7
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Noise Control

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing methods of using cost-benefit analyses to assess noise around airports. The costs and benefits of reducing highway noise have received less attention in the United States and have been emphasized in this chapter. Highway noise barriers are an effective means of noise reduction because they interrupt the propagation path between the noise sources and nearby homes. At highway speeds most of the noise is generated by the interaction between vehicle tires and the road surface. The generation of sound by this interaction is complicated and involves “air pumping” as the tread alternately engages and releases from the road surface, vibration of the sidewalls, and other mechanisms. A layman’s discussion of the various sources can be found in The Little Book of Quieter Pavements, published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA; Rasmussen et al., 2007). A great deal of research has been done on the characteristics of pavements that result in lower noise levels. What is needed is a cost-benefit analysis of highway noise reduction to ensure that the best mitigation methods are being applied.

The committee decided to focus on surface transportation noise for several reasons. In a 1981 report the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that 24 million people were exposed to high day-night average sound levels (DNLs; greater than 65 dB) of surface transportation noise (19.3 million for highway noise and 4.7 million for rail noise); in the same report the number of people exposed to air transportation noise was estimated at 2.5 million people. Although no studies have been conducted to determine surface transportation exposures since then, it is likely that population growth, increased residential development near highways, and increased traffic volume have also increased exposures to highway traffic noise.

However, in the past 30 years, air transportation has led the way in technological developments and operational improvements to reduce noise and more recently to reduce environmental impacts; in addition, economic analysis tools have been developed for determining the costs and benefits of these improvements to the environment. In fact, a 2007 study showed that the number of people exposed to high levels of air transport noise in the United States had decreased to approximately 500,000 (Waitz et al., 2007).

As the numbers above reflect, reducing air transportation noise has been the focus of intense efforts by the public and by policy makers since the advent of the jet age. As Figure 7-1 shows, advances in technology and airport management have resulted in significant reductions in airport noise contours (e.g., the perimeter around airports where DNLs exceed 65 dB). As a result, the number of people exposed to noise in excess of 65 dB has decreased dramatically over the past several decades, although there are still many serious noise problems around airports.

Technologies to reduce highway noise generated by surface vehicles have also been investigated. Studies have shown that the most significant source of noise at highway speeds is interaction between tires and highway surfaces. Attempts to modify tires have had limited success because the primary concerns in tire design are safety and performance. However, highway surfaces can be modified to reduce overall noise without compromising safety.

The current approach to addressing noise levels along proposed highways is to construct sound barrier walls in residential areas to protect occupants from excessive noise levels as measured at the property line nearest the highway. However, noise barriers are expensive, and residents often consider them an eyesore because they obstruct views and are sometimes subject to graffiti. In addition, they provide significant noise reduction for only the first one or two rows of houses behind the barrier (FHWA, 2009a).

One question of interest to the committee was whether a greater number of residents would benefit if “quiet” pavement technology were used instead of barriers to reduce the noise level at the source. To make that assessment, the committee believes that cost-benefit analysis tools developed by EPA and the FAA should be used to identify variables and measurable characteristics and relate them to one another in commensu-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 101
7 Cost-Benefit Analysis for Noise Control The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing of these improvements to the environment. In fact, a 2007 methods of using cost-benefit analyses to assess noise around study showed that the number of people exposed to high lev- airports. The costs and benefits of reducing highway noise els of air transport noise in the United States had decreased have received less attention in the United States and have to approximately 500,000 (Waitz et al., 2007). been emphasized in this chapter. Highway noise barriers are As the numbers above reflect, reducing air transportation an effective means of noise reduction because they interrupt noise has been the focus of intense efforts by the public and the propagation path between the noise sources and nearby by policy makers since the advent of the jet age. As Fig- homes. At highway speeds most of the noise is generated by ure 7-1 shows, advances in technology and airport manage- the interaction between vehicle tires and the road surface. ment have resulted in significant reductions in airport noise The generation of sound by this interaction is complicated contours (e.g., the perimeter around airports where DNLs and involves “air pumping” as the tread alternately engages exceed 65 dB). As a result, the number of people exposed to and releases from the road surface, vibration of the sidewalls, noise in excess of 65 dB has decreased dramatically over the and other mechanisms. A layman’s discussion of the various past several decades, although there are still many serious sources can be found in The Little Book of Quieter Pae- noise problems around airports. ments, published by the Federal Highway Administration Technologies to reduce highway noise generated by (FHWA; Rasmussen et al., 2007). A great deal of research has surface vehicles have also been investigated. Studies have been done on the characteristics of pavements that result in shown that the most significant source of noise at highway lower noise levels. What is needed is a cost-benefit analysis speeds is interaction between tires and highway surfaces. At- of highway noise reduction to ensure that the best mitigation tempts to modify tires have had limited success because the methods are being applied. primary concerns in tire design are safety and performance. The committee decided to focus on surface transportation However, highway surfaces can be modified to reduce over- noise for several reasons. In a 1981 report the U.S. Environ- all noise without compromising safety. mental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that 24 million The current approach to addressing noise levels along people were exposed to high day-night average sound levels proposed highways is to construct sound barrier walls in (DNLs; greater than 65 dB) of surface transportation noise residential areas to protect occupants from excessive noise (19.3 million for highway noise and 4.7 million for rail levels as measured at the property line nearest the highway. noise); in the same report the number of people exposed to However, noise barriers are expensive, and residents often air transportation noise was estimated at 2.5 million people. consider them an eyesore because they obstruct views and Although no studies have been conducted to determine are sometimes subject to graffiti. In addition, they provide surface transportation exposures since then, it is likely that significant noise reduction for only the first one or two rows population growth, increased residential development near of houses behind the barrier (FHWA, 2009a). highways, and increased traffic volume have also increased One question of interest to the committee was whether a exposures to highway traffic noise. greater number of residents would benefit if “quiet” pavement However, in the past 30 years, air transportation has led technology were used instead of barriers to reduce the noise the way in technological developments and operational level at the source. To make that assessment, the committee improvements to reduce noise and more recently to reduce believes that cost-benefit analysis tools developed by EPA and environmental impacts; in addition, economic analysis tools the FAA should be used to identify variables and measurable have been developed for determining the costs and benefits characteristics and relate them to one another in commensu- 0

