Effect of Highway Landscape Development on Nearby Property - DocsLib

sign in sign up

<<

Home , Landscaping

R EEE1VED

uC 29 1969

MAT. LAa

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT '5 REFER TO: Actionj Info I mt Mat' & Resh Engr. EFFECT OF HIGHWAY Mat'Is ss'tMat1sEngr. LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT Research Engr. Assoc Resh Engr Ll ON NEARBY PROPERTY Soils Engr. (') Geologist Testing Engr. Office Mgr. Quality Con1rc Project Devip. E.LT.

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, Ghairman, 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 I. 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 J. B. McMORRAN, Commissioner, New York Department of Transportation D. GRANT MICKLE, President, Automotive Safety Foundation LEE LA VERNE MORGAN, Executive Vice President, Caterpillar Tractor Company R. L. PEYTON, Assistant State Highway Director, State Highway Commission of Kansas CHARLES E. SHUMATE, Chief Engineer, Colorado Division of Highways R. G. STAPP, Superintendent, Wyoming State Highway Commission ALAN M. VOORHEES, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Advisory Committee OSCAR T. MARZKE, U. S. Steel Corporation (Chairman) D. GRANT MICKLE, Automotive Safety Foundation CHARLES E. SHUMATE, Colorado Division of Highways F. C. TURNER, U. S. Department of Transportation A. E. JOHNSON, American Association of State Highway Officials J. A. HUTCHESON, National Research Council DAVID H. STEVENS, Maine State Highway Commission W. N. CAREY, JR., Highway Research Board Advisory Panel on Administration JOHN W. HOSSACK, Barton-Aschman Associates (Chairman) R. C. BLENSLY, Oregon State University K. E. COOK, Highway Research Board Section on Economics (FY '65 and '66 Register) E. L. GRANT, Stanford University RUDOLPH HESS, California Division of Highways D. S. JOHNSON, Connecticut State Highway Department D. RYAN, New York Department of Transportation C. A. TAFF, University of Maryland ROBLEY WINFREY, Bureau of Public Roads

Program Staff W. HENDERSON, JR., Program Director W. C. GRAEUB, Projects Engineer J. R. NOVAK, Projects Engineer H. A. SMITH, Projects Engineer W. L. WILLIAMS, Projects Engineer HERBERT P. ORLAND, Editor MARSHALL PRITCHEIT, Editor ROSEMARY S. MAPES, Associate Editor M. MAcGREGOR, Administrative Engineer NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 75

EFFECT OF HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT ON NEARBY PROPERTY

JOHN H. BRINTON, JR. AND JOEL N. BLOOM THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE RESEARCH LABORATORIES PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

RESEARCH SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS IN COOPERATION WITH THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS

SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION: TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION ROAD USER CHARACTERISTICS TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS URBAN TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION HIGHWAY DESIGN URBAN COMMUNITY VALUES ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT URBAN LAND USE

HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD DIVISION OF ENGINEERING NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES- NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING 1969 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerat- ing growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research.

In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it re- ceives the full cooperation and support of the Bureau of Public Roads, United States Department of Transportation.

The Highway Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as: it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of com- munications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to its parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences, a private, nonprofit institution, is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. This report is one of a series of reports issued from a continuing The program is developed on the basis of research needs research program conducted under a three-way agreement entered into in June 1962 by and among the National Academy of Sciences- identified by chief administrators of the highway depart- National Research Council, the American Association of State High- ments and by committees of AASHO. Each year, specific way Officials, and the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads. Individual fiscal agreements are executed annually by the Academy-Research Council, areas of research needs to be included in the program are the Bureau of Public Roads, and participating state highway depart- proposed to the Academy and the Board by the American ments, members of the American Association of State Highway Officials. Association of State Highway Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified This report was prepared by the contracting research agency. It has been reviewed by the appropriate Advisory Panel for clarity, docu- research agencies are selected from those that have sub- mentation, and fulfillment of the contract. It has been accepted by mitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of re- the Highway Research Board and published in the interest of an effectual dissemination of findings and their application in the for- search contracts are responsibilities of the Academy and mulation of policies, procedures, and practices in the subject its Highway Research Board. problem area. The needs for highway research are many, and the The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in these reports are those of the research agencies that performed the research. They National Cooperative Highway Research Program can are not necessarily those of the Highway Research Board, the Na- make significant contributions to the solution of highway tional Academy of Sciences, the Bureau of Public Roads, the Ameri- can Association of State Highway Officials, nor of the individual transportation problems of mutual concern to many re- states participating in the Program. sponsible groups. The program, however, is intended to NCHRP Project 2-9 FY '66 complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other NAS-NRC Publication 1750 highway research programs. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-603415

FOREWORD The highway planner, the design engineer, and the landscape architect responsible for the location, design, and landscape development of both new and existing By Staff highways will find this research report of particular interest. It not only provides current information on the subject of the values of landscaping, but also presents Highway Research Board information on noise and other factors related to highway use. The latter aspects may also make the results of interest to city and regional planners and real estate developers. The material presented should provide guidance in determining various design features for both the alignment and the non-pavement portion of the highway right-of-way.

There is increased evidence that landscape development on highways and adjacent property affects nearby properties. This research was to determine on a nationwide basis the effects of highway geometry and landscape design of the right-of-way and adjacent property on nearby property. Factors relative to the problem include, among other things, compatible horizontal and vertical alignment, planting designs, fencing, slope blending, and screening applications. The Franklin Institute researchers proposed to make various engineering measurements at selected sites to provide a representative sample of different landscaping features and a variety of land uses. A determination would then be made of property value differences attributed to these highway disturbances. A pilot study was conducted in New Jersey to test the research techniques. Measurements of headlight annoyance, noise, vibration, air pollution, and concealment were made and correlated to the highway design and landscape treatment, property valuation, and attitude data obtained from household interviews. Field studies were continued in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, and California. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if an economic effect could be measured. Regression analyses were made to illustrate the effects that landscapes and landforms have on noise level reduction. Correlation analyses were made to show the relations among landform, landscape, disturbance, interview data, and the value of properties adjacent to highways. This report presents some guidelines that may be considered by highway engineers in determining the alignment and cross section design of new limited- access highways. Some guidelines also are presented that may be considered by the landscape architect in planning the non-pavement portion of the highway cross section, including slope ratios and retaining walls, in conjunction with preparing the most appropriate landscape development plans.

CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

Part I

3 CHAPTER ONE Introduction and Research Approach Research Approach Method of Conducting Field Investigation Supplementary Study: Effect of Landscaping on Sound Level

17 CHAPTER TWO Findings and Analysis Major-Variable Analysis Impact of Highway Disturbance and Landscaping on Adjacent- Property-Value Economics Interview Analysis Supplementary Study Summary of Findings

33 CHAPTER THREE Application of Findings Highway Engineers Government Agencies Real-Estate Developers Potential Home Buyers Homeowners Landscape Architects Deed-Searching Agencies Trucking Companies and Tire and Muffler Manufacturers

34 CHAPTER FOUR Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations

Part II

35 APPENDIX A Data-Collection Forms and Questionnaires

40 APPENDIX B Locating Maps and Photographs of Property Sites Selected for Study

53 APPENDIX C Flow Charts of Deed-Searching Procedures

56 APPENDIX D Standard Screening Analysis

60 APPENDIX E Details of Statistical Analysis

64 APPENDIX F Graphs of Two-Way Relationships Between Vari- ables

68 APPENDIX G Summary of Measurements and Economic Data

76 APPENDIX H Schematic Diagrams of Physical-Disturbance Measuring Equipment

80 APPENDIX I Literature Search ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 2-9 by the Operations Research Division, Systems Science Department, Franklin Institute Research Laboratories (FIRL), with Joel N. Bloom, Director, as Principal Investi- gator. John H. Brinton, Jr., Senior Research Engineer, served as Project Engineer for FIRL. The authors express their thanks to Wilbur H. Simonson, Traffic Engineering Consultant, and George Patton, Landscape Architect, of Philadelphia, for their advice and consultation; and to Paul Maraist, former member of the FIRL staff, who served as project engineer for the first year of the study. Credit is given to all of the FIRL project staff who partici- pated in the design of the research program, and the data- collection and analysis phases: Algird Barskis, who carried out the major portion of the statistical analysis; Douglas Medville, who designed and conducted the economic survey and analysis; and Richard Hillman, who assisted in all the data-collection phases and was responsible for the supplementary study. EFFECT OF HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT ON NEARBY PROPERTY

SUMMARY Questionnaires and data-collection forms were drafted and a pilot test of the experimental method was conducted using the draft forms. The forms were refined according to the results of the pilot test and were further refined as experience was gained during the first year's data collection. Disturbances were measured on about 600 properties in Northeastern United States, and 200 sites in the Midwest and West. Approximately 800 interviews were conducted, of which 459 were analyzed; of these, 252 were Eastern homesites, 156 were Midwestern, and 51 were Western. To determine the effect of the physical djsturbances on nearby property values, the measurements were correlated with property-value differentials, which were determined by searching out sale and resale prices of the selected property sites in county courthouses. Eighteen groups of resold homes in six geographic areas were examined. In these areas, data were collected on 156 homes next to, and 137 homes away from, a limited-access highway.

Data Analysis Three types of analyses were performed on these collected data: major-variable analysis, economic analysis, and interview analysis. In the major-variable analysis, relationships and correlations were examined between sound levels and sound-level reductions at specific measurement points, and other variables, such as sound-level perception, percent tree density, and homeowners' attitudes of buying another house next to a highway. Scatter graphs of these relationships were plotted so that t-tests and correlation analyses could be conducted. Then, to determine the amount of disturbance reduction attributed to different combinations of landscape design, highway geometry, and traffic conditions, multiple-regression analysis was initiated. The economic analysis evaluated the effect of highway disturbance and landscape/landforms on property values. Four basic types of information were analyzed: property-value changes, relation of property to highway, quantity of landscaping/landforms, and highway disturbances. Six meaningful interrelationships were found among these information types, of which the following four are analyzed and evaluated as economic relationships: Property-value change vs distance from highway. Distance from highway vs landscaping/landforms. Highway disturbance vs property-value change. Property-value change vs landscaping/landforms. In a supplementary study, field experiments were conducted to define the 2

relationships between sound-level reductions and various landscaping/landform configurations and distances, including highway elevations, depressions, and landscaping with trees and brush.

Findings

Sound from trucks is the most objectionable highway disturbance to persons living in homes, apartments, and farms next to limited-access highways, regardless of geographic location. A sound-disturbance threshold level exists, above which more people living next to expressways will perceive the sound as a disturbing factor than will not. Lack of proper maintenance of highway right-of-way was the second most objectionable highway annoyance. Presence of a limited-access highway does not devalue adjacent properties. Presence or absence of landscaping on the right-of-way of a limited-access highway does not affect the value of adjacent properties. However, people living next to such highways indicated that they would accept the presence of the highway more readily if it were concealed from view by landscaping. Attitudes relating to disturbance factors of people living next to a highway, even in the same geographic location, vary greatly. From the interviews, it was learned that people living in older, relatively less expensive homes next to limited- access highways tended to accept associated disturbances more readily than people in more expensive homes; however, Los Angeles homeowners interviewed accepted the highway regardless of property value. The supplementary study indicated that highway depression and elevation affect sound levels emanating from highways markedly, while tree plantings affect sound levels only slightly. Sound-level reductions predicted using the multiple- regression equation developed in this study are sufficiently accurate that the equations can be used in landscaping design. Highway depression is potentially the greatest single reducer of sound level. Sound disturbance at high-rise apartment buildings located adjacent to limited-access highways is highly objectionable and caused apartment owners to make economic adjustments for units facing the highway.

Remedial Actions Recommended

Reduce noise from trucks at the source through improved tire and muffler design. Depress highways wherever possible. Shield properties from the sight of adjacent highways by planting trees and shrubs at the same esthetic level as that of the properties. Establish a program to maintain highway right-of-way at a standard of cleanliness and neatness comparable to that of adjacent property.

Application of Findings

The findings of this study have the most value to the highway engineer in selecting roadway landforms and in specifying right-of-way landscaping. The findings also are of value to government and civic agencies concerned with finding and choosing locations for new limited-access highways; real-estate developers and salesmen; potential home buyers; homeowners; landscape architects; county and private deed-searching agencies; trucking companies; and tire and muffler manufacturers. CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH APPROACH

Considerable national interest has been focused on the properties, and that their effect may be modified by land- desirability of highway landscape development, or "beau- scaping/landform features, such as planting, screening, and tification." Beautification must be economical and often highway geometry. Proper use of landscaping/landform must be justified in terms of its effects on adjacent prop- requires that the relationship between landscaping/land- erty values. From an engineering viewpoint, beautification forms and property values be known. However, the main must be considered in terms of highway geometry and effects of landscaping are indirect rather than direct; that landscape design of the right-of-way and adjacent property. is, landscaping/landform shields adjacent property from Quantitative engineering-economic data concerning the the effects of highways. These effects are caused by a effect of these factors on nearby property values is re- variety of physical disturbances, including noise, odors, quired. This quantitative data can then be used both to and lights. Therefore, to understand the effects of land- help justify highway landscape development programs and scaping/ landforms it is necessary to ascertain the influence to select landscape/landform designs with maximum bene- of landscaping/ landforms on these physical disturbances fit and minimum cost. and, in turn, the effect of these disturbances on property The over-all purpose of this project was to study the use value, and homeowners. effect of highway landscape development on nearby prop- The program was designed to measure these distur- erty; the following were specified objectives: bances, determine property-value differentials, and to re- To determine to what extent, and under what cir- cord and assess landscaping/ landform techniques. The pur- cumstances, landscaping of freeway (expressway) facilities poses of the program were to test the hypothesis that and property adjacent thereto affects the value of nearby highways affect property values, and to determine the rela- property; tionships between disturbances, property values, and land- To learn whether, and to what extent, landscape de- scaping! Iandform techniques. The over-all experimental velopment can make modern highways compatible with method was evaluated during a pilot test program con- nearby land uses; ducted during the initial portion of the project, results of To learn the extent to which adequate landscaping of the right-of-way makes certain features of freeway which were used in refining the research program for the (expressway) design acceptable to residential and other remainder of the project. adjacent nearby land uses; and The research program consisted of the following activi- To determine the comparative effects of different ties: basic types of landscape treatments. Design the experiment for field investigation. To satisfy these objectives, the program was designed to Determine essential data. obtain quantitative engineering and economic data con- Develop and prepare questionnaires and data-collec- cerning the effect of landscape/landform development on tion forms. nearby property values from the relationship of these Develop a method of conducting field data collection. values to landscape/landforms through highway distur- Develop specific data-collection procedures. bance factors. Specifically, quantitative engineering and Analyze data and present conclusions and recom- economic data concerning the nature of the relationships mendations. of horizontal and vertical alignment, planting design, fencing, slope blending, and screening to adjacent property Detailed descriptions of these activities are presented in the value were required. remainder of this chapter. Such data were developed by establishing a series of objectively measurable physical-disturbance factors created Experimental Design by the highway, such as noise, odor, headlight glare, and vibration; evaluating the property-value differentials caused The design is based on two lines of investigation: by various levels and degrees of the physical-disturbance factors; and evaluating the effectiveness of various degrees An investigation of the relationships between dis- of alignment, planting, fencing, slope blending, screening, tance, highway disturbance, and property-value change; and the like in abating the physical disturbances. and An investigation to test the hypothesis that, for a RESEARCH APPROACH known distance, disturbance reduction (landscaping/landforms) is related to property-value change. The approach to this study was based on the hypothesis that the presence of highways affects the value of adjacent In designing the experiment, care was taken to ensure 4

that when attributes, such as property-value changes or ing of a set of properties approximately equidistant from disturbance reductions, were compared, all other values the road to show that for a given subgroup, each home either were held constant or were accounted for statisti- of which has the same initial price and landform relation cally. In this experiment, many variables were involved. to the road (within limits), variation in landscape utility Some were measured directly—noise level, tree height, and (disturbance reduction) and esthetic values will cause selling price, for example; others were more difficult to variations in selling price with time. quantify—landscaping treatments, landform, and tree density, for example. Wherever possible, variations were Experimental Measures and Sample Selection reduced or accounted for statistically. In selecting the sample of homes to be included in the According to the requirements of the experimental design, study, certain restrictions were observed: the following types of experimental measures were needed: All the homes were in the same neighborhood. The Physical-disturbance measures.—Includes measures of external influences on selling prices were the same for all sound, traffic count, vibration, light, and odor. homes; external influences included the local tax structure, Landscapel landform measures.—Includes measures proximity to interstate highway exits, or a new shopping of distance, grade, percent traffic visibility, and density of center. For this study, the control group consisted of trees. homes close enough to the experimental group of homes Economic measures.—Includes measures of sale and so that the same external influences affected them, but resale prices, and number of years between sales. sufficiently distant from the highway that highway distur- Interview measures.—Includes comments by home- bance was negligible. owners on degree of disturbance, whether or not they All homes were constructed within the same time would buy another house next to a highway, and how well the highway right-of-way was maintained. period and for the same general sale price. For comparison, the initial prices of homes had to be close because Appendix A contains the data-collection forms for these homes with widely varying initial sale prices are affected measures. differently by the same amount of disturbance. The experimental method was pilot-tested during the The over-all landform between the homes and the initial portion of the project and results of physical- highway were constant within limits. For example, all disturbance measurements, as well as of preliminary inter- other things being equal, a road having a grade which views, showed that, except for sound, the intensity of dis- causes trucks to shift gears would create a greater distur- turbance factors was either below the annoyance level or bance than a road that is flat. there were virtually no complaints on the presence of these factors (light, vibration, odor). Because sound was the Even with these initial constraints, other variations most serious disturbance, both by measurement and degree within a group of homes will affect resale prices; therefore, of homeowner complaint, it was the only disturbance it was assumed that these resale prices would also vary considered for the remainder of the study. with amount of internal improvements, distance from high- The required measurements were made on at least 600 way, street location (such as cul-de-sac or frontage road), different property sites, throughout the Northeast region esthetics of property, highway disturbance, condition of of the United States and supplemented by 150 to 200 sites adjoining properties, and the like. Since it was desired to drawn from related studies in the Midwest and West. The determine the effect of landscaping on property values, sites were selected as follows: these other variations were accounted for by assessing the price of an improvement or assigning a value factor or I. The Northeast was divided into five geographic popu- weight to a variable in determining resale price. lation areas—Vicinity of Baltimore, Md.; Camden, N.J., The landscaping, however, whether planting of flora or and Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Penna.; Long Island, design of the road, is a result of a need for disturbance N.Y.; and Norwalk, Conn. reduction or for establishing an esthetic interrelationship Typical limited-access expressways or freeways were selected in each area. between the road and the area which it passes through. Therefore, the relationship between landscaping/landforms Housing developments were selected along each ex- and property values must be found by comparing price pressway which were built by the same developer, were change with distance from, disturbance caused by, and in the same price range, and subject to the same general esthetics of a highway. These relationships are shown by economic conditions. Further selection was made to pro- a series of correlations and tests for significance of the vide a representative sample of the various landforms and correlation coefficients (price change with distance, noise, landscaping features. and so on). Those variables having the greatest effect on Property sites next to and away from the highway price change are determined by successively examining were selected at random. these correlations. Supplemental sites were determined from a detailed review of the studies and on-site examination of landforms Once it is known that the variables are related to price and landscaping. change, disturbance reduction is related to selling price. The observed homes were divided into subgroups consist- The following expressways and freeways were selected: 5

