HomeMy WebLinkAbout3190; Rancho Sante Fe Road Bridge Replacement; Rancho Sante Fe Road Bridge Replacement; 2001-07-01m
ACOLSTICAL ASSCSSMCNT RCPORT
RANCnO SANTA CC ROAD
BRIDOC RCPLACCMCNT PROJCCT
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92009
Prepared hy.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
July 2001 ^
^ Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
I TABLC or C0NTCNT8
Section Page No.
m
m SUMMARY iii
ii
m
m
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
lil 2.1 Project Location and Setting 1
2.2 Project Characteristics 5
3.0 NOISE CRITERIA 6
3.1 City of Carlsbad Noise Criteria 7
3.2 County of San Diego Noise Criteria 7
3.3 FHWA/Caltrans Noise Criteria 7
4.0 METHODOLOGIES AND INSTRUMENTATION 8
5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9
6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 11
7.0 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES INCORPORATED
INTO THE PROJECT 13
8.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE 17
9.0 REFERENCES 17
ATTACriMENTS
Attachment 1 Traffic Volume Summary
Attachment 2 SOUND32
Attachment 3 Reasonable Allowance Worksheets
1576-01
July 2001
IB
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
TABLC Of C0NTCNT8 iContinuedi
Page No.
li
m
m
m
p
ii
LIST OF FIGLRES
Figure 1 Regional Map 2
Figure 2 Vicinity Map 3
Figure 3 Project Location 4
Figure 4 Noise Receptor Locations 10
Figure 5 Soundwall Locations 14
Figure 6 Construction Equipment Noise Levels 18
to
LIST OF TABLES
m
Table 1 Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-Weighted Average Sound Level - decibel (dBA) 7
Table 2 Existing Measured Hourly Average Noise Levels
(Site A - Approximately 85 Feet from the Centeriine
of Rancho Santa Fe Road) 9
Table 3 Short-Term Measured Average Noise Level and
Concurrent Traffic Volumes 11
Table 4 Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts 12
Table 5 Future Predicted Noise Levels with and without Noise Abatement Wall . 15
Table 6 Summary of Sound Wall Reasonability and Feasibility 16
^uMiiliiii">1ii'—'! if timtim Vt^jtm
1576-01
July 2001
« Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
m
SUMMARY
Existing noise sensitive receivers in the proj ect vicinity include approximately eight residences
located along the western portion of the project site along Rancho Santa Fe Road and
m approximately ten residences located near the intersection of Melrose Drive and Corintia
li Street. Existing noise levels currently exceed the Federal Highway Administration's Noise
Abatement Criteria at four residences alone Rancho Santa Fe Road.
u
Future noise levels generated by project traffic from the proposed road widening would
IP continue to exceed the Federal Highway Administration and California Department of
• Transportation's Noise Abatement Criteria at the four homes located along Rancho Santa Fe
^ Road. A noise barrier constructed along the western right-of-way of Rancho Santa Fe Road,
^ south of Meadowlark Ranch Road, will be constructed by the City of Carlsbad as part of the
proposed project to reduce the noise impact at the single family residences. It is possible that
^ the Cityof San Marcos will construct this section of Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Melrose
Drive. If the City of San Marcos constructs this segment, the City of San Marcos would
_ construct the noted noise barrier.
Noise impacts at the remaining existing residences within the proj ect study area and adj acent
^ land uses would comply with the Noise Abatement Criteria.
m
m 1576-01
Hfrt'TiffQtaAwiiv ^^^^^^^^^
July 2001
m
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
^ 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This noise study is provided for the proposed Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement
project. The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad and City of San Marcos.
E The City of Carlsbad is the lead agency for the profect. The project would also be federally
funded, therefore, Caltrans is a responsible agency.
m
^ This study documents the existing noise level based on noise measurement and modeling.
The future noise levels were calculated based on the proposed project's roadway design and
* traffic volume conditions. Noise sensitive receivers were identified and noise barriers have
been evaluated where necessary to achieve applicable noise criteria.
Z 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
^ 2.1 Project Location and Setting
The project site is located near the southeastern portion of the City of Carlsbad. The regional
proj ect location is depicted in Figure i and the proj ect vicinity is shown in Figure Z. The terrain
^ in area ranges from relatively flat ground to sloping hillsides. The area of potential effect
^ associated with the project includes an approximate 450 linear foot distance along Rancho
Santa Fe Road immediately south of Meadowlark Ranch Road. The engineering design along
•* this 450-foot section of road was completed by the City of San Marcos as part of a separate
*• road widening project.
^ Adjacent to the project site are an industrial business park, undeveloped land and
approximately 18 residences located within three residential areas. One residential area is
located along the western portion of the site near the intersection of Melrose Drive and
Corintia Street {Figure 3). These residences are located within the City of Carlsbad. The
tm. second residential area consists of four homes located on the west side of Rancho Santa Fe
w Road immediately south of Meadowlark Ranch Road. These homes are located within the
County of San Diego. An acoustical study was prepared evaluating noise impacts along this
^ section of road as part of the City of San Marcos' Rancho Santa Fe Road widening project
* (RECON 1998). In addition, the Meadowlands single-family residential development is
m located near the northwest intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive within
ii the City of Carlsbad.
1576-01
July 2001 1
*Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Acoustical Assessment Report
Regional Map
FIGURE
1
5 I'
'f .
- i
1
T^i ••7,
V
a :ho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Repl
1" -2000'
acement • Acoustical Assessment Report
Vicinity A/Iao
FIGURE
2
il
I*
k
PI
y
m
i
specific alignment plans in this area
hove been prepared by others.
JfOJECT ALIGNMENT SOURCE
Dokken Engineerin
Scale in Feet
icho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Repiacement - Acoustical Assessment Report
Project Location
FIGURE
m
m
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
pi
ll 2.2 Project Characteristics
IP
k
z
k
The City of Carlsbad's proposed Rancho Santa Fe Road improvement and bridge replacement
project would realign and widen approximately 3,500-linear feet of Rancho Santa Fe Road
(S-10) from two lanes to an ultimate six-lane Prime Arterial Roadway from just south of
Questhaven Road to just north of Melrose Drive in northern San Diego County.
Roadway Realignment
The proposed widening and realignment proj ect is part of the City of Carlsbad's General Plan
to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to meet its designation as a Prime Arterial Roadway. A
Prime Arterial Roadway has a 126-foot right-of-way containing six travel lanes, bike lanes,
an 18-foot raised median, sidewalks, curb, and gutter. The new bridge over San Marcos Creek
is planned to accommodate the Prime Arterial Roadway. The bridge replacement project
would involve construction of a new bridge in a location west of the existing bridge. The
existing bridge will be demolished.
The northerly roadway approach for the new bridge (s) will be approximately 2,200 feet long
and includes the reconstruction of the La Costa Meadows Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road
intersection, and reconstruction of approximately 300 feet of La Costa Meadows Drive cast
of the intersection. The realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road will be constructed to the full width
on the east side of the median, with sidewalks, curb and gutter, and street lights from the
bridge to north of Melrose Drive. The west side of the roadway will be constructed with 32
feet of paving adjacent to the median curb.
