• Construction Noise
• Measurement
• Noise Barriers
  • Abatement
  • Acceptance Criteria
  • Design/Construction
  • Inventory
  • Research
• Noise Compatible Planning
• Regulation and Guidance
• Resources
• Tire Pavement Noise
• Traffic Noise Model
• Training

FHWA → ENVIRONMENT → Noise → Noise Barriers → Abatement → Reasonableness 2009

A Method to Determine Reasonableness and Feasibility of Noise Abatement at Special Use Locations

APPENDIX B: SURVEY RESULTS

Question #1: Has your agency had trouble identifying the appropriate procedure for determining if abatement is reasonable and feasible for special land uses in the past?

AL DOT -	yes
AR DOT -	yes
AZ DOT -	no
CA DOT -	yes
CO DOT -	yes
CT DOT -	no
HI DOT -	yes
IA DOT -	no
ID DOT -	no
IN DOT -	no
KY DOT -	no
KAN DOT -	no
LA DOT -	yes
MA DOT -	yes
MO DOT -	yes
ME DOT -	no
MI DOT -	yes
MN DOT -	yes
MT DOT -	no
MS DOT -	no
NC DOT -	no
NE DOT -	yes, just city parks
NH DOT -	no
NJ DOT -	yes
NV DOT -	yes
NY DOT -	yes
OK DOT -	yes
PA DOT -	no
SC DOT -	no
TN DOT -	no
UT DOT -	yes
WI DOT -	no
WY DOT -	no
OH DOT -	yes
TX DOT -	yes

Others:

1. Austria-no
2. Wakefield Acoustics-yes
3. TN EPO-no

Question #2: In your opinion, what are the key details in determining if abatement is reasonable and feasible for special land uses?

AL DOT -	see attached policy
AR DOT -	sensitive nature of use, time of development of facility & use, amount of noise increase due to proposed highway construction
AZ DOT -	no answer
CA DOT -	no answer
CO DOT -	Determining whether these lands fit into Cat. A or B of NAC. Once that is determined the DOT guidelines are applied(residences)
CT DOT -	no answer
HI DOT -	Arrive at max cost per benefited residences, determine number of benefited residences. How do we consider second row of houses? how do we consider view of residents?
IA DOT -	no answer
ID DOT -	no answer
IN DOT -	no answer
KY DOT -	no answer
LA DOT -	normal cost per receptor calculations are not valid, cost, severity of impact, type of use, time of use (compared to peak noise hour), complaints received and public involvement are crucial.
MA DOT -	no answer
ME DOT -	no answer
MI DOT -	noise sensitive outside areas, openable building windows, interior noise levels, is reduced interior noise level desirable?
MN DOT -	cost, which came first; the source or the land use?, effectiveness (will noise be reduced?), level of impact, land owners desire (is it acceptable to community?)
MO DOT -	no answer
MS DOT -	no answer
NE DOT -	would noise abatement detract from the use of the park or it's look
NH DOT -	no answer
NJ DOT -	public property, extent of use, cost, benefits of lowered noise levels
NV DOT -	effectiveness of any mitigation, number of people affected or impacted, cost of mitigation per person
NY DOT -	Active Recreational Parks: Would a lowered noise level be a benefit? Regular Parks: Use percentage of land protected(usually low, <%10 not reasonable)Schools: State law for insulation Churches: Time of use (Sunday am only?)
OK DOT -	Is the worst case hour for noise actually affecting use and purpose of the special land use? Shouldn't evaluation be done for the case that has the most effect on the church/school etc.?
PA DOT -	no answer
SC DOT -	no answer
TN DOT -	see attached noise policy
UT DOT -	Date of development must be earlier than the highway Fixed developed sites of frequent human use within 300m of ROW, this excludes dispersed recreation sites(fishing, Xcountry skiing areas), including their parking facilities, also excluded are roadside facilities, rest areas....
WI DOT -	no answer
WY DOT -	no answer

Others:

Austria-no answer

Wakefield Acoustics-schools-interior noise exceeds level for speech interference

churches-no policy, but interference with speech and quiet reflection

parks-no policy, but significant increase in background noise, masking of natural sounds

TN EPO-no answer

Question #3: Has any formal policy been established by your agency to determine if special land use noise abatement is reasonable and/or feasible?

