Noise Study Report - sr29.com Study Report.pdf · This roadway capacity improvement project involves widening State Road 29 from the ... Traffic Report for SR 29 from North of SR

DRAFT NOISE STUDY REPORT

State Road 29 Project Development and Environment Study

From North of S.R. 82 to South of C.R. 80A in Hendry and Collier Counties, Florida

Financial Project No. 417878 2 22 01 Federal Aid Project No. TBD

ETDM Project No. 8668

Florida Department of Transportation, District One 801 North Broadway

Bartow, Florida 33831

September 2010

DRAFT NOISE STUDY REPORT

State Road 29 Project Development and Environment Study

From North of S.R. 82 to South of C.R. 80A in Hendry and Collier Counties, Florida

Financial Project No. 417878 2 22 01 Federal Aid Project No. TBD

ETDM Project No. 8668

This roadway capacity improvement project involves widening State Road 29 from the existing two-lane undivided rural arterial to a divided four-lane arterial to accommodate projected growth in the area. This Noise Study Report was prepared in accordance with the methodology established in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (April 1, 2009), and the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual, Part 2, Chapter 17 (April 18, 2007).

Prepared for:

Florida Department of Transportation, District One 801 North Broadway

Bartow, Florida 33831

Prepared by:

AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 5802 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite 100

Tampa, Florida 33610

September 2010

State Road 29 PD&E Study Noise Study Report From S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A ES-1 FPN: 417878 2 22 01

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has conducted a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study to evaluate the proposed widening of State Road (S.R.) 29 from S.R. 82 in Collier County to County Road (C.R.) 80A in Hendry County. The total project length is 18.0 miles, of which 2.1 miles are in Collier County and the remaining 15.9 miles are in Hendry County.

The purposes of the PD&E study are to evaluate engineering and environmental data and document information that will aid FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in determining the type, preliminary design and location of the proposed improvements. The study was conducted in order to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other related federal and state laws, rules and regulations.

The objectives of the noise study are to identify noise sensitive sites adjacent to the S.R. 29 project corridor; compare and evaluate the traffic noise levels at these sites with and without the project; and evaluate reasonable and feasible noise abatement measures. An additional objective is to estimate future noise contours adjacent to the project corridor to assist local officials in the development of setback requirements for future noise sensitive land uses.

This Noise Study Report was prepared in accordance with the methodology established in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (April 1, 2009), and the FDOT PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 17 (April 18, 2007).

The Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 was used to predict traffic noise levels at 240 noise sensitive sites located adjacent to the project corridor. All noise levels described in this Noise Study Report are expressed in A-weighted decibels (dBA) in terms of one-hour equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq1h).

For the preferred build alternative 2035 traffic conditions, 159 noise sensitive sites will approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). The affected sites consist of 157 residences, the cemetery at Mt. Zion Primitive Baptist Church, and the playground at the Redlands Christian Migrant Association daycare/child development center.

Noise abatement measures were evaluated for these sites. It was determined that traffic system management techniques, alignment modifications and property acquisition are not feasible and reasonable abatement measures. Land use controls were identified as a feasible abatement measure that could be used in the future by local officials to minimize the permitting and construction of incompatible land uses along the S.R. 29 corridor.

State Road 29 PD&E Study Noise Study Report From S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A ES-2 FPN: 417878 2 22 01

According to Part 2, Chapter 17 of the PD&E Manual, noise barriers will not be considered for recreational uses such as golf courses, isolated picnic tables, outdoor basketball or tennis courts, sports fields, walking trails and similar areas of less frequent human use.

Experience has shown that because of limited usage, sites like these will not meet the cost criteria for special use facilities. As such, there does not appear to be any feasible and cost reasonable abatement measures for the cemetery and playground.

Noise barriers were considered for the 157 affected residences. The results of the evaluations indicate that noise barriers would not be a feasible and cost reasonable method of reducing traffic noise levels for the affected residences along S.R. 29. To effectively reduce traffic noise, a noise barrier must be relatively long, continuous (with no intermittent openings for driveways, etc.) and of sufficient height. Because of the need to maintain existing driveways and access to S.R. 29, openings would have to be constructed in most of the considered barriers. The results from TNM indicate that these openings would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the barriers considered and, thereby, reduce the feasibility of most of the barriers as a noise abatement measure. In addition, most of the noise sensitive sites are spread out, rather than grouped. Therefore, they cannot achieve the density necessary to obtain a noise barrier cost per benefited site that meets FDOT cost reasonable guidelines.

Only land use control appears to be a feasible and cost reasonable solution to mitigate for future traffic noise levels. Copies of this Noise Study Report will be sent to Collier and Hendry Counties to assist them in permitting future noise-compatible land uses along S.R. 29.

This Noise Study Report was put on display for public review for 32 days, from October 25 through November 26, 2010, at the Barron Library in LaBelle and at FDOT’s District One Headquarters in Bartow. The results were presented at a public hearing held on November 16, 2010, at the LaBelle Civic Center, 481 W. Hickpochee Avenue in LaBelle.

Because of the elapsed time between when the noise study was performed and when the Project Development Summary Report will be signed by FHWA (date of public knowledge), the potential exists for additional residential building permits to be granted subsequent to this study. Any noise analysis performed during the design phase of this project will include a review of building permit dates.

State Road 29 PD&E Study Noise Study Report From S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A i FPN: 417878 2 22 01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Need for Improvement ........................................................................................ 1-3

1.3 Proposed Alternatives ......................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Production Schedule ........................................................................................... 1-7

2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Evaluation Process ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Traffic Noise Model ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Traffic Data ......................................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Noise Sensitive Sites .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Noise Abatement Criteria .................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Measured Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 3-4

3.4 Predicted Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 3-5

4.0 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Traffic Management Measures ............................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Alignment Modifications ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Land Use Controls .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.4 Noise Barriers ..................................................................................................... 4-2

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION .......................................................... 6-1

7.0 PUBLIC COORDINATION ...................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Public Meetings ................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Public Comments ................................................................................................ 7-1

7.3 Coordination with Local Officials ......................................................................... 7-1

8.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 8-1

Appendix A Concept Plans with Noise Data Appendix B TNM Validation Data Appendix C Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Appendix D Public Comments and FDOT Responses Appendix E TNM Input and Output Files (provided on CD)

State Road 29 PD&E Study Noise Study Report From S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A ii FPN: 417878 2 22 01

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Project Location Map...................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 1-2. Pavement Saving Rural Typical Section in 232 feet of Right-of-way ............... 1-5

Figure 1-3. Pavement Saving Rural Typical Section in 200 feet of Right-of-way ............... 1-6

Figure 1-4. High Speed Suburban Typical Section ........................................................... 1-6

Figure 1-5. High Speed Urban Typical Section ................................................................. 1-7

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. FDOT’s Adopted Five Year Work Program (FY 2010-2014) ............................ 1-7

Table 2-1. Traffic Data for Noise Study.............................................................................. 2-2

Table 3-1. Noise Sensitive Sites by Land Use .................................................................. 3-1

Table 3-2. Noise Abatement Criteria ................................................................................ 3-3

Table 3-3. Noise Model Validations .................................................................................. 3-4

Table 4-1. 66-dBA Noise Contour for Preferred Build Alternative ..................................... 4-2

Table 4-2. Noise Barrier 1 – Station 59+00 to 62+00, Right .............................................. 4-4

Table 4-3. Noise Barrier 2 – Station 70+00 to 76+00, Right .............................................. 4-5

Table 4-4. Noise Barrier 3 – Station 107+00 to 113+00, Left ............................................ 4-6

Table 4-5. Noise Barrier 4 – Station 122+00 to 126+00, Right .......................................... 4-7



Table 4-8. Noise Barrier 7 – Station 160+00 to 165+00, Left .......................................... 4-10

Table 4-9. Noise Barrier 8 – Station 206+00 to 216+00, Left .......................................... 4-11

Table 4-10. Noise Barrier 9 – Station 553+00 to 560+00, Right ...................................... 4-12

Table 4-11. Noise Barrier 10 – Station 614+00 to 622+00, Right .................................... 4-14

Table 4-12. Noise Barrier 11 – Station 786+00 to 789+00, Left ...................................... 4-15

Table 4-13. Noise Barrier 12 – Station 848+00 to 852+00, Left ...................................... 4-16

State Road 29 PD&E Study Noise Study Report From S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A 1-1 FPN: 417878 2 22 01

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has conducted a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study to evaluate the proposed widening of State Road (S.R.) 29 from S.R. 82 in Collier County to County Road (C.R.) 80A in Hendry County. The total project length is 18.0 miles, of which 2.1 miles are in Collier County and the remaining 15.9 miles are in Hendry County. The project limits are shown in Figure 1-1.

