7Zc4
&4’)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
EKJYFE
JAMES
R.
THOMPSON
CENTER
100
W.
RANDOLPH
ST,
SUITE
11-500
SEP
092009
CHICAGO,
IL.
60601
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
PETER
ARENDOVICH,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB29009-102
ILLINOIS
STATE
TOLL
HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
NOTICE
OF’
MOTION
To:
Robert
T.
Lane
AAG
Illinois
State
Toll
Highway
Authority
2700
Ogden
Ave.
Downers
Grove,
JL.60515
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
on
September
9,
2009
a
motion
for
Leave
to
File
an
Amended
Complaint
was
filed
with
the
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
James
R.
Thompson
Center,
100
W.
Randolph
Street,
Suite
11-500,
Chicago,
IL
60601
,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
and
hereby
served
upon
you.
CERtIfICATE
OF
SERVICE
I,
Peter
Arendovich,
deposes
and
states
that
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
was
served
upon
the
above
named
by
first
class
mail
on
the
9th
day
of
September,
2009.
if
1
iPeter
Arendovich
/
1388
Gordon
Lane
Lemont,
IL.60439
630-257-8753
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
JAMES
R.
THOMPSON
CENTER
E
C
E
100
W.
RANDOLPH
ST,
SUITE
11-500
CLEFjcs
0YFP
CHICAGO,
IL.
60601
SEP
092009
STATE
OF
1LUNOS
PETER
ARENDOVICH,
)
Pollution
Control
Board
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB29009-102
ILLINOIS
STATE
TOLL
HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
MOTION
FOR
THE
FILING
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT’S
FIRST
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
NOW
COMES
the
Complainant,
Peter
Arendovich
and
moves
this
Board
for
an
order
granting
the
filing
of
the
Complainant’s
First
Amended
Complaint.
In
support
of
this
motion,
the
Complainant
states
as
follows:
1.
The
Respondent
has
filed
a
motion
on
July
15,
2009,
to
strike
and
dismiss
the
original
Complaint
as
frivolous.
2.
The
Complainant
has
corrected
the
legal
deficiencies
of
the
Complaint
in
answer
to
the
Respondent’s
Motion
to
Strike
and
Dismiss
3.
A
copy
of
the
First
Amended
Complaint
is
attached
to
this
motion
and
made
a
part
thereof.
WHEREFORE,
the
Complainant
prays
this
board
to
grant
an
order
allowing
the
filing
of
the
First
Amended
Complaint.
Re,speçtfliy
submittFd,
/eter
Arendovich
1388
Gordon
Lane
Lemont,
IL.60439
630-257-8753
STATE
OF’
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
JAMES
R.
THOMPSON
CENTER
100W.
RANDOLPH
ST,
SUITE
11-500
CHICAGO,
IL.
60601
CLERicS
OFFICE
SEP
092009
PETER
ARENDOVICH,
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
Complainant,
v.
)
PC829009-102
ILLINOIS
STATE
TOLL
HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
FIRST
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
NOW
COMES
the
Complainant,
Peter
Arendovich,
pursuant
to
415
ILCS
5/31(d)
(1)
and
35
Iii.
Admn.
Code
900.102
et
seq.
and
complains
of
the
Respondent,
the
Illinois
State
Toll
Highway
Authority
as
follows:
1.
The
Illinois
State
Toll
Highway
Authority,
(ISTHA),
has
violated
23
CFR
Part
772.13(c)
and
23
USC
109(h)
and
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code,
Subtitle
H,
Chapter
I,
Section
900.102
by
failing
to
provide
the
required
noise
abatement
policies
and
procedures
required
under
the
provisions
of
both
federal
and
state
law.
2.
ISTHA
co-operated
with
the
Federal
Highway
Administration
in
the
planning
and
construction
of
1-355
through
Cook
and
Will
Counties.
3.
A
required
Environmental
Impact
Statement,
(EIS),
was
prepared
by
the
Respondent
and
included
the
required
noise
abatement
studies.
The
EIS
indicates
the
location
of
the
Complainant’s
residence
as
section
25
shown
on
the
EIS
exhibit
2-16.
A
Copy
of
the
exhibit
is
attached
hereto
as
Complainant’s
ExA.
4.
Table
4-15
of
the
EIS
details
the
Results
of
the
Noise
Abatement
Analysis
and
section
25,
including
the
Complainant’s
residence
as
well
as
23
other
residences,
states
that
a
noise
reduction
barrier
is
likely
to
be
implemented
and
that
the
potential
noise
red
uction
is
to
be
9
dB(A).
