United States Office of Noise EPA 550/9-80-321
Environmental Protection Abatement & Control November 1980
Agency Washington' DC 20460
Noise
Noise and
Urban Pedestrian Areas
rxEPA
i iniiurt Sist*-. Department nt Transportation
Environment Prot.ct.on Agency . T;.nipor1.,(0n Admiritl,.tlon
-------
NOISE AND PEDESTRIAN AREAS
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through a grant from
the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964,
as amended and from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control. This document is disseminated under their sponsorship
in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes
no liability for its contents or use thereof.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
I. NOISE MITIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR, PEDESTRIAN MALLS:
STATE-OF-THE-ART I- 1
1.0 Introduction I- 1
2.0 Mitigation Techniques at the Source of Noise I- 2
2.1 Mandating or Selecting Quiet Equipment I- 2
2.2 Modifying an Existing Source of Noise I- 3
2.3 Enclosing the Source of Noise I- 4
2.4 Noise Management Procedures for Source Noise I- 5
2.5 Site Design for Source Noise I- 7
2.6 Development of Alternative Noise Sources I- 8
3.0 Mitigation Techniques Along the Path of Noise
Transmission 1-10
3.1 Shielding 1-10
3 .2 Buffering 1-12
4.0 Mitigation Techniques at the Receiver End of
Noise 1-13
4.1 Isolation 1-13
5.0 Institutional Methods of Noise Control 1-14
5.1 Funding 1-14
5.2 Public Awareness Campaigns 1-14
6.0 Conclusion 1-15
II. THE APPLICATION OF NOISE MITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN
PEDESTRIAN MALLS II- 1
1.0 Introduction =11- 1
2.0 Background Information II- 3
2.1 Overview II- 3
2.2 Formulation of the Noise Questionnaire 11-25
3.0 Synthesis of Noise Data Collected From Sixteen
Malls in the United States 11-27
3.1 Data Collection Process 11-27
3.2 Noise Questionnaire and Results 11-29
3.3 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Efforts by
the Selected Malls 11-37
4.0 A Case Study - Portland, Oregon 1,1-41
4.1 Setting II-41
4.2 Description of the Portland Mall 11-41
4.3 Noise and the Transit Mall 11-43
4.4 Summary 11-51
5.0 Formulation of Noise Abatement Design Criteria -
Broadway Plaza, New York 11-52
5.1 Description of Broadway Plaza 11-52
5.2 Potential Significance of Design Elements
for Noise Mitigation 11-55
5.3 Criteria for the Location of Physical
Elements to Reduce Noise 11-58
5.4 Operational Guidelines for Vehicular
Movement for Noise Control 11-60
-------
Ill. AN EVALUATION OF NOISE AND URBAN SPACES Ill- 1
1.0 Introduction. Ill- 1
1.1 Project Objectives Ill- 1
1.2 Selection of Pedestrian Plazas Ill- 3
1.3 'Description of Plazas Ill- 6
1.4 Study Components 111-16
2.0 Attitudinal Survey 111-17
2.1 Development of a Questionnaire 111-17
2.2 Conducting the Survey 111-19
2.3 Observations of Plazas 111-20
2.4 Survey Results 111-23
3.0 Noise Measurements 111-25
3.1 Measurement of Procedures 111-25
3.2 Selection of Measurement Locations 111-28
3.3 Results of Noise Survey 111-37
4.0 Effects of Noise on Plaza Users 111-40
4.1 Sensitivity to Noise 111-40
5.0 Noise Abatement Measures for Plaza Design 111-42
6.0 Methodology to Estimate Plaza Design Levels J.. 111-45
6.1 Example of How to Estimate Plaza Site Noise 111-63
References 111-71
Appendix A - Survey Questionnaire with Response Frequencies A - 1
Appendix B - Noise Nomenclature B - 1
Appendix C - Noise Measurement Data C - 1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
II. 1. Project Location In Downtown Portland 11-42
2. Broadway Plaza Site Plan 11-33
III. 1. Seagram Plaza Ill- 7
2. Rockefeller Center Plaza Ill- 8
3. Lincoln Center 111-10
4. General Motors Plaza III-ll
5. Grand Army Plaza 111-13
6. Plaza 400 111-14
7. KLM Plaza 111-15
8. Noise Measurement Locations: Seagram Plaza 111-30
9. Noise Measurement Locations: Rockefeller Center Plaza. 111-31
10. Noise Measurement Locations: Lincoln Center 111-32
11. Noise Measurement Locations: General Motors Plaza 111-33
12. Noise Measurement Locations: Grand Army Plaza 111-34
13. Noise Measurement Locations: Plaza 400 111-35
14. Noise Measurement Locations: KLM Plaza 111-36
15. Maximum Distance Outdoors Over Which Conversation Is
Considered To Be Satisfactorily Intelligible 111-41
16. Barriers Turned At The End Or The Top 111-43
17. Traffic Noise Prediction Nomogram 111-46
18. Plaza Noise Prediction Flow Diagram 111-49
19. Roadway Worksheet 111-50
20. Roadway Barrier Dimensions 111-52
21. Depressed Plaza Dimensions 111-53
22. Elevated Plaza Dimensions 111-53
23. A-Weighted Shielding Corrections For Barriers 111-58
24. Maximum Distance Outdoors Over Which Conversation Is
Considered To Be Satisfactorily Intelligible 111-62
25. Plan Of Plaza 111-64
26. Cross-Section Of Plaza Showing Roadway #1 111-64
27. Worksheet For Roadway #1 111-65
28. Worksheet For Roadway #2 111-66
29. Traffic Noise Prediction Nomograph For
Roadway #1 Of Example 111-68
-------
LIST OF TABLES
II 1. Existing Statistical Noise Levels (dBA) and
Site Locations Key 11-45
2. Pre- and Post-Mall Noise Data for
Two Locations 11-50
III 1. Criteria for Plaza Selection. Ill- 4
2. Attitudinal Survey 111-18
3. Noise Instrumentation 111-27
4. Measured Plaza Noise Levels 111-38
5. Shielding Corrections for a Finite Barrier 111-57
6. Shielding Corrections for Buildings Acting
as Barriers 111-60
7. Level Adjustment for Summing Noise Levels 111-60
-------
Executive Summary
-------
This study consists of three reports which treat the subject of noise
within the context of urban pedestrian areas. The main concern of the study
is noise mitigation, although its contents cover a wide range of topics related
to noise in the urban environment. The first report provides a description of
existing noise mitigation techniques which have application to pedestrian
improvement areas. The second report summarizes the actual application of
noise mitigation techniques to pedestrian areas based on the results of a
questionnaire sent to pedestrian projects throughout the country. The second
report also includes the formulation of noise abatement criteria for the design
of Broadway Plaza, a proposed pedestrian project in New York City. The third
report analyzes actual noise levels and attitudes by pedestrians toward noise
in several public plazas in New York City based on actual noise monitoring and
attitudinal surveys conducted in the plazas
The first report, "Noise Mitigation Techniques for Pedestrian Areas:
State-of-the Art," is intended to serve local governments as a planning guide
to noise mitigation techniques appropriate to pedestrian improvements. Although
extensive research has been done on noise mitigation and on pedestrian areas,
little analysis has been done treating the two subjects together. As a
consequence, the noise mitigation techniques which have potential for applicatic
in pedestrian areas have been drawn from a variety of other applications.
Noise in urban areas is varied and comes from many sources simultaneously
However, noise can be categorized according to the three parts of its journey
as a sound wave, viz., (1) at its source; (2) along its path, and (3) at the
point where it is heard or "received." Noise mitigation techniques for
pedestrian areas, which are examined in this first report of this study, can
be similarly grouped into these three headings. A fourth category has been
added to include those measures which do not attempt to directly control
noise through physical means but rather through institutional or regulatory
measures.
-------
These four categories are further divided according to application of
each type of noise mitigation technique. For example, noise mitigation tech-
niques applicable to source noise include: mandating or selecting quiet equip-
ment; modifying an existing source of noise; enclosing the source; noise manage-
ment procedures for source noise; site design for source noise, and development
of alternative noise sources. The subject of noise mitigation techniques along
the path of noise transmission is discussed under the headings of: shielding
and buffering. Mitigation techniques applicable to noise at the point where it
is heard or received are best understood by the term "isolation". Finally,
institutional methods of noise mitigation are presented under two general head-
ings: 1. funding and 2. public awareness campaigns. The classifications of
mitigation techniques used here is not intended to establish a strict frame-
work for urban noise, which is not susceptible in all cases to such neat cate-
gorization. Rather, it is one way in which noise can be understood so that
appropriate mitigation techniques can be more easily identified.
The second report, "The Application of Noise Mitigation Techniques
in Pedestrian Areas," goes beyond the conceptual treatment of noise as presented
in the first report to an understanding of the environment of the pedestrian
area. The concern of this report is to determine how noise has actually been
treated in the planning, design and/or operation of pedestrian areas which have
been or are being constructed in the United States. A questionnaire was pre-
pared and sent to eighteen malls throughout the country under the aegis of the
United States Conference of Mayors. Sixteen malls answered the questionnaire and
an analysis of the results is included here. The analysis showed that nearby
surface transportation vehicles are the major contributors to the noise levels in
and around pedestrian areas. Another major source of noise is construction
equipment. Efforts to mitigate the noise from these sources include rerouting
vehicles away from the pedestrian area,the use of masking noise to prevent
-------
sound intrusion, retrofitting buses and construction equipment, the
use of temporary enclosures around construction equipment, limiting the hours
during which construction is permitted and purchasing quieter construction
equipment.
Very little was done by the malls surveyed to use design elements as
sound attenuators. Only a few malls monitored the noise before the mall was
built and only one monitored noise after construction was completed. On the
whole, the use of noise mitigation techniques appeared not to have been of
critical concern to the surveyed malls. A notable exception was the Portland
Mall, which was selected for analysis as a case study because of its various
efforts to mitigate noise through design as well as through operational and
engineering means. The case study on the Portland Mall included in this
report reveals that the major contributor to noise levels on the Portland Mall
is the diesel bus. The City of Portland has undertaken a bus retrofit program
in an effort to quiet bus noise.
The last part of this report formulates noise abatement criteria for
Broadway Plaza, a proposed pedestrian project in New York City. The schematic
design of the project was analyzed and suggestions were made for possible noise
mitigation measures. Operational procedures for vehicular traffic were also
recommended for the purpose of controlling noise. The recommendations will be
evaluated in terms of their feasibility for implementation in the project in
light of the project's objectives and such factors as cost.
The main focus of the third report, "An Evaluation of Noise and Urban
Spaces," was to determine if certain design elements commonly found in public
spaces have any effect on the reduction of noise. To accomplish this, several
public plazas in New York City were monitored for noise. Based on this study,
several factors appear to have some effect on the reduction of noise levels,
viz., changes in site elevation, distance from the noise source and walls
positioned between the source and recipient of noise.
iii
-------
Such elements as benches, statues, trees, shrubbery and other vegetation have
little effect on the attenuation of noise. Furthermore, tall buildings around
the pedestrian area cause sound to reverberate and noise is unable to dissipate
in that type of environment. Based on these findings, a nomograph and calculation
methodology were developed to assist designers and planners in projecting noise
levels and speech interference levels for pedestrian projects. In addition, a
methodology was developed based on traffic and design factors as a means for
projecting noise levels for individual pedestrian projects. This methodology
will provide project planners and designers with a better understanding of the
results of various operational and design factors on potential noise propagation
and, consequently, on the relative quiet of the proposed space.
This report also considers the sensitivity and awareness of noise by the
people using pedestrian spaces. A survey was developed to determine how
pedestrians perceive noise in a public outdoor space in relation to their use of
that space and compared with other environmental problems. The attitudinal
survey indicated that the majority (63 percent) of plaza users were either not
bothered or only somewhat bothered by plaza noise. When asked which plaza
design element would best reduce noise, 34 percent of those daytime users
surveyed selected trees. In reality, the most effective means for mitigating
noise in an outdoor plaza is a wall which, if placed between a noise source
and a noise recipient, can serve as a barrier. However, only 13 percent of
daytime users favored using walls as a design element. The surveys also showed
that most people interviewed visited the space between three and five times a
week, with most of the visits occurring during lunch hours. The activity
enjoyed by many was "people watching." Most tended to stay between 15 and 30
minutes and many expressed a desire for more landscaping, in the form of trees
and waterfalls, in these public spaces.
IV
-------
This study introduces the subject of noise in the urban environment and
the range of noise mitigation possibilities suitable for public pedestrian
spaces. The intent of the study is twofold: to serve as an introduction to
the subject of noise and urban pedestrian areas as well as an impetus for
continued exploration.
-------
I. Noise Mitigation Techniques for
Pedestrian Malls-- State-of-the-Art
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The information compiled in this report is being done to aid in under-
standing which noise mitigation techniques are appropriate in the planning,
design, construction and operation of pedestrian-related projects. Noise can
be categorized according to the three parts of its journey as a sound wave,
viz., (1) at the source; (2) along the path, and (3) at the point where it is
heard or "received." Noise mitigation techniques for pedestrian areas, which
shall be examined here, can be similarly grouped into these three headings.
A fourth category has been added to include those measures which do not attempt
to directly control noise through physical means but rather through institutional
or regulatory means.
Although the subjects of noise mitigation and pedestrian areas are not
new concepts, there is little data that treat the two of them together.
Consequently, the techniques discussed below have been drawn from a variety of
applications but have potential for application to pedestrian areas.
Within the first three major categories of noise control, similar tech-
niques of noise mitigation have been grouped together. Where appropriate, existing
applications of the technique are included.
Chapter 2.0, which examines "Mitigation Techniques at the Source of
Noise," includes six generic techniques appropriate to pedestrian areas. They
are: (1) mandating or selecting quiet equipment; (2) modifying an existing
source of noise; (3) enclosing the source of noise; (4) noise management pro-
cedures for source noise; (5) site design for source noise; (6) development of
alternative noise sources.
Chapter 3.0, "Mitigation Techniques Along the Path of Noise Transmission,"
includes two generic techniques: (1) shielding, and (2) buffering.
Chapter 4.0, which discusses "Mitigation Techniques at the Receiver End
of Noise," explores the technique of isolation.
Chapter 5.0, "Institutional Methods of Noise Control," incorporates
mitigation measures which do not attempt to control noise through strictly
physical means.
-------
2.0 MITIGATION TECHNIQUES AT THE SOURCE OF NOISE
All noise originates from a source; in urban areas it emanates from
many sources at once. In these areas, pinpointing exact sources of certain
noises may become quite involved, given the number of noises that are heard
simultaneously from different sources (e.g., bus, truck, auto) and even from
the same source (e.g., bus exhaust, bus transmission, bus tires).
It is also important to realize that each type of noise may have its
own peculiarities. Low frequency noise may pose different problems for noise
control than high frequency noise. Impact noise associated with a loud sound
of short duration is not the same as ambient or background noise level, which
is a continuous type of noise ranging across a broad band spectrum.
There are several generic techniques to control noise at its source.
They are (1) mandating or selecting quiet equipment; (2) modifying an existing
source of noise; (3) enclosing the source; (4) noise management procedures for
source noise; (5) site design for source noise; and (6) development of
alternative noise sources.
2.1 Mandating or Selecting Quiet Equipment
An obvious way to mitigate noise levels is to purchase the quietest
model possible of the equipment needed for the pedestrian area.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has instituted a
program to regulate the permissible noise levels emanating from certain new
products which that agency considers major contributors to noise. Manufacturers
of these products must meet the noise level regulation in order to market their
goods. Some affected product lines are: portable air compressors, medium and
heavy trucks, and pavement breakers. Future candidates for noise control are:
autos and air conditioning units. A complementary part of this regulatory
program is the> requirement that all Federal government agencies purchase the
quietest model of .equipment which is available and suitable for their use
1-2'
-------
Several cities are undertaking a similar approach. For example, the
City of Portland is in the process of purchasing quieter buses to help de-
crease the noise levels along the length of their mall. However, since speci-
fic noise levels are not indicated on the purchase specification, it is not
known how they will compare with current bus models in service use. This ef-
fort is independent of a bus retrofit program which is discussed in Chapter
II.
Similar strategies involving product selection can be employed for
pedestrian improvement areas. Land owners whose properties abut a pedestrian
mall may voluntarily agree to install the quietest possible equipment needed
for the safe and efficient operation of their buildings or machinery. An-
other possibility is that a mall association or operator may institute a maxi-
mum decibel limit for noise from participating or abutting properties. This
could present difficulties if noise emitted from unregulated sources, e.g.,
passing vehicles, is greater than the established limit. A third illustration
of this technique is the voluntary purchase by the mall association of equip-
ment needed to maintain and operate the mall.
2.2 Modifying an Existing Source of Noise
If it is impossible to acquire quiet models of equipment, modifying
that equipment to reduce its noise may be possible. This technique involves
physically altering the source itself. This technique is best illustrated in
the efforts made to control noise from subways, vehicles and construction and
building equipment.
The program for subway equipment modification, instituted by the New
York City Transit Authority, aims to reduce noise in the transit system by
10 dBA within ten years through modifications to the rails, braking system
and wheels of existing equipment.
Subway noise, audible through sidewalk ventilation chambers, can be
significantly intrusive in pedestrian areas. The ventilation chambers may be
1-3
-------
prime candidates for the application of noise mitigation techniques. Appro-
priate techniques related to subway ventilation chambers will be discussed
below in the section related to path noise. As is the case with all of these
techniques, it should be mentioned early that the expense associated with
their application may make such efforts feasible for only those pedestrian
sites where the area impacted by the noise is significant enough for the
technique to be cost-effective.
Various efforts are underway to modify vehicular noise. The Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, in conjunction with the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) sponsored a project to reduce the noise emanating from
its bus fleet. The project demonstrated the need to work oh modifications to
the engine, exhaust, intake and cooling systems of the coaches to reduce noise.
In addition, DOT has established a TRANSBUS program with the objective of de-
signing a state-of-the-art transit coach. Part of the total project is the
attainment of an exterior noise level in the 75 decibel (dBA) range. Another
part of the quiet bus program instituted by the City of Portland has been to
modify the bus engine compartments of its existing fleet and to install retro-
fit noise reduction packages, which consist of turbocharging the engine, new
mufflers, resonators, revised tail pipes and engine compartment absorption.
Noise emanating from construction and building machinery contribute to
the increase in outdoor noise levels. The retrofit of such equipment with such
sound attenuators as mufflers, silencers and filters would help to modify the
source noise contributed by that equipment to reduce its effect on pedestrian
areas and on adjacent facilities. Proper handling and maintenance of the equip-
ment prevents parts from wearing out and avoids the situation of raising noise
levels unnecessarily. The institution of a program that regularly inspects
and maintanins the working order of such equipment is a step in this direction.
2_3 Enclosing the Source of Noise
If the selection or modification of source noise is impossible, another
1-4
-------
technique involves enclosing the noise source to keep the noise from escaping
into the surrounding environment. Enclosures are sound insulating structures
designed for the total containment or exclusion of a sound field.
Many types of sound resistant enclosures are manufactured to conform
to a wide variety of shapes and sizes. A most popular method of enclosure
material uses sheet steel for the external insulation surface. This is nor-
mally lined with approximately 2 inches of non-flammable absorbent material.
Such material can be made for a variety of uses as acoustic screens, partial
enclosures, hoods or even large weather-resistant buildings. The rule con-
cerning enclosures is that no apertures should exist that will permit sound
leakage.
The most logical consequence of this technique for pedestrian mall
areas is to encase any noise source on or adjacent to the site for the purpose
of inhibiting its sound field from escaping into the surrounding environment.
Noise from machinery located on buildings adjacent to the pedestrian mall may
be prime candidates for such a technique. Also, covering the loading bays of
delivery trucks is another application of such a technique.
2.4 Noise Management Procedures for Source Noise
When the techniques discussed above are considered impractical and the
noise level still persists, operational controls may help to remedy the situa-
tion. Noise management procedures may not actually eliminate the measurable
sound, but could help to prohibit, schedule and/or redirect noise from sensi-
tive areas, including the pedestrian area and, perhaps, adjacent facilities
or buildings.
An example of outright prohibition exists in many municipal noise or-
dinances. A case in point is the prohibition of noise in the establishment
of a hospital zone or school zone. The creation of auto restricted zones with
a complete prohibition of vehicles can be an effective measure in reducing
noise' levels in pedestrian areas.
1-5
-------
Limiting or scheduling noise to certain hours is an example of the time-
of-day management technique. As an example, many airports do not permit
takeoffs and landings during nighttime hours when the possibility of inter-
ference with the sleep of the affected populace exists. In the case of
pedestrian areas, a parallel example can be made by limiting the time when
noise-producing sources, such as delivery trucks, are allowed in or near
pedestrian areas. Another possibility is to limit construction activity, which
is a major irritant to nearby people, to certain times of the day. The times
of permissible noise activity may be able to coincide with periods of user
inactivity. Thus, truck deliveries to the pedestrian sites could be limited
to nighttime or early morning hours. Likewise, maintenance equipment could
also be scheduled for use at times when the pedestrian area is least populated.
Management procedures may be used to direct noise away from sensitive
areas. For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has instituted
flight procedures for aircraft takeoffs and landings in some areas. Takeoff
and approach paths are planned to take advantage of the least sensitive areas
around some airports. A similar strategy can be utilized for pedestrian areas.
The rerouting of traffic around sensitive areas may reduce noise levels there.
\
In addition, traffic management procedures can be instituted to control traffic
flow, speed and turning movements. Realizing that acceleration and braking
activity can cause increased levels of noise, the use of signalization and
other traffic aids can help to prevent excess vehicle starting and stopping,
illegal or hazardous turns causing sudden braking, congestion and driver
frustration which results in the use of horns.
Another dimension to noise management is instituting procedures for user
operations. Considerate use of noise-producing equipment by its operators
can alleviate much noise. A case in point is the FAA's strategy with respect to
aircraft operation. FAA has advocated such measures as reduced thrust settings
1-6
-------
near the ground and the use of minimum certified flaps to reduce aerodynamic
drag in an effort to decrease noise levels through user controls. While this
approach may prove diffucult to implement for the myriad of users of a pedes-
trian area, visual reminders in the form of signs or traffic control devices,
such as signalization, may be indirectly effective in controlling the operation
of noise sources by their users. A more direct approach is to institute train-
ing programs that instruct operators of noisy equipment in ways to use their
equipment more quietly (e.g., bus driver training programs).
2.5 Site Design for Source Noise
If noise control is considered early enough in a project, site plan-
ning and design can be instrumental in reducing noise. The placement of noise
sources and selection of the materials used for site construction and design
can help to reduce noise levels.
In designing a pedestrian area, consideration should be given to those
parts of the site where pedestrian activity will take place as well as to ad-
jacent land uses which could be sensitive to noise emanating from the mall it-
self. In this way, sources of noise can be placed far enough away from these
activity nodes or sensitive areas as possible.
In another vein, the type of materials used for the construction of the
site is important. An example of this is road surfacing. The roughness of the
roadway adjacent to a pedestrian area may raise the noise level due to tire-road-
way friction. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal
Highway Administration are currently studying this problem. Secondly, a wet
roadway surface can raise the noise level. With this in mind, roadway surfaces
may be designed to produce faster runoff and to be made of material that dries
more quickly. Within the pedestrian mall itself, consideration can be given
to the materials used for building facades and the mall's pavement. For example,
concrete reflects sound resulting in the reverberation of sound waves and the
further propagation of the noise. Orienting facades of such hard material to
1-7
-------
reflect sound away from noise sensitive areas or treating them with sound ab-
sorbent materials may be successful applications of this approach.
The use of vegetation can have a positive psychological effect, on the
users of pedestrian areas by way of creating the effect of a serene ambience
or by visually shielding actual noise sources. It has been demonstrated that
sound measurements taken in front of and behind a hedge row results in a dif-
ference of approximately one decibel. Since the human ear can only detect dif-
ferences in the sound pressure level of 3-5 decibels, it can be seen that mod-
erate amounts of vegetation per se do not attenuate noise to any noticeable ex-
tent. However, creative use of vegetation materials can create a feeling of a
quieter area and contribute to the perception of a more pleasant surrounding.
2.6 Development of Alternative Noise Sources
Creating another sound that masks the undesirable noise is a technique
to drown out unwanted noise sources. This technique, however, should never be
used to drown out noise which may be hazardous to a person's hearing. Sounds
are masked only by rival sounds that are quite near them in pitch. Effective
masking, therefore, requires a broad band source of masking noise if the situa-
tion requires predicting the frequency range in advance or dealing with broad
band interference. Therefore, the criteria for producing a masking noise are:
(a) to create a steady sound of a low intensity with a wide band frequency dis-
tribution void of any pure tones, (b) to produce an omnidirectional source, and
(c) to provide the masking noise with the ability to override intruding noise
without becoming annoying itself.
Masking noise has taken the form of fountains, artificial waterfalls,
and piped-in music. Of these, the most effective seems to be the waterfall,
where the natural splashing sound is of sufficient intensity to mask less agree-
able noise. The introduction of masking noise in pedestrian areas is possible
in the form of artifical waterfalls in certain areas. The masking noise could
be effective in its immediate surrounding environs, where sitting, eating or
1-8
-------
reading activities may be desired. The effect of the masking noise will be
lost, however, the further a user of the pedestrian area travels away from it.
Some piped-in music for certain activities such as outdoor cafes may prove
successful as a masking noise depending upon the sound intensity of rival noises.
