DOCSLIB.ORG

TR News 240: Addressing Noise from the U.S. Transportation System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TR News 240: Addressing Noise from the U.S. Transportation System ADDRESSING THE NOISE FROM U.S.TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Measures and Countermeasures NICHOLAS P. MILLER ransportation systems, vital to the U.S. waterway sources are not included. Sound levels should The author is Senior Vice economy, are the predominant source of be associated with a location on the ground or with a President, Harris Miller sounds outdoors. How detrimental these distance from the source; the levels in Table 1 are asso- Miller & Hanson, sounds are to human health and well- ciated with specific distances and operating conditions. Burlington, Tbeing is a subject of continuing debate. When loud The aircraft sound levels are for distances of 1,000 Massachusetts. enough and frequent enough, however, the sounds feet, and the ground transportation sources are for 50 diminish the quality of life (see box, page 6). feet—the distances at which the source sound levels can be measured reliably. The derivation of sound Transportation Sound Levels levels at other distances requires information about Estimates of the maximum sound levels produced by factors that affect the propagation of sound—such as common transportation sources are shown in Table 1; the terrain, the location of buildings or other shield- P HOTO : L ARRY L EVINE , WMATA Metrorail and automobile traffic on Interstate 66 in suburban Washington, D.C., pass through residential neighborhoods protected TR NEWS 240 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2005 TR NEWS 240 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER from the noise by barrier 4 walls and landscaping. ing structures, the meteorological conditions, the air- TABLE 1 Approximate Maximum Sound Levels for Transportation Sources craft engine mounting, the aircraft elevation, and the direction of flight in relation to the listener. The max- Approximate imum levels at a distance of 50 feet would be at least Maximum 25 decibels (dB) lower if heard at 1,000 feet. Estimated Speed/ A-Weighted Sound Distance, The levels for the surface transportation sources are Source Type Operating Condition Level, dB(A) feet from federal agency models. The aircraft levels derive Aircraft from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Commercial jet Takeoff 85 1,000 aircraft noise model data and from field measure- Commercial jet High Altitude Cruise 85 1,000 ments. The sound levels should be considered typical Corporate jet Takeoff 85 1,000 or average; actual levels will vary above and below Propeller aircraft Takeoff 70–80 1,000 those indicated in the table. Helicopter Cruise 70 1,000 No Escape Roadway Vehicles Heavy truck 50 mph 83 50 Stand outside almost anywhere in the continental United States, and within a short time—probably Medium truck 50 mph 79 50 less than 1 hour—the sound of a truck, automobile, Automobile 50 mph 72 50 airplane, or train will be audible. The percentage of Rail Vehicles land in each county in which the various transporta- Diesel locomotive 50 mph 88 50 tion sources are likely to be heard during the daytime Rail cars 50 mph 80 50 can be estimated from standard transportation sound Locomotive horns - 96–110 50 levels, the routes followed by each mode, and esti- dB(A) = A-weighted decibels, a summation of sound levels across frequencies. mates of the background sound levels throughout the continental United States. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the percentages of land Aircraft Sound Metric in each county in which the sounds of roadway FAA has identified a day–night average sound level traffic, rail traffic, and high-altitude jets may be (DNL) of 65 dB from aircraft operations as the limit heard (1). of acceptability for residential housing (see Figure A, The roadway results represent the network of page 6). Federal funding is available to assist with limited access, primary, and secondary roads; local sound insulation and property acquisition in areas roads are not included. The rail results are for with noise above the acceptable level. The federal freight lines only, and the aircraft results are for government, however, does not set land use policies; high-altitude intercity jet traffic only—general avi- local authorities determine the relationship between ation operations or departures and arrivals in the land use and sound levels. FIGURE 1 Percentages of vicinity of airports are not included. The road and DNL is a measure of total sound energy in 24 county areas in which the jet results, therefore, are likely to be underestimates, hours and therefore may include many combina- sounds of road traffic are particularly for densely populated areas and for the tions of aircraft sound levels and events. Three noticeable during the day. vicinity of major airports. Aircraft Noise Aircraft noise is an issue for people who live near air- ports. Noise is the reason most often cited for public resistance to increases in runway capacity or to alter- 2005 TR NEWS 240 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER ations in the use of airspace. Aircraft-produced sound can reach levels that inter- fere with speech outdoors in communities some dis- tance from an airport. For example, a modern commercial jet can produce sound levels of 70 dB(A)1 to 80 dB(A) up to 3 miles from a runway, loud enough to interfere with speech outdoors for about 20 to 35 seconds. A moderately busy commercial airport with 200 to 300 daily departures could interfere with speech 10 to 20 times per hour. 1 dB(A) = A-weighted decibels. See box, page 6. 5 example combinations of sound levels and opera- tions that would produce a DNL of approximately 65 dB—assuming that all operations occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.