The current alignment of Melrose Drive would be altered to accommodate the proposed
widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection
would be moved approximately 400 feet to the north of the present intersection. Melrose
Drive would be realigned from the Corintia Drive/Melrose Drive intersection where Melrose
Drive would extend to the northwest to the realigned Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Road
intersection. Corintia Drive would be extended east to connect with the realigned Melrose
P Drive,
ii
^ The potential exists that the City of San Marcos may construct some improvements The
y City of San Marcos is working on a realignment and widening project for Rancho Santa Fe
Road that extends north from, and includes, the new Melrose Drive / Rancho Santa Fe Road
P intersection to meet the existing portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of San Marcos
1576-01
July 2001 5
m
m Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
ii ~
li that is currently improved with four travel lanes, shoulders, curb & gutter, sidewalks and
landscaped median. Should San Marcos construct their project ahead of the Carlsbad project,
^ it would include the improvements in the reach from Melrose Drive / Rancho Santa Fe Road
• intersection north to Meadowlark Ranch Road. Therefore, Carlsbad would not need to
construct the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection nor the transition
|g improvements to taper Rancho Santa Fe Road back to the existing two lanes just southerly
of Meadowlark Ranch Road. However, for the purposes of the analysis conducted for this
P report it is assumed that these roadway improvements would be constructed by the City of
k Carlsbad.
3.0 NOISE CRITERIA
1^
This report follows the noise criteria and policies estabhshed by the City of Carlsbad, County
0m of San Diego, as well as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the
^ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These guidelines establish procedures for noise
studies regarding traffic noise prediction, noise analyses and noise abatement criteria.
The proposed proj ect is located within portions of the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego
and City of San Marcos. The City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego noise criteria are
ta. applied within the apphcable local jurisdiction area. Caltrans and FHWA noise criteria are
^ also used for land uses adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road and where Rancho Santa Fe Road
is the predominant noise source. There are no noise sensitive receivers along the project site
that are located within the City of San Marcos.
The City of Carlsbad describes community noise levels in terms of the Community Noise
— Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL is a 24-hour average A-weighted sound level with a ten
^ decibel (dBA) "penalty" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and a five
dBA penalty added to the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The five and ten dBA
^ penalties are applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and
*" nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale measures noise levels corresponding to the human
PI hearing frequency response. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted. Noise levels at
H adjacent residences were also evaluated in terms of the peak hour average sound level. The
peak hour average sound level is the noise descriptor typically used by the FHWA and
Caltrans when evaluating traffic noise.
ii
it
IH
1576-01
July 2001 6
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
3.1 City of Carlsbad Noise Criteria
The City of Carlsbad requires that the maximum acceptable exterior noise level for new
residential development shall not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA.
3.2 County of San Diego Noise Criteria
The County of San Diego's maximum acceptable exterior noise level for new residential
development is that the CNEL should not exceed 60 dBA. However, projects that are
federally funded are to comply with applicable FHWA standards.
3.3 FHWA/Caltrans Noise Criteria
p
ia
The FHWA follows the noise abatement procedures established in the Code of Federal
Regulations (23 CFR 772). Caltrans also follows the noise abatement procedures as well as
policies established in Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1100.
The FHWA noise abatement criteria categorizes different activities and land uses for the
purposes of assessing noise impacts. Tahle 1 shows the FHWA noise abatement criteria. The
criteria are based on the peak hour (noisiest) average sound level which regularly occurs
during a 24-hour period. The noise abatement criteria for outdoor noise exposure typically
is appUed where frequent human use occurs such as swimming pools and common use areas
at multi-family residences and the backyards of single family homes.
L
P
m
m
r
k
TABLE 1
Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-Weighted Average Sound Level - decibel (dBA)
Activity
Category l^(h) • • • .. . ••
Description of Activity Category
A 57
(Exterior)
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and
wliere 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 above.
D Undeveloped lands.
E 52
(Interior)
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums.
1576-01
July 2001
p
p Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
P
The FHWA considers that a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels
with project approach within 1 dBA, or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria. The FHWA
specifies that the Noise Abatement Criteria, when approached or exceeded, requires the
consideration of traffic noise abatement measures. Also, a traffic noise impact occurs if there
is a substantial noise increase. A noise increase is substantial when the predicted noise level
with the project exceeds the existing hourly average noise level by 12 dBA.
4.0 METHODOLOGIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
To determine the existing noise levels and potential noise impacts, a 24-hour and short-term
noise measurement were conducted adjacent to the project site. The noise measurement
locations were selected to have an unobstructed view to the adj acent road (/. e., no intervening
m walls, buildings, topography, etc.). The 24-hour noise measurement was made to determine
k the peak hour average noise level associated with traffic noise from Rancho Santa Fe Road,
and to determine the CNEL. Noise modeling was also conducted using Caltrans' SOUND32
^ traffic noise prediction model (Caltrans 1983). This model is based on the FHWA traffic
noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The SOUND32 noise model accepts as input
^ the number and types of vehicles on the roadway {i.e., heavy trucks, medium trucks, and
k» automobiles), vehicle speeds, and physical characteristics of the road and topography; as well
as receiver and noise barrier heights and locations. The CALVENO vehicle noise emission
levels were used in the noise model (Caltrans 1987).
The noise measurements were conducted using calibrated Larson-Davis Laboratories Model
^ 700 (S.N. 2132) and Model 712 (S.N. 0231) digital integrating sound level meters. The sound
^ level meters meet the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1
^ (Model 700) and Type 2 (Model 712) sound level meters.
PR
^ Traffic counts were made during the short-term noise measurement. The truck percentage
used in the noise model was 3.52% medium trucks and 1.24% heavy trucks for Rancho Santa
^ Fe Road. The truck percentage used for Melrose Drive was 1.83% medium trucks and 0.28%
P heavy trucks. The truck percentages are based on vehicle mix surveys conducted by the City
of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad 1995). To verify the input used in the noise model, the same
J traffic volume and vehicle composition ratios counted during the noise measurements were
used. The posted speed limit for both Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive is 45 miles
P per hour. This speed correlated well with the results of the noise measurement and were used
ii in the noise modeling for these roads. The modeled values were within 1 dBA of the
.™ 1576-01 &.A^oaA.m.sccj -..
.lillu om^
p
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
measured noise levels which confirms the assumptions used in the noise model. Existing and
future traffic volume information is provided in Attachment 1.
5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
P
p
k
Site A, as depicted on Figure 4, was monitored from 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 1997 to
11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 16,1997. The primary noise source at the measurement site
is traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Site A was selected to provide an unobstructed view of
the Rancho Santa Fe Road {i.e., no intervening walls, buildings, topography etc.). Tahle Z
depicts the hourly average sound levels during the measurement period at Site A. The peak
(noisiest hour) average noise level was 70 dBA and occurred both during the morning
commute and the evening commute hours.
TABLE 2. Existing Measured Hourly Average Noise Levels
(Site A - Approximately 85 Feet from the Centeriine of Rancho Santa Fe Road)
r Day j Start Time L.
L 7/15/97 11:00 A.M. 68 dBA
Mi 12:00 Noon 68 dBA
w • 1:00 P.M. 69 dBA
hH 2:00 P.M. 69 dBA
m 3:00 P.M. 69 dBA
4:00 P.M. 70 dBA
5:00 P.M. 70 dBA
6:00 P.M. 69 dBA
«« 7:00 P.M. 68 dBA
8:00 P.M. 67 dBA
9:00 P.M. 67 dBA
to 10:00 P.M. 65 dBA
11:00 P.M. 62 dBA
P 7/16/97 12:00 Midnight 60 dBA
1:00 A.M. 56 dBA
P 2:00 A.M. 55 dBA
3:00 A.M. 55 dBA
P
4:00 A.M. 58 dBA
P 5:00 A.M. 64 dBA • 6:00 A.M. 69 dBA
7:00 A.M. 70 dBA
8:00 A.M. 69 dBA
9:00 A.M. 69 dBA
p 10:00 A.M. i 68 dBA
p CNEl 71 dBA
r
L 1 1576-01
Julv 2001
p
p
]
]
I
Ddsting Meadowlaffirc%'
Residences & —\ -
Sound^ll - \fC|rp*'
Specific alignment plons in this oreo
hove been prepored by others.
iSi'^
"" ••vJ''.