1-9
-------
3.0 MITIGATION TECHNIQUES ALONG THE PATH OF NOISE TRANSMISSION
An airborne sound field, once established, travels through a medium
(e.g., air, water), before reaching a receiver of that sound. The sound is
said to travel along a path. In the case of pedestrian areas, the medium is
air. Sound waves, once introduced into the air, can be refracted, diffracted,
reflected, diffused or dissipated. Of these, diffraction and dissipation are
most susceptible to noise mitigation for pedestrian improvement areas through
the techniques of shielding and buffering. The principle of sound diffraction
will be discussed in the context of the technique of "shielding"; the principle
of sound dissipation in conjunction with the technique of "buffering."
3.1 Shielding
Diffraction occurs when the sound waves become bent around a solid
object or barrier. Once emitted from a source the sound waves travel until
they strike the barrier. Depending on the height, size and composition of the
barrier, part of the sound wave hits the barrier and a path loss occurs. The
other part of the wave becomes bent as it moves over the barrier, thereby
suffering a path loss as well. The effect of this path loss is a reduction of
the decibel level.
The composition, configuration and placement of shields or barriers
determine their effectiveness. The greater the diffraction of the sound waves,
the more effective the barrier becomes. Barriers can either be natural or
artificial. Artificial barriers have been placed adjacent to highways in some
areas to block noise emanating from highway traffic. In some areas, buildings
housing daytime activities, such as office buildings, have been placed between
heavy traffic arteries and residential dwellings to prevent noise from intruding
on the residential areas at night. Natural barriers, such as berms and hills,
have also been used effectively to block sound in highway designs.
1-10
-------
Screening has been substituted in some cases for barriers. However,
lightweight material is not an effective substitute for a barrier structure.
Conventional barriers consist of three construction elements - a foundation,
a supporting structure and sound absorbing material. Construction of sound
absorbing barriers requires material which is capable of absorbing penetrating
sound energy and transforming that sound energy into heat. Stone wool panels,
for instance, 50mm in thickness with a density of lOOKg/m , have proven
effective against road traffic noise. A sound reflecting wall is erected as
part of the barrier behind the absorbing material so double penetration is
possible as the sound wave first penetrates the material then reflects back
through it. An intermediate air gap is provided between the absorbing elements
and the reflecting backwall to improve performance. An effective barrier can
reduce noise levels by 5"*15 dEA..
Barriers, ideally, should not have apertures along their lengths which
permit noise seepage. While they have proven effective when placed alongside
highways, the use of such continuous structures along roads adjacent to busy
pedestrian areas probably is, in most cases, impractical. However, other
objects may be used in similar fashion as barriers in pedestrian areas, although
their effectiveness will not be as significant. For instance, the placement of
bus shelters or taxi stands can be utilized as partial barriers against traffic
noise, with their shelter sides facing away from the traffic. Mall furniture,
sculptures, table umbrellas may be used, although they may be of marginal
benefit in attenuating noise. The use of these and various other objects can
be positioned in many ways to provide for some relief against noise levels.
The significant intrusion of subway noise through sidewalk ventilation chambers
was alluded to above. Treating the walls of these chambers with absorption
material may help to transform the ventilation chamber into a sound attenuator.
The useful application of commonly found objects in pedestrian malls for noise
1-11
-------
mitigation purposes is limited only by the physical constraints of the site
and the imagination of the designers. Such objects can be used in conjunction
with trees, shrubs, berms and isolated standing walls to create a more serene
type of environment.
3.2 Buffering
As a sound wave begins to travel away from its source, its intensity
decreases until, at a certain distance, the sound is not heard. Increasing
the distance between noise source and noise receiver is termed buffering. One
of the physical properties of sound is its decreasing intensity with distance
(dissipation property). Doubling the distance between a point source of
noise (e.g. siren) and the receiver of noise in an "open sound field" may
decrease the sound pressure level by 6 decibels; from a line source (roadway)
the rule of thumb is that the sound pressure level decreases by 3 decibels
when the distance is doubled. However, in most urban areas, the "open field"
is non-existent as buildings and other objects reflect sound, causing further
sound propagation.
Buffering has been used in the areas of land use planning and zoning.
Buffer zones have often been required between different types of abutting
land uses to protect against nuisances and encroachments. Purchases of land
for easements and excess land acquisitions are other land use measures that
may be applicable in buffering pedestrian areas from noise intrusions.
However, given the density of development usually surrounding pedestrian areas
in center cities, any forms of the above examples of buffering may be
expensive, cumbersome to accomplish, and impractical for significant
reductions in noise levels based on the dissipation properties of sound.
1-12
-------
4.0 MITIGATION TECHNIQUES AT THE RECEIVER END OF NOISE
Once noise has been emitted from a source and has travelled through
a medium along its path, it remains to be heard or felt by a person or an
object. The primary technique to mitigate noise at that point involves
isolating the "receiver."
4.1 Isolation
Isolation at the point where noise is heard or "received" is similar
to the enclosure technique for source noise. Just as the noise source was
enclosed in that technique, the receiver is similarly isolated.
For pedestrian areas, an example of this technique would be to isolate
any programmed activities (i.e., the dispensing of tourist information) in
enclosed structures if verbal communication could be adversely affected by
surrounding noise sources.
Exterior areas requiring quiet for pedestrian activities might also be
partially isolated from adjacent noise sources through changes in site eleva-
tion. By creating partially enclosed pedestrian levels below the level of
the noise source or by locating the source of noise in a depressed area
(e.g. a roadway cut), the receiver's exposure to the sound waves is decreased.
The cost of constructing such site elevation changes, however, may outweigh the
benefits derived from a lower noise level.
As a last resort, ear plugs are a classic example of noise isolation
practiced on an individual basis.
1-13
-------
5.0 INSTITUTIONAL METHODS OF NOISE CONTROL
5.1 Funding
Strategies which do not attempt to control noise through strictly
physical means could be categorized as institutional methods of noise control.
One such strategy is to incorporate specific project elements for noise atten-
uation in the funding process. The Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for instance, has the authority to withhold funds to build or rehabilitate
residential dwellings in areas containing unacceptable noise levels. HUD has
defined such areas. Likewise, HUD can recommend certain measures to influence
the reduction of noise levels in other areas where noise is considered proble-
matic but less than unacceptable. The funding inducement is also present in
this case.
Funding can also be used directly to support research on state-of-art
I
noise mitigation techniques, as is presently occurring in many areas of noise
control in the United States and foreign countries.
5.2 Public Awareness Campaigns
/
s ~,
Another method of noise control relies upon familiarizing the public
with the potential ill effects of noise through public awareness campaigns.
Short film clips, attractively designed signs arid posters that would also
decorate an area, are some applications of this technique which are appro-
priate to pedestrian areas and would help bring attention to the noise issue.
1-14
-------
6.0 CONCLUSION
Existing in the environment around urban malls are many types of
noises with their own peculiar characteristics. These various sounds are
emitted from a multitude of sources. The emitted sound waves are influenced
by the presenfce of solid objects, wall finishes, site topography, absorbent
materials, distance and meteorological conditions. Given the number of
variables affecting noise propagation, designers of pedestrian areas
concerned about noise attenuation have the option of dealing with noise by
employing one or a series of noise mitigation techniques, depending upon
the specific characteristics of noise propagation and the objectives of the
mall itself. In the case of bus noise, for example, the rerouting of bus
routes around the mall, the purchase of the quietest model of buses, retro-
fitting existing buses with sound absorbent material, the placement of bus
stops away from sensitive areas, and the installation of bus stop shelters
to provide some form of barrier between the noise source and pedestrians are
noise mitigation alternatives which can be used individually or in combination
to address this particular noise problem. It is difficult to predict the
effectiveness of one technique over another. Each mall, its character and
its resources will be different. Consequently, the ways to deploy the above
techniques for noise attenuation, of necessity, reflect that diversity.
1-15
-------
Application of Noise Mitigation
Miiques in Pedestrian Malls
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to synthesize and present information
obtained from sixteen transit/pedestrian malls in the United States on the
extent to which noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into their
planning, design, construction and operation. A second purpose is to apply
the findings to a case study. The sixteen malls on which information was
obtained are:
1. Lexington Mall - Baltimore, Maryland
2. State Street Mall - Chicago, Illinois
3. Stoneplace Mall - Dallas, Texas
4. River City Mall - Louisville, Kentucky
5. Mid-America Mall - Memphis, Tennessee
6. Lincoln Road Mall - Miami Beach, Florida
7. Nicollet Mall - Minneapolis, Minnesota
8. Chestnut Street Transitway - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
9. East Liberty Mall - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
10. Portland Mall - Portland, Oregon
11. Westminster Mall - Providence, Rhode Island
12. Exchange Street Mall - Raleigh, North Carolina
13. Market Street - San Francisco, California
14. Occidental Mall - Seattle, Washington
15. Gallery Place - Washington, D. C.
16. Library Place - Washington, D. C.
The report is divided as follows:
Chapter 2.0 presents background information on each of the malls. The
first section of this chapter consists of one-page summaries of the physical
and operational characteristics of each mall, together with a description of
the context in which the mall was built (e.g. land use). The second section
contains a summary of what were considered potential noise issues and/or
problems suggested by the background material collected on each of the projects
and indicates how this information was used to structure a noise questionnaire
for distribution to the sixteen malls.
Chapter 3.0 focuses on the responses to the questionnaire. The noise
questionnaire was intended to determine the extent to which noise was
considered in the planning, design, construction and operation of the malls
II-l
-------
and any mitigation measures which were used to address an identified noise
problem. Once developed, the questionnaire was sent to the cities representing
the malls by the United States Conference of Mayors. The third chapter is,
therefore, divided into two sections. The first section records the responses
to each question in both a tabulated and narrative form. The second section
offers some conclusions based on an evaluation of the responses and regarding
the consideration given by the malls to noise.
Chapter 4.0 presents a case study analysis of the Portland Mall in
Portland,. Oregon. The case study identifies the various efforts taken to
mitigate noise on the Mall through design, operation and engineering.
The last chapter, 5.0, examines a proposed pedestrian project in New .York
with respect to possible noise mitigation techniques; the project is presently
in the design stage.
II-2
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SIXTEEN MALLS
2.1 Overview
In order to provide an overview of the sixteen malls, a summary sheet
was developed which was intended to highlight information on each project, as
well as on the project's surrounding environment. For the most part, the
information sought was thought to have some bearing on noise. This included
the physical characteristics of the project, such as the length, width, area,
number of blocks and the types of design features of each mall. Under the
category of operational characteristics, information was included on the
/
availability and type of programmed activities, as well as vehicular usage
(e.g., transit, traffic, loading and emergency vehicles). The category of
"context" was intended for information on the types of adjacent thoroughfares,
the population of the Central Business District, the transportation modes used
to gain access to the CBD, and types of land uses adjacent to the mall. Lastly,
a short summary is provided for each mall to highlight salient features. The
overview data is included below. The sources of information for the summary
sheets are listed in the bibliography at the end of this section.
II-3
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
LEXINGTON MALL
BALTIMORE, MD
1974
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
650'
62'
40,300 SQ FT
2
Trees at grade, landscaping, benches,
bollards, street lights , new paving.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
N/A *
None
None
6:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M.
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
N/A
905,759 in 1970
CBD Retail
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
37%
41%
2% 0%
5%
15%
The two-block Lexington Mall is designed with new paving, pedestrian lighting,
seating, trees and planters. The mall serves as a link between the office and
retail cores in downtown Baltimore, with an additional block extension planned
to link the mall with a proposed subway entrance in the retail center-
* N/A = Information not available.
II-4
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
STATE STREET MALL
CHICAGO, IL
1979*
4,000' approximately
4 blocks = 120'; 5 blocks = 100'
435,550 SQ FT
9
Trees in planters, various sculptures and
fountains, bus shelters, escalators to subway,
sidewalk cafes, new sidewalk paving, new
lighting, heated and lighted newstands,
canopies over bus waiting areas.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFICARANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY ;
Plans include activity programming.
Buses (one lane each way, alternating lay-bys)
underground subway.
None; cab stands on cross streets.
On cross streets.
Any time.
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
Cross streets.
3,366,951 in 1970
CBD retail core.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN
N/A N/A N/A N/A
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
N/A
N/A
SUMMARY
State Street Mall, a transit mall to be completed in 1979, is planned to include
unique design features on each of the nine blocks; these furnishings include fountaii
sculpture, sidewalk cafes, and art display cases. Programming for the mall is a
key element of the plans, with activity areas included in the design.
Transit is also an important aspect of the mall with buses in both directions and
boarding bays, plus the subway directly beneath with access by escalator and stair
to the Mall. The Loop elevated is nearby.
* Projected completion date.
II-5
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
STONEPLACE MALL
DALLAS, TX
1965
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS s
DESIGN ELEMENTS
200'
50''
10,000 SQ FT
1
Trees in planters, benches, lighting-
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
N/A
None
None
From side streets.
Any time.
CONTEXT
.ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
One major thoroughfare at each end of the mall.
844,401 in 1970
CBD office and retail.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
87% i'3% 0%
0%
0%
0%
Stoneplace Mall is the smallest mall of this study. The one-block street was
de-mapped to facilitate traffic flow along the two major avenues at either end,
and a pedestrian mall was built to fill that empty space. The mall serves primarily
as a mini-park for downtown office workers.
II-6
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
RIVER CITY MALL
LOUISVILLE, KY
1973
2,815'
60'
168,900 S@ FT
3
Many plantings and trees, variety of
seating, shelters, kiosks, children's climbing blocks
and stage fixtures built into mall in several
places, new paving. 80% of mall is open space and
unfurnished.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
ChiIdren's programs.
None.
None.
6:00 P.M. - 10:00 A.M.
Any time.
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
N/A
361,472 in 1970
CBD retail.
AUTO BUS TAXI
TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
85%
15% 0
The three-block pedestrian River City Mall in downtown Louisville is 80% open space.
The filled areas contain a variety of seating as well as trees and ground plants.
There are large, flexible, multi-purpose shelters and Information kiosks on two
of the three blocks. Use of the mall by families is encouraged by including
children's shows and climbing blocks.
II-7
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
MID-AMERICA MALL
MEMPHIS, TN
1977
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
4,OQO'
varies
N/A
10
Described as the "Longest Pedestrian Mall";
trees at grade, plantings, reflecting pool,
large fountains, kiosks, performance platforms,
banners, sculpture, pavilions.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
Elaborate schedule, music over kiosk loudspeakers
Free tram.
Two blocks for limited traffic; two serpentine
lanes form the roadbed.
Cross streets and back alley system
Any time.
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
Cross streets.
623,000 in 1970
CBD retail, office, government.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
The Mid-America Mall is part of a greater city scheme for the revitalization of
Memphis. The Civic Center provides an anchor for the Mall at one end; at the other
end are two blocks of"semi-mall" where two lanes are provided for general traffic.
A free tram runs the length of the mall.
Design includes seating areas, covered waiting stations, a large fountain near the
Civic Center, various water sculptures, pavilions, kiosks, and platforms for per-
formances .
II-8
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
LINCOLN ROAD MALL
MIAMI, FL
1960
3,000'
100'
300,000 SQ FT
8
Plantings and trees at grade down center of
mall; canopies and covered arcades adjacent
to storefronts.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
N/A
An electric mini-bus runs end to end.
None
From side streets.
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
Cross streets.
87,072 Date unaTzailable-
Retail
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE
60%
PEDESTRIAN
30%
10%
SUMMARY
Lincoln Road Mall is geared toward tourists, who are its principle customers, with
a mini-bus running from end to end during days and some evenings. Clusters of
plantings and exotic trees shade the center of the mall; canopies and covered
arcades shade the sides.
II-9
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
NICOLLET MALL
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
1967
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS *
TRANSIT i
TRAFFIC :
LOADING
EMERGENCY :
3,300'
80'
264,000 SQ FT
8
Trees at grade, fountains, sculpture, new paving,
bus shelter/kiosk combination includes benches,
displays, telephones, and piped-in music; serpentine
transit lanes, skyways; removal of all overhanging
signs; new paving with snow melting mats; 15 feet
of clear walking area beside building line.
Music over kiosk loudspeakers.
Bus, mini-bus, taxi: one lane in each direction.
None
From side streets, rear access, and a tunnel
system.
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
Cross streets
434,500 in 1970
CBD retail core, near office core.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE
42.6% 50.8% 00 3%
PEDESTRIAN
3.1
SUMMARY
Nicollet Mall is the most widely publicized of the study malls. Desire for retail
improvement provided the original impetus for creating the transit mall, although
a 51% increase in bus volumes is foreseen by 1985.
Most noted for its unique system of skyways (which will connect with future parking
and subway facilities), and a serpentine transitway, the Nicollet plan also incorporates
fountains, sculptures, a four-sided clock, and multi-purpose bus shelters which have
benches, telephones, informational displays, and loudspeakers for piped-in music.
The mall was constructed of hard materials such as copper, bronze, granite, brick and
terrazo. The trees at grade are sparse along its length.
* Pedestrian volume: 12,800 before mall; 13,600 after mall (av. per side/block/12 hrs)
Pre-mall traffic volume: 6,800 (per side/block/12 hours)
Bus volume at peak hour: Estimated 20 per hour in each direction before the mall,
60 per hour in each direction after the mall.
11-10
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
CHESTNUT STREET TRANSI.T1SAY
PHILADELPHIA, PA
1975
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
5,6QQ'
60'
336,000 SQ FT
12
Trees at grade, planters, bus shelters, special
newsstands,ornamental light fixtures, information
columns, benches, corner curbs flush with street,
widened sidewalks, new brick paving.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS *
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
N/A
Bus, taxi; two lanes.
Two blocks of the 12. One block is open to taxis; the
second block is open to general traffic for access to
From side streets; parking lots.
rear access; night loading on mall.
Any time.
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
Cross streets.
1,950,089 in 1970
CBD retail core.
AUTO BUS TAXI
TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
26.9% 26.2% 2.7% 30.2%
0.3%
3.7%
Pedestrian scale is emphasized in the Chestnut Street Transitway. Plans for this mall
developed out of the need to ease projected Bicentennial traffic conjestion. The two
transit lanes, one in each direction, are for buses only on ten of the twelve mall
blocks, with one block allowing taxis access to a hotel, and the other block allowing
general traffic access into parking lots. New signal timings will facilitate bus
flow. Furnishings are few along the widened sidewalks, thus permitting high
pedestrian volumes.
* Pedestrian volumes: After transitway, 3016/block side/hour during peak periods -
on major blocks.
Pre-mall traffic volumes: 14,000 (one-wayr daily).
Bus volumes at peak hour: 43 before transitway, 52 in each direction after transitway.
11-11
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
EAST LIBERTY MALL
PITTSBURGH, PA
1969
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA s
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT s
TRAFFIC ;
LOADING :
EMERGENCY s
Broad Penn Highland
900' 1400' 1400'
50' 100' 70'
283,000 SQ FT
14
Interconnecting transitways along three streets;
trees and shrubbery in above grade planters?
numerous, benches and shelters/display units?
lighting fixtures, new paving.
N/A
Bus, mini-bus; transitway connecting three streets.
One block of Highland open to traffic, due to
lack of rear loading access.
Rear access, plus one block of Highland.
Any time.
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
N/A
525,275 in 1970
CBD retail.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
80% 18% 1%
1%
SUMMARY
Three streets interconnected as a transitway comprise the East Liberty Mall in
downtown Pittsburgh. Buses, mini-buses and taxis are permitted on the transitway.
Design of the fourteen blocks emphasize pedestrian comfort with landscaping in
small planters, numerous benches, and shelters that serve as display units.
11-12
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS **
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
PORTLAND MALL
PORTLAND, OR
1978
Two parallel Avenues:
2800' each C56001 total)
80'
448,000 SQ FT
11 each - 22 total
Transitway, trees, above-grade plantings, sculpture,
fountains, trip planning kiosks, bus shelters;
clear area for pedestrians passageway adjacant to
building line; vending machines, lighting, special
benches, concession booths, bollards.
Outdoor fairs.
Two one-way bus lanes.
One lane for three out of every four blocks.
Loading and taxi bays on side streets.
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
Cross streets.
381,000 in 1970
CBD retail, office, government.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
21% N/A
NX&-
N/A
N/A
N/A
SUMMARY
Portland Mall, scheduled for completion this year, is actually two 11-block transit
malls on adjacent parallel one-way streets. High bus volumes are anticipated because
the City plans to reroute bus lines onto or near the mall. Two bus lanes per mall
street are planned, with general traffic permitted in a third lane on three out of
every four blocks. Platooning of buses and special timing of traffic signals will
facilitate traffic flow.
Portland has included many pedestrian amenities in their design such as trip-planning,
kiosks (with free information phones, and video screens), sculptures, fountains,
trees, vending machines at the end of each block, and bus shelters.
** pedestrian volumes: 686 on Sixth Avenue, 444 on Fifth Avenue (average hourly
volume mid-morning and mid-afternoon, per side, per block).
Traffic Volume: Less than 14,000 daily
Bus Volumes;
Peak hour (before mall/projected): Sixth Avenue (85/207); Fifth
Avenue (85/211).
11-13
-------
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS s
DESIGN ELEMENTS
WESTMINSTER MALL
PROVIDENCE, RI
1965
Two sections;
"A"
9501
60'
"B"
316'
60'
75,960 SQ FT
8 Total =? 6 2
The two sections (6- and 2- blocks) separated
by one block that is open to general traffic,
contain lighting fixtures concealed in the
planters, benches, illuminated trees and a
sound system.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC s
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
N/A
None
None, except for the one middle block.
6:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. weekdays
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
Cross streets
179,116 in 1970
CBD - retail
AUTO BUS TAXI
79%
17%
TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
1% 0 3%
Westminister Mall is part of a larger city plan to encourage urban revitalization.
The Mall is situated along eight of nine blocks of Westminster Street in Providence.
The two- and six-block pedestrian configuration is split by one block, along which
general traffic is permitted for access to the parking structure on that block.
The six-block section was designed to jomplement the older, more austere architecture
which surrounds it, while the two-blcck section is more modern and monumental.
A sound system is incorporated into the above-grade planters.
11-14
-------
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
S.IZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH j
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
DOWNTOWN MALL
RALEIGH, NC
1975
N/A
N/A
N/A
3h blocks
Gazebo, large sculpture, trees, bus shelter
and outdoor seating beneath shade trees, amphi-
theatre seating 300, mural wall, reflecting
pools, two fountains, clock/bell tower, lawns,
new paving.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING s
EMERGENCY :
Possible activities planned for the gazebo.
None: cross streets only.
None
None; service access: only-.
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
Cross streets.
121,577 in 1970
Capitol Bldg.,commercial, retail,office, governme
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
The Downtown Mall will complement the planned State Government Mall that will
join the State Capitol with a high-rise office building. Other nearbv malls
are anticipated by the City.
11-15
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sidewalk widening, new pavement.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
N/A
Bus, underground light rail rapid transit
(LRRT), BART.
Limited
N/A
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
Cross streets.
715,674 in 1970
CBD retail, office.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN
N/A N/A N/A N/A
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
N/A
N/A
Market Street is an important transit hub in downtown San Francisco, where
above and below grade local transit systems interface with. BART, the San
Francisco area rail system.
11-16
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT s
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
OCCIDENTAL MALL
SEATTLE, WA
1973
560'
85'
47,600 SQ FT
2
Trees at grade, street furniture, overhead
wiring removed.
Open air concerts, art exhibits, vending carts,
None
None
7:00 A.M. - 10:00 A.M.
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
N/A
550,000 in 1974
Seattle's Pioneer Square Historic District.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
75% 22%
2%
1%
The Occidental Mall in the Pioneer Square Historic District of Seattle was planned
with outdoor activities in mind, with vending carts, open air concerts and art
exhibits scheduled in the summer months. The mall is also a primary pedestrian
thoroughfare to the Domed Stadium to the south.
11-17
-------
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
GALLERY PLACE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1977
Approximately 450"
Approximately 125'
56,250 SQ FT
1
Trees at grade, raised plantings, two fountains
and row of fountains at grade down the center,
sculpture which doubles as seating, slab seating;
wide and spacious area.
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
Elaborate schedule
Midi-bus (although no road bed)
None
None
Any time
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
Cross streets.
756,510 in 1970
-National Portrait Gallery, retail.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
The Washington D.C. "Streets for People" is an extensive plan to pedestrianize F and
G Streets over a period of time. Gallery Place is the first block on F Street; it is
one of the first pedestrian spaces to be implemented as part of the "Streets for
People" plan. Amenities include information kiosks (with video screens), raised
plantings, trees at grade, two fountains, a row of at-grade "fountains" down the
center of the mall, and matching granite sculpture and bollards which double as
seating. A temporary stage is available for outdoor programs. A mini-bus runs
along the perimeter of this block. The Arrowstreet planning process, which included
subjective noise evaluation by users, found the pre-mall street noisy.
11-18
-------
MALL
NAME
LOCATION
DATE COMPLETED
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SIZE
LENGTH:
WIDTH :
AREA :
BLOCKS:
DESIGN ELEMENTS
OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
ACTIVITY PROGRAMMING
TRAFFIC/TRANSIT ACCESS
TRANSIT :
TRAFFIC :
LOADING :
EMERGENCY :
LIBRARY PLACE
WASHINGTON, DC
1977
Approximately 450'
Approximately 75'
33,750 SQ FT
1
Two rows of trees at grade, raised plantings,
sunken seating areas, benches (wood and rock slab)
Extensive schedule.