(A
copy
is
attached
hereto
as
Exhibit
B).
The
EIS
establishes
that
heavy
trucks
generate
86dBA
and
the
reduction
of
9
dBA
fails
to
comply
with
state
and
federal
noise
levels
as
is
shown
on
charts
74
through
79
of
Exhibit
C.
5.
The
Complainant
has
consistently
complained
to
ISTHA
regarding
the
excessive
noise
levels
of
the
constructed
Toliway.
ISHTA
has
failed
to
properly
address
the
Complainants
concerns.
The
Complainant
hired
the
acoustical
engineering
firm,
S&V
Solutions
to
conduct
detailed
scientific
studies
in
accordance
with
the
measurement
procedures
set
forth
under
the
provisions
of
35
Ill.
Admn.
Code
Section
900.103.
A
detailed
scientific
study
of
the
noise
levels
experienced
at
the
Complainant’s
residence
has
been
conducted
and
a
copy
of
the
detailed
analysis
and
report
is
attached
hereto
as
Exhibit
C.
The
study’s
conclusions
states
as
follows:
“The
data
shows
that
from
Tuesdays
through
Fridays
the
noise
generated
by
the
highway
is
above
the
noise
level
indicated
on
Title
23
Chart
(A)
shows
heavy
trucks
generate
86
db
at
a
distance
of
50
feet
from
the
source.
Your
property
is
about
150
feet
from
the
source
and
the
bedroom
wall
is
350
feet
from
the
source.
Taking
into
account
Chart
(A),
the
generated
noise
by
heavy
trucks
at
60
MPH
is
about
86
dB.
Based
on
the
2
acoustic
distance
law,
where
the
amount
of
decibels
decrease
by
5
every
time
distance
is
doubled(inverse
square
law),
it
is
very
unlikely
the
noise
will
dissipate
to
legal
levels
150
feet
away,
nor
at
350
ft.
by
your
bedroom
where
the
readings
were
taken.
This
is
shown
on
charts
from
#74
through
#89.
On
charts
#74
through
#79
the
high
point
which
is
above
65
db
correlates
with
heavy
truck
noise
decibels
(db)
and
heavy
truck
traveling
frequencies,
passing
at
a
given
point.”
6.
The
noise
levels
recorded
in
the
detailed
scientific
study
are
in
excess
of
the
required
maximums
established
by
federal
and
state
regulations.
FHWA
regulations
contained
in
IDOT’s
Traffic
Noise
Assessment
Manual
at
2-2
indicate
that
the
maximum
dBA
for
residential
areas
is
67
dBA.
A
copy
of
IDOT’s
FHWA
NOISE
ABATEMENT
CRITERIA
is
attached
hereto
as
Exhibit
D.
7.
All
of
the
graphs
included
in
the
attached
study
show
that
the
noise
levels
generated
by
the
Toliway
are
consistently
above
the
maximums
established
under
state
and
federal
regulations.
WHEREFORE
the
Complainant
prays
this
Board
to
find
ISTHA
in
violation
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Subtitle
H,
Chapter
I,
Section
900.102
and
to
order
the
Respondent
to
construct
proper
noise
abatement
barriers
as
originally
proposed
in
the
Environmental
Impact
Study
and
in
accordance
with
federal
and
state
laws.
Res
ec
ully
subniited,
,/Peter
Arendovich
1388
Gordon
Lane
Lemont,
IL.60439
630—257-8753
3
V
r
N
}-•N,
,-,_.-J”
_z
r1L
1HC)H
(1
)
‘-\
‘%
fl!!fl,
‘4,-ifln
tLJrVL..!h
4’aj:’
flW
P
JZTL
JSJ!??_jI..
‘flL,
jt:”,.
diMuL
,1t’iC)
1
V4
El!
CD
1
()OD/.
a
0
0
0
‘-‘-7-
r
——
5/
0
,iI
t
a
0
0
0
,
L
(N._
çs
,
)
L.
0
-1i
//
1—.
.
.
.
.‘
/
/
,j_/
N\5\
(
‘N
-0.’
-o
0
C
-1
Ph
5’
CM
0
‘1
51
4
4
1
:4
it
I
t:;r,:
4
:;:E,
I
Table
4-15
Results
of
Noise
Abatement
Analysis
Barrier
Bartier
.Reductton
.
