NTID300.14
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NOISE
DECEMBER 31, 1971
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NTID300.14
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NOISE
DECEMBER 31, 1971
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
under
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
Thit report has bean approved for general availability. The content* of this
report reflect the views of NBS. which it responsible for the facts end the
accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policy of EPA. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
-------
Abs tract
A study has been undertaken to survey the economic
impact of noise. Data available on the entire subject of
noise and its abatement are so rudimentary that they do not
lend themselves to even the most primitive economic analysis.
It is demonstrated that the number of sources of noise in
homes, in industry, on the highways, and in the air. is
growing at a dramatic rate. These noise sources are hetero-
geneous and transient, and, therefore, a universal solution
for abatement of noise at the source is not available. From
the economic viewpoint, it has been demonstrated that sub-
stantial costs are associated with noise and its abatement.
Costs such as those associated with equipment redesign,
right-of-way, and receiver insulation are discussed in
detail. The most glaring data gaps highlight the need for
research into the relationship between noise , its abatement,
and its impact on: wages, prices, productivity, production
costs, employment, balance of payments, real property values,
and health. Research using the principles of economics must
identify and analyze the most cost-effective alternative
solutions to noise. A discussion of spending for noise
research is included in the study.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
Introduction
II. Growth in the Sources of Noise Affecting
the Residential Environment 3
III. The Economics of Aircraft Noise 12
IV. The Economics of Ground Transportation Noise . 37
V. The Economics of Noise Internal to the
Residential Environment 46
VI. Spending for Noise Abatement 59
VII. Summary and Conclusions 76
Appendix A 79
Bibliography 100
iv
-------
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Growth in the Sources of Noise Affecting the
Residential Environment 3
2.1 The Growth in Noise Sources of Home
Equipment 3
2.2 Noise Generated by Highway and Motor
Vehicle Sources 5
2.3 Growth of Noise Sources Related to
Industrial Operations 7
2.4 Growth in Aircraft Noise 9
2.5 Growth in the Sources of Noise:
A Summary 10
III. The Economics of Aircraft Noise 12
3.1 The Cost of Aircraft Noise 12
3.2 Easements as a Measure of the Cost of
Aircraft Noise 18
3.3 Litigation as a Measure of the Cost of
Aircraft Noise 20
3.4 Loss in Property Value as a Measure of the
Cost of Aircraft Noise. 22
3.5 The Impact of Aircraft Noise on Schools
and Other Community Activities 24
3.6 Cost of Aircraft Noise Abatement:
Insulating the Receiver from the Source . . 26
3.7 Cost of Aircraft Noise Abatement:
Reduction of Noise at the Source 31
3.8 Benefits from the Abatement of Aircraft
Noise 33
3.9 Aircraft Noise: A Summary 35
IV. The Economics of Ground Transportation Noise . . 37
4.1 Noise Distribution: Sources of Noise ... 37
4.2 The Cost of Ground Transportation
Noise 39
V. The Economics of Noise Internal to the
Residential Environment 46
5.1 The Cost of Noise in the Residential
Environment 46
5.2 The Economics of Domestic Noise
Abatement 55
5.3 Noise Internal to the Residential
Environment: A Summary 53
-------
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
Page
VI. Spending for Noise Abatement 59
6.1 Federal Expenditures 59
6.2 Private Spending 59
6.3 Patents as a Surrogate for Spending .... 62
6.4 An Estimate of the Level of R&D Spending
on Noise Abatement in the 1960's 69
6.5 Research Efforts of Associations. ..... 72
6.6 Spending for Noise Abatement: A
Summary 75
VII. Summary and Conclusions 76
Appendix A 79
Bibliography 10°
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
II-l Sales Growth of Selected Home Equipment,
1959-1970 4
II-2 Growth Rates of Selected Statistics Related
to Surface Transportation Noise, 1959-1970. . . 6
II-3 Growth Rates of Selected Kinds of Earthmoving
Equipment, 1960-1970 8
III-l Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations,
Chicago O'Hare International Airport: 1958 -
1968 13
III-2 Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations,
Los Angeles International Airport: 1958-
1968 14
III-3 Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations ,
San Francisco International Airport: 1958 -
1968 15
III-4 Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations,
John F. Kennedy International Airport: 1958 -
1968 16
III-5 Summary of Growth Rates at Four Selected
Airports, 1958-1968 17
III-6 Cost of Flyover Easements at Five United States
Airports 19
III-7 Summary Statistics on Litigation Against Los
Angeles International Airport, 1960's 21
III-8 Bolt Beranek and Newman's Estimate of the
Probable Range of Modification Costs for a
1,000 Square Foot House, 1966 29
III-9 Cost Estimates for Installation of House
Air Conditioning for a 1,000 Square Foot
House 30
111-10 Estimates of the Cost of Insulation of
Homes Against Aircraft Noise 30
III-ll Estimated Costs of Retrofit 32
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Number Title Page
V-l Rank Ordering of Noise, by Source and Income
Class: Los Angeles, Boston, and New York
(Combined) 47
V-2 Per Cent of Apartment Occupants Finding
Specified Indoor Noises Bothersome 49
V-3 Reasons Associated with being "Very
Bothered." 50
V-4 Possible Effects of Domestic Noise. 52
V-5 Individuals in the United States Exposed to
Noise from Selected Appliances and Tools,
1970 56
VI-1 Estimate of Federal Spending for Programs
Related to Noisfi, Fiscal Years 1968 to 1971 . 60
VI-2 Number of United States Patents Issued in
Patent Office Subclasses that Relate to
Acoustics or Noise Abatement Devices, 1959 -
1970 64
VI-3 Growth in United States Patents Issued in
Patent Office Subclasses that Relate to
Acoustics or Noise Abatement Devices, 1959 -
1970 65
VI-4 Percentage Distribution of United States
Patents Issued in Patent Office Subclasses
that Relate to Acoustics or Noise Abatement
Devices, by Assignee, 1959-1970 70
VI-5 Number of United States Patents Issued in
Class 181 (Acoustics), Subclass 33 (Mufflers
and Sound Filters), by Assignee, 1959-1970. . 71
VI-6 Research Activities of Selected Associations
Concerned with Noise Abatement 73
viii
-------
Section I
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of
the economic impact of noise and noise abatement in the
residential and industrial environments. The first part
of the study briefly reviews estimated rates of growth of
selected noise generators that are external to the home
(e.g., aircraft) as well as products used within the home.
The next two sections concern the noise sources that create
the most annoyance in the residential environment: aircraft
and motor vehicles. In the case of aircraft noise, an attempt
is made to estimate the aggregate cost of noise and also the
cost of abatement from several different approaches. Some of
the benefits to be derived from the abatement of aircraft
noise are also considered.
Estimates are given of the number of people subject to
noise from products used within and around the home. Because
noise can contribute to both fatigue and stress, which are
associated with accidents and injuries, a very rough first
approximation is made under a number of assumptions of the
cost of noise in the home environment. Relative to aircraft
noise costs, these estimates are small in magnitude. Esti-
mates are also made of the magnitude of the industrial noise
prob lem.'
Some data are presented on the resources devoted to
noise research by the government, individuals, and private
industry. As measured by a surrogate, patents, the private
sector has devoted much more attention to noise than has
government during the past decade.
In the final section, the findings of the study are
summarized and some recommendations are made for future
research. The recommendations for future research are
designed to remedy the most glaring defects in the currently
available data on the effects of noise and the associated
costs .
Because the data at the present time are, at best,
fragmentary, the findings of this study should be considered
suggestive rather than exhaustive. A number of reasons can
be cited for this lack of data. One factor is the nature of
noise itself. In contrast to water or air pollution, which
can have long lasting effects on the environment, noise
pollution "decays" rapidly in both time and distance. As
soon as the source of the noise is silenced, the unwanted
sound disappears almost instantaneously. Moreover, the
intensity of sound diminishes rapidly with distance—a loud
1
-------
roar will be reduced to a muffled rumble by a short distance.
A second factor is that the effects of noise are not as
"dramatic" or immediate as the consequences of other pollut-
ants. The hearing damage caused by noise generally occurs
after exposure over extended periods of time. Also many of
the consequences of noise can be attributed to annoyance
caused by noise rather than the threat of imminent hearing
loss. Thirdly, different individuals exhibit varying levels
of tolerance to noise levels. Finally, one of the reasons
that noise has not been viewed as a form of pollution is the
attitude of the public toward noise as the "price of progress."
The noise produced by a product is often associated with
efficiency and the ability of a product to perform its
designated function, e.g., a "quiet" vacuum cleaner was
rejected by a test group because it was perceived to clean
less effectively than a noisier model of equal power.
Because many kinds of noise are primarily a source of
"nuisance" or annoyance rather than a danger to health, it
must be recognized that it might not ever be possible to
obtain precise estimates of either the cost of noise or the
benefits derived from noise abatement. This is true because
nuisance and annoyance are psychological states, which to
date have defied adequate quantification by social scientists.
Because so many aspects of noise are psychological, research-
ers encounter the same problems as those found in the theory
of consumer behavior. For example, economists and other
social scientists have not been able to estimate or to com-
pare the satisfaction or utility that one might derive from
consuming three dry martinis and the annoyance or disutility
of one's spouse from watching the consumption of three
martinis.
-------
Section II
Growth in the Sources of Noise Affecting
the Residential Environment
Residential dwellers are constantly subjected to noise
generated by products used within and around the home, by
noise from "external" sources such as road and highway
traffic, nearby industrial plants, and often by aircraft
flying overhead. Estimates have been made by investigators
of the number of individuals affected by varying levels of
noise emanating from a variety of sources.1 While knowledge
of the nqmbers of individuals affected by noise at a parti-
cular point in time is a vital element in determining the
scope and magnitude of the noise problem and its effects on
society, it is equally important to obtain information which
will reveal the future impact of noise. In short, it is also
necessary to know the rates of growth of noise in the United
States. Growth rates are essential for the estimation of the
extent of noise pollution in the near future.
Data have been collected on a variety of noise generators
for the years 1959-1970. These data have been used to deter-
mine the growth in the number of sources by type and also the
growth rate in percent per (see Table II-l). For each of the
sources, the raw data and the appropriate estimation equations
are given in the Appendix. If it is assumed that no sub-
stantial changes are made to reduce the noise levels of each
of the sources, then it can be inferred that: (1) the total
noise emanating from these sources will increase in approxi-
mate proportion to the growth in the number of sources, and
(2) that the number of individuals affected will also increase,
though not necessarily in proportion to the growth in the
sources. Hence, the growth rates of these selected products
will provide a first approximation to the growth of total
noise in the economy. Four selected areas are considered
below: household products, highway and motor vehicle sources,
industrial operations, and aircraft noise.
2.1 The Growth in Noise Sources of Home Equipment
Undoubtedly, Americans are among the most gadget
conscious individuals in the world. We brush our teeth,
dispose of our garbage, shave, wash dishes, clean floors and
carpets, and cut our lawns and hedges with power tools. All
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. and Wyle Laboratories, Reports
to the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, 1971. NTID 300-1 and NTID 300-3.
3
-------
Table II-l
Sales Growth of Selected Home Equipment'
1959 — 1970
Item
Automati c
Washers
Window Air
Conditioners
Power Lawn Mowers
Central Air
Conditioning
Units
Garbage Disposers
Dishwashers
Growth in
Units/Year
(Thous ands)
142.2
406.4
184.8
126.6
117.5
176.4
Growth Rate
Percent/Year
4.2
14.3
4.2
17.5
9.9
15.9
Years Required
for Number of
to Double
17.1
5.0
17.1
4.1
7.3
4.5
aDerived from data displayed and analyzed in Appendix A.
Sources: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers;
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Inc.; Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute.
-------
of these Items produce noise, some much more than others.
In fact, "homemakers" and "handymen" often reject the
purchase of quiet products. Noise is associated with power
and performance in products such as lawn mowers, vacuum
cleaners, and sports cars. Individuals exhibit varying
tolerances to noise depending on the nature of the sound and
its source.
As an example of the information displayed in Table
II-l, consider window air conditioners. The number of
window units produced is increasing by over 400,000 units per
year. This represents a growth rate of 14.3 percent each
year and implies that the number of window air conditioning
units sold will double every five years, assuming this rate
of growth continues. Not all units are simple additions to
the total number of window air conditioners in the nation
because some are replacements for old and worn out units.
Thus, the rate of growth in the number of units and the
absolute percentage growth rate is somewhat overstated, but
the implication is perfectly clear: the total noise generated
by window air conditioning units will continue to increase in
the near future unless efforts are made to reduce substantially
the noise output of these units.
The sales growth rates shown in the table vary from 4.2
to 17.5 percent per year. This implies that the total ambient
noise produced by some products could double in 4.5 years,
whereas others will take more than 17 years to double. Cen-
tral and window air conditioning, dishwashers, and garbage
disposers are among the most popular kinds of home equipment
surveyed and also among the noisiest. The sales growth rates
of power mowers and automatic washers are considerably lower.
Although the length of exposure during use of these products
is not of sufficient duration to cause deafness or permanent
hearing damage, the rapid growth in the use of mowers and
dishwashers is likely to increase the annoyance associated
with the noise they produce. In the future, the average
American will probably have to contend with increased noise
levels generated by increased numbers of powered appliances
in his home and in the homes of his neighbors.
2.2 Noise Generated by Highway and Motor Vehicle Sources
In addition to being the most gadget-minded people in
the world, Americans are also the most mobile. The Bureau
of the Census reports that 29.3 percent of all households in
the United States owned at least two automobiles in 1970,
compared with 16.4 percent in 1960. Also, 79.6 percent of
all households owned at least one car in 1970.
In Table II-2 growth rates related to transportation
5
-------
Table 11-2
Growth Rates of Selected Statistics Related to Surface
Transportation Noise, 1959 - 1970
Item
Automobile,
Bus , and
Motorcycle
Miles of
Travel
Truck Miles
of Travel
Value of New
Construction
Value of New
Street and
Highway
Construction
Total Motor
Vehicle Re-
gistrations
Automobile
Registrations
Truck or Bus
Registrations
Motorcycle
Registrations
Units
Millions
of Miles
Millions
of Miles
Millions Of
Dollars ,
1957-1959
Prices
Millions of
Dollars ,
1957-1959
Prices
Number in
Millions
Number in
Millions
Number in
Millions
Thousands
of Units
Average
Growth
in Units
Per Year
28,897
8,192
1,306
140
3.43
55.78
0.62
192.5
Average
Growth Rate
in Per Cent
Per Year
4.2
5.2
2.3
2.3
4.0
4.0
4.2
16.9
Year Required
For Number of
Units to
Double
17.1
14.0
31.0
31.0
18.0
18.0
17.1
4.2
Source: Appendix Table A-2 and A-3.
-------
noise are shown. With a growth rate of 192,500 units per
year, motorcycle registrations is the most rapidly growing
of the series. This implies a 16.9 per cent annual rate of
growth and suggests that the number of motorcycles and their
probable contribution to the noise problem will double in
slightly more than four years.
Although the growth rates are much lower for all of the
other series, the increase in the number of units each year
is quite high. For example, the total number of motor
vehicles registered is increasing by an average of 3.43
million units per year. Not only are the increases in the
number of units substantial, but it is also true that the
number of passenger miles driven per vehicle is increasing.
Therefore, noise from motor vehicles is increasing as a re-
sult of growth in both absolute numbers of vehicles and as a
result of increasing usage of those vehicles. Noise emission
from the automobile will grow substantially and, with popula-
tion concentrations in urban areas, the automobile population
will centralize in densely populated areas. In the near
future, noise from motor vehicle transportation will likely
become an increasing source of irritation to urban residential
dwellers.
2.3 The Growth of Noise Sources Related to Industrial
Operations
There are insufficient data at present to judge the
adverse effect of noise from industrial plants and operations
on the residential environment.2 Certain kinds of industrial
operations, such as construction, clearly have an impact on
the residential dweller. Street repair, construction of new
homes, sewers, and building impinge on the home environment
or on the individual while at his workspace or in transit.
Estimates indicate that millions of people are exposed to
construction noise each year . 3
As shown in Table II-3, the number of various kinds of
earth-moving equipment, particularly noisy construction
machines, are growing at rapid rates. The number of wheel
tractors, for example, will double about every two years,
if present trends continue. Similarly, the number of wheel
loaders will double approximately every five years. Clearly,
2
Noise can be considered as an unwanted by-product of energy
consumption. It can be conjectured that the trend in noise
growth will closely follow the trend in energy utilization
patterns.
3
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. A Report to the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, Environmental Protection Agency,
1971.
-------
Table II-3
Growth Rates of Selected Kinds of Earthmoving
Equipment, 1960 - 1970
Item
Crawler Tractors
Crawler Loaders
Wheel Tractors
Wheel Loaders
Scrapers
Rollers
Graders
Growth in
Units Per Year
(Nos. of Machines)
Growth Rate
in Per
Cent Per Year
Years Required
for Number of
Units to Double
1088
313.8
227.3
1000.4
226.3
363.9
261.3
9.6
5.9
33.0
15.1
9.9
8.7
6.9
7.5
12.3
2.2
4.9
7.3
8.3
10.4
Source: Associated Equipment Distributors.
-------
unless steps are taken to abate the noise output from such
equipment, construction machinery will become an increasing
source of annoyance to even larger numbers of individuals.
2.4 Growth in Aircraft Noise
Probably no other source of noise has generated more
irritation to the homeowner than that from reciprocating and
jet aircraft engines. Aviation noise is of such intensity
that the annoyance caused by this noise source has resulted
in lawsuits, damage claims, and numerous complaints. Noise
disturbance is perhaps exemplified by aircraft noise and, from
all indications, the aircraft noise problem will be magnified
by the growth of the industry unless significant reductions
in the noise emanating from jets are achieved. The most
extensive study of the past and future growth of aviation
was jointly prepared by the Department of Transportation and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1971.