—are shown in Table 2 (page 9). Levels that exceed 60 dB(A) would begin to inter- fere with normal conversations outdoors. Aircraft Noise Issues Because commercial jet aircraft departures and arrivals are the primary sources of noise exposure in the vicinity of airports, any proposal that may increase the number of flights or alter the neighbor- hoods over which the aircraft fly is likely to arouse public concern. Lengthening runways, building run- ways, or adding gates—any plan that could be per- ceived to increase the sound exposure from aircraft—can generate public resistance. FIGURE 2 Percentages of county areas in which the sounds of rail traffic are Around airports with no scheduled commercial noticeable during the day. operations, loud jet or loud propeller operations are a Introduction to Sound Metrics and Criteria ound is quantified either as a total accumulation of sound Senergy for a period of time or as a measure of a single event. Almost all environmental sound is measured in A-weighted deci- bels [dB(A) or dBA]. A-weighting is a summation of the sound levels across frequencies; this summation de-emphasizes the lev- els at different frequencies and corresponds to the way people hear. The total accumulation metrics are called equivalent levels and represent the sound levels for either 1 hour, symbolized as LAeq,H, Leq(H), or Leq—if the time period is defined—or a 24-hour period, FIGURE B A 24-hour measurement. called the day-night average sound level (DNL or Ldn). DNL includes a weighting or penalty of 10 dB for sound that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Single events are quantified as an accumulation of sound energy over the duration of the event, termed the sound exposure level (SEL); or as a maximum level, Lmax; or as the length of time that the sound was above a specified threshold, known as time above (TA). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cumulative sound exposure below 55 dB DNL poses minimal risk of adverse effects on human health, as well as minimal annoyance. Figure A shows typical values of DNL for various locations and identifies the levels established by EPA, the Department of Hous- TR NEWS 240 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2005 TR NEWS 240 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER ing and Urban Development, and the Federal Aviation Adminis- 6 FIGURE A Typical values of DNL. tration in making decisions about funding assistance. source of noise exposure and, if frequent or at night, a LOYD likely cause of complaints. A few loud corporate jets a L RIKA week, for example, can raise public concern, regardless : E HOTO of DNL values. In areas with no loud jet operations, P the sound of propeller aircraft flying over quiet neigh- borhoods, if frequent enough—particularly on week- ends—may raise concern. Helicopters are not usually louder than other air- craft (see Table 1) but can be identified easily by sound, especially when “blade slap” occurs, and can cause complaints. Helicopters also travel slower than fixed-wing aircraft and can be heard for a longer time. Other aviation-related sources of sound include engine testing for maintenance or before a flight; aux- iliary power units that provide electricity while the aircraft is at a gate; taxiing aircraft; and the low-fre- quency rumble from jets at takeoff. This last source is difficult to assess and control because the A-weighted sound level does not represent low-frequency Figure C charts the sound level of a single event, showing the maximum level and the TA. Figure D compares several typical max- imum sound levels. As the summation of all the sound energy in a single event, the SEL is generally 5 to 10 dB higher than the maximum. The SEL reflects the duration of a sound and provides a more complete estimate of the disruptive or annoying quality of an event. FIGURE C Single-event time history. The federal agencies responsible for managing transportation noise have established criteria, standards, or guidelines to identify when an impact occurs and when an increase in sound is substan- tial.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FHWA Noise Compatible Land Use Curriculum
    FHWA Noise Compatible Land Use Curriculum Lesson 1: Discussion of Roadway Noise and FHWA Guidelines Lesson 2: Essential Elements of Noise Compatible Land Use Planning Lesson 3: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Physical Responses Lesson 4: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Policy and Administrative Strategies ♦ PREPARED FOR THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION BY THE CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION TRAINING AND RESEARCH TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY ♦ November 2006 Contents Curriculum Design, Overview, and Sources for Additional Information Lesson 1: Discussion of Roadway Noise and FHWA Guidelines Lesson 2: Essential Elements of Noise Compatible Land Use Planning Lesson 3: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Physical Responses Lesson 4: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Policies and Administrative Strategies 2 Curriculum Design The 4-part curriculum is structured to be taught in sessions of 90 minutes each. It is expected that the instructor will utilize this information as a foundation and will supplement the core information with specific local examples and additional detail. If one of the companion workshop videos is chosen to supplement the material in any lesson, adjust the length of discussion for the remaining material. It is envisioned that the curriculum could be part of a two-week module for a college level course or a one day seminar. Overview Appropriately accommodating highway noise is a critical component of project planning and implementation for engineers across the nation. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) prescribes a three-part approach for addressing roadway noise including: 1) source controls and quiet vehicles, 2) reduction measures within highway construction, and 3) developing land adjacent to highways in a way that is compatible with highway noise.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
    TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT FTA-VA-90-1003-06 May 2006 Office of Planning and Environment Federal Transit Administration Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED May 2006 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 6. AUTHOR(S) Carl E. Hanson, David A. Towers, and Lance D. Meister 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. REPORT NUMBER 77 South Bedford Street 299600 Burlington, MA 01803 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and Environment FTA-VA-90-1003-06 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Contract management and final production performed by: Frank Spielberg and Kristine Wickham Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700 Vienna, VA 22182 12a.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Noise a Design Guide for Highway Engineers
    NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PRO6RAM REPORT 117 HIGHWAY NOISE A DESIGN GUIDE FOR HIGHWAY ENGINEERS HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES -NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD 1971 Officers CHARLES E. SHUMATE, Chairman ALAN M. VOORHEES, First Vice Chairman WILLIAM L. GARRISON, Second Vice Chairman W. N. CAREY, JR., Executive Director Executive Committee F. C. TURNER, Federal Highway Administrator, U. S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway Officials (ex officio) ERNST WEBER, Chairman, Division of Engineering, National Research Council (ex officio) OSCAR T. MARZKE, Vice President, Fundamental Research, U. S. Steel Corporation (ex officio, Past Chairman, 1969) D. GRANT MICKLE, President, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility (ex officio, Past Chairman, 1970) CHARLES A. BLESSING, Director, Detroit City Planning Commission HENDRIK W. BODE, Professor of Systems Engineering, Harvard University JAY W. BROWN, Director of Road Operations, Florida Department of Transportation W. J. BURMEISTER, State Highway Engineer, Wisconsin Department of Transportation HOWARD A. COLEMAN, Consultant, Missouri Portland Cement Company HARMER E. DAVIS, Director, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California WILLIAM L. GARRISON, Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh GEORGE E. HOLBROOK, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company EUGENE M. JOHNSON, President, The Asphalt Institute A. SCHEFFER LANG, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN A. LEGARRA, State Highway Engineer and Chief of Division, California Division of Highways WILLIAM A. McCONNELL, Director, Operations Office, Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company JOHN J. McKETTA, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas J.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
    DOT HS 812 347 November 2016 Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid And Electric Vehicles Final Environmental Assessment Suggested APA Format Citation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016, November). Minimum sound requirements for hybrid and electric vehicles: Final environmental assessment (Document submitted to Docket Number NHTSA-2011-0100. Report No. DOT HS 812 347). Washington, DC: Author. Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Final Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... v LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... vi GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS ...................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... xi 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles FMVSS 141
    Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles FMVSS 141 Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation National Center for Statistics and Analysis January 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i System Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... ii Costs ............................................................................................................................... ii Benefits .......................................................................................................................... iii Net Impact [Pedestrians and Pedalcyclists Combined] ................................................. iv Cost Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... iv I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Research and Proposal ............................................................................................................. 4 NHTSA’s Proposal ....................................................................................................... 17 III. Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 24 Requiring
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 18 Noise Guide
