• 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

Noise Barrier Acceptance Criteria: Analysis

Table Of Contents

• Chapter 1. Introduction
• Chapter 2. Examination of Feasibility and Reasonableness Factors, Excluding the Viewpoints Criterion
  • 2.1 Factors and factor combinations affecting noise abatement decisions
    • 2.1.1 Feasibility Noise Reduction
    • 2.1.2 Feasibility Quantity
    • 2.1.3 Benefited Noise Reduction
    • 2.1.4 Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG)
    • 2.1.5 Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG) Quantity
    • 2.1.6 Cost Effectiveness (CE)
    • 2.1.7 Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG) and Feasibility Quantity
    • 2.1.8 Benefited Noise Reduction and Feasibility Quantity
    • 2.1.9 Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG) and Benefited Noise Reduction
    • 2.1.10 Cost per Benefited Receptor (CPBR) and Benefited Noise Reduction
    • 2.1.11 Cost per Benefited Receptor (CPBR) and Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG)
    • 2.1.12 Normalized Cost per Benefited Receptor (CPBR), Area per Benefited Receptor (APBR) and Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG)
    • 2.1.13 Normalized CPBR, APBR and Benefited Reduction
    • 2.1.14 Summary of Ranges in the Four Factors
  • 2.2 Identifying optimized combinations of values
    • 2.2.1 Factors Influencing Criterion Values
    • 2.2.2 Summarizing the Range of General Relationships of Feasibility and Reasonableness Factors
  • 2.3 Chapter summary
• Chapter 3. Testing the Results for the Four Abatement Feasibility and Reasonableness Factors, Excluding Viewpoints
  • 3.1 Sensitivity Analysis
    • 3.1.1 Factors Studied
    • 3.1.2 Modeled Scenarios
    • 3.1.3 Outcomes of Possible Combinations of Factors on the Likelihood of Abatement
    • 3.1.4 Reasonableness Based Solely on NRDG
    • 3.1.5 Reasonableness Based on NRDG and APBR, Sorted by APBR
    • 3.1.6 Findings of Sensitivity Analysis
  • 3.2 applying the combinations to a sampling of existing highway projects with abatement
    • 3.2.1 Study Areas
    • 3.2.2 Study Factors
    • 3.2.3 Testing Protocol
    • 3.2.4 Method for Presenting Results
    • 3.2.5 Study Area A Description and Results
    • 3.2.6 Study Area B Description and Results
    • 3.2.7 Study Area C Description and Results
    • 3.2.8 Study Area D Description and Results
  • 3.3 Chapter Summary
• Chapter 4. Consideration of the Viewpoints Criterion
  • 4.1 Factors Providing Flexibility in SHA Policies
  • 4.2 Example of How Voting Participation Affects Reasonableness Decisions
  • 4.3 Percentage of Needed Votes in Favor or Against Abatement
    • 4.3.1 Decision Based on Votes in Favor of the Abatement Measure
    • 4.3.2 Decision Based on Votes Against the Abatement Measure
    • 4.3.3 Other Conditions
  • 4.4 How Non-respondents Are Counted
  • 4.5 Required or Desired Response Rates
  • 4.6 Number of Attempts to Contact Eligible Voters
    • 4.6.1 Input on Aesthetic Preferences for the Barrier
  • 4.7 Weighting of Votes
    • 4.7.1 Policies that Do Not Give Extra Weight for Row or Impact Condition
    • 4.7.2 Policies that Give Extra Weight for Row or Impact Condition
  • 4.8 Methods for Obtaining Viewpoints
  • 4.9 Examples of SHAs' Consideration of Viewpoints
    • 4.9.1 Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)
    • 4.9.2 Florida DOT (FDOT)
    • 4.9.3 Pennsylvania DOT
    • 4.9.4 Massachusetts DOT (MassDOT)
    • 4.9.5 California DOT (Caltrans)
    • 4.9.6 Tennessee DOT
  • 4.10 How Some SHA Policies Address Nonresidential Land Uses
  • 4.11 Viewpoints FACTORS Sensitivity Analysis
  • 4.12 Chapter Summary
• Chapter 5. Summary and Conclusions
  • 5.1 Feasibility
  • 5.2 Reasonableness: NRDG and CE/APBR
  • 5.3 Reasonableness: Viewpoints
• Appendix A - SHA Public Involvement Voting Procedure and Viewpoints.

