Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL12-018 - KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT - TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD LIGHTRAIL STATION STRIPINGKC METRO TRANSIT - BUS LAYOVER STRIPING TIB LIGHTRAIL STATION PARCEL: 0043000300 PL1 2-01 8 Ll 2-01 7 SPECIAL PERMISSION - STRIPING 1 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor • Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION and STAFF REPORT October 12, 2012 TO: Johnnie A. Butler, Applicant for King County Metro Michael Miller for Sound Transit, Property Owner King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION FILE NUMBER: L 12-017, PL 1.2-018 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Special Permission from the Director to restripe a two way traffic circulation area for one-way traffic only and bus lay -over parking. NOTIFICATION: No notification is required for a Type II land use application. LOCATION: Sound Transit Tukwila International Boulevard Station; parcel #: 004300-0300 ZONING: Regional Commercial (RC) APPLICANT: Johnnie A. Butler — for (Lori Kittredge) 201 South Jackson Street Mail Stop KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 STAFF: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: A: Site Plan with red -lines B: Memorandum from Richard Steffel of Environ, dated August 9, 2012 C: Noise and Vibration Compliance Testing, dated May 16, 2009 D: Second Year Noise and Vibration Testing Results, dated November 17, 2010 BACKGROUND A. The Sound Transit Tukwila International Boulevard Station is zoned Regional Commercial (RC). The existing Light Rail station was approved as an Unclassified Use Permit (UUP) in 2004. sM Page I of 4 10/16/2012 HAL12-017 SR and NOD.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila., Washington 98188 9 Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 B. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the existing 23' two-way drive aisle along the northeast side of the site into a 13' one-way drive aisle and an 10' aisle of bus -only layover parallel parking. Layover parking stalls for two buses are proposed. C. TMC 18.56.120 Filing of Plans states (emphasis added for clarity): Detailed plans of off-street parking areas, indicated the proposed development including the location, size, shape, design, curb -cuts, adjacent streets, circulation of traffic, ingress and egress to parking lots and other features and appurtenances of the proposed parking facility, shall be filed with and received by the Community Development Director. The parking area shall be developed and completed to the required standards before an occupancy permit for the building may be issued. The parking lot layout shall be reviewed as part of the underlying land use or the construction permit. If the proposal includes only reconfiguring of the parking lot such as adding/deleting parking spaces, making changes to the interior parking, to landscaping or altering fire lanes, but no other land use permit or other construction permit is required, then the restriping proposal shall be reviewed as a Type 2 decision process as outlined in TMC Section 18.108.020. D. TMC 18.56.100 Uses Not Specified states: In the case of a use not specifically mentioned in this chapter, the requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be determined by the Director. Such determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable use specified in this chapter. The number of parking spaces for the station was approved as part of the Parking Determination decision under File L03-059. The current proposal does not change the number of parking spaces. E. The proposed bus layover area is adjacent to a noise wall constructed by Sound Transit as part of noise mitigation required under the UUP. Any noise created by buses arriving, waiting, or leaving from the bus layover area cannot exceed FTA or City of Tukwila noise standards. DISCUSSION The Sound Transit Tukwila International Boulevard Station was approved with conditions as part of an unclassified use permit (UUP) which included the entire Link Light Rail alignment in Tukwila (land use file L03-057). This application is for a Type 2 special permission decision for parking lot restriping. While the Tukwila Municipal Code does not provide a stall dimension for a Metro bus, King County Metro, in an internal email forwarded to the city dated September 27, 2012, states that their bus width is 8' 6" with a F-6" right side mirror extension for a total of 10'. The access road is 23' wide and a 13' wide one-way travel lane will be created adjacent to two 10' wide and 65' long bus parking spaces. A 70' long space between the spaces to allow each bus to independently enter or exit the spaces. Attachment A is redlined to reflect these dimensions. The project includes restriping and signage to guide circulation on the site. King County Metro submitted a memorandum summarizing that the bus layover area will comply with the city's noise limits in section 8.22 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (Attachment B). The nearest offsite receiving property is The Villages at South Station located opposite the noise wall and adjacent to the bus layover area. No more than two buses will use the layover area at a time and no more than three buses will use the area in any one hour. The layover area would only be used between the hours of 6am and 6pm. Buses will not idle but will turn off their engines; noise generated by this reconfiguration will primarily be from buses stopping, starting and pulling away. Stopping generates the loudest noise. City staff and metro staff met on site on September 26th, 2012 around 2pm; using a noise meter, staff monitored the noise created by buses parking and leaving the proposed layover area. Noise was measured from the parking lot to the bus layover area at a distance estimated to be about the same as the distance of the nearest apartment building to the bus layover area; noise was also measured at the Villages apartments nearest the layover area on the shielded side of the sound wall. Average sound levels (without buses present) were about 10 dBA lower on the shielded side of the wall. Bus start- up noise caused about a 3 dBA bump in the noise level on the parking lot side and was neither audibly nor measurable from the apartment side. Braking sounds were about 20 dBA louder on the parking lot side and, while discernible from the apartment side, they were not distinguishable from other braking sounds also audible from the site and they were not SM Page 2 of 4 10/16/2012 HAL12-017 SR and NOD.doc measurable using the sound level meter. Braking sounds were not discussed in the memorandum from Metro. Field observations support Metro's conclusions that the bus layover area complies with TMC 8.22. As a condition of the Unclassified Use Permit, Sound Transit is required to provide noise monitoring reports to the city to verify that all sound levels are in compliance with the FTA and City of Tukwila noise criteria (Attachments C and D). These reports include noise measurements at The Villages (receiver sites N13 and N14) in 2009 and 2010 and verify compliance with the City of Tukwila's noise limits from bus traffic at the South 154 h Park and Ride. Receiver sites N13 and N14 will be included in the 2012 and 2013 noise monitoring reports but should Y include monitoring while buses are starting, stopping and pulling away at the new bus layover area to verify that the change in operations on Sound Transit's property stays within FIFA and City of Tukwila noise standards. II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Decision on Substantive Permit: The Department has determined that the application for reconfiguring the parking lot layout to create one-way circulation and bus layover parking along the east side of the lot does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved this application subject to the following condition: 1. Sound Transit's noise monitoring reports for years 2012 and 2013 shall include noise readings and documentation on how the revised bus layover proposal continues to comply with the city's noise regulations. These reports shall include noise readings at receiver sites N13 and N14 while buses are starting, stopping and pulling away at the new bus layover area. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. One administrative appeal to the Hearing Examiner of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within fourteen (14) calendars days of the issuance of this Decision, which is October 26th, 2012. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm SM Page 3 of 4 10/16/2012 HAL12-017 SR and NOD.doc suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 4. The appeal fee is per the current fee schedule, additional hourly charges may apply. In addition, all hearing examiner costs will be passed through to the appellant. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner's decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Stacy MacGregor, who may be contacted at 206-433-7166 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. APPROVED: I�Wfl- J k Pace, Director Department of Community Development Date sM Page 4 of 4 10/16/2012 HAL12-017 SR and NOD.doc V: \Projeals\PassMger Focl0Ges\Tlk.iIO-IB .ayover\1tll: BASE 1 C7.Di.ewg I Layout: Leyoutl PLOTTED: Apr 26. 2012-01:41:04pm By asg. XREFS: S55_1476 CP.dv,g: S55-NO_CA.dwg; S55-L57 SP.dwg; S55 R4D CM.dwg: S55_1,176 AG.d" DNAL BOULEV pRD o as rant oz - SD o1 Nm NZ h Na NONyZ INTERNAT \a"zo vs 1 i oz a ^. 2a a <v a Zl ENViR.ON August 9, 2012 MEMORANDUM To: Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila CC: Gary Kriedt, King County Metro Gillian Zacharias, King County Metro ENVIRON Project No: 29-28411A From: Richard Steffel Project Name: Tukwila International Boulevard Station Park -and -Ride: Noise Issues Assessment Subject: Spillover Bus Layover Area Noise Compliance Review At the request of Gary Kriedt of King County Metro, I have reviewed the situation and the available data for noise from the bus layover area at the P&R to consider whether noise associated with this relocated on -site facility will comply with the City of Tukwila noise limits. Based on this review, I believe noise from the bus layover area will comply with the limits. This memo discusses and clarifies these issues. FACILITY/PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The Tukwila International Boulevard Station Park & Ride (TIBS) is an existing facility operated by King County Metro Transit. The Villages at South Station (Villages) residential apartments (3816 S. 154th Lane) are east of the facility and separated from it by a masonry noise wall on the approximate property boundary of the P&R. (1) The noise wall is stepped to varying heights, but is a minimum of 8 feet tall on the P&R side and effectively even taller on the apartment side because the land is lower east of the wall. The noise wall presents a very effective obstacle to noise from the P&R, including the relocated bus layover area. The proposed action is to restripe a portion of the easternmost portion of the P&R to (1) create a spillover layover area where buses would park (but not idle) during waits between runs when the regular layover areas are occupied, and (2) change an existing 2-lane, 2-way roadway into a single lane 1-way circulation route. These plans would locate a secondary bus layover area parallel with and immediately adjacent to the noise wall. This would put these occasional noise sources closer to the apartments, but would also have the effect of increasing the mass of a portion of the obstacle to noise transmission from other portions of the P&R while buses are present. The tradeoff would be having bus startup noise occurring near the barrier for short periods when buses prepare to leave the layover area. The noise wall is a poured concrete retaining wall at its base, with a masonry block wall sitting above. The wall has a minimum width of 6 inches, and presents a very effective obstruction to noise passing through it. 19020 33rd Ave W, Suite 310, Lynnwood, WA 98036 T: (425) 412-1800 F: (425) 412-1840 www.environcorp.com M1I..., h,,M J 1► i; ENVIRON Minnie Dhaliwal TIBS P&R Bus Layover Area Noise Compliance Review August 9, 2012 Page 2 of 5 The P&R restriping plan would also eliminate one lane of traffic nearest the noise wall to create a 1-way circulation route using the currently more westerly of the existing two lanes. This would reduce some existing noise from on -site traffic nearest the noise barrier. NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS The project area is affected by noise from many surface transportation sources including SR-518, Southcenter Boulevard, and SR-99. Until the measurements taken in August 2012 by Gary Kriedt, I believe there have been no actual sound level measureme at the Villages apartments to document existing sound levels or to consider specific noise levels from' ources ar the P&R. Instead, estimates of existing sound levels and of noise related to P&R operations have been based on worst -case noise calculations using the Federal Transit Administration spreadsheet assessment tool. This approach intentionally overstates source noise levels, so it generally should not be used to assess compliance with specific noise limits. Previous analyses related to Sound Transit operation of the light rail line included sound level estimates (based on calculations) for locations in the vicinity of the TIBS P&R. It was as a result of these analyses that the noise barrier along the eastern facility boundary (and extending further eastward along the southern boundary) of the Villages apartments was established. The most ' recent efforts to assess the effectiveness of this noise barrier in reducing noise from both light rail passbys and P&R activities found the barrier was very effective. (2) In fact, the 2010 assessment was unable to separately measure noise related to either train passbys or P&R activities because these sources were indistinguishable from other existing sources. Bus noise from the P&R site was reported to be "not audible or measurable." (3) In response to the issue of noise compliance, King County Metro personnel made observations in the vicinity of the TIBS P&R and took several short-term (i.e., about 10 minute) sound level measurements (SLMs) to assess bus noise received at the Villages apartments. (4) SLMs on 8/7/12 about 10:00 a.m. indicated average sound levels were about 10 dBA lower on the shielded (eastern) side of the noise wall compared with a location within the TIBS P&R and about 10 feet west of the noise wall. On 8/8/12 at about 5:30 a.m. background sound levels were about 2 dBA lower on the shielded side of the noise wall than within the P&R site. (2) Tukwila Noise and Vibration Compliance Testing, Second Year Noise and Vibration Testing Results, memo from Michael Minor to James Irish of Sound Transit, Michael Minor & Associates, Nov. 17, 2010 (3) Ibid., page 19 (4) SLMs taken using a Metrosonics dB-308 meter measuring A -weighted levels based 8 samples per second in Slow sampling mode (i.e., an averaging time based on 1 second intervals). i ENVIRON Minnie Dhaliwal TIBS P&R Bus Layover Area Noise Compliance Review August 9, 2012 Page 3 of 5 Two SLMs 818/12 considered bus start-up noise specifically. At 6:00 a.m. a measurement within the P&R found an overall average sound level of 67 dBA, and a bus starting up 25 feet away caused a short-term spike 1.3 dBA higher, after which bus noise was not distinguishable from background noise from other sources. A measurement at 6:10 a.m. on the eastern (apartment) side of the noise wall, during which a parked bus started up, found an overall noise level of 58 dBA, and the bus start-up caused a short term bump 1 dBA higher. Gary reported that the bus start-up was briefly audible, but that after the brief peak, bus noise was not audible over background levels. EFFECTS OF THE RELOCATED BUS LAYOVER AREA The relocated bus layover area would serve as an overflow bus parking area when the two primary layover areas are in use. Projections by King County Metro indicate there would be a maximum of 16 buses using the new layover area during any weekday, and that this area would only be used between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. There would be from 1 to a maximum of 3 buses using the new layover area during any single hour. The buses will not idle when using the layover area, so the only noise associated with the buses using the layover area would be short-term engine noise when buses pull in and shut down (i.e., fewer than 10 seconds), and short-term noise when the buses start-up and then pull away (i.e., a maximum time of 1 minute). The peak noise associated with these activities would be engine start- up, and direct observations indicate such noise was only briefly audible outside the Villages apartments, but soon became indistinguishable from background levels. Short-term sound level measurements and related observations confirmed this. COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT Based on the facts above, I believe the noise associated with the relocated bus layover area will comply with the noise limits in section 8.22 the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). (5) The TMC noise limits include the following: (1) the time -weighted noise limits based on the "maximum permissible sound levels" and the allowed short-term increases during any hour of the day, based on the zoning of the source and receiving properties, (2) the "plainly audible" restriction for interior spaces of noise -sensitive receivers during nighttime hours (in all zoning districts), and (3) the "plainly audible" (5) 1 believe the TIBS P&R traffic sources, including buses, should be considered exempt from the sound level limits in the TMC because this facility meets the definition of "public highway," which the TMC defines as "the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the Washington State Department of Transportation or any county or city, when any part thereof is generally for the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or a matter of right." The TIBS P&R is a publically maintained facility, open to public traffic, specifically for the purposes of facilitating vehicular transportation. As such, it should be exempt from the TMC noise limits. j ENVIRON Minnie Dhaliwal TIBS P&R Bus Layover Area Noise Compliance Review August 9, 2012 Page 4 of 5 restriction for exterior locations in residential districts at least 50 feet from the noise source. Each is addressed below. Hourly Noise Limits The TIBS P&R site and the adjacent Villages apartments are zoned for residential uses. Noise associated with the relocated bus layover area will comply with the time -weighted hourly sound level limits because the bus noise does not occur long enough during any 1-hour period or present at high enough levels to even trigger the limits. The Tukwila "maximum permissible sound levels" for residential district source noise received in residential districts are shown in Table 1. The specific sound level limits are shown in the lower portion of the table; these specific limits factor in the short-term increases allowed during any hour of the day. Table 1. City of Tukwila Maximum Permissible Sound Levels dBA District of Noise Receiver District of Residential Noise Source Da /Ni hta Commercial Industrial Residential 55/45 57 60 Commercial 57/47 60 65 Industrial 60/50 65 70 Limits for Noise from Residential District Received in Residential District [day/night] L25 L8.3 L2.5 Lmax 55/45 60/50 65/55 70/60 a Between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends, noise limits are reduced by 10 dBA for receiving properties within residential districts. The specific noise limits are expressed as hourly Ln levels that correspond to the time -weighted hourly levels when the short-term increases allowed during any hour of the day or night are included. These Ln levels can be measured or calculated as hourly percentiles. For example, the hourly L25 is the sound level exceeded during 15 minutes (i.e., 25%) of an hour. Source: Tukwila Municipal Code 8.22.050 The most restrictive noise limit is the hourly L25. But this limit requires that a source be present and measurable during at least 15 minutes of an hour. Because noise associated with the relocated bus layover area will last much less than 15 minutes in any hour of the day, this limit does not apply. (6) The L8.3 limit permits sound levels of between 60 and 65 dBA for up to 5 minutes in any hour. Layover bus noise would probably not trigger this level based on time, and a measurement on the shielded side of the noise wall indicated peak bus start-up noise of less than 60 dBA. So this limit (6) The maximum number of buses using the relocated layover hour during any one hour is three, so the maximum length of time associated with this source would be far less than the 15 minutes required to trigger the L25 limit. 