Interim Noise Study Report - Washtenaw County, MI

Eisenhower Detention BasinInterim Ambient Noise Study

Ann Arbor, MI

August 2017

1427 W. Saginaw Street, Suite 200East Lansing, MI 48823517.272.9835 (phone)517.272.9836 (fax)

August 2017 Interim Ambient Noise Study Eisenhower Detention Basin

Page i our people and our passion in every project

Ambient Noise Study

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1

2. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT .................................................................................. 3

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 4

4. NOISE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 5

4.1. Basic Acoustic Concepts .................................................................................... 5

4.1.1. Noise Characteristics ................................................................................... 5

4.1.2. Traffic Noise ................................................................................................ 7

4.2. Federal and State Abatement Guidelines .......................................................... 7

4.3. Traffic Noise Analysis ....................................................................................... 10

4.3.1. Field Measured Levels............................................................................... 11

4.3.2. Field Measured vs. Modeled Noise Levels ................................................ 13

4.3.3. Predicted Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Impact Analysis ........................ 14

5. FUTURE NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ......................................................... 16

6. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 17


Page ii our people and our passion in every project

Tables Table 1: Number of Locations that Approach or Exceed the NAC .................................. 2 Table 2: Logarithmic Nature of Sound ............................................................................. 5 Table 3: Noise Abatement Criteria 1 ................................................................................ 9 Table 4: Measured Existing Noise Levels during AM Peak Traffic ................................ 11 Table 5: Measured Existing Noise Levels during Off-Peak Traffic ................................ 12 Table 6: Measured Existing Noise Levels during PM Peak Traffic ................................ 12 Table 7: Comparison of Measured and Modeled Noise Levels for Peak Traffic ............ 13 Table 8: Pre and Post-Construction Traffic Volumes during the AM hours ................... 14 Table 9: Pre and Post-Construction Traffic Volumes during the PM hours ................... 14 Table 10: Loudest Hour Noise Levels, dB(A) Leq (1h); AM Peak .................................. 15 Table 11: Loudest Hour Noise Levels, dB(A) Leq (1h); PM Peak ................................... 15 Figures Figure 1: Project Location Map ....................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources ........................................................... 6

Appendices Appendix A Measurement Site Information Appendix B Weather Information Appendix C Local Information Appendix D Project Figures


Page 1 of 17 our people and our passion in every project

Interim Ambient Noise Study

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To improve drainage and reduce flooding, the construction of a stormwater detention pond has been proposed on the Eisenhower Park property, located in the southeast quadrant of the Scio Church Rd / I-94 overpass in Ann Arbor, MI. To accommodate this construction, a large portion of the wooded area in the park will need to cleared and the area will need to be regraded. The goal of this study is twofold. (i) To evaluate several pond configurations to determine how the proposed changes will affect acoustic environment. (ii) To explore the potential for future noise abatement. This report summarizes the data that has been collected and the preliminary analysis that has been completed in the course of the study. The noise analysis presents the existing and future acoustical environments at various receptors located along I-94. The locations of these receptor sites, depicted in Appendix D, are in compliance with the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise as presented in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23 Part 772 (23 CFR 722), and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT): Highway Noise Analysis and Abatement Handbook, July 2011. The MDOT: Highway Noise Analysis and Abatement Handbook is in compliance with the MDOT State Transportation Commission Policy 10136 Noise Abatement, dated July 31, 2003. Field measurements with concurrent traffic counts were taken to compare with modeled noise levels to validate the Traffic Noise Model® (TNM) for use on this project to predict existing and post-construction noise levels. Existing noise level measurements were conducted on June 28, 2017 at five (5) representative sites in and around Eisenhower Park. 15 to 20 minute measurements were taken at each site during AM peak, PM peak, and off-peak traffic time periods. Peak traffic periods are generally defined as between 7:30 am and 9:30 am and between 3:30 pm and 6:30 pm. Traffic counts were taken at each site, concurrent with the noise measurements.