Northeast As a result of data-collection experience during the first year, forms were modified for the second year's effort. The Connecticut —Connecticut Turnpike following additional data-collection forms were developed: New York —Long Island Expressway Northern State Parkway Sound Survey and Land Data Form.—Developed to Pennsylvania—Schuylkill Expressway replace the data recording form. This form is based Pennsylvania Turnpike only on noise and physical-characteristic measure- New Jersey —New Jersey Turnpike ments. A grid was also provided to sketch the prop- Interstate 295 erty characteristics. Other disturbance measurements were recorded only when complaints were received. Maryland —Baltimore Beltway Homeowner Interview Form.—Developed to replace Midwest the checklist for homeowner's interview. This form is based on nine questions found most important to Ohio —Detroit-Toledo Expressway the study. West California —San Diego Freeway (Los Angeles) METHOD OF CONDUCTING FIELD INVESTIGATION Ventura Freeway (Los Angeles) The data-collection program included selecting sites, con- San Bernardino Freeway (Los Angeles) tacting people for permission and interviews, making dis- Maps of these expressways locating the housing develop- turbance measurements, and collecting landscape data in ments selected for this study and photographs of typical an efficient sequence for maximum data. property sites and related expressways are included in The following method was developed to collect field Appendix B. data: Select area to be investigated and from discussions Questionnaires and Data-Collection Forms with highway officials and other knowledgable persons, and from driving the interstate routes, determine where single- In the initial stages of questionnaire and data-collection- or multiple-family dwellings or apartments are located form design, it was decided to group all directly associated adjacent to the highway. measures into physical, economic, and psychological cate- Visit the area under consideration and determine gories. Then data-collection forms were designed from addresses of properties next to the highway and properties the categories and the result was a series of data forms that located close to the highway but away from it. Use those could be used in the sequence of data collections. This away from the highway as a control sample. concept was tried during the pilot test of the experimental method and, with some refinements, was adopted for the Visit the county courthouse and gather data on the final design of questionnaires and data-collection forms. names of the present owners and on the original and Based on this concept, the following data-collection subsequent sales prices and dates of sale from the deed forms were developed; they are reproduced in Appendix A: books. Mail interview requests to residents. Property Data Form.—Developed specifically for col- Request permission to set up instrumentation on the lecting economic data about one property. Format flow is right-of-way. from present owner to each preceding owner, with a refer- Telephone residents and schedule interviews. ence to date of sale and book and page number of deed. Interview residents to elicit descriptions of their ex- Provision was also made for tax-stamp value on deed, and perience on the effects of the highway, to confirm sales valuation based on the tax-stamp value. A section is also prices, and to obtain permission to make instrument provided for lot description when available. Checklist for Homeowner's Interview.—Developed readings. for use in homeowner interviews and evaluated during Photograph and/or record relationship to highway. initial field test. The questionnaire covered the following On receipt of permission to place instruments on the areas: home purchase or rent transaction, with special roadside, test for sound level on properties having different emphasis on improvements previous owner had made; landscaping and distance relationships with the highway. disturbance caused by the highway; amount, cost, and Test for vibration, light, and odor where there have effectiveness of landscaping added to protect themselves been complaints. from highway disturbance; and general attitude toward Estimate the amount of landscaping in the form of highway. trees, shrubs, bushes, and fences that have been placed Data Recording Form.—Developed for recording between house and highway, or between house and neigh- physical-disturbance measurements (sound, traffic, vibra- boring house in case of property not located adjacent to the tion, light, odor, concealment, landform, and esthetic highway (control group). value). Interview developer, real-estate salesmen, and ap- Summary Data Form .—This form summarized all praisers, to obtain professional evaluation of the effects of data collected. It was posted daily and served as a check landscaping. for incomplete or missing data. (See Appendix G.) Record and summarize data gathered daily. Data-Collection Procedures pendix C. These charts summarize the main variations of deed-searching procedures. Systematic procedures were developed to facilitate the data Interviews were conducted in person and by telephone. collection. The procedures improved efficiency and, when Prior to interviewing, an introductory letter was sent to data were being collected in two areas simultaneously, each homeowner describing the study and stating that a reduced errors and produced uniform data. Procedures were developed to collect data in each category: eco- research engineer would telephone him and arrange for an nomic, psychological, physical-disturbance, and landscape! interview and measurement of disturbance factors on his landform. property. Two interview forms were used in the study: a checklist Economic Data for homeowner's interview form and the homeowner interview form. The checklist was used during the first year but It was determined that for single-unit residential properties proved to be too extensive in the amount of information the recent sales price was the best indicator of property collected and time needed to conduct the interview, and no value. It was more reliable than an appraiser's estimate basis of comparison could be established. The checklist since the appraiser's estimate of market value would, of form was replaced by the homeowner interview form which necessity, take into account the decrease or increase in was used in the completion of the Eastern data collection value attributable to the highway. If appraised values were and the field investigation in Toledo and Los Angeles. The used on residential properties, the results of the study questions were directly related to the subject and included would have indicated only the correlation between the all information necessary for comparison. appraiser's estimates of property values and disturbances, The interview was started by asking each homeowner to rather than a true measure of the disturbance. Separate state the disturbances or complaints from the highway with- market values for land and improvements were obtained out attempting to direct the answers to a particular source. and utilized since changes in land value were more funda- Once the disturbances or complaints were voiced, the mental to the study than were construction costs. homeowner was asked to be more specific. Each county courthouse that was visited to collect After the specific complaints or disturbances had been economic data used a somewhat different system and the learning process took time; however, the procedures were stated and recorded, the following direct questions were recorded and any return trip with a different data-collection asked: team was therefore facilitated. Have you done anything to shield the house or Initial data were mostly the addresses of homes in a reduce disturbance? preselected group; for each address, a tax map was ex- Do you feel the maintenance and fence are amined to locate the appropriate parcel and lot. Given the satisfactory? parcel, lot, and map number, a book was consulted to Do you have any other complaints of disturbances determine the owner, address, and deed book and page related to the highway? number. When given the deed book and page number, the Would you object if the highway department deeds were consulted directly. The deed had federal tax (a) planted more trees? and (b) put up a wooden fence? stamps corresponding to the mortgage and/or the down payment. If the tax stamps related only to the down pay- Would you buy a house again so close to the highway? ment, the mortgage value was recorded. The date of sale Every attempt was made to interview the homeowner in and grantor (previous owner) were also recorded from the person rather than by telephone, but when this was not deed. If the property was a resale (grantor not the de- possible, a telephone interview was conducted. This was veloper or builder), the grantee index was consulted and based on the fact that responses are more meaningful in the second grantor was found, using the first grantor as the person and also create more interest and desire to assist in grantee. This process continued until all owners were the study. In general, the homeowners were very willing to determined. Next to each owner's name in the grantee cooperate and spend the necessary time to complete the index were the date of sale and the deed book and page interview in detail. number. The deed books were again consulted, and the tax-stamp amounts were recorded for the remaining sales. The assumption was made that sound, vibration, head- In some cases, a deed referenced a deed book and page light annoyance, and odor were physical disturbances that number of the previous sale so that it was unnecessary to could have a direct causal effect on the properties adjacent consult the grantee index; in other cases, several maps had to the expressway. However, early in the field investigation, to be consulted before the desired information was ob- sound was determined to be the overriding disturbance tained. Also, some courthouses recorded deed and mort- factor and, specifically, sound from trucks. The other fac- gage information for a property in separate books, and tors do have some bearing on the over-all disturbance level, maintained various books and indexes in separate rooms but not in the same proportion as truck sound. Therefore, or buildings. Some of these variations prolonged the data- the concentration was on the measurement of sound, and collection effort and resulted in a smaller sample. the other factors were measured only when there was a Summaries of deed-searching procedures in 10 counties specific complaint. Figure 1 shows the location of dis- of 6 states are diagrammed in flow-chart form in Ap- turbance measurement points. Sound Sound measurements were taken at three points. A microphone was placed 19 ft from the center line of the outside HOUSE traffic lane to measure the sound level near the edge of the road. By placing the microphone remotely, the sound-level meter could be placed conveniently at the right-of-way . . VIBRATION SOUND VIBRATION fence. Another meter, with an integral microphone, was MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENTS MEASUREMENT set up at the right-of-way fence to measure the sound level \ at that point. The meters were co-located so that sound levels at the highway and the fence could be recorded simultaneously; 15 readings were taken at these locations LIGHT MEASUREMENT on each property site. Another set of sound measurements was taken with the remote microphone in the same position as it was for the first measurements, but with the meter with the integral microphone, together with the meter reading highway SOUND MEASUREMENTS sound, placed at the side of the house facing the highway; 15 additional simultaneous readings were taken at this , REFERENCE MICROPHONE location. Peak noise values were recorded (above the normal level for that property location) over a period of 30 to 60 mm depending on traffic conditions. This time period was used for each measurement point on the property site. The sound measurements were of trucks traveling in the outside lane closest to the house. Both the microphone at the highway and the microphone on the sound-level meter were placed 6 ft above the ground. The "A" slow scale (dBA) * Figure 1. Disturbance measurement points. was used because it best approximates the noise-level response of the human ear. Prior to recording sound measurements at each property site, both meters were calibrated according to the procedure recommended in the equipment manual. Then the meters were checked by plac- were recorded, over a specific time period (again selected ing both microphones adjacent to each other and observing from a range of 30 to 60 mm, depending on traffic condi- that the sound-level reading of passing vehicles was the tions), of the vibration parameter most representative of same on each meter. the vibration annoyance level. The sound measurements were taken with standard General Radio Company sound-level meters, Type 1565-A. Headlight Annoyance Figure 2 shows the equipment configuration for the sound measurements. The two meters are mounted on a tripod Headlight-annoyance measurements were taken at three and the left meter reads the sound at the location of the predetermined locations on the property site; at each point, tripod. The right meter reads the sound level at the high- a detector was placed, connected to the average-light- way from the microphone and preamplifier on the right intensity and pulse-rate indicators developed for this study. through the cable. The circuit diagram for this equipment is shown in Appendix I. These indicators provided an integrated (time and Vibration spatial) measure of the light resulting from headlamps of When homeowners complained of vibration disturbance, passing vehicles and indicated pulse rates caused by in- measurements were taken at each corner of the house fac- dividual vehicles or moving shadows of obstructions. ing the highway. For these measurements of solid-borne Spatial integration was obtained by adding the outputs vibrations, a vibration pickup was used in place of the of the three detectors located at the middle and edges of microphone on the sound-level meter (Fig. 3). The vibra- the side of the house facing the highway. Time integration tion probe was held firmly against the foundation and the was obtained by computing a running average of the com- meter reading recorded in decibels. Conversion factors bined outputs of the detectors. This output was displayed were used to translate the decibel indications of the meter on a meter, and gave an indication of the total light in- into the vibration parameters of displacement, velocity, and tensity received during the preceding time interval. The meter was read and the value recorded by the observer acceleration. In the measurement of vibration, only the peak values about once per minute. In producing a pulse-rate indication, the combined out- * dBA: The sound pressure level, in decibels, measured with a frequency put of the detectors triggered a pulse generator whenever weighing network corresponding to the "A-scale" on a standard sound- a specific value was exceeded. The pulse-generator output level meter. Figure 2. Sound-Ic ye! ,neasure,nent equipment.

was also displayed on a meter, and maximum values were recorded by the observer. The indicator was designed so that one, two, or three readings could be obtained simultaneously for either average light level or pulse rate. The detectors were calibrated with a Weston 614 light meter and an automotive headlamp light source. Figures 4 through 6 show the light-level measuring equipment.

Odor When complaints were received of odor from the expressway, carbon-monoxide content in the air was measured to determine whether significant amounts of exhaust gases were present. Carbon monoxide was chosen as an index of automobile pollution because it is the exhaust gas most completely attributable to exhaust fumes. The equipment used to collect these air samples was borrowed from the Public Health Service. The equipment consisted of an electric pump which was placed about 10 ft from the side of the house facing the highway. The pump was used to fill a plastic bag which was then sealed. The samples gathered were brought to the air sampling station for analysis. At the station, the air was pumped from the bag and infrared spectroscopy was used to inca- sure the amount of carbon monoxide.

Landscape/Landform Measurements

Figure 3. Vibration meter (left) and sound device (top cen- In addition to other factors, landscape/landform features ter) and filters for light-level meter (bottom). were quantified and recorded. This included all highway, 9

c1 fr .'3! 3

/ I I Figure 4. Photomultiplier head.s for light-level Fflea.S ure,fleflt.

landscape, traffic, and site characteristics which affected the The fence and house elevations were determined with a disturbance values. surveyor's transit. The fence elevation measurement was determined using the highway as a reference to the bottom Distance and Elevation of the fence. The house elevation measurement was determined using the bottom of the fence as a reference to The distance from the highway to the right-of-way fence the bottom of the highway side of the house. was measured from the reference microphone (19 ft from center line of outside lane) to the fence. The distance from Density and Volume of Trees the fence to the house was measured to the highway side of the house. Both distances were measured perpendicular to In conjunction with the consulting landscape architect, the highway and represented the shortest horizontal niethods of quantifying density and volume of trees were distance. developed. The measurements were based on a rectangular

Figure 5. Detail view of light-level meter. 10

either direction from the highway reference microphone. The categories were up, down, and level. Other measures recorded were average daily traffic flow; percentage of trucks; and highway construction date. Photographs were taken systematically at each property site and used later to verify initial estimations.

SUPPLEMENTARY STUDY: EFFECT OF LANDSCAPING ON SOUND LEVEL Results of analyses performed on data collected from the measurements and questionnaires indicated a need for additional study to determine the sound-reduction potential of various types of highway construction (landform) and roadside development (landscape). The study was based on the following variables: horizon in! distance.—The effective sound-level reduction on level ground as the distance is varied; E/evation—The effective sound-level reduction associated with a highway cut as height, distance, or both are increased: Depression.—The effective sound-level reduction associated with a highway fill as height. distance, or both are increased; and Figure 6. Light-measuring meter connected to cables and Wes- Tree density.—The effective sound-level reduction as- ton 614 calibrator. sociated with variation of tree measurements as density of trees, distance, or both are increased. The effects of these variables were studied in three experiments, all conducted in three Eastern locations. Experi- ment I concentrated on distance: Experiment 2 examined volume with a height of 30 ft, width of 120 ft (60 ft in the effects of highway cuts and fills; and Experiment 3 either direction of microphone), and a depth equal to the studied the effect of tree density. distance between the highway and right-of-way fence. In all three experiments, the same sound-measurement Density would he the experienced estimate of the percent- equipment described for the primary field-data collection age of ground cover in this area, not considering the height program was used; data were collected according to the of the trees. Volume would relate to the height of the trees following procedure: above the microphone, up to 30 ft. For example, if density The reference microphone was placed 19 ft from the was 100 percent and the trees were 30 ft or higher, volume center line of the outside lane. equaled 100 percent; if trees were 10 ft high, density would The "A" slow scale was used on both sound-level he 100 percent, but volume would equal 33 percent. meters (dBA). All distances were measured from the reference Traffic Visibility microphone perpendicular to the highway and along the ground: other distances were determined through calcula- The percentage traffic visibility was measured by experi- tion. enced observation. This estimation was made from the Each microphone head was placed 6 ft above ground back of the selected home looking toward the highway. At level. the same time a photograph was taken of the scene. Later, All sound-level measurements were of truck noise. the projection of the photograph was superimposed on a One data-collection form was used for all areas specially prepared screen grid; then the ratio of unobscured (Appendix A). grids to total number of grids was determined and the Ten readings were taken at every data point of a percent traffic visibility was this ratio multiplied by 100. location and averaged. The original estimation could be checked and adjusted Photographs were taken at each location to document by this grid method. Appendix D contains standard landform/landscapc classifications. screening charts prepared to assist the data collector in All angles were measured using a surveyor's transit. estimating screening. Experiment 1, Distance vs Sound-Level Reduction Miscellaneous Observations and Measurements To ensure an accurate basis of comparison or reference, The grade of the highway approaching and leaving the the initial investigation determined the relationship of property site was determined by observing the highway in sound-level reduction to distance from highway. Two areas FL

flHAusr_. I along the New Jersey Turnpike were selected for this study. 07*Cs &1 0 0 0 •

Both areas were assumed void of any measurable factor 0 00 200 300 400 500 600 that might affect sound-level reduction other than distance. flI3106CE CIII Thus, the only variable in this study was distance all other distinct variables were assumed to be zero. The distance increments varied slightly at each location with different landforms. but several distances were common to both areas so that an average value could be obtained (Fig. 7 is representative of both areas). The maximum distance measured was 600 ft with increments of 50, 100, and 200 ft.

Experiment 2, Highway Depression and Elevation vs Sound-Level Reduction

The second area of investigation was the evaluation of highway cuts and fills (depressed and elevated highway sections). As a result of sound-level readings taken on homeowners' properties and previous research, more emphasis was placed on the depressed than on the elevated highway section because (lie souiid-icductioii potential of a depressed section was found to be considerably larger than that of an elevated section. At all locations, the only two measurable variables were distance and elevation or depression all other factors were assumed to be zero.

Depressed-High way Section

The data collection for this experiment included several locations. Location 1, along the Schuylkill Expressway, consisted of a rising slope with a vnrying angle, using the highway as a reference (see Fig. 8). Readings were taken at five increasing distances from the reference microphone; therefore, this study involved both distance and elevation l'igure 7. New Jersey Turnpike areas showing (upper) turn- variables. pike from measurement site and (lower) measurement site Location 2, along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, was similar I ro,n turnpike. to Location I except that the slope was constant (see Fig. 9). The same procedure was used in recording the data. At Location 3, along the Baltimore Beltway, the data 12.levated-High way Section collection procedure was similar except that a constant elevation was maintained (see Fig. 10). The nature of this The data collection for this phase included two locations. landforni is more closely related to a highway cut than the The first location, along the Baltimore Beltway (Loca- previous two landforms. tion 7), consisted of a declining slope which, at a certain Locations 4 and 5, along the Baltimore Beltway, con- distance, became level with the highway (see Fig. 14). The sisted of a slope rising parallel to the highway (see Figs. II nature of this landform is closely related to a highway fill. and 12). In both cases, the horizontal distances were held Again, distance was varied at increments of 50 or 100 ft. constant as the elevation was increased. An attempt was At this location, up to a certain point, distance and depres- niade at these two locations to evaluate the influence of sion both were varied; beyond this point only distance was elevation (without distance) on sound-level reduction. varied and depression was constant. The second location, also along the Baltimore Beltway The last depressed-highway location, along the Baltimore (Location 5a), consisted of a slope declining parallel to the Beltway (Location 6), consisted of a three-level overpass, highway (see Fig. 15). called the 170 interchange (see Fig. 13). The microphone was placed on each level to determine the effect of vertical Experiment 3, Tree Density vs Sound-Level Reduction distance on sound-level reduction. At the time of testing, the interchange was not accessible to traffic, and thus the The third area of investigation was the elevation of tree readings were not distorted by vehicle flow on the over- density vs sound-level reduction. This experiment involved passes. two variables—distance and tree density. 12

e:?

Figure 9. Location 2, l'cnn.vylyania Turnpike v/towing (upper) turnpike from measurement site and (lower) measurement site from turnpike.

Figure 8. Location 1, Scl,uvlkill Expressway showing (upper) measure,nent site from expressway and (lower) expressway from ,neasure,ncnt site.

At Location 8, along the Baltimore Beltway (Fig. 16), At the second location, along the New Jersey Turnpike tree density and distance varied. The edge of this grove of (Location 9), tree density was constant and distance was trees was parallel to the highway and the points of sound- varied. This location consisted of a grove of trees with a level nleasurements were chosen on the basis of a measure- density of 100 percent, beginning 65 ft from the edge of ment of tree density, as described previously. The approximate height of the trees was 75 ft. The reference for the the highway, and running parallel to the highway for about edge of trees opposite the highway was the right-of-way 300 ft (see Fig. 17). The first point of measurement, 50 ft fence (Fig. 16). The distances from the highway edge to from the reference microphone, was just in front of the the points of sound measurement were referenced to the trees but all other points were within the grove of trees. fence. The approximate height of all trees was 75 ft. 13

Figure 10. Location 3, Baltimore Beltway showing (upper) beltway from measurement site and (lower) measurement site from belt way.

Figure II. Location 4, Baltimore Beltway showing (upper) cross sections perpendicular and parallel to highway and (lower) two views of beltway from measurement site. 14

WWI

7-

Figure 12. Location 5, Baltimore Beltway showing (upper) cross sections perpendicular and parallel to highway and (lo;t'er) beltway from ,neasurement site and ,neasure,nent site from hI'!! way.

Figure 13. Location 6, 170 interchange, Baltimore Beltway showinç' (upper) beltway from measure,nent site and (lower) ,neasure,nent site from beltway. 15

*fflJr" . -

20

T-' -, 0 . ç •ç. - I DJSTANCL I,,)

R ,

------

Figure 15. Location 5a, Baltimore Beltway showing (upper) cross section parallel and perpendicular to highway and (lower) two views of beltway front measurement site.

:.' ..

Figure 14. Location 7, Baltimore Beltway showi,ig (upper) beltway from measurement site and (lower) measurement site from beltway. 16

w

r I!

Figure 16. Location 8, Baltimore BeIztay showing (upper) measurement site along front edge of trees and (lower) measurement site along back edge of trees.

Figure 17. Location 9, New Jersey Turnpike showing (upper) turnpike from measurement site and (lower) measurement site from turnpike. 17

CHAPTER TWO

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

This chapter describes the findings and analyses conducted of-way fence, and those recorded at the highway and house. on the collected data. A major-variable analysis was per- An average difference for each set of 15 readings then was formed on the sound-level readings; the impact of highway calculated, and the resultant mean sound-level reduction disturbance and landscaping on the economics, or change was used in subsequent analysis. in value, of adjacent properties was analyzed; the results of Both 1-test conditions were met: histograms of indi- interviews concerning the effect of highway disturbance on vidual differences around the means resembled a normal apartment buildings and farm properties were compared distribution; and only about 10 percent of the variances with those of private homes adjacent to highways; and the compared in the F-test were significantly different (see attitudes of private homeowners toward highways and re- Fig. E- 1), probably caused by uncontrolled variables and lated disturbances were tabulated. Findings and analysis of characteristics of the locations. (These causes are discussed the supplementary study of potential techniques for reduc- in more detail in Appendix E.) ing highway-related noise also are presented in this chapter. The 1-test, a portion of the results of which is presented From the interviews, and from preliminary measure- in Figure E-2, revealed that 94 percent of the comparisons ments, it was learned that truck noise was the most severe tested were statistically different; that is, the differences in highway disturbance. Therefore, disturbance measure- sound-level reduction between locations were due to land- ments, and analysis of these measurements, were con- scape!landform characteristics rather than to chance. centrated on sound levels at the highway, the edge of the Furthermore, these differences were due to multiple factors right-of-way, and the house. (elevation, depression, density of trees, and others) rather than to distance alone. Further analysis directed toward MAJOR-VARIABLE ANALYSIS isolating the landscape/ landform variables that affect sound levels from expressways was based on this general finding. The major-variable analysis was conducted in three stages: a preliminary analysis to determine whether sound-level Two-Way Relationships Between Variables reductions between the highway and the house differed significantly with landscaping/ landform treatment; deter- A preliminary investigation of the two-way relationship mination of two-way relationships between sound-level re- between selected landscape/landform variables was made duction and other variables; and a multiple-regression after the first year's data collection and repeated after the analysis to isolate those variables which had the greatest second year's data collection on 73 properties. Graphs effect on reducing sound levels from the highway to the were plotted to determine whether patterns existed, (-tests right-of-way fence. were performed to examine relationships between the major variables, and correlation analysis was conducted on the Preliminary Analysis of Sound Data remaining important variables. Graphs of the more important relationships plotted are The following preliminary-analysis procedure was con- reproduced in Appendix F. From these and other graphs it ducted: was determined to continue analysis of the two-way rela- Choose sound-level data from representative property tionships of selected variables. The results of analysis of sites. six such relationships are described in more detail in the 2. Find the mean sound-level reduction between the following paragraphs. highway and the house for each site. 3. Establish the conditions for a 1-test by Relationship Between Average Sound Level at House and Constructing histograms of individual differences Homeowner's Perception of Noise Disturbance to establish that distribution around the mean The homeowner's perception of noise level was recorded in sound-level reduction was normal; and four categories: not disturbing, occasionally disturbing, Performing an F-test to determine whether any disturbing, and very disturbing. Each perception category two sample variances about the mean sound-level then was plotted against the actual sound-level reading at reduction differed significantly. the house (Fig. 18). It was hypothesized that at lower 4. Conduct a 1-test for differences in sound-level reduc- sound levels homeowners would perceive highway sound to tions with landscaping!landform treatment. be not disturbing and that, at some threshold sound level, Data from 73 locations were chosen, representing a wide homeowners would perceive sound to be disturbing or very range of landscaping!Iandforms and distance relationships. disturbing. For each location, the difference was taken between the It was determined from Figure 18 that 68.5 dBA would 15 sound-level readings recorded at the highway and right- be a reasonable threshold level. To corroborate the ac- 18 curacy of this figure, a (-test for proportions was conducted Relationship Between Average Sound Level at House and on the proportion of homeowners disturbed or very dis- Attitude Toward Locating Next to a Highway Again turbed where the average highway sound level at the house The homeowner's attitude toward locating next to a high- dBA or greater, as compared with the proportion was 68.5 way again was recorded in three categories: would buy of homeowners not disturbed under the same sound-level again; would depend; would not buy again. With this conditions. The 1-test showed a significant difference be- interview data, one graph was plotted of the homeowner's tween the groups, indicating that more homeowners living attitude vs average sound level at the house (Fig. F-6), next to expressways which produce sound levels greater and another was plotted of the homeowner's attitude vs dBA at the house perceive this level as a dis- than 68.5 the distance from the highway to the house (Fig. F-7). turbance than those who do not. (See Appendix F.) To determine whether the highway sound level at the It was hypothesized that, as the average sound level house was related to the degree of disturbance reported by increased at the house, the number of homeowners who the homeowners, the data plotted in Figure 18 were used would not buy a house next to a highway would increase. to conduct another 1-test between two independent means. Although the number who would buy again does not differ The following comparisons were tested: statistically from the number who would not, the spread Not disturbed (68.1 dBA) vs disturbed (72.0 dBA); between the means for the categories is about 3 dBA; to Not disturbed (68.1 dBA) vs very disturbed (73.1 many people, this small difference is a real disturbance. dBA); and However, homeowners gave other reasons for willingness Disturbed (72.0 dBA) vs very disturbed (73.1 dBA). to buy again; these generally were in one of two groups: The results of these 1-tests showed that the independent More land—Properties near the highway often are means were not significantly different at the 0.05 level and, larger than otherwise similar properties in the same de- therefore, based on the data collected, the average sound velopment. level at the house is not statistically related to the degree of Fewer neighbors—Properties near highways gener- disturbance reported by the homeowner. ally offer more privacy from neighbors because at least one abutting property is eliminated.