14 ENVIRON Minnie Dhaliwal TIBS P&R Bus Layover Area Noise Compliance Review August 9, 2012 Page 5 of 5 would not be exceeded. Similarly, the even higher L2.5 and Lmax limits would not be exceeded due to noise associated with the relocated bus layover area. Nighttime Audibility Limit The relocated bus layover area would only be used in the "nighttime" hour between 6 and 7 a.m., so the nighttime audibility limit would only apply during this 1-hour period (if this limit is applicable at all, per footnote 5). A sound level measurement of a bus start-up documented a short-term peak sound level associated with the bus start-up of 59 dBA, with an exterior background sound level from other sources of about 58 dBA. This measurement was taken about 40 feet from the bus. The increased distance from the bus layover area to the interior spaces of the residential receivers would decrease the sound from bus start-ups, but would not decrease noise from other sources that are not blocked by the noise wall. In addition, because this limit applies inside noise -sensitive receivers, the structure of the apartments' exterior walls would reduce exterior noise before it reaches the interior space. Even a minimal building structure reduces exterior sound levels by at least 15 dBA, which would reduce the background level to about 43 dBA and the short-term bus start-up noise to about 44 dBA. At these levels, in the presence of a persistent background ambient level that is about the same as the peak "noise of interest," bus start-up noise would be unlikely to be perceived as distinguishable noise events in interior spaces of the Villages apartments, and even less likely to cause a noise impact. Daytime Audibility Limit As with the discussion of nighttime hours audibility, the distances between the bus layover area and the respective apartment units would affect the levels of bus start-up noise received at exterior locations near the apartments. Observations by King County Metro staff indicate there are few if any outdoor use areas along the western edge of the Villages apartments, so there are few if any locations for bus start-up to be received in order to potentially be perceived as audible. In addition, the area is affected by noise from numerous other transportation sources which sound similar to the engine noise associated with the short-term start-up of buses using the relocated bus layover area. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that bus start-up noise would be perceived as distinguishable noise events at outdoor use areas of the Villages apartments, and it is even less likely that any such noise would cause a noise impact. CONCLUSIONS Based on a review of available data as well as discussions regarding observations made by several people familiar with the area, I believe noise associated with the relocated bus layover area at the TIBS P&R will comply with all the noise limits in the Tukwila Municipal Code. Michael Minor & Associates Sound . Vibration . Air 2535 NE 22nd Avenue Portland. Oregon 97212 503.220.0495 — fax 503.284.0583 Prepared for: James Irish Prepared by: Michael A. Minor Date: May 16, 2009 Subject: Noise and Vibration Compliance Testing Project: Link Light Rail: Tukwila Segment This memorandum provides the methods for a 3-year noise and vibration monitoring program to meet the requirements of the City of Tukwila permit conditions. The City of Tukwila issued a "Notice of Decision" on September 21, 2004, which included a condition that: "Sound Transit shall develop a 3-year noise and vibration monitoring program for the TFR Project to be approved by the City. The 3-year period shall start from the start of revenue service. Monitoring shall be conducted at representative locations where impacts and mitigation have been identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis dated July 2004. If measured levels show that noise or vibration attributable to the TFR project exceed FTA criteria as identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis Sound Transit shall provide appropriate reasonable mitigation acceptable to the City." The City of Tukwila also issued a "Public Works Construction Permit" on May 18, 2005, which included a condition that: "Prior to the final inspection of the guideway Sound Transit shall develop a 3-year noise and vibration monitoring program for the Tukwila Freeway Report Project to be approved by the City. The 3-year period shall start from the start of revenue service. If measured levels show that noise or vibration attributable to the TFR project exceed FTA criteria as identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis Sound Transit shall provide appropriate reasonable mitigation acceptable to the City." Noise Compliance There are two different noise criteria applicable to the project. For operation of the light rail along the fixed guideway only the FTA criteria would be applicable. The FTA recommends that ancillary facilities, such as park -and rides, power substation and maintenance bases meet not only the FTA criteria, but also any state, county or city criteria or ordinance. Therefore noise from the operation of 154th Street Park and Ride was required to meet not only the FTA criteria, but also the City of Tukwila Noise Ordinance. The following sections provide a summary of the applicable noise criteria. Page 1 of 10 AA,„ _ I (I Light Rail Noise Compliance Compliance with the FTA noise criteria will be verified by performing noise measurements of the light rail operations at representative locations along the project corridor. The measured noise levels will be compared to the FTA criteria specified in Table 3-1 in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 1995. These are the criteria that were in effect at the time of the final design analysis. The FTA noise impact thresholds are based on ambient noise measurements from the Final Design Noise Analysis, Revised July 2004 (Final Design) and the Supplemental Noise Impact and Mitigation Memorandum regarding — Link Light Rail Segment D755, May 9, 2005 (Supplemental). The noise thresholds for the 154th Street Park and Ride are taken from Appendix D of Final Design Report - the Link Light Rail 154th Street Park and Ride Noise Analysis, December 2003 (Park and Ride). FTA Noise Impact Criteria The FTA Noise Impact Criteria groups noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories: Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches and office buildings. Ld" is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2) and the maximum 1- hour Ley during the period that the facility is in use is used for other noise -sensitive land uses such as school buildings (Categories 1 and 3). There are two levels of impact included in the FTA criteria. The interpretations of these two levels of noise impact are summarized below: • Severe Impact: Severe noise impacts are considered "significant" as this term is used in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations. Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no practical method of mitigating the noise. Impact: In this range other project -specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise -sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor -indoor sound insulation, and the cost effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. The noise impact criteria for transit operations are summarized in Table 1. The future noise exposure would be the combination of the existing noise exposure at the time of the analysis in 2004 to 2005 and the additional noise exposure caused by the transit project. Under the FTA noise impact criteria, as the existing noise exposure increases, the amount of the allowable Page 2 of 10 increase in the overall noise exposure caused by the Project decreases. All receivers in Tukwila are FTA Category 2 (residential) land use. Table 1. FTA Transit Noise Impact Criteria' Existing Project Noise Impact Exposure,* Leq(h) or Ldn (dBA) Noise Exposure* Leq(h) or Ldn (dBA) Category 1 or 2 Sites Category 3 Sites No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact No Impact Moderate Impact Severe Impact <43 <Ambient + 10 Ambient + 10 to 15 >Ambient + 15 <Ambient + 15 Ambient + 15 to 20 >Ambient + 20 43 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 44 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 45 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63 46 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 47 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 48 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64 49 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64 50 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64 51 <54 54-60 >60 <59 59-65 >65 52 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65 53 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65 54 <55 55-61 >61 <60 60-66 >66 55 <56 56-61 >61 <61 61-66 >66 56 <56 56-62 >62 <61 61-67 >67 57 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67 58 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67 >67 59 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68 60 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68 61 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 62 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 63 <60 60-65 >65 <65 65-70 >70 64 <61 61-65 >65 <66 66-70 >70 65 <61 61-66 >66 <66 66-71 >71 66 <62 62-67 >67 <67 67-72 >72 67 <63 63-67 >67 <68 68-72 >72 68 <63 63-68 >68 <68 68-73 >73 69 <64 64-69 >69 <69 69-74 >74 70 <65 65-69 >69 <70 70-74 >74 71 <66 66-70 >70 <71 71-75 >75 72 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 73 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 74 <66 66-72 >72 <71 71-77 >77 75 <66 66-73 >73 <71 71-78 >78 76 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79 77 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79 >77 <66 66-75 >75 <71 71-80 >80 * Ldn is used for land use where nighttime sensitivity is a factor; Leq during the hour of maximum transit noise exposure is used for land use involving only daytime activities. FTA criteria specified in Table 3-1 in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 1995 Page 3 of 10 Park and Ride Noise Compliance The applicable local noise criteria for ancillary facilities and park and rides are taken from Tukwila Municipal Code, Chapter 8.22.040 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels, City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila Noise Control Ordinance sets a maximum allowable noise level between two properties based on land use. Park and rides are typically considered a commercial land use under the City of Tukwila code. Traffic and light rail noise on public roadways and right-of-ways are exempt under the noise ordinance. The City of Tukwila Noise Ordinance is summarized in Table 2. Between the hours of 1.0:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the maximum allowable levels shown in Table 2 are reduced by 10 dBA. For example, the noise caused by a commercial property must be less than 57 dBA at the closest residential property line during daytime hours, and 47 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Table 2. City of Tukwila Noise Ordinance Land Use Maximum Allowable Sound Level, dBA Residential Commercial Industrial Residential 55 57 60 Commercial 1 57 60 65 Industrial 160 65 70 Aside from the property line noise standards, the code also has the following exemptions for short-term noise exposure. The allowable exceedance levels are based on the minutes per hour that noise levels exceed the limits in Table 2. Maximum Minutes per Hour Adjustment to Allowable Sound Level 15 +5 dBA 5 +10 dBA 1.5 +15 dBA To assist with compliance to the noise ordinance and allowable exceedance criteria, the statistical Lxx noise descriptor is very useful. The sound level descriptor Lxx is defined as the sound level exceeded xx percent of the time. For example, during a l -hour measurement, an L8.3 of 85 dBA means the sound level was at or above 85 dBA for 5 minutes of that hour (8.3 percent of the time). Therefore the L8.3 could be used to verify the 5-minute allowable exceedance criterion in the City's code. For compliance with 15 minute criterion, the L25 or hourly Leq is typically used, and for the L2.5 the Lmax is used, as it is always greater than, or equal to the L2.5. Page 4 of 10 Noise Analysis Criteria and Locations The Final Design and Supplemental Analysis evaluated 37 receiver locations for light rail noise impacts (33 in the Final Design Analysis and 4 in the Supplemental Analysis) and about 30 of these had potential impacts. All but two locations were mitigated with sound walls at -grade or on the elevated structure. The remaining two are residences are located on the Carrosino property along the north side of the Duwamish River, west of E Marginal Way. One of these residences was not mitigated because it is changing to a non-residential land use and the other was provided noise mitigated using residential sound insulation. Sound walls were required by the City of Tukwila to mitigate the remaining noise impacts. The final mitigation included solid concrete sound walls for at -grade impacts and acoustically absorbent sound walls along the elevated guideway. Near the park and ride, an additional 5 representative receiver locations were evaluated for noise modeling in the Park and Ride Analysis. Noise impacts were identified at all five receivers under the City of Tukwila noise ordinance, with three locations also exceeding the FTA criteria. The impacts were mitigated with a sound wall between the park and ride and noise sensitive properties. Noise Measurement Methods All noise level measurements will be taken in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) procedures for community noise measurements. Whenever feasible, the measurement location shall be a minimum of 10 to 15 feet from nearby structures and 5-feet above the local ground level. The equipment used for noise monitoring shall be calibrated prior to, and after the measurement period using a Sound Level Calibrator. The noise monitoring systems shall have calibration certification traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Testing (MIST). The noise monitoring system shall also meet or exceed the requirements for an ANSI Type 1 noise measurement system. Noise Compliance Measurements Fourteen noise monitoring locations were selected to verify compliance with the FTA noise criteria and City of Tukwila noise ordinance. Figure 1 provides an area overview with the light rail alignment with Figures 2 through 7 showing the proposed noise monitoring locations on scaled aerial maps. Four of the 14 proposed noise monitoring locations were not predicted to have noise impact under FTA criteria in the previous analysis. One of the monitoring sites is exclusively for verification of the park and ride sound wall. The remaining ten monitoring locations are at structures that were mitigated with sound walls. Noise level measurements at these locations will be performed to verify the effectiveness of the mitigation. There are six separate sound wall segments including a sound wall along the park and ride. One representative receiver was selected for each of the three short sound walls (walls 1, 3 and 4), and two to three representative receivers were selected for the longer sound walls (sound walls 2 and 5). The receivers selected for noise monitoring are near wall end points and would be expected to have the highest noise levels in the area. Finally, two noise monitoring locations will be used to verify the sound wall along the park and ride (sound wall 6). One of the two park and ride monitoring locations, N13, will also be used in the light rail analysis. Noise monitoring will take place at all sites within 90 days of the start of normal revenue service. A noise technical report will be submitted within 30 days following completion of the Page 5of10 monitoring. Noise monitoring will only be performed during dry conditions. Sites will be re- tested during the summers of 2010 and 2011to finalize compliance. Updated technical memorandums will be provided following each monitoring session, with a full final report at the completion of the 3 year compliance verification. Sites that exceed the criteria will be re -tested, if necessary, once Sound Transit and the City of Tukwila have agreed on mitigation and the mitigation has been implemented. Continued compliance verification will also occur in 2010 and 2011 for sites with new or updated mitigation. Details on the monitoring for light rail and park and ride compliance is provided in the following sections. Light Rail Noise Analysis Compliance with the FTA noise criteria will be performed by measuring the Link light rail vehicle under normal revenue service operation at representative locations along the project corridor. During the monitoring sessions, the field staff will take notes on project area noise sources and note any unordinary noise sources. To the extent feasible, the monitoring program will be performed under dry conditions and during periods when background noise is at a minimum and does not mask the noise from the trains. Table 3 provides a summary of the proposed monitoring locations for light rail operations. Each monitoring location represents a residence or group of residences in a specific area. Measurements at each site will be used to verify compliance at sensitive properties along the corridor. At a minimum, the data collected for each train pass -by will include number of trains, train speed, pass -by time, and the following sound level descriptors in 1-second increments; Leq, SEL, and Lmax. The Leq is the root -mean -square (RMS) average over the time that the train passes the measurement position, SEL is a measure of the total sound energy of the train noise, and Lma,, is the maximum 1- second RMS level as the train passes the measurement position. Full 1/3 octave sound levels in 1- second increments will also be measured at each site. At least 6 clean pass -by noise measurements shall be.taken of random trains on each track. A clean pass -by is a pass -by where the train noise exceeds the levels from background sources by a minimum of 10 decibels. The measured SEL noise level will be used to calculate project Ldn using the methods given in the FTA Manual "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment." The predicted Ldn will be compared to the criteria in Table 1 to determine compliance. The existing Ldn for the sites will be taken from Table 3. The predicted 24-hour L& from Sound Transit operations will be compared to the FTA criteria based on the ambient levels in Table 3. Locations that meet or exceed the FTA criteria will be identified as residual noise impacts. . There are several forms of noise mitigation that could be applied if residual noise impacts are identified. The type of mitigation is dependent on the nature of the impact and its location. If residual impacts are identified, the annual Monitoring Report will recommend specific mitigation measures for review and approval by the City, as required in the City permits. Page 6 of 10 Table 3. Noise Monitoring Locations for Light Rail Compliance Verification Monitoring Number' Receiver Numberz Report Name Existing Ld„4 FTA Criteria Impact Mitigation N/A R1 FD N/A N/A N/A R2 FD N/A N/A N/A Relocation & RSIP N1 R3 FD 67 <62 No None R4 FD 67 <63 Displaced R5 FD 67 <63 Displaced R6 FD 71 <66 Yes N2 R7 FD 71 <66 Yes Sound Wall 1 R8 FD 71 <66 Yes N3 R3 Supp 69 <64 No None N4 R4 Supp 69 <64 Yes R9 FD 73 <66 Yes N5 R10 FD 73 <66 Yes R11 FD 73 <66 Yes Sound Wall 2 N6 R12 FD 73 <66 Yes R13 FD 73 <66 Yes N/A R17 FD 73 <66 Displaced None R18 FD 73 <66 Yes N7 R19 FD 73 <66 Yes Sound Wall 3 R20 FD 73 <66 Yes N8 N/A New Location 73 <66 N/A None N9 R21 FD 73 <66 Yes R22 FD 73 <66 Yes R23 FD 73 <66 Yes Sound Wall 4 N10 R24 FD 73 <66 Yes R25 FD 73 <66 Yes R26 FD 73 <66 No N11 R27 FD 73 <66 No None R28 FD 73 <66 No R29 FD 73 <66 Yes N12 R30 FD 73 <66 Yes Sound Wall 5 R31 FD 73 <66 Yes N13 R32 FD 73 <66 Yes R33 FD 74 <66 Yes Notes: 1. Monitoring locations shown on Figures 2 through 7 2. Receiver number from original noise analysis 3. Report containing receiver: FD = Final Design; Supp = Supplemental Memorandum, P&R = 150 Park and Ride 4. Existing Ldn from previous reports, Ldn at R3 is from 2009 measurement 5. FTA criteria for moderate impact, see Table 1 for severe impact level 6. Existing Ld at R3 is from recent noise measurements 7. Existing Ld at R33 from measured data in the 1541h Street Park and Ride Noise Analysis 154th Park and Ride Analysis Operational noise levels for the 154th Park and Ride were projected for three different conditions: (1) for a typical 24-hour average Ldn; (2) peak -vehicle hour; and (3) typical maximum bus pass - by. The projections were performed for three representative receivers just east of the park and ride with an additional modeling site at the property line. One of the three locations was also a Page 7 of 10 24-hour noise monitoring site, with the monitoring data used to develop the site Ldn and provide the existing conditions noise levels near the park and ride. Compliance with the FTA noise criteria and the City of Tukwila ordinance will be performed by measuring the bus and vehicle operations at the park and ride during peak operational and nighttime hours under normal revenue service. Noise measurements will be taken at two representative locations, N13 and N14, which are shown on Figure 7. Noise levels at both locations were mitigated with sound wall 6. Table 5 provides a summary of the proposed measurement sites, existing noise levels, noise impacts predicted at the 5 receivers modeled in the 154`h Analysis and the applicable noise criteria. Table 5. Noise Monitoring and Impacts Identified at the 154th Park and Ride Mon FTA Analysis' City of Tukwila Analysis # Rec Existing Ldn (dBA) Peak Hour Le (dBA)" Bus Lma. (dBA Criteria Impact Daytime Impact Nighttime Impact # Ldn Criteria Criteria5 R1 67 <63 Yes 57 No 62 Yes N14 R2 58 <57 Yes 57 No 62 Yes R3 63 <60 Yes 57 Yes 62 Yes N13 R4 74 <66 No 57 No 62 Yes R5 -- -- NIA 57 Yes 62 Yes Notes: 1. FTA impact analysis using the criteria levels from Table 1. 2. Peak -hour noise level analysis using criteria levels for the City of Tukwila from Table 2. 3. Maximum bus pass -by noise level analysis including the 15 dBA allowable short term exceedance. 4. City of Tukwila daytime criteria 5. City of Tukwila nighttime criteria with 15 dBA allowable short term exceedance 6. No impact at these locations because the existing noise level were higher than park and ride levels. 