AL DOT -	yes
AR DOT -	no
AZ DOT -	no
CA DOT -	no, but we do have a legislative requirement to provide noise protection for schools
CO DOT -	no. policy no, guidelines yes
CT DOT -	no answer
HI DOT -	no
IA DOT -	no answer
ID DOT -	no answer
IN DOT -	no answer
KY DOT -	no answer
LA DOT -	no
MA DOT -	no
ME DOT -	no answer
MI DOT -	no
MN DOT -	no
MO DOT -	no answer
MS DOT -	no answer
NE DOT -	no
NH DOT -	no answer
NJ DOT -	no
NV DOT -	yes
NY DOT -	no
OK DOT -	no. evaluated on a case by case basis
PA DOT -	no answer
SC DOT -	no answer
TN DOT -	yes
UT DOT -	yes
WI DOT -	no answer
WY DOT -	no answer
NC	skip
KAN	skip
OH	no
MT	no

Others:

Austria-no answer
Wakefield Acoustics-yes
TN EPO-no answer

Question #4: Would you supply a copy of this document to the research team?

AL DOT -	yes
AR DOT -	no answer
AZ DOT -	no answer
CA DOT -	yes
CO DOT -	yes
CT DOT -	no answer
HI DOT -	no answer
IA DOT -	no answer
ID DOT -	no answer
IN DOT -	no answer
KY DOT -	no answer
LA DOT -	no answer
MA DOT -	no answer
ME DOT -	no answer
MI DOT -	no answer
MN DOT -	no answer
MO DOT -	no answer
MS DOT -	no answer
NE DOT -	no answer
NH DOT -	no answer
NJ DOT -	no answer
NV DOT -	yes
NY DOT -	no answer
OK DOT -	no answer
PA DOT -	no answer
SC DOT -	no answer
TN DOT -	yes
UT DOT -	yes
WI DOT -	no answer
WY DOT -	no answer

Others:

Austria-no answer
Wakefield Acoustics-yes
TN EPO-no answer

Question #5: What is the name of the document?

AL DOT -	ALDOT - Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement
AR DOT -	no answer
AZ DOT -	no answer
CA DOT -	sec 216 California Statute, sec 3 -150.40 of DOT project development procedure manual
CO DOT -	Colorado DOT-Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines
CT DOT -	no answer
HI DOT -	no answer
IA DOT -	no answer
ID DOT -	no answer
IN DOT -	no answer
KY DOT -	no answer
LA DOT -	no answer
MA DOT -	no answer
ME DOT -	no answer
MI DOT -	no answer
MN DOT -	no answer
MO DOT -	no answer
MS DOT -	no answer
NE DOT -	no answer
NH DOT -	no answer
NJ DOT -	no answer
NV DOT -	no answer
NY DOT -	Actually, would you want to see the Chapter of State Law on public school insulation?
OK DOT -	no answer
PA DOT -	no answer
SC DOT -	no answer
TN DOT -	no answer
UT DOT -	no answer
WI DOT -	no answer
WY DOT -	no answer

Others:

Austria- no answer
Wakefield Acoustics- "Revised Policy for Mitigating the Effects of Traffic Noise from Freeways and Expressways", Nov-1993.
TN EPO - no answer

Question #6: How has your agency handled determination of reasonable and feasible noise abatement for special land uses?

AL DOT -	see policy
AR DOT -	project basis for individual site conditions
AZ DOT -	no answer
CA DOT -	no answer
CO DOT -	Most often these land uses are classified as Cat B of the NAC. Guidelines are applied. Number of affected persons is hard to determine at parks. Schools and churches are easier but exposure duration is questioned
CT DOT -	no answer
HI DOT -	no answer
IA DOT -	no answer
ID DOT -	no answer
IN DOT -	no answer
KY DOT -	no answer
LA DOT -	no answer
MA DOT -	see attachment A
ME DOT -	no answer
MI DOT -	no answer
MN DOT -	see attached pages, available at www.pca.state.mn.us
MO DOT -	no answer
MS DOT -	no answer
NE DOT -	no answer
NH DOT -	no answer
NJ DOT -	no answer
NV DOT -	After identifying which land uses fall into NAC land use categories, determine degree of impact affecting speech(instructional or conversational)
NY DOT -	see above; but "reasonable" can be subjective and it is applied in that manner
OK DOT -	no answer
PA DOT -	no answer
SC DOT -	no answer
TN DOT -	see attached noise policy
UT DOT -	see #2
WI DOT -	no answer
WY DOT -	no answer
KAN	skip
NC	skip
OH	skip
MT	some policy exists

Others:

Austria- no answer
Wakefield Acoustics- Ten years after project completion, daytime noise levels inside classrooms will exceed L_eq(1 hr) 47 dB(A) and will have increased by 3 dB(A) or more over pre-projected levels, see attached policy
TN EPO - no answer

Question #7: In your opinion, what are reasonable and feasible indicators for determining if noise abatement is needed for special land uses?