Relationship Between Percent of Traffic Visibility from Figure F-7 shows results similar to those shown in Figure House and Homeowner's Perception of Noise Level F-6. No significant difference is exhibited between the attitudes of homeowners who would or would not buy again In this analysis, the percent of traffic visible from the house next to the highway; however, the average distance of the was plotted against the four categories of homeowners' "would nots" is closer to the highway than that of the perception of sound level for 73 property locations "woulds," showing that the proximity of the highway and (Fig. 19). It was hypothesized that if homeowners were the accompanying disturbances have some effect on home- shielded from the expressway traffic, their perception of owners' attitudes. sound level would be "not disturbing." If this hypothesis were true, a threshold level of traffic visibility would Relationship Between Average Sound-Level Reduction and probably exist and more homeowners would perceive sound Density of Trees as more disturbing above this level than below this level. In the analysis of this relationship, it was hypothesized To test this hypothesis, the proportion of homeowners that the greater the density of trees the greater the sound- above and below a traffic-visibility level of 50 percent was level reduction would be. As shown in Figure F-5, the rela- determined and the proportions were compared through a tionship is vague; and the scatter of the data points indicates 1-test. The test showed no significant difference between the only a slight correlation, at best. Sound level is slightly proportions; thus, no threshold level of traffic visibility reduced by trees between the highway and fence, but exists which is related to sound perception of homeowners. vegetation must be very dense before the reduction becomes To determine whether the percent traffic visibility had appreciable. any relationship to the degree of disturbance reported by the homeowner, the data plotted in Figure 19 were used to Relationship Between Average Sound-Level Reduction and conduct another 1-test between two independent means. Elevation or Depression of Highway Relative to Fence and The following comparisons were tested: House Not disturbed (36.6 percent) vs disturbed (41.0 percent); The data recorded at the 73 properties are plotted in Figures 18 and 19. It was hypothesized that when the fence Not disturbed (36.6 percent) vs very disturbed (37.3 was lower than the highway the sound-level reduction percent); and should increase as the elevation increases (assuming that Disturbed (41.0 percent) vs very disturbed (37.3 the fence is under the straight-line projection from the percent). edge of the highway); and that when the fence is higher The results of these (-tests showed that none of the com- than the highway the sound-level reduction should increase parisons was significantly different at the 0.05 level and, as the depression increases. therefore, the percent traffic visibility is unrelated to the The first part of the hypothesis was found to be true degree of disturbance reported by the homeowner. until the recording point was again in the line of sound, at 19

BC. DC 0 79 - 78 - 90- 000 77 - 76 -

A 80- OT 74 - B 0 73 - A MEAN-I GA 72 - MEAN- MEAN-I 70- X 0 71 - 70- 0 2 60- GO 69 -THRESHOLD LEVEL -68 .5 ------68 - MEAN-I 67 - PROPORTION DETE MINING LEVEL -0------o------66 - 65 MEAN - MEAN - 64 40 MEAN-A 63 - MEAN -B 62 35 U DALTINORE BELTWAY A LONG ISLAND EEPMESSNAY 60 0 BALTIMORE BELTWAY £ O CHEART MILL N.J U NORTHERN STAT EDAREWAY - o.oBA; j 20 V SCAIITLOILLDADRCSSWAY v 7 PTCNSYLVONIAEXPRESSAATIPRILADELPOIAI O,IDWJERSEYTVDNPUC IR00000RY I ! 10 A A 0 o 70

NOT OCCASIONALLY DISTURBING VERY GA 0 DISTURBING DISTURBING DISTURB ING HOMEOWNERS PERCEPTION OF NOISE LEVEL . C A LA NOT OCCASIONALLY DISTURBING VEFIV Figure 18. Actual vs perceived sound levels at nine homesite DISTURBINU DISTURBING DISTURBING areas. HOMEOWNERS PERCEPTION OF NOISE LEVEL Figure 19. Percent traffic visible from house vs perceived sound level at nine homesite areas.

which point the relationship was a function of distance alone. The second part of the hypothesis was not true as long Multiple-Regression Analysis as the recording point at the fence was within the line of sound. The depression has the effect of reflecting and fun- The results of the preliminary and two-way analyses indi- nelling the sound up, and in some cases the sound level at cated that a multiple-regression analysis of the data would the elevated fence was greater than the sound level at zero be the most promising method to isolate the effects of the highway elevation. However, when the recording point variables affecting sound-level reduction from the highway was out of the line of sound, the sound-level reduction to the right-of-way fence. increased as the depression increased. First, those independent variables known to have the Both graphs indicate only small relationships, but when greatest effect on sound-level reductions were selected that other factors (such as distance and terrain) are removed could be measured in the field. The following predictor the relationships are more noticeable. (independent) variables were selected and hypothesized to have the most influence on the amount of sound-level Correlation Analysis reduction from the highway to the fence: A correlation analysis also was conducted on the data Cut (depressed highway), collected at the 73 properties. The correlation matrix Fill (elevated highway), - (Table I) indicates the correlation (r) values for the re- Sound level at the highway, lationships between variables previously discussed and other Tree density9 variables of consequence. In the matrix, the correlation Tree volume, and values range from one to zero. An r-value of one indicates Distance. a perfect relationship, while an r-value of zero indicates no relationship; a negative r-value indicates an inverse relation- The multiple-regression analysis technique was used to ship. For example, the matrix shows the correlation r-value measure the degree of association between this set of pre- for fence elevation and average highway-to-fence dBA dictor (independent) variables and the criterion (depen- reduction to be - 0.388, and noise-disturbance perception dent) variable—the amount of sound-level reduction at the level and "buy house again" to be 0.840. right-of-way fence. Derivation of the multiple-regression

20

equation used for this analysis, and reliability checks of that equation, are described in Appendix E. Using the derived equation, sound-level reductions were predicted at 63 locations. These predictions were then compared to the measured sound-level reductions at 00 the same locations. The average error between the pre- z . N dicted and measured reductions over the 63 locations was 0_. o OS OS 1.89 dBA. Considering the limited data observations and o Un measuring techniques for tree density and volume, This error was considered to be low. The following additional variables, which were not considered because of difficulty 0 N N 0 of measuring techniques and other factors, also contributed 0z z to the error:

Un N Topographic features that amplify or reflect sound from z0 0 N . 0 opposite side of highway or from other sources away 04, from highway; 0 Un In N 0 0 Environmental effects— Temperature . 0 z0 Precipitation 00 Un Un SO SO SO I- ON Un 0 0 0 'n Humidity ;' z Wind velocity and direction Because the initial predictions were accurate to within 0 § 2 dBA, it is recommended that work be continued on the 01. 00 70 0 ° derivation of one or more regression equations to predict Cr Cr Cr

sound-level reduction from highway to fence based on a O 05 N N 0 05 r' ,'I '0 set of predictor variables. Highway designers could use 005 NOS ('1 this equation(s) to predict noise level at the right-of-way

fence of a highway having specific landform/landscape 00 50 50 r'l In OS characteristics, or at homes along the highway. Figure ON OS In SO — N 20 is a block diagram of the recommended procedure for continuing the regression analysis. 0 Ifl .00 Os In N N CC 50 O 0o - .r-1m — CoCI IMPACT OF HIGHWAY DISTURBANCE AND LANDSCAPING °Cr° ON ADJACENT-PROPERTY-VALUE ECONOMICS zQ 0 SO 5050 'ON Os The effects of highway geometry, disturbance, and land- .- CrdCr °Cr 0 scaping on the value of adjacent properties are evaluated rA 0N0 CONN S0 0 in this section. "Highway," as used here, refers to a limited- Z ON. SONr-4 access four- or six-lane road having a median strip and an Id 0 Cr d d 0 adjacent right-of-way area to which landscaping treatments O 5110500 flIn N 00 00 N OS 0 0 UnON NN r N Un 0 N '0 can be applied. "Properties" refers to unattached, single- (.5 family homes or, in some cases, lots adjacent to the right-of- 00 Cr 0 Cr Cr way line. Economic aspects of the effect of highway dis- 0 0N 'CCOs turbances on adjacent highrise apartment buildings and 0511 'OO OOs OSOS 0 N '0 Os 0 farms are described in the "Interview Analyses" section of 7 0 this chapter. 005.-. UnOSN 0000 (.5 05 0050 '00500 '000 005.5 fl 0 Un N 05050 50N SONrC °Cr° 770 0 0 Finding a Measure of Economic Impact -r 0 7 Cr Cr Cr The impact of highway disturbance and landscaping on property values may have been indicated by the assessed value of homes or by the actual sale price. While these indicators have imperfections, they reflect the changing economic history of a property. This study was conducted 0 in several geographical areas of the U.S., and the assessed -.0 z 0.0 values of properties in each locality are consistent; for ex- 22 ample, all properties in a given area may be assessed at . CI 0 n — Id .0 00 0) 0 25 percent of fair market value. However, identical prop- .00.0 0 010000510 U 00000 O erties in different geographic areas may be assessed at 01 01 widely different prices. In addition, because the fair market 8 0 42

21

Methodology NONLINEAR DATA FROM ADDITIONAL DATA - ANALYSIS 63 LOCATIONS MORE LOCATIONS The term "group" of homes, as used in this report, consists of homes constructed at the same time by the same builder and selling for the same price, within $3,000. Some of the homes within the group are next to a highway and others are away from the highway. "Next to" means that either NONLINEAR SENT LINEAR LINEAR the homes are on land separated from the highway right- REGRESSION REGRESS ION REGRESS ION of-way by a fence (the backs or sides of the homes face EQUAT IAN EQUATION EQUATION 7 the highway) or the homes are on land separated from the right-of-way by an access road (the fronts of the homes face the highway). "Away from" refers to the next block or row of homes farther back from the highway (see Fig. 21).

ERROR fERROR It is assumed that, for each group, all uncontrolled variables act at random over the sample of homes in the group. Such uncontrolled variables include construction of new schools or shopping centers, economic conditions at local places of employment, and rises in local taxes; it is as- USE BEST sumed that these variables affect prices of all homes in the APPROACH Linear or Non-Linear group equally, and are inherent in the computation of sale- price variation. Although differences in sale prices are a result of many influences, to as great an extent as possible, factors other MORE DATA INTRODUCE NEW SAME VARIABLE VARIABLES AND DATA than landscaping and landforms have been eliminated from BETTER MEASURING MEASUREMENT TRANSFORMATIONS consideration in comparing sale-price differences in this TECHN I SUES TECNN I QUES

COMPUTES REGRESSION EQUATIONS TO PREDICT SOUND-LEVEL REDUCTION BASED go NEXT TO HIGHWAy ON LANDFORM/LANDSCAPE CFIARACTERI ST I CS AWAY FROM HIGNWAn Figure 20. Regression analysis procedure. H U H WA V

BACK BACK BACK BACK value is determined by the assessor's or auditor's office, VHOUSE I HOSE/ VHOUSE methods of determination vary from area to area. ___ In view of these variations in different geographical areas, ROAD actual sale and resale prices were selected for this evalua- B- EdFRONT FRONT FRONT FRONT tion as measures of the value of homes next to and away USE HOUSE from highways. Fo F F Many factors influence the sale price of a property, such as economic or time pressure on the seller, local or national market conditions, and improvements made to the property. RIG MW Ar Highway disturbances and alleviation of these disturbances through landscaping or landform design can also be considered factors influencing the sale price of a property. The purpose of this investigation was to isolate these disturbance factors and determine, in fact, whether highway A C C E S S ROAD disturbance is related to property values along the highway. IFRONT FRONT FRONT FRONT H GOUGE In using the sale price to quantify any change in property r ROUSE 'MOUSE r values, the measure used is % iSV/year, where tV is the change in sale price of the property. The formula used to obtain this measure is as follows: ROUSE ROUSE l ROUSE %zV FRONT FRONT FRONT FRONT _resale price - initial price (100) (1) year initial price (1) where = number of years between initial sale and last Figure 21. Relative location of homes next to and away from resale. highway. - 22

study. Thus, the series of price differences obtained reflect homes ranged in initial price from $6,000 to about $30,000, the economic effects of landscaping and landforms. with the mode being in the $12,000 to $15,000 price range In this report, two landscaping and landform effects are (Fig. 23). The earliest date of initial sale of the homes considered: was 1952 and, in most cases, groups of homes were se- Direct. In altering the appearance of a property, high- lected that had been constructed after the highway so that way landscaping will exert an esthetic influence which all resales would reflect the economic effects of the high- may be reflected in a higher resale price than would way. The composition of the data sample is given in be expected if the landscaping did not exist. Table 2. Indirect. Noise and light from highways may have For the analysis of relationships A and B, the groups an adverse effect on property values. By shielding were divided into subgroups, one "next to" and the other properties from these disturbances, landscaping and "away from" the highway, and comparisons made between landforms may reduce them enough that these adverse the subgroups. effects may be negated. It is desired to test whether As shown in Table 3, only about 30 percent of all data or not the esthetic or disturbance-reducing aspects of searched out in deed and mortgage books were usable in landscaping will cause property-value changes. the economic analysis. This low percentage resulted mostly from the fact that only those homes could be selected which Relationships had been resold; some resold homes also were eliminated from the usable data because homeowners declined to grant Four basic factors are considered in this economic analysis: interviews or disturbance measurement at their properties. property-value changes, relation of property to highway, quantity of landscaping, and highway disturbances. Six Analysis of Relationships meaningful relationships exist among these factors, as diagrammed in Figure 22. Relationship A, Property-Value Change vs Distance These relationships become the hypotheses to be proved From Highway or disproved in this study. The following hypotheses are discussed in this section: A statistical test was chosen to determine whether the differences in percent yearly change in sale price (% iSV/yr) Relationship A .—Disturbances from a highway cause between homes next to and away from the highway were homes next to it to appreciate at a lesser rate than real or happened by chance. Since there is no assurance homes farther away from it. that the percent value change/ year population is distributed Relationship B.—Owners of properties next to a high- normally, several non-parametric tests were evaluated for way spend more money and effort on landscaping and use in this analysis. Of these non-parametric tests, the landforms than do owners of properties farther away Mann-Whitney U test * was chosen to test whether two from the highway. independent groups have been drawn from the same popu- Relationship D.—The greater the disturbance at lation. homes next to a highway, the less they appreciate. Relationship E.—Homes next to a highway which * A detailed description of the Mann-Whitney U test is given in Non- have a large amount of landscaping/landform treat- Parametric Statistics, Sidney Siegel, McGraw-RilI, New York, 1956. ments appreciate at a higher rate than those with less. Relationships C and F were analyzed previously.

Economic Data Sample The data sample consisted of a total of 18 groups of homes, selected from six geographic areas in the United States. The 18 groups consisted of 156 resold homes next to and 137 resold homes away from the chosen expressways. The

laeasured in IsV and

PROPERTY— VALUE OfNIGE

HiuwAy LI E E HOUSE II1-H l(IWAY RBANCES RELATII Adjacent lights. or not maintenance, LANDSCdPING

Quantity, $ invested in Figure 23. Frequency distribution of initial house values for Figure 22. resold homes next to and away from highway. 23

TABLE 2 COMPOSITION OF ECONOMIC-STUDY DATA SAMPLE

RANGE OF PRICES (1000'S OF $) NUMBER RANGE OF YEARS OF RESALES SALE RESALE BETWEEN SALES

N" A" N" A" N' A' AREA HIGHWAY N" A" New Jersey Turnpike 29 25 13.5 13.5 14.0 14.0 1.0 1.5 Woodbury, N.J. to to Cherry Hill, N.J. Interstate 295 to to to to 25.0 25.0 26.5 26.5 7.0 7.0 1.5 King of Prussia, Pa. Schuylkill Express- 9 18 19.3 18.5 21.5 20.0 2.33 way to to to to to to 22.0 26.5 25.5 26.5 7.75 7.5 6.0 0.5 East Toledo, Ohio Detroit-ToledoEx- 4 9 10.5 9.5 11.5 11.5 pressway to to to to to to 11.0 17.0 13.5 15.5 10.0 8.0 0.5 Los Angeles, Cal. San Diego Freeway 10 8 13.0 7.0 13.0 6.5 0.5 Ventura Freeway to to to to to to San Bernardino Free- 33.0 25.0 31.0 45.0 4.5 6.5 way Longlsland,N.Y. LongislandExpress- 84 52 11.0 10.7 12.0 13.0 0.5 0.5 way to to to to to to Northern State Park- 25.5 25.0 30.0 28.6 15.0 16.0 way Baltimore, Maryland Baltimore Beltway 20 24 12.0 12.5 12.5 13.0 1.0 0.5 to to to to to to 17.5 17.8 17.5 19.0 8.0 9.0

TOTAL 156 137 10.5 7.0 11.5 6.5 0.5 0.5 to to to to to to 33.0 26.5 31.0 45.0 15.0 16.0

"N = next to highway; A = away from highway.

TABLE 3 COMPOSITION OF USABLE ECONOMIC-STUDY DATA

NO. OF ECONOMIC NO. DATA NO. OF RESALES COLLECTED OF RESALES AREA HIGHWAY (%) Woodbury, New Jersey New Jersey Turnpike 137 54 39 Cherry Hill Interstate 295 King of Prussia Pennsylvania Turnpike-U.S. 202 41 King of Prussia Schuylkill Expressway 121 50" Harrisburg Pennsylvania Turnpike Toledo-Colony Detrost-Toledo Expressway 75 25 b 33 Toledo-FIRL Los Angeles Group 1 Ventura Freeway 58 1 31 Group 2 San Diego Freeway Group 3 San Bernardino Freeway Mineola, N.Y. Northern State Parkway 215 136 63 Syossett, L.I. Long Island Expressway Baltimore, Maryland Baltimore Beltway 408 44 11 Norwalk County Connecticut Turnpike 26 0 0 TOTAL 1040 327 31.5

"23 resales not used in economic comparison b 13 resales not used in economic comparison 24

TABLE 4 RESULTS OF STATISTICAL TEST ON RELATIONSHIP OF PROPERTY-VALUE CHANGE TO DISTANCE FROM HIGHWAY

PERCENT VALUE SIGNIFICANT NEXT TO AWAY FROM DIFFERENCES AREA HIGHWAY HIGHWAY HIGHWAY (a) Woodbury, New Jersey N.J. Turnpike Cherry Hill, New Jersey Interstate 295 2 00 208 N 0 King of Prussia, Pa. Schuylkill Expressway 3.16 2.13 No East Toledo, Ohio Detroit-Toledo Expressway 2.01 1.89 No Los Angeles, California San Diego Freeway Ventura Freeway 9.83 9.65 No San Bernardino Freeway Syosset, Long Island Long Island Expressway 7.83 9.71 No Mineola, N.Y. Northern State Parkway 6.07 6.97 No Baltimore, Maryland Baltimore Beltway 2.20 2.50 No

The results of the statistical test on economic data for improvements consist of planting evergreen shrubs and Relationship A are summarized in Table 4. Underlying the trees, and in some cases the construction of a wooden hypothesis of this relationship is the assumption that homes fence, along the highway right-of-way. Similar observations next to a highway will be subjected to greater disturbances and interviews were conducted at properties ranging from (noise, light, odor, and vibration) than homes farther one to three blocks away from the highway. away, and that these disturbances will adversely affect the These observations and interviews showed no real dif- resale prices of the homes next to the highway. ference between the number of property owners next to The first part of the assumption is basically true because and away from the highway who had made landscaping of the added distance involved; although it is recognized improvements of plantings and fencing to their property. that topographical features can cause unexpectedly high The landscaping-value estimates of properties next to and disturbance measurements away from the highway, in these away from the highway ranged from about $250 to $750. samples the measured disturbances were higher at the highway. The mean expenditure for landscaping was higher for properties away from the highway—$450 as compared The second part of the assumption is not supported by with $425 the data. As shown in Table 4, of the six geographical for properties next to the highway. Through discussions with the property owners, and by observing the areas tested, three showed an increase in %IV/yr and three showed a decrease. When subjected to statistical properties, a possible reason for more landscaping away evaluation, the results showed no significant difference in from the highway was suggested: because most lots away economic behavior between the two subgroups for any of from the highway are smaller than those near the highway, the six geographical areas. the property owners away from the highway spent more to gain privacy from their neighbors, while property owners Relationship B, Distance From Highway vs next to the highway were not so concerned because the Landscaping/Landform highway was an "impersonal" neighbor.