In the period 1939 to 1969, domestic air transport
passenger plus cargo traffic increased at an average annual
growth rate of about 18.1 percent. This rate of increase
exceeded by four times the growth rate of the general U. S.
economy and all other modes of domestic travel.5 DOT-NASA
predicted that by 1985 the total number of passengers enplaned
would grow to approximately 800 million as compared to 154.4
million in 1969. (This does not imply that the number of
operations will increase proportionately due to the intro-
duction of the Jumbo Jets with increased revenue passenger
mile capacity.) Incredibly, air cargo shipments will expand
at an even faster rate, since a 1200 per cent increase was
forecast for the period 1969 to 1985.° DOT-NASA have also
estimated that, in 1968, 1300 square miles of land containing
15 million individuals were exposed to undesirable levels of
aircraft noise; for 1978, it was projected that the land areas
affected would rise to 1800 square miles encompassing 24
million individuals.^ It is evident that the number of
people affected will grow substantially within the decade
and that the problems associated with aircraft noise will be
expanded considerably. The economic consequences of noise
emission from aircraft are discussed in detail below.
A
Joint DOT-NASA Civil Aviation Research and Development
Policy Study, Supporting Papers, March 1971, DOT TST-10-5,
NASA SP-266.
5Ibid., p. 2-5
6Ibid., p. 2-4
7Ibid., p. 7-11, ff.
-------
2.5 Growth in the Sources of Noise; A Summary
From the sample survey of the growth in noise sources
presented above, it is found that the sources of noises are
expanding at a rapid rate. Within the decade, the average
individual will be more frequently subjected to undesirable
noise levels at all hours of the day. Many products (e.g.,
dishwashers, motorcycles) exhibit very high percentage
growth rates and, those items with much lower growth rates
(e.g., motor vehicle registrations) are still experiencing
substantial increases in the absolute number of units each
year. The noise from aircraft will probably increase at
increasing rates, unless abatement efforts are undertaken,
because of the exceptional growth of the aviation industry.
Indeed, if the experience of aircraft noise can be considered
a harbinger of things to come, then the effects of noise and
the attendant economic impact could have widespread conse-
quences. (See the discussion of the cost of aircraft noise
below.)
The growth in the number of sources producing noise is
only one side of the total picture. The current trend toward
increasing population density in settled areas compounds the
problems generated by noise sources: the greater the con-
centration of people, the more the utilization of noisy
products per unit area and the higher the ambient noise level.
Not only are noise levels positively related to the density
of population, but it is also true that more individuals are
affected by a given noise source when population density is
high. Thus, increasing population density compounds the
problem produced by the growth in noise sources, or one might
say that the "noise-density" is growing. In 1920, there were
34,616 urbanized areas which contained 32.6 per cent of the
total U. S. population; by 1970, there were 115,575 such
areas, a fourfold increase, encompassing 56.2 per cent of the
nation's population. By 1980, it is projected that there will
be 148,030 urbanized centers in which 61.6 per cent of the
population lives. In general, it can be concluded that
people will be using more products that generate noise and,
because of increasing population density, this noise will
affect a greater number of people per unit area.
Although the consumer has not yet expressed a strong
preference for quiet in the marketplace by buying less
noisy products, this trend is unlikely to continue. As the
average level of ambient noise increases along with associated
annoyance, the consumer's awareness that "quiet is not a free
o
Jerome P. Pickard, "Dimensions of Metropolitanism," Research
Monograph 14, Urban Land Institute, 1967, p. 47.
10
-------
resource" is likely to grow. Essentially, this has been the
case with both water and air pollution. Though both water
and air pollution have been in evidence for decades in the
U. S., only recently has the public begun to demand a
cleaner environment and a reduction in the amount of
pollution. It is clear that clean air and water are no
longer so abundant that pollution of these resources can be
continued. It is likely the public awareness of noise as a
pollutant will extend to other noise sources rather than just
jet aircraft as the average noise level continues to increase
11
-------
Section III
The Economics of Aircraft Noise
Due to its intensity, the noise from jet aircraft has
received the most attention from researchers. Complaints
about jet noise have resulted in studies of property values
near airports, the insulation required to achieve varying
degrees of noise reduction in the home, and in efforts to
produce a quieter jet engine. Because of such research,
data are available which permit estimates to be made of the
cost of aircraft noise, the cost of abatement, and the
economic benefits which could accrue from aircraft noise
reduction. These topics are considered below.
3. 1 The Cost of Aircraft Noise
Noise emission produced by jet aircraft has probably
produced the greatest irritation and concern among residential
dwellers. This concern has manifested itself in litigation
against airports for compensation for loss of property value,
easements, and noise damage suits. Court awards for easement
and damage suits therefore provide a set of objective measures
which can be used to assess the cost of this source of noise.
Some studies have also been made of the loss in property
values due to aircraft noise pollution. Not only does jet
noise affect the home, but it also disrupts other residential
activities, e.g., elementary and secondary schools, hospitals,
and libraries.
No estimate has been made of the aggregate cost of
aircraft noise and data are available only for specific case
studies at particular airports. These data can be used,
however, to provide a reasonable appraisal of the total cost
of aircraft noise to the American society. Most of the case
studies are for very large airports, e.g., Los Angeles
International, San Francisco International, New York's Kennedy
International, and Chicago's O'Hare International. These
airports are not only large in absolute terms, but are also
experiencing very rapid growth. In the tables below, data
are presented for the decade 1958—1968 on the number of
passengers handled and also the total number of operations
by type at each of the four airports mentioned above. From
this information, two facts are readily evident. First, each
of the airports has experienced a tremendous growth in total
operations over the 11 year periods and, secondly, the num-
ber of air carrier passengers has increased far out of pro-
portion to the number of operations due to the increased
capacity of the aircraft. If the growth rates for these
12
-------
Table III-l
Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations
Chicago O'Hare International Airport: 1958 - 1968
Scheduled
Aircraft Operations
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
aNote:
Source :
Air Carrier
Passengers3
1
2
5
9
13
15
18
20
22
26
29
,261
,124
,690
,514
,298
,983
,203
,735
,539
,408
,017
,376
,769
,062
,836
,710
,721
,111
,834
,957
,215
,458
Introduction
began in the
a major new
To
236 ,
234,
244,
318,
417,
426,
460,
519,
562,
643,
tal
060
983
479
526
380
994
227
430
975
787
Air
Carrier
66,
82,
163,
235,
331,
358,
389,
443,
478,
573,
205
417
351
908
090
266
640
026
644
506
General
Aviation Military
91
95
59
66
75
60
63
69
78
65
,070
,407
,056
,547
,300
,939
,335
,923
,124
,691
78
57
22
16
10
7
7
6
6
4
,785
,159
,072
,071
,990
,789
,252
,481
,207
,590
690,810 628,632 57,428 4,750
of the commercial jet aircraft fleet
late fifties, hearalding the onset of
noise source.
Federal Aviation
Administration ,
Statist!
cal
Handbook, 1969, p. 83.
13
-------
Table III-2
Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations,
Los Angeles international Airport: 1958 - 1968.
Aircraft Operations
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Air Carrier
Passengers
4,846,884
5,893,387
6,605,036
6,947,206
7,632,458
9,094,155
10,696,392
12,578,909
15,251,272
18,125,152
20,346,011
Total
324,194
316,068
290,862
324,993
344,053
358,749
365,536
374,757
415,433
482,774
594,486
Air
Carrier
226,448
234,446
217,922
235,039
260,515
285,824
289,744
288,610
321,182
384,656
438,386
General . ;
Aviation
50,908
54,505
51,295
68,910
65:,881
57,994
61,566
73,305
83,011
88,296
145,284
Military
46,838
27,117
21,645
21,044
17,657
14,931
14,226
12,842
11,240
9,822
10,816
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Statistical Handbook. 1969.
p. 85 • •
14
-------
Table III-3
Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations,
San Francisco International Airport: 1958 - 1968
Aircraft Operations
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Air Carrier
Passengers a
3,595,023
4,111,220
4,637,035
4,754,327
5,434,226
6,414,620
7,459,461
8,706,984
10,145,309
12,248,051
13,544,414
Total
205,210
235,229
235,944
211,852
224,371
238,691
250,859
265,446
291,069
373,429
353,255
Air
Carrier
128,421
139,754
146,022
142,532
158,929
171,431
187,783
210,948
226,867
268.,486
297,588
General
Aviation
55,834
73,776
75,486
55,290
53,150
54,396
52,512
48,927
58,584
49,658
50,529
Military
20,955
21,699
14,436
14,030
12,292
12,864
10,564
5,571
5,618
5,285
5,138
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Statistical Handbook, 1969,
p. 85
a
Includes non-scheduled passengers
15
-------
Table III-4
Air Carrier Passengers and Aircraft Operations,
John F. Kennedy International Airport: 1958 - 1968
Air Carrier Passengers
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Scheduled
5,821,744
6,988,451
8,812,642
10,226,960
11,453,117
12,692,831
14,487,078
16,052,953
16,872,035
19,738,885
19,176,810
Non
Scheduled
127,679
73,860
110,334
39,835
57,273
58,742
128,861
155,125
214,176
249,685
396,818
Total
215,683
239,836
274,184
290,134
319,265
339,424
367,139
389,917
438,670
481,458
465,120
Aircraft Operations
Air
Carrier
191,231
209,043
239,617
256,182
282,470
303,818
328,396
352,469
390,898
403,981
398,466
Aviation
21,578
26,831
32,056
31,774
34,630
33,748
37,223
35,640
45,514
76,000
65,452
Military
2,874
3,962
2,511
2,178
2,165
1,858
1,520
1,808
2,258
1,477
1,202
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Statistical Handbook, 1969,
p. 80 '
16
-------
Table III-5
Summary of Growth Rates at Four Selected
Airports, 1958 - 1968
Per cent of
Increase in Per cent of
Total Increase in
Airports Operations Passengers
Los Angeles 180 420
San Francisco 170 375
Chicago: O'Hare 290 2,300
New York: Kennedy 215 330
Average 215 860
17
-------
airports shown in the summary tables continue, the noise
exposure around these selected airports will increase
rapidly during the decade of the seventies. Therefore, the
estimate of the cost of aircraft noise can be considered as
a conservative approximation.
For these four airports, aircraft operations increased
an average of 215 per cent in the period 1958 - 1968. In
the same period, however, the average per cent increase in
passengers arriving at and departing from these airports
increased four times as fast. Thus, while the jet noise
problem at large urban airports is growing at a rapid rate,
the noise generated by passengers arriving and leaving the
airports (and the associated automobile traffic) is growing
much more rapidly. These data lend additional support to
the earlier finding that noise surrounding airport activity
will increase significantly in the near future unless efforts
are directed toward abatement.
3.2 Easements as a Measure of the Cost of Aircraft Noise
Flyover easements represent compensation to property
owners which theoretically reflects the reduced value of
real estate due to noise, dust, vibration and other unpleas-
ant effects of aircraft operation. Easements have been
obtained by airports in five cities; the pertinent data are
shown in Table III-6.
Certain data are not available due to the fact that
litigation is still in process. In the Des Moines experience,
the city offered to purchase easements for $250 to $300 per
parcel. If the owner declined to accept the offer, the city
invoked the doctrine of eminent domain and bought the property,
The easement was then included as a deed restriction and the
property sold to private owners; generally the resale price
was from $1500 to $2000 less than the city's purchase price.
At Seattle, the city, by inverse condemnation, acquired
easements based on the price differentials for similar
parcels removed from airport noise, which cost approximately
15 to 20 per cent of fair market value. It is interesting
to note that for vacant land the cost of the easement was
about 40 per cent of fair market value, "because the property
was subject to so much noise that no FHA loan could be
obtained for a new structure and there was no low-rent hous-
ing market in the area for rental development."1 No data
other than the range of the easement costs are available for
Jacksonville, Florida.
1McClure, 0_p_. Cit . , p. 28
18
-------
Table III-6
Cost of Flyover Easements at Five United States Airports.
Number o;f Maximum Minimum
City Easements Paid Paid Range Average
Columbus, Ohio 30 $6,670 $ 870 $5,800 $2,414
Denver,
Colorado 32 1,751 931 820 1,000
Des Moines,
Iowa --a 2,000 1,200 800 a
Seattle,
Washington —a - —a a ---a 4,200
Jacksonville,
Florida --a 9,000 250 8,750 4,625
aSee Text, infra.
Source: Paul T. MeClure, "Indicators of the Effect of Jet
Noise on the Value of Real Estate," The Rand
Corporation, Santa Monica, California, July 1969.
19
-------
It has been estimated that in 1968, 15 million indivi-
duals were subject to undesirable levels of aircraft noise;
moreover, it is projected that, by 1978, almost 24 million
people will be affected. If it is assumed that the average
family size is four persons and that each family represents
a dwelling unit then, from the 1968 estimate of the number
of individuals affected, it follows that approximately
4 million parcels of land are potentially subject to compen-
sation for easements. The estimated total cost can be
obtained from the average of the easement costs shown in
Table III-6. The approximate total easement costs range
from $4.0 billion to $18.5 billion, depending upon whether
one uses the average from Denver or from Jacksonville. For
1978, the cost range would be from $6.0 billion to $27.75
billion, assuming that 24 million people are affected. Thus,
as a first approximation, one could argue that the cost of
aircraft noise pollution, based on easement costs, is at
least $4.0 billion presently and could easily reach $27.75
billion within the decade.
3.3 Litigation as a Measure of the Cost of Aircraft Noise
In the 1962 Griggs vs. Allegheny case the precedent was
established that the rights of airport neighbors were being
taken by airport operations. Since that time, many suits
have been brought against airports for the illegal "taking"
of property. Only the litigation against Los Angeles
International Airport will be reviewed here, however, since
it is typical of airport litigation. The damages sought are
for inverse condemnation, personal injury, and property
damage. Suits have been filed by individuals, groups of
individuals, and organizations. The relevant statistics are
summarized in Table III-7.
2DOT-NASA Joint Study, Op. Cit., p. 7-11
3
The easements were obtained over a period of years. In the
Columbus case, seven of the easements were obtained in
May 1967. See McClure, Op. Cit. , p. 25. The estimates
given in the text do not account for price increases or real
estate appreciation which has occurred since these easements
were obtained. Hence the estimates in the text should be
considered as conservative.
4369 U. S. 84 [1962].
20
-------
Table III-7
Summary Statistics on Litigation Against Los Angeles
International Airport >
1960 'sa
Litigant
Individuals
Groups of
Individuals
Number of
Households
30
594
Organizations 61,212
Total
Damage Claimed
$ 3,342,725
11,189 ,000
2,800,000,000
Range
$ 1,148,950
3,928,000
2,300,000,000
Average Damages
Per Household
$111,428
18,837
45 ,743
Some of the cases are still pending,
Source: McClure, P. 30ff.
-------
Any estimate of aggregate damages based upon litigation
would be an astronomical sum. If 4.0 million households are
subjected to noise from aircraft that could be compensable
by the lowest estimate of the average damages shown in the
table, then the total cost of aircraft noise pollution would
be in the neighborhood of $75.2 billion. It is clear that
the plaintiffs have added an ample measure of "blue sky" to
the damages sought, which inflates the aggregate estimate.
Nevertheless, if the claims were settled out of court on the
basis of 10 per cent of the sums asked in damages, the total
cost of aircraft noise would be about $7.5 billion—hardly
an insignificant amount, and certainly well within the range
of estimates derived from the "easements indicator" of total
cost.
3.4 Loss in Property Value as a Measure of the Cost of
Aircraft Noise
Two studies have attempted to measure the loss in
property values caused by aircraft noise emission.5 One
study, conducted in the Los Angeles area, attempted to
determine the decrease in the appreciation in property due
to jet noise. It was assumed that proximity to an airport
increases property values, but that noise decreases those
values. The second study, concerning the San Francisco area,
sought to evaluate the relationship between several measures
of property value and the amount of exposure to aircraft
noise. Rather than review the methodology of each study,
only the principal findings are presented here.
In the Los Angeles report, eight sample areas were
chosen—four subject to high levels of noise and four com-
parable areas which were not subject to jet noise. The
mean annual changes in sales prices of the residential
property between the two types of areas were analyzed for
the period 1955 through 1967. It was found that there was
no statistically significant difference between the rate of
appreciation in homes with high noise levels and those in
"quiet" areas. The investigator, however, pointed out a
The Los Angeles study was conducted by Bolt Beranek and
Newman, Inc. The data were presented in City of Los Angeles
vs. Matson. 1966. The San Francisco study was authored by
Paul K. Dygert, "On Measuring the Cost of Noise From
Subsonic Aircraft," The Institute of Transportation and
Traffic Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
California, 1970.
22
-------
number of facts which may have biased the findings. First,
the turnover rate in quiet areas was considerably less than
that of high noise areas. Property in quiet areas changed
hands only 62 per cent as fast as in noise affected areas.
Since appreciation in value is reflected through sales
prices, the appreciation of property in quiet areas was
biased downward, which would, in effect, make the relation-
ship between noise and property difficult to ascertain.
Moreover, this implies that noisy areas are less stable com-
munities than quiet ones and this can be one of the costs
associated with noise. A less stable community is more
likely to deteriorate aesthetically than one which is stable.
Secondly, individuals who travel often by air may be willing
to forego the unpleasantness of noise in order to have ready
access to air travel. Given a choice, these individuals
would prefer quiet to noise and, if the noise were signifi-
cantly abated, the value of property would likely appreciate
much more rapidly near airports. Thirdly, there is a
tendency for commercialization to develop around airports,
e.g., hotels, car rental agencies, parking lots, etc., and
while noise may adversely affect the property value for
residential use, the potential gain from commercialization
may well contribute to offsetting this decrease. Therefore,
not only may residential neighborhoods near airports be less
stable, their very structure may change to a commercial
development. One would be hard pressed to prove that high
noise levels (regardless of the source) enhance the value of
residential property.
The San Francisco study analyzed four measures of
property values (mean property value, median property value,
mean land value per square foot, and median land value per
square foot) as a function of some 24 other variables, one
of which was the average noise level. In each case where
the noise level significantly affected property values, the
average noise level was shown to have a detrimental effect,
i.e., property value was reduced because of noise. In a
majority of cases, the noise variable was a statistically
significant determinant of property values.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to derive any estimates
on the loss in property values from either of the two studies
The qualifications which were stated in the interpretation of
the Los Angeles study also apply to the work done in the San
Francisco area. These studies point out the need for more
complete and comprehensive research on the economic effects
of external noise sources.