List Of Figures

• Figure 1. Number of SHA policy values as a function of Area per Benefited Receptor or normalized Cost per Benefited Receptor (includes low and high values for policies with ranges).
• Figure 2. SHA values for CPBR and corresponding barrier area calculated from unit cost.
• Figure 3. SHA values for CPBR and corresponding barrier unit cost.
• Figure 4. SHA values for barrier area calculated from unit cost and corresponding abatement unit cost.
• Figure 5. Relationship between minimum number and percentages of first-row and all impacts.
• Figure 6. Neighborhood adjacent to highway.
• Figure 7. Plan view (top) and cross-sectional view (bottom) of roadways and noise barrier portion of FHWA TNM model for sensitivity test cases.
• Figure 8. Sketches of receptor scenarios used in modeling the sensitivity test cases for first‑row receptors 90 feet (top) and 140 feet (bottom) from barrier.
• Figure 9. TNM plan view plots of receptor scenarios in FHWA TNM model for sensitivity test cases: 140 feet back (top) and 90 feet back (bottom).
• Figure 10. Upper left portion of reasonableness decision array for the sensitivity test cases: NRDG of 7 dB, Benefited Noise Reduction of 5 dB, 50-ft receptor spacing, 50-ft distance back to first-row (90 ft from barrier), and mostly one-row cases.
• Figure 11. Decision patterns indicated by color bands in portion of reasonableness array for 50-ft receptor spacing, NRDG of 7 dB and Benefited Noise Reductions of 5 dB (upper half) and 6 dB (lower half).
• Figure 12. Lower right portion of reasonableness decision array for the sensitivity test cases: NRDG of 10 dB, Benefited Noise Reduction of 10 dB, 200-ft receptor spacing, 100-ft distance back to first-row (140 ft from barrier) and one-, two- and three-row cases.
• Figure 13. Reasonableness decision array for NRDG for number of benefited receptors of 1 (top), 2 (middle), or 3 (bottom).
• Figure 14. Reasonableness decision array for NRDG for percentage of first-row benefited receptors, divided into four horizontal sections for values of 10%, 50%, 67%, and 80%.
• Figure 15. Reasonableness decision array for NRDG for percentage of all benefited receptors divided into five horizontal sections for values of 10%, 25%, 50%, 67%, and 80%.
• Figure 16. Reasonableness Decision Array, APBR = 500 SF/benefited receptor.
• Figure 17. Reasonableness Decision Array, APBR = 1,000 SF/benefited receptor.
• Figure 18. Reasonableness Decision Array, APBR = 1,500 SF/benefited receptor.
• Figure 19. Reasonableness Decision Array, APBR = 2,000 SF/benefited receptor.
• Figure 20. Reasonableness Decision Array, APBR = 2,800 SF/benefited receptor.
• Figure 21. Study Area A: Ten-lane highway with dense development close to the highway.
• Figure 22. Study Area B: Six-lane highway with two rows of closely-spaced houses angling away from the highway.
• Figure 23. Study Area C: Ten-lane highway with medium-density houses curving away from the highway.
• Figure 24. Study Area D: Eight-lane highway with low-density houses set back from the highway.
• Figure 25. Photo of mixed-use residential development.
• Figure 26. Typical NDOR ballot (courtesy of NDOR).
• Figure 27. NDOR's "Visual Demonstration of Benefited Receptor Point Distribution".
• Figure 28. Typical cross-section for the 156^th Street project in Omaha (courtesy of NDOR).
