Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report APPENDIX T

Transcription

1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report APPENDIX T NOISE AND VIBRATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM State Clearinghouse Number:

2

3 Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum December 28, 2011 Prepared for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA State Clearinghouse Number:

4 This technical memorandum was prepared by: AECOM 300 South Grand Street 2 nd Floor Los Angeles, CA Page i

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary Introduction No Build Alternative Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Operating Hours and Frequency Proposed Stations Maintenance Yard Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Proposed Stations Maintenance Yard Methodology for Impact Evaluation Definitions Noise Vibration Regulatory Framework Federal Noise Vibration Construction Noise and Vibration Criteria State State Operational Noise and Vibration Criteria State Construction Noise Criteria Local Thresholds of Significance Area of Potential Impact Analysis Methodology and Assumptions Identification of Sensitive Receptors Noise Monitoring Methodology Noise Modeling Methodology Page ii

6 3.5.4 Construction Noise Assumptions Operational Noise Assumptions Vibration Monitoring Methodology Construction Vibration Assumptions Operational Vibration Assumptions Ground-Borne Noise Roadway Traffic Noise Assumptions Affected Environment Existing Noise Existing Vibration Impacts No Build Alternative Construction Impacts Operational Impacts Noise Vibration Cumulative Impacts Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Construction Impacts Operational Impacts Noise Vibration Cumulative Impacts State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Construction Impacts Construction Noise Construction Vibration Operational Impacts Operational Noise Operational Vibration Cumulative Impacts Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Page iii

7 5.4.1 Construction Impacts Construction Noise Construction Vibration Operational Impacts Operational Noise Operational Vibration Cumulative Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Construction Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Operational Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Noise Vibration Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Noise Vibration Impacts Remaining After Mitigation No Build Alternative Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Conclusions No Build Alternative NEPA Finding CEQA Determination Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Page iv

8 7.2.1 NEPA Finding CEQA Determination State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative NEPA Finding CEQA Determination Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative NEPA Finding CEQA Determination Maintenance Yard Options NEPA Finding CEQA Determination References Cited Page v

9 TABLES Table 3-1. A-Weighted Noise Descriptors Table 3-2. FTA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics Table 3-3. Ground-Borne RMS Vibration Impact Criteria for Annoyance During Transit Operations and Construction (VdB) Table 3-4. FTA Recommended Construction Noise Limits (dba) Table 3-5. Construction Scenario Equipment Noise Reference Lmax Levels for the Two Loudest Pieces of Equipment for Each Scenario (dba) Table 3-6. Summary of Noise Source Reference Data Table 3-7. LRT Alternative Operating Characteristics Table 4-1. Baseline Noise Levels Measured along the Project Corridor (in dba) Table 5-1. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Representative Receptors from the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) Table 5-2. Corridor-wide Project Noise Impacts along the SR 60 LRT Alternative Table 5-3. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) Table 5-4. Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Representative Receptors from the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (in VdB) Table 5-5. Corridor-wide Project Vibration Impacts along the SR 60 LRT Alternative Table 5-6. Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptor Sites (in VdB) Table 5-7. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Representative Receptors from the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) Table 5-8. Corridor-wide Project Noise Impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Table 5-9. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Historic Properties along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (in dba) Table Summary of Project Noise Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) Table Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Representative Receptors from the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (in VdB) Table Corridor-wide Project Vibration Impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Table Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Historic Properties along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (in VdB) Page vi

10 Table Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptor Sites (in VdB) FIGURES Figure 2-2. TSM Alternative... 6 Figure 2-3. SR 60 LRT Alternative... 7 Figure 2-4. Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Figure 3-1. Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels Figure 3-3. FTA Project Noise Impact Criteria Figure 3-4. FTA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Figure 4-1. Noise Monitoring Locations Appendix A Qualitative Assessment of Operational Vibration on Slope Stability Appendix B Locations of Noise and Vibration Impacts Page vii

11 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST µips ANSI API Caltrans CEQA CPUC db dba CIDH CWR EIR EIS EPA FRA FTA GBN HOV ips LAX Ldn Leq(h) Lmax LRT LRTP Metro MFR mph NEPA OII RMS Micro-inches per Second American National Standards Institute Area of Potential Impact California Department of Transportation California Environmental Quality Act California Public Utility Commission Decibels A-weighted Decibels Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Continuously-Welded Rail Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Ground-borne noise High Occupancy Vehicle Inches per Second Los Angeles International Airport Average Day-Night Noise Level Average Hourly Equivalent Noise Level Maximum Noise Level Light Rail Transit Long Range Transportation Plan Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Multi-Family Residence Miles Per Hour National Environmental Policy Act Operating Industries Inc. Root Mean Square Page viii

12 ROP Regional Occupation Program ROW Right-of-Way RTP Regional Transportation Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SEL Sound Exposure Level SFR Single-Family Residence SR 60 State Route 60 TOD Transit Oriented Development TPSS Traction Power Substations TSM Transportation System Management VdB Vibration Velocity Levels in Decibels VHT Vehicle Hours Traveled VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled Page ix

13 1.0 SUMMARY A noise and vibration assessment was conducted to assess the potential for impacts resulting from the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. An assessment of the potential noise and vibration impacts during construction and operation of the build alternatives was prepared in accordance with the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines. Due to the urban character of the project area, the ambient background noise levels measured in the neighborhoods along the proposed project corridors are relatively high. Therefore, the FTA impact criteria permit a smaller increase in the cumulative noise level than would be permitted in other transit corridors with lower background noise levels. In most cases, project noise levels are predicted to be well below the existing ambient noise levels. Even so, the build alternatives are expected to create some noise impacts, as described below. Where impacts are predicted, feasible and reasonable noise control measures were evaluated to mitigate the predicted impacts in accordance with FTA guidance in existing high-noise environments. However, none of the feasible and reasonable mitigation measures would reduce noise from existing traffic, which is the primary source of noise in the community. Therefore, future noise levels with mitigation would remain similar to current levels. Noise and vibration impacts may be generated during both construction and operation of the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. Noise and vibration impacts may occur in residential and other noise-sensitive areas located in proximity to the project. Two noise- and vibration-sensitive land use categories were evaluated for this project: residential (FTA Category 2) and institutional (FTA Category 3). At residences, the 24-hour day-night noise level was used to assess impacts, particularly during the nighttime periods when people are sleeping. At institutional receptors, such as schools, parks, museums and libraries, the peak-hour average noise levels were used to assess daytime impacts. The No Build Alternative is not expected to change existing noise levels in the project area because traffic, the primary source of the existing noise in the area, is already at or above road capacity and therefore cannot increase to an extent that it would create new noise impacts. Since new sources of vibration would not be added, vibration impacts are not expected. The No Build Alternative involves no construction; therefore, there are no noise or vibration impacts predicted for the No Build Alternative. The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative is also not expected to change existing noise levels in the project area. Traffic volumes cannot increase to an extent that they would create new noise impacts. In addition, buses already operate along the proposed alignments. The high existing ambient noise levels along the alignments would mask the noise of additional buses associated with this alternative. New sources of vibration would not be added under this alternative; therefore, new vibration impacts are not expected. The TSM Alternative may involve minor construction such as installation of new bus stop benches and signs. This construction would typically last less than a day at each potential location and would require no heavy equipment. As a result, there would be no adverse noise or vibration impacts predicted for the TSM Alternative. The State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative alignment is predicted to result in one severe noise impact, 36 moderate noise impacts at residences (FTA Category 2 land use), and no Page 1

14 impacts at non-residential or institutional receptors (FTA Category 3 land use). For the SR 60 North Side Design Variation, the impacts are predicted to be exactly the same, except in the vicinity of Via Palermo in Montebello. At Via Palermo, reduced LRT speeds west of the SR 60 North Side Design Variation are predicted to result in nine fewer moderate noise impacts at residences, for a total of 27 impacts. Additionally, future vibration levels from LRT operations are predicted to result in three exceedances of the FTA frequent criterion of 72 decibels (VdB) for residential land uses and no impacts for the FTA Category 3 land uses for both SR 60 LRT Alternative alignments. Proposed mitigation measures to eliminate noise and vibration impacts predicted along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment include relocation of switches, ballast mats under switches, spring frogs or other gapless switches, and trackside noise barriers. Except for the one severe noise impact predicted adjacent to a track switch, all future noise impacts associated with LRT vehicle passby are predicted to be below the FTA severe threshold. Therefore, one significant impact would occur along the SR 60 LRT Alternative due to switches. However, with the proposed mitigation measures, all potential noise and vibration impacts from operations would be less than significant. Additionally, appropriate noise and vibration control measures would be implemented by Metro s contractor to minimize any potential impacts during construction. The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment is predicted to result in one severe noise impact, 135 moderate noise impacts at residences (FTA Category 2 land uses) and one moderate noise impact at a school (FTA Category 3 land use). The same number of noise impacts predicted for the at-grade option is also predicted for the Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/Interstate 605 (I-605) aerial crossings. None of the future noise levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative are predicted to exceed the FTA Category 3 impact criteria at parks or institutional receptors. Additionally, future vibration levels from LRT operations are predicted to result in 31 exceedances of the FTA frequent criterion of 72 VdB for residential land uses and one exceedance for the FTA Category 3 land uses (an educational facility along Washington Boulevard opposite Keltonview Drive). Two fewer vibration impacts are predicted for the Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossings. Proposed mitigation measures to eliminate noise and vibration impacts predicted along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment include relocation of switches, ballast mats under switches, spring frogs or other gapless switches, or other supplemental safety measures at-grade crossings, and trackside noise barriers. With the proposed mitigation measures, all potential noise and vibration impacts from operations would be less than significant. Appropriate noise and vibration control measures would also be implemented by Metro s contractor to minimize any potential impacts during construction. Proposed mitigation measures could include substituting equipment with lower noise and vibration levels (such as augering versus using pile drivers) or conducting a preconstruction survey of any buildings potentially susceptible to construction vibration. Implementation of proposed mitigation measures described in Section 6.0 would ensure that potential impacts to sensitive and/or historic buildings would be reduced to a less than significant level. The analyses included in this technical memorandum address potential noise and vibration impacts on human receptors in the project area. In response to comments received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding potential vibration impacts from transit operations Page 2

15 on slope stability at the Operating Industries, Inc. (OII) landfill site, a separate, qualitative vibration analysis has also been conducted. This qualitative assessment concluded that vibration levels from operations are well below the damage criterion for highly sensitive structures. A memorandum presenting the methodology and results of this analysis is attached as Appendix A. Page 3

16 2.0 INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum describes the existing and predicted future noise and vibration conditions along the Eastside Corridor. It summarizes the basic noise and vibration concepts, the applicable transit evaluation criteria, the baseline noise levels measured at sensitive receptors along the proposed project corridor, the predicted noise levels due to new LRT service, and proposed mitigation measures where impacts are predicted. The noise and vibration assessment was prepared in accordance with NEPA and the guidelines set forth by the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). 2.1 No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative is used for comparison purposes to assess the relative benefits and impacts of constructing a new transit project in the project area versus implementing only currently planned and funded projects. The No Build Alternative is also a required alternative for comparison as part of the National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) environmental analysis. The No Build Alternative includes all of the projects that are identified for construction and implementation in the Constrained Plan of Metro s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (through the year 2035). This plan includes the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension currently in operation, but does not include any project resulting from this Phase 2 study effort. It also includes the construction of the Metro Crenshaw Line and the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) People Mover, as well as the extension of the Metro Purple Line to Westwood, and the extensions of the Metro Green Line to LAX and to the South Bay. The plan also includes construction of the Regional Connector that will connect existing lines through downtown Los Angeles. After construction of the Regional Connector, east-west trains will operate between Santa Monica and East Los Angeles without the need for riders to transfer, and north-south trains will operate between Montclair and Long Beach, also without the need for riders to transfer. Bus services will be reorganized and expanded to provide connections with these new rail lines. Figure 2-1 displays the No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative also includes all of the projects that are identified for construction and implementation in the financially constrained project list of the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Making the Connections, developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to present the transportation vision for the region through year The RTP outlines future highway projects, including providing one HOV lane in each direction on I-5 from SR 19 (Rosemead Boulevard) to I-710. There are no other major roadway improvements in the project area included in the financially constrained RTP. 7/3/2014 Page 4

17 Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-1. No Build Alternative 2.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative is intended to address the same mobility needs as the two LRT build alternatives, but does not include the construction of a fixed guideway facility. The TSM Alternative includes all of the transit and roadway provisions of the No Build Alternative, plus proposed enhancements to existing bus service. Under the TSM Alternative, the basic approach is to enhance the east-west bus service in the same corridor as the build alternatives to develop the TSM network. In order to leverage the investment in an east-west transit spine, the TSM Alternative also includes enhancements to north-south bus services that would feed and integrate with the improved east-west spine. The TSM Alternative is presented in Figure 2-2. The key elements of the TSM Alternative are the creation of an east-west transit spine along with new north-south feeder service. The transit spine would include new Pomona Freeway Flyer express service from the Eastside Extension Phase 1 terminus at Atlantic Station to Crossroads Parkway near SR 60, supported by enhanced bus service provided by Montebello Bus Lines. The enhanced service would include new Rapid bus service on Route 40 on Beverly Boulevard and additional service on Route 10 on Whittier Boulevard and Route 50 on Washington Boulevard. 7/3/2014 Page 5

18 The north-south feeder service would include new Rapid bus service on Montebello Bus Lines Route 30 on Garfield Avenue, new Limited Stop service on Montebello Bus Lines Route 20 on Montebello Boulevard, and additional service on Metro Route 265 on Paramount Boulevard, Metro Route 266 on Rosemead Boulevard, and Foothill Transit Route 274 on Workman Mill Road. It would also include new Route 370 Limited Stop service in addition to existing Metro Route 270 service on Peck Road and Workman Mill Road. Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-2. TSM Alternative 2.3 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative The SR 60 LRT Alternative would extend the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, a dedicated, dual track LRT system with overhead catenary wiring, approximately 6.9 miles east to Peck Road. More than 94 percent of this alternative would operate in an aerial configuration, primarily within the southern portion of the SR 60 Freeway right-of-way (ROW). Figure 2-3 illustrates the SR 60 LRT Alternative. The proposed alignment runs at-grade east from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Atlantic Station in the median of Pomona Boulevard, where the alignment transitions to an independent aerial structure within the south side of the SR 60 Freeway ROW to Garfield Avenue. The SR 60 LRT Alternative continues east beyond Garfield Avenue in the freeway ROW, terminating in the vicinity of the SR 60/Peck Road interchange in the city of South El Monte, with tail tracks for storage extending farther east. The proposed LRT alignment is located on the south side of the freeway between the edge 7/3/2014 Page 6

19 of the eastbound traffic lanes and the SR 60 Freeway ROW line. Traction power substations (TPSS), track crossovers, emergency generators, and other ancillary facilities that provide power and help to operate the LRT would also be constructed along the route. The SR 60 LRT Alternative also includes all No Build Alternative transit and roadway improvements and TSM Alternative bus services, with the exception of the Pomona Freeway Flyer. An SR 60 North Side Design Variation is being analyzed to address concerns raised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about potential impacts to the former OII landfill site south of SR 60 in the city of Monterey Park. With this variation, instead of running along the edge of the landfill site on the south side of SR 60, the LRT alignment would transition from the south side to the north side of SR 60 just west of Greenwood Avenue and return to the south side of SR 60 approximately onequarter mile west of Paramount Boulevard (see Figure 2-3). This design variation would include approximately 3,500 feet of at-grade and aerial alignment on the north side of SR 60, and two new bridges to carry the LRT guideway over SR 60. Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-3. SR 60 LRT Alternative Please see Figure 2-2 for TSM enhancements that are also included as part of the SR 60 LRT Alternative (with the exception of the Pomona Freeway Flyer) 7/3/2014 Page 7

20 2.3.1 Operating Hours and Frequency The operating hours and schedules for the SR 60 LRT Alternative would be comparable to the weekday, Saturday and Sunday, and holiday schedules for the existing Gold Line. Trains would operate every day from 4:00 AM to 1:30 AM. On weekdays, trains would operate every five minutes during peak hours, every 10 minutes mid-day and until 8:00 PM, and every 15 minutes in the early morning and after 8:00 PM. On weekends, trains would operate every 10 minutes from 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM, every 15 minutes from 6:30 7:30 PM and from 7:00-9:00 AM, and every 20 minutes in the early morning and after 7:30 PM Proposed Stations The SR 60 LRT Alternative has four aerial, center platform stations designed with bus and parking facilities to intercept vehicular and bus travel operating within the east-west freeway corridor and circulating in a north-south direction crossing the freeway. All of the station areas would require property acquisition to accommodate stations and related facilities, including park and ride structures, and all have the potential for Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The proposed station locations and estimated parking spaces provided at each station would be as follows: Garfield Avenue East of Garfield Avenue along Via Campo in the city of Montebello, approximately 344 parking spaces. Shops at Montebello On the west side of the Shops at Montebello, approximately 417 parking spaces. Santa Anita Avenue East of Santa Anita Avenue in the city of South El Monte, approximately 692 parking spaces. Peck Road East of Peck Road in the city of South El Monte, approximately 1,983 parking spaces Maintenance Yard Under the SR 60 LRT Alternative, one potential site (referred to as the Mission Junction Yard Option to distinguish it from the additional options identified for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative) has been preliminarily identified for the location of a new maintenance yard. The site is approximately 11 acres in size and is adjacent to the existing Mission Junction rail facility, generally bounded by I-5 to the east, I-10 to the south, the Los Angeles River to the west, and the Union Pacific rail line to the north. This industrial area is zoned for railroads and maintenance yard facilities. The proposed maintenance yard, located on the north side of Mission Road, would be operated in conjunction with the existing Division 10 bus maintenance yard located on the south side of Mission Road, adjacent to the proposed maintenance yard site. The proposed maintenance yard would accommodate daily maintenance, inspection and repairs, and storage of the light rail vehicles. In addition to the proposed maintenance yard and the existing Division 10 bus maintenance yard, Metro may also consider modifying existing facilities to accommodate the additional capacity required to maintain the project s vehicles or using a proposed maintenance yard in Monrovia that is currently being studied as part of the extension of the Metro Gold Line to Montclair. 7/3/2014 Page 8