Nov
Q Noise Measurement Location
O Noise Modeling Receptor Location
•••llll Existing Sound WaH
ROJECT AUGNMENT SOURCE:
Dokken Enqineerinq. Oct. 1998
500
Scale in Feet
IP
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement • Acoustical Assessment Report
lUoise Measurement and Receptor Locations
FIGURE
i
c
[
[
c
c
c
L
Z
Z
:
c
I
I
I
E
E
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
A short-term noise measurement was also conducted at the residential area located at the
northwest intersection of Melrose Drive and Corintia Street (Site B, Figure 3). The traffic
noise at these residences is primarily associated with Melrose Drive, and to a lesser extent,
Rancho Santa Fe Road. The homes at this area have existing sound walls approximately 5 to
6-feet in height. The noise measurement, conducted approximately 10 feet in front of the
sound wall {i.e., the sound level meter was positioned between the road and sound wall)
resulted in an average sound level of 63 dBA. Table 3 depicts the results of the noise
measurement adjacent to Melrose Drive.
TABLE 3
Short-Term Measured Average Noise Level and Concurrent Traffic Volumes
Site Description . .. .... • • •'. .. .
Date/Time
Cars Mr
B Approximately 90' to center line of Melrose Drive
and approximately 500' to center line of Rancho
Santa Fe Road
7/16/97
10:40-11:00 AM
63 dBA 119'
Notes: ' Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (time-average sound level)
^ Medium trucks
^ Heavy trucks
Vehides on Melrose Drive
The Meadowlands project has been recently constructed with single family homes adjacent
to the northwest intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive. The residences
along these roads have existing approximate six-foot high sound wails.
6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
To determine future noise levels and the significance of potential noise impacts at land uses
adjacent to the project site, future year 2015 "built" and future year not built noise levels were
calculated using the SOUND32 model. The noise modeling included the future year 2015
traffic information and the physical improvements shown on the preliminary designs for the
road widening and intersection improvements. The future year 2015 "not built" traffic
volumes and existing roadway constituted the "no build" scenario. The future year 2015 built
scenario included the built traffic volumes as well as the proposed roadway improvements.
July 2001
1576-01
11
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
With implementation of the proj ect, the future peak one-hour average noise level is proj ected
to reach approximately 70 to 71 dBA at the backyards of the residences located along the
west side Rancho Santa Fe Road and south of Meadowlark Ranch Road (Sites 4,5, and 6 on
Figure 4). This noise level would exceed Caitrans/FHWA noise abatement criteria. These and
the recently constructed Meadowlands project discussed in the previous section, are the only
residences located adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road that are within the project limits. Table
4 shows the existing, predicted future "built" and future "not built" peak one-hour average
noise levels at the receivers.
TABLE 4
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts
Sit
e
Luctitinn
DRVI lu|iinent
19/8
Lxintinii
Luwl
Prcilictcd
NolsB
Level
Noise
Incroaso
Ducrpdse
ALtivity
CalPi|ury
And MAC
Liiq lu
Innpatt
Typo
1 Via Verano (Backyard) No 56 60 +4 B(67) None
2 Via Verano (Backyard) No 58 62 +4 B(67) None
3 Via Verano (Backyard) No 58 64 + 6 B(67) None
4 Meadowlark (Backyard) Yes 71 71 0 B(67) A/E
5 Meadowlark (Backyard) Yes 70 71 + 1 B[67) A/E
6 Meadowlark (Backyard) Yes 70 71 + 1 B(67) A/E
7 Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (Children Play
Area)
Yes 61 62 + 1 B(67) None
8 Rancho Santa Ee Road (Qffice
, Lunch Area)
Yes 66 66 0 C(72) None
9 Corte Ramon (Backyard) No 58 62 +4 B(67) None
10 Corte Ramon (Backyard) No 60 63 + 3 B(67) None
n Corte Ramon (Backyard) No 61 64 +3 Bi67) None
12 Corte Ramon (Backyard) No 60 65 + 5 B(67) None
A Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (Office) YES 70 69 -1 C(72) None
B Melrose Dr.. (Landscape Easement) --66 70 +4 DH None
Note: A/E = Approach/Exceed
July 2001
1576-01
12
m
N» Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report ll ^====^=^==^^^=^^^=
m The future peak hour average noise level at the residences located along Melrose Drive would
IM range from approximately 60 to 64 dBA (Sites 1, 2 and 3, Figure 4). This includes the noise
attenuation associated with the existing five to six-foot high sound wall at the residences.
^ This noise level would comply with the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria.
*• The future worst-case one-hour average noise level at the homes located within the
Meadowlands residential development would range from approximately 62 to 65 dBA. This
^ noise level includes the noise attenuation associated with the existing sound wall along the
^ backyards of the homes. This noise level complies with FFIWA/Caltrans Noise Abatement
Criteria of 67 dBA, Leq(h) for Activity Category B land uses.
mm
The business industrial park includes several outdoor lunch areas. Most of the lunch areas
p, are located along the east sides of the buildings which provide noise attenuation from the
^ traffic noise. However, a lunch area is located on the south side of the southern most
building in the industrial complex. The peak one-hour average noise level at this location
^ would be approximately 66 dBA. This noise level comphes with the FFLWA/Caltrans Noise
Abatement Criteria of 72 dBA, Leq(h) for Activity Category C land uses.
A child care facility is located at the business industrial park along La Costa Meadows Drive
east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The facility is partially shielded from traffic noise by
^ intervening buildings. The future peak hour average noise level at this location would be
** approximately 62 dBA. This noise level would comply with the FFWA/Caltrans Noise
^ Abatement Criteria of 67 dBA, Leq(h) for Activity Category B land uses.
7.0 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE
PROJECT
Future noise levels would exceed FHWA/Caltrans noise criteria at four homes located along
Rancho Santa Fe Road. Preliminary mitigation measures for the affected homes have been
ig evaluated to provide noise abatement and design information. With an eight-foot high sound
wall located along western right-of-way, the future peak hour average noise level would be
P mitigated to 61 to 62 dBA. The location of the proposed noise barrier is depicted on Figure
^ 5. The length of the sound wall including the wrap around would be approximately 480 feet.
The sound wall would be located approximately between stations 288 + 35 and 292 -f- 85.
^ A comparison of the noise reduction provided by various barrier heights is shown in Table 5.
P
m
1576-01
July 2001 13
p
P
P
P
P
m
MEADOWLARK RANCH RD
Begin Wall
End Wan at Existing WeU
Existing Meadowlands :
Residential Development
PROJECT GRADING SOURCE:
^okken^ngineering^ct^998
Sound Wall (Bl)
O Receiver Location
Proposed Sound Wall
Existing Sound Wall
Scole in Feet
'k Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Acoustical Assessment Report
Sound Wall Location
FIGURE
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
TABLE 5
Future Predicted Noise Levels with and without Noise Abatement Wall
'(•'^j/ WithoutNaise .j
SiU. i Abatement Wall m
With Noise Abatement Wall
10'
Leq (h) I.L. Le[i(h) I.L. Leq(h) I.L.