In determining whether people living next to highways Relationship D, Highway Disturbance vs invested more effort and money in landscaping and land- Property-Value Change forms than those living away from the highway, the measures of landscaping value were more subjective than Because the most severe disturbance factor was noise from objective. Whenever possible, a registered landscape archi- trucks, the measure of disturbance used in the evaluation tect was employed to appraise landscaping values; when of this relationship was an average of maximum truck noise conditions precluded his presence, field data-collection (in dBA). The noise readings recorded at each group of teams used landscape valuation estimates based on previous homes, and the related percent yearly change in sale price valuations. These landscape-value estimates were validated for the groups in each geographical area, are compared in by the landscape architect through photographs of the Table 5. The noise readings for groups of homes in each properties. area were averaged to arrive at a mean sound level for During the interview with the homeowner at each prop- each area; the same procedure was used for the percent erty, additional information was collected on landscape yearly change in sale price. value through questions about landscaping improvements A correlation analysis was used to determine whether the to the property. In most of the properties observed, the two factors were related. If the hypothesis about these 25

TABLE 5 RELATIONSHIP OF SOUND LEVELS TO PROPERTY-VALUE CHANGES

HOUSES NEXT TO HIGHWAY

MEAN % MEAN CODE AREA HIGHWAY XV/YR DBA

1 Woodbury, New Jersey New Jersey Turnpike Cherry Hill, New Interstate 295 2.00 72.00 Jersey 2 King of Prussia, Schuylkill Express- Pennsylvania way 3.16 73.40 3 East Toledo, Ohio Detroit-Toledo Expressway 2.01 76.00 4 Los Angeles, California San Diego Freeway Ventura Freeway 9.83 77.67 San Bernardino Freeway 5 Long Island Long Island, N.Y. Expressway 7.83 69.80 6 Northern State Parkway 6.07 57.10 7 Baltimore, Maryland Baltimore Beltway 2.20 71.88 8 Norwalk, Connecticut Connecticut Turnpike 0.55 74.50

factors is correct, a unit rise in sound level at the house in value (%V). Again, the relationship was very weak, will co-occur with a decrease in percent yearly change in with a correlation coefficient of —0.309. sale price; thus, perfect correlation would result in a cor- In summary, there is some evidence of a relationship relation coefficient, r, of —1.00. The formula used for this between noise and depreciation of property value, but not correlation analysis is contained in Appendix E. enough to state a statistically proven relationship. When all areas are used in the calculation, r = —0.157, which shows no relationship between the variables. How- Relationship E, Property-Value vs Landscaping/Land! orm ever, when the data from Los Angeles, California, are Two measures were used to quantify the amount of land- omitted from the calculations, r = —0.638. These relation- scaping: the percent of traffic visible from the house, and ships are shown graphically in Figure 24. Although this analysis does not statistically prove that higher noise levels cause a decrease in the yearly change in sale price of homes adjacent to an expressway, it indi- = - 0638 (LOS ANGELES DATA OMITTED) / cates some association between the variables on the basis -0157 (ALL DATA) of geographic area. There is some basis for eliminating measurements collected in the Los Angeles area from the analysis. During K the tremendous economic growth of California in the past

5 to 10 years, housing has appreciated irrespective of where NOTE it was located. In addition, the expressway is a way of life, the only system of mass transit, and therefore it is not only acceptable but important to reside near one, regardless of the disturbance. In addition to determining the relation between percent yearly change in sale price and sound level at houses on a 03) geographic basis, the correlation coefficient was calculated for a sample of properties in the Eastern area, house by house. The resulting coefficient was —0.235, an even MEAN SOUND-LEVEL AT HOUSE (88) weaker relationship between noise and property values. For Figure 24. Mean house sound levels vs mean yearly change in further confirmation, noise was compared with total change sale price.

26

the percent tree density on the property. Inherent in both pressways; however, most interview data concerned single these measures are the disturbance-reducing properties of dwellings. Preliminary examination had shown that avail- landscaping and the esthetic value of landscaping. able time and funds would limit a full-scale measurement The hypotheses for these relationships are that program of apartments and farms to a sample too small to yield statistically supported results; therefore, to obtain as the percent of traffic visible decreases, the %V/ a basis for analysis and discussion, the effects of highway year will increase; and landscaping on such properties was probed in the interview as the percent of tree density increases, the %V!year program. will increase.

In a correlation analysis of these data, the respective Effect of Highway Disturbance on Adjacent r = —1.00 and ideal correlation coefficients would be (a) Apartment Buildings (b) r = 1.00. Results of the analysis were r = 0.133 for relationship (a), and r = —0.026 for relationship (b). The managers of five large high-rise apartment buildings The preceding results (shown in Figs. 25 and 26) show were interviewed concerning the effects of highway dis- that the percent yearly change in sale price is unrelated to turbance on the tenants and occupancy. All the apartments the two measures of quantity of landscaping. However, were modern, air-conditioned buildings representative of since landscaping reduces noise only slightly, this result the higher-priced rentals in the Northeast. is expected. Of the five managers interviewed, two indicated that a significant disturbance problem existed. In these two cases, INTERVIEW ANALYSES rent concessions were given to tenants as inducements to live next to the highway. One of the managers offered 1 to Whenever possible, interviews were conducted in person. 2 months free rent to attract tenants, but at the time of To ensure a personal interview, introductory letters were interview 28 of 30 vacant apartments faced the highway. mailed in advance and, in most cases, the letter was fol- In other apartment buildings, the manager offered a 10 to lowed by a telephone call to make an interview appoint- 15 percent reduction in rent for apartments facing the ment. highway. In both cases, turnover was higher for units While the measurement and analysis of economic factors, located next to the highway. The two apartment buildings physical disturbances, and landscape/ landform techniques where noise was causing economic loss were ranked first was applied only to private single dwellings along express- and third in general noise level; the apartment building ways, the interview program was extended to include which ranked second in noise level, but which had no apartment buildings and farm properties adjacent to ex- economic loss, was located adjacent to the toll booths of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge in downtown Camden. Most of the occupants of this building did not have children and chose the location for convenience rather than for lack of

BALTIMORE BELTWAY - 0 CHERRY SILL, N.J. CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE • NORTHERN STATE PARKWAY A LONG INLAND EXPRESSWAY SCHUVLRILL EXPRESSWAY A PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE (NNRRISIUBG) PENNSYLVANIA EXPRESSWAY IPHILADELPHIAI S NEW JERSEY TURSPIRE IW000MURTI 00

O BALTIMORE HELTWAY CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE 90 0 VAA 0 90 I A LONG ISLAND EXPRESSWAY A PENNSYLVANIA TURSPIRE (HURRISNUNG) A CHERRY HILL, N.J. NORTHERN STATE PARKWAY 80 I 80 - V SCHUYLKILL EXPRESSWAY V PENNSYLVANIA EXPRESSWAY IPSILADLLPHINI 0 S NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE (W005SURT) IAI70I 8 A 70

o S I 60 5° 60

0

50- 0 50 0

U

40• 40 V 0

L1 c30- 30- A V V I- 20 V 20- 0 0 0 A 0 10- V 0 0- 5 ho • A a - S • .L5) 0 I i r - i I I I I A -4 -3 -2 -I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 II r2-10 "hII 12 MEAN YEARLY CHANGE IN SALE PRICE (U/K ) MEAN YEARLY CHANGE IN SALE PRICE (K/H) Figure 25. Mean yearly change in sale price vs traffic visibility Figure 26. MEan yearly change in sale price vs density of trees from house. from highway to fence. 27

disturbance. No attempt was made to measure the sound Although land values of farms were not studied, the levels or the total economic impact because of the small interviews indicated that property owners thought that sample; however, at both apartments where noise levels the highway did not reduce the value of their land. In fact, were high, different rates were offered for the entire side some farm owners indicated that the presence of the high- of the building facing the highway, rather than for the first way increased land values. few floors only, because the disturbances continue up to the top floors. Unless the home or apartment is out of the Attitudes of Homeowners (Private Single Dwellings) line of sound (the direct path from a sound source, includ- Toward Expressways ing reflected sources), the sound level is usually higher 50 to 100 ft above the highway, because of the funneling effect The data summarized, in this analysis of attitudes are based of the cut. Since these apartments range from 20 to 30 on the answers to the most important questions in the stories, they are never really out of the line of sound. homeowner's interview form. The results are based on Therefore, sound shielding may be particularly expensive 459 interviews: 252 in the East; 156 in the Midwest; and because the upper floors of the building must be shielded 51 in the West. as well as the lower floors. From the interviews it was learned that, although people generally feel that plantings in quantity would effectively Effect of Highway Disturbance on Adjacent Farm Properties reduce disturbance, those who have actually planted trees and shrubs view the plantings as having psychological and Seventeen farms were investigated, all on the Pennsylvania esthetic value rather than having any disturbance-reduction Turnpike between the towns of Bowmansville and Denver value. This interpretation is derived from homeowner's in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The farms ranged in statements to the effect that "no amount of landscaping size from less than 20 acres to several hundred acres. Most reduces the noise," "screening the source gives us privacy," were dairy farms and had crops of corn and wheat in and "screening allows us to accept the highway better." addition to pasture land. The land was gently rolling with The specific findings are summarized as follows: the elevation ranging between 400 and 500 ft. Of the 17, five indicated that they would purchase a farm this close to The greatest complaint about highway disturbances a major highway again, although seven indicated that they was truck noise. Secondary complaints concerned lack of would not; the remaining five were undecided. The pro- maintenance of the right-of-way. portions of these replies closely matched those of suburban People in older and less expensive areas in which inter- single-dwelling homeowners. views were conducted tended to accept the highway more In general, the highway was little used by the farmers readily than those in newer areas. As investment in a home abutting it and their main problems occurred when the rises, people apparently become more sensitive to distur- turnpike was built and divided or reduced the acreage of bances. In the Western sample (in the Los Angeles area), their farms. Some retained parcels of land on both sides although about the same number of people complained of the highway and are forced to drive considerable dis- about noise from the expressway, the complaints were much tances to get from one side of their property to the other. less acute; the residents in the Los Angeles area apparently These complaints, however, were unrelated to roadside accepted the expressway and the concomitant disturbance development; the major related complaint was noise, which as a way of life. was mentioned by 12 of the 17 farmers as the major dis- About 40 percent of the homeowners interviewed who turbance. None of these complaints was voiced as strongly were living next to an interstate highway stated that they as those of the suburbanites. The highway did not appear would buy a house next to a highway again. The same to be a major problem to any of them, but was an occa- reason for doing so was given by all persons who felt this sional irritant. The people appeared to be firmly settled way: a desire for privacy. The homeowners preferred the on these farms and were not contemplating moving. The disturbing but impersonal highway to another neighbor. attitude toward the highway was, as several farmers put it, Apparently, enough people have this attitude that the sales "As long as they stay on their side of the fence, I have no prices of homes next to highways do not suffer in compari- complaint." son to those of homes further away. Thus, these farm houses were much farther from the Of those living next to the highway and indicating that highway (200 to 1,700 it) than houses in a typical subur- they were disturbed by it, only 25 percent made any sig- ban neighborhood, but their complaints were much the nificant effort to screen their properties by planting trees same, though less seveie. The noise levels causing com- and shrubs or erecting fencing. The mean expenditure was plaints were 5 to 10 decibels below the levels encountered about $400. in housing developments; however, the background noise When asked to suggest what measure the highway de- on the farms was 5 to 10 decibels below that encountered partment could take to reduce disturbances, most home- in many suburbs, tending to increase the apparent per- owners wanted more trees and shrubs to be planted. ceived level. Farmers are bothered by the same problems as are urban Figure 27 summarizes the responses to the major ques- and suburban property owners and the major disturbance tions and compares the areas under study; the data are is truck sound levels. In second place is maintenance on given in Table 6. Appendix G contains a complete summary the turnpike roadside. of all the interview data. 28

kn v — 00 . ('1 TIV . I,, • • — — —

(s3I39Nv so1) en en en '.0 — — — AVMUI ONIcDIVN'Safl NVS

(s3'9Nv soi) AVM391OI V1111NA —

(smoNvsoI) 0 0000 en ON AVM3II 00310 NVS (.4

riv el

(nh1d) AVMSS31dX3 ci en 0'. en 00 r-, en I-' OU3101-1I00LL3U 0000 en • — It 0, (ANoioD) AvMssaidx3 O00 It .00 — OU37101-1101.L3U — Figure 27. Attitudes of homeowners toward expressways in different geographic areas.

o o It ci It r- 'nv '.0 —

(AlnuooM) '.0 a> en — l•- ('4 SUPPLEMENTARY STUDY 3N1dN1f11 A3Sl3f A3N The sound-level-reduction data collected for the three sup- (insc M3N) N plementary-study experiments were used to evaluate the 31v,LS131Nl sound-reduction potential of various highway landforms and landscaping treatments. The analysis of these data AVMflIVd 0000000 31VIS N13HJ10N 0 is described under the following headings. 0

0, 00000 Experiment 1, Distance vs Sound-Level Reduction AvMSS31dX3 TIDrIArlHs A graph was plotted of the relationship of measured sound- I- U level reduction versus distance. For comparison with the 0) en 0 (.4000 N N AVMSS3IdX3 QNVISI ONOl measured values, a theoretical curve of the same coordi- 0, 0 nates was plotted, using the following equation: * I- AV1331OPiI1lVfl 00 Cl 0'. N .4 0 0 LL 5 20log'— (2) rX 000 N en en C. 3)(IdNlf11 1fl3I13NNOD 00 V ('4 ci In en IT 0) in which (vissmia io ONIN) L = sound-pressure level at distance r from sound 0) " 0 en N 000 3)IIdM1fl1 VIMVAlASNN3d source; Lx = sound-pressure level at distance Ta from sound F- (9lnflsnn1vH) 000000 "00 en en c-i en source; and 3)udNrn1 VINVA'TASNN3.1 r and rx are measured perpendicular from the center line of the outside lane to the respective microphones.

Because 20 log r/ r5, = sound-level reduction, r5, = 19 ft. Figures 28a and 28b are plots of the theoretical and measured distance results for the New Jersey Turnpike areas. The shaded area between each pair of curves represents the amount of difference between the theoretical and measured values attributed to measurement variability. As z 0 shown in Figure 28c, the average difference for the two F-, 0, FzJ * Handbook 01 Noise Control, Cyril M. Harris, McGraw-Hill, New York (1951). 29

locations is sufficiently small that the theoretical curve ,30 can be taken as an accurate indication of sound-level reduction resulting from the distance variable under field conditions. MEASURED The same technique of plotting both measured and THE0RETIL ] theoretical curves, using the same equation, was applied in

!: a. New Jersey Area 1 all the remaining locations for the supplementary-study I experiments.

0 50 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 DISTANCE (II) Experiment 2, Highway Depression and Elevation vs Sound-Level Reduction

The depressed-highway analysis involves six landforms at six different locations (Figs. 8 through 13): Location 1.—When the theoretical sound-level reduction for any given distance was compared with the measured sound-level reduction for this data for the same given distance, it was found that the two differ by about 4 dBA at any one distance. At a distance of 50 ft however, the theoretical sound-level reduction exceeded the measured sound-level reduction by 2.4 dBA; this was probably due to the fact that the 40-degree slope at this point had the effect of echoing the emitted sound from the highway and thus lowering the sound-level reduction from what it would have been had there been no slope. At all points beyond this distance the measured sound-level reduction exceeded the theoretical reduction as elevation increased; this is partially because the measuring points were out of the direct line of sound. At this location, the data indicate that elevation does affect sound-level reduction (see Fig. 29). Location 2.—When the two graphs for this landform were compared, it was found that sound levels were not substantially reduced up to a distance of 250 ft. Beyond a. Average of Areas 1 and 2 this point, the measured sound-level reduction exceeded the theoretical reduction. At this location, elevations to a distance of 250 ft were relatively small, but beyond this 0 50 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 distance elevations were such as to increase the sound-level Figure 28. Sound-level reduction curves for Experiment 1. reduction substantially and again show that the sound-level reduction potential of elevated landforms is greater than that of distance itself (see Fig. 30). Location 3.—At this location, the measured sound-level reduction at 50 ft is below the theoretical sound-level reduction as a result of a steep slope on the side of the highway at an elevation of 54 ft, indicating that the higher the which caused an echo effect and hence a sound amplifica- elevation, with the horizontal distance constant, the smaller tion. Beyond 50 ft, the land is level, so that sound waves is its effect on sound-level reduction (see Fig. 32). This traveling up the slope tend to pass over readings taken on relationship may have been the result of an echo effect the ground for distances exceeding 50 ft. The bank served which increased as the elevation increased, as well as the as a barrier to the sound and all other distances were not fact that the measurement points may have been closer to in a direct line of sound. Thus, the measured sound-level the source of the sound as the elevation increased. reduction for distances greater than 50 ft greatly ex- Location 5.—At this location, the horizontal distance ceeded the theoretical reduction (see Fig. 31). Study of from the highway was constant at 87 ft. The graph for the this location shows that the sound-level reduction potential measured data (Fig. 33) indicates that elevation has its of a landform is increased where the emitted sound is greatest effect on sound-level reduction at 40 ft (the peak reflected away from the land by a barrier or other means. point) and decreases on either side of this point. The Location 4.—At this location, horizontal distance was measured sound-level reduction is greater at elevations held constant so that the theoretical sound-level reduction ranging from 10 to 50 ft, indicating again that elevation would also be constant. The greatest difference between has a sound-reduction potential. the measured and theoretical reductions was at an elevation Readings were also taken at a greater constant horizontal of 12 ft, and the smallest difference between the two was distance (137 ft). The graph for these measured data 30

40

35

I— .tnt-o30 L= AIFFERENCE DUE TO LANOFOEM 225

15

10

A.

0.— I I I I I I I I 0 50 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Figure 29. Diagram and sound-level reduction DISTANCEII) curves for Location 1. Figure 30. Diagram and sound-level reduction curves for Location 2.

(Fig. 34) indicates that the sound-level reduction increases as the elevation increases. These points on the landform overpass created an echo effect and amplified the sound. were not in a direct line of sound, and the slope again The highway itself also reflected the sound upward (see served as a barrier to reflect the sound away from the Fig. 35). points of measurements. Location 6—The theoretical sound-level reduction at The elevated-highway-section analysis involves two loca- this location is substantially greater than the measured tions (Figs. 14 and 15): reduction, mainly because concrete walls surrounding the Location 5a.—At this location, in which the landform was a continuation of the landform in Location 5, the measured sound-level reduction was slightly greater than the theoretical reduction. At both 87 and 137 ft from the highway, the measured reduction is less than 2 dBA greater than the theoretical reduction, indicating that small highway elevations do not substantially reduce sound levels (see Figs. 33 and 34).

A.

Figure 31. Diagram and sound-level reduction Figure 32. Diagrams and sound-level reduc- curves for Location 3. tion curves for Location 4. 31

Location 7—The measured sound-level reduction at this location is greater than the theoretical reduction; the dil- ference between the two curves shows the effect of a steep decline from the side of the highway. The first three readings were either on the decline or near the base of the 1 T decline, and most of the emitted sound passed over these Location 5 points of measurement, so that the measured sound-level reduction exceeded the theoretical reduction. At the other two points, however, the decline had little effect on the sound-level reduction, and the measured and theoretical sound-level reductions at these distances were very close because the measuring points were again in the line of Jj O sound (see Fig. 36). NO Thus, this experiment demonstrated that the depressed ".- highway or cut shows the most potential for sound-level Location 8 reduction; however, homes must be out of the line of sound, shielded by some solid barrier, before the maximum sound reduction is obtained. Location 5 (Fig. 33) exhibited the greatest sound-level reduction. The elevated highway or fill gave the same indications. If the homes are out of the line of sound, the maximum benefit in sound-level reduction 20 M2 ~ 1~1 : z flllllllll7l~,~- is obtained; however, in this case, only a small area close to the highway has a higher sound-level reduction, Location

o 7 (Fig. 36). -ED 10 Figure 33. Diagrams and sound-level reductions for Locations Experiment 3, Tree Density vs Sound-Level Reduction 5 and 5a, constant distance of 87 feet from highway. Location 8.—In this experiment on tree density, the measured sound-level reduction is about 2 dBA greater than the theoretical reduction under the conditions shown in Figure 37. Data from this one location, while incon- clusive, substantiate the general indication from the other experiments that trees have only a small effect on the reduction of noise from a highway as compared to various landforms. Figure 37 also indicates that sound levels do not increase measurably as tree density increases: even though the highway is obscured by trees, the sound filters through.

Location 5

DO

Location 8

Figure 34. Diagrams and sound-level reductions for ''° ' Locations 5 and 5a, constant distance of 137 feet from Figure 35. Diagrams and sound-level reduction curves for highway. Location 6. 32

P

I I I I 0 100 25 175 200 225 250 275 1 50 DISTANCE ((I) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DISTANCE III - Figure 37. Aerial diagram and sound-level reduc- Figure 36. Diagram and sound-level reduction curves for Location 7. tion curves for Location 8.

A sound-disturbance threshold level of about 68 dBA Location 9.—At this location the tree density was con- exists, above which more people living next to expressways stant at 100 percent and the distance was varied. When will perceive the sound as a disturbing factor than those the results were plotted (Fig. 38), the measured sound- who will not. level reduction was about 2 dBA greater than the theoreti- Average sound level at the house is statistically unre- cal reduction between 70 and 150 ft from the highway; lated to the degree of disturbance reported by homeowner. this is the same finding as noted for Location 8. From No threshold level of traffic visibility exists as related 200 to 300 ft, a sharp increase in sound-level reduction was to sound perception of homeowners. noted; however, this indication is of limited use because Percent traffic visibility is unrelated to the degree of rights-of-way more than 400 ft wide are uncommon. disturbance reported by the homeowner. It was planned in this supplementary-study experiment to investigate the effect of trees on sound-level reduction at other locations. However, the difficulty of finding proper locations within the time and cost limitations of the program precluded additional study. From the two locations LI investigated, and from other properties measured in the Iw -w• w primary data collection, there is some indication that trees do reduce sound levels but not enough to justify a large expenditure for this purpose alone. I — .. TT : SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Preliminary Analysis

The findings of the preliminary analysis indicated that landscaping/ landforms affect sound levels from expressways, but that many variables contribute to the total sound- level reduction. The average peak sound level ranged from 90 to 95 dBA at the highway and 70 to 75 dBA at the house.

Two-Way Relationships

The findings from the examination of two-way relation- Figure 38. Diagram and sound-level reduction curves for ships between variables are as follows: Location 9. 33

Average sound level at the house is statistically unre- Sound levels and depression are related to property lated to a homeowner's attitude toward locating next to a values, but the relationship is not statistically significant. highway again. Change in property values is unrelated to quantity of Distance of a house from the highway is statistically landscaping. unrelated to a homeowner's attitude toward locating next to a highway again. Density of trees is slightly related to average sound- Interview Analyses level reduction. Noise from trucks was found to be the most serious Average sound-level reduction is statistically related disturbance. Other disturbance factors, including vibration, to elevation or depression of highway relative to the fence light, and odor, are present but are not as objectionable or and house (out of the line of sound). as acute as truck noise. The correlation analysis indicated no significantly strong relationships. Highways cause economic problems for high-rise apartments located next to the highway and in the line of Multiple-Regression Analysis sound; rent concessions are given and turnover is higher for units located next to the highway. The computed equation from the multiple-regression analy- Farm owners are bothered by the same problems as sis, derived from data observations of 63 diverse locations, are urban and suburban property owners (truck noise and yielded predictions within 2 dBA of actual sound-level reduction readings between the highway and the fence, lack of maintenance of right-of-way); however, their com- using six variables. plaints are not as strong or as frequent as those of the suburbanites. Impact of Highway on Property-Value Economics People accept highways more readily in older, less expensive areas. Shielding the highway thrugh plantings The most objective measure of economic impact hastens their acceptance of the expressway. usable for large numbers of homes was the difference between sale and resale prices of properties that had been sold more than once. Supplementary Study The value of homes next to and away from a highway changes at the same rate. The supplementary study showed that trees reduce sound The mean expenditure for landscaping did not differ levels only slightly, and that depressed highways or cut statistically for properties next to and away from the showed more potential for reducing sound levels than highway. elevated highways.