OCR for page 101
0 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA TNM could also provide information showing that quiet pavements could eliminate the need to construct a barrier or that a less expensive barrier would provide enough noise reduction, as measured at the property line. The remainder of this chapter describes how environmen- tal economic analysis techniques have been used by EPA and the FAA for purposes of cost-benefit analysis and how such analyses might be used for surface transportation noise. In addition, European efforts to conduct cost-benefit analyses on highway noise are reviewed, as is pavement research that will lead to lower noise levels and will be a vital input to any cost-benefit analysis model. ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC ANALySIS Microeconomics (i.e., the study of disaggregated entities and behaviors) is generally used rather than macroeconom- ics (i.e., the study of aggregates) to analyze environmental issues. When resources are scarce, economic analyses can help planners compare options to determine which uses of those resources will generate improvements in well-being for people who live near busy highways. Environmental economic analyses provide a rigorous, quantitative approach to support these decisions. To compare relative values requires metrics that are Generalized Existing Land Use comparable in terms of the outcomes each alternative pro- duces (i.e., decibel reductions) as well as in terms of costs, Residential both in dollars and negative effects (including eliminating Commercial potential desirable outcomes or benefits). Economists use Mixed Use monetary value to compare alternatives, and the conversion Industrial to monetary values of physical or social effects that are not naturally denominated in dollars is called monetization. The Government primary framework used to compare monetized positive and Parks and Recreation negative attributes of alternative policies and investment Reagan Airpor t choices is called cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or benefit-cost Water analysis—the terms are interchangeable. General guidelines for government entities conducting FIGURE 7-1 Contour map showing Day-Night Average Sound a CBA have been published by the Office of Management Figure_7-1.eps Levels (DNL) around Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washing- and Budget (OMB) in the form of circulars. For example, bitmap ton, D.C. Source: Reprinted with permission of EA Engineering, Circular A-94, first published in 1992 and updated annually, Science and Technology. provides discount rates (OMB, 1992). Because OMB’s audi- ence includes all federal agencies, the guidelines are general, rather than domain specific. Thus, Circular A-94 encourages rate ways. The committee also recognized that some likely monetization but does not offer specific guidance on mon- variables for surface transportation noise, such as long-term etization techniques. noise reduction characteristics, installation costs, and mainte- Individual agencies often publish their own more detailed nance costs of quiet pavements would not be available. domain-specific guidelines. For instance, EPA published FHWA has developed a software tool called the Traffic Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, which covers Noise Model (TNM; FHWA, 2009b). The TNM is a useful nuances of CBA in the environmental arena and provides de- tool for estimating sound pressure levels at various distances tailed guidelines for monetization (EPA, 2000). In compari- from a highway in terms of traffic mix, speeds, and other son to the 21-page Circular A-94, EPA’s Guidelines includes factors. Using various scenarios, noise reductions in deci- more than 200 pages. One area in which EPA has authority to bels can be predicted by the model. However, no attempts engage in CBA is noise (42 USC 65, Section 4913). have been made to monetize those benefits in terms of home Because the reader may not be familiar with CBA as prac- values, sleep disturbance, or other measures of impact. The ticed by economists or with terms such as willingness to pay,

OCR for page 101
0 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR NOISE CONTROL willingness to accept, revealed preference, stated preference, The sound at a given point from one aircraft in flight is and others, a summary of CBA is included in this report as typically measured (or estimated) and then expressed in Appendix F. In the appendix, OMB guidance on CBA is decibels in a metric called the effective perceived noise level. mentioned, but emphasis has been placed on EPA procedures This metric is used by the FAA as a measure of airplane noise because of the agency’s experience with this subject. Where emission. This metric takes into account the nonuniform possible, suggestions have been made as to how EPA proce- response of the human ear, tonal corrections, and other fac- dures would apply to CBA for noise issues. tors. Then the noise from a representative sample of flights The FAA has also been developing CBA tools for use (typically for one day) can be combined into a measure, such around airports. A summary of these activities is given in as the standard DNL metric, in which the sound energy from the next section to provide an introduction to what FHWA multiple events is averaged, and a 10-dB correction is made might develop for CBA of noise reduction along the nation’s for flights that occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. DNL and highways. other average measures have been shown to correlate with community response to aircraft noise, as shown, for example, in Table 7-1. COST-BENEFIT ANALySIS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE It is important to recognize that responses to aircraft noise The methods being developed by FAA to perform a CBA vary widely among people and communities, as illustrated of measures for mitigating aircraft noise illustrate useful in Figure 7-2. Note that for aircraft noise levels typical of applications of the general concepts described earlier in this communities within 5 miles of airports (55 to 65 dB DNL), chapter.1 It is well documented that aircraft noise has a range the proportion of the population “highly annoyed” varies of undesirable impacts, primarily felt by people living around from 0 to 75 percent. This variability in personal and com- airports. These include physical effects, such as annoyance munity response suggests that monetization methods based (e.g., interference in speech communication and activities), on statistical distributions, or that accept ranges of inputs, sleep disturbance, impacts on school learning and academic may be most relevant. Thus, the DNL metric is most useful achievement, physical and mental health effects, building for summary assessments but may not adequately describe rattling and other noise, and compromised work performance the effects of noise on a specific impacted population; it is (WHO, 2004). These effects result in monetary impacts, such also sometimes difficult to explain the DNL concept to the as lower property values, health costs, and personal and busi- public. Information on this subject can be found in a report ness economic costs. To perform CBA, aircraft noise must by the National Research Council Transportation Research be related to these impacts. Board (Eagan, 2007). Because it is difficult to assess independent impacts of noise on annoyance, sleep, health, school learning, and so on, 1 The FAA Office of Environment and Energy, in collaboration with it is typical to use one of two methods as surrogates for the Transport Canada and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, total impact of noise. The first of these is the change in prop - is developing a comprehensive suite of software tools for a thorough as - erty value associated with aircraft noise. Many studies have sessment of the environmental effects and impacts of aviation noise. The statistically analyzed this relationship, typically presenting main purpose is to develop a new capability to characterize and quantify interdependencies among aviation-related noise and emissions, impacts it in terms of a noise depreciation index (NDI) with units of on health and welfare, and industry and consumer costs, under different percentage of property value loss per decibel. The results of policy, technology, operational, and market scenarios. The three main func- many of these studies are shown graphically in Figure 7-3 tional components of the tools suite are the Environmental Design Space (left). Figure 7-3 (right) shows the results of willingness-to- (EDS), which is used to estimate aircraft CAEP/8 performance trade-offs pay (WTP) studies based on carefully designed surveys of for different technology assumptions and policy scenarios; the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), which takes as input detailed fleet people who live near airports; the typical metric is euros per descriptions and flight schedules and produces estimates of noise and emis - decibel per household per year. The “X” marks an equivalent sions inventories at global, regional, and local levels; and the Aviation En- value between the two measures (assuming an appropriate vironmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT), which is the framework average house price and depreciation level). within which policy analyses are conducted and which provides additional Both measures of economic impact reflect the wide vari- functional capabilities. APMT functional capabilities include an economic model of the aviation industry, with inputs of different policy and market ability that is characteristic of personal and community re- scenarios and existing and potential new aircraft types (the latter from EDS sponses to noise. Nevertheless, both methods (observing real or other sources). It then simulates the behavior of airlines, manufacturers, estate transactions and surveying people) produce similar and consumers, producing a detailed fleet and schedule of flights for each results in terms of overall value and a similar range of values scenario year for input to AEDT. APMT also takes the outputs from AEDT from low to high. Thus, they provide a basis for estimating (or other similar tools) and performs comprehensive environmental impact analyses for global climate change, air quality, and community noise. the economic impacts of aircraft noise—as a surrogate for These environmental impacts are quantified using a broad range of metrics estimating the large number of individual impacts, many of (including, but not limited to, monetized estimates of human health and which overlap in meaning and are difficult to value (e.g., the welfare impacts, thereby enabling both cost effectiveness and cost-benefit relationship between sleep disturbance, stress, and school or analyses). Additional information can be found in ICAO (2007) and on the work performance). FAA website.

