Noise Barrier Acceptance Criteria: Analysis

FHWA-HEP-16-017

September 2013, amended November 2015

Also available as Adobe PDF (12.6 MB)

Foreword

The purpose of this report is to examine the feasibility and reasonableness factors in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise regulation in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772 as implemented in the individual state highway agency (SHA) noise policies individually and in combination with each other to identify optimized combinations of values. The report specifically addresses the requirements of Tasks 3.1 through 3.5 of the FHWA Task Order No. DTFH61-D-00028-T12-002, 23 CFR 772 Streamlining, Analysis, and Outreach and Task 3 of the FHWA Task Order No. DTFH61-D-00028-0005, 23 CFR 772 Streamlining, Analysis, and Outreach, Phase II.

Content Summary

This report is comprised of the following four chapters:

Chapter 1 contains the introduction.
Chapter 2 analyzes the feasibility and reasonableness factors for all but the consideration of viewpoints criterion, both singularly and in combination, focusing on the values contained in various SHA noise policies in use throughout the country.
Chapter 3 examines feasibility, benefited noise reduction, cost reasonableness, and Noise Reduction Design Goals (NRDGs), individually and in combination with each other to identify optimized combinations of values. Included are both a sensitivity analysis and a testing of the findings regarding four actual highway project study areas previously evaluated for noise abatement.
Chapter 4 inventories and examines the consideration of viewpoints criterion in the SHA policies. It reviews and compares policies for all SHAs and includes details on six SHA policies based on telephone interviews with their noise program leaders.
Chapter 5 contains conclusions and recommendations.

Interested Audience

The initial report, completed in September 2013, did not contain the information on the Viewpoints reasonableness criterion. That report was prepared for and reviewed by FHWA and the project's Technical Working Group (TWG), first as a draft report and then as an interim report. It addressed comments received from FHWA and the TWG during the review process. This updated version of the report includes the information on the Viewpoints reasonableness criterion. The intended audience includes analysts and policy-makers within FHWA and SHAs who specialize in highway traffic noise and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation policies, processes and procedures.

Previous Printings

This is the second printing of this report, and includes a new Chapter 4.

Publication Status

The initial report was the first of two Final Task 3 Deliverable Documents under Task Order No. DTFH61-D-00028-T12-002. This revised report is one of two Final Task 3 Deliverable Documents under Task Order No. DTFH61-D-00028-0005.

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Continue to Contents…

1. Report No. FHWA-HEP-16-017	2. Government Accession No.	3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle Noise Barrier Acceptance Criteria: Analysis	5. Report Date : September 2013, amended August 2015
6. Performing Organization Code:
7. Author(s): William Bowlby, PhD, PE, Geoffrey Pratt, PE, and Rennie L. Williamson, Bowlby & Associates, Inc.; Harvey Knauer, PE, Environmental Acoustics, and Kenneth Kaliski, PE, RSG Inc.	8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address RSG Inc., White River Junction VT Bowlby & Associates, Inc., Franklin TN Environmental Acoustics, Lemoyne PA	10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-11-D-00028-T12-002 and DTFH61-11-D-00028-0005
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment and Realty Washington, DC 20590	13. Type of Report and Period Covered Guidelines
14. Sponsoring Agency Code HEPN
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract: This report examines the feasibility and reasonableness factors in the FHWA noise regulation (23 CFR 772) as implemented in the individual state highway agency noise policies. The first part of the report studies these factors: Feasibility: noise reduction and quantity of impacted receptors achieving that reduction Reasonableness: benefited noise reduction; noise reduction design goal and quantity of benefited receptors achieving that goal; cost effectiveness (allowable cost or barrier area per benefited receptor) The analysis examines how changes in the permissible ranges for each factor - while the others factors remain static - affect noise abatement decisions. Also examined is how changes to multiple factors in combination affect decisions. The range in potential decisions based on the combinations permitted under the regulation is examined to provide an aid for future policy guidance and planning. A sensitivity analysis on the factors identifies outcomes of possible combinations of factors. Actual highway projects are also used to identify the effects on the likelihood of abatement. The last part of this report analyzes how state highway agencies address the consideration of viewpoints reasonableness criterion in 23 CFR 772. Reported under separate cover is the development of tools to evaluate the effects of policy changes on abatement feasibility and reasonableness.
17. Key Words: FHWA noise regulation, 23 CFR 772, noise barrier, noise abatement, feasibility, reasonableness, noise reduction design goal, cost effectiveness, viewpoints	18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Classification (of this report) Unclassified	20. Security Classification (of this page) Unclassified	21. No of Pages *******	22. Price