7. R5 is at the property line: there are no FTA noise criteria for property lines. Two 1-hour monitoring sessions will be performed, one during peak operations hour, and a second during nighttime hours when ambient noise levels are lower. The peak hour monitoring will be used to verify the City of Tukwila 57 dBA maximum allowable noise level for normal daytime operation. The daytime measurement will also be used to verify the noise walls effectiveness on passenger vehicle traffic while in the park and ride. The nighttime noise monitoring will be performed to obtain bus pass -by measurement and also to verify compliance with the nighttime allowable noise levels of 47 dBA Leq and the Lmax pass -by level of 62 dBA The data collected during each session will include the number of buses and vehicles accessing the park and ride, traffic on 154th St that does not access the park and ride, vehicle speeds, and the Leq, SEL, and Lmax 1-second increments. The measured SEL noise levels will be used to calculate project Ldn using the methods given in the FTA Manual "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment." At least 6 clean bus pass -by noise measurements shall be taken and used for the analysis. The predicted Ldn will be compared to the criteria in Table 1 to determine compliance. The existing Ldn for the sites will be taken from Table 5, which also provides the FTA impact criteria for reference. In addition to the 1-second data, a 1-hour Leq, L2.5, L8.3 and L25 will be also be measured or produced from the 1-second data by analysis software. The Leq and L,x data will be compared to the City of Tukwila noise ordinance and the allowable exceedance criteria from Table 2. Locations where the Page 8 of 10 predicted 24-hour Ldn or measured park and ride operations exceed the FTA criteria or Tukwila ordinance will be identified.If residual impacts are identified, the annual Monitoring Report will recommend specific mitigation measures for review and approval by the City, as required in the City permits. Vibration Analysis Criteria and Locations Compliance with the FTA vibration criteria will be verified by performing vibration measurements of light rail operations at representative locations along the project corridor. The measured vibration levels will be compared to the FTA criteria. The FTA vibration criteria are summarized in Table 6. All vibration sensitive structures along the corridor in Tukwila are FTA Category 2 (residential) land use. Table 6: FTA Ground -Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for Frequent Events' Ground -Borne Vibration Land Use Category Impact Levels (VdB re 1 inch/sec) Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 65 VdB See note 2 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 VdB Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 1. Frequent Events are defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 2. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration -sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC system and stiffened floors. Vibration Compliance Measurements Vibration impacts were identified in 3 areas along the project corridor affecting 7 individual residences. Six residences were identified in the Final Design Report, with the seventh identified in the Supplemental analysis. Vibration monitoring will be performed at four locations along the corridor, with three of the sites used to verify vibration mitigation measures. The other vibration monitoring location is near an at -grade segment of the alignment not identified with a vibration impact. Vibration testing at this site will be used to verify predictions and obtain reference data. Locations where the alignment is elevated are not predicted to meet or exceed the FTA criteria because of the damping effect of the structure. The four proposed vibration monitoring locations are shown on Figures 3, 4 and 5. At sites V 1, V3, and V4, vibration impacts were mitigated using resilient fasteners. Measurements at these sites will be used to verify the effectiveness of the resilient fasteners. Table 7 provides a summary of the proposed vibration monitoring sites, receivers represented, FTA criteria and vibration mitigation measures. Page 9 of 10 Table 7. Mitigation Summary: Light Rail Vibration Impacts' Monitoring Receiver Report VdB Mitigated Project Number' Number2 Name Criteria Level in VdB6 Mitigation V1 R1 FD 72 68 Resilient Fasteners 1 V2 R3 Supp 72 N/A None (69VdB) V3 R4 Supp 72 69 Resilient Fasteners 2 R14 FD 72 70 Resilient Fasteners 3 V4 R15 FD 72 70 Resilient Fasteners 3 R16 FD 72 71 Resilient Fasteners 3 Notes: 1. Monitoring locations shown on Figures 3 through 5 2. Receiver number from original vibration analysis 3. Report containing receiver: FD = Final Design; Supp = Supplemental Memorandum, P&R = 1541h Park and Ride 4. FTA vibration criteria 5. Vibration levels predicted with mitigation 6. Mitigation applied Vibration measurements will be taken using precision seismic accelerometers following procedures consistent with the guidelines provided by FTA. The measurements will be performed during normal light rail revenue service. The vibration signals will be recorded on digital data recorders and analyzed to obtain the maximum 1-second RMS level during each pass -by along with the RMS average as each train passes the measurement position. At least 6 pass-bys will be measured in each direction. If vibration levels are found to exceed the FTA criteria, Sound Transit will coordinate with the City to determine appropriate supplemental vibration mitigation. Vibration monitoring will take place concurrently with the noise monitoring within 90 days of the start of normal revenue service. Vibration results will be presented with the noise level analysis in a technical report. Additional vibration measurements will be performed during the summers of 2010 and 2011to finalize compliance. As with noise, there are several forms of vibration mitigation that can address residual vibration impacts if identified. The type of mitigation is dependent on the nature of the impact and its location. If residual impacts are identified, the annual Monitoring Report will recommend specific mitigation measures for review and approval by the City, as required in the City permits. Reporting A technical report containing the results of each year's monitoring program will be submitted following completion of the noise and vibration testing. The report will provide the measured light rail noise and vibration levels, predicted 24-hour light rail noise levels (Ldn), and identify any residual noise or vibration impacts. Maps, figures and photos of the monitoring locations will also be included. Tables with the data in summary format will be prepared to aid in the understanding of the operational testing. If noise or vibration levels exceed applicable criteria then specific mitigation measures will be recommended for approval by the city. Page 10 of 10 S 115th St to S 124th Figure 3: S 124th to S 131st Figure 4: S 131st to S 139th Figure 7: S 154th and Park and Ride Light Rail Alignment ran o soo ,000 _ 2000 Figure 1 �_ _.._._ ----__ .. nn - - i.00 in Project Area Overview Overview ma showing the boundaries Michael Minor & Associates � and Master Index p 9 Sound.Vibration.Air Approximate Scale 1 inch to 1000 feet of each of the six detailed maps Portland, Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) S 115th St Duwamish Riv Sites R1 and R2:' Noise mitigation through land' ' "` •erg use change and sound insulation NO MONITORING PROPOSED . r Al er ' ' r 0. ,.0.,3 r _599 • SR -- LLLLLL```"`fff f"33 '' - ri' , - . , a 'w•. w 'ti a ,A o S 21 k ' , ..r N1 (R3 in Final Design Report) No impact identified Monitoring due to complaint t7 Ptti C —. S 116th St :8 'a am $ -• • dr. x 1 .«I Cyr # 'i .,go- " "' \ ` \ . ,► .. ° Noise Monitoring Location M _ 0 100 zoo 41 Figure 2 nn ' Proposed Noise and O Vibration MonitoringLocation K=1.00in— P Michael Minor & Associates Vibration Monitoring Sites . Structure Identibed with Impact Sound.VibrationAir Approximate Scale 1 inch to 2011 feet p Portland, Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) IS,":K I f la .two Ill i 1 _ I 1 ` •oyi[ �.':r Jt * � ,. ,M I � I � �tU �. • d� of � ±`�� �{I � � • `� � .�- � $ . a:,�.. i �j � '1 �33r rY�& ^ i, r. 4 b+� f;f �s' '�fy f..; . ►J-' .1'!(' Ali �I �w µ 5 }'` •sf` ? �a�jt!.: G.-'..1�' i,�, '� ,1.^� ^& y �Ij ��s�§!•�v.���IJ'ilr' t ,L S ar i � 7, �► •1 r�i�' � �)��0� _ of • } N! S' . NI lT' S '.'3 .�►. ,+c iif d die' . !' � 1 �' h � S1 Fj � � i� R'r • �j�..a*� �. _ '�j e_r+. • a ti �a N�,i it li �• a �1J' � • � �'. �� �� �'.! X� I ,I' I �� �{ a.i. �di �� J.fi; � �` ;r•"' 1 l i t Resilient Fastener74 s fr; Sound Wall 1 V1 (R6 in Final Design Report) " i} A 1 Vibration Mitigation R St c �'6� ` ON + �� •'� N2 (R8 in Final Design Report) R: Sound Wall Location Cr Lam_-�6 r J_"�'_ _- - - - � •A �•• \� P � Yam. S 130th St r- I i ��i ~ ' -� - 0 ��sy i o Noise Monitoring Location 0 100 200 400 Figure 3 ' @ Vibration Monitoring Location i nn K 1.00 in - > Proposed Noise and Michael Minor & Associates Vibration Monitoring Sites ■ Structure Identified with Impact Sound.VibrationAir Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet y Portland, Oregon y (11 x 17 inch format) 1 _ — NI 7. .+�"� eta �� .� "��3""• + �, � . � j CO �.3 t'4 •"5�: �\� � ;� � I"! bpi � �.`+ �/ /'. ,�� is 41 a N3 + V2 R3 in'Supplemental . Report)p\ �, •�� �°• � ���y �.�. ( 4� No impact Identified • (� ' �C .�' �f • ' T1, I 1 r r Y 1 +I ,y •s 77 -•_ l `�. S 136th St Resilient Fasteners 2 N4 + V3 (114 in Supplemental Report) Sound Wall Location V'bration Mitigation Sound � d �Jn 11 1 1 r k: , - • ;: ', ` '•. rs ��L� SIC ..� i � '`�.iF!� Noise Monitoring Location o ioo 200 _ -400 Figure 4 Vibration Monitoring Location ~-J K 1.00 in > rroposea Noise ana `• g Michael Minor & Associates Vibration Monitoring Sites ■ Structure Identified with Impact Sound.VibradonAir Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet p y Portland, Oregon y (11 x 17 inch format) 1 • Noise Monitoring Location M o 100 zoo aoo Figure 5 nn K 1.0o in > Proposed Noise and Vibration Monitoring Location Michael Minor a Associates Vibration Monitoring Sites ■ Sound.Vibretion.Air 11 x 17 inch format Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet Structure Identified with Impact Portland, Oregon V Noise Monitoring Location 0 100 Zoo aoo Figure 6 F nn K i.00 in > Proposed Noise and Vibration Monitoring Location Michael Minor & Associates Vibration Monitoring Sites ■ Structure Identibed with impact $oortlan , Oregon Approximate1x 1c7ainch formate 1 inch to 200 feet Portland, Oregon Noise Monitoring Location M ,., o 100 200 aoo Figure 7 i.00 in- Proposed Noise and Vibration Monitoring Location Michael minor&Associates R Vibration Monitoring Sites ■Sound.Vibretion.Air Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet Structure Identified with Impact] 1 Portland, Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) A Michael Minor & Associates Sound. Vibration. Air 4923 SE 36th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97202 503.220.0495 -- fax 866.847.0495 Prepared for: James Irish, Sound Transit Prepared by: Michael A. Minor Date: November 17, 2010 Subject: Second Year Noise and Vibration Testing Results Project: Tukwila Noise and Vibration Compliance Testing Summary This memorandum summarizes the results of the second year (2010) testing of noise and vibration levels along Sound Transit's Tukwila light rail alignment, as required by the approved Noise and Vibration Compliance Testing Program Link Light Rail: Tukwila Segment, July 2, 2009 (Compliance Program, 2009). Measurements performed for the second year testing took place in August and September 2010. Results of this analysis show that all locations along the light rail corridor in Tukwila, including those identified as having noise or vibration impacts in the First Year Noise and Vibration Testing Results, Revised December 9, 2009 (First Year Testing Results, 2009), are now below the FTA noise and vibration criteria. Background The City of Tukwila issued a "Notice of Decision" on September 21, 2004, which included the following condition in the light rail project's Unclassified Use Permit (UUP): "Sound Transit shall develop a 3-year noise and vibration monitoring program for the TFR Project to be approved by the City. The 3-year period shall start from the start of revenue service. Monitoring shall be conducted at representative locations where impacts and mitigation have been identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis dated July 2004. If measured levels show that noise or vibration attributable to the TFR project exceed FTA criteria as identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis Sound Transit shall provide appropriate reasonable mitigation acceptable to the City. " Sound Transit initially submitted the Compliance Program in early spring of 2009, and after review by the City of Tukwila and their consultants, BRC Acoustics, the plan was approved in the summer of 2009. The noise and vibration criteria and analysis methodologies contained in the Federal Transit Administration's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, May 2006 (FTA Manual, 2006) provide the basis for the Tukwila UUP and compliance requirements described in the Compliance Program, 2009. Sound Transit conducted first year compliance noise and vibration monitoring in summer and fall 2009 and the First Year Testing Results, 2009 were reviewed and approved by the City of Tukwila in January 2010. The First Year Testing Results indicated that noise levels exceeded the FTA criteria at several locations along the corridor. In addition, a section of defective track was also identified that resulted in increased vibration levels within a particular segment of the corridor. Since that time, Sound Transit has taken numerous steps, 'k?tk tl- �n (fit-1 a t Page 2 of 65 described herein, to eliminate noise and vibration impacts within the Tukwila segment of the Central Link light rail corridor to below the FTA criteria. Impacts and Mitigation Measures In the First Year Testing Results, 2009 analysis, noise impacts were noted in the residential area between Interurban/E Marginal Way and the Duwamish River, represented by receivers N1,NIA, NIB and NIC, a residential property off 481h Ave S, represented by receiver N3, a group of residences in the 149 block of 5 1 " Avenue S, represented by a receiver N6A, and a single and multi -family residence and Buddhist Temple near the curve in the vicinity of 51 st/52nd Avenues S and S 154th Street represented by receivers N7 and N8, along with a new receiver N8A. Receiver N8A is a new monitoring location that was added due to limited access to site N8, which exceeded the FTA criteria as stated in the First Year Testing Results, 2009. Note that N8A is directly across the street from N8, and at approximately the same distance from the track, and would be expected to have the same noise levels as N8. Prior to finalizing this report, permission was granted and measurements were also taken at Site N8. Current measurements presented in this report show that all noise impacts identified during the First Year Testing Results, 2009 have been resolved through a combination of track grinding, installation of lubricators and Type 2 sound barriers. Details on these modifications and their overall effectiveness are provided in the following sections. Figure 1 provides an overview of the project area, existing sound walls constructed as part of the project, general locations identified with noise or vibration impacts in the First Year Testing Results, 2009, locations of the new wayside lubricators and new Type 2 sound barriers. Also identified is the segment of defective track that was replaced to remedy the lone vibration impact. i a NoiseMbraton Impacts N A Noise -impacts \\ Link Light Rail Alignment sixteen_6sidence5 Existing Sound Walls s, w� Type 2 Sound Barriers 1 �It Wayside Lubricators Repaired Defective Track Ne T pq-2 So d B Frier Q Link Stations /u Streets Water w 7SourroTeaNUr 0 875 1.750 3.500 Feel S•128Ih $1 oun II s 9S T_ �S o. 433rd S1 - o' a ,pact ton si�c� rye v Ne T pe 2 Sou d Barrie Cityo, Tukwila r� 46 foster GOdlkike 'I. S.Tj I o nd al i a V nAmpact Rep ced Defective Track Noise Im acts al—' City of Sea Tac t ree res Newilype 2 fi So r Ile Noi a Impacts at o-relicaq ces_and ubri a✓ r a Budd ist YemWe Sound all 11 Sound al S-154th St 5aulhcenier.81M Sotin'd II Tukwila,lntemational Blvd Station � SY_�_ �d , �Jfflns46tor e TFid-Barrie b �va.Pkwy fWs S-1601hSt a Page 4 of 65 Mitigation Measures The following section provides details on mitigation measures enacted since the completion of the First Year Testing Results, 2009. This includes the installation of wayside lubricators, Type 2 Sound Barriers and general track maintenance. Lubricators Sound Transit installed wayside lubricators, just prior to the curves near SR518 and just east of the Tukwila International Boulevard Station Park and Ride (see Figure 1) to mitigate wheel squeal and flanging noise. Wheel squeal is a high -frequency noise that occurs on curves due to the wheels on the train rotating at different speeds; this noise normally occurs on curves with radii of less than 600 feet. Flanging noise, a broadband grinding noise, occurs when the inner flange of the light rail vehicle wheel rubs along the inside of the rail and can also occur on some curves. The lubricators apply a small amount of friction modifier to the top and side of the rail. The installation of the wayside lubricators has substantially reduced both wheel squeal and flanging noise at both locations. The reduction in these noise sources has contributed to the overall reduction in light rail noise and also helped to reduce the noise impacts predicted in the First Year Testing Results, 2009. Type 2 Sound Barriers Type 2 sound barriers were also installed in response to the noise impacts identified in the First Year Testing Results, 2009. The Type 2 sound barriers are manufactured in the USA by Acoustiblok, Inc. Installed Type 2 sound barriers include a 2700 foot barrier positioned near receivers N1 through N1 C in the Duwamish Point neighborhood and a 450 foot barrier near N3 off 48th Ave S. A 530 foot segment was installed near receiver N6A on the 149 block of 51 st Avenue S, and a 912 foot sound barrier was installed in the vicinity of 51 st/52nd Avenues S and S154th Street, connecting two existing sound walls (see Figure 1). The sound barriers have provided approximate noise reductions of 4 to 8 dBA depending on topographic conditions and elevation of the rails relative to the receivers. The Type 2 sound barriers contribute to reducing noise levels at these sites to below the FTA criteria. Rail Grinding Over the last year Sound Transit found that light rail noise levels were related to the condition of the rail surface left from project construction. Rail grinding was performed in December 2009 for the entire length of track in Tukwila with the intention of reducing light rail noise. Due to an unforeseeable relationship between the vehicle and residual rail roughness from the grinding, noise levels increased in some locations, most notably south of the Duwamish River. Additional grinding producing a smoother finish surface was performed in July 2010 south of the Duwamish River and at the curve near SR 518. The July grinding reduced noise levels by as much as 10 dBA, depending on the location, when compared to the pre -grinding levels. Page 5 of 65 Impact Comparison As previously stated, several sites with noise levels meeting or exceeding the FTA criteria were identified during the First Year Testing Results, 2009. Through the combined efforts of rail grinding, installation of Type 2 sound barriers and wayside lubricators, Sound Transit has been successful in reducing noise levels along the Tukwila corridor to below the FTA criteria. Table 1 provides a comparison of the First Year Testing Results, 2009 projections and impacts as well as the 2010 projections and the changes that contributed to the improved conditions and mitigation of light rail noise impacts. Table 1. Comparison of 2009 and 2010 Operational Ldn Projections Pre -Project Ldn' FTA Noise Criteria 2009 Project Ld.2 2010 Project Ldn2 System Updates from 2009 Mffm_ 1311 N1 1 67 63 — 67 65 1 Pass -by Yes 60 Pass -by No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Rail Grinding N1A 70J 65-69 63 Pass -by No 55 Pass -by No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Rail Grinding N1B 64 61-65 62 Pass -by Yes 53 Pass-by/Ldn No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Rail Grinding N1C 65 61 — 66 62 Pass-bV Yes 52 Pass-by/Ldn No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Rail Grinding N2 71 72 — 74 68 Ldn No 69 Ldn No N/A N3 69 64-69 64 Pass -by Yes 56 Pass -by No Type 2 Sound Barrier N4 69 64-69 61 Pass -by No 61 Pass -by No N/A N5 73 73.6 - 75 58 Pass -by No 72 Ldn No Higher level due to measurement type N6 73 73.6 - 75 60 Pass -by No 72 Ldn No Higher level due to measurement t e N6A 73 66 — 71 (2009) 67 Pass -by Yes s Ldn Type 2 Sound Barrier — Note: Analyzed in 2010 using 73.6 - 75 2010 71 No total Ldn N7 73 68 Pass -by Yes 55 Pass -by No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Wayside Lubricators & Rail 66 — 71 Grinding N8 73 70 Pass -by Yes 58 Pass -by No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Wayside Lubricators & Rail 66 — 71 Grinding N8A 73 —6 —6 __6 699 Ldn No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Wayside Lubricators & Rail 73.6 - 75 Grinding N9 73 66 — 71 59 Pass -by No 57 Pass -by No N/A N10 73 66 — 71 — Pass -by No 61 Pass -by No N/A N11 73 66 — 71 61 Pass -by No 651u Pass -by No N/A N12 73 66 — 71 58 Pass -by No 59 Pass -by No N/A N13 73 1 66 — 71 — Pass -by No -- Pass -by No N/A N14 1 3 1 60-65 1— Pass -by No -- Pass -by No N/A Notes: 1. Pre -Project Ldn noise levels 2. Project Ld,,, type of measurement and impact. Noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA noise impact criteria. 