23
-------
3.5 The Impact of Aircraft Noise on Schools and Other
Community Activities
Although most of the attention directed toward the
effects of aircraft noise pollution has been focused on the
household, other activities in the residential environment,
such as education, are also seriously affected. For example,
the Los Angeles Unified School District is seeking $95
million in aircraft noise damages. Moreover, schools in
Los Angeles have had to be closed and the students relocated;
others have had to be insulated against sound. One elemen-
tary school and one junior high were purchased by the
Los Angeles airport. Total relocation and classroom con-
struction costs for the affected 1590 pupils was $951,000.
The estimated abatement cost on 28 noise affected schools
(26 from aircraft, 2 from freeway) is $9.08 million, in 1968
prices.
The severity of the problem, however, is best illus-
trated by the following citation from a study of New York's
J.F.K. International Airport and environs made by the
National Academy of Sciences.
One of the most insidious aspects of aircraft
noise pollution in the environs of Kennedy Airport
is the penalty it imposes upon children in public
and private schools. The periodic inundation of
schools by high levels of aircraft noise has the
critical effect of reducing the net effective
teaching time available to students during the
school year. This results from the fact that many
overflights of public and private schools in the
environs of the airport produce a total eclipse of
communications in the classrooms, even with the
windows closed. This intrusion of aircraft noise
necessitates a pedagogical approach known somewhat
bitterly among teachers and school officials in
New York region and elsewhere as "jet-pause teaching."
Without detailing the minute-by-minute interference
of airport operations upon noise-impacted schools
in the airport environs, it is difficult to provide
precise quantitative estimates of the daily inter-
ference that results. Experience has shown, however,
that substantial speech interference with school
operations occurs in areas within the zone of NEF
30 unless "sound conditioning" measures are employed
in school construction.
At least 136 public schools of the New York
City School system are located within the zone of
NEF 30 for Kennedy Airport. School utilization
24
-------
for 1969 furnished by the New York City Planning
Commission indicate that about 172,000 pupils
attend these schools each day. An additional 85
private schools are also located with the NEF 30
zone in New York City and at least 12 more public
and private schools are within this noise exposure
zone in Nassau County. The combined total enrollment
of public and private schools located within the zone
of NEF 30 is conservatively estimated at 275,000
pupils. Variations in flight patterns at the
airport from day to day have the effect of distri-
buting the noise burden among the many schools
within the zone of NEF 30, and the degree of
interference with classroom communications is
considerably less for schools at the outer margins
of the zone for some of those, such as P.S. 42, 105,
146, and 181, and JHS 198. In some of the latter
schools, in heavily impacted areas such as Howard
Beach, the Rockaways, Rosedale, and Inwood,
teachers complain that brief instructional
periods must be sandwiched between frequent
interruptions by aircraft noise.
On a typical day in Arverne, planes were
observed approaching the airport at low altitudes
at approximately two-minute intervals during an
hour in the early afternoon. With each overflight,
a 20-second interval of noise from the passing
aircraft was sufficient to eliminate all except
shouted communications on the school site and in
typical classrooms with windows closed. Thus,
ten minutes of the hour, or about 17 per cent of
a typical 50-minute class period, were sacrificed
to environmental noise pollution. For pupils in
schools in such noise-vulnerable locations, this
translates into the loss of more than an entire
school day each week, the actual lost time
depending upon the pattern of traffic flow at
the airport. While this example illustrates one
of the extreme situations of aircraft-noise
exposure in the environs of Kennedy Airport, its
implications for the impact of environmental
noise on education throughout the zone of NEF 30
are clear. This analysis is limited to actual
time lost to pupils and teachers as a result of
air-induced fatigue or irritability, both well-
known effects of noise on humans, nor does it
take into account any higher rate of teacher
25
-------
turnover in the school system as still other
community costs of aircraft noise."
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to assess
accurately the economic costs associated with the impact of
aircraft noise on the classroom. In the case of Kennedy
airport, one could perhaps argue that large numbers of class
days of education for pupils are lost each year due to noise
interference. This could be evaluated by determining the
loss in effective teaching time and turnover rates for
teachers, but such costs reflect only the "tip of the ice-
berg." The true social cost is the loss in educational
opportunity and learning capacity of students caused by the
interference. If a student's learning capacity is reduced
or his performance adversely affected by noise, this could
easily impede his academic motivation and achievement, and be
reflected in his earnings stream over his entire lifetime.
It is impossible to obtain data on such costs, but it is
highly likely that they are being borne by students around
major airports throughout the country, because of the
presence of jet noise.
One can cite many instances of other activities that
occur within the community that are adversely affected by
aircraft noise. For example, outdoor public concerts have
traditionally been held at Watergate, along the Potomac
River, in Washington, D. C. Due to jet noise from National
Airport, it was announced in August 1971, that no further
concerts would be presented. This is but one example of
how aircraft noise degrades the outdoor environment and
disrupts or forces discontinuance of community activities.
3.6 Cost of Aircraft Noise Abatement; Insulating the
Receiver from the Source
With regard to aircraft noise, there are two ways to
insulate the receiver from the source. Either land can be
purchased around airports to provide a "noise right of way"
which would protect individuals from takeoff and landing
noise, or the homes within areas which are subjected to
undesirable noise levels (usually 30 NEF or greater) can be
insulated to achieve various levels of noise reduction. It
should be noted that the latter alternative makes no pro-
visions for the effect of noise on the outdoor environment,
for it requires individuals to remain inside acoustically
National Academy of Sciences, "Jamaica Bay and Kennedy
Airport: A Multidisciplinary Environmental Study," 1971
Vol. II, pp. 95-96.
26
-------
treated homes to avoid the annoyance caused by aircraft
ope ration.
The total cost of providing a noise right of way around
airports is the sum of acquisition costs of the land and the
relocation costs of individuals. In 1971, the Department of
Transportation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (DOT-NASA) estimated that 1,300 square miles
of land in the U. S. are presently affected by noise expo-
sures corresponding to 30 NEF or greater due to aircraft
operations. If the land were purchased for an average of
$20,000 per acre, the cost of land acquisition alone would
be $17 billion. The cost of relocation services, allowances,
moving and property transfer payments were estimated on the
basis of the precedent set in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1968 which provides $2500 per household or $625 for each
member of a family of four for these expenses. "If the
Government were to apply a similar cost of $625 per person
for noise rights-of-way, the system-wide social cost would
be $9.4 billion to cover the 15 million people presently
affected by noise levels of 30 NEF or higher."** Thus, the
total cost of aircraft noise abatement achieved by land
acquisition might total approximately $26.4 billion dollars.
Efforts are currently underway to initiate the
construction of a noise right of way around Los Angeles
International Airport, as reported by the Washington Post,
on September 11, 1971 (p. D.46):
The city of Los Angeles is spending almost
$300 million to "eradicate" 1,994 private homes
around the ocean coast airport, the nation's
second busiest, to cope with the protest over
the noise of jetliners.
The city is buying the homes, a number with
fine sea views and swimming pools , at prices
ranging from $28,000 to $115,000. The homes
are located on over 400 acres in the outskirts
of Los Angeles International Airport, which is
exceeded only by Chicago's O'Hare Field in volume
of traffic.
7Joint DOT-NASA Study, Q£. Cit . . p. 7-12.
27
-------
This is the most extreme method ever devised
to deal with airport noise; the city bought one
house for $97,000 and paid a wrecking company
$360 to destroy it. The project will take almost
two years and when it is finished, only bare land
will remain. The purchases are being financed by
30-year revenue bonds. In addition to homes other
buildings are being destroyed. One school covering
a 10-acre square of ground was demolished.
Some of the houses are being sold at prices
ranging from $300 to $3,000 to individuals and
developers to be moved elsewhere. The noise of
the landing craft is heard far from the immediate
surrounding area, particularly in the communities
of Inglewood and El Segundo, and no program has
been initiated for those tens of thousands of
residents.
These cost estimates can be considered conservative,
because they ignore the subsequent impact that the disloca-
tion of 15 million individuals would produce within the
economy. If the average family were composed of 4 persons,
nearly 4,000,000 dwellings would have to be found to accom-
modate those dislocated. This is nearly ten times the num-
ber of new starts of private metropolitan housing in the
U. S. for the year 1968.^ The impact on the home construc-
tion industry would be substantial, for undoubtedly the
shortage of housing that currently exists would be greatly
intensified and the price of homes as well as mortgage
interest rates would rise, substantially, further compounding
inflation. The direct cost estimate of $26.4 billion dollars
(in 1968 dollars), therefore, ignores many indirect costs
and consequences such as the effects on the housing industry,
mortgage interest rates, and prices.
The second alternative for insulating the individual
against aircraft noise pollution is to insulate the home.
In 1966, a study was conducted for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration, of
the costs of insulating an existing home from bothersome
aircraft noise.10 A similar study was made for the
Q
Source : Bureau of the Census.
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., "A Study—Insulating Houses
from Aircraft Noise," Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Housing Administration, 1966.
28
-------
Los Angeles International Airport. The BBN study produced
cost estimates for a 1000 square foot home which varies by
type of construction and the level of noise reduction
desired. The LA study determined the cost of making air-
craft noise totally imperceptible within the hypothetical
1200 square foot seven room, $24,000 stucco house exposed to
100 PNdB.
The results of these studies are given in the three
tables below (Table III-8, Table III-9, and Table 111-10).
Table III-8
Bolt Beranek and Newman's Estimate of the Probable Range of
Modification Costs for a 1,000 Square Foot House, 1966
(Exclusive of Costs for Ventilation)
Noise Insulation Improvement
House Type 5-10 PNdB 10-15PNdB 15-20PNdB
Light Exterior Walls $260 $1,600 $4,000
(wood, metal, stucco, to to to
or composition) $820 $2,400 $4,500
Heavy Exterior Walls $260 $1,600 $2,800
(brick, masonry, or to to to
concrete block) $820 $2,400 $3,400
Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Op. Git., p. 54.
See also, "Indicators of the Effect of Jet Noise on the
Value of Real Estate," Paul T. McClure, July, 1969, Rand
Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
29
-------
Table III-9
Cost Estimates for Installation of House
Mr Conditioning for a 1,000 Square Foot House
Type of System Approximate Installation Costs
Room Units $500 - $600
Central-Utilizing
Existing Ducting $500 - $900
Central - New Ducting
Required $1,200 - $1,600
Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Op. Cit, p. 55
Table 111-10
Estimates of the Cost of Insulation of Homes
Against Aircraft Noise
Work Performed Cost
Seal all windows. Install
forced air ventilation. Replace
deficient exterior doors. Seal
STAGE ONE door edges. Install sound traps $2,695
in door edges. Seal miscellan-
eous cracks.
Stage One plus double glaze all
STAGE TWO windows. Treat roof-ceiling $5,522
interspace.
Stage two plus modify inside
STAGE THREE surface of exterior walls. $8,945
Modify floor at under-floor
interspace.
Source: McClure, Op. C it. , p. 20.
30
-------
On the basis of the information in the tables above,
estimates of the cost of insulation of homes can be derived
if, as estimated earlier from the DOT-NASA study, it is
assumed that nearly 4,000,000 homes are affected by aircraft
noise. Cost estimates based on the Wyle studies would range
from a low of $10.7 billion to $35.7 billion. The data
provided by BBN suggests that the total cost of insulation
would range between $3.0 billion and $20.0 billion. The
cost estimates were made in 1966-1967 and are consequently
biased downward due to price increases which have taken
effect since that time.
It is obvious that the cost of insulating houses is on
the same order of magnitude as that of land acquisition near
airports. The indirect economic consequences of insulation
are not as severe as those caused by the relocation of nearly
4,000,000 families. It would seem, however, that neither
alternative for reducing the impact of aircraft noise by
insulating the receiver is economically viable. Land
acquisition and the resulting dislocation of families could
have serious consequences on the general economy, but insu-
lation of homes is merely a method of treating the symptom
rather than the disease. To escape the annoyance of air-
craft, people would have to remain in houses sealed against
sound. The outdoors would still be subject to aircraft
noise.
3.7 Cost of Aircraft Noise Abatement; Reduction of Noise
at the Source
The source of noise from aircraft is the engine,
primarily jet engine whine produced by the intake and com-
pression of air and the high velocity expulsion of exhaust.
The technology exists to modify current jet engines (retro-
fitting) by nacelle treatment to achieve significant noise
reductions or to equip jet aircraft with high by-pass "quiet"
engines. Either alternative is costly, but substantially
less than attempting to achieve acceptable noise levels by
insulating the receiver. Estimates of retrofit costs have
been made bv both the Boeing and McDonald-Douglas aircraft
companies. The McDonald-Douglas Corporation estimated the
cost of each engine retrofit at $655,000 (including spare
nacelles). The Boeing Company's estimate for each retrofit
was $1 million. It should be noted that a major component
12
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, "NASA
Acoustically Treated Nacelle Program," 1969. See especially
pp. 63-73, and pp. 109-117.
31
-------
of the cost is due to depreciation of the nacelle, which was
assumed to have a life of only 5 years while the aircraft
itself has an assumed life of 12 years. In other words,
both companies make the supposition that each aircraft engine
is modified when it is 7 years old. The noise level gener-
ated by an airplane as well as the retrofit cost is a
function of the number of engines on the aircraft. The cost
of retrofit by number of engines and by the two companies
are shown below in Table III-ll.
Table III-ll
Estimated Costs of Retrofit
Number of Number of Retrofit Cost
Engines Aircraft Boeing McDonald-Douglas
4 816 $3,264,000,000 $2,137,920,000
3 543 1,629,000,000 1,066,995,000
2 422 844.000,000 552.820.000
TOTAL $5,737,000,000 $3,757,735,000
To install treated nacelles on all jet aircraft would
cost between $3.8 billion and $5.7 billion.14
13
Federal Aviation Administration, Statistical Handbook,
1970, passim.
14
A number of other sources have estimated the cost of
retrofitting the jet fleet; these estimates are generally
lower than the Boeing - McDonald-Douglas figures. For
example, DOT-NASA (Op. Cit.. p. 5-6) have estimated the
cost of retrofitting at about $1 billion.
32
-------
3.8 Benefits from the Abatement of Aircraft Noise
The reduction of aircraft noise would produce signifi-
cant benefits for the millions of individuals exposed to
undesirable aircraft noise levels and also, the airline
industry. It is difficult to assess accurately the benefits
to individuals, because little information is available con-
cerning the costs associated with the effects of annoyance.
The adverse effect on property values and the costs of
easements would be less, and less litigation should result,
if aircraft noise were significantly abated. The benefits
accruing to the airline industry are, however, more easily
identified and some approximate indications of the benefits
can be developed. These factors are reviewed below.
If noise from aircraft were significantly lowered, the
cost of construction of new airports and the operating costs
of existing facilities could be greatly reduced. Land
acquisition is a major expenditure in the development of new
airport facilities. If noise levels were reduced, the size
of the parcel required to provide the "noise right-of-way"
would also be smaller. The savings could be very substan-
tial, according to DOT-NASA estimates:
The area of land encompassed by the 110 PNdB
takeoff contour of a long-haul four-engine civil
jet is approximately 600 acres; the additional
area of land encompassed by the 100 PNdB contour
is approximately 7,000 acreas. Assuming that a
typical airport has eight runway ends , a 10 PNdB
noise reduction would "relieve" about 50,000
acres. To buy this acreage, assuming a new
airport were being established, say, 30 miles
from a major city, would cost some $350 million
at an assumed cost of undeveloped acreage of
$7,000 per acre. Assuming that three new airports
were involved, the savings would equal the billion
dollars estimated as the cost to quiet the current
civil aviation jet fleet.!5
The above statement from the DOT-NASA study also sug-
gests some further savings. In the estimation of the $350
million saving per major airport, it was assumed that the
terminal would be built some 30 miles from a major city.
Such airports are inconvenient for the traveler and tend to
be under utilized due to the inherent costs associated with
time lost and distance involved in reaching the terminal.
15DOT-NASA Joint Study, Op. Cit. . p. 5-6.
33
-------
This phenomenon is amply illustrated by the case of the
Washington, D. C., airports: Washington National is con-
veniently located and heavily utilized while Dulles
International is distant from the population centers which
it serves and has excess capacity. DOT-NASA has also esti-
mated that "if the effect of noise were to cause an airport
to be located 10 miles further from the populated area it
serves, the additional cost to travelers and employees could
exceed $30 million annually for each major airport."16 xhe
more distant the airport from the city, the greater the
inconvenience cost and the less the cost of undeveloped land
per acre.
There are economic costs beyond merely the cost of
construction of airports distant from metropolitan areas
that they serve. If the facility is to be a viable entity,
then high-speed access links to remote airports must be
constructed. The construction of such freeways, highways,
or rapid transit systems require the purchase of rights of
way and the dislocation of residential communities or indus-
trial facilities over and beyond the cost of construction.
There are real economic costs associated with such construc-
tion and these should also be noted.
From the growth in the number of aircraft operations
and air travel, it is obvious that the number of airports
accommodating jet aircraft will grow significantly in the
near future. Unless noise abatement measures are undertaken,
the cost of new airports and the indirect costs to travelers
and employers will be enormous, due to the noise problem.
Existing airport facilities are also affected by the
current noise levels of jet aircraft. In particular, air-
port capacities are reduced in three ways: first, noise
limits the number of hours of each day that the airports can
be used. For example, jet operations at some airports are
not permitted between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. This is true
of Washington's National Airport; the passenger bound for
Washington must deplane at either Dulles or Baltimore's
Friendship Airport if his plane is scheduled to arrive during
restricted hours at National. This restriction severely
limits the airport's efficiency, for nighttime traffic is
often shifted to the daylight hours causing higher peak
loads and congestion. A new airport may have to be built in
order to avoid the overloading of existing facilities during
the daylight hours. Cargo and airfreight operations are
ideally suited to nighttime traffic and if this must be
eliminated due to noise, then the utilization of the civil
I6lbid. , p. 5-5.
34
-------
aircraft fleet is reduced as is the revenue earning capabil-
ity of domestic carriers. Secondly, it is common to
restrict runway usage because certain runways will expose
more individuals to noise than others. Thus, the potential
of the existing facilities is lowered and expansion may be
hampered solely because of noise. If present facilities
cannot be expanded, it may be necessary to build additional
airports. Further, aircraft delays, which result in losses
of both time and money by passengers and of aircraft capacity
utilization by airlines, are often caused by such restric-
tions.1? Thirdly, in order to reduce the impact of noise,
flight-space restrictions are frequently imposed and certain
segments of the airways are not available to the jet fleet.