Choices:

Cost	Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
Land Use	Noise Level Increase
Facility Type	New Developoments
Time of Use	Amount of Use
Type of Use	Developed After Highway
Other (please describe)

 

AL DOT -	cost, land use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase
AR DOT -	cost, land use, time of use, type of use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, developed after highway
AZ DOT -	noise abatement criteria, noise level increase
CA DOT -	all items checked
CO DOT -	all items checked except noise level increase
CT DOT -	cost, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, developed after highway, other: # of households that will benefit(up to 300' from highway), views of affected residents, input from local gov't and ability to construct abatement.
HI DOT -	cost, land use, facility type, type of use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, other: substantial noise reduction
IA DOT -	all boxes checked.
ID DOT -	cost, land use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, new developments, developed after highway, other: date of public knowledge.
IN DOT -	cost, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, developed after highway
KY DOT -	cost, facility type, time of use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, new developments, amount of use, developed after highway
LA DOT -	cost, facility type, time of use, type of use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase
MA DOT -	all items checked
ME DOT -	all checked except amount of use
MI DOT -	cost, land use, facility type, time of use, type of use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, other: interior or exterior criteria
MN DOT -	all items checked, other: community desire
MO DOT -	cost, land use, facility type, time of use, type of use, noise abatement criteria, new developments, other: affected residents
MS DOT -	cost, facility type, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, developed after highway, other: impact on activities at subject property.
NE DOT -	cost, land use, time of use, type of use, noise level increase, amount of use
NH DOT -	cost, land use, time of use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, amount of use, developed after highway
NJ DOT -	all items checked, other: position of prop, owner on abatement, amt. of noise reduction
NV DOT -	all items checked
NY DOT -	cost, land use, facility type, time of use, type of use, other: lowered noise not a benefit, % of park area protected
OK DOT -	land use, time of use, type of use, NAC, noise level increase, amount of use, developed after highway
PA DOT -	cost, land use, facility type, time of use, noise abatement criteria, amount of use
SC DOT -	cost, land use, type of use, noise level increase, developed after highway, other: public acceptability
TN DOT -	cost, land use, facility type, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, new developments, developed after highway
UT DOT -	all items checked, other: location of centers of frequent human use
WI DOT -	cost, land use, facility type, time of use, type of use
WY DOT -	cost, land use, noise abatement criteria, noise level increase
KAN	Barrier IL
MT	all items selected and Community Desires
OH	Cost, Land Use, NAC, dB increase
NC	Cost, NAC, Time of use, Type of use, dB Increase

Others:

Austria- cost, land use, facility type, time of use, type of use, NAC
Wakefield Acoustics- all items checked except time of use, developed after highway not eligible
TN EPO - cost, land use, facility type, time of use, NAC, noise level increase, amount of use, developed after highway

Question #8: Which are the most important three items in Question #7?

AL DOT -	cost, NAC
AR DOT -	cost, land use, noise level increase
AZ DOT -	noise abatement criteria, noise level increase
CA DOT -	cost, amount of use, type of use
CO DOT -	cost, absolute noise level as compared to NAC, amount of use (equiv. receptors)
CT DOT -	cost, NAC, noise level increase
HI DOT -	cost, NAC, noise level increase
IA DOT -	developed after highway
ID DOT -	date of public knowledge, cost, noise level increase
IN DOT -	cost, noise level increase, developed after highway
KY DOT -	cost, facility type, noise level increase
LA DOT -	cost, facility type, time of use
MA DOT -	cost, NAC, type of use
ME DOT -	noise abatement criteria, noise level increase, cost
MI DOT -	cost, type of use, noise abatement criteria
MN DOT -	cost, noise level increase, NAC
MO DOT -	cost, facility type, noise abatement criteria,
MS DOT -	cost, noise abatement criteria, impact on activities at subject property.
NE DOT -	type of use, noise level increase, amount of use
NH DOT -	no answer
NJ DOT -	facility type, cost, noise reduction
NV DOT -	NAC, land use, noise level increase
NY DOT -	cost, lowered noise not a benefit, % of park area protected
OK DOT -	time of use, type of use, amount of use
PA DOT -	cost, noise abatement criteria, amount of use
SC DOT -	developed after highway, cost, type of use
TN DOT -	cost, noise level increase, developed after highway
UT DOT -	developed after highway, NAC, location of centers of frequent use
WI DOT -	cost, facility type, time of use
WY DOT -	NAC, land use, cost
KAN	Cost, Increase, date of public knowledge
NC	Cost, NAC, Type of Use
OH	Cost, NAC, NLI
MT	Cost, NLI, NAC

Others:

Austria- cost, NAC, facility type
Wakefield Acoustics- type of use, exceed threshold level, noise level increase
TN EPO - cost, NAC, noise level increase

Question #9

Note: Methodology refers to Q9 of survey, Reasonableness refers to policies that states supplied, so far all have been non-special land use policies (i.e. residences)

AL DOT-Mook

No Methodology

Reasonableness (Residences)

1. Noise reduction provided: 6-8 dB(A)
2. Cost: $20k/residence
3. Number of people protected(benefited): 5 dB(A)
4. Opinion of Impacted Residents:
5. Abs noise levels
6. Change in noise levels
7. Development along highways
8. Env impacts of wall construction

AZDOT

ADOT has abated for all Cat. B land uses (including schools, churches, parks) that exceeded the FHWA NAC level or have had their levels increased by 15 dB(A). No criteria is used.