OCR for page 101
04 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA TABLE 7-1 Relationship between Day-Night Average Sound Level and Impacts Annoyance Day-Night Hearing Loss Percentage of Average Average Sound Qualitative Population Highly Community Level (dB) Description Annoyed Reaction General Community Attitude ≥ 75 May occur 37 Very severe Noise is likely to be the most important adverse aspect of the community environment. 70 Not likely to 22 Severe Noise is one of the most important adverse aspects of the community occur environment. 65 Will not occur 12 Significant Noise is one of the important adverse aspects of the community environment. 60 Will not occur 7 Moderate to slight Noise may be considered an adverse aspect of the community environment. ≤ 55 Will not occur 3 Moderate to slight Noise is considered no more important than other environmental factors. FIGURE 7-2 Relationship between percentage of population highly annoyed and DNL level, in decibels. Sources: Kish (2008) and Fidell and Silvati (2004). FIGURE 7-3 (left) Noise depreciation indices (NDI) (percent of property value loss per decibel); (right) willingness-to-pay (WTP) values (Euros/household/dB/year) based on a number of North American, European, Japanese, and Australian studies of aircraft noise. APMT = Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool. For reference, “X” marks equivalent values (assuming an average housing price and depreciation value). Source: Kish (2008). Figure_7-3.eps uneditable bitmap

OCR for page 101
0 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR NOISE CONTROL The FAA has recently developed methods that overlay far is that the noise reduction from quieter pavements typi- contours of noise levels with census data describing popu- cally degrades over time and must be rehabilitated, on some lations and housing values (FAA, 2008; Kish, 2008). With cycle, throughout the life of the highway. Barriers, on the these, statistical distributions and ranges of NDIs and WTP other hand, are typically assumed to have minimal ongoing values are used to provide monetized estimates of the nega- costs. tive impacts of noise. These monetized estimates are then compared to policy implementation costs, industry costs, Policies on Noise Barriers and costs and benefits associated with changes in other interdependent environmental impacts. These tools have According to official FHWA policy, “the use of specific recently been developed and, to date, have been used only in pavement types or surface textures must not be considered as sample cost-benefit analyses of technology, operations, and a noise abatement measure” (FHWA, 2009c). Thus, wherever policy options. Nonetheless, the intention is to use them for highway noise mitigation is required, noise barriers should real analyses after further research and development. More be used. A summary of the number of barriers that have information can be found at http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/ been constructed and their costs is given below. Benefits are partner/apmt/ and http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/ achieved only relatively close to the highway and are gener- apmt/noiseimpact.html. ally measured in terms of a reduction in A-weighted sound pressure level.3 In addition, noise barriers are not feasible in many areas—for example, to protect homes on a hillside COST-BENEFIT ANALySIS FOR HIgHWAy NOISE above a busy highway. Since the 1980s, few major CBAs have been done for Barriers are constructed from a variety of materials, in- highway noise in the United States.2 A meta-analysis in cluding wood, concrete block, precast concrete, brick, and 1982 of 17 hedonic pricing estimates for the United States other materials. Earth berms may also be used as noise bar- and Canada showed a range of NDIs of 0.16 to 0.63 percent, riers. Construction of barriers is a cooperative effort between with a mean value of 0.40 percent per decibel (Nelson, 1982). FHWA and the state in which the barrier is constructed, in New studies, using CBA techniques described in this report determination of both the requirements and the costs. FHWA and economic terms, such as hedonic pricing, stated prefer- defines two types of highway projects for which barriers ence, and WTP, are needed to assess the costs and benefits are considered. A Type I highway project is a planned new of both sound barriers and quieter road surfaces with respect construction project or construction to increase the capacity to noise abatement, especially to compare the two to ensure of an existing highway. Federal laws require that a noise that funds currently provided for noise mitigation are being impact statement be prepared, and if noise levels exceed an well spent. established limit, noise abatement must be considered. The The FHWA policy for highway noise abatement includes limits, set by the state, range from 64 to 67 dB(A) in response an implied CBA in determining the “reasonableness” of the to the FHWA requirement that abatement be provided for abatement method (i.e., sound walls). Following the process levels “approaching” 67 dB(A) for the loudest hour predicted outlined in FHWA noise policy 23 CFR 772, each state de- for the highway project. Given typical urban region traffic velops a cost allowance associated with any noise-impacted patterns, this worst level of 67 dB(A) can result in day-night levels of 69 dB(A) or more (Greene, 2002).4 Once a sound residence for a proposed highway project (FHWA, 2006). These cost allowances range from a low of $10,000 per wall is designed, the state determines if it is “reasonable” residence to a high of $50,000. Some states allow increases (cost-effective) and “feasible” (technically) to construct the in these values based on the severity of the predicted impact barrier. Feasible in this context equates to the requirement and, in some cases, the predicted noise reduction. The cost that the barrier achieve at least a 5-dB noise reduction. If not, allowance for all “benefited” residences that receive a 3- to the barrier is not feasible, and no abatement is implemented 5-dB reduction from a proposed sound wall are then totaled, in the project. and this cost is compared to the cost of the sound wall, using Barriers for Type II projects, those undertaken in response a process specific to individual states. to noise complaints, are voluntary. FHWA will provide FHWA policy does not now allow quieter pavement to matching funds for Type II projects, although the require- be considered as a noise abatement method, and therefore it ments for this are often difficult to meet. As a result, con- is not included in the CBA. However, a National Coopera- struction of barriers for existing highways is rare, and cost tive Highway Research Program project (NCHRP 10-76) is is a major factor. under way to develop methodologies for including quieter pavement in CBAs. One of the problems encountered so 3 Typically,noise barriers are most effective within 200 feet (FHWA, 2 N elson,J. 2007. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Transportation Noise. 2009a). 4 Donavan, P.D. 2009. Analysis based on Greene (2002). Private com - Presentation at an NAE-sponsored workshop on cost-benefit analysis, Cambridge, Massachusetts. munication, September 17.