The purposes of the PD&E study are to evaluate engineering and environmental data and document information that will aid FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in determining the type, preliminary design and location of the proposed improvements. The study was conducted in order to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other related federal and state laws, rules and regulations.

1.1 Project Description

The proposed action involves widening S.R. 29 from the existing two-lane undivided rural arterial to a divided four-lane arterial to accommodate projected growth in the area. S.R. 29 plays an important role in the regional roadway network as part of Florida's Emerging Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). It connects major east-west freight corridors, residential communities and employment centers throughout Collier and Hendry Counties.

S.R. 29 also serves as an important evacuation route connecting other major arterials indentified in Florida’s evacuation network, including S.R. 82 and S.R. 80. Widening S.R. 29 will increase capacity and efficiency, leading to improved evacuation and emergency response times.

S.R. 29 is classified as a rural principal arterial from south of S.R. 82 to South Industrial Loop Road. From South Industrial Loop Road to north of C.R. 80A, S.R. 29 is classified as an urban principal arterial. The existing right-of-way width within the S.R. 29 PD&E study limits varies from 100 feet to 200 feet. The existing typical section for S.R. 29 is a two-lane undivided rural arterial with two 12-foot lanes and 5-foot paved shoulders. Stormwater runoff is collected in roadside swales.

The S.R. 29 segments immediately north and south of this project are being evaluated by FDOT in separate PD&E studies. The southern study limits extend from Oil Well Road to S.R. 82 in Collier County (FPID: 417540 1 22 01). The northern study limits extend from C.R. 80A in Hendry County to U.S. 27 in Glades County (FPID: 417878 1 22 01).


Figure 1-1. Project Location Map


1.2 Need for Improvement

The need for the proposed widening is documented in the traffic report prepared prior to the PD&E study. Future traffic volumes on S.R. 29 from S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A are projected to increase from a current volume of 6,200 vehicles per day to 23,800 vehicles per day by the design year of 2035. This projected growth in traffic is the direct result of the predicted regional growth in both population and employment. Without the proposed widening of S.R. 29, the two-lane facility is predicted to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) D by the year 2015, a LOS E by 2025, and a LOS F by 2035. These are all below the acceptable LOS C for two-lane SIS facilities in rural areas.

The need for the proposed improvements to S.R. 29 is also identified in both the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization’s 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Hendry County’s 2030 LRTP. Serving as one of two major north-south roadways within Hendry County, as well as an important intrastate freight corridor, the expansion of S.R. 29 to four lanes is anticipated to enhance traffic circulation, goods movement, emergency response times, hurricane evacuation events, and safety for motorists and pedestrians.

The proposed widening will likely enhance safety on S.R. 29 by improving overall traffic operations. Based on data obtained from the FDOT Safety Office, crash rates on this segment of S.R. 29 have increased over the last three of the five years examined (2001-2005), while the statewide average crash rates for similar facility types (two-lane undivided) have decreased.

1.3 Proposed Alternatives

The objective of the alternatives analysis process is to identify technically and environmentally sound alternatives that meet the traffic needs of the project, improve safety, are cost effective, and are acceptable to the community. This section describes the alternatives that were considered, results of the alternatives evaluation and details of the preferred alternative.

1.3.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative assumes that S.R. 29 would remain two lanes through the design year of 2035. Only routine maintenance would be performed during this period. The traffic analysis conducted for the No-Build Alternative indicates that S.R. 29 will operate at a LOS F by 2035 without the proposed widening. This is below the acceptable LOS C standard for two-lane SIS facilities in rural areas.


The following is a list of distinct advantages and limitations associated with the No-Build Alternative:

Advantages of the No-Build Alternative

No additional right-of-way would be acquired.

No design, right-of-way or construction costs.

No delays to motorists or inconveniences to property owners during construction.

No construction impacts to the adjacent natural, physical and social environment.

Limitations of the No-Build Alternative

Increased traffic congestion and user costs associated with increased delays.

Increased potential for crashes due to congested lanes and intersections.

Incompatibility with the adopted Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the planned amendment to the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan.

Increased emergency vehicle response times.

Increased vehicle emission pollutants due to growing traffic congestion.

The No-Build Alternative will remain a viable alternative throughout this PD&E study.

1.3.2 Preferred Alternative

According to the traffic analysis conducted prior to the PD&E study, four travel lanes are needed by the year 2015 to provide an acceptable level of service. Various roadway typical sections and alignment alternatives intended to meet the need for four lanes were evaluated. Based on the analysis of the various roadway improvement alternatives that were developed for S.R. 29, one improvement has been selected as the preferred build alternative. This preferred build alternative is described below.

The preferred build alternative consists of a combination of four typical sections - two pavement saving rural sections, a high speed suburban section, and a high speed urban section. The proposed alignment would shift both east and west of the existing centerline to minimize potential environmental and right-of-way impacts. The majority of the right-of-way to be acquired would come from the west side of S.R. 29. The concept for the preferred alternative is provided in Appendix A.


The first typical section is a pavement saving rural section with two newly constructed 12-foot travel lanes, two existing 12-foot travel lanes, a 40-foot grassed median, 6-foot inside shoulders, 8-foot outside shoulders (5 feet paved) and ditches on both sides of the roadway. The design speed would be 65 miles per hour (mph). It would be constructed in the two segments of the project limits where the existing right-of-way width is 200 feet – from S.R. 82 to the Collier-Hendry County line and from north of the Twelvemile Slough bridge culvert to “G” Road, a distance of 7.3 miles. The new pavement would become the southbound travel lanes and the existing pavement would become the northbound lanes. As shown in Figure 1-2, an additional 32 feet of right-of-way will be required, primarily along the west side of S.R. 29, for a total right-of-way width of 232 feet. The additional 32 feet would be needed to meet border width requirements and to accommodate drainage features.

Figure 1-2. Pavement Saving Rural Typical Section in 232 feet of Right-of-way

The second proposed typical section is also a pavement saving rural typical section, but it would be used in the two segments where the existing right-of-way width is 100 feet – from the Collier-Hendry County line to north of the Twelvemile Slough bridge culvert and from “G” Road to Spencer Street, a distance of 5.7 miles. As shown in Figure 1-3, it would consist of two newly constructed 12-foot travel lanes, two existing 12-foot travel lanes, a 40-foot grassed median, 6-foot inside shoulders, 8-foot outside shoulders (5 feet paved), ditches on both sides of the roadway, and a design speed of 65 mph. An additional 100 feet of right-of-way would be required for this typical section for a total width of 200 feet.


Figure 1-3. Pavement Saving Rural Typical Section in 200 feet of Right-of-way

This typical section would require a variation for border width on the east side were the existing right-of-way would be held (i.e., right side as shown above). By holding the existing right-of-way line, the border width would be 30 feet from the existing shoulder point. The standard width is 40 feet for facilities with design speeds greater than 45 mph.

The third proposed typical section is a high speed suburban section and would consist of four 12-foot travel lanes, a 30-foot median with 4-foot inside paved shoulders, 6.5-foot outside paved shoulders, a 5-foot sidewalk on both sides, curb and gutter on all shoulders, and a design speed of 55 mph. The third typical section would extend 4.3 miles from south of Spencer Street to South Industrial Loop Road, where the existing right-of-way width is 100 feet. As shown in Figure 1-4, an additional 48 feet of right-of-way would be required to accommodate this typical section for a total width of 148 feet.

Figure 1-4. High Speed Suburban Typical Section


The fourth proposed typical section is a high speed urban section and would consist of four 12-foot travel lanes, a 30-foot median with 4-foot inside paved shoulders, 6.5-foot outside paved shoulders, a 5-foot sidewalk on both sides, curb and gutter on all shoulders, and a design speed of 50 mph. As shown in Figure 1-5, an additional 36 feet of right-of-way would be required for this typical section. The fourth typical section would extend the remaining 0.4 mile from South Industrial Loop Road to south of C.R. 80A.