None.
None.
N/A
Any time.
CONTEXT
ADJACENT STREETS
CBD POPULATION AND DATE
ADJACENT LAND USE
ACCESS TO CBD
SUMMARY
Cross streets.
756,510 in 1970
Library, smaller institutional buildings.
AUTO BUS TAXI TRAIN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Library Place, on G Street, is the second of two blocks to have been built thus
far in Washington D.C.'s "Streets for People" plan. Like Gallery Place, pro-
gramming is emphasized. However, the design is different, with sunken seating
areas, raised plantings, two rows of trees, and various benches. There is no
transit along this block, and the Arrowstreet study which sampled user attitudes,
found this pre-mall street quiet.
11-19
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Anatomy of the Pedestrian Mall", Canadian Architect, Norman Pressman,
March 1971, vol. 16, p. 49-55.
"APTA Testifies on New Noise Regulations", Passenger Transport,
November 4, 1977, p. 1-2
"Auto-Free Zones: Giving Cities Back to People", City, Norman Klein and
Walter Arensberg, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 45-52.
"Auto Restricted Zones, Background and Feasibility", Service and Methods
Demonstration Program, UMTA, December 1977, vol. 1.
"Auto Restricted Zones, Background ,and Feasibility", Service and Methods
Demonstration Program, UMTA, December 1977, vol. 4.
"Auto Restricted Zones, Background and Feasibility", Service and Methods
Demonstration Program, UMTA, December 1977, vol. 3.
"Auto Restricted Zones: Five U.S. Cities Test Pedestrian Plans",
Urban Design, Rosanne Deryl Thomas, Summer 1977, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 26-27.
Banning the Car Downtown: Selected American Cities (Footnotes 3),
Roberto Brambilla and Gianni Longo, U.S. Government Printing Office
(0-225-595), 1977.
"Can People Movers Revitalize Downtown?", Transportation USA,
Edward O'Hara, Spring 1977, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 13-16.
City of San Francisco: Site Marketing Information and Project Descriptions,
Urban consortium, Joint Development Marketplace, Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
June 25-27, 1978.
"City Streets for People", Architecture Plus, vol. 1, no. 3, April 1973,
p. 22-43 (exerpted).
Department of Environmental Quality Noise Study Fifth and Sixth Avenues
Transit Mall (Report 1), Portland, December 1975.
Department of Environmental Quality Noise Study Fifth and Sixth Avenues
Transit Mall (Report 1), Portland, January 1976.
Department of Environmental Quality Noise Study Fifth and Sixth Avenues
Transit Mall (Report 1), Portland, March 1976.
11-20
-------
Department~bf Environmental Quality Noise Study Fifth and Sixth Avenues
Transit Mall (Report 1), Portland, October 1976.
Department of Environmental Quality Noise Study Fifth and Sixth Avenues
Transit Mall (Report 1), Portland, April 1978.
"The Downtown Mall Experiment", American Institute of Planners. Journal,
Shirley F. Weiss, February 1964, vol. 30, p. 66-73.
"A Downtown Idea Slide Presentation, Downtown Malls: 12 Case Studies,
Downtown Idea Exchange, Downtown Research and Development Center,
New York, 1973.
Downtown Mall; Raleigh, North Carolina, Downtown Mall Task Force, Greater
Raleigh Central Area Commission, September 1973.
"Downtown Pedestrian Zones: Experiences in Germany", Urban Land,
Ronald Wiedenhoeft, April 1975, vol. 34, p. 3-11.
"Efforts Made to Reduce Bus Noise", Passenger Transport, June 9, 1978,
p. 6.
Environmental Analysis of the Proposed NYC Convention & Exhibition Center,
Environmental Systems Laboratory, November 2, 1973.
"Environmental Problems of the Motorway", European Heritage, Tony Aldous,
1974, vol. 2, p. 31-35.
"Exciting Start with Nicollet Mall", Landscape Architecture, Roger Martin,
July 1969, vol. 59, no. 4, p. 299-304.
Federally Coordinated Program of Highway Research and Development, Federal
Highway Administration, 1975.
Footnotes series:
#1; A Handbook for Pedestrian Action, #2: The Rediscovery of the
Pedestrian, #4: American Urban Malls; A Compendium, #5: An Appraisal:
Traffic-Free Zoning, Roberto Brambilla and Gianni Longo, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1977.
"Hard Decisions and Lower Fares", Transportation U.S.A., Edward O'Hara,
Spring 1976.
"Heavy Lorries at Large", European Heritage, Arthur Percival, 1974,
vol. 2, p. 36-41.
"Historic Planning and Redevelopment in Minneapolis", American Institute
of Planners. Journal, David R. Goldfield, January 1976, vol. 42, no. 1,
p. 76-86.
"Kiosks are Placed on Portland Transit Mall", Passenger Transport.
11-21
-------
Liveable Urban Streets: Managing Auto Traffic in Neighborhoods, U.S.
Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration,
January 1976.
"Longest Pedestrian Mall", Progressive Architecture, January 1976,
vol. 57, no. 1, pi 51.
Manhattan Garment Center Urban Goods Movement Study; Final Report,
New York City Transportation Administration, June 1976.
"Memphis Seeks to Restore Its Status", New York Times, Wayne King,
November 19, 1977, p. 23-26.
"Minneapolis: A Closer Look", Urban Land, Ronald Wiedenhoeft, October 1975,
vol. 34, no. 9, p. 8-17.
"New Buses Appear on Portland Streets", Passenger Transport, November 12, 1976.
"New Street Scene: Minneapolis Pedestrians Come into Their Own, but
Business has Increased and Traffic is Better, Too", The Architectural
Forum, January-February 1969, vol. 130, no. 1, p. 75-80.
New York City Convention S Exhibition Center; Draft Environmental Statement,
U.S. Army Engineers District, New York, New York, January 1975.
"Nicollet Mall: Civic Cooperation to Preserve Downtown's Vitality",
Planner's Notebook, Frederick T. Aschmann, September 1971,
vol. 1, no. 6, p. 1-8 (whole issue).
"The Pedestrian Mall: Its Role in Revitalization of Downtown Areas",
Urban Land, David Carlson & Mary R.S. Carlson, May 1974, vol, 33,
no. 5, p. 3-9.
"Pedestrian Movement: A Bibliography", Council of Planning Librarians,
Exchange Bibliography #225, October 1971.
"Pedestrian Paramount", Architects Journal, A.A. Wood, September 3, 1969,
vol. 150, no. 36, p. 536-537.
"Pedestrian Power", Design S Environment, Stephen Kurtz S Fred Kent,
Fall 1972, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 20-29.
The Pedestrian Revolution: Streets Without Cars, Simon Breines & William
J. Dean, Vintage Books, Random House, New York 1974.
"Pedestrian Streets in Central Copenhagen", Ekistics, Kai Lemberg,
February 1974, vol. 37, no. 219, p. 129-133.
People Movement for Downtown Improvement, Moore-Heder Architects & Urban
Designers, Institute of Public Administration, Office of Service
and Methods Demonstration, Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., January 1977.
"The Pleasures of Plazas", New York Times, July 29, 1977.
11-22
-------
"Police Are Cracking Down on Traffic Violations", New York Times,
Leonard Buder, January 2, 1978.
"Portland Bus Mall is a People Place1", Passenger Transport, November 25, 1977
"Portland, Oregon, Acclaims Downtown Mall", New York Times, Les Ledbetter.
"Portland Plans Installation of Trip Planning Kiosks", Passenger Transport,
September 9, 1977, p. 8.
"Portland, Twin Cities Receive Awards", Passenger Transport, November 19, 1976,
p. 11.
"Providence to Go Footloose & Autofree?", Planning the ASPO Magazine,
Paul O'Mara, March 1974, vol. 40, no. 3, p. 21-25.
Public Attitudes Toward Downtown Malls; A National Opinion Research Survey,
L.A. Alexander, Downtown Research & Development Center, 1975.
"Recycling Cities1', Design S Environment, Nicholas Polites, Summer 1973,
vol. 4, no. 2, p. 21-29
Report on a Study to Determine the Economic Feasibility of the Proposed
Chestnut Street Mall (Excerpt),Arthur C. Kaufman and Associates, Inc.,
City Planning Commission of Philadelphia, February 1966, vol. 1.
"Rider Information System Key Feature", Passenger Transport,
November 25, 1977, p. 1,8.
"Skyways in Minneapolis/St. Paul: Prototypes for the Nation?", Urban Land,
Richard C. Podolske & C. Todd Heglund, September 1976, vol. 35, no. 8,
p. 3-12.
"State Street Mall" Chicago's Retail Hope", New York Times, William Robbins,
June 20, 1978, p. D1-D6. ^
State Street Mall, Chicago Illinois, Dennis Harder, Department of City
Planning of Chicago, City and Community Development, Joint Development
Marketplace, June 25-27, 1978.
"The State Street Mall: What, Where and Why", Inland Architect, Nory Miller,
March 1975, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 4-31.
"State Street, That Great Mall-Color, History Live Again", Chicago Sun-Times,
June 18, 1978, p. 1,7.
State Street Transit Mall, Application of the City of Chicago for a Mass
Transportation Capital Improvement Grant under the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 as amended, Department of Public Works,
Chicago, February 1975.
"Street or Mall, It's Still Great State of Chicago", Chicago Tribune,
Paul Gapp, p. 1,18.
11-23
-------
Streets for Pedestrians and Transit; Examples of Transit Malls in the
United States (Abstract), David Koffman and Richard Edminster,
Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Cambridge, Mass., August 1977.
"Streets for Pedestrians and Transit: Examples of Transit Malls in the
United States (Final Report)", UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series,
Service and Methods Demonstration Program, August 1977.
"Streets for People", Progressive Architecture, Stephen Tilly & Stephen Carr
of Arrowstreet, December 1976, p.75-77.
"Ten Tons of Art Placed at Site of Portland Mall", Passenger Transport.
There's A New State Street Coming, State Street Council, Chicago.
"Traffic Agents Return to Duty to Ease Tie-Ups", New York Times,
Morris Kaplan.
"Transit Mall Provides Many Jobs", Passenger Transport, January 14, 1977,
p. 7.
"Transit (Only) Mall Opens In Portland", Passenger Transport,
March 31, 1978, p. 1,3.
Transit Malls - Site Report: Review Draft, Grain & Associates (David Koffman
and Richard Edminster), prepared for DOT/Transportation Systems Center
(DOT-TSC-1081-19), June 1977.
Transportation: Conditions S Trends, San Francisco Department of City
Planning, 1976.
Transportation: Strategy & Programs: A Proposal for Citizen Review, San
Francisco Department of City Planning, 1976.
"Trees Planted on Transit Mall", Passenger Transport, March 18, 1977.
User Consultation Process; Final Report: Downtown Washington S/treets for
People, paper by; District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency and
Ashley/Myer/Smith Inc., February 28, 1973.
"Vibration from Motor Traffic", European Heritage, Bernard Feilden, 1974,
vol. 2, p. 44-46.
"Water Sculpture Assembled on Portland Bus Mall", Passenger Transport,
December 30, 1977, p. 7.
Workshop on Center Cities Economic Revitalization, U.S. Department-of
Commerce, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of
Housing and Redevelopment, Detroit, July 28-29, 1977.
Transit Station Area Joint Development; Strategies for Implementation (Final);
Administration and Management Research Association of New York City, Inc.,
and Office of Midtown Planning and Development, Office of the Mayor;
Urban Mass Transportation Administration; 1976.
11-24
-------
2.2 Formulation of the Noise Questionnaire
The background information on the malls became the basis for struc-
turing a questionnaire of noise in each mall. An analysis of information
obtained on each project made it appear obvious that there was no simple way
to generally classify the malls. Some malls were purely pedestrian-oriented
while others contained provisions for traffic or transit or both. Similarly,
some malls were of considerable length while others were one or two blocks
long. Some contained a wide range of diverse design elements while others
did not. Nevertheless, it was felt that there were several aspects in common
to all.
First, each mall was situated in or near an urban area of high
activity - the central business district. Because of this, it was inferred
that each mall was affected by a similar environment. As a result, questions
were developed to determine the various sources of noise to which each mall
was subjected in order to determine if similar environments contained similar
noise sources.
Second, it was apparent that each mall had incorporated various design
elements. Consequently, it was inferred that these design elements may have
some bearing on attenuating noise by acting as barriers or shields to block
noise emanating from noise sources and that our questionnaire should explore
this possibility.
Third, many of the malls contained provisions for either allowing
vehicular traffic on the mall or diverting traffic around it. Since it was
deduced that traffic is a major contributor to noise, several questions were
developed to determine the impact of such noise.
Finally, since the malls were situated in or near intense urban develop-
ment, a great deal of pedestrian traffic could be generated. In this respect,
questions were structured to determine the implications of noise on the
11-25
-------
pedestrians (receivers of noise) by way of the pedestrian complaints and the
existence of less attractive areas in the mall due to noise.
The inferences that were drawn from the background material gathered
on the malls helped to structure the questionnaire, which is the subject of
the next chapter.
11-26
-------
3.0 SYNTHESIS OF NOISE DATA COLLECTED FROM SIXTEEN MALLS IN THE U. S.
3.1 Data Collection Process
Various methods of data collection were examined. It was determined
that a questionnaire was the most useful survey instrument. The flexibility
of the questionnaire enabled the project staff to satisfy a wide range of
objectives.
The objectives of the questionnaire were to survey the extent to which
the subject of noise was considered in the design, planning, construction and
operation of the malls and the measures which were taken to mitigate it.
Additional objectives of the questionnaire related to the identification of
noise sources, the use of design features for noise attenuation and the
impact of noise on the users of the malls.
The questionnaire was distributed by the United States Conference of
Mayors (USCM) to eighteen malls in the United States. The selection of the
malls was intended to provide a cross-section of the malls in the country.
A list of contacts for the malls was supplied to the USCM. The list repre-
sented a diverse group; it consisted of city planning officials, city
engineers, mall administrators, project directors, officials of the Chambers
of Commerce and consultants. Initially, only one questionnaire was sent to
each mall. In cases where there was no response, follow-up phone calls
were made and a second questionnaire was sent to the appropriate contact.
Information on sixteen of the eighteen malls was finally collected by way
of written response or telephone interview.
The text of the questionnaire reflects the study's objectives. The
questionnaire was divided into four parts:
The first part focused on sources of noise. Seven questions were
developed to determine: (a) if sources of noise were identified in the
planning and design of the mall; (b) what sources were considered problematic;
11-27
-------
(c) what measures, if any, were taken to reduce or control noise at its
source; and (d) if sources of noise were not identified in the planning
stages, whether any have been identified since operations began.
The second part of the questionnaire concentrated on obtaining
information on techniques to control noise along the path of sound trans-
mission. The objective was t(e> determine if any design elements were con-
sidered for use as a meant, of attenuating the noise between the location of
noise sources and the location of noise receivers. Five questions were
designed to obtain data related to the kinds of barriers that may also- have
been incorporated as design features, the types of materials used for them
and the use of buffer areas to separate noise sources and noise receivers.
The third part concentrated on gathering information about the noise
recipient. To ascertain what-mitigation measures were considered at the
point where noise is felt or heard, four questions were formulated to deter-
mine (a) if there were less attractive areas in the mall due to noise;
(b) if certain configurations of building facades were utilized to help
reflect sound away from activity noises; (c) if sound absorbing material was
used; and (d) if there were user complaints about noise in the mall area.
The final part of the questionnaire contained administrative questions.
Questions were developed to obtain diverse information, such as whether noise
measurements were taken, whether an environmental impact statement was sub-
mitted, whether any public awarenes^ campaigns about noise for the mall have
been established and whether a noise consultant was retained.
The questionnaire is presented below, together with a tabulation
showing the responses selected by the malls and a brief narrative summarizing
the response pattern.
11-28
-------
3.2 Noise Questionnaire and Results
A. SOURCE NOISE
1. WERE POTENTIAL SOURCES OF NOISE IDENTIFIED BEFORE OR DURING
THE PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE OF YOUR MALL? YES 8 NO 8
IF NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 5.
The responses of the sixteen malls were evenly divided between
affirmative and negative - eight malls responded "yes" and
eight "no". Those respondents who answered "yes" represented
the malls in the cities of Memphis, Philadelphia, Portland,
Minneapolis, Chicago, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. (This
last respondent answered the questionnaire for the two
Washington, D.C. malls simultaneously). If a pattern to the
responses was apparent, there seemed to be a correlation
between the identification of noise sources and those malls
that made provisions for vehicular use of the mall. Those
malls that were strictly pedestrian-oriented were more likely
to answer "no" to this question.
2. IF ANSWER TO 1 IS YES, KINDLY CHECK THE GENERIC AREA (S) WHERE
NOISE SOURCES WERE IDENTIFIED AS PROBLEMATIC:
A. 8 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
B. _2 SUBSURFACE TRANSPORTATION
C. 0 AIRPLANE FLYOVER
D. _0 BUILDING NOISES (E.G., FANS, VENTILATING UNITS, AIR
CONDITIONING UNITS)
E. 3 NUISANCE TYPE NOISE GENERATED FROM MALL ACTIVITY (E.G.,
MALL ADVERTISING DISPLAYS, LOUDSPEAKERS, SPECIAL
EFFECTS TO ENHANCE MALL'S CHARACTER, ETC.)
F. 1 NOISE GENERATED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY (E.G., LOUD CONVERSATION,
YELLING, PORTABLE RADIO/STEREOS, ETC.)
G. 3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE INVOLVING THE MALL'S DEVELOPMENT
H. 0 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
Of the eight that responded affirmatively to Question 1, the
generic area most frequently cited in the responses to Question 2
was surface transportation. The next two areas most frequently
checked were construction noise and noise related to the mall's
activity. Noise emanating from subsurface transportation was
considered problematic in the two Washington, D.C. malls.
11-29
-------
IN ORDER TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, THE GENERIC AREAS OF QUESTION 2
ARE SEPARATED INTO THEIR SUBSTITUENTS BELOW WHERE APPROPRIATE.
KINDLY CHECK THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF NOISE SOURCE, WITHIN THE
CORRESPONDING GENERIC AREA MARKED ABOVE, THAT WAS IDENTIFIED
AS PROBLEMATIC.
A. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION : CAR 6 _ _, BUS 8 , TRUCK _5 ,
TAXI _2 , EMERGENCY VEHICLES 0 , RAILROAD 0
B. SUBSURFACE TRANSPORTATION: SUBWAY _2 , UNDERGROUND ROADWAY 0
C. BUILDING NOISES: VENTILATING FANS _0 , AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
TRANSFORMERS _£ , GENERATORS _0 ,
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
D. MALL ACTIVITY NOISE: ADVERTISING DISPLAYS Q , LOUDSPEAKERS _;
SPECIAL ACTIVITY AREA, E.G., OUTDOOR THEATRE Q ,
SPECIAL DESIGN EFFECTS, E.G., WATERFALLS, TOWER CLOCKS,
PUMPED-IN MUSIC (PLEASE SPECIFY) Record Stores
E. OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) : .
The specific type of surface transportation that was checked most
frequently as a noise problem was buses, followed by cars and
trucks. Taxis were only cited twice as being problematic.
With respect to mall activity noise, loud speaker systems and
record stores were regarded as significant noise producing
sources.
In the subsurface transportation category, subway noise was cited
by the Washington, D.C. respondent.
The reader should note that construction noise, while considered
problematic in Question 2, was not further delineated in this
question for the sake of simplicity.
4. WERE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES INCORPORATED
INTO THE MALL'S DEVELOPMENT TO ATTENUATE SOURCE NOISE? KINDLY
DESCRIBE.
A. 2 NOISE SOURCE (S) WAS PHYSICALLY MODIFIED
B. 1 NOISE SOURCE (S) WAS ENCLOSED
C. 1 NOISE SOURCE (S) WAS LIMITED TO CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY
D. 5 NOISE SOURCE (S) WAS GIVEN AN ABATEMENT PROCEDURE THAT
HELPED TO ATTENUATE NOISE WITHOUT PHYSICALLY MODIFING IT
IN ANY WAY.
E. 1 OTHER Noise Regulations
11-30
-------
In response to 4a, two malls (Portland and Chicago) indicated
that the purchase of new, quieter bus models was being made
(Portland) or being considered (Chicago). The new buses would
contain design modifications to provide for quieter operation.
For 4b, Portland required the use of temporary enclosures around
noise-producing equipment during the construction phase of its
mall. The effectiveness of such enclosures was not reported.
In response to 4c, Portland restricted the use of construction
equipment to certain times of the day.
The responses to 4d were varied. Minneapolis reported the use
of a maintenance program for its mall buses to keep them in good
operating condition. By maintaining the buses in proper working
order, worn and pitted parts are replaced to avoid making
unnecessary noise. In a different vein, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
responded to "d" by reporting that most vehicular traffic was
diverted around the mall area. Although the source noise was not
physically altered, the source (most vehicular traffic) was
redirected away from the sensitive area. Raleigh, North Carolina
and Washington, D.C. made use of an alternate noise source to mask
the annoying type of noise with a more pleasing type of sound. The
type of noise source used in these instances was the splashing of
waterfalls or water fountains.
In response to 4e, Memphis reported the use of noise regulations
that limited the level of sound that could be produced by a source
of noise in the mall.
5. IF NOISE SOURCES WERE NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNING AND
DESIGN PHASE, HAVE ANY BEEN IDENTIFIED AS PROBLEMATIC SINCE
OPERATION OF THE MALL? YES 2 NO 14
6. IF SO, WHAT SOURCES OF NOISE HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
PROBLEMATIC? Bus noise and store loudspeakers
Of the eight malls that responded negatively to question 1,
the question which seeks to identify noise sources during
mall design and planning, two malls responded affirmatively
to Question 5, which tries to identify noise sources
apparent since operation. Raleigh and Louisville indicated
that a noise source has been identified since operation.
Raleigh responded that buses created a noise problem where
they crossed the mall at street intersections. Louisville
cited the use of store loudspeakers as problematic.
Louisville has effectively dealt with their problem
administratively with the cooperation of the mall's businessmen.
11-31
-------
7. WAS CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO SET NOISE "LIMITS" FOR ANY
EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, MACHINERY, ETC. WHICH USERS OF THE
MALL WOULD NOT PURCHASE OR USE IF SUCH LIMITS WERE
SURPASSED? YES 2 NO 14
Two malls responded affirmatively to this question. As
indicated above, Memphis made use of a city ordinance to
set noise limits on noise sources. The other mall to
answer "yes" was Portland.
B. NOISE TRANSMISSION ALONG THE PATH
8. WERE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (IN THE FORM OF BUFFERING, E.G.,
SHIELDING BY WAY OF PHYSICAL BARRIERS OR INCREASING THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN NOISE SOURCE AND NOISE RECEIVER) GIVEN TO
THE ATTENUATION OF NOISE AS IT PASSED THROUGH AIR FROM
NOISE SOURCE TO NOISE RECEIVER? YES 5 NO 11
Five malls answered 'yes' to this question. Raleigh,
Portland, Pittsburgh and the two Washington, D.C. malls
were among those respondents which utilized design
features which were thought to help attenuate noise
between the noise source and the receiver of noise.
9. IF SO, WHAT KIND OF PATH BUFFERING WAS USED?
A. 4 A PURPOSEFULLY POSITIONED ARTIFICIAL BARRIER '
B. 0 USE OF A NATURAL BARRIER (HILL, BERM, ETC.)
C. 0 USE OF OTHER BUILDINGS
D. 0 INCREASING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN NOISE SOURCE AND
NOISE RECEIVER
E._2 USE OF VEGETATION
F._0 PURCHASE OF EASEMENTS
G. 0 EXCESS ACQUISITION OF LAND TO PROVIDE FOR BUFFER ZONES
H. 3 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
Of the five responses to Question 8, four out of the five
cited the use of some form of barrier to attenuate sound.
The barrier took the form of raised planters with
vegetation or water fountain structures. Two malls cited
the use of vegetation to attenuate noise. Raleigh and
the two Washington, D.C. malls checked "h" above and noted
the use of pleasant masking noises to compete with the
unwanted, intruding noises.
11-32
-------
10. IF ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS WERE USED, WHAT TYPE OF MATERIALS
WERE THEY MADE OF?
Precast stone was the material cited by Raleigh and the
two Washington, D.C. malls for the planters and fountain
structures. Portland utilized temporary plywood enclosures
around heavy machinery during its construction phase as
its barrier material.
11. IF BUFFER DISTANCES WERE UTILIZED, WHAT DISTANCES WERE
CONSIDERED ADEQUATE FOR YOUR PURPOSE?
This question was not answered by any of the malls.
Evidently, since all of the selected malls are in densely
populated urban areas, an inference can be drawn that
there is little opportunity to amass space between noise
source and noise receiver in these areas for the purpose
of dissipating noise.
12. WERE ANY SPECIFIC MATERIALS USED ELSEWHERE IN THE MALL
FOR EITHER THE ABSORPTION OR REFLECTION OF SOUND WAVES?
YES 2 NO 14
IF SO, WHAT MATERIALS WERE USED AND DO YOU CONSIDER THEM
EFFECTIVE?
The respondent from the two Washington, D.C. malls addressed
this question. The materials used there to assist in
absorbing or reflecting sound waves were the different types
of vegetation used in landscaping the planters.
