Archinect
anchor

Stopping a Sound (barrier) wall.

chupacabra

STOP THE WALL

So, I am looking for people to join this facebook group in support of stopping 20' wall from being constructed directly adjacent to my house and neighborhood. It is said to be for mitigating sound from the highway but this couldn't be further from the truth, as the highway noise is not a concern.

If you have dealt with sound wall construction in the past or similar issues please post them. If you just want to keep up with the fight, please stay tuned at the facebook site.

From renderings to diagrams and analysis I will be combating the misinformation that is being used to sell the development of the wall. More information is on the website and will be added daily.

Thanks for your support.

-jason

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-Wall/197468040310167

 

 
Jul 29, 11 1:20 pm
WINTERFRONT

Joined.

but there has to be some truth regarding the noise... 

 

 

Jul 29, 11 1:40 pm  · 
 · 
MixmasterFestus

Depending on where you are, it may be more of an issue with long-term traffic counts that drives the placement of the wall.  The noise may not be considered an issue now, but given projected traffic count increases, it could be more of an issue in the future.  If it were me, I'd ask to see the study that led to this wall being built.  It may also be a legal issue. 

There are some government regulations (HUD, etc.) that will give you some maximum long-term average sound levels that are appropriate for residential development; it's likely that your highway noise exceeds them, or will exceed them in the future.  People can become habituated to sound to the point where they don't really notice all that much, but science still suggests that there is a direct relationship between excessive noise and health problems.

The sound wall is probably being built to protect your house directly, if you're immediately next to the wall.  Barriers like this tend to be fairly effective 'close-in' and less effective at greater distances.  There's still an upper limit to the amount of noise reduction that they can realistically provide, however.

That said, as a general observation, highways and houses do not really mix.  I had a friend who used to live in an apartment that had a nice view of a lake - right on the other side of a four-lane superhighway.  When they widened the superhighway to eight lanes, the walls went up and you couldn't really see anything anymore.  Was it a good tradeoff?  As a 'sound' person aware of the health issues, I'd say yes; but I'd also say that it was a bad location for an apartment complex to begin with, and they should have built something else there that was less noise-sensitive and could have also benefited from the view.

Jul 29, 11 1:41 pm  · 
 · 
Rusty!

stop fighting the wall and figure out how to decorate it once it's up.

Jul 29, 11 1:49 pm  · 
 · 
chupacabra

I list the whole issue on thesite. The reason for the wall is actually a law by the EPA. Federal Laws mandate sound studies and response (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) .

 

The problem is that their solution, a wall, will do nothing to mitigate sound, I can prove it, and will ruin habitat, landscape, connective views, and more...all because of a law based solely on the measurement of sound, not the affect of. The law states that 65 dba much be reduced to 61 or less....i.e. minimal at best. That is a lof of loot for very little need.

 

 

 

Depending on where you are, it may be more of an issue with long-term traffic counts that drives the placement of the wall.  The noise may not be considered an issue now, but given projected traffic count increases, it could be more of an issue in the future.  If it were me, I'd ask to see the study that led to this wall being built. 

I did. That is the point of the site and my requesting of support. I sked and looked over and studied their studies, and live where they are proposing the work, and am completely dismayed at what they are planning to do. 

 

There are some government regulations (HUD, etc.) that will give you some maximum long-term average sound levels that are appropriate for residential development; it's likely that your highway noise exceeds them

 

Its a city...the whole city exceeds them. By building teh wall they will actually be making theinnter road much louder...which is actually the bigger issue but they don't measure that sound...just the highway sound more than 200' away...the one making hardly a hum. There will now be a 20' hard surface reflector facing a standing wave along teh wall that will project auto sound along the wall from any car driving so any house can hear it along the adjacency of the wall...it is physics...it will be louder, not quietter. It will compress and exacerbate sound as the sound on the otherside will just flow right over. Only if you are directly under the wall (which we are not...a road seperates the wall from the houses...thus preventing any sound dampening that might occur) are you in anyway isolated from sound..