ARK DOT (Malerough)
Q2

1. Sensitive nature of noise
2. time of development of facility
3. Amount of noise increase

CA DOT
No Methodology

• Park Land- $/foot highway frontage
• Church Land- $/church member
• Picnic, walking should be ranked higher than Softball games (primary activity of park)
• CA 3-150.40 (School Noise Abatement) - L_eq(h) exceeds 52 dB(A) Caltrans must
• abate for classrooms, school libraries

CO DOT

• uses $3000/receiver/decibel for reasonableness analysis

Q9. Criteria Methodology/Notes

1. Determining whether these lands fit into Cat. A or B of NAC. Once that is determined the DOT guidelines are applied(residences)
2. Most often these land uses are classified as Cat B of the NAC. Guidelines are applied. Number of affected persons is hard to determine at parks. Schools and churches are easier but exposure duration is questioned.

Reasonableness (Residences) Guidelines

1. Build Level: >70dBA v. reasonable, <63 dB(A) unreasonable
2. Build Level over existing: >10 dB(A) vreas, <3 unreas
3. Cost/impacted receiver: <$3 000 vreas, >$3 500 unreas
4. Opinion of Impacted Persons: >75% vreas, <40% unreas.
5. Development Type: >70% residential, schools, parks vreas., <25% unreas.
6. Timing: >75% developments predate vreas., <30% unreas.
7. Development Existence: >75% there for 15 yrs vreas., <30% unreas.
8. Land Use: strong controls, vreas., weak controls unreas.

Conn. DOT (Delpapa)

1. NAC: L_eq=67 dB(A)
2. Increase: 15 dB's or approaching NAC within 1 dB
3. Cost: 15k-50k per residence. All residences within 300 ft and anticipated to achieve a 3 dB or greater traffic noise reduction are considered in determining cost/res, index. An equivalent house count (Heq) can be applied to cost/residence index. The number of persons per household residing in all residences compared to the average persons per household. 1990 Census data 2.62 persons/household.

Example Heq calc.
4 res * 4 persons/res.= 16 persons
Heq =16 persons/2.62 = 6.1 residences
6.1 residences * 50k/res. = $305,000 barrier cost
- compare this to $200,000 if using 4 residences (4 * 50k)

Hawaii DOT

1. Arrive at max cost per benefited residences
2. determine number of benefited residences
3. How do we consider second row of houses?
4. how do we consider view of residents?

Q9. Criteria Methodology/Notes

1. Cost: estimate total cost divided by benefited residences
2. NAC: determine amount that projected noise level exceeds NAC
3. Increase: determine greatest increase
4. Reduction: determine min heights of wall required to obtain substantial noise reduction

• total cost of abatement/benefited receivers
• greatest increase in noise level

Idaho Trans. Dept (Jost)
O9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: Cost/benefit ratio, who benefits (#) and degree of benefit
2. Land use, NAC, Increase: assist in determining the severity of projected traffic noise impacts
3. New developments, date of public knowledge, developed after highway: Who created the problem? are the noise impacts a result of highway development or local development regs.

INDOT (Polit)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: spending a certain amount of money for a certain benefit
2. NAC/Increase: not used for reasonableness strategies, only used for determining the existence of noise impacts.
3. Developed after Highway:

Iowa DOT (Ridnour)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. all the listed items should be considered in the context of the specific situation. There is no recipe for weighting each factor, but a "best public interest"decision should consider the precedent setting implications that might be involved.

KY Trans. Cabinet (Adkins)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Facility Type: insulation/air conditioning not used for abatement of interior levels except in schools
2. Time/Amount of Use: In past cases, we have successfully argued against insulating/air conditioning churches due to time of use and frequency of use
3. Developments after highway: abatement not considered when development occurred after date of public knowledge.

Reasonableness (residences)

1. Reasonableness will be based primarily on severity of impact and cost effectiveness, the cost effectiveness will be determined by a calculation expressed in:

$/dB(A) reduction/person protected/dB(A) noise increase

• dB(A) reduction=amount of attenuation achieved by the barrier
• person protected=total number of benefited receivers
• dB(A) noise increase=amount of noise directly attributed to the Type I project

experience indicates that a value of $150/dB(A)/person/dB(A) is a reasonable max threshold, values below usually receive abatement, values above usually do not unless other circumstances override.