21 2.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would extend the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, a dedicated, dual track LRT system with overhead catenary wiring, approximately 9.5 miles east to the city of Whittier at Lambert Road. This alternative is proposed to operate in an aerial configuration with columns located in the roadway median or sidewalks, as well as in an at-grade configuration where the street widths are sufficient to accommodate the alignment and potential stations. Figure 2-4 displays the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. The proposed alignment runs at-grade east from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Atlantic Station in the median of Pomona Boulevard, where it then transitions to aerial operations running in the south side of the SR 60 Freeway ROW until Garfield Avenue. This segment is the same as that described for the SR 60 LRT Alternative. At Garfield Avenue, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative turns south in an aerial configuration to operate above Garfield Avenue. The aerial structure continues south on Garfield Avenue and then turns southeast along Washington Boulevard. The aerial structure is supported at various locations either by columns straddling both sides of the street or by single columns. At Montebello Boulevard along Washington Boulevard, the alignment transitions to a street running configuration within the center of Washington Boulevard to a terminus station located south of Washington Boulevard just west of Lambert Road, with tail tracks for storage extending south and adjacent to Lambert Road. The street running segment is a dedicated trackway located in the center of Washington Boulevard with only signalized intersections allowing for cross traffic. Partial signal priority would be provided to the LRT at signalized intersections. In addition, TPSS, track crossovers, emergency generators, and other ancillary facilities would be located along the alignment. The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative also includes all No Build Alternative transit and roadway improvements and TSM Alternative bus services, with the following exceptions: The Pomona Freeway Flyer would operate from the Garfield Avenue station (instead of the Atlantic Station) to Crossroads Parkway near SR 60. Metro Rapid Route 720 would be extended to the Garfield Avenue station, to provide connectivity. Montebello Bus Lines Route 50 Rapid service would operate between downtown Los Angeles and the Greenwood Avenue station only, as it would duplicate LRT service on Washington Boulevard east of Greenwood Avenue. Two design variations are being considered for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. The first design variation, the Rosemead Boulevard aerial crossing, would include a grade separation at Rosemead Boulevard. In this variation, the LRT would operate in an aerial configuration in the vicinity of Rosemead Boulevard. The second design variation, the San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossing, would include an aerial crossing of the San Gabriel River and I-605 and a grade separation at Pioneer Boulevard. In this variation, the LRT would operate on an aerial structure just south of Washington Boulevard across the San Gabriel River and then return to the median of Washington Boulevard, still in an aerial configuration, over I-605 and Pioneer Boulevard. The operating hours and service frequency for the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would be the same as described for the SR 60 LRT Alternative. 7/3/2014 Page 9

22 Source: Metro; CDM, 2011 Figure 2-4. Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Please see Figure 2-2 for TSM enhancements that are also included as part of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (see text for exceptions) Proposed Stations The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative has six stations located to serve the communities through which this alternative runs. Property acquisition at all stations is necessary to accommodate stations, access, and related facilities, including park and ride structures. All of the proposed stations, with the exception of the Whittier Boulevard station, include a park and ride facility. The proposed station locations and estimated parking spaces provided at each would be as follows: Garfield Avenue Aerial, center platform station located on the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Via Campo in the city of Montebello, approximately 523 parking spaces. Whittier Boulevard Aerial, side platform station located in the median of Garfield Avenue just north of Whittier Boulevard in unincorporated East Los Angeles, no parking facility. 7/3/2014 Page 10

23 Greenwood Avenue Aerial, side platform station located in the median of Washington Boulevard east of Greenwood Avenue in the city of Montebello, approximately 151 parking spaces. Rosemead Boulevard With the Rosemead Boulevard at-grade crossing, this would be an atgrade, center platform station located in the center of Washington Boulevard west of Rosemead Boulevard in the city of Pico Rivera, approximately 353 parking spaces. If the Rosemead Boulevard aerial crossing design variation is selected, this station would be an aerial, center platform station. Norwalk Boulevard At-grade, center platform station located in the median of Washington Boulevard east of Norwalk Boulevard in the city of Santa Fe Springs, approximately 667 parking spaces. Lambert Road At-grade, center platform station located south of Washington Boulevard west of Lambert Road in the city of Whittier, approximately 1,008 parking spaces Maintenance Yard Under the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, three potential sites have been preliminarily identified for the location of a new maintenance yard: Mission Junction Yard Option - The first site is adjacent to the existing Mission Junction rail facility, as described above under the SR 60 LRT Alternative. Commerce Yard Option - The second potential site, approximately 12 acres in size, is proposed to be within the city of Commerce, located west of Garfield Avenue in Southern California Edison s transmission line corridor. The parcel is designated for electrical power facility use and is situated within the San Antonio Rancho known as the Walter L. Vail s 2,000 Acre Tract. Since the LRT tracks would be in an aerial configuration above Garfield Avenue, the lead tracks to the maintenance yard would transition from aerial to at-grade within the southern portion of the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, approximately 1,600 feet away from the mainline on Garfield Avenue. The main entrance to the facility would be off Corvette Street at the southern portion of the site, just west of Saybrook Avenue. Santa Fe Springs Yard Option - The third potential site, approximately nine acres in size, is located within the city of Santa Fe Springs immediately south of Washington Boulevard and east of Allport Avenue. It is currently occupied by automobile repair and light industrial uses. The lead tracks to the yard would cross the eastbound lanes of Washington Boulevard at-grade. 7/3/2014 Page 11

24 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT EVALUATION 3.1 Definitions Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Several factors affect the actual level and quality of sound (or noise) as perceived by the human ear: loudness, pitch (or frequency), and time variation. The loudness, or magnitude, of noise determines its intensity and is measured in decibels (db) that can range from below 40 db (the rustling of leaves) to over 100 db (a rock concert). Pitch describes the character and frequency content of noise, such as the very low rumbling noise of stereo subwoofers or the very high-pitched noise of a piercing whistle. Finally, the time variation of noise sources can be characterized as continuous, such as a building ventilation fan; intermittent, such as the passing of trains; or impulsive, such as pile-driving activities during construction. From this point forward in the document, the word noise means sound. Various sound levels are used to quantify noise from transit sources, including a sound s loudness and tonal character. For example, the A-weighted decibel (dba) is commonly used to describe the overall noise level because it more closely matches the human ear s response to audible frequencies. Since we are typically less responsive to low frequency noise, the tonal character of A-weighted noise levels reflects mid- to high-frequency sounds, which are more audible to most listeners. Since the A- weighted decibel scale is logarithmic, a 10 dba increase in a noise level is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness, while a 3 dba increase in a noise level is just barely perceptible to the human ear. Typical A-weighted noise levels from transit and other common sources are summarized below in Figure 3-1. The noise thermometer is intended to show the different levels as measured from a reference distance of 50 feet from the source Vibration Ground-borne vibration associated with vehicle movements is usually the result of uneven interactions between wheels and the road or rail surfaces. Examples of such interactions (and subsequent vibrations) include train wheels over a jointed rail, an untrue rail car wheel with flats, and a motor vehicle wheel hitting a pothole, a manhole cover, or any other uneven surface. Typical ground-borne vibration levels from transit and other common sources are summarized below in Figure 3-2. For example, a comparison of typical ground-borne vibration levels at a receptor 50 feet from different transportation sources traveling at 50 miles per hour ranges from 61 VdB for trucks and buses, to 73 VdB for LRT vehicles, to 85 VdB for diesel locomotives. Similarly, a typical background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower, well below the threshold of perception for humans, which is around 65 VdB (FTA 2006). The typical background levels refer to ambient ground vibrations not related to any specific transportation source (e.g., naturally-occurring ground vibration). This level is assumed to be fairly constant from site to site, except in the vicinity of active fault lines. Page 12

25 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May 2006 Figure 3-1. Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels Table 3-1. A-Weighted Noise Descriptors Noise Metric 1 Lmax Leq(h) Ldn Description Represents the maximum noise level that occurs during an event such as a bus or train passing by. Represents a level of constant noise with the same acoustical energy as the fluctuating noise levels observed during a given interval, such as one hour. The 24-hour day-night noise level that includes a 10-dBA penalty for all nighttime activity between 10 PM and 7 AM. The 10-dBA penalty is an adjustment factor added to all nighttime noise events to reflect the heightened sensitivity of residents who are sleeping. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May 2006 Notes: Lmax = maximum noise level; Leq(h) = average hourly equivalent noise level; Ldn = average day-night noise level Page 13

26 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May 2006 Figure 3-2. Typical Ground-Borne Vibration Levels Unlike noise, which travels in air, transit vibration typically travels along the surface of the ground. Depending on the geological properties of the surrounding terrain and the type of building structure exposed to transit vibration, vibration propagation can be more or less efficient. Buildings with a solid foundation set in bedrock are coupled more efficiently to the surrounding ground and experience relatively higher vibration levels than buildings located in sandier soil. On the other hand, heavier buildings (such as masonry structures) are less susceptible to ground-borne vibration than woodframe buildings because they absorb more of the vibration. Vibration induced by passing vehicles can generally be discussed in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. However, human responses and responses by monitoring instruments and other objects are most accurately described with velocity. Therefore, the vibration velocity level is used to assess vibration impacts from transit projects. To describe the human response to vibration, the average vibration amplitude (called the root mean square, or RMS, amplitude) is used to assess impacts. The RMS velocity level is expressed in inches per second or VdB. All VdB vibration levels are referenced to 1 micro-inch per second (µips). Similar to noise decibels, vibration decibels are dimensionless because they are referenced to (i.e., divided by) a Page 14

27 standard level (such as 1x10-6 ips in the U.S.). This convention allows compression of the scale over which vibration occurs, such as VdB rather than ips to 0.1 ips. 3.2 Regulatory Framework The transit operations are subject to FTA noise and vibration criteria, which are not only a requirement for all federally-funded projects but they also set the standard for assessing transit noise and vibration impacts. For future construction, Metro will make every effort to be consistent with local noise ordinances based on its own construction specifications, although as a state agency it is not required to do so. The predicted impact assessment is described in the federal-level Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the project in accordance with NEPA and the state-level Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the project in accordance with CEQA Federal The federal-level evaluation criteria are described in the following sections Noise The FTA s guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006, presents the basic concepts, methods, and procedures for evaluating the extent and severity of noise impacts from transit projects. Transit noise impacts are assessed based on land use categories and sensitivity to noise from transit sources under the FTA guidelines. As summarized in Figure 3-3, the FTA noise impact criteria are defined by two curves that allow project noise levels to increase as existing noise increases up to a point, beyond which impact is determined based on project noise alone. The FTA land use categories and required noise metrics are described in Table 3-2. The FTA noise criteria create two categories of impact: moderate and severe impact. The moderate impact threshold defines areas where the change in noise is noticeable, but may not be sufficient to cause a strong, adverse community reaction. The severe impact threshold defines the noise limits above which a significant percentage of the population would be highly annoyed by new noise. The level of impact at any specific site can be established by comparing the predicted future project noise level at the site to the existing noise level there. For example, for residences and other FTA Category 2 land uses with an existing noise level of 65 dba, a moderate impact would occur with a future project noise level in the range from 61 to 66 dba, while a severe impact would occur with a future project noise level greater than 66 dba. The FTA noise impact criteria for all three land use categories are summarized in Figure 3-3. The average day-night noise level over a 24-hour period (or Ldn) is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (FTA Category 2). The Ldn descriptor describes a receptor's cumulative noise exposure from all events over a full 24 hours, with events between 10 PM and 7 AM increased by 10 decibels to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise. Similarly, the average hourly equivalent noise level [or Leq(h)] during the facility s peak operating period is used to characterize noise exposure at all other noise-sensitive land uses, such as schools and libraries (FTA Category 3) or outdoor amphitheaters (FTA Category 1). Page 15

28 Table 3-2. FTA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics Land Use Category Noise Metric 1 Description 1 Leq(h) 2 Ldn 3 Leq(h) Tracts of land set aside for serenity and quiet, such as outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, and historic landmarks. Buildings used for sleeping, such as residences, hospitals, hotels, and other areas where nighttime sensitivity to noise is of utmost importance. Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening uses, including schools, libraries, churches, museums, cemeteries, historic sites, parks, and certain recreational facilities used for study or meditation. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May Vibration The FTA vibration criteria for evaluating ground-borne vibration impacts from transit operations (such as train passbys) at nearby sensitive receptors are summarized in Table 3-3. These vibration criteria are related to RMS ground-borne vibration levels that are expected to result in human annoyance. The FTA's experience with community response to ground-borne vibration indicates that when there are only a few train passby events per day, it would take higher vibration levels to evoke the same community response that would be expected from more frequent events. This is taken into account in the FTA criteria by distinguishing between projects with frequent, occasional and infrequent events, where the frequent event category is defined as more than 70 events per day. Similarly, the occasional event category is defined as 30 to 70 events per day and the infrequent category as fewer than 30 events per day. To be conservative, the FTA frequent criteria, rather than the less stringent occasional or infrequent criteria, were used to assess ground-borne vibration impacts along the Eastside Transit Corridor alignments. The vibration criteria levels summarized in Table 3-3 are defined in terms of human annoyance for land use categories such as high sensitivity (Category 1), residential (Category 2), and institutional (Category 3). In general, the vibration threshold of human perceptibility is approximately 65 VdB. For above-grade (i.e., at-grade or elevated) transit systems, LRT operations are typically not a significant source of vibration-induced ground-borne noise, except for buildings that have sensitive interior spaces and that are well insulated from exterior noise. In other words, airborne noise often masks ground-borne noise for aboveground transit systems such as Metro. Therefore, no vibrationinduced ground-borne noise impacts are expected along the project corridor alignments, since no such sensitive buildings were identified and there are no underground alignment options. Page 16

29 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May 2006 Figure 3-3. FTA Project Noise Impact Criteria Page 17

30 Table 3-3. Ground-Borne RMS Vibration Impact Criteria for Annoyance During Transit Operations and Construction (VdB) Receptor Land Use RMS Vibration Levels (VdB) 1 Category Description Frequent Events 2 Occasional Events 2 Infrequent Events Buildings where low vibration is essential for interior operations Residences and buildings where people normally sleep Daytime institutional and office use Specific Buildings TV/Recording Studios/Concert Halls Auditoriums Theaters Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May 2006 Notes: 1 Ground-borne vibration levels are referenced to 1x10-6 inches per second (VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec). 2 The frequent event category is defined as more than 70 events per day, the occasional event category as 30 to 70 events per day, and the infrequent category as fewer than 30 events per day Construction Noise and Vibration Criteria During the environmental analysis phase of a project, construction details are limited. Therefore, the FTA guidelines suggest evaluating prototypical construction scenarios against local ordinances or the FTA one-hour Leq thresholds summarized in Table 3-4 if no other applicable criteria are available. The FTA design guidelines, for example, are evaluated against noise levels from the two loudest pieces of equipment (such as a crane and a dump truck) that, under worst-case conditions, are assumed to operate continuously for one hour during both the daytime (7 AM to 10 PM) and nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) periods. Page 18

31 Table 3-4. FTA Recommended Construction Noise Limits (dba) 1 Land Use Category Daytime (7 AM 10 PM) Construction Period Nighttime (10 PM 7 AM) Residential Commercial (non-residential) Industrial Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May 2006 Note: 1 The recommended construction evaluation criteria are evaluated against the one-hour equivalent noise level from the two loudest pieces of equipment. The vibration levels summarized in Table 3-3 were used to evaluate potential FTA vibration annoyance impacts from various construction scenarios expected along the project corridor. The potential for annoyance from the proposed construction scenarios was evaluated at sensitive receptors along the corridor. These proposed construction scenarios, however, include primarily surface-related activities and are, therefore, unlikely to cause even minor structural damage such as small cracks in plaster walls State State Operational Noise and Vibration Criteria CEQA Guidelines (specifically Appendix G) state that a significant adverse effect from noise may exist if the project would result in: Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels exceeding standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not provide quantitative thresholds for a substantial noise impact or a significant adverse vibration impact. Therefore, this analysis applied the FTA criteria to determine the threshold for significance (FTA 2006). For example, a severe noise impact, as defined by FTA and summarized in Figure 3-3, was used to determine the CEQA significance of noise impact for the proposed project. The FTA vibration criteria for frequent events presented in Table 3-3 were used as the CEQA significance impact criteria for ground-borne vibration. Page 19