• Figure 29. Layout showing green space between the road and the noise barrier (in yellow) for the 156^th Street project in Omaha, NE (courtesy of NDOR).
• Figure 30 (right). 108^th Street study area, Omaha, NE (courtesy of NDOR).
• Figure 31 (below). Three-story apartments in Zone W5 of 108^th Street project (image from www.bing.com/maps/).
• Figure 32. Proposed barrier location along US 1, Grove Isle in Vero Beach, FL. (courtesy of FDOT).
• Figure 33. Portion of study area for the widening of US 27 in Davenport, FL, showing proposed barrier and HOA common grounds. (Courtesy of FDOT).
• Figure 34. Nearly completed barrier at the entrance to Highlands Reserve along US 27 in Davenport, FL (Courtesy of FDOT).
• Figure 35. A sample PennDOT voting form (courtesy of PennDOT).
• Figure 36. Interstate 78 project noise study report graphic showing Option 1 of a proposed partial-length noise barrier (courtesy of PennDOT).
• Figure 37. A sample PennDOT voting form for two options of a partial-length barrier a (courtesy of PennDOT).
• Figure 38. A sample MassDOT invitation to an informational neighborhood noise barrier meeting and transmittal of a ballot (courtesy of MassDOT).
• Figure 39. A sample viewpoints ballot accompanying the informational letter sent by MassDOT (courtesy of MassDOT).
• Figure 40. A sample voting results letter indicating that the barrier will not be constructed by MassDOT (courtesy of MassDOT).
• Figure 41. Table 5 on vote allocation from the MassDOT noise policy.
• Figure 42. General project area of proposed barrier rejected because of expected loss of view, Interstate 93 Southbound at Columbia Road, Boston, MA (image from www.bing.com/maps).
• Figure 43. Residences along Front Street that would have been benefited by a barrier between Front Street and Route 18, Weymouth/Abbington, MA (image from www.google.com/maps).
• Figure 44. View of site of rejected proposed noise barrier atop retaining wall, Route 2 south of I-5, Los Angeles, CA (image from www.google.com/maps).
• Figure 45. Elevated view of site of rejected proposed noise barrier atop retaining wall, Route 2 south of I-5, Los Angeles, CA (image from www.bing.com/maps).
• Figure 46. Excerpt of ballot sent by Caltrans to owners and residents who would be benefited by a proposed noise barrier (courtesy of Caltrans).
• Figure 47. Excerpt from noise barrier survey results letter sent by Caltrans to owners and residents who voted on the barrier (courtesy of Caltrans).
• Figure 48. Community for which a noise barrier was proposed by TDOT, Project TDOT-1 (image from www.google.com/maps).
• Figure 49. Community for which a noise barrier was proposed by TDOT, Project TDOT-2 (image from www.google.com/maps).
• Figure 50. Community for which a noise barrier was proposed by TDOT, Project TDOT-3 (image from www.google.com/maps).
• Figure 51. Community for which a noise barrier was proposed by TDOT, Project TDOT-4 (image from www.google.com/maps).
• Figure 52. Study Area B, showing first-row and impacted receptors.
• Figure 53. Study Area B, Voting Scenario 1.
• Figure 54. Study Area B, Voting Scenario 2.
• Figure 55. Study Area B, Voting Scenario 3.
• Figure 56. Study Area B, Voting Scenario 4.
• Figure 57. Study Area B, Voting Scenario 5.
• Figure 58. Study Area B, Voting Scenario 6.