The traffic noise prediction program, TNM®2.5, was used to model the existing (or pre-construction) and post-construction noise levels within the study area. Table 1 lists the number of locations that approach or exceed the FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). The decibel levels reflect the impact levels on the land use activity categories in FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criteria (Table 3). The figure in Appendix D depicts locations of the residential receivers. The final version of this report will include noise contours that depict the noise level variation throughout the park.

Table 1: Number of Locations that Approach or Exceed the NAC Site Condition Impact Sites Change in Noise Levels

Existing / Pre-construction 0 - Post-construction Configuration To Be Determined



2. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The ultimate goal of this study is to evaluate the potential noise impacts of the construction of a stormwater detention basin within Eisenhower Park. The results will be used to determine the preferred pond configuration alternative. The purpose of this interim report is to summarize the data that has been collected and the results from the preliminary analysis performed in the course of the study.



3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION To address ongoing issues with flooding in the Northwest Branch of Mallets Creek, a stormwater detention basin will be added to the waterway. Based on land availability, Eisenhower Park, located in the southeast quadrant of the Scio Church Rd / I-94 overpass, has been selected as the best location for this work; see Figure 1. As a part of this project, three stormwater detention basin alternatives are being evaluated in details to select the preferred alternative.

Figure 1: Project Location Map

Eisenhower Park

Churchill Downs Park

Scio Church Rd

I-94

Wiltshire Dr

I-94



4. NOISE ANALYSIS 4.1. Basic Acoustic Concepts

4.1.1. Noise Characteristics Noise can be described as unwanted sound that may interfere with communication or disturb the community. Three noise characteristics have been identified as being important in the analysis of the subjective community response to noise include: intensity, frequency, and time-varying features of the noise. These three characteristics are described in the following. 4.1.1.1. Intensity Intensity is a measure of the magnitude or energy of the sound, and is directly related to pressure level. The human ear is capable of sensing a wide range of pressure levels. Pressure levels are expressed in terms of a logarithmic scale with units called decibels (dB). As the intensity increases, the noise is judged to be more annoying. The decibel scale is a logarithmic representation of the actual sound pressure variations. The manner in which the logarithmic nature of sound is perceived as loudness and the accompanying change in traffic volumes are given in Table 2: Logarithmic Nature of Sound. Table 2: Logarithmic Nature of Sound

Change in Leq (1h) Sound Level Relative Loudness in the Natural Environment +/- 3 dB(A) Barely Perceptible Change

+/- 5 dB(A) Readily Perceptible Change +/- 10 dB(A) Considered Twice or Half as Loud

4.1.1.2. Frequency Frequency is a measure of the tonal qualities of sound. The spectrum of frequencies provides the identity of a sound. People are most sensitive to sounds in the middle to high frequencies. Therefore, higher frequencies tend to cause more annoyance. This sensitivity led to the use of the A-weighted sound level, which provides a single number measure that weighs different frequencies of the spectrum in a manner similar to the sensitivity of the human ear. Thus, the A-weighted sound level in decibels (dB(A)) provides a simple measure of intensity and frequency that correlates well with the human response to environmental noise. Figure 2 depicts how logarithmic decibel scale relates to various environments and noise sources.



Figure 2: Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources



4.1.1.3. Time Variation When studying noise, it is necessary to use a method of measure that will account for the time-varying nature of sound when studying environmental noise. The equivalent sound pressure level (Leq) is defined as the continuous steady sound level that would have the same total A-weighted sound energy as the real fluctuating sound measured over a given period of time. As a result, the three characteristics of noise combine to form a single descriptor (Leq in dB(A)) that helps to evaluate human response to noise. This descriptor has been chosen for use in this study. The time period used to determine noise levels is typically one hour which is reflected in the descriptor as Leq(1h).

