interstate 395 express lanes · noise analysis technical report interstate 395 express lanes...
TRANSCRIPT
N O I S E A N A LY S I ST E C H N I C A L R E P O R T | S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 6
N O R T H E R N E X T E N S I O N
I N T E R S TAT E 3 9 5
EXPRESS LANES
INTERSTATE 395 EXPRESS LANES
NORTHERN EXTENSION
Noise Analysis Technical ReportCity of Alexandria, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties
Project Number: 0395-969-205, P101; UPC: 108313Federal Project Number: NHPP-395-4(189)
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report for the I-395 Express Lanes Northern Extension project details the noise impact assessment
for the Existing (2016) conditions, and the future design-year (2040) No-Build and Build Alternatives.
All analysis was performed in accordance with current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
regulations contained in 23 CFR 772 and Virginia Department of Transportation Noise Abatement
Policy.
The study involved monitoring of existing noise conditions and modeling of existing and future design-
year noise conditions in the study area with the FHWA-approved computerized Traffic Noise Model.
Modeling accounted for the existing terrain and buildings, and for existing and proposed roadways with
projected loudest-hour traffic. Noise impact was assessed for all project alternatives and is summarized
by FHWA land use activity category in the table below. Traffic projections are preliminary and will be
reevaluated during the final design noise analysis, accounting for final lane configuration that will be
part of the design.
ES-1: Noise Impact Summary
Alternative Impact Type
Land Use and NAC Activity Category
Residential
Exterior (B)
Recreational
Exterior (C)
Institutional
Interior (D)
Commercial
Exterior (E) Total
Existing NAC 2,274 225 0 1 2,500
No-Build NAC 2,201 217 0 1 2,419
Build NAC 2,600 256 0 1 2,857
Noise abatement must be considered where noise impact is predicted. Noise abatement is evaluated to
determine if it is warranted, feasible and reasonable. The following table summarizes the total length,
estimated cost and benefits that would be provided by the barriers evaluated that were found to be
warranted, feasible and reasonable. The summary includes Barrier 4/5, which is a potential barrier
system located east of I-395 that was found to be feasible and reasonable in the I-395 HOV Ramp and
Auxiliary Lane Project and would still be feasible and reasonable for this current study.
ES-2: Summary of Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers
Location Length
(mi.)
Estimated
Cost ($31/sq.
ft.)
Number of Benefited Receptors
Impacted Not
impacted Total
West of
I-395 2.8 $9 million 783 806 1,589
East of
I-395 4.7 $18 million 1,067 1,591 2,658
All 7.5 $27 million 1,850 2,397 4,247
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
ii
This noise evaluation is preliminary; a more detailed review will be completed during final design. As
such, noise barriers that are found to be feasible and reasonable during the preliminary noise analysis
may not be found to be feasible and reasonable during the final design noise analysis. Similarly, noise
barriers that were not considered feasible and reasonable may be found to meet established criteria and
be recommended for construction. If a noise barrier is determined to be feasible and reasonable in final
design, the affected public will be given an opportunity to decide whether they are in favor of
construction of the noise barrier.
The need for an analysis of reflected sound and the potential use of sound absorbing materials will be
evaluated during the noise barrier analysis conducted during the final design phase of the project.
Construction activity may cause intermittent fluctuations in noise levels. During the construction phase
of the project, all reasonable measures will be taken to minimize noise impact from these activities.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... i
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................5
1.1 Description of the study area ................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 7
1.4 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Description of the alternatives................................................................................................. 8
2. NOISE STUDY BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................9
2.1 Noise Analysis for I-395 South of Seminary Road .................................................................. 9
2.2 Study Participants ................................................................................................................. 10
3. NOISE TERMINOLOGY AND CRITERIA .................................................................................. 10
3.1 Regulations and Guidelines .................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Undeveloped Lands and Permitted Developments ................................................................. 12
4. EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Monitoring of Existing Noise Levels .................................................................................... 13
4.2 Predicted Existing Noise Levels ............................................................................................ 15
5. NOISE PREDICTION ................................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................................ 15
5.2 Noise Model Validation ........................................................................................................ 16
5.3 Traffic Data for Noise Prediction .......................................................................................... 17
5.4 Presentation of Results ......................................................................................................... 19
5.4.1 Common Noise Environment (CNE) Descriptions ........................................................... 19
5.4.2 Predicted Noise Levels .................................................................................................... 30
6. NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 32
6.1 Section 4(f) and Historic Properties Evaluation ..................................................................... 35
7. NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ............................................................................................. 37
7.1 Alternative Noise Abatement Measures ................................................................................ 37
7.2 Noise Barriers....................................................................................................................... 39
7.2.1 Feasibility and Reasonableness ....................................................................................... 39
7.2.2 Details of Potential Feasible Barriers ............................................................................... 40
8. CONSTRUCTION NOISE CONSIDERATION ............................................................................. 47
9. INFORMATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS...................................................... 47
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
iv
9.1 Noise-Compatible Land-Use Planning .................................................................................. 47
9.2 VDOT’s Noise Abatement Program ...................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX A - LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................1
APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC DATA USED FOR NOISE COMPUTATIONS .............................................1
APPENDIX C – PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS .....................................................................................1
APPENDIX D - NOISE MONITORING DATA ......................................................................................1
APPENDIX E – RESPONSE FROM VDOT PROJECT MANAGEMENT ON ALTERNATIVE NOISE
ABATEMENT MEASURES ...................................................................................................................1
APPENDIX F – WARRANTED, FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE WORKSHEETS ............................1
APPENDIX G – FINAL DESIGN NOISE FIGURES FROM UPC 96261/102437 AND 70849 ...............1
LIST OF TABLES
ES-1: Noise Impact Summary ................................................................................................................. i
ES-2: Summary of Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers..................................................................... i
Table 3-1: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................................................ 12
Table 4-1: Summary of Noise Measurement Data ................................................................................ 14
Table 5-1: Noise Model Validation Results .......................................................................................... 18
Table 5-2: Common Noise Environment (CNE) Descriptions ............................................................... 29
Table 5-3: Ranges of Predicted Exterior Loudest-hour Leq Noise Levels by CNE ................................ 31
Table 6-1: Noise Impact Summary ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 6-2: Noise Impact by Common Noise Environment .................................................................... 33
Table 6-3: Potential Noise Impacts at Section 4(f) and Historic Resources............................................ 37
Table 7-1: Details of Potential Noise Barriers ....................................................................................... 45
Table B-1: Traffic Data Used in Existing Case Noise Analysis ............................................................... 1
Table B-2: Traffic Data Used in No-Build Case Noise Analysis ............................................................. 4
Table B-3: Traffic Data Used in Build Case Noise Analysis ................................................................... 8
Table D-1: Noise Monitor Output – Calibration Record ......................................................................... 1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5-1: Location Map for Common Noise Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers . 20
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
5
1. INTRODUCTION
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), has initiated a study for the Interstate 395 (I-395) Express Lanes Project
(Northern High Occupancy Toll [HOT] Lanes) to extend the I-95 Express Lanes in the City of
Alexandria, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) and in accordance with FHWA regulations, an Environmental
Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze and document the potential social, economic, and
environmental effects associated with the proposed transportation improvements.
The purpose of this Technical Report is to identify and assess the impact to noise-sensitive land use
within the study area. This report documents the noise analysis conducted for the existing (2016) and
future (2040) noise conditions in the areas adjacent to the I-395 Express Lanes North Extension corridor
to support the Environmental Assessment. Information in this report, described below, will support
discussions presented in the EA.
Section 1 provides an overview of the study area and purpose and need of the project;
Section 2 provides background on the noise study;
Section 3 describes noise terminology, Federal regulations, impact criteria and permitted
developments;
Section 4 describes the existing noise conditions, including the noise monitoring program;
Section 5 describes the noise prediction model, validation, traffic data used for noise prediction
and noise levels at all receptors;
Section 6 describes noise impact assessment and results;
Section 7 describes the noise abatement measures, including alternative measures and details on
potential noise barriers;
Section 8 describes construction noise provisions; and,
Section 9 provides information for local government officials.
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The study area encompasses approximately eight miles of the I-395 corridor from Turkeycock Run in
Fairfax County to the vicinity of Eads Street near the Pentagon in Arlington County, as shown in Figure
1-1. Transition areas extending slightly beyond these termini are included in order to connect the
proposed improvements with the existing facility on either end. Additional signage and maintenance of
traffic activities are planned to occur beyond the study area. Crossroads and interchange areas also are
included in the study area, as well as lands adjacent to the corridor1.
1 The study area is approximately 600 feet to either side of the existing corridor for a distance of eight miles. The study area is
established to identify the full extent of environmental resources and their relevance to the project. Specific potential
environmental consequences resulting from the expansion and conversion of the two existing reversible High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lanes on I-395 to three managed HOT lanes are documented in Chapter 3.0, Environmental Consequences of the EA.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
6
Figure 1-1: Study Area
The following interchanges along I-395 are located within the study area, moving south to north:
Turkeycock Run;
Duke Street/Little River Turnpike (Route 236);
Seminary Road (Route 420);
King Street (Route 7);
Shirlington Road;
Glebe Road (Route 120);
Washington Boulevard (Route 27); and
Eads Street near the Pentagon.
1.2 BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA) was signed into law and was amended and re-
enacted in 2005. PPTA allows for private entities to solicit VDOT to develop and/or operate and
maintain transportation facilities that VDOT determines demonstrate a need. In November 2005, the
conceptual proposal submitted by Fluor and Transurban was selected by the PPTA Advisory Panel. As
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
7
proposed at that time, the project improvements would expand the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
system in the I-95 / I-395 corridor and apply the HOT concept. As a result of this action, VDOT, in
cooperation with FHWA, initiated an environmental analysis on the following proposal:
Convert the existing two-lane HOV facility to three HOT lanes along I-395 from Eads Street to
just south of Route 234 Interchange near Dumfries;
Construct two new HOV/HOT lanes in the median from the existing terminus south of Route
234 to just north of Route 610 (Garrisonville Road);
Add new entry/exit points between the general purpose lanes and the HOT lanes and modify
existing entry/exit points; and,
Build new structures associated with the Lorton Bus-rail transfer station, flyovers, and replace
existing structures at Telegraph Road over I-95 and the Franconian-Springfield pedestrian
bridge.
In January 2009, FHWA issued a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the project. In February 2011, VDOT
reduced the project scope by eliminating approximately six miles of HOT lanes on I-395 including
modifications to the existing interchanges, instead, focusing traffic improvements on the I-95 corridor.
VDOT then announced plans for a new I-95 HOT Lanes Project and prepared an EA and then a Revised
EA to assess HOT lanes on I-95 from Garrisonville Road in Stafford County to I-395 at Edsall Road in
Fairfax County and link those lanes directly to the new I-495 HOT lanes already under construction. In
December 2011, upon review of the Revised EA and supporting documentation, FHWA issued a Finding
of No Significant Impact.
In 2012, VDOT and 95 Express Lanes, LLC (95 Express) entered into a Comprehensive Agreement for
the development of the I-95 Express Lanes. The I-95 Express Lanes project was completed in December
2014. The Comprehensive Agreement allowed for the future development of the extension of the I-95
Express Lanes along the I-395 corridor similar to the limits originally proposed in 2005. In 2015, the
VDOT signed a Development Framework Agreement with 95 Express to extend the I-395 Express Lanes
as a Concessionaire’s Enhancement under the Comprehensive Agreement. The Development Framework
Agreement outlines the responsibilities of both VDOT and the Concessionaire. The Agreement notes that
improvements would be built largely within VDOT’s existing right of way, VDOT and 95 Express would
work together to finalize the scope, finance plan and agreement, and 95 Express would fund an annual
transit payment.
1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The I-395 corridor begins at the I-95 / I-495 Capital Beltway interchange and ends at the New York
Avenue NW (Route 50) intersection in northwest Washington, D.C, an approximate distance of 14 miles.
I-395 is part of the National Highway System (NHS)2 and the Strategic Highway Network
2 NHS consists of major roadways important to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS includes the interstate
highway system as well as other roads connecting to major ports, airports, public transportation facilities, or other intermodal
transportation services (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/).
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
8
(STRAHNET)3. Additionally, I-395 is the primary north-south interstate into Washington, D.C. from
Virginia serving local, commuter, and regional traffic. The existing I-395 facility within the study limits
generally includes four northbound (NB) and four southbound (SB) general purpose lanes and two
reversible HOV lanes between the NB and SB general purpose lanes. The HOV lanes operate in the NB
direction between 2:30 AM and 11:00 AM with HOV 3+ restrictions in effect from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM.
The HOV lanes operate in the SB direction from 1:00 PM to 12:00 AM with HOV 3+ restrictions in
effect from 3:30 PM to 6:00 PM. During the summer months, the midday closure of the reversible HOV
lanes to reverse the lanes from NB to SB travel occurs one hour earlier, beginning at 10:00 AM to
accommodate higher traffic demands in both the general purpose, HOV, and Express Lanes. Nighttime
closures remain the same during the summer months.
1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED
The Purpose and Need includes consideration of both the base year 2015 and future year 2040 conditions
along the I-395 Corridor. Based on the background information discussed above, information gathered
during public and agency meetings, and the analysis of recent data collected for this study, the following
transportation needs have been identified for the study area:
Reduce congestion;
Provide additional travel choices;
Improve travel reliability; and,
Improve roadway safety.
1.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
VDOT and 95 Express have been involved in discussions, reviews, and decisions related to HOT lanes
proposals in the I-95/I-395 corridor since 2004. The alternatives development process for this project was
shaped by this early coordination, the initial project proposal concept and previously completed NEPA
documentation and technical studies. The No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative are under
consideration for the EA and are assessed in this technical report.
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would retain the existing I-395 interstate and associated interchanges in their
present configurations, and allow for routine maintenance and safety upgrades, but assumes there would
be no major improvements to the I-395 corridor with the exception of the previously committed projects.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative extends eight miles along I-395 beginning at Turkeycock Run, just north of Edsall
Road Interchange, to the vicinity of Eads Street Interchange and converts the two existing reversible HOV
lanes to three HOT lanes within the median area between the northbound and southbound I-395 general
purpose lanes. Modifications are proposed to the Eads Street interchange to address existing capacity
deficiencies and improve transit access to the Pentagon Transit Center and Pentagon Reservation. All
3 STRAHNET is a system of highways important to the United States’ strategic defense policy providing defense access,
continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/).
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
9
other access points to the proposed HOT lanes along the study corridor would remain in their current
configuration, but would be converted to HOT access with the exception of the south facing Seminary
Road ramp. The south facing Seminary Road ramp will remain an HOV ramp at all times.
2. NOISE STUDY BACKGROUND
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations for assessment and mitigation of highway
traffic noise in the planning and design of federally aided highway projects are contained in Title 23 of
the United States Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772). These regulations state that a
“Type I” traffic noise impact analysis is required where through travel lanes or interchange ramps are
added. This report details the noise impact analysis for the I-395 Express Lanes North Extension project.
This noise analysis was conducted in accordance with FHWA and Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) noise assessment regulations and guidelines.
This report presents a summary of the proposed roadway improvements under study, description of noise
terminology, the applicable standards and criteria, an evaluation of the existing noise conditions, a
description of the computations of existing and future noise levels, a prediction of future noise impact, an
evaluation of potential noise abatement measures, construction noise considerations, and information for
local government officials. Appendix A presents the list of preparers, Appendix B tabulates the traffic
data used in the noise modeling, Appendix C presents predicted noise levels, Appendix D presents all
noise measurement data, Appendix E provides a response from the VDOT project management on
alternative noise abatement measures, Appendix F presents VDOT’s Warranted, Feasible and Reasonable
barrier worksheets, and Appendix G presents the figures from the final design noise studies conducted
south of Seminary Road, discussed in the next section.
2.1 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR I-395 SOUTH OF SEMINARY ROAD
Two final noise abatement design studies were conducted in 2013 in conjunction with roadway design
projects that overlap with the current Project’s study area, between Turkeycock Run and Seminary Road.
One project, the I-395 HOV Ramp and Auxiliary Lane Project, UPCs 96261 and 102437, covered the
section from Duke Street to Seminary Road. The second project, the I-95 Express Lanes Project, Segment
IV, UPC 70849, covered the section south of Duke Street. The two studies were separate, prepared by
different firms, and used loudest-hour traffic data that was developed independently to predict future
noise levels and impact. Both studies projected future Build case noise impact in all noise-sensitive areas
on both sides of I-395 along the entire length of the study areas, except in a few small areas where local
terrain provided significant existing noise shielding. Also, both studies found noise abatement by barriers
to be feasible and reasonable in all impacted areas along the corridor. As a result, many noise barriers
have been through the final acoustical and engineering design in this section of the project. Further, the
noise barriers designed for both projects have been presented to the affected property owners and
residents, and the results of the community surveys indicate that all but one of the barriers has been
approved by the homeowners for construction.