C. NOISE AT THE RECEIVER END
13. WOULD YOU SAY THAT THERE ARE "LESS ATTRACTIVE" AREAS OR
LESS UTILIZED AREAS OF YOUR MALL WHERE THE REASONS FOR
SUCH UNDERUTILIZATION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO EXPOSURE TO
"ANNOYING" NOISE (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT ANNOYING
NOISE DIFFERS FROM INDIVIDUAL TO INDIVIDUAL?)
YES 2 NO 14
Two mall respondents indicated the possibility that less
attractive areas existed in the mall due to noise. It is
of interest to note that both indicated the fact was due
to bus noise. Raleigh indicated that those street
intersections where buses crossed the mall were likely
candidates for "less attractive" status. The respondent
from Portland deduced that there probably were such sites
because outdoor cafes were planned for some mall areas
but the bus noise was considered too annoying at the time
for such a use.
11-33
-------
14. WERE CERTAIN BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS UTILIZED OR DESIGN
LAYOUTS CREATED AS A RESULT OF NOISE CONSIDERATIONS?
YES 3 NO 13
IF SO, WHAT DESIGN LAYOUTS OR BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS
WERE CONSIDERED? .
The respondent for the two Washington, D.C. malls addressed
this question by indicating that the positioning of planters
and the use of vegetation would help absorb the sound
reflecting from building facades and store glass windows.
Raleigh's response also indicated that consideration was
given to noise in the positioning of their planters.
15. WAS IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER SOUND ABSORBING MATERIAL TO
INSULATE BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE MALL FROM NOISE?
YES 0 NO 16
Of the mall respondents who chose to answer this question,
all of the responses were negative.
16. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT NOISE LEVELS BY USERS
OF THE MALL? YES 6 NO 10
Several of the mall respondents indicated that there have
been general complaints about noise levels; additional
comments varied from occasional general complaints to
specific complaints. Among the specific complaints were
bus noise (Philadelphia) and loudspeakers (Louisville).
D. ADMINISTRATIVE
17. WERE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERED OR USED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE MALL'S OPERATION TO DISCOURAGE NOISE? KINDLY CHECK.
A. 1 PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGNING ABOUT NOISE
B._0 LITERATURE DISTRIBUTION ON NOISE
C._0 FILM CLIPS
D. 0 SIGNS
E. i OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
The respondent from the Pittsburgh mall indicated that a
public awareness campaign about noise was considered at
some time. Memphis checked "e" above, citing the use of a
City noise ordinance to discourage noise associated with
the mall's operation.
11-34
-------
18. WERE THERE ANY NOISE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN TO DETERMINE NOISE
LEVELS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MALL? YES 3 NO 13
AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE MALL? YES 1 NO 14
There were three malls that had taken noise measurements
before construction - Philadelphia, Portland and Chicago.
Only one, Portland, has taken such measurements since
beginning its operations. The respondent from Chicago
noted that Chicago's mall is still in its construction
phase and, therefore, noise monitorings after construction
could not be addressed at this point.
19. WAS THERE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DRAFTED FOR
YOUR MALL THAT CONSIDERED THE NOISE ISSUE?
YES 4 NO 12
Three malls drafted an environmental impact statement -
Philadelphia, Portland and Chicago. Seattle's response
indicated that a Declaration of Non-Significant Impact
was made for Phase 2 of its mall but was not necessary
for Phase 1.
20. WAS A CONSULTANT RETAINED TO ADDRESS NOISE MATTERS?
YES 1 NO 15
IF SO, DID IT PROVE COST EFFECTIVE IN YOUR ESTIMATION?
YES 1 NO -
Portland retained a consultant to address the noise issue
and considered it effective. In the case of the two
Washington, D.C. malls, a consultant was retained to do a
pre-design survey, of which noise was a component. However,
no indication was made that there was a consultant used to
specifically address the noise issue there.
21. DO ANY MUNICIPAL CODES COVER THE PROBLEM OF NOISE IN
YOUR MALL? YES 11 NO 5
IS IT EFFECTIVE? YES 11 NO 0
IS ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH A CODE A SERIOUS PROBLEM?
YES 0 NO 11
Eleven of the malls were located in cities which had some
type of municipal code which addressed noise. However,
there was no consistent type of ordinance found among the
eleven responses. Some cities had a nuisance ordinance
11-35
-------
while others prescribed noise performance standards in
their zoning .codes. Each of the eleven malls which
indicated some type of noise code also indicated that
the code was effective in controlling noise. No serious
enforcement problem was cited by the eleven.
11-36
-------
3.3 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Efforts by the Selected Malls
Based on the information received, several conclusions and inferences
can be made concerning identified noise patterns and noise mitigation efforts
practiced by the sixteen selected malls.
1. Surface transportation vehicles on or adjacent to malls create
the most serious noise problem. The surface transportation
vehicle which appears to contribute most to this noisy condi-
tion is the bus. Even the mall in Raleigh, which is pedestrian-
oriented but allows for bus crossings at side streets, has
cited problems with noise at those intersections. The search
for quieter bus models is being undertaken for the malls in
Chicago and Portland.
2. Noise involved with construction of a mall also creates a
serious problem. Efforts to cope with this type of noise has
centered around enclosing the noise-producing equipment with
temporary structures and limiting the construction to certain
hours of the day.
3. Besides purchasing quiet equipment, enclosing a noise source
and limiting noise to certain hours of the day, the rerouting
of traffic away from the mall was considered by some of the
mall respondents as a way of controlling noise at its source.
The question that remains to be answered is whether or not the
diverted traffic is seriously affecting those areas which are
now receiving the increased volume of traffic.
4. Another noise mitigation effort, which has been considered
effective by some of the mall respondents, is masking noise.
11-37
-------
The use of waterfalls has been cited as a way to create a
more pleasant type of sound which blocks the intruding and
more annoying types of noise. However, while masking noise
may be effective for the immediate area adjacent to the
waterfall, its effect is reduced the further away one travels
from it. Secondly, the sound must be one of sufficient
intensity to function properly as a masking noise.
5. It appears that very little has been done to use various
design features in malls as sound attenuation possibilities.
Several malls have relied on the use of vegetation and above-
ground planters as shields to block noise as it passes through
the air from noise source to noise receiver. However, moderate
use of vegetation alone is not enough to substantially reduce
noise and, depending on their size and construction, isolated
planters may not have much of an effect either. Based on the
responses to the questionnaire, it still remains to be seen
whether or not design features such as mall furniture, bus
shelters, isolated standing walls, etc. can be effectively
designed into the mall layout for sound attenuation purposes.
6. It appears that very little space is available at the sites
of the malls to act as a buffer area between noise source and
noise receiver. The distances between a noise source and the
pedestrian receiver of noise appears to be close at the malls.
In such a case, it would be difficult to design a mall where
noise sources could be positioned far enough away from
sensitive areas so that a buffer zone could be created.
11-38
-------
7. Very few malls measured existing noise levels. In those malls that
did, only Portland has done it on a before and after basis. This
could imply that, in many cases, noise was not a serious concern in
the design and operation of the mall. Furthermore, only one mall
used a noise consultant (Portland).
8. Several malls appear to rely on citywide ordinances to help enforce
noise levels in the mall area. The effectiveness of such municipal
ordinance lies in proper enforcement. Essentially, the effort at
noise reduction through such means becomes administrative in nature
rather than the consequence of mall planning or design.
9. In reviewing all the responses by the selected malls, it appears
that, even in those malls that identified noise as problematic,
the use of noise mitigation techniques was not of critical concern.
This was most obvious in cases where the mall was pedestrian-
oriented and where the development of the mall was accomplished
prior to the requirements of an environmental impact review process.
The more recently planned malls were more likely to consider noise
mitigation techniques in their development. However, even in
many of these cases, evidence does not seem to support an active
effort to forcefully mitigate noise in the malls. Portland, with
its noise mitigation program, which shall be discussed in
Chapter 4.0, appears to be the exception rather than the rule in
this regard.
10. From the responses, it would also appear that the attenuation of
noise in central city areas was not among the primary objectives
for mall development either. It would appear that the overall
11-39
-------
objectives for constructing the mall would more likely be linked
to encouraging economic development, area beautification, or
comprehensive traffic programs than to the creation of a quieter
environment for central city areas.
11. Finally, evidence would indicate that, given the nature of the
urban mall per se and the intensity of activity surrounding it,
noise continues to be a problem and that past efforts to atten-
uate it need to be supplemented with more information about
noise mitigation techniques, increased awareness about noise on
the part of urban designers and more resources to accomplish
the task.
11-40
-------
4.0 A CASE STUDY - PORTLAND, OREGON
4.1 Setting
The problem which noise poses to mall users and neighboring businesses
and the efforts which have been made to mitigate noise are best illustrated
in the Portland Mall in Portland, Oregon. A detailed examination of such a
specific project as Portland, and the noise issues and problems related to it,
should afford a better understanding of noise abatement strategies in the
context of actual factors and decisions affecting a project's planning,
design and operation.
4.2 Description of the Portland Mall
Early transportation studies, performed for the City of Portland by
private consultants, recommended the consolidation of the downtown bus net-
work. Almost all of the buses which operated in the downtown area were to be
routed to and through a transit mall. The transit mall was planned for two
major downtown streets - Fifth and Sixth Avenues between Burnside and Madison
Streets - a distance of approximately eleven blocks on each avenue for a
total of twenty-two blocks (Figure 1). The implementation of the mall was
part of a larger effort by Tri-Met, the principal mass transportation carrier
in Portland, to provide more effective transit service to the overall metro-
politan area.
Several alternatives were considered for the design of the transit
mall. The approved design provided for two exclusive bus lanes on each
avenue, plus a third for mixed traffic use on sixteen of the total twenty-two
blocks. As bus volumes increase in the future, private autos would be
further restricted from using the mall and higher transit capacity would be
achieved.
11-41
-------
nan
ion
ion
aot
nan
nnaannnaan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >. _ GUl
u
BCW a n
NK.^SV ' 1 > 1 \ 1'
^m
7^7/^/7 /V£ / /
-------
The basic configuration of the mall is a system of two parallel high-
capacity transit lanes. Sixth Avenue, the western half of the mall, carries
transit vehicles northward; Fifth Avenue, the eastern half, carries south-
bound traffic. Most of the routes serving the metropolitan area of Portland
eventually travel along the mall. The mall also includes about twenty bus
stops in each direction of the eleven-block mall. Crosstown streets are
open to traffic, and non-transit vehicles may turn onto the transit mall on
eight of the eleven blocks on each avenue. Extended sidewalks at certain
locations act as barriers to prevent complete through-movement of non-transit
vehicles. Surface facilities for transit passengers include sheltered
waiting areas with seating, widened sidewalks, route and schedule information
via television monitors, bus stop markers, route identification maps and
phones which communicate with a transit information center. Other design
features, not specifically related to transit travel, have been incorporated
into the design of the mall as well. They include street landscaping, con-
sisting of shade trees and granite planters which contain a wide variety of
seasonal flowers and foliage, special brick paving with a surface pattern
designed to accent and delineate pedestrian areas, street furnishings including
elaborate drinking fountains, water fountains, kiosks, bulletin boards, display
cases, concession booths, benches, bollards, lighting, flagpoles, traffic
signage and traffic signalization. All of these elements are designed to
project a visually attractive environment, supportive of pedestrian and
transit-related activity.
4.3 Noise and the Transit Mall
Planning Considerations
Noise was perceived as a potential problem in the planning phases of
the mall. The major contributor of noise was considered to be vehicular
traffic - specifically buses. Because Fifth and Sixth Avenues were heavily
11-43
-------
trafficked, noise levels were high in the area before the implementation of
the mall. With the addition of more diesel buses on the two corridors,
increased noise levels were predicted.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the mall investigated
several mass transit alternatives in relation to their noise impacts. Beside
the diesel bus alternative, a trolley system, a light rail system, a mixture
of a diesel and trolley system and a no-build alternative were evaluated.
The no-build alternative was evaluated in terms of the mixture of traffic
that was present in the area before mall implementation. These alternatives
were analyzed in terms of four noise criteria: pedestrian speech interference,
hotel room sleep interference, office background noise standards and court-
room background noise criteria. Noise measurements were taken at four sites
on Fifth and Sixth Avenues and at eight sites on the adjoining cross streets
east and west of the proposed mall. Table 1 identifies the location of
these sites and their respective statistical noise levels.
The alternative to increasing the use of diesel buses on the mall
would, according to the EIS, increase pre-mall noise levels to beyond the
standards contained in the four noise criteria. The EIS showed that only a
switch to a different type of transit mode (e.g. from diesel bus to a
trolley system) would improve noise conditions on the mall. However, this
alternative required a significant capital investment and was, therefore,
abandoned in favor of less costly solutions that may be available in the
design and/or operation of the project.
Design Considerations
Several design possibilities to mitigate noise were considered. In
examining these possibilities, the primary objective of the mall had to be
kept in mind. It was, above all, a transit mall for buses - designed to
make access to the downtown area more attractive and convenient. An
11-44
-------
TABLE 1: EXISTING STATISTICAL NOISE LEVELS (dBA) AND SITE LOCATIONS KEY
On
Mall , , , ,
Sites Time L90 L50 L10 L1 Leq
1 Day 60 64 72 80 69
Evening 55 61 69 78 66
Night 51 57 64 73 61
Peak Hour 61 66 74 83 71
2 Day 62 .71 77 80 73
Evening 52 58 64 70 61
Night 51 57 64 70 60
Peak Hour 64 72 83 87 78
3 Day 65 68 72 79 70
Evening 58 64 71 76 67
Night 51 55 63 70 60
P-.dk Hour 62 67 71 77 63
4 Day 62 68 :74 80 70
Evening 62 68 79 84 74
Night 53 59 70 79 67
Poak Hour 61 69 78 83 73
Git
Sites
63 67 71 76 69
Lining 52 59 66 74 63
Peak Hour 63 68 74 60 71
b Day 66 72 78 86 75
Evening 59 65 72 84 71
Peak Hour 67 73 80 87 76
7 Day 62 69 75 83 72
Evening 56 62 75 82 71
Peak Hour 61 66 74 81 71
8 Day 61 64 70 78 67
Evening 55 59 G3 75 64
Peak Hour 62 67 73 79 70
9 Day 58 64 73 82 70
Evening 57 64 72 80 69
Peak Hour 62 68 74 82 71
10 Day 61 66 72 79 69
Evening 59 66 75 82 71
Peak Hour 63 69 76 85 74
11 Day 60 64 71 82 69
Evening 46 50 57 64 54
Peak Hour 62 67 74 84 72
12 Djy 61 66 72 77 63
Evening 56 60 65 73 53
Peak Hour 66 72 78 82 74
Source: Tables 5 and 6, Robin M. Towne Associates, Enviror
Mall, January, 1975.
S>^
J L__ ft '/Si
Oak
r r 2 %^
r\
m.
f ' ~ 1 1 i~r-
Plne""
77jT\ r~
fj^ 1
1 ^Tfi I
'''%%-} 'r
/£[ j
._.
on ~~ o~
W^
ic
_.,
ft
"
11 j 1
,i r-i!T~
.
nd Transit
11-45
-------
unavoidable byproduct of bus traffic is noise. Furthermore, there was not a
vast amount of open space between the transit lanes and the pedestrian walk-
ways and building lines. In some areas of the mall the presence of tall
buildings would create a canyon effect where noise can reverberate.
One design possibility was to acoustically treat the facades of the
abutting buildings. However, this would prove costly and ineffective because
there were large window areas on the building facades and there was little
space left for acoustical treatment.
The use of acoustical barriers placed between the bus lanes and the
sidewalks was also explored but considered untenable for several reasons.
A barrier several feet high placed on the ground may prove effective in
absorbing and diffracting noise, such as is created by bus exhaust, which
emanates from underneath the bus. However, the exhaust stacks on most of
Portland's fleet are directed skyward from the top rear of the bus and a
barrier lower than the noise source would have little effect in this case.
Secondly, an effective barrier should have no gaps in its length. Such a
situation would clearly interfere with pedestrian and passenger circulation.
The use of extensive vegetation was also considered ineffective. The
lack of space to plant vegetation in addition to the amount of vegetation
necessary to substantially reduce noise argued against the pursuit of this
alternative. Similarly, the use of masking noises, in the form of waterfalls,
was considered ineffective. While a waterfall may be useful for a small area,
it would not be viable given the extensive sifce of the Portland Mall.
The bus shelters along the mall were prime candidates for acoustical
treatment. They are oblong in shape and semi-enclosed structures. Access to
each shelter is from either the curb or sidewalk. The north and south ends
of each structure are rounded and enclosed with transparent material. The
top of each shelter is made of the same transparent material. For noise
11-46
-------
n purposes, the side of the shelter adjacent to the sidewalk could
be closed off. However, the resulting three-sided enclosure was more expensive
to construct and less convenient to pedestrian access.
In short, there was little that could be, and, in fact, was done with
respect to designing the mall to attenuate noise given the purpose and physical
constraints of the project.
Operation Considerations
As the mall was phased into operation, the number of buses began to in-
crease on Fifth and Sixth Avenues. As a result of the increased bus volumes,
the noise levels began to rise. Shopkeepers initiated complaints about the
noise. The cause of their annoyance was primarily the buses, specifically the
noise associated with bus acceleration. The increased noise levels also affect-
ed the ability of mall users to carry on conversations at normal voice levels
in the vicinity of bus traffic and also posed a possible hazard to hearing. Of
importance in this latter consideration is the time spent at the mall by the averac
person. In addition, the increase in the noise was significant enough to pro-
hibit the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from funding
housing units along the busy downtown corridor. Confronting the noise problem
from a different direction, Tri-Met examined operational strategies on the mall
to decrease noise levels.
Since there seemed to be a correlation between increased bus volumes and
increased noise levels on the mall, it was logical to assume that decreasing the
number of buses along the mall would serve to lower the noise levels. With this
in mind, Tri-Met began to examine different.routing possibilities for buses en-
tering and .leaving the downtown area. The results of the analyses are not com-
plete at this writing. However, while such an operational measure may appear
effective with respect to noise, it would be difficult to simultaneously accom-
modate extensive rerouting in light of the fact that the purpose of the transit
mall is to consolidate transit access and to expand such service should the demand
for transit services grow in the future.
11-47
-------
An operational measure that has been implemented is a bus operator education
program. This program is aimed at instructing the bus driver on how to operate
his bus in as quiet a manner as possible. Another operational consideration examined
was traffic signalization. The use of a progressive signal system on the mall
as opposed to a simultaneous signal system has been briefly explored. No conclusive
evidence on the noise curtailment effects of the two systems has been documented
to prove which system, if either, has a more positive effect in reducing noise.
The theory behind the use of either type of signal system is to minimize the starting
and stopping of buses at traffic lights as they travel the length of the mall. The
progressive system was first used on the mall. The simultaneous system is presently
in effect.
Engineering Considerations
Much of Portland's efforts at noise attenuation have concentrated on engineering
approaches to quiet bus noise. This approach has the advantage of treating noise before
it is created rather than attenuating it after it is already present in the environment by
means of design and/or operational considerations. Source control measures are now being
undertaken by the bus fleet operator, Tri-Met. Tri-Met has made several alterations on test
buses in a noise retrofit program with funding for the demonstration program provided by a
grant from the US Department of Transportation-Urban Mass Transportation Administration as
well as from the US Environmental Protection Agency. Tri-Met has installed a turbocharger
on the engines of its test buses. The installation of this device has resulted in a reduction
in the engine noise and exhaust noise level. Tri-Met has also padded the engine compartment
on these buses with a 1J4 inch thick material that is soft, rugged, and easily bent. It consists
of a 10 oz/ft lead septum sandwiched between two blankets of glass fiber. The composite is
protected by a lightweight waterproof aluminized glass cloth. The lead serves as a sound
barrier and the glass fiber blankets reduce echoing. Tri-Met is also experimenting with
installing belly pans underneath the engine compartment as a noise mitigationtechnique.
The final design of these pans is not yet complete. Another measure, undertaken by Tri-Met,
11-48
-------
has been to retrofit the exhaust system of its test buses with new mufflers.
Several retrofit buses were tested during 1979; these experimental efforts
have thus far resulted in a 4.5 dB decrease in the noise level of the buses.
At the prese/it time, Tri-Met has not requested funding, for retrofitting
their bus fleet. If and when this comes about, Tri-Met expects to retrofit ap-
proximately 15 buses per month. A new type of bus transmission is under inves-
tigation which would reduce the need for full throttle on acceleration, allowing
the bus to move more smoothly with less engine RPM and, consequently, less en-
gine noise. Tri-Met has also investigated the use of trolley bus operations
within their system to provide for quieter transit operations in the future.
Continued Monitoring
While the engineering effort continues, Portland is involved in a pro-
gram to monitor noise in the central business district with funds provided by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Part of the program is to develop an urban noise model ca-
pable of predicting noise levels in an urban environment. The program has pro-
duced preliminary noise monitoring data as of this writing. Some of this pre-
liminary information has been included in this report to provide a rough estimate
of the changes in the noise levels of the mall on a before-and-after basis.
While a significant amount of : monitoring has occured outside the confines of
the mall for purposes of the urban noise model, two main locations have been
included below. The main locations are on Fifth Avenue at the intersections
of Morrison and Adler Streets. Each main location was composed of four monitor-
ing sites positioned at different strategic points. The two locations are in
close proximity to locations 1 and 2 of Portland's EIS., which have been included
above in Table 1. Table 2 compares the preliminary post-mall noise level
data with the pre-mall data of the EIS.
11-49
-------
Table 2
Pre- and Post-Mall Noise Data for Two Locations
(Average Leq: Day and Night)
Location
A. Fifth Avenue and
Morrison Street
B. Fifth Avenue and
Adler Street
Pre-Mall (EIS) Data
Leq dBA
Day 73
Night 60
Day 69
Night 61
Post-Mall Data*
Leq dBA
69-75.3
56-69
71-75.2
66.4-70.7
*These are preliminary results only and represent the range of the four
monitoring sites at each location.
Because the locations of the monitoring sites are not identical for the
pre- and post-mall monitoring, strict comparisons should not be made. However,
these results do seem to indicate that the presence of the mall has served to
increase noise levels in the area. At Fifth Avenue and Morrison Street, where
noise levels were initially high, the noise level has increased slightly during
the daytime hours. What appears to be more of a problem is the increase in the
noise level in those areas of the mall which were subject to less noise before
the mall was constructed; these are now similar to or higher than the more noisy
pre-mall locations. Aggravating this situation further is the increased night-
time noise levels, which do not help the City to meet its housing objectives in
the downtown area. A further consideration are the peak hour noise levels, which
would presumably raise the noise levels on the mall even higher than those
indicated on Table 2, although for brief periods of time during the day.
11-50
-------
k-. 4 Summary
From Portland's experience, it appears that the most advantageous way
to solve the noise problem is at the source of the noise. Portland's best
strategy is to retrofit its buses. Retrofitting Portland's fleet appears
possible but expensive. To assist Portland in the future, the purchase of
newer, quieter buses to replace its older buses will help to decrease the
noise levels further. To implement design and/or operational techniques to
reduce noise does not appear to be as effective. The use of barriers, re-
routing schemes, etc., may prove to be costly and only marginally effective,
as well as possible obstacles to pedestrian access and circulation, which are
objectives of the project. On the other hand, the k.5 dB decrease associated
with Tri-Met's total retrofit effort would substantially help to decrease the
noise to levels that are more in keeping with the objective of protecting
against noise-induced hearing loss and preventing undue annoyance and dis-
turbances caused by excessive bus noise.
11-51
-------
5.0 FORMULATION OF NOISE ABATEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA - BROADWAY PLAZA, NEW YORK.
Broadway Plaza is proposed as a series of three pedestrian plazas and a
transitway to be built in the heart of Times Square in New York City. The
project is currently in the final design phase with construction scheduled to
begin in the Spring of 1981. It was of interest to this study of noise and
pedestrian areas to identify potential noise mitigation measures from the per-
spective of the design of a specific project, although the feasibility of
incorporating these techniques will ultimately depend upon their conformance
with project objectives.
Section 5.1 summarizes the design and operational features of the
proposed Broadway Plaza; Section 5.2 analyzes the potential significance for
noise mitigation of certain of these design elements; Section 5.3 suggests
criteria for the location of physical elements to reduce noise; and Section 5.4
offers operational guidelines for vehicular movement for the purpose of
controlling noise.
5.1 Description of Broadway Plaza
Broadway Plaza is a proposed pedestrian/transit mall in the heart of
Times Square and the Theater District in New York City. Broadway Plaza will be
created by closing Broadway to traffic between 45th and 48th Streets and
replacing the portion of the street now used for automobiles with new paving.
Since crosstown traffic will be allowed to continue across 46th and 47th
Streets, Broadway Plaza will, in effect, consist of three pedestrian plazas.
A transitway on Broadway between 48th and 49th Streets will introduce a series
of operational measures designed to give preferential treatment to transit
vehicles to Columbus Circle. The transitway will be continued along the
eastern edge of the pedestrian plazas between 48th and 45th Streets.
The southernmost plaza between 45th and 46th Streets will include new
paving, trees and the existing monument to George M. Cohan, which is presently
11-52
-------
Broadway
Plaza
Transitway
48th-49th Streets
Sidewalks remain at same width.
Dual roadway with landscaped center median.
Buses routed on eastern roadway.
Taxi and service vehicles use western roadway.
Bus stop on center median.
Trees, information kiosks.
47th-48th Streets piaza c
Right-of-way for emergency access and service vehicles.
