Noise Wall Forum April 2016 1 Agenda Project overview Noise - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Noise Wall Forum

April 2016

2

Agenda

Project overview Noise analysis overview Viewpoint Solicitation Next Steps

3

Please submit your comment card to a study team member

Q&A Session

4

Project Overview

5

I-55 Study Area

Study Limits: Study Limits: I-355 to 355 to I-90/I 90/I-94 94 25 m 25 miles iles N

6

IDOT Project Phases

7

Phase I Timeline

We are Here

CPG Meetings Public Meetings/Hearing

8

Public Involvement

2 Public Meetings Project Website Agency Meetings Newsletters Media Outreach Speakers’ Bureaus 5 Corridor Planning Group Meetings Small Group Meetings 1 Public Hearing

9

Existing Traffic Characteristics

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

• Current 140,000 to 180,000 vehicles per day
• Year 2040 (No-Build) 200,000 to 250,000 vehicles per day
• 12-14 hours of congestions per day

Occupancy

• 1 passenger

83.5%

• 2 passengers

13.7%

• 3 or more passengers

2.8%

Trucks

• 13 – 15% (1 of every 7- 8 vehicles)

10

Project Purpose and Need

• Mobility and operational efficiency to adapt to changing

travel demands

• Congestion management strategies to improve system

performance & travel time reliability

• New travel choice supporting

transit opportunities

• Sustainable transportation solutions

that meet future environmental & economic needs

• Maximize use of existing facility

to recognize funding constraints

11

Typical Roadway Section

40 feet

• Approx. 15 miles

60 feet

• Approx. 10 miles

12

Alternatives

13 13

Purpose and Need Screening

Gener General al Pur Purpos pose e Lane: Lane:

• Fails

ails to provide sustainable/reliable transportation

• Elimi

Elimina nate tes s Median Bus-on-Shoulder Benefit

• Does

Does no not t pr provide vide alternative to stop and go traffic concerns

Truc uck k Onl Only y Lane: Lane:

• Does

Does no not t ad addr dres ess s congestion management

• Does

Does no not t max maximi imize e use of existing facility, requires complete reconstruction

• f facility bridges, interchanges and I-55
• Doe

Does s no not t pr provide vide sustainable transportation solutions

• Not

Not fi fina nanc nciall ially y fea easible sible requires additional right-of-way to accommodate increased foot print

Alter Alterna nativ tives es tha that F t Fail ail to A to Addr dress ess Pur Purpose pose and and Need Need

14 14

Alternatives Carried Forward

HOV-2+

• Only carpools
• 2+ Occupants
• No Toll

HOV-3+

• Only carpools
• 3+ Occupants
• No Toll

HOT-2+

• 2+ Occupants

Ride Free

• Single

Occupants Vehicles Pay Toll

HOT-3+

• 3+ Occupants

Ride Free

• Single and 2+

Occupants Vehicles Pay Toll

ETL

• All Vehicles Pay

3 $ 2 $ $ $ 3 2 2 4 $ 3 3 4 3

15 15

Preferred Alternative

• Greatest Ability to control congestion
• Best accommodates Pace bus service
• Ease of Enforcement
• Compatible with regional tolling

technology

• Time savings
• ETL- 10 to 15 minutes time savings

in AM and PM Peak

• Existing Travel Lanes- 5 to 10

minutes time savings

• Person throughput – 11-14% Increase

Express Toll Lane (ETL):

Best Addresses Corridor Needs

16 16

Express Toll Lane Before and After

17

Noise Analysis Overview

18

When Are Noise Walls Considered?

TYPE II PROGRAM

Illinois has NO Type II (retrofit) Program therefore noise walls cannot be considered.