3. Pre -project Ld taken from measurements at 11823 401" Avenue S during EIS. 4. Analysis Methods: Details on analysis methods provided under Noise Compliance Verification Methods a. Method 1 (Pass -by): Pass -by measurements used to predict Ldn, with existing pre -project Ldn and compare to criteria in Table 3. b. Method 2 (Ldn): Measure Ldn with light rail, use existing pre -project Ldn, compare total noise to criteria in Table 2. c. Method 3 (Pass-by/Ldn): Measure Ldn with train, measure train pass -by, predict pre -project Ld. and compare to criteria in Table 3. 5. New location for 2010 analysis. This location not analyzed in 2009. 6. Noise from the light rail was not measureable over the existing ambient noise. 7. Noise from buses was not measureable over the existing ambient noise. 8. Measurements using the long-term Ld also include other noise sources and can be considered a worst case noise levels. 9. Measured pass -by levels included noise from other sources, and the actual noise level from light rail operations would be lower than presented. Future measurements at this site may be performed using Method 2. Compliance Analysis This section provides a brief introduction to noise and vibration, the FTA noise and vibration criteria, and methods of verifying that the Link light rail system is operating below the FTA criteria. Introduction to Noise and Vibration Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that can influence individual response to noise include the loudness, frequency, the amount of background noise present before an intruding noise and the nature of the work or activity (e.g., sleeping) that the noise affects. The unit used to measure the loudness of noise is the decibel (dB). To better approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies, the A -weighted decibel scale was developed. Because the human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequencies, the A -weighted scale reduces the sound level contributions of these frequencies. When the A - weighted scale is used, the decibel levels are denoted as dBA. The A -scale is used in most ordinances and standards including the applicable standards for this project. A 10-dBA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling of sound level. The smallest change in noise level that a human ear can perceive is about 3 dBA, and increases of 5 dBA or more are clearly noticeable. Noise levels in a quiet rural area at night are typically between 32 and 35 dBA. Quiet urban nighttime noise levels range from 40 to 50 dBA. Noise levels during the day in a noisy urban area are frequently as high as 70 to 80 dBA. Noise levels above 110 dBA become intolerable and then painful, while levels higher than 80 dBA over continuous periods can result in hearing loss. To account for the time -varying nature of noise, several noise metrics are useful. The equivalent sound pressure level (Lea) is defined as the average noise level, on an energy basis, for a stated time -period (for example, hourly). The Lea is the preferred noise descriptor for traffic noise analysis and transit analysis for daytime use facilities. Another useful descriptor is the Day -Night Equivalent Sound Level, Ldn, also abbreviated DNL, which is defined as the 24-hour Leq, but with a 10 dB penalty assessed to noise events occurring at night (defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The effect of this penalty is that any event during nighttime hours is equivalent to ten events during the daytime hours. This strongly weights Ldn toward nighttime noise to reflect most people being more easily annoyed by noise during nighttime hours when background noise is lower and most people are sleeping. The Ldn is the preferred noise level descriptor for transit -related noise analysis at residential structures and other locations, such as hotels and hospitals, where high nighttime noise levels can have the most severe effect. Figure 2 shows typical Ldn values for rural and urban areas. Page 8 of 65 ure Z: Typical Ldn Values for Rural and Urban Areas Day Night Equivalent Level (Ldn), dBA Rural area with no Typical quiet Relatively noisy Generally considered major roads nearby suburban residential residential area. Usually unacceptable for area a major road or airport is residential use. Strongly nearby. Considered affected by major normally acceptable for transportation source. residential land use. Quiet suburban Residential area with Noisy residential area. Very noisy area. residential neighborhood, some traffic nearby. Close to a major freeway, Unusual except in not close to major roads, Typical of many close to the end of an rare circumstances little nighttime activity residential areas airport runway. Source: FTA, April 1995 Ground -borne vibration consists of oscillatory waves that propagate from the source through the ground to adjacent buildings. On steel-wheel/steel-rail train systems, ground -borne vibration is created by the interaction of the steel wheels rolling on the steel rails. Although the vibration is sometimes noticeable outdoors, it is almost exclusively an indoor problem. Although it is conceivable for ground -borne vibration from rail rapid transit trains to cause building damage, the vibration from trains is almost never of sufficient amplitude to cause even minor cosmetic damage to buildings. The primary concern is that the vibration and radiated noise can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants. Factors that influence the amplitudes of ground -borne vibration include vehicle suspension parameters, condition of the wheels and rails, type of track, track support system, type of building foundation, and the properties of the soil and rock layers between the vibration source and receiver. As a point of reference, the average person can just barely perceive vibration velocity levels below 70 VdB. Figure 3 compares typical ground -borne vibration levels. Page 9 of 65 Figure 3: Typical Levels of Ground -borne Vibration RMS Vibration Velocity Level (VdB) mom 60 70 80 90 100 I I Approximate Generally acceptable Sufficient to cause Approximate threshold of human for residential land difficulty with tasks such threshold for perception uses as reading a VDT screen damage Perceptible to most Very noticeable, generally not Approximate threshold for damage people, but rarely intrusive for office or institution to fragile historic buildings. considered land uses. Only acceptable Sufficient to cause cosmetic unacceptable for residential land uses if damage to some buildings. vibration occurs a limited number of times per day. Source: FTA, April 1995 FTA Noise and Vibration Criteria The criteria in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006) are founded on well -documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a sliding scale. The amount that the transit project is allowed to change the overall noise environment is reduced with increasing levels of existing noise. The FTA Noise Impact Criteria groups noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories: Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches and office buildings. Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2) and maximum 1- hour Leq during the period that the facility is in use is used for other noise -sensitive land uses such as school buildings (Categories 1 and 3). There are two levels of impact included in the FTA criteria. The interpretations of these two levels of noise impact are summarized below: Severe Impact: Severe noise impacts are considered "significant" as this term is used in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations. Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no practical method of mitigating the noise. • Impact: In this range, other project -specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These other factors can include the Page 10 of 65 predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise -sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor -indoor sound insulation, and the cost effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. The noise impact criteria for transit operations are summarized in Figure 4. The future noise exposure would be the combination of the existing noise exposure and the additional noise exposure caused by the transit project. Under the FTA noise impact criteria, as the existing noise exposure increases, the amount of the allowable increase in the overall noise exposure caused by the Project decreases. Note, that it is possible to have a noise impact under the FTA criteria even if the pre -project Ld,, noise levels are lower than the predicted project noise. For example, a site with a pre -project Ldn of 68 dBA would have a moderate impact if project noise levels meet or exceed 63 dBA. All of the locations being analyzed in this memorandum are FTA Category 2 land use (residential). Figure 4: FTA Noise Impact Criteria 80 75 70 4) J656 60 0 N d 55 50 Q 45 n. 40 R R • R R Severe Noise Impact y R • w Noise Impact No Impact 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Pte-project Ldn Noise Impact Severe Noise Impact-----�• Noise Compliance Verification Methods Verification methods for project noise levels provided in the compliance plan were based on measuring light rail pass -by levels, predicting the operational Ldn and comparing it to the FTA noise impact criteria based on the pre -project measured or predicted Ld„ from the Final Design Noise Technical Report (2004). To use this method the background ambient noise levels must be 10 dBA lower than the train Lmax pass -by noise. This method (Method 1) was used wherever possible (sites Nl, N3, N4, N7, N8, N9, N10, NI and N12), however, there are several sites along the project corridor where the pass -by noise levels from the light rail are not 10 dBA over the background noise levels, and for those sites an alternative method Page 11 of 65 was required. This generally occurred in locations where an existing Type 1 sound wall or Type 2 sound barrier was installed, and reduced the light rail noise to a level that was not 10 dBA over the ambient level. The difficulty of taking accurate pass -by measurements at these sites facilitated a change in the methods of compliance verification. An alternative method was developed and reviewed and agreed to by the City of Tukwila's Noise Consultant, Ioana Park. P.E., at BRC, during the 2009 first year testing. Finally, because there are some new sites, where pre -project Ld" noise levels are not available, an alternate method was also needed to predict potential impacts in these areas. For these sites, measurements of the existing Ldn and train noise levels were required to provide compliance verification. The methods used for the analysis are described in detail below. Method 2 - Measured Ld„ Direct Comparison Method One alternative verification method for locations where background ambient noise levels are not 10 dB lower than the train L,,,a, consist of measuring the current L& with light rail operating under normal revenue service and comparing it with the pre -project Ld,,. If there is an overall noise reduction when compared to the pre -project Ld,,, or if the current Ld,, is less than the pre -project Ldn plus the FTA allowable increase, that would indicate that the project is in compliance and below FTA criteria. The FTA allowable increase based on the pre - project Ldn is provided in Table 2 below. This method was used for sites N2, N5, N6 and N6A, which are all behind the Type 1 sound walls and have existing L& noise levels that are lower than the pre -project noise levels. Table 2: FTA Allowable Increase Noise Impact Criteria for Pre -project Ld„ of 60 to 75 dBA AllowablePre-Project Noise oise Level Increases -..Category Severe Impact�-�� _-Severe Impact 60 2 5 5 9 61 1.9 5 4 9 62 1.7 4 4 8 63 1.6 4 4 8 64 1.5 4 4 8 65 1.4 4 3 7 66 1.3 4 3 7 67 1.2 3 3 7 68 1.1 3 3 6 69 1.1 3 3 6 70 1.0 3 3 6 71 1.0 3 3 6 72 0.8 3 2 6 73 0.6 2 1.8 5 74 0.5 2 1.5 5 75 0.4 2 1 1.2 5 Page 12 of 65 Method 3 - Measured Ld„ and LmaX/SEL Comparison Method For locations where there is no sound wall or previously measured Ldn, compliance verification was performed using the measured Ldn during normal light rail revenue service along with light rail pass -by measurements. The light rail pass -by measurements are used to determine the contribution to the overall measured Ldn that is related to light rail operations. The light rail pass -by measurements include the Lmax, which is the maximum sound level during the measurement period, and the SEL, which is a one -second equivalent of the acoustical energy of the pass -by. Either of these levels can be used with FTA formulas to calculate the train's contribution to the Ldn. Note that this method was only used for two locations in the Duwamish neighborhood, sites N 1 B and N 1 C. The main reason for this analysis method was to assist in determining the length of the recently installed Type 2 sound barriers and make sure that the noise levels were within the criteria once the walls were installed. The following steps describe the method for verification at new locations where pass -by measurements were possible: 1. Measure the current Ldn with light rail operating under normal revenue service; 2. Measure several pass-bys of the light rail vehicle where the Lmax is 10 dBA or more over ambient noise levels and predict the train's Ldn using the methods in the FTA Manual, 2006; 3. Subtract the train's Ldn contribution (Step 2) from the overall measured Ldn (from Step 1) using the methods described in the FTA Manual, 2006 and the measured pass - by noise levels from Step 2 to obtain the site Ldn without train operations; 4. Verify compliance with one of the two methods below: • Subtract the measured Ldn from the corrected no -train Ldn and compare the change in noise levels with the values in Table 2. This table is based on the pre -project Ldn and provides the amount the transit system can increase the overall noise level in an area. This is an abbreviated version of the FTA table and only contains pre - project Ldn noise levels expected in this corridor; or • Verify compliance using the predicted train Ldn from step 3 by comparing it to the FTA allowable project noise exposure based on the corrected pre -project site Ldn from Step 4. The allowable project noise exposure based on the pre -project Ldn can be found in Table 3. Page 13 of 65 Table 3. FTA Transit Noise Exposure Impact Criteria for Pre -project Ldn, of 60 to 75 dBA Noise Levels (Ldn dBA) 60 Category-.. Impact �� <58 58-63 >63 <63 Moderate Impact 63-68 >68 61 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 62 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69 63 <60 60-65 >65 <65 65-70 >70 64 <61 61-65 >65 <66 66-70 >70 65 <61 61-66 >66 <66 66-71 >71 66 <62 62-67 >67 <67 67-72 >72 67 <63 63-67 >67 <68 68-72 >72 68 <63 63-68 >68 <68 68-73 >73 69 <64 64-69 >69 <69 69-74 >74 70 <65 65-69 >69 <70 70-74 >74 71 <66 66-70 >70 <71 71-75 >75 72 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 73 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76 74 <66 66-72 >72 <71 71-77 >77 75 <66 66-73 >73 <71 71-78 >78 It is important to note that the impact criteria presented in Figure 4, Table 2 and Table 3 are essentially identical, the only difference is how they are used. Figure 4 and Table 2 present identical information in different formats. The pre -project Ldn is used to obtain the allowable project Ldn. The data presented in Table 2, however, uses acoustical formulas to arrive at the allowable increase the project is allowed, given a pre -project Ldn, that will assure that the total project noise is lower than the allowable project noise exposure provided on Figure 2 and Table 3. Summary of Noise Analysis Methods: Method 1. Measure light rail pass -by, calculated light rail Ldn, and compare to FTA criteria in Table 3 based on existing pre -project Lan Method 2. Measure the Ldn with light rail during normal revenue service; if the measured Ldn is less than the existing pre -project Ldn, or the increase is less than provided under the allowable increased criteria in Table 2, (based on the existing pre -project Ldn) then there is no noise impact. Method 3. Measure the Ldn with light rail during normal revenue service, measure light rail pass-bys, determine the light rail contribution to the total noise, use that to predict the pre -project Ldn and assess potential impact using predicted pre -project Ldn, light rail Ldn, and the criteria in Table 3. Page 14 of 65 Locations Near the 154th St Park and Ride As identified in the 2009 first year report, there is one location on 154`h Street and two locations near the Tukwila International Boulevard Station Park and Ride where the installation of sound walls for SR 518 and the park and ride have resulted in an overall reduction in noise levels. Noise levels at all three sites are lower than the ambient noise levels measured at the time of the final design studies as neither light rail nor bus operations at the park and ride were measureable at sites N13 or N14. Second Year Noise Level Compliance, Table 4 provides a summary of the measured noise levels. There are no locations along the light rail corridor in Tukwila that meet or exceed the FTA noise impact criteria. A brief discussion on each site is provided following Table 4. Detailed tables with measured noise levels are provided in Attachment A. Detailed maps of the corridor complete with measurement locations, existing and proposed noise mitigation measures are provided in Attachment C. Page 15 of 65 Table 4. Summary of 2010 Operational Ldn Projections Pre L.. drn .. Type 2 Sound Barrier, N1 North Duwamish 67 63 — 67 60 No Rail grinding Type 2 Sound Barrier, N1A South Duwamish 704 65-6 95 55 No Rail grinding Type 2 Sound Barrier, N1 B South Duwamish 64 61-65 5 53 No Rail grinding Type 2 Sound Barrier, N1 C South Duwamish 65 61 — 66 52 No Rail grinding N2 S 128th St 71 72 — 74 69 No N3 48th Ave S 69 64 — 69 56 No Type 2 Sound Barrier, N4 S 136th St. 69 64 — 69 61 No N5 S 138th St. 73 73.6 - 755 72 No N6 MacAdam/140th 73 73.6 - 755 72 No N6A 14914 51st St 73 73.6 - 755 71 No Type 2 Sound Barrier, Type 2 Sound Barrier, Wayside Lubricators, N7 52"d Ave Condos 73 66 — 71 55 No Rail grinding Type 2 Sound Barrier, Wayside Lubricators, N8 51" Ave 73 66 — 71 58 No Rail grinding Type 2 Sound Barrier, Wayside Lubricators, N8A 51 st Ave 73 73.6 - 755 69 No Rail grinding N9 S 154th near 51 st 73 66 — 71 57 No N10 S 154th A is 73 66 — 71 61 No N 11 S 154th A is 73 66 — 71 658 No Analyzed using total Ld" N12 42"d Ave S 73 66 — 71 59 No N 13 154 P&R 73 66 — 71 -- No Measurements not possible N 14 154th P&R 63 1 60 — 65 - 8'7 No Measurements not possible Notes: 1. Measured Ld" 2. FTA noise impact criteria, noise levels with superscript 5 are analyzed using the total Ld" method and impact levels from Table 2, while all other sites used impact levels from Table 3. 3. Project Ld", type of impact and any notes on impacts. Noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceeding the FTA noise impact criteria. 4. Pre -project Ld" taken from measurements at 11823 40th Avenue S during EIS. 5. All sites were analyzed using Method 1, except sites N2, N5, N6, N6A and NBA, which used Method 2, and sites N1B and N1C, which used Method 3. Methods described under Noise Compliance Verification Methods. 6. Noise from the light rail was not measureable over the existing ambient noise. 7. Noise from buses was not measureable over the existing ambient noise. 