This further reduces the capacity of both airports and air-
craft and also contributes to operating delays, which are
costly to both travelers and the airlines. DOT-NASA have
estimated that noise restrictions alone could reduce the
capacity of an airport by 20 per cent,18 The annual aircraft-
delay cost for an airport with 450,000 operations annually
has been estimated at $11 million. *•$ This is exclusive of
the time lost by passengers, the inconvenience of missed con-
nections due to delays, and so forth.
3.9 Aircraft Noise; A Summary
In summary, the benefits from the abatement of aircraft
noise accrue to the operators of airports, the airlines, as
well as to the residential dweller who ho longer is subjected
to undesirable noise levels from this source. Most of the
economic benefits can be thought of as the elimination, or
at least the reduction, of the economic costs of aircraft
noise, which in the aggregate have been estimated in billions
of dollars in direct costs. The indirect effects and eco-
nomic consequences of jet noise are equally important. One
requirement for the growth and development of a region in
economic terms is an adequate transportation system. To the
extent that aircraft noise reduces the efficiency of air
Much of airline travel is done for business purposes, as
opposed to pleasure travel. Those traveling are often
doing so in an executive capacity and are paid commensurably
Therefore, the economic cost of aircraft delays involves
the "lost wages" of a relatively high income group.
18DOT-NASA Joint Study, p. 5-6
35
-------
transportation, a major transportation mode, or that the
restrictions due to noise make the construction of airports
more costly than would be required otherwise, regional eco-
nomic development could be retarded.
From the estimates given for the cost of aircraft noise
abatement, it is clear that noise should be reduced at the
source. While the cost of acoustically treating jet engines
range from $3.8 billion to $5.7 billion, it was estimated
that the cost of insulating houses or providing a noise
right of way would be several times as large. With present
technology, however, it is impossible to produce a silent
jet engine; nor are the prospects for such a technological
breakthrough in the near future promising. Therefore, some
combination of retrofitting engines, providing noise rights
of way around airports, and insulating homes will be
required to achieve acceptable noise levels from aircraft at
a reasonable cost. From the data presently available, it is
not possible to determine the economic tradeoffs or the
"optimum" combination of these abatement alternatives for a
given locality. In view of the economic consequences of
aircraft noise, however, research should be undertaken to
provide more adequate knowledge of these tradeoffs.
36
-------
Section IV
The Economics of Ground Transportation Noise
Ground transportation noise is generated from a large
number of sources: automobiles, buses, trucks, ambulances,
fire engines, motorcycles, trains, and urban subways. As
indicated in the section on growth of noise sources, total
motor vehicle registrations are growing at about 4.0 per cent
per annum and if that rate continues, will double in less
than 18 years. The numbers of truck, bus, and motorcycle
registrations are growing at a higher rate than automobile
registrations. Growing at almost 17 per cent each year, the
number of licensed motorcycles could double in a little over
four years. At a growth rate of 4.2 per cent per annum, the
number of buses and trucks on the nation's streets and high-
ways could double by 1988, i.e., in 17 years. As in the case
of other kinds of noise , ground transportation noise as an
environmental pollutant depends on the magnitude of the noise
emitted by the source, the path of transmission, and the
sensitivity of the receiver. Studies have shown that because
of their high noise levels and their frequent penetration of
residential areas, trucks, buses, and motorcycles often
exceed ambient sound levels.
Broadly conceived, ground transportation emissions can
be divided into two groups: (1) the intrusion noise gener-
ated from motor vehicles that contributes to the ambient
sound, and (2) the noise of freeway or expressway traffic.
Both kinds of ground transportation noise vary by time of
day and also by weather conditions.1
4.1 Noise Distribution; Sources of Noise
In 1969, the State of California conducted an intensive
survey on the sources of motor vehicle noise. The survey
was conducted to obtain specific data on the number and the
types of vehicles that would exceed a proposed reduction in
the highway noise limits for vehicles in the State of
California.2 Although the survey originally emphasized
U.S. Department of Commerce, The Noise Around Us, September
1970, p. 97.
9
California State Assembly Bill 2254 was introduced in the
1969 Legislative Session by Mr. George W. Millias and Mr.
Frank Lantenman. The law proposed a 2 dB(A) reduction in
the maximum permissible noise limits for all vehicles. To
answer questions that arose during hearings on the proposed
bill, the California State Highway Patrol took a noise
37
-------
passenger automobiles, some information was collected about
motorcycles and pickup trucks. The study was divided into
two parts: (1) city streets with speed zones of 35 mph or
less, and (2) freeways and country roads with speed zones
of more than 35 mph. Noise readings were made at 21 locations
on city streets, 10 locations on freeways in Los Angeles, and
Sacramento, and at four locations on country roads.
City Streets; The survey of 21 different locations on
city streets found that the noise level for 9,395 vehicles
under 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight was 68 dB(A)--con-
siderably lower than the California State Statutory limit
of 82 dB(A). Only three vehicles, or about .03 per cent
of the sample exceeded the statutory limit. Each of the
three automobiles had modified exhaust systems. With the
exception of Volkswagens, older automobiles (Chevrolets,
Dodges, and Fords) averaged approximately the same noise
levels as newer automobiles, i.e., those manufactured after
1965.
The Freeway Test; As might be expected, the measured
noise level for the 2,865 vehicles tests in the freeway
sample was higher than that for the city streets. Neverthe-
less, the average noise level of 74 dB(A) was less than the
statutory limit. Only two vehicles exceeded the statutory
limit of 82 dB(A) and each of these vehicles also had a
modified exhaust system.
Country Roads; The results of the test for automobiles
traveling on asphalt roads in excess of 35 miles an hour with
no stop signs, also showed that the measured vehicles had an
average noise level (71 dB(A)) that was less than the statu-
tory limit (86 dB(A)) .
As a result of the study, the Department of the
California Highway Patrol believes that the State Legislature
could significantly reduce the maximum statutory noise limit
without placing in violation, or an excessively high financial
Footnote 2 Continued
survey to find the answers to the following questions: (1)
The average noise levels of vehicles under 6,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight rating. (2) The noise level distribu-
tion of vehicles under 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating. (3) The causes of the noise from vehicles that
exceed the present limits, and (4) The extent to which the
proposed lower limits might penalize older vehicles.
Department of California Highway Patrol Passenger Car Noise
Survey, Sacramento, California, January 1970, mimeographed.
38
-------
burden on, those automobile owners who make reasonable
efforts to maintain their automobile exhaust systems in good
condition. Only 15 out of approximately 55,000 automobiles
and pickup trucks tested exceed the statutory limit.
A. 2 The Cost of Ground Transportation Noise
Because of the convenience of owning and operating
automobiles and the convenience of using limited access free-
ways, society has accepted and even acclimated itself to
traffic-generated noise. Nevertheless, the presence of high
noise levels can alter consumer choices and may affect the
value of certain kinds of real estate, especially the value
of properties located close to busy freeways. Two studies,
one on the effect of freeway traffic noise on apartment
rentals in Portland, Oregon, and another on the effect of
such traffic on residential real estate in Toledo, Ohio, shed
some light on the cost of noise on property values.
Traffic and Rental Values in Portland, Oregon: The
purpose of the Portland study was to measure the effect that
freeway noise has on the value of a sample of apartments,
holding the effects of other variables constant. A total
of 38 different apartments or apartment complexes were
included in the study. Each of the apartments met the
following criteria: (1) within one mile of the two major
freeways in Portland, (2) contained at least 15 apartment
units, and (3) had been in use for a sufficient period of
time to establish property values. From a total of 81
possible independent variables, the following 25 were used
for the stepwise regressions:
Variable
Distance to Shopping Center
Distance to Elementary School
Distance to High School
Distance to Recreation Area
3Ibid.. p. 23
A
The Robin M. Towne and Associates, Inc., An Investigation of
the Effect of Freeway Traffic Noise on Apartment Rents. A
report prepared for the Oregon State Highway Commission and
the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public
Roads, October 1966.
39
-------
Variable
Distance to Central Business District
Distance to Freeway Access
Assessed Value of Apartments (1965)
Number of Units in Building
Story of Unit
Index of Quality (mainly elevator, lobby,
grounds, swimming pool, and recreation
facilities)
Number of Stories in Building
Size of Apartment Area
Size of Site Area
Age of Building
Percentage of Vacant Apartments (1965)
Size of Average Unit Area
Average Unit Rent (1965)
Average Building Vacancy Rate (1965)
The analyses resulted in two principal findings and one
general conclusion. The first finding was that freeway noise
had greater significance for expanding rent differences for
units on or above the fourth floor than those located on the
third floor or below. The second finding was that the effect
of freeway noise on rents in Portland is fairly small.5
The general conclusion of the research group (which was
not necessarily supported by the data), was that although
freeway noise might be a nuisance, the disutility of that
noise is not reflected in rents. This simply means that the
subjective disutility of noise is offset by the subjective
utility of other determinants of rent. Apartment dwellers
may tend to be more transient than home owners. Because of
that, it is not unlikely that apartment dwellers have a
40
-------
greater tolerance to noise, especially when noise is offset
by other factors such as proximity to schools, places of
work, and recreation facilities.
The Effect of the Detroit-Toledo Expressway on Property
Values in Toledo; In 1966, the Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Research Foundation, The University of Toledo, studied
the effect of freeway noise,on the value of residential
properties in Toledo, Ohio. The research effort was a
continuation of a study conducted in 1965-1966, which
investigated 15 different areas between the Ohio and Michigan
border. The earlier study determined that the data collected
were not sufficiently conclusive to analyze the economic
effect of traffic noise on property values. The follow-on
study was an in-depth analysis of one neighborhood in Toledo.
According to the socio-economic sketch of the neighborhood,
it is a lower-to-middle income neighborhood with low rates
of crime, lower rates of unemployment, juvenile delinquency,
and child dependency on public welfare than corresponding
averages in the same county.
The fact that the neighborhood is not a cross-section
of the population, representing low, middle and high incomes,
can distort the results of the analysis. The research team
found that in a study of land values, those closest to the
expressway exhibited the largest gains between the early
1950's and mid-1960's and that there was no tendency to "shy
away" from the expressway in terms of the construction of
new residences. In part, the greatest gain for properties
located near the expressway resulted from an equalization of
land values within the entire study area. Properties located
near the expressway tended to have lower values than those
more remote from the right-of-way before the construction of
the expressway. An investigation of re-sales showed no
noticeable difference in the behavior of property values one
block from the expressway, compared with those three to five
blocks away.
In addition to looking at the relationship between
property values and noise levels, the research study made an
inquiry of a group of realtors about their opinions of the
United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Public Roads, Expressway Traffic Noise and Residential
Properties, July 1, 1967, a report prepared by David C.
Colony, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
7Ibid. . p. 4.
8Ibid.. p. 58 and p. 60.
41
-------
effect of freeway noise on property values. The questionnaire
was not sent to a random sample of realtors. Rather, a ques-
tionnaire was sent to every second listing in the "yellow
pages" under real estate. Of a total of 140 questionnaires, a
usable response was received of about one-third. The survey
sent to realtors was an opinion survey which revealed the
"feelings" of those surveyed. The response to the question-
naire sent indicated that realtors believed that the freeway
caused a considerable loss in property value (i.e., between
20 and 30 per cent). This questionnaire approach was a
marked divergence from both the exacting scientific character
of the study and data collected from other sources.
To confirm or negate both sets of collected data,
objective and realtor survey, residents of the area
were also surveyed. The sample consisted of those people
living in close proximity to the expressway — an area
extending 1,100 to 1,200 feet from the right of way line of
the expressway. According to the research group, the surveyed
residents lived in an area where the noise levels were within
an 80 to 85 decibel range. The results of the survey of
property owners does not completely agree with data on pro-
perty values. Fifty per cent of those responding said that
noise was a disturbance.9 Of those indicating that noise was
a disturbance, about 40 per cent stated that the noise level
was "very severe" and 63 per cent stated that they would not
buy, build, or rent so close to an expressway again. ^ In
this study, the results of the surveys to realtors and to
home owners are consistent with one another but inconsistent
with data on property values. It should be remembered that
only 50 percent of those surveyed found noise to be a disturb-
ance .
The results of the Toledo Study strongly suggest that
if traffic noise, either real or anticipated, has a notice-
able influence on the market value of residential property,
it is for that property which is immediately adjacent to
the expressway. In addition, the survey of residents found
that at most the only steps taken to reduce outside noise
were the installation of storm windows and keeping doors and
windows closed.H
9Ibid. , p. 137.
1QIbid., p. 137.
The Toledo study suggests a narrow band of about 50 feet
wide along the right of way line. Ibid., pp., 157-161.
42
-------
Available data permit a rough estimate of the costs of
abating ground transportation noise by relocation and by
noise reduction at the source. In 1971, Wyle Laboratories
estimated that approximately 420 square miles is subject to
undesirable noise levels as a result of the nation's major
urban freeway system.^ Assuming the same nation-wide density
pattern for land adjacent to major urban freeways, there are
about 5,000 people per square mile or 2.1 million within the
420 square miles impacted by noise. Assuming that the land
is valued, conservatively, at $10,000 per acre (including
structures), the cost of noise easements would amount to
about $2.68 billion (i.e., 268,000 acres at $10,000 per acre).
The cost of relocation for about 500,000 families, using
expenditure figures provided for under the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1968 in the impacted area would amount to an
additional $1.25 billion ($2,500 for each family). The
combined costs of land acquisition and relocation would be
about $3.93 billion in fiscal 1970, or approximately the
same as total Federal spending for all federally supported
community development and housing programs of $3.9 billion
in fiscal 1971.
At present, data are not available on the costs to the
producer and to the consumer, in the form of higher prices,
for reducing motor vehicle-generated noise. A California
State Highway Patrol Survey suggests that California State
maximum noise limits can be reduced without placing a viola-
tion, or putting an undue economic burden, on those automobile
owners who make reasonable efforts to maintain their auto-
mobiles, especially exhaust systems. Similar studies for
other parts of the country should be made to determine the
relationship between existing standards and noise levels and
whether new standards are required. Data provided by studies
that show how much noise should be reduced would, of course,
be used as an input to estimates of changes in costs to
producers and prices paid by consumers resulting from reduced
noise levels. Testimony from the Chicago hearings suggests
that an important reason for not incorporating noise-reduc-
tion devices is insufficient consumer demand at higher
prices. Unfortunately, even if quieter vehicles (new) were
required, manufactured, and bought, there is no assurance
that these vehicles would be maintained and would remain
quiet. Additional costs would have to be incurred, such as
those incurred to monitor, inspect, and enforce established
12
Wyle Laboratory Report for EPA, "Community Noise, Trans-
portation Noise, and Noise from Equipment Powered by
Internal Combustion Engines," NTID 300-3, 1971.
13
Chicago Hearings EPA, Preliminary Transcript, p. 237 and
p. 238.
43
-------
14
standards.
Mitigating the impact from noise takes four principal
forms: insulation of houses and buildings along freeways and
busy streets, screening highways with trees or walls, land
use planning for property bordering on heavily traveled
roads, and easements. 5 The costs of insulating the receiver
against ground transportation noise could be high compared
with noise reduction at the sources. The least-cost method
for insulating houses or buildings probably would be the
installation of storm windows on the side of buildings along
freeway corridors. The Toledo Study showed that although
the public is aware of noise enamating from expressways, few
people have taken any action to reduce the noise levels in
their homes (less than 15 per cent of those surveyed). In
the few cases where action was taken, it consisted mainly
The Highway Research Board, National Research Council,
sponsored research designed to predict noise levels
expected from new highway facility construction. The
research included a series of examples that lead to
tentative noise design criteria or noise standards. One
finding of the Highway Research Board's work is that there
exists a strong relationship between highway noise and
ambient noise in terms of expected community response and,
therefore, the costs to reduce traffic noise. If highway
noise is less than ambient noise, little or no community
reaction can be expected in the form of demands for noise
abatement. Highway noise in excess of 16 dB above the
general ambient noise level is likely to result in wide-
spread complaints and strong community action to reduce
the traffic noise. Only sporadic complaints from those
most sensitive to noise will occur when highway intrusion
levels are less than 9 dB above the average ambient noise
level. Highway noise in excess of 16 dB above the general
ambient level is likely to result in widespread complaints
and strong community action to reduce the traffic noise.
If true, and if noise abatement controls are related to
community pressure, the costs of freeway or expressway
noise reduction might increase as ambient noise levels
decrease.
Highway Research Board, National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineer-
ing , National Cooperative Highway Design Guide for Highway
Engineers, 1971, pp. 29-30.
Melville C. Branch, R. Dale Beland, and Vern 0. Knudsen,
Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan Environment; Case
Study of Los Angeles with Special Reference to Aircraft,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1970, pp. 10-11.
44
-------
of keeping doors and windows shut or installing storm
windows. One measure of the social benefits of noise
reduction is an estimate of the willingness of those affected
by noise to incur expenses to reduce noise. At present, there
is little evidence to indicate whether people adversely sub-
jected to noise would spend money to reduce noise levels.
Although an esthetic asset to most highways, there is debate
whether landscape plantings do much to reduce noise. One
estimate is that plantings would have to be 300 to 500 feet
in depth to cut noise levels in half. Landscaping of this
magnitude would be extremely costly. It is believed that
noise levels can be reduced by the use of "quiet" pavement
surfaces and tires , but it is also believed that the trade-
off for less noise might be adverse effects on safety.^ A
rough estimate of the cost of easements, including dislocation
costs, is about $1.25 billion for 420 square miles of highway
subject to undesirable noise levels in 1971. Land-use plan-
ning for busy highways and freeways, as well as for other
aspects of urban development, is in a state of infancy.
Further research will give added insight about the costs
and the benefits of noise abatement, including the allocation
of such costs and benefits between producers and receivers.
Some of the trade-offs for quieter highways might be: time,
mileage, changing values of real estate, community dislocation
tax lease revenue, industrial development, and dislocation of
negotiated distances by the motor carriers.
David Colony, Op. Cit., p. 161.
Chicago Hearings, Preliminary Transcript, p. 244
18Ibid. , p. 244.