4.1.2. Traffic Noise Traffic noise at a receiver is influenced by several major factors including distance from the traffic to the receiver, volume of traffic, speed of traffic, vehicle mix, and acoustical shielding. Tire sound levels increase with vehicle speed, but also depend upon road surface, vehicle weight, tread design and wear. Change in any of these can vary noise levels, however, certain average tire and pavement conditions are assumed in the noise prediction model. At lower speeds, especially for trucks and buses, the dominant noise source is the engine and exhaust. 4.2. Federal and State Abatement Guidelines A traffic noise impact is defined as a future noise level that approaches or exceeds the FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC); or a future noise level that creates a substantial noise increase over existing noise levels. An approaching noise level is defined as being at least 1 dB(A) less than the noise level listed in the NAC for Activity Category A through Category E listed in Table 3. The FHWA allows States to define a substantial noise increase as an increase between 5 and 15 dB(A). MDOT currently defines a substantial noise increase as an increase of 10 dB(A). The NAC, presented in 23 CFR 772, establishes the noise abatement criteria for various land uses, as given in Table 3. If impacts are identified during a roadway improvement project, State highway agencies are required to consider noise abatement. A roadway improvement project is defined as a project that involves one or more of the following:

A substantial alteration to the horizontal or vertical alignments. The addition of a through-traffic lane(s). This includes the addition of a through-

traffic lane that functions as a HOV lane, High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane, bus lane, or truck climbing lane.

The addition of an auxiliary lane, except for when the auxiliary lane is a turn lane.



The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange.

Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through-traffic lane or an auxiliary lane

The addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride-share lot or toll plaza.

This project is not associated with a State owned roadway improvement project, but this area may be subject to one in the future. The final version of this report will include information regarding the potential for future noise abatement. The potential for future noise abatement will be evaluated based on MDOT’s current criteria.



Table 3: Noise Abatement Criteria 1

Activity Category

Activity Criteria2 Evaluation

Location Description of Activity Category Leq (1h)3

L10 (1h)4

A 57 60 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.

B5 67 70 Exterior Residential

C5 67 70 Exterior

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.

D 52 55 Interior

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.

E 72 75 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not included in A–D or F.

F - -

Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing.

G - - Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.

1) MDOT defines a noise impact as a 10 dB(A) increase between the existing noise level to the design year predicted noise level, OR a predicted design year noise level that is 1 dB(A) less than the levels shown in Table 3.

2) Either Leq(h) or L10(h) (but not both) may be used on a project. MDOT only uses Leq(h). The Leq(h) and L10(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for noise abatement measures.

3) Leq is the equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period, with Leq(h) being the hourly value of Leq.

4) L10 is the sound level that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (90th percentile) for the period under consideration, with L10(h) being the hourly value of L10.

5) Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category



4.3. Traffic Noise Analysis According to current State and Federal regulations, the FHWA’s TNM® software must be used in all traffic noise related projects. TNM is a computer program that was developed by FHWA to analysis the parameters list below and predict highway traffic noise levels.

Distance between roadway and receiver; Relative elevations of roadway and receiver; Hourly traffic volumes by the following classification;

o Automobiles – all vehicles with two axles and four tires, including passenger vehicles and light trucks, less than 9,900 pounds.

o Medium trucks – all vehicles with two axles and six tires, vehicle weight between 9,900 and 26,400 pounds.

o Heavy trucks – all vehicles with three or more axles, vehicle weight greater than 26,400 pounds.

o Buses – all vehicles designed to carry more than nine passengers. o Motorcycles – all vehicles with two or three tires and an open-air

driver/passenger compartment; Vehicle speeds; Ground absorption; Weather conditions; and Topographic features, including retaining walls and berms.