OCR for page 101
06 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA Design and Performance • Excaation. This category includes grading and exca- vation ditches, benching, construction roads, and other Information on the technical aspects of barrier design access features. and evaluation are available in I-INCE (1999) and FHWA • G uardrail. This category includes traffic control (2009d). In the I-INCE document (1999), the best estimate devices, signage, jersey barriers, or other protective by the working group that prepared it was that barrier inser- equipment that may be used for maintenance of traf- tion loss (the difference in A-weighted sound pressure level fic requirements or ultimately protecting the newly before and after installation of a barrier) typically ranges installed noise barrier from vehicle impacts. from 5 to 12 dB. FWHA (2009d) classifies the insertion loss • Utilities. This category includes temporary or perma- (attenuation) as follows: nent relocations of overhead or underground utilities that may be affected by the noise barrier construc- 5 dB = simple tion. 10 dB = attainable • Barrier system. This category includes basic physi- 15 dB = very difficult cal elements of the structural barrier system, includ- 20 dB = nearly impossible ing posts, panels, and foundations. Also included are grade beams; special panels; architectural, decorative, The fundamental quantity in barrier design is the Fresnel or aesthetic finishes; or absorptive-surface treatments. number (the difference in path length from source to receiver There might also be special foundation requirements with and without the barrier, measured in half-wavelengths to accommodate subsurface conditions or retaining of the sound). High frequencies have a high number and walls. more attenuation; low frequencies have a lower number and • Landscaping. This category includes site restoration are more difficult to attenuate. when construction is complete, trees and shrubs, seed- Barriers are most effective when constructed near the ing, mulching, and so forth. highway or near the receiver (which tends to maximize the path-length difference); the exact range of barrier effective- FHWA requests information every three years from the ness depends a great deal on the terrain. For example, in a ris- states on the number of miles of barrier constructed and the ing ground level the effectiveness can be small (low Fresnel costs. Through the end of 2004, 45 states and the Common- number), whereas if the ground level goes down, the barrier wealth of Puerto Rico had constructed 2,205 miles of noise is more effective. FHWA (2009a) estimates that barriers are barriers at a cost of $3.4 billion (FHWA, 2009a). Thus, the most effective within 200 feet of a highway FHWA. Thus, average cost per mile is approximately $1.54 million in only a few rows of homes are protected by a barrier. 2004 dollars. Table 7-2 shows the cost breakdown. The ap- parent discrepancy between the numbers above and below Cost is because not all states are included in the table; data from California for 1998 to 2004 are missing. The costs of barrier construction, as documented by Cost elements used to determine project costs vary greatly FHWA, are summarized here (FHWA, 2007). 5 Costs vary from state to state; some states report the total bid cost, oth - from project to project, and methods of reporting costs are ers just use the cost of the barrier “system.” Even the items not uniform from state to state. However, available data are included in the reported barrier system may differ. States a good starting point. that use the same or similar approaches may use different The obvious variables are barrier height and length. underlying assumptions. Thus, detailed comparisons are According to Polcak (2003), the most reliable cost break- difficult to make. down is for Type II barriers and can be divided into seven If, in the upper left table, Minnesota were eliminated and, categories: in the lower left table, Colorado were eliminated (to be able to compare the same nine states), the average barrier cost • Preliminary. This category includes mobilization per square foot for nine states would be $18.29. The high- costs, clearing and grubbing, field office setup, and est cost is for Pennsylvania ($24.88), and the lowest cost is other preparatory activities that must be done before for California ($13.04). However, recent data for California construction begins. are not included, so Ohio should be considered the low-cost • Drainage. This category includes everything related to state ($13.51). The 10-state average is thus $1.75 million per maintaining and facilitating drainage of the barrier site, linear mile. Table 7-3 shows data for the states in Table 7-2 including, but not limited to, inlets, pipes, underdrain using common data converted to metric units. systems, ditch treatments, rip-rap, and stormwater Costs from earlier FHWA data, published by Polcak management facilities. (2003), show costs per project for many states. For example, Figure 7-4 shows construction costs in Maryland for precast concrete barriers and for all barriers. Note that the vertical 5The summary is for the years up to 2004.