CHAPTER THREE

APPLICATION OF FINDINGS

The findings of this study have the most value to the high- the most directly usable findings are: way engineer in selecting roadway landforms and in speci- Depressed highways reduce sound levels 10 to 15 fying right-of-way landscaping. However, the findings are also of value to a wide variety of persons and private and dBA. government groups. Specific possible uses of the results by With a 200-ft right-of-way, dense trees reduce sound these persons and groups are summarized in the following levels only about 2 to 4 dBA more than the reduction due paragraphs. to distance alone; however, failure to screen the highway from adjacent properties within about 5 years will result HIGHWAY ENGINEERS in more complaints from homeowners. Highway engineers can balance the reported sound-reduc- Sound levels at a right-of-way fence can be predicted tion values of highway elevation and depression, and of to within 2 dBA using the multiple-regression equation trees, against the cost, both in dollar value and degree of developed. Levels above 68 dBA will be sufficiently dis- complaint by adjacent property owners. In this context, turbing to increase the likelihood of homeowner complaints. 34

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HOMEOWNERS

Agencies concerned with funding and choosing locations In deciding how much money to spend on landscaping for for new limited-access highways can use the findings of sound reduction alone, homeowners, especially those adja- this study as an aid in decision-making. Most significant cent to highways, can use the findings concerning sound- to such agencies is the finding that the presence of an level reductions of trees. Whatever their decision, home- expressway, or the presence or absence of right-of-way owners next to highways may find consolation in the finding landscaping at such an expressway, does not depreciate the that, regardless of the annoyance, most people living next to value of adjacent properties. However, complaints from a highway eventually recognize its over-all value and come adjacent property owners can be minimized by depressing to accept it. Homeowners also may use the deed-searching the roadway and screening it from view; the value of such procedures diagrammed in Appendix C to search their own complaint reduction must, of course, be balanced against deeds. the cost. Highway agencies also can evaluate the complaint- reduction potential of improved right-of-way maintenance. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Landscape architects can use the findings concerning sound- REAL-ESTATE DEVELOPERS level reduction and screening value of trees and bushes in landscaping designing, both next to and away from a high- The finding that the value of properties adjacent to limited- way. access highways is not adversely affected should help builders decide whether to develop a given area, and DEED-SEARCHING AGENCIES whether to grant purchase-price concessions. Apartment County agencies charged with maintaining and searching builders can use the finding that noise levels are frequently for deeds may benefit from examination of the various excessive at apartments facing a highway in orienting and/ deed-searching procedures diagrammed in Appendix C. or soundproofing a new building. Real-estate salesmen also By comparing their own method with those of other coun- will be interested in the general economic finding concern- ties, methods of simplification may be suggested. ing property values. TRUCKING COMPANIES AND TIRE AND MUFFLER POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS MANUFACTURERS Trucking companies and tire and muffler manufacturers Persons seeking a home can use the property-value findings should note that the most frequent and most acute com- in deciding whether to buy a home next to a highway; in plaint from owners of properties adjacent to highways is fact, they may find, as did some owners surveyed, that such truck noise. Although new highways can be depressed or a property may actually have more advantages than one elevated to reduce noise levels (funds permitting), the away from a highway—that is, more land, a rear fence, problem remains to reduce levels at the source—especially and fewer neighbors. Potential home buyers can also for existing highways with little elevation or depression roughly estimate the degree of noise disturbance to expect relative to adjacent properties. Quieter truck mufflers and by examining the landform and landscaping of a property tires would probably hasten the acceptability of highways next to a highway. to adjacent property owners.

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS does not affect the value of that property. However, people living next to such highways indicated that they would Based on the data collected and analyzed for the study, accept the presence of the highway better if it were con- the following conclusions are drawn: cealed from view by landscaping. Presence of a limited-access highway adjacent to a Sound from trucks is the most objectionable highway property does not devalue the property. disturbance to persons living next to limited-access highways, regardless of geographic location. Other disturbance Presence or absence of landscaping on the right-of- factors (vibration, light, odor) are present, but are much way of a limited-access highway adjacent to a property less objectionable. 35

Landscaping and landforms affect highway sound Remedial Actions levels, but the amount of reduction or increase contributed Reduce noise from trucks at the source through by an individual landscaping element (such as trees) is improved tire and muffler design. difficult to determine. However, supplementary study dem- Depress highways wherever possible. onstrated that trees reduce sound level only minimally, and Shield properties from the sight of adjacent highways that highway depression is potentially the greatest single by planting trees and shrubs in the right-of-way. Shielding reducer of sound level. growth should occur within 5 to 7 years. Attitudes relating to disturbance factors of people Establish a program to maintain highway right-of- living next to a highway, even in the same geographic way at a standard of cleanliness and neatness comparable location, vary greatly. Therefore, a large sample size is to that of adjacent property. necessary to reveal any significant findings. From the present sample, it was learned that people living in older, relatively less-expensive homes next to limited-access high- Suggested Research ways tended to accept associated disturbances more readily Continue the regression analysis to establish an equa- than people in more expensive homes; however, Los tion(s) for predicting sound-level reductions at properties Angeles homeowners interviewed found the highway ac- adjacent to limited-access highways. (The recommended ceptable, regardless of property value. procedure for continuing the regression analysis is shown Lack of proper maintenance of highway right-of-way in block-diagram form in Fig. 20.) was the second most objectionable highway annoyance. Study ways of improving measures of tree density, Equations developed through multiple-regression visibility, and right-of-waymaintenance level. Refine meth- analysis are useful in designing expressway landscaping and ods of obtaining, weighting, and analyzing attitudes of landforms. homeowners next to expressways. Sound disturbance at high-rise apartment buildings Conduct more detailed attitude surveys on a larger, located adjacent to a limited-access highway is highly sample of homeowners adjacent to limited-access highways objectionable and caused apartment owners to make eco- than those conducted in the present study, with concentra- nomic adjustments for units facing the highway. tion on differences in sensitivity of homeowners in different Farm areas have the same complaints as the suburban income groups and different geographic areas. areas, but not as many. The sound-level threshold is lower Study in detail the effects of different landscape treatments or combinations of treatments on highway distur- (about 10 dBA) because the background sound level is bances. about 10 dBA lower. Study the effects of highway noise on the economics Measurements of such variables as tree density and of high-rise apartments in sufficient detail to aid apartment- highway visibility vary among observers because no stan- building planners. dardized measures are available. Conduct further study of property value on a larger Sale and resale prices are the best indicator of prop- sample to reduce the effect of other variables in the erty value, regardless of geographic location. analysis. Study the feasibility of converting county deed- RECOMMENDATIONS recording and searching procedures to automatic-data- processing equipment; such a conversion would facilitate From the conclusions, two groups of recommendations are all deed searches. made. The first group lists remedial actions that can be Study the economic feasibility of air conditioning or taken to reduce highway disturbances; the second group soundproofing homes along limited-access highways to suggests areas for additional research. decrease highway disturbance.

APPENDIX A

DATA-COLLECTION FORMS AND QUESTIONNAIRES CHECKLIST FOR HOMEOWNER'S INTERVIEW E. Additions to property and landscaping by previous owner. (Check or indicate size where applicable)

1. ______sq. ft. of land 3. ______trees 5. Patio Interviewer 2. ft. of fence -I. bushes 6. Others Date Rough Sketch or Description Showing Locetion of Landscaping Additions

A. Heeding (Mr. ) F. Effects of the Highway (Mrs.) 1. Name(Miss) 2. Street Address 1. Was the highway a. In b. - Under construction, when you purchased/rented your home? 3. City 4 Sub-division & Lot No. 2. Do you experience any disturbance from the highway either while in the house or out in the yard? a. Yes b. No 5. House is: a._...... owned by occupant b. rented from owner - - 3. What are the disturbances and how severe are they? (Rank in order of degree of disturbance and B. Property Description (Numbers or check where applicable) indicate severity by V for very severe, S for severe, and H for medium severe) -Stories 5. Basement (Unfinished) a. ...Full b...... Half a. Noise b. Vibration c. Appearance Finished Rooms 6. -Attic (Unfinished) d. Odor e. Lights Baths 7. a. Garage for _Cars b. Carport for _Cars Li. Is there any particular time of the day and/or season of the year when the identified disturbances are most objectionable? Explain. Li. Approx. - sq. ft. of floor space in 8. -Air-conditioning (total house) finished rooms Disturbance Season Time of the Day Comments a. Noise C. Economic Factors and Sales Circumstances b. Vibration 1. Purchase price/monthly rental (exclusive of utility charges) paid for house $ c. Appearance 2. Date on which house was purchased/rented at this price d. Odor 3. Special concessions included in purchase/rental price Li. Length of time house was up for sale/rent before purchase/rental a. Lights What measures have you taken to isolate yourself from the identified 5. Name of realtor who handled sale/rental 5. disturbances of the highway? a. 6. Date on which house was previously purchased/rented Noise: - (1) Shifting of bedrooms (2) Air-conditioning 7. Previous purchase/rental price $ (3) Others 8. Special concessions included in previous purchase/rental price 1,. Vibration: (1) Shock-isolation of house from foundation (2) Caulk windows 9. Name of realtor who handled previous sale/rental (3) Others______

D. Additions to the house by previous owner c. Appearance (concealment): (1) Fence between house and highway (2) Shrubs______Increasing Total Space in House (3) Others______1. Rooms, totalling sq. ft. 2. Baths Other - 3. d Odor: Finishing-off Previously Unfinished Space (1) Air-conditioning (2) Others Li. -Rooms, totalling ______sq. ft. 5.Naths 6. Other e. Lights: (1) Heavy blinds or drapes on windows (2) Others Built-in Services and Appliances (Check where applicable) 6. What measures could the highway designer take to reduce highway disturbances more effectively? 7. -Gas Heat 10. Radiators or Convectors 14. Stove 8. Oil Heat 11. Base-board heaters 15. _Refrigerator a. Noise: - b. Vibration: -Dishwasher 9. -Electric Heat 12. Forced-air Vents 16. Appearance(Concealment): 13. ______Air-conditioning (total house) 17. .Other Odor: Lights:______Flooring (Square-footage) Other: 20. 21. Asphalt or Vinyl Tile 18. Hardwood ParLiuet 7. Have you ever lodged a complaint about disturbances from the highway? If so, about what disturbances 19. ______Wall-to-Wall Carpeting 22. Other and with whom? 8. Would you again buy a house this close to the highway? Explain______DATA RECORDINO FOFI FaIEOER INTERVIEW FCRM

Do you feel noise is a disturbing factor? Name Date______

No Yes; StreetAddress______City, State Eubdivision Name Excessive Disturbance, - Disturbing, - Occasional Disturbance Readings (dba) Can you attribute the noise disturbance to any specific source or sources? Noise: From Distance to Road(ft) Average Maximum

No : Yes; Back wall of house Side of house nearest road - Trucks, Cars, Sirens, - Muiflers, - Other Point on property nearest road Under or next to bedroom window On patio, terrace or in backyard Have you taken any action to reduce noise disturbance? Other (state).

No : Yes; Traffic: % Cars______- Planted Trees Value $, - Air Conditioning, - Complained to Highway Dept., Estimated vehicles/hour . % Trucks______Other( ) Special conditions causing noise: grade , acceleration or deceleration lane______

4 What are your feelings about the right-of-way maintenance?

Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, - Extremely Poor, - Other Readings (dba) Vibration: From Distance to Road(ft) Average Maximum What are your feelings about the right-of-way fence? From wall of home nearest road Satisfactory, Poorly Maintained (Bad Condition), oo Lew, Other Other location (state)

Are there any other annoyances other than noise? I • Light: Facing Highway: No : Yes: Reading No. Average Intensity Flicker Count Time periodDistance to Vibration, Odor-Exhaust Fumes, - Lights, - Dirt-Soot, - Other (footcandles) (no. of flickers) meaa'd.over road (ft)

Would you object if the Highway Dept. planted more trees? (optional)

No : Yes; Why?______Odor: From side of home facing highway:

Would you object if the Highway Dept. installed a wooden fence? (optional) Subjective Reading (none, medium, bad)

No : Yes; Why?______Objective Reading. CO2 ppm Concealment Would you buy a house again as close to the highway? Pictures taken from side of home facing highway and covering entire length of road visible from Yes property.

No Estimated length of road visible______- Depends on other factors. % of Road Concealed = Length of road not visible due to concealment Total length visible if no concealment visible

Other coscoents: Landform Type: From landscape sketches from pictures taken Esthetic Value of Landscaping Treatment______

Sketch of property showing the home-highway relationship. Show all trees, shrubs and fences. Indicate that flora which is indigenous and that which is planted. Indicate that homeowner who is responsible for

planted or other added features. Show points from which readings are taken. SOUND SURVEY AND LAND DATA FORM Date: Location: Initials:

% Traffic Visibility Distance-Fence to House Density of Trees Fence El Volume of Trees House El Height of Fence Type of Trees Type of Fence Grade Approaching House Comments: Distance-Highway to Grade Leaving House Fence Location Code

Distance Highway co to Fence (Ft.) Location Code Distance Fence to -i ° House (Ft.) Tn U) - Distance Highway 0 Address to House (Ft.) -41 of rn rn Location Fence Elevation r- - Tn (Ft) - :D. -< — --4 (15 - House Elevation 0 C) (Ft.) Avg. Db at = Highway - Traffic Visibility " from House () Avg. Db at C) -4 Fence - I,, C) Density of Trees rn ; Avg. Db Reductioi > Highway to Fence Ln C) - çn Highway to Fence _ - Volume of Trees PS Highway to Fence rn Avg. Db at Highway Type of Trees C) rn PS ;Highway to Fence Avg. Db at m rn " House —4 Ln Approaching in --1 -< House Avg. Db Reductio l's Highway to House PS - Leaving U) House rn Avg. Db Reductio Fence to House Height of '0- Fence l's

Type of Fence 40

PROPERTY DATA FORM 5-029 Address

No. Street Development Town ICounty State Located on or Near Route ot No. Phone Listing T Bame I Number Listing on Tax Roles

Name Mortgage Held By Account No. Tax Value

Land Tax Value Improved Tax Value Total Listing in Deed Books (First Listing)

Grntee 1lndex No. Book No. & Page

Grantor Date

Consideration

Tax Stamps 1Valuation Based on Tax Stamps Listing in Deed Books (Second Listing)

Grantee Book No. & Page

Grantor Date

Consideration

Tax Stamps Valuation Based on Tax Stamps Listing in Deed Books (Third Listing)

Grantee Book No. & Page

Grantor Date

Consideration

Tax Stamps IValuation Based on Tax Stamps Lot Description

APPENDIX B LOCATING MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY SITES SELECTED FOR STUDY

Each figure contains a map of the area on which the graph of the highway from one of the homes in the area, measurement zone is shown with a dashed line, a photo- and a photograph of one of the homes from the highway. 41

4N IIIII! -

CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE

•;;")

Figure B-I. Connecticut Turnpike.

Figure B-2. Key map of Northern State Parkway and Long lslauI Expressway. 42

Figure B-4. Inset 2, Northern State Parkway and Long Island Figure B-3. Inset I, Northern State Parkway. Expressway. 43

1N3(T 3 N

oRTK

Figure B-S. Inset 3, Long Island Expressway. Figure B-6. Inset 4, Long Island Expressway. 44

INSET 6 tN INSET 5 LONG ISLAND EXPRESSWAY tN TEN EHENS LANE 4 Fron. MU UPLffih1Tn 1 L . !'' RERNST A1E LONG ISLANO EX'RE,SWA

if

Figure B-8. inset 6, Northern Slate Parkway and Long island Figure B-7. inset 5, Long island Expressway. Expressway. 45

watara

417

N ' 4LANE pdr

LWT ...... Trader a

L

J_ FT1fl\ 27 I

Figure 13-9. Key map of Pennsylvania and New Jersey areas. Figure 13-10. Inset I for Pennsylvania Turnpike. 46

INSET 2 Brandyvin Village

!.! _12 Ic1ng • •:) fly Piussia Tc

J Y.•

ROAf : tN A - INSET 3

Figure B-lI. Inset 2 for Pennsylvonia Turnpike. I uieie B 12. lOot 3 for SC/WV/kill Expressweiv. 47

tN

tN

O97

INSET 5

Figure B-13. inset 4, Interstate 295. Fijure B-14. inset 5, New Jersey Turnpike. 48

INSET I

/ N

Figure 8-15. Key map of Baltimore Beltway.

CD

Figure 8-16. Inset 1, Baltimore Beltway. 49

P .

t-. - - - - \

Figure B-17. Inset 2, Baltimore Beltway. Figure B-18. Inset 3, Baltimore Beltway. 50

INSET 5

INSET 4 tN

tN Iri a

*J2 RD AZ) ;

BELTW

- '-

1-igure B-I 9. inset l, Iiaitinio,e Beltway. Figuie 11-20. Inset 5, Ilaltiniore Beltway. 51

Figure B-21. inset 6, Balti,nore Beltway. 1iqure B-22. To/edo, Ohio area, Detroit-Toledo Expressway. 52

tN

SF'ERUAN WAY EF L_f VANDALS ST

VICTORY BLVD

UFTI tN [Iva -

*001505 $T !H:

VENTURA FREEWAY SLING nrninnAVt UUU U5JUUU ______uuuDonno I I -,

Figure B-23. Los Angeles area, San Diego Frees'ay Figure B-24. Los Angeles area, Ventura Freeway. 53

0000UDIII N GLINOON WAY ULIllOVn RAMONA RD

SAN 6EPNAOINO FREEWAY

HELLMAN AVE

]

1.111

El] Ullo nno T

Figure B-25. Los Angeles area, San Bernardino Freeway.

APPENDIX C

FLOW CHARTS OF DEED-SEARCHING PROCEDURES

This appendix contains flow charts of the deed-searching C-3 New York Rockland procedure followed during collection of data concerning C-4 New York Westchester sale and resale of properties in the study areas selected: C5 Connecticut Norwalk C-6 Maryland Baltimore Figure State Counties or City C-7 Maryland Baltimore (Water Department) C-I New Jersey Burlington, Camden, Gloucester C-8 Ohio Toledo C-2 New York Nassau C-9 California Los Angeles 54

INPUT: STREET ADDRESS INPUT: STREET ADDRESS

GO TO ASSESSMENT LISTS. LOOK GO TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING UP BLOCK AND LOT NUMBERS FROM AND DETERMINE BLOCK AND LOT TAX MAPS. NUPflER.

FOR BLOCK AND LOT, LOOK UP OWN- ERS NAME AND STREET ADDRESS. TRAVEL TO TOWN HALL AND LOOK UP ASSESSMENT LIST. FIND OWNER'S NAME.

GO TO GRANTEE INDEX AND FIND: DEED BOOK AND PAGE NO., DATE OF SALE. GO BACK TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING AND CONSULT GRANTEE INDEX. FIND DATE OF SALE, DEED BOOKS AND PAGE NO. GO TO DEED BOOK AND RECORD STAMPS.

GO TO DEED BOOK AND RECORD sale TAX STAMP VALUE AND AMOUNT OF MORTGAGE.

FROM DEED, RECORD: Stop previous owner, previous deed books, and page number, date of sale FROM DEED BOOK RECORD: L..I2! On assessment lists, deed book and page should be given. This would Previous owner, eliminate grantee index. Assessment lists and deeds are in different places. previous deed book and This is poor. Deed refers to previous deed numbers, if a resale. This is page no., good. date of sale. Figure C-I. Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties, System should have assessment lists in County office building. Better New Jersey. yet, should have card system as in Nassau County giving deed numbers for each address. This eliminates use of assessment lists. Figure C-3. Rockland County, New York. INPUT: STREET ADDRESSES

GO TO COUNTY MAP AND FIND SECTION;FOR THAT SECTION, GO TO SECTION MAP AND FIND BLOCK. FOR THAT BLOCK, GO TO BLOCK MAP AND FIND LOTS.

INPUT: NAMES AND STREET ADDRESSES ASK GIRL AT DESK FOR PRO- PERTY CARDS FOR ALL LOTS IN SECTION AND BLOCK DE- TERMINED FROM MAPS. GO TO GRANTEE INDEX AND LOOK UP: DATE OF SALE, DEED BOOK AND PAGE NO. FIND CARDS FOR LOTS OF IN- TEREST AND RECORD: owners all: deed book & page

dates of sales GO TO DEED BOOK AND RECORD TAX STAMP AMOUNT.

GO TO DEED ROOM AND LOOK UP DEEDS FOR PROPERTY. RECORD TAX STAMPS.

GO TO MORTGAGE ROOM AND LOOK UP MORTGAGE AMOUNT FOR PROPERTY.

FROM DEED, STOP RECORD PRE- I STOP VIOUS OWNER System is straightforward. The practice of separating deeds and mort- A simple procedure, but archaic. The county has no system of maps. gages is poor. This doubles the work involved in searching for them. All assessment lists are spread around in town halls. If the owner's name Baltimore County has good idea in putting them together. Having to go isn't known in the first place, it is impossible to use the records or to find to a clerk to get cards for properties is bothersome. the deed. Figure C-2. Nassau County, New York. Figure C-4. Westchester County, New York.

55

INPUT: STREET ADDRESSES INPUT: STREET ADDRESSES AND ELECTION DISTRICT NOS.

LOCATE TAX MAP AND LOT NO.

GO TO FILE AND PULL ALL CARDS FOR GIVEN STREET.

GO TO BOOK AND FIND: PRESENT OWNER ADDRESS DEED NO. FIND CARDS FOR ADDRESSES OF INTEREST AND RECORD ALL Owners GO TO DEED BOOK AND RE- Deed Book and Page Nos. CORD STAMPS, GRANTOR Dates of sales.

RESAL GO TO DEED BOOKS AND RECORD TAX STAMP AMOUNTS FOR ALL SALES. L.J GO TO GRANTEE STOP 1 INDEX AND FIND DEED BOOK AND PAGE NO. A good, simple system for a town. For resales, it lacks the desirability of a card system, the grantee index having to be consulted. This is same STOP system as one of those used in Baltimore County tax assessor's office. I I Best system seen yet. No outside help required. All information re- Figure C-5. City of Norwalk, Connecticut. quired for each property is readily available on cards. Deeds and mort- gages are together in same book. Figure C-7. Baltimore, Maryland. (Municipal Water Depart- ment.)

Tax Office: INPUT: STREET ADDRESS AND ELECTION DISTRICT

I LOCATE TAX MAP INPUT STREET ADDRESS

_ LOT OR PARcEL.