List Of Tables

• Table 1. Combinations of Feasibility Quantity and Feasibility Noise Reduction.
• Table 2. Benefited Noise Reduction Values.
• Table 3. Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG).
• Table 4. Combinations of NRDG and NRDG Quantity.
• Table 5. Cost Effectiveness (CE) Criteria.
• Table 6. Combinations of Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG) and Feasibility Quantity.
• Table 7. Combinations of Benefited Noise Reduction and Feasibility Quantity.
• Table 8. Combinations of Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG) and Benefited Noise Reduction.
• Table 9. Combinations of Noise Reduction Design Goal (NRDG), NRDG Quantity, and Benefited Noise Reduction.
• Table 10. Combinations of Cost per Benefited Receptor (CPBR), Area per Benefited Receptor (APBR) and Benefited Noise Reduction.
• Table 11. Combinations of CPBR, APBR and NRDG.
• Table 12. Combinations of Normalized CPBR or APBR and NRDG, Ranked by APBR.
• Table 13. Combinations of Normalized CPBR or APBR and Benefited Reduction Used by SHAs, Ranked by APBR.
• Table 14. Noise Reduction Design Goal Example Results.
• Table 15. Relationships of Feasibility and Reasonableness Factors to Barrier Likelihood.
• Table 16. Relationships of Feasibility and Reasonableness Factors to Barrier Decision.
• Table 17. Combinations of Factors More Likely to Result in Negative Abatement Decisions.
• Table 18. Combinations of Factors More Likely to Result in Positive Abatement Decisions.
• Table 19. Summary Table of Case Characteristics.
• Table 20. Feasibility Results for Study Area A: Ten-Lane Highway with Dense Development Close to the Highway.
• Table 21. Reasonableness Results for Study Area A: Ten-Lane Highway with Dense Development Close to the Highway.
• Table 22. Feasibility Results for Study Area B: Six-Lane Highway with Two Rows of Closely-Spaced Houses Angling Away from Highway.
• Table 23. Reasonableness Results for Study Area B: Six-Lane Highway with Two Rows of Closely-Spaced Houses Angling Away from Highway.
• Table 24. Feasibility Results for Study Area C: Ten-Lane Highway with Medium-Density Houses Curving Away from Highway.
• Table 25. Reasonableness Results for Study Area C: Ten-Lane Highway with Medium-Density Houses Curving Away from Highway.
• Table 26. Feasibility Results for Study Area D: Eight-Lane Highway with Low-Density Houses Set Back from Highway.
• Table 27. Reasonableness Results for Study Area D: Eight-Lane Highway with Low-Density Houses Set Back from Highway.
• Table 28. Evaluation Results: Viewpoints of Benefited Property Owners and Residents (based on Table 4 of Evaluation of 23 CFR 772 for Opportunities to Streamline and Establish Programmatic Agreements).
• Table 29. Number of SHAs Using the Different Types of Criteria.
• Table 30. Number of SHAs Basing Vote in Favor of Barrier on Percentage of Votes Received.
• Table 31. Number of SHAs Basing Vote in Favor of Barrier on Percentage of All Possible Votes.
• Table 32. Weighting of Votes for Owner-occupied Residences and Rental Properties with No Additional Weightings.
• Table 33. Weighting of Votes for Owner-occupied Residences and Rental Properties Including Extra Weighting for First-row Benefited Receptors.
• Table 34. Weighting of Votes for Owner-occupied Residences and Rental Properties Including Extra Weighting for Impacted Benefited Receptors.
• Table 35. Techniques used by SHAs to Obtain Abatement Viewpoints and Votes.
• Table 36: Summary of Viewpoints on TDOT Projects.
• Table 37. Nine Sets of Viewpoints Factors Applied to Hypothetical Voting Scenarios.
• Table 38. Six Hypothetical Voting Scenarios Applied to the Viewpoints Factor Sets.
• Table 39. Study Area B, Results for Voting Scenario 1.
• Table 40. Study Area B, Results for Voting Scenario 2.
• Table 41. Study Area B, Results for Voting Scenario 3.
• Table 42. Study Area B, Results for Voting Scenario 4.
• Table 43. Study Area B, Results for Voting Scenario 5.
• Table 44. Study Area B, Results for Voting Scenario 6.
• Table 45. Study Area B, Summary of Voting Results for Six Scenarios.