Trees, lights, sculpture and information kiosks.
46th-47th Streets
Times Square Theater and Information Center
(TKTS; Tourist and Transit Information; Military).
Outdoor stage for programmed entertainment.
Special boarding area and lay-by for buses.
Father Duffy monument.
Trees, banners, kiosks.
45th-46th Streets
Adjacent to proposed Times Square Hotel
(Enclosed sidewalk cafe; escalators to retail areas).
Special boarding area and lay-by for taxis
(Taxi information and dispatch operation).
George M. Cohan monument.
200
Figure 2
Broadway Plaza Site Plan
11-53
-------
located on Duffy Square. The eastern edge of the plaza would be
reserved for taxis, with a special lay-by providing taxi information and a
dispatch operation. A new fifty-story hotel has been proposed for the western
edge of this plaza and would include an enclosed sidewalk cafe and escalators
leading from street level to retail areas on the third and fourth floors.
The middle and largest of the plazas between 46th and 47th Streets will
include a complete transit, tourist and theater information center which will
also incorporate TKTS, the half-price ticket booth presently located on Duffy
Square. This multi-functional center will also have an outdoor stage for
programmed entertainment. A special boarding area and lay-by for transit
vehicles will be designated along Seventh Avenue between 46th and 47th Streets.
In addition to new paving, this plaza will include trees, banners, information
kiosks and the existing monument to Father Duffy.
The plaza between 47th and 48th Streets will have retail shops on
either side of the block. It has been designed to include shade trees, lights,
information kiosks and sculpture. A continuous twenty-foot right-of-way will
be provided for emergency access and service vehicles.
The transitway on Broadway between 48th and 49th Streets is designed as
a dual roadway with transit vehicles and the existing Broadway bike lane to be
routed on the western roadway. A landscaped center median will incorporate a
bus stop as well as information kiosks and shade trees. The transitway will
continue across 48th Street and down Seventh Avenue to 45th Street and provide
access to the block-long lay-bys for buses and taxis provided by the two
adjacent plazas.
Broadway Plaza also includes the introduction of a series of operational
measures and traffic management strategies designed to provide priority treat-
ment for transit vehicles along Broadway, north of the Plaza, and simultaneously
11-54
-------
encourage non-transit vehicles to diversion routes. These measures include
signal changes, as well as a motorist guidance system.
5.2 Potential Significance of Design Elements for Noise Mitigation
Several of the identified design elements can serve a function in
attenuating noise. Although suggestions will be made here for utilizing these
design features of the Plaza for noise attenuation, the final design of any of
the discussed elements would be subject to the inherent tradeoffs between cost,
purpose and function.
The first opportunity for noise mitigation lies in the bus and taxi
shelters. In effect, these physical elements could act as potential noise
barriers for Plazas A and B. The design of the shelters should be continuous
along as much of the two plazas as possible. The shelter should be of signifi-
cant height not only to block the noise that emanates from near-ground vehicle
exhaust systems, engine compartments, suspension systems and transmissions but
to provide the barrier effect against the exhaust systems of heavier trucks,
which are located well above the ground. The tops of the shelters should be
turned inward at an angle toward Seventh Avenue rather than parallel to the
street surface to provide for more barrier surface. The shelter can be con-
structed of a transparent material, such as Lexon. This material would be
preferable to plexiglass, since it has a higher density. There are several
advantages to such shelters. They would be transparent, thereby allowing
visual access between areas inside and outside of the Plaza. Secondly, the use
of a high-density plastic should reduce some of the noise. Thirdly, the
shelters would be located near the noise sources with the further advantage in
that limited space on the Plaza would be needed to accommodate them. The dis-
advantages of a continuous shelter along a block front are that it would signi-
ficantly interfere with pedestrian circulation at the edge of Plazas A and B,
and that it would prohibit easy access to and from the buses and taxis.
11-55
-------
Along the eastern edge of Plazas A and B are located subway ventilation
gratings. Noise from the subways underneath the Plaza emanates from these
gratings. Noise from these gratings can be abated through the installation of
either a prefabricated sound trap or acoustically lined sheet metal ducts.
The sound trap can be installed below the street grade, which would not inter-
fere with pedestrian circulation. The sheet metal ducts could be installed
above street level and can be designed as a series of three foot to four foot
oval or cylindrical ducts extending from the grating of an angle of 135° which
could direct any escaping noise away from activity areas. The duct work could
be designed attractively, as well as color coordinated, with other furnishings
and structures on the Plaza although such ducts would be clearly unusual forms
for a pedestrian area.
The TKTS booth and information center could be acoustically insulated
to facilitate communication inside the structure. The area designated for
ticket purchases or other areas designated for communication outside of the
structure can be oriented away from the traffic side of the structure. In this
way, the structure itself can act as a noise barrier while performing its
other functions.
The roadways adjacent to the mall may be candidates for noise mitigation-
Potholes and poorly-fitting manhole covers add to the fluctuating noise levels
when passed over by moving vehicles. A smooth roadway surface may prevent the
clanking and thudding of vehicle suspension systems and provide for quieter tire-
road surface interaction.
Other design elements, thus far identified, used above or in concert with
each other may have minimal effectiveness as sound attenuators. A series of barri-
ers, placed one after another, does not much improve the effectiveness of a sin-
gle, well-positioned and constructed barrier. Therefore, it may not
11-56
-------
prove cost-effective to locate a series of barriers that, for example, may
consist of a line of bus shelters placed in front of a seriesrof bulletin
boards or kiosks which are then positioned in front of a line of shade trees
when a continuous "front line" barrier may provide the most significant
reduction in noise levels. The effectiveness of isolated sculptures, kiosks
or monuments will have a negligible effect in decreasing noise. Isolated trees
or vegetation used to accent plaza appearance will not help to decrease noise
levels either, although they may promote the psychological impression of a
.more serene type of environment. The introduction of a masking noise
(e.g. a waterfalls) may prove effective in drowning vehicular noise in areas
immediately adjacent to it, but its effects are quickly diluted the farther
away one travels from it.
Depressions in plaza elevation would help to decrease noise in the
depressed areas. The depressed or sunken area, in effect, becomes isolated
from the noise pathway. However, this is impossible in the case of Broadway
Plaza since such a change in site elevation, which would be necessary for noise
abatement purposes, would interfere with subway tunnels and the utility infra-
structure as well as prove a serious impediment to pedestrian circulation in
such a heavily traversed area as Times Square.
The transitway between 48th and 49th Streets presents certain noise
issues. It will be used by buses, taxis and service vehicles. Although a
median strip will be positioned in the center of the road to separate transit
and paratransit vehicles, this element will have little effect on reducing
noise. Since traffic will be present on both sides of the median, even a
barrier constructed along its entire length will not provide much assistance
in reducing the noise there.
11-57
-------
5.3 Criteria for the Location of Physical Elements to Reduce Noise
Based on the parameters outlined in the previous section, several
criteria can be established to locate design elements for noise mitigation on
Broadway Plaza.
1. Those design elements that can serve a function in attenuating
noise should be located as near as possible to the source of
noise. In the case of Broadway Plaza, the primary noise source
will be vehicular. Consequently, the eastern edge of the plaza
(e.g. along Seventh Avenue) could be considered the primary
location for the installation of design elements that may help
to attenuate noise.
2. In the case of using physical elements as barriers, a series
of barriers will not increase the effectiveness over one, well-
positioned barrier. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on
designing and locating physical elements to provide for one
"line of defense" against noise intrusions rather than dispersing
physical elements throughout the plaza for noise attenuation
purposes.
3. Physical elements should be placed between the source of noise
and the potential receivers of noise (e.g. plaza users).
4. Activity programming and events should be positioned as far
away as possible from noise sources, since noise attenuates
with distance.
5. Changes in site elevation (e.g. depressions in the site's
topography) can create areas which are less noisy. Depressed
areas would be even more effective against noise if positioned
11-58
-------
as far as possible from noise sources.
6. Areas where conversation is desired can be partially isolated
by the use of design elements when those elements can be placed
between the noise source and conversation areas.
7. Building structures, and particularly their facades, can be
treated acoustically to prevent sound reverberation.
8. Areas where such activities as eating or reading are desired and
where conversation is not required can be, treated with masking
noises.
9. Isolated and stationary noise sources (e.g. air conditioning
units) can be enclosed or partially enclosed tr, prevent noise
from intruding into an area.
10. Buildings or other structures can be oriented away from noise
sources, thereby utilizing the structure itself as a noise
barrier.
11. Design elements can also be a means of bringing the noise
problem to the attention of the public. Signs and other visual
reminders to encourage quiet could be attractively designed
and located in those areas of the plaza intended for conver-
sation, reading, etc.
12. Non-permanent fixtures might be investigated for use as
temporary sound barriers for use during those times when outdoor
events are scheduled. These temporary fixtures could be placed to
partially enclose an activity area during performances and
11-59
-------
disassembled afterwards. The location for the temporary
structures would depend upon the specific acoustical needs
of the event.
5.4 Operational Guidelines for Vehicular Movement for Noise Control
The guidelines set forth below pertain to the design of vehicular
movement in the area of Broadway Plaza. Since vehicular traffic is the
major contributor of noise in the area, operational techniques to control the
flow, movement and composition of the traffic may prove fruitful for noise
control purposes. For this reason, the following guidelines are proposed.
1. Traffic signals on Seventh Avenue should be coordinated to
stop traffic either above 47th Street or below 45th Street,
and not adjacent to the major pedestrian areas. This would
prevent many vehicles from idling at traffic lights adjacent
to the plaza and, more importantly, minimize the noise of
vehicle acceleration at the beginning of the green cycle.
2. Traffic signals between 48th and 45th Streets on Seventh Avenue
should be set to accommodate as steady a flow of traffic on
Seventh Avenue as possible and to minimize interruptions in the
vehicular flow patterns.
3. Seventh Avenue should be kept clear of double parked vehicles
to provide for a steady flow of vehicular traffic during green
cycles.
4. Vehicles on the crosstown streets in the area of the plaza
, should be stopped behind the building line.
11-60
-------
5. Traffic signals along the transitway at the intersections of
48th Street and Broadway and 48th Street and Seventh Avenue
should be coordinated so that buses can make the double turn
in one signal phase, thereby avoiding double acceleration
from rest.
6. Trucks should be encouraged to make their deliveries during
those times of the day when the plaza is least utilized by
pedestrians.
7. Non-transit vehicles should be prohibited from using the
Seventh Avenue transitway in order to minimize conflicts with
bus movements.
8. Through traffic (especially trucks) should be encouraged to
seek alternate routes south other than Seventh Avenue. The use
of signage and other traffic aids can be helpful in this regard.
9. Bus operators should be encouraged to operate their vehicles
in as quiet a manner as possible. Signage that reminds people
not to use horns and to avoid sudden braking and accelerating
may be useful.
10. Markings for traffic lanes should be clearly visible so that
weaving and merging are kept to a minimum.
Several of the elements and operating guidelines which have been
suggested above as having potential for noise mitigation have already been
included as part of Broadway Plaza; these include the use of the eastern edge
of the Plaza for the location of design elements and the program of signage
and signalization proposed as part of the traffic diversion. A combination of
11-61
-------
both design and operational measures, as discussed above, is expected to
reduce the noise levels in and around Broadway Plaza.
11-62
-------
. An Evaluation of Noise and
Urban Spaces
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project.Objectives
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between urban
pedestrian plazas and ambient noise levels. Seven pedestrian plazas in New
York City were selected as representative case studies. At each of the seven
plazas a noise measurement study was conducted to determine the "noise climate"
during daytime and evening hours of maximum use. Since noise affects the
plaza user, an attitudinal survey to determine the users' profile and sensi-
tivity to noise was included in the study.
The study was begun with the assumption that pedestrian plaza noise
could originate from any source. It was found that noise sources other than
surface transportation were not likely to affect a plaza. Of the two types
of surface transportation noise, motor vehicle traffic would be more common
to an urban pedestrian plaza than rail. The other major aspects of this
study, noise abatement measures and a method for estimating plaza noise levels,
deal with traffic as the major source of noise.
An attitudinal survey was conducted at five of the seven selected
plazas. The intent of the survey was twofold: (1) to determine the profile
of a typical pedestrian plaza user and (2) to determine the plaza users'
awareness and sensitivity to noise. Noise abatement measures for plaza de-
sign were evaluated. The design elements examined in this study were a com-
bination of those design elements found in the pedestrian plazas studied and
noise reduction techniques used for other types of architectural design.
These design elements typically include barriers, plantings and vegetation,
waterfalls and fountains, seating placement, and multilevel designs.
The final phase of the study was the design of a method to estimate
plaza noise levels. In this method, a nomogram is used to determine traffic
noise levels for three categories of vehicles: autos, medium trucks/buses,
III-l
-------
and heavy trucks. Once the traffic noise level has been determined, noise
attenuation due to barriers, blockage from buildings, vegetation and depressed and
elevated plaza design are considered. By using this method, the plaza designer
can determine the plaza noise level due to one or more roadways and its
impact on speech communication within the plaza.
111-2
-------
J--2 Selection of Pedestrian Plazas
Seven pedestrian plazas in New York City were selected to serve as
representative case studies for the noise and attitudinal surveys. The
selection criteria was based on a cross section of plaza design and plaza
use parameters. A chart comparing plaza features (Table 1) was used to
select the seven plazas from a preliminary list of 24 plazas (AMRA, 1978).
Two of the seven plazas were excluded from the attitudinal survey because of
their infrequent use.
The pedestrian plazas selected were:
Seagram Plaza - Park Avenue between 52nd Street and 53rd Street
Rockefeller Center - Fifth Avenue between 49th Street and 50th Street
Lincoln Center - Columbus Avenue between 62nd Street and 65th Street
General Motors Plaza - Fifth Avenue between 58th Street and 59th Stree
Grand Army Plaza - Fifth Avenue between 58th Street and 59th Street
Plaza 400 - First Avenue between 55th Street and 56th Street
KLM Plaza - Madison Avenue between 49th Street and 50th Street
III-3
-------
Table 1
A.
B.
D.
Criteria for Plaza Selection
General Grand
KLM Seagram Plaza Motors Army Rockefeller Lincoln
Plaza Plaza 400 Plaza Plaza Center Center
Proximity to different
surface transportation:
a. auto traffic only
b. auto and bus traffic X
c. truck routes X
d. subway
Adjacent land uses:
a.' residential/commercial
b. commercial/office X
office only
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c.
d.
recreational/comm/
office
Adjacent streets/avenues:
a. one street
b. two streets (parallel)
c. two streets
(perpendicular)
d. three streets
e. four streets
Mall/adjacent structures
a. open plaza area
b. partially enclosed
without canyon
c. partially enclosed
with canyon
d. fully enclosed
Traffic aids adjacent
to plaza:
a. traffic lights
b. bus shelters & taxi
stands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F. Topography
a. above grade
b. below grade
c. at grade
d. multi-level
e. gradual grade change
X
X
X
X
X
X
III-4
-------
Table 1 (continued)
General Grand
KIM Seagram. Plaza Motors Army Rockefeller Lincoln
Plaza Plaza 400 Plaza Plaza Center Center
G. Geometry
a. rectangular X XXX
b. circular
c. triangular
d. L-shaped
e. U-shaped XXX X
H. Design features-presence of:
a. masking noise X X X X X
b. barriers (isolated X
standing walls)
c. mall furniture XXX
d. vegetation (by sample
size comparison only)
1. heavy vegetation X
2. light vegetation X X X X X X
3. no vegetation
e. absorbtive materials
&/or finishes
I. Pedestrian thoroughfare
a. presence of XXXXXX X
b. absence of
Source: AMRA, 1978.
III-5
-------
1.3 Description of Plazas
The design features of each of the pedestrian plazas selected for
this study are as follows:
Seagram Plaza
The bronze and bronze-glass tower Seagram Building designed by
Mies van der Rohe in the 1950's reintroduced the idea of "plaza" to New
York. Occupying the full block on Park between 52nd and 53rd Streets, the
Seagram Plaza (Figure 1) is large and open with some furniture and foliage;
two fountains are situated at either end. The Plaza is two meters (m) (six
«*.
feet (ft) ) above grade, somewhat separated from street activity.
Rockefeller Center
The flagship RCA building rises directly from Rockefeller Center
Plaza (Figure 2) which not only provides scale to this complex but functions
as a pedestrian enclave for tourists, shoppers and workers in nearby
offices. Rockefeller Plaza is a multi-level pedestrian space which
encompasses and overlooks the sunken center area which is transformed from
an outdoor cafe in summer to an ice skating rink in winter. This sunken
plaza, set back from the street, is accessible via the Channel Gardens,
a gently sloped, fountained space with lush seasonal foliage.
Flanked by low-scaled shops, the Gardens offer seating facilities
from which to view both internal plaza events and Fifth Avenue activities.
III-6
-------
o
tc.
IO
in
SEAGRAM BUILDING
n
FOUNTAIN
FOUNTAIN
M
IO
0 10 20 30
PARK AVENUE
FIGURE 1 SEAGRAM PLAZA
IM-7
-------
LOWER
PLA24
91
f
t If^
LA MAISON FRANCAISE L.
f'BRITISH EMPI
D
D
BRITISH EMPIRE BUILDINB
0 10 20 30
FIGURE 2 ROCKEFELLER CENTER
III8
-------
Lincoln Center
For purposes of this project the Lincoln Center Plaza (Figure 3)
encompasses the system of pedestrian spaces including the main open space con-
tained by Philharmonic Hall, the State Theatre and the Metropolitan Opera as
well as Damrosch Park at the southwestern corner of the complex and the smaller
plaza space in front of the Library and Museum of Performing Arts in the north-
west corner. The main plaza is a paved, spacious court; the only furniture
is the fountain situated in the middle of the plaza around which opera and
theatre goers congregate before and after performances. During the summer
months an outdoor cafe is set up along the south side of Avery Fisher Hall.
To the south of the Met is Damrosch Park, a space for free outdoor events.
This park includes a flat, intricately paved center section surrounded by an
edge of formal landscaping. On the other side of the Met is a small plaza
in front of the Library/Museum Building; ample seating facilities surround
a reflecting pool.
General Motors Plaza
The bi-level General Motors Plaza (Figure 4) occupies the full
block between 58th and 59th Streets. Attached to the relatively new
(1968) General Motors tower the U shaped upper plaza is regularly
punctuated by stone slab seating facilities and lightly vegetated planters.
This portion of the plaza is at street level and offers an opportunity
for building workers or passersby to lunch or people watch in Manhattan's
exclusive Plaza Hotel district. The sunken central space is flanked by
premier quality retail facilities. During warm weather this below grade
portion of the plaza houses a popular outdoor cafe.
III-9
-------
Illll
o
z
CM
GUGGENHEIM
"BAND SHELL"
DAMROSCH PARK
METROPOLITAN OPERA
HOUSE
NEW YORK STATE THEATER
REPERTORY DRAMA
THEATER
in
w
PHILHARMONIC HALL
FIGURE 3 LINCOLN CENTER
111-10
0 60 I20 ISO
-------
E. 59 TH ST.
FOUNTAI^
GENERAL
MOTORS
BUILDING
0 10 20 30
E. 58 TH ST.
FIGURE 4 GENERAL MOTORS PLAZA
in-11
-------
Grand Army Plaza
Located in Manhattan's most exclusive shopping-hotel-office area
at the edge of Central Park, Grand Army Plaza (Figure 5) is the first of New
York's two public urban plazas. It is a pedestrian plaza which is not
a part of a private building complex as are the other plazas in this
study. The plaza is an island, surrounded completely by streets and contained
by buildings of varied architecture and function. It is bisected by 59th
Street. To the south of the pedestrian space is ornamented by varied
paving and trees enclosing the Pulitzer Fountain. Although some seating
facilities are provided, many pedestrians relax along the fountain rim.
To the north of 59th Street there is a short mall lined by benches and light
foliage. At the northernmost point of the mall stands a 1903 statue of
General Sherman atop a multi-tiered pedestal.
Plaza 400
Plaza 400 (Figure 6) is a public open space which was developed
in conjunction with the residential complex at 400 E. 56th Street. The
open space is multi-level with the below grade portion along First Avenue.
The plaza is fitted with vegetation and seating. A large fountain is located
at the entrance of the plaza.
KLM Plaza
The KLM Plaza (Figure 7) is continguous with Madison Avenue
between 49th and 50th Streets. The plaza is depressed from sidewalk level and
a defined boundary separates the open space from the sidewalk. The plaza
has no furnishings or trees, however, a sitting area for pedestrians is pro-
vided by the steps and barrier wall which circle the perimeter of the buildinp
on three sides.
Ill-12
-------
59 TH ST.
o
IE
cn
CO
o
o
o
X
-------
u>
in
400 E. 56TH STREET
K)
K>
OIO 20 30
FIRST AVENUE
FIGURE 6 PLAZA 400
111-14
-------
KLM BUILDING
I
K
at
(D
1 P
MADISON AVENUE
FIGURE 7 KLM PLAZA
15
-------
1.4 Study Components
An attitudinal and noise measurement survey was conducted at those
plazas selected for case study. Plaza 400 and KLM Plaza were excluded from
an attitudinal survey. Due to their design and location they are infrequent!
used by pedestrians. They were included in the noise measurement survey in
order to study the noise propagation of Plaza 400's multilevel design and
determine the noise level of KLM Plaza which is exposed to a high volume of
regular and express bus service along Madison Avenue.
The attitudinal survey was designed to determine the profile of the
plaza users and their awareness and sensitivity to noise. An integral part
of the survey was the observation of how each plaza is used, noting any
favored areas of occupancy.
The noise measurement survey was conducted to determine the noise
levels of each plaza during the hours of maximum pedestrian use (11 am to
3 pm for daytime use and 4 pm to 8 pm for evening use).
The data obtained from the attitudinal and noise measurement survey
was tfsed to determine the following:
the effect of plaza design on traffic noise propagation .
noise attenuation measures that can be incorporated in the design
of a plaza.
a calculation methodology for the plaza designer which will
estimate the level of traffic noise within a plaza.
the effect of noise on pedestrian use of the space.
111-16
-------
2.0 ATTITUDINAL SURVEY
2.1 Development of a Questionnaire
The attitudinal survey (Table 2) consists of ten questions, the
first five of which are designed to determine the profile of the plaza users:
frequency of visits (Ql), the time of day of visit (Q2), factors which in-
fluence the time of day a user would visit the plaza (Q3) , users'main activity
in the plaza (Q4) and the length of visit (Q5).
In past noise studies there was concern about biased or sensitized
answers developing if the respondent knew, at the time of the questioning, that
noise was the specific subject of the survey (Wyle, 1977). It was also found that
more respondents claim to be disturbed by noise when the investigation's purpose
is not disguised and the respondent knows the attitudinal survey is concerned
with his reaction to noise (Wyle, 1977). The introduction of the word "noise"
was delayed in the questionnaire until after the investigation of the plaza
user's profile.
It is important to find out how a user ranks noise among other environ-
mental conditions such as air quality, uncleanliness, crowding and traffic (Q7).
The first question in which "noise" is used asks if the user is aware of noise
in the plaza (Q8) and, if so, can he identify the source of the noise (Q8a).
To determine the user's perception of plaza noise levels (Q9) an
opinion "thermometer"is used with the top designated as "extremely noisy" and
the bottom designated as "not noisy at all." A similar opinion "thermometer"
is used to determine if the user is bothered by plaza noise (Q9a). This allows
the respondent to make an independent judgement which is not constrained by
pre-assigned intermediate annoyance intervals. The last inquiry of the
questionnaire gave the plaza user an opportunity to select a plaza design
feature which could best alleviate noise annoyance (Q10).
111-17
-------
Table 2
Attltudinal Survey
H
I
I1
CO
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
a. 3-5 times per week
b. 1-2 times per week
c. every other week
d. once a month
e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
a. morning
b. during work breaks
c. lunch
d. after work
e. evening
f. other
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
a. crowds at the plaza
b. climate/sunshine
c. special scheduled events
d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
a. eat
b. talk with friends
c. read
d. people watch
e. other
5. How long do you stay?
a. less than 15 minutes
b. 15-30 minutes
c. 30-45 minutes
d. 45 minutes - 1 hour
e. over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
a. more seating
b. shielding from sun, rain, wind
c. better maintenance
d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
e. program events
f. other
7, Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
a. air quality
b. noise
c. uncleanliness
d . crowding
e. surrounding traffic
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
*,
a. yes
b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
,a. traffic
b. construction
c. aircraft
d. internal activities
e. building equipment
f. other
9.
Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy
not noisy at all
extremely noisy
9a. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all 1
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
a., trees
b. plaza furniture
c. waterfall
d. piped in music
e. barrier wall
f. other
-------
2.2 Conducting the Survey
The attitudinal survey was conducted at five pedestrian plazas in
New York City during the month of October, 1978. General Motors, Grand Army
and Seagram Plazas were sampled during the lunch period (llam-Spm). Rockefeller
Center and Lincoln Center were sampled during this same lunch period and again
during the evening (4pm-8pm)- Each question had five possible responses.
The sample size required to detect a given "true" difference between
percentages (or proportions) was determined prior to the survey by the method
of Sokal and Rohlf (1969). The analyses were required to be 90% certain of
detecting a significant difference between responses to each question when a
difference did exist; and to be 95% certain of not concluding that there was
a significant difference between responses to a question when there was no
difference. Applying these criteria to the method of Sokal and Rohlf a sample
size of at least 79 observations was needed.