1 i 60* 60 N/A 60 N/A 60 N/A
2 62* 62 N/A 62 N/A 62 N/A
3 64* 64 N/A 64 N/A 64 N/A
4 71 63** 8 62" 9 Bl** 10
5 71 62'* 9 61** 10 60** 11
6 71 62** 9 61*" 10 59** 12
7 62 62 N/A 62 N/A 62 N/A
8 66 66 N/A 66 N/A 66 N/A
9 62* 62 N/A 62 N/A 62 N/A
ID 63* 63 N/A 63 N/A 63 N/A
11 64* 64 N/A 64 N/A 64 N/A
12 65* 65 N/A 65 N/A 65 N/A
A 69 69 N/A 69 N/A 69 N/A
B 70
1
70 N/A 70 N/A 1 70 j N/A
Notes: ' With existing sound wall
** Breaks line of sight between truck stack and 5' receiver
N/A Not applicable (no barrier considered]
Bold Achieves minimum 5 dBA reduction
I.L. Insertion loss
A six-foot high sound wall would also attenuate the noise so that the traffic noise would
comply with the Noise Abatement Criteria. However, it should be noted that an eight-foot
high sound wall is depicted in the engineering design plans as part of the City of San Marcos'
Rancho Santa Fe Road widening project. The eight-foot wall height shown in the
engineering design plans is based on the acoustical assessment prepared for the City of San
Marcos. Assuming the City of San Marcos constructs this segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road,
^r^MMtna Iftmi^tt CtmiAt^ iP"i«H July 2001
1576-01
15
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
the City of San Marcos will construct an eight-foot high sound wall at these residences. If
the City of Carlsbad constructs the proposed project first, the City of Carlsbad has
committed to constructing the noted sound wall proposed by the City of San Marcos (City
of Carlsbad 1998).
The proposed eight-foot high noise barrier identified in this study is subject to review under
FHWA and Caltrans "reasonable and feasible" criteria. These criteria involve analysis of
economic and engineering considerations to determine if the barrier will be constructed with
Federal funds. The "reasonable" portion of this analysis includes a cost per allowance per
benefitted residence, and has been calculated based on the noise attenuation associated with
an eight-foot high barrier. The calculation is provided inAttachment 3, and indicates that the
cost is $33,000 per benefitted residence. The total reasonable allowance for abatement is
$132,000. Utilizing a $14 per square foot construction cost for a noise barrier results in a total
cost of approximately $53,760 for the noise barrier. The estimated cost of the noise barrier
within the allotted total reasonable allowance. Therefore, the cost of the noise barrier is
considered reasonable. The barrier is feasible because it attenuates the noise by at least five
dBA. A summary of the feasibility and reasonability of an eight-foot high barrier is depicted
in Table 6.
There are no other impacted areas per FHWA; therefore, no abatement is considered.
TABLE 6
Summary of Sound Wall Reasonability and Feasibility
Achieves Number of
Minimum 5 dBA Benufitted Reasonable
Barrier Hnight noise reduction Residences Allowance Total Cost
Bl ! 8' Yes 4 , $132,000 S53,760
Preliminary information on the physical characteristics of potential abatement measures (e.g.,
physical location, length, and height of barrier) is provided in this report. If pertinent
parameters change substantially during the final project design, the preliminary noise
abatement design may be changed or eliminated from the final project design. The final
design of barrier, if included in the project, will be based on the final project design. The final
design must also be independently checked to confirm that it meets the requirements of
^^,,\SS(>C!Am. INC.; _
IV^Hin^w; 'UM*-: ft- t .irtii^i !f r-(^T- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
July 2001 16
ffi
m
m Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
m
IW Chapter 1100 of the Highway Design Manual. In particular, the minimum and maximum
m height requirements specified in Section 1102.3 of the manual must be independently checked
, as part of the final design. The decision to include barriers in the project design will be based
on this information and other pertinent information received during the public review
process.
p
ii 8.0 CONSTRUCTiON NOISE
m
^ Noise generated by construction equipment on this project would occur with varying
intensities and durations during the different phases of construction: clear and grub,
* earthwork, base preparation, paving and cleanup.
P Equipment expected to be used would include tractors, backhoes, pavers and other related
^ equipment. Maximum noise levels at 50 feet range from approximately 75 to 95 dBA for the
type of equipment normally used in a project such as this. The noise levels associated with
various types of construction equipment are shown in Figure 6. Noise produced by
construction equipment would be reduced by approximately six dB per doubling distance.
Thus, the noise level would be about 6 dB less at 100 feet as compared to 50 feet from the
equipment.
Project construction will comply with applicable local requirements. Also, the contractor
shall comply with all local sound control and noise level standards, regulations and
ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract. Each internal
combustion engine, used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped
with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine
shall be operated on the project without said muffler.
9.0 REFERENCES
Linscott Law and Greenspan (LLG), April 15,1998. Year Z0'f5 Peak Hour Traffic Forecast
Volumes (Fax data).
CaHfornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans), June 1983. User's Instructions for
SOUND3Z (FHWA/CA/TL-83/06).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1987. California Vehicle Noise Emission
Levels, FFiWA/CA/TL-87/03.
1576-01
July 2001 17
k
p
k
p
ll
p
k
IA
Ut Z 5 z
Ul
Z
o p
M D ffl o u
-J <
Z
cc
Ul
1 i
COMPACTERS (ROLLERS)
FRONT LOADERS
BACKHOES
TRACTORS
SCRAPERS, GRADERS
PAVERS
TRUCKS
CONCRETE MIXERS
CONCRETE PUMPS
CRANES (MOVABLE)
CRANES (DERRICK)
PUMPS
GENERATORS
COMPRESSORS
NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET
S3
-a
Ul
PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS
PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)
VIBRATORS
SAWS
NOTE: Based on limited available data samples.
m
p
SOURCE: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 31,1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment & Operations'
k Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Acoustical Assessment Report
Typical Construction Noise Generation Levels
FIGURE
6
m
p
m
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
CityofCarlsbad, September, 1995. Noise Guidelines Manual.
City of Carlsbad, October, 1998. Telephone Conversation betvceen Mr. Doug Helming (City of
Carlsbad) and Mr. Jim Harry (DUDEK).
m Federal Highway Administration (FFIWA), December 1978. FFLWA Highway Traffic Noise
M Prediction Model.
J County of San Diego, December 17, 1980. San Diego County Noise Element,
m RECON, April 29, 1998. Noise Analysis for Rancho Santa Fe Road Improvements.
1576-01
July 2001 19
m
ATTACIIMENT I
Traffic Volume Summary
[Existing and Future Peak Hour Volumes]
p
r
pTofasional Teonu for Complex Projecti
m
m
m
Road
Rancho Santa Fe Road
(s/o La Costa Meadows)
(n/o La Costa Meadows)
(s/o Melrose Dr.)
(n/o Melrose Dr.)
Melrose Dr.
Existing Peak Vehicles Per Hour
Cars MT
973/826 36/31
1182/750 44/28
1048/776 39/29
1171/945 43/35
345/392 6/7
HT
13/11
15/10
14/10
15/12
1/1
Road
Rancho Santa Fe Road
(s/o La Costa Meadows)
(n/o La Costa Meadows)
(s/o Melrose Dr.)