To ensure the accuracy of TNM output, a validation process is required. In accordance with the FHWA and MDOT procedures, this validation process involves:

Collecting noise measurements with concurrent site and traffic information, Inputting the collected information into the TNM models, and Comparing the noise levels measured with the noise levels that were predicted

with the TNM models. Based on the current regulations, the noise model must predict noise levels that are within 3 dB(A) of the actual levels in order to be considered valid.



4.3.1. Field Measured Levels Existing noise level measurements with concurrent traffic counts were taken on June 28, 2017 at five (5) well-spaced sites within and adjacent to Eisenhower Park. These measurements were at least 15 minutes in length and were repeated during the AM peak hours, PM peak hours, and off peak-hours. The noise measurements and the concurrent traffic volumes that were collected are summarized in the tables below and Appendix A. The respective locations are depicted in Appendix D. Based on field observations, the traffic on I-94, as the dominant noise source, operated under free flow conditions and at the posted speed limits throughout the day. Concurrent weather readings were obtained from the weather station approximately 1 mile away, for accurate modeling purposes. Table 4: Measured Existing Noise Levels during AM Peak Traffic

Site Description

Traffic1, 2 Measured

Noise Level,

dB(A) Leq Roadway,

Direction2, 3 A

utos

Medium

Trucks

Heavy

Trucks

Buses

Motor-

cycles

Site 1: Northern Side of the Park

EB I-94 WB I-94

2640 2097

63 39

186 153

6 6

6 15 62

Site 2: Western Side of the Park

EB I-94 WB I-94

2397 1683

66 45

255 22

3 9

12 0 68

Site 3: Park Entrance EB I-94 WB I-94

2628 1935

66 69

201 162

0 9

12 6 63

Site 4: Southern Side of the Park

EB I-94 WB I-94

2493 1908

81 93

198 168

3 9

6 9 65

Site 5: Along Steeplechase Dr

EB I-94 WB I-94

1860 1579

79 122

182 264

5 7

7 0 58

1) Vehicle counts classifications are according to Section 4.3 of this report. 2) Vehicle count are based a hourly rate (Vehicle/hr) 3) Vehicle speeds for I-94 are 70 mph. 4) Vehicle traffic on the roadways that are adjacent to the I-94 Right-of-Way was insignificant.



Table 5: Measured Existing Noise Levels during Off-Peak Traffic

Site Description


Noise Level,

dB(A) Leq Roadway,

Direction2, 3

Autos

Medium

Trucks

Heavy

Trucks

Buses

Motor-

cycles Site 1: Northern Side of

the Park EB I-94 WB I-94

1623 1725

102 69

213 219

9 0

3 6 62


EB I-94 WB I-94

1413 1683

87 48

240 246

3 3

0 3 68


1545 1752

69 48

210 213

0 0

3 21 64


EB I-94 WB I-94

1500 1324

64 68

256 152

0 4

4 4 65


EB I-94 WB I-94

1869 1677

87 87

234 246

3 9

9 0 58


Table 6: Measured Existing Noise Levels during PM Peak Traffic

Site Description


Noise Level, dB(A) Leq Roadway,

Direction2, 3

Autos

Medium

Trucks

Heavy

Trucks

Buses

Motor-

cycles

Site 1: Northern Side of the Park

EB I-94 WB I-94

2028 3444

48 104

104 168

8 4

8 24 62


EB I-94 WB I-94

1812 3360

96 72

88 204

0 0

8 12 66


2235 3462

36 30

81 168

3 3

18 15 67


EB I-94 WB I-94

2067 3564

54 39

123 141

3 3

9 15 64


EB I-94 WB I-94

1940 2908

76 88

140 160

0 12

8 8 59




4.3.2. Field Measured vs. Modeled Noise Levels As previously noted, the noise levels that measured at the site need to be compared with the TNM predicted noise level to validate the traffic noise model. A site-by-site comparison of the measured and modeled noise levels is presented in Table 7. Table 7: Comparison of Measured and Modeled Noise Levels for Peak Traffic