32 The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has jurisdiction over the operation of LRT systems. CPUC regulations require the use of audible warning devices, including on-vehicle audible warnings and crossing bells, at all grade crossings that are protected by crossing gates. California Public Utilities Code Section 7604 states that a bell, siren, horn, whistle, or similar audible warning device should be sounded at any public crossing. Since the CPUC does not specify maximum noise limits, the default FTA reference levels were used, including 72 dba for grade crossing bells and 76 dba for train horns at 50 feet. These default FTA noise levels are below the maximum federal limit specified in the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule (49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, August 17, 2006) State Construction Noise Criteria According to the California Department of Transportation s (Caltrans) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects, construction noise levels should not exceed 86 dba (Lmax) at a distance of 15 meters (or 50 feet) from any piece of construction equipment, whether used for a rail or highway project. This limit is intended to minimize impacts on residences and other noise-sensitive receptors Local Local ordinances are not applicable to the assessment of impact from operation of federal transit projects. Local ordinances regarding noise and vibration, however, are typically qualitative in that they refer to noise annoyance from public disturbances. However, several local jurisdictions do limit the period of construction activities to the daytime period when ambient noise levels are typically higher and people are not asleep. For example, the noise ordinance of the city of Montebello limits all construction activities to between the hours of 7 AM and 8 PM on weekdays (Monday through Friday), and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. During construction, Metro s contractor would conduct activities to be consistent with local noise ordinances whenever feasible and reasonable, although as a state agency Metro is not required to do so. During the environmental phase of the project, details of the proposed construction activities are limited or not available. This information is normally developed in the later project stages after a transit agency retains the services of the construction contractor for the project. Therefore, short-term construction impacts from the Eastside Transit Project were evaluated qualitatively based on prototypical construction tasks and equipment summarized in the Construction Methods Technical Memorandum. Typical construction activities could include, for example, aerial and surface trackwork, utility relocation, station construction, and retaining wall construction. 3.3 Thresholds of Significance The thresholds for determining the significance of operational impacts for this analysis are based on the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines (FTA 2006). Per the FTA guidelines, the proposed project, or alternatives under consideration, would result in a noise impact if the future project noise is predicted to exceed the FTA moderate or severe thresholds. Similarly, the proposed project would result in a vibration impact if maximum levels from an LRT train passby are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent criteria selected for each land use type. Page 20

33 As mentioned in Section , CEQA does not provide quantitative thresholds for a substantial operational noise impact or a significant adverse vibration impact. Therefore, this analysis applied the FTA criteria to determine the thresholds for significance. Construction noise and vibration impacts are difficult to predict at this early stage of project development, as previously stated. However, the analysis recognizes that there would be some adverse impacts during construction and describes potential measures to mitigate such impacts (see Sections 5.0 and 6.0). FTA considers construction noise levels to exceed daytime limits when levels exceed 90 dba at residences and 100 dba at commercial uses. For frequent annoyance from construction vibration (i.e., more than 70 events per day), the FTA considers an exceedance of 72 VdB at residential or other Category 2 land uses as an impact. As indicated in Section , Caltrans states that construction noise levels should not exceed 86 dba (Lmax) at a distance of 15 meters (or 50 feet) from any piece of equipment. This limit is intended to minimize impacts on residences and other noise-sensitive receptors. 3.4 Area of Potential Impact In accordance with the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines (FTA 2006), a screening assessment was conducted to determine the location and number of noise- and vibrationsensitive receptors along the project corridor. The FTA screening distances for operations are based on typical LRT systems and were adjusted to reflect project-specific conditions. The following FTA screening distances were utilized to develop the population of receptors included in the noise and vibration modeling analyses: 350 feet unobstructed noise screening distance 150 feet unobstructed vibration screening distance The screening distances were applied from the centerline of the proposed transit corridors to determine the area of potential impact (API). The API for construction activities varies, depending on factors such as types and numbers of construction equipment operating in an area at the same time and the specific location and distance between the construction activity and the sensitive receptor. As mentioned, the specific types and locations of equipment in any one location are difficult to predict at this early stage of project development. Therefore, the same API used to assess operational impacts may also be used to assess the potential for construction impacts. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that there would be some impacts, and the discussion in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 provide strategies to reduce or minimize the effect. 3.5 Analysis Methodology and Assumptions Identification of Sensitive Receptors A screening assessment was conducted to identify the location and land use category of noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors along the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project alignments. These include residential areas and buildings such as hospitals, schools, churches, parks, and noise-sensitive Page 21

34 historic resources. The list of noise-sensitive community facilities and historic resources (such as the Kelly House or the Cliff May-designed Ranch House) was obtained through the work being done by others in support of the technical memoranda for their disciplines (such as Cultural Resources, Parklands and Other Community Facilities, and Community and Neighborhood Impacts) Noise Monitoring Methodology To determine the existing background noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed transit rail corridor alignments, a noise monitoring program was conducted at 17 representative locations selected based on the FTA guidelines. Hourly equivalent A-weighted noise levels [or Leq(h) in dba] were measured during the peak hour at non-residential or institutional sites (such as schools and parks) and continuously over a 24-hour period at residential sites to determine the average ambient conditions during a typical weekday. The noise measurements document existing noise sources along the project area, such as existing aircraft traffic overhead and background traffic along I- 605, SR 60, Garfield Avenue, Washington Boulevard, and other major cross streets. At residences and other FTA Category 2 land uses (described in Table 3-2), 24-hour day-night noise levels (or Ldn) were reported in accordance with the FTA guidelines. Similarly, peak-hour equivalent noise levels were measured at non-residential or institutional receptors such as schools, parks, and a cemetery. Since the intent of the noise monitoring program was not to document the background noise level at every receptor, sites were strategically selected to document existing noise exposure at different residential clusters along the proposed alignments. The noise levels from these existing sources were adjusted to reflect distance propagation to other nearby clusters of residences and other noisesensitive uses where appropriate. For example, the baseline levels measured at the 17 representative monitoring sites were used to estimate background levels at almost 900 receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment and over 2,100 receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. The measured noise levels were applied to these other noise-sensitive receptor sites based on their similarities to nearby roadways and intersections, land use densities, and geographical distance from the monitoring sites. The sound-level meters that were used to measure current noise conditions (including the Brüel and Kjær Model 2236 and the Larson Davis Model 820) meet or exceed the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for Type I accuracy (±1 dba). The sound-level meters were calibrated using a Brüel and Kjær Model 4231 before and after each measurement. All measurements were conducted according to ANSI Standard S , Measurement of Sound Pressure Levels in Air. All noise levels are reported in dba, which best approximate the sensitivity of human hearing Noise Modeling Methodology Noise impacts were evaluated using the FTA s Detailed Assessment guidelines to more accurately reflect the type of input data available. However, noise impacts from the stationary sources (such as the maintenance yard) were evaluated using the FTA s General Assessment guidelines to reflect a single large stationary source (FTA 2006). Similarly, although baseline vibration measurements were not conducted, vibration impacts were evaluated using the FTA s General Assessment guidelines to reflect average or typical ground conditions. A detailed and refined vibration monitoring program may be necessary during final design to verify (or dismiss) any impacts that were predicted using the default FTA guidelines. Page 22

35 3.5.4 Construction Noise Assumptions A qualitative analysis was prepared to estimate the potential for noise impacts during temporary construction activities. Based on the FTA guidelines, the two loudest pieces of equipment (such as jack hammers and dump trucks) were selected to operate at full power over a period of one hour. The cumulative noise level at the closest noise-sensitive receptor was used to estimate the level of impact. The resultant noise level was compared with the FTA recommended construction noise limits from Table 3-4 to determine the onset of impact. Conservative assumptions (such as no shielding effects from existing structures or temporary noise barriers) were utilized to estimate the potential for impact. This assessment is preliminary and will be updated during final design (or as part of the contractor s deliverables) to reflect more precise construction scenarios, equipment types, and operating schedules. The following construction scenarios were selected to be representative of the types of activities expected during construction of the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project: Track-Laying (At-grade); Track-Laying (Aerial); Station Construction; Bridge Construction; Park and Ride Garage Construction; and, Maintenance Yard Construction. The equipment types and the maximum FTA reference noise levels are summarized in Table 3-5 for each of the selected prototypical construction scenarios. Although numerous equipment types would eventually be used during each scenario as determined by the contractor, the FTA guidelines suggest using only the two loudest pieces during the preliminary noise impact assessment. Page 23

36 Table 3-5. Construction Scenario Equipment Noise Reference Lmax Levels for the Two Loudest Pieces of Equipment for Each Scenario (dba) Equipment Type Construction Scenario At-grade Aerial Stations Bridges Parking Maint. Yard Crane, Derrick Grader Jack Hammer Loader Pneumatic Tool Tie Inserter Truck Source: AECOM, November 2010 Notes: 1 Equipment type not included in the selected construction scenario. Default FTA noise levels reported at a reference distance of 50 feet Operational Noise Assumptions The reference noise levels for each of the proposed noise sources (including train passbys, wheel squeal) and other operating characteristics (such as average dwell times and source heights), are summarized in Table 3-6. These data are based on default FTA data as well as information included in other recent Metro studies, such as the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Final EIS/EIR. The following lists the assumptions of this technical memorandum: Total daily operations were determined based on 5-minute headways during peak periods of the day, 10-minute headways during off-peak periods, and 15-minute headways during the late night and early morning periods. The LRT operations data are summarized in Table 3-7 for various peak and off-peak periods of the day. This service frequency is representative of a typical weekday, which includes an operating period between 4:00 AM and 1:30 AM. A three-vehicle train was assumed for all periods of the day and night. At stations, an average idling time of 30 seconds was used at each of the designated station stops to compute the noise contribution from stationary or auxiliary vehicle noise (such as rooftop mechanical equipment). Page 24

37 Proposed train operating speeds were taken from speed profiles included in the track alignment designs, based on vehicle performance characteristics and system speed limits for the project corridor, with a minimum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and a maximum of 55 mph. Following MTA operating practices, onboard warning devices or bells would be sounded within five seconds of the approaching grade crossing, with a maximum noise level of 76 dba at 50 feet. At 55 mph, for example, the warning bells would be sounded within 400 feet of a grade crossing. This distance is less than the FRA-required distance of one quarter mile or 1,320 feet from any approaching grade crossing. Based on information included in other recent Metro environmental studies, a single 80 footlong train operating at 50 mph on ballast-and-tie track with continuous welded rail track generates a maximum noise level of 78 dba at 50 feet from the track centerline. Wheel impacts at special trackwork are based on a maximum noise level of 86 dba at 50 feet. Since all of the curves along revenue-service track are expected to be longer than 65 feet (the distance associated with the onset of wheel squeal), no wheel squeal is predicted anywhere along the build alternative alignments. Although there is a possibility of wheel squeal at the maintenance yards due to the shorter-radius curves, these events are expected to occur infrequently. No adverse impacts are expected. The vibration impacts from LRT vehicle operations were predicted using the default FTA ground surface vibration curves summarized in Figure 3-4. These curves were adjusted to reflect local conditions such as changes in train speed, special trackwork such as switches, and coupling to building foundations for residential wood-frame houses. In lieu of a solid transit barrier or parapet, open railings with no acoustical properties were used as part of the noise modeling analysis for all elevated or aerial sections of the proposed alternatives. However, the edge of the aerial structure (which is a solid footing for the railing and has an approximate height of six inches) was included in the noise modeling analysis to provide some acoustical benefits. Vehicular noise from the activities at the proposed park and ride garages was also included in the modeling analysis using the FTA "General Assessment" guidelines. Finally, additional noise impacts could occur at residences near stations, due to feeder buses that idle while waiting for train passengers. During the final design phase, when the feeder bus routes and schedules are finalized, proper station design and layout are recommended to minimize impacts from idling buses. Page 25

38 Table 3-6. Summary of Noise Source Reference Data Noise Source Duration(sec) Height(ft) Noise Level (dba) 1 Category Name Description Lmax SEL Passbys Passby operations Warning device Onboard bell LRT Switches/ crossovers Special trackwork Wheel squeal Curves <65 feet Auxiliary equipment Stations only Crossing bell Grade crossing bell Grade crossing Parking Park and ride Parking garage Yard Maintenance yard Yard Source: AECOM, November 2010 Notes: 1 All noise levels are reported in A-weighted decibels at a reference distance of 50 feet and a reference speed of 50 mph for passbys only. Lmax represents the maximum noise level during an event and SEL is the sound exposure level that converts the cumulative noise energy of an event to one second. Default FTA reference levels are reported except where noted. 2 means not applicable. Duration time is not a used to compute passby and facility noise levels. 3 Noise levels and duration times are based on the Metro Gold Line Phase II Pasadena to Montclair Draft EIS/EIR Study (April 2004). 4 The default dwell time is 30 seconds at all proposed stations. 5 The Lmax level for the crossing bell reflects a 5-dBA penalty to account for the intrusive character of the noise source Vibration Monitoring Methodology Since the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is proposed along an alignment without an existing rail corridor, no existing vibration measurements were conducted. In general, rubber-tired vehicles, with their soft suspension system, do not contribute to vibration impacts. Unlike noise, where the project criteria are based on existing conditions, the vibration criteria are absolute, based on future service frequency alone. The default FTA ground-surface vibration curves were used to predict future vibration levels from Metro LRT vehicles along the proposed build alternatives. Since the majority of the proposed alignments would be elevated, the possibility of ground-borne vibration impacts is low, due to the additional track elevation and the isolation of the bents support structure. As a result, the FTA "General Assessment" guidelines were used to determine future impacts from vibration under the proposed build alternatives. Page 26

39 Table 3-7. LRT Alternative Operating Characteristics Time Period Hours Frequency of Service 1 Consist Size 2 Early morning 4:00 AM to 6:30 AM 15 3 AM peak 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM 5 3 Midday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM 10 3 PM peak 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM 5 3 Early evening 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM 10 3 Late evening 8:00 PM to 1:30 AM 15 3 Source: Metro, February, 2010 Notes: 1 The frequency of service (or headway time) is reported in minutes. 2 Consist size is the number of LRT vehicles coupled together into one train Construction Vibration Assumptions A qualitative analysis was prepared to estimate the potential for vibration impacts during temporary construction activities. Based on the FTA guidelines, the piece of equipment with the highest reference level (such as pile drivers) was selected. The maximum vibration level at the closest vibration-sensitive receptor was used to estimate the level of impact. The resultant vibration levels were compared with the FTA ground-borne RMS vibration impact criteria for annoyance from Table 3-3 to determine the onset of impact. Conservative assumptions (such as efficient ground propagation effects) were utilized to estimate the potential for impact Operational Vibration Assumptions Future ground-borne vibration levels from LRT passbys were predicted using the default FTA ground surface vibration curves summarized in Figure 3-4. These curves were adjusted per the FTA methodology to reflect local conditions such as changes in train speed, special trackwork such as switches, aerial track structures, and different building construction types (masonry versus timber) Ground-Borne Noise Ground-borne noise (GBN) can occur when a vibration source such as a train passby causes floors and walls to vibrate in nearby buildings, resulting in a low frequency rumble sound within the building. FTA has developed impact criteria to assess the potential for GBN due to transit project construction and operations (U.S. Department of Transportation 2006). Impacts of GBN typically occur from underground transit construction and operations. Typically, GBN is less of a concern for at-grade and aboveground transit system, since airborne noise from these activities would likely dominate the noise environment. Since all transit construction and operations proposed as part of the SR 60 LRT Alternative and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would be at-grade or aerial, there is no likelihood of creating a GBN impact. Where vibration impacts are predicted (such as at switches), mitigation measures would be provided. Page 27

40 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC, May 2006 Figure 3-4. FTA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Roadway Traffic Noise Assumptions Regarding traffic noise, there is less than a one percent change in both projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT) for the entire project corridor, between the 2035 No Build and LRT build alternatives. Since noise is logarithmic, it takes a doubling of the traffic volumes (or a 100 percent increase) for the noise levels to increase by 3 dba (FTA 2006). Thus, the change in traffic noise due to a one percent change in traffic volumes would not be acoustically perceptible. Therefore, the LRT alternatives would result in an insignificant change in traffic noise from the No Build Alternative. As a result, no further traffic noise analysis was conducted. Page 28

41 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Existing Noise The 17 locations at which existing background noise levels were measured are shown in Figure 4-1. As summarized in Table 4-1, the measured day-night noise levels along the project corridor alignments range from 66 dba at Receptor M16 (single family residences along Broadway Avenue in Pico Rivera) to 77 dba at Receptor M03 (residences along Via Palermo Avenue in Montebello). In general, the lower noise levels represent urban locations with city streets. The higher noise levels reflect vehicle traffic along SR 60, which is a heavily traveled eight-lane highway. Measured peak-hour noise levels along the project corridor alignments range from 71 dba at Receptor M06 (Whittier Narrows Recreation Area in Montebello) to 73 dba at Receptor M13 (former AT&SF Depot along Washington Boulevard in Montebello). These levels are representative of active urban land uses. In general, the alternative alignments consist of dense residential communities adjacent to a freeway (SR 60 LRT Alternative) or a mix of residential and commercial communities along urban arterials (Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment). Based on the monitoring results, the high ambient noise conditions noted in Table 4-1 reflect the proximity of residences to heavily-used transportation corridors. 4.2 Existing Vibration The project area is dominated by active transportation corridors, including busy city streets and congested highways. Therefore, although no vibration measurements were conducted, current ambient vibration levels appear to be dominated by vehicular traffic, particularly heavy trucks at locations adjacent to active roadways such as SR 60, Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard. Page 29

42 Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Note: Refer to Table 4-1 for specific addresses and land uses. Figure 4-1. Noise Monitoring Locations Page 30