Each potential respondent was advised that the survey was an effort
to obtain information on the users of pedestrain plazas and the results would
be incorporated into the design and construction of future plazas. For the
most part, the survey was performed orally; however, in small group situations,
respondents themselves were allowed to fill out the questionnaire in the pre-
sence of the interviewer. Respondents were instructed only to select one
answer per question. The questionnaire was completed in under ten minutes.
111-19
-------
2 .3 Observation's of Plazas
The personnel conducting the attitudinal surveys were asked to observe
how the plazas were used. They were to observe any noticeable occupancy
trends in a plaza due to sunlight, seating or other factors.
The observations for the plazas surveyed are as follows:
Seagram Plaza
Here, largely without exception, plaza users were office workers on
their lunch break. Peak activity occurred during the 12 noon to 2 pm period
in two distinct hourly cycles. Distribution of users throughout the plaza
was strongly related to the presence of sunlight. At the time of the survey
Seagram Plaza had early afternoon sun first felt in the northwest corner;
accordingly, the heaviest concentration of users occured in this area along
both the Park Avenue steps and the northern periphery of the plaza around
the fountain. Small groups of users opted for seats along the wall in other
sections of the plaza. Lack of foliage and comfortable seating arrangements
were regarded as definite drawbacks to plaza usage.
Rockefeller Center
During the day, user composition was limited essentially to a com-
bination of tourists and office workers on lunch breaks. On the day of the
survey, the majority of plaza users congregated on the upper plaza overlook-
ing the ice rink to watch a special skating programmed event. Benches in the
channel gardens were occupied primarily by plaza users eating lunch. A small
number of pedestrians walking through the area stopped there for a short rest.
The upper portion of the gardens fronting on Fifth Avenue was used more con-
sistently presumably due to the strength of the sun and proximity to Fifth
Avenue sights.
II1-20
-------
In the evening the user group was largely composed of tourists and
metropolitan area residents who were in the vicinity and whose visit to the
plaza was a secondary activity. Distribution of users throughout the plaza
was similar to the daytime pattern with the majority of pedestrians overlook-
ing the skating rink and the remainder in small groups on benches in the
Channel Gardens.
Lincoln Center
Daytime users at Lincoln Center seemed to favor the smaller scaled,
more intimate spaces at the rear of the complex rather than the major plaza.
Damrosch Park and the plaza in front of the Library and Museum of Performing
Arts, self-contained and essentially removed from the street, appeared condu-
cive to longer visits and more solitary types of activities including reading,
studying, writing, sunning. Visits of shorter duration and walk-throughs
tended to sit at the fountain in the main plaza area. Because of Lincoln
Center's location and special function, user composition was perhaps most
diverse at this plaza; the range of users included nearby office workers and
residents, tourists, students and members of the performing arts community.
The volume of users remained more or less constant.
During the evening survey period user composition and usage patterns
differed significantly from the daytime survey. For the most part, evening
plaza usage was associated with attendance at a Center performance. The peak
activity period occurred between 7 pm to 8 pm directly before curtain time.
Users congregated around the fountain and near the theaters; usage of Damrosch
Park and the Library/Museum plaza was sharply curtailed.
General Motors Plaza
GM Plaza was used almost exclusively by the lunch time office worker
either from the GM Building itself or surrounding buildings. Small groups
111-21
-------
of users occupied seating facilities on the upper plaza and along Fifth Ave-
nue. The limited duration of the visits was presumably due to unfavorable
weather conditions on the day of the survey. A small number of users, gener-
ally on their way to and from the GM Building, preferred to stand along the
railing overlooking the lower plaza. Virtually no plaza activity occurred in
the below grade level due to lack of seating facilities at this time of year.
Use of below grade level was primarily for access to and from retail shops.
Grand Army Plaza
Directly across Fifth Avenue at Grand Army Plaza user composition varied
to include a fair number of tourists and passing pedestrians as well as office
workers on their lunch break. This difference in user composition between
Grand Army Plaza and nearby GM Plaza could possibly be attributed to a
combination of the following factors:
e the relatively informal structure of Grand Army Plaza
its ample and varied seating spaces and more diverse visual
environment
the perception of Grand Army Plaza as a public space rather than
an extension of an office building.
With the exception of a marked preference for seating at the multi-tiered
base of the statue at the north end of Grand Army Plaza, the distribution of
users was generally even throughout the plaza.
Ill-22
-------
2-4 Survey Results
Responses from the survey questionnaire were used to develop descriptions
of plaza use and profiles of plaza users. The survey results for the aggregate
daytime and evening responses are presented in Appendix A and are summarized
below:
Daytime User; The typical daytime user visits the plaza during the lunch
period at least once a week for approximately one half hour. While the typical
user may eat lunch at the plaza and in fact engage in several activities during
the visit, his main activity is people-watching (33 percent). Favorable climate
or sunshine conditions are by far the most significant influence on the actual
time for the visit (58 percent). Not one environmental factor appeared to ad-
versely affect the daytime user; the responses were split evenly among the
environmental factors.
On the whole, typical users found the plazas lacking in aesthetics
(e.g. trees, waterfalls, etc.) (28 percent) and seating facilities (25 percent).
Evening Users; As would be expected, the evening plaza user differed
from ihe daytime user in time of visit and frequency of use. Typically, the
evening user visits the plaza after work or during evening hours (73 percent
combined) for approximately one half hour. Unlike the daytime user, the evening
user visits the plaza infrequently, generally less than once a month (39 percent).
Evening plaza use, particularly at Lincoln Center, appears to be associated with
waiting for a scheduled performance to begin. Here again, people watching is
the primary activity (31 percent).
With respect to environmental factors, the evening plaza user is
affected to the greatest degree by crowding (27 percent). Lack of seating
(35 percent) was found to be a plaza's greatest overall deficiency.
111-23
-------
On the whole the survey results indicate that pedestrians use these
plazas for short visits usually in conjunction with another purpose such as
eating lunch, waiting for an event, etc. In those plazas sampled during both
daytime and evening hours, two distinct user patterns emerged. Rate of use
among the daytime group is significantly higher, presumably due to the fact
that the group is largely composed of nearby office workers who have greater
opportunities for repeated use. Evening users on the other hand may visit the
plaza only when they have another reason to be in that particular area.
.The attitudinal survey results with regard to a user's awareness
and sensitivity to noise are discussed in Chapter III-4.0.
Ill- 24
-------
3.0 Noise Measurements
3.1 Measurements of Procedures
Noise measurements were recorded at each of the seven selected pedestrian
plazas as follows:
Plaza Time Date
Seagram Plaza 11 am^3 pm October 23, 1978
Rockefeller Center 11 am-3 pm October 24, 1978
4 pm-r8 pm November 1, 1978
Lincoln Center 11 am-3 pm October 25, 1978
4 pm-8 pm October 25, 1978
General Motors Plaza Noon -2 pm October 26, 1978
Grand Army Plaza Noon -2 pm October 27, 1978
Plaza 400 11 am-3 pm October 30, 1978
KLM Plaza 4 pm-6 pm October 30, 1978
Noise measurements were recorded on magnetic tape and analyzed at a later
time. The measurements were made using two microphone locations. One
microphone remained stationary throughout the survey period. The other
microphone was moved to different locations throughout the plaza every 20 to
30 minutes.
Two microphone locations were used in order to determine the sound
propagation withir\ each plaza as it relates to the following:
distance from noise source.
« sound reflections from wall, floor and other surfaces.
effects of occupancy.
masking effect of waterfalls.
free standing barriers.
vegetation.
111-25
-------
A list of the noise monitoring instrumentation is presented in Table
3. Noise levels were recorded by using a one inch diameter microphone fitted
with a windscreen. The signal from the microphone was passed to a precision
sound level meter where it was A-filtered. Recording the noise through the
A-weighted network increased the dynamic range of the instrumentation. The
signal output from the sound level meter was recorded by the magnetic tape
recorder. In the field, a calibration signal of 114 dB at 1000 HZ was re-
corded on the tape.
Measurements were not made if:
street pavement was not generally dry
winds were greater than 12 miles per hour (mph)
non-typical noises such as construction, sirens, and unusual
pedestrian activity occured.
111-26
-------
Table 3
Noise Instrumentation
Type
Manufacturer
Model
Sound Level Calibrator
Gen Rad
Gen Rad
1562-A
1567
Windscreen
Gen Rad
For V & 1" microphones
Microphones
Gen Rad
Gen Rad
1961-9601
1962-9601
Sound Level Meter
Gen Rad
Gen Rad
1565B
1933
Tape Recorder
Nagra Kudelski
Nagra Kudelski
SJS
IV-Stereo
Graphic Level Recorder
Bruel & Kjaer
2306
Noise Level Analyzer
Bruel & Kjaer
4426
Headphone
Beyer Dynamics
DT98A
III-27
-------
3.2 Selection of Measurement Locations
Each of the seven plazas were selected for their design characteristics
and their different sources of noise intrusion. Measurement locations
(Figures 8 through 14) were selected to evaluate the plaza design character-
istics as described below:
Seagram Plaza - Two water fountains provide masking for the traffic noise
from Park Avenue. The traffic is predominantly cars with an occasional bus.
There are very few trucks other than four wheel vans.
Rockefeller Center - The entrance on Fifth Avenue leads into a long and
narrow plaza with high rise buildings on both sides. There are fountains
within the plaza and benches for seating. The traffic noise from Fifth
Avenue consists mostly of cars and buses. The narrow width of the plaza with
its adjoining buildings provides a "canyon effect!1 sustaining the noise levels
of the traffic and the internal plaza noise of fountains and people. This is
the only plaza surveyed which has programmed events.
Lincoln Center - The plaza is bordered on three sides by buildings with the
fourth side as the plaza entrance. There is a single large fountain at the
center of the plaza. Due to the size of the plaza and the spacing of the build-
ings there is no canyon effect. There are smaller pedestrian areas set back
from the main plaza area which, was tested to determine its barrier effect in
reducing the noise intrusion.
General Motors Plaza - This is a bi-level plaza, street level and
below grade plaza area. The source of noise is Fifth Avenue traffic.
Grand Army Plaza - The plaza is flat, with some benches and vegetation and a
large fountain in the center which provides additional seating. Fifth Avenue
traffic is the noise source.
Plaza 400 - This is a multilevel residential plaza affected by traffic
noise along First Avenue. The traffic has a high percentage of trucks, more
111-28
-------
so than the other plazas selected.
KLM Plaza - This plaza was selected for its location on Madison
Avenue which has a high volume of express buses during the afternoon rush
hour.
Traffic counts were obtained concurrently with the noise measurement
survey for each plaza and are presented in Figures 8 through 14.
111-29
-------
wgS
flc 3 w
< K 3
O I- CD
£5°
CM
CO
O
tr.
10
tu
SEAGRAM BUILDING
FOUNTAIN
(0
< KD
o K- a
10 0) O
10
CM
0)
CM
SO
UJ
PARK
AVENUE
1,235 CARS
19 TRUCKS
0 BUSES
1,173 CARS
19 TRUCKS
__ 0 BUSES
KEY
(O) MEASUREMENT LOCATION g) STATIONARY MEASUREMENT LOCATION
TRAFFIC DATA INDICATED ARE HOURLY VOLUMES
FIGURE 8 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS:
SEAGRAM PLAZA
10 20 30 feet
5 10 meters
111-30
-------
CO
* u>
coouj
LOWER
PLAZA
i
LA MA1SON FRANCAISE
L
QRQ
PROMENADE
fDSS
5
BRITISH EMPIRE BUILDI
f
KS
CARS
TRUC
BUSES
to u> co
10
FIFTH AVENUE
1448 CARS
80 TRUCKS
72 BUSES
S) STATIONARY MEASUREMENT LOCATION
KEY
@ MEASUREMENT LOCATION ^
See Night Hourly Volumes in Appendix B for Lincoln 8 Rockefeller Center
o 10 20 30
FIGURE 9 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS:
ROCKEFELLER CENTER °E
feet
10 maters
111-31
-------
CO
ft: 3
<
o i- OB
MM
CO
10
<0
COLUMBUS AVENUE
827 CARS
201 TRUCK
32 BUSES
KEY
(5) MEASUREMENT LOCATION (s) STATIONARY MEASUREMENT LOCATION
See Night Hourly Volumes in Appendix B for Lincoln ft Rockefeller Center
9 60 120 feet
FIGURE 10 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS:
LINCOLN CENTER
40 meters
111-32
-------
E. 59 TH ST.
433 CARS
84 TRUCKS
I I BUSES
ill
O h- 00
co m o>
UJ
r>
z
FOUNTAIM
FOUNTAI M
ii ii ii cm ii
GENERAL
MOTORS
BUILDING
E. 58TH ST.
409 CARS
31 TRUCKS
0 BUSES
KEY
(0) MEASUREMENT LOCATION (?) STATIONARY MEASUREMENT LOCATION
TRAFFIC DATA INDICATED ARE HOURLY VOLUMES
FIGURE II NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS:
GENERAL MOTORS PLAZA
10 20 30
feet
10 meters
a
111-33
-------
59 TH ST.
...
w y LJ
K 3 in
< K%
U I- ffl
r>- m o
in
O
<
o
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
H
O
X
N
-I
0.
(0
o>
en
1 « N
i 10 O
UJ
58 TH
ST.
464 CARS
36 TRUCKS
0 BUSES
KEY
(0) MEASUREMENT LOCATION (?) STATIONARY MEASUREMENT LOCATION
TRAFFIC DATA INDICATED ARE HOURLY VOLUMES o |Q
FIGURE 12 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS'.
GRAND ARMY PLAZA
111-34
-------
400 E. 56 TH STREET
w
x m
too u
IC3 W
O h- (D
» » IO
00
(M
ID
IO
111
FIRST
AVENUE
KEY
1,687 CARS
224 TRUCKS
39 BUSES
MEASUREMENT LOCATION (§) STATIONARY MEASUREMENT LOCATION
TRAFFIC DATA INDICATED ARE HOURLY VOLUMES
FIGURE 13 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS:
PLAZA 400
0 10 20 30 feet
10 meters
III-35
-------
OT
K
<
O
10
10
H
w
O
10
UJ
KLM BUILDING
I
0)
si
-------
3. 3 Results of Noise Survey
The results of the noise measurement surveys (Table 4) indicate that
some of the plaza design elements did result in a reduction in plaza noise
level. The noise characteristics of the individual plazas are described
as follows in terms of the measured equivalent sound levels (L ):
eq
Seagram Plaza - This plaza is flanked on three sides by traffic. The
major source of noise is along Park Avenue; however, as one walks away from
Park Avenue, traffic along 52nd Street or 53rd Street becomes the predominate
noise source. The flat plaza design along with the multiple sources of
traffic noise result in a relatively uniform noise level (+2 dB) at any
location in the plaza.
Lincoln Center - The traffic along Broadway and Columbus Avenues and
the large fountain at the center of the plaza are the predominate sources of
noise. The noise level of the fountain at 3 m (10 ft) was 71 dBA during the
day and 75 dBA at night when the fountain water column was higher. The
noise levels at the rear of the plaza in Damrosch Park and the smaller plaza
area in front of the Library and Museum of Performing Arts were in the range of
4 dB to 8 dB less than the stationary measurement location at the plaza en-
trance. The noise reduction is due to distance and partial blockage of the New
York State Theater and Avery Fisher Hall.
Rockefeller Center - The predominate sources of- noise within RockefelL
Center are people and programmed events. As one enters the Channel Gardens,
the sound of traffic is gradually masked by the other sources of noise.
The buildings adjoining the Channel Gardens create a slight "canyon effect"
which tends to reflect the noise many times and sustains the noise at a
higher level (2 dB to 3 dB).
111-37
-------
Table 4
Measured A-Weighted Sound Levels-Lee.^
Measurement
Location
Ml
SI
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
M5
S5
M6
S6
M7
S7
M8
S8
Seagram
68
69
71
70
70
71
69
69
71
69
70
69
69
68
69
72
Rockefeller Center
day evening
79
66
78
68
78
66
69
66
71
67
69
67
71
67
-
71
66
73
65
72
68
73
67
70
66
71
65
72
65
-
Lincoln
day
71
69
72
69
68
70
69
70
62
69
61
68
61
69
64
68
Center
evening
75
68
75
69
72
69
76
70
64
70
63
69
60
68
62
66
GM
67
69
67
71
65
70
65
70
70
69
-
_
-
Grand
Army
Plaza
69
71
72
73
72
68
69
68
_
-
_
-
Plaza
400
74
71
70
71
74
72
75
72
75
72
_
_
-
KU
77
75
77
75
75
74
73
74
_
_
-
-
Note: 1. M denotes mobile measurement locations and S denotes stationary
measurement location corresponding to the mobile measurement
time period.
111-38
-------
General Motors Plaza - The noise measurements on the below grade level
of the plaza indicated a 5 dB reduction in noise level. The at-grade plaza area
is exposed to traffic noise on three sides which results in a uniform noise
level (+2 dB) at any location in the plaza.
Grand Army Plaza - The variation in noise level within this plaza is
a function of a user's distance from Fifth Avenue, the major source of traffic
noise. The flat, stark design of this plaza provides little noise reduction
to its users.
Plaza 400 - This is a multi-level plaza with areas below grade. The
measured difference in noise level due to these below grade areas is 3 dB. This
is less than the 5 dB difference in noise level measured at the General Motors
Plaza due to a below grade plaza area. The predominant noise source affecting
the plaza is heavy trucks (three axles or more) along First Avenue. The engine
exhaust height of these trucks (3 m to 4 m) tends to minimize the noise re-
duction provided by the below grade plaza area.
KLM Plaza - This plaza had consistently high noise levels (73 dBA
to 77 dBA) due to its flat design and its proximity to Madison Avenue. The
survey was scheduled for 4 pm to 6 pm to measure the noise levels generated
by regular and express bus service along Madison Avenue.
A more detailed description of the noise nomenclature is presented
in Appendix B. The complete set of noise measurements are presented in
Appendix C.
111-39
-------
> Moderately bothered
4.0 EFFECTS OF NOj-SE ON PLAZA USERS
4.1 Sensitivity to Noise
The attitudinal survey indicates 54 percent of the daytime users and
45 percent of the evening users were aware of noise prior to this interview. The
opinion "thermometer" for questions 9 and 9a uses a scale of 1 to 5. When
evaluating the response to these questions the following designations are used:
Question 9: 5 Extremely noisy
> Moderately noisy
3'
2 Somewhat noisy
1 Not noisy at all
Question 9a: 5 Extremely bothered
4
3
2 Somewhat bothered
1 Not bothered at all
The majority of daytime users (69 percent) estimated the plaza noise
level as moderately to extremely noisy. However, only a portion of those users
(37 percent) were moderately to extremely bothered by the plaza noise. The
majority of evening users (59 percent) also considered the plaza noise level as
moderately to extremely noisy. Of these evening users only 39 percent were
moderately to extremely bothered by the plaza noise.
The attitudinal survey indicated very clearly that the majority of
plaza users are either not bothered or somewhat bothered by plaza noise (63 per-
cent). As a subjective measure of noise, past studies have shown agreement
between annoyance and verbal communications (Alexandre, 1975). Annoyance
occurs when verbal communications are frequently disturbed. The fact that the
majority of plaza users indicated minimal annoyance from noise may be due to
the following: 111-40
-------
o the majority of plaza users do not visit the plaza for the
purpose of talking
o the measured plaza noise levels indicate that comfortable communica-
tion at a normal voice level (95 percent speech intelligibility) can
be maintained at an average distance of 0.6 m (2 ft) (USEPA,1974) for
normal hearing listencers.
The criteria used for determining the maximum distances outdoors for which
conversation is considered to be satisfactorily intelligible is presented in Figure
15.
When asked which plaza design element would best alleviate noise annoyance
(Q10) 34 percent of the daytime users and 44 percent of the evening users indicated
trees. In reality, the most effective noise alleviant is a barrier wall but only
13 percent of daytime users and 8 percent of the nighttime users were aware of this.
.3 .4 .6 .8 1 1.5 2 3 * 6 8 10 U 20
CooamnleAClag Dlatfnc*- oat«ra (fMC)
Swire*: OSEPA.1974
Figure 15 MAXIMUM DISTANCE OUTDOORS OVER WHICH CONVERSATION IS
CONSIDERED TO BE SATISFACTORILY INTELLIGIBLE
III-41
-------
5.0 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES FOR PLAZA DESIGN
Plaza design elements which can reduce traffic noise propagation
within a plaza have been evaluated. The design elements observed during this
study have been combined with noise reduction techniques used for other types
of architectural design. The noise attenuation values of the design elements
discussed below can be determined by the calculation methods described in
Chapter 6.0.
Sound Barriers - A sound barrier can be any obstruction which shields,
or partially shields the traffic noise from the plaza. The effect of this
shielding is dependent on the barrier height, distance from barrier to receiver
and from barrier to noise source, and the height of the noise sources. Sound
barriers can take the form of a taxi or bus shelter, a building structure, a wall,
or any other obstruction which is located between the plaza and the roadway. The
height of a barrier may become an aesthetic consideration that may interfere with
the look and function of the plaza. A compromise between aesthetics and noise
reduction could be achieved by using 1.0 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) high barriers
arranged around seating areas rather than the entire plaza. The barriers would
provide noise reduction to a pedestrian user when sitting and when the user is stand-
ing he would have an unobstructed view of the entire plaza. This design approach
would provide a reduction in noise level for users who read or talk while not
interfering with other users who people watch or eat lunch. If a barrier is
not straight but angled, either at the end or at the top (Figure 16) its noise
reduction value can be increased without making the barrier excessively long
or high.
Multilevel Design - A below grade plaza area was found to have a lower
noise level than a street level plaza area. This could be used as a major
design element with the entire plaza area below grade or it could be limited to
smaller areas designed for seating. The depressed plaza should be a minimum
III-42
-------
ROADWAY
BARRIER
RECEIVER
(A) PLAN VIEW OF BARRIER TURNED AT ENDS
SOURCE
BARRIER
RECEIVER
(B) ELEVATION OF BARRIER TURNED AT THE TOP
FIGURE 16 BARRIERS TURNED AT THE END OR THE TOP
111-43
-------
of 1.5 to 3.0 m (5 to 10 ft) below grade.
Seating Placement - Seating areas should be segregated within the
plaza at the maximum allowable distance from the traffic noise.
Vegetation - To provide some noise attenuation the vegetation should
consist of trees or shrubs dense enough to visually block the noise source
from-the plaza user. To be effective year round, the vegetation should be
a reasonable mix of both deciduous and evergreen trees, or all should be
evergreen. Noise attenuation provided by vegetation is minimal; 30 m (100 ft)
of vegetation are required to obtain a 5 dB reduction in noise level.
Fountains or Waterfalls - A fountain or a waterfall may be used to
provide masking of the traffic noise.
Piped in Music - Music will not mask as well as a fountain or a water-
fall because it would compete with the traffic noise for the attention of the
listener.
These plaza design elements can be used alone or in combination to
maximize traffic noise reduction and still be compatible with form, function,
and aesthetics of the plaza design.
111-44
-------
6.0 METHODOLOGY TO ESTIMATE PLAZA DESIGN LEVELS
Traffic is the major noise source affecting urban pedestrian plazas.
As a result, to estimate plaza noise levels, it is necessary to calculate the
traffic noise of each roadway which adjoins the plaza. To estimate roadway
noise, simple assumptions must be made concerning how the traffic noise is
generated and how it propagates from the roadway to the plaza. As part of this
study, a simplified method of traffic noise prediction has been developed as
a planning tool to be used by plaza designers. Once the plaza noise level
h£s been estimated the impact on pedestrian users can then be determined sub-
jectively by its effect on speech communications (USEPA, 1974).
One of the simplest methods for estimating traffic noise is a nomo-
gram developed by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. (1973). The nomogram is
valid for traffic moving at a constant speed. An average traffic speed should
be calculated that considers acceleration and deceleration between traffic
signals.
A nomogram is a graph containing three or more scales graduated for
different variables so that when a straight line connects the values on any
two scales, the related values may be read directly from the third scale at
the point intersected by the line (Figure 17). The procedure for using this
nomogram is discussed later in this section.
Three different vehicle categories based on the vehicles' noise
generating characteristics are incorporated into the nomogram (automobiles,
medium trucks/buses, and heavy trucks). Automobiles are vehicles with two
axles and four wheels. This group includes passenger cars, light pick-up and
panel trucks. Under normal conditions, automobile noise is composed primarily
of engine exhaust noise and tire-roadway interaction noise, which are both
concentrated near the pavement surface. Hence, the effective source height
III-45
-------
Pivot
4-
Point
20 30
4- +
Heavy
Trucks
SPEED: MPH
+ + + i
20 30 40 50
Automobiles and
Medium Trucks/Bu!s.es|
DC
-BNL 3° ~
jf 10° 40 -
_
^
"" fin
E 70
"*
en
§- "so
^~
= 40
Predicted
Noise Level
50 -
70 -
100
-
150-
200
300
400
500
700
_
1000
*:
1500' -3
2000
VE
V
H/HR
~ 15000
10000
- 7000
- 5000
- 4000
- 3000
- 2000
- 1500
1000
- 700
- 500
- 400
- 300
- 200
- 150
100
- 70
- 50
- 40
- 30
- 20
Vehicle
Volume
Distance
To
Observer
Metric Conversion: 1 foot equals 0.3043 meters
Source: National Bureau of Standards, 1978.
