air quality analysis report: i-75 …mydocs.dot.ga.gov/info/publicdownloads/downloads/pamela... ·...

NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM II

I-75 Managed Lanes: From SR 155 to SR 138

CSNHS-0009-00(156) and CSNHS-0009-00(157)

PI Nos. 0009156 and 0009157

Henry and Clayton Counties

Prepared by:

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc.

Prepared for:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

July 2014

NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM II: I-75 MANAGED LANES July 2014

1. INTRODUCTION

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Projects CSNHS-0009-00(156) and CSNHS-0009-00(157) involve the construction of a reversible, barrier-separated, managed lane system along I-75 in Henry and Clayton Counties (see Figure 1). A Noise Technical Report (December 2012) and a Noise Technical Report Addendum (April 2014) were prepared to:

a. Provide baseline noise levels that will be used in determining project impacts. b. Predict the effects that the proposed project would have on the noise environment. c. Identify impacted locations where noise abatement is feasible and reasonable and likely to be included in the

project and locations where impacts would occur and abatement is not feasible and reasonable.

The results of the Noise Technical Report Addendum (April 2014) determined that nine noise walls would be considered a feasible and reasonable abatement measure (noise walls 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11). The purpose of Addendum II is to update the results of the public outreach component of the reasonableness criteria.

1.1 Project Description - Selected Alternative

The selected alternative includes the construction of reversible, barrier-separated, Electronic Toll Lanes (ETL) and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure along I-75 in Henry and Clayton Counties. The ITS component of the project begins and ends approximately two miles on either end of the proposed express toll lanes. In Henry County, the ITS improvements begin 2.1 miles south of the I-75 bridge over SR 155 and continue north along both I-75 and I-675 into Clayton County. Along I-75, the ITS component of the project ends 2.1 miles north of the I-75 southbound off-ramp to SR 138 (Stockbridge Highway) and along I-675, it ends 2.1 miles north of SR 138. The total project length including the ITS component is 17.94 miles.

The ETL begin in Henry County at the I-75 bridge over SR 155 and end in Clayton County approximately 600 feet south of the I-75 southbound on-ramp from SR 138, and at SR 138 on I-675, for a total length of 12.24 miles. From SR 155 to approximately one mile south of Mt. Carmel Road, a single ETL will be constructed. The single lane will then transition to two reversible lanes, which will continue to the northern terminus of the facility, where they will diverge, providing access to the I-75 general purpose lanes and a direct single-lane connection to the median of I-675, where the lane will then connect to the I-675 general purpose lanes.

To accommodate the new lanes within the median of I-75, the southbound general purpose lanes will be shifted approximately 19 to 31 feet to the west. The new lanes will match existing asphalt and concrete sections of the corridor and provide paved inside and outside shoulders. The proposed widening will occur within existing GDOT right-of-way, and retaining walls will be constructed along southbound I-75 to minimize right-of-way impacts.

The following additional improvements are also proposed as part of the project: Replacement of existing Mt. Carmel Road bridge with a new two-lane, two-span bridge. The bridge

replacement would require partial acquisition of four parcels for right-of-way and a detour. A dedicated access ramp that will allow connection to the managed lanes from Jonesboro Road at Foster

Drive, just east of the Jonesboro Road interchange with I-75. The ramp will require partial acquisition of three parcels for right-of-way.

Addition of a signal and turn lanes to the intersection of Mt. Carmel Road and Jonesboro Road.

CSNHS-0009-00(156) and CSNHS-0009-00(157)PI Nos. 0009156 and 0009157Henry and Clayton Counties

Section 1Page 1-1

NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM II: I-75 MANAGED LANES July 2014


Section 1Page 1-2

NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT: I-75 MANAGED LANES July 2014

Widening of the existing I-75 overpass bridge at Flippen Road to accommodate the reversible-lanes typical section, the widening of the general-purpose lanes, and the addition of a new single span I-675 bridge over the I-75 northbound lanes to provide a dedicated connection to I-675.