(n/o Melrose Dr.)
Melrose Dr.
Future Peak Vehicles Per Hour
Cars
1467/1943
1467/1857
1467/1857
1419/1362
2173/1733
MT
54/72
54/69
54/69
52/50
41/32
HT
19/25
19/24
19/24
18/18
6/5
(NB/SB along Rancho Santa Fe Road)
(EB/WB along Melrose Dr.)
Traffic Counts During Noise Measurements
Rancho Santa Fe Rd., 372 cars, 14 mt, 4 ht (8:00-8:15 am 7/16/97)
Melrose Dr., 119 cars, 1 mt, 2 ht (10:40-11:00 am. 7/16/97)
m
k
m '
k :
P f'
iM -
k [
t. : I. -
1^ f
ito 11
m P
pi. •'.
p
IP
Attachment 2
SOUND32
DUDEK
&ASSOCIATES
A California Corporation
li
Rancho Santa Fe Road--Existing with Existing Sound Walls
^-RANCHO SAHTA FE ROAD, 1
ii73 , 45 , 35 , 45 , 13 , 45
T-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 2
pi.182 , 45 , 44 , 45 , IS , 45
^RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 3
1048 , 45 , 39 , 45 , 14 , 45
ljj|RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 4
.26 , 45 , 31 , 45 , 11 , 45
SRANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 5
750 , 45 , 28 , 45 , 10 , 45
PRANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 6
||i76 , 45 , 29 , 45 , 10 , 45
T-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 7
in45 , 45 , 35 , 45 , 12 , 45
Rancho Santa Fe Road, 8
45 , 43 , 45 , 15 , 45 1171
T-MELROSE DRIVE, 9 P
45 , 45 , 6 , 45 45
45
ELROSE DRIVE, 10
392 , 45 , 7 , 45 ,
P NORTHBOUND, 1
igl365,-644,350,Ul
N, 1136,-328,339,U2
|l^036,-182,338,U3
945,-51,336,U4
f8,207,336,U5
L- N0RTHB0UND2, 2
P
.778,207,335,U5 .
t|K84, 386,336,U6
603,681,342,U7
Jl» N0RTHB0UND3, 3
^;03, 681, 342,U7
584,946,354,U8
^SOUTHBOUND, 4
I i.350, -650, 350,01
•^121, -333, 339,D2
N,1013,-178,338,D3
^^J31, -62,336,D4
'j^,193, 336,05
L- S0UTHB0DND5, 5
t|"W56, 193,336,D5
V 160,369,335,D6
570,697,343,07
L^S0UTHB0UWD6, 6
N 70,697,343,07
,952,355,08
L-Southbound |n/o) Melrose, 7
tP50,952,355,08
[|||59 . , 1175, 370,0U9
N,561.,1411,380,DUlO
N|g|61. ,1644,390,DUll
N^62 . , 1841,400,DU12
562.,1999,410,0U13
L-Northbound, 8
N^84 . , 946,354,U8
Nifrl.,1175, 370, D9A
N,573.,1411,380,OIOA
N^3 . , 1644, 390,DllA
NL 74.,1841,400,D12A
p
N,574.,1999,410,D13A
EASTBOUND, 9
li-331,1708,375,Wl
N, -245,1597,370,W2
pi-96,1372,360,W3
^64,1157,354,W4
N,209,954,350,WW5
^339,768, 346,WW6
421,639,344,HW7
3,571,342,HWS
L- WESTBOUND, 10
S^-285,1736,375,E1
11-215,1632,370,E2
N, -47,1395,360,E3
((•110, 1189,354,E4
^258, 981, 350,EE5
N,392,775,345,EE6
1^2,703,344,EE7
: 3XISTING WALL, 1,2,0,0
.M.2, 585, 369, 375,81
-69,763,368,374,B2
^365, 367,373,B3
^ 939,367,373,B4
100,963,367,373,65
ll^, 978, 367, 373 ,B6
1 ,1044,366,372,B7
-'9'o,1164,355,371,88
-77,1248,366,372,B9
1 EXISTING WALL--Rancho Santa Fe, 2 , 2 , 0 ,0
dM). ,1542,382,388,Ml
500.,1540,383,389,M2
. , 1512,383, 389,M3
A.^.. . 1385,376, 382,M4
489.,1272,369,375,MS
^., 1251,356, 372,M6
3 .,1212,364,370,M7
^ . , 1182,363, 369,MBA
282. , 1180,361, 367,M8B
2 . , 1161, 361,357,M9
1^. , 1260, 361, 367, MIO
R, 1 , 67 ,500
-^,1242,371. ,R1
R 2 , 57 ,500
IM
-16,1146,370,R2/3
R^3 , 5 7 ,500
6 1027,371,R3
Rp4 , 67 ,500
89,975,372,R4/2
R^ , 67 ,500
5j^27,372,R5
R, 6 , 67 ,500
0|(j|70,372,R6/l
R|g' . 57 ,500
-75,757,373,R7
R, 8 , 67 ,500
5:^.1845,401,RS
RIPJ , 57 ,500
515,1744,395,R9
R,Po , 67 .500
5:^1647,390,RIO
p
M
R, 11 , 57 ,500
,853,359,Rll
li 12 , 67 ,500
641,660,349,R12
(• 13 , 67 ,500
y^)5,435,349,R13
R, 14 , 67 ,500
^21, 324,350. ,R14/7
•i 15 , 57 ,500
Po9, -12, 345 . ,R15/A
R, 16 , 67 ,500
P91, -30, 345 . , R16/8
lg 17 , 67 ,500
508,1587,383,R20/4
pi 18 , 67 ,500
1^2,1726,389,R21/5
R, 19 , 67 ,500
505,1892,402,R22/6
20 , 67 ,500
11, 1013,366. ,B
R, 21 , 67 ,500
Po, 1440, 373 . ,R23/9
22 , 67 ,500
452,1338,372.,R24/10
^23 , 67 ,500
1,1226,369.,R25/11
" 24 , 67 ,500
254,1182,366.,R26/l2
pi
j 4.5
8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
D, 4.5
,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
,1^4.5
2 ,1,2,3,4,5,5,7,20
1^4.5
: ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
^••4.5
4 ,1,2,3.4.5,5,7,20
E'-4.S
5|^ . 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
D, 4.5
imm ,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16.17,18,19
^3
ALL,14
A , 16
cP
SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91
UglTLE:
Rancho Santa Fe Road--Existing with Existing Sound Walls
ELE
1
1
i¥
14
m
1
iP
17
1»
EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS
j^l - 0.* Bl
2-0.* 82
Iiw3 - O.-* B3
4 - 0.* 84
m
5-0.* B5
5-0.* 86
7-0.* B7
tms 0.* B8
^9 - 0.* Ml
^^0 - 0. * M2
11-0,* M3
pA2 - 0.* M4
3 - 0. - M5
*'f4 - 0.* M5
15-0.* M7
6 - 0.* MSA
|p7 - 0 . • M8B
18-0.* M9
BARRIER DATA
BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR
2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH TYPE
*
6.* Bl 89.1 • MASONRY
' - 6. * B2 127.2 MASONRY
6.* B3 109 .7 MASONRY
1
6. * 84 26 . S MASONRY
6.* B5 15 . 5 MASONRY
6 , * B6 79. 3 MASONRY
1 - 5.* 87 144 .2 MASONRY
6 . *
1
88 101.5 MASONRY
Ml 60 . 0 MASONRY
5 . • M2 28 . 0 MASONRY
- 6.* N3 127.4 MASONRY
5 .*
1
M4 113 .3 MASONRY
6 . * M5 85. 7 MASONRY
6 M6 68 .3 MASONRY
1
6 . * M7 71. 5 MASONRY
1 - 6.* MSA 4.1 MASONRY
6 . * MSB 46 .1 MASONRY
' - 5.' M9 108 .7 MASONRY
llgf.EC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL]
Pii Rl 67 . 500. 62 .0
3
R2/3
R3
67 .