Site #

AM Peak Noise Level Off-Peak Noise Level PM Peak Noise Level

Mea

sure

d

Mod

eled

Diff

eren

ce

Mea

sure

d

Mod

eled

Diff

eren

ce

Mea

sure

d

Mod

eled

Diff

eren

ce

1 62 61 -1 62 61 -1 62 62 0 2 68 68 0 68 68 0 66 68 +2 3 63 64 +1 64 64 0 67 64 -3 4 65 64 -1 65 64 -1 64 65 +1 5 58 59 +1 58 59 +1 59 58 -1

As reflected in Table 7, all predicted or modeled noise levels are within 3 dBA of the corresponding measured noise level. The largest noise level difference (-3 dBA), occurred at Site 3 during the PM Peak hours, was a result of lawn mowing at an adjacent property. Based on this comparison, the TNM model is accurate and will produce valid predictions.



4.3.3. Predicted Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Impact Analysis The traffic noise prediction program, TNM, was used to model existing traffic noise levels within the project area and will be used to predict how the configuration of a stormwater detention basin will impact the existing noise levels in the final version of this report. For analysis purposes, the “loudest noise hours” were used to evaluate noise level changes. The “loudest noise hours” have been defined as the time periods with the largest traffic volumes. Based on the traffic counts completed on June 28, 2017, the loudest noise hour occurs between 8 AM and 9 AM (for the AM peak hours) and between 4:10 PM and 5:10 PM (for the PM peak hours). With a regional traffic growth rate of 0.5%, the traffic associated with the post-construction condition will be fairly similar to pre-construction condition. The pre-construction traffic volumes (AM and PM peak) used in the modeling are given in Table 8 and Table 9. Vehicle class distributions used in the noise impact analysis were based on traffic counts that were collected. In accordance to Section 2.5.2 of the Highway Noise Analysis and Abatement Handbook, the existing and future traffic volumes were assumed to operate under free-flow conditions. Table 8: Pre and Post-Construction Traffic Volumes during the AM hours

Roadway Segment Volumes by Vehicle Type

Autos Medium Trucks

Heavy Trucks Buses Motorcycles

EB I-94 2529 83 219 6 6 WB I-94 1921 63 166 4 6 Scio Church Rd 846 9 0 15 0 Steeplechase Dr 2 0 0 0 0

Table 9: Pre and Post-Construction Traffic Volumes during the PM hours

Roadway Segment Volumes by Vehicle Type1

Autos Medium Trucks

Heavy Trucks Buses Motorcycles

EB I-94 2013 66 174 4 6 WB I-94 3318 108 287 7 11 Scio Church Rd 846 9 0 15 0 Steeplechase Dr 2 0 0 0 0

Fourteen (14) residential properties and two (2) parks were identified as being within 500 ft of I-94, which is the dominant traffic noise source. Based on field observations, the parks in this area (Eisenhower Park and Churchill Downs Park) are infrequently used for dog walking. As a result of the low usage rate, these properties were viewed as non-sensitive areas (NAC F or G). The locations of the fourteen (14) residential properties that are sensitive to traffic noise from I-94 are depicted in Appendix D. The results of the preliminary noise impact analysis are provided in Table 10 and Table 11. The addresses that are provide were obtained from the Ann Arbor GIS site. The preliminary noise analysis did not include an analysis of post construction noise levels because the configuration of the detention ponds were in the process of being developed.



