along the PTC right-of-way boundary adjacent to the westbound travel lanes of the PTC. The proposed noise barrier starts at approximately station 716+00 and ends at the Gibsonia Road Overpass. Figure 6 displays the location and limits of the proposed noise barrier. Table 7, NSA 8 - Noise Barrier Feasible/Reasonable Calculations, shows the abated noise levels and associated insertion losses for each receptor site at each evaluated barrier height. Table 9 shows the noise barrier summary information including: total barrier square footage, total cost, number of benefited residences and cost per benefited residence for the proposed noise barrier. As shown, the proposed noise barrier is approximately 1,182 feet long and achieves feasible reductions at a height of 8 feet. Assuming a cost of $34/ft2, this noise barrier would cost approximately $107,168 per benefited receptor, which exceeds the PTC allowable cost criteria. This specific noise barrier for NSA 8 is feasible but not reasonable; therefore it is not recommended for consideration.

NSA 9 NSA 9 is located in the eastern portion of the project area, south of the PTC and Gibsonia Road and consists of one noise-sensitive receptor site, GIB-2, which represents one residence. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to be 61 dBA within the limits of NSA 9. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that are approximately 63 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Since, noise impacts have not been identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 9, noise abatement consideration is not warranted.

25


NSA 10 NSA 10 is located in the eastern portion of the project area along Saxonburg Boulevard and Old Saxony Trail and consists of five noise-sensitive receptor sites, CNTY-1, M1-CNTY1, M2-CNTY1, M3-CNTY1 and CNTY-2, which represent approximately 12 residences. The noise-sensitive receptors within NSA 10 are situated well above the Pennsylvania Turnpike, on top of a very steep cut-slope. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 56 to 68 dBA within the limits of NSA 10. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 59 to 72 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Noise impacts have been identified at approximately eight residences, represented by receptor sites CNTY-1, M1-CNTY1 and CNTY-2. Since noise impacts have been predicted in this area, noise abatement consideration is warranted and will be evaluated to determine if feasible and reasonable noise mitigation can be designed for NSA 10. A noise barrier was evaluated to determine if a feasible and reasonable noise mitigation solution could be achieved for this area. The noise barrier was designed for the residences represented by receptor sites CNTY-1, CNTY-2 and M1-CNTY1. This noise barrier was modeled along the cut-slope and along proposed PTC right-of-way. Figure 7 displays the location and limits of the proposed noise barrier. Table 8, NSA 10 - Noise Barrier Feasible/Reasonable Calculations, shows the abated noise levels and associated insertion losses for each receptor site at each evaluated barrier height. Table 9 shows the noise barrier summary information including: total barrier square footage, total cost, number of benefited residences and cost per benefited residence for the proposed noise barrier. As shown, the proposed noise barrier is approximately 853 feet long and achieves feasible reductions at a height of 12 feet. Assuming a cost of $34/ft2, this noise barrier would cost approximately $69,604.80 per benefited receptor, which exceeds the PTC allowable cost criteria. This specific noise barrier for NSA 10 is feasible but not reasonable; therefore it is not recommended for consideration.

26


NSA 11 NSA 11 is located in the eastern portion of the project area, south of the PTC and consists of two noise-sensitive receptor sites, CEM-1 and CEM-2, which represents the Lakewood Memorial Gardens Cemetery. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 62 to 66 dBA within the limits of NSA 11. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 64 to 67 dBA, as shown in Table 2. While a noise impact has been identified at the cemetery, this land use is typically not considered eligible for noise abatement, based on the nature of activities performed at these locations. Therefore, noise abatement consideration for NSA 11 is not warranted and will not be discussed further. NSA 12 NSA 12 is located in the eastern portion of the project area, north of the PTC and consists of one noise-sensitive receptor site, PARK-1, which represents the Emmerling Park. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to be 59 dBA within the limits of NSA 12. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that are approximately 61 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Since, noise impacts have not been identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 12, noise abatement consideration is not warranted. NSA 13 NSA 13 is located in the eastern portion of the project area, west of SR 0910, along Blue Run Road and consists of three noise-sensitive receptor sites, BLUE1, BLUE2 and BLUE3, which represents approximately eight residential units. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike, with significant influence at site BLUE-1 from SR 0910. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 57 to 65 dBA within the limits of NSA 13. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from 60 to 69 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Noise impacts have been predicted at receptor site BLUE1, which represents approximately four residential units. Since noise impacts have been predicted in this area, noise abatement consideration is warranted and will be evaluated to determine if feasible and reasonable noise mitigation can be designed for NSA 13. Since noise impacts have been predicted at noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 13, a noise barrier was evaluated to determine if a feasible and reasonable noise mitigation solution could be achieved for this area. The noise barrier was designed for the four residential units represented by receptor site BLUE1. This noise barrier was modeled along the PTC right-of-way boundary adjacent to the eastbound travel lanes of the PTC. The proposed noise barrier starts at approximately station 815+25 and ends at the SR 0910 overpass. NSA 13 BLUE noise barrier does not achieve the necessary 5 dBA