Using the VDOT-approved loudest-hour assessment spreadsheet, reference loudest-hour noise levels were
computed for the sections of I-395 between Turkeycock Run and Seminary Road with the current
Project’s loudest-hour traffic and the traffic used for the 2013 noise abatement design studies. This
analysis determined that the differences in traffic volumes used for noise prediction and the resulting
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
10
noise levels are small enough such that the conclusions reached about noise impact and noise barriers in
the noise abatement design studies would not change if this section of I-395 were to be studied in detail
using current project’s traffic projections. Therefore, VDOT and FHWA concurred that this qualitative
assessment section of I-395 between Turkeycock Run and Seminary Road was sufficient, and the results
of the two final design noise analyses can be used for the I-395 Express Lanes Northern Extension project
for purposes of allowing FHWA to make an informed NEPA decision.4 The memorandum detailing the
qualitative assessment is provided in Appendix B. Figures from the two final design noise reports that
show predicted impacts and potential noise barriers are provided in Appendix G.
2.2 STUDY PARTICIPANTS
HMMH was retained by VDOT to evaluate and report on the projected noise impacts and potential
abatement associated with the Interstate 395 Express Lanes Northern Extension project. HMMH
coordinated closely with Whitman Requardt & Associates, who was responsible for the preparation of the
traffic data for the noise analysis and the environmental document. Appendix A provides a list of
preparers of the noise study and report.
3. NOISE TERMINOLOGY AND CRITERIA
3.1 REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
The noise impact of the existing and future I-395 Express Lanes Project was assessed in accordance with
FHWA and VDOT noise assessment regulations and guidelines. The FHWA regulations are set forth in
23 CFR Part 7725. On July 13, 2010, FHWA published revised noise regulations which became effective
on July 13, 2011. FHWA has also published a guidance document to support the new regulations.6
VDOT prepared revisions to its noise policy in accordance with FHWA’s requirements and revised
policy. VDOT’s revised policy has received approval from FHWA, and was updated on July 14, 2015.7
3.2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
To assess the degree of impact of highway traffic and noise on human activity, the FHWA established
Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for different categories of land use activity (see Table 3-1). The NAC
are given in terms of the hourly, A-weighted, equivalent sound level in decibels (dBA). The A-weighted
4 Email communication from Jim Ponticello (VDOT) and Ed Sundra (FHWA), July 6, 2016. For the purposes of
neighborhood continuity, one multi-family building at Southern Towers Apartments that was already studied in the
I-395 HOV Ramp and Auxiliary Lane Project, UPCs 96261 and 102437, was included and reanalyzed with the
current project. 5 23 CFR Part 772, as amended 75 FR 39820, July 13, 2010; Effective date July 13, 2011 – “Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise,” Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/ 6 “Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance,” Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT, June
2010, revised January 2011.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/revguida
nce.pdf 7 “Highway Traffic Noise Impact Analysis Guidance Manual (Version 7),” Virginia Department of Transportation,
updated July 14, 2015. http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/pr-noise-walls-about.asp
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
11
sound level is commonly used when measuring environmental noise to provide a single number
descriptor that correlates with human subjective response to noise because the sensitivity of human
hearing varies with frequency. The A-weighted sound level is widely accepted by acousticians as a proper
unit for describing environmental noise. Most environmental noise (and the A-weighted sound level)
fluctuates from moment to moment, and it is common practice to characterize the fluctuating level by a
single number called the equivalent sound level (Leq). The Leq is the value or level of a steady, non-
fluctuating sound that represents the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound evaluated over
the same time period. For traffic noise assessment, Leq is typically evaluated over a one-hour period, and
may be denoted as Leq(h).
In this study, residential (Category B), recreational (Category C), interior (Category D) and commercial
(Category E) land uses were evaluated for noise impact. For Categories B and C, noise impact is assumed
to occur when predicted exterior noise levels approach or exceed 67 dBA in terms of Leq(h) during the
loudest hour of the day. For Category D land use, noise impact is assumed to occur when predicted
interior noise levels due to the Project approach or exceed 52 dBA in terms of Leq(h) during the loudest
hour of the day. For Category E land use, noise impact is assumed to occur when predicted exterior noise
levels due to the Project approach or exceed 72 dBA in terms of Leq(h) during the loudest hour of the day.
VDOT defines the word “approach” in “approach or exceed” as within 1 decibel. Therefore, the threshold
for noise impact for Categories B and C is where exterior noise levels are within 1 decibel of 67 dBA
Leq(h), or 66 dBA. The threshold for noise impact for Category E is where exterior noise levels are within
one decibel of 72 dBA Leq(h), or 71 dBA. Noise impact also would occur wherever Project noise causes a
substantial increase over existing noise levels. VDOT defines a substantial increase as an increase of 10
decibels or more above existing noise levels.
When the predicted design-year Build scenario noise levels approach or exceed the NAC during the
loudest hour of the day or cause a substantial increase in existing noise, consideration of traffic noise
reduction measures is warranted. If it is found that such mitigation measures will cause adverse social,
economic or environmental effects that outweigh the benefits received, they may be dismissed from
consideration. For this study, noise levels throughout the study area were determined for Existing (2013)
conditions and for the design-year (2040) Build Alternatives.
All noise-sensitive land uses potentially affected by the project are near roads for which traffic data were
developed as part of the environmental study. Therefore, all noise levels were predicted from the
appropriate loudest-hour traffic data. The prediction methods and predicted noise levels appear in
Section 5.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
12
Table 3-1: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
Activity
Category Leq(h)
1 Description of Activity Category
A 57 (Exterior)
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose
B2 67 (Exterior) Residential
C2 67 (Exterior)
Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds,
cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios,
recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings
D 52 (Interior)
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities,
places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit
institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios
E 72 (Exterior) Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands,
properties or activities not included in A-D or F
F –
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial,
logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment,
electrical), and warehousing
G2 – Undeveloped lands that are not permitted (without building permits)
1 Hourly Equivalent A-weighted Sound Level (dBA)
2 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category
Source: 23 CFR Part 772.
3.3 UNDEVELOPED LANDS AND PERMITTED DEVELOPMENTS
Highway traffic noise analyses are (and will be) performed for developed lands as well as undeveloped
lands if they are considered “permitted.” Undeveloped lands are deemed to be permitted when there is a
definite commitment to develop land with an approved specific design of land use activities as evidenced
by the issuance of at least one building permit.
In accordance with the VDOT Traffic Noise Policy, an undeveloped lot is considered to be planned,
designed, and programmed if a building permit has been issued by the local authorities prior to the Date
of Public Knowledge for the relevant project. VDOT considers the “Date of Public Knowledge” as the
date that the final NEPA approval is made. VDOT has no obligation to provide noise mitigation for any
undeveloped land that is permitted or constructed after this date.
Arlington County maintains an online database of all building permits available through its GIS system.
The database of all active building permits since July 2015 were downloaded and sorted for noise-
sensitivity (residential, schools, churches, etc.) as well as proximity to the I-395 project study area. Two
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
13
noise-sensitive properties with building permits were identified in the corridor in Arlington County. One
is a planned single-family home on a vacant lot, at 1625 Army Navy Drive, permit approved 7/1/2016.
The other is a planned expansion of an existing pre-school, at 3120 S Abingdon Street, approved on
5/17/2016.
The City of Alexandria required a FOIA request to provide any data on active building permits. The noise
study team was contacted by Darlene Howard Holt in the City Attorney’s office to discuss the nature of
the request and identify the required data as noise-sensitive land use within 500 feet of I-395. Ms. Holt
replied by email on July 21,2016 with a formal response stating that after searching the City records, no
active building permits were found for noise-sensitive land uses in the project corridor.
4. EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS
A noise monitoring program was conducted along the I-395 Express Lanes Project corridor, consistent
with FHWA and VDOT recommended procedures to document existing ambient noise levels in noise-
sensitive locations in the study corridor, and to provide a means for validation of the TNM noise
prediction model.
4.1 MONITORING OF EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Noise monitoring was conducted at 29 short-term (30 minutes in duration) sites during the time period
from May 23 to 26, 2016. Traffic classification counts on the roadways nearest each measurement site
were conducted simultaneously with each noise measurement. The short-term measurements
characterized existing noise levels in the study area but were not necessarily conducted during the loudest
hour of the day. They included contributions from sources other than traffic, such as aircraft. Figure 5-1,
presented later in the report, shows the locations of the noise measurement sites within the project study
area. The monitoring locations are shown in the study area graphic, and numbered with the prefix “M.”
Short-term noise monitoring is not a process to determine design year noise impacts or barrier locations.
Short-term noise monitoring provides a level of consistency between what is present in real-world
situations and how that is represented in the computer noise model. Monitoring does not need to occur
within every Common Noise Environment (CNE) to validate the computer noise model.
The monitoring was conducted using HMMH-owned Larson Davis 820 (ANSI Type I, “Precision”)
integrating sound level meters. All of HMMH’s noise measurement instruments are calibrated annually at
a certification laboratory, with calibrations traceable to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. During the monitoring program, the sound level meters were calibrated in the field using a
handheld acoustic calibrator at the beginning and end of each measurement period.
The short-term data collection procedure involved measurements of individual one-minute Leqs, so that
periods including events that were not representative of the ambient noise environment or not traffic-
related could be excluded later. Specifically, minutes that included such events were logged, and values
of the measurement period Leq were determined both with and without the minutes that included such
events. By comparing the two totals, the significance of non-traffic events (such as aircraft operations) to
the overall noise level can be determined for the measurement period. During the measurement program,
the temperatures ranged between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit and winds were light and variable with
speeds less than 5 mph, except at one site where wind gusts were up to 10 mph.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
14
The measured noise levels appear in Table 4-1 as equivalent sound levels (Leq). As described above, the
Leq is a sound-energy average of the fluctuating sound level (in A-weighted decibels, dBA) measured over
a specified period of time. Table 4-1 provides the site address, as well as the date, start time, and duration
of each measurement. Measured noise levels are presented both in terms of the “Total Leq”, which
includes noise level contributions from every one-minute period, and the “Traffic-only Leq”, which
excludes those one-minute periods that contained noise events unrelated to roadway traffic.
Table 4-1: Summary of Noise Measurement Data
Site
No. Address Date
Time
Start
Durati
on
(minut
es)
Measured Leq (dBA)
Total Traffic
Only
M1 1400 S Joyce St, Arlington 23-May-16 12:27 30 63 63
M2 1531 13th St, Arlington 23-May-16 13:51 30 67 67
M3 1300 Army Navy Dr, Arlington 23-May-16 15:01 23 65 64
M4 1735 Army Navy Dr, Arlington 24-May-16 10:28 30 70 70
M5 Army Navy Country Club Golf
Course, Arlington 24-May-16 13:40 30 65 64
M6 1627 23rd St, Arlington 24-May-16 11:28 30 73 73
M7 2300 24th Rd, Arlington 24-May-16 14:42 30 74 73
M8 1627 Army Navy Dr, Arlington 24-May-16 15:50 30 69 69
M9 2639 27th Rd, Alexandria 25-May-16 10:14 30 70 68
M10 1225 Martha Custis Dr, Alexandria 26-May-16 14:01 30 68 67
M11 3544 Martha Custis Dr, Alexandria 25-May-16 11:41 30 64 63
M12 Utah Park, 3191 S Utah St,
Alexandria 25-May-16 12:27 30 67 67
M13 3342B Wakefield St, Alexandria 25-May-16 14:01 30 72 71
M14 4430 31st St, S, Arlington 25-May-16 14:56 30 67 67
M15 Across from 4811 31st St,
Alexandria 26-May-16 13:04 30 64 64
M16 2600 N Van Dorn St, Alexandria 25-May-16 16:01 30 65 65
M17 Next to 3307 Wyndham Cir,
Alexandria 26-May-16 11:50 30 68 67
M18 Fort Ward Park, 4301 W Braddock
Rd, Alexandria 26-May-16 10:55 30 57 57
M19 4601 Lambert Pl, Alexandria 26-May-16 10:03 30 62 62
Note: Site locations are shown on map in Figure 5-1. Detailed data are presented in Appendix D.
Source: HMMH, 2016
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
15
As shown in Table 4-1, the Total Leq ranged from a low of 57 dBA at Fort Ward Park, 4301 W Braddock
Rd, Alexandria (Site M18) to a high of 74 dBA at 2300 24th Rd, Arlington (Site M7). In general, values
of the Traffic-only Leq were the same as or very similar to the measured Total Leqs at each of the
measurement sites, which is an indication that roadway traffic was the dominant source of noise in spite
of the presence of other sporadic and occasional noise events due to human-related activity.
Other sources of noise in the existing environment included, but were not limited to aircraft overflights
including military helicopters, sirens, lawn equipment, biogenic sounds (birds and insects), wind in the
trees, and other human-related activity. Appendix D provides details of the data acquired during the noise
measurement program, including noise monitor output, site sketches, photographs, noise level data with
site summary results, and traffic counts with hourly totals.
4.2 PREDICTED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
For calculation of loudest-hour noise levels throughout the study area in the TNM noise-prediction
computer model, many additional receiver locations were added to the measurement sites to provide a
comprehensive basis of comparison for the analysis of noise impacts from the existing and future project
conditions. Using the appropriate loudest-hour traffic data, existing and future traffic noise levels were
predicted for the measurement sites and the additional receiver locations. The computation methods and
predicted noise levels are presented in the next section of this report.
The noise measurements provided valuable information on current noise conditions and the effects of
terrain and shielding on sound propagation from the roadway to the nearby residential land uses.
However, because existing noise levels are not always measured during the loudest hour of the day,
estimates of the loudest-hour existing noise levels were computed with an FHWA-approved noise
prediction model using the appropriate traffic data as input. These predicted estimates of existing noise
levels for the loudest hour of the day are then used as the baseline against which probable future noise
levels are compared and potential noise impacts assessed. Additional information on the computation
methods and computed levels used in this study are provided in Section 5.
5. NOISE PREDICTION
5.1 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
All traffic noise computations for this study were conducted using the latest version of the FHWA TNM
version 2.5. TNM incorporates state-of-the-art sound emissions and sound propagation algorithms, based
on well-established theory or on accepted international standards.8 The acoustical algorithms contained
8 “FHWA Traffic Noise Model, Version 1.0: Technical Manual,” Report No. FHWA-PD-96-010 and DOT-VNTSC-
FHWA-98-2, U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center, February 1998.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/old_versions/tnm_version_10/tech_manual/index.
cfm
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
16
within the FHWA TNM have been validated with respect to carefully conducted noise measurement
programs, and show excellent agreement in most cases for sites with and without noise barriers.9
Available project engineering plans, aerial photography, topographic contours and building information
are used to create a three-dimensional model in the TNM of the geometry of the existing and expected
future roadway configurations and the surrounding terrain and buildings. The noise modeling also
accounts for such factors as propagation over different types of ground (acoustically soft and hard
ground), elevated roadway sections, significant shielding effects from local terrain and structures,
distance from the road, traffic speed, and hourly traffic volumes including percentage of medium and
heavy trucks. To fully characterize existing and future noise levels at all noise-sensitive land uses in the
study area, over 1400 noise prediction receivers (also called “receptors” and “sites”) were added to the
measurement sites in the modeling. TNM runs are available upon request.
Information on noise-sensitive residential land use in the study area (Activity Category B) includes the
number of dwelling units, identified from existing mapping and field verification.
5.2 NOISE MODEL VALIDATION
According to FHWA and VDOT policies, the accuracy of the noise prediction model must be verified on
a project-by-project basis. The noise model validation process compares existing noise levels monitored
in the field with predicted noise levels from the FHWA TNM using the traffic conditions during the
monitoring period as input to the model. The purpose of the noise model validation is to evaluate the
success of the model in representing the important acoustical characteristics of the study area. This is
determined by examining the overall trend of the differences between measured and predicted noise levels
at each measurement site. Individual site to site differences may vary significantly, depending on factors
that may affect either the measured noise level or the predicted noise level at a given site. Examples of
factors that affect noise levels are provided below:
Factors affecting measured noise levels include: atmospheric conditions (upwind, neutral or
downwind conditions), shielding by structures that are difficult to model, and/or the presence of
“loud” vehicle pass-bys during the measurement.
Factors affecting predicted noise levels include: the level of detail in modeling terrain features
and locating receptors, as well as the degree to which ground zones, tree zones, and sparse rows
of buildings are incorporated into the model.