Restriping of the intersection of SR 20/81 and I-75 southbound ramp to provide a continuous right-turn off the ramp.

Addition of a right-turn lane at the intersection of Industrial Boulevard and SR 20/81. Addition of right-turn lane at the intersection of Industrial Boulevard and SR 155.

Existing guardrail and overhead signs along the corridor will be removed and replaced as necessary along with construction of noise barriers as determined by noise studies.

OperationsGDOT is applying to FHWA for authority to implement tolls on the facility under the Express Lanes Demonstration Program (ELDP) established by Section 1604(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).1 Toll rates for the lanes vary according to traffic conditions to regulate demand for the lanes and keep them congestion-free, even during peak hour periods. When traffic volume increases, tolls increase with demand. When traffic volume decreases, tolls similarly decrease.

Fully electronic tolling allows customers to pay tolls automatically, eliminating the need for toll booths. Electronic signs display toll rates to help drivers decide whether to access the lanes. Drivers lock in their toll rate when they enter the ETL system.

The managed lanes are proposed to operate northbound in the morning peak period and southbound in the afternoon peak period. The reversible facility is expected to be closed twice a day for a total of 1 to 1.5 hours to allow for maintenance and the reversal of the direction of travel. To maximize use of the reversible lanes, analysis would be conducted to identify the specific times of day directional flow of the reversible lanes would change. Following typical operational patterns, it would be expected that the reversible lanes would likely operate in a northbound direction from very early in the morning to about mid-day. The operational flow would change to southbound and continue from mid-day to the early hours of the morning. As such, the reversible lanes would be operational all day (with the exception of the two periods each day when the direction of operation of the lanes is switched), not just during the peak periods.

During peak periods, contra-flow traffic, i.e., morning southbound traffic and evening northbound traffic, would not be able to use the proposed reversible-lane system. The contra-flow traffic would use existing highway general purpose lanes or alternate arterial roadways. Mechanical arms and/or barriers would prevent contra-flow traffic from accessing the managed lane system. These barriers would be raised and lowered manually and would be observable through real-time video cameras.

1 The program allowed up to 15 toll projects aimed at managing congestion and financing highway capacity expansion by tolling new lanes added to an existing facility. However, ELDP expired on September 30, 2012. The five tolling agreements that were executed by FHWA and project sponsors under this program will continue in force under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Projects for which slots were allocated under ELDP but still not subject to an agreement will proceed under Section 129 of MAP-21 (see FHWA September 24, 2012 Memorandum, Guidance on Section 129 General Tolling Program).CSNHS-0009-00(156) and CSNHS-0009-00(157)PI Nos. 0009156 and 0009157Henry and Clayton Counties

Section 1Page 1-3

NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM: I-75 MANAGED LANES July 2014

2. NOISE ABATEMENT

In accordance with the GDOT Highway Noise Abatement Policy for Federal Aid Projects (July 13, 2011) (GDOT Noise Policy), a reasonableness study is performed for any noise abatement measure considered to be feasible. Based on the analysis in the previously approved Noise Technical Reports, nine noise walls were considered a feasible abatement measure (noise walls 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11); therefore, a study for “reasonableness” was conducted for these walls. The three criteria required to satisfy the “reasonableness” determination are as follows:

1. Noise reduction: at least one benefited receptor must receive a minimum noise level reduction of 7 decibel (dBA) – i.e., the noise reduction design goal,

2. Cost effectiveness: using a $20 per square foot cost for the required noise wall, the total cost must not exceed a $55,000 average allowance per benefited receptor, and

3. Property owners and residents: the decision to provide abatement will be made in collaboration with the property owner and occupants of a benefited receptor. The outreach strategy will be customized for maximum effectiveness on each project. The minimum outreach method shall be a certified letter survey provided to both property owners and occupants whose facility or home is identified as a benefited receptor. A noise wall will only be constructed if at a minimum 50% plus one of the respondents vote in favor of noise abatement. Both property owners and dwellers get a vote and their vote must be returned within 30 days to receive consideration. Property owners will receive one vote per unit owned and an additional vote if they reside in the unit, and occupants will receive one vote for the benefited unit they occupy. For some projects, individual meetings, community meetings or other outreach efforts may also be utilized to determine a majority consensus.