Kansas DOT
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Barrier cost
2. Noise level increase of 10 dB must consider abatement
3. KDOT will not participate in barrier construction when development was not planned prior to the point of public knowledge

KANSAS DOT (Eisenbath)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: cost are used by KDOT in making decisions about barrier feasibility
2. Increase: abatement analysis required for impacts >10 dB(A) above the existing
3. Developed after date of public knowledge: KDOT will not participate in construction of barriers where development was not planned prior to the point of public knowledge.

Louisiana DOT (Pizzolato)
Q2. normal cost per receptor calculations are not valid. Cost, severity of impact, type of use (interior/exterior), time of use (compared to worst case hour), complaints received and public involvement are crucial.

*Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: since cost/receptor criteria is not valid. Total cost or cost as percentage of project would be considered, would cost be reimbursable for insulation of structures, would current use be impaired, involvement of Dept. Interior if resources are protected by section 4(f) constructive use guidelines.
2. Time of use: does predominant use occur during peak or worst hour
3. Type of use: would consider whether interior or exterior activity and whether current use would be impaired
4. NAC: severity of impact
5. Increase: severity of impact and impairment of current use

Mass. Highway Dept.

MHD has rejected requests for noise abatement for special land uses on all Type I projects. Reason being that they can't justify spending the money on park, playground, cemetery, church when there are residential areas that have been deemed marginally feasible for a barrier. There is no criteria to allow for equal consideration of special land use case versus residential areas.

The only time abatement is offered to special land use area is when it is surrounded by a residential area that has been deemed reasonable/feasible for a barrier.

MHD has attempted to consider special land use cases with study (MHD Type II Noise Attenuation Study). Although there is still reluctance to build barrier for location if there are marginal residential areas also on the list.

MHD relies heavily on cost/dBIL/residence protected

Notes:

1. Cost: consider instead of $/dBIL/unit to use $/dBIL/person hour where person hour is a measure of how frequent the facility is used.

Special Land Use Priority Primary Rating System

1. 5 points accrue for each year of noise impact.
2. Residences:
   • 68-72 dB(A)      each residence 1 pt
   • 73-77 dB(A)      5 pts
   • >77dB(A)         25 pts
3. Places of Worship
   • 68-72 dB(A)      each place 5 pts
   • >72dB(A)         25 pts
4. Schools, hospital, nursing home, library
   • 68-72 dB(A)      each place 10 pts
   • >72 dB(A)        50 pts

Primary rating system is the sum of all such points for all noise-sensitive activities n the barrier study zone.

Maine DOT (Rollins)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: 20k per benefited receiver
2. Land Use: Land use control must be exercised by local authorities with control over under-developed lands adjacent to highway to prevent further development of incompatible activities.
3. NAC: any impacted receiver that approaches or exceeds the NAC for the type of land use.
4. Increase: exceeds the existing level by 15 dB(A)
5. Number units protected: only sites - with six or more impacted receivers subject to adverse highway traffic noise impacts -will be eligible.
6. Relative age of highway: more consideration given to receptors that predate initial highway construction.
7. View of residents: barriers will not be built if the residents don't want the barrier
8. Noise barriers: barriers will not be considered unless they provide at least 10 dB(A) atten.

MI DOT (DeFrain)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. cost: difficult to determine
2. Land use: each case would need to be evaluated, no general rules
3. Facility type: need to examine activities, times, user concerns
4. Time of Use: relate these times to calculated/measured highway noise.
5. NAC: need to look at tasks/activities to be held on routine basis
6. Increase: noise impact is generally related to change in level rather than baseline values.

Miss DOT (Hollowav)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. We have not considered abatement strategies for special land uses in detail for any projects. We have not developed procedures for determining reasonable/feasible guidelines.

Mo DOT (Jett)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. cost: 3 Ok/receptor
2. Land use: residential = reasonable; farm land <>reasonable
3. Facility type: commercial <> not reas.; Res, school, hosp.=reasonable
4. Time of use: school/church may not be reasonable
5. Type of use: same as land except parks may be reasonable
6. NAC: >=NAC=reasonable
7. New developments: unreasonable
8. Affected residents: >50% = reasonable

MN DOT (Kennedy)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: max cost per decibel
2. Land use: identify qualifying land uses
3. NAC: establish min level of effectiveness, 5 dB (reductions?)
4. Increase: Rank severity of impact with increase
5. Residents view: poll residents for opinion
6. New developments: built after date of public knowledge not reasonable
7. Time/Type/Amount of use: define criteria for severity

Montana DOT
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Land use: outdoor activity has priority over indoor
2. Time of Use: facility dependent, churches and schools may be more affected by noise at certain times
3. Type of Use: If the site is sacred, it is more sensitive to noise than a church or school (Indian grounds)
4. Increase: the greater the overall increase in noise the more it will be considered in determining reasonableness/feasibility.
5. Amount of use: a church is used less than a school and would probably not be as likely to prove reasonable to abate noise

Neb DORoads (Otterman)
O9. Criteria Methodology

1. Type of use: Parks-a barrier would deter its use and looks
2. Increase: is the level too high to enjoy the park?
3. Amount of use: Is the park used on weekends only?