LocateTax LOT Map and Lot Number RECORD LOT NO. RECORD PLOT NO. ,MAP NO. [

Go toBook GO TO BOOK AND LOOK UP: GOTO CLERK AND OBTAIN: And Record: Owner Book giving sales his- Grantee: Deed No. tories for properties Address: Sales date in parcel. Deed Book and Page Number

Go to Deed GO TO DEED BOOK AND FIND: RECORD ALL OWNERS, Book and Record Deed book and page nos. Tax stamps Grantor: and dates for lot in- Stamps: terested in. Date ofSale Deed Bood and Page Previous owner? ' Number of Previous GO TO DEED BOOKS and Sale Record tax stamps for all owners. YES STOP GO TO GRANTEE INDEX I I and I Find deed book and _____ page no. I I STOP System is all right if lot numbers are known. Immediate reference is then System is straightforward. The map system could be improved upon; made to deed book. If, however, lot numbers are not known, the system maps are of poor quality and condition. However, locations of information becomes unworkable for any quantity of properties to be searched. Very are all in the same area and building, minimizing movement in collecting tedious and inefficient, data. Figure C-6. Baltimore, Maryland. (County Courthouse.) Figure C-8. Toledo, Ohio. 56

INPUT STREET ADRESS Information is kept in three buildings. Maps and books are not organized. Use of microfilm for deed records relatively poor because of the limited number of viewgraphs. Deeds did not always have tax stamps marked. Locate Lot Number r Locate Tax Map 'I, Go to Book and Record Grantee

Go to Grantee Index and Record: .._...... J Grantor Date of Sale Deed Book and Page Number

'Jr Go to ffle of Microfilms of Deed Book and Page Number and Record Tax Stamps

Ye

No

Figure C-9. Los Angeles, California.

APPENDIX D

STANDARD SCREENING CHARTS

'L I =Q& riL J r,qL J NO SIGNIFICANT SCREENING

LAAç 41 25% SCREENING

£ - JA A&a.. - iA.A.A& A AAL 4AAAek

50% SCREENING

â.A. AA AA AAAaAA A i AM4

75% SCREENING

100% SCREENING Figure D-1. Evergreen highway planting. 57

NO SLGNIFICANT SCREENING

25 % SCREENING

50% SCREENING

75 % SCREENING

LFtNINU Figure D-2. Deciduous highway planting.

ç J J çqJ J NO SIGNIFICANT SCREENING

25% SCREENING

50% SCREENING

75% SCREENING

00'f. SCREENING Figure D-3. Embankment or hill planting. 58

:s -, -' - /•-• r;;j: ei•

VIEW FROM THE HOUSE SCREEN PLANTING

2. ROAD IN OPEN TUNNEL

nmummul

VIEW FROM THE HOUSE INSIGNIFICANT _PLANTING • FENCE OARRIER, TRAFFIC INVISIBLE

VIEW FROM THE HOUSE SCREEN PLANTING

3. ROAD ON GRADE WITH HOUSE 0 0

SECTION INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

SECTION SCREEN PLANTING

4. HILL BETWEEN ROAD AND HOUSE

SECTION INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

SECTION SCREEN PLANTING Figure D-4. Insignificant and screen planting for various house/roadway landforms. 59

ROAD RAISED ON BANK

SECTION INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

SECTION SCREEN PLANTING

WALL ACROSS THE ROAD ir ULJ F SECTION INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

SECTION SCREEN PLANTING

ROAD ELEVATED ON PILLARS

VIEW FROM THE HOUSE INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

VIEW FROM THE HOUSE SCREEN PLANTING

DOUBLE DECK ROAD

VIEW FROM THE HOUSE INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

VIEW FROM THE HOUSE SCREEN PLANTING Figure D-4 (continued). 60

7 ROAD ELEVATED ON PILLARS

SECTION INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

SECTION SCREEN PLANTING

8. DOUBLE DECK ROAD

SECTION INSIGNIFICANT PLANTING

SECTION SCREEN PLANTING Figure D-4 (continued).

APPENDIX E DETAILS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES

This appendix contains details of the statistical analyses tions are: Northern State Parkway, P1 and P2; Long performed during this study. These analyses, results of Island Expressway, El through E5; Connecticut Turnpike, which are presented in Chapter Two of this report, are Cl through C7; and Baltimore Beltway, B! through B4. F-tests, f-tests, multiple-regression analysis, and correlation In. the column are listed, for mean sound-level, reduc- analysis. tion in dBA between the highway and fence for each sample location. F.TEST The entries in each cell are defined as follows: The F-test of data for significant differences between van- 0.001—The difference between sound-level reductions at ances of sound-level reduction from highway to fence was these locations would be observed by chance 1 time in 1,000 performed as a prerequisite to the f-test. A portion of the (a = 0.001). resulting matrix is shown in Figure E-1. In this figure, the 0.01—The difference between sound-level reductions at location column and row identify the location of sample these locations would be observed by chance 1 time in 100 means being tested for significant difference; the abbrevia- (a = 0.01).

61

Loca- tion dbA - - a.0O1 a c.oi .?.? 4 2 .2_ _2_ c1.05 _]_ .ii_ L ool Lool l El No significant difference —E2 15.5 1. 05 _ — —.001 —E2 Variance si1ificant]1' different ( a = .oi)

E4 14.2 .001 E4 35 1.6 • 1 1 1 E5 Cl 15.3 .05 .001 9 .001 • 1 • Ici C2 11.2 .001 .001 .001 0 .01 0 1 0 Lool 02 C3 10.9 10 .001 .001 • • • 1 • .001 C3

.001 - - — - - .01 1.001 201 01 - cz J_ L_ 2_22201 - .05 2k 001.01 ..QQ. 11.3 B2 • .oüi .00i • S S 5 001 .01 .001 .001 003 .01 JB2

2 .1.001. .05 5 001.001 .001Q5.001 34 ooi ,00l .00i .001 .00i .001 ooi .00i .00l .00i oi .001

Figure E-1. Portion of F-test matrix for significant differences between variances of sound- level reduction from highway to fence.

0.05—The difference between sound-level reductions at t-TEST these locations would be observed by chance 5 times in 100 As described in Chapter Two, a t-test was performed for (a = 0.05). significant differences between sample means and variances. Blank cell—The probability of observing this difference in A portion of the resulting matrix is shown in Figure E-2. sample means by chance is greater than 5 in 100. The location column and row are defined as in Figure Filled circle—The variances corresponding to the sample E- 1. The 0-2 row lists the variances; blank cell entries show means differ significantly; therefore, these sample means no significant difference between the two sample locations, cannot be compared by this statistical method for signifi- whereas an entry of 0.01 indicates that the difference cant difference. between locations would be observed by chance I time in About 10 percent of the variances differed significantly 100 (a = 0.01). (cells with filled circles in Fig. E-1); these were caused by uncontrolled variables and characteristics of the locations, MULTIPLE-REGRESSION ANALYSIS which probably include the following: General Theory of Multiple Regression Abnormal traffic-flow variability during sound-level recordings; The mathematical technique of multiple-regression analysis Topographic features that amplify or reflect sound is basically used to study the relationships between the from the opposite side of the highway; value of one variable, called the dependent variable, and Terrain differences which cause pulsations in sound- several other variables, called independent variables. In level recordings; and each instance, a hypothesis is made that the values of the Sound from sources other than highway. independent variables in some way determine or predict Further investigations at the specific locations of these the value of the dependent variable. variance differences, pointed out by the F-test, revealed The data required to perform a multiple-regression analy- that the differences were caused mostly by terrain differ- sis are a set of observations, each containing values for the ences and topographic features. However, it was felt that several independent variables, and the associated value of the variance differences were not large enough to preclude the dependent variable. Using the method of least squares,* the use of the data and that inclusion of the data would * See "Multiple Regression Analysis," Efroymsen, M. A., Mathematical Methods for Digital Computers, Part V (17), edited by A. Ralston and probably give a more representative data sample. H. S. Will, Wiley, 1960.

62

a linear equation of the form observed values of the dependent variable may be large. y=a+b1F1 +b2F2 +...+bF5 (E-1) Secondly, the assumption is made that the intercorrelations between the independent variables are at most negligible. If, is determined which best fits the observed data; that is, the in fact, high correlations do exist between two independent equation for which, when the observed values of the n variables, the multiple regression will use one in the equa- independent variables are substituted for the F's, the value tion and delete the other under the assumption that the most nearly equals the observed value of the dependent two variables will have the same effect on the value of the variable. The b's in the equation can be considered weights for the several independent variables because dependent variable and are thus redundant. For example, each b represents the relative influence that the variable in a situation where variables x2 and x3 are highly cor- it modifies has on the value of the dependent variable; more related the equation produced will delete the b2F term specifically, b measures the change in y due to a unit as shown: change in F. The letter a is a constant term used to pre- y = a + b1F1 + b3F3 + b4F4 + .. . + (E-2) serve equality between the mean of the predicted values of the dependent variable and the mean of the observed Whether or not these assumptions are fully met, the multi- values. ple-regression analysis yields valuable information concern- For best results in the use of multiple-regression analysis, ing the interrelationships among the variables and the two assumptions must be made about the data to be ana- predictability of the dependent variable, and is thus a useful lyzed. First, it must be assumed that the selected inde- analytic tool. pendent variables are related in a continuous linear fashion to the value of the dependent variable. If the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent vari- Preliminary Multiple-Regression Equation ables is not linear or not continuous, the multiple regression The computed multiple-regression equation for the land- will still produce the best straight line to fit the data and thus yield information concerning the relative importance scaping/landform observations from 63 locations is as of the dependent variables; however, the equation obtained follows:

will not be a good predictor of the value of the dependent Yc = - 11.303 + 0.244 (F1) + 0.048 (F2) - 0.097 (F3 ) variable-that is, the differences between the predicted and + 0.119 (F4) + 1.362 (F5 ) + 1.143 (F6 ) (E-3)

Loca- tion P1 3.26 P2 2.35 h P2 El 1.83 El 5 .. :... - - - L?_ No significant difference E3 3.20 E3 Significant difference at 0.02 0.01 E4 4.17 E4 E5 10.O4 1 0.01 0.01 E5 CL E - - - 29 CL C2 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.0 C2

C3 0.69 0.01 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 C3 i- ---

C7 2.49 0.01 0.01 Bi 1.62 - - 0.01 - El B2 0.81 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0

21 ______B3 B4 - 1.57 - - - -0.01 - - - - - B4 Figure E-2. Portion of t-test matrix for significant differences between sample means and variances. 63

in which are the prediction values. The R2 for this equation of Appendix G 0.855 indicates good reliability of the predicted values. Data Summary The other reliability checks are the (-statistics and beta Column Code coefficients. For the derived equation, t-statistics and beta coefficients were calculated. The (-statistic, calculated for Yc = Expected sound-level reduction (dBA) 3 each regression coefficient, yields a confidence measure for F1 = Absolute sound-level reduction (dBA) at that coefficient; for example, if the calculated (-value for a the highway (19 ft from outer lane) 1 particular coefficient is greater than 2.0, the likelihood of F2 = Distance (ft) highway to fence (edge of that coefficient being determined by chance is only 5 out right-of-way) 8 of 100. The beta coefficients are a standardized form of F3 = Cut (ft below fence) (depressed highway) 11+ the original regression coefficients. In other words, the re- F4 = Fill (ft above fence) (elevated highway) 11— gression coefficients are dependent on the unit of measure F5 = Percent density of trees (ground cover) 14 of the independent variables while the beta coefficients are F6 = Percent volume of trees (ground cover not; thus, these beta coefficients may be used to measure plus height) 15 the relative influence of the several independent variables. The beta coefficients may not, however, be used for com- With this equation, the best estimate of the probability paring variables between two different regression equations. that a given sound-level reduction will occur may be ob- The (-statistic for variables F1 through F6 were found to tained by computing the value of Yc for any set of land- be as follows: for F1, ( = 2.3603 (dBA at highway); F2, form/landscape measures previously shown (i.e., F3, F2 = 6.0126 (distances highway to fence); F t = 2.5392 F6). 31 (cut); F4, z = 2.0155 (fill); F5, ( = 0.4094 (tree density); For example, the data recorded for location E7 on the and F6, t = 0.1956 (tree volume). Long Island Expressway (Appendix G) are as follows: The (-statistic shows that of the six variables, tree density F1 =91.5 dBA; F2 =l7O ft; F3 =O;F4 =5 ft; F5 =30 and volume have the lowest reliability as predictors. percent; and F6 = 30 percent. The beta coefficients for variables F1 through F6 were found to be as follows: for F1, /3 = 0.243; F2, = 0.560; To determine the predicted sound-level reduction for /3 F3, = 0.240; F4, /3 = 0.190; F5, f3 0.070; and F6, these observations using the computed equation, the follow- /3 = = 0.031. Beta coefficients measure the relative influence ing steps of calculation are performed: /3 of each variable toward the predicted value; however beta Yc = - 11.303 + (.244) (91.5) + (.048)(170) and t must be interpreted simultaneously. If t is not sig- - (.097)(0) + (.119)(5) + (1.362)(.30) nificant, statements about beta are of little value for that + (1.143)(.30) = 20.44 dBA. coefficient. The predicted sound-level reduction for this location is thus 20.44, which compares to a measured sound-level re- CORRELATION ANALYSIS duction at the location of 20.9. With this example, the error was 0.46 dBA which is a good prediction, based on The equation used for the correlation analysis described in the selected variables. Chapter Two is as follows:

Multiple-Regression-Equation Reliability Checks (E-4) Several reliability tests were conducted on the computed in which: equation. The first of these was the multiple R2. The multiple R2 for the regression equation is a measure or an x = mean %AV/year of houses next to the highway; and indication of the degree of reliability in the predictions. y = mean sound level of houses next to highway (in The higher the R2 (between 0 and 1.0), the more reliable dBA).

64

APPENDIX F

GRAPHS OF TWO-WAY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VARIABLES

Abbreviations keyed in these graphs represent the following H Pennsylvania Turnpike (Harrisburg) locations: N Cherry Hill, New Jersey P Northern State Parkway B Baltimore Beltway S Schuylkill Expressway C Connecticut Turnpike T Pennsylvania Turnpike (Philadelphia) E Long Island Expressway W New Jersey Turnpike (Woodbury)

o

T ri

ii T

27 26

25 , 2 24 V 0 23 x 22 0 21 0 0 zo a r 0 a ' 2 X A v ISV ° a V A 17 •U no 0 0 00 6- 00 o 0 -* ------15- o. 0 S a '4 0 13 A 12 II ID I I I I I I I I I III 111111111 i I 1111111 0t00 ISO 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 DISTANCL PIIOPIWAT I UN000L WI DISTANCE FENCE TO SOUSE (PP Figure F-I. Highway-to-house distance vs average high- Figure F-2. Fence-to-house distance vs average fence-to- way-to-house sound-level reduction. house sound-level reduction. 65

.aA

25- U £ •

4. S - £ a 2- a a 9- lB - A lIT I 0 8 A lo £ IN - V - U V0 a S N- 115- , a 4 0 S • , , 0 2 I3 . I o V 05 fl 112 - V 3 a . 0 2 0 V to 08: - o 0 0 0 IT - I. CI 0 ri A El IA El 60 IA RI H 0 S

OOL 0065111 OF TREES '1.) 50 ioo Iso DISTANCE HIGHWAY TO FENCE (II) Figure F-S. Percentage of true density vs Figure F-3. Highway-to-fence distance vs average high- average highway-to-fence sound-level reduc- way-to-fence sound-level reduction. tion.

II - £ 08 10- '0 l .9- Ii HI I 0 NI I. pP a Iv l 17 - T

6-

5 - 0 V - U 4 A 0 l3 - 0 2- 0 0 . 1 -0 A o 0 1 - v o 0 LA A 9 - a S 8 0 1 V • V S 0 0 0 6- 8 15- 0 0 4- 0 IS -

12- A II - IC I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TRAFFIC VISIBILITY FROM HOUSE I/I

Figure F4. Percentage of traffic visibility from BUY HOUSE AGAIN 7 house vs average highway-to-house sound-level reduction. Figure F-6. Buy house again vs sound level at house. 66

ROUSE AGAIN BUY ROUSE AGAIN ON OTHER FACTORS BUY ROUSE AGAIN Figure F-7. Buy house again vs highway-to-house distance.

40

I I

30 0 aa

25

20 V V .

p S. SOS OG £ £0 OL Y

10 ID NOV OCCASIDNULLV DISTURBING VERY DISTURBING DISTURBING DISTURBING DISTURBING DISTURBING DISTURBING ROMEOWNERS PERCEPTION OF NOISE LEVEL IIOMESWNERS PERCEPTION OF NOISE LEVEL Figure F-8. Homeowners' perception of noise level vs average Figure F-9. Homeowners' perception of noise level vs high- high way-to-house sound-level reduction, way-to-house distance. 67

BELOW HOUSE ABOVE HOUSE Figure F-JO. Highway-to-house elevation/depression vs average highway-to-house sound-level reduction.

55

0 I. Cl IA al IA HI a a ID NI 50 I. p1 a Iv SI a V T Ix w

A as V V A A

0 V

00 a a A V IV S VV - S V

15- S

- 0 0 H A 0

0 - 0 0 0 - 0

ri

BELOW PENCE ABOVE PENCE Figure F-lI. Highway-to-fence elevation/depression vs average highway-to-fence sound-level reduction.

68

APPENDIX G

SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENTS AND ECONOMIC DATA

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS MPLE NOISE CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS SAUNIT DISTANCE ELEVATION > TREES & SHRUBBERY HWY. GRADET FENCE - -- w -- -- il > .-e'-oo°-oc

.2 ..'mo

(a) NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE (WDBURY, N. J.)

Wi 10 osh uve. 92.7 714.9 17.8 914.3 73.8 20.5 2.7 115 75 10 0 0 6 .05 .01 hmhaa U 0 14 LI

18 Ash Ave. 93.1 76.0 17.1 93.2 72.14 20.8 3.7 W2 110 70 180 0 -1 60 0 0 none Ii U 14 544

543 26 Ash Ave. 92.6 714.5 18.1 96 74J 15 1.14

5414 108 Holly Drive 93.6 72.0 21.6 93.8 71.1 22.7 1.1

545 122 Holly Dhive 92.0 70.7 21.7 94.14 69.7 214.9 3.6

w6 212 Ivy 93.3 75.5 17 94.8 72 21.6 3.8 -41 0 70 0 0 1 none D D - -

W7 240 Ivy 92.6 17.7 93.7 741 12 1.9 75.7 7

93.1 19.4 0 548 200 N. 2nd. 0-treet 93.1 73.7 19.4 73.7 120 7 F 4 - (b) BALTIMERE BELTWAY (VOLUME 514,925/DAY, 12% TRUCKS)

3427 Philips Drive .5 70.9 12 2 66.7 .7 3.9 83 L I L 6 -

14.7 02 2512 Burridge Road 91.4 80.1 11.3 91.7 75.7 16.0 -

B3 125 WenytOk Driv* 92.1 /9.2 12.9 92 5 '( 15 R 2.9 70 80 150 *25' *20 60 0.10 0.02 PIEXCD I L 6 -

134 3625 Coronado Road 89.5 80.5 9.0 86.1 65.1 21.0 12.0 -

21 Dublin Road 7

06 2620 Burridgo Road 88.1+ 773 11.1 91.6 69.14 22.2 11.1 -

B7 2702 Burnidge Road 89.9 78.7 11.0 89)4 69.7 19.9 8.7 -

B8 3412 Fairview Road 89.5 80.3 9.2 91.2 73.4 17.8 6.6 -

3320 Croydon Road 89.8 -

BlO 3114 Fairview Road 91.5 79.5 12.0 91.3 76.4 14.9

Bll 3406 Fairview Road 89.3 81.6 7.7 +10 20 05 02 1400 0 1 6 -

012 137 Warwlok Drive 92.0 7_IL0.15 NIXW0 1 2 1 6 - o 0 = tense level with highway I Ohouse level with tense I = level § t = Inning highway = teens higher than highway • = houoo higher than loOse Ii = upgrade s side Inning highway - tenon lower than highway - = house lower than fenne 1 = downgrade b banh Inning highway 69

INTERVIEW INFORMATION ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS

a,C - •0

U '° u 0 - U W U 5) ° a) .0 0 U 0) C as - 0 Ca- 0 53 00 00 > C 0) ,. C 0 0 (5 (_ 0.) - . .

. < < : : NH 00 ______C 0 NH 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 21 29 30 31

6.8 18.5 2.7 65 1951 No Sat. Sat. No No None .55 13,500 8.62 16,500 - Yoo

3.62 15,500 1.8 2.2 121 1951 Uneat. No °gts None .55 13,500 7_57 16,000 6-5 No 000. Sat.

140 1951 No No None -56 13,500 D.P. Co.. Ureat.