43 Table 4-1. Baseline Noise Levels Measured along the Project Corridor (in dba) Receptor Land Use Alignment ID 1 Description Type FTA 24-Hr Ldn Pk-Hr Leq M Via Campo at Keenan Street SR 60, Washington Blvd. SFR M Pomona Blvd. at Fulton Avenue SR 60 SFR M Via Palermo at Messina Way SR 60 SFR M Ellingbrook Drive at N. Jerseydale Avenue SR 60 SFR M Landis View Lane at Muscatel Avenue SR 60 SFR M06 Whittier Narrows Recreation Area SR 60 Park M E. Maplefield Street at Allgeyer Avenue SR 60 SFR M N. Garfield Avenue at Via San Delarro Street Washington Blvd. SFR M and 452 Garfield Avenue at N. Hay Street Washington Blvd. SFR M Garfield Avenue at Northside Drive Washington Blvd. SFR M Washington Blvd. at S. Greenwood Avenue Washington Blvd. SFR M Keltonview Drive at Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. SFR M13 Former AT&SF Depot, 9122 Washington Blvd. at Loch Alene Avenue Washington Blvd. Museum M Washington Blvd. at Cord Avenue Washington Blvd. SFR M Milna Avenue at Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. SFR M Broadway Avenue at Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. SFR M Calobar Avenue at Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. SFR Source: AECOM, November 2010 Notes: 1 Refer to Figure 4-1 for locations of noise measurements. 2 SFR means Single-Family Residence. 3 The day-night noise level is not applicable to institutional land uses. 7/3/2014 Page 31

44 5.0 IMPACTS 5.1 No Build Alternative Construction Impacts No major construction activities are proposed under the No Build Alternative. Therefore, no construction noise and vibration impacts are expected under the No Build Alternative Operational Impacts Noise Future noise levels under the No Build Alternative are anticipated to be similar to those under existing conditions. The project area is characterized by urban communities that include major highways (such as SR 60) and arterials (such as Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard). Irrespective of other projects in the LRTP, ambient noise under the No Build Alternative is anticipated to be the same as under existing condition without the Eastside Transit Corridor. For example, it takes a doubling of the traffic volumes for the noise levels to increase by 3 dba, the threshold where most listeners detect the change. However, increases in traffic levels of less than 40 percent in the project area between now and 2035 are expected to result in higher congestion and lower average travel speeds. Therefore, no significant noise impacts are expected under the No Build Alternative Vibration Future vibration levels under the No Build Alternative are expected to be similar to those currently experienced under existing conditions. Traffic, including heavy trucks and buses, rarely creates perceptible ground-borne vibration unless vehicles are operating very close to buildings or there are irregularities in the road, such as potholes or expansion joints. The pneumatic tires and suspension systems of automobiles, trucks, and buses eliminate most ground-borne vibration. Since no project elements are proposed under the No Build Alternative, the alternative would not cause any vibration impacts Cumulative Impacts No major construction activities are proposed under the No Build Alternative. Therefore, no cumulative noise and vibration impacts are expected under the No Build Alternative. 5.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Construction Impacts No major construction activities are proposed under the TSM Alternative. Therefore, no construction noise and vibration impacts are expected under the TSM Alternative Operational Impacts Noise Future noise levels in the noise and vibration evaluation area under the TSM Alternative are expected to be similar to those measured under existing conditions. As with the No Build Alternative, changes in noise due to increases in traffic volumes between now and the future condition would be 7/3/2014 Page 32

45 insignificant and imperceptible. Since this alternative involves primarily improvements to bus service to reduce traffic congestion, the TSM Alternative is not expected to cause any noise impacts Vibration Future vibration levels under the TSM Alternative are expected to be similar to those currently experienced under existing conditions. Proposed improvements would include expanded bus service that is intended to reduce congestion in the project area. However, the pneumatic tires and suspension systems of these buses would eliminate most ground-borne vibration and rarely cause vibration annoyance, except at receptors close to potholes or bridge expansion joints. Therefore, since no rail transit project elements are proposed under the TSM Alternative, this alternative is not expected to cause any vibration impacts Cumulative Impacts No major construction activities are proposed under the TSM Alternative. Therefore, no cumulative noise and vibration impacts are expected under the TSM Alternative. 5.3 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Construction Impacts Several construction activities may be required as part of the SR 60 LRT Alternative including: Guideway or track laying (at-grade and aerial) Station construction Parking garage (site demolition and facility construction) Maintenance yard (site demolition and facility construction) According to the project s Construction Methods Technical Memorandum, at-grade track laying or guideway construction equipment would generally consist of rubber-tired excavators, loaders, rubbertired compactors, graders and small bulldozers, and water trucks for dust control. For aerial guideway construction, activities would include the placement of piles or support columns and girders to create a span between the bents. Equipment required for aerial guideway construction would include pile drivers (vibratory or impact), drilling rigs, possibly specialized water jet excavators, trucks to remove excavated soil, transit mix concrete trucks and concrete pumps, specialized truck trailers to deliver precast concrete beams, cranes, trucks to deliver forms, reinforcing steel, pavement saws, pre-cast concrete post tensioning jacks and related equipment, and water trucks for dust control. To minimize noise and vibration impacts during construction, the contractor may utilize cast-indrilled-hole (CIDH) piles rather than driven piles that require the use of pile drivers. The pre-drilling or auguring would eliminate the pounding effects associated with pile drivers that could contribute to adverse noise and vibration effects at nearby sensitive receptors. The use of CIDH piles that utilize the pre-auguring method would not be expected to result in any adverse construction noise or vibration impacts. Piles are support columns that may be driven or hammered into the ground. To accomplish this, contractors typically use equipment called pile drivers for speed and efficiency. However, the 7/3/2014 Page 33

46 pounding of a steel hammer (pile driver) onto a steel pile can result in excessive noise and vibration impacts in the community. Alternative techniques, such as CIDH, eliminate this hammering by using large augers to drill a hole into which a steel frame is placed. The drilled hole and steel frame insert are then filled with concrete to create cast-in-drilled-hole columns or piles. Other activities that would utilize piles include station and parking garage construction in order to support the weight of the massive structures. These activities would also be eligible to utilize CIDH piles to eliminate the potential of adverse noise and vibration impacts in the community Construction Noise Noise levels from construction activities along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, although temporary, could be a nuisance at nearby sensitive receptors such as residences and schools. Noise levels during construction are difficult to predict and vary depending on the types of construction activity and the types of equipment used for each stage of work. Heavy machinery, the major source of noise in construction, is constantly moving in unpredictable patterns and is not usually at one location very long. Project construction activities include, for example, constructing track bed, installation of bents for the aerial structures, relocating utilities, renovating grade crossings, and constructing stations. No specific information is available during the environmental analysis phase of the project on the selection of equipment for each construction activity. Details on the actual equipment types and duration of use would not be determined until a contractor is selected for the work. However, it is recognized that there would be adverse impacts during construction in some locations. In addition, activities associated with construction staging and/or material laydown areas can result in adverse noise impacts if they take place in noise-sensitive areas. This analysis makes conservative assumptions regarding construction noise in order to ensure that maximum potential adverse impacts are analyzed and disclosed consistent with NEPA and CEQA requirements. However in later stages of project design when a detailed construction plan is available this analysis including mitigation measures can be refined. Note that construction normally occurs during daylight hours when some residents are not at home, when residents who are at home are less sensitive to construction activities, and when other community noise sources contribute to higher ambient noise levels. Since the proposed construction is expected to last about 12 to 18 months at any one location, depending on the type of activity, significant noise impacts are expected, particularly on those receptors adjacent to the alignment. Noise control measures are expected to eliminate impacts and minimize extended disruption of normal activities. Construction noise differs from transit noise in two ways: 7/3/2014 Page 34

47 Construction noise lasts for the duration of the construction contract and is usually limited to daylight hours when most human activity occurs. Construction activities are generally of a short duration and, depending on the nature of construction operations, could last from seconds (such as for a truck passing by) to months (such as when constructing a bridge at an overpass). Transit noise occurs during most or all of the day and night and is a permanent part of the acoustical environment, such as highway noise. Construction noise is also intermittent and depends on the type of operation, location, and function of the equipment as well as the equipment usage cycle. Transit noise, on the other hand, is present in a more continuous fashion after construction activities are completed. To ensure that noise impacts are minimized during construction, all construction activities are intended to comply with Metro s baseline specifications Section 01565, Construction Noise and Vibration Control. Although Metro, as a state-chartered agency, is exempt from local noise ordinances, Metro is committed to consistency with local construction noise limits whenever feasible and reasonable in accordance with its own construction specifications. For example, Metro s contractor would utilize control measures from its own specifications that effectively minimize noise and vibration impacts in the community, such as: Conducting all construction activities during the daytime whenever possible; Requiring special permits for all construction within a specified distance and a specified time period for residential zones during the night and weekends; Using construction equipment with effective noise-suppression devices; Using noise control measures, such as enclosures and noise barriers, as necessary to protect the public and achieve compliance with Metro s noise limits; and, Conducting all operations in a manner that will minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, disturbance to the public in areas adjacent to the construction activities and to occupants of nearby buildings. Along the SR 60 LRT Alternatives, construction activities would include track-laying for both aerial and at-grade sections, Metro stations, bridges, park and ride garages, and a maintenance yard. The distances at which an exceedance of the FTA daytime noise limit of 90 dba at residential receptors is predicted ranges from 32 feet during station construction to 40 feet during at-grade track laying. The distances at which an exceedance of the FTA daytime noise limit of 100 dba at commercial receptors would occur at ranges from 10 feet during station construction to 13 feet during at-grade track-laying. As a result of these preliminary construction noise estimates, construction activities are predicted to exceed the FTA daytime noise limits at only the closest residences and commercial properties to station and guideway construction Construction Vibration Unlike noise, vibration levels from construction activities are not cumulative but rather dependent on the type of activity and equipment used. Vibration is also dependent on the ground and terrain conditions, the presence of underground utilities, and the type and condition of the building at the 7/3/2014 Page 35

48 receptor. As a result, except for digging and pounding activities in hard soils, most construction activities do not contribute to vibration impacts, due to the typically long distance between the activity and the sensitive receptor. Along the SR 60 LRT Alternative, construction activities would include the use of bulldozers, dump trucks, and vibratory rollers. The use of impact pile drivers would be avoided whenever possible to eliminate the potential for vibration impacts (such as minor cosmetic structural damage) at nearby sensitive receptors. The distances at which an exceedance of the FTA vibration damage criterion of 0.2 inches per second (ips) would occur (for typical timber and masonry residences) ranges from 15 feet for trucks to 20 feet for bulldozers to 35 feet for vibratory rollers. In accordance with the FTA guidelines, the vibration limit is used during the environmental impact assessment phase to identify potential problem locations that should be addressed in more detail during final design. The FTA criterion is intended to be used more as an indicator of potential damage rather than a definitive evaluation of impact. During final design when details of the actual construction equipment would be refined, a more definitive evaluation of potential impact and damage is recommended to address these potential concerns. Similarly, the distances at which an exceedance of the FTA vibration infrequent annoyance criterion of 80 VdB for residences and other FTA Category 2 land uses would occur ranges from 40 feet for trucks to 50 feet for bulldozers to 70 feet for vibratory rollers. As a result of these preliminary construction vibration estimates, construction activities are predicted to exceed the FTA impact criteria at only the closest residences and commercial properties. The FTA infrequent event category was used to assess impact from perceptible vibration events, since not all construction activity would be perceptible Operational Impacts Along the SR 60 LRT Alternative, LRT service is proposed between the existing Gold Line Atlantic Station to South El Monte and would generally follow SR 60. The SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment is proposed along new sections of track that would include a short at-grade section along East 3 rd Street in Montebello, while the rest of the alignment would use elevated structures south of the SR 60 eastbound lanes. There is currently no rail corridor along the proposed alignment Operational Noise At residences and other FTA Category 2 land uses such as motels and hospitals sensitive to nighttime activity, the Ldn descriptor was used to reflect the particularly heightened sensitivity to nighttime noise. To see the change in noise levels from the existing condition, the predicted future noise levels from SR 60 LRT Alternative LRT operations are summarized below in Table 5-1 for the same receptor locations used to monitor current noise levels (see Figure 4-1). As summarized in Table 5-1, the Ldn day-night noise levels at residences along the proposed alignment are predicted to range from 52 dba at Receptor M07 (residences along Maplefield Street) to 65 dba at Receptor M01 (residences along Via Campo). At the selected representative receptors, only the noise level at Site M01 is predicted to exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria. 7/3/2014 Page 36

49 Table 5-1. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Representative Receptors from the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) ID No. Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Description Type FTA Existing Noise Build Noise "Moderate" "Severe" M Via Campo SFR M Pomona Blvd. SFR M Via Palermo SFR M Ellingbrook Drive SFR M Landis View Lane SFR M06 Whittier Narrows Recreation Area Park M E. Maplefield Street SFR Source: AECOM, February 2011 Notes: 1 FTA moderate impacts are bold and underlined. 2 SFR = Single-Family Residence The Build Noise levels represent the future project noise only. The cumulative future ambient noise with the project would be equal to the Existing Noise logarithmically added to the Build Noise. Noise impacts at the selected noise monitoring locations described above were used to characterize noise impacts from the SR 60 LRT Alternative at almost 900 receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. As a result of this evaluation, corridor-wide project noise levels along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria at 36 residences and the FTA severe impact criteria at one additional residence (a single-family residence along Lexham Avenue). None of the project noise levels along the SR 60 LRT Alternative are predicted to exceed the FTA impact criteria at any FTA Category 3 receptors. The predicted corridor-wide noise impacts are summarized in Table 5-2 and summarized graphically in Appendix B. For the SR 60 North Side Design Variation, the impacts are predicted to be exactly the same, except in the vicinity of Via Palermo. At Via Palermo, reduced LRT speeds west of the design variation are predicted to result in nine fewer moderate noise impacts at residences, for a total of 27 impacts. Although the shift in the alignment of the SR 60 North Side Design Variation is not located in the vicinity of any residences, reduced travel speeds approaching the shifted alignment are predicted to result in slightly lower operational noise levels at residences along Via Palermo only. The one FTA severe impact is predicted at the same single-family residence along Lexham Avenue. None of the project noise levels under the SR 60 North Side Design Variation are predicted to exceed the FTA impact criteria at any FTA Category 3 receptors. The predicted corridor-wide noise impacts are summarized in Table /3/2014 Page 37

50 Table 5-2. Corridor-wide Project Noise Impacts along the SR 60 LRT Alternative ID 1 Location Type Use 2 Impact (Moderate or Severe) No. Residences Affected 3 SR 60 SR 60 Design Variation Major Source(s) Contributing to Impact 4 FTA Category 2 M01 Via Campo SFR MFR Moderate Moderate LRT passbys M03 Via Palermo SFR Moderate 9 0 LRT passbys M05 Muscatel Avenue SFR Moderate 1 1 LRT passbys Lexington Gallatin Road SFR Moderate 3 3 M07 Lexham Avenue SFR Moderate Severe Switches and LRT passbys Fawcett Avenue SFR Moderate 3 3 Severe 1 1 Total FTA Category 2 Moderate Total FTA Category 3 Severe 0 0 Total FTA Category 3 Moderate 0 0 Total 0 0 Severe 1 1 Total All Uses Moderate Total Source: AECOM, October 2011 Notes: 1 ID corresponds to general location as shown in Appendix B. 2 SFR = Single-Family Residence; MFR = Multi-Family Residence. 3 The number of affected residences is shown for both the SR 60 LRT Alternative and the SR 60 Design Variation. 4 Major sources include LRT passbys, LRT warning bells, and switches or special trackwork. The maintenance yard and TPSS are not expected to be a primary source for impacts in any noise-sensitive locations. 7/3/2014 Page 38

51 Pass-by Impacts from LRT Vehicles Except for receptors in the immediate vicinity of stationary noise sources (such as stations, park and ride facilities, and special trackwork such as switches), receptor noise along the SR 60 LRT Alternative would be primarily due to passbys from LRT vehicles. Maximum passby noise levels from LRT vehicles (shown in Table 3-6) were used to develop cumulative day-night noise levels over a 24-hour period using typical weekday operating conditions. Unlike the Leq and Ldn noise metrics (which are statistically derived), the Lmax noise level is the sound that people actually hear during a noise event. For example, maximum noise levels along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment from LRT train passbys are predicted to range from 67 dba at Receptor M07 (single-family residences along Maplefield Street) to 81 dba at Receptor M01 (single-family residences along Via Campo). Except in the vicinity of grade crossings, where onboard warning bells are used, the dominant noise sources from LRT passbys along the proposed transit corridors would be wheel-rail and aerodynamic noise. Impacts from Special Trackwork Special trackwork (such as turnouts and crossovers) is proposed at several locations along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment to provide operational flexibility. Turnouts or switches allow trains to move from one track to another, while crossovers allow trains to move between parallel tracks. Noise from switches or crossovers comes from a small gap in the central part of the switch known as a frog. When the steel LRT wheel hits this gap, train noise levels could increase up to 8 dba in the vicinity of the switch. Maximum noise levels from switches located at mile marker or Sta. No and are predicted to range from 73 to 83 dba at residences along Lexham and Fawcett Avenues just west of South El Monte High School. Compared to the Lmax noise levels from LRT passbys of dba, these switches are predicted to contribute to exceedances of the FTA moderate impact criteria at these residences. The Sta. No. or mile markers can be cross-referenced with the Advanced Conceptual Design Drawings. Impacts from Traction Power Substations (TPSS) As part of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, TPSS would be installed at several locations along the proposed rail corridor to provide adequate electrical power for LRT service. Each TPSS would be designed in accordance with the Metro system-wide design criteria noise guideline of 50 dba at 50 feet or the nearest residential building, whichever is closer. This operating noise level for the TPSS would be significantly lower than existing ambient noise levels (which range from 66 to 77 dba) and LRT passby noise levels of 78 dba at 50 feet. Therefore, noise generated by the TPSS would not exceed the FTA noise impact criteria at any receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, and no significant adverse noise impact would occur. The TPSS are transformers that step-up the voltage necessary to operate the trains. Although these box-like devices do not have any gears, belts or other moving mechanical parts, TPSS noise is a continuous hum. Transformer noise is caused by the constant expansion and contraction of the magnetically charged metal plates inside the casing. However, the absolute level of the TPSS is regulated by Metro s own specifications, thereby minimizing the potential for noise impact in the community. 7/3/2014 Page 39