Table 10: Loudest Hour Noise Levels, dB(A) Leq (1h); AM Peak

Receiver Location (Address)

Noise Levels, Leq (1h) (dB(A))

Existing Post-Construction R01 (2040 Wiltshire Ct) 57.5

To Be Determined

R02 (2045 Wiltshire Ct) 58.4 R03 (2035 Wiltshire Ct) 60.5 R04 (2025 Wiltshire Ct) 61.1 R05 (2015 Wiltshire Ct) 60.8 R06 (2100 Steeplechase Dr) 61.3 R07 (2110 Steeplechase Dr) 62.2 R08 (2120 Steeplechase Dr) 63.2 R09 (2130 Steeplechase Dr) 62.9 R10 (2140 Steeplechase Dr) 62.2 R11 (2150 Steeplechase Dr) 61.9 R12 (2160 Steeplechase Dr) 59.7 R13 (2170 Steeplechase Dr) 61.2 R14 (2180 Steeplechase Dr) 59.7 Table 11: Loudest Hour Noise Levels, dB(A) Leq (1h); PM Peak

Receiver Location (Address)

Noise Levels, Leq (1h) (dB(A))

Existing Post-Construction R01 (2040 Wiltshire Ct) 57.7

To Be Determined

R02 (2045 Wiltshire Ct) 58.9 R03 (2035 Wiltshire Ct) 61.3 R04 (2025 Wiltshire Ct) 62.0 R05 (2015 Wiltshire Ct) 61.6 R06 (2100 Steeplechase Dr) 62.1 R07 (2110 Steeplechase Dr) 63.1 R08 (2120 Steeplechase Dr) 64.1 R09 (2130 Steeplechase Dr) 63.7 R10 (2140 Steeplechase Dr) 62.9 R11 (2150 Steeplechase Dr) 62.5 R12 (2160 Steeplechase Dr) 63.4 R13 (2170 Steeplechase Dr) 63.1 R14 (2180 Steeplechase Dr) 60.7 Based on the TMN predicted noise levels and the current NAC criteria, none of the residential properties in this area would be considered noise impacted receiver. Due to the lack of impacted receivers, highway noise abatement would not be considered for this area at this time. The final version of this report will include post-construction noise values and the difference between the existing and post-construction noise levels.



5. FUTURE NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES Based on the existing condition and the TMN predicted noise levels, highway noise abatement was not anticipated during the development of this report. If the configuration of the preferred pond has an adverse impact on the acoustic environment, highway noise abatement may be considered for this area in the future. If the I-94 corridor experiences a significant traffic growth, this area may receive additional consideration.



6. REFERENCES Anderson, G. S., C.S.Y. Lee, G.G. Fleming and C. Menge, “FHWA Traffic Noise Model®, Version 1.0 User’s Guide”, Federal Highway Administration, January 1998, p. 60. “Commission Policy”, (Guidance Document 10136), Michigan Transportation Commission, Michigan Department of Transportation, July 31, 2003. Lau, Michael C., Cynthia S. Y. Lee, Gregg G. Judith L. Rochat, Eric R. Boeker, and Gregg C. Fleming. FHWA Traffic Noise Model® Users Guide (Version 2.5 Addendum). Federal Highway Administration, April 2004. “Highway Noise Analysis and Abatement Handbook” Michigan Department of Transportation, July 13, 2011. http://michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_HighwayNoiseAnalysis_and_AbatementHandbook_358156_7.pdf “Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance”, Federal Highway Administration, January 2011. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/revguidance.pdf Reherman, Clay N., Rochat, Judith L., Thalheimer, Erich S., Lau, Michael C., Fleming, Gregg G., Ferroni, Mark, and Corbisier, Christopher, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.0 User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration, January 2006. “Report to the President and Congress on Noise”, National Service Center for Environmental Publications, February 1972. Title 23 CFR Part 772, “Procedure for abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise”, Code of Federal Regulations http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/23cfr772.htm

Appendix A Measurement Site Information:

Noise Measurements

SITE / LOCATION: Site 1: Northern side of the park DATE: 6/28/17

Measurement AM Peak

Time Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto. Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto.7:40 AM 225 3 16 0 1 169 2 16 0 17:45 AM 238 8 11 0 0 181 5 12 1 07:50 AM 211 8 11 0 0 181 6 16 1 37:55 AM 206 2 24 2 1 168 0 7 0 1

Traffic Counts (Veh/Hr):Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto.