Figure 17
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION NOMOGRAM
III-46
-------
for automobiles is taken at the pavement surface.
Medium trucks/buses refer to gasoline-powered two-axle, six wheel
vehicles. Medium trucks and buses are grouped as one category because of
their similar noise emission levels. One distinction between this group and
heavy trucks, other than just physical size, is that medium trucks/buses do not
have a vertical exhaust stack. Like automobiles, medium truck/bus noise is
primarily engine-exhaust and tire noise, which again are concentrated near the
pavement surface. Although the exhaust outlet may be slightly higher for
medium trucks/buses than for automobiles, the effective source location is still
assumed to be at the pavement surface. In general, the sound levels generated
by medium trucks/buses are similar, but are higher than automobiles for the
same operating conditions.
Approximately 80 percent of heavy trucks are diesel-powered vehicles
with three or more axles. Long-haul tractor-trailer vehicles constitute the
majority of this group, which also includes dump trucks, cement mixers, etc.
Heavy truck noise is a combination of engine, fan, intake, exhaust, and tire
noises. However, extensive measurements of actual traffic conditions have
shown that heavy truck noise can be adequately simulated by using the exhaust
noise source only and neglecting other sources. Based on this, the effective
source location is assumed to be 2.5 m (8 ft) above the pavement surface. Thus,
the major differences between the sound generated by automobiles and medium
trucks/buses and the sound generated by heavy trucks are the magnitude and
spatial location of the sound source.
The method assumes that the real roadway configuration can be approxi-
mated by a single "equivalent" lane that is straight and infinitely long. It
also assumes that this equivalent lane lies at-grade on a level terrain, which
means that there is no shielding. The model further assumes that the noise
III-47
-------
generated by each of the vehicle groups can be characterized by the traffic
volume flow (vehicles/hour) and the average speed (miles/hour) for that group.
Analysis of this idealized model shows that the noise of automobiles and
medium trucks/buses increases with traffic volume and average speed; and that the
noise of heavy trucks under the same conditions increases with traffic volume, but
decreases slightly with an increase in average speed.
The equivalent level of the noise propagated from the roadway decreases
by an A-weighted sound level of 4.5 dB for every doubling of distance from the
roadway (Kugler, 1974). This value of attenuation has been determined
empirically, and includes losses due to air absorption and excess ground
attenuation.
The predicted sound levels are conservatively high except when the
ground plane is very reflective and no shielding is present. A highly sound
reflective ground plane is typical for most urban pedestrian plazas which
tends to maximize the accuracy of this method.
The steps necessary to estimate plaza noise levels are outlined in
Figure 18. A sample problem is included in Section III - 7.0. All step results
should be recorded on the Roadway Worksheet shown in Figure 19.
-------
Pedestrian Plaza
Noise Prediction
Traffic Data
Average Speed: SA,SM,SH
Vehicle Volume:VA,VM,VH
for peak hour period
STEPS 2.1 and 2.2
Roadway Data
Roadway-Plaza
Site Distance: DC
STEP 1..1
Roadway Shielding Data
Barrier: DB,HB, a
Depressed
Plaza: DE, HE, a
Elevated Plaza:DD,HD»a
Building Barriers: nr
Vegetation: dw
STEPS 1.2 and 1.3
Roadway Noise Nomogram
Autos
Medium Trucks /Buses
Heavy Trucks
STEP 3
Shielding Corrections
Autos and Medium
Trucks/Buses:CSA/M
Heavy Trucks: CSH
STEP 4.1 to 4.5
Roadway Noise Level
STEP 5
Total Plaza Site
Noise Due to Several
Roadways
STEP 6
Effect of Plaza
Noise Level on
Speech Communication
Step 7
Figure 18. PLAZA NOISE PREDICTION FLOW DIAGRAM
111-49
-------
Roadway Worksheet
Plaza Project Roadway
Location Site point within plaza for which
Owner Designer
noise levels are being estimated
Date Revised
Roadway-Plaza Site Distance: DC '.meters (feet)
Average Vehicle Speed, mph
Average Vehicle Volume
(veh/hr)
Predicted Noise Levels
No Shielding (L )
eq
Autos and
Path Medium
Length Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
Correction For
"Infinite" Shielding
Element
Correction For
"Finite" Shielding
Element
Building Barrier
Vegetation
Total
Shielding
Correction
Autos Medium Trucks/ Heavy Trucks
Buses
SA SM SH
VA
VM VMS
._ ., , .. TTTT
A /
a/m
\
Auto
CSA/M
B C . L ,
a/m a/m a/m
Bh " °h Lh
Medium Trucks /Bus Heavy Truck
CSA/M CSH
Included Angle
Ratio, RA
Auto
CSA/M
nr
dw
Auto
CSA/M *
CSB + CSV
Medium Truck Heavy Truck
CSA/M CSH
CSB
CSV
Medium Truck Heavy Truck
CSA/M + CSH +
CSB + CSV CSB + CSV
Plaza Site Noise Due to Roadway
Plaza Site Noise Due To Several Roadways
FIGURE 19. ROADWAY WORKSHEET
111-50
-------
Plaza Noise Prediction Method
STEP 1. Physical Site Data
The roadway geometry and the plaza site location should be determined
for each roadway adjoining the plaza. The required data are:
1.1. Nearest perpendicular distance between the center of the roadway
and the selected location on the plaza site (DC) in meters (feet).
1.2. Location and geometry of obstructions (if any) that visually
shield the roadway from the plaza in meters (feet). Determine if any barriers
are present and if the plaza is depressed or elevated, and then obtain the
appropriate distances as shown in Figures 20, 21, and 22 and listed below:
Barrier: DC, DB, HB, a
Depressed Plaza: DC, DE, HE, a
Elevated Plaza: DC, DD, HD, a
1.3. Presence of any rows of buildings or belts of vegetation that
shield the plaza from the roadway.
a) Buildings as Barriers: nr=number of rows of buildings
b) Vegetation: dw=depth of vegetation
Record the value on the Roadway Worksheet.
STEP 2. Roadway Traffic Data
The information that is required on roadway vehicle traffic should
be the total for all lanes of the roadway and should be based on typical
operating conditions. Calculations are based upon existing traffic volumes;
but, if available, use future traffic volumes. If truck volume data does not
differentiate medium and heavy trucks, consider these volumes as heavy trucks (VH)
bus volumes, if available, are considered medium trucks (VM).
The required data to be recorded on the Roadway Worksheet are:
2.1. Average vehicle speed in miles per hour: SA-auto; SM-medium
truck/bus; SH-heavy truck.
2.2. Average vehicle traffic volume in vehicles per hour: VA-auto;
VM-medium truck/bus; VH-heavy truck. Determine the total number of vehicles
in each group that pass by during the one selected hour of critical plaza use.
The necessary input data for the prediction of roadway noise is now
completed.
111-51
-------
SOURCE
BARRIER
RECEIVER
(A) BARRIER LINEAR DIMENSIONS
NOTE: SOURCE HEIGHT FOR AUTO, MEDIUM TRUCK/BUS is o METERS, HEAVY
TRUCK IS 2.5m ( 8ft)
RECEIVER HEIGHT FOR AN ADULT SITING IS I m (3 ft)
ROADWAY
BARRIER INCLUDED
ANGLE
a
RECEIVER
( B) BARRIER INCLUDED ANGLE
FIGURE 20 ROADWAY BARRIER DIMENSIONS
j BARRIER
111-52
-------
CENTER OF ROADWAY
RECEIVER
DE
DC
T
HE
JL
FIGURE 21 DEPRESSED PLAZA DIMENSIONS
CENTER OF ROADWAY
RECEIVER
HD
DD
DC
FIGURE 22 ELEVATED PLAZA DIMENSIONS
111-53
-------
STEP 3. Nomogram Procedure
The nomogram procedure described below must be repeated for each of the
classes of vehicles. To account for the difference in noise level between autos
and medium trucks/buses, a corrected medium truck/bus value is used. This
corrected volume (VMC) is equal to the actual volume (VM) multiplied by ten
(VMC = 10VM).
3.1. Draw a straight line from the left pivot point through the
point corresponding to the vehicle speed (the bottom scale for autos and
medium trucks/buses and the upper scale for heavy trucks). Extend this
line until it intersects with line A.
3.2. Draw another straight line from this point of intersection on
line A to the point on the far right scale corresponding to the vehicle traffic
volume. This line intersects line B.
3.3. Draw a third straight line from the intersection on line B to
the point on the EC scale correrponding to the distance from the selected locatio
on the building site to the center of the roadway. This line intersects the
scale marked RNL. The value of RNL at this point of intersection is the pre-
dicted noise level. Record this value on the Roadway Worksheet and continue
the prediction procedures.
STEP 4. Shielding Corrections
No obstruction or shielding between the roadway and the plaza site was
assumed in STEPS 1-3. If there is any shielding due to a barrier, elevated or
depressed plaza, rows of buildings or a belt of vegetation, it should be taken
into account. This is done in STEPS 4.1 to 4.5,
The corrections for shielding due to barriers and elevated or depressed
plazas are related to the effective sound source heights for the three vehicle -
groups. The effective sources are assumed to be near the roadway surface for
autos and medium trucks/buses (0.0 m) and 2.5 m (8 ft) above the roadway surface
for heavy trucks. Therefore, there are two corrections: one for autos and
medium trucks/buses (CSA/M), and one for heavy trucks (CSH). These corrections
are determined by calculating the path length differences from the equations
listed in STEP 4.1 for the type of shielding that is present. Using these values
III-54
-------
of L, CSA/M and CSH are determined in STEPS 4.2 and 4.3 for an "infinite" and
"finite" shielding elements.
The shielding corrections for rows of buildings which act as barriers
and for vegetation are related to the physical layout of the roadway, the site,
and plaza. The correction for the shielding due to rows of buildings which
act as barriers (CSB) is computed in STEP 4.4. The correction for the shielding
due to vegetation, (CSV), is computed in STEP 4.5. Note that the attenuation
due to rows of buildings which act as barriers, and to vegetation, is added to
any attenuation due to barriers and elevated or depressed plazas. For example,
if the A-weighted sound level attenuation of a barrier, two rows of buildings,
and a depressed plaza are 5 dB, 6 dB, and 5 dB, respectively, the total A-
weighted sound level attenuation is 16 dB.
After shielding corrections are applied (if any), the individual
component sound levels are calculated. These are then combined to get the
total roadway noise in STEP 5.
4.1. Path Length Difference - Compute the path length difference for
autos and medium trucks/buses (La/m) and for heavy trucks (Lh) for the type of
shielding present. Be sure the obstruction blocks the line-of-sight between the
source and receiver, in particular for heavy trucks which have the source lo-
cated 2.5 m (8 ft) above the.road surface. If the line-of-sight is not blocked,
the correction is zero.
1. Barrier: 2. Depressed Plaza:
V2 2
HB + (DC-DB) Aa/m= (DC-DE)
V2 2 -r
(HB-2.5) + (DC -DB) Ah= W&.25 + (DC - DE)
Ba/m= Bh= \(EB + 3)2 + DB Ba/m= Bh= \SE2 + DC2
2
Ca/M= -^1 + DC Ca/m= Wl
2 2 ?
" ' - HE + DC
Ch-
2.5)2 + DC2 Ch= J(HE + 2.5)
111-55
-------
3. Elevated Plazas:
V2
HD + (DC - DD)'
Ah= J(HD - 2.5) + (DC - DD)
Ba/m= Bh = DD
V9
(HD + 1) +
Ch
= J(HD - 1.5)2 + DC
From these values the path length differences are calculated from the
following equations.
La/m= Aa/m + Ba/m - Ca/m
Lh = Ah + Bh - Ch
Record these values on the Roadway Worksheet and prqceed to the
next step.
4.2. "Infinitely" Long Barrier - Compute the shielding corrections
CSA/M and CSH. These values are determined from the path length differences
calculated in the previous step. If the path length difference ,is less than
0.03 m (0.1 ft), or is negative, there is no significant shielding and the
correction is zero. If the path length difference is .positive and greater than
0.03 m (0.1 ft), the shielding correction is determined by locating the value
of the path length difference on the horizontal axis of Figure 23. Read up
until intersecting the curve. The value of the shielding correction can be read
off the vertical axis directly left of the intersection. This procedure is
followed using La/m to determine CSA/M and Lh to determine CSH. Record these
values on the Roadway Worksheet. If the included angle, a, is less than 170°
the shielding element is of "finite" length, and you must proceed to STEP 4.3.
If this included angle (a) is greater than 170 , no adjustment to the shielding
corrections is needed. Omit STEP 4.3 and continue the design guide analysis.
4.3. "Finite" Barrier - Compute the adjusted values of CSA/M and
CSH to account for shielding elements of "finite" length. These adjusted
shielding corrections are determined from the factor RA, which is calculated
from the included angle, a (in degrees), using the following equation:
RA = a
180°
Now go to Table 5 and enter the first column at the value of CSA/M
and read across that row to the column corresponding to the value of RA. This is
the adjusted value of CSA/M. Repeat this procedure using the value of CSH to
get the finite shielding correction for heavy trucks. Record these adjusted
shielding corrections on the Roadway Worksheet and continue the design guide
analysis.
111-56
-------
Table 5. Shielding Corrections for a Finite Barrier
"Infinite" Barriei
Shielding Correct:
CSA/M or CSH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
ion
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.3
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RA
.4
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
= a/1800
.5
0
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
.6
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
.7
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
.8
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
.9
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
.10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
9
11
12
Source: National Bureau of Standards, 1978.
111-57
-------
T3
I
20
c
° 1 r
H 15
U
o
OJ
o
o
10
-III I 1111 I 1I I I 1111 I 1I I II II11 1I I I I III
I I I llf I I I I > M|
30.0
(100.0)
Path Length Difference (L) - meters (feet)
Source: National Bureau of Standards, 1978 .
Figure 23 A-WEIGHTED SHIELDING CORRECTIONS FOR BARRIERS
III-58
-------
4.4. Shielding Correction - for Buildings Acting as Barriers -
Calculate the correction, CSB, for rows of buildings which shield the roadway
from your plaza site. This correction depends on the number of rows of inter-
vening buildings, nr, and is determined from Table 6. Record this correction
on The Roadway Worksheet and continue the design guide analysis.
4.5. Shielding Correction - for Vegetation - The shielding correction,
CSV, for a belt of vegetation of depth dw, which shields the roadway from the
plaza. This correction is simply an A-weighted sound level attenuation of 5
dB for 30 m (100 ft) of vegetation. Interpolation for depths less than 30 m
(100 ft) can be approximated at 1 dB per 6 m (20 ft) of vegetation. Record the
correction on the Roadway Worksheet and continue the design guide analysis.
STEP 5 Total Roadway Noise
Compute the total noise at the plaza site due to the roadway. First,
sum the shielding corrections on the Roadway Worksheet for each vehicle group.
Subtract these total shielding corrections from the unshielded noise levels to
get the individual components at the plaza site.
Since these levels are logarithmic in nature, they cannot be simply added to-
gether or averaged to get the total noise level. Instead, they are combined,
two values at a time, with the use of Table 7. Starting with the auto and
medium truck/bus noise levels, subtract one from the other to get the difference,
With this value go to Table 7 and determine the level admustment which is added
to the larger of the two original noise levels.
Now repeat this procedure with this adjusted level and the noise level for heavy
trucks. The result of this combination is the total noise at the plaza site due
to this (one) roadway. For example, if the A-weighted sound levels for autos,
medium trucks/buses and heavy trucks are 55, 55, and 60 dB respectively, the
total noise due to this highway is:
55
difference^ 0 co
add 3
55
r.r\
difference = 0
add 2
62 dB
Record the total noise level on the Roadway Worksheet.
111-5 9
-------
Table 6. Shielding Corrections for Buildings
Acting as Barriers
Number of Rows
Shielding Correction, CSB
1
2
3
4
5 or more
4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
10.0
Source: National Bureau of Standards, 1978.
Table 7. Level Adjustment for Summing Noise Levels.
Difference Between Two
Noise Levels, dB
Level Adjustment (To Be Added To
The Larger of the Two Values)
10 or more
4-9
2-3
0-1
0
1
2
3
Source: National Bureau of Standards, 1978.
Ill-60
-------
This completes the prediction of roadway noise. These procedures should
be repeated for each roadway that adjoins the plaza. The total noise at the
plaza site due to all roadways is the logarithmic summation of the noise con-
tributions from each roadway. This computation is performed in STEP 6.
STEP 6. Total Noise Level at Plaza
The total noise level at the plaza is determined by summing the
components from all roadways affecting the site. Summing is done two values at
a time by the same method as used in STEP 5. Record this value on the Roadway
Worksheet.
STEP 7. Effect of Plaza Noise on Speech Communication
The maximum distances outdoors over which conversation is considered
to be satisfactorily intelligible (Figure 24) can be used to develop criteria
for plaza design or as a criteria for specific areas within a plaza.
For example, if the plaza designer would like relaxed normal voice
satisfactory conversation with 95 percent sentence intelligibility possible at
four feet, then the plaza equivalent noise level should not exceed 64 dBA.
For this step the minimum communicating distance is determined by
Figure 24 with the voice effort selected to be satisfactory (raised, normal or
relaxed).
Ill- 61
-------
15 20
(50)
Communicating Distance- meters (feet)
Source: USEPA,1974
Figure 24 MAXIMUM DISTANCE OUTDOORS OVER WHICH CONVERSATION IS
CONSIDERED TO BE SATISFACTORILY INTELLIGIBLE
III-62
-------
6.1 Example of -How Ao..Estimate. -Plaza .-Site Noise
The example shown in Figure 25 is a plaza that is affected by two
roadways. The plaza' is depressed 6 m (19 ft) below street level as shown in
Figure 26. The location within the plaza at which the noise level will be
calculated is designated as the receiver.
STEP 1 Roadways to Plaza Distances
1.1. The roadway plaza site distances for evaluating a depressed
plaza are 40 m (135 ft) for Roadway #1 and 20 m (70 ft) for Roadway #2. These
dimensions are recorded on separate copies of the Roadway Worksheet (Figures
27 and 28).
1.2. The distances associated with a depressed plaza are as follows:
Roadway #1 Roadway #2
HE * 5 m (15 ft) HE = 5 m (15 ft)
DE = 30 m (100 ft) DE = 10 m (35 ft)
DC = 40 m (135 ft) DC = 20 m (70 ft)
a = 180° a = 180°
1.3. There are no intervening rows of buildings and no vegetation
which would shield the plaza from the roadways. Therefore, for this example
these types of shielding are neglected.
STEP 2 Traffic Data
2.1. For both Roadway #1 and #2 the average vehicle speed is 30 mph
during the expected peak hours of plaza use.
2.2. The projected hourly traffic volumes for both roadways, for the
year when the plaza will be completed are as follows:
111-63
-------
BUILDING
RECEIVER
C\l
if
I
Q
<
o
IT
ROADWAY
FIGURE 25 PLAN OF PLAZA
BUILDING
~T
HE = 5m(l5ft)
i
CENTER OF
ROADWAY
DE = 30m(lOOft)
RECEIVER
DC = 40m (135ft)
FIGURE 26 CROSS-SECTION OF PLAZA SHOWING ROADWAY %l
111-64
-------
Roadway Worksheet #1
Plaza Project Carter Center Roadway #1
Location rintham^ USA Site point within plaza for which
noise levels are being estimated
Sitting Area
Owner p. Nutz Inc. Designer K. Shew Date 2/79
Revised 3/79
Roadway-Plaza Site Distance: DCi.meters (feet)
40 m (135 ft)
Average Vehicle Speed, mph
Average Vehicle Volune
(veh/hr)
Predicted Noise Levels
No Shielding (L )
Autos and
Path Medium
Length Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
Correction For
"Infinite" Shielding
Element
Correction For
"Finite" Shielding
Element
Building Barrier
Vegetation
Total
Shielding
Correction
Autos Medium Trucks
Buses
SA 30 SM 30
VA 1500
VM VMB
20 30
58 dB 53 dB
A /
a/m
10 m
\
10.31 m
Auto
CSA/M
4 dB
B . C .
a/m a/n
30.41 m 40.31
Bh Ch
30.41 m 40.71
Medium Trucks/Bus
CSA/M
4 dB
Included Angle
Ratio, RA
Auto
CSA/M
nr
dw
Auto
CSA/M +
CSB + CSV
4 dB
Medium Truck
CSA/M
CSB
CSV
Medium Truck
CSA/M +
CSB + CSV
4 dB
s/ Heavy Trucks
SH 30
VH JU
64dB
i a/m
. m 0.10 m
\
m 0.01 m
Heavy Truck
CSH
0 dB
Heavy Truck
CSH
__
Heavy Truck
CSH +
CSB + CSV
0 dB
Plaza Site .Noise Due ,To Roadway ^ ^g
Plaza Site Noise Due To Several Roadways 67 dB
FIGURE 27. -. WORKSHEET FOR ROADWAY #1
111-65
-------
Roadway Worksheet #2
Plaza Proiect (v,rtPr Center Roadway //2
Location ant-ham USA Site point within plaza for which
noise levels are being estimated
Sit tine Area
Owner p Nutz Inc. Designer K. Shew Date 2/69
Roadway-Plaza Site Distance: DC'.meters (feet)
20 m (70 ft)
Average Vehicle Speed, mph
Average Vehicle Volume
(veh/hr)
Predicted Noise Levels
No Shielding (L )
Autos and
Path Medium
Length Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
Correction For
"Infinite" Shielding
Element
Correction For
"Finite" Shielding
Element
Building Barrier
Vegetation
Total
Shielding
Correction
Autos Medium Trucks
Buses
O A Q\f
SA 30 30
VA 350
VM VMB
10 20
56 dB 55 dB
A /
a/m
10 m
\
10.3 m
Auto
CSA/M
9 dB
B . C ,
a/m a/n
11.18 m 20.6
B, C,
h h
11.18 m 21.2
Medium Trucks/B'us
CSA/M
9 dB
Included Angle
Ratio, RA
Auto
CSA/M
nr
dw
Auto
CSA/M +
CSB + CSV
9 dB
Medium Truck
CSA/M
CSB ~~
CSV __
Medium Truck
CSA/M +
CSB + CSV
9 dB
Plaza Site .Noise Due To Roadway 62
Plaza Site Noise Due To Several Roadways 67
Revised 3/79
>/ Heavy Trucks
SH 30
\ni 9fi
VH ^-U
66 db
L .
i a/m
1 m 0.57 m
\
5 m 0.13 m
Heavy Truck
CSH
4 dB
Heavy Truck
CSH
Heavy Truck
CSH +
CSB + CSV
4 dB
dB
FIGURE 28. WORKSHEET FOR ROADWAY #2
111-66
-------
Roadway #1 Roadway #2
automobiles VA = 1500 vehicles VA = 350 vehicles
medium trucks/
buses VM = 50 vehicles VM = 30 vehicles
heavy trucks VH = 30 vehicles VH = 20 vehicles
Step 3 Nomogram Procedure - Roadway //I
Predict the noise generated by each of the three vehicle
classifications as follows:
3.1. Automobile Noise - Using the values SA = 30 mph, VA = 1500
veh/hr and DC = 40 m (135 ft) the nomogram procedures are performed to predict
the noise level of automobiles (Figure 29 ). The value of .ML is determined
to be an A-weighted equivalent sound level of 58 dB.
3.2. Medium Truck/Bus Noise - The general nomogram procedure is re-
peated for medium trucks/buses using a corrected vehicle volume (VMC)
calculated as:
VMC = 10 VM = 10 x 50 = 500 Veh/hr
Using the values SM = 30 mph and DC = 40 m (135 ft) the RNL is 53 dB.
3.3. Heavy Truck Noise - For heavy trucks, the nomogram procedure
is again repeated (using the top scale of vehicle speeds) with the values SH =
30 mph, VH = 30 veh/hr and DC = 40 m (135 ft). The predicted value of RNL is
64 dB.
These steps are repeated for Roadway #2 and are recorded on Roadway
Worksheet #2 (Figure 28 ).
STEP 4 Shielding Corrections
4.1. Path Length Difference - The path length difference for automobiles
and medium trucks/buses is:
111-67
-------
Automobile
Medium Trucks
3
RNL
d
^ *
^y
J^
x^>
1
X ^
B mn
lUU
E 90
on
r 70
E^ -
P
- xx
5~
^-sof
= \
~ \
E N
=
Predicted
Noise Level
DC V
FT VEH/HR
30 -
40 -
50 -
70 -
_
100
-
Jp
^Zyfr^.
*s^ -
200
^ - "
300
400
s
\ 500
70^
s.
^r
1000
1500-3
-*
^^
^ ^
S
V
- 15000
10000
- 7000
- 5000
- 4000
- 3000
- 2000
- 1500
1000
- 700
- 500
- 400
- 300
- 200
- 150
100
- 70
- 50
- 40
- 30
- 20
Vehicle
2000 * Volume
Distance
To
Observer
Key:
Metric Conversion:
Automobiles RNL = 58 dB
Medium Trucks/Buses RNL = 53 dB
Heavy Trucks RNL = 64 dB
1 foot equals 0.3048 meters
Figure 29
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION NOMOGRAM FOR ROADWAY #1 OF EXAMPLE
111-68
-------
Aa/m = (DC - DE)
(40 - 30) = 10 m (35 ft)
Ba/m = \HE2 + DE
\52 + 302 = 30.41 m (101 ft)
V2 2
HE + DC
- + 402 = 40.31 m (136 ft)
La/m = Aa/m = Ba/m - Ca/m = 0.10 m (0.33 ft)
The path length difference for heavy trucks is:
Ah = \6.25 + (DC - DE)2
\6.25 + (40 - 30)2 = 10.31 m (36 ft)
Bh = \HE2 + DE2
+30 = 30.41 m (101 ft)
Ch = V(HE + 2.5)2 + DC2
\(5 + 2.5)2 + 40 = 40.70 m (137 ft)
Lh = Ah + Bh - Ch = 0.01 m (0.03 ft)
4.4. "Infinite Barrier" - The A-weighted shielding correction (CSA/M)
is determined from Figure 23 to be approximately 4 ,dB for automobiles and medium
trucks/buses and 0.0 dB for heavy trucks. This value is recorded on Roadway
Worksheet #1 (Figure 27). Since the included angle of the depressed plane is
180° the shielding effect can be considered infinite and no further adjustment
is required.