FHWA and VDOT consider the noise model to be validated when measured noise levels are within +/- 3
dBA of predicted noise levels for existing conditions.
FHWA discourages the “calibration” of a noise model through the use of adjustment factors within the
noise model to better match measured and predicted levels. FHWA recognizes that many factors are
present both in the measurement of noise and in the development of a model that can lead to variability.
Differences between measured and predicted levels that are outside the accepted accuracy of the model
9 “TNM Version 2.5 Addendum to Validation of FHWA's TNM® (TNM) Phase 1 report,” US Department of
Transportation, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, July 2004.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/model_validation/
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
17
are likely due to unusual circumstances during the measurements, or to insufficient detail or inaccurate
assumptions in the model. Only after a thorough examination of the measurement conditions and the
modeling assumptions has been completed, should the highway noise analyst consider the use of
adjustment factors in the model. FHWA recognizes that in some cases, it may not be possible to identify
a specific reason for not validating a specific measurement site. Any such cases are to be documented in
the noise study report.
Table 5-1 presents a site-by-site comparison of measured noise levels and the corresponding TNM-
computed noise levels. With five exceptions, the differences between measured and predicted noise levels
fall within three decibels, which is the accepted level of accuracy in the noise model. Over the 19
measurement sites, the average difference between measured and predicted noise levels for existing
conditions is 1.6 decibels, with a standard deviation of 2.2, indicating very good agreement. For Site M3,
the predicted sound level is 4.0 decibels lower than the measured level, due to visibility limitations that
prevented the field staff from counting traffic on all of the roadways that contributed to the traffic noise
level at this site. This situation also existed at Site M1, where the predicted sound level is 2.9 decibels
lower than the measured value. At Site M10, where the predicted level is 3.3 decibels higher than the
measured value, chain link fences with mesh covering around tennis courts likely provided additional
noise reduction that could not be included in the model. At site M14, the TNM predicted a sound level 5.1
decibels higher than was measured, but there was a fairly solid wooden stockade fence between I-395 and
the measurement site. This fence likely reduced sound levels by approximately 5 decibels, but it is not
permanent or solid enough to include as a noise barrier in the modeling. At both Sites M16 and M18,
predicted sound levels were higher than measured, by 3.1 and 3.4 decibels, respectively. At both sites,
thick trees likely provided additional noise reduction from what was modeled. A portion of the tree areas
were modeled in TNM as tree zones, but those zones did not reduce predicted sound levels as much as
was needed to compensate for the likely effect of the trees. All of these sites or sites nearby should be
monitored again during the final design noise analysis.
5.3 TRAFFIC DATA FOR NOISE PREDICTION
Traffic data for traffic noise computations were developed for the project and are detailed in the Traffic
Technical Report. For the noise analysis, the data included in the 2016 Existing and 2040 Future cases are
hourly volumes, vehicle classification and speed data for the I-395 general purpose and HOV/HOT lanes,
all intersecting roadways and their associated ramps. Most of the data were provided in the form of
VDOT-format Environmental Traffic Data (ENTRADA) spreadsheets. In addition, similar traffic was
provided for major arterials in the study area, such as Army Navy Drive and North Van Dorn Street. As
required by FHWA and VDOT, the noise analysis was performed for the loudest hour of the day. The
traffic conditions for the loudest hour are dependent upon the combination of both relatively high (total)
volumes and speeds, as well as the percentage of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix.
The loudest hour of the day for each project alternative was determined by using TNM to compute the
overall traffic noise level at a reference distance on each side of I-395, for each project segment between
interchanges, for each hour of the day. The noise levels computed for the general-purpose lanes were
combined with the noise from the HOV/HOT lanes for a total along each section of the mainline. For the
2016 Existing case and for the 2040 Build Alternative, the loudest hour of the day was found to be the
hour from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. In the 2040 No-Build Alternative the most consistently loud hour along
the project corridor was found to be from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Traffic data for the same loudest hours
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
18
were used in the final TNM for adjacent intersecting roads, crossing arterials and ramps. The traffic data
used for these roadways along with a memorandum describing the loudest-hour analysis in detail is
provided in Appendix B.
Table 5-1: Noise Model Validation Results
Site
No. Location Land Use
Measured
Leq (dBA)
(Traffic
Only)
Predicted
Leq (dBA)
Difference
(decibels)
M1 1400 S Joyce St, Arlington Residential 62.7 59.8 -2.9
M2 1531 13th St, Arlington Residential 66.9 67.7 0.8
M3 1300 Army Navy Dr, Arlington Residential 64.5 60.5 -4.0
M4 1735 Army Navy Dr, Arlington Residential 69.8 69.5 -0.3
M5 Army Navy Country Club Golf
Course, Arlington Recreational 64.5 67.3 2.8
M6 1627 23rd St, Arlington Residential 73.0 74.1 1.1
M7 2300 24th Rd, Arlington Residential 73.8 76.5 2.7
M8 1627 Army Navy Dr , Arlington Residential 69.4 70.2 0.8
M9 2639 27th Rd, Alexandria Residential 68.5 70.6 2.1
M10 1225 Martha Custis Dr, Alexandria Residential 66.7 70.0 3.3
M11 3544 Martha Custis Dr, Alexandria Residential 63.3 65.5 2.2
M12 Utah Park, 3191 S Utah St,
Alexandria Recreational 66.8 69.7 2.9
M13 3342B Wakefield St, Alexandria Residential 71.3 73.5 2.2
M14 4430 31st St, S, Arlington Residential 66.9 72.0 5.1
M15 Across from 4811 31st St,
Alexandria Residential 64.0 65.9 1.9
M16 2600 N Van Dorn St, Alexandria Residential 65.4 68.5 3.1
M17 Next to 3307 Wyndham Cir,
Alexandria Residential 67.5 70.3 2.8
M18 Fort Ward Park, 4301 W Braddock
Rd, Alexandria Recreational 57.0 60.4 3.4
M19 4601 Lambert Pl, Alexandria Residential 62.0 61.4 -0.6
Overall Average/Standard Deviation 1.6/2.2
Note: Site locations shown on map in Figure 5-1. Detailed data presented in Appendix D.
Source: HMMH, 2016
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
19
5.4 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
The study area includes mostly residential land use and development, as well as some recreational,
institutional and exterior commercial land use.
5.4.1 Common Noise Environment (CNE) Descriptions
Table 5-2 presents a list of the CNEs in the study area with FHWA Activity categories, general location
for each CNE, and brief descriptions of the noise-sensitive land use within. More detailed descriptions of
the CNEs are provided below. CNE boundaries are shown in Figure 5-1 for areas with noise-sensitive
land use. Areas that do not have noise-sensitive land uses are not identified with CNE boundaries; such
land use is Activity Category E, F, or G, that is commercial with no exterior activity areas, industrial, or
undeveloped, respectively.
CNE A is located west of I-395, south of Rt. 27, and east of S Queen Street, containing Mount Olive
Baptist Church, as well as a multitude of single-family and multi-family residences. The church and
residences all have outdoor land use at ground level (Category B).
CNE AA is located northwest of I-395 and west of S Washington Boulevard. This area represents the
portion of the United States Air Force Memorial nearest the project, which includes outdoor walkways
and field space (Category C).
CNE B is located east and south of I-395 and west of S Joyce Street. This area represents Prospect Hill
Park, which includes seating areas, sidewalks and open hillside viewing areas for the Air Force Memorial,
in addition to six multi-family buildings and complexes including The Representative, Horizon House,
The Ridge House, Pentagon Ridge Condominiums, Parliament House and The Cavendish. The bulk of the
frequent outdoor use areas in each complex, excluding The Cavendish, consists of private balconies
(Category B). Every complex except for Parliament House also has an outdoor a pool area (Category C).
In addition, Horizon House has a tennis court (Category C).
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!( !!( !!(
!!(!!(!!(!!(
!!( !!( !!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!( !!( !!( !!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!( !!( !!(
((((
((((
(( ((
((
((
((
(( ((
((
(( ((((
((
((((((
((((((
(( ((
((
((
((((
((
((((
((
/ /
/
/
//
/ //
/ /
//
///
/
/
/
//
//
// /
//
/
//
/
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77@#77 @#7
7
@#77
(((( (( (( (( ((
((
((
((
((
(( (((( ((((((
((
((
((((
((
((((
((
((
/ / / / /// / /
/ //
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
@@ @ @ @
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@@
@
@@
@
@ @@@@
@#77
7 @#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7 @#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7@#7
77
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
³
³
³
³
³
³
#*
#*
#*
M-005, M-006, M-007, M-008M-013, M-014, M-015, M-016M-024, M-025, M-026, M-027
M-028, M-029, M-030, M-031M-020, M-021, M-022, M-023M-032, M-033, M-034, M-035
M-017, M-018, M-019M-009, M-010, M-011M-001, M-002, M-003
M-040
K-086
K-001
B
A
B K-079, K-080, K-081, K-085K-065, K-066, K-067, K-071K-058, K-059, K-060, K-064K-051, K-052, K-053, K-057K-030, K-031, K-032, K-036K-009, K-010, K-011, K-015
A K-072, K-073, K-074, K-077K-044, K-045, K-046, K-049K-037, K-038, K-039, K-042K-023, K-024, K-025, K-028K-016, K-017, K-018, K-021K-002, K-003, K-004, K-007
K-166
K-181
K-179
K-111
H
CD
E
F
L-001
L-018L-013L-008
L-005
L-002
L-010L-009
L-036
L-031L-025
L-021L-014L-040
L-023L-026
L-070
L-060L-065
L-077
L-052L-048
L-069L-066
L-059
L-033L-038
L-045L-051
L-079
G
K-157, K-158, K-159,K-163, K-164, K-165,K-160, K-161, K-162K-148, K-149, K-150,K-151, K-152, K-153,K-154, K-155, K-156
K-127, K-128, K-129,K-130, K-131, K-132,K-142, K-143, K-144,K-139, K-140, K-141,K-145, K-146, K-147
K-102, K-103, K-104,K-108, K-109, K-110,K-118, K-119, K-120,K-121, K-122, K-123,K-124, K-125, K-126,K-133, K-134, K-135,K-136, K-137, K-138K-096, K-097, K-098,K-105, K-106, K-107,K-112, K-113, K-114,K-115, K-116, K-117
C
D
EG
K-087, K-088, K-089,K-090, K-091, K-092,K-093, K-094, K-095,K-099, K-100, K-101I-013, I-014, I-015,I-016, I-017, I-018,I-019, I-020
I-003, I-004,I-001, I-002J
N Van D orn St
§̈¦395
Sem inary Rd
Bradd
ock R d
W B raddoc k Rd Kenmore Ave
N Hampton Dr
Ivor Ln
N Van Dorn St
Kirkland Pl
Library Ln
N Picke
tt St
Pickett St
Hunton Pl
Kell Ln
Lamb
ert Dr
Kirkpatrick Ln
Latrobe Pl
Garnett Dr
Gretter Pl
Gorgas Pl
Longstreet Ln
Strutfield Ln
Braddock Ct
Morve
m Ln
Kinse
y Ln
N Howa
rd St
Ford Ave
Nottingham Dr
Kirchner CtN Pickett St
Henshaw Pl
N Van Dorn St
Ford Ave
Par k Ce n terDr
L-004L-007L-012L-017
L-015L-020L-024L-030N-001
N-003
N-004
N-002
N-005
L-182L-183
L-184 L-073
L-058L-064L-068L-074
L-061 L-054 L-050 L-043
L-029L-035L-039L-046
L-078
L-080 L-076 L-071
L-056
L-067
L-063L-072
L-042L-057
L-053 L-049
L-044 L-037 L-034 L-028
M-088
M-036
K-170
K-167
K-168K-169
K-172K-171
K-173
K-174K-175
K-176
K-177K-178M-048
M-049
M-038 M-037
M-039
M-042M-045
M-044M-047
M-046
M-050
M-051
M-043
M-041
K-182
K-188
K-180
K-189
K-191
K-193
K-183
K-187K-184
K-185
K-186
K-190K-192
K-194
M-069, M-070, M-071M-061, M-062, M-063M-053, M-054, M-055
M-080, M-081, M-082, M-083M-072, M-073, M-074, M-075M-084, M-085, M-086, M-087
M-076, M-077, M-078, M-079M-065, M-066, M-067, M-068M-057, M-058, M-059, M-060
Barrier K/M (1)
Barrier L/N (1)
Barrier K/M (2) 66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
M18
M19
CNE KCNE KCNE MCNE M
CNE LCNE LCNE NCNE N
Docu
ment
Path:
G:\P
rojec
ts\30
6XXX
\3067
80_V
DOT_
Noise
_On-c
all\00
7_I-3
95HO
T-Lan
es_E
A\GIS
\3067
80_0
07_I3
95_H
OT-La
nes_
Rece
ivers_
Shee
t_Lay
out.m
xd
VDOT Project No. 0395-969-205; UPC No. 108313
Interstate 395 Express LanesNorthern Extension ProjectEnvironmental Assessment
Figure 5-1Location Map for Common Noise
Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers
Measurement Site#* M#
Note: Grouped Receiver Labels are in order of Leader Occurrence.
°
((#77
!!=
Top Floor Noise Prediction ResultBottom Floor Noise Prediction Result
Receiver Site and Number
Not impacted, benefit not determined!!(
Not Benefited or Impacted!!(
Benefited but Not Impacted!!(
Impacted but Not Benefited!!(
Impacted and 7 dBA or more Insertion Loss!!(
Impacted and 5 or 6 dBA Insertion Loss!!(
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Arlington
Lincolnia Glassmanor
Falls Church
Lake Barcroft
Seven Corners
Forest Heights
Bailey's Crossroads§̈¦295
§̈¦66 §̈¦395
§̈¦395
£¤50
£¤1UV244
UV236
UV120
UV110
UV233
UV120
UV7
UV244
UV7
°
Sheet 1 of 70 300 600 Feet
Noise Barriers
Feasible and Not Reasonable³³
Feasible and Reasonable³³
500' Noise Study Area
CNE Boundary66 dBA Noise Contour
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!( !!( !!(
!!(!!(!!(!!(
!!( !!( !!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!( !!( !!( !!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!( !!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
OM(OM(
OM(OM(
((((
((
((((((
((
((
((((
((
((
((
(( ((
((((
((
((
((((
((
((
(( ((
(( ((((
((((((((
((((((
((((((
((((
((
((
((((
((
((((
((((
((
//
/
//
/
/
/
/
//
/
/
/
/ // /
////
/
/////
/
/
/
//
//
//
//
//
/
//
/
//
/
//
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77 @#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77@#77@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
(((( (( (( (( ((
(( ((((((((
((((
(( ((((((
((((
(((( ((((((
((((
/ / / / /
// //
/
// / / / /
/
//
/
/////
/
@@ @ @
@
@@ @@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @@ @@
@@
@
@@@
@
@#77
7
@#77
7 @#77
7 @#77
7 @#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7 @#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
King Street
G-2 (2 )
K-001
B
L-167
K-166
M
N
J-005J-004 J-001
J-003J-010
J-013J-008
J-002J-009
J-011
J-014
J-007
J-012
J-006
K-181
K-179
K-111
H
CD
E
F
I-057
I-056
I-055I-054
L-088
L-174L-171
L-173
L-001
L-011L-016
L-019L-032
L-027L-022
L-018L-013L-008
L-005
L-002
L-010L-009
L-047L-041
L-036L-031
L-025L-021L-014
L-178
L-177
L-170
L-169
L-175
L-168
L-176
L-172
L-179
L-040
L-023L-026
L-070
L-060L-065
L-077
L-052L-048
L-069L-066
L-059
L-033L-038
L-045L-051
L-055L-062
L-081L-079 L-075
I-049I-046
I-048
I-040
I-044
I-039I-041
I-051
I-047I-043
I-042
I-052
I-045I-050
H-058 H-057
G-094
G-097
G-099
G-095
G-098
G-096
LK
JI
G
K-157, K-158, K-159,K-163, K-164, K-165,K-160, K-161, K-162K-148, K-149, K-150,K-151, K-152, K-153,K-154, K-155, K-156K-127, K-128, K-129,K-130, K-131, K-132,K-142, K-143, K-144,K-139, K-140, K-141,K-145, K-146, K-147
K-102, K-103, K-104,K-108, K-109, K-110,K-118, K-119, K-120,K-121, K-122, K-123,K-124, K-125, K-126,K-133, K-134, K-135,K-136, K-137, K-138K-096, K-097, K-098,K-105, K-106, K-107,K-112, K-113, K-114,K-115, K-116, K-117
C
D
E
F
G
H K-087, K-088, K-089,K-090, K-091, K-092,K-093, K-094, K-095,K-099, K-100, K-101I-013, I-014, I-015,I-016, I-017, I-018,I-019, I-020I-003, I-004,I-001, I-002
I
J
K
L
I-033, I-034, I-035,I-030, I-031, I-032,I-027, I-028, I-029,I-024, I-025, I-026,I-021, I-022, I-023I-011, I-012,I-005, I-006, I-007,I-008, I-009, I-010,I-036, I-037, I-038
M NL-082, L-083, L-084, L-087L-095, L-096, L-097, L-100L-107, L-108, L-109, L-112L-113, L-114, L-115, L-118L-119, L-120, L-121, L-124L-101, L-102, L-103, L-106L-089, L-090, L-091, L-094
L-125, L-126, L-127, L-128L-137, L-138, L-139, L-140L-149, L-150, L-151, L-152L-155, L-156, L-157, L-158L-161, L-162, L-163, L-164L-143, L-144, L-145, L-146L-131, L-132, L-133, L-134
L-180
G-082
H-010
H-003H-007
H-011
H-008
H-001
H-005
H-009
H-002
H-006H-061
H-063H-060
H-053H-062
H-056H-054
H-051
H-050H-049 H-047H-046
H-040
G-089
G-090G-091
G-093
G-086
G-088
G-085G-083
G-087
G-092 G-084
G-016, G-017, G-018,
G-034, G-035, G-036
G-079, G-080, G-081,
G-076, G-077, G-078
O
W Braddock Rd
Strutfield Ln
Braddock Ct
Morv
em Ln
Ford Ave
§̈¦395
UV7UV7
31St St
N Van Dorn St
34Th St
36Th St
S Abingdon St
Ford Ave
30Th St
S Buchanan St
P ark Center Dr
Menokin Dr
S Wakefield
St
Ellico
tt St
King St
31St Rd
30Th Rd
S Woodrow St
S Wake
field St
30Th St
S Woodrow St
29Th St
S Taylor
St
S Wood
row St
30Th Rd
L-004L-007L-012L-017
L-015L-020L-024L-030
L-184 L-073
L-058L-064L-068L-074
L-061 L-054 L-050 L-043
L-029L-035L-039L-046
L-078
L-080 L-076 L-071
L-056
L-067
L-063L-072
L-042L-057
L-053 L-049
L-044 L-037 L-034 L-028
K-167
K-168
K-180
Barrier I
Barrier L/N (1)
Barrier K/M (1)Barrier G-2 (1)
Barrier H/J (1)
Barrier H/J (2)
66 dBA66 dBA
66 dBA66 dBA 66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
M17
M15
M16
M13
M14
CNE LCNE L
CNE ICNE ICNE KCNE K
CNE GCNE G
CNE JCNE J
CNE HCNE H
Docu
ment
Path:
G:\P
rojec
ts\30
6XXX
\3067
80_V
DOT_
Noise
_On-c
all\00
7_I-3
95HO
T-Lan
es_E
A\GIS
\3067
80_0
07_I3
95_H
OT-La
nes_
Rece
ivers_
Shee
t_Lay
out.m
xd
VDOT Project No. 0395-969-205; UPC No. 108313
Interstate 395 Express LanesNorthern Extension ProjectEnvironmental Assessment
Figure 5-1Location Map for Common Noise
Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers
Measurement Site#* M#
Note: Grouped Receiver Labels are in order of Leader Occurrence.