 

The sound wall is probably being built to protect your house directly, if you're immediately next to the wall.  Barriers like this tend to be fairly effective 'close-in' and less effective at greater distances.  There's still an upper limit to the amount of noise reduction that they can realistically provide, however.

 

That said, as a general observation, highways and houses do not really mix.  I had a friend who used to live in an apartment that had a nice view of a lake - right on the other side of a four-lane superhighway.  When they widened the superhighway to eight lanes, the walls went up and you couldn't really see anything anymore.  Was it a good tradeoff?  As a 'sound' person aware of the health issues, I'd say yes; but I'd also say that it was a bad location for an apartment complex to begin with, and they should have built something else there that was less noise-sensitive and could have also benefited from the view.

 

The houses were here long before the highway...We are talking inner city. These walls will not mitigate any sound and instead will create the affect of suburbia in the Austin Urban core. Austin is not Dallas yet, but this will be a big blow in making it that way. You want to mitigate sound. Plant Tree break, earth burms, etc. Don't build thin hard surfaces and tell me they are dissipating sound at all...it is a joke to anyone with even a modicum of the understanding of the physics of sound...not to mention isolating one factor of affect an making sweeping actions that destroy landscape. If people want to live in a quite little prison then they can go buy an isolated suburban box...

Jul 29, 11 2:00 pm  · 
 · 
chupacabra

Rusty...yeah that looks awesome right behind my house...hmm, seems the artist is a bit dismissive of it as well :)

Jul 29, 11 2:01 pm  · 
 · 
chupacabra

I will be making alternate proposals, alternate renderings of their proposals showing actual heights (they are telling people it is going to be 12' when the elevations from the engineers show anywhere from 20' to 24'...as it is measured 12' from the height of the road surface...the highway is elevated...so our walls would be a ridiculous height to even have the slightest of effects. 

 

 

Jul 29, 11 2:13 pm  · 
 · 
MixmasterFestus

Aaah, okay.  I had no idea where you were (the link didn't work right the first time).

Looking at the map (second caveat: I'm no Texan, and I've never been to Austin), I assume you're somewhere between the river and, say, West 35th Street?  I'd hazard a guess that most places south of that point were built before the expressway came through (or maybe Windsor Road). 

Personally, I would make the argument that they shouldn't have put the highway there in the first place, but it's there now - and, given the special character of the site, you would want a more neighborhood-appropriate solution that may start to 're-bind' the neighborhood that was split in two.

I ask about the original study because it's usually a good point for starting to look at different arguments, and to see where they got their numbers that led them to build the wall in the first place. (I didn't see a link to it on the site, so I apologize if I missed it.)  If your state is like my state, the DOT probably throws up walls as sort of a reflex reaction whenever roadways in residential neighborhoods exceed certain numbers, and they're not always designed in the best way (note to future wall designers: don't have your walls undulate with the terrain if your highway doesn't undulate!  When the wall goes below the line-of-sight between the trucks and the houses, it makes the wall not work.)

Anyways, I'd strongly recommend hiring an acoustical consultant (preferably one with some design experience, who can make compelling presentations) and maybe a lawyer.  There are ways of further reducing the noise that don't necessarily involve walls (berms - as you mentioned; quiet pavements; I think some highway in Australia has baffles built around it; it looks like part of the highway is at a lower elevation than the surrounding neighborhood which could help matters), and it could help to have some kind of alternative plan to meet the federal regulations.  If it's done right, it could actually be pretty constructive!

Jul 29, 11 2:26 pm  · 
 · 
chupacabra

From the initial link you have to click the facebook button...I guess that is an Archinect thing.

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-Wall/197468040310167

 

http://www.mopacexpress.com/

 

There are some places closer to the River that could benefit...their houses back right up to MOPAC and are level with its road surface. The biggest reason though would be safety...not sound. I lived in Houston right next to a sound barrier...and it did nothing to mitigate the sound. A thin hard surface just will not do it...and that is there proposal...nothing else.