NJDOT (Billera)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost and Noise reduction: cost/benefit analysis
2. Land use/Facility Type: normally only public lands or buildings eligible
3. Type of use/Amount: is the abatement a benefit?, (i.e. time of use does not coincide with worst hour)
4. NAC:per23CFR772
5. Developed after highway: not eligible

Nevada DOT

Reasonableness (Residences)

1. Cost per resident
2. Barrier cost compared to project cost: 2% to 6% is the range
3. Do impacted residents want the barrier
4. will the barrier block the view of billboards
5. absolute levels: 60-70 dB(A) range
6. perceivable levels: 3-10 dB(A) range
7. future build levels compared to no build levels (increase): 1-5 dB(A)
8. development time vs. highway
9. zoning changes
10. any dominant noise sources that a barrier won't mitigate

Q9. Criteria Methodology comments

1. Effectiveness of any mitigation
2. Number of people affected or impacted
3. cost of mitigation per person
4. After identifying which land uses fall into NAC land use categories, determine degree of impact affecting speech(instructional or conversational)

NYSDOT

Reasonableness (Residences)

1. Active Recreational Parks: Would a lowered noise level be a benefit?
2. Regular Parks: Use percentage of land protected(usually low, < %10 not reasonable)
3. Schools: State law for insulation
4. Churches: Time of use (Sunday am only?)

Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. cost: subjective, is it reasonable?
2. Land use: helps determine options such as insulation, lowered noise, %
3. Type: Public schools (only) are eligible for insulation
4. Time: Helpful for churches if used Sunday mornings only
5. Type of use: are there meetings, day care?
6. %: less than 5 - 10% area benefited not justified

N.C. DOT
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: cost versus type of development, i.e. large schools may justify more monies than a small church
2. NAC: those whose levels substantially exceed criteria versus those that only approach
3. Type: school playgrounds versus recreation facilities

NC DOT (Walkef)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: cost versus type of development (i.e. larger schools may justify more monies than a smaller church)
2. NAC: Those whose levels substantially exceed criteria versus those that only approach
3. Type of Use: School playgrounds versus recreational facilities used for training.

New Hampshire DOT
Reasonableness (Residences, I think)

1. Future Noise levels
   • >66 dB(A) Reasonable
   • <66 dB(A) not Reasonable
2. Build vs. No Build (Increase)
   • 15 dB(A) Reasonable
   • < 15 dB(A) not Reasonable
3. Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) $/unit first floor families in general, except if demonstrated that ground level activity takes place for upper level families
   • <$25k/unit Reasonable
   • >$3 Ok/unit not reasonable
4. Development vs. highway timing
   • >80% homes prior to build Reasonable
   • <50% not Reasonable

No Methodology

Ohio DOT
Reasonableness (Residences)

1. Proximity of users to roadway
2. cost per dB(A) reduction
3. relativity to current cost criteria

Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: cost per decibel decrease
2. Land use: area of frequent human use must be protected by abatement (3-5 dB(A) minimum)
3. NAC: abatement must provide decrease in levels that bring L_eq below NAC
4. Increase: increase must result in an exceedence of NAC or 10 dB(A) above the existing

OH DOT (Pinckney)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: cost per decibel decrease
2. Land use: area of frequent human use must be protected by abatement. 3-5 dB(A) min.
3. NAC: abatement must provide enough of a decrease in noise levels to bring noise levels below the NAC.
4. Increase: Increase must result in an exceedence of NAC or 10 dB(A) above the existing

Oklahoma DOT (Sullivan)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

Is the worst case hour for noise actually affecting use and purpose of the special land use? Shouldn't evaluation be done for the case that has the most effect on the church/school etc.?