°
((#77
!!=
Top Floor Noise Prediction ResultBottom Floor Noise Prediction Result
Receiver Site and Number
Not impacted, benefit not determined!!(
Not Benefited or Impacted!!(
Benefited but Not Impacted!!(
Impacted but Not Benefited!!(
Impacted and 7 dBA or more Insertion Loss!!(
Impacted and 5 or 6 dBA Insertion Loss!!(
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Arlington
Lincolnia Glassmanor
Falls Church
Lake Barcroft
Seven Corners
Forest Heights
Bailey's Crossroads§̈¦295
§̈¦66 §̈¦395
§̈¦395
£¤50
£¤1UV244
UV236
UV120
UV110
UV233
UV120
UV7
UV244
UV7
°
Sheet 2 of 70 300 600 Feet
Noise Barriers
Feasible and Not Reasonable³³
Feasible and Reasonable³³
500' Noise Study Area
CNE Boundary66 dBA Noise Contour
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!( !!( !!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
((((((
((
((((
(( ((((
((((
((((
((
((
((
((
((
((((
((
((
(( ((((
((
((
//
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
///
/
//
/
/
/
//
/
//
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77 @#7
7
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77@#77
@#77
((((((
((((/
//
//@
@@
@
@@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³³
³
³
³
³
³³
³
³
³
³
³
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
O P QG-008, G-008, G-009,G-013, G-014, G-015,G-028, G-029, G-030,G-037, G-038, G-039,G-046, G-047, G-048,G-052, G-053, G-054
G-001, G-002, G-003,G-010, G-011, G-012,G-025, G-026, G-027,G-031, G-032, G-033,G-043, G-044, G-045,G-049, G-050, G-051
G-061, G-062, G-063,G-058, G-059, G-060,G-064, G-065, G-066,G-067, G-068, G-069,G-070, G-071, G-072,G-073, G-074, G-075
G-2(2)
J-005
J-004 J-001
J-003J-010
J-013J-008
J-002J-009
J-011J-014 J-007J-012 J-006
I-057I-056
I-055I-054
L-174L-171
L-173
L-178
L-177
L-170
L-172
I-046
I-048
I-040
I-044
I-039
H-058H-057
G-094
G-097
G-099
G-095
G-098
G-096
G-082
H-018H-019
H-017 H-014
H-016
H-015
H-013
H-012
H-010
H-003H-007H-011
H-004H-008
H-001
H-005
H-009
H-002H-006
H-061
H-063
H-044H-042 H-038
H-060H-053
H-062
H-056
H-059
H-054
H-051 H-050H-049
H-055
H-047
H-052
H-046
H-048H-043
H-041H-040
H-039
H-045
H-037
H-036
H-035H-034
H-033
H-024
H-023
H-027
H-025
H-031
H-028H-032H-029
H-026
H-030
H-022
H-020H-021
G-089
G-090
G-091
G-093
G-086
G-088
G-085
G-083
G-087
G-092
G-084
F-063
F-067F-066
F-065F-070 F-068
F-061
F-062
F-071
F-069 F-064
G-016, G-017, G-018,G-034, G-035, G-036
P
G-004, G-005, G-006,G-022, G-023, G-024,G-019, G-020, G-021
G-079, G-080, G-081,G-076, G-077, G-078
Q
O
G-055, G-056, G-057
G-040, G-041, G-042
F-078F-077F-076F-075F-074
F-073F-072
F-051
F-048
F-046F-056
F-060F-059
F-058
F-054F-052
F-050
F-055 F-053
F-049
F-057
F-037
F-036
F-038
F-032
F-033
F-040F-042
F-039F-043 F-041
F-047 F-044F-045
FA-007FA-006
FA-005
FA-004
FA-003
FA-002
FA-001
F-013, F-014, F-015, F-018,
F-019, F-020, F-021, F-024,
F-025, F-026, F-027, F-030,
F-007, F-008, F-009, F-012,
F-001, F-002, F-003, F-006
§̈¦395
31St St
34Th StSAbingdonSt
S Wakefield St
31St Rd
30Th Rd
S Woodrow St
S Wakefield St
S Woodrow St
§̈¦395
N Quake r Ln
31St St
S Utah St
34Th St
Martha C
ustis Dr
27Th St
28Th St
29Th St
S RandolphSt
S Stafford St
S Quincy St
32Nd St
32Nd Rd
Gunston Rd
S Taylor St
Fitzgera ld Ln
S Arlington Mill Dr
Lyons Ln
S Nelson St
S Four Mile Run Dr
SStua
rt St
S Shirli
ngton RdS W
oodrow
St30Th Rd
Mount Eagle Pl
Preston Rd
S Staffo
rd St
29Th St
32Nd Rd
28Th St
§̈¦395
S Shirlington Rd
Martha Custis Dr
Gunston Rd
27Th Rd
S Kemper Rd
Shirlington Rd
Greenway Pl
S Arlington Mill Dr
S Four Mile Run Dr
S Shirlington Rd
Barrier H/J (1)
Barrier F
-2
Barrier G-2 (1)
Barrier G-1 Barrier F-1
66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
M13
M14
M12
M11
CNE HCNE H
CNE GCNE G
CNE FCNE F
CNE FACNE FA
CNE JCNE J
Docu
ment
Path:
G:\P
rojec
ts\30
6XXX
\3067
80_V
DOT_
Noise
_On-c
all\00
7_I-3
95HO
T-Lan
es_E
A\GIS
\3067
80_0
07_I3
95_H
OT-La
nes_
Rece
ivers_
Shee
t_Lay
out.m
xd
VDOT Project No. 0395-969-205; UPC No. 108313
Interstate 395 Express LanesNorthern Extension ProjectEnvironmental Assessment
Figure 5-1Location Map for Common Noise
Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers
Measurement Site#* M#
Note: Grouped Receiver Labels are in order of Leader Occurrence.
°
((#77
!!=
Top Floor Noise Prediction ResultBottom Floor Noise Prediction Result
Receiver Site and Number
Not impacted, benefit not determined!!(
Not Benefited or Impacted!!(
Benefited but Not Impacted!!(
Impacted but Not Benefited!!(
Impacted and 7 dBA or more Insertion Loss!!(
Impacted and 5 or 6 dBA Insertion Loss!!(
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Arlington
Lincolnia Glassmanor
Falls Church
Lake Barcroft
Seven Corners
Forest Heights
Bailey's Crossroads§̈¦295
§̈¦66 §̈¦395
§̈¦395
£¤50
£¤1UV244
UV236
UV120
UV110
UV233
UV120
UV7
UV244
UV7
°
Sheet 3 of 70 300 600 Feet
Noise Barriers
Feasible and Not Reasonable³³
Feasible and Reasonable³³
500' Noise Study Area
CNE Boundary66 dBA Noise Contour
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!( !!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(OM(
((
((
((((((
((((
((((
((((
((
(((( ((((
((((
((
((
((((((
((((
((((
//
/
/ // ///
/
//
///
//
//
//
/
/
/ ///
@#77
@#77
@#77@#7
7
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
((
((((
((
(( (((((( ((
((
((((((
((((
((((((
((((
((
((((
((
((((
/
//
/
/
////
///
/
/
/
/ ///
///
//
/
/
@
@
@
@
@@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
³
³
³
³
³
³³ ³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
R
S
T
U
S Gleb
e Rd
F-063
F-067
F-066
F-065F-068
F-061
F-062F-069
F-064
P
G-004, G-005, G-006,G-022, G-023, G-024,G-019, G-020, G-021
G-079, G-080, G-081,G-076, G-077, G-078G-055, G-056, G-057
G-040, G-041, G-042
F-079F-078
F-077F-076
F-075F-074
F-073
F-072
F-051
F-048
F-046
F-056F-060F-059
F-058
F-054F-052
F-050
F-055 F-053
F-049
F-057
F-035
F-034
F-031
F-037
F-036
F-038
F-032
F-033F-040
F-042
F-039F-043 F-041
F-047 F-044
F-045
FA-007FA-006
FA-005
FA-004
FA-003
FA-002
FA-001
F-013, F-014, F-015, F-018,F-019, F-020, F-021, F-024,F-025, F-026, F-027, F-030,F-007, F-008, F-009, F-012,F-001, F-002, F-003, F-006
E-090
E-091
E-108
E-089
E-103 E-098E-101E-100
E-095
E-110
E-109
E-111
E-107
E-106 E-093E-097
E-105
E-104
E-102E-099 E-092
E-094
E-096
E-031, E-032
W
V
C-337
R
S
U
T
C-309, C-310, C-311,C-312, C-313, C-314, C-315, C-303, C-304, C-305,C-316, C-317, C-318, C-319,C-306, C-307, C-308 C-323, C-324, C-325, C-326,C-327, C-328, C-329, C-330,C-334, C-335, C-336,C-331, C-332, C-322,C-320, C-321, C-322
C-268, C-269, C-270,C-264, C-265, C-266,C-255, C-256, C-257,C-241, C-242, C-243,C-229, C-230, C-231,C-225, C-226, C-227,C-237, C-238, C-239,C-233, C-234, C-235C-282, C-283, C-284, C-286,C-272, C-273, C-274, C-276,C-292, C-293, C-294, C-296,C-287, C-288, C-289, C-291,C-277, C-278, C-279, C-281,C-259, C-260, C-261, C-263,C-250, C-251, C-252, C-254,C-245, C-246, C-247, C-249
E-009, E-010, E-011, E-012,E-013, E-014, E-015, E-016,E-005, E-006, E-007, E-008,E-001, E-002, E-003, E-004
E-023, E-024, E-025, E-026,E-037, E-038, E-039, E-040,E-041, E-042, E-043, E-044,E-033, E-034, E-035, E-036,E-027, E-028, E-029, E-030
V W
CA-001
E-079
E-088
E-086 E-083
E-085
E-087
E-080 E-077 E-072
E-078E-081
E-084
E-082
E-070
E-069
E-068E-067
E-074
E-073E-076
E-071
E-075
E-020 E-017
E-019E-022
E-021
E-018
31St St
27Th St
28Th St
S Randolph St
S Quincy St
Gunston Rd
Fitzgera ld Ln
S Arlington Mill Dr
Lyons Ln
S Four Mile Run Dr
S Shirlington Rd
29Th St 28Th St
§̈¦395
UV120
UV120
S Glebe Rd 27Th St
S Shirlington Rd
26Th St
S Adam
s St
24Th Rd
Martha Custis Dr
25Th St
S Troy St
24Th St
S Veitc
h St
S Wayn
e St
Valley Dr
S Uhle
St
Gunston Rd
27Th Rd
S Four Mile Run Dr
S Kemper Rd
Army Navy Dr
23Rd St
Holmes Ln
Shirlington Rd
S Lincoln S
t
Greenway Pl
S Arlington Mill Dr
25Th St
S Four Mile Run Dr
S Shirlington Rd
28Th
St
S Quee
n St
26Th St
C-213C-210
C-216
C-214
C-222C-217
C-220
C-224C-223
C-221
C-219
C-207C-204
C-201C-209
C-211
C-205C-218
C-215C-212
C-208C-186
C-194C-189
C-170C-178
C-181
C-184
C-165
C-168C-173
C-171
C-166
C-176
C-179 C-174
C-169
C-187 C-182 C-167
C-177
C-172C-192
C-180C-195 C-185C-190 C-175C-188C-199
C-183C-193C-197
C-196C-200C-191
C-202
C-206C-203
C-198
Barrier F-1
Barrier B/D/E (2)
Barrier C (2)Barrier FA Barrier CA
66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
66dB
A
M9
M7
M10
CNE FCNE F
CNE ECNE E
CNE CCNE C
CNE FACNE FA
CNE CACNE CA
Docu
ment
Path:
G:\P
rojec
ts\30
6XXX
\3067
80_V
DOT_
Noise
_On-c
all\00
7_I-3
95HO
T-Lan
es_E
A\GIS
\3067
80_0
07_I3
95_H
OT-La
nes_
Rece
ivers_
Shee
t_Lay
out.m
xd
VDOT Project No. 0395-969-205; UPC No. 108313
Interstate 395 Express LanesNorthern Extension ProjectEnvironmental Assessment
Figure 5-1Location Map for Common Noise
Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers
Measurement Site#* M#
Note: Grouped Receiver Labels are in order of Leader Occurrence.