OCR for page 101
07 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR NOISE CONTROL Quiet Pavement Design TABLE 7-2 Noise Barrier Construction by State, through 2004 FHWA policy supports research related to quiet pave- ments. However, predictions of highway noise, and the Square Feet (thousands) Linear Miles criteria for whether noise mitigation is allowable for federal California 30,644 California 482.8 cost sharing, are based on an average of all pavement types. Virginia 11,227 Arizona 155.1 Thus, even if the noise characteristics of a particular pave- Arizona 11,226 Virginia 127.5 New Jersey 9,440 Ohio 112.4 ment type are known, they are not used in highway noise Ohio 8,675 New Jersey 96.9 predictions. Modifications of source data to account for Maryland 8,422 Colorado 92.5 quieter pavements are allowable only under the stringent Minnesota 7,187 New York 90.7 requirements of the FHWA Quiet Pavement Pilot Program New York 7,011 Pennsylvania 87.0 (FHWA, 2005). In addition, because there are no acceptance Florida 6,700 Minnesota 83.7 Pennsylvania 6,415 Maryland 81.8 tests in place to ensure that a pavement meets planned noise 10-State Total 106,946 1,410.4 levels, there are no incentives for state or local agencies to build or maintain quieter pavement that would benefit the Actual Cost at Time of Cost in 2004 public. Other issues related to the design and implementation Construction Dollars ($ of low-noise road surfaces include measurement of the noise ($ millions) millions) reduction at the source and its relationship to noise measure- California 399.6 California 592.8 ments in the community, the technology of the design of road Arizona 258.7 Arizona 284.6 surfaces, safety, and durability. Many of these issues were New Jersey 202.4 New Jersey 277.5 Maryland 200.9 Maryland 253.6 discussed at a workshop sponsored by the National Academy Virginia 169.6 Virginia 225.3 of Engineering (NAE) in February 2007.6 New York 165.9 New York 207.3 Long-term studies have been under way for several years Pennsylvania 159.6 Pennsylvania 197.8 on the durability of road surfaces (CDOT, 2005; Rochat, Florida 150.7 Florida 175.9 2002), and the results of a 52-month study were recently pub- Ohio 117.2 Ohio 139.0 Colorado 80.0 Minnesota 107.7 lished (Rochat and Read, 2009). In addition, there have been 10-State Total 1,904.5 2,461.4 many studies in Europe (see section below) and other studies in the United States (Corbisier, 2005; Donavan, 2005a,b, 2006; Rasmussen et al., 2007; Reyff, 2007a,b). FHWA maintains a home page on the subject (FHWA, 2009e) as scales are costs per square meter. Similar data for Virginia, well as guidance for the development of quiet pavement pro- including all construction materials, are shown in Figure 7-5. grams (FHWA, 2009c). The Tire-Pavement Noise Research As the figures show, there is a great deal of variability in cost Consortium is funded by eight states and FHWA (TPNRC, from project to project, and the data are only weakly depen- 2009). FHWA also sponsors a workshop, “Tire-Pavement dent on barrier length. A major factor in the variability is that Noise 101,” that has been given in many states; the essence FHWA data for the states include barriers for both Type I and of the course material is available in the The Little Book of Type II projects, which by their nature are more likely to have Quieter Paements (Rasmussen et al., 2007a,b). different elements included in the cost figures. Quiet pavements reduce noise by controlling the surface characteristics of the pavement. Much less documentation is available on the costs for pavement modifications by resur- facing and grinding than on the costs of noise barriers. The TABLE 7-3 Summary of Barrier Construction and Costs, literature to date provides data only on pilot projects, with by State the emphasis on onboard noise measurements, the correla- Barrier Cost per Barrier Barrier Cost tion of these data with pass-by noise, surface characteristics State/ Area Square Meter Length per Kilometer and their relationship to noise emission, and the durability of (m2) Total/Average ($) (km) ($ thousands) road surfaces (Donavan, 2006).7 Costs for quiet pavements California 2,847 140.36 777.0 0760 vary with the extent of treatment (e.g., grinding), the addi- Arizona 1,043 248.05 249.6 1140 New Jersey 877 230.78 155.9 1780 Maryland 782 256.76 131.6 1930 6 Donavan, P.D. 2007. Reductions in Noise Emissions from Porous Virginia 1,043 162.60 205.2 1100 Highways. Presentation at an NAE workshop on Cost-Benefit Analysis New York 651 254.70 146.0 1420 of Transportation Noise Control Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Florida 622 242.11 — February 22. Ohio 806 145.42 180.9 0770 7 See also Donavan, P.D. 2007. Reductions in Noise Emissions from Po - Pennsylvania 596 267.80 140.0 1410 rous Highways. Presentation at an NAE workshop on Cost-Benefit Analysis TOTAL 9,268 1,986.3 of Transportation Noise Control Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, AVERAGE 196.87 1100 February 22.

OCR for page 101
08 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA MD - Cost/Square Meter vs. Length Cost ($/m2) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 All projects/All material types Linear (All projects/All material types) MD - Cost/Square Meter vs. Length Cost ($/m2) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Projects using pre-cast concrete only Linear (Projects using pre-cast concrete only) FIGURE 7-4 Cost of barriers per square meter in Maryland for all projects (upper) and for precast concrete (lower). Source: Polcak (2003). Figure_7-4.eps Cost ($/m2) bitmap with vector y-axis label 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 All projects/All material types Linear (All projects/All material types) FIGURE 7-5 Cost of barriers per square meter in Virginia for all projects. Source: Polcak (2003). Figure_7-5.eps bitmap with vector y-axisasphalt rubber asphaltic concrete friction course is label tion of a thin (25-millimeter) porous layer, the removal of millimeter $6.55 per square yard;9 thus, the cost for 30 feet of highway and complete replacement of pavement, and the construction of a new road. width is still well below the cost per mile of a noise barrier. Scofield provides some information on diamond grind- As discussed in the previous section, the average cost of a ing; at an average cost of $3.52 per square yard, the cost noise barrier in 10 states was estimated to be $1.75 million for 1 mile would be $61,952 per 30 feet of highway width.8 per linear mile. According to the Transportation Research According to Arizona guidelines from 2007, the cost of a 25- Board (Alexandrova et al., 2007), asphalt rubber friction 8 Scofield, 9 McDaniel, L. 2009. E-mail communication, American Concrete Pave- B. 2009. E-mail communication, Becky McDaniel, Purdue ment Association. University.