8. Measured pass -by levels included noise from other sources, and the actual noise level from light rail operations would be lower than presented. Future measurements at this site may be performed using Method 2. Page 16 of 65 Site Specific Results This section provides a summary of the noise measurements and compliance for the second year of testing. Compliance testing will be performed again in year three, as required by the UUP. Sites N1, N1A, N1B and N1C (Duwamish Point Neighborhood) Sites N1, NIA, NIB and N I C are in the residential area between Interurban/E Marginal Way and the Duwamish River. The pre -project Ldn at site N1 was determined through on -site noise monitoring between April 29, and May 1, 2009. There were no trains running during this measurement period. The Ldn at this site was measured at 67 dBA, and therefore a moderate impact occurs if project noise levels meet or exceed 63 dBA Ldn. The pre -project noise level at site NIA of 70 dBA Ldn was obtained from on -site noise measurements performed during the EIS phase of the project. Existing pre -project Ldn noise levels for sites N 1 B and N 1 C were determined using Method 3, described under Noise Compliance Verification Methods. Long-term measurements were performed at site N 1 C between August I and August 4, 2010. Pass -by measurements were taken at N I C on August 11, 2010, and for site NIB, the pass -by measurements were taken on September 11, 2010. Based on the measured levels, the existing pre -project Ldn at site NIB is 64 dBA Ldn and site N 1 C is 65 dBA Ldn. In summer 2010, a 2700 foot Type 2 sound barrier (Sound Barrier A) was installed near receivers N1 through N I C in response to the noise impacts identified during the First Year Testing Results, 2009. The addition of the Type 2 noise barrier and results of the rail grinding program have contributed to overall lower light rail noise levels in this area. The rail grinding program has reduced noise levels by up to 10 dB, when compared to pre -grinding noise levels, while the Type 2 noise barriers have also reduced noise from the trains by 4 to 6 dB. The impact analysis for these sites relied primarily on pass -by noise measurements, with supplemental long-term measurements that were used to establish the pre -project Ldn for sites NIB and NIC, as previously described. Pass -by measurements performed at sites N1 through N 1 C in August and September 2010 resulted in predicted light rail Ldn measurements that range from 52 to 60 dBA, which is below the FTA criteria for residential impacts. For further verification, and in response to comments from local residents, additional pass -by measurements were taken at site N1 on November 3, 2010. The November measurements, agreed, within less than 1 dBA, with the measurements taken in August and September, 2010, with a predicted light rail Ldn of 60 dBA. No FTA light rail noise impacts were projected in the Duwamish Point neighborhood. Site N2 Site N2 is at the intersection of S 1281h Street and MacAdam Road S behind Sound Wall 1 (see Attachment C, figure 3). For sites that are located entirely behind sound walls, like site N2, performing a new long-term noise measurement (greater than 24 hours) and comparing the previous Ldn to the pre -project Ldn was used to verify compliance (Method 2). The long- term monitoring was performed on September 8 through 10, 2010. Using this method, the Page 17 of 65 future Ldn must be less than the pre -project Ldn added to the FTA allowable increase in Table 2. For site N2, the pre -project measured Ldn is 71 dBA, and based on Table 2, if the project increases the Ld„ by 1 to 3 dBA, it is a moderate impact, and increases over 3 dBA are considered a severe impact. Therefore, the measured Ldn with normal light rail operations cannot exceed 72 dBA for a moderate impact. The measured Ldn was 69 dBA at site N2, which is not only below the 72 dBA impact level, but also lower than the pre -project Ldn of 71 dBA. The overall noise reduction of approximately 3 dBA in total Ldn at this residence in the area is due to the shielding effects of the sound wall on SR 599 traffic in addition to the shielding of light rail noise. Site N3 Site N3 is near an at -grade segment of track in an empty lot previously occupied by a manufactured home. The pre -project Ldn from a nearby measurement was 69 dBA Ldn, resulting in an FTA impact threshold for project noise levels in excess of 64 dBA Ldn. In 2010, Sound Barrier B, a 450 foot Type 2 barrier was installed near site N3 off of 48t" Ave S. Because of the lower ambient measurements at this site, pass -by measurements were selected as the preferred compliance method (Method 1). Pass -by measurements taken at the site on August 27, 2010 resulted in a predicted light rail Ldn of 56 dBA, which is well below the FTA criteria for residential impacts. Site N4 Site N4 is located behind Sound Wall 2. Method 1 pass -by measurements performed at this site on September 8, 2010, resulted in a predicted light rail Ldn measurement of 61 dBA Ldn, with impact criteria of 66 dBA Ldn. No noise impacts are predicted at any of the residences along this segment of the corridor. The sound wall is not only effective at reducing noise from light rail operations, but also reduces noise from I-5. Note that pass -by measurements were used at this site due to barking dogs and no -trespassing signs posted at the property. Once the equipment was set-up, we were able to keep the dogs from barking and obtain accurate pass -by noise measurements. Sites N5 and N6 Sites N5 and N6 are also located behind a Type 1 sound wall. In the 2009 first year testing report, it was suggested that the next round of testing include long-term noise monitoring (Method 2) at these locations due to the assumption that the post -project Ldn would be lower than the pre -project Ldn when the noise analysis was performed. In 2010, project noise levels at sites N5 and N6 were determined by using long-term noise measurements and comparing the previous Ldn to the pre -project Ldn to verify compliance. Long-term noise measurements at sites N5 and N6 were performed between September 8 and 11, 2010. Using this method, the future Ldn must be less than the pre -project Ldn plus the allowable exceedance from Table 2. To show compliance, the measured Ldn at these sites with normal light rail operations cannot exceed 73 dBA for a moderate impact. The measured Ldn was 72 dBA at sites N5 and N6, which is below the 73 dBA impact level. It must be Page 18 of 65 noted that this method also includes noise from other sources and should be considered as a worst case noise reading, as the actual noise level from train only operations would likely be lower. Site N6A Site N6A was added during the previous year's corridor inspection and was not included in the original proposed monitoring plan. Recently, a 530 foot Type 2 sound barrier (Sound Barrier Q was installed near receiver N6A on the 149 block of 51st Avenue S to mitigate a previous noise impact. In the 2010 analysis, project noise levels for this site were determined by using long-term noise measurements. The pre -project Ldn for this site of 73 dBA is based on nearby measurements and is also the same as other sites along I-5. At site N6A, the measured Ldn with normal light rail operations cannot exceed 73 dBA for a moderate impact. The measured Ldn of 72 dBA taken in August 2010 at site N6A using Method 2 is below the 73 dBA impact level. As with sites N5 and N6, the actual noise level from train only operations would likely be lower due to the inclusion of other noise sources in this reading, and no noise impact is predicted in this area. Sites N7, N8 and N8A Sites N7 and N8 are located near the curve at I-5 and SR 518 interchange, by the elevated structure approaching the 1541h Street Park and Ride Station. Site N7 is on 52nd Avenue S, representing one multi -family unit. Site N8 is on the east side of 5Is' Avenue S at a single family residence and site N8A (new) is a test site located at the Sarana International Buddhist temple, which is located on the west side of 51St Avenue S, directly across the street from site N8. Sites N7 and N8 were analyzed using Method 1, while site N8A was analyzed using Method 2. Because these structures are near the large radius curve where the light rail alignment transitions from I-5 to SR 518, much of the subsequent noise in this area was related to wheel squeal and flanging noise. Lubricators have been installed just before the curves near SR518 and just east of the 154th Street Park and Ride resulting in an overall reduction in wheel squeal and flanging noise. In addition to the lubricators, Sound Barrier D, a 912 foot Type 2 sound barrier was installed in the vicinity of 51 st/52nd Avenues S and S 154th Street and now connects the two previously existing Type 1 sound walls. Finally, the results of the rail grinding program have contributed to overall lower light rail noise levels in this area. The project Ldn noise level measured at site N7 on September 30, 2010 was 55 dBA and at site N8 the project Ldn measured on September 11, 2010 was 58 dBA. The impact criterion is 66 dBA and therefore no noise impact was identified at either site. In addition, the measured long-term Ldn at site N8A, which used Method 2, also confirms compliance with a measured Ldn of 69 dBA while the criterion is 73 dBA. Note, that the measured Ldn at site N8A also includes noise from other sources, including traffic on SR518, local roadways, and aircraft from SeaTac airport. No impact is predicted at any of the sites in this vicinity. Page 19 of 65 Sites N9 and N10 Sites N9 and N10 are located along S 154`h Street and are protected by a previously existing acoustical sound wall on the elevated structure. Operational pass -by noise levels were measured at 57 dBA Ldn at site N9 and 61 dBA Ldn at site N10. The FTA criterion is 66 dBA and therefore no noise impact was identified at either location. The project Ldn is based on measurements taken on September 11, 2010, and analyzed using Method 1. Site N11 Site N11 is located at an apartment complex along S 154`h Street. The project related Ldn at this site was predicted from measured data on September 11, 2010 using Method 1 at 65 dBA Ldn, with an impact criterion of 66 dBA Ldn. No noise impact was identified at this site. Noise measurements at this site can also be considered worst case, as northbound pass -by measurements were not 10 dBA over the background noise levels, potentially making these predictions slightly higher than actual levels. Site N12 Site N12 is on 42nd Avenue S, almost directly under the light rail alignment and the site is protected by a structure mounted sound wall. Pass -by measurements were possible at this site; however the quality is not as good as some of the other locations. The site Ldn related to project operations was calculated at 59 dBA Ldn, which is well below the 66 dBA FTA criteria. The project Ldn is based on measurements taken on September 11, 2010, and analyzed using Method 1. Site N13 and N14 Site N13 is located at the southern end of the apartment complex just east of the S 154`h Park and Ride Station. Site N14 is located at the northern end of the apartment complex, east of the S 154`h Park and Ride Station, near S 154`h Avenue. Because of the SR-518 sound wall, light rail sound wall, and park and ride sound wall, it was not possible to obtain a noise level reading of the light rail vehicle or buses at the park and ride at either location. Because buses operating in the park and ride were also not audible or measureable at this location, it is clear that the sound wall is effective and mitigates noise from the park and ride. Photos of the sound wall that show that the second floors are acoustically protected are provided in Attachment E. No light rail or park and ride impacts were identified at N13 or N 14. Vibration Level Compliance Discussion Summary of Vibration Compliance During the First Year Testing a defective rail weld was identified from a complaint near the S 144`h St overpass that resulted in vibration levels above the FTA criteria. Sound Transit repaired over 30 feet of rail in the vicinity of S 144`h St and recent measurements confirm that there is no longer an impact near or at site W. Table 5 provides a summary of the 2009 Page 20 of 65 and 2010 vibration test results. Currently, all vibration testing sites are well below the FTA criteria of 72 VdB. Table 5. Com arison of 2009 and 2010 Vibration levels Max. Measured Max. Measured Location FTA Impact Criteria Vibration Levels Impact Vibration Levels V1 72 VdB 64 VdB No 62 VdB No V2 72 VdB 55 VdB No 65 VdB No V3 72 VdB 60 VdB No 61 VdB No V4 72 VdB 61 VdB No 61 VdB No Note: All vibration levels in this report are in terms of the vibration velocity level in decibels using a decibel reference of 1 in/sec. The abbreviation TdB" is used for vibration decibels to avoid confusion with noise decibels. Measured vibration levels at site V2 are noticeably higher than those measured in the First Year Testing Results, 2009. The reason for the higher current reading was a modification to the testing location. There was on -going construction at this property during the 2009 first year testing, which prevented the transducer from being placed at the property line. Instead, the transducer was located adjacent to the house nearest the tracks. For this year's testing, the transducer was located near the property line, approximately 20 to 30 feet closer to the tracks then last year's testing. Testing for next year will likely be at the same site as this year's testing. All other tests are within l to 2 VdB of last year's testing, and all sites are in compliance with the FTA regulations. The vibration test sites are shown in Attachment C on Figures 3, 4, and 5 and vibration measurement details are included in Attachment B. Vibration measurements will be taken in year 3 of the plan to assure continued compliance. Page 21 of 65 Attachment A Noise Measurement Details Note: Data is not presented for sites N13 or N14, where the light rail and/or buses could not be measured due to previously existing levels higher than the light rail and/or bus noise levels. A-1A. Pass -By Measurements and Ld,, Levels for Site N1 Measured data from August 12 and September 30 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lmax 76.0 SEL 81.5 Project Ld,, NB 2 76.8 82.1 NB 2 76.7 81.4 NB 2 74.5 80.9 NB 2 78.3 83.2 NB 2 76.3 82.3 Minimum 74.5 80.9 Maximum 78.3 83.2 Energy Average 76.4 81.9 58.2 dBA Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 1.24 73.7 0.81 79.2 SB 2 70.3 76.8 SB 2 69.6 77.1 SB 2 74.8 81.5 SB 2 75.2 80.9 SB 2 -- -- Minimum 69.6 76.8 Maximum 75.2 81.5 Energy Average 72.7 79.1 55.4 dBA Standard Deviation 2.60 2.14 ImpactTotal Ldn and Ambient Ld„ Measured 4/29-5/1/2009 67 dBA Project Ld„ 60 dBA Impact Level = 63 dBA Ld, No Notes: • The last SB train was abnormally low (64.9 dBA Lmax) and therefore not used in the analysis. • The Ld, noise levels are calculated using Method 1. • Ambient Ld„ is without light rail operations. • Ld, noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 22 of 65 A-1 B. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N1 Measured Data from November 3, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I # Cars 2 Lmax 77.9 SEL 82.6 Project Ld„ NB 2 76.3 83.5 NB 2 77.1 82.4 NB 2 76.8 82.3 Minimum 76.3 82.3 Maximum 77.9 83.5 Energy Average 77.0 82.7 59.0 (dBA) Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 0.67 68.9 0.55 76.8 SB 2 70.8 77.3 SB 2 73.7 81.5 SB 2 69.5 76.0 Minimum 68.9 76.0 Maximum 73.7 81.5 Energy Average 70.7 77.9 54.2 (dBA) Standard Deviation 2.14 2.46 ImpactTotal Ldn and Ambient Ld„ Measured 4/29-5/1/2009 67 dBA Project Ld„ 60 dBA Impact Level = 63 dBA Ld, No Notes: • The Ld, noise levels are calculated using Method 1. • Ambient Ld, is without light rail operations. • Ld, noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 23 of 65 A-2. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N1A (11823 40 Ave S) Measured data from September 11, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 L..a, -- SEL -- Project Ld„ NB 2 70.4 74.3 NB 2 70.8 77.8 NB 2 69.6 77.8 NB 2 72.0 75.7 NB 2 71.2 77.4 Minimum 69.6 74.3 Maximum 72.0 77.8 Energy Average 70.8 76.6 52.9 dBA Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 0.89 65.5 1.55 74.2 SB 2 66.8 74.5 SB 2 67.6 71.7 SB 2 67.7 73.5 SB 2 66.3 74.2 SB 2 71.3 78.1 Minimum 65.5 71.7 Maximum 71.3 78.1 Energy Average 67.5 74.4 50.7 dBA Standard Deviation 2.02 2.09 ImpactTotal Ldn and Pre -Project Ld„ Measured during EIS 70 dBA Project Ld„ 55 dBA Impact Level = 65 dBA Ldn No Notes: • The first NB train at NIIA was abnormally low, (63.4 dBA Lm�) and therefore not used in the analysis. • The Ldn noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ldn is without light rail operations. 0 Ldn noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 24 of 65 A-3. Pass -By Measurements and Ldn Levels for Site N1B (11820 40 Ih Ave S) Measured data from September 11, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lmax 70.2 SEL 76.0 Project Ld,, NB 2 68.4 74.9 NB 2 70.4 75.8 NB 2 70.7 75.3 NB 2 68.1 73.9 NB 2 66.5 74.5 Minimum 66.5 73.9 Maximum 70.7 76.0 Energy Average 69.1 75.1 51.4 dBA Standard Deviation SB 2 =1 1.65 64.5 0.80 70.7 SB 2 61.3 67.9 SB 2 62.0 69.1 SB 2 63.6 67.9 SB 2 62.8 73.0 SB 2 62.0 68.4 Minimum 61.3 67.9 Maximum 64.5 73.0 Energy Average 62.8 69.7 46.0 dBA Standard Deviation 1.27 2.16 ImpactTotal Ldr, and Ambient Ld, measured 9/8/2009 64 dBA Project Ld„ 53 dBA Impact Level = 61 dBA Ldn No Notes: • The Ld„ noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ld„ is without light rail operations. • Ldn noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 25 of 65 A-4. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N1C (11926 Interurban Place S) Measured data from August 11, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lmax 66.2 SEL. 73.7 Project Ld„ NB 2 65.4 72.8 NB 2 65.2 73.3 NB 2 67.2 75.6 NB 2 66.7 72.6 NB 2 66.5 74.9 Minimum 65.2 72.6 Maximum 67.2 75.6 Energy Average 66.2 73.8 50.1 dBA Standard Deviation SB 2 0.77 62.7 1.20 70.5 SB 2 63.0 73.3 SB 2 62.3 70.9 SB 2 62.3 72.5 SB 2 63.8 72.2 SB 2 65.9 74.4 Minimum 62.3 70.5 Maximum 65.9 74.4 Energy Average 63.3 72.3 1 48.6 dBA Standard Deviation 1.38 1.46 ImpactTotal Ldr, and Ambient Ld„ measured 9/8/2009 65 dBA Project Ld„ 52 dBA Impact Level = 61 dBA Ld„ No Notes: • The Ld„ noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ld„ is without light rail operations. • Ld„ noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 26 of 65 A-5. Ldr, Measurements for Site N2 Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 9/8/2010 12:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 9/8/2010 1:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 9/8/2010 2:00 PM 66.6 Time Block 9/8/2010 3:00 PM 66.8 Time Block 9/8/2010 4:00 PM 66.8 Time Block 9/8/2010 5:00 PM 66.5 Time Block 9/8/2010 6:00 PM 65.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 7:00 PM 63.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 8:00 PM 63.1 Time Block 9/8/2010 9:00 PM 62.8 Time Block 9/8/2010 10:00 PM 61.4 Time Block 9/8/2010 11:00 PM 60.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 12:00 AM 60.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 1:00 AM 57.6 Time Block 9/9/2010 2:00 AM 56.4 Time Block 9/9/2010 3:00 AM 57.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 4:00 AM 60.7 Time Block 9/9/2010 5:00 AM 63.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 6:00 AM 66.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 7:00 AM 66.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 8:00 AM 66.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 9:00 AM 65.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 10:00 AM 65.4 Time Block 9/9/2010 11:00 AM 65.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 12:00 PM 65.7 Time Block 9/9/2010 1:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 9/9/2010 2:00 PM 67.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 3:00 PM 66.6 Time Block 9/9/2010 4:00 PM 72.3 Time Block 9/9/2010 5:00 PM 66.5 Time Block 9/9/2010 6:00 PM 65.6 Time Block 9/9/2010 7:00 PM 65.1 Time Block 9/9/2010 8:00 PM 63.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 9:00 PM 62.7 Time Block 9/9/2010 10:00 PM 63.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 11:00 PM 61.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 12:00 AM 60.5 Time Block 9/10/2010 1:00 AM 60.6 Time Block 9/10/2010 2:00 AM 58.3 Time Block 9/10/2010 3:00 AM 58.7 Time Block 9/10/2010 4:00 AM 61.1 Time Block 9/10/2010 5:00 AM 64.1 Time Block 9/10/2010 6:00 AM 67.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 7:00 AM 66.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 8:00 AM 66.7 Time Block 9/10/2010 9:00 AM 65.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 10:00 AM 65.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 11:00 AM 66.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 12:00 PM 65.8 Page 27 of 65 A-5. Ldn Measurements for Site N2 Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 9/10/2010 1:00 PM 65.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 2:00 PM 66.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 3:00 PM 65.3 Time Block 9/10/2010 4:00 PM 66.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 5:00 PM 66.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 6:00 PM 65.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 7:00 PM 65.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 8:00 PM 64.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 9:00 PM 65.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 10:00 PM 63.1 Time Block 9/10/2010 11:00 PM 61.7 Time Block 9/10/2010 12:00 AM 60.4 Time Block 9/11/2010 1:00 AM 58.6 Time Block 9/11/2010 2:00 AM 55.7 Time Block 9/11/2010 3:00 AM 56.0 Time Block 9/11/2010 4:00 AM 57.1 Time Block 9/11/2010 5:00 AM 59.6 Time Block 9/11/2010 6:00 AM 60.9 Time Block 9/11/2010 7:00 AM 62.1 Time Block 9/11/2010 8:00 AM 63.6 Time Block 9/11/2010 9:00 AM 63.5 Time Block 9/11/2010 10:00 AM 62.9 Time Block 9/11/2010 11:00 AM 62.8 Time Block 9/11/2010 12:00 PM 62.3 Operational Ld, 68.8 dBA Pre -Project Ld„ 71.0 dBA Change in Ld„ -2.2 dB Allowable Increase see table 1 1.0 dB Impact No Note: Sound wall also blocks traffic noise from SR599, reducing the overall noise level at the residence. Page 28 of 65 A-6. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N3 Measured data from Aygust 27, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 LmaX 68.1 SEL 73.7 Project Ld, NB 2 67.0 72.8 NB 2 68.9 75.0 NB 2 68.2 74.5 NB 2 69.1 74.9 NB 2 67.4 73.8 Minimum 67.0 72.8 Maximum 69.1 75.0 Energy Average 68.1 74.1 50.4 dBA Standard Deviation SB 2 0.82 70.3 0.84 76.5 SB 2 71.6 77.2 SB 2 72.1 78.1 SB 2 72.6 78.3 SB 2 72.9 78.2 SB 2 72.0 78.0 Minimum 70.3 76.5 Maximum 72.9 78.3 Energy Average 71.9 77.7 54.0 dBA Standard Deviation 0.92 0.71 ImpactTotal Ldn and Pre -Project Ld, 69 dBA Project Ld„ 56 dBA Impact Level = 64 dBA Ld„ No Notes: • The Ld, noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ld„ is without light rail operations. 0 Ldn noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 29 of 65 A-7. Pass -By Measurements and Ld, Levels for Site N4 Measured data from September 8, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lmax 76.8 SEL 82.4 Project Ldn NB 2 75.8 82.4 NB 2 76.3 82.0 NB 2 76.6 82.1 NB 2 75.2 80.9 NB 2 75.6 82.2 Minimum 75.2 80.9 Maximum 76.8 82.4 Energy Average 76.1 82.0 58.3 dBA Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 0.62 75.3 0.56 82.7 SB 2 75.1 81.1 SB 2 75.1 80.3 SB 2 74.9 81.5 SB 2 74.9 80.7 NB 2 74.7 81.6 Minimum 74.7 80.3 Maximum 75.3 82.7 Energy Average 75.0 81.3 57.6 dBA Standard Deviation 0.21 0.84 Pre -Project Ld„ 69 dBA Project Ld„ 61 dBA Impact Level = 64 dBA Ld„ No Notes: • The Ld„ noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ld„ is without light rail operations. 0 Ldn noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 30 of 65 A-8. Ldn Measurements for Site N5 Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 9/8/2010 12:00 PM 69.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 1:00 PM 69.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 2:00 PM 69.9 Time Block 9/8/2010 3:00 PM 70.1 Time Block 9/8/2010 4:00 PM 69.9 Time Block 9/8/2010 5:00 PM 69.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 6:00 PM 69.1 Time Block 9/8/2010 7:00 PM 68.