45
-------
Section V
The Economics of Noise Internal to the Residential
Environment
In contrast to the noise from aircraft overhead or from
nearby highways, which impinges on the residential dweller,
is the noise generated within the household and by neighbors
in day-to-day activities. Such activities include lawn
mowing, dishwashing, vacuuming, and so forth.
5.1 The Cost of Noise in the Residential Environment
The noise generated by appliances and home equipment
is pervasive and a part of every day living. So omnipresent
are these noises that they are generally taken for granted
or ignored. As was shown in the section on the growth of
noise sources, however, the rapid proliferation of noise
generators within and around the home and the concentration
of population may raise noise levels and exposures to such
an extent in the near future that a major noise problem will
exist within the home itself.
Evidence indicates that there is little real danger of
deafness or serious hearing damage resulting solely from
products used within the home. The noisiest of products,
e.g., disposals, lawnmowers, power saws and dishwashers are
not used continuously. Thus, even though these products are
quite noisy, the exposure time and frequency of exposure are
not sufficient to cause serious hearing damage. Although
the risk of hearing loss is not great at the present time,
there is evidence that noise is a source of considerable
annoyance within the household. Common sense, if not
scientific evidence, reveals that noise can frustrate desires
for rest, privacy, relaxation, and even sleep. Anyone who
has been awakened by noise of a barking dog, or a loud party,
is well aware of the irritation and annoyance involved.
It is difficult to place an accurate estimate on the
cost associated with annoyance from noise. If the effects
of noise were well known, and affected all individuals equally,
the task would be considerably simplified. Such however, is
not the case, for what some individuals (most people over 30
years of age) consider noise, other individuals (teenagers)
consider "music to the ears" (rock music). Moreover, studies
have shown that consciousness of noise is related to income
levels. Table V-l summarizes the results of a survey of indi-
viduals in Los Angeles, Boston, and New York that attempted to
46
-------
Table V-l Rank Ordering of Noise, by
Source and Income Class: Los Angeles,
Boston, and New York (Combined)
Source
Traffic
Children/
Neighbors
Planes
Industry
Other
Animals
Sirens/Horns
Passersby
Sonic Boom
Motorcycles
Trains
All
Incomes
10
6
2
2
1
1
1
!
.0
.9
.3
.3
.9
.9
.7
.9
.8
.8
.5
Income Class
High
10.0
5.0
3.2
1.6
.9
2.7
2.1
.6
.3
.8
.3
Middle
10
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
.0
.2
.7
.9
.5
.4
.7
.3
.4
.0
.0
Low
9.8
10.0
.8
1.3
1.7
2.0
1.4
.6
.3
.3
1.7
Source: "Noise in Urban and Suburban Areas," Op. Cit . , p. 23
47
-------
correlate consciousness of noise sources to income class.
Not only does the annoyance of noise depend upon the
source generating the noise and income group, but it has
also been shown that people are more tolerant of their own
noise than that produced by others.^ Consider the data in
Table V-2 derived from a study of apartment dwellers. With
the single exception of the dishwasher, noises from other
apartments were always more bothersome than the same type of
noise from the apartment of the respondent. There is a
human tendency to consider one's own noise as "necessary"
and that produced by neighbors as unjustified, because it
represents an invasion of acoustical privacy.
Studies have also shown that a major irritation
associated with noise is sleep interference; the other most
prevalent reasons for being bothered by noise are the "shock"
of being startled, interference with activities such as
watching TV or listening to radio, and the interruption of
conversation. The results of a survey are shown in Table
V-3. Given that the effects of noise depend upon the receiver,
his socio-economic background, the noise source, and even the
time of day (i.e., noise is much more annoying when a person
is attempting to go to sleep or has been awakened), it is
virtually impossible to predict an individual's reaction to
a given sound stimulus without a considerable amount of
ancillary information. Goldsmith and Jonsson have stated
that:
There are several different effects of or
reactions to domestic noise. The primary effects
are physical effects, possible symptoms or
aggravation of disease, possible impairment of
function, or interference with activities.
Secondary to the physical reaction of perception
may be feelings of annoyance, which are usually
defined as the extent to which people report
being bothered, disturbed or irritated. If a
person's feelings of annoyance are strong enough
they will lead him or her to try to irodlfy the
sound environment. They can also lead him to
behave in a way which has social effects (i.e.,
create parent-child tensions , or moving of the
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Noise
in Urban and Suburban Areas: Results of Field Studies,"
January, 1967, p. 22.
2
Alexander Cohen, "Noise and Psychological State," Paper
Presented at the National Conference on Noise as Public
Health Hazard, June 13-14, 1968.
48
-------
Table V-2 Per Cent of Apartment Occupants Finding
Specified Indoor Noises Bothersome
Noise Source
Plumbing
Garbage Disposal
Dishwasher
Doors Slamming
Walking
TV and Radio
Phone Ringing
a
Noises from Bedroom
Talking in Halls, on
Stairs , and Landing
From Adjacent
or Upstairs
Apartment
71.0
73.1
42.3
86.5
50.0
7.0
1.0
10.0
17 .0
From Own
Apartment
13.0
32.0
68.0
Conversation, baby crying, etc.
Source: Cohen, Op. Cit. , p. 19.
49
-------
Table V-3 Reasons Associated with Being "Ve.ry Bothered."
Reason
&
C
M
7
7
4
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
erfere with Conversation
j_i
c
M
7
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
01
o)
o
K
(U
X
j_i
(U
4J
CO
t-l
^3
•H
>
O
01
cd
JS
en
4
3
3
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
(U
C
0
is
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: "Noise in Urban and Suburban Areas", Op. Git., p. 25.
50
-------
residence). In addition to these physical or
psychological reactions may be impairment of
communication or of sleep.
From the above, it is clear that there are a diverse
set of possible reactions to noise. The social cost of
noise within the home must be analyzed in terms of the
economic consequences associated with the various effects
of noise. A partial list of the effects of domestic noise
is shown in Table V-4.
Even though it is possible to compile a partial list
(Table V-4) of the possible effects of domestic noise, it
is still difficult to attach an economic cost to these various
effects. One of the reasons is that noise is likely to be
a contributing factor rather than a direct cause of some of
the effects listed. Consider the first item under "Symptoms
of aggravation or disease," headaches. If all headaches were
caused by noise then one measure of the cost of noise would
be the amount spent on products to alleviate headaches. This
approach, however, ignores the pain and anquish and the
reduced effectiveness of the individual suffering from the
headache and the economic consequences of the reduction in
the ability to function. Further, headaches can be caused
by any number of other factors. Moreover, some of the
products used to combat headaches, aspirin for example, have
a myriad of other medical uses. Two facts, however, can be
postulated with certainty: noise can contribute to headaches,
and can reduce the efficiency of an individual as well as his
psychological well being.
Rather than attempt a rigorous assessment of the cost
of annoyance caused by noise and the other varied effects ,
some plausible assumptions will be made which will permit
a first order approximation of the economic consequences of
domestic noise. To the extent that noise interferes with
rest, relaxation, and sleep itself, domestic noise can be
considered a source of fatigue. Further, if noise aggravates
or contributes to headaches, muscle tension, anxiety, and so
forth, it contributes to stress in the individual. An
individual under stress who is also fatigued is unlikely to
perform at his potential peak performance. The quality and
q
John R. Goldsmith and Erland Jonsson, "Effects of Noise
on Health in the Residential and Urban Environment", Paper
prepared for the American Public Health Association, August,
1969, (mimeographed), p. 8a.
4
Goldsmith and Jonsson, Op. Git. , passium.
51
-------
Table V-4 Possible Effects of Domestic Noise
Symptoms of Aggravation or
Disease :
Impairment of Functions :
Interference with Activities
Feelings of Annoyance :
Individual Actions to Modify
the Environment:
Social Effects:
Headache
Muscle Tension
Anxie ty
Insomnia
Fatigue
Drug Consumption
Other Reactions
Impairment of hearing,
including temporary
threshold shift and
presbycusis
Interference with
—Relaxation and rest
—Communication (Conversa-
tion, listening to radio,
telephone and TV)
Fear
Resentment
Dis traction
Need to Concentrate
Installation of Air Condi-
tioning so that windows
can be closed,
Installation of acoustic
insulation materials to
reduce noise in the home.
Shutting windows.
The use of masking noises,
such as turning on the
radio or TV or fan.
Departure from environment.
Concentration of lower
social class families in
noise pollutant residen-
tial areas.
Spending less time at home
because of noise problems.
Withdrawl from communication
Family tension.
Source: Goldsmith and Jonsson, Op. Cit . , Table 1
52
-------
quantity of work (whether the work is domestic or related to
a person's livelihood) are both apt to be lower under con-
ditions of stress and fatigue. Neither a psychologist nor an
industrial engineer is needed to prove that stress and fatigue
adversely affect performance.
Therefore, it can be argued that domestic noise and the
stress and fatigue associated with it affect the worker on
the job. Not only might noise lower the quality and quantity
of work, but it also seems plausible to assert that noise
factors can diminish morale and contribute to absenteeism.
These effects alone can have substantial economic consequences
If the Gross National Product is reduced by one per cent, due
to the various effects of domestic noise, then, at present
levels, domestic noise costs the economy nearly ten billion
dollars of foregone output each year.
A tired and nervous person is obviously not as attentive
or able to concentrate on the tasks that he is performing as
a rested and relaxed person, i.e., noise can contribute to
making a person more prone to accidents in both the home and
the work environment.
The relationship between domestic noise and accidents within
the home has just begun to receive attention by researchers.
The following item appeared in The Washington Post of
September 11, 1971, Section D, p. 43:
If you have a habit of cutting yourself with
sharp knives or if you are continually falling off
the step-stool in the kitchen, it doesn't necessarily
mean you are accident prone.
It might be that your kitchen noise factor is too
high, and in trying to escape, you injure yourself.
This is an idea that is leading to a new study
of design principles which might be identified as
the psychobiology of design, says Professor Donald
C. Hays of the University of Wisconsin. He is
chairman of the Department of Environmental Design
that has just made a study called The Auditory
Environment in the Home.
"In this study we were trying to correlate noise
of products connected with tasks in the kitchen....
the extent to which startling effects may cause one
suddenly to focus away from one's tasks. We have
found kitchens are a deafening place for the house-
wife," Hay explained in an interview.
If you can escape noises above 60 decibels and
close the door, great. Or you might try wearing
ear muffs. You won't notice an airplane at 60
53
-------
(Continued)
decibels if you are tuned to music.
Noises are decibel deceivers though. Whereas
the ear-splitting knife sharpener registers in at
only 80 decibels, the seemingly less noisy blender
and wall-exhaust fan are likely to give off at 90
decibels—noise factors that might cause the skin
to pale, the pupils to dilate and the adrenalin to
increase, impairing work efficiency. The range vent
fan registers in at 85, the garbage disposal at 80
and the dishwasher at a mere 70. A comforting
thought might be that everything can be run at the
same time without the decibel rate going appreciably
above the highest noisemaker. It might be the clue
to solving kitchen problems—turn everything on for
one big blast, and go outdoors.
John Koss sponsored the university study on the
auditory environment in the home to find out whether
noise factors can be solved in future product design
and whether home environment can begin to meet the
needs of the family adjusting to it.
"There have been all sorts of studies on the
effects of jet noises and factory noises, but no one
has gotten in to the home areas," he explained.
The cost associated with accidents in the United States
is an enormous sum, even if the pain and suffering of the
individual and all indirect economic costs are ignored.
Consider, for example, disabling injuries—defined as injuries
resulting in the loss of one day's work. In 1968, the
National Safety Council reported 2.2 million disabling
injuries at work; it was estimated that the total time lost
due to work injuries was about 245 million man-days. If
each individual were paid at an average of $2.50 per hour and
worked an average of eight hours per day, then the total cost
of accidents at work would be about $4.9 billion. If domestic
noise had contributed substantially to as little as one per
cent of these accidents because of stress and fatigue, then
this component of the cost of domestic noise could be placed
at $49.0 million. The National Safety Council has estimated
the cost of accidents at the workspace in 1968 as $21.3
billion; given this amount, the plausible first approximation
due to noise would be $213 million.7
See Table A-7, Appendix.
See Table A-8, Appendix.
54
-------
There are numerous indirect economic costs associated
with accidents and fatalities which can be briefly summarized.
In addition to the loss of output, medical facilities, already
in short supply, are further burdened by accident cases. If
a significant reduction could be made in the accident rate
by the abatement of domestic noise, considerable direct and
indirect benefits would accrue to the economy as a whole.
Rather than attempt to put a price tag on domestic noise, it
seems more reasonable to approximate the total exposure of
individuals to various domestic noise generators. Table V-5
presents an estimate of the total number of people exposed to
noise generated from different kinds of appliances and tools.
It is evident that the exposure of individuals to noise
in the home is substantial and, from the section on the grow-
th in noise sources, it is also clear that domestic noise
will be an increasing problem in the future.
5.2 The Economics of Domestic Noise Abatement
The two alternatives for the reduction of domestic noise
are either to insulate the receiver from the source, or reduce
the noise generated by the source itself. From a practical
standpoint, the latter is the only viable alternative for
noise generators used within the home. Insulating the re-
ceiver from the source would require the homemaker and other
members of the family to don earmuffs or ear plugs when
certain noisy products are operating. Such a proposal is
patently absurd; the "cure" is worse than the disease. It
can be suggested, however, that more sound insulation, of
improved quality, in homes would reduce the annoyance from
"neighbor-generated" noise.
Because of the heterogeneity of noise generators used
within the home, it is not possible to obtain an estimate of
the total cost of noise abatement programs. The one generali-
zation that can be made, however, is that more money is
required to produce a quieter product. The cost of quieting
a particular product within a given time span can only be
determined on a product-by-product basis. In response to
letters sent to manufacturers who were promoting "quiet" as
a design feature of some of their products, some estimates
of the costs involved were obtained. Examples are cited
below.
(1) The addition of a reed muffler to a chain saw
decreased noise from 111 dB(A) to 101 dB(A)
and (added) only 2 per cent to the cost of the
chain saw package.
55
-------
Table V-5 Individuals in the United States
Exposed to Noise from Selected
Appliances or Tools, 1970.
Total Homemakers and
Potential Children Under
Exposure Six Years of Age
Appliance Millions
Clothes Washer 183.0 50.1
Vacuum Cleaner 181.0 49.5
Clothes Dryer 80.3 22.0
Air Conditioner
(Window & Central) 44.6 12.2
Dishwasher 47.1 12.9
Garbage Disposals 45.6 12.5
Food Mixer 163.0 44.5
Floor Polisher 31.9 8.7
Food Blender 63.1 17.1
Saws, Drills, etc. 39.8 11.9
Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
56
-------
(2) A major producer of room air conditioners in
1966 produced a quiet unit that decreased
noise levels inside a room by 15 per cent
and outside the house by 10 per cent.
Manufacturing costs rose 20 per cent.
(3) A manufacturer of garbage disposals states
that an insulating "sound shell" can be
placed around disposals to reduce noise at
an additional* cost of $2.00 per unit.
(4) A muffled pavement breaker has been developed
that reduces noise 6 to 8 dB(A) without loss
of efficiency. The retail price of the unit
increased from $705 to $815—or by 15 per
cent.
(5) A major manufacturer developed a "quiet" garbage
truck chassis that raised the price only one
per cent.
(6) Truck replacement mufflers that meet Society
of Automotive Engineers standards cost between
$58 to $80, while conventional mufflers cost
$20-$30 less. Under normal use, a truck
muffler wears out about once a year.
(7) A manufacturer of typewriters reports that
sound-attenuating materials on electric
typewriters adds only $0.60 to manufacturing
cos ts .
(8) A silenced metal garbage can has been created
that costs $1.80 more than a conventional
model.
From the examples presented, it is evident that the cost of
quieting the source varies substantially from a few cents or
as little as one per cent of total cost to as much as twenty
per cent of total cost. There are no generalizations that
can be made about the cost of quieting a particular product.
Until quite recently, few producers stressed or advertised
"quiet" as one of the attributes of their products. Apparent-
ly, the consumer has not voiced a sufficient distaste for
noise, perhaps regarding noise as the "price of progress"
57
-------
just as the belching smokestack at one time was the symbol
of prosperity rather than air pollution.
5.3 Noise Internal to the Residential Environment; A
Summary
There is ample evidence that millions of individuals
are currently exposed to noise generated by products within
and around the home. A plausible case can be made for
asserting that a causal link exists between noise, stress,
and fatigue, and accidents and fatalities. Without more
extensive study and better data, however, it is impossible
to estimate with much accuracy the economic costs of domestic
noise. Accidents and fatalities are, however, expensive to
both the individual and the economy. Efficiency in the
workspace which affects productivity and also the quality of
output are likely to be reduced from stress and fatigue
resulting from noise at home. Even if noise is only
indirectly responsible, a small percentage improvement in
productivity could have large economic consequences. As a
"ball park" estimate, therefore, it is reasonable to assert
that the economic cost of domestic noise is in the billions
of dollars.
At the present time, there appears to be no serious
risk of hearing impairment or loss due solely to domestic
noise. The economic cost of domestic noise is due to the
annoyance produced. With the rapid growth in noise sources
within the home, as shown in the section on the growth of
noise generators, and with the growth in noise-density, due
to increased population concentration, these annoyance effects
and the associated economic costs are likely to increase
dramatically in the near future. Case studies will be
required to determine the cost of domestic noise abatement
at the source. For some products, small expenditures have
produced quieter products, but for others, manufacturing costs
have been greatly increased to achieve noise reduction.
58
-------
Section VI
Spending for Noise Abatement
6.1 Federal Expenditures
Although federal spending for noise-related activities
has been growing slightly in recent years, the total for
fiscal years 1968 through 1971 is estimated to be slightly
more than $110 million. As Table VI-1 shows, between 60 and
70 per cent of total federal spending was made by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, primarily for
research and development activities for the Quiet Engine
Program and for the Super-Sonic Transport (SST) Program.
An internal report of the Subcommittee on Noise of the
Cabinet Committee on the Environment, chaired by the Secre-
tary of Commerce, indicates that in fiscal year 1970 about
95 per cent of total federal spending was for noise related
activities was directed toward problems associated with
aircraft noise. The share going to aircraft noise was about
85 per cent of the total in fiscal year 1971. This means, of
course, that in recent years only a small percentage of federal
spending on noise-related programs has been directed toward
highway, industrial, and other noise abatement programs. The
Long Range Planning Service of the Stanford Research Institute
forecasts that federal spending for aircraft noise abatement
will decrease in relative importance as the Federal Government
allocates more resources to reduce other sources of noise.