    April 2017 Noise Guide CHAPTER 18 NOISE GUIDE 18.0 INTRODUCTION The problem of noise generated by highway traffic involves physical, physiological, and psychological factors that cause varying reactions by the public. Highway traffic noise should be considered in the location and design of roadways. This chapter is intended to help designers identify issues related to highway traffic noise, understand the applicable federal and state regulations and guidelines, analyze traffic noise for specific projects, and select and implement noise mitigation measures. From a project's inception, noise mitigation measures may need to be considered as a part of the project. As early in the process as possible, consult the appropriate environmental documentation, if available, to determine if mitigation commitments were made. Contact the Region Environmental Staff for assistance with these determinations and the appropriate regulatory requirements. This chapter contains a summary of basic concepts and supplements existing published material. If more detail is needed concerning any of the following specific subjects, consult the references provided at the end of this chapter. If existing regulation or guidance is revised, or if additional regulation or guidance is published after the date this chapter was published, the new material takes precedence. 18.1 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Noise is defined as unwanted or excessive sound. Sound (or noise) levels are measured in units of decibels (dB), which are measured on a logarithmic scale which condenses a large range of several magnitudes of sound pressure levels. For the purposes of highway traffic, an “A-scale” weighting is applied to noise levels because the human ear does not perceive all sound frequencies equally.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guide for Highway Noise Barriers (0-1471-4)
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-04/0-1471-4 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Design Guide for Highway Noise Barriers May 2002 Revised November 2003 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Richard E. Klingner, Michael T. McNerney, and Research Report 0-1471-4 Ilene Busch-Vishniac 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin Research Project 0-1471 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research Report Research and Technology Implementation Office P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Texas Department of Transportation. 16. Abstract The current TxDOT design process for highway noise barriers is reviewed. Design requirements for highway noise barriers are then presented. These include acoustical requirements, structural requirements, safety requirements, aesthetic requirements, and cost considerations. Examples are given of different highway noise barriers used in Texas. Sample plans and specifications are presented. Design requirements are broadly grouped into acoustical requirements, environmental requirements, traffic safety requirements, and structural requirements; those requirements are again presented, drawing on the material presented in the preceding chapters. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement acoustics, aesthetics, design, noise barriers No restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • MDOT SHA Sound Barrier Policy
    HIGHWAY NOISE ABATEMENT PLANNING AND ENGINEERING GUIDELINES FINAL April 16, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MDOT SHA HIGHWAY NOISE ABATEMENT PLANNING AND ENGINEERING GUIDELINES – April 16, 2020 The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Noise Policy (2020) consists of a brief policy statement, applicable to all of the MDOT Transportation Business Units. This document, the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) Highway Noise Abatement Planning and Engineering Guidelines (2020), explains how to correctly apply the policy for highway projects. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to highlight some of the key elements found in the guidelines. The 2020 Guidelines are based upon the provisions contained in Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772)1 and replace the 2011 MDOT SHA Highway Noise Policy and Highway Noise Policy Implementation Guidelines. For a given Type I project, the adjacent land uses are divided into one of seven possible Activity Categories, which are either noise sensitive (A through E) or not noise sensitive (F and G). Each noise sensitive category has a corresponding Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) defined in 23 CFR 772 and MDOT SHA’s impact criteria is set 1 dB(A) less than the NAC, consistent with federal regulations. Category B covers exterior impacts for residential areas and has an impact level of 66 dB(A). Highway traffic noise impacts are identified for the affected noise sensitive land use when the subject Type I project will either result in noise levels that approach or exceed the applicable NAC, or result in an increase of 10 dB(A) or more (‘substantial increase’) over existing levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Fabrication of Hybrid Car
    ISSN(Online): 2319-8753 ISSN (Print): 2347-6710 International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (A High Impact Factor, Monthly, Peer Reviewed Journal) Visit: www.ijirset.com Vol. 7, Issue 4, April 2018 Design and Fabrication of Hybrid Car Akshay K Nair1, Midhun Raj2, Jerin George 3, Jijo Mathew4, Ananthu B 5 Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor, Kerala, India1 U.G Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor, Kerala, India2 U.G Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor, Kerala, India3 U.G Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor, Kerala, India4 U.G Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Narayana Institute of Technology, Adoor, Kerala, India5 ABSTRACT:The progress of automobiles for transportation has been intimately associated with the progress of civilization. The automobile of today is the result of the accumulation of many years of pioneering research and development. In the modern trend automobiles have certain disadvantages soon as fuel cost relative to mileage, pollution and less efficiency. To improve Efficiency. To decrease the fuel cost relative to mileage. To control the pollution is to be effect. Our project deals with the design and the fabrication of a hybrid car. The goal of this project was to implement the most efficient and less polluting vehicle. In our project the hybrid electric vehicle model combines the internal combustion engine of a conventional vehicle with the battery and electric motor of an electric vehicle, resulting in twice the fuel economy of conventional vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Noise Measurement, Simulation, and Mixed Reactions
    NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 78 HIGHWAY NOISE MEASUREMENT, SIMULATION, AND MIXED REACTIONS HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES-NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD 1969 Officers OSCAR T. MARZKE, Chairman D. GRANT MICKLE, First Vice Chairman CHARLES E. SHUMATE, Second Vice Chairman W. N. CAREY, JR., Executive Director Executive Committee F. C. TURNER, Federal Highway Administrator, U. S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway Officials (ex officio) J. A. HUTCHESON, Chairman, Division of Engineering, National Research Council (ex officio) EDWARD G. WETZEL, Associate Consultant, Edwards and Kelcey (ex officio, Past Chairman 1967) DAVID H. STEVENS, Chairman, Maine State Highway Commission (ex officio, Past Chairman 1968) DONALD S. BERRY, Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University CHARLES A. BLESSING, Director, Detroit City Planning Commission JAY W. BROWN, Chairman, State Road Department of Florida J. DOUGLAS CARROLL, JR., Executive Director, Tn-State Transportation Commission, New York City HARMER E. DAVIS, Director, Inst. of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Univ. of California WILLIAM L. GARRISON, Director, Center for Urban Studies, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago SIDNEY GOLDIN, Vice President of Marketing, Asiatic Petroleum Corp. WILLIAM J. HEDLEY, Consultant, Federal Railroad Administration GEORGE E. HOLBROOK, Vice President, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company EUGENE M. JOHNSON, The Asphalt Institute THOMAS F. JONES, JR., President, University of South Carolina LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Technical Center OSCAR T. MARZKE, Vice President, Fundamental Research, U. S. Steel Corporation B. McMORRAN, Commissioner, New York Department of Transportation D.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.6.1 Introduction the Noise Section of the EIR Discusses the Existing
    Draft EIR 3820 Chiles Road August 2018 4.6 NOISE 4.6.1 Introduction The Noise section of the EIR discusses the existing noise environment in the immediate project vicinity and identifies potential noise-related impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Specifically, this section analyzes potential increases in noise levels during construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction noise levels attributable to the proposed project and the resultant impact of these noise levels upon any surrounding sensitive receptors is addressed. In addition, the project’s increase in noise levels on surrounding roadways is evaluated to determine if any increases would be considered substantial. This section also assesses existing and future anticipated traffic noise levels along roadways surrounding the project site, and the potential effects of such off-site traffic noise upon any sensitive outdoor areas within the proposed project.1 Groundborne vibration from construction equipment sources is also evaluated to determine whether on-site vibratory construction equipment could result in adverse effects to nearby structures. Information presented in this section is primarily drawn from the Environmental Noise Assessment and supplemental memorandum prepared specifically for the proposed project by j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. (see Appendix K).2 4.6.2 Existing Environmental Setting The Existing Environmental Setting section provides background information on noise and vibration, a discussion of acoustical terminology and the effects of noise on people, existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, existing sources and noise levels in the project vicinity, and groundborne vibration. Fundamentals of Acoustics Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound is a mechanical energy of vibration transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Division
    Research Division CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | AIR RESOURCES BOARD TECHNICAL ADVISORY Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways April 2017 b Technical Advisory: Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways Acknowledgements ARB staff would like to acknowledge the exceptional contributions made to this document by several stakeholders and contributors. Individuals from various state, national, and international agencies; local and regional governments; academic institutions; and other organizations were especially instrumental in compiling the information contained herein and in providing comments and reviews. ARB thanks individual reviewers from the following agencies, organizations, and institutions: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Air Pollution Control Offcers Association (CAPCOA) California Association of Councils of Governments (CalCOG) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) California Department of Public Health (CDPH) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Planning Roundtable California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) European Comission (EC) Governor’s Offce of Planning and Research (OPR) Mutual Housing California Netherlands National Institute of Health and the Environment (RIVM) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
    [Show full text]