The first two of the reasonable criteria must be satisfied before contacting property owners and residents. As part of the previously approved Noise Technical Reports, noise walls 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were determined to be reasonable based on the first two criteria. Therefore, an outreach strategy was implemented to determine public support. The outreach strategy and results are provided in detail below.

Noise Wall Public Outreach Strategy

The results of the Noise Impact Assessment Addendum (April 2014) determined that nine noise walls (Noise Wall 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) are feasible to reduce noise impacts resulting from the proposed project. According to GDOT’s Noise Policy, the final decision on the installation of any abatement measure(s) would be made upon the completion of the project’s final design and the public involvement process. In consultation with the FHWA, a Noise Wall Public Outreach Plan that outlined an approach for obtaining input from residents and property owners that would benefit from the proposed noise walls was developed (see Attachment 1). Benefited receivers were identified as those tenants who would receive a 5 decibel (dBA) or greater noise reduction. The results of the outreach would help determine whether or not it is reasonable to provide noise abatement.

A total of 628 benefited receptors were identified, comprising single-family residences, apartment complexes, hotels, and an RV Park. The affected residents and property owners were mailed a package of information via certified mail that included a description of the project and proposed noise walls, a


Section 2Page 2-1


survey asking whether they supported the proposed noise wall in their community, an explanation of how the survey results would be used, and an invitation to noise wall community meetings to provide the recipient an opportunity to speak one-on-one with project representatives. In addition, a letter advising the affected residents and property owners of the certified mail package and notifying them of the upcoming noise wall community meetings was also sent via regular first class mail. The information that was sent to the residents and property owners via certified mail and first class mail is provided in Attachment 1.

Response to the Mailed Surveys and Community Meetings

Once the certified mail packages with the surveys and supporting information were sent, the packages were tracked in order to quantify the public’s participation in the mailed survey effort. The following data were collected:

number of packages that were mailed; number of completed surveys; number of packages that were signed for (received); number of unclaimed packages (not received); and number of vacant units.

Attachment 2 includes a table with this information. The total number of completed surveys was relatively low compared with the much higher percentage of benefited receptors that signed for, and therefore received, the survey package. This information allowed the project team to understand whether the recipients received the package and chose not to complete a survey or chose not to sign for the certified mail package.

In addition to the mailed surveys, two community meetings were held along the project corridor and all benefited receptors were invited to attend either meeting to ensure ample opportunity for attendance. The purpose of the meetings was to give these individuals an opportunity to discuss the proposed noise walls with GDOT representatives and noise specialists and to receive assistance filling out the surveys, if needed. The meetings were held at the Eagles Landing High School - Commons, located at 301 Tunis Road in McDonough, on May 27, 2014 and at the Hilton Garden Inn, located at 95 Highway 81 West in McDonough, on May 29, 2014. The meetings were held two weeks after the information packet and meeting notification were mailed. There were no attendees at the meetings, and no additional surveys were generated as a result of the meetings.

Finally, additional outreach occurred with the hotels and multi-family housing facilities that had not completed a Noise Wall Survey by the requested deadline of June 12, 2014. Attempts were made to reach the property owners by phone, and/or in person, in attempt to encourage them to respond to the survey. A log of the additional outreach attempts to obtain a survey response is provided in Attachment 2.

Results of Noise Wall SurveysCSNHS-0009-00(156) and CSNHS-0009-00(157)PI Nos. 0009156 and 0009157Henry and Clayton Counties

Section 2Page 2-2


Table 1 summarizes the results of the Noise Wall Surveys that were completed and returned to GDOT. All completed surveys are provided in Attachment 3.