°
((#77
!!=
Top Floor Noise Prediction ResultBottom Floor Noise Prediction Result
Receiver Site and Number
Not impacted, benefit not determined!!(
Not Benefited or Impacted!!(
Benefited but Not Impacted!!(
Impacted but Not Benefited!!(
Impacted and 7 dBA or more Insertion Loss!!(
Impacted and 5 or 6 dBA Insertion Loss!!(
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Arlington
Lincolnia Glassmanor
Falls Church
Lake Barcroft
Seven Corners
Forest Heights
Bailey's Crossroads§̈¦295
§̈¦66 §̈¦395
§̈¦395
£¤50
£¤1UV244
UV236
UV120
UV110
UV233
UV120
UV7
UV244
UV7
°
Sheet 4 of 70 300 600 Feet
Noise Barriers
Feasible and Not Reasonable³³
Feasible and Reasonable³³
500' Noise Study Area
CNE Boundary66 dBA Noise Contour
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!( !!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(!!( !!(!!(!!( !!(!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!( !!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(!!( !!( !!(
!!(!!( !!( !!(!!(
!!( !!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!( !!(!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!( !!( !!(
!!( !!(!!(!!( !!(
!!( !!(!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!( !!( !!(
!!( !!(!!( !!(
!!( !!( !!(!!(
!!( !!( !!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!( !!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(
!!( !!( !!( !!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(OM(
((
((((((
((
((
((((((((((
((
((
((/
/
/
/ /////
/
//
//
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77
@#77 @#77
@#77
@#77 ((
((((
((
((
((
((((
((((((
((((
((
((((
((
/
//
/
/
//
///
//
/
/
//
/
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7 ³
³
³
³
³
³³
³
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
E-090
E-091
E-089
E-098E-101E-095
E-093E-097
E-102 E-099 E-092
E-094
E-096
E-031, E-032
W
C-337R
S
U
T
C-282, C-283, C-284, C-286,C-272, C-273, C-274, C-276,C-292, C-293, C-294, C-296,C-287, C-288, C-289, C-291,C-277, C-278, C-279, C-281,C-259, C-260, C-261, C-263,C-250, C-251, C-252, C-254,C-245, C-246, C-247, C-249
E-023, E-024, E-025, E-026,E-037, E-038, E-039, E-040,E-041, E-042, E-043, E-044,E-033, E-034, E-035, E-036,E-027, E-028, E-029, E-030
CA-001
D-020
D-014
D-017
D-022D-016
D-015D-021
D-019
D-018
E-047
E-045
E-053
E-049
E-079
E-088
E-086 E-083
E-085
E-087
E-080 E-077 E-072
E-078E-081
E-084
E-082
E-070
E-069
E-068E-067
E-065
E-066
E-064
E-062
E-063
E-061
E-048
E-074
E-073E-076
E-071
E-075
E-059E-058
E-056 E-052
E-054
E-060E-055
E-051
E-046
E-050
E-020 E-017
E-019E-022
E-021
E-018
D-012
D-011
D-013
D-009
D-008
D-010
D-007
D-006
D-004
D-005
D-003
D-002
C-016C-026
C-011C-031 C-021
C-024 C-014C-029
C-019C-027
C-012
C-022
C-017
C-015C-020
C-013
C-039C-043
C-034
C-037C-045 C-032
C-041C-048
C-044C-040 C-035 C-030
C-050
C-046C-042 C-038
C-036
C-025
C-033 C-028C-023
C-018
UV120
26Th St
24Th Rd
S Troy St
Army Navy Dr
25Th St
§̈¦395
S Arling ton R idge Rd
Army Navy Dr
28Th
St
20Th St
23Rd St 22Nd StS Quee
n St
26Th St
S Nash St
21St St
S Pierce St
23Rd Rd
S Rolfe St
24Th St
S Lynn St
19Th Rd
S Ode St
Army Navy Country Club Access Rd
S Pierce St
S Arling ton R idge Rd
Army Navy Dr
S Lynn St
16Th St
17Th St
19Th Rd
18Th St 19Th St 19Th St
C-213C-210
C-216
C-214
C-222
C-217C-220
C-224C-223
C-221
C-219
C-207C-204
C-201C-209
C-211
C-205C-218
C-215C-212
C-208
C-051 C-047
C-053 C-049
C-056 C-052
C-059 C-054
C-186
C-194
C-189
C-170C-178
C-181
C-184
C-162 C-157 C-152 C-147
C-160 C-155
C-165
C-150
C-168
C-158
C-173
C-163
C-171
C-156C-161C-166
C-176
C-179 C-174
C-169 C-164 C-159
C-145
C-148C-153
C-151
C-154
C-142
C-149
C-140
C-143
C-146
C-137
C-132
C-135
C-138
C-141
C-144
C-136
C-139
C-187 C-182 C-167
C-177
C-172C-192
C-180C-195 C-185C-190
C-175C-188C-199
C-183
C-193C-197
C-196C-200C-191
C-202
C-206C-203
C-198
C-085C-089C-093
C-091 C-083C-087C-095
C-094C-098 C-086C-090
C-092C-096C-100 C-088
C-081
C-084
C-067
C-072C-057
C-062
C-060
C-075
C-065
C-055
C-070
C-063C-068C-073C-078 C-058
C-076C-071 C-061C-066C-074
C-069 C-064
C-127
C-122C-117
C-125
C-120
C-130
C-133
C-123
C-128
C-131
C-126
C-134
C-129
C-097C-101
C-112C-115 C-099C-106C-110
C-103C-105C-113C-118 C-102C-108 C-104C-121 C-107C-116
C-111C-124 C-119
C-114
C-109
C-077C-079
C-082C-080
Barrier C (1)
Barrier B/D/E (2)
66 dBA
66 dBA
M6M8
M7
CNE ECNE E
CNE CCNE C
CNE DCNE D
Docu
ment
Path:
G:\P
rojec
ts\30
6XXX
\3067
80_V
DOT_
Noise
_On-c
all\00
7_I-3
95HO
T-Lan
es_E
A\GIS
\3067
80_0
07_I3
95_H
OT-La
nes_
Rece
ivers_
Shee
t_Lay
out.m
xd
VDOT Project No. 0395-969-205; UPC No. 108313
Interstate 395 Express LanesNorthern Extension ProjectEnvironmental Assessment
Figure 5-1Location Map for Common Noise
Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers
Measurement Site#* M#
Note: Grouped Receiver Labels are in order of Leader Occurrence.
°
((#77
!!=
Top Floor Noise Prediction ResultBottom Floor Noise Prediction Result
Receiver Site and Number
Not impacted, benefit not determined!!(
Not Benefited or Impacted!!(
Benefited but Not Impacted!!(
Impacted but Not Benefited!!(
Impacted and 7 dBA or more Insertion Loss!!(
Impacted and 5 or 6 dBA Insertion Loss!!(
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Arlington
Lincolnia Glassmanor
Falls Church
Lake Barcroft
Seven Corners
Forest Heights
Bailey's Crossroads§̈¦295
§̈¦66 §̈¦395
§̈¦395
£¤50
£¤1UV244
UV236
UV120
UV110
UV233
UV120
UV7
UV244
UV7
°
Sheet 5 of 70 300 600 Feet
Noise Barriers
Feasible and Not Reasonable³³
Feasible and Reasonable³³
500' Noise Study Area
CNE Boundary66 dBA Noise Contour
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!(!!( !!( !!(!!(
!!(!!( !!(!!( !!(
!!(!!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
((((//@#7
7
@#77
(( ((
(( ((((
(( (( (((( ((((
(( (( ((((
(((( ((((((
(( ((
(( ((
((((((
(( ((((
/ //
/ /
/// / // / /
// / /
/
// /
//
/
////
//
@@
@
@
@ @ @@@
@
@ @@
@
@
@ @@
@
@ @
@
@@
@
@
@
@@
@
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7 @#77
7 @#77
7@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*D-020D-014
D-017
D-022 D-016
D-015
D-021
D-019
D-018
A-019 A-018A-017
B-080
B-097
B-098D-012
D-011
D-013
D-009
D-008
D-010
D-007
D-006
D-004
D-005
D-003
D-001
D-002
C-339 C-338
C-016 C-006C-026 C-011C-031
C-021C-009
C-024 C-014C-029 C-004
C-019C-027C-002
C-012
C-007C-022
C-017
C-015 C-005
C-010C-020 C-001
C-013 C-008C-003
C-039C-043
C-034
C-037
C-045C-032
C-041C-048
C-044 C-040 C-035 C-030C-050
C-046C-042 C-038
C-036
C-025C-033 C-028
C-023C-018
C-302C-300 C-297
C-298C-299
C-301
B-222
A-013
A-014
A-002
A-009
A-011A-010
A-016
A-006 A-003
A-008
A-012
A-005 A-001
A-007
A-004A-015
B-162
B-112B-110
B-184B-212
B-128
B-073
B-220
B-104
B-101
B-102
B-111
B-103
B-109B-106
B-099
B-108
B-113
B-100
B-105B-107
B-216
B-217
B-221
B-219
B-218
B-213
B-215 B-214
AC AD
Y
X
Z
AB
AA
Z
Y
XB-074, B-075, B-076,
B-077, B-078, B-079
B-081, B-082, B-083, B-084,
B-085, B-086, B-087, B-088,
B-093, B-094, B-095, B-096,
B-089, B-090, B-091, B-092
B-207, B-208, B-209, B-211,
B-198, B-199, B-200, B-202,
B-189, B-190, B-191, B-193,
B-185, B-186, B-187, B-188,
B-194, B-195, B-196, B-197,
B-203, B-204, B-205, B-206
20Th St
19Th Rd
Army Navy Country C lub Access Rd
§̈¦395
UV27
UV244
UV27
S Lynn S t
S A rling ton R idge R d
S Queen St
12Th St
S Nash St
13Th Rd
Army Navy Dr
11Th St
S Joyce St
S Lynn St
13Th St
S Rolfe St
S Arlington Ridge Rd
16Th St
S Kent St
S Pierce St
17Th St
14Th Rd
19Th Rd
10Th St
14Th St
18Th St
S Poe St
S Orme St
19Th St
15Th St
S Ode St
Army Navy Dr
19Th St
§̈¦395
UV244
S Nash St
Army Navy Dr
S Oak St
15Th St
C-051 C-047C-053 C-049
C-056 C-052C-059 C-054
C-085C-089
C-093
C-091C-083
C-087C-095
C-094C-086
C-090C-092
C-096C-088
C-081
C-084
C-067
C-072
C-057C-062
C-060
C-075
C-065C-055C-070
C-063C-068
C-073C-078
C-058C-076
C-071 C-061C-066
C-074
C-069 C-064
C-097
C-077C-079
C-082C-080
Barrier C (1)
Barrier B/D/E (1)Barrier B/D/E (2)
Barrier A
66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
66 dBA
M3
M4
M2M5
CNE BCNE B
CNE CCNE C
CNE DCNE D
CNE ACNE A
Docu
ment
Path:
G:\P
rojec
ts\30
6XXX
\3067
80_V
DOT_
Noise
_On-c
all\00
7_I-3
95HO
T-Lan
es_E
A\GIS
\3067
80_0
07_I3
95_H
OT-La
nes_
Rece
ivers_
Shee
t_Lay
out.m
xd
VDOT Project No. 0395-969-205; UPC No. 108313
Interstate 395 Express LanesNorthern Extension ProjectEnvironmental Assessment
Figure 5-1Location Map for Common Noise
Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers
Measurement Site#* M#
Note: Grouped Receiver Labels are in order of Leader Occurrence.
°
((#77
!!=
Top Floor Noise Prediction ResultBottom Floor Noise Prediction Result
Receiver Site and Number
Not impacted, benefit not determined!!(
Not Benefited or Impacted!!(
Benefited but Not Impacted!!(
Impacted but Not Benefited!!(
Impacted and 7 dBA or more Insertion Loss!!(
Impacted and 5 or 6 dBA Insertion Loss!!(
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Arlington
Lincolnia Glassmanor
Falls Church
Lake Barcroft
Seven Corners
Forest Heights
Bailey's Crossroads§̈¦295
§̈¦66 §̈¦395
§̈¦395
£¤50
£¤1UV244
UV236
UV120
UV110
UV233
UV120
UV7
UV244
UV7
°
Sheet 6 of 70 300 600 Feet
Noise Barriers
Feasible and Not Reasonable³³
Feasible and Reasonable³³
500' Noise Study Area
CNE Boundary66 dBA Noise Contour
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!( !!(!!(
!!( !!( !!(
!!( !!( !!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
(((( //
@#77
@#77
((((
((((
((
((((((
(( ((
((
((((
((
((
((
((
((((
((((
((
((
((((
((
((
((((
((/
/
/
//
//
///
/ //
/
//
/
/
/
//
/
//
//
/
/
/
/
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
@#77
7
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
³
#*
#*
#*
#*
A-019
A-018A-0
17
B-080
B-097
B-098
D-003
D-001
D-002
C-338
C-007
C-015
C-005
C-010
C-001
C-013
C-008
C-003
C-018
C-302
C-300
C-297
C-298
C-299
C-301
B-222
A-013
A-002
A-016
A-008
A-012
A-005
A-001
A-007
A-004
A-015
AA-001AA-002AA-003
AA-005AA-006
AA-007
AA-008
AA-010AA-011
AA-004
AA-009
AA-012
B-162
B-112
B-110
B-184
B-212
B-128
B-073
B-220
B-104
B-101
B-102
B-111B-103B-109
B-106B-099
B-108
B-113
B-100
B-105
B-107
B-216
B-217
B-221
B-219 B-218
B-213B-215
B-214
AC
AD
YX
Z
AB
AA
Z
Y
X B-074, B-075, B-076,B-077, B-078, B-079B-081, B-082, B-083, B-084,B-085, B-086, B-087, B-088,B-093, B-094, B-095, B-096,B-089, B-090, B-091, B-092B-207, B-208, B-209, B-211,B-198, B-199, B-200, B-202,B-189, B-190, B-191, B-193,B-185, B-186, B-187, B-188,B-194, B-195, B-196, B-197,B-203, B-204, B-205, B-206
AA
AB
AC
AD
B-059, B-060, B-061, B-065,B-045, B-046, B-047, B-051,B-029, B-030, B-031, B-036,B-015, B-016, B-017, B-021,B-001, B-002, B-003, B-007B-066, B-067, B-068, B-072,B-052, B-053, B-054, B-058,B-037, B-038, B-039, B-043,B-022, B-023, B-024, B-028,B-008, B-009, B-010, B-014B-170, B-171, B-172, B-176,B-156, B-157, B-158, B-161,B-136, B-137, B-138, B-141,B-121, B-122, B-123, B-127B-177, B-178, B-179, B-182,B-163, B-164, B-165, B-168,B-149, B-150, B-151, B-154,B-142, B-143, B-144, B-147,B-129, B-130, B-131, B-134,B-114, B-115, B-116, B-119
§̈¦395
UV27
UV27
S Lynn S t
S Nash St S Jo
yce St
13Th St
S Arlington
Ridge Rd
S Pierc
e St
S Ode
St
Army Navy Dr
§̈¦395
UV27
UV244
UV244
UV27
A rm y Navy Dr
S Hayes St
S H ayes St
S Nash St
Army Navy Dr
S Fern
St
12Th St
S Oak
St
15Th St
Pentagon Access Rd
S Joyc
e St
Barrier B/D/E (1)
66 dBA
66 dBA
M3
M1
CNE BCNE B
CNE DCNE D
CNE AACNE AA
Docu
ment
Path:
G:\P
rojec
ts\30
6XXX
\3067
80_V
DOT_
Noise
_On-c
all\00
7_I-3
95HO
T-Lan
es_E
A\GIS
\3067
80_0
07_I3
95_H
OT-La
nes_
Rece
ivers_
Shee
t_Lay
out.m
xd
VDOT Project No. 0395-969-205; UPC No. 108313
Interstate 395 Express LanesNorthern Extension ProjectEnvironmental Assessment
Figure 5-1Location Map for Common Noise
Environments, Receptors, Build Contours and Barriers
Measurement Site#* M#
Note: Grouped Receiver Labels are in order of Leader Occurrence.
°
((#77
!!=
Top Floor Noise Prediction ResultBottom Floor Noise Prediction Result
Receiver Site and Number
Not impacted, benefit not determined!!(
Not Benefited or Impacted!!(
Benefited but Not Impacted!!(
Impacted but Not Benefited!!(
Impacted and 7 dBA or more Insertion Loss!!(
Impacted and 5 or 6 dBA Insertion Loss!!(
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Arlington
Lincolnia Glassmanor
Falls Church
Lake Barcroft
Seven Corners
Forest Heights
Bailey's Crossroads§̈¦295
§̈¦66 §̈¦395
§̈¦395
£¤50
£¤1UV244
UV236
UV120
UV110
UV233
UV120
UV7
UV244
UV7
°
Sheet 7 of 70 300 600 Feet
Noise Barriers
Feasible and Not Reasonable³³
Feasible and Reasonable³³
500' Noise Study Area
CNE Boundary66 dBA Noise Contour
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
27
CNE C is located west of I-395 and north of S Glebe Road. This area is comprised of Hoffman-Boston
Elementary School, the Army Navy Country Club golf course, single-family residences, and two multi-
family complexes, Twenty400 and Dolley Madison Towers. Both multi-family complex’s outdoor use
areas primarily consist of private balconies and patios. Dolley Madison Towers also has a pool area.
Hoffman-Boston Elementary School includes both noise sensitive indoor space (Category D) as well as
well an outdoor playground, basketball court, and two tennis courts (Category C).
CNE CA is located west of I-395 and south of S Glebe Road. The area contains the outdoor pool at the
Best Western Pentagon-Reagan National Airport Hotel (Category E).
CNE D is located east of I-395 between the I-395 ramps to S Arlington Ridge Road and 20th Street. It is
entirely comprised of single-family homes, each of which has outdoor land use at ground level (Category
B).