Figure 1-5. High Speed Urban Typical Section

1.4 Production Schedule

The information from FDOT’s adopted five year work program (FY 2010-2014) for S.R. 29 from S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A is summarized in Table 1-1. As shown, the subsequent phases of this project are not currently funded.

Table 1-1. FDOT’s Adopted Five Year Work Program (FY 2010-2014)

S.R. 29 Design Right-of-Way Construction

FPN 417878-2: from S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A Not Funded Not Funded Not Funded


2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Evaluation Process

The objectives of the noise study are to identify noise sensitive sites adjacent to the S.R. 29 project corridor; compare and evaluate the traffic noise levels at these sites with and without the project; and evaluate noise abatement measures where warranted. Additional objectives include the evaluation of construction noise and the estimation of future noise level contours adjacent to the project corridor. This information will assist local officials in the development of setback requirements for future noise sensitive land uses.

This study was prepared in accordance with 23 CFR, Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The evaluation uses methodology established by the FDOT and documented in the PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 17 (April 18, 2007). The predicted noise levels presented in this report are expressed in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale (dBA). This scale most closely approximates the response characteristics of the human ear to traffic noise. All noise levels are reported as equivalent level (LAeq1h) values, which is the equivalent steady-state sound level for a one-hour period that contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period.

2.2 Traffic Noise Model

The prediction of existing and future traffic noise levels with and without the preferred build alternative was performed using FHWA’s computer model for highway traffic noise prediction and analysis – the Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5 (TNM). TNM predicts sound energy, in one-third octave bands, between highways and nearby receivers taking the intervening ground’s acoustical characteristics and topography. TNM was used to predict traffic noise levels at noise sensitive land uses located within 500 feet of S.R. 29.

2.3 Traffic Data

To simulate “worst-case” noise conditions, LOS C average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were modeled. Traffic data used in the noise analysis are documented in the Final Technical Memorandum Project Traffic Report for S.R. 29. Traffic data for the existing, 2035 No-Build and 2035 Build conditions are presented in Table 2-1. The factor used to reduce the average daily traffic volumes to hourly volumes (K-factor), the peak direction factor (D-factor), and the truck factors used to divide hourly volumes between cars, medium trucks (MT) and heavy trucks (HT) are also presented. The vehicle speeds used in TNM are based on existing posted speed limits.


Table 2-1. Traffic Data for Noise Study

Existing Condition (2007)

S.R. 29 Traffic Segment Number of Lanes

LOS C ADT

Peak Direction Hourly Volumes

Off-Peak Direction Hourly Volumes

% MT % HT K-

factor D-

factor Posted Speed Cars MT HT Cars MT HT

S.R. 82 to Keri Road 2 12900 610 43 44 540 38 39 6.2% 6.3% 10.19% 53.0% 60 Keri Road to Wilson Road 2 12900 610 43 44 540 38 39 6.2% 6.3% 10.19% 53.0% 60 Wilson Road to Industrial Loop Road 2 12900 610 43 44 540 38 39 6.2% 6.3% 10.19% 53.0% 50 Industrial Loop Road to C.R. 80A 2 12900 610 43 44 540 38 39 6.2% 6.3% 10.19% 53.0% 45

Design Year (2035) No-Build Alternative


LOS C ADT



% MT % HT K-

factor D-



Design Year (2035) Build Alternative


LOS C ADT



% MT % HT K-

factor D-



Source: Districtwide System Planning Final Project Traffic Report for SR 29 from North of SR 82 to US 27 in Collier, Hendry, & Glades County, Florida (May 2008; FPN 202075 1 12 02).


3.0 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS

3.1 Noise Sensitive Sites

A noise sensitive site is any property (owner occupied, rented, or leased) where frequent exterior human use occurs and where a lowered noise level would be of benefit. Many commercial and/or industrial land uses are not particularly noise sensitive and may not require consideration of noise abatement. Undeveloped land is not considered to be noise sensitive.

Field reviews of the project corridor revealed 240 noise sensitive sites within the study corridor that may be affected by the preferred build alternative. The breakdown of the identified sites is given in the following table. The locations of these sites are mapped on the concept plans provided in Appendix A.

Table 3-1. Noise Sensitive Sites by Land Use

Number of Sites Land Use Description

222 Residential Single family and multi-family homes on both sides of S.R. 29. The homes are typically isolated and have driveways connecting directly to S.R. 29. Some of these homes are within a few feet of S.R. 29.

11 Commercial

Represented by TNM Site Numbers 10, 12, 31-33, 50, 88, 89, 114, 171 and 206. These sites were identified as potential noise sensitive sites at the time of the initial field review. During subsequent field reviews it was determined that these sites are actually commercial businesses.

1 Vacant Lot

Represented by TNM Site Number 22. This site was a vacant residence at the time of the initial field review. During subsequent field review it was discovered that the residences had been removed.

3 Relocations Represented by TNM Site Numbers 34, 40 and 42. These three sites will be relocated to acquire the right-of-way necessary for the widening of S.R. 29.

1 Cemetery Represented by TNM Site Number 39. This site is a cemetery on the east side of the Mt. Zion Primitive Baptist Church.

1 Day Care Playground

Represented by TNM Site Number 198. This site is the daycare operated by the Redland Christian Migrant Association at 3749 S.R. 29 South in LaBelle. The facility has a playground on the east side of the building.

1 Church Represented by TNM Site Number 214. This site is the Community Harvest Worship Center at 55 Orange Avenue in LaBelle. A picnic table on the west side of the church was identified.


Points representing the noise sensitive sites were mapped in TNM in accordance with the FDOT PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 17 (April 18, 2007), as follows:

TNM points for the residential, commercial, and church sites were placed at the edge of the building closest to S.R. 29.

TNM points for outdoor areas (e.g. daycare playground and cemetery) were placed near the perimeter of the outdoor area closest to S.R. 29.

In addition to the established residential areas, the traffic noise evaluation attempted to identify residential areas that have been planned, designed and programmed. Development will be deemed planned, designed and programmed if a proposed noise sensitive land use such as a residence has received a building permit from the local agency with jurisdiction for each building prior to the date of public knowledge (i.e., date the environmental document is approved by FHWA). No such developments were identified at the time of this study.

Because of the elapsed time between when the noise study was performed and when the date of public knowledge will be established, the potential exists for additional residential building permits to be granted subsequent to this study. Any noise analysis performed during the design phase of this project will include a review of building permit dates.

3.2 Noise Abatement Criteria

The FHWA has established noise levels at which abatement must be considered. These noise levels are referred to as the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). The NAC are noise impact thresholds for considering abatement measures. The NAC are not attenuation design criteria or targets. The basic goals of the NAC, as they apply to highway projects, are to minimize the adverse noise effects on the community during the operation of the project and, where necessary and appropriate, to provide feasible and reasonable noise control. As shown in Table 3-2, the NAC vary according to land use activity category.


Table 3-2. Noise Abatement Criteria

Activity Category LAeq1h (dBA) Description of Activity

A 57 Exterior

Lands on which serenity and quietness of extraordinary significance serve an important public purpose 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.

D -- Undeveloped lands.

E 52 Interior

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Source: 23 CFR Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, Federal Highway Administration, April 1, 2009.

As defined in 23 CFR 772, traffic noise impacts occur when predicted future traffic noise levels associated with the proposed improvements approach or exceed the NAC or when predicted future traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing condition noise levels. FDOT defines “approach” to mean within 1 dBA of the NAC. A substantial increase in noise is defined as an increase of 15 or more decibels above the existing noise level as a direct result of the transportation improvement project in question.

Activity Category B applies to all of the residential sites evaluated, as well as the cemetery, church, and daycare playground. Under Activity Category B, noise abatement measures would be considered if the predicted future exterior levels from the proposed improvements are 66 dBA or higher or if the predicted future traffic noise levels exceed the existing condition noise levels by 15 dBA or more. Since the proposed improvement consists of widening an existing road, and not the construction of a new facility, a substantial increase above existing conditions is not likely to occur.

Activity Category C applies to any commercial site that might also be noise sensitive. According to Chapter 17 of the PD&E Manual, noise abatement will not be considered for commercial or industrial property unless there is an exterior use that is particularly noise sensitive (area of frequent human use where a lowered noise level would be of benefit). This does not occur within the study limits. In addition, most commercial and industrial properties desire visibility from existing roadways, and the placement of a noise barrier could have


unintended economic impacts. It was determined that none of the commercial sites identified during the initial field review and mapped in Appendix A are noise sensitive.