52 Impacts from Maintenance Yard Along the SR 60 LRT Alternative, one potential 11-acre site has been preliminarily identified for the location of a new maintenance yard, referred to as the Mission Junction Yard Option. The location of the site is adjacent to the existing Mission Junction rail facility, which is directly north of the intersection of Cesar Chavez Avenue and Mission Road. This industrial area is zoned for railroads and maintenance yard facilities, and is generally bounded by I-5 to the east, I-10 to the south, the Los Angeles River to the west, and the Union Pacific rail line to the north. The proposed maintenance yard, on the north side of Mission Road, would be operated in conjunction with the existing Division 10 bus maintenance yard located on the south side of Mission Road. The proposed maintenance yard would accommodate daily maintenance, inspection and repairs, and storage of the LRT vehicles. The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located north of Alhambra Avenue over 2,000 feet from the proposed Mission Junction Yard Option, which is well outside the FTA screening distance of 1,000 feet. Therefore, noise generated by the maintenance yard would not exceed the FTA noise impact criteria at any of the closest receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, and no significant adverse noise impact would occur. Operational Noise Impacts at Historic Properties Although two cultural resources were identified along the SR 60 LRT Alternative (Helms Bakery and Chinese Garden Restaurant), neither of these properties are sensitive to transit noise. For example, the Helms Bakery just south of Pomona Boulevard is currently an auto body shop, an industrial land use. Similarly, the Chinese Garden Restaurant still operates as a restaurant, a commercial land use. Therefore, no noise impacts are predicted at historic properties along the SR 60 LRT Alternative. Operational Noise Impacts at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors As listed in Table 5-3, several parks and schools were identified along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. At these institutional sites, the peak-hour Leq descriptor was used to reflect their sensitivity to daytime noise. As summarized in Table 5-3, project Leq noise levels at parks along the proposed SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 50 dba at the Montebello Golf Course and Country Club to 58 dba at the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area in South El Monte. Similarly, peak-hour Leq noise levels at institutional receptors are predicted to range from 59 dba at the Chong Hua Tien Tao University in East Los Angeles to 61 dba at International College and South El Monte High School. None of the project noise levels at the parks or schools are predicted to exceed the FTA moderate or severe impact criteria along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. 7/3/2014 Page 40

53 Table 5-3. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) 1 ID No. 2 Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Description Type FTA Existing Noise Build Noise "Moderate" "Severe" Montebello Golf Course and Country Club Whittier Narrows Recreation Area South El Monte High School Chong Hua Tien Tao University Park Park School School International College School Source: AECOM, November 2010 Notes: 1 Peak-hour Leq noise levels are reported for all institutional receptor sites. 2 See Appendix B for locations of receptors Operational Vibration Unlike noise, which is assessed using cumulative noise levels over a 24-hour period, transit vibration impacts are assessed based on individual events, such as when a train passes by. To reduce transit vibration impacts at residences and other sensitive receptors along the build alternatives, the entire rail corridor would be constructed with ballast and continuously-welded rail (CWR) track. These measures are expected to reduce vibration levels that are caused by steel wheels rolling over steel rails at rail joints. Along aerial sections, elevated structures create additional separation between the train source and the ground-level receptors, resulting in greater attenuation. At at-grade crossings, embedded track at cross streets is not expected to result in any vibration impacts, due to the short section limited to the width of the cross street. All predicted vibration levels were compared with the FTA frequent impact criteria to assess the onset and severity of impact. The SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment would have three potential sources of vibration during operations, including LRT vehicle passbys along tangent or CWR track, LRT passbys through special trackwork such as switches along the corridor during revenue service, and switches at the maintenance yard. Passby Impacts from LRT Vehicles To show the variation in vibration levels along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, transit vibration levels were predicted at the same receptor locations as for the noise analysis. As summarized in Table 5-4, the maximum vibration levels from LRT vehicles are predicted to range from 32 VdB at Receptor 7/3/2014 Page 41

54 M07 (a single-family residence along Maplefield Street) to 63 VdB at Receptor M01 (single-family residences along Via Campo). As summarized in Table 5-4, all of the vibration levels at the representative receptor sites are predicted to be below the FTA frequent impact criteria. Table 5-4. Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Representative Receptors from the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (in VdB) Receptor Land Use Build FTA Criteria ID No. Description Type FTA Vibration Frequent Impact M Via Campo SFR No M Pomona Blvd. SFR No M Via Palermo SFR No M Ellingbrook Drive SFR No M Landis View Lane SFR No M06 Whittier Narrows Recreation Area Park No M E. Maplefield Street SFR No Source: AECOM, November 2010 Note: 1 SFR = Single-Family Residence As summarized in Table 5-5, corridor-wide vibration levels are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent criterion of 72 VdB at three residences. All of these impacts are due to the proximity of residences along Lexham Avenue to the proposed switches at Sta. No and No vibration impacts are predicted at any schools, parks, churches, or other FTA Category 3 receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. The predicted corridor-wide vibration impacts are summarized graphically in Appendix B. None of the vibration impacts are due to LRT passbys along CWR track. There is no change in the number of predicted impacts between the SR 60 LRT Alternative and SR 60 North Side Design Variation. Impacts from Special Trackwork Due to the rail discontinuities at switches located at Sta. No and , vibration levels from LRT vehicle passbys over switches are predicted to range from 73 to 76 VdB at three single-family residences along Lexham Avenue just west of South El Monte High School. The vibration levels are predicted to exceed the FTA impact criterion of 72 VdB for residential land uses (FTA Category 2). 7/3/2014 Page 42

55 Table 5-5. Corridor-wide Project Vibration Impacts along the SR 60 LRT Alternative ID 1 Location Type Use 2 Impact (Frequent) No. Residences Affected 3 Base North Major Source(s) Contributing to Impact 4 FTA Category 2 M07 Lexham Av. SFR Frequent 3 3 Switches Total FTA Category 2 Frequent 3 3 FTA Category 3 Total All Uses Total 3 3 Source: AECOM, February 2011 Notes: 1 ID corresponds to general location as shown in Appendix B. 2 SFR = Single-Family Residence. 3 The number of affected residences is shown for both the SR 60 LRT Alternative and the SR 60 North Side Design Variation. 4 Major sources include LRT passbys, LRT warning bells, and switches or special trackwork. The maintenance yard and TPSS are not expected to be a primary source of impacts in any noise-sensitive locations. Impacts from Maintenance Yard The closest vibration-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed Mission Junction Yard Option are residences north of Alhambra Avenue over 2,000 feet away. Therefore, vibration generated from slow-moving LRT vehicles over switches and other activities at the maintenance yard would not exceed the FTA vibration impact criterion at any of the closest receptors along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, and no significant adverse vibration impact would occur. Operational Vibration Impacts at Historic Properties Although two cultural resources were identified along the SR 60 LRT Alternative (Helms Bakery and Chinese Garden Restaurant), neither of these properties are sensitive to transit vibration. For example, the Helms Bakery just south of Pomona Boulevard is currently an auto body shop, an industrial land use. Similarly, the Chinese Garden Restaurant still operates as a restaurant, a commercial land use. Therefore, no vibration impacts are predicted at historic properties along the SR 60 LRT Alternative. Operational Vibration Impacts at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors As summarized in Table 5-6, maximum vibration levels at parks along the proposed SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 41 VdB at the Montebello Golf Course and Country Club along Garfield Avenue to 60 VdB at the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area in South El Monte. Similarly, maximum vibration levels at schools along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 61 VdB at the International College to 62 VdB at the Chong Hua Tien Tao University along Pomona Boulevard in East Los Angeles and South El Monte High School along North Durfee Avenue in El Monte. Based on the modeling analysis, none of the project vibration levels at the 7/3/2014 Page 43

56 five selected receptor sites summarized in Table 5-6 are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria. Table 5-6. Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptor Sites (in VdB) Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Build Vibration ID No. 1 Description Type FTA Frequent Impact Montebello Golf Course and Country Club Whittier Narrows Recreation Area Park No Park No 310 South El Monte High School School No 311 Chong Hua Tien Tao University School No 312 International College School No Source: AECOM, February 2011 Note: 1 See Appendix B for locations Cumulative Impacts Noise levels along the route would be somewhat increased by the presence of the SR 60 LRT Alternative, since it would involve operating transit vehicles. Some of the other planned projects in the area would also increase noise because they would result in increased travel. With the mitigation measures proposed in Section 6.0, all project-related noise and vibration impacts would be reduced to less than adverse, since there would be no violations of FTA s severe noise criteria or ground-borne noise and vibration criteria. In other words, mitigation measures are required to eliminate the FTA severe noise impacts and the vibration impacts predicted along the project corridor. Since the LRT project would provide an alternative mode of transportation to many destinations in the area, it is anticipated that it would reduce the number of auto trips and the noise levels associated with these foregone auto trips. Therefore, the SR 60 LRT Alternative would not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts and may provide a beneficial overall effect. 5.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Construction Impacts Several construction activities may be required as part of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative including: 7/3/2014 Page 44

57 Guideway or track laying (at-grade and aerial) Station construction Bridge construction Parking garage (site demolition and facility construction) Maintenance yard (site demolition and facility construction) According to the project s Construction Methods Technical Memorandum, at-grade track laying or guideway construction equipment would generally consist of rubber-tired excavators, loaders, rubbertired compactors, graders and small bulldozers, and water trucks for dust control. For aerial guideway construction, activities would include the placement of piles or support columns and girders to create a span between the bents. Equipment required for aerial guideway construction would include pile drivers (vibratory or impact), drilling rigs, possibly specialized water jet excavators, trucks to remove excavated soil, transit mix concrete trucks and concrete pumps, specialized truck trailers to deliver precast concrete beams, cranes, trucks to deliver forms, reinforcing steel, pavement saws, pre-cast concrete post tensioning jacks and related equipment, and water trucks for dust control. To minimize noise and vibration impacts during construction, the contractor may utilize CIDH piles rather than driven piles, which require the use of pile drivers. The pre-drilling or auguring would eliminate the pounding effects associated with pile drivers that could contribute to adverse noise and vibration effects at nearby sensitive receptors. The use of CIDH piles that utilize the pre-auguring method would not be expected to result in any adverse construction noise or vibration impacts. Piles are support columns that may be driven or hammered into the ground. To accomplish this, contractors typically use equipment called pile drivers for speed and efficiency. However, the pounding of a steel hammer (pile driver) onto a steel pile can result in excessive noise and vibration impacts in the community. Alternative techniques, such as CIDH, eliminate this hammering by using large augers to drill a hole in which a steel frame is placed. The drilled hole and steel frame insert are then filled with concrete to create CIDH columns or piles. Other activities that would utilize piles include station and parking garage construction in order to support the weight of the massive structures. These activities would also be eligible to utilize CIDH pile to eliminate the potential of adverse noise and vibration impacts in the community Construction Noise Noise levels from construction activities along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, although temporary, could be a nuisance at nearby sensitive receptors such as residences and schools. Noise levels during construction are difficult to predict and vary depending on the types of construction activity and the types of equipment used for each stage of work. Heavy machinery, the major source of noise in construction, is constantly moving in unpredictable patterns and is not usually at one location very long. Project construction activities include, for example, constructing track bed, installing bents for the aerial structures, relocating utilities, renovating grade crossings, and constructing stations. No specific information is available during the environmental analysis phase of the project on the selection of equipment for each construction activity. Details on the actual equipment types and duration of usage would not be determined until a contractor is selected for the 7/3/2014 Page 45

58 work. However, it is recognized that there would be adverse impacts during construction in some locations. In addition, activities associated with construction staging and/or material laydown areas can result in adverse noise impacts if they take place in noise-sensitive areas. Locations for construction staging are identified in the separate Real Estate Acquisition - Displacement and Relocation Technical Memorandum. Note that construction normally occurs during daylight hours when some residents are not at home, when residents who are at home are less sensitive to construction activities, and when other community noise sources contribute to higher ambient noise levels. Since the proposed construction is expected to last about 12 to 18 months at any one location, depending on the type of activity, significant noise impacts are expected, particularly for those receptors adjacent to the alignment. Therefore, noise control measures are expected to eliminate impacts and minimize extended disruption of normal activities. Construction noise differs from transit noise in two ways. Construction noise lasts for the duration of the construction contract, and it is usually limited to daylight hours when most human activity occurs. Construction activities are generally of a short duration and, depending on the nature of construction operations, could last from seconds (such as for a truck passing by) to months (such as when constructing a bridge at an overpass). Transit noise occurs during all periods of the day and night and is a permanent part of the acoustical environment, such as highway noise. Construction noise is also intermittent and depends on the type of operation, location, and function of the equipment as well as the equipment usage cycle. Transit noise, on the other hand, is present in a more continuous fashion after construction activities are completed. To ensure that noise impacts are minimized during construction, all construction activities would comply with Metro s baseline specifications Section 01565, Construction Noise and Vibration Control. Although Metro, as a state-chartered agency, is exempt from local noise ordinances, it is still committed to consistency with local construction noise limits whenever feasible and reasonable in accordance with its own construction specifications. For example, Metro s contractor would utilize control measures from its own specifications that effectively minimize noise and vibration impacts in the community, such as: Conducting all construction activities during the daytime whenever possible; Requiring special permits for all construction within a specified distance and a specified time period for residential zones during the nighttime and weekends; Use construction equipment with effective noise-suppression devices; 7/3/2014 Page 46

59 Use noise control measures, such as enclosures and noise barriers, as necessary to protect the public and achieve compliance with Metro's noise limits; and, Conducting all operations in a manner that will minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, disturbance to the public in areas adjacent to the construction activities and to occupants of nearby buildings. Along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, construction activities would include track laying for both aerial and at-grade sections, stations, bridges, park and ride garages, and a maintenance yard. The distances at which an exceedance of the FTA daytime noise limits of 90 dba at residential receptors is predicted ranges from 32 feet during station construction to 40 feet during at-grade track laying. The distances at which an exceedance of the FTA daytime noise limits of 100 dba at commercial receptors would occur range from 10 feet during station construction to 13 feet during atgrade track-laying. As a result of these preliminary construction noise estimates, construction activities are predicted to exceed the FTA daytime noise limits at only the closest residences and commercial properties to station and guideway construction Construction Vibration Unlike noise, vibration levels from construction activities are not cumulative but rather dependent on the type of activity and equipment used. Vibration is also dependent on the ground and terrain conditions, the presence of underground utilities, and the type and condition of the building at the receptor. As a result, except for digging and pounding activities in hard soils, most construction activities do not contribute to vibration impacts, due to the typically long distance between the activity and the sensitive receptor. Along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, construction activities would include the use of bulldozers, dump trucks, and vibratory rollers. The use of impact pile drivers would be avoided whenever possible to eliminate the potential of vibration impacts (such as minor cosmetic structural damage) at nearby sensitive receptors. The distances at which an exceedance of the FTA vibration damage criterion of 0.2 ips would occur (for typical timber and masonry residences) ranges from 15 feet for trucks to 20 feet for bulldozers to 35 feet for vibratory rollers. In accordance with the FTA guidelines, the vibration limit is used during the environmental impact assessment phase to identify potential problem locations that should be addressed in more detail during final design. The FTA criterion is intended to be used more as an indicator of potential damage rather than a definitive evaluation of impact. During final design when details of the actual construction equipment would be refined, a more definitive evaluation of potential impact and damage is recommended to address these potential concerns. Similarly, the distances at which an exceedance of the FTA vibration infrequent annoyance criterion of 80 VdB for residences and other FTA Category 2 land uses would occur ranges from 40 feet for trucks to 50 feet for bulldozers to 70 feet for vibratory rollers. As a result of these preliminary construction vibration estimates, construction activities are predicted to exceed the FTA impact criteria at only the closest residences and commercial properties. The FTA infrequent event category was used to assess impact from perceptible vibration events, since not all construction activity would be perceptible. 7/3/2014 Page 47