I will be doing my own analysis...I have the tools and experience...I have been dealing with sound for over 20 years. I know all about its properties and what will actually work at isolating it. A hard surface wall will not...actually it will amplify it. Put your phone speaker facing a wall...it will make the volume greater as it compresses against the hard surface and then shoots along the surface in either direction. Any diffusion would only happen directly under the wall as stated earlier.

 

I am at West Anderson and Shoal Creek. I am ok with a wall from about 5th Street to 35th...those houses back right up to the highway...but I think safety is a much bigger issue than sound. There will always be sound in a city. If one want isolation they should erect their own internal barriers or move out into a suburban enclave of forced isolation. Just my 2 cents.

Off to take photos of the extent of the proposed wall...thanks for the discourse.

Jul 29, 11 2:39 pm  · 
 · 
MixmasterFestus

Whoa, I bet those trains are pretty loud too. 

Plus, the highway is built onto the side of the hill, with 'commercial' on the 'uphill' side and 'residential' on the 'downhill' side.  It would be much easier if these situations were reversed, I'd think.  (Would they even build a wall on the commercial side?  This would help to reduce some of that reflected sound from the barrier into the 'downhill' neighborhood if they didn't.  Also, they do make sound-absorbing treatments for wall surfaces.)

I'd also look at studies that show the 'before' and 'after' effects of barrier walls at different distances (I think I remember seeing a few around somewhere), since it seems like a number of the arguments you've made are against a barrier wall in general (instead of a barrier wall in this specific instance), which could be harder to fight.

Jul 29, 11 2:51 pm  · 
 · 
chupacabra

The Trains can be loud but we love them. That is a large part of why we bought the house. I sit out back with my son barbecuing in our backyard next to our big ol' garden with 4 layers of landscape merging from the far side (you can barely even see cars...since they pitch away from us) watching sunsets fall over oak trees and a train may pass by with a conductor waving and my son waving back. We then discuss all the places those trains must go, where the things they haul come from and how they may be used...and on and on.

Instead, looking at a flat grey or beige wall, just creeps at my soul. 

I think it will be easy to show that sound will actually be made far worse by the wall due to the road that is between the wall and the houses, at least on my stretch. Great Northern Dr. would reflect sound right off and direct it amplified back into the houses making much more noise than the highway ever could.

But the engineers don't even consider such a thing. Instead their solution = Record sound, build wall, record right on the other side of wall, accept check, pat on back.

Forget the sounds we love, birds, leaves, grasses cut by the wind...instead a garbage collector of a wind catching noise reflecting eyesore that destroys sunsets and views.

Jul 29, 11 3:04 pm  · 
 · 

just make sure that they build it like these sound wall houses in the netherlands...

Jul 29, 11 3:30 pm  · 
 · 

from phillips link

 

Jul 31, 11 3:50 pm  · 
 · 

Can't hurt to Like it on FB, all we Archinecter FB people! 

Jul 31, 11 9:02 pm  · 
 · 

I list the whole issue on thesite. The reason for the wall is actually a law by the EPA.

Actually, what you're referring to is the EPA's Quiet Community guidelines. The EPA laws , "Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978" murkily defines what the noise and noise control actually is.

Although the EPA has lost its right to police noise, those two laws are the only ones left. Here's the relevant law in its entirety:

(c) administer a nationwide Quiet Communities Program which
    shall include, but not be limited to--
            (1) grants to States, local governments, and authorized
        regional planning agencies for the purpose of--
                (A) identifying and determining the nature and extent of
            the noise problem within the subject jurisdiction;
                (B) planning, developing, and establishing a noise
            control capacity in such jurisdiction, including purchasing
            initial equipment;
                (C) developing abatement plans for areas around major
            transportation facilities (including airports, highways, and
            rail yards) and other major stationary sources of noise,
            and, where appropriate, for the facility or source itself;
            and,
                (D) evaluating techniques for controlling noise
            (including institutional arrangements) and demonstrating the
            best available techniques in such jurisdiction;

 

But basically even though the powers of noise control were handed over to local and state authorities, they all follow the same generic EPA guidelines. Here's the TxDOT guidelines (Texas Department of Transportation, GUIDELINES for ANALYSIS and ABATEMENT of HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, June 1996):

"Noise Barrier: typically, a solid wall-like structure located between the noise source (traffic) and the impacted receiver (human activity area) to reduce noise levels. The construction of a noise barrier is one of the abatement measures that must be considered when a traffic noise analysis indicates that a highway project will result in a noise impact."