67 .
500 .
500.
57
57
. 7
.5
5
R4/2
R5
67 .
67 .
500.
500 .
57
56
.8
.6
P6 R6/1 67 . 500 . 55 , 8
7 R7 67 . 500 . 54 . 9
^8 RS 57. 500. 71 .5
j|^9 R9 67 . 500. 71 .7
10 RIO 67. 500. 71 .7
P^ Rll 67 . 500. 70 .5
to'
13
R12 67 . 500 . 73 .2 to'
13 R13 67 . 500. 58 . .0
14 R14/7 67 . SOO . 61. . 0
5 R15/A 67. 500. 69, .5
P6 R16/8 67 . 500. 66 , .0 %
17 R20/4 67 . 500 . 71. 1
R21/5 57. 500. 70. 4
R22/6 67 . 500 . 70. 2 f2.tc
20 8 67. 500. 65. 5
^ R23/9 67 . SOO . 58 . 0
-> R24/10 67. 500. 50. 3
R25/11 57 . 500. 60. 6 Qe,6 U
24 R26/12 67. 500 . 59. 8
P
BARRIER TYPE COST
ilRM
MASONRY
^SONRY/JERSEY
)NCRETE
0 ,
73991,
0 ,
0.
TOTAL COST = $ 74000.
^RRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION
lillillllllillilll
(WRRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION
. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6, 6.
P
m
Rancho Santa Fe Road--Future With Existing Sound Walls
jll^RANCHO SANTA FE ROAO, 1
1457 , 45 , 54 , 45 , 19 , 45
r-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 2
1419 , 45 , 52 , 45 , 18 , 45
-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 3
IB.943 , 45 , 72 , 45 , 25 , 45
T-RANCHO SAIJTA FE ROAD, 4
<^.857 , 45 , 69 , 45 , 24 , 45
^RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 5
1362 , 45 , 50 , 45 , 18 , 45
(jjjMELROSE DRIVE, 6
:173 , 45 , 41 , 45 , 6 , 45
VMELROSE DRIVE, 7
1733 , 45 , 32 , 45 , 5 , 45
*" NORTHBODND, 1
Pl34S, -714,357,Nl
N, 1080,-358,356,N2
P*797,25,346,N3
^704,197,342.N4
N, 618,442,340,N5
jjjl^592,576,340,N6
. 583,667,342,N7
80,783,346,NS
N,584,870,350,N9
^4,993,357,NIO
In N0RTHB0UND2, 2
N,594,993,357,NIO
^29, 1533, 382,Nil
1 525,1635,385,N12 P
N,623,1738,392,N13
N, 619,1941,405,N14
i 1,2169,420,N15
AM S0UTHB0UN03, 3
N,1292,-740,372,Sl
1^.031, -392,356,52
1^,44, 346, S3
L- S0UTH80UND4, 4
1^14,44,346,33
> 124,227,342,S4
434,340,S5
N,532,571,341,S6
Pk
^ .20,753,346,37
rp23, 851, 350,S8
533,994,357,S9
I*»S0UTHB0DND5, 5
:^33. 994, 357, S9
N,581,1537,382,310
N|||g70, 1641, 386, Sll
I4i^70,1743,392,S12
li^l2. 1941,405,513
572,2170,420,514
LP^EASTBOUNDe, 6
Nj|i|331, 1708,375,Wl
N,-245,1597,370,W2
Np|96, 1372,360,W3
N^4, 1157,354,W4
N,178,1083,354,WS
N^7, 1039,354,W6
4' ,975,356,W7
P
m
L- WE5TB0UND7, 7
IfH^. -285, 1736, 375,El
,-215,1632,370,E2
-47, 1396, 360,E3
N,110,1189,354,E4
PI
,185,1136,354,E5
•• 275, 1084,354,E6
480,1024,356,E7
'^•EXISTING WALL, 1,2,0,0
1^12,685,369,375,61
-69,753,368,374,82
,j, 865,367,373,83
!,939,357,373,84
*Ro, 963,367,373,85
104,978,367,373,B6
^1,1044,356,371,87
to*0,1164,365,371,BS
-77,1248,366,372,89
<^Existing Wall, 2,2,0,0
0 . ,1542,382,388,Ml
to*
500.,1540,383,389,M2
^0. ,1512,383 , 389,M3
2. ,1385,376,382,M4
P9. , 1272,369, 3 75,M5
406 . , 1251,355,372,M6
^0. ,1212,364,370,M7
, 1182, 363,369,M8A
282.,1180,361,367,MSB
a*0. , 1161,351,367,M9
5. ,1260,361,367,MIO
R, 1 , 67 ,500
-84,1242,371,Rl
mm
] 2 , 67 ,500
••5,1146,370.,R2/3
R, 3 , 67 ,500
1^, 1027,371,R3
^ 4 , 67 ,500
89,975,372,R4/2
^ 5 , 67 ,500
927, 372,R5
"5 , 67 ,500
0. 870.372,R6/1
^ 7 , 67 ,500
it,767,373,R7
R, 8 , 67 ,500
1845,401,R8
Ijgi 9 , 67 ,500
515,1744,395,R9
IjplQ , 67 ,500
.,1547,390,RIO
'11 , 57 ,500
645,853,359,Rll
1^12 , 67 ,500
601,650,349,RI2
R, 13 , 67 ,500
Tpl,435,349,R13
R^14 , 57 ,500
1021,324,350,R14/7
R 15 , 67 ,500
1, 9,-12,345,RlS/A
p
R, 15 , 67 ,500
11^91,-30,345,R16/8
a , 17 , 67 ,500
™08,1587,383,R20/4
R, 18 , 67 ,500
*":i2,1726,389,R21/5
P 19 , 67 ,500
505, 1892,402,R22/6
Pl, 20 , 67 ,500
1013,366,8
R, 21 , 67 ,500
|||0,1440, 373 . ,R23/9
^ 22 , 67 ,500
"2, 1338, 372 . ,R24/10
R, 23 , 67 ,500
'^.1,1225,359,,R25/11
P 24 , 67 ,500
254,1182,366.,R26/12
4.5
^ ,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
D, 4.5
^ ,S,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
4.5
P ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
D, 4.5
^ ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
P ^ - ^
3 ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
^4.5
,1,2,3,4,5,5,7,20
D, 4.5
5 ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
1 -3
Mac,14
K, -1
;^.,16
S0UNO32 - RELEASE 07/30/91
m
^•ITLE :
Rancho Santa Fe Road--Future With Existing Sound Walls
P
EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS
JPPI ****************************
IgAR
ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5
^1-0.* Bl
2- 0.* 82
3- 0.* B3
pi
4 - 0.* B4
P 5 - 0.* B5
6 - 0. * 86
*» 7 - 0 .* B7
In 8 - 0. * B8
_ 9 - 0 . * Ml
LO - 0.* M2
""^l - 0.* M3
12 - 0. * M4
•*L3 - 0.* M5
|g(.4 - 0.* MS
15-0.* M7
••i.6 - 0.* M8A
, 7 - 0.* MSB
18-0.* M9
BARRIER DATA
*••*»«*«*«**
BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR
^E 01234557 ID LENGTH TYPE
2
P
I
11
m
14
ip
17
6. • Bl 89.1 MASONRY
6. * B2 127.2 MASONRY
6 .* B3 109. 7 MASONRY