Likely
If
Height
Length
Cost
.
Potential
.
To
Be
Rea
In
Feet
In
Feet
t$25/Sq
Fti
dB(A
.
Implimented
Wi
15
1200
15
1000
15
6800
25
7680
25
8800
25
1600
25
1000
$450,000
$375,000
$2,550,000
$4,800,000
$5,500,000
$1,000,000
$625,000
15
1500
15
1500
25
4700
$562,500
$562,500
$2,937,500
1(R)
20
2(R)
18
5CR)
16
11(R)
13
14A(P)
70
15(R)
1
15A(R)
8
MIDDLE
SECTION
15B(R)
9
16(R)
16
16A(R)
22
17(R)
12
17A(R)
4
18(R)
17
19(R)
17
21A(R)
2
21B.()
17
22
28(R)
29(R)
3
30(R)
2
31(R)
3
32(R)
5
NORTHERN
SECTION
33(R)
3
33A
(P)
88
33B
CR)
1
34(R)
6
35CR)
4
42(R)
3
43(R)
2
44(R)
2
45(R)
20
46(R)
25
St1JctlAEes
Rthtor
.:
.
resented
SOUTHERN
SECTION
Notes:
Receptors
16A
and
17
share
a
common
noise
abatement
barrier.
25
2200
25
10200
25
10200
25
5400
25
10200
25
3700
25
2200
25
2600
15
1700
15
1300
15
2300
$1,375,000
$6,375,000
$6,375,000
$3,375,000
$6,375,000
$1,400,000
$1,375,000
$1,625,000
$637,500
$487,500
$862,500
7
6
2
4-6
7’8
7-8
2-3
2-3
4
13
2
2
8-9
2
9
9
9
2
2
2
4-6
4
2
4-6
4-6
6-8
6-8
4-6
5
6-7
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
YES
YES
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
15
3500
25
3000
25
11200
15
3400
15
3400
25
1400
25
2600
25
2200
25
1400
15
5000
$1,312,500
$1,875,000
$7,000,000
$1,275,000
$1,275,000
$875,000
$1,625,000
$1,375,000
$875,000
$1,875,000
P)
-
Represents
proposed
residential
developments
R)
-
Represents
existing
residence
*
The
cost
includes
preliminary
anaiyss
design,
final
design
and
related
construction
costs.
-
Not
economically
reasonable
or
feasible
based
on
cost
compared
to
benefit.
2
-
Does
not
provide
substantial
noise
abatement.
467
H1I7’
B
—5
‘[iltlOflS
27707
Moose
Range
Rd.
Sycamore,
IL
60178
consultants
in
applied
acoustics
815
/
899-2021
and
vibration
technologies
815
/899-2115
FAX
Date:
June
13,
2009
To:
Peter
Arendovich,
Lemont
Resident
From:
David
Larson,
Acoustical
Consultant
Ref:
1-355
Traffic
Noise
Level
Dear
Peter:
I
am
writing
to
share
the
results
of
the
noise
monitoring
I
did
it
your
residence
for
traffic
noise
coming
from
1-355.
The
equipment
used
is
listed
below:
1.
Bruel
&
Kjaer
type
2144
acoustics
analyzer
and
data
collector.
2.
Bruel
&
Kjaer
type
2639
microphone
preamplifier.
3.
Bruel
&
Kjaer
type
4155
condenser
microphone.
4.
Bruel
&
Kjaer
type
4231
portable
acoustic
calibrator.
This
data
analyzer/collector
was
placed
on
your
premises
with
a
microphone
located
in
two
positions:
Position
1:
The
microphone
was
placed
at
a
distance
of
340
ft
from
the
bridge
to
your
home’s
balcony
tripod
that
held
the
mic
5
ft
above
the
ground.
The
total
height
from
the
ground
to
the
microphone
was
14
feet.
Wind
speed
and
direction
was
taken
from
weather
reports.
Position
2
was
taken
at
a
distance
of
120
ft
from
the
bridge
onto
your
lot.
The
microphone
was
placed
on
a
tripod
5
ft
from
the
ground.
Wind
speed
and
direction
was
taken
from
weather
reports.
The
calibration
was
based
on
the
standard
portable
B&K
calibrator
which
was
applied
to
the
microphone
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
the
measurement
session.
Data
was
taken
at
each
position
over
several
different
periods
of
time
during
the
day
and
night.