1. Tune of use: Compare expected noise levels to NAC for time of use
2. Type of Use: develop categories for uses that are most sensitive to noise(same comment for NAC and Increase)
3. Amount of use: compare impacts expected to actual amount of use
4. Developed after highway: should be a negative for reasonableness
5. Land use: if dominating noise sources are present in the area this should be taken into account

PA Turnpike Comm (Willis)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: cost per special land use category protected
2. Land Use: there would have to be a distinction made between type of receptor, i.e. structural (school, church) and other land use (parks). Even though both may be valued for being quiet, the structural receptors afford some noise reduction whereas none is provided in an open setting.
3. Facility type: related to land use as noted above
4. Time of use: time of use should be evaluated against the projected noise levels for that time period, especially for schools/churches. I would estimate that much of their use occurs in off-peak hours.
5. Amount of use: the more a special land category is used, the greater the consideration for abatement

PennDOT (Osborne)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: must not exceed $50k/residence for Type I
2. Land use: must be residential, no abatement for industrial/commercial
3. NAC: abatement must be based on existing and future noise levels
4. Increase: a comparison of existing and future levels
5. Developed after highway: no abatement for areas that do not pre-date the highway, no retrofit

Reasonableness (Residences)

1. abatement benefits: number of units and people receiving at least 3 dB(A) protection, and the average community noise reduction provided. Unit is defined as a dwelling unit or area of frequent human activity, church or school. If the unit is large, it should be subdivided into areas of frequent habitation. The average community noise reduction is the sum of the reduction provided per unit receiving at least 3 dB(A) reduction divided by the total number of units receiving at least 3 dB(A) protection.
2. desires of affected persons: survey of those closest to the barrier
3. comparison of existing to future noise levels:
   • does the project increase noise levels to approach or exceed 67 dB(A)?
   • does the project cause a substantial increase over existing levels?
   • do existing levels approach/exceed 67 dB(A)?
   • will the project decrease current levels while still approaching/exceeding 67 dB(A)?
4. development trends and land use controls: zoning changes or has zoning controlled noise sensitive land uses from building within the corridor, implies high community noise sensitivity
5. cost per residence: 50 k/residence receiving 5 dB(A)
6. cost/dB(A)/unit protected

Penn DOT Worksheet Notes (Andrew Klecrita)

1. Benefits provided: # units protected, # people,
2. % people benefiting from abatement
3. NAC
4. Land Use
5. Cost/residence
6. Barrier Specifics

S.C. DOT
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. cost: cost should fall within the guidelines of the states policy. Since a cost/receiver ratio may not apply in a special land use situation could use the following:
   • total cost of the abatement wrt total cost of highway project
   • what are the ROW and maintenance costs/considerations associated with abatement?
2. Land Use: land use should not fit into any of the other categories prescribed for 23CFR772. If the surrounding land use contains a predominating noise source, then traffic abatement is not to be considered.
3. Type of Use: Outdoor activity would be the main consideration or structures without air conditioning or land use that derives its value from quite or serene surroundings.
4. Increase: Future "build"levels shall approach or exceed the NAC before abatement will be considered.
5. Developed after Highway: Noise abatement is considered not reasonable if the development occurred after the date of public knowledge of the location of the proposed highway project.

Reasonableness (Residences)

1. Cost: 15 k/benefited receiver (5 dBA)
2. exposed height of wall<=25 ft
3. change in noise levels from existing to build case not more than 4 dB(A)
4. no abatement for businesses, prefer visibility
5. no abatement for isolated residences
6. not considered reasonable to abate for non-controlled or partial controlled access facilities
7. barrier will be located beyond clear recovery zone or incorporated into safety devices.
8. walls not to be constructed on shoulders (drainage, trash, safety)
9. vegetative barrier may be considered even though acoustical barrier not justified
10. not reasonable if residents don't want it, survey.
11. developments after date of public knowledge-not reasonable

Term EPO (Rasmussen)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: must be considered
2. Land use : changing land use must be considered
3. Facility type: uncontrolled access, no Type II program
4. Time of use: churches, mainly Sundays, interior levels
5. NAC: approach, equal or exceed criteria
6. Increase: over 15 dB(A) increase
7. Amount of use: at least 10% of day

Tenn DOT (Smith)
No Methodology

Reasonableness (residences)

1. abatement should produce a 10 dB(A) reduction with a minimum of 7 dB(A) reduction for first row of houses and at least 5 dB(A) for other receptors such as second row houses.
2. barriers will not normally be constructed when height requirements exceed 15 feet
3. TDOT will consider public views of abatement
4. TDOT will give greater consideration to
   • residential areas along highways on new location
   • residential areas that were constructed before an existing highway
   • residential areas have been in place along an existing highway for an extended period of time
   • TDOT gives less consideration to res. areas that have been developed along the highway without proper consideration of traffic noise impacts by the developer
5. abatement not reasonable for commercial or industrial areas or where zoning is changing from sensitive (parks, churches) to non-sensitive (commercial)

TexDOT

Reasonableness (Residences)

1. cost:25k/receiver (5 dBA)
2. views of residents
3. zoning-prior complaints in the area?