6. * B4 26 . 8 MASONRY
6 .* B5 15.5 MASONRY
6 . * B6 79. 3 MASONRY
6. • 87 144 .2 MASONRY
6 .* BS 101.5 MASONRY
6 . * Ml 60.0 MASONRY
6 .* M2 28 .0 MASONRY
6 . * M3 127.4 MASONRY
6.* M4 113 .3 MASONRY
6. * M5 85 .7 MASONRY
6.* M6 68 . 3 MASONRY
6. * M7 71. 6 MASONRY
6. * MSA 4.1 MASONRY
6.* MSB 46 .1 MASONRY
6 .* M9 108. 7 MASONRY
p
m
,. lEC
n
0
REC ID
1 2
DNL
3
PEOPLE
4 5 6
LEQ(CAL)
7
1 Rl 67 , 500. 68.9
R2/3 67 , 500. 63 .8 Rec 1
P3 R3 67 . 500 . 63.7
4 R4/2 67 . 500. 62.4 R ^
ps R5 67 . 500. 50.6
R6/1 67 . 500. 59.7 t
7 R7 67 . 500. 58 .7
P' R8 67. 500. 71.8
R9 67. 500. 71. 9
•lo RIO 67. 500. 71.8
11 Rll 67 . 500 . 72 .1
"•2 R12 67 . 500. 72.5
P3 R13 67 . 500. 58 .5
14 R14/7 67 . 500 . 62 .4 "1
P5 R15/A 67. 500. 58.7 ec
R16/8 67 . 500 . 66 .3 e 17 R2 0/4 67 . 500. 71.2 Sec H
18 R21/5 67. 500. 71.1 Rte S"
D R22/6 67 . 500 . 71. 0 ftec 4>
B 67. 500. 69. 6
21 R23/9 57 . 500. 61.5 t^ec
m R24/10 67. 500 . 62 , 7 Qtc
R25/11 67 . 500. 54 .3 Re-c
24 R26/12 57 . SOO . 64 .7
Mr
^BjiRIER TYPE COST
JRM
ItoSONRY
MASONRY/JERSEY
INCRETE
0.
73030.
0.
0 .
TOTAL COST = $ 73000.
J?RIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION
lllllililllllllll
CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION
6. 6. 6. 6. 5. 6. 6. 5. 5. 6. 5. 5. 6. 6. 5. 6. 6.
P
k
P
P
p
Rancho Santa Fe Road--Future With New Sound Wall
0||-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 1
Lj.467 , 45 , 54 , 45 , 19 , 45
T-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAO, 2
1419 , 45 , 52 , 45 , 18 , 45 P
-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 3
ii.943 , 45 , 72 , 45 , 25 , 45
T-RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, 4
P.857 , 45 , 69 , 45 , 24 , 45
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAO, 5
1362 , 45 , 50 , 45 , 18 , 45
P|MELROSE DRIVE, 6
.173 , 45 , 41 , 45 , 6 , 45
TMELROSE DRIVE, 7
1733 , 45 , 32 , 45 , 5 , 45
P
NORTHBOUND, 1
Pl348, -714, 357,Nl
N, 1080,-358,355,N2
W797,25,346,N3
^704,197,342,N4
N,518,442,340,N5
1^92,576,340,N6
: 583,667,342,N7
SO,783,346,NS
N, 584, 870,350,N9
.P4,993,357,NIO
P N0RTHB0UND2, 2
N,594,993,357,NID
I|pp29,1533,382,Nil
^525, 1635,386,N12
N,623,1738,392,N13
N^519,1941,405,N14
e l,2169,420,N15
]P S0UTHB0UND3, 3
N, 1292,-740,372,Sl
11^.031. '392, 356,32
"^,44, 346,33
L- S0DTHB0UND4, 4
%214,44, 346,33
K- .24,227,342,54
1^58,434,340,55
N,532,571,341,56
m
]S .20,753,346,37
Ip23, 851, 350,38
533,994,357,S9
]J«S0UTHB0UND5, 5
1^33, 994, 357,59
N,581,1537,382,310
N^70, 1641, 386, Sll
N"rfj70, 1743, 392,312
.N"72,1941,405.313
572,2170,420,514
L^EASTB0UND6, 6
N|ib31,1708,375,Wl
N, -245, 1597,370,W2
Nijipe,1372, 360,W3
HL^,1157,354,H4
N,178,1083,354,W5
Nj|j^7,1039, 354,W6
4' ,975,356,W7 P
ii
L- WE3TB0UND7, 7
^-285,1736,375,El
ii. -,-215,1632,370,E2
"-47, 1396,360,E3
N,110,1189,354,E4
Pl8S,1136,354,E5
111275,1084,354,E6
480,1024,356,E7
mWALL, 1 , 2 , 0 ,0
1^12,685,359,375,81
-69,763,368,374,82
^865,357,373,63
jja,939,367,373,84
^0,963,367,373,85
104,978,367,373,86
P, 1044,366,371,B7
|||0,1164,365,371,88
-77,1248,366,372,69
jp|PROPOSEO WALL, 2.2,0,0
iiJ2, 1547,378,386,Fl
537,1549,382,390,F2
539, 1638,386,394,F3
1*9,1740,392,400,F4
•is,1944,405,413,F5
517,1951,407,415,F5
l^xisting Wall, 3,2,0,0
^0. ,1542,382,388,Ml
500.,1540,383,389,M2
^0 , ,1512, 383,389,M3
• 2. ,1385,376,382,M4
Ift.,1272,359,375,M5
405.,1251,366,372,M6
T*^.,1212,364,370,M7
1^.,1182,363,369,MSA
282.,1180,361,367,MSB
1^. ,1161,361,367,M9
; 5.,1260,361,367,MIO
IM
R, 1 , 67 ,500
-^,1242,371. .Rl
F. 2 . 67 ,500
•1ft,1146,370,R2/3
R, 3 , 67 ,500
Pl027,371,R3
^4 , 67 ,500
89,975,372,R4/2
}|||5 , 67 ,500
^927,372,R5
R, 6 , 67 ,500
0^70,372,R5/1
1^7 , 67 ,500
,767,373,R7
R, 8 , 67 ,500
spi,1845,401,R8
R|||9 , 67 ,500
515,1744,395,R9
R||||10 , 67 ,500
5;: ,1647,390,RIO P
R, 11 , 67 ,500
645,853,359,Rll
I**
R 12 , 67 ,500
P
641,550,349,R12
|jH 13 , 67 ,500
'5,435,349,R13
14 , 67 ,500
1021,324,350,R14/7
m
15 , 67 ,500
Po9,-12,345,R15/A
R, 16 , 67 ,500
P91,-30,345,R16/8
g| 17 , 67 ,500
508,1587,383,R20/4
In 18 , 67 ,500
i;2, 1726,389,R21/5
" 19 , 67 ,500
505,1892.402,R22/6
20 , 67 ,500
P, 1013,366.B
R, 21 , 67 ,500
P*), 1440, 373 . ,R23/9
^22 , 67 ,500
462,1338,372.,R24/10
^23 , 67 ,500
: 1,1226,369.,R25/11
ii 24 , 67 ,500
254,1182,365.,R26/12
iP 4 .5
,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
D, 4.5
1PI.9-9'10'11'12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
^4.5
1 ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
D, 4.5
:. ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
Ip4 .5
3 ,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,20
1^4 .5
, 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 20
0, 4.5
1,2, 3,4,5, 6, 7, 20
K 3
ASU, 14
K, -1
S^., 16
cpc