Table 1Express Lanes I-75 South Metro

Noise Wall Survey Results

Noise Wall Number

Total Respondents

Respondents that Support the Noise Wall

Respondents that Oppose the Noise Wall

Number Percent Number Percent1 3 2 66 % 1 33 %2 20 20 100 % 0 0 %5 4 3 75 % 1 25 %6 10 10 100 % 0 0 %7 50(1) 50(1) 100 % 0 0 %8 2 2 100 % 0 0 %9 6 6 100 % 0 0 %

10 8 6 75 % 2 25 %11 100(2) 0 0 % 100(2) 100 %

(1) One completed survey was received by the owner of the North Park Apartments, which represents 50 total responses.(2) One completed survey was received by the owner of the Howard Johnson Hotel, which represents 100 total responses.

Because the criteria for feasibility and reasonableness were satisfied in accordance with GDOT Noise Policy, noise walls 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 would be constructed as part of the project. Noise wall 11 would not be constructed as part of the project.


Section 2Page 2-3


3. CONCLUSION/STATEMENT OF LIKELIHOOD

Based on the results of the public outreach, noise walls 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 would be considered a feasible and reasonable abatement measure. The locations of these walls are described as follows:

Noise wall 1 would be constructed in the northwest quadrant of the I-75 and I-675 merge. The wall would follow the existing tree line and the location would range between 14 and 44 feet from the existing edge of pavement. The wall would be approximately 3,204 feet in length.

Noise wall 2 would begin at the Walt Stephens Road overpass and extend north along the western side of I-75 for approximately 5,026 feet. Sections of the wall would be located along the edge of pavement, while others would range up to 50 feet away from the edge of pavement.

Noise wall 5 (results from December 2012 NTR) would begin approximately 2,100 feet north of the Eagles Landing Parkway/Hudson Bridge Road overpass and continue north along the eastern side of I-75 for approximately 1,783 feet. The wall placement would range between 22 and 35 feet from the edge of pavement.

Noise wall 6 would begin approximately 4,450 feet south of the Jodeco Road overpass and extend north along the eastern side of I-75 and up the I-75 Northbound off-ramp to Jodeco Road for a total length of approximately 4,226 feet. Sections of the wall would be located along the edge of pavement, while others would range up to 60 feet away from the edge of pavement.

Noise wall 7 would begin approximately 1,630 feet south of the Jodeco Road overpass and extend south along the western side of I-75 for approximately 1,211 feet. The wall placement would range between 8 and 30 feet from the edge of pavement.

Noise wall 8 would begin approximately 20 feet north of the Mt. Carmel Road overpass and continue north along the western side of I-75 for approximately 1,436 feet. The wall would be located along the edge of pavement.

Noise wall 9 would begin approximately 540 feet south of the Mt. Carmel Road overpass and continue south along the western side of I-75 for approximately 1,811 feet. The wall placement would be located along the edge of pavement.

Noise wall 10 would begin approximately 2,250 feet north of the SR 20 overpass and continue north along the eastern side of I-75 for approximately 2,199 feet. Sections of the wall would be located along the edge of pavement, while others would range up to 50 feet away from the edge of pavement.

Noise wall 11, was evaluated for noise abatement but determined not to be reasonable based on the lack of support from the public. Noise wall 11 was evaluated along the eastern side of I-75 up the I-75 northbound off-ramp to SR 20.

The results presented above are based on final design of the proposed project. A reevaluation of the noise analysis may occur if changes encountered during construction warrant a reevaluation.


Section 3Page 3-1



Attachment 1Noise Wall Public Outreach Plan and Noise Wall Survey Packages



Attachment 2Summary of Survey Participation and

Additional Outreach Efforts



Attachment 3Completed Noise Wall Surveys

air quality analysis report: i-75 …mydocs.dot.ga.gov/info/publicdownloads/downloads/pamela... ·...

Documents