CNE E is located east of I-395, south of 20th Street, and north of S Glebe Road. This area includes Fraser
Park, single-family residences, and multi-family residences, including The Grove at Arlington. A public
outdoor space, Fraser Park includes a walkway, picnic tables and an open grassy field (Category C. The
Grove at Arlington has both private balconies (Category B) and an outdoor pool area (Category C). One
other multi-family building also has private balconies.
CNE F is located east of I-395 and south of S Glebe Road. It encompasses single-family residences, Parc
East Condominiums, other multi-family residences, and part of Four Mile Run Trail. Parc East
Condominiums has outdoor land use both as private balconies (Category B) and in a recreational area
containing tennis courts, a pool, and a basketball court (Category C). Four Mile Run Trail is a public
recreation space (Category C).
CNE FA is located west of I-395 and east of Shirlington Road. It is exclusively comprised of the
westernmost portion of Four Mile Run Trail, a Category C public recreation area.
CNE G is located west of I-395, north of S Abingdon Street. The CNE is comprised of multi-family
complexes, including Windsor at Shirlington Village, Shirlington House Apartments, and Park
Shirlington Apartments. Of these three, Windsor at Shirlington Village is the only one that has private
balconies (Category B), and Shirlington House Apartments is the only one featuring an outdoor pool area
(Category C).
CNE H is located east of I-395 between 34th
Street S and N Quaker Lane. This area contains Category C
recreational areas including Utah Field, Fairlington Greens Park, and Fairlington Commons Park as well
as multi-family homes.
CNE I is located west of I-395 and between King Street and S Abingdon Street. It contains Stem
Preschool and multi-family residences. Stem Preschool contains both indoor noise-sensitive space
(Category D) as well as outdoor recreational areas. The multi-family residences have both private
balcony and ground-level outdoor land use (Category B).
CNE J is located east of I-395 and between King Street and 34th Street S and is comprised of multi-
family residences with private patios and balconies (Category B) and tennis courts (Category C).
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
28
CNE K is located west of I-395, north of W Braddock Road and south of King Street. This area contains
Stonegate Path trail in the Stonegate Scenic Easement, as well as a number of multi-family complexes,
including Point at Park Center, BLVD 2801, and Avana Alexandria Apartments. Both BLVD 2801 and
Point at Park Center have outdoor land use in the form of private balconies, while the Avana Alexandria
Apartments and the rest of the multi-family residences do not (Category B). Additionally, BLVD 2801
has an outdoor pool area (Category C). Stonegate Path is a recreational trail leading to a lake.
CNE L is located east of I-395 between W Braddock Road and King Street. It contains Fort Ward Park,
Alexandria Church, and multi-family residences, including Park Place A Condominiums. Fort Ward Park
includes field space, picnic areas, a soccer field, and tennis courts, as well as an outdoor amphitheater
(Category C). Pedestrians, runners and other patrons use the entire park area for exercise, gathering, and
traveling between the park’s amenities. Alexandria Church has noise sensitive space indoors (Category
D). Park Place A Condominiums features private balconies (Category B) as well as an outdoor pool
space (Category C). The other multi-family residences include Category B outdoor use areas surrounding
the buildings, as well as a separate play area.
CNE M is located west of I-395 and south of W Braddock Road. It includes the two buildings of
Southern Towers closest to I-395, in addition to other multi-family residences. Southern Towers has
outdoor use in the form of private balconies. All of the land use in this CNE is Category B.
CNE N is located east of I-395 and south of W Braddock Road. It is comprised exclusively of multi-
family residences with ground-level outdoor use areas (Category B) and a Category C community pool
associated with the complex.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
29
Table 5-2: Common Noise Environment (CNE) Descriptions
CNE
FHWA
Activity
Categories*
Description of Land Use and Location
A B, C Mt Olive Baptist Church, single-family residences, multi-family residences west
of I-395 and south of Rt. 27
AA C Air Force Memorial, northwest of I-395 and west of S Washington Blvd
B B, C
Prospect Hill Park, multi-family residences (The Representative, Horizon House,
The Ridge House, Pentagon Ridge Condominiums, Parliament House), south
and east of I-395 and west of S Joyce St
C B, C, D
Hoffman-Boston Elementary School, Army Navy Country Club, single-family
residences, multi-family residences (Twenty400, Dolley Madison Towers), west
of I-395 and north of S Glebe Rd
CA E Best Western Pentagon Hotel Pool, west of I-395 and south of S Glebe Rd
D B Single-family residences, east of I-395 and north of 20th St
E B, C Fraser Park, single-family residences, multi-family residences (The Grove at
Arlington and others), east of I-395 and south of 20th St
F B, C Four Mile Run Trail, single-family residences, multi-family residences (Parc
East Condominiums and others), east of I-395 and south of S Glebe Rd
FA C Four Mile Run Trail, west of I-395 and east of Shirlington Rd
G B, C Multi-family residences (Windsor at Shirlington Village, Shirlington House
Apartments, others), west of I-395 and north of S Abingdon St
H B, C Utah Park, Fairlington Greens Park, Fairlington Commons Park, multi-family
residences, east of I-395 and between 34 St S and N Quaker Ln
I B, C, D Stem Preschool, multi-family residences, west of I-395 and north of King St
J B, C Multi-family residences, east of I-395 and north of King St
K B, C
Stonegate Path, multi-family residences (Point at Park Station, BLVD 2801,
Avana Alexandria Apartments, and others), west of I-395 and north of W
Braddock Rd
L B, C, D
Fort Ward Park, outdoor amphitheater, Alexandria Church, multi-family
residences (Park Place A Condominiums and others), east of I-395, north of W
Braddock Rd
M B Multi-family residences (Southern Towers and others), west of I-395 and south
of W Braddock Rd
N B Multi-family residences, east of I-395 and south of W Braddock Rd
* Note: Activity Category B is exterior residential, C - exterior recreational or institutional, D - interior institutional, E -
exterior commercial. Table 3-1 provides detailed descriptions of the land uses included in the categories.
Source: HMMH, 2016
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
30
5.4.2 Predicted Noise Levels
To fully characterize existing and future noise levels at all noise-sensitive land uses in the study area, over
1400 additional noise prediction receptors (also called “receivers” and “sites”) were modeled in the TNM
in addition to the 19 measurement sites. Each of these receptors represented exterior noise-sensitive land
use or the interiors of institutional land uses such as schools, places of worship and assisted living
facilities.
All noise levels predicted were the A-weighted equivalent sound level, or Leq, in dBA. Loudest-hour
noise levels were predicted for the Existing 2016 and the design-year 2040 No-Build and Build
alternatives.
Table 5-3 presents ranges of the predicted sound levels at the receptors in each CNE for each alternative.
Predicted interior sound levels are shown for Category D institutional land use. Since all of the noise-
sensitive institutional facilities identified in the study area have air conditioning and masonry
construction, an outside-to-inside noise reduction value of 25 decibels is used to determine the interior
sound levels from the exterior sound levels predicted by TNM. Appendix C provides a table that lists the
predicted sound levels at all of the receptors for each alternative. Each receptor is given an identifier with
the CNE ID followed by a number. The receptor IDs are also displayed in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 shows the location and predicted noise impact and barrier benefit status for all receptors in the
Build Alternative in graphical form. For the receptors in Figure 5-1 depicting impact, predicted 2040
Build noise levels would approach or exceed the NAC for the associated land use category. The NAC is
67 dBA Leq at all residential and recreational receptors, and 72 dBA Leq at commercial land uses. These
receptor locations are shown with either a light blue, dark blue, or red dot indicating impact with 5 or 6
dBA insertion loss, impact with 7 dBA or more of insertion loss, and impact with less than 5 dBA of
insertion loss from a noise barrier, respectively. Receptors represented by green dots are not predicted to
be impacted by project noise but would be benefited and receive at least 5 dB of insertion loss from a
barrier. The yellow dots indicate sites that would be neither impacted by highway traffic noise nor
benefited by the proposed noise mitigation. Some of the receptor dots have more than one section,
representing upper- and lower-floor receptors at the same location on a building. While there are up to six
receiver heights computed with TNM at some of the building locations, the graphical dots show up to
only four section. Those sections represent the first, second, third and highest floor modeled at the
residential building. Results at floors that may be between the third and highest floors are provided in the
table in Appendix C. Traffic noise levels are generally higher at the upper floors of multi-story buildings
than at the lower floors, due to reduced noise shielding by terrain and other buildings, and less noise-
reduction benefit from the proximity of soft ground near the sound propagation path. and Section 7
discusses the details of the barriers.
Overall, predicted exterior noise levels range from 44 to 79 dBA Leq at the receptors for both the Existing
and 2040 No-Build Alternatives. No-Build sound levels are predicted to remain approximately the same
or very slightly lower during the loudest hour of the day relative to the Existing levels. This is due to
increased traffic congestion predicted during the loudest-hour travel periods slowing speeds somewhat.
Predicted 2040 Build Alternative exterior Leqs are slightly higher than the Existing and No-Build levels,
and range from 45 to 80 dBA. On average for all receptors, sound levels are predicted to increase from
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
31
Existing to Build conditions by approximately one decibel. This increase is primarily due to the roadway
improvements allowing slightly higher traffic volumes in the loudest-hour periods, and projected
increases in heavy truck traffic.
A table in Appendix C presents the predicted sound levels for all receptors under all project alternatives.
Table 5-3: Ranges of Predicted Exterior Loudest-hour Leq Noise Levels by CNE
CNE
ID Area Land Use and Description
Ranges of Predicted Loudest-hour
Leq Noise Levels, dBA
Existing No Build Build
A
Mt Olive Baptist Church, single-family residences,
multi-family residences west of I-395 and south of Rt.
27
50 - 70 50 - 70 51 - 70
AA Air Force Memorial, northwest of I-395 and west of S
Washington Blvd 61 - 65 61 - 65 62 - 65
B
Prospect Hill Park, multi-family residences (The
Representative, Horizon House, The Ridge House,
Pentagon Ridge Condominiums, Parliament House),
south and east of I-395 and west of S Joyce St
52 - 75 51 - 73 52 - 74
C
Hoffman-Boston Elementary School, Army Navy
Country Club, single-family residences, multi-family
residences (Twenty400, Dolley Madison Towers),
west of I-395 and north of S Glebe Rd
36 - 79 35 - 79 36 - 80
CA Best Western Pentagon Hotel Pool, west of I-395 and
south of S Glebe Rd 72 72 73
D Single-family residences, east of I-395 and north of
20th St 57 - 76 57 - 75 58 - 76
E
Fraser Park, single-family residences, multi-family
residences (The Grove at Arlington and others), east
of I-395 and south of 20th St
49 - 77 48 - 76 49 - 77
F
Four Mile Run Trail, single-family residences, multi-
family residences (Parc East Condominiums and
others), east of I-395 and south of S Glebe Rd
55 - 71 55 - 71 56 - 71
FA Four Mile Run Trail, west of I-395 and east of
Shirlington Rd 62 - 65 62 - 65 63 - 66
G
Multi-family residences (Windsor at Shirlington
Village, Shirlington House Apartments, others), west
of I-395 and north of S Abingdon St
44 - 77 44 - 77 45 - 78
H Utah Park, Fairlington Greens Park, Fairlington
Commons Park, multi-family residences, east of I-395 49 - 76 49 - 76 50 - 77
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
32
CNE
ID Area Land Use and Description
Ranges of Predicted Loudest-hour
Leq Noise Levels, dBA
Existing No Build Build
and between 34 St S and N Quaker Ln
I Stem Preschool, multi-family residences, west of I-
395 and north of King St 44 - 73 44 - 73 45 - 74
J Multi-family residences, east of I-395 and north of
King St 51 - 73 51 - 73 52 - 73
K
Stonegate Path, multi-family residences (Point at Park
Station, BLVD 2801, Avana Alexandria Apartments,
and others), west of I-395 and north of W Braddock
Rd
46 - 75 46 - 75 47 - 76
L
Fort Ward Park, outdoor amphitheater, Alexandria
Church, multi-family residences (Park Place A
Condominiums and others), east of I-395, north of W
Braddock Rd
37 - 75 37 - 75 38 - 76
M Multi-family residences (Southern Towers and
others), west of I-395 and south of W Braddock Rd 47 - 73 45 - 73 47 - 74
N Multi-family residences, east of I-395 and south of W
Braddock Rd 53 - 64 53 - 64 53 – 65
Source: HMMH, 2016
6. NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The potential noise impact of the I-395 Express Lanes Northern Extension Project was assessed according
to FHWA and VDOT noise assessment guidelines, described in detail in Section 2. In summary, noise
impact would occur wherever Project noise levels are expected to approach within one decibel or exceed
67 dBA Leq at noise-sensitive land uses in Activity Categories B (residential) and C (recreational), and
approach within one decibel or exceed 72 dBA Leq at noise-sensitive land uses in Activity Category E
(outdoor commercial) during the loudest hour of the day. Noise impact also would occur wherever
Project noise levels cause a substantial increase over existing noise levels—an increase of 10 dB or more
is considered substantial by VDOT. However, there are no impacts predicted due to substantial increases
in existing noise levels for the I-395 Express Lanes project.
Figure 5-1, the study area graphic presented in the previous section, shows the locations of individual
receptors where noise impacts are predicted to occur in the Build Alternative. Figure 5-1 also includes a
noise impact contour for the Build Alternative without abatement in the residential and recreational areas
(at the applicable Categories B and C NAC of 67 dBA, which is represented by 66 dBA Leq for ground
floor receptors).
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
33
Table 6-1 presents a summary of the predicted noise impact for the 2016 Existing and 2040 No Build and
Build alternatives. The impacts are summarized for the entire study area and separated by NAC activity
categories. All impact shown is where the NAC is predicted to be approached or exceeded. No impacts
due to substantial increases in existing noise levels were identified in this study.
Table 6-1: Noise Impact Summary
Alternative Impact Type
Land Use and NAC Activity Category
Residential
Exterior (B)
Recreational
Exterior (C)
Institutional
Interior (D)
Commercial
Exterior (E) Total
Existing NAC 2,274 225 0 1 2,500
No-Build NAC 2,201 217 0 1 2,419
Build NAC 2,600 256 0 1 2,857
Source: HMMH, 2016
Overall, residential and recreational impacts are predicted to occur under all alternatives. Due to the
increased congestion in the future Design Year, noise impacts from the No-Build alternative are slightly
less, at a total of 2,491, than those under the Existing alternative, which total 2,500. Receptors where
noise levels exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria are predominantly residential dwelling units, but 225
recreational receptors exceed the NAC under Existing conditions, and 217 are predicted to exceed them
under the future No-Build Alternative. A total of 2,857 impacted receptors are predicted for the Build
Alternative, comprised of 2408 residential dwelling units (Category B) and 256 recreational receptors
(Cat. C). One commercial recreational (exterior, Cat. E) receptor and no institutional (interior, Cat. D)
receptors are predicted to be impacted under all three alternatives.
Table 6-2 summarizes the residential and recreational noise impacts by Common Noise Environment.
Residential impacts are predicted to occur along the project corridor wherever residential land use is
adjacent to I-395. The color-coding of the receptors and the noise contour shown in Figure 5-1 for the
Build Alternative enables a quick visual determination of where the residential noise impacts are
predicted. As mentioned in Section 5, traffic noise levels are generally higher at the upper floors of multi-
story buildings than at the lower floors, so upper floors are more likely to be impacted.
