HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-061 35E Noise WallsDate: August 18, 2017
INFORMAL STAFF REPORT
TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
35Express Project — Status and Establishment of Noise Walls
Report No. 2017-061
BACKGROUND:
The 35Express Project is a$4.4 billion transportation capacity project on Interstate 35E from
Interstate 635 in Dallas to US 380 in Denton. The project is being completed in two phases due
to funding constraints, Interim or Phase I and Ultimate, Phase II. The 28-mile Texas Department
of Transportation Project (TxDOT) has been separated into three sections; The City of Denton
falls entirely in the North Section of the 35Express Project, FM 2181 (Swisher) to US 380. AGL
is the TxDOT contractor constructing the project.
The overall project was environmentally cleared in early 2012 and construction began on Phase I
in October 2013. Phase I construction is currently scheduled to be complete in November 2017.
No schedule has been set for Phase II as funding for this project has not been identified,
however, regional transportation officials indicate construction could begin in the next five to
seven years.
DISCUSSION:
Five noise walls in Denton were recommended to be constructed as part of the Environmental
Analysis (EA). Noise Wall 1(NW 1) is the only wall funded due to Phase I funding constraints.
NW 1 is located adjacent to the north bound lanes, north of North Texas Boulevard near the
Murchison Performing Arts Center on UNT campus. Other residential areas approved for noise
walls based on the 2012 EA include:
NW 1— Southridge Area — Southbound lanes: Woodbrook Street to Conway Lane
NW 2— Denia Area — Southbound lanes: Ave D to 300 feet north of Bernard Street
NW 3— Bernard/Lindsey Area — Northbound lanes: 250 feet south of Bernard St. to Ave C
NW 4— Greenlee/Underwood Area — Northbound lanes: 750 feet south of McCormick to Ave C
*approximate distances
Construction of the remaining noise walls are included as part of Phase II which will not begin
for approximately five to seven years. Financial constraints prohibited TxDOT from acquiring
the Phase II right of way (ROW) necessary far these walls as part of the Phase I project. Staff
has been advised the ROW for the walls could cost in the 10's of millions of dollars and
construction of the four remaining noise walls is estimated at approximately $3.3 M.
Should the City of Denton wish to construct the remaining noise walls in advance of Phase II, it
is highly unlikely TxDOT will reimburse the City for the expense due to the logistics/constraints
of constructing the Phase II project around the barriers. Additionally, TxDOT has indicated the
environmental study may need to be readdressed as part of Phase II requiring different locations
(extensions) and different heights to attenuate noise levels established by a new EA. Other risks
may include the requirement to relocate impacted utilities in the existing right of way and
Date: August 18, 2017
Report No. 2017-061
relocation of existing on/off ramps to properly place the noise walls. Most of the remaining
noise wall segments are currently designed to be constructed between the main lanes and the
frontage roads.
Staff will place this item on the September Mobility Committee agenda for review and
discussion. Additionally, understanding the tentative November 2017 completion date of the
35Express Project, staff will work with the Public Communications Office to outline the project
as part of a news article in the October City of Denton Newsletter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo to City Manager dated August 17, 2017
STAFF CONTACT:
Mark Nelson
Director of Transportation
(940) 349-7702
Mark.Nelson(a�cityofdel�ton.com
i
CITY
UF
���� �� 215 E. McKINNEY • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 •(940) 349-7702 • FA (940) 349-7206
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 17, 2017
TO: Todd Hileman, City Manager
FROM: Mark Nelson, Transportation Director
SUBJECT: 35Express and Denton Corridor Noise Walls
The 35Express Project is a 28-mile, $4.4 billion transportation capacity project on Interstate 35E
from Interstate 635 in Dallas to US 380 in Denton. Due to the cost of the project, TxDOT broke
the project into two phases, Interim and Ultimate. The design, including environmental
clearance, for the project was completed in 2012 and construction was initiated on the Interim
Project ($1.4 B) in October 2013. AGL, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
contractor for the 35Express Project, has indicated the project will be substantially complete in
November 2017. The 28-mile 35Express Project has been separated into three sections; South
Section I-635 to Sam Rayburn, Middle Section Sam Rayburn to Swisher Road (FM 2181) and
the North Section Swisher Road to US 380. The City of Denton falls entirely in the North
Section of the 35Express Project.
The intent of this report is to provide Council background on the establishment of noise walls as
part of the 35Express North Section Project. Only one of five noise walls approved as part of the
Ultimate Project will be constructed as part of the Phase I Interim Project, Noise Wall Five near
the Murchison Performing Arts Center adjacent to the University of North Texas. This report
will also outline the feasibility of the City constructing approved noise walls in advance of the
Ultimate Project. There is currently no schedule on when the Ultimate Project will be initiated
as funding has not been identified. Regional transportation officials believe the project could be
initiated in the next five to seven years.
The design process for 35Express required TxDOT to complete an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the project. Noise level data used for this study was based on predicted noise levels in
2035, not current noise levels. A copy of an excerpt of the EA regarding Noise (5.2.13) has been
attached for reference as E�ibit 1. The EA states that a noise wall is warranted if it is
determined to be both feasible and reasonable. The EA further states "A noise impact occurs
when either the absolute or relative criterion is met:
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
www, cityofden ton, com
Absolute criterion: the predicted noise level at a receiver approaches, equals or exceeds the noise
abatement criteria (NAC). "Approach" is defined as one dB(A) (decibel) below the NAC. For
example, a noise impact would occur at a Category B residence if the noise level is predicted to
be 66 dB(A) or above.
Relative criterion: the predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level at a
receiver even though the predicted noise level does not approach, equal, or exceed the NAC.
"Substantially exceeds" is defined as more than 10 dB(A). For example, a noise impact would
occur at a Category B residence if the existing level is 54 dB(A) and the predicted level is 65
dB(A)."
If either case occurs, a wall is deemed "feasible" for noise abatement. Once that is determined, a
calculation is done to determine if the wall is "reasonable."
The EA states "...before any abatement measure can be proposed for incorporation into the
project, it must be both feasible and reasonable. In order to be "feasible," the abatement measure
must be able to reduce the noise level at greater than 50% of impacted, first row receivers by at
least five dB(A); and to be "reasonable," it must not exceed the cost-effectiveness criterion of
$25,000 for each receiver that would benefit by a reduction of at least five dB(A) and the
abatement measure must be able to reduce the noise level (o� at least one impacted, first row
receiver by at least seven dB(A)." If both criteria are not met, a wall cannot be included in the
project. It is important to note that "Environmental Justice" precludes affluent communities
from "purchasing" more mitigation while less affluent communities would be left exposed to any
potential negative impacts.
It is staff's understanding that requests have been made by residents of the Denia Neighbarhood
to add noise walls in advance of the Ultimate ar Phase II of the 35Express Project. This
neighborhood is generally located northwest of the 35Express corridor between Ft. Worth Drive
and North Texas Boulevard, Table 5-22 on pages 137-138 of Exhibit 2 demonstrates that noise
receivers R12, R13, R14 and R17, located in the Denia Neighborhood, meet the requirements to
establish noise walls. (Exhibit 2, demonstrates an area map showing location of noise receptors
and noise walls approved as part of Phase II of the 35Expresss Project.)
The noise wall analysis in the 2011 EA was based on traffic that will exist in the 2035 timeframe
and at the locations indicated by the ultimate schematic design based on where the main lanes
will ultimately be constructed. Since the IH 35E Interim Project does not materially change the
location of the main lanes, noise walls approved in the Ultimate Project are not required as part
of the Interim Project. The exception to this is Noise Wall 5(NW 5 depicted in Exhibit 2). NW 5
is located north of the frontage road on north bound 35E adjacent to the Murchison Performing
Arts Center on the University of North Texas campus. Financial constraints of the Interim
Project did not allow for the acquisition of all the necessary right of way for the Ultimate Project,
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
www, cityofden ton, com
therefore the remaining noise walls will not be placed in the designed locations for the 35Express
Ultimate Project as part of the Interim or Phase I Project.
Feasibilitv
Staff has initiated efforts to determine the potential of establishing noise walls as part of the
current Interim Project. Specifically, can the City of Denton fund the requisite costs for
constructing noise walls along the Denia Neighborhood corridor of the 35Express Project and
seek reimbursement for these costs from TxDOT as part of the Ultimate or Phase II Project.
City of Denton transportation consultant ITS has engaged the TxDOT Dallas District to check
with TxDOT Austin Environmental Division if it is possible to build two of the four remaining
noise walls without triggering environmental justice issues. (Environmental justice could be
called to question if noise attenuation is provided for some but not all, equity.) The two walls in
question would be, NW 2 and NW 3 depicted in Exhibit 2. As of August 10, 2017, ITS has yet
to receive an answer from TxDOT on this request. If the answer is no, then all four remaining
walls in the City of Denton corridor of the North Section will have to be constructed to meet
environmental justice.
Financial
The EA estimated the cost of all five walls to be $3,020,148 in 2012. Using that cost as the
basis, and adding 3% inflation per year, the two subject walls (NW 2 and NW 4) are estimated to
cost $2,052,020. The City would also incur the cost to acquire all the necessary right of way
(ROW) for the IH 35E Ultimate Project, not just for the sound walls, but for any project related
components in the identified segment to include utility relocations and drainage enhancements.
TxDOT's position during the Interim Project was to acquire all of the ROW needed from
individual land owners for the Ultimate Proj ect if only a portion was needed for the Interim
Project. This was done so that impacted property owners are not subjected to the ROW process
twice.