2.3 84 1951 No Window Air Conditioning -53 12,000 8-56 13,000 8-60 13,900 6.9 115.8 No Diet. tjnsat. Unoat. NO

Wroto to Highway Dept. 1.25 8 -3.0 14 1951 No Vibration Treoo )..51+ 13,000 _55 12,500 - No Diet. Sat. RF

0 Neno -60 17,000 7-62 17,000 -2.0 0 Yoo No Sat. Uneat. No No

Air Conditloing .62 16,500 5-9) 17,500 -2.1 .0 2. No Slot. Uneat. Unoat. No No Wail to Wall Carpeting

6#3 ~9511 None 2-60 16,500 12-6') 16,500 -4.0 T. JO Yoo No Sat. Sat. No No

Ve)7 12- 12 81 1962 No No Planted few trees 32,002 ')8,500 - 1.0 51.5 51.5 No 3 Sat. 58

"2' Rate None 10,000 12,000 6.75 20.0 2.96 52 1962 No 3 Diet. 3 Set. No 55 62

Very Grass 127 1962 No 4 Sat. No Planted Poplar trees l+,5oo - 3 u'°"nse

1962 No Few trees 15,000 91 No 3 Diet. 3 Sat. Sat. Yeo

52- 12- No No None 13,500 i8,550 12.8 37.0 2.88 29 1962 Yeo 1 000. 2 Sat. Sat. 65 1

1962 Sat. Yeo No None 10,000 12.500 - 86 25.0 291 9 Dep 2 Diet. 3 Sat.

None 1'),505 132 1962 Yeo 1 No 1 Sat. Sat. No No

Vo,'2' No Air oondltioothg 16,500 - 132 1962 No 3 Sat. Sat. No

10- 150 1962 list. ______Sat. ______Sat. ______No ______No Planted Evergreens non 6,050 No 3 3 tofeor-

- -12.0 -2.8 1962 Sat. Sat. No No Few trees 12 ,500 11,000 ').25 37 Yos 1 DIet. 3

112 1962 No Fow trees 11,000 Yes N Diet. 3 Sat. Sat. No 57

- '"2' - 9)9 1962 Sat. Uneat. No No Poplar trees i'),SSO - No 3 4

70

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE UNIT NOISE CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS UISTANE IELEVATION lRLs & SHKUBBEKY HWY. GRAD11 ILNCE -- - 00) 04) 0 4-0J 4-44) (0 (0 C C - 0)0 000 0 04) 00 0 4) Z- 0 0 .---- (DC (DC C 0 . - ..p 4) 0( 4) Ø( 4 Q( 44 4-4 . 4) - 0 0 0 U- F- U- = U- 4) U- U 4)0 4-' 4-' 4)0 (D 4) -- 4- '0 '0 F- 4) 00 C (0 (0 44 (0 (0 -' > > - 4) 4-0 0 '-0 C 0 -' 4) 4) > (0 0 4-' (4. #0 F- 0-' 0-' U-- : - o C 0 4) 0 0 4) oaj 0) I c 0 0( 0 . . 0 C In '00 n- v.-. u- --0 E0 0 04) - 4) .C4) -- 04 -- 0) 0) 04 C 0) 0) 0) 04 0) 5 0) 04 0) o U- 44 0 = 0 - . 4- E in r in 0 4) 0 = (0 > 01 n 0 3 in 44 04 0 4) >4) >-- >-- >0 > >0) 3 4-' (0 0 C 00 - 0) 0. 0) 0. 3 (0 3 .- C 0. (0 it C Ls U- 0 0 0 4)4- 0L- (-4- 4)-- < C = C = C C C = C 0 4-) - 0- 2--- 0.0 4)0 4)4) > o 4) - 0 = 0 #0 U- - = I- 4- 0 = > = F- = C = _i = 3 La- I- - 1 2 3 f 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 19 20

Cl 23 Karen Drive 89.7 74.4 15.3 90.9 72.7 18.2 2.9 150 --10 95 55 0 10 .75 .38 ~--fi, U L 4 W..M

02 19 Dairy Farm Drive 90.8 79.6 11.2 92.0 79.2 32.8 1.6 100 50 150 n5 0 40 0 0 one L L 4 W-F1

C3 21 Dairy Form Drive 90.5 79.7 10.8 91.3 76.9 14.4 3.6 100 50 150 elO 0 35 0 0 one I L 4 W-M

C4 11 Dairy Form Drive 89.3 76.7 12.6 89.8 71.7 18.1 5.5 303 50 150 0 0 40 .25 1 .01 bed L 1 4 W-M

CS 15 00)-so Drive 91.2 76.1 15.1 93.0 76.3 16.7 1.6 100 60 160 010 05 35 .45 .i hfir U 1 4 W-M [-

C6 33 Karen Drive 90.3 76.2 14.1 90.8 74.0 16.8 2.7 100 70 170 0 0 2 .55 .13 [i..d I L 4

07 19 Karen Drive 92.0 72.1 1 19.9 90.5 69.3 21.2 1.3 40 140 -05 200 5 5 .60 .22 [onfir U L 1 4 W-M

(d) LONG ISLAND EXPRESSWAY (VOLUME 68,552/DAy, 10% TRUCKS)

El 17 Drive Village 62.9 22.6 86.1 62.5 23.6 170 60 230 -10 0 2 1.0 .8 iced L U 5

12 61 Drive Village 84.1 68.7 15.5 85.9 68.7 17.2 1.7 210 80 290 15 0 85 .05 .01 nixed L 1 5 C

03 12 Marlene Drive 84.4 76.3 13.1 88.6 74.6 14.o 50 145 0 0.9 95 0 90 .10 .03 jr 1 D 5 C

05 Marlene Drive 34 85.8 71.2 14.6 85.3 1 73.2 1 22.1 -2.5 100 175 -25 75 0 75 .05 .02 fir 1 1 5 1 C

16 2% 2% 73 Village Drive 92.5 69.1 23.4 92.8 210 69.1 23.7 0.3 55 265 -3 0 70 .10 .08 nixed 0 U 6 C

17 135 Village Drive 91.5 70.7 20.9 92.0 70.9 21.1 0.2 169 52 221 5 0 15 .30 .30 so. I L 6 C

E8 68 Terrehens 91.9 65.3 26.6 91.4 305 64.4 27.1 0.4 50 355 -10 0 100 0 0 one L 1 6 C

09 17 Jean Plane 92.3 72.9 19.5 91.6 72.4 19.2 86 80 166 -0.3 -20 0 100 0 0 one L L .5 C

EDO 15 Jean Place 92.3 72.9 19.5 91.6 72.4 19.2 86 80 166 -20 -0.3 0 100 0 0 ione L L .5 C

Eli 2% 2% 48 Terrehene 91.3 67.9 23.4 91.3 65.9 209 50 25.4 2.0 259 -15 0 100 .03 .01 oonf. U o 6 C

E12 22 Marlene Drive 90.2 72.3 17.9 91.1 71.9 19.2 1.3 90 5u 14o - 8 0 90 .10 .05 oonf. I 1 6 C

E13 14 Marlene Drive 84.4 76.3 13.1 88.6 74.6 14.o 0.9 50 145 L95 0 0 70 .05 .01 ir L L 5 C

C 0 - fence level with highway t 0 - house level with fneoo I Liovei § f=facing highway = foeoe higher than highway o= house higher than feooe 0 - upgrade s = side facing highway - - fence lower than highway - - house lower than fneoe I = downgrade b - book facing highway 71

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS INTERVIEW INFORMATION

C

5) 5) C 4) U '0 U 0 °°' 0 I 0 U 0 0 on 5) '5 0) N N C 0 tO 0 0) L 5) L 4-0 4-6) .0 to on 10 0 6)1 10 0 U C 5- 0 C C 6). 0 5) C) 5) Ct C 10 10 .0 •0 1-) 0 l_) 06)1 6)15) 5)10 10(5 6)0 015 15) +0 00) (0 C C C 0 0-) -- 5) (5 0 5) 5) 5) 5 0 4) (5 '0 .o 00 0 on - Li. 0 5)) In I/l 4)0 4)0 Z 0 0 fl 22 23 2I 25 26 27 28 2q 32 33 34 35 36 37 - 38 - - ) - - n u 24,000 --- 24 1959 No IJnsat. B7 Elco. No 8-61 26,000- 61 1959 No Slot. Joust. Sot. No Vibr0tbon 1-61 25,000- 7-63 26,000 2.5 4.0 1.6 _ 38 1959 No Unsat. Sat. )2o. Poplar Trees 3-61 26,000 - --- 66 1959 Sep. Slot. Unsat. Sat. No No Few Trees 11-64 24,000- _-- 22 1959 Yes No Sat. Unsat. )leo. No None 10-64 22,500- --- 62 1959 Too No Sat. Sat. No No None 12-64 24,000------21 5959 No MR. Unsat. Jnsat. No No

558 23,550 ---- 57yn Slot. Uneot. No No I None

Rebooted Bedrooms Vs 3-58 25,000 9-60 9,838 -2.5 19.3 7.7 72 1t Diet. -Unsat. Sneat. Eme. Notorie Ale oondltloning 6-56 19,600 -__ 112 1957 No Slot. Snot. Unsat. No No Air oondltlonlng (Bedrooms)

2-57 19,100 ----- 115 1957 Slot. S,eoat. No None

2.33 18.2 7.8 27 1957 2-62 25,800 6-64 30,500 - Yes NO ------NO- No None

32 1957 Be 11-57 18,500 1-64 24,500 - 6.16 32.4 5.3 Yes No --- Snot. No gja None

3.1 1957 10-57 21,500 6-59 23,100 16-63 25,261 5.67 17.5 39 Yes No Sat. -.- No No None

3-60 24,000 8-62 27,373 -2.33 14.0 6.0 49 1957 No Dlt. --- Unsat. No NO Planted Bushes

1957 3-60 20,000 12-65 32,000 --- -- 5.75 60.0 10.4 9 No DIet. ------No No None

3-56 118,000 16-58 20,900 -3.25 16.1 3.1 99 1957 Yes No --- Unsat. No No None

Plotted Btasheo t coo 1-58 25,000 2-59 21,241 -1.0 3.61 3.3 103 1957 los. Unsat. M7 Bad No Wrote H1U 8ep

16 1957 jtsee 2-57 21,000 5-65 25,500 ------8.25 21.5 2.5 No Slot. Unsat. No None

72

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE NOISE CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS UNIT DISTANCE JELEVATION > TREES & SHRUBBERY HWY. GRADES FENCE I 1.1 - 00) 040 0 >- LI > 04)40 0) 04 0 C C - VU IOU U 53 40) 3.. w 3- 0 0 •-..-. Inc InC C US) U0 UIn . U .0 . U -o -o t 0 ._ ØI_.. . C 4)0 U U 0)0 011 - Li.. - > > .-4) *-O 0 '-0 C o 0) 4) > In 0 U 4- 4-) - I.) 14- 4.)0 4)41 4)14. 4)41 - - 3 0 .0 0 U U In (I- >- 01 (0 0 0 (0 01 0 U U LU * LU U 0 2. >. >. U 05 II- 0 (0 £0 0 C C C C 3 4- = 4-4 (0 4) (0 0 C )- C = N 41 3 3 5) 3 5) (041 (05) (00 )4 0 10 0 o '5 0 U .0 .0 . In . C 0 4).-. 5).-. .- 3 EN 01 042 - 4) .C41 .c Li. U In 4.) C U In '4- E In = In .0 5) C 1. In > In 0) U 51 C 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0) 05 0) C In 3 In 3 4.) U 4) U >.- >5) >.- >.- >0 >- >4) C U (0 0 C 05 .- 0) 0. 0) 0. 0 0 3 •- c 0. (0 )- 0 •-0 •-0 -0 4)14. 014. I_I. 4)•- 0.- >-.- 0.0 0)0 4)5) 2. < 2+ = < = Li. 0 4.) 0 2+ 0 2+ 14- 0- -j-- -- -i------i-- -i- -- -ji- -- --13 ------i- -i-i- --

(e) PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE (HARRISBURG) (VOLUME 12,631/DAY, 11% TRUCKS)

70 60 130 +20 0 0 0 None HI 103 Aspen - 90.2 69.5 21.+ 90.8 61.1 29.7 8.3 0 D D 4 N-N

70 70 11+0 +10 0 0 0 None 42 115 Aspen 93.1 64.1 29.0 91.8 61.2 30.6 1.6 -3 D 0 4 4-4

70 70 11+0 +4 -2 10 .03 .01 MIxed 0 D 0+3 1 127 Aspen 93.3 6.7 23.6 92.9 65.6 27.3 3.7 4 4-4

70 70 140 10 0 44 135 Aspen 91.2 73.9 17.3 89.6 70.3 19.3 2.0 -5 13 0 None 0 0 4 N.M

70 70 140 45 209 Aspen 89.0 72.5 16.5 90.3 71.3 19.0 2.5 -6 '1 25 0 0 None 0 D ) N-N

70 70 14o .6 -8 116 303 Aspen 89.4 69.1 20.3 89.0 60.9 28.1 7.8 5 0 0 None D 0 4 N-N

70 70 11+0 +6 -2 10 0 0 None 117 319 Aspen 94.4 69.1 25.1+ 93.7 63.1 30.6 5.2 0 0 4 w.M

31+7 70 55 125 -10 +12 0 0 None 0 0 48 Aspen 95.2 81.1 114.1 92.7 73.1 19.6 5.5 85 4 w_N

70 150 220 -6 49 15 Shirley Dr. 87.5 73.5 14.0 93.8 74.2 19.6 5.6 +5 95 0 A None 2 0 4

70 60 150 +10 .1 0 None 410 20 Theodore Ave. 93.0 75.7 17.3 95.2 66.5 28.7 11.4 0 0 0 1 4

(f) CHERRY HILL, NEW JERSEY (VOLUME 33,270/DAY, 12% TRUCKS)

ND 1329 Paddonk 88.0 73.6 14.4 814.7 71.3 130 60 70 60 130 0 10 06 .20 .10 MIXED 0 D 5

N2 Paddonk 1337 90.0 76.5 13.5 88.9 72.5 14c 80 60 80 140 0 - 6 75 .10 .03 MIXED 0 1 5

43 1345 Paddook 89.5 754 14.1 87.1 70.2 130 60 70 60 130 0 0 90 .10 .05 MIXED L L 5

ilk 1357 Paddook 70 100 170 0 0 50 .05 .01 87.0 77.3 9.7 85.1 68797o 100 MIXED L L 5

45 309 Whitemarsh 90.6 73.3 17.3 88.9 69.1 135 65 70 65 135 o 0 0 .18 .10 MIXED L L 5 I

016 1308 Drew 91.7 79.1 12.6 91.8 69.7 165 85 80 85 165 +30 +30 0 .20 .20 MIXED 0 L 5

N7 1311 Drew 91.1 78.6 12.5 92.6 73.0 11+0 70 70 70 140 0 0 0 .50 .50 MIXED 0 0 C L 5

* 0 = leone level with h)ghsny t 0 house level with feose I L - level § I = Inning highuny - tensehigher then highsny - house higher then focus U - upgrade 5 - sIde fnsisg highnay - - fesse loser then highsn1 - house lower- thns fense I - donngrnde b - bash InnIng hlghuay 73

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS INTERVIEW INFORMATION

C 4) 4) 5-' )5 4) 55 5) 55 0 4) so, '5 0 0 4) C 0 4) C -4) fl 0 5/5 5° 0 5 0 0 '4- 0 )- 0 C C 0. 0 4) 0 0 0 4) >- 5° 4) X 05 0)4) 4) 40 0 50 0 0 0 4-0 050 50 <1 C(fl '4' 30) 0 4) 0 0 4) 04) 050 0 4) 50 50 ES Z 4 ES L2 2 ES 0540 0540 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 <29 30 31 32 33 34 z35 36 37 38 Yes No Sat. Unoat. No No None 63 INC 3-66 FItS 13 1 1950

No Slot. Too Low Sat. Yes uo-t Air ConAltloning 59 10,990 10-62 FHC -34 1950 not No 000. Sat. Sat. No No None 59 1-62 10-62 9,500 --8 i5o

Yes No Sat. Sat. No No None 63 9,050 12-66 8,900 3.7 -.02 -.01 9 1950 not _ 4)01- Yes Slot. Too Low Sat. No LSghte None 63 able 26 1950

Yes Slot. Sat. Sat. No No Trees & Shx'ubs 03 FHC 1.8 1950

not - a 11- No No Sat. Unsat. No No None - s3 able -11 1950 - Yes Slot. Sat. Sat. No Lights None 3 PHI -10-66 10 1950 12 000 Yes 000. Too Low Sat. No No Trees 59 14,660 2-64 Vets 12-64 Vets--23 5950

not Odor No Sat. Sat. Yes Exhaustl None £0 5-64 [14,000 ------39 1950

SEP 0CC SAT SAT NO NO NONE 3-59 24,000 6-60 26,400 -- -- 1.25 10.0 8.0 75 1 1965

NO NO PLANTED SHRUNO 2-59 23,500 5-62 26,000 -- -- 3.25 10.6 3.3 52 1965 NO lIST SAT UNSAT

ODOR SNIPES 20,500 8-63 -- -- 4.08 39.0 9.6 37 1965 7-59 28,500 NO 51ST SAT SAT YES LOGHT PLANTED SHROBS WINDOW SHADES NO LIGHT OUt CONDITIONINOS 2-59 20,000 10-60 22,500 -- -- 5.67 12.5 7.5 71 165 NO lIST SAT UNSAT SCREENED BACK PORCH

-- 94 1965 UNSAT NO NO NUll 11-58 24,500 ------NO SlOT SAT

10-58 25,000 -64 33,000 3.20 5.7 28 1965 YES 0CC SAT SAT NO LIGHTS PLANTED SHRUBS

TRIES AIR CONDITIONING 11-58 22,500 4-60 23,500 11-61 27,000 3.0 20.0 5.7 58 1965 YES 0CC SAT I SAT I NO APPEARONCE 74

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE UNIT NOISE CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS DISTANCE ELEVATION >_ TREES & SHRUBBERY HWY. GRADEt FENCE ---t------4-, Os) 05) 0 >. • >. .- 5) 4) 4) 4) 0 m = C .- ISo ,eo o '-'3 -') -. 5) - 0 0 SeC SeC C us, uo u' z ---- Ls . U -Da'e '-4) 5)4) 5)4) 4) 3 3 = 3 3 c a 4-' 4-' 4-' I- 14 )4 I) U. 0 0 -- Ls1 .- L, 0)0 Q- ce U) - 4) 0) C cC - . > > - 5) 4-0 0 '-0 C 0 o 0 4-' 4) > 0 0 4-' 5)44- .- 3 0 C 0 a to a a (0 0 0 (0 0 ._ 0 U) w 10 0 0 >. >. >- 9- >- U 0) (1- a to C C = C 3 8 = 4-' (0 44 C C I) B B 5) 0) '0 0 '0 (0 C 0 o U) 0 -c sj .0 .0 40 C U (00) '05) (00 0)- 0).- 9- - B EB B 04) .-fl) .C4) U) 0) 0) 0) C 4.4 L 4.4 U) 4.4 = U U) 4- E U) C 3 C 5) > U) 0) 0 5) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 3 0) 0) 0) C 40 3 U) C 4-) 3 4-t '0 0 C 0, - 0) 0. 05 0. 3 )O 3 c 0. - ...... 2 . UO

I 2 1 3 i 5 6 7 8 1 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 19 20

(g) NORTHERN SlATE PARKWAY

5• P1 180 Oa*dner Avenue 5.9 62.0 1 13.9 77.7 1 5 8.4 19.3 4 110 60 170 0 0 30 .45 .08 mixed I L 1 5' C

P2 206 On,dnor Avenue 5.1 60.2 14.9 74.7 57.2 17.5 1.6 115 60 175 0 0 2 .55 .09 fIr L 1 5'

P3 156 Oe,-dner Avenue 81.5 64.2 17.3 81.1 61.7 19.+ 2.1 120 50 170 0 0 80 .10 .03 dec. L L 5 C

108 p4 210 Oerdner Avenue 81.5 56.6 24.9 81.3 57.0 24.3 -0.7 45 153 0 0 5 .90 .50 mixed L L 5' C

(h) SCHUYLKILL EXPRESSWAY (VOLUIE 133,322/DAY, 9% TRUCKS)

11 545 Bob WhIte 90.5 84.2 6.2 91.9 74.1+ 17.5 11.3 30 150 180 *2' 42' 100 .02 .01 Mixed L 1 5' C

S2 581 Bob White 91.3 74.9 16.3 92.3 74.1 18.2 1.9 40 135 175 -15' 0 20 0 0 None L 1 5' C

03 585 Bob White 91.5 74.4 17.0 74.4 91.7 41 17.3 0.3 136 180 -15' 0 20 .40 .25 MIxed 1 L 5' C

14 589 Bob White 93.4 16.1 72.4 92.6 77.3 20.2 4.1 45 148 1 193 -15' c13' 1 50 .15 MIxed L 1, 5' C

(i) PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE (PHILADELPHIA) (VOLUME 25,764/DAY, 9% TRUCKS)

116 Powdee-horn 91.3 78.7 12.6 93.3 72.6 20.7 8.1 70 100 170 '-3' 0 35 .10 .02 mixed 1 L 5'

128 Powdee-horn 94.7 81.3 13.4 94.0 75.5 18.5 5.1 70 70 14o +2' '-2' 75 .05 .03 none L L 5' 113 132 Powdee-horn 935 804 131 933 750 183 52 70 60 130 '-3' 0 10 0 0 none L L 5' C 'p4 136 Powderhorn 93.7 80.2 13.5 93.0 76.0 17.0 70 60 130 '-3' 0 15 0 0 none 1 1 5' C

T5 60 144 Powdee-ho,-n 94.8 80.3 14.5 93.7 76.2 17.5 3.0 70 130 .1' 4-2' 25 .05 .03 bushes U U 5' C

120 o3 T6 152 Powdse-hoe-n 94.8 80.5 14.3 95.9 71.3 24.6 10.3 70 190 -5' 50 0 0 none U U 5' C

70 e3 T7 4o6 Blue Buff 93.2 73.9 19.3 91.5 67.4 24.1 4.8 50 120 -1' 0 0 0 none L L 5' C

T8 418 Blue Buff 95.1 79.7 15.1+ 94.5 72.8 21.7 6.3 70 6o 130 '-2' 0 40 0 0 none L 1 5' C

T9 424 Blue Buff 92.9 80.8 12.1 93.8 18.1 6.0 75.7 70 30 100 03) 0 80 .10 .05 mixed L L 5' C * 0 = fence level with h1ghy 1 0 house level with fence i level § f facing hig+ceey fence k•gher than highvey * = house higbe,- then fence U = upgrade 0 - side facing hlghony - fence loser than hlghtay - house lower them fence I - doeecg,-ade b = beck facing higheny 75

INTERVIEW INFORMATION ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS

C 0) N 0) 0) C )- 0 N U N U N 4-5' N U 0

01 -0 0 U 01 N 4- C 0 DC CQ 0 0) 0e2 001 N4) X C N N 0101 N 0 0 0 )- 0) .-' 0) >- N C 05 -( (0 0) 0 U N N Cl C D 01 0 0) X 4-' 01 0 0) .s Li- Z 01 0 01 5 0 0 V( 01 Li- 1. 01 (/0 34 36 38 21 22 23 24 25 = 29 30 31 32 33 35 37 .54 14,725 9-58 19,050 112-63 22,577 > +3 1948 Yes No Sat. Sat. No No None 9.33 53.3 5.7 z None .53 13,500 ___ 167 191+8 Yes No Sat. Sat. No No

.'+ l'+,305 6-58 17,500 3.58 22.3 6.2 109 1948 Yes No Sat. Sat. No No None

.55 15,000- 9-65 17,750 5.23 18.3 3.5 82 1948 Yes No Sat. Sat. No No None

20,000 25,000- 6.25 25.0 4.0 35 1953 Yes 1 No 1 Sat. Sat. No No 1 None 61+

20,000 25,500- 7.75 27.5 3.6 13 1953 No 3 Diet. 3 Uneat. Unsat. No No 2 Planted hsd0)e 66

20,000 22,500 7.0 12.5 1.8 23 1953 No 3 Co.. 2 Sat. Scent. No No 2 Planted Poplat trees 58 6

20,000 21,500 2.67 7.5 2.8 75 1953 Yes 1 Co.. 2 Sat. Scent. No No S None 61

-52 12,000 8-58 13,550 6.0 8.3 1.4 108 1951+ 0P Doe. Sat. Uneat. No No None

-3 1954 Dsp. Co.. Sat. Sat. No No Window Air ConditIoning

-52 10,500 8-57 22,1+55 863 13,00' 11. 23. 2.1 1+7 1951+ No 0101. Sat. Sat. No No Si,- Conditioning -63 13,500 1)Vlnes 3) bushes Vii,- tion 2)Garage 1+) Ins. Ceiling .52 10,500 9_59 13,500 65 2.4,501 I3-C 33. 2.6 27 2951+ No lbs. Sat. Sat. No Exhast

Nigh ShrUb: 12,055 --- 113. 2.2 105 113 e-52 10,500 9-58 6-33 No 01st. Sat. Scent. Yes No R.