EB I-94 2640 63 186 6 6WB I-94 2097 39 153 6 15

Time Leq Max Min7:40 AM 62.6 67.6 58.4 Leq 62.30 dBA7:45 AM 62.5 68.6 57.67:50 AM 62.3 68.6 57.67:55 AM 62.3 68.6 57.6 Leq 61.00 dBA

Measurement Off Peak



EB I-94 1623 102 213 9 3WB I-94 1725 69 219 0 6


Measurement PM Peak

Time Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto. Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto.4:05 PM 160 5 8 2 0 292 8 15 0 34:10 PM 173 5 7 0 1 264 10 13 1 04:15 PM 174 2 11 0 1 305 8 14 0 3


EB I-94 2028 48 104 8 8WB I-94 3444 104 168 4 24

Time Leq Max Min4:05 PM 62.2 69.8 57.9 Leq 61.90 dBA4:10 PM 62.4 69.8 57.44:15 PM 61.9 69.8 55.4

Leq 61.50 dBA

EB I-94 WB I-94

Measure sound levels

Modeled noise level

EB I-94

WB I-94


Modeled noise level

WB I-94


Modeled noise level

EB I-94

A-1

Noise Measurements

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS:

Looking N Looking W

Looking E

A-2

Noise Measurements

SITE / LOCATION: Site 2: Western side of the park DATE: 6/28/17

Measurement AM Peak



EB I-94 2397 66 255 3 12WB I-94 1683 45 222 9 0





EB I-94 1413 87 240 3 0WB I-94 1683 48 246 3 3

Time Leq Max Min10:20 AM 68.1 74.4 59 Leq 67.60 dBA10:25 AM 68 75.2 56.610:30 AM 67.7 75.2 56.610:35 AM 67.6 75.2 55.4 Leq 67.60 dBA

Measurement PM Peak



EB I-94 1812 96 88 0 8WB I-94 3360 72 204 0 12

Time Leq Max Min4:25 PM 65.9 73.6 58.2 Leq 66.00 dBA4:30 PM 65.9 73.6 56.84:35 PM 66 73.6 56.8

Leq 67.70 dBA

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

A-3

Noise Measurements

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS:

Looking N Looking E

Looking S

A-4

Noise Measurements

SITE / LOCATION: Site 3: Park entrance sidewalk DATE: 6/28/17

Measurement AM Peak



EB I-94 2628 66 201 0 12WB I-94 1935 69 162 9 6

Time Leq Max Min8:20 AM 63.1 68.3 58.3 Leq 63.00 dBA8:25 AM 63.1 68.3 588:30 AM 63.3 69.3 588:35 AM 63 69.3 55.4 Leq 63.70 dBA




EB I-94 1545 69 210 0 3WB I-94 1752 48 213 0 21


Measurement PM Peak

Time Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto. Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto.5:05 PM 176 4 11 0 4 300 1 13 0 05:10 PM 218 1 10 0 0 274 1 14 0 35:15 PM 198 3 4 0 2 285 5 18 0 15:20 PM 153 4 2 1 0 295 3 11 1 1


EB I-94 2235 36 81 3 18WB I-94 3462 30 168 3 15

Time Leq Max Min5:05 PM 65.9 72.9 59.5 Leq 67.00 dBA Lawn mowing 5:10 PM 67.2 74.1 59.55:15 PM 67 74.1 59.55:20 PM 67 74.1 59.1 Leq 64.00 dBA

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

A-5

Noise Measurements

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS:

Looking E Looking S

Looking W

A-6

Noise Measurements

SITE / LOCATION: Site 4: Southern side of the park DATE: 6/28/17

Measurement AM Peak



EB I-94 2493 81 198 3 6WB I-94 1908 93 168 9 9

Time Leq Max Min8:45 AM 65.1 69.5 59.5 Leq 65.10 dBA8:50 AM 65 71.6 57.48:55 AM 65 72.6 57.49:00 AM 65.1 73.7 55.6 Leq 63.80 dBA