The
analyzer
was
set
up
to
measure
A-weighted
sound
level
in
intervals
of
one
measurement
every
second
or
one
measurement
every
10
seconds.
The
data
was
recorded
on
a
floppy
disk.
This
data
from
the
disk
was
then
analyzed
and
converted
to
an
MS-Excel
spreadsheet
chart
to
be
studied
and
to
be
compared
to
the
value
based
on
which
the
EIS
was
approved.
The
following
data
was
collected
on
a
test
made
for
4
hours
in
length
with
10
seconds
intervals.
Notice
the
noise
generated
in
decibels
in
weighed
scale
A
(dBA)
at
different
times:
Chart
from
13.55
pm
to
18.31
pm
Chart
from
10.00
am
to
14.36
am
Chart
from
15.00
pm
to
19.30
pm
Chart
from
6
.00
am
to
10.36
am
Chart
from
13.30
pm
to
18.06
pm
81
June
7
2008
Saturday
83
June
10
2008
Tuesday
85
June
10
2008
Tuesday
87
June11
2008
Wednesday
88
June
11
2008
Wednesday
,,
1
H1IT
C
__SJ
t
tions
Chart
90
June
12
2008
Thursday
from
13.30
pm
to
19.06
pm
Chart
89
June
12
2008
Thursday
from
6.00
am
to
19.38
am
You
can
see
a
fluctuation
in
the
noise
at
different
times
during
rush
hours
(in
the
morning
from
5.30
am
to
about
8.00
am,
and
again
in
the
afternoon
from
about
3.00
pm
to
about
7.00
pm).
Data
was
also
collected
during
a
test
made
for
27
minutes
at
an
interval
length
of
1
second.
Notice
the
noise
generated
in
decibels
weighed
scale
a
(dBA)
at
different
times
Chart
74
June
5
2008
Thursday
from
7.00
am
to
7.27
am
Chart
75
June
5
2008
Thursday
from
6.00
pm
to
6.27
pm
Chart
77
June
6
2008
Friday
from
6.00
am
to
6.27
am
Chart
78
June
6
2008
Friday
from
6.30
am
to
6.57
am
Chart
79
June
6
2008
Friday
from
7.20
am
to
7.47
am
In
this
set
of
charts
it
shows
that
even
on
Fridays
the
noise
level
measured
on
the
A
weighed
scale
is
above
the
level
indicated
in
the
Title
23.
Chart
(A)
Is
a
chart
provided
by
the
FHA,
This
chart
shows
different
size
vehicles
traveling
at
different
speed
and
the
noise
level
generated
in
decibel
weighed
scale
A
:
Chart
A
2
Conclusions
1.
The
data
shows
that
from
Tuesdays
through
Fridays
the
noise
generated
by
the
highway
is
above
the
noise
level
indicated
on
Title
23.
2.
Chart
(A)
shows
heavy
trucks
generate
86
db
at
a
distance
of
50
ft
from
the
source.
3.
Your
property
is
about
150
ft.
from
the
source
and
the
bedroom
wall
is
350
ft
from
the
source.
4.
Taking
into
account
Chart
(A),
the
generated
noise
by
heavy
trucks
at
60
mph
is
about
86
dB.
Based
on
the
acoustic
distance
law,
where
the
amount
of
decibels
decrease
by
5
every
time
the
distance
is
doubled
(the
inverse
square
law),
it
is
very
unlikely
the
noise
will
dissipate
to
legal
levels
150
ft.
away,
nor
at
350
ft.
by
your
bedroom
where
the
reading
were
taken.
This
is
shown
on
charts
from
#
74
though
#89.
5.
On
charts
#
74
through
#79
the
high
point
which
is
above
65
db
correlates
with
heavy
trucks
noise
decibels
(db)
and
heavy
truck
traveling
frequencies,
passing
by
at
a
given
point.
Best
Regards,
David
A.
Larson,
S&V
Solutions,
Inc.
815-899-2021
office,
815-899-2115
FAX,
815-762-5333
cellular
email:
techinfo(svso1utions.
corn
Appendix
1:
inverse
square
law
When
sound
propagates
freely
in
space
the
level
of
sound
decays
with
one
over
the
square
of
diatance.
This
is
commonly
called
the
inverse
square
law
and
can
be
written
as
follows:
L
2
=L
1
—2OxLOG(X
2
/X
1
)
Where
L
2
is
the
level
of
sound
a
distance
X
2
,
and
L
1
is
the
level
of
sound
at
distance
X
1
.