In contrast to spending for noise abatement, the Federal
Government spent $163 million on air and $829 million on
water pollution control and abatement activities in fiscal
year 1970, according to the first annual report of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
6.2 Private Spending
Although a few estimates have been made for individual
programs, no estimate presently exists on the amounts pri-
vate industry has spent for noise abatement problems in
recent years.1 For example, the Air Transport Association
of America estimates that the airlines and aircraft manu-
facturers spent about $200 million for the development and
An estimate of private spending for noise abatement would
have to take into account a large number of diverse expend-
itures, some of which would include the following:
59
-------
Table VI-1 Estimate of Federal Spending for Programs Related to Noise,
Fiscal Years 1968 to 1971
Federal Agency
NASA
Department of Transportation
Department of Defense3
Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Commerce
Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
1968
1969
1970
1971
Total
10.0
--
0.8
0.2
0.3
b
21.6
3.2
2.1
1.0
0.3
0.3
b
24. 7C
5.3
2.7
1.1
0.4
0.5
0.5
22.3
8.9
2.5
1.4
0.5
1.0
0.5
103.3
4.3
1.4
2.1
1.0
Total
11.3
28.5
35.2
37.1
112.1
aPrimarily spending by the Air Force.
"Not available
clncludes $4.67 million for NASA Acoustics Facility
Sources: Data for 1968 and 1969 from Stanford Research Institute, Long Range Planning Service, Noise
Pollution Control, Menlo Park, California, October 1970, p. 6. Data for 1970 and 1971 from Internal
Document, Cabinet Committee on the Environment, Subcommittee on Noise, Secretary of Commerce, Maurice
H. Stans, Chairman, 1970.
-------
installation of noise suppressors for the first commercial
jets.2 Some other examples of the kind of information
about private spending for noise reduction include the three
following case studies: spending at a General Electric
plant, at a paper mill, and at a manufacturing plant.
o
At a General Electric^ plant in Evansdale, Ohio, there
was a large office area adjacent to the factory. The adver-
tising and product information employees who worked in the
office were distracted by noises emanating from the factory,
and complained about the 75 - 78 dB(A) ambient sound level
in their office. The plant's industrial hygienist agreed
that they had a legitimate complaint, and decided to
re-suspend the ceiling, soundproof the doors, and acousti-
cally treat the walls. The cost of these modifications was
about $10,000, and management believes that they now have a
happier, more creative advertising and product information
department.^
Another industrial noise abatement project took place
at an eastern paper mill which had installed a new wood
"(Continued)
1. Sales of acoustical tile and other sound absorbing mate-
rials (also the cost of other noise-abating construction
techniques); 2. College or foundation or privately
sponsored research on noise abatement; 3. The incremental
costs to manufacturers to include the amount of noise-
abating materials that they have incorporated into their
products; 4. The incremental cost to New York City and to
other cities to purchase partially silenced garbage trucks;
5. Sales of earplugs and earmuffs; 6. The costs of fleeing
the urban environment that can be attributed to noise
pollution; 7. The cost of piped music to mask other noises;
and 8. The efforts of numerous citizen groups, some involv-
ing expensive lawsuits, to fight airport or traffic noise,
or, to press for noise legislation and standards.
Air Transport Association of America, A Fact Sheet on
Aircraft Noise Abatement, January 20, 1970.
3
Large Jet Engine Division (LJED) of G.E.
(.
Occupational Hazards, July 1968, pp. 33-36.
61
-------
chipper to speed-up production. The chipper cut logs into
small chips and blew them from the chipper room into
digesters through a system of pneumatic tubes. The operator
who monitored this process was subject to noise levels of
114 dB(A), well above all hearing damage risk criteria. To
solve this dilemma, a booth was constructed from which the
operator could monitor the chipper (and incidentally be pro-
tected from flying chips). The amount spent for this action
was around $2,500.
Case histories of industrial noise abatement costs can
even be mildly humorous. The following quotation relates
how a plant manager schemed to get money to enclose the noisy
screw machine department.
I arranged a stop on the Board of
Directors' shop tour at the foremen's desks
alongside the screw department. We used this
stop to talk about what cost reduction drives
had just done to cut manufacturing and inven-
tory costs. They all had their hands cupped
to their ears while I shouted at them with a
straight face.
At the next month's board meeting, the
$8,000 authorization went through without a
quibble as I expected. ^
6.3 Patents as a Surrogate for Spending
An important output of research and development expen-
diture are patented inventions. The literature on research
and development, as well as economic growth, reveals that
patented inventions have been used as a measure of scienti-
fic and technological output. The principal justification
for using patent activity as a measure of scientific progress
is that patents pass a recognition or acceptability test
(i.e., the examination in the Patent Office) for describing
an invention that contributes something new. Because of the
lack of available data on spending, patents are used here as
a surrogate of input or expenditures rather than as a surro-
gate for output, i.e., the value of research and development
expenditures.
Science and Technology. October 1969, p. 38
Factory. November 1967.
62
-------
The use of patented inventions as a measure of spending
for noise-related problems is not precise for a number of
reasons. First, there is no way to know whether the cost of
an "average invention" remains the same over time. Second,
there is no way to know whether the ratio of spending to
inventions, and then the ratio of inventions to patents, in
a given firm or sector of the economy, remains constant over
time. Third, research indicates that there is a wide vari-
ation among business firms, and also among non-profit insti^
tutions and the Federal Government, to file patent applica-
tions on invention disclosures. Finally, it is impossible
to identify patents issuing in any given year with R&D
expenditures in some earlier year. Although a patent appli-
cation usually pends for two and a half years in the Patent
Office before issue (if it meets Patent Office criteria for
patentability), some inventions are processed through the
Patent Office more rapidly than others. Also, many patents
cover inventions that are improvements on components of
larger products and processes, with the R&D expenditure
covering the entire product or process that is developed.
Despite these weaknesses, patents are the result of
research and development effort and they must in some way
mirror changes in levels of manpower and dollars going into
a given area of research. In part, this reflects the fact
that in early 1970, the Patent Office established a priority
program for anti-pollution inventions. The Patent Office
reports that a year after the inception of the program, 380
patent applications covering anti-pollution techniques and
devices completed the Patent Office's examination and pro-
cessing within eight months after application (as compared
with the normal two and a half years). The accelerated
process program has two important objectives. First, to
increase the speed at which the inventions get into use by
industry, and second, to make new information available to
other inventors as soon as possible.^
Tables VI-2 and VI-3 present information about the
growth in the numbers of patents issuing in Patent Office
subclasses that relate to acoustics or to noise abatement
devices. The relevant subclasses were selected by a Patent
Office Examiner with many years of experience in the field
of acoustics. The data in Table VI-2 give the number of
"Patent Office Approves 380 Anti-Pollution Applications
Under Priority Program," Commerce Today. March 8, 1971,
Vol. I No. 2, p. 30. The Patent Office does not have a
classification of these inventions by field, i.e., those
covering air, water, solid waste, noise, etc.
63
-------
Table VI-2 Number of United States Patents Issued In Patent Office Subclasses that
Relate to Acoustics or Noise Abatement Devices, 1959 - 1970
Year Chemical3
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
61
29
36
36
22
38
50
35
24
20
56
46
Metalb
Working
14
28
39
31
26
21
62
53
46
45
42
34
Patent Office Class or Subclass
Buildings
h
h
h
h
h
h
3
8
4
5
8
3
Gas
Separation
h
h
h
1
0
1
2
3
4
3
0
4
Power
Plants6
8
6
5
24
12
8
222
24
18
24
18
22
Acoustics*
48
69
52
44
88
58
86
61
51
58
57
72
Fluid
Sprinkling,
Spraying §
Diffusing g Total
0 131
0 132
0 132
0 136
0 148
0 126
0 225
0 184
2 149
0 155
3 194
2 183
Total
453
441
31
18
201
744
1,895
23 Subclasses: 284 (Chambers and Stacks) and 288 (Catalytic)
DClass 29 Subclass: 157 (Gas and Water)
52 Subclasses: 144, 145, 404, 405, 406, and 407
55 Subclass: 276 (Noise Attenuation)
eClass 60, Subclasses: 29 (Exhaust Treatment) and 30 (Fluid Mingling)
fClass 181, Subclasses: 30, and 33 through 72
Sciass 239, Subclass: 265.13 (Reaction Mortar Discharge Nozzle) with Retractible Noise Suppressing
Steam Divider
"No Issues
Sources: Compiled from data in United States Patent Office, Index of Patents, 1959-1969 and United States
Patent Office, Official Gazette. 1970.
-------
ut
Table VI-3 Growth in United States Patents Issued in Patent Office Subclasses that Relate
to Acoustics or Noise Abatement Devices, 1959 - 1970
Growth Rate in Percent
Subclass
Chanicala
Metal Workingb
Buildings0
Gas Separation*1
Power Plants6
Acoustics*
Fluid Sprinkling,
Spraying, and
DiffusingS
All Subclasses
Except 23
Mufflers and Sound
Filters11
All U. S. Patents
Issued
Growth in Number of Patents Per Year
Per Year (Linear Regression) (Logarthnic Regression)
y = 605.38 +
r2 = .50
y = 462.44 +
r2 = .86
y = 443.67 +
r2 = .11
y = 124.42 +
r2 = .74
y = 620.95 +
r2 = .63
y - 111.35 +
r2 - .36
y = 200.33 +
r2 = .41
29.95t
68.45t
29.86t
25.72t
7.76t
4.51t
10.44t
y = 2.80 +
r2 = .48
y = 2.71 +
r2 = .88
y - 2.57 + .
r2 = .18
y - 2.12 + .
r2 = .76
y = 2.79 + .
* o
r2 = .58
y = 2.04 + .
r2 = .42
y = 2.30 + .
r2 = .44
.02x
.03x
04x
OSx
Olx
02x
02x
Item
1959 - 1970
#23
#29
#52*
#55**
#60
#181
#239***
y = 83.38 + 5.65t
r2 = .48
y - 17.03 + .10t
r2 = .05
y = 45862.95 + 1644.58t
r2 = .50
y = 1.92 + .02x
rz = .53
y = 1.17 + .Olx
r2 = .13
y = 4.67 + .Olx
r2 = .50
E Subclasses
(except #23)
#33
Total All Patents
Issued
-------
Table VI-3 (Continued)
*From 1965-1971
**From 1962-1971
***1969 Eliminated
aClass 23, Subclasses: 284 (Chambers and Stacks) and 288 (Catalytic)
bClass 29, Subclass: 157 (Gas and Water)
cClass 52, Subclass: 144, 145, 404, 405, 406, and 407
Class 55, Subclass: 276 (Noise Attenuation)
eClass 60, Subclasses: 29 (Exhaust treatment) and 30 (Fluid Mingling)
Class 181, Subclasses: 30, and 33 through 72
sClass 239, Subclass: 265.13 (Reaction Mortar Discharge Nozzle) with Retractible
Noise Suppressing Steam Divider
No issues Subclass 33
Key to Symbols
y = Growth, Growth Rate
t = time (years)
x, = log t
r = coefficient of determination; statistical measure of the amount of
variation in "y" explained by "t" or "x".
Source: Compiled from data in United States Patent Office, Index of Patents, 1959-1969,
and United States Patent Office, Official Gazette, 1970
-------
patents issued in seven broad fields (chemical, metal work-
ing, buildings, gas separation, power plants, acoustics and
fluid sprinkling, spraying, and diffusing) between 1959 and
1970. It must be emphasized that these patents are Patent
Office subclasses that are most likely to cover inventions
that relate to noise abatement devices. Without examining
each patent disclosure, it is impossible to know whether
they do in fact.8 The data in Table VI-3 give the average
increase in the number of patents issued each year and the
rate of growth in the number of patents that issue. All
coefficients are positive, which means that the number of
patents issued is increasing over time.9
The data in Table VI-3 show that all United States
patents issued are growing at about 2.3 percent per annum.
Patents relating to noise in Class 60 (Power Plants) are
growing at about the same rate as are those in subclass 33
(Mufflers and sound filters) of Class 181 (Acoustics). The
names of other subclasses in Class 181 are the following:
o
Although each invention was not analyzed closely, the data
collection process reviewed that class 29 (metal-working -
subclass 157) and class 60 (Power Plants - subclasses 29
and 30) contained a large number of patents that covered
devices for air pollution control relating to exhaust from
different kinds of motors. It is believed that class 23
(subclasses 284 and 288 contained the largest number of
inventions that did not relate explicitly to noise abate-
ment and that class 181 (subclasses 30 and 33 through 72)
contained the largest number of inventions relating to
noise abatement.
9 2
The low r 's for a number of the items means that the fit
of the equation is not good and the coefficient is not good
for forecasting changes in the level of patenting activity
in those classes. The purpose of this analysis is not to
forecast changes in the numbers of patents in these sub-
classes. Moreover, with increased federal and private con-
cern over noise-related problems, it is reasonable to
assume that the numbers of inventions in these subclasses
will increase more rapidly in the future. This is especi-
ally true if the Patent Office continues its Priority
Program for Anti-Pollution inventions.
67
-------
33 Mufflers and Sound Filters
34 Mouthpieces
35 Fluid conducting or guiding
36 Combined
37 With safety valve
38 with cut-out
39 Underwater exhaust
40 Manifold
41 Through passage
42 With sound absorbing material
43 With fluid mingling
44 With by-pass
45 Valve controlled
46 Multi-passage
47 Expansion chamber
48 Side branch chamber
49 Baffle type
50 With sound absorbing material
51 With fluid mingling
52 Liquid
53 Retroverted
54 With side branch chamber
55 Coaxial foraminous walls
56 Multi-passage
57 Expansion chamber
58 Centrifugal flow
59 Side branch chamber
60 Multiple outlet
61 Casings
62 Insulated
63 Baffle structure
64 Moving
65 Biased
66 Spiral
67 Helical
68 Perpendicular and oblique
69 Perpendicular
70 Oblique
71 Filling material
72 Accessories
Subclass 33 is the largest subclass in the acoustics area.
Inventions in other subclasses that relate to acoustics or
noise abatement devices are growing more rapidly than the
number of total patents issued. For example, the relevant
subclasses in chemicals; fluid sprinkling, spraying, and
diffusing; and acoustics (except mufflers and sound filters)
are growing at a rate of 4.7 per cent per annum. Noise
related patents in metal working are growing at 7.2 per cent
each year and those in the building class at about 9.6
per cent per annum.
68
-------
Tables VI-4 and VI-5 show patenting activity for noise-
related inventions from a different point of view - the
ownership of inventions at time of issue. Although the
stringency varies among the different Federal agencies and
also among private business, both the Federal Government and
private companies usually require inventors to assign titles
to patents to the funding organization. The data in these
tables reflect the relative amount of R&D on noise-related
problems undertaken by the Federal Government, individuals,
and business, during the past decade or so. Table VI-4 gives
a percentage distribution for all relevant subclasses in
seven broad patent office classes. Table VI-5 gives the
number of patents, by assignee, in subclass 33 (Mufflers and
sound filters) of Class 181 (acoustics).
The data displayed in both Table VI-4 and Table VI-5
strongly suggest that the private sector of the economy has
been more active than the Federal Government in R&D on
noise-related problems. During the entire 12-year period,
the Federal Government acquired titles to less than five
per cent, and in most years no more than two per cent, of all
of the patents issuing in these subclasses. The same kind
of distribution of patents between the Federal Government
and private industry existed before World War II when the
Federal R&D effort was just beginning to grow. Before
World War II, universities, individuals, and private indus-
try spent more for R&D than the Federal Government.
6.4 An Estimate of the Level of R&D Spending on Noise
Abatement in the 1960's
In 1968, the National Bureau of Standards assisted in
the preparation of a report for the Task Force on Noise of
the Federal Council on Science and Technology.^ f^g
information developed tends to confirm patent statistics
which show that most R&D on noise abatement was in the area
of applied research and development and was undertaken by
private industry. It was found that the Federal Government
funded almost no research in the field of acoustics, apart
from acoustical research associated with defense
requirements. Based on a review of the Commerce Business
Daily, the report identifies an expenditure of $259 thousand
between 1963 and 1967 sponsored by the Federal Housing
Internal Memorandum, from the National Bureau of Standards
to the Members of the Federal Council on Science and
Technology, Task Force on Noise, February 20, 1968.
69
-------
Table VT-4 Percentage Distribution of United States Patents Issued in Patent Office
Subclasses that Relate to Acoustics or Noise Abatement Devices, By Assignee
1959 - 1970
Year
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Federal
Government
4
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
Individual
18
27
21
25
19
16
25
20
17
17
18
14
Foreign
12
10
19
13
10
13
15
10
15
16
16
27
Large
Business3
34
33
27
31
30
45
32
32
33
30
31
29
Other Business
32
29
32
31
40
25
26
37
34
35
35
29
aAmong the Fortune 500 in 1970
Sources: Compiled from data in United States Patent Office: Index of Patents, 1959 - 1969, and United
States Patent Office, Official Gazette. 1970.
-------
Table VI-5 Number of United States Patents Issued in Class 181 (Acoustics), Subclass 33
(Mufflers and Sound Filters), by Assignee, 1959 - 1970
Year
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Total
Federal
Government
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1_
4
Individual
0
6
4
6
3
1
3
5
2
1
1
4_
36
Foreign
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
1
2
3
6^
32
Large
Business3
2
3
6
5
9
9
5
5
3
3
8
5_
63
Other
Business
4
2
6
4
22
5
9
5
6
2
4
5_
74
Total
8
14
19
18
38
17
19
18
12
9
16
21
209
aAnong the Fortune 500 in 1970.
Sources: Compiled from data in United States Patent Office, Index of Patents, 1959 - 1969, and United
States Patent Office, Official Gazette. 1970.
-------
Administration. The report also lists two contracts of an
undetermined cost for noise reduction in hospitals funded
by the Public Health Service between 1963 and 1967.12 The
report estimated that in the late 1960's, the national effort
of the United States on noise pollution and its abatement
was so far below that of the Canadian Government that the
United States would have to accelerate its research effort
by "one hundred fold" to match the then existing Canadian
program on a per capita basis.13 Although the report prob-
ably neglected to account for a number of studies because of
the complicated nature of Government R&D procurement, it
does strongly suggest that the Federal Government did not
have a positive program in the area of noise pollution and
its abatement in the late 1960's.