At the time of the development of the Interim Project, the total estimated cost of ROW for the
entire 28-mile segment was in excess of $1 Billion. The northern segment of IH 35E, within
Denton city limits, would most likely be a fourth of that cost, or $250 million in 2012 dollars.
Without additional information from TxDOT, it is easily anticipated the ROW for the walls in
question, NW 2 and NW 3, would in the 10's of millions of dollars.
This preliminary estimate is based on the fact that since 35E is an Interstate Highway, any utility
that would require relocation would be eligible for reimbursement. It is difficult to determine the
exact amount of utilities requiring relocation, but a visual inspection of the existing corridor
indicates significant utilities exist in and immediately behind the current ROW line for IH- 35E.
Utilities typically resist partial relocation of their infrastructure. In other words, the City should
expect to assume responsibility to relocate utilities outside of the limits needed for the noise
walls in question to maintain continuity of the subject utility. The City should anticipate that
utility relocations would run into the 10's of millions of dollars as part of the proposal to
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
www, cityofden ton, com
establish noise walls as part of the Interim Project. Finally, additional funding would be needed
to relocate all impacted frontage roads as the proposed noise walls work as system, no gaps, to
abate noise.
Constructabilitv
Issues impacting the constructability of the two noise walls prior to the ultimate project relate
primarily to two areas. First, the walls are proposed to be constructed between the main lanes and
the frontage roads, placing them well-off of the proposed ROW line. The proposed locations for
the walls place them behind the existing frontage roads. Since the viability of the walls are
predicated on having no gaps, the wall segments will overlap. This will require constructing the
future frontage roads in order to maintain access to eXisting adjacent facilities as well as the tie-
ins for local roadways (access to neighborhoods), further increasing the cost of the project.
Second, in reviewing the approved schematic for IH 35E Ultimate, it indicates the proposed
grade of IH 35E is different than the existing grade and will need to be addressed. This may
require additional improvements such as grading and drainage infrastructure to accommodate the
noise walls prior to the ultimate construction of IH 35E.
Conclusion:
It is highly unlikely that TxDOT would agree to reimburse the City for its upfront costs on the
noise walls or any portion of the project that was not in its permanent location. It is probable that
due to constructability, TxDOT may deem it more efficient to remove the proposed walls
constructed by the City and reconstruct the entire noise wall project as originally planned. This
would make the advance placement of walls unreasonable and ineligible for reimbursement due
to cost.
Staff will continue to work with TxDOT on a formal response as to whether NW 2 and NW 4
would be authorized for construction in advance of the Ultimate Phase II Project or whether NW
1 and 3 would also be required to meet environmental justice standards. Should NW 1 and NW
3 be required, substantial costs estimates will need to be developed. Unless directed otherwise,
staff will target the September Mobility Committee for follow up on this issue.
Attachments:
1. 35 Express Noise Environmental Assessment dated August 2011
2. Figure 20, Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
www, cityofden ton, com
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
IH 35E NORTH SECTION
FROM: FM 2181
TO: US 380
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
CSJs: 0195-03-050, 0195-03-071, 0195-03-075, 0196-01-056, and 0196-01-074
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
August 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 IH 35E Corridor ...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Definition Process: Funding Strategies .................................................................2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Description of Proposal .......................................................................................................5
2.2 Managed/HOV Concurrent Flow Lane (MHOV-C) Concept ...............................................7
2.3 Need and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 9
2.3.1 Project Need .......................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2 Project Purpose ....................................................................................................15
2.4 ROW Requirements and Utility Adjustments ....................................................................16
2.5 Related Studies and Relevant Documents to the Proposed North Section
Improvements...................................................................................................................17
2.6 Logical Termini ..................................................................................................................20
2.7 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................21
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY ..................................................................................... 25
3.1 Existing Facility ................................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Surrounding Terrain and Land Use ...................................................................................26
3.3 Traffic Projections .............................................................................................................27
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................29
4.1 No-Build Alternative ..........................................................................................................29
4.2 Build Alternative ................................................................................................................30
5.0 POTENTIAL SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSEDACTIONS ..................................................................................................................33
5.1 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................33
5.1.1 Lakes, Rivers, and Streams .................................................................................33
5.1.2 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands ............................................................... 34
5.1.3 Floodplains ...........................................................................................................37
5.1.4 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 39
5.1.5 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................41
5.1.6 Threatened/Endangered Species ........................................................................ 50
5.1.7 Topography and Soils .......................................................................................... 56
5.1.8 Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 57
5.2 Community Impact Assessment .......................................................................................74
5.2.1 Regional and Community Growth ........................................................................75
5.2.2 Land Use ..............................................................................................................77
5.2.3 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties ............................................................................78
5.2.4 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................80
5.2.5 Relocations and Displacements ........................................................................... 81
5.2.6 Access ................................................................................................................103
5.2.7 Community Cohesion .........................................................................................103
5.2.8 Limited English Proficiency ................................................................................105
5.2.9 Environmental Justice (EJ) ................................................................................107
5.2.10 Economic Impacts of Tolling ..............................................................................120
5.2.11 Public Facilities and Services ............................................................................133
5.2.12 Aesthetic Considerations ...................................................................................134
5.2.13 Noise ..................................................................................................................135
5.2.14 Traffic Operations ...............................................................................................140
5.2.15 Summary of Community Impact Assessment ....................................................140
CSJs: 0195-03-050,-071,-075,0196-01-056,-074 Pagei
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Proiect Fiqures
Figure A-1 IH 35E Corridor Map
Figure A-2 Project Location Map with Project Vicinity Inset
Figure A-3 Project Location Map on Aerial Photograph
Figure A-4 Project on USGS Topographic Map
Figure A-5 Map Index for Figures A-6, A-7, and C-21
Figure A-6 Plan View of Project Design Features
Figure A-7 Project Plan View on Aerial Photograph
Figure A-8 Typical Section Index, Existing and Proposed Typical Sections
Appendix A-9 Project Area Ground Photographs
Appendix B: Natural Resources
Appendix B-1 Stream Data Forms
Appendix B-2 Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix B-3 TxDOT Woodlands Data Forms
Appendix B-4 Data for Areas with Fencerow Trees
Appendix B-5 TPWD Coordination Letter
Figure B-6 100 Year Floodplain in the Project ROW
Appendix C: Additional Resources/Issues (Air Qualitv, Communitv Impacts, Cultural Resources,
and Noise)
Figure C-1 Sensitive Receptors Map (South)
Figure C-2 Sensitive Receptors Map (North)
Figure C-3 Year 2009 MSAT Affected Transportation Network
Figure C-4 Year 2030 MSAT Affected Transportation Network
Figure C-5 Census Block Map
Figure C-6 Race, Ethnicity, and Low-Income Characteristics in the Project Area
Figure C-7 TSZs Utilizing the Mainlanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
Figure C-8 TSZs Utilizing the Managed Lanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
Figure C-9 TSZs Utilizing the Existing Facility at Least Once a Day in the 2030 No-Build Scenario
Figure C-10 Breakdown of EJ TSZs Utilizing the Mainlanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build
Figure C-11
Figure C-12
Figure C-13
Figure C-14
Appendix C-15
Appendix C-16
Appendix C-17
Appendix C-18
Figure C-19
Appendix C-20
Appendix C-21
Figure C-22
Figure C-23
Figure C-24
Scenario
Breakdown of EJ TSZs Utilizing the Managed Lanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030
Build Scenario
EJ TSZs Utilizing the Mainlanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
EJ TSZs Utilizing the Managed Lanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
EJ TSZs Utilizing the Existing Facility at Least Once a Day in the 2030 No-Build Scenario
November 2004 Historic Resources Concurrence Letter
February 2010 Historic Resources Concurrence Letter
May 2004 Archeological Resources Concurrence Letter
Archeological Coordination — Projects that do not warrant Archeological Survey
Joe Skiles Park
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
City of Denton Future Development Monitoring
DCTA A-train Regional Rail Line
DCTA Denton Connect System Map
DCTA University of North Texas Shuttle Routes
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page vii
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
aesthetic impacts. Additional aesthetic design concepts would be dependent on additional funding from
local governments, interest groups, and organizations.
5.2.13 Noise
No-Build Alternative
Highway traffic is the dominant source of noise in developed areas adjacent to IH 35E. The predicted
increase in future traffic volumes on IH 35E would likely increase future ambient noise levels.
Build Alternative
This analysis was accomplished in accordance with TxDOT's (FHWA approved) Guidelines for Analysis
and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise.
Sound from highway traffic is generated primarily from a vehicle's tires, engine, and exhaust. It is
commonly measured in decibels and is expressed as "dB."
Sound occurs over a wide range of frequencies. However, not all frequencies are detectable by the
human ear; therefore, an adjustment is made to the high and low frequencies to approximate the way an
average person hears traffic sounds. This adjustment is called A-weighting and is expressed as "dB(A)."
Also, because traffic sound levels are never constant due to the changing number, type and speed of
vehicles, a single value is used to represent the average or equivalent sound level and is expressed as
"Leq."
The traffic noise analysis typically includes the following elements:
• Identification of land use activity areas that might be impacted by traffic noise.
• Determination of existing noise levels.
• Prediction of future noise levels.
• Identification of possible noise impacts.
• Consideration and evaluation of ineasures to reduce noise impacts.
