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

Noise Wall Forum April 2016 1

Agenda  Project overview  Noise analysis overview  Viewpoint Solicitation  Next Steps 2

Q&A Session Please submit your comment card to a study team member 3

Project Overview 4

I-55 Study Area Study Limits: Study Limits: N I-355 to 355 to I-90/I 90/I-94 94 25 m 25 miles iles 5

IDOT Project Phases 6

Phase I Timeline We are Here CPG Meetings Public Meetings/Hearing 7

Public Involvement 2 Public Meetings 1 Public Hearing Project Website Agency Meetings Newsletters Media Outreach Speakers’ Bureaus 5 Corridor Planning Group Meetings Small Group Meetings 8

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) 9

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 10

Typical Roadway Section 40 feet Approx. 15 miles 60 feet Approx. 10 miles 11

Alternatives 12

Purpose and Need Screening Alterna Alter nativ tives es tha that F t Fail ail to A to Addr dress ess Pur Purpose pose and and Need Need General Gener 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 no Does 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 • of facility bridges, interchanges and I-55 Doe Does s no not t pr provide vide sustainable transportation solutions • Not fi Not fina nanc nciall ially y fea easible sible requires additional right-of-way to accommodate • increased foot print 13 13

Alternatives Carried Forward $ 2 3 $ $ $ 3 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 $ HOV-2+ HOV-3+ HOT-2+ HOT-3+ ETL • • • • • Only carpools Only carpools 2+ Occupants 3+ Occupants All Vehicles Pay Ride Free Ride Free • • 2+ Occupants 3+ Occupants • • Single Single and 2+ • • No Toll No Toll Occupants Occupants Vehicles Vehicles Pay Pay Toll Toll 14 14

Preferred Alternative Express Toll Lane (ETL): Best Addresses Corridor Needs • 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 15 15

Express Toll Lane Before and After 16 16

Noise Analysis Overview 17

When Are Noise Walls Considered? TYPE I PROJECT • New Roadway • New travel lanes • Substantial alteration TYPE II PROGRAM Illinois has NO Type II (retrofit) Program therefore noise walls cannot be considered. 18

Traffic Noise Impacts Evaluation We are here Public Meeting #2 Public Hearing 2016 Fall 2015 Winter 2016 Spring 2016 Complete Environmental Alternative Development & Evaluation Preferred Alternative Development Documentation Evaluate Final Noise Data Collection & Identify Potential Stakeholder Viewpoint Abatement Evaluation of Existing Noise Noise Outreach Solicitation Solutions Conditions Impacts Abatement Identified Solutions 19

Traffic Noise Analysis Process Identify Noise 1 Receptors Traffic Noise Level 2 Determination  Modeling  Validated by field monitoring Traffic Noise Impact 3 Identification Traffic Noise 4 Abatement Analysis 20

Identify Noise Receptors Residential Cemetery A receptor is an Residential outdoor area of frequent human School use along I-55 that is analyzed Golf Course House of for noise impacts Worship due to the project. Forest Preserve 21

FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) CATEGORY A Serene lands - rarely applies. (e.g.: Tomb of the Unknown Solider ) No Established CATEGORY B: NAC Residential CATEGORY F CATEGORY C: Agricultural, Hospitals, schools, places of worship, parks industrial, retail, CATEGORY D*: utilities Hospitals, libraries, places of worship, institutions, CATEGORY G schools Undeveloped lands CATEGORY E: Hotels, offices, restaurants * * Interior noise, to be studied only after exterior is studied, or if noise abatement is not feasible and reasonable 22

Common Noise Levels 23

Interior vs Exterior Noise • IDOT and FHWA stipulate that outdoor 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 24

Traffic Noise Level Determination Predicted traffic noise levels using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Noise calculated at  Existing, Future No-Build, Future Build worst-case (ETL alternative) receptor  Existing noise levels validated with locations field monitoring 25

Traffic Noise Impact Identification 2 methods for impact identification: Impacts Identified for  Future Build noise levels approach, meet, or exceed the FHWA Noise worst-case Abatement Criteria (NAC) receptors  Substantial increase in noise 26

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. 27

Proposed Noise Walls • 16 noise walls studied • 11 walls were feasible/reasonable Proposed Noise Walls • Range from 10 to 18 foot tall walls • Over 10 miles of potential new noise wall Recommended Walls Determined after the viewpoint solicitation 28

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% of 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 29

Viewpoints Example Letter and Form 30

What Will the Noise Walls Look Like? IDOT CURRENT TYPICAL WALL 31

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. 32

Next Steps NEXT STEPS : • Mail Viewpoint Solicitation Letters • Compile Viewpoint Results • Determine Recommended Walls • Present the Recommended Preferred Alternative at the Public Hearing 33 33

Thank you for Attending! 34

Q&A Session Q&A Session Please submit your comment card to a study team member 35