60 5.4.2 Operational Impacts Along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, LRT service is proposed from the existing Gold Line Atlantic Station to a Lambert Road station in Whittier, and would generally follow Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard. The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment is proposed along new sections of track that would include a short at-grade section along East 3 rd Street in Montebello, aerial structures from South Sadler Avenue in Montebello to just east of South Montebello Boulevard, and then at-grade again to Lambert Road. A second option that was also evaluated includes two additional aerial sections at Rosemead Boulevard and the aerial crossing of the San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds at I-605. There is currently no rail corridor along the proposed alignment Operational Noise At residences and other FTA Category 2 land uses such as motels and hospitals sensitive to nighttime activity, the Ldn descriptor was used to reflect the particularly heightened sensitivity to nighttime noise. To see the change in noise levels from the existing condition, the predicted future noise levels from Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative LRT operations are summarized below in Table 5-7 for the same receptor locations used to monitor current noise levels (see Figure 4-1). As summarized in Table 5-7, the Ldn day-night noise levels at residences along the proposed alignment are predicted to range from 55 dba at Receptor M16 (single-family residences along Broadway Avenue) to 66 dba at Receptor M11 (a single-family residence at 860 Washington Boulevard). At the selected representative receptors, only the noise levels at Sites M01, M09, M10, M11 and M12 are predicted to equal or barely exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria. Noise impacts at the selected noise monitoring locations described above were used to characterize noise impacts from the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative at over 2,100 receptors throughout the project area. As a result of this overall evaluation, corridor-wide project noise levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment (assuming at-grade crossing options at Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/I-605) are predicted to exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria at 135 residences and the FTA severe impact criteria at one residence (a building just north of the Montebello Golf Course and Country Club). Additionally, project noise levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative are predicted to exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria at one FTA Category 3 receptor (a school along Washington Boulevard opposite Crossway Drive). The predicted corridor-wide noise impacts are summarized in Table 5-8 and shown graphically in Appendix B (at the end of this technical memorandum). The same number of noise impacts predicted for the at-grade option is also predicted for the Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossings. These include 135 moderate impacts at residences and a severe impact at only one residence (a building just north of the Montebello Golf Course and Country Club). Additionally, project noise levels are predicted to exceed the FTA moderate impact criteria at one FTA Category 3 receptor (a school along Washington Boulevard opposite Crossway Drive) along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. The predicted corridor-wide noise impacts are summarized in Table 5-8 and shown graphically in Appendix B (at the end of this technical memorandum). 7/3/2014 Page 48

61 Table 5-7. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Representative Receptors from the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) ID No. Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Description Type FTA Existing Noise Build Noise "Moderate" "Severe" M Via Campo SFR M N. Garfield Avenue MFR M and 452 Garfield Avenue MFR M Garfield Avenue SFR M Washington Blvd. SFR M Keltonview Drive SFR M Washington Blvd. Museum M Washington Blvd. SFR M Milna Avenue SFR M Broadway Avenue SFR M Calobar Avenue SFR Source: AECOM, February 2011 Notes: 1 FTA moderate impacts are bold and underlined. 2 SFR = Single-Family Residence; MFR = Multi-Family Residence. The Build Noise levels represent the future project noise only. The cumulative future ambient noise with the project would be equal to the Existing Noise logarithmically added to the Build Noise. 7/3/2014 Page 49

62 Table 5-8. Corridor-wide Project Noise Impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative ID 1 Location Land Use Type 2 Impact (Moderate or Severe) No. Residences Affected 6 Major Source(s) Contributing to Impact 3 FTA Category 2 SFR Moderate 15 M01 Via Campo SFR Severe [1] LRT passbys MFR Moderate 4 M08 North Garfield Avenue SFR MFR Moderate Moderate 3 30 Switches and LRT passbys M09 North Garfield Avenue MFR Moderate 9 LRT passbys M10 Montebello Historic District, North Garfield Avenue SFR MFR Moderate Moderate LRT passbys M11 Kelly House, Washington Blvd. SFR Moderate 1 LRT passbys M12 4 Washington Blvd. at Paramount Blvd. MFR Moderate 10 LRT Bells and LRT passbys M14 5 Washington Blvd. at Bonnie Vale Place Washington Blvd. at Lemoran Avenue SFR SFR Moderate Moderate 2 1 Switches and LRT passbys M15 5 Washington Blvd. at Pioneer Blvd. SFR Moderate 3 LRT Bells and LRT passbys M16 Washington Blvd. at Ridgeview Lane SFR Moderate 1 LRT passbys M17 Sorensen Avenue SFR Moderate 8 SFR Moderate 1 Crowndale Avenue MFR Moderate 1 LRT Bells and LRT passbys Switches and LRT passbys Total FTA Category 2 Severe Moderate Total [1] /3/2014 Page 50

63 Table 5-8. Corridor-wide Project Noise Impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (continued) ID 1 Location Land Use Type 2 Impact (Moderate or Severe) No. Residences Affected 6 Major Source(s) Contributing to Impact 3 FTA Category 3 M12 Washington Blvd. at Crossway Drive School Moderate 1 Switches and LRT passbys Total FTA Category 3 Total All Uses Severe Moderate Total Severe Moderate Total [0] 1 1 [1] Source: AECOM, February 2011 Notes: 1 ID corresponds to general location as shown in Appendix B. 2 SF = Single-Family Residence; MF = Multi-Family Residence. 3 Major sources include LRT passbys, LRT warning bells, and switches. The maintenance yard and TPSS are not expected to be a major source for impacts in any noise-sensitive locations. 4 Receptors along the Rosemead Boulevard aerial option are represented by Site M12. There is no change in the number of predicted noise impacts between the at-grade and the aerial crossings in this area. 5 Receptors along the San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossing option are represented by Sites M14 and M15. There is no change in the number of predicted noise impacts between the at-grade and the aerial options along this section of the proposed alignment. 6 FTA moderate impacts are bold and underlined and severe impacts are shown in brackets ([ ]). Passby Impacts from LRT Vehicles Except for receptors in the immediate vicinity of stationary noise sources (such as stations and park and ride facilities or special trackwork such as switches), receptor noise along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would be primarily due to passbys from LRT vehicles. Maximum passby noise levels from LRT vehicles (summarized in Table 3-6) were used to develop cumulative day-night noise levels over a 24-hour period using typical weekday operating conditions. Unlike the Leq and Ldn noise metrics (which are statistically derived), the Lmax noise level is the sound that people actually hear during a noise event. For example, maximum noise levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment from LRT train passbys are predicted to range from 67 dba at Receptor M16 (single-family residences along Broadway Avenue) to 81 dba at Receptors M10 and M11 (single-family residences along Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard). Except in the vicinity of grade crossings, where onboard warning bells are used, the dominant noise sources from LRT passbys along the proposed transit corridors would be wheel-rail and aerodynamic noise. 7/3/2014 Page 51

64 Maximum noise levels for the Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossing options are predicted to be slightly lower than for the at-grade options, due to the absence of grade crossings (which require warning bells) and the shielding provided by the aerial guideway. This shielding is, however, offset slightly by the four-decibel increase associated with aerial track. The noise levels for all other areas are predicted to be the same for all of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative variations. Impacts from At-Grade Crossings There are twelve at-grade crossings along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, including ten sites east of South Greenwood Avenue in Montebello. However, the closest noisesensitive receptors at most grade crossings are shielded by commercial buildings (i.e., commercial buildings fill the four quadrants surrounding the grade crossings, thereby blocking the line-of-sight of the crossing signals). At Pioneer Boulevard, for example, Lmax noise levels from grade crossings at the closest residence where impacts are predicted are 76 dba for LRT vehicle warning bells. Therefore, FTA moderate noise impacts are predicted at 15 residences in the vicinity of at-grade crossings along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. At Sorensen Avenue, Paramount Boulevard, and Pioneer Boulevard, these impacts would be partially due to LRT passbys and warning bells. The Pioneer Boulevard impacts due to LRT warning bells would be eliminated along the aerial option. Impacts from Special Trackwork Special trackwork (such as turnouts and crossovers) is proposed at several locations along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment to provide operational flexibility. Turnouts or switches allow trains to move from one track to another, while crossovers allow trains to move between parallel tracks. Noise from switches or crossovers comes from a small gap in the central part of the switch known as a frog. When the steel LRT wheel hits this gap, train noise levels could increase up to 8 dba in the vicinity of the switch. Maximum noise levels from switches located at mile marker or Sta. No , , , and are predicted to range from 76 to 82 dba at nearby residences. Compared to the Lmax noise levels from LRT passbys of dba, these switches are predicted to contribute to exceedances of the FTA moderate impact criteria at 44 residences and one park building (Montebello Golf and Country Club). The Sta. No. or mile markers can be cross-referenced with the Advanced Conceptual Design Drawings (AECOM 2011).The number of receptors impacted would be the same regardless of whether the aerial or at-grade crossing options proposed at Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/I-605 are selected for implementation. Impacts from Traction Power Substations (TPSS) As part of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, TPSS would be installed at several locations along the proposed rail corridor to provide adequate electrical power for LRT service. Each TPSS would be designed in accordance with the Metro system-wide design criteria noise guideline of 50 dba at 50 feet or the nearest residential building, whichever is closer. This operating noise level for the TPSS would be significantly lower than existing ambient noise levels (which range from 66 dba Ldn to 73 dba Leq) and LRT passby noise levels of 78 dba at 50 feet. Therefore, noise generated by the TPSS would not exceed the FTA noise impact criteria at any receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, and no significant adverse noise impact would occur. The findings are the 7/3/2014 Page 52

65 same regardless of whether the at-grade or aerial crossing options proposed at Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/I-605 are selected for implementation. The TPSS are transformers that step-up the voltage necessary to operate the trains. Although these box-like devices do not have any gears, belts or other moving mechanical parts, TPSS noise is a continuous hum. Transformer noise is caused by the constant expansion and contraction of the magnetically charged metal plates inside the casing. However, the absolute level of the TPSS is regulated by Metro s own specifications, thereby minimizing the potential for noise impact in the community. Impacts from Maintenance Yard Along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, three potential sites have been preliminarily identified for the location of a new maintenance yard. These potential sites include the following locations: Mission Junction Yard Option an 11-acre site adjacent to an industrial area generally bounded by I-5 to the east, I-10 to the south, the Los Angeles River to the west, and the Union Pacific rail line to the north. This is the same site being considered for the SR 60 LRT Alternative. Commerce Yard Option a 12-acre site located west of Garfield Avenue on Southern California Edison s transmission line ROW in an industrial area, approximately 1,600 feet away from the mainline in the city of Commerce. Santa Fe Springs Yard Option a 9-acre site located in a commercial/industrial area immediately south of Washington Boulevard and east of Allport Avenue in the city of Santa Fe Springs. The proposed maintenance yard would accommodate daily maintenance, inspection and repairs, and storage of the LRT vehicles. The Santa Fe Springs Yard Option would require an at-grade crossing where crossing gates and bells would be activated when the LRT accesses the facility. However, since each of the three potential sites was selected in predominantly industrial areas, there are no noise-sensitive receptors (such as residences, schools, churches, or parks) identified within the FTA screening distance of 1,000 feet. Therefore, noise generated by the maintenance yard would not exceed the FTA noise impact criteria at any of the closest receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, and no significant adverse noise impact would occur. Operational Noise Impacts at Historic Properties As summarized in Table 5-9, several historic properties were identified along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. At historic residences, the Ldn descriptor was used to reflect the particularly heightened sensitivity to nighttime noise. At institutional (FTA Category 3) receptors, the peak-hour Leq descriptor was used to reflect the sensitivity to daytime noise. Since the FTA does not consider commercial properties (historic or not) such as restaurants and stores to be sensitive to transit noise, the peak-hour Leq noise levels are reported at these sites, although impact was not assessed. As summarized in Table 5-9, project Leq noise levels at historic resources along the 7/3/2014 Page 53

66 proposed Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 56 dba at a coffee shop along Garfield Avenue to 64 dba at the Dal Rae Restaurant along Washington Boulevard. At historic residences, Ldn noise levels are predicted to range from 62 dba at the Cliff May-designed Ranch House along Washington Boulevard to 65 dba at the Kelly House, also on Washington Boulevard. Due to LRT passby operations, the predicted noise level of 65 dba is predicted to equal the FTA moderate impact criterion at the Kelly House and 19 single-family and 27 multi-family residences in the Montebello Park Historic District. Except for the Kelly House and residences in the Montebello Park Historic District, none of the project noise levels at the other historic properties are predicted to exceed the FTA moderate or severe impact criteria. The predicted results are the same for the Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossing options. Table 5-9. Summary of Project Noise Levels at Historic Properties along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (in dba) 1 ID No. 3 Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Existing Build Noise Description Type FTA Noise 2 "Moderate" "Severe" 101 Coffee Shop Historic Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School Montebello Park Historic District Historic Historic Kelly House Historic Dal Rae Restaurant Historic Former AT&SF Depot Historic Cliff May-designed Ranch House Historic Steak Corral Restaurant Historic Source: AECOM, February 2011 Notes: 1 Peak-hour Leq noise levels are reported for all institutional receptor Sites No. 102 and 106, while the 24-hour Ldn noise level is reported for Sites No. 103, 104 and FTA moderate impacts are bold and underlined. 3 See Appendix B for receptor locations. 7/3/2014 Page 54

67 Operational Noise Impacts at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors As summarized in Table 5-10, several parks, schools, hospitals, and other non-residential receptors were identified along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. At these non-residential sites, the peak-hour Leq descriptor was used to reflect the sensitivity to daytime noise. At the Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital in Whittier, the Ldn descriptor was used to reflect the particularly heightened sensitivity to nighttime noise. As summarized in Table 5-10, project Leq noise levels at parks along the proposed Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 38 dba at the Whittier Greenway to 56 dba at the San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds in Pico Rivera to 64 dba at a park in the Montebello Park Historic District. Similarly, peak-hour Leq noise levels at institutional receptors are predicted to range from 40 dba at the Tri-Cities Regional Occupational Program (ROP) in Whittier to 61 dba at both the Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal School church in Montebello and the International College in East Los Angeles. However, none of the project noise levels at the parks, schools, libraries, hospitals, or churches are predicted to exceed the FTA moderate or severe impact criteria along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. The predicted results are the same if the aerial crossing options are selected for implementation Operational Vibration Unlike noise, which is assessed using cumulative noise levels over a 24-hour period, transit vibration impacts are assessed based on individual events, such as when a train passes by. To reduce transit vibration impacts at residences and other sensitive receptors along the build alternatives, the entire rail corridor would be constructed with ballast and CWR track. These measures are expected to reduce vibration levels that are caused by steel wheels rolling over steel rails at rail joints. Along aerial sections, elevated structures create additional separation between the train source and the groundlevel receptors resulting in greater attenuation. At at-grade crossings, embedded track at cross streets is not expected to result in any vibration impacts, due to the short section limited to the width of the cross street. All predicted vibration levels were compared with the FTA frequent impact criteria to assess the onset and severity of impact. The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment would have three potential sources of vibration during operations, including LRT vehicle passbys along tangent or CWR track, LRT passbys through special trackwork such as switches along the corridor during revenue service, and switches at the maintenance yard. Passby Impacts from LRT Vehicles To show the variation in vibration levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, transit vibration levels were predicted at the same receptor locations as for the noise analysis. As summarized in Table 5-11, the maximum vibration levels from LRT vehicles are predicted to range from 48 VdB at Receptor M16 (a single-family residence along Broadway Avenue) to 76 VdB at Receptor M15 (a residence along Milna Avenue). Except for Receptors M12 and M15, all of the vibration levels at the representative receptor sites are predicted to be below the FTA frequent impact criteria. As summarized in Table 5-11, the maximum vibration level from switches in the vicinity of Receptor M12 and M15 is predicted to exceed the FTA frequent criterion of 72 VdB for residential land uses along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. 7/3/2014 Page 55

68 Table Summary of Project Noise Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) 1 ID No. 3 Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Description Type FTA Existing Noise Build Noise 2 "Moderate" "Severe" 103 Montebello Park Historic District Park in historic district San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds Park Whittier Greenway Park Montebello Golf Course and Country Club Park Bicknell Park Park Ashiya Park Park Chet Holifield Park Park Chet Holifield Library Library Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal School Church Marian Preschool School Tri-Cities Regional Occupational Program (ROP) Washington Elementary School School School Pioneer High School School Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary School Greenwood Elementary School School School Brethren Christian School School Chong Hua Tien Tao University School /3/2014 Page 56

69 Table Summary of Project Noise Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (in dba) 1 (continued) ID No. 3 Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Description Type FTA Existing Noise Build Noise 2 "Moderate" "Severe" 312 International College School Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital Hospital Source: AECOM, February 2011 Notes: 1 Peak-hour Leq noise levels are reported for all institutional receptors Site No. 103, , while the 24-hour Ldn noise level is reported for Site No. 313 (Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital). 2 See Appendix B for receptor locations. Table Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Representative Receptors from the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (in VdB) Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Build Vibration ID No. Description Type FTA Frequent Impact M Via Campo SFR No M N. Garfield Ave. SFR No M and 452 Garfield Ave. SFR No M Garfield Ave. SFR No M Washington Blvd. SFR No M Keltonview Dr. SFR Yes M Washington Blvd. Museum No M Washington Blvd. SFR No M Milna Ave. SFR Yes M Broadway Ave. SFR No M Calobar Ave. SFR No Source: AECOM, November 2010 Notes: 1 Exceedances of the FTA frequent criteria are bold and underlined. 2 SFR = Single-family Residence. 7/3/2014 Page 57