3.3 Measured Noise Levels

As previously stated, existing and future noise levels with and without the preferred build alternative were modeled using TNM. To validate the accuracy of TNM as a prediction model, traffic noise levels were measured on February 13, 2009, at two locations adjacent to S.R. 29. Site selection for the field measurements was based on the location of noise sensitive sites and access to sites where a representative sampling of free-flow traffic could be obtained. The two selected sites are mapped in Appendix A at the Palm & Pine Park (Station 59+50, right) and in the front yard of a residence south of “A” Road (Station 715+00, right).

Traffic data including vehicle volumes by type, vehicle speeds, and meteorological conditions were recorded during each measurement period. The measurements were taken following procedures documented in Measurement of Highway-Related Noise (FHWA, 1996) using a Quest Sound Pro DL sound level meter. The sound level meter was calibrated using a Quest QC-10 sound calibrator. Speeds of passing vehicles were recorded with a Stalker Sport radar gun. The recorded traffic data were used as input in TNM to determine if, given the topography and actual site conditions of the area, the computer model could “recreate” the measured levels with the existing roadway.

Table 3-3 presents the field measurements and the validation results for S.R. 29. Following FDOT guidelines, a noise prediction model is considered within the accepted level of accuracy if the measured and predicted noise levels are within a tolerance standard of 3 dBA. As shown, the ability of the model to predict noise levels within the FDOT limits of plus or minus 3 dBA for the project was confirmed. Documentation in support of the validation is provided in Appendix B of this report.

Table 3-3. Noise Model Validations

Site Run Measured LAeq1h

Predicted LAeq1h Difference

Palm & Pine RV Park (Station 59+50, right)

1 56.8 58.5 1.7

2 58.5 58.6 0.1

3 58.4 58.7 0.3

Residence south of “A” Road (Station 715+00, right)

1 67.1 68.8 1.7

2 65.3 67.0 1.7

3 66.7 67.1 0.4


3.4 Predicted Noise Levels

The predicted traffic noise levels modeled for noise sensitive sites along S.R. 29 are listed in Appendix C by noise sensitive site. The existing and future year (2035) noise levels with and without the proposed widening are provided. The predicted noise levels for the existing condition and future year (2035) scenario without the widening of S.R. 29 (no-build alternative) are the same because the number of lanes along S.R. 29 is the same – two lanes. In addition, the maximum free-flow traffic volume is the same for both scenarios.

Of the 240 noise sensitive sites within the study limits, 159 noise sensitive sites are predicted to potentially be affected in the future by traffic noise with the proposed widening of S.R. 29 to four lanes. These sites consist of 157 residences, the cemetery at Mt. Zion Primitive Baptist Church, and the playground at the Redlands Christian Migrant Association daycare/child development center. Exterior noise levels were assessed for these sites.

As shown in Appendix C, existing and future no-build alternative exterior traffic noise levels are predicted to range from 57.2 to 71.4 dBA. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29 (preferred build alternative), exterior traffic noise levels are predicted to range from 63.0 to 76.3 dBA. When compared to the existing and future no-build alternative noise levels, future build alternative noise levels are predicted to increase by an average of 4.9 dBA. The range of increase is 2.3 to 8.3 dBA. Therefore, none of the evaluated sites will experience a substantial increase (15 dBA or more) of traffic noise as a result of the proposed widening.


4.0 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES FDOT considers noise abatement measures when future traffic noise levels attributed to a proposed roadway widening approach or exceed the NAC, or when levels increase substantially. Since noise levels from the preferred build alternative are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC for Activity Category B at 159 noise sensitive sites, the feasibility and cost reasonableness of noise abatement measures were evaluated for these individual sites. As outlined in the PD&E Manual, Part 2, Chapter 17 (April 18, 2007), these measures may include traffic management, alignment modifications, land use controls, and noise barriers. The following discusses the feasibility (i.e., amount of noise reduction, engineering considerations) and reasonableness (i.e., number of noise sensitive sites benefited, absolute noise levels, cost, etc.) of these measures.

4.1 Traffic Management Measures

Traffic control measures that limit motor vehicle speeds and restrict certain vehicle types can be effective noise mitigation measures. However, these measures may also negate a project’s ability to meet the need of the facility. For example, prohibiting heavy trucks from using S.R. 29 would lower traffic noise levels; however, it would also eliminate the ability to transport goods to the businesses within the study limits. Since S.R. 29 is a part of Florida’s Emerging Strategic Intermodal System, supporting the business communities in Collier, Hendry and Glades Counties, prohibiting truck traffic or reducing speeds substantially are not viable measures. Therefore, this method of noise mitigation is not reasonable.

4.2 Alignment Modifications

Alignment modification involves shifting the roadway alignment at sufficient distances from residential areas to minimize traffic noise. Since this project involves lane additions to the existing road, the existing alignment dictates the proposed horizontal alignment. Because of limited right-of-way, shifting the S.R. 29 alignment to reduce impacts would likely result in more severe impacts, including property acquisitions, residential and business relocations, and other environmental impacts. For these reasons, alignment modifications are not a reasonable measure to reduce noise levels associated with this project.

4.3 Land Use Controls

Another noise abatement measure is to use land use controls to minimize impacts to future development. Providing a buffer between a highway and future noise sensitive land uses is an abatement measure that can minimize/eliminate noise impacts in areas of future


development. To encourage use of this abatement measure through local land use planning, noise contours have been developed.

The 66-dBA noise contour for the build alternative was estimated for each segment of the PD&E study corridor using TNM and the corresponding traffic volumes. The noise contours, which delineate points of equal noise level, do not consider any shielding of noise provided by structures between the noise sensitive receiver and the roadway. The noise contours do not account for traffic noise from sources other than S.R. 29. This noise contour data will assist local officials in planning and permitting future noise compatible land uses adjacent to the S.R. 29 corridor. The noise contours are provided in Table 4-1. All distances are measured from the nearest edge of pavement of the proposed four-lane widening to the 66-dBA noise contour.

Table 4-1. 66-dBA Noise Contour for Preferred Build Alternative

S.R. 29 Segment Distance

S.R. 82 to Wilson Road 235 feet

Wilson Road to Industrial Loop Road 270 feet

Industrial Loop Road to C.R. 80A 285 feet

4.4 Noise Barriers

Noise barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the sound path between a roadway and noise sensitive site. To effectively reduce traffic noise, a noise barrier must be relatively long, continuous (with no intermittent openings for driveways, etc.) and of sufficient height. Noise barriers located along the right-of-way line were evaluated for heights ranging from 8 feet to 22 feet in 2-foot increments. For a particular height, the length of a barrier was optimized to minimize cost while trying to maintain at least a 5-dBA reduction at noise sensitive sites that have predicted noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC. For a noise barrier to be considered feasible and economically reasonable, the following minimum conditions should be met:

A noise barrier must provide a minimum noise reduction of at least 5 dBA with a design goal of 10 dBA, or more.

The cost of the noise barrier should not exceed $42,000 per benefited noise sensitive site. This is the reasonable cost limit established by FDOT. A benefited noise sensitive site is defined as a site that would experience at least a 5-dBA reduction as a result of constructing a noise barrier. The current unit cost used to


evaluate economic reasonableness is $30 per square foot, which covers barrier materials and labor.

Feasibility factors of noise barriers relate to driver and pedestrian sight distance (safety), access and driveway requirements for affected sites, right-of-way requirements, maintenance issues, utility impacts, and stormwater drainage factors.

As previously stated, future traffic noise levels with the proposed widening of S.R. 29 are predicted to exceed the NAC for Activity Category B (66 dBA) at the cemetery at Mt. Zion Primitive Baptist Church (68.1 dBA), and the playground at the Redlands Christian Migrant Association daycare/child development center (69.3 dBA). According to Part 2, Chapter 17 of the PD&E Manual, noise barriers will not be considered for recreational uses such as golf courses, isolated picnic tables, outdoor basketball or tennis courts, sports fields, walking trails and similar areas of less frequent human use.

Experience has shown that because of limited usage, sites like these will not meet the cost criteria for special use facilities. As such, there does not appear to be any feasible and cost reasonable abatement measures for the cemetery and playground.

The TNM noise prediction model was used to evaluate the effectiveness of noise barriers for the 157 residences that predicted to experience noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC for Activity Category B. Noise barriers were modeled for only a handful of locations that best represent the size and configuration of the affect residential lots. For example the homes along the east side and west side of S.R. 29 are isolated and require driveway connections to S.R. 29. As the evaluations of the representative noise barriers show, it is not feasible or cost reasonable for noise barriers to provide effective noise reduction for these types of residences. Breaks in noise barriers required to provide driveway access significantly reduces the effectiveness of barriers to block traffic noise. The discussions of the representative noise barriers modeled are provided below. At each noise barrier location, the feasibility (i.e., at least a 5-dBA reduction can be achieved) was assessed. If the barrier was determined to be feasible, then the cost reasonableness was evaluated.

4.4.1 Noise Barrier 1 – Station 59+00 to 62+00, Right

A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at a single mobile home in the Palm & Pines RV Park (Site 1) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Site 1 is predicted to experience a future noise level of 69.3 dBA, a level that exceeds the NAC of 66.0 dBA for Activity Category B.

The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at


each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.

Table 4-2. Noise Barrier 1 – Station 59+00 to 62+00, Right

Barrier Height/ Length

(ft)

Sites with Noise Reduction of (dBA)

Number of Benefited Sites Total

Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site

Cost Reasonable Yes or No

5+

6+

7+

8+

9+

10 or > Affected Other* Total

8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

14 / 560 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $235,200 $235,200 No

16 / 880 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 $422,400 $211,200 No

18 / 700 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 $378,000 $189,000 No

20 / 840 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 4 $504,000 $126,000 No

22 / 860 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 6 $567,600 $94,600 No

* Other = Noise sensitive sites determined to be unaffected by the preferred build alternatives (traffic noise levels less than 66 dBA), but benefited by the evaluated noise barrier.

As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for Site 1 at any of the barrier heights evaluated. The barrier could provide at most six sites with a reduction in traffic noise of at least 5 dBA. The range in cost per benefited site is $94,600 to $235,200 at heights of 14 to 22 feet. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited receiver exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The ineffectiveness of the barrier can be attributed to the sites being adjacent to the driveway connection with S.R. 29. A break would have to be provided in the noise barrier to provide access for the residents to S.R. 29. Any break in the barrier would significantly reduce its effectiveness.


A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at a single mobile home that is at the northeast corner of S.R. 29 and C.R. 830A (Site 12) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Site 12 is predicted to experience a future noise level of 68.0 dBA.


The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way, extending from C.R. 830A to the north. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.



(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

14 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

16 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

18 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

20 / 347 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $208,200 $208,200 No

22 / 347 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $229,020 $229,020 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for Site 12 at any of the barrier heights evaluated. The range in cost per benefited site is $208,200 to $229,020 at heights of 20 and 22 feet, respectively. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The ineffectiveness of the barrier can be attributed to the sites being adjacent to C.R. 830A. Traffic noise would be able to travel around the southern end of a barrier.

4.4.3 Noise Barrier 3 – Station 107+00 to 113+00, Left

A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at a single home on S.R. 29, south of C.R. 830 (Site 21) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Site 21 is predicted to experience a future noise level of 71.0 dBA.


The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 6 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.

Table 4-4. Noise Barrier 3 – Station 107+00 to 113+00, Left


(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


6 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

8 / 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $52,800 $52,800 No

10 / 180

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $54,000 $54,000 No

12 / 160 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $57,600 $57,600 No

14 / 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $58,800 $58,800 No

16 / 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $67,200 $67,200 No

18 / 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $75,600 $75,600 No

20 / 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $84,000 $84,000 No

22 / 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $92,400 $92,400 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for Site 21 at any of the barrier heights evaluated. As also shown, the barrier could not provide a reduction in traffic noise of at least 5 dBA for any other site. The range in cost per benefited site is $52,800 to $92,400 at heights of 8 to 22 feet. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the difficulty of meeting the cost guideline for a single, isolated site.


A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at two homes on the east side of S.R. 29, just north of C.R. 830 (Sites 23 and 24) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29,


Sites 23 and 24 are predicted to experience future noise levels of 69.9 and 67.2 dBA, respectively.




(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

14 / 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

16 / 380 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $182,400 $182,400 No

18 / 340 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $183,600 $183,600 No

20 / 300 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $180,000 $180,000 No

22 / 300 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $198,000 $198,000 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for Sites 23 and 24 at any of the barrier heights evaluated. The barrier only benefits one of the two affected sites, Site 23. The range in cost per benefited site is $180,000 to $198,000 at heights of 16 to 22 feet. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the difficulty of meeting the cost guideline for sites that are isolated and far apart.



A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at one home on the east side of S.R. 29, north of C.R. 830 (Site 25) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Site 25 is predicted to experience a future noise level of 69.9 dBA.

The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The northern and southern limits of the barrier were extended to the existing driveways that are on either side of the property. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.



(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

14 / 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

16 / 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

18 / 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

20 / 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

22 / 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for Site 25. In addition, the minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA could not be achieved for this site. According to TNM, the largest reduction that could be achieved is 4.1 dBA at the maximum height of 22 feet. The inability of the barrier to provide at least a 5-dBA noise reduction demonstrates the difficulty of abating for noise sensitive sites that are isolated and have driveways or other access needs. Since the modeled barrier could not provide the minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA, the barrier is not considered a feasible noise abatement measure.



A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at four homes on the east side of S.R. 29, north of Morris Taylor Road (Sites 26-29) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Sites 16-29 are predicted to experience future noise levels that range from 68.1 to 72.9 dBA.

The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The northern and southern limits of the barrier were extended to the existing driveways that are on either side of the properties. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.



(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / 560 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $134,400 $134,400 No

10 / 180

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $54,000 $54,000 No

12 / 520 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 $187,200 $62,400 No

14 / 420 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 $176,400 $58,800 No

16 / 420 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 $201,600 $67,200 No

18 / 430 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 $232,200 $58,050 No

20 / 410 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 $246,000 $61,500 No

22 / 410 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 $270,600 $67,650 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for any of the affected sites. The barrier was able to provide at least a 5-dBA noise reduction for all four of the sites at heights ranging from 18 to 22 feet. However, the cost per benefited site exceeds the guideline of $42,000 per site for all heights evaluated. Therefore, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the difficulty of meeting the cost guideline for sites that are isolated and far apart.



A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at two homes on the west side of S.R. 29, just south of Triple “C” Lane (Sites 35 and 36) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Sites 35 and 36 are predicted to experience future noise levels of 73.2 and 70.2 dBA, respectively.




(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / 160

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $48,000 $48,000 No

12 / 260 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 $93,600 $46,800 No

14 / 240 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 $100,800 $50,400 No

16 / 220 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 $105,600 $52,800 No

18 / 220 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 $118,800 $59,400 No

20 / 220 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 $132,000 $66,000 No

22 / 200 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 $132,000 $66,000 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for any of the affected sites at any of the barrier heights evaluated. As also shown, the barrier would benefit both affected sites for heights of 12 to 22 feet. The range in cost per benefited site is $46,800 to $66,000. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the difficulty of meeting the cost guideline for sites that are isolated. It would also be difficult to abate for the


traffic noise from Triple “C” Lane which is adjacent to the northern end of the modeled barrier.


A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at four homes on the west side of S.R. 29, just north of Tanner Road (Sites 43-46) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Sites 43-46 are predicted to experience future noise levels in the range of 66.7 to 73.6 dBA.

The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The southern end of the evaluated barrier extends to Tanner Road. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.



(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / 620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / 560

2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 $168,000 $56,000 No

12 / 540 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 $194,400 $64,800 No

14 / 620 2 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 4 $260,400 $65,100 No

16 / 560 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 4 $268,800 $67,200 No

18 / 540 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 $291,600 $72,900 No

20 / 540 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 $324,000 $81,000 No

22 / 520 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 $343,200 $85,800 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could only be achieved at one of the affected sites, Site 44. This is because the home represented by Site 44 is within a few feet of the proposed right-of-way line, and thereby only a few feet from the location of the modeled barrier. As also shown, the barrier would benefit the four affected


sites for heights of 14 to 22 feet. The range in cost per benefited site is $56,000 to $85,800. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the difficulty of meeting the cost guideline for sites that are isolated. It would also be difficult to abate for the traffic noise from Tanner Road which is adjacent to the southern end of the modeled barrier.


A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at seven homes on the east side of S.R. 29, just south of “G” Road (Sites 51-53 and Sites 55-58) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Sites 51-53 and Sites 55-58 are predicted to experience future noise levels in the range of 66.2 to 68.7 dBA.

The barrier was modeled at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The northern end of the evaluated barrier extends to “G” Road. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.



(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

14 / 180 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $75,600 $75,600 No

16 / 320 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 $153,600 $76,800 No

18 / 300 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 $162,000 54,000 No

20 / 280 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 $168,000 $56,000 No

22 / 280 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 $184,800 $61,600 No



As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved at any of the affected sites. As also shown, the barrier would benefit the four affected sites for heights of 14 to 22 feet. The range in cost per benefited site is $56,000 to $85,800. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the difficulty of meeting the cost guideline for sites that are isolated. It would also be difficult to abate for the traffic noise from “G” Road which is adjacent to the northern end of the modeled barrier.


A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at 11 homes on the east side of S.R. 29, just north of “E” Road (Sites 107-112 and Sites 115-119) was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Sites 107-112 and Sites 115-119 are predicted to experience future noise levels in the range of 66.1 to 71.0 dBA.

The barrier was modeled at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. Three openings were modeled in the barrier to represent the driveway connects that would have to be maintained. The southern end of the evaluated barrier extends to “E” Road. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table on the following page.




(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / n/a 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $194,400 $194,400 No

14 / 180 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 $276,360 $92,120 No

16 / 320 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 $306,240 $76,560 No

18 / 638 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 $344,520 $86,130 No

20 / 618 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 $370,800 $92,700 No

22 / 618 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 $407,880 $81,576 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved at any of the affected sites. As also shown, the barrier would benefit up to five of the 11 affected sites. The range in cost per benefited site is $76,560 to $194,400. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the difficulty of meeting the cost guideline for sites that are isolated. It would also be difficult to abate for the traffic noise from “E” Road which is adjacent to the southern end of the modeled barrier.


A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at eight homes (Sites 208 and 209) at the Greentree South Apartments was evaluated. The Greentree South Apartments are on the west side of S.R. 29, just north of Jim Kulczy Drive. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Sites 208 and 209 are predicted to experience future noise levels of 66.8 and 66.2 dBA, respectively.


The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The southern end of the evaluated barrier extends to Jim Kulczy Drive. The stormwater pond on the east side of the apartments was mapped in TNM as a water zone. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.



(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

14 / 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

16 / 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

18 / 600 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 $324,000 $81,000 No

20 / 600 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 $360,000 $90,000 No

22 / 600 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 $396,000 $49,500 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for any of the affected sites at any of the barrier heights evaluated. As also shown, the barrier would benefit the eight affected sites only at a height of 22 feet. The range in cost per benefited site is $49,500 to $90,000. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the distance of the sites from the propose right-of-way line. Because of this distance, it is difficult to provide the minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA for all eight affected sites at wall heights of 20 feet and less.



A noise barrier to abate for future noise levels at three homes (Sites 215-217) on the west side of S.R. 29, just north of Favor Avenue was evaluated. With the proposed widening of S.R. 29, Sites 215-217 are predicted to experience future noise levels ranging from 66.6 to 71.5 dBA.

The barrier was modeled in TNM at a location that would be 5 feet inside the S.R. 29 right-of-way. The northern and southern ends of the barrier were optimized using the TNM to achieve at least a 5-dBA reduction to the affected site that could be effectively benefited, at each height evaluated, from 8 to 22 feet in increments of 2 feet. The southern end of the evaluated barrier extends to Favor Avenue. Openings were not modeled in the barrier because the affect residents could obtain driveway access to Luckey Street, which is a block west of S.R. 29. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below.



(ft)



Estimated Cost

Cost Per Benefited

Site


5+

6+

7+

8+

9+


8 / n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

10 / n/a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

12 / 200 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 $72,000 $72,000 No

14 / 340 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 $142,800 $47,600 No

16 / 340 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 $163,200 $54,400 No

18 / 340 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 $183,600 $61,200 No

20 / 340 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 $204,000 $68,000 No

22 / 340 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 $224,400 $74,800 No


As shown, the goal of reducing predicted traffic noise levels 10 dBA or more could not be achieved for any of the affected sites at any of the barrier heights evaluated. As also shown, the barrier would benefit all three affected sites only at heights of 14 to 22 feet. The range in cost per benefited site is $47,600 to $74,800. These costs exceed the reasonable guideline of $42,000 per benefited site. Since the cost per benefited site exceeds the cost reasonable guideline, the barrier is not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure. The inability


of the barrier to meet the cost reasonable guideline can be attributed to the distance of the sites from the propose right-of-way line. Because of this distance, it is difficult to provide the minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA for all affected sites without extending the wall to a length that is too costly to meet the cost reasonable guideline.


5.0 CONCLUSIONS Noise abatement measures were evaluated for the 159 sites that are predicted to experience future noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC as a result of the proposed widening of S.R. 29. It was determined that traffic system management techniques, alignment modifications and property acquisition are not feasible and cost reasonable abatement measures. Land use controls were identified as a feasible abatement measure that could be used in the future by local officials to minimize the permitting and construction of incompatible land uses along the S.R. 29 corridor.

According to Part 2, Chapter 17 of the PD&E Manual, noise barriers will not be considered for recreational uses such as golf courses, isolated picnic tables, outdoor basketball or tennis courts, sports fields, walking trails and similar areas of less frequent human use. Experience has shown that because of limited usage, sites like these will not meet the cost criteria for special use facilities. As such, there does not appear to be any feasible and cost reasonable abatement measures for the cemetery at Mt. Zion Primitive Baptist Church or for the playground at the Redlands Christian Migrant Association daycare.

Noise barriers were considered for the 157 affected residences. The results of the evaluations indicate that noise barriers would not be a feasible and cost reasonable method of reducing traffic noise levels for the affected residences along S.R. 29. To effectively reduce traffic noise, a noise barrier must be relatively long, continuous (with no intermittent openings for driveways, etc.) and of sufficient height. Because of the need to maintain existing driveways and access to S.R. 29, openings would have to be constructed in most of the considered barriers. The results from TNM indicate that these openings would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the barriers considered and, thereby, reduce the feasibility of most of the barriers as a noise abatement measure. In addition, most of the noise sensitive sites are spread out, rather than grouped. Therefore, they cannot achieve the density necessary to obtain a noise barrier cost per benefited site that meets FDOT cost reasonable guidelines.

Only land use control appears to be a feasible and cost reasonable solution to mitigate for future traffic noise levels. Copies of this Noise Study Report will be sent to Collier and Hendry Counties to assist them in permitting future noise-compatible land uses along S.R. 29.

Because of the elapsed time between when the noise study was performed and when the Project Development Summary Report will be signed by FHWA (date of public knowledge), the potential exists for additional residential building permits to be granted subsequent to this study. Any noise analysis performed during the design phase of this project will include a review of building permit dates.


6.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION During the construction phase of the project, short-term noise levels may be generated by mobile and stationary construction equipment. The range of construction noise depends on the noise characteristics of the equipment and activities involved (e.g., pile driving), the construction schedule (time of day and duration of activity), and the distance from noise sensitive sites.

During the PD&E Study, only residences were identified as potential vibration sensitive sites. An evaluation of potential vibration impacts should be conducted during the final design and construction phases of this project. Construction noise and vibration levels will be mitigated by adherence to the controls provided in the latest edition of FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.


7.0 PUBLIC COORDINATION

7.1 Public Meetings

A public information workshop was held on October 28, 2008, at the LaBelle Civic Center, 481 W. Hickpochee Avenue in LaBelle. The noise specialists responsible for conducting the noise analysis were present to answer questions and discuss FDOT’s traffic noise evaluation process. The study team provided handouts to the public that described the process and answered frequently asked questions.