Please
remember
this
law
applies
on
to
purely
free
field
radiation.
Across
a
grassy
field,
or
a
paved
parking
lot,
or
down
a
gravel
road
(as
examples)
one
will
see
less
decay
with
distance.
3
Appendix
2:
multiple
sources
If
two
noise
sources
of
equal
strength
and
uncorrelated
with
each
other
(such
at
two
trucks
on
a
highway)
are
added,
such
as
they
would
if
passing
the
same
point
at
about
the
same
time,
then
the
total
level
would
be
3
dB
higher
than
one
truck:
Lets
us
say
that
a
fleet
of
trucks
are
all
rated
to
produce
80
dBA
total
noise
at
100
feet.
Two
trucks
passing
at
100
feet
=
83
cIBA
Four
trucks
passing
at
100
feet
86
cIBA
Eight
trucks
passing
at
100
feet
89
cIBA
4
balcony
location,
wind
=
SSW@5mph,
06105/08,
1
sec
intervals,
file
074
(N
CO
0(0
(N
CO
0(0
(N
(0
0(0
(N
CD
0(0
(N
CO
C)
CD
(N
CO
CD
CD
CC)
(N
0
(0
-
(N
(C)
(C)
‘-
C)
(C)
(N
CD
(C)
C’)
(N
‘-
(0
(N
‘-
0
C’)
-
C)
(C)
(C)
c1
(C)
(0(0
F—
CO
C)
0)0’-
(N
(C)
C’)
t
(0(0(0
r—
co
0)0
‘-(N
C’)
C’)
(0(0(0
r
—
-
-
-
—
—
—
-
t-
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
r-
r-
r—
F
S
r
F
F—
i-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N
x-
-
r
r-
-
-
x-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
t
time
of
day
balcony
location,
wind
=
SSW@8mph,
06105/08,
1
sec
intervals,
file
075
I
1.
i
I
liii
L
i
ii
i
i
iii
i
A
kfJi’M,
AiAJ1i
1
A
)dA11)M
IV.ç
rUM’
(N
C)
CD
c)
ON-
cc
CD
(N
C)
CD
C)
ON-
-
cc
CD
(NC)
CD
COON-
cJ
-
CO
Lf)
U)
CD
N-
N-CO
C)
C)
O-
(N
CO
tt
CD
CON-cc
CO
0)0
-
—
(N
CO
LOLL)
CC)
N
-----
--
-
-
--
-
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
cccc
cc
cc
cc
cccc
cc
cc
cc
cccc
cc
cc
cc
cccc
cc
cc
cccc
cccc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
-
r
-
--
-
-
r
v-
-
r
--
v-
-
-
-
r
r-
-
r
x-
r
-
-
v
-
-
time
of
day
balcony
location,
wind
=
S@5rnph,
06/06108,
1
sec
intervals,
file
077
IC)
(NO)
(0
Co
C)
r—
-
0)
IC)
(NO)
(0
COO
F’-
t
-
0)10
(N
-
OLD
CO
(N
-IC)
Co
-
010
(N
-
C)
t
CO
Co
t
10(0
t—
I-
CO
0)0
C)
-
(N
Co
10(0
F’—
((3
COO)
‘-
-
-
S
S
S
S
S
S
(NO)
(0
CoO
F’-
-
COLD
(NCo—OL0CO(N
a
-
—
(N
CO
IC)
IC)
(0
1’-
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0
time
of
day
balcony
location,
wind
=
S@$(nph,
06106/08,
1
sec
intervals,
file
078
IdJ
U
R
L
I
A
.
i
1
A!
%/h
2VY’(
1dk/i
VY’k1Ii
AI!
iPN]
cc
c
ccc
ccc
r—
ct
-
cc
cc
ccc
ccc
r—
-
-
cc
cc
c
ccc
ccc
r-
cc
cc
cc
cc
r-
ccc
cc
-
-
cc
cc
t
cc
ccc
c
-
-
c
cc
-
cccc
cc
ó
cb
cccc
cc
cb
ó
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cccc
cc
ó
cc
cc
cc
có
ó
1
time
of
day
balcony
location,
wind
=
S@l5mph,
06106108,
1
sec
intervals,
file
079
F
AIi
I
.
ii
A
i
11
IN
.
•
11k
.
1
K
111
‘VY’
V/I’
\?