STEP 5 Total Noise Level for Roadway #1
The total noise level for Roadway #1 is computed by logarithm addition
of the levels of the three types of vehicles after the shielding corrections
have been subtracted (STEP 4) from the unshielded-levels (STEP 3). The levels
(automobiles - 54 dB; medium trucks/buses - 49 dB; and heavy trucks - 64 dB)
are added as follows:
111-69
-------
54
difference = 5
49
64
add 1
55
difference = 9
add 1
65 dB
Similar results are obtained for Roadway #2 by using these same
calculations. The noise levels are 45 dB, 44 dB and 62 dB for automobiles,
medium trucks/buses and heavy trucks respectively. The total noise level due
to Roadway #2 at the plaza is 62 dB.
STEP 6 Total Plaza Noise Level From Roadways #1 and #2
The levels from the two roadways are combined to obtain the total
noise level at the plaza. This combination yields a total A-weighted equivalent
sound level of 67 dB.
STEP 7 Effect of Plaza Noise Level on Speech Communication
The affect of the calculated noise level on speech communication
within the plaza can be determined from Figure 24. The voice effort (raised,
normal, or relaxed) is selected as the criteria for communication, and a
communicating distance is determined based on the plaza noise level. Assuming
a normal voice level for satisfactory conversation (95 percent sentence in-
telligibility) a minimum communicative distance of 0.8 m (2.6 ft) is re-
quired for this plaza.
111-70
-------
REFERENCES
Administration and Management Research Association of New York City (AMRA),
1978, Preliminary Noise Survey: Twenty Four New York Plazas.
Alexandre, A., 1975, Evaluation of Aircraft Noise Annoyance, paper presented
at Symposium in Environmental Evaluation, Canterbury, England.
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1974, Design Guide For Highway Noise Prediction and
Control, Report no. 2739, Los Angeles, Ca.
Kugler, B.A., 1973, Highway Noise: A Field Evaluation of Traffic Noise Re-
duction Measures, NCHRP Report 144, Canoga Park, Ca.
National Bureau of Standards, 1978, Design Guide for Reducing Transportation
Noise in and Around Buildings, Washington, DC.
Sokal and Rohlf, 1969, Bomerly, W.H. Freeman and Company> San Francisco, Ca.
776 pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1974, Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety, 550/9 - 74 - 004, Washing, DC.
Wyle Research. 1977, An Attitudinal Assessment of Community Noise, WR 77 -4,
El Sequndo, Ca.
111-71
-------
APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
WITH RESPONSE FREQUENCIES
-------
Attitudinal Survey; Daytime Aggregate
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
36% a. 3-5 times per week
30% b. 1-2 times per week
9% c. every other week
9% d. once a month
16% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
8% a. morning
11% b. during work breaks
70% c. lunch
5% d. after work
4% e. evening
2% f. other
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
9% a. crowds at the plaza
58% b. climate/sunshine
8% c. special scheduled events
25% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
21% a. eat
22% b. talk with friends
9% c. read
33% d. people watch
15% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
11% a. less than 15 minutes
46% b. 15-30 minutes
23% c. 30-45 minutes
15% d. 45 mins. - 1 hour
5% e, over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
25% a. more seating
18% b» shielding from sun, rain, wind
4% c. better maintenance
28% d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
20% e. program events
5% f. other
A-l
-------
Response
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
14% a. air quality
19% b. noise
21% c. uncleanliness
20% d. crowding
20% e, surrounding traffic
6% f. other
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
54% a. yes
46% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
90% a. traffic
2% b. construction
6% c. aircraft
1% d. internal activities
1% e. building equipment
0% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
10% a. 1
21% b. 2
44% c. 3
21% d. 4
4% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a» Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
33% a. 1
30% b. 2
23% c. 3
9% d. 4
5% e. 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance ?
34% a. trees
4% b. plaza furniture
23% c, waterfall
19% d. piped in music
13% e. barrier wall
7% f. other
A-2
-------
Attitudinal Survey; Evening Aggregate
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
13% a. 3-5 times per week
21% b. 1-2 times per week
9% c. every other week
20% d. once a month
37% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
7% a. morning
7% b. during work breaks
13% c. lunch
32% d. after work
40% e. evening
1% f. other
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
9% a. crowds at the plaza
38% b. climate/sunshine
31% c. special scheduled events
22% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
_4Z a- eat
24% b. talk with friends
7% c. read
39% d. people watch
26% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
16% a. less than 15 minutes
48% b. 15-30 minutes
13% c. 30-45 minutes
8% d. 45 mins. - 1 hour
15% e. over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
35% a. more seating
15% b. shielding from sun, rain, wind
5% c. better maintenance
25% d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
19% e. program events
1% f. other
A-3
-------
Response
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
13% a. air quality
20% b. noise
20% c. uncleanliness
27% d. crowding
20% e. surrounding traffic
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
45% a. yes
55% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
88% a. traffic
1% b. construction
3% c. aircraft
4% d. internal activities
4% e. building equipment
0% f- other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
20% a. 1
22% b. 2
41% c. 3
13% d. 4
4% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
40% a. 1
23% b. 2
23% c. 3
9% d. 4
5% e. 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do, you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
44% a. trees
4% b. plaza furniture
25% c. waterfall
16% d. piped in music
8% e. barrier wall
3% f. other
A-4
-------
Attitudinal Survey: Seagrams Plaza
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
^->'° a. 3-5 times per week
26% b. 1-2 times per week
77
"° c. every other week
o c. better maintenance
28^ d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
2 e. program events
9% f. other
A-5
-------
Response
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
7% a. air quality
23% b. noise
15% c. uncleanliness
16% d- crowding
38% e, surrounding traffic
1% f. other
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
61% a. yes
39% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
100% a. traffic
0% b. construction
0% c. aircraft
0% d. internal activities
0% e. building equipment
0% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
6% a. 1
10% b. 2
51% c. 3
27% d. 4
6% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
31% a. 1
26% b. 2
26% c. 3
8% d. 4
9% e. 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
29% a. trees
6% b. plaza furniture
20% c, waterfall
21% d. piped in music
16% e. barrier wall
8% f. other
A-6
-------
Attitudinal Survey: Rockefeller Center (Day)
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
31% a. 3-5 times per week
36% b. 1-2 times per week
10% c. every other week
6% d. once a month
17% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
15% a. morning
10% b. during work breaks
68% c. lunch
4% d. after work
1% e. evening
2% f, other
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
7% a. crowds at the plaza
54% b. climate/sunshine
12% c. special scheduled events
27% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
13% a. eat
26% b. talk with friends
7% c. read
48% d. people watch
6% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
11% a. less than 15 minutes
50% b. 15-30 minutes
26% c. 30-45 minutes
12% d, 45 mins. - 1 hour
1% e. over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
29% a. more seating
18% b. shielding from sun, rain, wind
4% c. better maintenance
28% d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
19% e. program events
2% f. other
A-7
-------
Response
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
13% a. air quality
16% b. noise
19% c. uncleanliness
42% d. crowding
10% e, surrounding traffic
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
55% a. yes
45% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
72% a. traffic
2% b. construction
0% c. aircraft
26% d. internal activities
0% e. building equipment
0% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
10 % a. 1
20 % b. 2
50 % c. 3
18 % d. 4
2% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
27% a. 1
37% b. 2
24% c. 3
6% d, 4
6% e. 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance ?
30% a. trees
1% b. plaza furniture
25% c, waterfall
26% d. piped in music
17% e. barrier wall
1% f. other
A-8
-------
Attitudinal Survey: Rockefeller Center - Evening
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
17% a. 3-5 times per week
21% b. 1-2 times per week
7% c. every other week
15% d. once a month
40% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
9% a. morning
9^ b. during work breaks
17% c. lunch
30^ d. after work
33% e. evening
2% f. other
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
15% a. crowds at the plaza
51% b. climate/sunshine
17% c. special scheduled events
17% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
6% a. eat
20% b. talk with friends
9% c. read
46% d. people watch
19% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
12% a. less than 15 minutes
48% b. 15-30 minutes
15% c. 30-45 minutes
10% d, 45 mins. - 1 hour
15% e. over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
29% a. more seating
22% b» shielding from sun, rain, wind
7% c. better maintenance
16% d. aesthetic improvements, such, as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
23% e. program events
3% f. other
A-9
-------
Response
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're In the plaza?
12% a. air quality
20% b. noise
24% c. uncleanliness
32% d. crowding
12% e. surrounding traffic
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
50% a. yes
50% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
78% a. traffic
2% b. construction
5% c. aircraft
8% d. internal activities
5% e. building equipment
2% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
21% a. 1
20% b. 2
41% c. 3
14% d. 4
4% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
42% a. 1
20% b. 2
22% c. 3
8% d. 4
8% e. 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
40% a. trees
3% b. plaza furniture
26% c, waterfall
19% d. piped in music
7% e. barrier wall
5% f. other
A-10
-------
Attitudinal Survey; Lincoln Center (Day)
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
34% a. 3-5 times per week
26% b. 1-2 times per week
12% c. every other week
17% d. once a month
11% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
5% a. morning
21% b. during work breaks
56% c. lunch
1% d. after work
10% e. evening
6% f. other
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
2% a. crowds at the plaza
70% b. climate/sunshine
13% c. special scheduled events
13% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
20% a. eat
21% b. talk with friends
20% c. read
22% d. people watch
17% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
9% a. less than 15 minutes
33% b. 15-30 minutes
25% c. 30-45 minutes
23% d, 45 mins. - 1 hour
10% e. over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
26% a. more seating
20% b» shielding from sun, rain, wind
1% c. better maintenance
24% d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furnitur
20% e. program events
9% f. other
A-ll
-------
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
16% a. air quality
16% b. noise
10% c. uncleanliness
20% d. crowding
16% e. surrounding traffic
21% f- other
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
35% a. yes
65% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
82% a. traffic
4% b. construction
0% c. aircraft
7% d. internal activities
7% e. building equipment
0% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
24% a. 1
38% b. 2
34% c. 3
4 % d, 4
0 % e. 5
extremely noisy
9a. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
44% a. 1
31% b. 2
15% c. 3
6% d. 4
4% e. 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
26% a. trees
4% b. plaza furniture
35% c, waterfall
15% d. piped in music
8% e. barrier wall
12% f. other
A-12
-------
Attitudinal Survey: Lincoln Center - Evening
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
8% a. 3-5 times per week
22% b. 1-2 times per week
10% c. every other week
26% d. once a month
34% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
5% a. morning
5% b. during work breaks
11^ c. lunch
33% d. after work
46% e. evening
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
4% a. crowds at the plaza
25% b. climate/sunshine
43% c. special scheduled events
28% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
2% a. eat
27% b. talk with friends
6% c. read
31% d. people watch
34% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
19% a. less than 15 minutes
49% b. 15-30 minutes
12% c. 30-45 minutes
6% d, 45 mins. - 1 hour
14% e. over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
41% a. more seating
6% b. shielding from sun, rain, wind
4% c. better maintenance
34% d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
15% e. program events
A-13
-------
Response
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
12% a. air quality
21% b. noise
18% c. uncleanliness
22% d. crowding
27% e. surrounding traffic
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
40% a. yes
60% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
100% a. traffic
0% b. construction
0% c* aircraft
0% d. internal activities
0% e. building equipment
0% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
19% a. 1
24% b. 2
41% c 3
12% d; 4
*% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a.. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
37% a. 1
25% b. 2
24% c. 3
10% d. 4
4% e, 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
47% a. trees
5% b. plaza furniture
25% c. waterfall
13% d. piped in music
9% e. barrier wall
1% f. other
A-14
-------
Attitudinal Survey: General Motors Plaza
Response.
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather peirv.tting?
34% a. 3-5 times per week
25% b. 1-2 times per week
10^ c. every other week
QV - ,
y/° a. once a month
22% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
8% a. morning
° b. during work breaks
147 c" lunch
";* d. after work
n / .
e. evening
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
17% a. crowds at the plaza
53% b. climate/sunshine
9% c. special scheduled events
21% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
15% a. eat
20% b. talk with friends
8% c. read
38% d. people watch
19% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
19% a. less than 15 minutes
49% b. 15-30 minutes
20% c. 30-45 minutes
8% d» 45 mins. 1 hour
4% e, over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
29% a. more seating
20^ b» shielding from sun, rain, wind
'° c. better maintenance
265 d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
e. program events
A-15
-------
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
16% a. air quality
30% b. noise
18% c. uncleanliness
15% d. crowding
21% e. surrounding traffic
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
62% a. yes
38% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
96% a. traffic
2% b. construction
0% c. aircraft
0% d. internal activities
0% e. building equipment
2% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
9% a. 1
19% b. 2
38% c. 3
29% d. 4
5% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a« Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
36 % a. 1
19 % b. 2
27 % c. 3
15 % d. 4
3 % e. 5
extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
52% a. trees
8% b. plaza furniture
15% c, waterfall
10% d. piped in music
15% e. barrier wall
0% f. other
A-16
-------
Attitudinal Survey; Grand Army Plaza
Response
1. How often do you visit the plaza weather permitting?
34% a. 3-5 times per week
36% b. 1-2 times per week
6% c. every other week
6% d. once a month
18% e. less than once a month
2. What time do you usually visit the plaza?
11% a. morning
14% b. during work breaks
72% c. lunch
2% d. after work
1% e. evening
3. What influences what time of day you visit the plaza?
4% a. crowds at the plaza
61% b. climate/sunshine
4% c. special scheduled events
31% d. other
4. What do you mainly do when you visit the plaza?
29% a. eat
14% b. talk with friends
6% c. read
32% d. people watch
19% e. other
5. How long do you stay?
10% a. less than 15 minutes
51% b. 15-30 minutes
18% c. 30-45 minutes
18% d, 45 mins. - 1 hour
3% e. over 1 hour
6. What conditions would you like to see changed to make your visits
more pleasant?
21% a. more seating
16% b. shielding from sun, rain, wind
14% c. better maintenance
31% d. aesthetic improvements, such as trees, waterfalls, plaza furniture
14% e. program events
4% f. other
A-17
-------
Response:
7. Which of the following affect you most when you're in the plaza?
14% a. air quality
b. noise
c. uncleanliness
d. crowding
e> surrounding traffic
6% f. other
8. Were you aware of noise in this plaza prior to this interview?
56% a. yes
44% b. no
8a. Can you identify the source of this noise?
95% a. traffic
5% b. construction
0% c. aircraft
0% d. internal activities
0% e. building equipment
0% f. other
9. Please estimate the noise level in the plaza when you generally visit
on a scale of one to five, five being extremely noisy.
not noisy at all
3% a. 1
17% b. 2
49% c. 3
25% d. 4
6% e. 5
extremely noisy
9a. Please indicate the extent to which you are bothered by this noise
again on a scale of one to five, five being extremely bothered.
not bothered at all
29% a. 1
34% b. , 2
23% c. 3
10% d. 4
4% e. 5
14% extremely bothered
10. Which of the following do you feel could best alleviate noise
annoyance?
36% a. trees
b. plaza furniture
c, waterfall
d. piped in music
*'° e. barrier wall
12% f. other
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B: NOISE NOMENCLATURE
-------
I2I§E_NOMENCLATURE
The decibel as used herein is defined as:
P_
Sound pressure level in decibels (dB) = 20 l°giQ (Po) wnere P
is the measured sound pressure and PQ is the reference sound pressure re-
quired for a minimum sensation of hearing. This reference sound pressure
is 0.002 microbar and is equivalent to zero decibels. Essentially, decibel
notation is used because it compresses the very large range of sound press-
ures that can be detected by humans to a workable range using logarithms.
Since the human ear perceives sounds at different frequencies in
different manners, weighting networks are used to simulate the human ear.
Sounds of equal intensity at low frequencies are not perceived as loud as
those most commonly used in sound analysis to simulate the human ear. A-
weighted values are used in Federal, State, and local noise guidelines and
ordinances. Sound levels measured in decibels, on the A-weighting network
are expressed in dBA.
Statistical analysis is used to describe the time-varying property of
sound. Single number descriptors are used to report sound levels. This
report contains the statistical A-weighted sound levels:
L - This is the sound level exceeded X% of the time. For example:
X
LQQ is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time during
the measurement period and is often used to represent the
"residual" sound level.
Lc-r, is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during
the measurement period and is used to represent the "median"
sound level.
L1f) is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time during
the measurement period and is often used to represent the
"intrusive" sound level.
B-l
-------
L - This is the equivalent steady sound level which provides an equal
amount of accoustic energy as the time varying sound.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C: NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
-------
Table C-l
Noise Measurement: Seagrams Plaza
L
71
75
76
77
74
79
74
76
81
79
79
77
73
74
74
79
A Weighted
L10
69
72
71
73
72
73
73
71
72
72
72
70
71
71
72
74
Sound Level
L33
68
69
70
71
70
71
70
69
71
69
71
67
71
69
71
72
- Decibels
L50
68
69
69
70
70
70
66
69
69
68
69
68
69
68
69
71
L90
66
68
68
67
68
68
64
68
68
66
68
66
67
66
68
70
Measurement
Location L L L T T T T
L L99 eq
64 68
SI 75 72 69 69 68 67 69
M2 76 71 70 69 68 66 71
S2 77 73 71 70 67 65 70
M3 74 72 70 70 68 67 70
S3 79 73 71 70 68 67 71
M4 74 73 70 66 64 62 69
S4 76 71 69 69 68 67 69
M5 81 72 71 69 68 67 71
S5 79 72 69 68 66 65 69
M6 79 72 71 69 68 67 70
S6 77 70 67 68 66 65 69
M7 73 71 71 69 67 67 69
S7 74 71 69 68 66 65 68
M8 74 72 71 69 68 67 69
S8 79 74 72 71 70 68 72
Notes: In all of the following Tables the mobile noise measurement location
is designated as M followed by the location number; stationary
measurement location is designated as S.
C-l
-------
Table C-2
Noise Measurements; Rockefeller Center Daytime
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Measurement
Location
Ml
SI
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
M5
S5
M6
S6
M7
S7
Ll
82
74
83
78
81
72
74
75
78
72
72
73
73
71
Lio
80
68
80
79
80
67
71
67
73
69
71
69
73
68
L33
79
65
79
65
79
65
69
65
69
67
69
67
71
67
L50
79
65
78
65
79
65
68
65
68
67
68
66
72
65
L90
78
64
73
64
78
64
67
64
67
65
66
64
71
63
L99
75
63
51
63
75
63
65
62
65
63
55
63
65
62
L
eq
79
66
78
68
78
66
69
66
71
67
69
67
71
67
C-2
-------
Table C-3
Noise Measurements: Rockefeller Center Evening
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Measurement
Location
Ml
S2
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
M5
S5
M6
S6
M7
S7
Ll
79
72
79
70
75
78
76
72
75
72
77
74
77
73
Lio
73
69
76
67
73
69
75
70
72
68
73
67
75
70
L33
71
69
73
65
71
66
73
67
69
65
71
67
73
65
L50
71
66
73
65
72
66
73
67
69
64
71
67
72
64
L90
69
64
71
64
71
64
72
64
67
62
68
61
69
62
L99
67
64
69
64
69
62
70
61
63
61
64
61
63
60
L
eq
71
66
73
65
72
68
73
67
70
66
71
65
72
65
C-3
-------
Table C-4
Noise Measurements: Lincoln Center Day Time
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Measurement
Location
Ml
SI
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
M5
S5
M6
S6
M7
S7
M8
S8
Ll
75
77
80
76
75
7 8
74
77
69
73
70
75
67
77
71
75
L10
73
73
75
72
70
72
71
73
65
72
64
71
65
71
67
70
L33
71
69
71
69
67
69
79
69
61
69
61
69
61
68
63
67
L50
71
68
70
68
67
68
69
69
60
69
60
68
61
68
63
67
L90
70
65
66
65
65
66
67
67
59
67
58
65
58
65
60
64
L99
68
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
57
65
43
63
57
63
57
63
L
eq
71
69
72
69
68
70
69
70
62
69
61
68
61
69
64
68
C-4
-------
Table C-5
Noise Measurements; Lincoln Center Evening,
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Measurement
Location
Ml
SI
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
M5
S5
M6
S6
M7
S7
M8
S8
Ll
79
73
83
75
77
73
80
79
71
78
70
75
68
73
66
71
L10
77
70
79
71
74
71
77
72
65
71
65
71
62
70
63
69
L33
75
68
75
68
73
69
75
69
61
69
62
65
60
67
61
67
L50
75
68
74
68
72
68
76
69
61
68
62
68
59
68
60
66
L90
74
66
70
66
71
67
75
67
59
66
60
66
58
66
58
64
L99
72
65
68
63
70
65
74
65
57
64
59
65
57
65
56
63
L
eq
75
68
75
69
72
69
76
70
64
70
63
69
60
68
62
66
C-5
-------
Measurement
Table C-6
Noise Measurements; QM Plaza
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
cation
HI
SI
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
M5
S5
Ll
75
78
75
82
70
78
71
79
81
77
Lio
70
72
69
72
67
73
67
73
73
73
L33
67
67
66
68
65
69
65
69
69
68
L50
66
67
66
67
65
68
64
68
68
67
L90
65
65
64
65
63
66
63
65
66
65
L99
63
63
63
63
61
63
61
41
65
63
L
:.ei
67
69.
67
71
65
70
65
70
70
69
C-6
-------
Table C-7
Noise Measurements: Grand Army Plaza
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Measurement
Location
Ml
SI
M2
S2
113
S3
M4
S4
Ll
76
77
78
84
79
77
75
76
Lio
71
69
75
72
75
70
71
71
L33
69
68
73
68
72
67
69
67
L50
68
63
72
67
72
67
69
67
L90
66
61
71
62
70
65
67
65
L99
64
61
68
60
67
63
65
63
Leq
69
71
72
73
72
68
69
68
C-7
-------
Table C-8
Noise Measurment Location; Plaza 400
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Measurement
Location
Ml
SI
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
M5
S5
Ll
83
80
76
79
82
81
81
81
80
83
L10
77
75
72
74
78
76
78
76
76
76
L33
73
70
68
70
74
71
75
71
75
71
L50
71
69
67
69
72
70
74
70
74
69
L90
66
65
63
66
67
65
71
67
73
66
L99
62
63
60
65
63
63
68
65
72
65
e
74
71
70
71
74
72
75
72
75
72
C-8
-------
Table C-9
Noise Measurement; KLM Plaza
A Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Measurement
Location
Ml
SI
M2
S2
M3
S3
M4
S4
Ll
81
83
84
82
81
83
80
81
L10
78
78
81
78
78
77
75
77
L33
77
75
77
75
75
73
72
73
L50
77
74
76
74
74
72
72
73
L90
76
72
73
72
71
70
69
68
L99
73
69
69
69
68
67
67
65
L
eq
77
75
77
75
75
74
73
74
p_Q «U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 341-082/129 1
-------
Project Participants
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Office of Transportation Management and Demonstrations
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Washington, D.C.
The Administration and Management Research Association
of New York City, Inc.
New York, N.Y.
Office of the Mayor,
Office of Midtown Planning and Development
New York, N.Y.
Project Staff
Robert G. Flahive, Project Director
Amy K. Epstein, Deputy Project Director
Thomas Markowski, Planner
Arthur H. Rosenbaum, Urban Designer
Margo L. Covington, Junior Planner
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 550/9-80-321
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
November 1980
"NOISE AND URBAN PEDESTRIAN AREAS"
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Thomas Markowski
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Noise & Urban Pedestrian
Areas - October 1979
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of the Mayor - City of New York
Office of Midtown Planning and Development
1270 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA/UMTA
:AG-DT-01193
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and.Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
ANR-471
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This study consists of three reports which treat the subject of noise within the
context of urban pedestrian areas. The main concern of the study is noise
mitigation, although its contents cover a wide range of topics related to noise
in the urban environment. The first report provides a description of existing
noise mitigation techniques which have application to pedestrian improvement
areas. The second report summarizes the actual application of noise mitigation
techniques to pedestrian areas based on the results of a questionnaire sent to
pedestrian projects throughout the country. The second report also includes
the formulation of noise abatement criteria for the design of Broadway Plaza, a
proposed pedestrian project in New York City. The third report analyzes actual
noise levels and attitudes by pedestrians toward noise in several public plazas
in New York City based on actual noise monitoring and attitudinal surveys in the
plazas.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Noise mitigation
Transit malls
Pedestrian malls
Mall design
Noise and urban spaces
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
182
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the t:PA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE . ,. , , ,
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., datf of issue, dale of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in. Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less} factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COS ATI Subject Category List Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price. ' *
19. &20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES ^
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any,
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (R«verw)
------- |