70 As summarized in Table 5-12, corridor-wide vibration levels are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent criterion of 72 VdB at 31 residences. All of these impacts are due to the proximity of residences to proposed switches. Additionally, vibration levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent criterion of 75 VdB at one institutional receptor (an educational facility along Washington Boulevard at Keltonview Drive) due to the switches at Sta. No No vibration impacts are predicted at any other schools, parks, or other FTA Category 3 receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. The predicted corridor-wide vibration impacts are shown graphically in Appendix B. None of the vibration impacts are due to LRT passbys along CWR track. The corridor-wide project vibration impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment with the Rosemead Boulevard and the San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossings are the same as for the at-grade alignment except near Site M15 at Milna Avenue. The aerial alignment is predicted to result in two fewer vibration impacts compared with the at-grade alignment. Table Corridor-wide Project Vibration Impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative ID 1 Location Type Use 2 Impact (Frequent) No. Residences Affected Major Source(s) Contributing to Impact 3 FTA Category 2 M01 Via Campo SFR Frequent 3 Switches M08 Garfield Avenue at Via San Delarro SFR MFR Frequent 1 5 Switches M12 Washington Blvd. at Keltonview Drive SFR Frequent 5 Switches M15 Washington Blvd. at Milna Avenue SFR Frequent 15 Switches M17 Calobar Avenue SFR MFR Frequent 1 1 Switches Total FTA Category 2 Frequent 31 FTA Category 3 M13 Washington Blvd. at Keltonview Drive School Frequent 1 Switches Total FTA Category 3 Frequent 1 Total All Uses Total 32 Source: AECOM, February 2011 Notes: 1 ID corresponds to general location as shown in Appendix B. 2 SF = Single-Family Residence; MF = Multi-Family Residence. 3 Major sources include LRT passbys, LRT warning bells, and switches or special trackwork. The maintenance yard and TPSS are not expected to be a major source for impacts in any noise-sensitive locations. 7/3/2014 Page 58

71 Impacts from Special Trackwork Due to the rail discontinuities at switches, vibration levels from LRT vehicle passbys over switches are predicted to range from below background to 76 VdB at Receptor R15 (a single-family residence at Milna Avenue). The vibration levels from LRT passby over switches are predicted to exceed the FTA impact criterion of 72 VdB at 31 residential land uses (FTA Category 2) and one school (FTA Category 3 land use). Impacts from Maintenance Yard Along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, three potential sites have been preliminarily identified for the location of a new maintenance yard: the Mission Junction Yard Option in East Los Angeles (the same site being considered for the SR 60 LRT Alternative), the Commerce Yard Option in the city of Commerce, approximately 1,600 feet west of Garfield Avenue, and the Santa Fe Springs Yard Option in Santa Fe Springs, located south of Washington Boulevard and east of Allport Avenue. Since each of the three potential sites was selected in a predominantly industrial area, there are no vibration-sensitive receptors (such as residences, schools, churches or parks) identified within the FTA screening distance of 150 feet. Therefore, vibration generated from slow-moving LRT vehicles over switches and other activities at the maintenance yard would not exceed the FTA vibration impact criteria at any of the closest receptors along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, and no significant adverse vibration impact would occur. Operational Vibration Impacts at Historic Properties As summarized in Table 5-13, maximum vibration levels at historic resources along the proposed Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 64 VdB at the Montebello Park Historic District to 71 dba at the Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary School (along Garfield Avenue) and the Steak Corral Restaurant (along Washington Boulevard). Due to the strategic location of switches, none of the vibration levels predicted at historic properties are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. Operational Vibration Impacts at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptors As summarized in Table 5-14, maximum vibration levels at parks along the proposed Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 46 VdB at the Montebello Golf Course and Country Club along Garfield Avenue to 63 VdB at a park in the Montebello Park Historic District to 64 VdB at the San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds. Similarly, maximum vibration levels at schools and other institutional receptors along the proposed Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment are predicted to range from 22 VdB at the Greenwood Elementary School north of Washington Boulevard to 64 VdB at the Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal School along Garfield Avenue. Based on the modeling analysis, none of the project vibration levels at the selected receptor sites summarized in Table 5-14 (including parks, schools, libraries, museums, churches, or hospitals) are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative. 7/3/2014 Page 59

72 Table Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Historic Properties along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative (in VdB) Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Build Vibration ID No. 2 Description Type FTA 1 "Frequent" Impact 101 Coffee Shop Historic No 102 Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School Historic No 103 Montebello Park Historic District Historic No 104 Kelly House Historic No 105 Dal Rae Restaurant Historic No 106 Former AT&SF Depot Historic No 107 Cliff May-designed Ranch House Historic No 108 Steak Corral Restaurant Historic No Source: AECOM, February 2011 Note: 1 See Appendix B for receptor locations. Table Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptor Sites (in VdB) Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Build Vibration ID No. Description Type FTA Frequent Impact 103 Montebello Park Historic District Park No 201 San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds Park No 202 Whittier Greenway Park 3 BD 1 75 No 203 Montebello Golf Course and Country Club Park No 204 Bicknell Park Park No 205 Ashiya Park Park 3 BD 75 No 206 Chet Holifield Park Park 3 BD 75 No 7/3/2014 Page 60

73 Table Summary of Project Vibration Levels at Parks, Schools, and Other Institutional Receptor Sites (in VdB) (continued) Receptor Land Use FTA Criteria Build Vibration ID No. Description Type FTA Frequent Impact 301 Chet Holifield Library Library 3 BD 75 No 302 Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal School Church No 303 Marian Preschool School No 304 Tri-Cities Regional Occupational Program (ROP) School 3 BD 75 No 305 Washington Elementary School School 3 BD 75 No 306 Pioneer High School School 3 BD 75 No 307 Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary School School No 308 Greenwood Elementary School School No 309 Brethren Christian School School No 311 Chong Hua Tien Tao University School No 312 International College School No 313 Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital Hospital No Source: AECOM, February 2011 Note: 1 Due to attenuation over large distances, the predicted vibration level is below detection level and well below the ambient background level. Therefore, it is not perceptible Cumulative Impacts Noise levels along the route would be somewhat increased by the presence of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, since this alternative would involve operating transit vehicles. Some of the other planned projects in the area would also increase noise because they would result in increased travel. With the mitigation measures proposed in Section 6.0, all project-related noise and vibration impacts would be reduced to less than adverse, since there would be no violations of FTA s severe noise criteria or ground-borne noise and vibration criteria. Since the LRT project would provide an alternative mode of transportation to many destinations in the area, it is anticipated that it would reduce the number of auto trips and the noise levels associated with these foregone auto trips. Therefore, the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts and may provide a beneficial overall effect. 7/3/2014 Page 61

74 6.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES Where exceedances of the project impact criteria are predicted, mitigation measures were developed and evaluated to determine whether they are both feasible (able to provide adequate noise reduction benefits) and reasonable (mitigation is cost-effective based on the benefit provided). The following mitigation measures could be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts described in Section 5.0 (Impacts). 6.1 Construction Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative Since no construction noise or vibration impacts are expected under the No Build Alternative, no mitigation is proposed Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Since no construction noise or vibration impacts are expected under the TSM Alternative, no mitigation is proposed State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Noise and vibration impacts are expected during construction of the Eastside Transit Corridor at residences and other sensitive receptors along the proposed build alternative alignments. As a result, Metro is committed to providing noise and vibration control measures during construction whenever feasible and reasonable in accordance with its own construction specifications to mitigate these impacts and to achieve consistency with the local noise ordinances along the proposed build alternative alignments. To reduce temporary construction noise and vibration impacts that are expected along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, several good housekeeping practices are recommended. For example, the following noise and vibration control measures could be incorporated into the construction process: Use construction methods that avoid pile-driving at locations containing noise- and vibrationsensitive receptors, such as residences, schools, and hospitals. Whenever possible, Metro s contractor would consider using CIDH or drilled piles rather than impact pile drivers to reduce excessive noise and vibration. Conduct a survey of the closest receptors (particularly fragile historic properties) to determine the baseline structural integrity and condition of walls and joints. These surveys could include the installation of strain gauges or a photographic documentation of the interior walls and exterior façade as a basis for comparison after construction is completed. Depending on the baseline conditions of the nearby buildings, an appropriate construction and monitoring plan would be developed to minimize potential damage to susceptible structures. Where practical, erect temporary noise barriers between noisy activities and noisesensitive receptors. 7/3/2014 Page 62

75 Locate construction equipment and material staging areas away from sensitive receptors. See the separate Real Estate Acquisition - Displacement and Relocation Technical Memorandum for locations of proposed construction staging areas. Route construction traffic and haul routes along roads in non-noise-sensitive areas where possible. Require contractors to use best available control technologies to limit excessive noise and vibration when working near residences (e.g., CIDH piles). Whenever possible, conduct all construction activities during the daytime and during weekdays in accordance with most local noise-control ordinances. Adequately notify the public of construction operations and schedules. Methods such as construction-alert publications or a Noise Complaint Hotline could be used to handle complaints quickly. All mitigation measures would be confirmed during the final design phase of the project when the details of the project components and the construction scenarios have been finalized Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative To reduce temporary construction noise and vibration impacts that are expected along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative, the same mitigation measures described for the SR 60 LRT Alternative are proposed. 6.2 Operational Mitigation Measures Since noise impacts are predicted for the proposed build alternatives, mitigation measures were investigated to determine their effectiveness in reducing moderate and severe noise impacts from LRT operations. The following four mitigation measures were evaluated for their potential to eliminate severe noise impacts along the project corridor: Relocating switches away from sensitive receptors; Specialized spring frogs to eliminate rail gaps and the resultant elevated noise levels. Spring frogs are switches that utilized special metals to close the gaps between the rail points, thereby creating a smooth surface for the wheel to roll over; Median barriers or other supplemental safety measures at at-grade crossings to eliminate the need to sound warning horns, particularly at night; and, Track-side noise barriers or parapets to shield residents from wayside train passbys. Although CWR track is proposed as a control measure to eliminate the vast majority of impacts due to rail discontinuities, switches are necessary at several locations along the project corridor to improve the operating efficiency of the proposed LRT service. Impulse noise (steel wheels rolling over the gaps of standard rail bound manganese track switches) could contribute to impacts at nearby residences. 7/3/2014 Page 63

76 Mitigation measures to eliminate these impacts could include relocating these switches away from residences or using special low-impact frogs (such as spring frogs) that eliminate the gaps in the switch. At at-grade crossings, supplemental safety measures, such as median barriers, would eliminate the need to sound warning horns. These control measures are an effective tool for mitigating noise impacts from LRT warning bells, particularly during the nighttime when residents are particularly sensitive to noise intrusion. Parapets or noise barriers were evaluated along the project corridor along both aerial and at-grade sections of track where openings for at-grade crossings are not required. To be effective, noise barriers need to be high enough to block the line of sight between the receptor and the noise source and must not have any gaps or openings. Barriers must also be constructed of solid material with a minimum weight or density of four pounds per square foot. Due to the density of the residential communities in the project area, noise impacts are predicted along each of the build alternatives, particularly in the vicinity of switches and grade crossings. As a result, transit or parapet noise barriers are recommended to eliminate or reduce the severity of FTA moderate and severe noise impacts predicted for the aerial segments of the alignments along the build alternatives. Along at-grade sections of track where openings are required for cross streets, sound insulation may be an effective alternative to noise barriers, whose acoustical benefits would be degraded due to the openings No Build Alternative Since no operational noise or vibration impacts are expected under the No Build Alternative, no mitigation is proposed Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Since no operational noise or vibration impacts are expected under the TSM Alternative, no mitigation is proposed State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Noise Noise impacts due to gaps at switches may be eliminated by relocating the switches, installing ballast mats under conventional switches to decouple the train vibration from the track supporting structure, or using a gapless spring frog. The following switch relocations are recommended to eliminate noise impacts due to switches: Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No For noise impacts due to LRT passbys along tangent aerial track sections, parapets are recommended in lieu of safety railings to provide additional shielding for nearby residences. Parapets are recommended at the following locations to eliminate noise impacts from LRT passbys: 7/3/2014 Page 64

77 Sta. No to outbound (eastbound) track side 3 ft x 2,500 ft barrier Sta. No to outbound (eastbound) track side 3 ft x 800 ft barrier (not applicable for the SR 60 North Side Design Variation) Sta. No to outbound (eastbound) track side 3 ft x 800 ft barrier Except for the noise barrier in the vicinity of Via Palermo (Sta. No to ), the proposed mitigation for the SR 60 North Side Design Variation is the same as for the SR 60 LRT Alternative. At Via Palermo, no noise impacts are predicted under the SR 60 North Side Design Variation Vibration As with the mitigation proposed for noise, vibration impacts due to gaps at switches may be eliminated by relocating the switches, installing ballast mats under conventional switches to decouple the train vibration from the track supporting structure, or using a gapless spring frog. The following switch relocations are recommended to eliminate vibration impacts due to switches predicted at the three residences along both of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignments: Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No No other vibration impacts are predicted along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment due to track switches, because they would be strategically located as part of the advanced conceptual design to avoid impacts from rail discontinuities Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Noise Noise impacts due to gaps at switches may be eliminated by relocating the switches, installing ballast mats under conventional switches to decouple the train vibration from the track supporting structure, or using a gapless spring frog. The following switch relocations are recommended to eliminate noise impacts due to switches: Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No /3/2014 Page 65

78 Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No For noise impacts due to LRT passbys along tangent aerial track sections, parapets are recommended in lieu of safety railings to provide additional shielding for nearby residences. Parapets are recommended at the following locations to eliminate noise impacts from LRT passbys: Sta. No to outbound (eastbound) track side 3 ft x 2,500 ft barrier Sta. No to outbound (eastbound) track side 3 ft x 1,300 ft barrier Sta. No to inbound (westbound) track side 3 ft x 1,500 ft barrier Sta. No to inbound (westbound) track side 3 ft x 900 ft barrier Sta. No to outbound (eastbound) track side 3 ft x 2,500 ft barrier Sta. No to inbound (westbound) track side 3 ft x 2,500 ft barrier Sta. No to inbound (westbound) track side 3 ft x 200 ft barrier For moderate noise impacts predicted along at-grade sections of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, noise barriers would not be as effective as along the aerial sections, due to the required openings at street crossings. Other mitigation measures (such as residential sound insulation) may not be cost-effective, since many of the impacts are predicted to equal or only slightly exceed the moderate thresholds. Furthermore, all of the predicted noise levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment are well below the measured existing ambient levels. Due to existing traffic noise, therefore, any noise mitigation applied to the transit alignment would provide little to no benefit in reducing impacts. For impacts due to at-grade crossings, specifically LRT warning bells, stationary control measures are proposed to eliminate the required sounding of the LRT warning bells. Supplemental safety measures, such as median barriers, would eliminate the need to sound warning horns. These control measures are an effective tool for mitigating noise impacts from LRT warning bells, particularly during the nighttime when residents are most sensitive to noise intrusion Vibration As with the mitigation proposed for noise, vibration impacts due to gaps at switches may be eliminated by relocating the switches, installing ballast mats under conventional switches to decouple the train vibration from the track supporting structure, or using a gapless spring frog. The following switch relocations are recommended to eliminate vibration impacts predicted due to switches along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment: 7/3/2014 Page 66

79 Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No Relocate switch at Sta. No No other vibration impacts are predicted along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment due to track switches, because they would be strategically located as part of the advanced conceptual design to avoid impacts from rail discontinuities. 6.3 Impacts Remaining After Mitigation No Build Alternative Since no noise or vibration impacts are expected under the No Build Alternative, no mitigation is proposed Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Since no noise or vibration impacts are expected under the TSM Alternative, no mitigation is proposed State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative Noise and vibration control measures were evaluated to eliminate or reduce the severity of the predicted impacts along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. As a result, residual impacts after mitigation are those that would remain, either because no mitigation is proposed for an FTA moderate noise impact or because the impacts would not be fully mitigated by proposed mitigation. All severe noise impacts (and CEQA significant impacts) at residences would be mitigated with either transit barriers or sound insulation to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dba Ldn or lower for the noiseimpacted buildings. All vibration impacts would be fully mitigated to a level of no adverse effect or less than significant impact. 7/3/2014 Page 67

80 6.3.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Noise and vibration control measures were evaluated to eliminate or reduce the severity of the predicted impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. As a result, residual impacts after mitigation are those that would remain, either because no mitigation is proposed for an FTA moderate noise impact or because the impacts would not be fully mitigated by proposed mitigation. Although only one severe noise impact (or CEQA significant impact) is predicted along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, this would be eliminated with the recommended parapet barrier. However, several moderate impacts would remain at residences along at-grade sections of track. Most of these impacts just barely exceed FTA moderate criteria and are well below the existing ambient levels, which are dominated by roadway traffic. Therefore, since transit barriers would not be effective due to the required openings at street crossings, other mitigation measures such as sound insulation may need to be evaluated (with consideration of their feasibility and reasonableness) to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dba Ldn or lower for these isolated receptors. All vibration impacts would be fully mitigated to a level of no adverse effect or less than significant impact. 7/3/2014 Page 68