"Noise Wall: alternative to the preferred term “noise barrier.”"

Noise Abatement Criteria:

A - 57dB (exterior) - Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extra-ordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B - 67db (exterior) - Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals.

C - 72 (exterior) - Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in categories A or B above.

D - N/A - Undeveloped Land

E - 52 (interior) - Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums.

 

5 Abatement measures:

1. Traffic Management: includes prohibition and/or time use restrictions for certain vehicle types, reduction in speed limits, and traffic control devices.

2. Alteration of Alignment: includes horizontal and vertical realignment of a roadway.

3. Acquisition of Buffer Zone: involves purchasing undeveloped/unimproved land, in addition to the normal right of way, to act as a noise buffer. Designed more as a measure to preclude future development that could be impacted by highway traffic noise, rather than to provide noise abatement for impacted receivers.

4. Insulation of Public Buildings: includes insulation of public use or nonprofit institutional structures.

5. Construction of Noise Barriers: this is the abatement measure that is most often used to reduce the impact of highway traffic noise on a receiver. Noise barriers are normally solid wall-like structures constructed between the noise source (traffic) and the impacted receivers. They can also be constructed from earth piled into a large mound or berm.

"It is normally not cost-effective to build a noise barrier for a single receiver. A noise barrier of sufficient height to break the line of sight from the receiver to the highway will normally result in a noise level reduction of 5 dBA."

From Page 13, Table 2: CAUSE-and-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS (dBA)*

"Speed limit lowered by 5 mph + Distance doubled over grass — 5.5 db decrease"

 

 

If they put up signs telling people to keep left on the MOPAC, built up berms, threw in some pampas-like grass and some wildflowers and lowered the speed limit 5 mph, the reduction in sound would be greater than concrete walls and be significantly cheaper. Throw in the fact the a 5 mph reduction in speed also significant reduces congestion and vehicle fatalities.

Their own manual says this is a bad idea and someone is making a whole lot of money from installing expensive and unnecessary noise abatement walls (which for someone reason cost more than regular concrete walls).

Jul 31, 11 9:59 pm  · 
 · 
MixmasterFestus

A search for that baffle system in Melbourne led to the following pictures from someone's blog.

Again, there are a lot of alternatives.  This may be a personal bias (and not to discount your own experience, of which I know nothing about), but I recommend a consultant who maybe has some design experience, who knows the regulations and measurement methods well and could be able to propose functional alternatives that would meet the standard.  They should have specialized software that could actually show you, on a map, what the impact of these solutions could be.  Since it's apparently a city-wide project, you might actually be able to pool your resources with people from other neighborhoods and get a range of possible of alternate solutions that could be used in different neighborhoods.  I'm pretty sure other people along the highway don't want to look at blank walls, either (reminds me a bit of a book - 'Deaf Architects and Blind Acousticians' - which addressed how these things are often separated).

As a general observation: It's interesting that you find the train noise desirable - while some people have fond memories of 'train sounds', many people don't, and they usually consider the train noise as a nuisance (especially when the tracks are really close to the house).  The noise that is generated from the train would count for the overall noise pollution, even if it's considered a 'desirable' sound.  

Aug 1, 11 3:25 am  · 
 · 
chupacabra

" but I recommend a consultant who maybe has some design experience"

The Consultant being used are "sound" wall designers from AECOM...they will lie right to your face...they have no interest in actually doing design other than decorating the wall they have been told is their option. So, they basically are bought technocrats used to ensure the lamen that it is all so scientifically necessary...with absolutely no or very little data to support anything they are saying...not to mention that analyzing one sensory input in isolation as an issue to be rectified is near moronic...you will inevitably create other problems elsewhere...but hey, more work and more money for it...yeah!!!

