The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3190; Alignment Study for Rancho Santa Fe Road; Rancho Santa Fe Road; 1986-07-31n ALIGNMENT STUDY For RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD LA COSTA AVE. TO NORTH OF CADENCIA ST. July 31, 1986 Prepared By: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92122 (619) 457-1199 Job Number: 36006 n INTRODUCTION Rancho Santa Fe Road is shown as a prime arterial on the City of Carlsbad's n Circulation Element of their General Plan. Recent development proposals have [J prompted requests to design and build the portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road north of La Costa Avenue through an Assessment District process (the P-I portion south to Olivenhain is now under construction). As this proposal was being considered by the City for implementation, a number of residents 1—' adjoining Rancho Santa Fe Road to the west requested that the City Council consider alternative alignments for Rancho Santa Fe Road which would move G the road east of the current alignment. The primary concern raised was the amount of cars and trucks utilizing the roadway and the related noise associ- ated with these vehicles. n jj Due to this potential impact on the adjacent properties, the City of Carlsbad has retained Willdan Associates to prepare an independent analysis of the ,—, street needs and to evaluate three alternatives. They have furthermore re- i stricted truck usage on this portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road to include local *—' deliveries only, and have specifically forbidden trash trucks from utilizing this portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road to reach the County landfill located on n Questhaven Road, north of this project area. This study evaluates three alternative alignments which include: 1) widening D along the current alignment; 2) construction of a new six lane roadway along the old alignment for Rancho Santa Fe Road which curves east of the existing residences; and 3) an alignment which utilizes the extension of La Costa Ave- „ nue to Melrose Avenue and the construction of Melrose Avenue north, which I in essence deletes the portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road between Melrose L' Avenue and La Costa Avenue from the adopted Circulation Element. In addition to the design oriented aspects of the roadway alignment, this report n also incorporates the findings of Dr. Alex Segal, Consultant in Acoustics, |_| who has been retained by the City to evaluate the impacts of existing and future traffic on the current alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Where pi impacts are identified recommendations for appropriate noise attenuation facilities have been made. , \ /~* «.-^y..J'. Jin »<i'l»e .V" .. |i.1^^-d«—J;.« ^""^ *-» • 11 , r fc» u A I W I f) fi XiI RAN [C^ti O 1\ A S N I T A S \ VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS The City's standard street widths for various classifications of streets are D shown on Figure 2, with the specific design criteria shown on Table 1. As can be seen, the various classifications of roadways are intended to carry different volumes of traffic and to serve different purposes. As the road- P-, ways carry more and more traffic, their purpose shifts from providing direct ! access to abutting properties to carrying through traffic. With respect to Rancho Santa Fe Road, the current alignment of the roadway [~~j was constructed in the mid 1970's as part of the development of the La Costa LJ Valle subdivision whose homes back up to Rancho Santa Fe Road. The street was constructed as half of a major arterial road, with the remaining half D planned to be constructed as properties to the east develop. The roadway currently carries over 14,000 vehicles per day north of La Costa Avenue. In 1985, the City conducted an analysis of its circulation system and modified ,_, the Circulation Element based on travel forecasts completed by SANDAG. In i those forecasts, Rancho Santa Fe Road was anticipated to carry in excess of ^ 10,000 vehicles per day, thus it became necessary to reclassify the roadway to prime arterial status.n LJ Several other roadways are critical to our understanding of the area. One of these is La Costa Avenue, which runs from Interstate 5 to Mision Estanciaaeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road. La Costa Avenue is currently constructed as a four lane, undivided, secondary arterial. It currently carries approxi- mately 8,500 vehicles per day west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, and only a negligible amount of traffic east of Rancho Santa Fe Road, since there are no homes or business occupied in that area at this time. La Costa Avenue, LJ however, is forecast to carry approximately 26,000 vehicles per day east of Rancho Santa Fe Road at buildout of the City's General Plan.nLJ Melrose Avenue forms a second major north/south thoroughfare. It is also classified as a prime arterial and runs parallel to and joins with Rancho Santa i~i Fe Road north of Cadencia Street. Melrose Avenue is currently unconstruct- I ed; however, it is anticipated to carry approximately 21,000 vehicles per day between La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Once it joins Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Cadencia Street, a combined roadway is anticipated to J carry in excess of 60,000 vehicles per day. The City's Circulation Element analysis assumed that Melrose Avenue would be n constructed south of La Costa Avenue to meet SA 680. This extension, which LJ is south of the Carlsbad city limits, is in doubt as many of the future City Council members for the City of Encinitas have expressed a desire to eliminate D that portion of Melrose Avenue from their City's future Circulation Element. This likelihood was addressed in the draft San Dieguito Circulation Element Update prepared by the County of San Diego. While the analysis had several flaws and is being revised, it did indicate that there would be a substantial R/w> IM' 10' _£%__ i^TO 103' ] MSOtAM-» — - ta=^^ 10' a% &*** .PRIME MAJOR STREET. ?. trf ID 4O" f W'1 .COLLECTOR STREET. 0 MAYBE REDUCED TO Of) LOOP STREETS STREET- HEV.APPROVED OATE CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARD STREET WIDTHS ^TT ^vTS^^O->o-iy-qo o»m 8TAWOAWO CITY STREET WIDTHS FIGURE 2 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES TABU aCITY Of CAULS SADSTREET DESIGB CRITERIAPftlHf HAJQR SECONDARY COLLECT08 IHOUSTRIAL LOCAL CUL-DE-SAC HILLSIDEDESICH CRITERIA ABTE8IAL ARTERIAL ARTERIAL STREET STREET STREET STREET AILEY STREETI oor*\ M oowrv o •- O§§.WA u\ Ot- §io •• o\J\ IM ot- • • 0 0CM -a- oSPit S3 ESTIMATEDUiTlnATE ASTx IX X kA r« X a. c or< I a. X 'Ar* X a. C a X* a. I a x' 0> X oJT X & X s X (L s s OESICIS SPEEDoLA 1 11 1 >•~J X0 </•o -in t- §•n 8^% i 8f<4 fN Miai^J^ SPAXIttCOf IbTEaSECTJOaSo^ o-T *trr^ o>_j i \o ou\ u-< 3 c*«r*. ox O ss JT CO «>*o sO IN >- t U.O i H-5 an *0 M d X C3 U O x' o X d o£ O (_>- X <<fV UilfCa wuaui X51— V 0- U4 UJ ACCESS TO AA-JOIKIaC PROPERTY**s*t*\ JTfM 0_J 3 vO Of^ -» b^ r>4in ao o <s>^ jr «•O 5 au«1C fM ac09 — 1a . 3|&>cuae-To-cuaBOlST/UtCEo k/> o ~a VA .ff o WA O r*» O vC O 03 VA CO <r>!«IBtraj« TRAFFICIKOUvj a)< 4 ~, ^3 u a)< <s <*> -r CJ •*«0 4 m<0 S3 0»0 ^3 -• o u a< 4 -7 <0 l_l ol < 4 JT O U <D < 4 tA vO u to4 < •O ^InlNlnun STRuC-TUOAi SECT 10.1o-o o•J3 O U> 8r< OOr*i ^^r« r*4 Ou^**% u^r-* -»STOPPIKC SIGHTDISTANCE41 41 O Or* 0Or* 8P4 8r*> 3r^ oIrtwt Ov/\ CO bfcA IniHlRUn HORI20MTALRADIUS**U^ Mr*4 **IN #*r*. **c^* **o K r«r^. UJ O M 2 LA o f*iS\ o **iTV o ##fcT\ O r*uQ d **^ o **kA O **tA d **u^ ci WJa 2o z c CITY DESIGN STANDARDS (TABLE A)» PARKIKT. LIMITED TO ONE SIDE-* REDUCTION TO 150' WITH APPROVAL Of CITY ENGINEERTABLE 1 \J|^7wiLLDAN ASSOCIATES increase in traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road due to the deletion of Mel rose Avenue. While the forecast volumes are not comparable due to differing land use assumptions between the City's travel forecast and the County's travel forecast, it is likely that the deletion of Melrose Avenue could add 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day to Rancho Santa Fe Road north of La Costa Avenue. With these general parameters in mind, we have prepared and evaluated three alternative alignments for Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to the point where Melrose Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road meet north of Caden- cia Street. These alternatives are shown on Figure 3 and are discussed in detail on the following pages. Reduced copies of the individual alignments including plan and profile views are included in the Appendix and full size versions are on file in the City's Engineering Department. THREE ALTERNATIVES FIGURE 3 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ALTERNATE A Current Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment This first alternative alignment follows Rancho Santa Fe Road as it is current- ly constructed. It is anticipated that the existing west curb line would be held and the roadway would be widened entirely to the east. This would re- quire the removal of the existing east curb line and the addition of approxi- mately twelve feet of pavement for the southbound travel lanes, an 18 foot raised landscaped median and HH feet of pavement for the northbound travel lanes. Sidewalk would also be installed on each side of the roadway. This alignment is relatively straight with only one relatively short curve with an acceptably long radius to meet the necessary design speeds. The street grades meet the City's design standards for a prime arterial. Additional right-of-way (approximately 21 feet in width) will be necessary on the east side of the roadway to accommodate the prime arterial standard. Previously, 102 feet of right-of-way had been dedicated when the roadway was classified as a major arterial. Rancho Santa Fe Road, in this alignment, conforms with the City's adopted Circulation Element, the La Costa Master Plan and all projects that have been proposed and submitted to the City. It maintains acceptable intersection spacing and allows the opportunity, should Melrose Avenue be downgraded in the future, to have Melrose Avenue connect directly with Rancho Santa Fe Road at Cadencia Street, thus eliminating an intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road that is substantially skewed. The primary disadvantage with this alignment is the noise impact to the exist- ing homes which back up to Rancho Santa Fe Road from the west. These homes were built at the same time that Rancho Santa Fe Road was realigned to its present position. It should be pointed out that when the homes were constructed, Rancho Santa Fe Road was classified as a major street as opposed to its current prime arterial status. There were no requirements for sound attenuation at the time the subdivision was approved. An acoustical analysis for the roadway alignment has been prepared by Dr. Alex Segal, Consultant in Acoustics. According to this analysis. Dr. Segal indicates that both existing conditions and anticipated future conditions will result in noise levels which exceed the City Standards. He concludes, however, that exterior noise levels could be brought within acceptable stand- ards by the construction of acoustical barriers ranging in height from three to seven and one half feet. There is, however, some indication that interior noise levels may still exceed desired standards, which could result in a need for specific improvements to the homes themselves including double glazed windows and/or mechanical ventilation. A second disadvantage to this alternative would be the potential for disrup- tion to through traffic along Rancho Santa Fe Road during the construction phase of the widening. Since the existing roadway is narrow and would have to be widened, the construction activities could encroach into existing travel lanes. As a result, it would probably be necessary to construct the road in phases with the three northbound travel lanes being constructed first, then with traffic being moved over to those lanes, the southbound lanes could be widened with only a minor impact to traffic flow. n U ALTERNATE B Old Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Alternate B provides partial noise relief to the residences along the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment. This alignment will move Rancho Santa Fe Road east of its current alignment in an arc that begins at the existing intersection of La Costa Avenue with Rancho Santa Fe Road, moving to a maximum of approximately 1,100 feet east, and then rejoining Rancho Santa Fe Road approximately 1,000 north of Cadencia Street. This alignment generally follows the old alignment for Rancho Santa Fe Road which was in use prior to the realignment which occurred during the mid 1970's. This alignment could be constructed in accordance with the City's design standards for prime arterials in terms of both horizontal and vertical alignment. The alignment, however, would contain several horizontal curves which makes it somewhat less desirable than the current alignment of the roadway which is relatively straight. Sixty feet of the necessary 126 feet of right-of-way is available since the right-of-way for the old alignment was never vacated at the time the roadway was realigned. The primary disadvantages to this alignment are its impact to the undeveloped property east of the current alignment of the roadway, the spacing of inter- sections and the additional cost of construction. Looking first at the impact to properties, the old alignment will create several triangular shaped parcels which will be difficult to develop effectively. Of particular concern is the southerly portion of this alignment which slices through a proposed shopping center. Preliminary plans for this center have been discussed with City staff and specific points of access have been approved. With this potential re- alignment, the amount of land available for the center would be reduced and the primary access point would be located on the inside of curve, which could necessitate the need for a redesign of the center's access. Additionally, this alignment would move the roadway parallel and relatively close to the exten- sion of La Costa Avenue between Mision Estancia and Melrose Avenue. It would create a narrower parcel, approximately 100 feet in width. This type of parcel would be more difficult to develop with ROP detached single family lots which would not be allowed access directly to either Rancho Santa Fe Road or La Costa Avenue, due to their classifications. Additionally, the volume of traffic along Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue would necessitate sound attenuation facilities be constructed along those alignments, in a manner similar to that required along the current alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The intersection spacing issue relates to the potential spacing between Melrose Avenue and Cadencia Street. As part of this project, it would be necessary to extend Cadencia Street from its current terminus to the new alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road in order to maintain access to the north for existing residences. Assuming a reclassification of Melrose Avenue, the most practical location for Melrose Avenue to connect with Rancho Santa Fe Road would be 10 approximately 750 feet south of Cadencia Street, which is substantially less than the desired intersection spacing for prime arterials. Should Melrose Avenue be kept in its existing planned alignment, the spacing between the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection and Cadencia Street would be approximately 1,000 feet. However, the intersection between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue would be at an extreme skew to the point that a grade separation would likely be necessary to efficiently move traffic to that intersection. According to the City's Planning Department, adoption of Alternate B would require a General Plan Amendment since the proposed alignment would be dis- tinctly different than the currently shown alignment. In addition, due to the additional length of the roadway and the need to construct full width improvements, the cost of the roadway construction would [~j be substantially more than widening the existing alignment. It would also necessitate the removal of the existing improvements along Rancho Santa Fe Road and the extension of Cadencia Street approximately 500 feet to the east to meet the new alignment. ' i U 11 ALTERNATE C La Costa Avenue - Melrose Avenue Alignment This final alternative would in essence delete the portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue from the City's Circula- tion Element. It would thus route traffic from northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road to La Costa Avenue to Melrose Avenue, finally coming back to the existing alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road approximately 1,000 feet north of Cadencia Street. Melrose Avenue is currently unconstructed and La Costa Avenue is constructed as a secondary arterial (64 feet of pavement within 84 feet of right-of-way) from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Mision Estancia. The only apparent advantage to this alignment would be that it moves traffic the farthest from existing occupied residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road. It would, however, put substantial amounts of traffic (approximately 60,000 vehicles per day) adjacent to residential units now under construction along La Costa Avenue east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. La Costa Avenue is currently constructed as a secondary arterial and would need to be substantially upgraded to carry 60,000 vehicles per day. This would require not only widening the road which would have to all occur on the north side, due to construction of residential units to the south, but would also necessitate the reconstruction of substantial areas of existing roadway where street structural section, curve radii and street grades are insufficient for prime arterial standards. La Costa Avenue is planned to have grades of up to ten percent (101) to meet Melrose Avenue east of Mision Estancia. While widening and reconstruction of roadways are not insurmountable prob- lems, this alignment poses a substantial problem to traffic flow and safety with the anticipated right angle turns which would occur to and from Rancho Santa Fe Road at La Costa Avenue and to and from La Costa Avenue at Melrose Avenue. Attempting to have substantial numbers of vehicles make these turns would lead to substantial and unacceptable amounts of congestion throughout the day, severely deteriorating the usefulness of Rancho Santa Fe Road as a major carrier of traffic. As a result, traffic would likely shift to other parallel routes, with El Camino Real being the only available alternative. It is clear from other studies that El Camino Real will already experience congestion and has no available capacity. Therefore, it is likely that if Alternate C is adopted, it would result in substantial amounts of congestion in the entire south Carlsbad area. Additionally, as a means of avoiding some of the congestion at the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, a number of vehicles will likely attempt to utilize Mision Estancia as a short cut between La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. As is the case with La Costa Avenue, this roadway is a secondary arterial and is not intended to carry the substantial 12 amounts of traffic which would be anticipated. Furthermore, there are resi- dential units under construction immediately adjacent to the roadway and a major community park. Stage Coach Park, which would be substantially im- pacted by the amount of additional traffic which would travel directly in front of the park, causing a potential safety hazard for people utilizing the park. As with Alternate B, this Alternate would require a General Plan Amendment to reclassify La Costa Avenue east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and to delete Rancho Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue from the Circulation Element. It would, in all likelihood, be the most costly of the three alternatives and would require acoustical barriers to be constructed along the edges of the roadway. LJ 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rancho Santa Fe Road is and will continue to play a vital and important part of the South Carlsbad circulation system. In combination with Melrose Ave- nue, it will carry in excess of 60,000 cars per day north of La Costa Avenue. The noise associated from both the current traffic volume (11,000 ADT) and forecast future volume will exceed the City's noise standards for residential areas within 250 feet of the roadway centerline. Since all three street align- ments, which have been evaluated, will traverse existing or planned residen- tial areas, it will be necessary to construct acoustical barriers along each of the alternative street alignments. From a pure traffic flow standpoint. Alternate A is the most desirable alter- native, in that it maintains the shortest, most direct path with a minimum number of curves. Alternate A will also likely be the most economical alter- native to be constructed, since a portion of the roadway is already in place and virtually all of the right-of-way is available. It poses the least damage to undeveloped properties and will require the least amount of acoustical barriers since it is the shortest of the three alternatives. Alternate A will not require a General Plan Amendment, thus it will allow the City to proceed with the design and construction of this street segment immediately. This is an important consideration since it will allow quicker relief to the existing noise and congestion problems in the La Costa area of the City. Alternate B, the old Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment, provides some immedi- ate noise relief for existing homes, but would impact future residences. It will also adversely affect planned commercial development. In terms of traffic flow, this alignment poses problems from an intersection spacing perspective and to a lesser extent from, the additional curves and distance introduced into the street system. The final alternative, the La Costa Avenue - Melrose Avenue connection (Alternate C), is totally unacceptable due to the introduction of two right angle turns and cost to reconstruct substantial portions of La Costa Avenue, which was just constructed. Additionally, this alignment will introduce noise impacts to the condominium project under construction on La Costa Avenue, east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. It will also substantially increase traffic volumes on Mision Estancia adjacent to Stagecoach Park. It is therefore our recommendation that the City utilize the current alignment for Rancho Santa Fe Road and widen the roadway as shown on Alternate A. This recommendation presumes that the final design of the roadway would incorporate necessary acoustical mitigation measures to bring noise levels for the existing and proposed residences into conformance with the City's noise guidelines. 14 APPENDIX CUD CZD CD CZ)C_D CD u ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS STUDY for ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-5 Report 86-006 prepared for: City of Carlsbad Office of the City Engineer 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 prepared by: Alexander Segal, Ph.D. Consultant in Acoustics 5222 Trojan Ave. « 316 San Diego, CA 92115 July 1986 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road presently results in high levels of noise affe.cting the existing residences located along the road. Traffic noise impacts greatly depend on medium and heavy truck traffic. Recently adopted Ordinance, which bans trucks weighting more than 7 tons from using the road, resulted in traffic noise decrease in the area. r~\G The field sound level measurements and the theoretical traffic noise prediction calculations were performed in order to evaluate traffic noise impacts on a number of the existing residences located along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and Melrose Avenue as illustrated on the topography cross-sections provided by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Several traffic flow alternatives were considered including the existing traffic flow conditions (before and after the truck ban), and the forecasted traffic flow conditions (with and without the proposed widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road). It was assumed that the recently imposed truck ban would remain in the future. The analysis revealed that traffic noise impacts on the majority of the existing residences under investigation exceed the City of Carlsbad General Plan exterior noise limit (Ldn=65 dB). After the truck ban had been imposed, traffic noise decreased by at least 3 decibel. However, at some of the residences traffic noise still exceeds Ldn=65 dB. It is expected that in the future traffic flow and traffic noise would increase. Since the road widening will result in the road centerline being located at larger distance from the existing residences, traffic noise increase would be lower than that anticipated from the forecasted traffic flow increase. Analysis shows that the present (after the truck ban) and the forecasted traffic noise impacts could be reduced to Ldn=65 dB by 3 to 7.5 ft high solid acoustical barriers placed between the residences under investigation and the road. In order to reduce traffic noise impacts to Ldn=45 dB inside the residences, dual or laminated windows might be needed. Some kind of mechanical ventilation could also be required in order to provide a habitable living environment inside the residences at the "closed window" conditions. Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 2. INTRODUCTION This Acoustical Analysis is submitted in accord with the agreement with the City of Carlsbad regarding the acoustical evaluation of traffic noise impacts on the existing residences located along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and Melrose Avenue and shown on the topography cross-sections provided by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Several traffic flow alternatives, as specified by the City of Carlsbad Engineer, are considered. The City of Carlsbad General Plan uses a Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) of 65 dB as a noise limit for the outside "noise sensitive" residential areas (such as yards, patios, balconies, etc.). The interior noise limit is Ldn=45 dB. Since the existing and the forecasted traffic load on section of Rancho Santa Fe Road under consideration is relatively high (Average Daily Traffic CADT] in excess of 12,000 vehicles per day), a potential exists that traffic noise impacts to the residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road might exceed the City of Carlsbad Noise Limits. 2. METHOD OF EXTERIOR NOISE EVALUATION The acoustical conditions in the area under investigation were evaluated using the direct sound level measurements and the theoretical methods of traffic noise prediction. The field noise measurements were made by a Metrosonics dB-306C Metrologger Digital Sound Level Analyzer, which is a Type II instrument in accord with the ANSI S 1.4-1971 requirements. The Analyzer takes 4 samples of "A" Weighted sound levels per second ("Slow" time constant). Typically Metrosonics dB-306C was mounted on a tripod four to five feet above the ground with a windscreen fitted to the microphone. Before and after the noise level measurements the meter was calibrated with a C-302 Acoustical Calibrator. Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Traffic count was taken during the field sound level measurements in order to aid in comparison analysis between the theoretical and the field data. The theoretical evaluation of traffic noise impacts was performed on the IBM PC computer using a custom-made computer program. The program is based on the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108 (1) modified for the California conditions. The program uses the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) reference energy mean emission levels developed by Caltrans in 1984 (2), and incorporates the new revised grade corrections developed by Caltrans and presented at the January 1986 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (3). Based either on the one-hour number of vehicles (HNV) or on the average daily number of vehicles (ADT) information, traffic mix, speed, and other traffic flow and the project topography data, the program estimates the one-hour equivalent sound level CLeq(h)] and the Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) at the specified location. The program assumes that CNEL is 1.5 to 2 dB higher than Leq(h). That is rather a conservative assumption for typical residential roads since lower traffic volumes on weekends and lower truck volumes on weekends and during the night hours are ignored. The program takes into account different sound propagation above the ground conditions (drop-off rate). For acoustically hard sites ("reflective" sites with a site parameter ALPHA=0.0), the calculations are performed using the propagation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance (3 dB/DD). For acoustically soft sites ("absorptive" sites with a site parameter ALPHA=0.5 and 4.5 dB/DD propagation rate), the calculations are performed for both the "soft" and the "hard" site conditions. In order to describe potential noise impacts within the project, the following community noise descriptors were used: A-Weighted Sound Level (dB) - the sound level measured with the utilization of the "A-weighting" frequency correction. This correction weights the contribution of sounds of different frequencies so that the response of the average human ear is s imulated. Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ or Leg) - the A-weighted level of a continuous steady sound which contains the same total acoustical energy over the averaging time period as the actual time varying sound. 4 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Maximum sound level (Lmax) - the maximum sound level recorded during the measurements. One-Hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq(h)) - the Leq over one hour averaging period. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - a composite noise index derived from the summation of hourly LE.Q's over a 24-hour time period with increasing weighting factors applied to the evening (7:00 pro to 10:00 pm, + 5 dB) and the nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am, + 10 dB) time periods. Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) - is identical to CNEL except that no evening (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) adjustment is used. For most practical applications, CNEL and Ldn are considered to be equal. 4. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT nu In order to determine the existing traffic noise impacts along the stretch of Rancho Santa Fe Road under investigation, the field sound level measurements were made at several locations on two Saturdays (April 12 and May 24, 1986) and on two Tuesdays (April 29 and June 24, 1986). The noise readings were taken during morning, mid-day and afternoon hours. The measurements were performed before and after the new Ordinance which bans trucks weighting more than 7 tons from using the stretch of Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and Questhaven Road was approved by the City of Carlsbad Council. The first noise measurement location was along relatively level part of Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Cadencia Road and about several hundred feet south of the SDG&E easement. Surrounding land is relatively level and vacant. Therefore, there was an unobstructed view to the road from the measurement location with subtended angles within -80, +90 degrees. The noise readings were taken at approximately 50 ft from the centerline of Rancho Santa Fe Road which at that location is a two lane road with posted traffic speed of 45 mph. The results of the sound level measurements at Location 1 with the corresponding traffic flow data (number of automobiles, medium and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized in Table 1. Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Table 1 RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION 1 Test No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Date 4-12 4-29 4-29 4-29 6-24 6-24 6-24 6-24 6-24 6-24 6-24 Time 4- 1- 1- 1- 8- 8- 8- 8- 9- 9- Q — 5p 2p 2p 2p 9a 9a 9a 9a lOa lOa lOa . m . . m . . m . . m . . m . . m . m .m . m . m . m Number Auto 146 118 130 127 180 202 153 154 153 130 179 of vehicles M.Tr. H.Tr. 1 6 6 8 4 5 5 4 5 5 6 0 8 21 19 1 2 1 0 3 0 3 Test durat ion min . sec 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 10 11 .04 .27 .33 .35 .58 .29 .34 . 11 . 17 .46 .45 Leq 66 69 73 71 68 69 68 67 68 67 69 Lmax 82 83 66 85 84 83 81 81 82 86 87 The second noise measurement location was in front of the existing residence at the south-west corner of Cadencia Street and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. Rancho Santa Fe Road at that location has 2 traffic lanes with the road grade ranging from 2 to 6 percent. The noise readings were taken at roughly 30 ft from the road centerline. There was an unobstructed view to the road from the measurement location with subtended angles of about -90, +90 degrees. Posted traffic speed in the area is 45 mph. The results of the sound level measurements at Location 2 with the corresponding traffic flow data (number of automobiles, medium and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION 2 Test No. 1 2 3 Date 4 5 6 -29 -24 -24 Time 2-3p 4-5p 12-lp . m . . m . . m . Number Auto 166 170 156 of M. 6 2 5 vehi Tr . H 1 c les .Tr . 1 0 2 . Test durat ion min . sec 10 .40 13.55 11 .17 Leq 74 70 72 Lmax 91 87 88 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 The third noise measurement location was several hundred feet south of intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose Avenue. Rancho Santa Fe Road at that location has 2 traffic lanes and a left turn lane. Near the measurement location the road grade was within 2 percent with significant grade increase further to the north. Posted traffic speed is 45 mph. The noise readings were taken at approximately 45 ft from the road centerline (Tests 1, 2, and 3), and at approximately 56 ft from the road centerline (Test 4). There was an unobstructed view to the road from the measurement location with subtended angles of -90, +90 degrees. The results of the sound level measurements at Location 3 with the corresponding traffic flow data (number of automobiles, medium and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION 3 Test Date No. 1 2 3 4 4- 4- 4- 4- 12 12 29 29 Time 3-4p 4-5p 2-3p 2-3p . m . . m . . m . . m . Number Auto 148 153 83 152 of veh i c les M.Tr. H.Tr. 4 1 9 7 0 0 14 20 Test durat ion min 10 10 4 10 . sec .02 . 10 . 38 .25 Leq 66 68 75 71 Lmax 81 80 89 86 In order to verify the validity of the theoretical traffic noise prediction techniques planned to be used, traffic flow data recorded during each test were transformed to the one-hour values and based on these value the "calculated" Equivalent Sound Levels CLeq(c)3 were estimated for all noise measurement locations. Traffic speed of 45 mph was used in all calculations. The calculated values (LeqCcl) were than compared with those obtained during the field tests (LeqCmD). Since the results of the field tests were recorded in decibels without the fractional portion (integers), the results of the acoustical calculations were also converted to integers (by rounding the fractional portion) in order to allow the comparison of identical variables. The examples of the acoustical calculations are shown in Tables 1 through 10 in the Attachment.The final results are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6. Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Table 4 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 1 Test No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 HNV 876. 758 893 873 1012 1197 903 848 856 752 960 % M. 0 4 3 S 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 of Tr. .6 .5 .8 .2 .2 .4 .1 .5 . 1 .7 .2 Trucks H.Tr. 0 6 13 12 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 .0 . 1 .4 .3 .5 .0 .6 .0 .9 .0 .6 Speed mph 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 LeqCc] ( calc) 66. 69. 72. 72. 68. 69. 67. 67. 68. 66. 68. 8 a 4 1 1 2 9 1 4 8 7 (67) (70) (72) (72) (68) (69) (68) (67) (68) (67) (69) Leq Cm] ( meas ) 68 69 72 71 66 69 68 67 68 67 69 LeqCm] - Leq C c ] + 1 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 5 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 2 Test No. 1 2 3 HNV 1029 742 867 % of M.Tr . 3.3 2.8 3. 1 Trucks H.Tr . 6.0 0.0 1 . 2 Speed mph 45 45 45 Leq Cc] (calc) 73.5 (74) 69.1 (69) 70.6 (71) LeqCm] (meas ) 74 70 72 Leq Cm ] - LeqCc] 0 + 1 -*•! 8 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Table 6 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 3 Test HNV % No. 1 2 3 4 of M.Tr . 909 909 1374 1031 2 0 8 3 .6 .6 .5 .9 Trucks H 0 0 13 11 .Tr . .0 .0 .2 . 1 Speed mph 45 45 45 45 LeqCc] (calc) 68. 67. 75. 72. 2 8 3 2 (68) (68) (75) (72) Leq Cm] (meas ) 68 68 75 71 Leq Cm]- LeqCc] 0 0 0 -1 As can be seen from Tables 4, 5, and theoretical calculations are in a good obtained during the field tests (some explained by higher traffic speed during presence of unusually loud vehicles in reflections by the intervening topography, theoretical noise prediction techniques used to describe the existing and the conditions in the area. 6, the results of the agreement with those differences could be the specific tests, traffic flow, sound etc.). Therefore, the specified above can be forecasted acoustical The existing noise environment along the stretch of Rancho Santa Fe Road under investigation was determined based on the traffic flow information provided by the City of Carlsbad and the average traffic mix and speed data obtained during the field tests. According to the City of Carlsbad, Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain within 12,700, and between La Costa traffic increases to ADT=14,400. the existing ADT on Rancho Road and La Costa Avenue is Avenue and Mel rose Avenue The majority of the existing residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road are located between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue where the traffic load is greater. For the purpose of the noise impact analysis, the City of Carlsbad has selected 11 existing residences located along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and Melrose Avenue. The topography cross-sections of these residences, as specified by the City of Carlsbad, are presented on Fig. 1 through 6 in the Attachment. The topography cross-sections represent the following residential lots: Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 North of La Costa Avenue Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 1 South of - Lot - Lot - Lot - Lot - Lot - Lot - Lot - Lot 1 - Lot 40 48 49 54 57 92 93 99 (At (At (At (At (At (At (At (At Cadencia Street, Revised C.T. 72-20) Casca Way, Revised C.T. 72-20); Casca Mus lo Mus lo Tr igo Tr igo Way, Lane Lane Lane Lane Piragua St at Agua Dul La Costa se (C Revised C.T. , Revi , Revi , Revi , Revi reet , .T. 72 sed sed sed sed Revi -20) C C C C .T .T .T .T sed i 72-20) ; . 72- . 72- . 72- . 72- C.T. 20) ; 20) ; 20) ; 20); 72-20) ; Avenue Section 9 - Lot 126 (At Quebrada Circle, C.T. 72-3); Section 10 - Lot 129 (At Quebrada Court, C.T. 72-3); As has been specified above, the existing traffic load on Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and La Costa Avenue is slightly lower than that between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue. In order to address "the worst case" conditions, the calculations were performed' assuming that the existing ADT is 14,400 along the entire stretch of Rancho Santa Fe Road under investigation. Traffic . speed of 45 mph was used in all calculat ions. Analysis of the weekday traffic count data revealed that during the day-hours there was an average 4.2% medium and 9.4% heavy trucks in the area before the truck ban, and that there was about 3% of medium and 1% of heavy trucks after the ban was imposed. These data were further used in the theoretical noise prediction analysis in order to address traffic noise impacts before and after the truck ban. According to the field observations, some of the existing residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road are separated from the road by fences and walls of different size and material. These walls might provide some attenuation of traffic noise impacts. However, since most of these walls are acoustically not "solid", their sound attenuation effect was ignored during this analysis. All calculations were performed for the "first floor" (5 ft above the ground) observer position. The examples of the acoustical calculations are presented in Tables 11 and 12 in the Attachment. The final results of the acoustical calculations are summarized in Table 7. 10 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Table 7 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS (EXISTING CONDITIONS, NO BARRIERS) Sec t ion No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Before Ldn in dB 74 74 73 73 74 74 75 74 66 71 62 the truck ban Compl iance with Ldn=65 dB 4-9 + 9 + 8 + 8 t-9 + 9 + 10 + 9 + 1 + 6 •"• 3 After Ldn in dB 71 71 70 70 71 71 71 71 61 65 56 the truck ban Compl iance with Ldn=65 dB + 6 + 6 + 5 + 5 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 -4 0 -9 As can be seen, traffic noise impacts to residences under investigation significantly limit established by the City of Carlsbad, that the noise impacts decreased by at least ban had been enforced. most of the existing exceed the Ldn=65 dB It also can be seen 3 dB after the truck The additional calculations were performed in order to determine the existing traffic noise contour location. Since the existing building structures provide different degree of shielding, determination of the noise contour location within the already developed areas is considered to be not practical. Therefore, the noise contour location on the undeveloped "level" land was addressed. It was determined that before the truck ban the Ldn=65 dB traffic noise contour was located somewhere at 200 to 220 ft from the road centerline. After the truck ban had been imposed, the Ldn of 65 dB noise contour is expected to be somewhere at 100 to 130 ft from the road centerline. For elevated or depressed (in relation to the road elevation) areas distance to Ldn=65 dB noise contour might be different. 11 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 66-5 5. FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT Future developments in the area and anticipated improvements of Rancho Santa Fe Road to the Prime Major Arterial standard will result in traffic noise impact increase. The City of Carlsbad estimates that future traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road without the road widening (2 lane road) might increase to ADT of 20,000. With the proposed road improvements to a 6 lane standard, the expected ADT might reach 44,000. The forecasted traffic flow data were used in the theoretical noise prediction analysis for determination of future acoustical conditions in the area of interest. The results are summarized in Table 8. Table 8 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS (FUTURE CONDITIONS, NO BARRIERS) Sect ion No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Without Ldn in dB 72 72 71 71 72 72 73 72 62 67 58 the widening Compl iance with Ldn=65 dB + 7 + 7 + 6 + 6 + 7 + 7 + 8 + 7 -3 +.2 -7 With Ldn in dB 73 74 73 73 74 74 74 74 65 69 59 the widening Corap 1 iance with Ldn=65 dB + 8 + 9 + 8 + 8 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 0 + 4 -6 12 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 The analysis shows that the forecasted traffic noise impacts on the majority of the existing residences under investigation could significantly exceed Ldn=65 dB outdoor noise limit established by the City of Carlsbad. The analysis also shows that after the road widening, traffic noise impacts on the existing residences would be by 1 to 2 dB higher than that without the widening. That sound level increase is somewhat lower than could be anticipated from the forecasted traffic flow increase by 220% after the road widening (10 log(44000/20000) = 3.4 dB). The lower noise increase can be explained by the fact that after the widening, the road centerline would be further from the existing residences than it is now. It was determined that without the road widening future Ldn=65 dB traffic noise contour would be located somewhere at 120 to 150 ft from the road centerline ("level" topography). With the road widening and the anticipated traffic increase, the Ldn=65 dB noise contour would be located somewhere at 200 to 240 ft from the road centerline. As was mentioned above, for elevated or depressed (in relation to the road elevation) areas distance to the Ldn=65 dB noise contour could be different. 6. MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis shows that the existing and the forecasted traffic noise impacts on some of the existing residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road might exceed the Ldn=65 dB noise level limit established by the City Of Carlsbad. In order to reduce traffic noise impacts to Ldn=65 dB of less, different noise mitigation measures were considered. Since the acoustical barriers are the most widely used measures for traffic noise mitigation, application of the free standing solid acoustical barriers was evaluated the first. The City of Carlsbad typically considers 6 ft high solid noise attenuation walls as an acceptable noise mitigation alternative (4). Therefore, the acoustical calculations were performed to determine the noise attenuation effect of 6 ft high acoustical barriers placed between the road and the existing residences under the investigation. The calculations were performed for all 4 traffic flow alternatives considered in this analysis. The examples of the acoustical calculations are shown in Tables 13 and 14 in the Appendix. The final results are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. 13 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Table 9 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS (EXISTING CONDITIONS, 6 FT HIGH BARRIERS) Sec t ion No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Before Ldn in dB 68 68 66 66 67 68 68 68 62 66 Not the truck ban Compl iance with Ldn=65 dB + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 -3 + 1 requi red After Ldn in dB 63 63 62 61 63 63 64 64 Not Not Not the truck ban Compl iance with Ldn=65 dB -2 -2 -3 -4 -2 -2 -1 -1 requi red requi red requi red Table 10 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS (FUTURE CONDITIONS, 6 FT HIGH BARRIERS) Sect i on No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Without the wideninq Ldn in dB 64 65 63 63 64 65 65 65 Not 62 Not Comp 1 iance with Ldn=65 dB -1 0 -2 -2 i 0 0 0 requi red -3 requi red With Ldn in dB 67 67 66 65 66 67 67 67 Not 65 Not the widening Compl iance with Ldn=65 dB + 2 + 2 + 1 0 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 2 requi red 0 requi red 14 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 As can be seen from Tables 9 and 10, at the "after and "future without widening with the truck ban alternatives, the 6 ft high solid walls would noise impacts on the "first floor" observers at under investigation to Ldn=65 dB or less. However, the truck ban" or "future with widening with traffic flow conditions, traffic noise impacts residences could still exceed Ldn=65 dB even with acoustical barriers. the truck ban" traffic flow reduce traffic the residences at the "before the truck ban" on some of the the 6 ft high The additional calculations were performed to determine the optimal acoustical barrier height needed for traffic noise mitigation to Ldn=65 dB at all cross-sections under the consideration. The results of the calculations are summarized in Tables 11 and 12. Table 11 NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS (COMPLIANCE WITH Ldn=65 dB LIMIT) Section No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 Before traf f Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Not 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i c (8 (8 (6 (6 (7 (7 (7 (8 (3 (6 the truck ban flow conditions .5 .0 .5 .5 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .5 requi ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above red pad) pad ) pad) pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) road ) road ) After the traff Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai, Wai Wai Not Wai Not i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 truck ban c flow conditions (4.5 (4.5 (4.0 (4.0 (5 .0 (5 .0 (5 .5 (5.0 requi (3.0 requi ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above red ' above red pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) road ) 15 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 Table 12 NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE FUTURE CONDITIONS (COMPLIANCE WITH Ldn=65 dB LIMIT) Section No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Without the road wideninq With the road wideninq ( 2 lane road ) Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Not Wai Not 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (5 . (5. (5 . (5 . (5. (6. (6. (6. r equ (3. 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 i 0 requi ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above red ' above red pad) pad) pad) pad ) pad) pad ) pad) pad ) road ) Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Wai Not Wai Not 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (6 lane road) (7.0 (7.0 (6.5 (6.0 (6.5 (6.5 (7.0 (7.5 requi (5.0 requi ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above ' above red ' above red pad ) pad ) pad ) pad ) pad) pad) pad ) pad ) road ) As follows from Tables 11 and 12, the present (after the truck ban) and the forecasted traffic noise impacts could be reduced to a Ldn=65 dB (for the "first floor" receptors) by placing of solid acoustical barriers ranging in height from 3 to 7.5 ft between the residences under investigation and the road. In order to reduce traffic noise impacts existed before the truck ban, the barriers with height of up to 8.5 ft would be required. Since typical traffic noise mitigation barriers have little or no sound attenuation effect for the upper floor rooms, it might be expected that traffic noise impacts on the upper floor elevations (if any) of residences located along Rancho Santa Fe Road might exceed Ldn=65 dB limit even when noise barriers are installed. It should be also mentioned that due to reflection of sound from the building elements, in some cases noise impacts behind the noise attenuation barriers could be slightly higher than that specified above. 16 n Report 86-006 l_j Assessment District No. 86-5 nI The noise attenuation barriers should be of solid design (masonry, concrete, stucco on wood frame, 2 inch thick wood, etc.) without any openings. A barrier that has openings totaling310% of its total area provides a maximum of 4 decibel noise attenuation (5). Therefore, the intended openings in a barrier (for drainage, etc.) should not exceed 1% of the total area, and 3 the construction specifications should require that all joints are tightly sealed. G The barriers could contain the light transparent sections (1/8 to 1/4 inch safety glass, shatterproof plexiglass, etc.) and could consist of the earth berms topped by the freestanding walls. For depressed or elevated (in relation to the road grade) lots, theDbarrier height might be lower than that for "level" lots. The City of Carlsbad uses Ldn=45 dB as the interior noise limit. n In order to reduce the exterior noise impacts specified above to [ Ldn=45 dB, the building envelope need to provide at least 20 to 30 decibel of noise reduction. Since sound attenuation of typical ,—I building envelope at the "open window" conditions is relatively low (somewhat between 10 to 15 decibel depending on size of the ^—' open area, room absorption, etc.), it can be expected that with the windows open, the interior noise in the residences under H • investigation might exceed 45 decibel.u In order to reduce the interior noise impact to Ldn=45 dB, theawindows of the affected residences need to be closed and some kind of mechanical ventilation need to be used to compensate for the lost natural ventilation. Additionally, use of dual or laminated glazing could be required in some windows, especially, at the upper floor rooms. Determination of more specific exterior and interior noise n mitigation measures shall be provided on the case by case basis. (_J It appears that the exterior and the interior noise analysis need to be performed for all future residences planned to be placedawithin Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor. Traffic noise predictions and the proposed noise mitigation measures contained in this report are preliminary only and represent the best estimates based on currently available information. Alexander Sfegal, Ph.D. Acoustica<C Engineer 17 Report 86-006 Assessment District No. 86-5 REFERENCES 1. Barry,T.M., and Reagan,J.A. (1978). "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108 by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2. Hendriks, R.W.. (1984). "California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels," Interim Report by Office of the Transportation Laboratory, California Department of Transportation. 3. Hendriks, R.W., (1986). "Heavy Truck Noise Emission Levels on Grades in California," Report by Office of the Transportation Laboratory (Caltrans) to the Transportation Research Board Annual Meet ing. 4. Letter from the City of Carlsbad Land Use Planning Office dated April 8, 1986. 5. The Noise Guidebook, A Reference Document for Implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Noise Policy, (1985). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. 18 nu Figure 1. Cross-sections 1 and 2 nu Figure 2. Cross-sections 3 and 4. •t Co ^ >/ -1 / / p U n Mu nu Figure 3. Cross-sections 5 and 6.<L \ nu Figure 4. Cross-sections 7 and 6. nu •50'. Figure 5. Cross-sections 9 and 10. n LJ O Figure 6. Cross-section 11. REPORT 86-006 APPENDIX TABLE 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 1 TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION HNV '/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS SPEED IN MPH 876.0 0.6 0.0 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE' - 49.6 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION . - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 1.0 LEFT ANGLE - -80.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq ( h ) (NO BARRIER) 66.6 52.7 39.5 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.76 -3.94 -4.38 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq ( h ) (WITH A BARRIER) 66.6 52.7 39.5 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 66.3 dB EXPECTED CNEL -'.REFLECTIVE' SITE 68 to 69 dB REPORT 86-006 APPENDIX TABLE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RAIMCHO 5ANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 3 TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION HNV X OF MEDIUM TRUCKS 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS SPEED IN MPH 393.0 3.8 13.4 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 1.0 LEFT ANGLE - -80.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq ( h ) (NO BARRIER) 65.9 60.0 70.8 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.76 -3.94 -4.38 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq ( h ) (WITH A BARRIER) 65.9 60.8 70.8 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 72.4 dB EXPECTED CNEL -'REFLECTIVE' SITE 73 to 74 dB APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 3 n TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS I FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ^ ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD U RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 7 n TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION jj HNV - 903.0 r-| 7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.1 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 0.6 U SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 H PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATIONI _ _ _I—l ;— ——— — — SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0 n SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6 jj BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 n TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 I . RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0 U ROAD GRADE (7.) - 1.0 LEFT ANGLE - -80.0 H RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 LJ " INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) ,—I j I SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h) (NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER) AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS 66 .-6 60., 0 57.4 -3.76 -3.94 -4.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.6 60.0 57.4 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 67.9 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 69 to 70 dB APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 4 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 9 TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION HNV - 856.0 7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.1 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.9 SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION. (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 1.0 LEFT ANGLE - -80.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq(h) (NO BARRIER) 66.3 59.8 62.2 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.76 -3.94 -4.38 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq < h ) (WITH A BARRIER) 66.3 59.8 62.2 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 68.4 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 69 to 70 dB APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 5 q TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS jj FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) H ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD LI RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 11 r] TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION ! I HNV - 960.0 r-i '/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.2 j 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.6 SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0 ROAD GRADE ('/.) - 1.0 LEFT ANGLE - -80.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq ( h ) (NO BARRIER) 66.9 60.4 61.9 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.76 -3.94 -4.38 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq ( h ) (WITH A BARRIER) 66.9 60.4 61.9 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 68.7 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 70 to 71 dB n J APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 6 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 2, TEST 1 TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION HNV - 1029.0 '/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.3 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 6.0 SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 30.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE. - 29.4 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 4.0 LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Lea ( h ) (NO BARRIER) 69.5 63.4 70.6 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.65 -3.95 -4.70 SHIELDING in dE 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq ( h ) (WITH A BARRIER) 69.5 63.4 70.6 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 73.5 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 74 to 75 dB APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 7 n TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-106 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL LJ (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) H ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD U RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 2, TEST 3 p| TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION U HNV - 867.0 7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.1 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.2USPEED IN MPH - 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 30.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 29.4 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION 5.0 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 4.0 LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq(h) (NO BARRIER) 69.0 62.3 62.9 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.65 -3.95 -4.70 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq(h) (WITH A BARRIER) 69.0 62.3 62.9 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 70.6 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 71 to 72 dB REPORT 86-006 APPENDIX TABLE 8 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RAIMCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 3, TEST 1 TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION HNV % OF MEDIUM TRUCKS '/. OF HEAVY TRUCKS SPEED IN MPH 909.0 2.6 0.0 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - ROAD ELEVATION - TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - RECEIVER ELEVATION - ROAD GRADE (7.) - LEFT ANGLE - RIGHT ANGLE - 45.0 44.6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 -90.0 90.0 1 1 5. INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq ( h ) (NO BARRIER) 67.4 6CLO 40.3 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.74 -3.94 -4.44 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq(h) (WITH A BARRIER) 67.4 60.0 40.3 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 68.2 dB EXPECTED CNEL -'REFLECTIVE' SITE 69 to 70 dB REPORT 86-006 APPENDIX TABLE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 3, TEST 3 TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION HNV •/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS SPEED IN MPH 1374.D 8.5 13.2 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 45.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 44.6 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION ' - 5.0 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 2.0 LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq ( h ) (NO BARRIER) 68.3 66.9 73.3 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.74 -3.94 -4.44 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq ( h ) (WITH A BARRIER) 68.3 66.9 73.3 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 75.2 dB EXPECTED CNEL -'REFLECTIVE' SITE 76 to 77 dB REPORT 86-006 APPENDIX TABLE 1 0 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 3, TEST 4 TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION HNV '/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS '/. OF HEAVY TRUCKS SPEED IN MPH 1031.0 3.9 11.1 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 56.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 55.7 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0 ROAD GRADE ('/.) - 2.0 LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS Leq ( h ) (NO BARRIER) 66.4 61.3 70.4 FRESNEL NUMBER -3.77 -3.93 -4.33 SHIELDING in dB 0.0 0.0 0.0 Leq ( h ) (WITH A BARRIER) 66.4 61.3 70.4 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - TOTAL Leq(h) - ###########*#####-* EXPECTED CNEL - EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) 'SOFT' SITE <ALPHA=0.5) [•*###**## #*######## *######*#*##-i 'REFLECTIVE' SITE 'SOFT' SITE HHH 73 72 72.2 70.8 fr***#+*#*-) to 74 to 73 dB dB (•** dB dB jj APPENDIX n REPORT 86-006 I TABLE 11 [~] TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS U FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)n ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, NO BARRIER, BEFORE THE TRUCK BAN n TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION ADT - 14400.0 n 7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 4.2 LJ 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 9.4 SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE . - 43.0 H SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3 U BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 15.0 ROAD ELEVATION ' - 506.3 n TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 507.2 jj RECEIVER ELEVATION - 512.2 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 2.0 n LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0U INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h) (NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER) AUTOS 66.8 -0.41 0.0 66.8 M.TRUCKS 61.9 -0.68 0.0 61.9 H.TRUCKS 69.9 -1.63 0.0 69.9 U FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) H TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 72.1 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 73 to 74 dB n APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 12 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, NO BARRIER, AFTER THE TRUCK BAN TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION ADT - 14400.0 '/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.0 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.0 SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 43.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 15.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 506.3 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 507.2 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 512.2 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 2.0 LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h) (NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER) AUTOS 67.2 -0.41 O.Q 67.2 M.TRUCKS 60.5 -0.68 0.0 60.5 H.TRUCKS 60.2 -1.63 0.0 60.2 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 68.7 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 70 to 71 dB APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 13 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, 6' BARRIER, BEFORE THE TRUCK BAN TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION ADT - 14400.0 V. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 4.2 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 9.4 SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 43.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 15.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 506.3 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 513.2 RECEIVER ELEVATION - 512.2 ROAD GRADE (7.) - 2.0 LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h) (NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER) AUTOS 66.8 0.47 -8.4 5S.4 M.TRUCKS 61.9 0.26 -7.2 54.7 H.TRUCKS 69.9 0.00 -5.0 64.9 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 66.1 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 67 to 68 dB n APPENDIX REPORT 86-006 TABLE 14 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RECEPTOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, 6' BARRIER, AFTER THE TRUCK BAN TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION ADT - 14400.0 '/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.0 7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.0 SPEED IN MPH - 45.0 ' PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 43.0 SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 15.0 ROAD ELEVATION - 506.3 TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 513.2 RECEIVER ELEVATION - - 512.2 ROAD GRADE ('/.) - 2.0 LEFT ANGLE - -90.0 RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE) SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h) (NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER) AUTOS 67.2 0.47 -8.4 53.8 M.TRUCKS 60.5 0.26 -7.2 53.2 H.TRUCKS 60.2 0.00 -5.0 55.2 FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING) TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=0.0) - 61.2 dB EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 62 to 63 dB