OCR for page 101
0 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR NOISE CONTROL EuROPEAN COST-BENEFIT ANALySES course overlays also have a positive impact on tire wear, emissions, and air quality. Many CBAs of mitigation options for aircraft, road, and Based on data compiled by the California Department of rail noise have been done in Europe. This section provides a Transportation, some analysis has been done comparing the brief summary of selected activities. typical costs of barriers to the costs of quieter pavement op- In 2001 a workshop on CBA, “A Billion Euro Question,” tions (Donavan, 2005b). Assuming that barriers are 16 feet was held in The Hague, Netherlands, in conjunction with high, the maximum allowed in the state, and that they line the 2001 International Congress and Exposition on Noise both sides of a freeway, the cost was estimated at $5 million Control Engineering (INTER-NOISE 01).10 The focus of per mile. Assuming a six-lane freeway, the cost of a quieter the workshop was on how much should be paid for noise pavement overlay, such as rubberized open-graded asphalt, control, and several presentations included descriptions of was estimated at $210,000 to $270,000 per mile. For Portland how aircraft, road, and rail noise were valued. In December cement concrete pavement surfaces, the cost of grinding the 2001 the European Commission sponsored a second work- pavement to reduce tire/pavement noise was estimated at shop, “State-of-the-Art in Noise Valuation,” and a workshop $320,000 to $600,000 per mile. report was published in 2002 (Vainio and Paque, 2002). The Noise barriers protect only the first few rows of houses, workshop participants came to the following conclusions: whereas pavement treatments, which essentially reduce noise emissions, can provide protection at greater distances. • Contingent valuation and revealed preference (includ- Complaints about highway noise may come from long dis- ing the hedonic price method) were acceptable meth- tances from the highway. This was documented in a report ods for valuing the benefits of noise reduction, with by the Transportation Research Board in 2006 (Herman et the caveat that these methods be followed rigorously al., 2006): to ensure that the results are meaningful. A portion of 1-76 near Akron, Ohio, was reconstructed by • A day-evening-night sound level of 55 dB should be the Ohio Department of Transportation with concrete pave- an interim lower cutoff point for noise valuation. ment to replace the previous asphalt surface. During recon- • A rough assessment of the cost per household per deci- struction, the concrete surface was textured with random bel per year for levels above 55 dB should be between transverse grooves. After construction, residents living in 5 and 50 Euros. the project area as far as 800 m (2,600 ft) from the roadway perceived an undesirable increase in noise level, which they On April 14, 2002, a 68-page report was delivered to the attributed to the new concrete pavement in the reconstruction European Commission Directorate General Environment project. Therefore, another project was initiated to retexture on the theoretical basis and valuation techniques for cost- the pavement surface by diamond grinding. The transverse benefit reviews and other studies of noise valuation for road grooves were replaced with longitudinal grooves. Traffic traffic, aircraft noise, rail noise, and industrial noise (Navrud, noise measurements were made before and after grinding at five sites in the project area, at distances of 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 2002). and 15 m (49.2 ft) from the center of the near travel lane. The Strategies and Tools to Assess and Implement Noise average reduction in the A-frequency-weighted broadband Reducing Measures for Railway Systems (STAIRRS) was a noise levels at 7.5 m (24.6 ft) was 3.5 dB, and the average project to review strategies for reducing noise around rail- reduction at 15 m (49.2 ft) was 3.1 dB. Spectrum analysis ways (Oertli et al., 2002). The program used to determine the showed that the greatest reduction in noise occurred at fre- costs and benefits in some railway noise emission situations quencies above 1 kHz and that the retexturing had little to was described by Lenders and Hecq (2002). The results of no effect on frequencies less than 200 Hz. the study allow the calculation of costs and benefits in any geographical area of Europe. Noise barriers were shown to Unfortunately, the report does not note if complaints have a poor (high) ratio of costs and benefits. ended after the grinding or whether before/after noise mea- The European Commission (EC) issued a 49-page draft re- surements were made at long distances. A detailed CBA will port in 2006 (EC, 2006) that included information on several be necessary to determine if the extensive use of low-noise European Union (EU) projects related to CBA. In 2008 the road surfaces will have a general benefit for people who live consulting firm CE Delft produced a report for the EC detail- near busy highways. ing external costs for a number of items in the transportation With current technology, noise reduction from tire/road sector—including noise. The report provides an overview of interaction is not as effective as can be achieved by noise a number of studies related to noise costs and benefits and barriers. However, because larger reductions are achieved only near the barrier, relatively few people benefit from 10Vainio, M., G. Paque, B. Baarsma, P. Bradburn, H. Nijland, S. Rasmus - the reduction. Reduction of the tire/road interaction noise sen, and J. Lambert. 2001. A Billion Euro Question: How Much Should We provides a smaller benefit, but it is a noise reduction at the Pay for Noise Control, and How Much Is It Worth? Presentation at Work - source and therefore can benefit a larger number of people. shop on Costs and Benefits Analysis in Noise Policy. INTER-NOISE 01, CBA is an approach to making this kind of trade-off. The Hague, The Netherlands, August 29, 2001. Final Report, December.

OCR for page 101
0 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA summarizes the results of 11 studies of WTP. Some of these corresponding numbers are €38 to €59 for rail traffic. The studies relate WTP to per capita income; others use a noise numbers varied greatly from country to country. depreciation sensitivity index. The report leans heavily on Sandberg also referred to a seminar on road noise abate- HEATCO (Harmonized European Approaches for Transport ment sponsored by the Danish Road Institute and a 2006 COsting and Project Assessment) studies (HEATCO, 2009). report that included his presentation on a study of tire noise The CE Delft report recommends that, “to value the disutil- by the Forum of European National Highway Research ity due to traffic noise, it is recommended to use an annual Laboratories (FEHRL, 2006). The goal of the project, which WTP-value equal to 0.09%–0.11% of capita income per dB, included a CBA, was to provide information for the EC on which is in line with the range of WTP-values recommended the effects of more stringent tire noise limits. Assuming that to the EU in 2002 by Navrud.” the benefits of reduced tire noise would be in effect some- CBA was the subject of two presentations by Ulf Sandberg time between 2010 and 2022, FEHRL determined that the of the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Insti- monetary benefits of a conservative reduction of 0.9 dB(A) tute at an NAE workshop in 2007.11 Sandberg’s talk focused in tire noise would be €48 billion, and the benefits of an on CBAs in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. He said that the optimistic reduction of 2.3 dB(A) would be €123 billion 1996 Green Paper published by the EU included an estimate (FEHRL, 2006a). that the total cost of transportation noise in 17 European Sandberg also described SILVIA, a study name based on countries was €38 billion, which amounted to 0.65 percent of the Latin Silenda ia (the road must be silent), better known gross domestic product. One of the expert groups established as the “Sustainable Road Surfaces for Traffic Noise Control to follow up on the Green Paper was the Working Group Study.” Based on SILVIA, a Guidance Manual for the Imple- on Health and Socioeconomic Aspects, which published a mentation of Low-Noise Road Surfaces was produced. Task paper on noise valuation in 2003, reflecting the opinions 3.3 in the manual was the monetization of costs and benefits of the majority of members of the group (Working Group, of quiet pavements. These included the creation of low-noise 2003). Although this was not an official EU document, the pavement, including the pavement itself, maintenance, and group recommended that, when using the day-evening-night indirect costs; no charges were necessary against changes in sound level (Lden) metric, a value of 25 euros per decibel per rolling resistance or accident costs, because quiet pavements household per year be used to evaluate transportation noise. were found to be neutral in this respect, but there may be Swedish studies, he said, indicate that much higher values some differences in water pollution between standard and should be used for day-evening-night sound levels of more porous road surfaces. SILVIA concluded that quiet pave- than 60 dB. ments were justified from a cost-benefit point of view in Sandberg described a CBA he conducted in 2001 that as- areas where many people along the road were impacted by sumed the cost of a low-noise road surface of $5 per square high noise levels (FEHRL, 2006b). meter (reasonably consistent with a Danish study [Larsen At the INTER-NOISE 05 meeting, Jacques Lambert sum- and Bendtsen, 2002]), a barrier cost of $500 per meter (lower marized CBAs (Lambert, 2005). He gave an overview of the than costs in the United States), and a road length of 200 various methods of doing cost-benefit analysis in Europe meters (Sandberg, 2001). In Sandberg’s analysis the cost and reported on 12 European studies of willingness to pay of a barrier for a 10-meter-wide roadway was $100,000, for noise reduction in several countries. He also presented whereas the cost for pavement was $10,000. Note that the noise values for six different European countries. These are estimate of $5 per square meter was based on conditions in shown in Table 7-4. 2001 for a single-layer porous asphalt pavement. In addition, the estimate did not take into account the expected shorter FINDINgS AND RECOMMENDATION acoustical lifetime of a quiet pavement. Cost estimates in 2008–2009 for more efficient double-layer porous pavements As this brief review shows, much activity in Europe has are three to four times higher, and lifetimes are shorter than focused on the costs and benefits of noise control. Despite for conventional pavements. differences in results among these studies, and even though The HEATCO project, completed in 2006, included a six- some were not based on the most recent dose-response data, country contingent valuation study by a contractor in Nor- they make a compelling case for noise reduction. The United way, E-CO Tech. The data are given in Euros per person per States would benefit from similar studies on all sources of year, and for road traffic range from €37 for “little annoyed” transportation noise—road, rail, and air. persons to €85 for “highly annoyed” persons. In contrast, the EPA has expertise in CBA and the authority to study the economics of noise mitigation. The FAA has a head start on using CBA techniques in evaluating noise around airports. 11 Sandberg, U. 2007. Discussion of European Activities Related to Cost The FHWA and states have expertise in measuring noise Benefit Analysis and Highway Noise, and Future Technology for Design of from highway traffic and determining road surface costs. Quiet Tires, and European Specifications for Tire/Road Noise. Presentations The reported cost of barrier construction varies from state at an NAE workshop on Cost-Benefit Analysis of Noise Control Technology, to state for reasons related to building costs and the methods Cambridge, Massachusetts, February 23.