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 8:00 PM 67.0 Time Block 9/8/2010 9:00 PM 66.6 Time Block 9/8/2010 10:00 PM 66.0 Time Block 9/8/2010 11:00 PM 64.6 Time Block 9/8/2010 12:00 AM 63.4 Time Block 9/9/2010 1:00 AM 61.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 2:00 AM 61.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 3:00 AM 62.1 Time Block 9/9/2010 4:00 AM 64.1 Time Block 9/9/2010 5:00 AM 66.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 6:00 AM 68.6 Time Block 9/9/2010 7:00 AM 69.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 8:00 AM 69.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 9:00 AM 69.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 10:00 AM 69.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 11:00 AM 69.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 12:00 PM 70.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 1:00 PM 70.3 Time Block 9/9/2010 2:00 PM 70.5 Time Block 9/9/2010 3:00 PM 70.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 4:00 PM 69.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 5:00 PM 69.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 6:00 PM 69.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 7:00 PM 68.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 8:00 PM 67.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 9:00 PM 67.5 Time Block 9/9/2010 10:00 PM 67.6 Time Block 9/9/2010 11:00 PM 66.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 12:00 AM 64.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 1:00 AM 62.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 2:00 AM 62.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 3:00 AM 62.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 4:00 AM 65.1 Time Block 9/10/2010 5:00 AM 67.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 6:00 AM 69.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 7:00 AM 69.6 Time Block 9/10/2010 8:00 AM 69.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 9:00 AM 69.7 Time Block 9/10/2010 10:00 AM 70.1 Time Block 9/10/2010 11:00 AM 70.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 12:00 PM 69.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 1:00 PM 69.9 W Page 31 of 65 A-8. Ldn Measurements for Site N5 Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 9/10/2010 2:00 PM 69.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 3:00 PM 62.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 4:00 PM 64.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 5:00 PM 67.7 Time Block 9/10/2010 6:00 PM 69.3 Time Block 9/10/2010 7:00 PM 68.6 Time Block 9/10/2010 8:00 PM 68.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 9:00 PM 67.6 Time Block 9/10/2010 10:00 PM 67.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 11:00 PM 65.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 12:00 AM 63.8 Time Block 9/11/2010 1:00 AM 63.0 Time Block 9/11/2010 2:00 AM 62.3 Time Block 9/11/2010 3:00 AM 61.2 Time Block 9/11/2010 4:00 AM 62.4 Time Block 9/11/2010 5:00 AM 64.0 Time Block 9/11/2010 6:00 AM 65.7 Time Block 9/11/2010 7:00 AM 67.1 Time Block 9/11/2010 8:00 AM 67.7 Time Block 9/11/2010 9:00 AM 68.2 Time Block 9/11/2010 10:00 AM 68.4 Time Block 9/11/2010 11:00 AM 68.2 Time Block 9/11/2010 12:00 PM 68.0 Time Block 9/11/2010 1:00 PM 67.1 Operational Ld„ 72.3 dBA Pre -Project Ld„ 73.0 dBA Change in Ld„ -0.7 dB Allowable Increase see table 1 0.6 dB impact No Note: Sound wall also blocks traffic noise from SR599, reducing the overall noise level at the residence. Page 32 of 65 A-9. Ld„ Measurements for Site N6 Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 9/8/2010 4:00 PM 68.8 Time Block 9/8/2010 5:00 PM 68.7 Time Block 9/8/2010 6:00 PM 68.5 Time Block 9/8/2010 7:00 PM 67.8 Time Block 9/8/2010 8:00 PM 67.0 Time Block 9/8/2010 9:00 PM 66.8 Time Block 9/8/2010 10:00 PM 65.9 Time Block 9/8/2010 11:00 PM 64.5 Time Block 9/8/2010 12:00 AM 63.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 1:00 AM 61.7 Time Block 9/9/2010 2:00 AM 61.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 3:00 AM 62.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 4:00 AM 64.3 Time Block 9/9/2010 5:00 AM 67.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 6:00 AM 68.8 Time Block 9/9/2010 7:00 AM 69.1 Time Block 9/9/2010 8:00 AM 69.1 Time Block 9/9/2010 9:00 AM 68.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 10:00 AM 69.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 11:00 AM 69.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 12:00 PM 69.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 1:00 PM 69.3 Time Block 9/9/2010 2:00 PM 69.4 Time Block 9/9/2010 3:00 PM 69.3 Time Block 9/9/2010 4:00 PM 68.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 5:00 PM 69.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 6:00 PM 68.9 Time Block 9/9/2010 7:00 PM 68.4 Time Block 9/9/2010 8:00 PM 67.6 Time Block 9/9/2010 9:00 PM 67.2 Time Block 9/9/2010 10:00 PM 67.3 Time Block 9/9/2010 11:00 PM 66.0 Time Block 9/9/2010 12:00 AM 63.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 1:00 AM 62.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 2:00 AM 61.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 3:00 AM 62.3 Time Block 9/10/2010 4:00 AM 64.6 Time Block 9/10/2010 5:00 AM 67.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 6:00 AM 69.3 Time Block 9/10/2010 7:00 AM 69.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 8:00 AM 69.3 Time Block 9/10/2010 9:00 AM 69.1 Time Block 9/10/2010 10:00 AM 69.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 1 11:00 AM 69.2 Page 33 of 65 A-9. Ldr, Measurements for Site N6 Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 9/10/2010 12:00 PM 69.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 1:00 PM 68.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 2:00 PM 68.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 3:00 PM 63.6 Time Block 9/10/2010 4:00 PM 65.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 5:00 PM 67.2 Time Block 9/10/2010 6:00 PM 68.6 Time Block 9/10/2010 7:00 PM 68.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 8:00 PM 67.8 Time Block 9/10/2010 9:00 PM 67.4 Time Block 9/10/2010 10:00 PM 67.0 Time Block 9/10/2010 11:00 PM 65.9 Time Block 9/10/2010 12:00 AM 64.0 Time Block 9/11/2010 1:00 AM 63.0 Time Block 9/11/2010 2:00 AM 62.1 Time Block 9/11/2010 3:00 AM 61.1 Time Block 9/11/2010 4:00 AM 62.0 Time Block 9/11/2010 5:00 AM 63.6 Time Block 9/11/2010 6:00 AM 65.2 Time Block 9/11/2010 7:00 AM 66.7 Time Block 9/11/2010 8:00 AM 67.2 Time Block 9/11/2010 9:00 AM 67.8 Time Block 9/11/2010 10:00 AM 67.7 Time Block 9/11/2010 11:00 AM 67.4 Time Block 9/11/2010 12:00 PM 67.1 Time Block 9/11/2010 1:00 PM 66.3 Operational Ld„ 72.1 dBA Pre -Project Ld„ 73.0 dBA Change in Ld„ -0.9 dB Allowable Increase see table 1 0.6 dB Impact I No Note: Sound wall also blocks traffic noise from SR599, reducing the overall noise level at the residence. Page 34 of 65 A-10. Ldn Measurements for Site N6A Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 8/2/2010 7:00 AM 67.3 Time Block 8/2/2010 8:00 AM 67.2 Time Block 8/2/2010 9:00 AM 67.2 Time Block 8/2/2010 10:00 AM 67.3 Time Block 8/2/2010 11:00 AM 67.7 Time Block 8/2/2010 12:00 PM 66.9 Time Block 8/2/2010 1:00 PM 66.5 Time Block 8/2/2010 2:00 PM 67.2 Time Block 8/2/2010 3:00 PM 66.7 Time Block 8/2/2010 4:00 PM 66.6 Time Block 8/2/2010 5:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 8/2/2010 6:00 PM 66.3 Time Block 8/2/2010 7:00 PM 66.5 Time Block 8/2/2010 8:00 PM 65.8 Time Block 8/2/2010 9:00 PM 65.2 Time Block 8/2/2010 10:00 PM 64.7 Time Block 8/2/2010 11:00 PM 63.6 Time Block 8/2/2010 12:00 AM 62.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 1:00 AM 60.4 Time Block 8/3/2010 2:00 AM 60.2 Time Block 8/3/2010 3:00 AM 60.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 4:00 AM 62.2 Time Block 8/3/2010 5:00 AM 65.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 6:00 AM 67.6 Time Block 8/3/2010 7:00 AM 67.8 Time Block 8/3/2010 8:00 AM 67.9 Time Block 8/3/2010 9:00 AM 70.0 Time Block 8/3/2010 10:00 AM 67.9 Time Block 8/3/2010 11:00 AM 67.6 Time Block 8/3/2010 12:00 PM 66.4 Time Block 8/3/2010 1:00 PM 66.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 2:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 8/3/2010 3:00 PM 67.0 Time Block 8/3/2010 4:00 PM 66.4 Time Block 8/3/2010 5:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 8/3/2010 6:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 8/3/2010 7:00 PM 65.8 Time Block 8/3/2010 8:00 PM 65.7 Time Block 8/3/2010 9:00 PM 65.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 10:00 PM 65.1 Time Block 8/3/2010 11:00 PM 64.0 Time Block 8/3/2010 12:00 AM 62.7 Time Block 8/4/2010 1:00 AM 61.0 Time Block 8/4/2010 2:00 AM 60.5 Time Block 8/4/2010 3:00 AM 60.7 Time Block 8/4/2010 4:00 AM 62.6 Time Block 8/4/2010 5:00 AM 65.6 Time Block 8/4/2010 6:00 AM 67.3 Time Block 8/4/2010 7:00 AM 67.9 Page 35 of 65 A-10. Ldr, Measurements for Site N6A Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 8/4/2010 8:00 AM 67.7 Time Block 8/4/2010 9:00 AM 67.1 Time Block 8/4/2010 10:00 AM 66.5 Time Block 8/4/2010 11:00 AM 66.7 Time Block 8/4/2010 12:00 PM 66.3 Time Block 8/4/2010 1:00 PM 66.8 Time Block 8/4/2010 2:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 8/4/2010 3:00 PM 66.1 Time Block 8/4/2010 4:00 PM 65.9 Time Block 8/4/2010 5:00 PM 65.0 Time Block 8/4/2010 6:00 PM 65.7 Time Block 8/4/2010 7:00 PM 65.9 Time Block 8/4/2010 8:00 PM 65.9 Time Block 8/4/2010 9:00 PM 65.3 Time Block 8/4/2010 10:00 PM 65.4 Time Block 8/4/2010 11:00 PM 64.2 Time Block 8/4/2010 12:00 AM 62.4 Time Block 8/5/2010 1:00 AM 61.5 Time Block 8/5/2010 2:00 AM 60.1 Time Block 8/5/2010 3:00 AM 60.5 Time Block 8/5/2010 4:00 AM 62.6 Time Block 8/5/2010 5:00 AM 65.7 Time Block 8/5/2010 6:00 AM 67.0 Time Block 8/5/2010 7:00 AM 66.9 Time Block 8/5/2010 8:00 AM 67.1 Time Block 8/5/2010 9:00 AM 67.5 Time Block 8/5/2010 10:00 AM 68.3 Operational Ld„ 70.7 dBA Pre -Project Ld„ 73.0 dBA Change in Ld„ -2.3 dB Allowable Increase see table 1 0.6 dB Impact I No Note: Sound wall also blocks traffic noise from SR599, reducing the overall noise level at the residence. Page 36 of 65 A-11. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N7 Measured data from September 30, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lmax 65.1 SEL 76.1 Project Ld, NB 2 65.4 75.5 NB 2 66.2 74.8 NB 2 66.4 77.2 NB 2 65.8 77.5 NB 2 66.8 77.8 Minimum 65.1 74.8 Maximum 66.8 77.8 Energy Average 66.0 76.5 52.8 dBA Standard Deviation SB 2 0.64 69.3 1.20 71.0 SB 2 67.9 74.9 SB 2 66.8 75.3 SB 2 67.4 73.2 SB 2 66.6 74.5 SB 2 66.9 74.8 Minimum 66.6 71.0 Maximum 69.3 75.3 Energy Average 67.5 74.0 50.3 dBA �77Standard Deviation 1.01 1.61 ImpactTotal Ld, and Pre -Project Ld, 73 dBA Project Ld, 55 dBA Impact Level = 66 dBA Ld„ No Notes: • The Ldr, noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ld, is without light rail operations. 0 Ld, noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 37 of 65 A-12. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N8 Measured data from September 11, 2010 Direction Northbound N B I Cars 2 Lmax 74.3 SEL 82.3 Project Ld„ NB 2 68.8 77.1 NB 2 72.6 79.8 N B 2 70.5 79.0 N B 2 69.7 79.9 NB 2 68.0 78.1 Minimum 68.0 77.1 Maximum 74.3 82.3 Energy Average 70.7 79.4 55.7 dBA Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 2.39 70.1 1.79 79.2 SB 2 71.5 80.1 SB 2 73.5 79.6 SB 2 72.1 80.5 SB 2 68.3 77.4 SB 2 69.2 75.5 Minimum 68.3 75.5 Maximum 73.5 80.5 Energy Average 70.8 78.7 55.0 dBA Standard Deviation 1.94 1.91 ImpactTotal Ldn and Pre -Project Ld„ 73 dBA Project Ld„ 58 dBA Impact Level = 66 dBA Ld„ No Notes: • The Ld„ noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ldn is without light rail operations. • Ld,, noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 38 of 65 A-13. Ldr, Measurements for Site N8A Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 8/2/2010 7:00 AM 64.5 Time Block 8/2/2010 8:00 AM 64.8 Time Block 8/2/2010 9:00 AM 64.6 Time Block 8/2/2010 10:00 AM 64.7 Time Block 8/2/2010 11:00 AM 65.7 Time Block 8/2/2010 12:00 PM 65.1 Time Block 8/2/2010 1:00 PM 64.9 Time Block 8/2/2010 2:00 PM 65.9 Time Block 8/2/2010 3:00 PM 67.6 Time Block 8/2/2010 4:00 PM 65.0 Time Block 8/2/2010 5:00 PM 64.7 Time Block 8/2/2010 6:00 PM 64.4 Time Block 8/2/2010 7:00 PM 65.1 Time Block 8/2/2010 8:00 PM 64.4 Time Block 8/2/2010 9:00 PM 64.1 Time Block 8/2/2010 10:00 PM 63.6 Time Block 8/2/2010 11:00 PM 61.6 Time Block 8/2/2010 12:00 AM 60.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 1:00 AM 57.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 2:00 AM 56.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 3:00 AM 57.6 Time Block 8/3/2010 4:00 AM 60.2 Time Block 8/3/2010 5:00 AM 63.2 Time Block 8/3/2010 6:00 AM 64.9 Time Block 8/3/2010 7:00 AM 65.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 8:00 AM 65.0 Time Block 8/3/2010 9:00 AM 65.0 Time Block 8/3/2010 10:00 AM 64.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 11:00 AM 64.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 12:00 PM 64.3 Time Block 8/3/2010 1:00 PM 66.4 Time Block 8/3/2010 2:00 PM 64.1 Time Block 8/3/2010 3:00 PM 65.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 4:00 PM 64.9 Time Block 8/3/2010 5:00 PM 65.0 Time Block 8/3/2010 6:00 PM 64.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 7:00 PM 64.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 8:00 PM 64.5 Time Block 8/3/2010 9:00 PM 64.7 Time Block 8/3/2010 10:00 PM 65.0 Time Block 8/3/2010 11:00 PM 62.2 Time Block 8/3/2010 12:00 AM 60.7 Time Block 8/4/2010 1:00 AM 58.5 Time Block 8/4/2010 2:00 AM 57.1 Time Block 8/4/2010 3:00 AM 57.1 Time Block 8/4/2010 4:00 AM 59.7 Time Block 8/4/2010 5:00 AM 62.9 Time Block 8/4/2010 6:00 AM 64.6 Time Block 8/4/2010 7:00 AM 65.2 Time Block 8/4/2010 8:00 AM 64.9 Page 39 of 65 A-13. Ldn Measurements for Site N8A Data Type Date Time Hourly Leq Time Block 8/4/2010 9:00 AM 63.9 Time Block 8/4/2010 10:00 AM 63.8 Time Block 8/4/2010 11:00 AM 64.4 Time Block 8/4/2010 12:00 PM 64.4 Time Block 8/4/2010 1:00 PM 64.1 Time Block 8/4/2010 2:00 PM 64.1 Time Block 8/4/2010 3:00 PM 64.6 Time Block 8/4/2010 4:00 PM 64.5 Time Block 8/4/2010 5:00 PM 64.8 Time Block 8/4/2010 6:00 PM 64.5 Time Block 8/4/2010 7:00 PM 64.2 Time Block 8/4/2010 8:00 PM 63.9 Time Block 8/4/2010 9:00 PM 63.9 Time Block 8/4/2010 10:00 PM 63.8 Time Block 8/4/2010 11:00 PM 62.2 Time Block 8/4/2010 12:00 AM 60.5 Time Block 8/5/2010 1:00 AM 58.4 Time Block 8/5/2010 2:00 AM 57.3 Time Block 8/5/2010 3:00 AM 57.0 Time Block 8/5/2010 4:00 AM 60.5 Time Block 8/5/2010 5:00 AM 63.1 Time Block 8/5/2010 6:00 AM 64.1 Time Block 8/5/2010 7:00 AM 64.1 Time Block 8/5/2010 8:00 AM 64.1 Time Block 8/5/2010 9:00 AM 65.4 Time Block 8/5/2010 10:00 AM 65.1 Operational Ldn 68.5 dBA Pre -Project Ldn 73.0 dBA Change in Ldn -4.5 dB Allowable Increase see table 1 0.6 dB Impact No Page 40 of 65 A-14. Pass -By Measurements and Ldn Levels for Site N9 Measured data from September 11, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lmax 68.9 SEL 78.0 Project Ldn NB 2 67.7 75.4 NB 2 66.0 75.8 NB 2 67.4 76.7 NB 2 68.4 77.9 NB 2 66.9 76.1 Minimum 66.0 75.4 Maximum 68.9 78.0 Energy Average 67.6 76.7 52.9 dBA Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 1.04 68.3 1.09 76.2 SB 2 68.5 77.8 SB 2 69.1 77.9 SB 2 67.0 77.1 SB 2 70.0 81.1 SB 2 68.4 77.2 Minimum 67.0 76.2 Maximum 70.0 81.1 Energy Average 68.6 77.9 54.2 dBA Standard Deviation 0.99 1.69 ImpactTotal Ldn and Pre -Project Ldn 73 dBA Project Ldn 57 dBA Impact Level = 66 dBA Ldn No Notes: • The Ldn noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ldn is without light rail operations. • Ldn noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 41 of 65 A-15. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N10 Measured data from September 11, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 L,nax 75.9 SEL 83.7 Project Ld„ NB 2 76.4 85.4 NB 2 75.7 84.0 NB 2 75.4 84.1 NB 2 76.8 86.6 NB 2 76.5 84.5 Minimum 75.4 83.7 Maximum 76.8 86.6 Energy Average 76.1 84.7 61.0 dBA Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 0.53 76.4 1.09 85.6 SB 2 75.9 83.6 SB 2 76.5 85.2 SB 2 74.8 83.2 SB 2 72.6 83.5 SB 2 74.5 82.5 Minimum 72.6 61.0 Maximum 76.5 85.6 Energy Average 75.1 83.9 60.2 dBA Standard Deviation 1.48 1.21 ImpactTotal Ldr, and Pre -Project Ld, 73 dBA Project Ld„ 61 dBA Impact Level = 66 dBA Ld„ No Notes: • The Ld noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ldn is without light rail operations. 0 Ld„ noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 42 of 65 A-16. Pass -By Measurements and Ld„ Levels for Site N11 Measured data from SWember 11, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lmax 75.9 SEL 85.8 Project Ld,, NB 2 74.0 81.2 NB 2 74.9 81.9 NB 2 78.3 85.0 NB 2 77.8 85.0 NB 2 76.2 83.3 Minimum 74.0 81.2 Maximum 78.3 85.8 Energy Average 76.2 83.7 60.0 dBA Standard Deviation Southbound SB 2 1.65 80.7 1.87 87.6 SB 2 81.9 87.5 SB 2 80.3 87.4 SB 2 80.6 86.6 SB 2 81.2 87.7 SB 2 81.8 87.2 Minimum 80.3 86.6 Maximum 81.9 87.7 Energy Average 81.1 87.3 63.6 dBA Standard Deviation 0.66 0.40 ImpactTotal Ld, and Pre -Project Ld, 73 dBA Project Ld„ 65 dBA Impact Level = 66 dBA Ld„ No Notes: • The Ldr, noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ldn is without light rail operations. • Ld, noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 43 of 65 A-17. Pass -By Measurements and Ldn Levels for Site N12 Measured data from September 11, 2010 Direction Northbound NB I Cars 2 Lm. 71.9 SEL 78.1 Project Ldn NB 2 76.2 83.8 NB 2 76.5 83.4 NB 1 2 72.0 80.6 NB 2 72.2 80.3 NB 2 69.0 73.9 NB 2 71.9 78.1 Minimum 69.0 73.9 Maximum 76.5 83.8 Energy Average 73.0 80.0 56.3 dBA Standard Southbound SB Deviation 2 2.88 71.5 3.67 77.8 SB 2 72.5 77.4 SB 2 73.4 79.1 SB 2 72.6 76.4 SB 2 74.1 83.3 SB 2 73.7 77.6 SB 2 71.5 77.8 Minimum 71.5 76.4 Maximum 74.1 83.3 Energy Average 73.0 78.6 54.9 dBA Standard Deviation 0.95 2.46 Pre -Project Ldn 73 dBA Project Ldn 59 dBA Impact Level = 66 dBA Ldn No Notes: • The Ld, noise levels are calculated using the average SEL and follow the methods in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, April 2006. • Ambient Ldn is without light rail operations. • Ldn noise levels in Bold -Red typeface exceed the FTA criteria. Page 44 of 65 Attachment B Vibration Measurement Details Vibration levels were measured at four sites along the corridor. The vibration test sites are shown in Attachment C in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Site V 1 is on a dead-end roadway with several single family homes that are currently under construction or improvements, with some buildings appearing to be abandoned. Site V2 is off 48th Ave S, along a retained fill segment of trackway. Site V3 is at the dead end of S 136`h St, near a single family residence. Site V4 is along the retained cut segment of the trackway, south of the S 144Ih Street overpass. The equipment used for the vibration measurements is listed in Table B-1. The accelerometers were mounted to metal plates and driven into the ground using a 6 inch steel stake. Calibration for all equipment is performed on an annual basis by PCB or Rion. Table B-1: Summary of Equipment Digital Recorder Rion Model/Serial DA-20 / 10991298 Factory on 10/25/2009 Accelerometer PCB 393A03 / 25384 Factory on 10/25/2009 Charge Amp PCB 4800O2 / 0009620 Factory on 10/14/2009 The Lmax as well as the RMS average vibration velocity are presented for each location in Tables B2-135. Lmax is the maximum 1-second RMS average using sequential 1-second intervals, not a running average. The "RMS average vibration velocity" is defined as the RMS average vibration velocity over the 3 decibel down points (relative to the 1-second RMS Lmax). Page 45 of 65 Site V1 Table B-2: Summary of Train Vibration Measurement at V1 d: T1 NT SB 55 61.7 64.1 T2 FT NB 55 57.2 58.7 T3 NT SB 55 57.5 59.9 T4 FT NB 55 55.5 57.0 T5 FT NB 55 55.5 57.2 T6 FT NB 55 58.7 60.1 T7 NT SB 55 57.9 60.3 T8 FT NB 55 56.3 58.3 T9 NT SB 55 58.5 60.3 T10 NT SB 55 58.2 60.3 T11 FT NB 55 56.2 58.1 T12 NT SB 55 58.3 60.0 Notes: INT represents near track and FT represents far track. Z SB represents southbound trains and NB represented northbound trains. 3 VdB has a reference value of luin/sec. ° Lmax is the maximum 1-second time constant RMS vibration velocity value. Figure B-1: Time History of Vibration Measurement at Site V1 w 70 m N1 1 65 L 60 m 55 0 50 m G 45 O i 40 a 5 w 35 m t►i 30 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Time, seconds f m 75 � 70 N z 65 m 60 a 55 m 50 45 O 40i 35to i jr 30, 25; 20 Page 46 of 65 Figure B-2: Vibration Spectrum of Train Pass-bys at Site Vl Bkg- _ate %.''►�'vil n, '8 16 31.5 63 125 250 1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz Page 47 of 65 Site V2 Table B-3: Summary of Train Vibration Measurement at V2 0 M RMS Avg. 1 d: T1 NT SB 55 __5 __5 T2 FT NB 55 63.9 65.6 T3 FT NB 55 57.3 59.0 T4 NT SB 55 64.2 65.4 T5 FT NB 55 57.2 58.6 T6 NT SB 55 65.0 66.5 T7 FT NB 55 57.7 58.5 T8 FT NB 55 57.4 58.7 T9 NT SB 55 63.7 65.3 T10 -- NB+SB 55 63.9 65.4 T11 NT SB 55 64.6 66.4 T12 FT NB 55 56.9 58.1 Notes: NT represents near track and FT represents far track. Z SB represents southbound trains and NB represented northbound trains. 3 VdB has a reference value of luin/sec. " Lmax is the maximum 1-second time constant RMS vibration velocity value. 5 Due to unknown interference, the first SB pass -by was not used, although it was still below the FTA criteria. , 75 d d! C 70 Z m 65 l 60 �' S5 'v 0 d 50 p 45 J« �a 40 y 35 30 Figure B-3: Time History of Vibration Measurement at Site V2 0 Soo 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time, seconds F5 75 d 70 N a 65 a, 60 55 m 50 m -J 45 c 40 N 35 30 20 Page 48 of 65 • Figure B-4: Vibration Spectrum of Train Pass-bys at Site V2 I r;I/Ih� •�!