Oos. Sat. Sat. No No None -52 10,500 9-63 13,090 11. - 24.9 2.2 42 1951+ Dsp. aionditioning woI-dseapsd No DIet. Sat. Sat. No No 53 11,000 i8o 1954

1951+ Yes No Sat. No No None 53 11,000 - 180 D.P. No Sat. No No None (Seed to noise) 53 11,000- 180 1954 y 76

APPENDIX H

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF PHYSICAL-DISTURBANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT

-

CSU OS 40u 0 C 0005

I ti AUJ. /5it+ 2V OPR. e '

0< A, 11< -4 *1Sc 12 JItl < —o u., -0 4 o'r

ALL RESISTORS 1/2 W poi 10k PI1ILBRC 2 94.

Figure H-2. Averaging circuit. Figure H-3. Pulse-rate meter. 1009 20b/<

Figure H-4. Photosensor. 80

APPENDIX I

LITERATURE SEARCH

The literature search was undertaken to determine previous The chapters or appendices noted in the following studies work on the effects of highway landscape development on contain information concerning the experimental design nearby property. Relevant literature reviewed is divided used in these studies: into the following general categories: WHEELER, "Allocation of Road and Street Costs: Part V Impact studies. —The Effect of Freeway Access upon Suburban Real Landscaping and roadside development. Property Values." Chapters VI through IX and Ap- Motor-vehicle-disturbance measurement. pendix B. Real-estate valuation. GARRISON, Methodology. "Allocation of Road and Street Costs: Part IV —The Benefits of Rural Roads to Rural Property." These lists cover most literature reviewed in connection Chapter III. with the landscaping economic study. They do not include UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, "The Effects of the Louis- numerous articles found in conference proceedings and ville-Watterson Expressway on Land Values." Ap- technical publications, or the many impact studies, which pendix IV. are unrelated to this landscaping study. In none of the literature reviewed is the cost of land- ADKINS, "Effects of Dallas Central Expressway on Land scaping quantitatively related to disturbance reduction or Values and Land Use." Appendix A. changes in property values. It may be concluded from Mol-ralNu, the literature that the economic effects on property of "The Nature and Measurement of Highway Benefits: An Analytical Framework." Chapter III. landscaping and roadside development have not been studied previously. DAVIS, "Parkway Impact Study," Washington, D.C. Chapters II and III. IMPACT STUDIES AND RELATED LITERATURE Three studies have been made which evaluate other studies: Past studies have been concerned with the effects of the highway on land use and value. This landscape develop- WARNER, "The Impact of Highways on Land Uses and ment study was concerned with the highway's landscaping Property Values" (1958). and relation to nearby property values after the highway RACSTER, "The Impact of Transportation and Parking on has been constructed. As such, it was not a before-after Urban Land Values and Land Use: An Annotated Bib- impact study in the sense of those conducted in the past. liography" (1961). These previous studies are useful for the methodology used in the experimental design and in property valuation. The RACSTER, "The Effects of Motor Transportation on methodology in most of these studies compares the effects Urban Land Value and Land Use" (1964). of a highway on property values for homes at varying Racster's bibliography summarizes every major impact distances from the road. These studies measure values of study conducted through 1961. homes before and during construction of the highway, and after its completion. In addition, the following other impact studies and litera- In general, the experimental design was similar to one ture relating to impact studies were reviewed: or both of the following: PORTLAND, OREGON, "Value Trend Studies: Residential Percent change in value for homes near the highway Subdivisions along Suburban Freeways." was compared to percent change in value for homes far- U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, "The Economic Impact of ther away. The hypothesis was stated that the rise in prop- Highway Improvement." erty values adjacent to the highway was greater than those farther away. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, "Economic and Social Rises in property values (dependent variable) were Effects of Highway Improvements." compared with factors such as distance from road, distance DONALDSON, W. M., "Expressway Influence on Land from interchange, time savings to work due to road, and Use and Value, Atlanta, Ga." other independent variables; a multiple-regression analysis was conducted to find the relationship between these varia- GOODRICH, H. S., "Effects on Adjacent Properties." bles. The regression analysis was applicable to the land- COOK, K. E., "The Effects of Limited Access Highways scaping economic study. on Adjacent Property Values." 81

HESS, R., "Economic Effect of Freeways." ZETTEL, R. M., "Effect of Limited-Access Highways on Property and Business Values." HESS, R., "The Effects of Controlled Access Highways on Abutting and Adjacent Properties." U.S. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, "Guide for Highway Impact Studies." HESS, R., "Techniques of Making Highway Economic Impact Studies." HESS, R., "Freeways and the Arbitrary Assessment of Real Estate." ST. CLAIR, G. P., "Economic Impact Studies: To What Purpose?" CITY OF NEW YORK, "The Influence of Public Improve- ments on Property Values." HALL, W. L., "Impact Studies." OHIO TURNPIKE, "Land Economic Studies Report." STROUP, R. H., "Highway Impact Research: Origins, Aims, Directions." HORWOOD, "Community Consequences of Highway Im- provement." U.S. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, "A Report on the Economic Impact of Highway Improvement." RESKIN, 0. A., "Landscape Design and Its Relation to the Modern Highway," Rutgers University. O'CONNELL, R. C., "Economic Impact Studies and Their Applications." NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, "Sources of Information in Transportation." REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CORPORATION, "The Influence of Highway Improvements on Urban Land Use Pat- The Highway Research Board has also published litera- terns." ture relating to highway impact studies, of which the most pertinent are: LEMLY, J. H., "Expressway Influence on Land Use & Value." HRB Bulletin 227: "Highways and Economic Develop- ment." LIVINGSTON, R. E., "Land Use and Values as Determined from an Economic Impact Study." HRB Bulletin 232: "Land Acquisition-1959." HRB Bulletin 268: "Some Evaluations of Highway Im- MACBRIDE, D. D., "Comments Upon Land Economic provements Impacts." Studies Related to Highways." "Economic Impact of Highway GOLDSTEIN, S., "Non-User Benefits from Highways." HRB Special Report 28: Improvement." GOLDSTEIN, S., "Economic Consequences of Highway HRB Special Report 56: "Economic Analysis in High- Improvements." way Programming, Location and Design." GOODRICH, H. S., "Effects of Freeways on Adjacent Highway Research Record No. 2: "Community Values Properties." as Affected by Transportation." GRANT, E. L., Economic Studies for Highways." Highway Research Record No. 75: "Indirect and Socio- DEPARTMENT OF OKLAHOMA HIGHWAYS, "Coding Pro- logical Effective Highway Location and Improvement." ceedings for Highway Impact Studies." MARYLAND ROADS CoMMISSIoN, "Three Economic Im- LANDSCAPING AND ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT pact Studies on a Portion of the Baltimore Beltway." Studies in this category do not attempt to relate a given DIVISION OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS, "California Land amount of landscaping or roadside development to the Economic Studies." reduction in highway disturbance or increase in property values. However, as guides to theory and practice in land- MCKAIN, W. C., "Non-User Benefits and the Connecti- scaping and roadside development these reports were cut Turnpike." valuable: UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, "Delaware Highway Impact "AASHO Landscape Design Guide." Study." Highway Research Record No. 53, "Roadside Develop- CARROLL, S. P., "The Economic Impact of Highway De- ment 1962." velopment upon Land Use and Value." HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD, "Roadside Development: NORTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE, "The Economic Im- 1962, 1961, 1960, 1959, 1958." pact of Selected Sections of Interstate Routes on Land Value and Land Use." HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD, "Bibliography on Roadside Development and Beautification." BOVARD, T. H., "Concepts and Use of Land Economic Studies in Highway Departments." HRB Bibliography 26, "Roadside Development." FINK, L. B., "A Review of Land Economic Studies Along HRB Special Report 17, "Roadsides, Their Use and Controlled Access Highways." Protection." U.S. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, "Highways and Eco- HRB Special Report 43, "Selective Cutting of Roadside nomic and Social Changes." Vegetation." 82

Highway Research Record No. 23, "Roadside Develop- bon monoxide in the air is directly related to air pollution ment." caused by auto exhaust; therefore, measurement of CO HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD, "Roadside Development was sufficient for this study. and Beautification—Legal Authority and Methods." The following have been reviewed: SNOW, W. B., "The Highway and the Landscape." ROSE, SMITH, et a!, "Comparison of Auto Exhaust Emis- sions in Two Cities." "AASHO Policy on Maintenance of Roadsides." STERN, "Air Pollution, Volume 1." SIMONDS, J. 0., "Landscape Architecture, the Shaping of Transnatural Environment." FATTH W, I "Air Pollution Control." RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, "Landscape Design and Its Rela- JACOBS, M. B., "The Chemical Analysis of Air Pollu- tion to the Modern Highway." tants." BEECHER, A. S., "Landscape Design." HRB Bibliography 22, "Selected Bibliographies on Vehi- cle Noise and Fumes." GAUMHAUSEN, W. J., "Function of the Landscape Archi- tect in Roadside Development." HRB Bulletin 110, "Abatement of Highway Noise and Fumes." APPLEYARD, D., "The View from the Road."

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, "Short Course on Roadside De- REAL-ESTATE VALUATION velopment." Nos. 13-23 (1954-1964). Much of the data available in this category appears in the MOTOR-VEHICLE-DISTURBANCE MEASUREMENT various highway impact studies listed under the first category. Other information is contained in the following: Most information in the literature concerned air pollution KEIPER, KURNOW, et al, and noise. No studies were found concerning vibration "Theory and Measurement of Rent." measurements on dwellings alongside the expressway, and the only light studies investigated different shielding treat- UNGER, M. A., "Real Estate, Principles and Practices." ments on the medial strip. Concealment (concealing highway from adjacent property) was primarily studied with METHODOLOGY respect to beauty and cost. Previous noise studies were helpful. Review of the litera- Additional information regarding methods of analysis used ture led to the selection of the dBA scale of a standard in the study is contained in the following: sound-level meter as the best measure of highway noise, GOULDEN, C. H., "Methods of Statistical Analysis." considering cost, measurement time, and analysis time. KLEPIKOV, N. P., "Analysis and Planning of Experi- Other studies indicated disturbance sound levels, methods ments." in taking measurements, and other techniques that were included in the noise-disturbance measurement program. FRYER, H. C., "Elements of Statistics." Studies on air pollution showed that the amount of car- SIEGAL, S., "Non-Parametric Statistics."

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Highway Research Board National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418

Rep. Rep. No. Title No. Title _* A Critical Review of Literature Treating Methods of 18 Community Consequences of Highway Improvement Identifying Aggregates Subject to Destructive Volume (Proj. 2-2), 37 p., $2.80 Change When Frozen in Concrete and a Proposed 19 Economical and Effective Deicing Agents for Use on $1.20 Program of Research—Intermediate Report (Proj. Highway Structures (Proj. 6-1), 19 p., Economic Study of Roadway Lighting (Proj. 5-4), 4-3(2)), 81p., $1.80 20 1 Evaluation of Methods of Replacement of Deterio- 77 p., $3.20 rated Concrete in Structures (Proj. 6-8), 56 p., 21 Detecting Variations in Load-Carrying Capacity of 1-5), $1.40 $2.80 Flexible Pavements (Proj. 30 p., An Introduction to Guidelines for Satellite Studies of 22 Factors Influencing Flexible Pavement Performance 2 $2.60 Pavement Performance (Proj. 1-1), 19 p., $1.80 (Proj. 1-3(2)), 69 p., Methods for Reducing Corrosion of Reinforcing 2A Guidelines for Satellite Studies of Pavement Per- 23 formance, 85 p.+9 figs., 26 tables, 4 app., $3.00 Steel (Proj. 6-4), 22 p., $1.40 3 Improved Criteria for Traffic Signals at Individual 24 Urban Travel Patterns for Airports, Shopping Cen- Intersections—Interim Report (Proj. 3-5), 36 p., ters, and Industrial Plants (Proj. 7-1), 116 p., $5.20 $1.60 Non-Chemical Methods of Snow and Ice Control on 25 Potential Uses of Sonic and Ultrasonic Devices in 4 $2.00 Highway Structures (Proj. 6-2), 74 p., $3.20 Highway Construction (Proj. 10-7), 48 p., Effects of Different Methods of Stockpiling Aggre- 26 Development of Uniform Procedures for Establishing 5 Construction Equipment Rental Rates (Proj. 13-1), gates—Interim Report (Proj. 10-3), 48 p., $2.00 $1.60 6 Means of Locating and Communicating with Dis- 33 p., abled Vehicles—Interim Report (Proj. 3-4), 56 p. 27 Physical Factors Influencing Resistance of Concrete $3.20 to Deicing Agents (Proj. 6-5), 41 p., $2.00 7 Comparison of Different Methods of Measuring 28 Surveillance Methods and Ways and Means of Com- Pavement Condition—Interim Report (Proj. 1-2), municating with Drivers (Proj. 3-2), 66 p., $2.60 29 p., $1.80 29 Digital-Computer-Controlled Traffic Signal System 8 Synthetic Aggregates for , Highway Construction for a Small City (Proj. 3-2), 82 p., $4.00 (Proj. 4-4), 13 p., $1.00 30 Extension of AASHO Road Test Performance Con- 9 Traffic Surveillance and Means of Communicating cepts (Proj. 1-4(2)), 33 p., $1.60 with Drivers—Interim Report (Proj. 3-2), 28 p., 31 A Review of Transportation Aspects of Land-Use $1.60 Control (Proj. 8-5), 41 p., $2.00 10 Theoretical Analysis of Structural Behavior of Road 32 Improved Criteria for Traffic Signals at Individual $2.80 Test Flexible Pavements (Proj. 1-4), 31 p., Intersections (Proj. 3-5), 134 p., $5.00 11 Effect of Control Devices on Traffic Operations— 33 Values of Time Savings of Commercial Vehicles 107 p., $5.80 Interim Report (Proj. 3-6), (Proj. 2-4), 74p., $3.60 12 Identification of Aggregates Causing Poor Concrete Evaluation of Construction Control Procedures— Performance When Frozen—Interim Report (Proj. 34 Interim Report (Proj. 10-2), 117 p., $5.00 $3.00 4-3(1)), 47 p., Prediction of Flexible Pavement Deflections from Running Cost of Motor Vehicles as Affected by High- 35 13 Laboratory Repeated-Load Tests (Proj. 1-3(3)), way Design—Interim Report (Proj. 2-5), 43 p., 117 p., $5.00 $2.80 36 Highway Guardrails—A Review of Current Practice 14 Density and Miisture Content Measurements by (Proj. 15-1), 33 p., $1.60 Nuclear Methods—Interim Report (Proj. 10-5), Tentative Skid-Resistance Requirements for Main 32.p., $3.00 37 Rural Highways (Proj. 1-7), 80 p., $3.60 15 Identification of Concrete Aggregates Exhibiting Frost Susceptibility—Interim Report (Proj. 4-3(2)), 38 Evaluation of Pavement Joint and Crack Sealing Ma- terials and Practices (Proj. 9-3), 40 p., $2.00 66 p., $4.00 Protective Coatings to Prevent Deterioration of Con- 39 Factors Involved in the Design of Asphaltic Pave- 16 112 p., $5.00 crete by Deicing Chemicals (Proj. 6-3), 21 p., ment Surfaces (Proj. 1-8), $1.60 40 Means of Locating Disabled or Stopped Vehicles 40 p., $2.00 17 Development of Guidelines for Practical and Realis- (Proj. 3-4(1)), tic Construction Specifications (Proj. 10-1), 109 p., 41 Effect of Control Devices on Traffic Operations $6.00 (Proj. 3-6), 83 p., $3.60

* Highway Research Board Special Report SO.

Rep. Rep. No. Title No. Title 42 Interstate Highway Maintenance Requirements and 64 One-Cycle Slow-Freeze Test for Evaluating Aggre- Unit Maintenance Expenditure Index (Proj. 14-1), gate Performance in Frozen Concrete (Proj. 4-3(1)), 144.p., $5.60 21p., $1.40 43 Density and Moisture Content Measurements by 65 Identification of Frost-Susceptible Particles in Con- Nuclear Methods (Proj. 10-5), 38 p., $2.00 crete Aggregates (Proj. 4-3(2)), 62 p., $2.80 44 Traffic Attraction of Rural Outdoor Recreational 66 Relation of Asphalt Rheological Properties to Pave- Areas (Prop. 7-2), $1.40 28 p., ment Durability (Proj. 9-1), 45 p., $2.20 45 Development of Improved Pavement Marking Ma- 67 Relation of Asphalt Rheological Properties to Pave- terials—Laboratory Phase (Proj. 5-5), 24 p., ment Durability (Proj. 9-1), 45 p., $2.20 $1.40 68 Application of Vehicle Operating Characteristics to 46 Effects of Different Methods of Stockpiling and Geometric Design and Traffic Operations (Proj 3- Handling Aggregates (Proj. 10-3), 102 p., 10), 38 p., $2.00 $4.60 69 Evaluation of Construction Control Procedures— 47 Accident Rates as Related to Design Elements of Aggregate Gradation Variations and Effects (Proj. Rural Highways (Proj. 2-3), 173 p., $6.40 10-2A), 58 p., $2.80 48 Factors and Trends in Trip Length (Proj. 7-4), 70 Social and Economic Factors Affecting Intercity 70 p., $3.20 Travel (Proj. 8-1), 68 p., $3.00 49 National Survey of Transportation Attitudes and 71 Analytical Study of Weighing Methods for Highway Behavior—Phase I Summary Report (Proj. 20-4), Vehicles in Motion (Proj. 7-3), 63 p., $2.80 71 p., $3.20 72 Theory and Practice in Inverse Condemnation for 50 Factors Influencing Safety at Highway-Rail Grade Five Representative States (Proj. 11-2), 44 p., Crossing (Proj. 3-8), 113 p., $5.20 $2.20 51 Sensing and Communication Between Vehicles (Proj. 73 Improved Criteria for Traffic Signal Systems on 3-3), 105 p., $5.00 Urban Arterials (Proj. 3-5/1), 55 p., $2.80 52 Measurement of Pavement Thickness by Rapid and 74 Protective Coatings for Highway Structural Steel Nondestructive Methods (Proj. 10-6), 82 p., (Proj. 4-6), 64 p., $2.80 $3.80 75 Effect of Highway Landscape Development on 53 Multiple Use of Lands Within Highway Rights-of- Nearby Property (Proj. 2-9), 82 p., $3.60 Way (Proj. 7-6), 68 p., $3.20 54 Location, Selection, and Maintenance of Highway Guardrail and Median Barriers (Proj. 15-1(2)), 63 p., $2.60 55 Research Needs in Highway Transportation (Proj. 20-2), 66 p., $2.80 56 Scenic Easements—Legal, Administrative, and Valua- tion Problems and Procedures (Proj. 11-3), 174 p., Synthesis of Highway Practice $6.40 1 Traffic Control for Freeway Maintenance (Proj. 20-5, 57 Factors Influencing Modal Trip Assignment (Proj. Task 1), $2.20 8-2), 78 p., $3.20 47 p., 58 Comparative Analysis of Traffic Assignment Tech- 2 Bridge Approach Design and Construction Practices (Proj. 20-5, Task 2), 30 p., $2.00 niques with Actual Highway Use (Proj. 7-5), 85 p., $3.60 59 Standard Measurements for Satellite Road Test Pro- gram (Proj. 1-6), 78 p., $3.20 60 Effects of Illumination on Operating Characteristics of Freeways (Proj. 5-2) 148 p., $6.00 61 Evaluation of Studded Tires—Performance Data and Pavement Wear Measurement (Proj. 1-9), 66 p., $3.00 62 Urban Travel Patterns for Hospitals, Universities, Office Buidings and Capitols (Proj. 7-1), 144 p., $5.60 63 Motorists' Needs and Services on Interstate Highways (Proj. 7-7), 88 p., $3.60 THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES is a private, honorary organization of more than 700 scientists and engineers elected on the basis of outstanding contributions to knowledge. Established by a Congressional Act of Incorporation signed by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, and supported by private and public funds, the Academy works to further science and its use for the general welfare by bringing together the most qualified individuals to deal with scientific and technological problems of broad significance. Under the terms of its Congressional charter, the Academy is also called upon to act as an official—yet independent—adviser to the Federal Government in any matter of science and technology. This provision accounts for the close ties that have always existed between the Academy and the Government, although the Academy is not a governmental agency and its activities are not limited to those on behalf of the Government.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING was established on December 5, 1964. On that date the Council of the National Academy of Sciences, under the authority of its Act of Incorporation, adopted Articles of Organization bringing the National Academy of Engineering into being, independent and autonomous in its organization and the election of its members, and closely coordinated with the National Academy of Sciences in its advisory activities. The two Academies join in the furtherance of science and engineering and share the responsibility of advising the Federal Government, upon request, on any subject of science or technology.

THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL was organized as an agency of the National Academy of Sciences in 1916, at the request of President Wilson, to enable the broad community of U. S. scientists and engineers to associate their efforts with the limited membership of the Academy in service to science and the nation. Its members, who receive their appointments from the President of the National Academy of Sciences, are drawn from academic, industrial and government organizations throughout the country. The National Research Council serves both Academies in the discharge of their responsibilities. Supported by private and public contributions, grants, and contracts, and volun- tary contributions of time and effort by several thousand of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, the Academies and their Research Council thus work to serve the national interest, to foster the sound development of science and engineering, and to promote their effective application for the benefit of society.

THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING is one of the eight major Divisions into which the National Research Council is organized for the conduct of its work. Its membership includes representatives of the nation's leading technical societies as well as a number of members-at-large. Its Chairman is appointed by the Council of the Academy of Sciences upon nomination by the Council of the Academy of Engineering.

THE HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD, organized November 11; 1920, as an agency of the Division of Engineering, is a cooperative organization of the highway technologists of America operating under the auspices of the National Research Council and with the support of the several highway departments, the Bureau of Public Roads, and many other organizations interested in the development of transportation. The purpose of the Board is to advance knowledge concerning the nature and performance of transportation systems, through the stimulation of research and dissemination of information derived therefrom. HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD U.S. POSTAGE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES—NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2101 Constitution Avenu. Washington, D. C. 20418 PAID WASHINGTON, D.C. NON-PROFIT ORG. PERMIT NO. 42970 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

DP_8.,9.,1i,12,Mc,19,21,22,S,38 MaterialB Engineer Idaho Dept. of Highways P. 00, Box 7129 Btse, Idbo 83707

Web Analytics