OCR for page 101
 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR NOISE CONTROL TABLE 7-4 Noise Values for Selected European Countries CE Delft. 2008. Handbook on Estimation of External Costs in the Trans - port Sector. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/ Recommended or Official handbook/doc/008_0__handbook_external_cost_en.pdf. Valuation Noise Value in Euros, Corbisier, C. 2005. Roadmap to Quieter Highways. Proceedings of NOISE- Country Technique 2002 Application CON 05, The 2005 National Conference on Noise Control Engineer- ing, Minneapolis, MN, October 17–19. Available online at http://www. Germany HP 46.7 €/dB/person affected/ Transport project bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. year for Leq day > 55 dB Donavan, P.D. 2005a. Overview of the Arizona Quiet Pavement Program. France HP 0.4 to 1.1%/dB for Leq Road and rail Proceedings of NOISE-CON 05, The 2005 National Conference on day > 55 +30% for Leq project Noise Control Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, October 17–19. Avail - day > 70 dB & Leq night able online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. > 65 dB Donavan, P.D. 2005b. Reducing Traffic Noise with Quieter Pavements. Proceedings of NOISE-CON 05, The 2005 National Conference on Norway CV 1,000 to 1,170 €/affected Road, rail, and Noise Control Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, October 17–19. Avail - HP person/year (according to air project, and able online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. the mode of transport) environmental Donavan, P.D. 2006. Generation of Noise by Truck and Car Tires on Various protection project Types of Asphalt Concrete Pavements. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE Netherlands HP 32.2 €/dB/person affected/ Transport project 06, The 2006 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control year for Leq day > 55 dB Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, December 3–6. Available online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. Sweden HP 0 € at 50 dB to 1,810 € at Road project Eagan, M.E. 2007. Supplemental metrics to communicate aircraft noise ef - 85 dB (Leq 24h)/person fects. Transportation Research Record, 2011: 175–183. Available online affected/year at http://bit.ly/bTjRBo. Switzerland CV 500 €/person affected/year Road project EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Noise in America: for Leq day > 55 dB and The Extent of the Noise Problem. EPA/ONAC Report No. 550/9-81- for Leq night >45 dB 101. Washington, DC: EPA. Available online at http://www.nonoise. org/epa/Roll6/roll6doc7.pdf. EPA. 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Available online at http://yosemite.epa.go/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html. EC (European Commission). 2006. Noise Classification of Road Pave- states use for reporting to FHWA. Costs also vary by state ments. Task 2: Cost-Effectiveness of Low Noise Pavements. Available with prevailing construction costs, design requirements (bar- online at http://www.cowiprojects.com/noiseclassification/docs/noise- rier dimensions of height and length), and the definition of class_taskreport.pdf. a cost basis for each state. Nevertheless, there appear to be FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2008. See, for example, http://faa. sufficient data to predict costs when the specifics of a build - go/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/models/history. FEHRL (Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories). ing site are known. 2006a. Final report S12.408210 Tyre/Road Noise, Volume 1.25, Brus - Present FHWA policy limits noise mitigation around sels. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotie/proj- highways to the construction of barriers, so the relative ects/report_tyre_road_noise.pdf. merits and costs of noise reduction from the installation of FEHRL. 2006b. SILVIA: Sustainable Road Surfaces for Traffic Noise quieter road surfaces, although currently being investigated, Control. Available online at http://www.trl.co.uk/silia/silia/pdf/silia _guidance_manual.pdf. are not part of noise mitigation policy. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2005. Guidance on Quiet Pave- ment Pilot Programs and Tire/Pavement Noise Research. Available Recommendation 7-1: A f ormal cost-benefit analysis online at http://www.fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/qpppeml.htm. should be performed to compare the costs and benefits of FHWA. 2006. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States: Problem and using pavement technology for noise reduction with the costs Response. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.go/enironment/ usprbrsp.pdf. and benefits of installing noise barriers. This cost-benefit FHWA. 2007. Summary of Noise Barriers. Available online at http://www. analysis should be a cooperative effort of the Federal High- fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/barrier/summary.htm. way Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FHWA. 2009a. Highway Traffic Noise Barriers at a Glance. Available online and the several states with technology programs in road sur- at http://www.fhwa.dot.go/enironment/keepdown.htm. face design. Inputs to the analysis should include data from FHWA. 2009b. FHWA Traffic Noise Model. Available online at http://www. fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/tnm/index.htm. See also http://www. analyses of noise reduction efforts around airports. fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/qpppmem.htm. FHWA. 2009c. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.go/enironment/ REFERENCES polguid.pdf. Alexandrova, O., K.E. Kaloush, and J.O. Allen. 2007. Impact of asphalt FHWA. 2009d. FHWA Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. Avail- rubber friction course overlays on the tire wear emissions and air quality able online at http://www.fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/design/index. models for Phoenix, Arizona, airshed. Transportation Research Record, htm. 2011: 98–106. Available online at http://bit.ly/c7z88A. FHWA. 2009e. Tire-Pavement Noise Home Page. Available online at http:// CDOT (California Department of Transportation). 2005. I-80 Davis OGAC www.fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/tp_noise.htm. Pavement Noise Study: Traffic Noise Levels Associated with Aging FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency Open Grade Asphalt Concrete Overlay. Available online at http://www. Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Available online at dot.ca.go/hq/en/noise/pub/IH80_dais_ogacpmntwtudy_7yrrpt.pdf. http://www.fican.org/pdf/nai-8-.pdf.

OCR for page 101
 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA Fidell, S., and L. Silvati. 2004. Parsimonious alternative to regression OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 1992. Guidelines and Discount analysis for characterizing prevalence rates of aircraft noise annoyance. Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. Circular A-94. Noise Control Engineering Journal 52(2):56–68. Washington, DC: OMB. Available online at http://www.whitehouse. Greene, M. 2002. Typical Diurnal Traffic Noise Patterns for a Variety of go/omb/circulars/a04/a04.pdf. Roadway Types. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 02, The 2002 In - Polcak, K.D. 2003. Highway traffic noise barriers in the U.S.—construc- ternational Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, tion trends and cost analysis. Noise/News International 11(3):96–108. Dearborn, MI, August 19–21. Available online at http://www.noisenewsinternational.net/archies_idx. HEATCO (Developing Harmonized European Approaches for Transport htm. Costing and Project Assessment). 2009. Sixth Framework Programme Rasmussen, R., R. Bernhard, U. Sandberg, and E. Mun. 2007a. The Little 2002–2006. Available online at http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de. Book of Quieter Pavements. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Admin- Herman, L., J. Withers, and E. Pinckney. 2006. Surface Retexturing to istration. Available online at http://www.tcpsc.com/LittleBookQuieter Reduce Tire-Road Noise for Existing Concrete Pavements. Transpor- Paements.pdf. tation Research Record 1983: 51–58. Available online at http://bit. Rasmussen, R.O., E.P. Mun, and R.E. DeDios. 2007b. Tire-Pavement and ly/96UE5C. Traffic Noise Research in the State of Colorado. Proceedings of NOISE- ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). 2007. Environmental CON 07, The 2007 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Report 2007. Montreal, Canada: ICAO. Available online at http://www. Reno, NV. icao.int/en/pubs/en_report_07.pdf. Reyff, J.A. 2007a. Reduction of Traffic and Tire/Pavement Noise: 3rd Year I-INCE (International Institute of Noise Control Engineering). 1999. Tech - Results of the Arizona Quiet Pavement Program—Site III. Proceedings nical Assessment of the Effectiveness of Noise Walls. Publication 99-1. of NOISE-CON 07, The 2007 National Conference on Noise Control See http://www.i-ince.org. Engineering, Reno, NV. Available online at http://www.bookmasters. Kish, C. 2008. An Estimate of the Global Impact of Commercial Avia- com/marktplc/0076.htm. tion Noise. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Reyff, J.A. 2007b. REMEL Database Developed for Different PCC Pave- Cambridge. ment Surfaces. Proceedings of NOISE-CON 07, The 2007 National Lambert, J. 2005. Valuation of the Benefits of Transportation Noise Re - Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Reno, NV. Available online duction. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 2005, The 2005 International at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Rio de Ja- Rochat, J.L. 2002. Long-Term, Multiple Pavement Type, Tire/Road Noise neiro, Brazil. Available online at http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/ Study. Presentation at INTER-NOISE 2002, Dearborn, Michigan, INCEDL-home/cp/. August 19–21. Available online at http://bit.ly/cESjP. Larsen, L.E., and H. Bendtsen. 2002. Noise Reduction with Porous As- Rochat, J.L., and D.R. Read. 2009. Noise benefits of asphalt pavements— phalt—Costs and Perceived Effect. Lyngby, Denmark: Danish Transport trends at ages up to 52 months. Noise Control Engineering Journal Research Institute. Available online at http://bit.ly/bTlxO. 52(2):84–93. Lenders, A., and W. Hecq. 2002. The Cost and Benefit Functions in the Sandberg, U. 2001. Tyre/Road Noise—Myths and Realities. Proceedings of Project STAIRRS: Strategies and Tools to Assess and Implement INTER-NOISE 01, The 2001 International Congress and Exposition on N oise Reducing Measures for Railway Systems. Proceedings of Noise Control Engineering, The Hague, Netherlands. Available online at INTER-NOISE 2002, The 2002 International Congress and Exposition http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/INCEDL-home/cp/. on Noise Control Engineering, Dearborn, Michigan. Available online at TPNRC (Tire-Pavement Noise Research Consortium). 2009. Transportation http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. Pooled Fund Program. Available online at http://bit.ly/p8SSo. Navrud, S. 2002. The State-of-the-Art on Economic Valuation of Noise. Vainio, M., and G. Paque. 2002. Highlights of the Workshop on the “State- Final Report to the European Commission DG Environment. Available of-the-Art in Noise Valuation.” Final report. July. Available online at online at http://ec.europa.eu/enironment/noise/pdf/noise_monetisation. http://bit.ly/cwTUIf. pdf. Waitz, I., R.J. Bernhard, and C.E. Hanson. 2007. Challenges and promises Nelson, J. 1982. Highway noise and property values: a survey of recent in mitigating transportation noise. The Bridge 37(3):25–32. evidence. Journal of Transport, Economics and Policy 16(2):117–138. Working Group. 2003. Valuation of Noise. Position paper of the Working Oertli, J., F. Elbers, and P. van der Stap. 2002. The STAIRRS project: Group on Health and Socio-Economic Aspects. Available online at A cost-benefit analysis of different measures to reduce railway noise http://bit.ly/HIyU. on a European scale. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 2002, The 2002 WHO (World Health Organization). 2004. Transport-Related Health Effects International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, with a Particular Emphasis on Children: Noise. Geneva: WHO Trans- Dearborn, MI, August 19–21. Available online at http://www.bookmas- port, Health and Environment Pan-European Program. ters.com/marktplc/0076.htm.