This Noise Study Report was put on display for public review for 32 days, from October 25 through November 26, 2010, at the Barron Library in LaBelle and at FDOT’s District One Headquarters in Bartow. The results were presented at a public hearing held on November 16, 2010, at the LaBelle Civic Center, 481 W. Hickpochee Avenue in LaBelle. The noise specialists responsible for conducting the noise analysis were again available to answer specific questions about the traffic noise study analysis methodology, findings and recommendations.

7.2 Public Comments

The public was provided several opportunities to comment on all aspects of the PD&E study, including the traffic noise study. Written comments specific to this traffic noise study, along with the written responses from FDOT, are organized by date in Appendix D.

7.3 Coordination with Local Officials

Local officials can promote compatibility between land development and highways. Copies of this Noise Study Report will be sent to Collier and Hendry Counties to assist them in permitting future noise-compatible land uses along S.R. 29.

The 66- dBA noise contour previously described in Section 4.3 and other predicted noise levels provided in this report can be used to restrict development of exterior land uses associated with residences, motels, schools, churches, and recreational facilities which would be considered incompatible with traffic noise generated from the S.R. 29 corridor. County officials can use the noise contour data to establish compatible development of currently undeveloped parcels or compatible redevelopment in areas where land use changes.


8.0 REFERENCES

1. Chapter 23 Code of Federal Regulations 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, April 1, 2009 Edition. Available from FHWA.

2. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Guidance, June 1995.

3. Federal Highway Administration, Report Number FHWA-PD-96-046, Measurement of Highway-Related Noise. Cynthia S.Y. Lee and Gregg Fleming; May, 1996; 206 pages. Available from National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

4. Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model User’s Guide (Version 2.5 Addendum), April 2004. 36 pages.

5. Florida Department of Transportation, A Method to Determine Reasonableness and Feasibility of Noise Abatement at Special Use Locations. November 14, 1997. Available from FDOT.

6. Florida Department of Transportation, Districtwide System Planning Final Project Traffic Report for SR 29 from North of SR 82 to US 27 in Collier, Hendry, & Glades County, Florida (FPN 202075 1 12 02). May 2008. Available from FDOT.

7. Florida Department of Transportation, Project Development and Environment Manual. Part 2, Chapter 17, April 18, 2007.

8. Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 2010. Available from FDOT Maps and Publications, Mail Station 12, 605 Suwannee St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450.

9. Florida Statute 335.17, State Highway Construction; Means of Noise Abatement. 1989. 1 page. Available from FDOT.


Appendix A Concept Plans with Noise Data

State Road 29 PD&E Study Noise Study Report From S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A FPN: 417878 2 22 01

Appendix B TNM Validation Data

RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS SR 29 from SR 82 to CR 80A (4178782)

FDOT District One 21 October 2010 Donahoo, AIM TNM 2.5

Calculated with TNM 2.5 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS PROJECT/CONTRACT: SR 29 from SR 82 to CR 80A (4178782) RUN: Validation Site 1 Palm & Pine - Run 1 BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless

a State highway agency substantiates the use ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.

ReceiverName No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier

LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise ReductionCalculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated

Sub'l Inc minusGoal

dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB

Validation 1 - Palm & Pine RV 224 1 56.8 58.5 66 1.7 15 ---- 58.5 0.0 5 -5.0

Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction Min Avg Max dB dB dB

All Selected 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

C:\SR29 NOISE\SR29\TNM_VALIDATION\VAL1-1 1 21 October 2010







Sub'l Inc minusGoal












Sub'l Inc minusGoal








Calculated with TNM 2.5 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS PROJECT/CONTRACT: SR 29 from SR 82 to CR 80A (4178782) RUN: Validation Site 2 - Sta 715 RT - Run 1 BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless




Sub'l Inc minusGoal


validation site 2 - sta 715 RT 224 1 67.1 68.8 66 1.7 15 Snd Lvl 68.8 0.0 5 -5.0










Sub'l Inc minusGoal












Sub'l Inc minusGoal







Appendix C Predicted Traffic Noise Levels

Mapped Site ID1

Number of Noise Sensitive Sites Represented Land Use

Existing and Future (2035)

No-BuildFuture (2035)

BuildIncrease from

Existing

Approaches, Meets, or

Exceeds NAC2?Substantial Increase3?

1 1 residential 65.7 69.3 3.6 Yes2 1 residential 61.7 65.6 3.93 1 residential 60.7 64.7 4.04 1 residential 60.4 64.4 4.05 1 residential 60.0 64.1 4.16 1 residential 59.7 63.8 4.17 1 residential 58.9 63.1 4.28 1 residential 58.8 63.0 4.29 1 residential 59.7 63.9 4.2

10 1 commercial 60.5 64.5 4.011 1 residential 61.4 65.4 4.012 1 commercial 64.2 68.0 3.813 1 residential 60.5 64.6 4.114 1 residential 59.8 64.0 4.215 1 residential 59.7 63.9 4.216 1 residential 59.8 64.0 4.217 1 residential 60.1 64.5 4.418 1 residential 59.5 64.0 4.519 1 residential 59.2 63.6 4.420 1 residential 61.9 65.8 3.921 1 residential 63.5 71.0 7.5 Yes22 1 vacant lot 69.7 n/a n/a23 1 residential 64.6 69.9 5.3 Yes24 1 residential 61.9 67.2 5.3 Yes25 1 residential 65.4 69.9 4.5 Yes26 1 residential 67.4 70.9 3.5 Yes27 1 residential 67.2 70.7 3.5 Yes28 1 residential 69.5 72.9 3.4 Yes29 1 residential 64.4 68.1 3.7 Yes30 1 residential 68.1 71.5 3.4 Yes31 1 commercial 63.2 70.5 7.332 0 commercial 65.3 73.6 8.333 0 commercial 63.9 71.5 7.634 1 residential relocation 64.7 relocation n/a35 1 residential 65.0 73.2 8.2 Yes36 1 residential 62.7 70.2 7.5 Yes37 1 residential 64.0 71.0 7.0 Yes38 1 residential 61.2 68.0 6.8 Yes39 1 Mt. Zion cemetery 61.3 68.1 6.8 Yes40 1 residential relocation 67.1 relocation n/a41 1 residential 60.0 66.6 6.6 Yes42 1 residential relocation 64.3 relocation n/a43 1 residential 62.2 69.5 7.3 Yes44 1 residential 66.1 73.6 7.5 Yes45 1 residential 60.0 66.7 6.7 Yes46 1 residential 65.6 73.0 7.4 Yes47 12 residential 58.5 63.8 5.348 4 residential 59.6 65.2 5.649 1 residential 64.8 68.8 4.0 Yes

LAeq1h (dBA)

Appendix C. Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Using TNM 2.5

State Road 29From S.R. 82 to C.R. 80A Page 1 of 5

Noise Study ReportFPN: 417878 2 22 01

Mapped Site ID1




BuildIncrease from

Existing



LAeq1h (dBA)

50 1 commercial 61.2 65.0 3.851 1 residential 63.5 67.6 4.1 Yes52 1 residential 62.2 66.2 4.0 Yes53 1 residential 63.1 67.2 4.1 Yes54 1 residential 61.5 65.5 4.055 1 residential 64.7 68.6 3.9 Yes56 1 residential 63.8 68.0 4.2 Yes57 1 residential 63.8 67.9 4.1 Yes58 1 residential 65.0 68.9 3.9 Yes59 1 residential 62.1 66.3 4.2 Yes60 1 residential 63.4 67.4 4.0 Yes61 1 residential 61.3 65.0 3.762 1 residential 65.5 69.1 3.6 Yes63 1 residential 67.9 71.4 3.5 Yes64 1 residential 65.1 68.7 3.6 Yes65 1 residential 60.0 64.5 4.566 1 residential 59.2 63.6 4.467 1 residential 59.7 63.7 4.068 1 residential 65.1 68.7 3.6 Yes69 1 residential 65.0 68.6 3.6 Yes70 1 residential 64.4 68.1 3.7 Yes71 1 residential 61.4 65.4 4.072 1 residential 65.7 69.4 3.7 Yes73 1 residential 64.6 68.4 3.8 Yes74 1 residential 59.5 63.6 4.175 1 residential 67.3 70.9 3.6 Yes76 1 residential 70.4 73.8 3.4 Yes77 1 residential 67.0 70.8 3.8 Yes78 1 residential 61.5 65.6 4.179 1 residential 62.0 66.2 4.2 Yes80 1 residential 68.7 72.4 3.7 Yes81 1 residential 67.0 70.8 3.8 Yes82 1 residential 65.2 69.1 3.9 Yes83 1 residential 60.3 64.6 4.384 1 residential 62.0 66.2 4.2 Yes85 1 residential 63.4 67.5 4.1 Yes86 1 residential 59.8 64.2 4.487 1 residential 67.6 71.5 3.9 Yes88 1 commercial 68.2 72.1 3.989 1 commercial 66.5 71.1 4.690 1 residential 65.0 69.8 4.8 Yes91 1 residential 64.6 69.9 5.3 Yes92 1 residential 64.5 68.3 3.8 Yes93 1 residential 60.1 64.4 4.394 1 residential 62.5 67.1 4.6 Yes95 1 residential 60.9 65.5 4.696 1 residential 60.9 66.1 5.2 Yes97 1 residential 63.7 69.6 5.9 Yes98 1 residential 64.7 70.7 6.0 Yes99 1 residential 59.8 65.4 5.6