27


reduction required to be considered feasible. Thus, the modeled noise barrier for NSA 13 is warranted, but not feasible and will not be discussed further. NSA 14 NSA 14 is located in the eastern portion of the project area, north of the PTC and consists of three noise-sensitive receptor sites, M1-14, M2-14, and M3-14, which represent a portion of the proposed Shawnee Ridge Development, adjacent to the PTC. Currently, the dominant noise source in the area is the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Existing, worst-case noise levels are predicted to range from 62 to 71 dBA within the limits of NSA 14. Future, design year (2040) build conditions and corresponding traffic data produce noise levels that range from approximately 64 to 73 dBA, as shown in Table 2. Since noise impacts have been predicted in this area, noise abatement consideration is warranted and will be evaluated to determine if feasible and reasonable noise mitigation can be designed for NSA 14. Since noise impacts have been predicted at noise-sensitive land uses within NSA 14, several noise abatement options were evaluated to determine if a feasible and reasonable solution could be found. Two separate barrier options were modeled for this NSA; however, due to the steep, unstable slopes separating the Turnpike and the residences within NSA 14, there is no feasible location for the construction of a noise barrier for NSA 14 within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, noise abatement for NSA 14 is not feasible due to engineering constraints and will not be evaluated further.

28


Construction Noise: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is also concerned with noise generated during the construction phase of the project. The use of heavy machinery and construction techniques may cause temporary impacts to noise-sensitive land uses located in close proximity to construction work zones. Based on the review of the project area, no significant, long-term construction-related noise impacts are anticipated. Existing noise levels are relatively high along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, with significant noise produced by heavy traffic volumes and large trucks; therefore temporary construction noise will be minimal in comparison. Any

29


construction-related noise impacts that do occur are anticipated to be temporary in nature and would cease at the completion of the project. To help minimize construction-related noise impacts, the contractor shall use equipment adopted to operate within reasonable noise levels, and will conduct construction work in a responsible manner, to limit annoyance to the occupants of nearby properties. Complaints associated with construction-related noise will be addressed by the PTC on a case-by-case basis during construction. Public Involvement: During the Final Design noise assessment, public involvement is initiated to address affected residents, and those who have concerns about increased noise levels as a result of the proposed improvements. The purpose of the public involvement is to present the noise analysis results to the public, and to receive input on desirable mitigation measures. It is important to establish if the majority of a noise-impacted community is truly in favor of the proposed noise mitigation measures. As part of the reasonableness evaluation, the desires for noise mitigation must be verified. If the majority of a noise-impacted community does not want a noise barrier, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission will not force a barrier on the community. Public meetings are generally used as the appropriate forum to establish the desires of the community and complete the reasonableness evaluation in the form of a noise barrier survey. The public has been involved in the project since the preparation of the environmental document. Noise impacts were addressed in that report. Noise levels differ slightly from what was presented during the environmental clearance phase of the project. Noise impacts are still predicted at the majority of the residences in closest proximity to the PA Turnpike; the dominant noise source in the area. Following PTC approval of this report, noise-specific public meetings will be held in an attempt to determine the resident’s opinion on the noise mitigation proposed for NSA 1. This meeting will present the findings of the noise study and will offer information on the noise barrier and various color and texture options. Through the use of a survey, the public and school representatives will be solicited for their desires for noise mitigation, as well as their opinions of aesthetics for the residential side of the noise barrier. Survey forms will be provided to meeting attendees and collected at the end of each meeting. Once a determination is made on the proposed noise barrier for NSA 1, this report will be updated and re-submitted. Conclusion: The results of the noise analysis indicate that design year (2040) noise levels are anticipated to exceed the PTC Noise Abatement Criteria at the some of the noise-sensitive receptor sites in the project area. A noise barrier mitigation evaluation concluded by recommending a noise barrier for the residential community and elementary school contained within NSA 1. Figure 3, shows the limits of this noise

30


barrier. Table 3 presents the future mitigated noise levels, while Table 9 shows the insertion losses and costs associated with this proposed barrier. Additional noise barriers were evaluated for impacted communities throughout the project area; however feasible and reasonable solutions could not be achieved for the remainder of the impacted locations. Therefore, the results of the Final Design noise analysis conclude that noise mitigation is warranted, feasible, and reasonable for NSA 1, as per FHWA/PTC procedures and is recommended as part of the project.

31

Documents

FINAL DESIGN NOISE ANALYSIS - patpconstruction.com · Milepost 40-48 – Improvements Project Final Design Noise Analysis Noise Analysis Methodology A detailed noise analysis was