A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

LAeq,TLAMAXis the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level during the sampleperiod (T) and effectively represents an average energy value.is the maximum A-weighted sound level during the sample period; thehighest level of environmental noise during the measurement.Table 9.6 - Summary of ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Preferred OptionI.DMonitoringLocationLocationDescriptionTime(hrs)DateTimePerioddBL AeqOverall LeveldBL A1(T)0dBL A90dBL AMAXCommentsMP1JockeyLaneFree-field,1.5m aboveground,100m fromA1(T)carriageway,soft ground3 18/03/200910:15–13:1564.7 63.1 54.9 93.5Noisecaused byroad trafficmovementson A1(T),lightaircraft,HGVsMP2Yew TreeRoadFree-field,1.5m aboveground. 2mfrom YewTree Road,soft ground3 19/03/200910:15–13:1555.3 57.1 51.7 86.3Noisecaused byroad trafficmovementson A1(T),lightaircraft,HGVsWithin paragraph 43 of the CRTN document a procedure is presented for a“Shortened measurement procedure” where for practical reasons measurementcannot be undertaken over the full 18 hour period. The monitoring undertaken andreported above was undertaken in line with this shortened methodology acquiring 3hours worth of data at each location between the hours of 10:00 and 17:00.The shortened method then provides a formula for the conversion of the LA1(T)0,3hour to an LA1(T)0, 18hour as detailed below:LA1(T)0, 18hr = LA1(T)0, 3hr – 1dBDiscussion of the measured noise levels below concerns the corrected LA1(T)0,18hour levels as calculated from the measured LA1(T)0, 3 hour levels using theprocedure as outlined above.Noise Model PredictionsWithin the assessment of the proposed A1(T) Elkesley scheme noise levelsassociated with road traffic noise have been modelled using supplied traffic flow datafor 2007. Table 9.7 below details the results of this baseline modelling at the nine78
identified receptors within the study area and the two positions where ambient noisemonitoring was undertaken. Figure 3.2 shows the noise contours.Table 9.7 - 2007 Predicted ambient noise levelsI.DReceptor Location2007 Predicted AmbientNoise Level L 10, 18h dB(A)Monitored DataL 10, 18h dB(A)R01 1 Pepperly Rise 66.7 -R02 9 Coalpit Lane 71.2 -R03 Top Farm 72.8 -R04 The Gables, Jockey Lane 73.1 -R05 The Bungalow, Jockey Lane 69.8 -R06 1 High Street 81.8 -R07 14 Holly Bush Close 69.9 -R08 1 Robinson Close 64.3 -R09 Tea Table Cottage 80.6 -MP01 Jockey Lane 69.9 62.1MP02 Yew Tree Road 62.9 56.1Initial results from the NoiseMap model do not correlate closely with on-sitemeasurements made at the Jockey Lane receptor. The monitored LA1(T)0, 18hrlevel of 62.1 dB being some 7.8 dB lower than the predicted LA1(T)0, 18hr level of69.9 dB. The predicted LA1(T)0, 18hr 18hr level from the NoiseMap model at thereceptor on Yew Tree Road is 62.9 dB. Compared with the corrected monitoredLA1(T)0, 18hr level of 56.1 dB, there is a discrepancy of 6.8 dB.One reason for the potential discrepancies between the monitored and measurednoise levels is that the background noise survey was undertaken in March 2009whereas the baseline traffic data used within the noise model was dated 2007.Furthermore, the monitoring data may be lower due to potentially reduced trafficflows on the day that the measurements were taken, whereas the 18 hour AAWTdata used within the model is averaged over the whole year.It is also apparent that the monitoring results at both locations show a largedifference between the measured LA1(T)0 and LA90 values. This indicates that thereis a very low ambient background noise level in the area and that the predominantsource of noise is from road traffic. Therefore, at the nine receptor locations along theA1(T) as identified above, road traffic movements can justifiably be considered to bethe dominant noise source.79
Page 1:
A1(T) Elkesley JunctionImprovements
Page 4 and 5:
Document ControlProject Title:Docum
Page 6:
km 2Kilometres squaredLAQMLocal Air
Page 9 and 10:
L 10 hourly dB(A)L AeqL A1(T)0,18hL
Page 11 and 12:
Wildlife CorridorsZone of Visual In
Page 13 and 14:
5.4 Assessment of Environmental Imp
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction and Background1.1 Intr
Page 17 and 18:
1.5 Scope of AssessmentThe followin
Page 19 and 20:
2 Development of the Preferred Opti
Page 21 and 22:
In 2007 a simpler scheme was develo
Page 23 and 24:
It is anticipated that these amendm
Page 25 and 26:
3 Air Quality3.1 Findings at Stage
Page 27 and 28: Policy 6/12Permission will not be g
Page 29 and 30: Table 4.3: Significance of Effects
Page 31 and 32: Assessment of Environmental Effects
Page 33 and 34: 5 Disruption Due to Construction5.1
Page 35 and 36: 5.6 Residual EffectsDisruption duri
Page 37 and 38: 7 Landscape Effects7.1 Assessment M
Page 39 and 40: Table 7.1: Landscape Character Sens
Page 41 and 42: Inclusion of an area within the vis
Page 43 and 44: MagnitudeHighMediumLowNo ChangeDefi
Page 45 and 46: • rolling landforms with numerous
Page 47 and 48: associated with Jockey Lane forms a
Page 49 and 50: • Properties along the High Stree
Page 51 and 52: 7.5 Implication of New Lighting Pro
Page 53 and 54: Area F: Enclosed Arable Farmland (G
Page 55 and 56: Table 7.7: Summary of Impacts on Vi
Page 57 and 58: Discussion of Impacts:Visual effect
Page 59 and 60: • To optimise protection for resi
Page 61 and 62: Detailed Mitigation ProposalsThe fo
Page 63 and 64: 8 Land Use8.1 Findings at Stage 2 A
Page 65 and 66: The frequency response of the human
Page 67 and 68: oad traffic. It does not provide pr
Page 69 and 70: The results of the Scoping Assessme
Page 71 and 72: operations. If the total noise leve
Page 73 and 74: Table 9.4 - Significance criteria o
Page 75 and 76: noise levels are below 58 dB LA1(T)
Page 77: climate for a typical day on the ex
Page 81 and 82: presented are also based upon a 100
Page 83 and 84: Operational PhaseTable 9.9 and Tabl
Page 85 and 86: Table 9.11 - Predicted noise levels
Page 87 and 88: Table 9.14 - Predicted number of dw
Page 89 and 90: Air-borne vibration is more common
Page 91 and 92: 10 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestria
Page 93 and 94: 12 Road Drainage and the Water Envi
Page 95 and 96: LowAttribute with a low quality and
Page 97 and 98: Table 12.3 Criteria for Estimating
Page 99 and 100: Table 12.5: Water Framework Directi
Page 101 and 102: The greatest potential remains the
Page 103 and 104: 13 Geology and Soils13.1 Findings a
Page 105 and 106: Annex 4Figure 4.1 - Constraints Map
Page 107 and 108: Annex 9Figure 3.1 - 3.9: Noise Cont
Page 109: Annex 12Figure 12.1 - Groundwater V
show all

A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?