6.5 Research Efforts of Associations
One way to find out about research conducted in the
private sector of the economy is to ask associations about
their activities and the activities of their members in the
area of noise and its abatement. Many, if not most,
national associations have representatives located in
Washington, D. C. In August 1971, telephone calls were made
to approximately 80 associations in the Washington metropo-
litan area that could be interested in problems associated
with noise. Whenever possible, the calls were made to
directors of research or to librarians. The associations
included representatives of industrial, labor, and consumer
groups. Of the 80 associations called, about 30 stated that
they were interested in the matter of noise and its abate-
ment; and 13 organizations provided information about their
research efforts. Initially, it was hoped that the associa-
tions could estimate the amounts of money spent on noise
related research; unfortunately this was not possible.
Table VI-6 lists the names of those organizations that
provided information about their research efforts. The
table also indicates the kinds of research sponsored or under-
taken by the Associations. The research efforts of these
The Commerce Business Daily, is a publication of the
Federal Government that lists contract proposals and also
contracts awarded by the Federal Government.
12
Internal Memorandum from NBS to FCST, p. 18.
13Ibid., p. 16
72
-------
"feble VI-6 Research Activities of Selected Associations Concerned with Noise Abatement
Association
Garments on Kind of Research
Aerospace Industries Association
of America
American Automobile Association
American Highway Users Association
American Speech and Hearing Association
American Trucking Association
Airport Operators Council
International
Air Transport Association of America
Forest Industries Council
National Association of Air Traffic
Specialists
National League of Cities and U. S.
Conference of Mayors
National Machine Tool Builders
Association
Conducts and sponsors research and disseminates research
conducted by others.
Collects and disseminates information gathered by others.
Conducts research and disseminates research undertaken by
others.
Collects research of others, principal interest is effects of
noise on receivers.
Sponsors research, emphasis on research on noise reduction at
the source
Sponsors research and disseminates research of others, emphasis
on importance of Federal R§D to reduce noise at source.
Coi hicts research and disseminates research of others.
Collects and disseminates research undertaken by others.
Collects and disseminates research of others.
Sponsors research and disseminates research of others, emphasis
of research on a "Model Noise Ordinance" for cities.
Collects research of others, principal emphasis on measurement
techniques.
-------
Table VI-6 (Continued)
Association
Comments on Kind of Research
National Safety Council
Sierra Club
Conducts research and disseminates research results of
others. Forces of research on measurement and effects
on receiver.
Collects research of others.
-------
associations include: (1) the conduct of research,
(2) sponsoring research, and (3) data collection and dissem-
ination. The comments listed in the table do not distinguish
between the magnitudes of research undertaken by these
organizations. Some of the research conducted by these
associations consisted of rather short reports, whereas the
research of other organizations were sizeable projects that
could have cost in excess of $100,000.
Although no conclusions can be drawn about R&D expendi-
tures, based on the activities of associations in the pri-
vate sector, the telephone survey strongly suggests that a
growing number of organizations are becoming concerned about
noise-related problems. With only one or two exceptions,
the research conducted or sponsored by these organizations
is of recent origin - most of which was undertaken between
1969 and 1971.
6.6 Spending for Noise Abatement; A Summary
In part, the lack of empirical information required for
an economic appraisal of the costs of noise and its abate-
ment is reflected by the fact that spending for noise
research during the last 10 years has been small. In addi-
tion, most of the research that has been undertaken has been
applied research and developmental engineering conducted by
private industry. Although it is tautologous, it is impor-
tant to emphasize that without research and data, it is
impossible to know the cost of noise to society. And, with-
out knowing the cost of noise, it is not possible to esti-
mate either the benefits that will accrue to society from
various levels of abatement, nor is it possible to estimate
the costs of abatement to producers and to consumers in the
form of higher prices.
75
-------
Section VII
Summary and Conclusions
From the foregoing analysis, several general conclusions
can be obtained. First, it is apparent that aircraft noise
is presently a major problem with substantial economic costs.
Secondly, because of the lack of data on noise levels and
an inadequate understanding of the effects of noise, it is
difficult to assess the cost of noise within the home or from
nearby highways and freeways. Thirdly, if the trends in
growth in noise generators and in urban/suburban population
concentrations continue, noise could become a much more
serious problem in the near future. Finally, practical as
well as economic considerations suggest that it is generally
preferable to attempt to abate noise at the source, rather
than insulate the noise receiver.
Industrial noise has already been recognized as a major
problem by the Department of Labor's regulations promulgated
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The
data on the relationship between noise levels, productivity,
accidents, and employee morale and turnover are fragmentary
at best. It is plausible to assert that noise in the indus-
trial environment does influence the quantity and quality of
output as well as labor turnover costs. The economic impact
of these considerations could be substantial, but research
is required before quantification of the economic cost of
industrial noise is possible.
Compared to research on air and water pollution, re-
search on the economics of noise is in a state of infancy.
For example, in 1968, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration began a complete assessment of waste treatment
facilities for all population served by sewers in the United
States. Most states have made estimates of the amounts of
money that might be required to clean up the nation's rivers
and streams, but almost no effort has been undertaken in the
area of noise.
Because it is neither technologically feasible nor
economical currently to manufacture a totally quiet jet
engine, a combination of retrofitting jet engines, providing
a noise right of way around airports, and insulating homes
will be necessary to achieve an acoustically acceptable
living environment around major airports. Therefore research
should be directed toward a "Land Use Planning Policy" which
76
-------
provides for noise rights of way between airports or major
highways and freeways and the residential environment.
Moreover, noise from jet aircraft should be considered
in conjunction with the air pollution problem caused by the
jet, and an "integrated" attempt at solving both problems
simultaneously should be made. In short, noise should not
be viewed as a separate problem when other forms of pollution
were also present. The same reasoning should be applied to
other noise sources as well, e.g., highway vehicles.
An analysis is required of the economic trade-offs
between the benefits derived by communities from highways
and the costs of the associated noise. Freeways provide
access to areas which could influence the relocation of
industry and regional growth rates. Such benefits, however,
must be weighed against the cost of highway noise abatement
and the cost of the noise itself.
Studies should be made to determine the economic impact
of noise standards for products. The economic consequences
of noise abatement on prices, GNP, employment, etc., will
depend upon the "time frame" in which the abatement is
effected. "Crash programs" requiring immediate compliance
could produce significant price increases and have an adverse
effect on employment, foreign trade, and productivity. The
gradual "phasing in" of such standards, however, could avoid
some of these consequences. Thus, research efforts should
be devoted to consideration of the time requirement on
abatement regulations, the impact on manufacturers and on
prices paid by the consumer.
Another important area of further research is an analysis
of the effects that noise standards have on the competitive
position of United States products in foreign countries. The
combined effect of all environmental quality standards on
changes in costs of production and therefore price should be
appraised in view of the chronic balance of payments deficit
witnesses by the United States during the past decade. The
principle research effort should concentrate on changes in
the relative prices of United States goods in world markets
resulting from the cost of compliance to environmental quality
standards versus possible reductions in imports into the
United States because of foreign noncompliance with United
States standards.
There is, of course, the converse problem in that U. S.
exports may not meet foreign noise standards. This is
also worthy of further research.
77
-------
Research efforts should also be directed toward the
investigation of the economic effects of noise on property
values. Studies of property values in noise areas versus
control properties in "quiet" areas are required to remove
the ambiguity in the results obtained from such efforts to
date. Particular attention to the resale values and turnover
rates of noise affected properties will aid an economic im-
pact evaluation of noise in the residential environment.
Research on the economic cost of industrial noise
should focus on the effects of noise on factors which in-
fluence the quality and quantity of output. The effect of
noise on worker attitudes and acciden-t rates must also be
investigated in order to understand the economic implications
of industrial noise. Such efforts will have to attempt to
quantify the relationship between noi'se levels and accident
rates, worker productivity, and lower turnover.
Another important area of research is an estimate of
the economic costs and benefits of alternative means of
measuring noise and alternative methods of enforcing allowable
noise standards. The cost and the effectiveness of various
noise measurement instruments are likely to cover the wide
spectrum from inexpensive and not very effective to inexpen-
sive and sufficiently effective, and from expensive and
sufficiently effective to expensive and super-effective. It
is obvious that if noise abatement standards are not enforced,
the established norms would become meaningless. Again, there
is an economic trade-off between the levels and means of
enforcing standards and the benefits derived from those
different enforcement techniques.
78
-------
APPENDIX A
CONTENTS
Table Page
A-l Airport Operations by Year and Type at All
Airports with FAA Towers, 1957-1968 81
A-2 Noise Sources: Growth in Selected Series
Related to Surface Transportation Noise,
Selected Years, 1950-1970 82
A-3 Vehicle Miles of Travel in the United States
Selected Years, 1940-1968 84
A-4 Value of New Construction Put in Pace,
Selected Years, 1950-1969 85
A-5 Motor Vehicle Registration, Selected Years,
1950-1975 86
A-6 Noise Sources: Growth in Selected Types of
Home Appliances, 1959-1970 87
A-7 Disabling Injuries by Sources of Injury,
1959-1970 88
A-8 National Accident Fatality Toll, by Source of
Accident, 1959-1970 .... 89
A-9 Estimated Lost Time and Cost of Accidents,
1959-1970 90
A-10 Deaths from Accidents in Selected Industries,
1959-1970 91
A-ll Disabling Injuries from Accidents in Selected
Industries, 1959-1970 92
A-12 Factors Affecting Productivity and the .Level
of Output, 1960-1970 93
A-13 Sales of Selected Noise Generating Home
Products, 1959-1970 94
A-14 Sales of Hearing Aids, 1963-1970 95
A-15 Noise Sources: Number of Production Workers
in Selected Industries, 1959-1966 ....... 96
79
-------
APPENDIX A CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Table
Page
A-16 Estimated Number of Selected Types of
Earthmoving Equipment, 1960-1970 98
A-17 Noise Sources : Growth in Selected Types of
Earthmoving Equipment, 1960-1970 99
80
-------
Table A-l Airport Operations by Year and Type at
All Airports with FAA Towers, 1957 - 1968
Year
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Total
25,149,667
26,593,337
26,905,856
25,773,990
26,300,767
28,200,570
30,976,773
34,194,659
37,870,535
44,952,816
49,886,840
55,292,035
Air Carrier
7,112,208
6,997,079
7,352,849
7,164,394
6,980,246
7,059,630
7,339,533
7,447,434
7,819,114
8,206,322
9,359,960
10,377,089
General
Aviation
12,128,625
14,032,448
15,008,103
14,826,063
15,527,863
17,367,249
19,921,053
23,019,865
26,572,650
33,445,126
37,222,622
41,564,024
Military
5,908,834
5,563,810
4,544,904
3,783,533
3,792,658
3,773,691
3,716,187
3,727,360
3,478,771
3,301,368
3,304,258
3,350,922
Number
of FAA
Towers
205
213
222
229
254
270
111
278
292
304
313
322
Source: Federal Aviation Administration
81
-------
on
Item
Automobile, Bus
Motorcycle Miles
of Travel
Truck Miles of
Travel
Value of New
Construction
Value of New
Highway and
Street
Construction
Total Motor
Vehicle
Registration
Automobile
Registration
Truck or Bus
Registration
Table A-2 Noise Sources:
Transportat ion
Source
Statistical
Abstract of
United States
Statistical
Abstract of
United States
Statistical
Abstract
of United States
Statistical
Abstract of
United States
Bureau of Public
Roads, Federal
Housing
Administrat ion,
Department of
Transportat ion
Bureau of Public
Roads, FHA, DOT
Bureau of Public
Roads, FHA, DOT
Growth in Selected Series Related to Surface
Noise, Selected Years, 1950 - 1970.
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
Units (Linear Regression)
Millions Y = 548526 + 28897t
of Miles r2 = .980
Millions Y = 120427 + 8192.7t
of Miles r2 = .981
Million
of Dollars,
1957-59
Prices
Millions
of Dollars,
1957-59
Prices
Number in
Millions
Number in
Millions
Number in
Millions
Y = 52465 + 1306.lt
r2 = .862
Y = 6115.32 + 140.59t
r2 = .562
Y = 69.93 + 3.43t
r2 = .998
Y = 55.78 + 2.75t
r2 = .996
Y = 10.87 + .62t
r2 = .985
Growth Rate in Per
Cent Per Year
Logarithmic Regression
Y = 5.746 + .018x
r2 = .984
Y = 5.091 + 022x
r2 = .966
Y = 4.720 +.010x
r2 = .881
Y = 3.784 + .OlOx
r2 = .586
Y = 1.833 + .017x
r2 = .996
Y = 1.753 + .OlTx
r2 = .996
Y = 1.05 + .018x
r2 = .992
-------
Table A-2 (Continued)
I tan
Motorcycle
Registrations
Source
Statistical
Abstract of
United States
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
Units (Linear Regression)
Thousands Y = 353.37 + 192.53t
of Units r2 = .988
Growth Rate in Per
Cent Per Year
Logarithmic Regression
Y = 2.718 + .068x
r^ = .974
00
-------
Table A-3 Vehicle Miles of Travel in the United States
(Millions)
Selected Years, 1940 - 1968
Autos, Buses,
Year Motorcycles Truck Total
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
252,257
204,232
367,694
492,047
592,436
649,854
682,229
716,376
756,592
779,097
819,000
49,931
45,941
90,552
111,387
126,409
155,569
164,271
171,436
173,905
182,456
196,650
302,188
250,173
458,246
603,434
718,845
805,423
846,500
887,812
930,497
961,553
1,015,650
Source: United States Department of Transportation.
84
-------
Table A-4 Value of New Construction Put in Place
(Millions of 1957 - 1959 Dollars),
Selected Years, 1950 - 1969
Highway and Type of Construction
Year Street Construction Private Public Total
1950
1955
1960
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
$2,722
4,396
5,758
6,998
7,003
7,108
7,365
7,269
7,565
6,886
$34,309
38,394
36,518
40,308
40,861
43,780
43,208
40,967
43,775
44,911
$ 9,267
13,323
15,653
17,793
18,311
19,116
19,733
20,177
20,657
19,258
$43,576
51,717
52,171
58,101
59,172
62,896
62,941
61,144
64,432
64,169
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States
85
-------
Table A-5 Motor Vehicle Registration (Millions),
Selected Years, 1950 - 1975b
Year
1950
1955
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969b
1970b
197lb
1972b
1973b
1974b
1975b
Automobiles
40.
52.
59.
61.
63.4
66.1
69.0
71.9
75
78
80
83
86
89.0
91.4
93.7
95.9
98.0
100.1
Vehicle Type
Trucks and Busses
8.8
10.6
11.9
12.2
12.
13.
13.
14.
15.
,6
.1
.7
.3
.1
15.9
16,
17.
18.
18.
19.
19.
20.
20.
21.2
Motorcycles
.45
a
a
.570
a
a
a
a
1.38
1.75
1.95
2.10
2.26
a
a
a
a
a
a
Available
"Automobile, Truck, and Bus Registrations are estimates by the Bureau of
Public Roads
Source: U. S. Department of Transportation
86
-------
Table A-6 Noise Sources: Growth in Selected Types of Home Appliances, 1959 - 1970.
Item
Automatic Washers
Source
Association of
Home Appliance
Manufacturers
Units
Number in
Thousands
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
(Linear Regression)
Y = 2541.68 + 142.20t
rz = .842
Growth Rate in Per
Cent Per Year
(Logarithmic Regression)
Y = 3.416 + .018x
r2 = .822
00
Window Air
Conditioners
Power Lawn
Mowers
Central Air
Conditioning
Units
Garbage Disposers
Dishwashers
Association of
Home Appliance
Manufacturers
Outdoor Power
Equipment
Institute, Inc.
Air Conditioning
and Refrigeration
Institute
Association of
Home Appliance
Manufacturers
Association of
Home Appliance
Manufacturers
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Y = 429.14 + 406.36t Y = 3.059 + .058x
r2 = .908 r2 = .938
Y = 3328.03 + 184.79t
r2 = .826
Y = 18.121 + 126.58t
r2 = .946
Y = 519.94 + 117.54t
r2 = .944
Y9= 252.62 + 176.43t
rz = .979
Y = 3.534 + .018x
r2 = .815
Y = 2.401 + .070x
r2 = .990
Y = 2.819 + .041x
r2 = .952
Y = 2.686 + ,064x
r2 = .980
-------
Table A-7 Disabling Injuries by Source of Injury (000fs),
1959 - 1970
Year
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
Motor
Vehicle
2,000
a
2,000
1,900
1,900
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,400
1,400
Work
2,200
a
2,200
2,200
2,200
2,100
2,050
2,000
2,000
1,900
1,950
1,950
Source of
Home
4,000
a
4,300
4,300
4,400
4,200
4,300
4,400
4,300
4,000
4,100
3,900
Injury
Public
2,700
a
2,600
2,500
2,400
2,400
2,250
2,200
2,100
2,100
2,050
2,050
Total
10,800
a
11,000
10,800
10,800
10,400
10,200
10,100
9,800
9,300
9,400
9,200
Available
Source: National Safety Council.
88
-------
Table A-8 National Accident Fatality Toll, by Source of
Accident, 1959 - 1970
Source of Accident
Year
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Motor
Vehicle
37,800
38,200
38,000
40,900
43,600
47,700
49,000
53,000
53,100
55,200
56,400
54,800
Work
13,800
13,800
13,500
13,700
14,200
14,200
14,100
14,500
14,200
14,300
14,200
14,200
Home
26,000
27,500
26,500
28,500
29,000
28,500
28,000
29,500
28,500
28,500
27,000
26,500
Public
16,500
16,500
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
19,000
19,500
20,000
20,500
21,000
22,000
Total
91,000
93,000
91,500
97,000
101,000
105,000
107,000
113,000
112,000
115,000
115,000
114,000
Source: National Safety Council
89
-------
Table A-9 Estimated Lost Time and Cost of
Accidents, 1959 - 1970
Time Lost Due to Work
Injuries (Millions of Cost of Accidents
Year Man Days) (Billions of Dollars')
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
230.0
230.0
230.0
235.0
230.0
235.0
235.0
255.0
245.0
245.0
250.0
250.0
13.0
13.6
14.5
15.5
16.1
16.7
18.0
20.0
21.3
22.7
a
a
Available
Source: National Safety Council.