� PAr RMN All "8 16 31.5 63 125 250 113 ,OcteVe Band Center Frequency, Hz Page 49 of 65 Site V3 Table B-4: Summary of Train Vibration Measurement at V3 RINIS Avg. Direction' Vibration d: T1 FT NB 55 59.2 60.6 T2 NT SB 55 59.9 62.4 T3 NT SB 55 59.9 61.3 T4 FT NB 55 59.7 61.1 T5 NT SB 55 60.2 60.9 T6 FT NB 55 60.4 62.0 T7 NT SB 55 59.9 60.9 T8 FT NB 55 59.1 60.8 T9 FT NB 55 59.7 61.2 T10 NT SB 55 61.0 62.8 T11 FT NB 55 60.0 61.4 T12 FT NB 55 59.0 60.7 T13 -- NB+SB 55 61.7 64.3 Notes: 1 NT represents near track and FT represents far track. 2 SB represents southbound trains and NB represented northbound trains. 3 VdB has a reference value of Iuin/sec. " Lmax is the maximum 1-second time constant RMS vibration velocity value. 70 d N Z 65 r d m 60 �. 55 O 50 c 0 45 v40 m 35 Figure B-5: Time History of Vibration Measurement at Site V3 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Time, seconds A Page 50 of 65 Figure B-6: Vibration Spectrum of Train Pass-bys at Site V3 .� ' 1 5,:Ell, 8 16 31.5 63 125 250 1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz r - • Page 51 of 65 Site V4 Table B-5: Summary of Train Vibration Measurement at V4 m RMS Avg. M d: lritv- V1, T1 FT NB 55 59.0 61.3 T2 NT SB 55 59.5 61.0 T3 FT NB 55 61.2 62.2 T4 NT SB 55 59.0 61.0 T5 FT NB 55 58.9 60.5 T6 NT SB 55 60.1 61.9 T7 NT SB 55 -- -- T8 FT NB 55 60.3 62.0 T9 NT SB 55 59.9 60.9 T10 FT NB 55 59.8 61.7 T11 NT SB 55 57.5 58.9 T12 FT NB 55 61.1 62.9 Notes: NT represents near track and FT represents far track. Z SB represents southbound trains and NB represented northbound trains. 3 VdB has a reference value of Iuin/sec. " Lmax is the maximum 1-second time constant RMS vibration velocity value. 5 Due to unknown interference, pass -by T7 was not used, although it was still below the FTA criteria. , 75 a) z 70 e- L m 65 60 O 55 c O 50 a. v 45 IV H 40 Figure B-7: Time History of Vibration Measurement at Site V4 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Time, seconds 75 d 70 y z 65 60 55 50 45 c 40 N 351 30� 25 20 Page 52 of 65 Figure B-8: Vibration Spectrum of Train Pass-bys at Site V4 • O �a Wo 8 16 31.5 63 125 250 1/3 ,Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz T Page 53 of 65 Attachment C Maps of the Project Corridor with Monitoring Sites, Existing and Proposed Mitigation Figure 4: S 131st to S 139th Figure 5: S 139th to S 148th Figure 6: S 148th to S 154th Figure 7: S 154th and Park and Ride SR-518 Light Rail Alignment Overview map showing the boundaries of each of the six detailed maps Michael Minor & Associates Sound.Vibration.Air Portland, Oregon Figure 2: S 115th St to S 124th Figure 3: S 124th to S 131st 0 500 1000 2000 —1.00 in pproximate Scale 1 inch to 1000 fee (11 x 17 inch format) Figure 1 Project Area Overview and Master Index Q Noise Monitoring Location�m_ 0 100 2000 4000 Figure 2 —� 00;n—, Noise and Vibration Qo Vibration Monitoring Location M Monitoring Sites $ound.Vibration.Air Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet Portland, Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) 1 � 1 C 0 Type 2 Sound Walls = = = = = = Existing Sound Walls = = = = = w Vibration Mitigation c 3 cu c �, Resilient Fasteners 1 v' Sound Wall 1 V1 (R6 in Final Design Report) Vibration Mitigation S 128th St~G�6 d� S N2 (R8 in Final Design Report) Sound WaU Location � s S 13Oth St chi,a`s9 �f a • Noise Monitoring Location t 0-10 00 200 400 Figure 3 O Vibration MonitoringLocation —1.00 in -- I I Noise and Vibration Michael Minor & Associates Monitoring Sites Sound.Vibration.Air Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet Portland, Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) Type 2 Sound Walls Existing Sound Walls o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vibration Mitigation - - -- -- - A X" AF ♦' '` ' r 1` j y v ` - ` F 4 ' ' ' , ram. ,>►, Type 2 Sound Wall B P © Installed Summer 2010 j Begin wall at cl st 667+00 fit r 2 End integrates with existing sound wall at cl st 671+50 \\ ? Total Length = 450 feet h `LLB i N3 + V2 (R3 in Supplemental Report) ' -S 41M O's `.'Ip n R, 6 Resilient Fasteners 2 of .Mlr in 1A N4 + V3 (R4 in Supplemental Report) ; !" Sound Wall Location Ilk" F , Vibration Mitigation p Sound Wall 2 ll Noise Monitoring Location T 22 0o 4 Figure 4 y r-1.00in-5,Noise and Vibration Qo Vibration Monitoring Location Michael Minor & Associates Monitoring Sites Sound.YbrationAir Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet Portland, Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) ' N5 (R10/R11 in Final Design Report) Sound Wall Location , Y " ` Type 2 Sound Walls Existing Sound Walls o 0 0 0 0 o c Vibration Mitigation i Sound Wall 2 - ► : N iT- -� ��' ell i N6 (R13 in Final Design Report) �\CO Sound Wall Location . `` ,,. + \ LAI ��. 0to cr— S 144th St 1 V4 (1116 in Final Design Report) Vibration Mitigation ° ;. Resilient Fasteners 3 If Replaced track in this area D 1 to remedy bad weld joint. �+ Eliminated vibration impact ON Noise Monitoring Location — '� 0 100 z Figure 5 Cod' Vibration Monitoring Location r —1.00 in— � Noise and Vibration J 9 Michael Minor & Associates Monitoring Sites Sound.VibrationAir ' Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet, Portland. Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) i 1, t p , - 154th Park and Ridej yy"' (Sound Wall 61 . . N14 (R?. in 154th Park and RidervReport) l oi` Sound Nall Location - _ r « N13 (R33 in Final Design Report and R4 in 154th Park and Ride Report)% Sound (Mall Location SOW ' Sound Wall 5 ! ' ' ` : , ` ar4 yy i A¢, !',` 1 #y F "..\tea + ,y.':`yS . ,• , 47 i. 3,i ,'; Ir '1°. N M12 ( R29 in Final Design Re {, Sound Wall locpatio) •, .': C' < ► =3 .a = rat : r ° 42nd Ave S r!_ Jj ilt. jj r . t it 2 r # ' ; '' ,,, 'a yam• h! y Nil (R27 in Final Design Report) *'' a y No impact identified +T' C 1 a J. '9 Type 2 Sound Walls Existing Sound Walls o E-- i—_ o c E Ir v) Vibration Mitigation t ;„ i 1 Noise Monitoring Location `-- Li/ 0 , 200 a 10 Figure 7 — 1.0o in Noise and Vibration Vibration Monitoring Location Michael Minor $ Associates • Uionitoring Sites Sound.YbrationAir Approximate Scale 1 inch to 200 feet Portland, Oregon (11 x 17 inch format) r Page 61 of 65 Attachment D Operational Schedule Initial Segment/Airport Link Headways Operating Plan Weekday Frequencies Service Time of Day Type 5:00 am - 6:00 am Early/Late 1.0 Train ..Consist Size 15 2 6:00 am - 8:30 am Peak 2.5 6 2 8:30 am - 3:00 pm Base 6.5 10 2 3:00 pm - 6:30 pm Peak 3.5 6 2 6:30 pm - 10:00 pm Base 3.5 10 2 10:00 pm - 1:00 am Early/Late 3.0 15 2 Total 20.0 "w -low Page 62 of 65 Attachment E Photos of the 154th Ave Park and Ride Sound Wall f .•. '1 ' a i —1 d 4 ` 2'4 « 3 l: Sound Wall- - _ A . _ r-. Photo 1 Photo 2 Noise Barrier at the 154th Park and Ride Photos taken from the parking area looking east toward apartments 14 • • b `77 14, `*Alm XN Minnie Dhaliwal From: Minnie Dhaliwal Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:33 PM To: Kriedt, Gary (Gary.Kriedt@kingcounty.gov) Cc: Zacharias, Gillian (Gillian.Zacharias@kingcounty.gov); James Irish, Sound Transit (irishj@soundtransit.org) Subject: FW: Tukwila International Blvd. Station, Metro Restriping Permit (1-12-017) Attachments: ST station noise report.pdf; Attachment E Final Noise and Vibration Monitoring Plan Tukwila-7-2-09.pdf Gary, I am resending the email below as it came back as undeliverable due to large size. I have removed one of the attachments that I will send separately. From: Minnie Dhaliwal Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:10 PM To: 'Kriedt, Gary' Cc: Zacharias, Gillian; James Irish, Sound Transit; Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Tukwila International Blvd. Station, Metro Restriping Permit (L12-017) Gary, In order for the city to issue a decision on the restriping we need to include findings in the staff report of how the proposal meets the city regulations, noise standards being one of them. At this time we have a report submitted with the application indicating anticipated noise levels of 62 dba at the adjacent property. As we discussed on the phone the noise levels have to meet not only FTA standards but also city's noise standards of 57 dba during daytime and 47 dba at night. Sound Transit noise monitoring report makes no mention of accounting for additional noise due to adding layover spaces. Therefore at a minimum we need a revised report showing how the current proposal complies with the FTA and City noise codes. I have attached the original noise analysis, 2009 monitoring plan and 2010 noise level monitoring . report prepared by Sound Transit. I hope these reports help you prepare a report to submit with your application. Additionally, more information regarding layover spaces should be discussed such as if layover buses will be idling or turned off and whether the layover spaces will be used at night or not. I will be out of the office for a week starting tomorrow, if you need to discuss the noise standards in my absence you can reach Stacy MacGregor. I have copied her to this email so you have her email address and she is office on Tues, Wed, and Thursday next week. Minnie Minnie Dhaliwal Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila 206-431-3685 M From: Kriedt, Gary [maiIto: Gary.Kriedt@kingcounty.govl Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:25 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal Cc: Zacharias, Gillian; James Irish, Sound Transit Subject: RE: Tukwila International Blvd. Station, Metro Restriping Permit (1-12-017) Thank you Minnie. We request that the City allow Sound Transit's three-year noise monitoring results, particularly at N 14 immediately across the wall from the layover area (see attached), to act as our documentation of compliance with the City's noise code. Again, buses have been laying over adjacent to the noise wall since the opening of the facility, and the measurements taken at N14 as part of Sound Transit's City -approved monitoring plan already include our layover noise. Additional measurements by us would not provide any new information. To clarify, the three-year monitoring plan states that "compliance with the FTA noise criteria and the City of Tukwila ordinance will be performed by measuring the bus and vehicle operation at the park -and -ride during peak operational and nighttime hours under normal revenue service." We would like to move ahead with the restriping as soon as possible in order to improve safety, a major concern of ours at that location. I don't see how we can reasonably justify paying thousands of dollars for noise measurements that are already being taken and that will not affect the outcome of the restriping approval. Thank you! Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner Metro Transit 201 South Jackson St., MS KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 88104-3856 (206) 684-1166 cell: (206) 818-8647 . gary.kriedt0kingcountv.pov From: Minnie Dhaliwal [mailto:Minnie.Dhaliwal@TukwilaWA.govl Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:46 PM To: Kriedt, Gary Subject: RE: Tukwila International Blvd. Station, Metro Restriping Permit (1-12-017) Hi Gary, As we discussed on the phone, the park and ride lot is not exempt per TMC 8.22.090, therefore please provide documentation that the additional layover spaces do comply with City's noise code as well as FTA standards. Minnie Minnie Dhaliwal Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila 206-431-3685 From: Kriedt, Gary jmaiIto: Gary.Kriedt@kingcounty.govl Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:26 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Tukwila International Blvd. Station, Metro Restriping Permit (1-12-017) Hi Minnie — I'm working with Johnnie Butler, Metro Transit, on the parking lot restriping permit (1-12-017), and I'm looking at noise compliance associated with this. I'm trying to put the pieces of all this together to make sure we meet your requirements per the letter to Johnnie dated July 5, 2012. To demonstrate compliance with FTA noise requirements, I completed a noise analysis per FTA criteria using conservative assumptions (March 6, 2012). That analysis showed no impact from buses laying over by the noise wall. To meet the City's code requirements, I believe Sound Transit has been monitoring the site since the start of revenue service (for a three year period). Metro buses have been laying over by the noise wall, at the location of the restriping, since the beginning of light rail revenue service. Assuming Sound Transit's noise monitoring has demonstrated compliance with the City's Noise Code, then our buses also meet the City's Noise Code since bus noise is part of their compliance monitoring. Although I believe the bus activity at the park -and -ride is exempt per Tukwila Code 8.22.090 because the park -and -ride meets the definition of a public highway, please let me know if this approach using Sound Transit's noise compliance monitoring is satisfactory for the purposes of the restriping permit Thank you very much! Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner Metro Transit 201 South Jackson St., MS KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 (206) 684-1166 call: (206) 818-8647 gary.kriedtAkingcounty.gov ® Noise Monitoring Location o ioo 200 aoo Figure 7 ,. o i Proposed Noise and Vibration Monitoring Location Michael Minor&Associates Vibration Monitoring Sites ■ Structure Identified with Impact Sour land, Oregon Approximate Scale nch Inchto200 feet p Portland, Oregon () City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION July 5, 2012 Johnnie A. Butler 201 South Jackson Street Mail Stop- KSC-TR-0431 Seattle WA 98104 RE: Sound Transit Tukwila International Boulevard Station (TIBBS) —parking lot restriping permit; L12-017 Dear Ms. Butler: Your application for parking lot restriping to accommodate additional bus layover spaces was deemed complete on July 2, 2012. However additional clarification is needed to show compliance of the proposed project with the City's Noise Code- TMC 8.22. Sound Transit's Park and Ride lot not only has to be in compliance with the FTA noise criteria but also with the City of Tukwila's Noise Code TMC 8.22. Tukwila's noise code can be found online at http://records.tukwilawa. gov/WebLink8/l /doc/33172/Electronic.aspx Also, attached for your reference is the noise monitoring plan that was prepared by Sound Transit and approved by the City of Tukwila. This document outlines the noise compliance criteria for Sound Transit facilities in Tukwila. Please submit a revised noise report documenting how the proposed project complies with both FTA and City of Tukwila's Noise Code. If you have any questions you can reach me by phone at 206-431-3685 or via email at Minnie.dhaliwal(a�tukwilawa.gov Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Planning Supervisor Attachment: Sound Transit's noise monitoring plan Exhibit A: Fleet and Operations Information Here are the buses and approximate times when the approved layover sites are occupied and operators would end up using the new layover on the northwest side of the facility. These coaches are already operating through the facility and are not additional trips. Note that there are no coaches that would need to use this new space after 6PM as the evening schedules ease up enough to allow for all operating coaches to use the normally assigned space. Given the limited layover space currently available at Tukwila Station, the coaches listed below are probably already using the proposed space because there is nowhere else to go. All drivers are instructed to turn off buses when laying over. Weekdays: 6:00 - 6:15 AM: 2600 Hybrid Diesel New Flyer Artic 6:15 - 6:30 AM: 2600 Hybrid Diesel New Flyer Artic 8:00 - 8:15 AM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 9:00 - 9:15 AM: 2600 Hybrid Diesel New Flyer Artic 9:30 - 9:45 AM: 2600 Hybrid Diesel New Flyer Artic 11:00 - 11:15 AM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 11:30 - 11:45 AM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 12:00 - 12:15 PM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 12:30 - 12:45 PM: 2600 Hybrid Diesel New Flyer Artic 1:00 - 1:15 PM: 2600 Hybrid Diesel New Flyer Artic 1:30 - 1:45 PM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 3:00 - 3:15 PM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 3:15 - 3:30 PM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 3:30 - 3:45 PM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic 4'.30 - 4:45 PM: 2600 Hybrid Diesel New Flyer Artic 5:30 - 5:45 PM: 2300 Diesel New Flyer Artic Total number of coaches that would use the new layover on weekdays: 16 There are no overlapping coaches on Saturdays. On Sundays there are two instances in the afternoon, between 3:00 - 3:15 PM and between 3:30 - 3:45 PM when the normal space is occupied and two coaches would need to use the new space. These would be 40 foot diesel Gillig coaches. The interior circulation will change. The roadway where the layover is proposed is currently two- way. The creation of the layover will add a concrete sidewalk bulb (near "East Drive" area on drawing No. 31.01) and eliminate the southwest direction of traffic. Buses currently travel northeast from Southcenter Boulevard to the bus bays. If they have a layover, after discharging passengers they continue south and then loop through the site back to the layover at the north corner. Future buses will follow the same route, but if the main layovers are occupied, they will stop at the new layovers. r 4 0 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 E-mail: planning@TukwilaWA.gov SPECIAL PERMISSION - DIRECTOR FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type. P-SP Planner: ��pt�,,` (�(��f� r File Number: Application Complete Date: Project File Number: Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECUDEVELOPMENT: King County Metro Transit Bus Layover Striping. �� Ili LOCATION OF PROJECUDEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. Sound Transit Tukwila International Boulevard Station (TIBBS) - Please see additional project description on attached construction notes. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 004300-0300 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Johnnie A. Butler - for (Lori Kittredge) Address: 201 South Jackson Street - Mail Stop - KSC-TR-0431 - Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Phone: (206)684-1333 E-mail: johnnie.butler@kingcounty.gov FAX: eA >' d Signature: Date: � I H:U.and Use Applications in PDF\Special Pemrission Director -March 201 Ldoc J(IN 0 4 20121 ME�OPM T °IVD JUN 0 4 20121 COMMUNfTY DEVELOPMEM'C CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. HATCH AREA WITH 4" WIDE WHITE PAINT AT 2'-0" ON CENTER INSTALL FIVE (5) SURFACE MOUNT 24" HIGH DELINEATORS @ 2'-0' O.C. WITH REFLECTIVE SURFACE FACING WEST PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 2. REPLACE STOP SIGN WITH "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN ON EXISTING POST. -SALVAGE STOP SIGN TO SOUND TRANSIT. %A INSTALL E-20 LEFT ARROW TURN WITH DURASTRIP. 213 INSTALL "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN ON A 2"X2" STEEL POLE PER WSDOT SIGN FOOTING STANDARD. 3. DESIGNATE BUS LAYOVER SPACES WITH 4" WIDE WHITE LINES. STALL SIZE SHALL BE 65 FT X 9 FT WIDE. 4. STRIPE AREA WITH 4" WHITE PAVEMENT PAINT:,AT..45 DEGREE AND 2 FT 0. C. 5. PAINT 48" HIGH "BUS ONLY" PAVEMENT MARKER AT CENTER OF EACH LAYOVER SPACE. 6. PAINT 48" HIGH -10 MPH" PAVEMENT MARKER, 2 LOCATIONS TYPICAL. 7. ONE WAY ARROW, WHITE PAVEMENT MARKER PER WSDOT STANDARD 10-10. 8. REMOVE "NO PARKING - ANY TIME" SIGN FROM WOOD POST AND REPLACE SIGN WITH "NO PARKING - EXCEPT BUSES", (R7-7). 9. REMOVE `NO PARKING .- ANY TIME" SIGN FROM CMU WALL AND REPLACE SIGN WITH "NO PARKING - EXCEPT BUSES" (R7-7) , 2 TYPICAL. D Please consult the Zoning Code or Sign Code as to the appropriate criteria for your specific proposals. In addition all approvals must be consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (TMC 18.100.030). Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18. Planning Division Staff are available to discuss the decision criteria you must respond to and necessary supporting materials. PARKING DEVIATION • Covenant Parking: where required parking is provided off -site (TMC 18.56.070(B)); • Complementary Parking: where up to 10% of a development's useable floor area is determined to be linked to remaining area, such that it need not provide the normally required parking (TMC 18.56.070(D)); • Reduction of the minimum required parking of up to 10%, through an administrative variance (TMC 18.56.140). A parking reduction may be allowed after: 1. All shared parking strategies are explored. 2. On -site park and ride opportunities are fully explored. 3. The site is in compliance with the City's commute trip reduction ordinance or, if not an affected employer as defined by the City's ordinance, agrees to become affected. 4. The site is at least 300 feet away from a single-family residential zone. 5. A report is submitted providing a basis for less parking and mitigation necessary to offset any negative effects. In addition to the above requirements, the Director may require specific measures not listed to ensure that all impacts with reduced parking are mitigated. Any spillover parking that cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director will serve as the basis for denial. LANDSCAPE DEVIATIONS The landscape perimeter may be averaged if the total required square footage is achieved, unless the landscaping requirement has been increased due to proximity to LDR, MDR or HDR. Landscape perimeter averaging may be allowed as a Type 2 special permission decision if all of the following criteria are met: 1. Plant material can be clustered to more effectively screen parking areas and blank building walls. 2. Perimeter averaging enables significant trees or existing built features to be retained. 3. Perimeter averaging is used to reduce the number of driveways and curb cuts and allow joint use of parking facilities between neighboring businesses. 4. Width of the perimeter landscaping is not reduced to the point that activities on the site become a nuisance to neighbors. 5. Averaging does not diminish the quality of the site landscape as a whole. • In the MDR and HDR zones up to 20% of the minimum required front yard landscaped area may be developed for pedestrian and transit facilities. • In the RCC and TUC zones required landscaping may include a mix of plant materials, pedestrian amenities and features, outdoor caf6-type seating and similar features. Required plant materials will be reduced in proportion to the amount of perimeter area devoted to pedestrian oriented space. HALand Use Apphcations in PDFlspecial Pemussion Director -March 201 Ldoc 3-4-11 SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE — Deviations, Alterations or Uses Requiring Administrative Review and Approval • Setbacks TMC 18.45.080(E) and TMC 18.45.100(D). All commercial and industrial developments shall be set back 15 feet and all residential development shall be set back ten feet, measured from the foundation to the buffer's edge. The Director may waive setback requirements when a site plan demonstrates there will be no impacts to the buffer zone from construction or occasional maintenance activities. • Buffer Reductions TMC 18.45.080(F) and TMC 18.45.100(E). (Please note, no buffer reduction is permitted where the buffer consists of undisturbed, native vegetation.) The Director may reduce the standard wetland/watercourse buffers on a case -by -case basis, provided the buffer does not contain slopes 15% or greater. Under certain circumstances, a buffer reduction may be considered for property with slopes less than 15% (see TMC 18.45.080(F) and 18.45.100(E)). The approved buffer width shall not result in greater than a 50% reduction in width. Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct or indirect, short-term or long-term adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses, and that: 1. Additional protection to wetlands will be provided through the implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; 2. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded; 3. Buffer enhancement includes, but is not limited to the following: (a) Planting vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife habitat or improve water quality; (b) Enhancement of wildlife habitat by incorporating structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood duck boxes, bat boxes, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses and heron nesting areas; or (b) Removing non-native plant species and noxious weeds from the buffer area and replanting the area subject to TMC 18.45.080(F)(2)(c)(1). • Uses Requiring Administrative Review and Approval The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the Director — see TMC 18.45.070(B) or TMC 18.45.110(B) for additional guidance: 1. Maintenance & repair of existing uses/facilities where additional fill will be placed or heavy equipment used; 2. New surface water discharges to a sensitive area; 3. Placement of bioswales and dispersion outfalls in a wetland or watercourse buffer; 4. Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping with native plants; 5. Construction of essential utilities; 6. Construction of new essential public streets, roads and rights of way; 7. Public or private use and access; 8. Dredging, digging or filling in a sensitive area or its buffer; 9. Removal of hazardous trees from a sensitive area; 10. Transfer of wetland mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank (TMC 18.45.090(E)) or other off -site mitigation. • Alterations Requiring Administrative Review and Approval by the Director (TMC 18.45.090(B), TMC 18.45.110(B)). 1. Piping, rerouting or diverting a watercourse 2. Any alteration to a sensitive area or its buffers, including vegetation removal, or alterations to wetlands less than 1,000 sq. ft. (see TMC 18.45.090(B)(5)); 3. Approval of a Sensitive Area Master Plan or any alteration to an approved Sensitive Area Master Plan HALand Use Applications in PDF\Special Percussion Director -March 201 Ldoc 3-4-11 CARGO CONTAINERS Approval criteria for cargo containers to be installed in the LDR, MDR, and HDR zones for institutional uses and in the RC, RCM, TUC or C/LI zones for permitted or conditional uses: • Only two cargo containers will be allowed per lot, maximum length 40 feet. • The container is located to minimize the visual impact to adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights -of -way as determined by the Director. • The cargo container is sufficiently screened from adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights -of -way, as determined by the Director. Screening may be a combination of solid fencing, landscaping, or the placement of the cargo containers behind, between or within buildings. • If located adjacent to a building, the cargo container must be painted to match the building's color. • Cargo containers may not occupy any required off-street parking spaces. • Cargo containers shall meet all setback requirements for the zone. • Outdoor cargo containers may not be refrigerated. • Outdoor cargo containers may not be stacked. SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN STANDARD EXCEPTIONS The design standards required at 18.50.050 (5) and (6) may be modified by the DCD Director. The criteria for approval of a roof pitch flatter than 5:12 are as follows: 1. The proposed roof pitch is consistent with the style of the house (for example modern, southwestern); 2. If a flat roof is proposed, the top of the parapet may not exceed 25 feet in height; 3. If a sloped roof is proposed, it must have at least 24-inch eaves; and 4. The house exhibits a high degree of design quality, including a mix of exterior materials, detailing, articulation and modulation. • The criteria for approval of a house with a front door that faces the side or rear yard are as follows: 1. The topography of the lot is such that pedestrian access is safer or more convenient from the side or rear yard; 2. The house will be set back at least twice the minimum front yard setback; 3. The entrance is oriented to take advantage of a site condition such as a significant view; or 4. The entry feature is integral to a unique architectural design. HALand Use Applications in PDFeSpecial Permission Director -March 201 Ldoc 3-4-11 Tukwila International Blvd. Layover, Noise March 6, 2012 Analysis Criteria To determine potential noise impacts associated with the bus layover area, we used analysis criteria in FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. In the diagram to the right, the closest noise receptors are about 25 feet from the layover area, with a 12 foot wall (approximately) intervening. Noise Analysis The noise analysis assurnes two h"Qpcz maximum laying over per hour. To determine potential noise impacts from this, we calculated project noise using FTA noise guidelines and compared this to measured Ldn noise (from Sound Transit's 2005 Airport Link EA). Using the most conservative assumptions, the result shows no impact based oh FTA review criteria. Existing hlcsise The existing measured Ldn noise level at the site is approximately 71 dBA per Sound Transit's May 2005 Airport Link EA, measured at NM28 immediately east of the International Blvd. station, West Colonial Village. Project Noise Noise generated by buses laying over is calculated to be 63.0 dBA. This estimate is based on the following formulas from FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. Volume Adjustment based on hourly vehicular traffic generated by the project (page 5-11, Table 5-6). CN = 101og (NA12000 + NB124) Hourly Leq at 50 ft. for each hourly CN level (page 5-10, Table 5-5; reference SEL = 101 for a park -and -ride lot — same for transit center): Leq (h) = SEILref + CN ® 36.6 Daytime and Nighttime Leq: The next calculation is daytime and nighttime Leqs at 50 ft. (page 5-11, Table 5- 6): Leq. (day) = 10log [(1115) 1lam-IOPM 10 Leq(h)fl 0 Leq (night) = 10log [(119) y 1 Opm_7am 10 Leq,h)110] Ldn: Potential impacts to Category 2 land uses (residences) are assessed in terms of Ldn. To calculate Ldn from Leq information, the following formula is used (Page 5-11, Table 5-6): Ldn = 10 log [(15) X 10 (Leq(day)110) + (9) X 10 (Leq(night)+101l0)1 -13.8 Ldn = 10 log 105) x 10 (56.2 dBA/10) + (9) x 10 (52.2 dBA+1Oil 0� -13.8 Ldn = 69.0 dBA 59.0 dBA is the project noise level at 50 ft. With a Distance Correction of 4 dBA (page 5-13, Figure 5-2) to account for the reduced distance (25 feet instead of 50), the Ldn is reduced: Ldn = 63.0 dBA Noise Impact Project noise falls in the `No Impact' area as shown below. Those results are based on conservative assumptions including the following: two buses laying over (more likely one per hour); existing Ldn measurements did not include noise from light rail operations (so existing Ldn noise is probably noticeably higher); the analysis does not take the existing noise wall into consideration (noise wall reduces the potential noise impact); the residences are topographically lower than the light rail station (further reducing impact). The results indicate that the bus layover is not likely to result in a significant impact to nearby residences. 80 75 #N V C 70 r 0 9 6 U�5 j N 60 •v J 55 .5 z t 50 ,2 d 45 40 E t e t t 1 I I 1 1 t I 1 _-;-_i -_--- 4-------t------------ i------1___ -- i-- - 1 t • I t 1 ! t 1 E t 1 1 i SEVERE WPA T I I 1 1 1 1 i t I t I i I 1 p I { i •l f 1 t ------,------- - ---------l---- {------------------ e t 1 t t IMPACT 1 ! r t t 1 1 ----_-i -----i---- ! ----- ------ 1 1 1 �------ ------1----- I I 1 f I 1 t I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 f I 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 ! I I I 1 1 ' I 1 1 I NO IOPA�T Note' Noise exposure is in terms t I of Leq (h) for Category 1 and 3 land uses, Ld, for ! 1 ! I Category 2 land uses. 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Existing Noise Exposure (dBA) 85 80 M 75 c v 70 Uca Q 65 C 0 w� 4� 60 •a z V 55 'o a 50 45 80 ,Noise Analysis, Ldn Calculation 3/6/2012 from FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 Project Noise Exposure Ldn Equation from Table 5-6, page 5-11 Volume Adjustment: Cn=101og(Na/2000+Nb/24) Hourly Leq, 50 ft.: Leq(h) = SELref+Cn-35.6 Daytime Leq, 50 ft.: Leq(day) = 10log[(1/15) sum7am-10pm Leq 10 Leq(h)/10] Nighttime Leq, 50 ft.: Leq(night) = 10log[(1/9) sum10pm-7am Leq 10 Leq(h)+10/101 Ldn at 50 ft.: Ldn =10 log [(15) x 10 (Leq(day)/10) + (9) x 10 (Leq(night)+10/10)] -13.8 No. of No. of Additional Additional Sum Leq(day) Time Autos (Na) Buses (Nb) Cn Leq(h) Leq(h) log Leq(night) Ldn 7-8 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 8-9 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 9-10 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 10-11 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 11-12 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 12-1 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 1-2 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 2-3 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 34 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 4-5 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 5-6 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 6-7 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 7-8 pm 0 2 -10.79- 54.6 288947.3754 8-9 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 9-10 pm 0 2 . -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 54.6 10-11 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 11-12 pm 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 12-1 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 1-2 am 0 0.01 -33.80 31.6 1444.736877 2-3 am 0 0.01 -33.80 31.6 1444.736877 3-4 am 0 0.01 -33.80 31.6 1444.736877 4-5 am 0 0.01 -33.80 31.6 1444.736877 5-6 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 6-7 am 0 2 -10.79 54.6 288947.3754 52.1 59.0 0 Distance Adjustment per figure 5-2 (25 ft., add 4 dBA): 4.0 Ldn: 63.0 Measured Ldn 71.0 source: Sound Transit, May 2005 Michcd Nina' &Assodctes Sand. Mdrdicn . Ar 2535 N E 22nd Aven.e Pcrta)d Oregn97212 503.220.0495 - fa 503.284.0583 December, 2003 To: James Irish From: Michael Minor Project: LINK Light Rail 1541h Street Park & Ride Subject: Noise Analysis Introduction This memorandum summarizes a detailed noise analysis performed for the 154fh Street Park and Ride Facility. The analysis was performed as part of an additional analysis of potential noise impacts in Segment E of the LINK Light Rail Project. Project Description Sound Transit is proposing a park and ride facility at the intersection of International Blvd. and S. 154`h Street. Currently, the proposed location is a parking lot with shuttle service to and from the airport and is zoned Regional Commercial by the City of Tukwila. The new proposed facility is part of the LINK Light Rail System and has the capacity of providing up to 670 vehicle parking spots, passenger drop-off locations (kiss-n-ride), bus connections, and a light rail station. The facility will also support shuttle bus transfers to and from Seattle International Airport. Area Land Use Land use near the proposed facility includes multi -family residential uses to the east, and commercial and industrial on all other sides. The residential uses to the east are the primary reason for this noise analysis. Figure 1 provides an overview of the proposed facility and shows the closest residential uses. Basic Introduction to Noise All noise levels referred to in this report that are for the purpose of evaluating potential impacts are stated as sound pressure levels in terms of decibels on the A -scale (dBA). Noise levels stated in terms of dBA approximate the response of the human ear by filtering out some of the noise in the low and high frequency ranges that the ear does not detect well. The A -scale is used in most ordinances and standards. Noise metrics used for the purpose of impact evaluation include the Lr; and the La.,. The sound level descriptor Ln is defined as the sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time. For example, the L25 is the sound level exceeded 25 percent of the time; therefore during a 1-hour measurement, an L25 of 60 dBA means the sound level equaled or exceeded 60 dBA for 15 minutes during that hour. The Lma., is defined as the maximum RMS (root -mean square) sound level, in dBA, measured during a preset measurement period. j i I �•Ifl �!�I e�t / ------------- • i ��ll.i� �rii I ; .• (� Property Line �4Cb if 17/1 r / • f f j qi tttt ; 1 1E3 �! ' .t 1 1.../ I `� i I � Ir t � UU 11 � ? � 0r / �'i 1 /` � �i •,i a/e00/eyar t -t, i -J;L .� ry;i Figure 1 Residential Land Uses X.�:�. q- Project Area Land Use 0 25 50 100 200 Michael Minor &Associates 154th Park 8 Ride Noise Analysis Sound —Vibration —Air Scale 1 to too 14-1.00 in z INt Portland Oregon LINK Light Rail O 5 U U O 7 J C In n cc L, ccLn CN U 11 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. HATCH AREA WITH 4" WIDE WHITE PAINT AT 2'-0" ON CENTER INSTALL FIVE (5) SURFACE MOUNT 24" HIGH DELINEATORS @ 2'-0" O.C. WITH REFLECTIVE SURFACE FACING WEST PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. �1 1€ II 2. REPLACE STOP SIGN WITH "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN ON EXISTING POST. 11 SALVAGE STOP SIGN TO SOUND TRANSIT. 2:`. INSTALL L-20 LEFT ARROW TURN WITH DURASTRIP. �I }.I 2B INSTALL "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN ON A 2"X2" STEEL POLE PER WSDOT �I II SIGN FOOTING STANDARD. ' I 3. DESIGNATE BUS LAYOVER SPACES WITH 4" WIDE WHITE LINES. STALL I SIZE SHALL BE 65 FT X 9 FT WIDE. I 4. STRIPE AREA WITH 4" WHITE PAVEMENT PAINT-AT.45 DEGREE AND 2 FT O.C. I I 5. PAINT 48" HIGH "BUS ONLY" PAVEMENT MARKER AT CENTER OF EACH l I LAYOVER SPACE. 1 1 I 6. PAINT 48" HIGH 10 MPH" PAVEMENT MARKER, 2 LOCATIONS TYPICAL. I,1 41 7. ONE WAY ARROW, WHITE PAVEMENT MARKER PER WSDOT STANDARD 1 I 10-10. I' ' I 8. REMOVE "NO PARKING — ANY TIME" SIGN FROM WOOD. POST AND II REPLACE SIGN WITH "NO PARKING — EXCEPT BUSES", (R7-7). 11 I11 9. REMOVE "NO PARKING — ANY TIME" SIGN FROM CMU WALL AND `1 REPLACE SIGN WITH "NO PARKING — EXCEPT BUSES" (R7-7) , 2 TYPICAL. �1 /Illll� ul / TIBS PARKING LOT SITE PL BUS LAYOVER MARKINGS PROJECT SCALE I" = 40'-0" . LEFT ARROW N DESIGN & ?NSTFIVC- TION JUN 0 4 20121 DEIELORN�T U 1 4 OF w SNi To� q 9 /may. -p a56o F015TER� t� S�O S�ONAL I ExaieEs S!'=/ e / _ iet' `/! DESIGNED: J BROWN CHECKED: P. ENG Kin G®unt d �T Department of P Transportation METRO TRANSIT DIVISION TUKWILLA INTERNATIONAL BLVD STATION (TIBS) BUS LAYOVER STRIPING DATE. MAY 2012 ZY—�- DRAWN: J BROWN SCALE: 1" = 40 —0 FILE NO: RECOMMENDED: CCA DRAWING N0: C 1.01 Q CONTRACT NO: No. r REVISON BY APP'D DATE APPROVED: D CRIPPEN SHEET NO: OF 1 1 W6 t0� 'Wp�S�l e F?F Innovative Traffic Safety Products TD5300 REPO POST TM SURFACE MOUNT DELINEATOR SPECIFICATIONS • Dimensions of Tube: Heights: 18, 24, 28, 36, 42 & 48 Inches. Width: 3 inches. ® Tube Colors: Fluorescent Orange, Yellow or White. • Repo Post Delineator is a two-piece design consist- • Tube Material: UV Stabilized Polymer. ing of a reboundable tube and ABS base fastened Dioxin -Free. together with two polymer alloy pins. • Can be ordered with or without sheeting. 3.00 • Base Material: ABS • All sheeting complies with ASTM 4956.01 standards. 0 0 2.00 E-8.00 —� Repo Post Base & Pins (2 incl.). 430 N. Varney Burbank, CA 91502 Tel: (877) 843-9757 Fax: (818) 841-5096 Web: www.trafficwks.com FEATURES: COLORS AVAILABLE: • Perfect for parking lots, islands and work zones, The TD5300 Surface Mount Delineators temporary or permanent applications. are currently available in orange, yellow • Posts can be special ordered to any length you require. or white. Three D Traffic Works can manufacture this product to your desired color. • Manufactured from a specially formulated plastic compound, utilizing polymer protection and UV stabilizer. GENERAL INFORMATION: • Manufactured using UV protected fluorescent orange, General information is listed on the reverse side. yellow or white colors. The measurements provided are intended only as a source of information. They are given without o guarantee and are not classified as a warranty. • Base is ABS plastic that is 100 /o Recycled material A specification will be sent to you upon request. W6 giyF WbK�SII • e Innovative Traffic Safety Products 430 N. Varney St. Burbank, CA91502 Tel: (877) 843-9757 Fax: (818) 841-5096 www.trafficwks.com Oil -o17 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. HATCH AREA WITH 4" WIDE WHITE PAINT AT 2'-0" ON CENTER INSTALL FIVE (5) SURFACE MOUNT 24" HIGH DELINEATORS ® 2'-0" O.C. WITH REFLECTIVE SURFACE FACING WEST PER MANUFACTURER'S �I INSTRUCTIONS. �t` 2. REPLACE STOP SICN WITH "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN ON EXISTING POST. 11 SALVAGE STOP SIGN TO SOUND TRANSIT. I I II -,A INSTALL L-20 LEFT ARROW TURN WITH DURASTRIP. 26 INSTALL "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN ON A 2"X2" STEEL POLE PER WSDOT fill SIGN FOOTING STANDARD. 1i 3. DESIGNATE BUS LAYOVER SPACES WITH 4" WIDE WHITE LINES. STALL t SIZE SHALL BE 65 FT X 9 FT WIDE. 11 I! 4. STRIPE AREA WITH 4" WHITE PAVEMENT PAINT.,AT.45 DEGREE AND 2 I I FT O.C. I 1 5. PAINT 48" HIGH "BUS ONLY" PAVEMENT MARKER AT CENTER OF EACH ` LAYOVER SPACE. 1 I I 6. PAINT 48" HIGH "10 MPH" PAVEMENT MARKER; 2 LOCATIONS TYPICAL. 1 1 7. ONE WAY ARROW, WHITE PAVEMENT MARKER PER WSDOT STANDARD 1 I 10-10. 1 8. REMOVE "NO PARKING - ANY TIME" SIGN FROM WOOD POST AND REPLACE SIGN WITH 'NO PARKING - EXCEPT BUSES", (R7-7). I�11 9. REMOVE 'NO PARKING - ANY TIME" SIGN FROM CMU WALL AND REPLACE SIGN WITH 'NO PARKING - EXCEPT BUSES" (R7-7) , 2 1� 11 TYPICAL. 1 I� I / PARKING LOT SITE m. L-20 LEFT ARROW N fT PLAN z 4 LAYOVER MARKINGS PROJECT SCALE I" = 40'-O RECEIVED v _ y METRO TRANSIT DIVISION —1.MAY 2012 4 DF i J BROWN P. ENG DRAM: SCALE: TUKWILLA INTERNATIONAL BLVD STATION (TIES) FILE NO: • J BROWN K�/� ep - ZECDYYENDED: 1" = 40�7 -0" """ County DRAIIWG NO. o �fS-T- CCA faRTRACT ND: Depatnent of BUS LAYOVER STRIPING C1.01 t APPROVED: No. REVISION BY APP•D DATE fASHEET NO. OF ExAaes .'�_/ _ t• D CRIPPEN Tfan$POCtaUOn 1 1 1. t 2 -01 7 (' f it z:3 t'_1T.:i=S/! e Innovative Traffic Safety Products T05300 REPO POST TM SURFACE MOUNT DELINEATOR SPECIFICATIONS 0 Dimensions of Tube: Heights: 18, 24, 28, 36, 42 & 48 Inches. Width: 3 inches. ® Tube Colors: Fluorescent Orange, Yellow or White. 0 Repo Post Delineator is a two-piece design consist- 0 Tube Material: UV Stabilized Polymer. ing of a reboundable tube and ABS base fastened Dioxin -Free. together with two polymer alloy pins. 0 Base Material: ABS 0 Can be ordered with or without sheeting. 0 All sheeting complies with ASTM 4956.01 standards. o 3.00I<- 14 —8.00 0 0 2.00 Repo Post Base & Pins ( 2 incl.). 430 N. Varney Burbank, CA 91502 Tel: (877) 843-9757 Fax: (818) 841-5096 Web: www.trafficwks.com i HIGH IMPACT RESISTANT O. FEATURES: COLORS AVAILABLE: 0 Perfect for parking lots, islands and work zones, The TD5300 Surface Mount Delineators temporary or permanent applications. are currently available in orange, yellow 0 Posts can be special ordered to any length you require. or white. Three D Traffic Works can manufacture this product to your desired color. 0 Manufactured from a specially formulated plastic compound, utilizing polymer protection and UV stabilizer. GENERAL INFORMATION: O Manufactured using UV protected fluorescent orange, General Information is listed on the reverse side. yellow or white colors. The measurements provided are intended only as a source of information. They are given without • o guarantee and are not classified as a warranty. Base is ABS plastic that is 100 /o Recycled material A specification will be sent to you upon request. F?! 010 MI Innovative Traffic Safety Products 430 N. Varney St. Burbank, CA 91502 Tel: (877) 843-9757 Fax: (818) 841-5096 www.traficwks.com