The FHWA has established the following Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) in Table 5-21 for various land
use activity areas that are used as one of two means to determine when a traffic noise impact would
occur.
CSJs: 0195-03-050,-071,-075,0196-01-056,-074
Page 135
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
1
TABLE 5-21. FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Environmental Assessment
Activity FHWA TxDOT
Cate or dB(A) Leq dB(A) Leq Descri tion of Land Use Activit Areas
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extra-ordinary significance
A 57 56 and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
(exterior) (exterior) those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended ur ose.
B 67 66 Residential
(exterior) (exterior)
Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds,
cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities,
parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting
C (ex erior) (ex e6ior) rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios,
recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools ,
television studios, trails, and trail crossings
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities,
p 52 51 places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit
(interior) (interior) institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools,
and television studios
E 72 71 Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed
exterior (exterior) lands, ro erties, or activities not included in A-D or F.
Agricultural, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial,
F __ __ logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards,
retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment,
electrical , and warehousin .
G -- -- Undevelo ed lands that are not ermitted.
NOTE: primary consideration is given to exterior areas (Category A, B, C, or E) where frequent human
activity occurs. However, interior areas (Category D) are used if exterior areas are physically shielded from
the roadwa , or if there is little or no human activit in exterior areas ad�acent to the roadwa .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A noise impact occurs when either the absolute or relative criterion is met:
Absolute criterion: the predicted noise level at a receiver approaches, equals or exceeds the NAC.
"Approach" is defined as one dB(A) below the NAC. For example, a noise impact would occur at a
Category B residence if the noise level is predicted to be 66 dB(A) or above.
Relative criterion: the predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level at a receiver
even though the predicted noise level does not approach, equal, or exceed the NAC. "Substantially
exceeds" is defined as more than 10 dB(A). For example, a noise impact would occur at a Category B
residence if the existing level is 54 dB(A) and the predicted level is 65 dB(A).
When a traffic noise impact occurs, noise abatement measures must be considered. A noise abatement
measure is any positive action taken to reduce the impact of traffic noise on an activity area.
Page 136 CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
1 The FHWA traffic noise modeling software was used to calculate existing and predicted traffic noise
2 levels. The model primarily considers the number, type and speed of vehicles; highway alignment and
3 grade; cuts, fills and natural berms; surrounding terrain features; and the locations of activity areas likely
4 to be impacted by the associated traffic noise.
5
6 Existing and predicted traffic noise levels were modeled at receiver locations (Table 5-22 and Appendix
7 C, Figure C-20) that represent the land use activity areas adjacent to the proposed project that might be
8 impacted by traffic noise and potentially benefit from feasible and reasonable noise abatement.
9
TABLE 5-22. TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (DB(A) LEQ)
NAC NAC Existing Predicted Change Noise
Representative Receiver Category Level 2030 (+I-) Impact
R1 Residential B 67 66 67 +1 Yes
R1A Residential B 67 62 64 +2 No
R2 Residential B 67 62 62 0 No
R3 Residential B 67 62 62 0 No
R3A Retail F -- -- -- -- --
R3B Medical facility D 52 47 49 +2 No
R3C Medical facility D 52 48 50 +2 No
R3D Medical facility D 52 48 50 +2 No
R3E Retail F -- -- -- -- --
R3F Medical facility D 52 44 46 +2 No
R3G Motels and Restaurant E 72 66 69 +3 No
R4 Multifamily Residential B 67 48 50 +2 No
R4A Medical facility D 52 46 48 +2 No
R5 Residential B 67 70 74 +4 Yes
R6 Residential B 67 68 72 +4 Yes
R7 Residential B 67 69 72 +3 Yes
R8 Residential B 67 71 73 +2 Yes
R8A Offices E 72 67 70 +3 No
R8B Motel E 72 68 70 +2 No
R9 Multifamily Residential B 67 61 65 +4 No
R9A Motel E 72 68 70 +2 No
R10 Multifamily Residential B 67 62 64 +2 No
R10A Medical facility D 52 47 50 +3 No
R10B Motel E 72 67 70 +3 No
R11 Residential B 67 67 74 +7 Yes
R12 Residential B 67 67 72 +5 Yes
R13 Residential B 67 65 69 +4 Yes
R13A Motel E 72 66 70 +4 No
R14 Residential B 67 61 68 +7 Yes
R15 Residential B 67 65 73 +8 Yes
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page 137
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
TABLE 5-22. TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (DB(A) LEQ)
Environmental Assessment
NAC NAC Existing Predicted Change Noise
Representative Receiver Category Level 2030 (+I-) Impact
R15A Motel E 72 65 70 +5 No
R16 Residential B 67 64 70 +6 Yes
R17 Residential B 67 69 75 +6 Yes
R18 Murchison Performing Arts Center� B&D 67152 63138 66/41 +3 Yes/No
R18A Active Sports Area C 67 61 64 +3 No
R19 Multifamily Residential B 67 59 64 +5 No
R20 Multifamily Residential B 67 57 65 +7 No
R20A Medical facility D 52 40 44 +4 No
Note: 1. Category B outdoor activity area used by band students
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
As indicated in Table 5-22, the proposed project would result in a traffic noise impact and the following
noise abatement measures were considered: traffic management, alteration of horizontal and/or vertical
alignments, acquisition of undeveloped property to act as a buffer zone and the construction of noise
barriers.
Before any abatement measure can be proposed for incorporation into the project, it must be both
feasible and reasonable. In order to be "feasible," the abatement measure must be able to reduce the
noise level at greater than 50% of impacted, first row receivers by at least five dB(A); and to be
"reasonable," it must not exceed the cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000 for each receiver that would
benefit by a reduction of at least five dB(A) and the abatement measure must be able to reduce the noise
level at least one impacted, first row receiver by at least seven dB(A).
Traffic management: control devices could be used to reduce the speed of the traffic; however, the minor
benefit of one dB(A) per five mph reduction in speed does not outweigh the associated increase in
congestion and air pollution. Other measures such as time or use restrictions for certain vehicles are
prohibited on state highways.
Alteration of horizontal and/or vertical alignments: any alteration of the existing alignment would displace
existing businesses and residences, require additional ROW and not be cost effective/reasonable.
Buffer zone: the acquisition of undeveloped property to act as a buffer zone is designed to avoid rather
than abate traffic noise impacts and, therefore, is not feasible.
Noise barriers: this is the most commonly used noise abatement measure. Noise barriers were evaluated
for each of the impacted receiver locations with the following results:
Page 138 CSJs: 0195-03-050,-071,-075,0196-01-056,-074
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A noise barrier would not be feasible and reasonable for the following impacted receiver and, therefore, is
not proposed for incorporation into the project.
R1: This receiver represents one residence with a driveway facing the roadway. A continuous noise
barrier would restrict access to this residence. Gaps in a noise barrier would satisfy access requirements
but the resulting non-continuous barrier segments would not be sufficient to achieve the minimum,
feasible reduction of five dB(A).
Five noise barriers would be feasible and reasonable for the following impacted receivers and, therefore,
are proposed for incorporation into the proposed project (see Table 5-23 and Appendix C, Figure C-20).
The total cost of the barriers would be $3,020,148 for a total of $17,870 per benefited receiver.
TABLE 5-23. PROPOSED NOISE WALLS
Wa/(NW) Approximate Location Impacted genef ted Length Height
Number Receivers Receivers (feet) (feet)
NWi Pennsylvania Drive to Conway Lane along
southbound SB ER and the mainlanes (ML . 1,417 14
Woodbrook Drive to Pennsylvania Drive along SB 1,467 14
ER and ML.
NWi Total R5 — R8 26 2,884 14
NW2 From North Texas Boulevard to 70 feet north of 635 16
Underwood Street alon SB ER to SB ML
From 120 feet north of Underwood Street to 130 feet 803 14
north of Lindsey along the SB ER and SB ML. 1,890 18
From 200 feet north of Lindsey Drive to
approximately 500 feet north of Bernard Street along 903 10
M L.
R12 — R14, 43 4,231 10 — 18
NW2 Total and R17
NW3 Approximately 500 feet west of Fort Worth Drive to
approximately 400 feet west of Lindsey Street along 726 18
the northbound NB) ER.
From 200 feet north of Lindsey Street to 500 feet
south of Lindse alon the SB ML. 320 18
NW3 Total R11 26 1,046 18
NW4 From approximately 600 feet southeast of Greenlee
Street to Collier Street along the NB ML and exit 1,580 18
ram
From Avenue C to 100 feet south of Collier Street 618 10
alon the NB ML
R15 and 24 2,198 10 — 18
NW4 Total R16
NW5 From Avenue D to Eagle Drive along the NB R18 50' 899 12
fronta e road near the ROW. — —
Note: 1. Outdoor activity area of Murchison Performing Arts Center. An estimated 50 band students
t icall use the activit area durin the da .
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page 139
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380 Environmental Assessment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Any subsequent project design changes might require a reevaluation of this preliminary noise barrier
proposal. The final decision to construct the proposed noise barriers would not be made until completion
of the project design, utility evaluation, and polling of adjacent property owners.
To avoid noise impacts that may result from future development of properties adjacent to the project, local
officials responsible for land use control programs should ensure, to the maximum extent possible, no
new activities are planned or constructed along or within the predicted (2030) noise impact contours
shown in Table 5-24.