Time Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto. Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto.11:00 AM 110 5 29 0 1 109 5 12 0 011:05 AM 144 3 14 0 0 103 5 15 1 111:10 AM 121 8 21 0 0 119 7 11 0 0


EB I-94 1500 64 256 0 4WB I-94 1324 68 152 4 4

Time Leq Max Min11:00 AM 64.3 76.2 58.8 Leq 64.60 dBA11:05 AM 64.8 76.2 57.211:10 AM 64.6 76.2 57.2

Leq 63.90 dBA

Measurement PM Peak

Time Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto. Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto.4:45 PM 178 4 13 0 0 319 3 9 0 04:50 PM 168 4 11 0 1 299 2 13 1 24:55 PM 172 4 7 0 1 280 3 9 0 05:00 PM 171 6 10 1 1 290 5 16 0 3


EB I-94 2067 54 123 3 9WB I-94 3564 39 141 3 15

Time Leq Max Min4:45 PM 64 69.4 57.8 Leq 64.20 dBA4:50 PM 64.2 71.4 57.84:55 PM 64.3 75.1 57.85:00 PM 64.2 75.1 57 Leq 64.60 dBA

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

A-7

Noise Measurements

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS:

Looking E Looking S

Looking W

A-8

Noise Measurements

SITE / LOCATION: Site 5: Wilshire Dr and Steeplechase Dr DATE: 6/28/17

Measurement AM Peak

Time Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto. Auto Med. Truck Hvy Truck Bus Moto.9:10 AM 159 9 12 1 1 123 13 25 0 09:15 AM 146 5 23 0 1 131 9 24 1 09:20 AM 166 5 13 0 0 155 9 25 2 09:25 AM 167 7 20 1 1 108 14 17 0 09:30 AM 137 7 8 0 0 141 6 19 0 0


EB I-94 1860 79 182 5 7WB I-94 1579 122 264 7 0

Time Leq Max Min9:10 AM 57.5 62.1 51.6 Leq 58.30 dBA9:15 AM 57.7 65.2 519:20 AM 58 65.2 519:25 AM 58.5 68.2 51 Leq 58.70 dBA9:30 AM 58.3 68.2 51




EB I-94 1869 87 234 3 9WB I-94 1677 87 246 9 0

Time Leq Max Min9:35 AM 57.5 66.8 51.1 Leq 58.00 dBA9:40 AM 57.2 66.8 51.19:45 AM 57.8 66.8 51.19:50 AM 58 66.8 51.1 Leq 58.80 dBA

Measurement PM Peak



EB I-94 1940 76 140 0 8WB I-94 2908 88 160 12 8

Time Leq Max Min3:50 PM 58.6 64.4 53.4 Leq 58.50 dBA3:55 PM 58.5 64.4 53.44:00 PM 58.5 65.1 53.4

Leq 58.10 dBA

EB I-94 WB I-94


EB I-94 WB I-94

Modeled noise level


Modeled noise level

EB I-94 WB I-94


Modeled noise level

A-9

Noise Measurements

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS:

Looking N Looking W

Looking S

A-10

Appendix B Weather Information:

Appendix C Local Information

7/6/2017

Scale is 1:8,260

Appendix D Project Figures

C/L

ALIG

NMENT PER

MDOT PLA

NS

MEASUREMENT SITES

RESIDENTIAL SITES

CS:

JN:

TSC:

DATE:

DESIGN UNIT:

DRAWING SHEET

0 200

HORZ. (FT)

SITE LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 1

FILE: 1

R01

R02

R03

R04

R05

R06

R07

R08

R09

R10

R11

R12

R13

R14

R10

N

M1

M2M3

M4

M5

M1

Documents

Interim Noise Study Report - Washtenaw County, MI