100 1 residential 64.3 70.1 5.8 Yes



Mapped Site ID1




BuildIncrease from

Existing



LAeq1h (dBA)

101 1 residential 61.4 66.9 5.5 Yes102 1 residential 67.8 72.7 4.9 Yes103 1 residential 63.7 69.2 5.5 Yes104 1 residential 65.6 71.0 5.4 Yes105 1 residential 65.8 71.4 5.6 Yes106 1 residential 60.8 67.0 6.2 Yes107 1 residential 65.2 71.0 5.8 Yes108 1 residential 60.7 67.0 6.3 Yes109 1 residential 59.4 66.1 6.7 Yes110 1 residential 61.9 68.0 6.1 Yes111 1 residential 64.5 70.4 5.9 Yes112 1 residential 64.1 70.0 5.9 Yes113 1 residential 59.1 65.7 6.6114 1 commercial 62.3 68.4 6.1115 1 residential 65.1 70.8 5.7 Yes116 1 residential 63.8 69.7 5.9 Yes117 1 residential 63.7 69.7 6.0 Yes118 1 residential 63.4 69.3 5.9 Yes119 1 residential 63.9 69.7 5.8 Yes120 1 residential 59.3 65.8 6.5121 1 residential 59.3 65.8 6.5122 1 residential 59.5 65.9 6.4123 1 residential 64.4 69.9 5.5 Yes124 1 residential 61.5 67.4 5.9 Yes125 1 residential 62.8 68.6 5.8 Yes126 1 residential 59.2 65.6 6.4127 1 residential 59.3 65.7 6.4128 1 residential 61.0 66.9 5.9 Yes129 1 residential 62.8 68.5 5.7 Yes130 1 residential 60.5 66.5 6.0 Yes131 1 residential 64.6 69.9 5.3 Yes132 1 residential 64.5 67.7 3.2 Yes133 1 residential 64.5 67.6 3.1 Yes134 1 residential 64.6 67.6 3.0 Yes135 1 residential 68.4 70.9 2.5 Yes136 1 residential 66.5 69.0 2.5 Yes137 1 residential 68.0 70.5 2.5 Yes138 1 residential 65.9 68.5 2.6 Yes139 1 residential 63.6 66.8 3.2 Yes140 1 residential 71.4 74.2 2.8 Yes141 1 residential 60.7 64.9 4.2142 1 residential 67.1 69.5 2.4 Yes143 1 residential 60.6 64.8 4.2144 1 residential 68.2 70.8 2.6 Yes145 1 residential 64.2 67.3 3.1 Yes146 1 residential 67.1 69.6 2.5 Yes147 1 residential 67.0 69.5 2.5 Yes148 1 residential 66.9 69.4 2.5 Yes149 1 residential 63.7 67.4 3.7 Yes150 1 residential 60.8 65.6 4.8151 1 residential 65.4 69.0 3.6 Yes



Mapped Site ID1




BuildIncrease from

Existing



LAeq1h (dBA)

152 1 residential 64.8 68.8 4.0 Yes153 1 residential 64.3 68.5 4.2 Yes154 1 residential 68.1 72.0 3.9 Yes155 1 residential 64.3 68.7 4.4 Yes156 1 residential 61.1 66.2 5.1 Yes157 1 residential 61.9 66.9 5.0 Yes158 1 residential 65.5 70.1 4.6 Yes159 1 residential 62.1 67.5 5.4 Yes160 1 residential 64.9 70.2 5.3 Yes161 1 residential 64.7 70.1 5.4 Yes162 1 residential 63.1 68.7 5.6 Yes163 1 residential 61.2 67.0 5.8 Yes164 1 residential 64.7 70.0 5.3 Yes165 1 residential 60.5 66.4 5.9 Yes166 1 residential 65.4 70.2 4.8 Yes167 1 residential 59.4 65.6 6.2168 1 residential 65.5 70.4 4.9 Yes169 1 residential 62.7 67.8 5.1 Yes170 1 residential 62.8 67.3 4.5 Yes171 1 commercial 64.2 70.5 6.3172 1 residential 59.5 65.5 6.0173 1 residential 64.0 69.8 5.8 Yes174 1 residential 65.9 72.2 6.3 Yes175 1 residential 60.5 66.2 5.7 Yes176 1 residential 61.0 66.8 5.8 Yes177 1 residential 64.0 69.6 5.6 Yes178 1 residential 64.1 69.9 5.8 Yes179 1 residential 66.2 73.8 7.6 Yes180 1 residential 65.8 73.5 7.7 Yes181 1 residential 61.2 67.9 6.7 Yes182 1 residential 66.7 73.5 6.8 Yes183 1 residential 66.8 73.5 6.7 Yes184 1 residential 65.4 70.8 5.4 Yes185 1 residential 70.1 76.3 6.2 Yes186 1 residential 64.2 69.3 5.1 Yes187 1 residential 66.1 71.6 5.5 Yes188 1 residential 63.5 68.6 5.1 Yes189 1 residential 61.3 66.7 5.4 Yes190 1 residential 66.3 71.5 5.2 Yes191 1 residential 65.6 70.7 5.1 Yes192 1 residential 64.8 69.8 5.0 Yes193 1 residential 64.6 69.4 4.8 Yes194 1 residential 63.1 68.0 4.9 Yes195 1 residential 65.8 70.8 5.0 Yes196 1 residential 63.7 68.6 4.9 Yes197 1 residential 63.6 68.4 4.8 Yes198 1 daycare 64.0 69.3 5.3 Yes199 1 residential 59.5 65.1 5.6200 1 residential 62.6 67.1 4.5 Yes201 1 residential 63.5 67.8 4.3 Yes202 1 residential 65.7 69.5 3.8 Yes



Mapped Site ID1




BuildIncrease from

Existing



LAeq1h (dBA)

203 1 residential 64.3 68.2 3.9 Yes204 1 residential 61.6 67.1 5.5 Yes205 1 residential 59.4 65.5 6.1206 1 commercial 64.7 70.3 5.6207 1 residential 62.3 66.8 4.5 Yes208 4 residential 60.2 66.2 6.0 Yes209 4 residential 60.6 66.3 5.7 Yes210 1 residential 60.1 65.8 5.7211 1 residential 57.2 64.7 7.5212 1 residential 61.5 69.3 7.8 Yes213 1 residential 57.7 64.9 7.2214 1 church 59.9 65.6 5.7215 1 residential 65.4 71.5 6.1 Yes216 1 residential 60.8 66.6 5.8 Yes217 1 residential 60.7 66.7 6.0 Yes218 1 residential 58.3 63.8 5.5219 1 residential 60.2 63.7 3.5220 1 residential 60.5 63.6 3.1221 1 residential 63.2 65.5 2.3222 1 residential 58.0 63.8 5.8

Notes: 1. Site locations are mapped on the aerial photographs in Appendix B2. "Approaches" means within 1 dBA of FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)3. "Substantial Increase" is defined as an increase of 15 dBA or more above the existing noise level as a direct result of

the proposed transportation improvement.




Appendix D Public Comments and

FDOT Responses


Appendix E TNM Input and Output Files

(provided on CD)

Documents

Noise Study Report - sr29.com Study Report.pdf · This roadway capacity improvement project involves widening State Road 29 from the ... Traffic Report for SR 29 from North of SR