Ml
P
SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91
TITLE:
Ttancho Santa Fe Road--Future With New Sound Wall
P
ll
P
^AR
EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS
P ^
P
™ 2
3
P 4
Us
5
M 7
0.*
0. *
0.*
0. *
0. *
0. *
0. *
0 .*
81
82
83
84
85
66
B7
9
Pi
10
tall
12
PL3
P
14
16
H,
18
19
P20
21
P^2
^3
0. *
0 . *
0 . •
0. *
0 .*
0. *
0 . *
0 .*
0 . *
0 .*
0 .*
0 . *
0. *
0.*
0 .*
Fl
F2
F3
F4
F5
Ml
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
MSA
MB 8
M9
m
BARRIER DATA
ELE
m
2
3
BARRIER HEIGHTS
2 3 4 5
BAR
ID LENGTH TYPE
6 Bl 89.1 MASONRY
6 * B2 127.2 MASONRY
6 * B3 109.7 MASONRY
6 it-B4 26 . 8 MASONRY
6 it 85 15.5 MASONRY
6 * 86 79 .3 MASONRY
6
- •
67 144.2 MASONRY
6 * 88 101.5 MASONRY
8 Fl 25.4 MASONRY
8 F2 89 .1 MASONRY
8 * F3 102.2 MASONRY
8 * P4 204 .4 MASONRY
8 * F5 27.1 MASONRY
p
p
11
12 P
P4 6 _ * Ml 60 . 0 MASONRY
6 * M2 28 .0 MASONRY
•"•le 6 * M3 127 ,4 MASONRY
17 6. * M4 113 . .3 MASONRY
ns 6 . * M5 85. .7 MASONRY
ks 6 , * M6 68 , ,3 MASONRY
20 6 . * M7 71. , 6 MASONRY
Pl 6, * MBA 4, . 1 MASONRY
^2 6. MB 8 46 , .1 MASONRY
23 6 .
*•
M9 108 . .7 MASONRY
m
¥
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
REC
P
REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL)
ill
2
Rl
R2/3
67 .
67 .
500.
500 .
68
63
. 9
. S
!pt3 R3 67. 500 . 63 .7
P^ R4/2 57. 500. 62 .4
5 R5 67 . 500. 60 . 6
m' R6/1 67. 500. 59 .7 Re-c 1 it / / f•
1 R7 67 . 500. 58 .7
R8 67 . 500. 61 . 6
9 R9 67. 500 . 62 .1
«"o RIO 67 . 500. 52 .7
pl Rll 67 . 500. 72 , 1
12 R12 67 . 500. 72 . .5
P*3 R13 67 . 500. 68 . ,5
4 R14/7 67 . 500. 62 , .4
15 R15/A 67. 500 . 68 . .7
16
7
R16/8
R20/4
67.
67 .
SOO.
500.
66 ,
61.
3
6
Re^ ft
Rec. ^
R21/5 67 . 500 . 60 . 5 w 1 ^ *• IP 11
19 R22/6 67. 500. 60 . 6 c . V. 1
8
R23/9
67.
67.
500.
500 ,
69.
61.
5
5 ^/
22 R24/10 67. 500. 62. 7 / f
R25/11 67 . 500 . 64 . 2 1 ,
1 R26/12 67. 500. 64 . 5 t 1
yiRIER TYPE COST
BERM
IPiSONRY
^iSONRY/JERSEY
CONCRETE
0,
104314.
0 .
0.
TOTAL COST = $ 104000.
BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION
Pl Illlllillllllllliiil:
ilRRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION
6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 8, 8. 8. B. 8. 6. S. 6. 5, 6. 6. 5. 6. 6. 6 .
p
p
m
ta
m
k
p
li
p
k
p
k
ta
p
P
m
M
p
w
TRAFRC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL - APPENDIX B
For New Highway Constmetion Highway Reconstruction Projects
September, 1998
WORKSHEET "A" FOR CALCULATING
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE PER RESIDENCE
PROJECT: Co. Rte. PM.
EA:
PROJECT LOCATION: Page { of Z
NOISE BARRIER I.D. & LOCATION: .Ti'J C*'or«c/ {?CA4W ^c.^k P l^tl
PROJECTENGINEER: <t P^^^J i^^K ^c.cA. ^d. Date: 3ii^.loi
Base Allowance (1998 Dollars) ^ HSo' feo,rr^ '
Update for year 2
$ 15,000
1} Absolute Noise Levels (Choose One)
1 69 dBA or less: Add $ 2,000
70-74 dBA: Add $ 4,000 4 ooo
75-78 dBA: Add $ 6,000
More than 78 dBA: Add $ 8,000
2) "Build" VS Existing Noise Levels (Choose
One) -
Less than 3 dBA:
3-7 dBA:
8-11 dBA:
12 dBA or more:
Add$
Add $ 2,000
Add $ 4,000
Add $ 6,000
3) Achievable Noise Reduction (Choose One)
1 Less than 6 dBA: Add$ 0
6-8 dBA: Add $ 2,000 -
9-11 dBA: Add $ 4,000
12 dBA or more: Add $ 6,000
r
4) Either New Construction Or Pre-date 1978?
(Choose Yes or No)
YES on either one:
NO on both:
Add $10,000
Add$
Unmodified Reasonable Allowance Per Residence
Continued 6n Worksheet B
B-2
JCJ ri
WORKSHEET "B" FOR CALCULATING REASONABLE ALLOWANCE PER RESIDENCE
PROJECT: Co.
EA:
Rte: PM:
'ROJECT ENGINEER:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: / Page
Date:
of 7.
NOISE
BARRIER I.D.
(From
Worksheet A)
REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE
PER
BENEFITED
RESIDENCE,
A,
(Worksheet A)
(a)
NO. OF
BENEFITTED
RESIDENCES
N,
(b)
REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE
PER NOISE
BARRIER
(A,xN,)
(c)
(o sa X b)
FRACTION OF
TOTAL
REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE
(A,XN,VAT
(d)
(d sc/boxl)
REDUCTION OF
REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE
PER NOISE
BARRIER
(e)
(e =d X. box 3)
REDUCTION
OF
REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE
PER
BENEFITED
RESIDENCE
(t)
(f =e/b)
MODIFIED
REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE
PER
BENEFITED
RESIDENCE
(Am,)
(g)
(a=a-f)
I 33> H
TOTAL REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR
ABATEMENT (AT)
(Box1)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST X O.S (Box2)>J3(XC Qca
SUBTRACT BOX 2 FROM BOX 1
• If result Is zero or less, STOP. Use the
reasonable allowances per residence In
column (a) above.
• If result is greater than zero, the amount
Is TOTAL ALLOWANCE EXCESS (Ej);
continue with columns (d) through (g).
—M f J
(Box3)
•
B-3