1. Report No.

FHWA-HEP-16-017

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Noise Barrier Acceptance Criteria: Analysis

5. Report Date : September 2013, amended August 2015

6. Performing Organization Code:

7. Author(s): William Bowlby, PhD, PE, Geoffrey Pratt, PE, and Rennie L. Williamson, Bowlby & Associates, Inc.; Harvey Knauer, PE, Environmental Acoustics, and Kenneth Kaliski, PE, RSG Inc.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

RSG Inc., White River Junction VT

Bowlby & Associates, Inc., Franklin TN

Environmental Acoustics, Lemoyne PA

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-11-D-00028-T12-002 and DTFH61-11-D-00028-0005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Planning, Environment and Realty

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Guidelines

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HEPN

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract:

This report examines the feasibility and reasonableness factors in the FHWA noise regulation (23 CFR 772) as implemented in the individual state highway agency noise policies. The first part of the report studies these factors:

Feasibility: noise reduction and quantity of impacted receptors achieving that reduction
Reasonableness: benefited noise reduction; noise reduction design goal and quantity of benefited receptors achieving that goal; cost effectiveness (allowable cost or barrier area per benefited receptor)

The analysis examines how changes in the permissible ranges for each factor - while the others factors remain static - affect noise abatement decisions. Also examined is how changes to multiple factors in combination affect decisions. The range in potential decisions based on the combinations permitted under the regulation is examined to provide an aid for future policy guidance and planning. A sensitivity analysis on the factors identifies outcomes of possible combinations of factors. Actual highway projects are also used to identify the effects on the likelihood of abatement. The last part of this report analyzes how state highway agencies address the consideration of viewpoints reasonableness criterion in 23 CFR 772. Reported under separate cover is the development of tools to evaluate the effects of policy changes on abatement feasibility and reasonableness.

17. Key Words: FHWA noise regulation, 23 CFR 772, noise barrier, noise abatement, feasibility, reasonableness, noise reduction design goal, cost effectiveness, viewpoints

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classification (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classification (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No of Pages

*******

22. Price

Continue to Contents…

List Of Abbreviations And Acronyms

% 1R, %1	Percentage of first row (impacted or benefited) receptors (see P1)
% ALL, %A	Percentage of all (impacted or benefited) receptors (see PA)
%	Percentage
#	Number (integer)
# 1R	Number of first row
# All	Number of all (impacted or benefited) receptors
$	Cost (in dollars)
1R	First row
ADOT	Arizona Department of Transportation
AHTD	Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department
APBR	Area per benefited receptor
APBR calc	Calculated APBR
Ben, BR	Benefited receptor
Caltrans	California Department of Transportation
CE	Cost effectiveness
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
CPBR	Cost per benefited receptor
Crit	Criterion
dB	Decibel
dB(A), dBA	Decibel unit for A weighted sound level
DelDOT	Delaware Department of Transportation
DHV	Design hour volume
DOT	Department of Transportation
DOTD	Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
FAQ	Frequently Asked Questions
FDOT	Florida Department of Transportation
Feas	Feasibility
FHWA	Federal Highway Administration
FHWA TNM	FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5
IDOT	Illinois Department of Transportation
L_eq, L_eq(h)	Equivalent sound level in dB(A), one hour L_eq
MassDOT	Massachusetts Department of Transportation
MaxSF/BR	Maximum amount (square footage) per benefited receptor
MDSHA	Maryland State Highway Administration
MDOT	Michigan Department of Transportation
Mn/DOT	Minnesota Department of Transportation
NAC	Noise Abatement Criteria
NCDOT	North Carolina Department of Transportation
NDOR	Nebraska Department of Roads
NEPA	National Environmental Policy Act
NR	Noise reduction
NRDG	Noise reduction design goal
NYSDOT	New York State Department of Transportation
PennDOT	Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
P1	Percentage of first row (impacted or benefited) receptors (see % 1R)
PA	Percentage of all (impacted or benefited) receptors (see % ALL)
Reas	Reasonable by…
RFP	Request for Proposal
SHA	State highway agency
SF	Square foot (feet)
TDOT	Tennessee Department of Transportation
TEPM	Tennessee Environmental Procedures Manual
TNM	FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5
TWG	Technical Working Group
VDOT	Virginia Department of Transportation
WSDOT	Washington State Department of Transportation

Continue to Contents…