81 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 No Build Alternative NEPA Finding No adverse noise and vibration effects are expected under the No Build Alternative CEQA Determination No significant noise and vibration impacts are expected under the No Build Alternative. 7.2 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative NEPA Finding No adverse noise and vibration effects are expected under the TSM Alternative CEQA Determination No significant noise and vibration impacts are expected under the TSM Alternative. 7.3 State Route 60 (SR 60) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative NEPA Finding Along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, severe noise impacts are predicted at one residence and moderate impacts at an additional 36 residences. For the SR 60 North Side Design Variation, the number of impacts is predicted to be the same everywhere along the corridor, except in the vicinity of Via Palermo, where nine fewer moderate noise impacts are predicted at residences (for a total of 27 moderate impacts). No impacts are predicted at any institutional or FTA Category 3 land uses along either of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignments. Therefore, with the exception of the one severe noise impact, no adverse noise effects are expected along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. However, adverse vibration effects from operations are predicted at three residences along both of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignments. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential noise levels to no impact or low moderate impact at all affected sites. Similarly, mitigation measures (such as relocation of switch or ballast mats) would reduce potential vibration levels to no impact. At all noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors identified along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, potential impacted sites with mitigation would be less than the FTA severe impact threshold. Therefore, there would be no adverse effects from transit operations. Construction of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment is expected to result in adverse noise effects at residences adjacent to the construction activities. As a result, Metro is committed to providing noise control measures, whenever feasible and reasonable in accordance with its own construction specifications, that are consistent with all local noise ordinances. Therefore, noise and vibration levels associated with construction of this alternative are not expected to result in an adverse effect with implementation of mitigation measures. Implementing site-appropriate mitigation measures would ensure a less than adverse effect to sensitive land uses along the SR 60 LRT Alternative. 7/3/2014 Page 69

82 7.3.2 CEQA Determination Along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment, project noise levels are predicted to exceed the FTA severe impact criteria at one residence, and the moderate impact criteria at an additional 36 residences. For the SR 60 North Side Design Variation, the number of impacts is predicted to be the same everywhere along the corridor, except in the vicinity of Via Palermo, where nine fewer moderate noise impacts are predicted at residences (for a total of 27 moderate impacts). No impacts are predicted at any institutional or FTA Category 3 land uses along either of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignments. Under CEQA, severe impacts are considered significant, but the moderate impacts are not. All other noise levels along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignments would be less than significant. Mitigation measures would reduce potential noise impacts from construction and operations to less than significant levels in the entire project area. Project vibration levels are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria at three residences in the vicinity of track switches. Under CEQA, frequent impacts are considered significant. All other vibration levels along both of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignments would be less than significant. Mitigation measures (such as reduced speeds, relocation of switches, or installation of ballast mats) would reduce potential vibration impacts from construction and operations to less than significant levels in the entire project area. With implementation of mitigation measures, construction and operation of the SR 60 LRT Alternative would not result in a considerable contribution to potentially significant cumulative noise or vibration impacts. 7.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative NEPA Finding Along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, a severe noise impact is predicted at one residence and moderate impacts are predicted at an additional 135 residences and one school. The same number of impacts is predicted for the Rosemead Boulevard and the San Gabriel River/I-605 aerial crossing options. Therefore, only one significant adverse noise impact is expected at a residence just north of the Montebello Golf Course. However, adverse vibration effects from operations are predicted at 31 residences and one school along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential noise levels to no impact or low moderate impact at all affected sites. Similarly, mitigation measures (such as relocation of switch or ballast mats) would reduce potential vibration levels to no impact. At all noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors identified along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, potential impacts with mitigation would be less than the FTA severe impact threshold. Therefore, there would be no adverse effects from transit operations. Construction of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment is expected to result in adverse noise impacts at residences adjacent to the construction activities. As a result, Metro is committed to providing noise control measures, whenever feasible and reasonable in accordance with its own construction specifications, that are consistent with all local noise ordinances. Therefore, noise and vibration levels associated with construction of this alternative are not expected to result in an adverse effect with implementation of mitigation measures. Implementing site-appropriate mitigation 7/3/2014 Page 70

83 measures would ensure a less than adverse effect to sensitive land uses along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative CEQA Determination Along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment, project noise levels are predicted to exceed the FTA severe impact criteria at one residence and the moderate impact criteria at an additional 135 residences and one school. Under CEQA, only the one severe noise impact is considered significant, while the moderate noise impacts are not considered significant. All other noise levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment would be less than significant. Mitigation measures would reduce potential noise impacts from construction and operations to less than significant levels in the entire project area. Similarly, project vibration levels are predicted to exceed the FTA frequent impact criteria at 31 residences and one school in the vicinity of track switches. Under CEQA, frequent impacts are considered significant. All other vibration levels along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignment would be less than significant. Mitigation measures (such as reduced speeds or ballast mats) would reduce potential vibration impacts from construction and operations to less than significant levels in the entire project area. With implementation of mitigation measures, construction and operation of the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would not result in a considerable contribution to potentially significant cumulative noise or vibration impacts. 7.5 Maintenance Yard Options NEPA Finding No noise-sensitive uses are located adjacent to the maintenance yard sites; therefore, no adverse noise or vibration effects would occur CEQA Determination No noise-sensitive uses are located adjacent to the maintenance yard sites; therefore, no significant noise or vibration impacts would occur. 7/3/2014 Page 71

84 8.0 REFERENCES CITED ANSI. American National Standard S /Part 2. Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 2: Measurement of Long-term, Wide-Area Sound. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY. ANSI. American National Standard S /Part 3. Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 3: Short-Term Measurements with an Observer Present. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). May Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, For New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects, Division of Environmental Affairs. Sacramento. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) FTA-VA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Planning and Environment. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). August 17, CFR 222 and 229. Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule. Washington, DC. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and FTA. August Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report. Los Angeles, CA. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and FTA. April Gold Line Phase II Pasadena to Montclair Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Angeles, CA. AECOM Advanced Conceptual Design Drawings. Los Angeles, CA. 7/3/2014 Page 72

85 APPENDIX A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL VIBRATION ON SLOPE STABILITY Appendix A

86 AECOM 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY T F Memorandum Date: October 17, 2011 To: Steve Greene From: Tom Herzog Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II DEIS/DEIR - Appendix A Qualitative Assessment of Operational Vibration on Slope Stability Attached are the results of the operational vibration analysis conducted to qualitatively evaluate the slope stability at the OII Landfill along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. This memorandum was revised to reflect the comment-response matrix from Metro dated October 18 th. All edits were applied to this memorandum based on Metro s comments regarding Appendix A. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this memorandum.

87 Eastside Transit Corridor Appendix A: Vibration Impacts at Landfill October 17, 2011 DEIS/DEIR Chapter Summary In response to comments received from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding slope stability at the OII Landfill Superfund Site, a qualitative vibration analysis was conducted to assess the potential collapse of the landfill from operational vibration along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment. This qualitative assessment utilized the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction methodologies to estimate the potential soil damage (or rather the potential to cause a soil collapse) from operational vibration. In general, operational vibration from train passbys is evaluated for human annoyance rather than structural damage due to the low levels and infrequent occurrence associated with light rail transit (LRT) transit operations. Damage to buildings and other structures from vibration is typically evaluated for construction activities, which involve impact devices (such as pile drivers) that can create intense ground impulses. As a result, human annoyance and structural damage due to vibration are evaluated using different methodologies and metrics. The FTA construction methodologies were used to convert the operational vibration levels from LRT train passbys to vibration impact levels that are comparable with damage criteria. The FTA methodologies are appropriate for all transit projects that include both operational and construction-related events. Using conservative modeling assumptions, such as efficient vibration propagation and the highest land-use sensitivity, operational vibration levels were estimated at the base of the track support column. Based on these worst-case modeling assumptions, structural-vibration levels from LRT passbys in the vicinity of the OII Landfill are predicted to range from 0.1 inch per second (ips) at Stationing Number (Sta. No.) (at a rail height of 47 feet) to ips Sta. No (at a rail height of 29 feet). Each of these predicted vibration levels are well below the selected damage criterion of 0.2 ips for highly sensitive structures (such as historic properties or very old cast-iron pipelines). The damage criterion of 0.2 ips for highly sensitive structures was selected as a worst-case condition to demonstrate the low likelihood of any potential for slope collapse from train passby events. There are no switches or other rail discontinuities proposed along the OII Landfill, which may result in elevated vibration levels. Although not required, vibration control measures, such as resiliently supported ties or ballast mats, could be utilized to further reduce vibration levels to well below the selected damage criterion. 1

88 Eastside Transit Corridor Appendix A: Vibration Impacts at Landfill October 17, 2011 Introduction A qualitative vibration analysis was prepared in response to comments received from the US EPA in January 2011 regarding concerns about slope stability along the SR 60 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative alignment near the OII Landfill Superfund Site. Specifically, EPA expressed the concern that operational vibration from the light rail transit train passbys could adversely impact the OII Landfill and result in collapse or erosion of the landfill. As a result, this qualitative analysis was prepared to address EPA s concerns regarding operational vibration on the landfill s slope stability. Methodology Since the author did not find any publications or references regarding slope collapse due to operational vibration from LRT passbys, the analysis adopted methods and applications typically applied for construction activities. The qualitative analysis included an assessment of vibration levels at the base of the aerial support columns and an evaluation of potential vibration control measures. Since vibration decreases with distance, the base of the rail support column was evaluated as the potential worst-case location where train vibration levels would be the highest. Since the EPA s concerns regarding slope stability focused on operation vibration rather than temporary construction activities, this analysis included an evaluation of long-term operation impacts only. The applied methodologies include the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines [FTA, 2006], which include provisions for estimating ground- and structure-borne vibration impacts. Although thresholds of impact are proposed to evaluate the potential for soil damage, the FTA criteria are a first-order approximation of impact. The selected criterion of 0.2 inches per second is based on the Swiss Construction Standards that form the basis for the FTA building damage criteria 1. According to the project s geotechnical engineers, the low vibration during operation would have a less than significant impact on the slope stability. Therefore, the geotechnical engineers agree that the use of the FTA default impact criterion of 0.20 ips as a worst-case threshold is appropriate in evaluating the sensitivity of the OII landfill slope. The reference FTA vibration levels from train passbys are reported in root mean square (RMS) velocity and are converted to vibration decibels relative to one micro-inch per second. These RMS levels are typically used to assess the potential for human annoyance rather than structural damage. As a result, the estimated RMS levels were converted to peak particle velocity (PPV) to better assess the potential for structural damage. In accordance with the FTA construction methodologies, the RMS vibration levels were converted to PPV using a crest factor of four for better comparison with the Swiss damage criteria. The PPV vibration levels are reported in inches per second (ips). 1 Association of Swiss Highway Professionals, Swiss Standard, SN640312a, April

89 Eastside Transit Corridor Appendix A: Vibration Impacts at Landfill October 17, 2011 Qualitative Vibration Assessment To determine the potential for impact from operational vibration, the maximum potential vibration level from a train passby was estimated at the base of the track structure support piling or column. For example, two locations were selected to represent the highest and lowest track heights in the vicinity of the OII Landfill, whereby the lowest height is intended to represent the shortest distance between the train source and the column base. Similarly, the highest track height would represent the longest distance between the train source and the column base. This range of distances was used to compute the vibration level at the base of the track support column in accordance with the FTA s reference vibration curves. [FTA, 2006] Several adjustments were applied to reflect the operating conditions and proposed track support structure including the following: Column height, 47 and 29 feet (+1 to 4 VdB); Maximum design train speed, 55 mph (+1 VdB); and, Efficient propagation through a concrete column (+10 VdB). As a final adjustment, a safety factor of three decibels was also added as an additional margin of error to further dismiss any potential for concern of the potential for damage from operational vibration. The results of the vibration assessment are summarized in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the worst-case vibration levels from LRT passbys in the vicinity of the OII Landfill are predicted to range from 0.1 ips at Sta. No (at the maximum proposed track height of 47 feet) to ips at Sta. No (at the shortest proposed track height of 29 feet). Each of these predicted vibration levels is well below the selected damage criterion of 0.2 ips. The damage criterion was selected as a worst-case assumption to represent a highly sensitive structure (such as historic properties or very old cast-iron pipelines) exposed to frequent events typically associated with the repetition of pile drivers and jack hammers. There are no switches proposed along the OII Landfill as all track would consist of continuously-welded rail only, which provides a smooth running surface for the steel wheels of the light rail transit vehicles. However, due to the worst-case assumptions applied for this qualitative analysis, the likelihood of damage from operational vibration is remote. In fact, vibration levels from existing highway traffic are also higher than the maximum predicted vibration level from the proposed train passbys. For example, the maximum vibration level from an LRT passby of ips is well below a typical vibration level of ips from existing roadway traffic. Additionally, since existing highway traffic has a much higher frequency of occurrence, it also has a higher potential for impact. Unlike noise, vibration levels are typically not additive whereby the existing traffic levels would be added to the future train levels. Since vibration has oscillary properties, vibrating surfaces are both positive and negative. Depending on the timing and phasing of the vibration signals from two or more events, the vibration levels could indeed cancel each other out rather than be multiplied or additive. Therefore, the convention is not to add vibration levels from different mode sources (such as the existing traffic and the future trains) since this rarely occurs in practice. 3

90 Eastside Transit Corridor Appendix A: Vibration Impacts at Landfill October 17, 2011 As another example of the low likelihood of impact, vibration levels from train passbys are one or two orders of magnitude less than typical construction activities such as pile driving at 29 feet of ips. Vibration Control Measures Although no exceedances of the FTA damage criterion are predicted, several control measures are available to further reduce the train vibration level in the vicinity of the OII Landfill. Vibration control measures include reduced train speeds (such as from 55 to 35 mph), ballast mats under the track or resiliently supported ties to absorb the vibration. According to the geotechnical engineers, the support columns would be attached to a deep foundation system in competent material below the unsuitable soils and refuse. The actual depth of the foundation system would be determined during final design. This support structure may include an air gap or other buffer around the track support column that would decouple and minimize the transmission of vibration between the column and the landfill. 4

91 Eastside Transit Corridor Appendix A: Vibration Impacts at Landfill October 17, 2011 Table 1: Results of the Qualitative Operational Vibration Assessment on Slope Stability at the OII Landfill 1 Operating Track Elevation and Heights (ft) Track Speed Vibration Results FTA Damage Exceeds FTA Condition Sta. No Ground Top-of-Rail Height (mph) (RMS, VdB) (PPV, ips) 2 Criterion (PPV, ips) 3 Passbys Min. Height No Passbys Max. Height No Damage Criterion 1 The reported results reflect several adjustment factors including: (1) column height, (2) maximum design train speed, (3) efficient propagation through a concrete column, and (4) a safety factor of three decibels. 2 In accordance with the FTA guidelines, the RMS vibration levels were converted to PPV using a crest factor of 4 for better comparison with the damage criteria. 3 The selected threshold of damage represents a worst-case condition assuming a frequent or repetitive source and a highly-sensitive receiver. Source: AECOM, October

92 APPENDIX B LOCATIONS OF NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS Predicted Noise Impacts along the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment Predicted Vibration Impacts along the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment Predicted Noise Impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment Predicted Vibration Impacts along the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment Appendix B

93 AECOM 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY T F Memorandum Date: December 23, 2011 To: Steve Green From: Tom Herzog Subject: Eastside Transit Corridor Final Noise and Vibration Impacts Cc: Ray Sosa, Lucy DeRosier, Jerri Horst, Helen Kornblatt Attached are the updated graphics showing the updated noise and vibration impacts predicted along the Eastside Transit Corridor. These figures reflect the most recent comments received on December 21 st. The following figures represent the cumulative impacts from the light rail transit service for the SR 60, SR 60 North Design Variation and the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative alignments. The predicted noise and vibration impacts are shown graphically in the attached figures (11 x17 for greater detail). 1

94 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 The following symbols are used in the attached figures: FTA No Impact category FTA Moderate Impact Category 2 FTA Moderate Impact Category 2 (Washington Aerial Option) FTA Severe Impact Category 2 FTA Moderate Impact Category 3 FTA Vibration Impact Category 2 FTA Vibration Impact Category 3 LRT Alignment Aerial Guideway At-Grade Guideway Historic Resource Park School / Library Hospital Track Switch Noise Monitoring Location Grade Crossing LRT Warning Bell LRT Station Station Parking Existing Caltrans Noise Barrier 2

95 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments 3

96 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) 4

97 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) 5

98 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (continued) 6

99 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 LRT Alternative Alignment (continued) 7

100 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignment (continued) 8

101 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignment (continued) 9

102 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) 10

103 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) 11

104 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) 12

105 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) 13

106 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) Note: The receptors shown in this figure share the same baseline noise levels as is reported for discrete receptor M07 (Landis View Lane). 14

107 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Vibration Impacts under the SR 60 and SR 60 North Design Variation LRT Alternative Alignments (continued) 15

108 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment 16

109 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 17

110 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 18

111 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 19

112 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 20

113 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 21

114 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 22

115 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 23

116 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 24

117 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 25

118 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 26

119 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 27

120 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment Rosemead and San Gabriel Aerial Option (continued) 28

121 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 29

122 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment Rosemead and San Gabriel Aerial Option (continued) 30

123 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 31

124 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment Rosemead and San Gabriel Aerial Option (continued) 32

125 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 33

126 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment Rosemead and San Gabriel Aerial Option (continued) 34

127 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 35

128 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Noise Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment (continued) 36

129 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Vibration Impacts under the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment 37

130 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Vibration Impacts under the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (continued) 38

131 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Vibration Impacts under the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (continued) 39

132 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Vibration Impacts under the Washington Boulevard Alternative Alignment Rosemead and San Gabriel Aerial Option 40

133 Eastside Transit Corridor Updated Noise and Vibration Impacts December 23, 2011 Predicted Vibration Impacts under the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative Alignment (continued) 41