Table 6-2: Noise Impact by Common Noise Environment
CNE
ID Area Land Use and Description
Residential Dwelling
Units Impacted by Noise
Recreational Receptors
Impacted by Noise
Existing No-
Build Build Existing
No-
Build Build
A
Mt Olive Baptist Church, single-family
residences, multi-family residences west
of I-395 and south of Rt. 27
6 6 6 0 0 0
AA Air Force Memorial, northwest of I-395 0 0 0 0 0 0
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
34
CNE
ID Area Land Use and Description
Residential Dwelling
Units Impacted by Noise
Recreational Receptors
Impacted by Noise
Existing No-
Build Build Existing
No-
Build Build
and west of S Washington Blvd
B
Prospect Hill Park, multi-family
residences (The Representative, Horizon
House, The Ridge House, Pentagon
Ridge Condominiums, Parliament
House), south and east of I-395 and west
of S Joyce St
346 278 454 16 15 16
C
Hoffman-Boston Elementary School,
Army Navy Country Club, single-family
residences, multi-family residences
(Twenty400, Dolley Madison Towers),
west of I-395 and north of S Glebe Rd
266 266 281 153 146 177
CA Best Western Pentagon Hotel Pool, west
of I-395 and south of S Glebe Rd 0 0 0 0 0 0
D Single-family residences, east of I-395
and north of 20th St 53 48 55 0 0 0
E
Fraser Park, single-family residences,
multi-family residences (The Grove at
Arlington and others), east of I-395 and
south of 20th St
274 274 303 3 3 3
F
Four Mile Run Trail, single-family
residences, multi-family residences (Parc
East Condominiums and others), east of
I-395 and south of S Glebe Rd
51 51 83 10 10 12
FA Four Mile Run Trail, west of I-395 and
east of Shirlington Rd 0 0 0 0 0 1
G
Multi-family residences (Windsor at
Shirlington Village, Shirlington House
Apartments, others), west of I-395 and
north of S Abingdon St
170 170 203 0 0 0
H
Utah Park, Fairlington Greens Park,
Fairlington Commons Park, multi-family
residences, east of I-395 and between 34
St S and N Quaker Ln
107 107 126 12 12 14
I Stem Preschool, multi-family residences,
west of I-395 and north of King St 28 28 28 2 2 2
J Multi-family residences, east of I-395
and north of King St 17 17 17 1 1 2
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
35
CNE
ID Area Land Use and Description
Residential Dwelling
Units Impacted by Noise
Recreational Receptors
Impacted by Noise
Existing No-
Build Build Existing
No-
Build Build
K
Stonegate Path, multi-family residences
(Point at Park Station, BLVD 2801,
Avana Alexandria Apartments, and
others), west of I-395 and north of W
Braddock Rd
305 305 326 2 2 2
L
Fort Ward Park, outdoor amphitheater,
Alexandria Church, multi-family
residences (Park Place A Condominiums
and others), east of I-395, north of W
Braddock Rd
280 280 314 26 26 27
M
Multi-family residences (Southern
Towers and others), west of I-395 and
south of W Braddock Rd
371 371 404 0 0 0
N Multi-family residences, east of I-395
and south of W Braddock Rd 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 2,274 2,201 2,600 225 217 256
Source: HMMH, 2016
6.1 SECTION 4(F) AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES EVALUATION
Section 4(f) refers to a provision of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 that
prohibited FHWA and other DOT agencies from approving the use of certain environmental resources
such as, historical sites, and publicly-owned lands for highway projects unless “there is no prudent and
feasible alternative” and actions are taken to minimize harm to those properties. Use includes
“constructive use,” which impacts a 4(f) resource such that the protected activities, features, and attributes
would be substantially impaired, even if it does not involve physical use of the property.
Noise can be a Section 4(f) constructive use issue if predicted noise levels from a project in proximity to a
Section 4(f) resource interfere with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility or exterior activity
associated with that resource. Examples of noise-sensitive activities that may invoke Section 4(f)
protection include:
Hearing performances at an outdoor amphitheater,
Sleeping in the sleeping area of a campground,
Enjoyment of a historic site where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute of
the site’s significance,
Enjoyment of an urban park where serenity and quiet are significant attributes, or
Viewing wildlife in an area of a wildlife and waterfowl refuge intended for such viewing.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
36
When these types of facilities and activities are present adjacent to a project, it is important that these
facilities and activities be modeled so that FHWA can determine whether or not a Section 4(f)
constructive use is going to occur because of noise increases on the project.
Noise-sensitive Section 4(f) resources are evaluated under the appropriate Noise Abatement Criteria
activity category in 23 CFR 772 (usually Activity Category C). In order for FHWA to begin considering
whether or not a highway traffic noise increase may constitute a constructive use under Section 4(f), there
must be:
1. A future highway traffic noise level that approaches or exceeds 67 dBA, or
2. Existing noise levels which approach or exceed 67 dBA and a predicted increase with the future
Build Alternative greater than 3 dBA or more above the predicted No-build alternative noise
level.
Table 6-3 lists public land uses in the study corridor that have been identified as 4(f) resources. All of the
resources are addressed as Activity Category C exterior uses, with SocioEconomic Resources listed first,
followed by Cultural Resources. Predicted future noise levels for the Build Alternative have been
modeled at the receptor nearest the project roadways for each of these resources, and they are shown in
the table. For each receptor, the CNE and site number are given, along with the name or description of the
resource, the official jurisdiction, and the Build alternative Leq (dBA). The predicted Build Alternative
noise level is shown in bold if the site is predicted to be impacted by noise. There is no additional impact
predicted at 4(f) properties from the second criterion listed above, a 3 dB or more increase over the No-
Build sound level. Properties that are so far away from the Build Alternatives that there is no potential for
noise impact are not included in the table. The noise impact zone (defined by the 66 dBA noise contour
shown in Figure 5-1) for the Build Alternative extends up to 700 feet from the edge of I-395 in some
areas of the project corridor.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
37
Table 6-3: Potential Noise Impacts at Section 4(f) and Historic Resources
CNE Site
No. Description/Address Official Jurisdiction
Build Leq
(dBA)
SocioEconomic Resources
L-004 Fort Ward Museum and Park City of Alexandria 76
K-178 Stonegate Scenic Easement City of Alexandria 68
H-020 Utah Park Arlington County 72
E-017 Fraser Park Arlington County 75
C-339 Carver Community Center Arlington County 61
B-100 Prospect Hill Park Arlington County 74
AA-007 Air Force Memorial Arlington County 65
Cultural Resources
G-098 North Fairlington Historic District Arlington County 74
H-040 South Fairlington Historic District Arlington County 77
F-063 Parkfairfax Historic District City of Alexandria 67
Note: Properties that are so far away from the Build Alternatives that there is no potential for noise impact are not included in
the table. See text for impact zones.
7. NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
FHWA has identified certain noise abatement measures that may be incorporated in projects to reduce
traffic noise impact. In general, mitigation measures can include alternative measures (traffic
management, the alteration of horizontal and vertical alignment, and low-noise pavement), in addition to
the construction of noise barriers.
7.1 ALTERNATIVE NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
VDOT guidelines recommend a variety of mitigation measures that should be considered in response to
transportation-related noise impacts. While noise barriers and/or earth berms are generally the most
effective form of noise mitigation, additional mitigation measures exist that have the potential to provide
considerable noise reductions under certain circumstances. Mitigation measures considered for this
project include:
Traffic management measures,
Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments,
Acoustical insulation of public-use and non-profit facilities,
Acquisition of buffer land,
Construction of earth berms,
Construction of noise barriers.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
38
Traffic management measures normally considered for noise abatement include reduced speeds and truck
restrictions. Reduced speeds would not be an effective noise mitigation measure alone since a substantial
decrease in speed is necessary to provide a significant noise reduction. Typically, a 10 mph reduction in
speed will result in only a 2 dBA decrease in noise level, which is not considered a sufficient level of
attenuation to be considered feasible. Further, a 2 dBA change in noise level is not considered to be
generally perceptible. Restricting truck usage on I-395 is not practical since one of the primary purposes
of this facility is to accommodate trucks. Diversion of truck traffic to other roadways would increase
noise levels in heavily developed residential areas.
A significant alteration of the horizontal alignment of I-395 would be necessary to make such a measure
effective in reducing noise, since a doubling of distance to the highway is usually needed to effect a 5-
decibel reduction. However, such shifts would create undesirable impacts by increasing right-of-way
acquisitions and relocations. Also, shifting the horizontal alignment is not practical since there are
impacted receptors on both sides of the corridor throughout the study area. Shifting the alignment away
from receptors on one side of the road would bring it closer to receptors on the other side of the road.
Further alteration of the vertical alignment would not be feasible since the project involves minor
modifications to an existing facility. Particularly given the complexity of the interchanges, raising or
lowering the I-395 vertical alignment would result in significant environmental impacts to the
surrounding environment and costly engineering challenges.
Acoustical Insulation of public-use and non-profit facilities applies only to public and institutional use
buildings. Since no public use or institutional structures are anticipated to have interior noise levels
exceeding FHWA’s interior NAC, this noise abatement option will not be applied.
The purchase of property for the creation of a “buffer zone” to reduce noise impacts is only considered for
predominantly unimproved properties because the amount of property required for this option to be
effective would create significant additional impacts (e.g., in terms of residential displacements), which
were determined to outweigh the benefits of land acquisition.
Berms are considered a more attractive alternative to noise walls where there is sufficient land and fill
available for them. However, berms do not appear feasible for I-395 because they would greatly increase
the cost and the footprint of the project by substantially increasing the amount of right of way required to
accommodate the berms. Since all of the study corridor is densely developed, many costly and disruptive
residential displacements necessarily would result from acquiring the needed right of way.
Additionally, the Noise Policy Code of Virginia (HB 2577, as amended by HB 2025) states: Requires that
whenever the Commonwealth Transportation Board or the Department plan for or undertake any highway
construction or improvement project and such project includes or may include the requirement for the
mitigation of traffic noise impacts, first consideration should be given to the use of noise reducing design
and low noise pavement materials and techniques in lieu of construction of noise walls or sound barriers.
Vegetative screening, such as the planting of appropriate conifers, in such a design would be utilized to
act as a visual screen if visual screening is required. Consideration would be given to these measures
during the final design stage, where feasible. The response to this requirement from project management
is included Appendix E.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
39
7.2 NOISE BARRIERS
The only remaining abatement measure for consideration is the construction of noise barriers. The
feasibility of noise barriers is evaluated for locations where noise impact is predicted to occur in the Build
condition. Where the construction of noise barriers is found to be physically practical, barrier noise
reduction is estimated based on roadway, barrier, and receiver geometry as described below.
To be constructed, any noise barriers identified in this document must satisfy VDOT’s feasibility and
reasonableness criteria. Therefore, the noise barrier design parameters and cost identified in this
document are preliminary and should not be considered final. A final decision on the feasibility and
reasonableness of noise barriers would be made during the noise barrier analysis conducted during the
final design phase of the project after the project design is developed and traffic is updated. Also, the need
for an analysis of reflected sound and the potential use of sound absorbing materials will be evaluated
during this final design analysis. If a noise barrier is determined to be feasible and reasonable, the affected
public would be given an opportunity to decide whether they are in favor of construction of the noise
barrier. VDOT’s formal policies for involving the public in noise abatement decisions are described in
their Guidance Manual, in section 7.3.10.1 Viewpoints of the benefited receptors, section 12.3 Affected
Receptors/Community, and section 12.4 Voting Procedures.
7.2.1 Feasibility and Reasonableness
FHWA and VDOT require that noise barriers be both “feasible” and “reasonable” to be recommended for
construction.
To be feasible, a barrier must be effective, that is it must reduce noise levels at noise sensitive locations
by at least five decibels, thereby “benefiting” the property. VDOT requires that at least 50 percent of the
impacted receptors receive five decibels or more of insertion loss from the proposed barrier for it to be
feasible.
A second feasibility criterion is that it must be possible to design and construct the barrier. Factors that
enter into constructability include safety, barrier height, topography, drainage, utilities, maintenance of
the barrier, and access to adjacent properties. VDOT has a maximum allowable height of 30 feet for noise
barriers.
Barrier reasonableness is based on three factors: cost-effectiveness, ability to achieve VDOT’s insertion
loss design goal, and views of the benefited receptors. To be “cost-effective,” a barrier cannot require
more than 1600 square feet per benefited receptor. VDOT’s maximum barrier height of 30 feet figures
into the assessment of benefited receptors. Where multi-family housing includes balconies at elevations
above 30 feet, these receptors are not assessed and included in the determination of a barrier’s feasibility
or reasonableness.
The second reasonableness criterion is VDOT’s noise reduction design goal of seven decibels. This goal
must be achieved for at least one of the impacted receptors, for the barrier to be considered reasonable.
The third reasonableness criterion relates to the views of the owners and residents of the potentially
benefited properties. A majority of the benefited receptors must favor the barrier for it to be considered
reasonable to construct. Community views would be surveyed in the final design phase of projects.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
40
Section 7.3, Noise Abatement Determination in VDOT’s Guidance Manual discusses the maximum
height that VDOT considers for building noise barriers. VDOT has found that costs increase substantially
for noise barriers that are taller than 30 feet, so they have established 30 feet as a maximum statewide.
Further, VDOT has established a policy to ensure equitable evaluations of the Feasibility and
Reasonableness of noise barriers that would benefit multistory residential building units with individual
outdoor usage such as balconies and patios. This policy requires the noise analyst to draw a horizontal
line from the top of a 30-foot tall noise barrier perpendicular to the highway to the multi-story building.
Where the line meets the building is called the “point of intersection.” This also can be thought of as the
elevation of a 30-foot barrier opposite the building. Only noise sensitive sites that meet or are below the
point of intersection may be considered in the feasibility and reasonableness determinations.
7.2.2 Details of Potential Feasible Barriers
Details of each of the evaluated barriers are given in Table 7-1 and described in narratives following the
table. Each of the barriers is also shown in Figure 5-1 as a solid line. The color of the line indicates
whether it would be reasonable and feasible (red), feasible and not reasonable (light blue), or not feasible
(dark blue). Feasible barriers for all CNEs are discussed in the paragraphs below and their characteristics
are shown in Table 7-1 and in Figure 5-1. Appendix F presents the preliminary Warranted, Feasible and
Reasonable Worksheets for all barriers. The table of predicted sound levels for all receivers in
Appendix C includes the computed noise levels with the evaluated barriers and the computed barrier
insertion loss values. Whether each receiver is below the point of intersection is also indicated in the
table.
The potential barriers evaluated and shown in the graphics have not been intentionally placed outside of
VDOT right of way. While the need for right of way to construct some barriers for this project is not
anticipated, it also cannot be precluded in the future, given the limited information available for this noise
analysis.
Barrier A is a potential barrier for CNE A, which would be located along the southbound side of I-395,
east of S Queen Street and south of Route 27. The barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheet 6. The impacted
receptors in CNE A include multi-family and single-family residences. Barrier A would provide 8 to 12
decibels of noise reduction at all six of the impacted receptors, as well as 5 to 7 decibels of noise
reduction for 27 other non-impacted residential receptors. The barrier would be 1,044 feet in length,
range from 15 to 24 feet in height, and have a total area of 20,632 square feet. Since VDOT’s 7-decibel
noise reduction design goal is satisfied for all of the impacted receptors, and the surface area per benefited
receptor is 625, well below VDOT’s maximum of SF/BR of 1,600, Barrier A would be both feasible and
reasonable.
Barrier B/D/E is a potential barrier system that would be located in CNEs B, D and E, which includes
the extended single- and multi-family residential area along the northbound side of I-395 between 15th
Street S and Glebe Road, as well as Fraser Park. The barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheets 4 through 7.
Barrier B/D/E would benefit 598 of 751 impacted receptors below the point of intersection as well as 764
non-impacted receptors, bringing the total number of benefits to 1,362. Impacted receptors not receiving
benefit are located along Army Navy Drive between Joyce Street and Nash Street and are affected by
local roadway traffic not shielded by the barrier, as confirmed by calculating the sound level contributions
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
41
from Army Navy Drive for each of these receptors. The analysis considered alternate locations for
Section 1 of the barrier system, located north of the I-395 southbound off-ramp overpass for Ridge Road.
This included placing the barrier closer to the mainline for this section, rather than along the I-395
northbound off-ramp for Washington Boulevard. The alternative barrier location closer to the mainline
did not provide changes in insertion loss greater than one decibel, nor did they benefit any additional
impacted receptors. During final design, it may be necessary to analyze a barrier system for CNEs B, D,
and E that includes a combination of a barrier along the mainline of I-395, an additional barrier along the
I-395 northbound off-ramp for Washington Boulevard, and a barrier along Army Navy Drive. Barrier
B/D/E would be 21 to 30 feet high and 8,875 feet long with a surface area of 242,319 square feet and
would provide 5 to 16 decibels of noise reduction at benefited receptors. Barrier B/D/E would be feasible
because it would benefit at least 50% of impacted receptors. The barrier would satisfy VDOT’s 7-decibel
noise reduction design goal for 1,058 receptors, and with a surface area per benefited receptor of 178,
Barrier B/D/E would be reasonable.
Barrier C is a potential barrier system for CNE C, which would run along the southbound side of I-395
between 13th Road S and Glebe Road, and contains the Army Navy Country Club golf course, Hoffman
Boston Elementary School, two large multi-family complexes, and a few single-family residences. The
barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheets 4, 5 and 6. Of the 274 impacted receptors below the point of
intersection, Barrier C would benefit 266 of them with 5 to 14 decibels of insertion loss. In addition, 59
non-impacted receptors would also be benefited. However, 8 impacted receptors would not be benefited
due to their proximity to Route 120 traffic. A barrier extension along Route 120 was analyzed to provide
additional benefit to these receptors, but the addition of this barrier still did not achieve the noise
reduction design goal of 7-decibels at the impacted receptors along Route 120, so it is not reported with
this barrier system. The barrier would be 5,636 feet long and 103,712 square feet in area. It would be 18
feet in height for the majority of its length, but would extend up to 24 feet at a few segments in the
southern end near the multi-family complexes, which have balconies on all floors. Barrier C would be
feasible because it would benefit over 50% of the impacted receptors. With a SF/BR of 319 and a
majority of benefited receptors meeting the noise reduction design goal, it would also be reasonable.