Utah DOT

Criteria/Reasonableness for special land use:

1. Date of development must be earlier than the highway

2. Fixed developed sites of frequent human use within 300m of ROW, this excludes dispersed recreation sites(fishing, Xcountry skiing areas), including their parking facilities, also excluded are roadside facilities, rest areas....

3. Centers of human activity must be impacted by highway noise

4. Time of use may be a factor, churches used only for Sunday worship do not qualify since the peak traffic hours do not coincide with "frequent human use: criteria."

5. Activity Type: for schools, these are divided into indoor and outdoor activities. Many times the outdoor areas are shielded by the building. The school building indoor is examined for noise penetrating the building if the outdoor NAC is exceeded during time of use.

6. Building material is a factor only if the outdoor NAC is exceeded during time of use. If a school has solid brick or masonry block structure facing the highway, no further shielding is needed. Or if the widows are double or triple glazed or glass block and the walls are brick or masonry block, no further shielding is needed.

7. Noise abatement must comply with the usual criteria for dwellings(5 dB(A) reduction, cost not exceeding limit per dwelling.

8. Can place imaginary dwellings if there is a site without dwellings to see if the cost is reasonable.

COST PER DWELLING FORMULA:
Cost= C/SD

C = Total cost of abatement
D = number of impacted dwellings that receive 3dB reduction within 300m of ROW
S = severity factor (Type II S=l)

Type I
NAC exceeded		Increase in level
	0-9	10-19	20-29	30+
Yes	1	2	3	4
No	-	1	2	3

WisDOT (Waldschmid)
Q9. Criteria Methodology

1. Cost: how bad do you want the project approved by the Feds? 30k/dwelling is normally used

2. Facility type/Time of use: Churches are normally dismissed because of time of use. Every opportunity is used to show it is not an impact because of the time of use issue. Other than impact vs. no impact, cost is the only issue when determining reasonable/feasible in Wis.

Wyoming DOT
Reasonableness (Residences)

1. Amount of noise reduction provided (7dB A or greater)

2. all benefited receivers should be included in the analysis regardless £>r whether they were identified as impacted(each unit in a multi-family building should be counted as one residence)

3. Cost: $ 15 k/resident or less

4. Opinion of impacted residents: surveys or open house to determine

5. Future noise levels: >70 dB(A) or 20 dB(A) increase

6. Timing: Consider those residences that existed before the project or along a highway for an extended period of time

British of Columbia MoTH

Notes:

1. 55 dB(A) is the threshold of concern, above this consider mitigation (L_eq24)

2. 65 dB(A) is interpreted as twice as noisy and speech/sleep interference expected

3. Mitigation warranted if levels 10 years after project:

   • 55 - 65 dB(A) with increase shown in graph
   • >65 dB(A) and increase >3dBA
   
   

4. Must be able to achieve at least 5 dB(A) reduction

5. Schools abate: L10 worst hour >50 dB(A) inside or 60-70 dB(A) outside, 5 dB reduction must be achieved

6. Rural areas: alignment efforts should be made if levels are below 55 dB(A) but have increased by 10 dB over pre-project levels

7. Cost: $15k/directly facing residential unit

Austria (Pahrensteiner)

1. Land use/Facility Type: The type of land use with its standardized max noise level determines the necessary decrease of noise level depending on the surroundings.

2. cost: will limit the possible solutions but should not prevent the most effective solution.

Italy-Gervasio

Important items

1. build versus no-build noise levels

2. number of exposed persons

3. cost

Question #10: Are you aware of any information (studies, documents, reports, etc.) that may be helpful in determining if abatement is reasonable and/or feasible for special land uses?

AL DOT -	no answer
AR DOT -	no answer
AZ DOT -	no
CA DOT -	no
CO DOT -	no answer
CT DOT -	no
HI DOT -	no answer
IA DOT -	no
ID DOT -	no. specific land uses haven't been an issue in this jurisdiction.
IN DOT -	yes. the June 12,1995 memo from FHWA in IV E, p.27. also the Audible Landscape.
KY DOT -	no
LA DOT -	no
MA DOT -	no, but I am considering developing guidelines for MHD. I would like to be further assistance in this study.
ME DOT -	US CFR 23 - 772, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance - June 1995
MI DOT -	no
MN DOT -	no answer
MO DOT -	no
MS DOT -	no
NE DOT -	no answer
NH DOT -	no
NJ DOT -	no
NV DOT -	no
NY DOT -	only on previous project reports
OK DOT -	no answer
PA DOT -	no
SC DOT -	no
TN DOT -	no
UT DOT -	no
WI DOT -	no
WY DOT -	no

Others:

Austria- please see enclosed examples of literature
Wakefield Acoustics- no answer
TN EPO - no answer

Updated: 6/28/2017