90
-------
Table A-10 Deaths from Accidents in Selected Industries, 1959 - 1970.
Industry
Source
Units
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
(Linear Regression)
Growth Rate in Per
Cent Per Year
(Logarithmic Regression)
Construction
Trade
Manufacturing
Mining, Quarrying,
Oil and Gas Wells
Agriculture
Transportat ion
and Public Utilities
Service Industry
Government
National Safety Number
Council
National Safety Number
Council
National Safety Number
Council
National Safety Number
Council
National Safety Number
Council
National Safety Number
Council
National Safety Number
Council
National Safety Number
Council
Y - 2311.7 + 45.96t
rz = .767
Y = 1184 + 6.23t
r2 = .283
Y = 1783 + 1.39t
r2 = .0035
Y = 766.54 - 13.9H
r2 = .643
Y = 3565.7 - 89.71t
r2 = .900
Y = 1553 + 18.75t
rz = .474
Y = 1730 + 78.57t
r2 = .991
Y = 1475 + 46.79t
r2 = ,866
Y = 3.365 + .008x
rz = .741
Y = 3.074 + .002x
TL = .352
Y = 3,253 + .0003x
rz = .002
Y = 2.883 - .007x
r2 = .483
Y = 3.557 - .013x
r1 = .851
Y = 3.192 + .005x
r2 = .463
Y = 3.245 + ,016x
r2 = .994
Y = 3.170 + .013x
r2 = .964
-------
Table A-ll Disabling Injuries from Accidents in Selected Industries, 1959 - 1970.
vo
Industry
Construction
Trade
Manufacturing
Mining,
Quarrying, Oil
and Gas Wells
Agriculture
Transportation
and Public
Utilities
Service
Industry
Government
Source
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
Units
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Number in
Thousands
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
(Linear Regression)
Y = 192.07 + 4.51t
r2 = .904
Y = 359.67 + 3.86t
r2 « .438
Y = 363.32 + 10.05t
r2 = .770
Y = 47.55 - .49t
r2 - .132
Y = 310.4 - 8.43t
r2 = .925
Y = 184.2 4- 1.54t
r2 = .632
Y = 315 + 16.43t
r2 = .994
Y = 265 + 9.29t
r2 = .862
Growth Rate in Per
Cent Per Year
(Logarithmic Regression)
Y = 2.284 + .009x
r2 - .904
Y = 2.56 + .004x
r2 = .446
Y = 2.563 + .OlOx
r2 = .769
Y = 1.675 - .005x
r2 - .131
Y = 2.501 - .015x
r2 = .898
Y = 2.268 + .003x
r2 = .632
Y = 2.500 4- .02x
r2 = 1.00
Y = 2.42 + .016x
r2 = .910
-------
Table k-12. factors kitectixifc "Productivity and tYve Level oi Output, 1960 - 1970.
vO
to
Item
Cost of
Accidents
Deaths at
Work from
Accidents
Disabling
Injuries at
Work from
Accidents
Time Lost
due to Work
Injury
Deaths at
Home from
Accidents
Disabling
Injuries at
Home from
Accidents
Hypertension
Rate in United
States
Hearing Aid
Units Sold
Source
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
National Safety
Council
Statistical Abstract
of United States
National Hearing
Aid Journal
Units
Millions of
Dollars
Uumber
Number
Millions of
Man-Days
Number
Number
Deaths Per
100,000
Number
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
(Linear Regression)
Y = 11247 + 1072t
r2 = .969
Y = 13674 + 59.09t
r2 = .537
Y = 1877.7 + 31.28t
r2 = .867
Y = 224.99 + 2.165t
r2 = .697
Y - 27469 + 55.94t
r2 = .032
Y = 4099.2 + 16.54t
r2 = .110
Y = 65.287 - 1.916t
r2 = .992
Y = 336130 -1- 19354t
r2 = .924
Growth Rate
Cent Per
(Logarithmic
Y = 4.079
r2 =
Y = 4.136
r2 =
Y = 3.275
r2 =
Y = 2.353
r2 =
Y = 4.438
r2 =
Y = 3.612
r2 =
Y = 1.82 -
r2 =
Y = 5.535
r2 =
in Per
Year
Regression)
+ .026x
.962
+ .002x
.529
+ ,007x
.866
+ .004x
.697
+ .OOlx
.033
+ .002x
.110
.018x
.994
+ .02x
.923
-------
Table A-13 Sales of Selected Noise Generating Home Products (OOO's),
1959 - 1970
VO
Year
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Garbage
Disposals
789
760
800
890
1,090
1,300
1,355
1,410
1,356
1,738
1,943
1,976
Dishwashers
a
555
620
720
880
1,050
1,290
1,528
1,586
1,960
2,118
2,116
Product
Automatic
Washers
2,934
2,562
2,668
2,975
3,296
3,541
3,771
3,890
3,878
4,140
4,068
3,869
Air Conditioning
Room Central
1,660
1,580
1,500
1,580
1,945
2,725
2,960
3,345
4,129
4,026
5,459
5,887
307
350
366
468
580
702
826
959
1,047
1,235
1,635
1,616
Power
Lawn Mowers
4,200
3,800
3,500
4,000
3,900
4,100
4,500
4,900
4,900
5,200
5,700
5,650
Available
Sources: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Outdoor
Power Equipment Institute, Inc., and Airconditioning and
Refrigeration Institute.
-------
Table A-14 Sales of Hearing Aids
1963 - 1970
Year Number of Units
1963 363,379
1964 387,449
1965 393,531
1966 400,207
1967 410,573
1968 448,895
1969 470,981
1970 510,747
Source: National Hearing Aid Journal.
95
-------
Table A-15 Noise Sources: Number of Production Workers in Selected Industries, 1959 - 1966.
\o
Industry Units
Mining Number in
Thousands
General Building Number in
Contractors Thousands
Heavy Construction Number in
Contractors Thousands
Lumber and Number in
Wood Products Thousands
Primary Metal Number in
Industries Thousands
Fabricated Metal Number in
Products Thousands
Textile Mill Number in
Products Thousands
Railroad Transportation Number in
(All Employees) Thousands
Local and Inter-Urban Number in
Passenger Transit Thousands
(All Employees)
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
(Linear Regression)
Y = 588.4 - 14.7t
r2 - .86
Y = 755.2 + 12.4t
r2 = .34
Y = 489.4 + 9.It
r2 = .72
Y = 567.4 - 6.0t
r2 = .36
Y - 902.3 + 19.2t
r2 = .54
Y - 795.6 + 24.9t
r2 = .68
Y = 827.4 - l.Ot
r2 = .01
Y = 929.1 - 28.6t
r2 = .940
Y = 283.6 - 2.3t
r2 = .756
Growth Rate in Per
Cent Per Year
(Logarithmic Regression)
Y = 2.77 - .Olx
r2 = .88
Y = 2.88 + .Olx
r2 = .39
Y = 2.69 + .Olx
r2 = .72
Y = 2.75 - .004x
r2 = .239
Y = 2.96 + .Olx
r2 = .51
Y - 2.91 + .Olx
r2 = .72
Y = 2.9171 - .0005x
r2 = .009
Y = 297 - .02x
r2 = .921
Y =2.451 - .003x
r2 = .737
-------
Table A-15 (Continued)
NO
Industry Units
Trucking and Warehousing Number in
(All Employees) Thousands
Transportation by Air Number in
(All Employees) Thousands
Metal Stamping Number in
(All Employees) Thousands
Paper and Allied Number in
Products Thousands
Printing and Number in
Publishing Thousands
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
(Linear Regression)
Y = 799.8 + 23.Ot
r2 = .902
Y = 168.1 + 8.6t
r2 = .902
Y = 138.4 + 5.4t
r2 . .640
Y - 464.3 + 5.4t
r2 = .810
Y = 563.7 + 8.5t
r2 = .774
Growth Rate in Per
Cent Per Year
(Logarithmic Regression)
Y = 2.91 + .Olx
r2 = .921
Y - 2.23 + .02x
r2 = .940
Y = 2.14 + .02x
r2 = .672
Y = 2.66 + .Olx
r2 = .864
Y = 2.75 + .Olx
r2 = .792
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
-------
Table A-16 Estimated Number of Selected Types of Earthmoving Equipment,
1960 - 1970.
00
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Crawler
Tractors
7,442
6,413
7,907
9,926
11,406
14,277
17,251
12,704
13,747
13,983
19,538
Crawler
Loaders
5,027
3,309
3,980
5,456
5,823
6,876
6,949
5,066
6,214
6,999
7,570
Wheel
Tractors
1,193
1,318
1,487
1,816
2,421
3,176
4,306
2,330
1,424
3,693
3,749
Wheel
Loaders
3,742
3,632
4,058
5,394
7,900
8,650
9,695
8,935
10,856
12,519
12,787
Scrapers
1,588
1,258
1,758
3,159
4,044
4,714
4,912
3,459
3,249
3,357
3,699
Rollers
2,692
3,085
2,841
3,214
4,107
2,771
2,777
4,645
5,191
5,552
7,009
Graders
3,016
2,645
3,264
4,118
4,526
4,545
4,827
4,939
4,962
5,042
5,440
Totals
24,700
21,660
25,295
33,083
40,227
45,009
50,717
42,078
45,643
51,145
59,792
Total 134,594
63,269
26,913
88,168
35,197
43,884
47,324 439,349
Source: Associated Equipment Distributors.
-------
Table A-17 Noise Sources: Growth
in Selected Types of Earthmoving Equipment,
1960 - 1970.
Item
Crawler
Tractors
Crawler
Loaders
Wheel
Tractors
Wheel
Loaders
Scrapers
Rollers
Graders
Units
Number of
Machines
Number of
Machines
Number of
Machines
Number of
Machines
Number of
Machines
Number of
Machines
Number of
Machines
Growth in Number of
Units Per Year
(Linear Regression)
Y = 5707.76 + 1088.Olt
r2 = .767
Y = 3868.65 + 313.85
r2 = .603
Y = 1082.78 + 227.31t
r2 = .456
Y = 2012.87 + 1000.4t
r2 - .956
Y = 1841.98 + 226.29t
r2 - .381
Y - 1805.73 + 363.96t
r2 = .700
Y = 2734.27 + 261.32t
r2 = .876
Growth Rate in Per Cent
Per Year
(Logarithmic Regression)
Y = 3.813 + .040x
r2 = .839
Y = 3.596 + .025x
r2 = .568
Y « 2.903 + .124x
r2 = .887
Y = 3.500 + .061x
r2 = .925
Y = 3.223 + .041x
r2 = .478
Y = 3.356 + .037x
r2 = .688
Y = 3.452 + .029x
r2 = .826
Source: Associated Equipment Distributors
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acceptability Criteria Symposium, Transportation Noise,
Proceedings, University of Washington, Press, 1970.
Air Transport Association of America, A Fact Sheet on Air-
craft Noise Abatement, January 20, 1970.
Atlanta Hearings, Preliminary Hearings.
Aylesworth, Thomas G., This Vital Air, This Vital Water,
Rand. 1968.
Aylor, Donald E., "Plan.ts Filter Noise," Horticulture.
February 1971, Volume XLVIX, No. 2, p. 28.
Baron, Charles I., "Noise" AMA Journal. March 1, 1971,
Volume 215, No. 9, p. 1399
Beranek, Leo L., Noise Reduction. McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Baron, Robert A., The Tyranny of Noise, St. Martin, 1970.
Berland, Theodore, Fight for Quiet. Parry-Hill, 1970.
Berland, Theodore, "The Maddening Pollutant," Let's Live.
Volume 39, No. 1, January 1971, p. 77.
Bird, David, "Rickles Asks Noise Limits to Ban All Jets
from City," New York Times. December 31, 1970, p. 48.
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., "A Study — Insulating Houses
from Aircraft Noise," United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration,
1966.
Bolt Beranek and Newman Report for EPA, "Noise from Con-
struction Equipment, and Operations, Building Equipment
and Home Appliances," NTID 300-1, 1971.
Bragdon, C. R., Noise Pollution; The Unquiet Crisis.
University of Pennsylvania Press, October 1971.
Branch, Melville C., and Beland, R. Dale, and Knudsen, Vern
0. , Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan Environment; Case
Study of Los Angeles with Special Reference to Aircraft.
University of California, Los Angeles, 1970, pp. 10-11.
Burns, William, Noise and Man. Lippencott, 1969.
100
-------
Chicago Hearings EPA, Preliminary Transcript.
Cohen, Alexander, "Noise and Psychological State," Paper
presented at the National Conference on Noise as a Public
Health Hazard, June 13-14, 1968.
Colony, David C., "Expressway Traffic Noise and the Residen-
tial Properties," 1967, United States Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads.
"Concorde Spurs Basic Research in Noise," Aviation Week and
Space Technology, February 8, 1971, Volume 94, No. 6,
p. 74 - 78.
Department of the California Highway Patrol, Passenger Car
Noise Survey. Sacramento, California, January, 1970,
(mimeographed).
Dygert, Paul K., "On Measuring the Cost of Noise from
Subsonic Aircraft," The Institute of Transportation and
Traffic Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
California, 1970.
Factory. November, 1967.
Goldsmith, John R. and Erland Jonsson, "Effect of Noise on
Health in the Residential and Urban Environment," paper
prepared for the American Public Health Association,
August, 1969, (mimeographed).
Harmik, Peter, "Machine Music Drills the Ear," Environmental
Action. Volume 2, No. 15, December 12, 1970, p. 3.
Harris, C. M., Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw-Hill, 1957.
Hienonymous, Will S., "New Landing Method Aimed at Reduction
in Approach Noise," Aviation Week and Space Technology,
March 1, 1971, Volume 94, No. 9, p. 46.
Highway Research Board, National Research Council, National
Academy of Sciences--National Academy of Engineers,
National Cooperative Highway Design Guide for Highway
Engineers. 1971, pp. 29-30.
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Hearings on
Noise Pollution Abatement Act, H. R. 923, January 22, 1971.
Joint DOT-NASA Civil Aviation Research and Development Policy
Study, Supporting Papers, March, 1971, DOT TST-10-5,
NASA SP-266.
101
-------
Judd, Sebastian F. et. al, "Detachable Elastomer Muffler
for Pneumatic Percussive Tools," Patent No. 3, 554, 316,
filed November 25, 1969, Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., New
York, New York, Official Gazette, January 12, 1971.
Judd, Stanley H. and Spence, John H., "Noise Control for
Electric Motors," Society of Safety Engineers Journal,
January 1971, Volume 16, No. 1, p. 25-31.
McClure, Paul T., "Indicators of the Effect of Jet Noise on
the Value of Real Estate," Rand Corporation, Santa Monica,
California, July, 1969, pp. 24ff.
"More Power, Less Noise at the Twist of a Blade," New
Scientist. December 17, 1970, Volume 48, No. 730, p. 505.
Mulholland, Kenneth, "Predicting the Noise of Airports,"
New Scientist and Science Journal, March 18, 1971, Volume
49, No. 743, p. 604-07.
National Academy of Sciences, "Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Air-
port: A Multidisciplinary Environmental Study," 1971,
Volume II, pp. 95-96.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, "NASA
Acoustically Treated Nacelle Program," 1969, pp. 63-73
and pp. 109-117.
National Hearing Aid Journal .
Navarra, John G., Our Noisy World; The Problem of Noise
Pollution. Doubleday, 1969.
"Noise Pollution: Trees Act as Buffer," Science News,
January 1, 1971, Volume 99, No. 1, p. 15.
Occupational Hazards, July, 1968.
"Patents Office Approves 380 Anti-Pollution Applications
Under Priority Program," Commerce Today, March 8, 1971,
Volume 1, No. 2, p. 30.
Pickard, Jerome P., "Dimensions of Metropolitorism" Research
Monograph 14, Urban Land Institute, 1967, p. 47.
"Pollution Control Equipment: Noise Pollution," Industrial
Equipment News, January 1971, Volume 38, No. 1, p. 32.
Poulands, Richard 0., "Model Studies in Acoustics," Office
of Naval Research, London, NTIS AS-716 950, December 7,
1970, research report.
102
-------
Science and Technology, October, 1969.
Stanford Research Institute, Long Range Planning Service,
Noise Pollution Control, Menlo Park, California, 1970,
p . 6.
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1970.
Scott, David, "Diesel Noise Cut," Automotive Industries.
January 1, 1971, Volume 144, No. 1, pp. 35-38.
Seebold, James E., "Noise Controlled at Design Stage," Oil
and Gas Journal, Volume 68, No. 51, December 21, 1970,
pp. 56-59.
Slatick, Eugene R., "Noise!" Pennsylvania Game News, April
1971, Volume 42, No. 4, pp. 14-17.
Still, Henry, In Quest of Quiet. Stackpole, 1970.
Taylor, R., Noise, Pelican Paperback, 1971.
Towns and Associates, Inc., The Robin M., An Investigation
of the Effect of Freeway Traffic Noise on Apartment Rents,
A report prepared for the Oregon State Highway Commission
and the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Public Roads, October 1966.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Internal Document, Cabinet
Committee on the Environment, Subcommittee on Noise,
Secretary of Commerce, Maurice H. Stands, Chairman, 1970.
U. S. Department of Commerce, The Noise Around Us. September
1970.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Noise
in Urban and Suburban Areas: Results of Field Studies,"
January, 1967, pp. 22-23.
United States Patent Office, Index of Patents , 1959-1969
United States Patent Office, Official Gazette, 1970.
U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Statistical Handbook. 1969.
U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Statistical Handbook, 1970.
103
-------
Wedgewood, Anthony, "Rolls Royce and the Environment," A
Member of Parliament Writing in New Scientist and Science
Journal. February 11, 1971, Volume 49, No. 738, p. 296.
Woolsey, James P., "Airport Operators Push Engine Retrofits,1
Aviation Week and Space Technology. March 1, 1971, Volume
94, No. 9, p. 46-48.
Wyle Laboratory Report for EPA, "Community Noise, Trans-
portation Noise, and Noise from Equipment Powered by
Internal Combustion Engines," NTID 300-3, 1971.
104
------- |