TYPE I PROJECT

• New Roadway
• New travel lanes
• Substantial alteration

19

Traffic Noise Impacts Evaluation

Public Meeting #2 Public Hearing

Data Collection & Evaluation of Existing Conditions Identify Noise Impacts Evaluate Potential Noise Abatement Solutions Stakeholder Outreach Viewpoint Solicitation Final Noise Abatement Solutions Identified

2016

Alternative Development & Evaluation Preferred Alternative Development Complete Environmental Documentation

Fall 2015 Winter 2016 Spring 2016

We are here

20

Traffic Noise Analysis Process

1 2 3 4

Identify Noise Receptors Traffic Noise Level Determination

 Modeling  Validated by field monitoring

Traffic Noise Impact Identification Traffic Noise Abatement Analysis

21

Identify Noise Receptors

A receptor is an

• utdoor area of

frequent human use along I-55 that is analyzed for noise impacts due to the project.

House of Worship School Cemetery Golf Course Residential Residential Forest Preserve

22

FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)

CATEGORY A

Serene lands - rarely applies. (e.g.: Tomb of the Unknown Solider)

CATEGORY B:

Residential

CATEGORY C:

Hospitals, schools, places of worship, parks

CATEGORY D*:

Hospitals, libraries, places of worship, institutions, schools

CATEGORY E:

Hotels, offices, restaurants

No Established NAC CATEGORY F

Agricultural, industrial, retail, utilities

CATEGORY G

Undeveloped lands * *Interior noise, to be studied only after exterior is studied, or if noise abatement is not feasible and reasonable

23

Common Noise Levels

24

Interior vs Exterior Noise

• IDOT and FHWA stipulate that
• utdoor areas of frequent human

use be given primary consideration

• Interior noise for private

residences not studied, as that analysis focuses on noise levels interfering with outdoor conversations

‘ “Only consider the interior levels at these land uses after FULLY COMPLETING an analysis of any outdoor activity areas or determining that exterior abatement measures are not feasible or reasonable.”

• - FHWA’s Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance

25

Traffic Noise Level Determination Noise calculated at worst-case receptor locations Predicted traffic noise levels using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM)

 Existing, Future No-Build, Future Build (ETL alternative)  Existing noise levels validated with field monitoring

26

Traffic Noise Impact Identification Impacts Identified for worst-case receptors 2 methods for impact identification:

 Future Build noise levels approach, meet, or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)  Substantial increase in noise

27

Feasibility & Reasonableness Policy

Feasibility:

• Must achieve at least a 5 dB(A) traffic noise

reduction

• Must be feasible to construct

Reasonableness:

• In general, noise abatement must be less than

$24,000* per benefited receptor

• Must achieve at least an 8 dB(A) reduction at a

benefited receptor

* Adjustment factors can increase the allowable cost per benefited receptor.

28

Proposed Noise Walls

• 16 noise walls studied
• 11 walls were

feasible/reasonable

• Range from 10 to 18 foot

tall walls

• Over 10 miles of potential

new noise wall

Recommended Walls Determined after the viewpoint solicitation

Proposed Noise Walls

29

Viewpoints Solicitation

 Benefited Receptors Rental properties: One vote for tenant, one vote for owner (per unit)  Receptors that share property line with I-55 receive TWO (2) VOTES  Benefited Receptors will be contacted up to Two (2) times to maximize response rate

RESPONSE GOAL OF 33%

• f benefited receptors per proposed barrier

If more than half of the votes are in favor of a barrier, the proposed abatement measure will be likely to be implemented

30

Viewpoints Example Letter and Form

31

What Will the Noise Walls Look Like? IDOT CURRENT TYPICAL WALL

32

We Want to Hear from You!

• Written comment forms
• Online comment forms at

(www.I55managedlaneproject.org)

A comment form will not be counted as an official vote for the noise walls. Official voters surveys will be mailed to your home.

33 33

Next Steps

NEXT STEPS:

• Mail Viewpoint Solicitation Letters
• Compile Viewpoint Results
• Determine Recommended Walls
• Present the Recommended

Preferred Alternative at the Public Hearing

34

Thank you for Attending!

35

Q&A Session

Please submit your comment card to a study team member

Q&A Session