Train noise can not be mitigated by a wall that is within 5 feet of the trains...put your cell phone near a plane and see what happens...its actually amplifies the sound. Not to mention that most of the sound from a train is low frequency...ie, it will pass right through, around, and under that wall and the vibrations people feel with still exist...not to mention the train has absolutely no part of the original studies...so, it could very well make it much louder and they would have had no responsibility in regards to its functionality and overall affect - no thank you.

Not to mention that the state is not required to ensure the sound was mitigated once the wall is built. They merely go by computer models, those are never wrong, and then they build and leave. No post build analysis at all.

Had I not liked the train I probably would not have moved across the street from the tracks, being that they have existed long before my home did. My son when told that they want to build a wall to block the train, the highway, and of course the light of the western sky, said, "why do they want to hide the train? we like the train, it carries things and they wave to us...it's not that loud...your music is louder than that daddy"

And he is right...no one listens to music at a 65 db clip...the whole thing reeks of a regulatory scam.

TxDOT is a state agency, Austin has little to do withit other than local politicians giving it cover in the form of hiding it from both the public and media dialogue.

I really appreciate those who have joined and keep proposing ideas as well as investigating from their own interests, It helps. I am contacting everyone we can - other neighborhoods dealing with it etc...

I am attending the next meeting with a friend who is a film maker here in Austin. He will be documenting all of the process from here on out...should be interesting. 

End of rant...thanks again everyone for the interaction, participation, and support.

Aug 1, 11 11:05 am  · 
 · 

Good luck, chupacabra.  I hope you can convince the (elected official) powers that be that this is an unnecessary fiscal expense in these debt-aware times!

Aug 1, 11 11:09 am  · 
 · 
chupacabra

The wall by ONL is the only one that I find interesting...the first image looks horrendous...pomo stucco in off tone shades of beige...ugghh...kill me.

The Nouvel wall is ok only because of context...in a neighborhood that monstrous red wall would make Pink Floyd take arms...although if it was flavored say as a ferrari cherry...you might have an idea ;)

 

 

Aug 1, 11 11:12 am  · 
 · 
MixmasterFestus

I think that first wall was an example of what *not* to do :)

There are other acoustical consultants out there aside from AECOM.  I've seen (and been involved with) situations involving noise like this in the past, and often times it can help to get (or at least consult with) someone who is an expert on your side (or on the side of the community - it sounds like you could band together and demand new, more receptive 'experts'), and could serve as an expert witness if need be.

A big part of the confusion surrounding noise ordinances is that while individual events may be louder, the ordinances and environmental regulations are written to account for some kind of long-term sound energy average as opposed to the sound level of a single source in time.  I'd be willing to bet that this is the sort of thing you're dealing with.

Aug 1, 11 12:02 pm  · 
 · 
chupacabra

"the ordinances and environmental regulations are written to account for some kind of long-term sound energy average as opposed to the sound level of a single source in time.  I'd be willing to bet that this is the sort of thing you're dealing with."

 

Oh completely...something just ambigous enough to be able to use it as a political tool to fund almost any activity. The problem is these types of broad sweep rules completely miss the context of each particular issue. There are some houses that should have a wall...but mostly for securty, safety reasons...ie a car driving into their backyard...but since there is no funding for that in the city budget the lobby the state who gets people together with some lobbyist to write federal grants...etc...and then once it gets some legs...lets build as many walls as possible to get as much money as possible...

I may see if any consultant want to work pro bono...because the ones at AECOM are obviously bought. They wouldn't even look me in the eye when I got into scientific specifics of their designs, as they knew they were selling a load of excrement. The wall would serve much better as a prison envelope than sound mitigation.

 

Texas...where life is second to free grifter cash extracted from the people. More toll roads that are empty anyone?

Aug 1, 11 12:23 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: