| Highway Traffic Noise Abatement Measure: | |||||
| Feasibility | |||||
| Is the proposed noise abatement measure acoustically feasible? |
Yes | No | |||
| Reasonableness | |||||
| Reasonableness Factors | Yes | No | |||
| High | Low | High | Low | ||
| Required* | |||||
| 1 | Viewpoints of property owners and residents |
||||
| 2 | Cost effectiveness | ||||
| 3 | Measure achieves noise reduction design goal |
||||
| Optional** | |||||
| 4 | Date of development | ||||
| 5 | Duration of exposure | ||||
| 6 | Change in noise level between existing and future build condition |
||||
| 7 | Percentage of mixed zoning |
||||
| 8 | Use of noise compatible planning concepts by local officials |
||||
* 23 CFR 772.13(d)(2)(iv) requires that the abatement measure must collectively be achieve each of these criteria to be reasonable.
** 23 CFR 772.13(d)(2)(v) allows consideration of these optional abatement measures, which cannot singly eliminate an abatement measure that meets the requirements of 1-3 above.
Reasons for Decision:
Provide reasons for the decision here.
Summary:
One of the most difficult parts of traffic noise analysis is determining the reasonableness and feasibility of abatement. This discussion has addressed the details of determining the reasonableness and feasibility of noise abatement.
Good program management supports the need for highway traffic noise abatement decision-making policies. Abatement decision-making must not be arbitrary and capricious. The reasoning for decisions should be available and supportable. Objective, quantifiable decision making criteria can aid in promoting better public understanding and acceptance of decisions.
Inclusion of a wide range of reasonableness criteria provides greater flexibility in abatement decision-making. Such flexibility is essential to allow for consideration of special circumstances in individual cases. Highway agencies should not rigidly apply their policies.