TABLE 5-24. NOISE CONTOURS
Land Use Impact Contour Distance from ROW (feet)
NAC cate or B& C 66 dB A 400
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Noise associated with the construction of the project is difficult to predict. Heavy machinery, the major
source of noise in construction, is constantly moving in unpredictable patterns. However, construction
normally occurs during daylight hours when occasional loud noises are more tolerable. None of the
receivers is expected to be exposed to construction noise for a long duration; therefore, any extended
disruption of normal activities is not expected. Provisions would be included in the plans and
specifications that require the contractor to make every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise
through abatement measures such as work-hour controls and proper maintenance of muffler systems.
A copy of this traffic noise analysis will be available to local officials. On the date of approval of this
document (Date of Public Knowledge), FHWA and TxDOT are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement for new development adjacent to the project.
5.2.14 Traffic Operations
No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative
As described in Section 2.3.1, a traffic operations analysis performed for the proposed project design
year (2030) determined that LOS would improve under the proposed Build Alternative as compared to the
No-Build Alternative (see Table 2-6). That is, mainlane LOS was predicted to be at LOS F for the No-
Build Alternative and LOS B/C/D or E for the Build Alternative. Further, operation of the proposed MHOV-
C lanes was predicted at LOS A, the highest quality of service. Implementation of the No-Build
Alternative would result in increased congestion and poor traffic flow.
5.2.15 Summary of Community Impact Assessment
The following is a summary of the community impact assessment for the proposed project:
Page140
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074
Environmental Assessment
1 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING COMMITMENTS
�
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
3 All project-specific commitments and conditions of approval, including resource agency permitting
4 compliance and monitoring requirements, would be incorporated in the project plan for the proposed IH
5 35E project. These project-specific commitments and conditions for approval, as further described below,
6 may vary depending on the project's final design and construction. Mitigation monitoring would be
7 conducted by TxDOT and other federal, state, and local agencies to ensure compliance.
8
9 9.1 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands
10 The placement of temporary and permanent dredge or fill material into each of the jurisdictional waters of
11 the U.S., including wetlands, would meet the criteria for a NWP 14 under Section 404 of the CWA. A
12 NWP 14 PCN is required for five of the eleven water features (Sites W-2, W-6, W-9, W-10, and W-11) due
13 to permanent fill exceeding the threshold of 0.10 acre; also, at Site W-6, there are impacts to a
14 jurisdictional wetland. See Section 5.1.2 and Appendix A, Figure A-4 for water crossing details and
15 locations. Details about wetland mitigation and the permitting of the various crossings are anticipated to
16 be addressed as part of the PCN review and approval process. Compensatory mitigation for Section 404
17 impacts would be coordinated with USACE and performed in accordance with the terms of USACE NWP
18 14 approval.
19
20 9.2 Water Quality
21 The proposed project would disturb more than one acre; therefore, TxDOT compliance is required with
22 the TCEQ TPDES General Permit for Construction Activity. The proposed project would also disturb
23 more than five acres; therefore, a Notice of Intent would be filed to comply with TCEQ stating that TxDOT
24 would have a SW3P in place during construction of the proposed project. In addition, TCEQ guidelines
25 for the proposed project require completion of the Tier I(Small Projects) Checklist (TCEQ-20228, revised
26 12/29/2006), which requires at least one BMP from the Section 401 BMPs for Tier I Projects published by
27 the TCEQ on April 12, 2004 (Section 5.1.4).
28
29 9.3 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat/Threatened or Endangered Species
30 In accordance with TPWD (see Appendix B-5), of the habitats given consideration for non-regulatory
31 mitigation during project planning by the TxDOT-TPWD MOA (see Section 5.1.5), mitigation is
32 anticipated for six sites (approximately 1.20 acres) of riparian forest and 18 sites (approximately 4.25
33 acres) of upland forest (and associated large trees), for a total of 5.45 acres. Non-regulatory mitigation
34 would take place at LLELA and be through fee payment. During construction, TxDOT would minimize the
35 amount of wildlife habitat disturbed. Existing vegetation, especially native trees, would be preserved
36 wherever practicable.
37
CSJs: 0195-03-050,-071,-075,0196-01-056,-074 Page 275
Environmental Assessment
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
1 9.5 Noise
2 Traffic noise impacts would occur from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Five noise
3 barriers were determined to be both feasible and reasonable as to mitigate for anticipated traffic noise
4 impacts. Appendix C, Figure C-20 shows the proposed noise walls. There are 169 receivers that would
5 benefit from the proposed noise barriers. The final decision to construct the proposed noise barriers
6 would be made upon completion of the project design and utility evaluation, as well as through public
7 involvement efforts (i.e., noise workshops). Such noise workshops would determine if the noise walls are
8 desired and, if so, assist in their aesthetic design. Any subsequent project design changes may require a
9 reevaluation of this proposal.
10
11 9.6 Archeological Resources
12 If evidence of archeological deposits is encountered during construction, work in the immediate area
13 would cease and TxDOT archeological staff would be contacted to initiate accidental discovery
14 procedures under the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement between TxDOT, THC, FHWA, and the
15 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the MOU between TxDOT and the THC.
16
17 9.7 Hazardous Wastes/Substances
18 As detailed in Section 5.4.1, 24 sites with a high risk of hazardous materials were identified within one
19 mile of the proposed project. During the ROW negotiation and acquisition process, further inquiry into the
20 existing and previous ownership and uses of each property would be performed. Further assessment
21 and investigations would be postponed until right-of-entry can be obtained in later stages of project
22 development. If identified and confirmed, any hazardous material issues would be addressed during the
23 ROW negotiation, acquisition, or eminent domain process prior to construction. Appropriate subsurface
24 investigations and soils and/or groundwater management plans for activities within these areas would be
25 developed. Special provisions or contingency language would be included in the project's Plans,
26 Specifications, and Estimates to address hazardous materials and/or petroleum contamination according
27 to applicable state, federal, and local regulations per TxDOT Standard Specifications.
28
29 9.8 Aesthetic Considerations
30 Aesthetic design guidelines are being developed for IH 35E mainlanes and cross street bridges.
31 Aesthetic treatments for structural components (retaining walls, bridges, etc.) and landscaping would be
32 incorporated into the proposed project during final design, and stakeholder input would be considered
33 during this design process to minimize the potential for aesthetic impacts. Additional aesthetic design
34 concepts would be dependent on additional funding from local governments, interest groups, and
35 organizations.
CSJs: 0195-03-050,-071,-075,0196-01-056,-074 Page 277
. .�� .�,�A�i ,� 4;""C;�i.�* ' ! #� '�
� Project � h' ���T��, .�i �� �, ,� .'`, ;, . � .;.� ' � �
` � ��� ��� �� � �� ,' w� - �...
� q " 4R'4�' y +'�
A %
Design Start � � � � ��� �•� � '� ���
� � �� , e� : ,s `'�'�' ° ��' �,�' :-. � �,�;.. .,�
� `. `
o ' � . ,�: � , ,,, � � 1 � °� '� i`' �'� - . �--- s� t :� �`i ,�a: m
� 'i. R 1 A � � ,�t �'��
� ' � - - '#� �`�: '\* � _ „ � �' � � — � .�. �
. „ .
.
` ' --- - .
� - . "s _ — - . _ . � � t -_. _.: ��- _' -.-,.'-_ ��� t _', cC
o- _ ' _ - .a
� +5 ' . i
o-__ - - -
� = - - 'd
. _ .
- - -
- - - -_ __�- — - - - •�
� " -- — � , _ � . _ _ — .�__�---- --- - - - __ - � , �
� � � � rr' � (v j� ti � y�� . 1t = - , � .af ••+�� � � _._ � � a+
� � r�� ��� `�� � � { �� � �\-� a �T 7 � � \ i fMi �1 ��° � ����,�+#� � .��� Y 3 '� �
� ..s. Fi..ti� � .. ���¢� �i � ..� � � � � � � �i� ��k�``b ` ,, � �� _ r.V
{..r�-� �� � �� ° '"� - f y � � �'� � � .� .��', . �
� � ��
o � , �� 1j �r� � � � � z 4 ` "�R"'•" � `,,� "� �o. ". •� �, (`
' �. � � _ - „1-ac �. . . t
� +�. �
� � � _ � �' � ,� �, ' � . � � � � � ���� � � , ' +''k, t v ..* � 7
o w�, tr ,. � � ,
� -- � � ��� �rl. r �� �� °+. ,'''C` .� t +�� M�.+ - • �! RZ ' �
�
i
O
�
� . , ,'� - -• r+ �ri�'. . _ .!� . ., , ��,,�� . „y� '
. `� R3 � r -� � + ,. �� � j t � �,� ���� �`�'� �*�f� � �.� f�t� iflk� ,�'^,.ii� �' �,,'
�, � �k- �+ ' i � :ey at � �'+�' j r � �'� \+� � � ` � � � .
� ` { i �: •` ` _ -S '`�� .yr� �� �i � ..�i ',� .' �
� �� Z' � -
� �' �Y '� , ' 13�i � .^5--���� �r �'. � �c; ti � " � � ,u� �� � �.
� -��'- <y3. � � �Sr�� � �y :.� � '. ��V � y .r. -►.
�' ,� � , ,._ �. .r�'t r ,� _ �, � ,��.'�� ' _ .�e
�w �y • •r � ������ � 6 •� ., ��. ' � . - �v� � R3B , ` `c � +-.
?�,51!', i • 'ir2.'' 7 � ��r�,��d •Q� r. • � 'i' . . � uu. - ,■ ��� � - O i;l ti .,''�F,� � �
� -'`� ----�---------�--s -- _ - _ __ ` - - � �4� T1[i�� �� �r�"- . :x. _ �i '�i � ,k��-.+� .�, ai �! ,� r' +o,,• �
� - - -- + �� J� �� � , r �
-- _ ��._,+-� — -��- � '— -�_�s„�_^:il'�.-.t ��. # � - .. ��, �„��t` � i '; K
j, et .ao " - - -•7--� _ -����,� �r.a= ae��. �,�,: Z
_ a . _ ' � - 16� +�9x � , �
����
: � e O
— -- ` - -- : - _ - "C
- - '�"`�.�_ � i -
, -._ -'+.�..� I � ' y
' �
_ _� ;
_ .._e
_
, .z -
_ _ - -- .
_ �
- ,
. , . _ _ _ z
�_ � ., yy_ - _ ..,..�.._ � � -���.r��-� - � _.. - 7
� .I' '� r I ��-- - � -- -�--�._,- s �" C
�
�� 4' ,�� � - . r�i.8� ' �,� x' - � = � '�r j� ��; � t . � � i,�; � �
F- . �
:� . �� o
✓, .: �' �. �' � , . �r
- ,. � s , '� � �+ yE .r, �,'''�,�,: c�
� \ �% ;�, d � � � ` R3A � - ; � � •* �i.�►� � � i � � �
'�Vv� � ''� � �� � / � { �'+ -..- � ! w •'� •�i � � �
\ . �. a! / _..�Se�.�•�s l�,}' • t .rl ��
�
N
O
0 250' 500' 750' 1000'
Figure C-20 (Sheet 1 of 7)
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
IH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TX
� .�
` ' �..
N +��.j� �i
O *
� '
� �i _
�
cl.i
O
�
O
' .,,,�T.
VO ��
O �*
`.�
� ��
O
�
CD
�
i .
O
O �CJ1
6�
i
O
v
� � •� i '•� j}.t�ti-� �yy" � ww n ,-: ti ,� � � �- � - " T�+..�: , � . .
�Z � I ��J^p, . �y�_� � [
s ' 1! � fr�*� `• fr 'rr:r- �{
i�� ��. , � �.�' �}'t- � �� ti; �G. �r�, il'.`fi ��.iT � � . ���?..-fi`. . • •��Y ' �� � &� �I I �r .. �
�, �'• �� � � �ly�r► , ±f y,�+ � yT�'/ �' v���'� `�Iwr�T�T��J,� d • � .11 Ii i R }�+{ y
y� � r �. y'e AR .� 4�� � // I
�` . ,�, 11 � � 'L=.e� + :� a s 1 k �7.� '� ��. �Y' � y' � —� • — "1/�mrq = . � ���. .y�•
e � 4 � - �' � i� ..,p�h•�; .. ji } V -, y,''�.� '�;•�'"�$H„ . � ��" � , "�-�'rt � ;���-� i � � �Ai,�i� . y _ .
�: f� t �. - ' �. .-.�+r• � � iy�.+.l,k., . �' � �'� ri'� sd�u� a:,�k�um� � ��.
. � �� � {� �
s- :{ L. � � {*1 ;; i��� 'e��- , . .•... �� �� N 1� �i.�{. n o � �.�,ii� ��• !!!!;�1�!�,�
;•''. � - • i ,�y S ��_�� � ;,}.` � .�+/;l-.' _ � � - � u ni - �i " ��t7�F
t i ��^� . i3 � 11 � �yy, � �� ., , . _ r � . ���,..�.._ � - . _ d
�� „ _ .. . . '�It��` 1 ,� -, .��.o..i�� ` -�_.
�ill 6UI111.1'I �����.�.��� Rw , ,s, ��/�
_ _ `�w. - _ ... — . . -___' � —._ ' _.rs.s�.-�Ftti�� _ —�— . -_ -__ _ ��i: V!
e � _ _ _
- _ ---__- . s_ _ 7 . -
___--______- ______� � �
-__ _____ '. ^ «
_,._ ___,"___---"_ _ ' � i�
~� 2+ - 72 +00 1T3 . 1T3 . 174 + 0 � 1T4 + y
e ' Z
I =
_ __— -__� -. __ Y -' _ _ -__ _ O
_ _ -_ -'�-"""P...��-"_ _ .�-_ . . �i -r.s.� •' �-.=�. � � f �� � � � �R� . ''�� '�1 ��'J � . � Pr+�' ��-. . s e'r � di
_ _ _ � � �'� ..,�, y ,�• �- �� �S`+ l�i� :I �7`�� � � �I�J �i. I � � C
. ' �� . � ., - =.r� '�.'Y�'�-i ' r F� . '�; *� `� , ' . � � � �+
�;- � �: � � C
� � - - �X w� r _ �! * .� _#�,` �. .n�]. � _ 1 ,�.. ' .!�/ O
•� � v` . U
��.ti . '� � � _ �'': , � `" '
�'� �� '�k�' �� Q � _ _
. �h � p � � � � * �',�`�. F� �r�'�' .,. ���r ; , ..
� ''� ;.. � ���,s.�4� �i � �� ��� �,�o������`y..��` . �� ''lir ��.1-i ,�.!
.- � � � � -�;�- � � \,� �*, , � � , ,
0 250' S00' 750' 1000'
Figure C-20 (Sheet 2 of 7)
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
IH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TX
�
N
O
��� �� X al�� � ! � .� . •� � ' _...' � � �Y`
�`t?�/'`r@ °� � � �� ,�. � 1 J. _ • • � � � --- _ ��
�v� �a �'�{ ;, ji"+ �.' � ,��, � _� '�''� �'k�i �: � �ry'�'"� � ,, �_ i.
�., `� ,:�' -.. '� •W \� M: � } r� �i' �'t w ��' • _ A •� � ��+N��
x y � s : ' � ��}f �f'
.
v `�4r� r "i � '� i r -`
� .
� '=1� � � " �. � ix� x�i��� �. _ I �� v �� � r � • �. �t l. 4� j � - � � „� � � �i
..,. ` .__ i.. �� 3 .� ' � s`Y .
? w. , ' � � .� �
' , , �� j� . . ' � 1f ` M
�,� .
� ��,e ,µ�� � �j � � f . �:. ... � �.f'� � f a3F� � i W
_ _ N"'!18 1. `�I�iJ � �+� � i/' 1�]S'i%� � �' �
e
- r - - r.lMwku 1N , � Fi y, —�� �, /�} - t —
, - -_.. _ • . ,
,�y, �< �
. � -; � __. .�a M .nn � i+� W 1�I � ie�dti:'e • � ' �» il . •�:M{ ��� r � �"a�J � �
, ! •, : a •(
� n�..�.
�u, � � ._ .. ..-E � r
` �_ '.
' _ _ __�_ . �_ � . . . -
- -� ` _ • ' _ _ - � , . -
' � - .. - � _. c
- +r�+�ra_. z . . . '
��
T - - - �._ .t-
- -- � �w , .� _ _ _ : � _. _._ ..��
_ . � �
_ _ .� - -- - � _ ---� � �' � � �
' _ _ ' - �
., ; , - •-
- ' ¢ 16 _ +00 168 *00 16 16 c 169 • -�
'
' ' �»
�Z - i _ 7
' ' '
� � -'- � --- . ...- " _ . - - � i' ' .0
, »_
-- .,,.,A ..._- --�-- � _ .'—�
�
�, s _� - . , _,r-'..--•.••...`-`,_ �-3.,. - - - _ . �,. . -' 'Y`" �a `�`�_ ++
y _ �" '�v` �L �. w«r, ..rµ . 9 �. � _:, ,�; ` s—�, �- y . � ;�.Mw ,wi x h�.'—'E`� - ..-� ,5 �„ _��'- �O
- a "'�,. _ v-� � v� • �r�/ � � �y � � ���� � � �"'F� 6� tu.p ti.� �„qh.11 � � i �� � . V
��,. ._ �� "� 4 M �� � r-►� ,d ,�� �� �,� , '� � :
�r.�rl �,,,,E� �s`� '�`�.-`r '�- '��� -V'�'/� .� ���+r7 .y_ � r�l`���...=.'S �i�.. f�� ]� � �. -i i � �`..
- - � ~�."nn'fr. ' - �rI ��.�' � � .��w �' � a�� � � d'�<i :�.�'e'T'�. M i I I �7 Fii � � M
� � < � im. �'i . �y���.. � I i
. . ... ...i. � ...,..�..-•- y,.r� . s � , _
•- _ � ,.., ,��� - e�:. . � �r � Y � � � . a� � -���.���-��^y ; � .; � h
. i�� r -...�. � � ��..� .� "' .,,, ' .'r^ .��,� 7�Y _ ► + . . . _+. R -�+i ; ��
.�- �'�. ' ' ,,,,, ! . ^-�'ta��'-., 'i . K u� t R3C
�
� � �.� � � . ' _ � _ r rf' �• �tl � ��¢ ��w►w .....9
. ._ w-' , _ .. r,_
�
�
�
0
�
�
0
��.±
�
�
�
0
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
6�
i
O
O
CJ1
6�
O
�
�
��, �,���
I -;t.,�, * �
.,. ,. �; - �
*� � -
., ,�> �
�° ` ,
�'
�y� -�", ii�
� ',x ;��,. ...,��:�� ' �
i�' '.
t�w w. �
-� *'.
y,A.3
.` v\�1�,
� � '�'+ �`,� \ �+ ���
���l�4 ,� � �N�:y��� i�ti
d z
� ��� I�\ �� �'j�.
J �Y -
- _,"_...�'�._`.___ _ - - _----'_;�"�.-` I`,,i I;�, -'�
�
6
A ,�.� � _. � _,�
�'� ' • �• �► �`"
`� �' I� � , �
�
� �.
_ � �
z
—y---�— _ « __ _ — _ _ _
- ���.--��-� .z++-�...
- �r- -�
� .» p 't cs.s,' l' � ♦ , ' � �
� ,��� � �'"� ,. c1�!M� \\ �� � � •
�� � �' � * . r
• a
��; `'�.+i`ti. � _ . > � � � ,, }
� ��� ?���..
, •�,� r � �} , � � �* '� •r,
. iN<��;•� k'�' � i�.p
� __,�� •. �..�LL. �•� :i -a . �
_ -t=���,:��_ - � «- - _
- - �
� _ w � - = _ -�„�� _ _ -�,— _ . T _ _ _ _
. .: - � � - � - �.,, ' � � - _ , - 9 -.
.
:
� A �
` --,� a' , �, � �'-"�'!!� .''� `�"
yy�, �3r .
� + � s � .a .._ ��5� � �1M1� ; ""-{Y_�s ��'-h� ` 1� � —� � ( T � � � ir ✓ � "'' .rr`, �xL
'�y '�^":� �y � 4 � �u �J`� • \a�� \�� \.��4ii0 �� l '' � �� . �i. �:� `,` �iN�`- '�H
.i �'�� ... �
t�' ��a� �- �i � � " ,' -�„r R3F � e . � '� . �•. r -_ `� ��" • y� �
£ � � ' �'� � /�� .E� �'���+1� �� i.."�i�i4.r a 1 �� �� ;� r, �� �+4 �l.� �.
� �r'' -�`-'". R3D R3E 1,�. � }. ,�3 ;✓ ` !'"` : � �'t-�^: w! i'.: "s"a, x . -}; 'ti y - �._ t!!''kf �
� �l�.�',�_`+`;'� �.-��-� Ve�° ' ° 1,� ' ✓ r� � i-i ' a./ �►�� �•"��,��:r � � .c,�,S�� +Y '�! s-`q�. ����!'
a �' ��� .�'�y�
F. ' � �
,
� _ A�
�. ���
'�� � �s� ����
� �L � ,
. ?�-A� � ' * � • �
�� - . ���,;,� : �
� '�
'-'�;� a,
yi..
��
' y y T
• ��
. �� '�-'.}'�����
x, �. �i�'
_ '. :� � ' �'
�k
�',+ ,� pM'�'�".'i'-y»•' +
r~ � �YY ��
• o ,___
-�-;p'�fy: �'f
A • �7
� �����.
`�][T �i�� �
` TY� _�`••.��• a
�� �� .
I� '�*7 , ' � �, 5 �"' ';+v' '��ya � y�"
e� � '4� -� � - ' � �� �'.,� iy � , � w\Yr ' � w
w � ��`�' � " - � � ..."�`�� �;�, � ���.��T��
� .I � � �' {. 4 �
L 'y I e ` . - i � +` ,i 1.� y� � �± %i 1[ � K �r ` \: ��`` i
_ .� �� f�w
�
� :��. � �� ; , � � :� � , � .t ,Q � �+t�F` e�' �
� � * .. . � �� . , i' ;, '' �� ,
� '� � a1� ' .,� � .�:� � � �` "c � ' R4A . ^ 'r� � _ -;• '.c� '�c4. r ' .� ' ��- a��i
_ , � , _ E-- r ,,. ��t= � � �• � t^��.� _ � � •, � s
. _ :
_ _ z t _ �t �k ,Y. _e��� �� �, ,
•
--- — - �..,.
� �rZ _ -�� _--� ' �� a fn
� . ,
.
, .
, . . _
- . - �_. , --- ='..�� . � • .+
__-- -___
' ---- .. _
_ _ --- t . -. x
- � �
'� '0°= _-`__`_--�-i_-� � _ , Z
�_y_1 �r_ �-`n—�. �
- - - - - .�— _ -. _ —. — - - � ' ' -a
; '_= '
�'� - - - -
-�� -:�.�' :� �t�- .v �-r � _ . ------------ �
•r _ � ,
�!}�. CR"{� f � � �• � .:� ���� + �'.�..� r _______ _____- _ �E � - = •
.3..�. e: � t ' p� � � ' --� 3
, �� } ��' ' � �.� r � � . C
, Y . � � �,, � _ � ; � ,� � � � � �,� j , ' _ ",`, � - �x- � •-
�� f�0 �d.` • �i ' s,. � J� __�'�. • . .��i4 `.�. I ��fj��, ,'a��-fi��Ii��ll.Y. -T}`rl/ 1� : i
ry `� r � � r . � �+ai � '�'� �' - +� 5 i , . � /' 7�F• �� � � �` � , - , V
. 5 9 r,' � � ; - �_,: a -�,� � . � ,,.,, . _ � .� � ,:��J .�Y
", , 7 � R4 - :� ' � t � � � : w i� � [r `1 � � r�,
� R3G �,�`�/ *t:. � irl , _ s j�„ � , � M,
.t: _ �� e � _ ,� Z k'
Ramps Legend
Bridges
Local streets
� Noise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)
� Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)
Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007
Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.
Managed lanes
Frontageroads
General purpose lanes
Existing right-of-way
Proposed new right-of-way
C�
N
0
0 250' 500' 750' 1000'
Figure C-20 (Sheet 3 of 7)
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
IH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TX
C� "� '� � ".
� � �� " } �yp Joe Skiles
� �`; NW 1 � �i Park
V? '� �r.:.'� �� :; ��' . " � -
� � .�`^•g�� ::�y�' '� 1 �� �� W ,� .,� `ri
,� i � i � �. � ��!!- � � �
.,
� �� � ;
� _ -� �' �� � �KN' �
�
CS1 : �j �y� t . � � _ 7
� �P 1
� ,R � -.. J�
� �; -
o �� �_�o ' '
�`}_!'+'0.� �. _ ` f . . . , : �li :
W .` �`.. �.. _�I� . i y� 4. � `6 _ '
1
O �' a
�. �,� �� ` _� . . . . � ���
� �
Ul '-.. � ��l*co P - .� ��;� �
O' j �, --.. �._ -
- ��`
Q ���i" .� ... '�a�8g���� ;� � � �,_� � �
�
,
•
j; _-_� �. `. .... ��'4- �._ _` 55spp� n - - 8 - � a� L� _ _.
_ ;' Y . .. P _' S"�� -�} t�-�"�
c �� v �� ��
� fF r3 � •i �f� �. - iy1 w � `�-��_ -. r_ , �
� � � •
. �•� . a `
� 3� " °i ° �t ri: F� } �
. �A
t ^ . ;
(ji � d � � . �� ��" �_ - ' �
. fx ,� � � ' � i i„ � , :_ —1 i
_ . �, a .- �J �.,-
�
'� s� �. ' 4 �. . ' � /j� - _ ' . ._
o �j J� �,�. �
� '� �� �'+ � '� � , . �-__ ���,�
� /� .:� � � � ? � OO � � 4�: r'�`"� 3i --
o �: - � ' , � �t ,'t tii ,, ,� i '� �,� `ir { � � _ �.
� . /, �+ y' � t;"� �, � , �i, yt�.,�y a r , Y.�'�� ^� ;
� � . . \� . � t `� d / � r 4� !` ' ' '^ r .� /.-�_ •�� � .� V �"�"ti^....lp _ j y-.�.,.�
- 3.
1
�
�
�
�SA�';�yT�, �s+r' , I
' , �' ' + ` �
� � � � . �
' �; _ 4
4 O . �j _ _ _ __�
�
��' a ,.
� �. . .�..�y` �
� . •
Y
�,,,,'^..��.•-
�1 . ' ' ' > �• _....� ..+�""+ �gg`ip m
� _ a"` ..�. � � _ _ � ' �
.i _.. .
. • - __188��1-.� • Gi
,,r �'_�- y- ---- i �
- _ � 66 Y'j' �____ ,
�-.^ � ; � a
�- _�-- _ _ , r �
J_ �".'',� y �� y
i
� '�^` _3� Y� �.Y� � y�� �/ i �
� '' .�.? �FP " /•
•� i/
:� _��' �- , � -� ��� � y �
� 1�� � � / �
� � -- �J ' Y
/
t ��., 1.�� �
f� - '� N�;_�...�:.� � ' �1 ` _ . . � V
J�� R8B � �.� � jr/
� �� , K
. �r�^ R9 ,
�c, ' .
- , a,��ls,j � � . ��.
�. . _ +,,,
-r - "'1, '_� ` s � Y
�1�I �, —� �' �+r�.
��C.,�A�` �.
�� . ��`�� L ._. . . . a Y � •� �� ,
l. a y
.'y. . •-•. .r � � i .��H` I y�• � �` : F ' � . +" i F r7 �
,t ��� 1 S'
x R9A - ���� �_ . ,y R10A �r; i = �- � �'�
�► r>�� e � �y ` �w�' �`• 1! � �'� � m • N Y 4 . .. 4 �
� r }, .� "`� P . '� _ B M i � i
� � � .r �; �� } ��M� -�_f �:�, �. r � !r ' f., ��
� •',},, d � . - � �,/� . f� y .� 'f. l � .R •i;:�i�i �Y� � � .r �
� ' " - - - - '�'„r. ' �' ' � ti i - �±.
{ ~ 1 1 �' � � ��'�T„ '�;1 ,y,E ~ � ' r �~�� �� � `� � r y
" ��,�"',l�� ^�""� 'M► t"�t�. y -i i ^�a, ' ' � � � �� � '� �
`+ L, �c '+i '�cr'r i— � � �, , - _- -- �
/ - f . , . •I + . . r
��.A� � ae .i ��., E � {�;� �.I � - , _ - ���� �
{F� ;� ,� �e __�
liT �A; u �' � ��._� 1 -i��! " - �� -� � � 4� r ; �`� � - . � �....--- - .1 _ _ _ — Vi
-' '�-+►. � , ' .. .-1=. _ "' '^,a � �� .. -- - ---- ++
_ _' . � .e.� � . ___ -_ __
� `
'--� � � 'S. � -- �C
�`" `�. �' �r �,. �� — - - — _ — = — _ -- T 3'��— y - - � , Z
`e no --- -- r�ary--'— y_— -- _
� - - - 89�. -- - --� e�'0� � � � � Q -�--1--- � "y - �- --- - - - _ : o
_ � _
�
� -
- 1 �, �L -` --�-�-' -90�° 1-- ---� �'u�,�- -'—�-1 — --
� ��
- - ' -- _
_
_ - -- - -
- � _ _ _ - _= -
- � w� _ -�,t �, ..��c�--» eV �c` �..� �F �`�..�� }, - --s�i��, ,�'�;. L a � — �. )�� � . .` - _ i � � � L �- C
_ , -, _ i+ '-J.� �� ��n a '`�►. _ , .. ��- � �r,_ �� _ r� �� � , _ J: � �
•,� N L ' e-1�' ��� Y� 1� l }y I � �, .i n�4 i.y O
�1F \ - Y � 1� .� 1" qy{ �' ` 1 L � '1 � V - 4 � � U
ts•����.�'�``h`� �,'�7�!+ �F�' �'P�I� • � � � � �� .• ,r F n
� ' . ' i � � 1 � s � ' � 1 ' � ' 7� � `� �"- - - - r� . �
- _ -., � w � ,. ,., . . � ; ��, �: . �� � . �- . . _�� .,� . � j� , , �:
" , 't - �,�-��,� � � ,���- -,�,�.� ��� . "' ' � ", � �-.''. Y� �
. , , , �r .. �
� � - � ���, � J� R10 � �, ,1�• r�' 'y.. �` � ; '{� �
� ' e�� ��' � � � + :
�
N
O
0 250' 500' 750' 1000'
Figure C-20 (Sheet 4 of 7)
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
IH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TX
� j' ° , � ''k� R106 �� � NW 2 ^ � -
(/? � ! `� � , t 4�/� � _; .; ������ b., R 1 "' .d �` � /" 4 ' " .,,.;3r
p � .� 'R: ''4 ✓� 4. ��rt � k A "�
� if � r .F,� � '� � _ -s� �" � i-'�'�"" ,�+�� � � � �
(Sl � �s . ����xn�� F j - -' - --3''i r � _ - rrx-- _- 3� 9�'9��� •'+,3�
O � ` ' '� � " �� �k k��-e � `"'r`` ` ' "� `� "'' �' �� � �� � 00
,_
--_ ' ��u. i_
� � : - -
, -, � _ � .� - .. .
W \ �► `'�w.�
. '� �_ _ -
� ' f � _ oo --yiea����j� --- r9 II _ = _ - � ��� � +�� � � `- v, c
<: - 4 �
17T -�-
�
� ,. �e q_ --� _ -s - �o
� --- -
o - •;� t
o , � _ � � ; _ - - - ^- - �, ��� a
�� � . / �9gq+ao ..,rr �- �*�_ -,�-� �`._ - _' '--� T�,oa_____ ~ �E �,r �
-�- •�
�� T�� �
. y _ �
- _ , -- - -
-i.
� �,y- _ . . : � - � � � �'�s � - �...y�
_ . :. _ �
, ,, �- , � �N �, �� � - .a �� ,�,, �, ::�,�, -• ; _— �� - .�_ ,��_��. � �
�
o '�' ` � ' * =�' _ -
� , . � k ��,� , �� , , � � �.
c-s' 'i' t�'�`�'�'� � �'k� ,; '�,s�•� / i�.'� _. :«.'-•�� � o
O �� � �� �"� � � � �_ � � �, � U
� - �� �. �� � ,�� �� � ;'`I ��
O� � . '� ; � � � 'w ��
� � ��� . :; � �-a NW 3 � �4 v: � �
o � � l� ` N W 4 � Y k�
O � �` � � �� ��- l ��E�� :l�y,� �„i� .. �f,V . �9� �J � �.
� ' ` ' "� 5 ��" �", � .� �A ~'�rr. • R13A
. b
�
O
�
A
C�
N
0
.,L-, .�,� _ � � ,. ; :
, � � �r �
�; .. -' � '� � •
NW 2 \ � ` > �v'�� � r , � �j �� �R Pedestrian � �
B < . ,„. � � t ; °- i
Bridge
�`'�'��w �,�` f- ' ;�'�� I . � s �
, '`", �'�1"ti. - ''4 � ' ;� � Y � � r ` �� � F �� � � t
� �`s�� Gibson �u�' � � � f r ti ��;, _�•� � ♦ �
� ��"�,` y� Circle Y �.l � � 1 ' -
' '� � .� `.� 1 F �R �*� -� � �` � � � r ly� ti �jl � � '"",��' ' ----- s € :. � _ _ - - ' aXi
'`� ,��; �� � " . � F\,���� ����,�y � ' _ ' _ �....._. _ --�� -. -_y=� �,� �_� _.: �
,.,�,yy.,.
t,�.r �`3► .� �„ , _ _ _ ro��_�'--'--y_ �_- - - — - ; o
.a �m .�+-- _
�� ` � .. _��al`i�► � _ � —. � � . �., ` "�L�'" ` _�,,,,�rri++' . -�_�`� _` -�- �- -- -y199�"0�--�`� - _ - Z� _ - - -- - - s _ ` � "a
� . _
���,, �.. ~ ^ -.. . � - ____ -19 -�-�[� __ - - _ __ -___ . __ '- _ _ - -
_ �"�
� --__-_ __ p - _J+r� _ _ -- _ � t. -
-' -+___�197�Q - � . _ _ _ 19E �y �—'._ _ - _ - _ ' . ' -
� _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ i'�'_ `'y 19l4-00_i_�'—'—'i_�-- _ _ . _ .... _. _ _ _ _ _ .. •
— �_-l- � �� �, ��� -��-- -� � +vi�ti C
�� _ ____ - _ - - �- ----' � I . - � . . .�+' - �.�� •_ , � : U
`� 7 - - , --a_ _ � . yf '� '.�,. . � � � .. _ I.��0. `�I � "1�
!� ` S�Ni �' 1 � ` � ,�, ' i,: �, � �. ;^\ ��,�,�.;, . � � „ � f � �' ",X i �`p�
"� #'?� � ,.%� � �� y , r � �. � + ' � ,; . 1 a� �d�,� � � . � .
+' ��>� �,� � ��I � ` ` ��' �t �.� �-' i • NW 5 ' . �' .,s�'' �ii �r.: �� � �' , �
� � � ' � �''; � :a� •/ • 7�' ;�. +�, *r ��� .�",�}�� �"t '
-� . . ,1 . � ��'' , � s�, ! }a' P����. .�f
� , � ��� 'x'� ': � � �;�� , ' -.. . ��.
NW 4 .� �,�`� # R1E �
R16� °E s �S �,4` .F �r�; � - �'".'R. s�i -,'` .�
F »I �
�����
� _�
� �
R15A
a�
��
�
Ramps Legend
Bridges
Local streets
� Noise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)
� Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)
Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007
0 250' 500' 750' 1000'
Figure C-20 (Sheet 5 of 7)
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
IH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TX
� �� .� r 1� ` . ,Cs'�� .T._� r. � raw' ". _�. � .
� �k_ ~ F, ,:,� . � �� _ � � rlc �''" F a' ��1 ' � , �'� `�' � � f•} f # ��
�' ��� � t �' f '- _ � "�g x �E- � y • i� u ,� ?�i � 1 �.#
O ^ � -'-^.` �� P.i'v� � . '4 ' y V . . ��.. ' %i V
`�V- - ; _[ � .. y y � �� .F] �•F� �T '*
� � � �� �- �� ; ry �.� , .i . va s � • �• �+ M���� ,'��
O . i l. - �r� y ` -��v � 3 � . � � � i �
'�.�,V ,f9i� _ _:`� , :
W v �,,1 , � �� , . • " ! ,��; -:+,�� � -
O i \ . � ' ' , 'y ` � � ` ,i �'�' � `. '!i � �lf�'7
. „ -�
_ 1 _�
Ul � � `� �� � � � . - $ « � ���t y�a'F��'�". s i �
� � � � ., ' �
..
; _
_ _ - . . • .. r' . �. . L ' � � :.3 ..A � ��� � a>
i ��S'/.. .: .' � ' � . ,�f� w+ . _ r � _ . _ _ i
e-
� �
O � r . ... , . - _" ' _
� ,� r` ' � � � �. ,� . , : `-�` ""' 'sk .�1'� I-� � :/i
. . �
� - . � .., • _ ,�►
,� _ : . � -
� ; .;��
� �' . . - -- - .
_ ,� • � ��- "y, �� - ``' '`� - ' �-- - - _ � �. �`�r., _ ..,� �"� '� ni ' , i�i x
�, � � ''a�` . Y�+'. w ,� ,�,�.----.;�.¢ � • d
' - ,� � Z
o . �� ` �. , �— �� r ..+f�i�' w �'! • # e� „� ` �
. ..- _..• ,� . .. � ��� . ,. . � i wr� .
�
. . ,
' «
i�Jl f!./�Rc74t�',%y'�l�,.�� 'S.,.r`�!',4�"��� — �—�"� — K� " , , t _ + � i 0
r `
��' ' .
,�
_ . . _ - f � •.v.,...s�.:��-'_ = � � , : - "='�-,�4 ��
.
� . .. r _. , .
���'qq.�� • : �
� � �
.
.�
O ' .� '�,r,.`�' • "-� �' •., Y`�.� - -!.,..�e,.7�y;� � ..�„i�sl9r� — � . _ _ '% 'a
,
_' :.. � � . .<. .
F ' r �'� � �.... �` ..., �-.. _ . . _ ._ � — _ _
: '�
r F
� `� y �,
i
� .. .�.. . .v.-..'� . . . �\\ \ . _
� , �.. R18A � `` �'� L�t �'�- _l'� � 'y C
� ' 1� •—
O v.� , .. ���til. � r+��� �. _ ��\`\"G'o0 �G� s. - _ _ ��\�... j� ++
.. � � . � - a.__
. � ,
' J r' . �. . � ,F.� � " �\ � ,-- ' - _ � U
_ -....... ,
I . Ki � . ,. � '.-.. . � � , - �•Y' . , ��
__. . - � .
1 Y6S+ ' �
� i �tf'
• � �
j� `�` ����
-,� 1 , � /�
l .��� '� � � �
\
� . r � � � , ���t� _ _ - _ i � � , ♦
i I �' ' � ._" - �L, .:.9 -`
- � ` .� � - -_� -
Y. f -
� � _ L�
- L' % v � ♦ _ _ _ - .
1 � v n L_
j A _
O .a I: _ . ��` �til- ,� l ' � �.._. �� {. ___ _ ' -��-•, - _ _ _
_ / �
� S
$ i.� ! �'i' ♦
� . .. � . �`r. ____ __�� _____ _ ___-- , -- ;' _y� 1
.
L{y� y.�y �' � �
� +"�' . Zr. .� � � � .� �S � -___ �i��� ....
3
. ,
s . � _ _ 'K �
a �/�'� y
f Te�• J . 1�C �1u��f \ .'4. �"Y "�� � �'
_ �� � _ _ _ � i4 },ff @ � * ,I I ,/`� �j y � :
.��.�. � ♦. i '�{ _'' S�-'�� _l I � /�� .� �� i�
+� � �� �. ."e. � � ' . _ � '� ,J`//✓ � � , �,s : 7+,�- J s
_ — h '�-�'. . _ i _ ' � ,� �'p y � '"� � `.
':� � � ` �\ � /✓ y v�Y � �� =� ���
� � s " �; '�' � -4 '"'`�i %�% _ � �`r:.�c '_
� r Y� �� �� 4� �1 �/ /' , , � �+� .
. ..
, � _ j • � �, � �i � :�� �� *�� � iI-�i � ;, �� R19 "�
� , � �"•. • � � ' `�►�i, .� � � � � �'/ � = � ,
, �_ . ,
,� .
,
,� , ii �. � +a � �
;�
- . .,. _ g : , . .�_� _ � ''
_ v i ,. h� _- � �
; - o, ,� : . . . . .
-�.- ? ` ' `� �' �o-" '�' ; d � .�✓ ',�? � �, • —�, r �r;
� 't ' , � `�` .�, � - _ • ,.,, � , �. -
� �� -j� �� �f.. �_ �' ' - � w. � . . '�, .�� - s �x. #��++i -"'a:,
: . ;
. � ,
�.,
� � ��-T- � . � � � ... - �'
��.� ' .� � . � � � �� � � °% �.�;�qy.�
rx ��r ` i y� • . i , � > `� ' j` •
f .+•'� � ` . . '�!� 5 r . � -�+rr' ♦ �'�.�` � � � '� `"� _,1 1 } �
� t f • A � � � �-�� � � � � " �'x"•q � s�
, :,,„ • y,,...�,� .� ��` +� ,�;� � Continued from � � '" " �r�,: I! .;' .;: �a. � .��
s , �;� , � , �r' , �. , , Last Sheet : Sy�` ,� �
Z � � ,'1r`._ ► ' - _. ` � � . • . _ ` ` rf �s�. . �'--xa .
�, r��� ���t
C�
N
0
Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.
Managed lanes
Frontageroads
General purpose lanes
Existing right-of-way
Proposed new right-of-way
Ramps Legend
Bridges
Local streets
� Noise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)
� Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)
Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007
0 250' 500' 750' 1000'
Figure C-20 (Sheet 6 of 7)
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
IH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TX
� �.
��
o -
�
�
�
W
O
�
�
�
�
�O
v
cs i
0
�
� ,-
�
O
O
Ui .
6�
O
v
�
_ . �,, „�-�; �, � _ � �,,-.�•t;:-;��.,�,
:-..: a �- � �
, �.� -. . �_ :-_ �.�� - q .�� ��
� -�`�` _ • �,: . „ � m
_.. .: � : ;'
�,.� .. - ; � . _.. --- - `___- '_ .. - .b�u =� .'_- - _ . Qi
f�` ���� �;±� �� -,7'- -_-- - a
�• �. 3 ~ I _ _ � � � - -_i _�_-_y_-_ �—_-�___ ' .
� � �__�r 206 �
, �'"'. :: i -:. .. - 205 �� � �� �—. �06�00 y_ �20T�+00 � C
, � � �Y,.� �,o.�.. : ,.- -�0� OOy'�- i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '— i d
_ _ _ `-.1
4 '
_--
i-
// - � --
/ - � y''-y - - - _ 3
� '' -
�� _ � �
. '� p�....-, . . .,� r
.-
-
�� ,i y `/ l /' 1 , - � � / _ _ � � � f, _ } , �y . ' • '� � .,- � � S�' a � �, � Q
� � r� � �,,.,^ �-,' ' : , �Yr ,; �` , -. . �
� ... Y- S � � •
fj'� / � � I � !� "- ' •
� y _ .
�,-" :� / � � „��'�'' `� � '` '4� .��., �"�'`w �
'A'``` �� .�- ��rN���� �\� ?C . : , , �' j � -;'�,+,,., _ ,
A- �
= � ie � � + .�" i 4 ,
, , - �,"�~ �9 �` ;,� : � ` 1+;, • k � �'� -. ,
+ �� �FA�' f �f �� Y �c� 4 . •rte�' �s� . � +Y., r� �`Tl
} w � L-�"`[ 4 C,i���., � l
� i .i? - ' 4''�� � O s �irL� t_._„� �-- b .�� ��;;��' � �? R20A - - '' _ -,
� + � ' � •; � :. c �. I � _ - .. F f .�. �..?,�,y' er,�,{ .r , 'r'. ' ;� `+�
_ft � �r
� � !�, �,'� �:� _ I� i'R � �� .- +t"r � �' � � �ll '1� �t �. �, ! ..`�T:ti;'� i .
�r� "F' " ., ��
� � �f�• � ' � � � � •i•'r�l
. B � �5 �
, _ � � ���{.�:
J�� � �� k- , f a � �
, . . . ..
' '-./
5 r�f {y�� � I y
. --__ _ .:-����i'l�' _ _ - — --
�v-��
� .---__ � ' - « . :
_ ..
- _ F a xr /{
_ -_ _-__-- � � _ - ____
. - — — _ _ - ' «-- -_-___ �y •,i`�
-� - -- -- - - - _-� --_ _ _-�w c _.__ --- -- _-- -- - , . — m. _
- - - - - - _ - - - - -_3 __ -- _-___ ...� '�t• •�
._s__� 2��� ._'i'�—' �� `_s � ��OB � 209�01 _ _ « . `' � -T-�
-- -- —'�--�--'--- _ _ �- -1-�--�.�� 2oe�a�---�-1--�'q�•b°==--y--�--� �'—�°-`- � �''_ zt q_9o� � � -��
- — — — ' - — - — �
_ . _
—. - -
_ =
� _��- �--, - - --- _ _ _ _ �__ `
_ --- - -�_ _ - - _
_ � �--- -- - - - _
_�._ -- - _ ,� .{_s�-� � � ,1* �„�: ,
i� _ . . F . I � � ' �{�j�
.� • ' � * +
7 _ � �� .� � �� � • !'��
��� . ♦� �� �r, k
� � r ������� � k . �� I � �+ � � '� -
� I . � J ,� . �� * ` � '
< ,:# .� ,�t�: � , �,� s � Project
� � '�� � �''��� Desi n End
� �. � . `�, � �.��„ _27 9
. �`� ', '*,,.-
�
N
O
0 250' 500' 750' 1000'
Figure C-20 (Sheet 7 of 7)
Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
IH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TX