Barrier CA is a potential barrier for CNE CA, which contains a single Category E impacted receptor at
the Best Western Pentagon Hotel outdoor pool area. The barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheet 4. Due to
noise contributions from S Glebe Road and various ramps, the maximum noise reduction achievable at
the impacted receptor for any barrier along I-395 would be 6 decibels. Realistically, 5 decibels of noise
reduction could be achieved, making the barrier feasible. However, the 7-decibel noise reduction design
goal cannot be met. Barrier CA would be 15 feet tall and 450 feet long, with a surface area of 6750
square feet. This would make the barrier’s surface area per benefited receptor 6,750, well above VDOT’s
maximum of 1,600. For these reasons, Barrier CA is not reasonable.
Barrier F-1 is a potential barrier for the portion of CNE F north of Gunston Road along the northbound
side of I-395 between Shirlington Road and Quaker Lane. The barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheets 3
and 4. Of the 50 impacted receptors below the point of intersection, Barrier F-1 would benefit all 50, with
7 to 13 decibels of insertion loss. These receptors include the Parc East Condominiums’ lower floor
balconies and recreational areas, Parkfairfax Condominiums along Martha Custis Drive, single-family
homes, and Four Mile Run Trail. In addition, 166 non-impacted receptors would also be benefited, with 5
to 11 decibels of noise reduction. The barrier would be 18 to 24 feet high and 1,905 feet long with a
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
42
surface area of 43,798 square feet. Barrier F-1 would be feasible because it would benefit over 50% of
the impacted receptors. With a SF/BR of 203 and all impacted receptors meeting the noise reduction
design goal, it would also be reasonable.
Barrier F-2 is a potential barrier for the portion of CNE F south of Gunston Road along the northbound
side of I-395 between Shirlington Road and Quaker Lane. The barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheet 3.
Barrier F-2 would benefit all 32 impacted residential receptors at Parkfairfax Condominiums along
Martha Custis Drive, as well as 28 non-impacted receptors, thereby benefiting a total of 60 receptors.
Barrier F-2 would be 18 to 21 feet high and 903 feet long with a surface area of 18,138 square feet and
provide 5 to 7 decibels of noise reduction at benefited receptors. Barrier F-2 would be feasible because it
would benefit at least 50% of impacted receptors. The barrier would satisfy VDOT’s 7-decibel noise
reduction design goal for all impacted receptors, and with a surface area per benefited receptor of 302,
Barrier F-2 would be reasonable.
Barrier FA is a potential barrier that would be located in CNE FA, which is located along the
southbound side of I-395 and includes recreational receptors on Four Mile Run Trail where it extends east
of the highway. The barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheet 4. This potential barrier would benefit one
impacted trail receptor and four non-impacted trail receptors with 5 to 7 decibels of noise reduction.
Barrier FA would be 24 feet high and 1,037 feet long with a surface area of 24,907 square feet. While the
potential barrier would be feasible, it is not reasonable because it has a surface area per benefited receptor
of 4,981, which exceeds VDOT’s maximum SF/BR of 1600.
Barrier G-1 is a potential barrier for the northern portion of CNE G as shown in Figure 5-1, Sheet 3.
Located along the southbound side of I-395 just south of S Randolph Street, the barrier would benefit the
Windsor at Shirlington Village apartments, which have balconies on all floors. Specifically, it would
benefit all 76 of the impacted receptors below the point of intersection in this complex with 5 to 11
decibels of noise reduction. In addition, it would benefit 34 non-impacted receptors. The barrier would be
773 feet in length and 21 feet in height, with a surface area of 16,221 square feet. Barrier G-1 would be
feasible because it would benefit all of the impacted receptors, and reasonable because it would meet the
7-decibel noise reduction design goal for many impacted receptors (65), and has a surface area per
benefited receptor of 147, well below VDOT’s maximum value of 1,600.
Barrier G-2 is a potential barrier system for the southern portion of CNE G, shown in Figure 5-1, Sheets
2 and 3. It would be located along the southbound side of I-395 and extend along the northbound side of
South Abingdon Street. The barrier would benefit the multi-family residences southwest of Shirlington
House Apartments within the CNE. The barrier would provide benefit for all of the 39 impacted receptors
and 24 non-impacted receptors with 5 to 15 decibels of noise reduction. The barrier would be 1,569 feet
in length and range from 15 to 24 feet in height. It would have a total surface area of 30,438 square feet
and a surface area per benefited receptor of 483. With 32 of the 39 impacted receptors meeting the 7-
decibel noise reduction design goal and a surface area per benefited receptor below VDOT’s 1,600 limit,
Barrier G-2 would be both feasible and reasonable.
Barrier H/J is a potential barrier system in two sections that would be located in CNEs H and J, along
the northbound side of I-395 between Quaker Lane and King Street. Barrier H/J would benefit many
Fairlington Historic District multi-family residences in this area well as Utah Park, which includes a
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
43
baseball field near I-395. The barrier is shown in Figure 5-1, Sheets 2 and 3. Barrier H/J would benefit all
159 impacted receptors as well as 106 non-impacted receptors, totaling 265 benefited receptors. Barrier
H/J would be 27 to 30 feet high and 3,816 feet long with a surface area of 109,541 square feet and
provide 5 to 22 decibels of noise reduction at benefited receptors. Barrier H/J would be feasible because
it would benefit at least 50% of impacted receptors. The barrier would meet VDOT’s 7-decibel noise
reduction design goal for 130 of the 159 impacted and benefited receptors. With a surface area per
benefited receptor of 413, Barrier H/J would be reasonable.
Barrier I is a potential barrier for CNE I as shown in Figure 5-1, Sheet 2. It would run along the
southbound side of I-395 and extend along the southbound off-ramp to King Street. The barrier would
benefit all 30 impacted receptors behind the barrier with 5 to 17 decibels of noise reduction. The impacted
receptors include multi-family complexes and the Stem Preschool outdoor play area, near S Abingdon
Street. The barrier would also provide benefit to the school’s interior spaces and 120 non-impacted
receptors. The barrier would be 1,755 feet long and range from 27 to 30 feet in height, and have a total
surface area of 50,541 square feet. Barrier I would be feasible and reasonable, as it would achieve the
noise reduction design goal of 7-decibels at all of the 30 impacted receptors behind it, and would have a
surface area per benefited receptor of 337, which is below VDOT’s maximum of 1,600.
Barrier K/M is a potential barrier system for CNEs K and M, shown in Figure 5-1, Sheets 1 and 2. It
would be located along the southbound side of I-395 between King Street and the off-ramp for Seminary
Road. CNE K encompasses a number of multi-family complexes, as well as the Stonegate Path trail. CNE
M includes the two buildings of the Southern Towers complex closest to I-395, as well as other multi-
family buildings. The barrier would provide benefit with 5 to 16 decibels of noise reduction to 366 of 380
impacted receptors below the point of intersection, as well as 542 non-impacted receptors. Fourteen
impacted receptors would not be benefited, however, due to their proximity to W Braddock Road, which
is unshielded on the westbound side in CNE K. The barrier would be 4,073 feet in length and range from
15 to 18 feet in height, with a total surface area of 66,851 square feet. Barrier K/M would be both feasible
and reasonable, since it meets the 7-decibel noise reduction design goal at nearly all of the impacted
receptors, and it has a surface area per benefited receptor of 74, which is well below VDOT’s maximum
of 1,600.
Barrier L/N is a potential barrier for CNEs L and N, as shown in Figure 5-1, Sheets 1 and 2. Both CNEs
are located along the northbound side of I-395. The barrier would be located along the northbound side of
I-395 between King Street and W Braddock Road. CNE L extends north of W Braddock Road to King
Street, encompassing Fort Ward Park, Alexandria Church and multi-family residences including Park
Place A condominiums. CNE N is south of W Braddock Road and contains exclusively multi-family
residences. The barriers would provide benefits of 5 to 14 decibels of noise reduction to 169 of the 177
impacted recreational and residential receptors below the point of intersection. In addition, 169 non-
impacted receptors would be benefited. Eight impacted residential receptors would not be benefited due
to their proximity to W Braddock Road. The barrier would be 4,010 feet long, range from 15 to 27 feet in
height, and have a total surface area of 79,491 square feet. Barrier L/N would be reasonable and feasible,
as it meets the 7-decibel noise reduction design goal at all of the impacted receptors, and would have a
surface area per benefited receptor of 235. It should be noted that the parcel boundary used for
recreational receptor placement in Fort Ward Park might not strictly follow the fence boundary of Fort
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
44
Ward Park observed via aerial survey, and the extent of the park boundary should be confirmed to assess
the appropriate recreational receptor locations in final design.
Barrier 4/5 is a potential barrier system in the I-395 study area south of Seminary Road along the
northbound side of I-395. It is shown in Appendix G in the reproduced figures from the I-395 HOV Ramp
and Auxiliary Lane Project, Sheets 7-11. This feasible and reasonable barrier system was evaluated in the
noise abatement design study for the I-395 HOV Ramp and Auxiliary Lane Project, UPCs 96261 and
102437, and would still be feasible and reasonable for this current study.
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
45
Table 7-1: Details of Potential Noise Barriers
Barrier
ID
Barrier Data Total
Number of
Impacted
Receptors1
Impacted
and
Benefited
Receptors
Non-
Impacted
and
Benefited
Receptors
Total
Benefited
Receptors
Barrier
Surface Area
per Benefited
Receptor
(SF/BR) 2
Barrier
Status3
Noise
Reduction
(dBA) Length
(ft)
Height
Range
(ft)
Surface
Area
(sq ft)
Cost at
$31/sq ft
Range Avg.
A 5 – 12 7 1,044 15 – 24 20,632 $639,592 6 6 27 33 625 F & R
B/D/E 5 – 16 9 8,875 21 – 30 242,319 $7,511,889 751 (831) 598 764 1,362 178 F & R
C 5 – 14 9 5,636 18 – 24 103,712 $3,215,072 274 (458) 266 59 325 319 F & R
CA 5 5 450 15 6,750 $209,250 1 1 0 1 6,750 F & NR
F-1 5 – 13 8 1,905 18 – 24 43,798 $1,357,738 50 (63) 50 166 216 203 F & R
F-2 5 – 7 6 903 18 – 21 18,138 $562,278 32 32 28 60 302 F & R
FA 5 – 7 6 1,037 24 24,907 $772,117 1 1 4 5 4,981 F & NR
G-1 5 – 11 8 773 21 16,221 $502,851 76 (164) 76 34 110 147 F & R
G-2 5 – 15 7 1,569 15 – 24 30,438 $943,578 39 39 24 63 483 F & R
H/J 5 – 22 9 3,816 27 – 30 109,541 $3,395,771 159 159 106 265 413 F & R
I 5 – 17 8 1,755 27-30 50,541 $1,566,771 30 30 120 150 337 F & R
K/M 5 – 16 8 4,073 15 – 18 66,851 $2,072,381 380 (732) 366 542 908 74 F & R
L/N 5 – 14 8 4,010 15 – 27 79,491 $2,464,221 177 (341) 169 169 338 235 F & R
4/54
5 – 7 6 5,484 15 – 20 85,578 $2,652,918 64 59 358 417 205 F & R
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
46
Barrier
ID
Barrier Data Total
Number of
Impacted
Receptors1
Impacted
and
Benefited
Receptors
Non-
Impacted
and
Benefited
Receptors
Total
Benefited
Receptors
Barrier
Surface Area
per Benefited
Receptor
(SF/BR) 2
Barrier
Status3
Noise
Reduction
(dBA) Length
(ft)
Height
Range
(ft)
Surface
Area
(sq ft)
Cost at
$31/sq ft
Range Avg.
Notes: 1. Total number of impacted receptors first lists those below the point of intersection with a 30-ft tall noise barrier that are eligible to be counted as benefited. The second
number in parentheses is the total number of impacted receptors behind the barrier, regardless of elevation.
2. Where SF/BR exceeds VDOT’s maximum of 1600, a barrier would not be considered cost-reasonable
3. Barrier Status: F & R – Feasible and Reasonable; F & NR – Feasible and Not Reasonable; NF – Not Feasible.
4. This barrier was found to be feasible and reasonable in the I-395 HOV Ramp and Auxiliary Lane Project, UPCs 96261 and 102437. The barrier parameters have been reproduced
here as this barrier would still be feasible and reasonable for the current project.
Source: HMMH, 2016
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
47
8. CONSTRUCTION NOISE CONSIDERATION
Construction noise provisions are contained in Section 107.16(b)3 Noise of the 2007 VDOT Road and
Bridge Specifications. The specifications have been reproduced below:
The Contractor’s operations shall be performed so that exterior noise levels measured during a
noise-sensitive activity shall not exceed 80 decibels. Such noise level measurements shall be
taken at a point on the perimeter of the construction limit that is closest to the adjoining property
on which a noise-sensitive activity is occurring. A noise-sensitive activity is any activity for
which lowered noise levels are essential if the activity is to serve its intended purpose and not
present an unreasonable public nuisance. Such activities include, but are not limited to, those
associated with residences, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, schools, libraries, parks, and
recreational areas.
The Department may monitor construction-related noise. If construction noise levels exceed 80
decibels during noise sensitive activities, the Contractor shall take corrective action before
proceeding with operations. The Contractor shall be responsible for costs associated with the
abatement of construction noise and the delay of operations attributable to noncompliance with
these requirements.
The Department may prohibit or restrict to certain portions of the project any work that produces
objectionable noise between 10 P.M. and 6 A.M. If other hours are established by local
ordinance, the local ordinance shall govern.
Equipment shall in no way be altered so as to result in noise levels that are greater than those
produced by the original equipment.
When feasible, the Contractor shall establish haul routes that direct his vehicles away from
developed areas and ensure that noise from hauling operations is kept to a minimum.
These requirements shall not be applicable if the noise produced by sources other than the
Contractor’s operation at the point of reception is greater than the noise from the Contractor’s
operation at the same point.
9. INFORMATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
FHWA and VDOT policies require that VDOT provides certain information to local officials within
whose jurisdiction the highway project is located, to minimize future traffic noise impacts of Type I
projects on currently undeveloped lands. (Type I projects involve highway improvements with noise
analysis.) This information must include information on noise-compatible land-use planning, noise impact
zones in undeveloped land in the highway project corridor and federal participation in Type II projects
(noise abatement only). This section of the report provides that information, as well as information about
VDOT’s noise abatement program.
9.1 NOISE-COMPATIBLE LAND-USE PLANNING
Section 9.0 of VDOT’s 2011 noise policy outlines VDOT’s approach to communication with local
officials and provides information and resources on highway noise and noise-compatible land-use
planning. VDOT’s intention is to assist local officials in planning the uses of undeveloped land adjacent
to highways to minimize the potential impacts of highway traffic noise. Figure 5-1 includes a noise
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Interstate 395 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment
August 2016
48
contour that depicts the zone where noise impact would occur adjacent to the highway under the 2040
Build Alternative for exterior first-floor residential and recreational land uses.
Entering the Quiet Zone is a brochure that provides general information and examples to elected officials,
planners, developers, and the general public about the problem of traffic noise and effective responses to
it. A link to this brochure on FHWA’s website is provided:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_compatible_planning/federal_approach/land_use/qz00
.cfm
A wide variety of administrative strategies may be used to minimize or eliminate potential highway noise
impacts, thereby preventing the need or desire for costly noise abatement structures such as noise barriers
in future years. There are five broad categories of such strategies:
Zoning,
Other legal restrictions (subdivision control, building codes, health codes),
Municipal ownership or control of the land,
Financial incentives for compatible development, and
Educational and advisory services.
The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway and Land Use is a very well-written and
comprehensive guide addressing these noise-compatible land use planning strategies, with
significant detailed information. This document is available through FHWA’s Website, at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_compatible_planning/federal_approach/audibl
e_landscape/al00.cfm
9.2 VDOT’S NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Information on VDOT’s noise program is provided in “Highway Traffic Noise Impact Analysis Guidance
Manual (Version 7),” updated July 14, 2015. This document is available from VDOT’s Noise Abatement
Section, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1401 E. Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219 and at
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/noisewalls/Highway_Traffic_Noise_impact_Analysis_Gui
dance_Manual.pdf.