VQ1Y1I
IJJ
‘V
r
jp
IC)
C\J
c3
CD
C)
C)
N-
a)
Lf)
C\4
0)
CD
a)
ID
N-
CD
IC)
C-1
0)
CD
a)
ID
N-
-
CO
IC)
IC)
Ci
-
ID
IC)
CO
CN
—
IC)
ct
CO
—
ID
IC)
t
‘-
ID
‘ct
CO
C\1
ID
IC)
r
-
ID
10
CO
C\J
CO
-
IC)
CD
N-
N-
CO
0)
ID
ID
-
C’1
CO
t
IC)
CD
N-
a)
CD
0)
ID
-
x-
C’1
CO
IC)
IL)
CD
N
CJ
CN
C\J
(N
(N
(N
(N
(N
CC)
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
t
ct
ct
tt
ctct
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
N-
time
of
day
noise
level
(dB
or
dRA)
noise
level
(dB
or
dBA)
13.31130
“
°
°‘
S
S
S
6:00:00————
‘
°
°‘
S
5
5
:::
1353.30
.
:—
6:23:00
—
F
140110
6:30:40
14:08:50
—.
6.38:20
.
14:16:30
—
-
r
.
6:46:00
14:24:10
a
6:53:40
—
a
14:31:50
-
143930
-
:
-
14:4710
-
2
14.5450
1
-
718.40
--
15:02:30
T
—
7:2420
151010
-
-
7:32:00
—
151750
.
7:39:40
a
1525.30
7:47:20
m
Cl)
15:33.10
.
7:55:00
-
15.40:50
r
8:02:40
15:48:30
8:10:20
—
15:56:10
—
®
8:18:00
—
t
‘C
05
0
160350
6:25:40
.
1611:30
.
...
‘C
8:33:20
—
16•1910
I
-
5:41:00
16:28:50
5.45
86:20
.210
0
9:M:00
2.
16:40:50
-
a
9:11:40
.
—
16::30
.
9:19:20
17:05:10
0
—
9:27:00
—
17.12:50
—
17:20:30
I
934:40
3
17:2810
.
9:42:20
-
17.35.50
I
9:50:00
17:43:30
9:57:40
17:51.10
10:05:20
‘
17.58.50
10:13:00
L
180830
10:20:40
-
10:28:20
10:36:00
noise
level
(dB
or
dBA)
noise
level
(dB
or
dBA)
6:00:00————--’—,
—
14:30:00——
I
6:07:40
14:37:40
6:15:20
14:45:20
62300
145300
6:30:40
15:00:40
6:38:20
15:08:20
6:46:00
I
.-
T
15:16:00
—
•1
6:53:40
15:23:40
7:01:20
15:31:20
7:09:00
-f
g
15:39:00
7:16:40
—
15:46:40
0
0
7:24:20
-
P
15:54:20
7:32:00
_
16:02:00
7:39:40
•
16:09:40
7:47:20
:
i
Cl)
16:17:20
a,
0)
a,
7:55:00
-.
rn
16:25:00
8:02:40
-
16:32:40
8:10:20
-
.16:40:20
3
z
8:18:00
—
-
16:48:00
8:25:40
_
—
16:55:40
8:33:20
4
...
17:03:20
8:41:00
—
17:11:00
8:48:40
17:18:40
8:56:20
E
4__
17:26:20
0
9:04:00
17:34:00
9:11:40
—
17:41:40
9:19:20
—
I
i
17:49:20
9:27:00
—
17:57:00
9:34:40
18:04:40
9:42:20
18:12:20
9:50:00
FE
18:20:00
9:57:40
1
18:27:40
—
10:05:20
18:35:20
10:13:00
—
18:43:00
10:20:40
-
18:50:40
-
10:28:20
—‘
18:58:20
10:36:00
E
[19:06:00
•
f_I.
of
traffic
noise
impacts,
and
the
need
to
offer
mitigation
where
reasonable
and
feasible
criteria
have
been
achieved.
I
2.3
Traffic
Noise
Impacts
and
Applicability
2.3.1
FHWA
Regulations
Five
separate
Noise
Abatement
Criteria
(NAC),
based
on
land
use,
are
used
by
FHWA
to
assess
potential
noise
impacts
as
defined
by
23
CFR
772.
The
FHWA
considered
several
approaches
to
define
impact
levels,
but
generally
based
the
criteria
on
noise
levels
associàtéd
with
the
interference
of
speech
communication.
The
NAC
are
therefore
a
balance
of
what
is
desirable
and
what
is
generally
achievable.2
A
traffic
noise
impact
occurs
when
noise
levels
approach,
meet
or
exceed
the
NAC
criteria
listed
in
the
following
table
or
when
the
predicted
noise
levels
are
substantially
higher
than
the
existing
noise
level.
TABLE
2-1
FHWA
NOISE
ABA
TEMENT
CRiTERIA
-
HOURLY
WEIGHTED
SOUND
LEVEL
Activity
L(h),
Category
dBA
Description
of
Activity
Category
Lands
on
which
serenity
and
quiet
are
of
extraordinary
A
57
significance
and
serve
an
important
public
need
and
where
(Exterior)
the
preservatioh
of
those
qualitie
is
esentiaI
if
the
area
is
to
continue
to
serve
its
intended
purpose.
67
Residences,
picnic
areas,
recreation
areas,
playgrounds,
B
‘Exterior’
active
sports
areas,
parks,
motels,
hotels,
schools,
‘
‘
churches,
libraries,
and
hospitals.
72
Developed
lands,
properties,
or
activities
not
included
in
(Exterior)
Categories
A
or
B
above
D
-
-
-
Undeveloped
lands.
E
52
Residences,
motels,
hotels,
public
meeting
rooms,
schools,
(Interior)
churches,
libraries,
hospitals
and
auditoriums.
FHWA
has
deferred
to
the
State
agencies
to
define
the
noise
level
that
“approaches”
the
NAC
and
to
define
a
substantial
increase
in
traffic
noise
levels.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
NAG
are
not
used
as
goals
for
noise
attenuation
design
criteria
or
design
targets.
Instead,
the
NAC
are
noise
impact
thresholds
for
considering
abatement
when
they
are
approached,
met,
or
exceeded.
Noise
abatement
measures
are
required
to
be
considered
as
part
Of
the
project
if
impacts
are
identified.
IDOT
Highway
Traffic
Noise
Assessment
Manual
Rev.
10/1/07
9
u8rf
0
projects
are
defined
as
follows:
Type
1
projects.
A
proposed
Federal
or
Federal-aid
highway
project
for
the
construction
of
a
highway
on
new
location
or
the
physical
alteration
of
an
existing
highway
which
significantly
changes
either
the
horizontal
or
vertical
alignment
or
increases
the
number
of
through-traffic
lanes.
Noise
abatement
is
fináncéd
with
funds
äppropriatêd
for
the
ptOØbed
prOject.
Type
II
or
Retrofit
projects.
A
proposed
noise
abatement
project
on
an
existing
fully
controIledaccess
State
highway
or
Interstate
in
an
urban
area.
2.3.2
IDOT
Noise
Policy
The
IDOT
Noise
Policy
establishes
the
traffic
noise
analyses
requirements
for
all
Type
I
or
Type
Il
projects
whether
they
are
federally
funded
or
State-only
funded,
which
includes
cost-sharing
projects
with
local
funds.
The
traffic
noise
impact
determination
is
based
on
the
FHWA
NAC
as
set
forth
in
lOOT’s
policy
found
in
Chapter
28-6.05(c)
(Analysis
and
Reporting)
of
the
BDE
Manual.
lOOT
has
established
the
following
criteria
to
define
the
Occurrence
Of
a
traffic
noise
impact.
•
Design
year
(typically
20
years
into
the
future)
traffic
noise
levels
are
predicted
to
approach,
meet,
or
exceed
the
NAG,
with
approach
defined
as
I
dBA
less
than
NAC
Or,
•
Design
year
(typically
20
years
into
the
future)
traffic
noise
levels
are
predicted
to
substantially
increase
(greater
than
14
dBA)
over
existing
traffic-
generated
noise
levels
Based
on
the
approach
definition
determined
by
IDOT,
Table
2-2
provides
the
noise
levels
at
which
a
traffic
noise
impact
would
occur
and
would
require
consideration
of
traffic
noise
abatement
for
the
design
year.
TABLE
2-2
lOOT
TRAFFIC
NOISE
LEVELS
WARRANTING
ABATEMENT
EVALUATiON
Activity
Category
L(h),
dBA
A
56
(Exterior)
B
66
(Exterior)
C
71
(Exterior)
E0
51
(Interior)
1DOT
Highway
Traffic
Noise
Assessment
Manual
Rev.
10/1/07
